[lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 10:39:19 -0400
I guess if there's an end of history there has to be a beginning. History is
only in the last 15 some years. That explains a lot of things but it also begs
the question of how anyone can take this stuff seriously.
Of course there are challengers. What about China with it's evolving Confucian
Capitalistic Communism? They're predicted to be the superpower by the year
2030. What about Brazil, even though Brazil's liberal democracy is second or
third after Iraq for hell on earth (my ranking on my personal Hell on Earth
Scale). China is evolving. We don't know how China is going to shake out.
Also, I have personally lived through so many predictions that never panned out
that predicting the end of history through an ascendency of liberal democracy
is down there with leisure suits and hot pants, a political fashion,
meaningless.
Also, Hitler arose out of the Weimar Republic, a democracy. He rose through
the system. There was no coup. He was elected and the country then went
fascist. I also said with the exception of Japan, WWII was fought in and among
liberal democracies. Germany's being a liberal democracy didn't stop it from
becoming fascist.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 9/5/2006 9:47:40 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
No, no, no, Irene. The time table starts with the end of the Cold War.
Fukuyama looks around and there are no challenges to Liberal Democracy. He has
studied Kojeve who argued that Hegel rather than Marx was right, Capitalism
(Liberal Democracy) wins. It isn?t just the U.S., it is Liberal-Democracies
wherever they exist. Liberal Democracy began in the U.S. but it spread
throughout Europe, Japan, South Korea, and elsewhere. There are no serious
challenges to Liberal Democracy. Sure there are still some rogue states that
can cause some trouble but nothing major stands in the way of Liberal Democracy
succeeding throughout the world and comprising the end of history. That is
Fukuyama?s thesis.
Now Fukuyama doesn?t draw distinctions between Liberal Democratic nations.
Relatively Conservative America is not differentiated from European Welfare
states. They are all Liberal Democracies and Liberal Democracies don?t war
with each other.
And you don?t have your facts straight. Germany and Japan were not Liberal
Democracies in WWII. They were Fascist States. Fascism and Communism were the
two challenges that Liberal Democracy faced in the last century and they were
both defeated.
The one thing you have somewhat right is the repeating of what I said about the
Neocons. That is Fukuyama?s argument, i.e., that Liberal Democracy cannot be
exported. He wrote in America At the Crossroads that the elements for becoming
a Liberal Democracy were not present in Iraq and that the Neocons had made a
mistake. Therefore, he wrote, he was abandoning the Neocons. Also, as I
wrote, it isn?t likely that anyone is going to try that (exporting Democracy)
again any time soon. However, in Bush?s defense, he didn?t really launch the
war against Iraq to export Democracy. That wasn?t his real reason or even one
of his auxiliary reasons as far as I know. It was more a result of having to
do something with Iraq (if you break it, you own it) and there in the wings
were all these drooling Neocons; so why not give it a try. Actually it was a
bit more than a mere try for Bush because he had read Natan Sharansky?s The
Case for Democracy. He believed Democracy would succeed i
n Iraq. Fukuyama did not.
I don?t mind dissent if it is informed dissent. I should make you hold out
your hand for a rap from my ruler, for example, for not knowing that Germany
was a Fascist state. Really, Irene.
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 6:05 AM
To: lit-ideas
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
What say ye pacifists? Are you ready to reform? What say ye?
Doesn't sound like you're too interested in dissent. But real quick, we can
talk all we want about ideologies, but the bottom line is, world peace is
achieved through not waging war. Given that the U.S. waged the Vietnam War and
then started another war in Iraq, the U.S. has no credibility with not waging
war, which is to say, world peace. Also, given that the U.S. is revoking
constitutional rights and freedoms within its borders for the duration of the
war, which just so happens to be something in the realm of eternity, the U.S.
has no credibility with liberal democracy either. And as far as liberal
democracies not attacking each other, WWI was waged in Europe, and other than
Japan, WWII was waged in Europe, in and among liberal democracies, so that
claim makes no sense. Also, the country that holds itself out to be the
template for liberal democracy had within its boundaries one of the bloodiest
civil wars ever.&nb sp; Therefore, liberal democracy is useless for not wa
ging war, which is to say, achieving world peace. As far as pacifists
obfuscating and impeding, there were/are no pacifists among the neocons. The
neocons took their ideology and ran with it, and here we are, blaming the
pacifists, even as the likes of Newt Gingrich call for WWIII, Waging war to
spread liberal democracy to maintain world peace sounds like a sequel to Catch
22. It makes no sense at all.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 9/5/2006 1:14:30 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
In case any pacifists are treating this discussion train seriously, they should
understand that Fukuyama and Barnett both advocate processes that would result
in world peace. In Fukuyamas case as can be seen in his book America at the
Crossroads, he believes in taking a rather passive stance because the process
is, in his view, inevitable. Hegel as Kojeve taught believed the end of
history would be achieved through Capitalism. Marx thought Hegel right except
he got things backwards. The end of history would be Communistic. That
opinion prevailed until the fall of the USSR in 1991. After that Fukuyama
wrote his book describing the Hegelian, the Kojeve Hegelian end of history.
World peace is a great incentive. The Neocons embraced Fukuyamas thesis
except they did it a little too enthusiastically to suit Fukuyama. He didnt
agree with the idea that Liberal Democracy could be exported to Iraq; so he
parted company with the movement he was partly responsible for founding.
Barnett too had a plan, a much more detailed plan for achieving world peace.
Once all nations are in the functioning core (aka Liberal Democracies) world
peace will be achieved. An important assumption is that Liberal-Democracies do
not war against Liberal Democracies. Everyone involved believes thats the
case, Fukuyama, Barnett and all the Neocons. World Peace is the incentive for
the Neocons to be proactive, but that isnt going so well for them nowadays.
I asked a question that thus far no pacifist has answered. If (a conditional
word) world peace can be achieved by means of the spread of Liberal-Democracy,
shouldnt it be favored by pacifists even if it means a few wars here and there
to prevent Liberal-Democracy from losing ground -- not like the war in Iraq,
but a war perhaps to prevent a rogue nation from causing a lot of trouble?
Pacifists like to tote up the dead. Surely there would be fewer dead with a
few wars to keep Liberal-Democracy on the expansive straight and narrow than if
all wars regardless of their merit were to be resisted willy nilly -- given the
fact that Pacifists merely impede and obfuscate. They never succeed in
actually stopping wars. In fact their efforts seem to encourage such people as
Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Ahmadinejad. They hear abou t all that
opposition to the administrations policies, and they think they dont need to
take the Bush administration seriously. Saddam Hussein
didnt take the Bush administration seriously for similar reasons. And before
Saddam Osama bin Laden didnt take the Bush administration seriously.
What say ye pacifists? Are you ready to reform? What say ye?
Lawrence
Other related posts:
