[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 11:48:05 -0400
I started a reply to your other post, but it can apply to this one. This [the
focus on liberal democracy] assumes that the U.S. is the end all and be all of
everybody's attention. It doesn't take into account (1) that countries with
nuclear weapons have never used them and tend to be more responsible after they
acquire them; (2) that the U.S. is the cause of many of its problems (in Iraq
the U.S. is the cause of ALL of its problems); and (3) it doesn't take into
account the intricacies of the Islam world. Right now in Iraq (reference is
Galbraith) the Salafis, a branch of Sunni Muslims, have essentially
excommunicated (declared takfir) the Shiites, meaning that Shiites can be
killed and their property taken at will. Mainstream Sunni theologians reject
that any Muslim can excommunicate another Muslim; they say only God can do
that. In the meantime, a Sunni-Shiite civil war (which according to Galbraith
may have started as early as August 29, 2003) serves the interests of
both wings of the insurgency (Ba'ath and al-Qaeda). These are intricacies
that are lost in the furor over whether liberal democracy will take over the
world. Either we have absolutely, utterly no clue what's going on in the world
(a very distinct probability), or it's so overwhelmingly complicated that we
focus on abstract ideological arguments as a way of escaping the complexity.
So we turn around and say we're the center of the world, see, that's why
they're all out to get us. We took the small group of weirdos that al Qaeda
had been and through our obsession with this ridiculous neocon liberal
democracy ideological distraction, made al Qaeda much more powerful, entrenched
them as a movement, and sowed the seeds for who knows what.
Regarding China, they're a hybrid of state-run and capitalism. They still
regulate free speech. They have actual little icons (cars I think) that go
across people's computer screens reminding them that Big Brother is watching.
They also have over a billion people still living in abject poverty, and
pollution to the point where these may become socially destabilizing forces,
particularly the pollution. There's no way to put China into a neat box
vis-a-vis liberal democracy. Economically they are at this moment a distinct
challenge. They're growing at something like 10% a year while we're doing
something like 3% and looking at a recession again. Not that we're collapsing
any time real soon (I hope), but China is definitely a contender. If we get
into a war with Iran, things could change. Regarding what you say about
Germany, that's exactly what we did in Iraq, forced democracy on them,
historical precedent that went unheeded. You keep repeating that LB's don't war
wit
h LB's except when they do, and when they do, boy do they war.
That's all I have time for. See ya.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 9/5/2006 11:11:39 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
Cough, couch, cough, ?a beginning?? What are you talking about? Of course
there has been a beginning, a process, war after war among competing systems,
varieties of systems until in 1990 there remained only two competing major
systems; then in 1991 there was only one, Liberal Democracy. It isn?t a matter
of taking it seriously, that is a simple fact. You can?t dispute it.
You mentioned China, but China following the lead of Hong Kong is instituting
many of the elements of Liberal Democracy. Can they retain some control over
the government and still reap the benefits of a free economy? They are trying.
They have had to give up one of the basic elements of a Communist system,
i.e., a state-run economy; so they don?t meet the criteria of Communism any
longer. Few consider China the threat they were during the Cold War.
I don?t understand what you are saying about Brazil. They are a developing
liberal democracy. Remember, Liberal Democracies don?t war with Liberal
Democracies.
As to Germany, Democracy was forced upon them after WWI and they resented it.
Even so, it might have caught on had it not been for the depression. Germany
didn?t feel they had lost WWI and they didn?t? appreciate a government imposed
upon them. They wanted a great leader to save their country from the people
who ?betrayed it.? They had major unresolved issues after WWI that took WWII
to resolve. Germany never met the criteria of a liberal democracy until after
WWII. No one thinks that they did, by the way. There is no one saying that
Weimer Germany means there was one exception to the dictum that Liberal
Democracies don?t war with Liberal Democracies. [I suppose I shouldn?t be
quite so absolute. There seem to be people who will say the most absurd and
impossible things; so there may be people saying this as well.]
In the ?Last Man? portion of The End of History and the Last Man, Fukuyama does
consider the possibility that there may in the future ?End of History? period
arise an individual so charismatic and so imbued with unrelenting thymos that
he will, merely to avoid the boredom of Nietzsche?s ?Last Man,? engage in some
unique action that will start history all over again, but Fukuyama seems not to
have continued to pursue that possibility after finishing his book.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
