perfidy

Yeah, "1980" should read "1984." If I recall, the thesis of 1980 was a) A Thousand Points of Light something something, and 2) Farrah Fawcett is hott! The thesis of "1984" the book version, on the other hand, is that the control of information is the first step to controlling people. I'd go so far as to call that argument a "thesis" in that it is the macguffin behind the central struggle in the book.

Sorry. I was high on toner yesterday.

Well, I'm still pissed at whoever burned the library of Alexandria.

It's not arrogant if you're right. But seriously, I'm not talking about taking down every comic opera great leader in the world, to bring salvation to mankind, and to generally immanentize the eschaton. Just the worst ones, and the ones who pose the greatest potential threat to me, personally, as a US citizen who works a block from the White House. (Threat and nastiness generally overlap a great deal.) If we can take out the leaders of these unhappy few, and bring some measure of sanity to the benighted populaces thereof, that's a clear win. The likelihood of any successor government being worse than Saddam, Kim Jong-Il, or Assad is, shall we say, slim.

There are over a hundred and seventy nations on our fair planet. Deranged totalitarian leaders have made some neighborhoods rather unlivable. Think of it as slum clearance, followed by a nice fat welfare check for the people of the neighborhood. (That's socialist, yay!) It's a short list: Syria, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Burma (yeah, right Myanmar) and France. That's maybe four percent of the world's nations. The rest can stay as they are.

It's not just with the Saudis that their populace resents the US. In general, throughout the world, if the government of a nation is a group of reprehensible thugs, the attitude of the people towards the US is inverse to the friendliness of the US to the government.

"Don't try and frighten us with your sorcerer's ways, Lord Marx. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the worker's revolution, or given you clairvoyance enough to predict the end of the Bourgeoisie..."

See, the thing about Marxism, is it sounds so darned good on paper. If I may make an unweildy and inappropriate analogy, expecting a revolution of the proletariat is like expecting frogs to grow wings. I'm going to go out on a limb here are argue that there are fundamentally irreducible aspects of human nature.

• People are greedy and self-interested. Examples to the contrary, such as Ghandi, Mother Teresa, and myself, are notable by their rarity.
• People like to have stuff. Not having stuff means that one bad winter could wipe you and your family out.
• Corollary: many people enjoy power, and taking other people's stuff.

Given these factors, and given that, as Mike ably points out, any state which does not wither away is not a Marxist state, Marxism is impossible. It makes unreasonable assumptions about human nature, logistics, and the weight of social tradition, and by its own internal paradoxes makes its own fulfillment impossible. 

Final note: Marxism is indeed like a religion, not least because it provides a higher cause by which people may commit both petty and hideous crimes with a clear conscious.

Nazis and such 

I don't know crap about the recent history of the middle east, so I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the wrasslin' match between youse two. 

On measurement 

Buckethead, One Standard Den Beste is a daily measure! 

On terrorism, WMD's, and other crapola 

Weapons of Mass Destruction, as they undoubtedly exist in Iraq (or hidden in Syria, or whatever), are not of themselves the single justification for the libervasion of Iraq. They are however the political BFG 10K (remember Doom?) that would put egg on the face of naysayers in the international community. That is a secondary goal, but could help in mending fences and rebuilding concensus. This would help the campaign to root out terrorism. Like Mike, I also haven't heard compelling evidence that Iraq was providing systematic support to al Qaeda or other international terrorists. So... is Iraq part of the War on Terror? 

By the way, I understand full well that my position on Iraq requires that I accept some paradoxes of my own. I've been thinking about this for months now and I'm no closer to resolving them. If I may, I would like to make another howlingly bad analogy to describe my sentiments about the US in Iraq, and the War On Terror in general: It's like being in the backseat of a car going 100mph down Storrow Drive (Storrow Motor Speedway) in Boston: Sheer panic punctuated by moments of mortal terror, combined with great exhilaration and a continued sense of wonder that you haven't crashed and burned yet. 

Is Syria next? Well, they are a terrorist-supporting state. QED. Should Syria be next? Hell, I don't know. What do I look like, its biographer? 

Saudi Arabia 

As for Saudi Arabia, I would strongly recommend you both read the cover story in this month's Atlantic Monthly (not online). It describes how the Saudis are doing EXACTLY what the US wants, and paying a hefty fine. That's not to argue that they are angels (quite the contrary), but that by being in the oil business, by being ostentatiously wealthy and western, and by not actually ruling their own country as much as presiding over the oil business alone, they are digging their own graves by alienating ordinary Saudi citizens. The money paid to al Qaeda can best be described as protection money-- $25 million ensures that this year, there will be no assassinations of Saudi royalty by al Qaeda operatives. At the same time, the wealth, ostentation, and Western focus of the royal family rightly earns the enimity of the Saudi on the street, who live under the heel of poverty and harsh clerical oversight in plain sight of their riches. Is it any wonder regular Saudis resent the US's influence when all they can see is our President making good buddies with the same people who keep them miserable? 

Hence, the Saudi royals, who are not generally nice people to begin with, are in an increasingly perilous position. Based on the article, it's pretty much only with our support and our huge oil need that they remain in power. The situation is incredibly convoluted, but it's at least partly of the US's making. 

It's kind of like the Civil War. Slavery was the big issue, along with states' rights (on many tongues, a shibboleth for slavery), as well as lesser and more contested causes such as economic philosophies and cultural differences. These problems needed to be hashed out, and the War Betwixt The States did that. But let's not forget that war over sectional issues, most of them slavery-based, probably would never have come to pass had the seeds of the Civil War not been written into the Constitution as compromises, thereby sweeping the relevant issues under the rug until there was no peacable solution in sight. Perhaps with Saudi Arabia, it's currently 1786, and we can bring these issues into the light of day before resorting to war. Or, perhaps it's 1859. Only time will tell.

This report suggests that the looting of the Baghdad Museum was done by Ba'ath officials. A report on CNN this morning likewise confirmed that regular looters, not equipped with winches, dollies, etc, could never have moved the big pieces that are gone, suggesting it was a pro job.

Death is too good for them. Slow, painful, public, humiliating death is a little closer. The only appropriate punishment would be... ermmm... uhh... how about... got it!!! Forced attendance of every single performance by Celine Dion in Le Vegas! Yeah, that's the ticket!!

Wright College is currently on Spring Break, so I might be rather prolific on the postings this week. 

The Marxist Conundrum 

I'll offer a few points of clarification, as I'm more than happy to answer your questions in this regard. First, the religious imagery is not unintended. Marxism, as part prophecy, is a form of religion. It has a prophet, its own dogma, and its own scripture. Marxism bears a close resemblance to religious philosophy. It is, in many ways, a political and economic religion. Strange, given that according to Marx himself, religion is the opiate of the masses. But he meant Christianity, really.

I'm sure the environmentalists you worked with either were Communists or considered themselves such, depending on how you look at it. But like some faux Communists in power, they deviated from the scripture in a way that negates their self-definition. As Marx argued that nature existed to be dominated by man, and as the environmentalists you worked with either ignored or broke with that belief, their self-definition becomes dodgy. At best, those environmentalists represent a serious schismatic deviation. Did these folks with whom you worked ever discuss the inconsistency between environmentalism and Marxist doctrine? Or did they just carry around the Manifesto without actually reading it? Of course, the Manifesto is not the be-all, end-all. It's the equivalent of the book of Genesis. 

As to those in power, I do not dismiss people from the definition of Communist simply because they were in power and killed people. Trotsky held power for some time, and his ruthless suppression of the Krondstadt Rebellion certainly qualifies as a slaughter. But Trotsky continued to work toward global revolution and advocated the withering away of the state, whereas Stalin said one state is good enough and the state should be increased, not withered away. Lenin is highly debatable, what with NEP and the Cheka and all. 

My point, and I can't emphasize this enough, is that Communism only occurs with a global revolution and the withering away of the state. Anything less is short of the mark. I submit that there is no such thing as a Communist government. State governments are bourgeois institutions, like marriage, nationalism, and currency. There wasn't supposed to be a government because Communists were supposed to get rid of bourgeois institutions, including and especially individual state governments. The Vanguard of the Proletariat was only supposed to tend the ship while simultaneously reducing the role of the state in favor of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Part of the problem with Marxist doctrine and dogma is that the Vanguard of the Proletariat is supposed to seize power from the bourgeoisies and then do their best to get rid of it. That like many, if not all, aspects of Marxist doctrine, run counter to human nature. People in power hold on to power, not give it up, as Marx prophesied. I understand that as a devotee of political science, it might be difficult to accept. But state governments are bourgeois, and irrelevant. Marx prophesied that state governments had to fall. There is no such thing as a Communist state government. It's all about class. 

So it might be splitting hairs as far as you're concerned, but anyone who leads a state government cannot be a true Marxist or Communist. Stalin et al were Totalitarians, not Communists. Stalin looked an awful lot like the Czar, and Mao looked an awful lot like the Emperor. I would even quibble with calling them Socialists. 

As to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, it wasn't intended as a dictatorship in the repressive Totalitarian sense. The idea was that everyone would have a hand in societal decision making, essentially dictating what occurred, instead of just a small handful of wealthy elites. 

Fox News 

No, it's not just because of their slant. When I compare what Fox News says versus other broadcast sources, Fox frequently turns out to be wrong. 

Ba'ath Party 

Sorry, I'm still not convinced. I'm going to do some research and then I'll get back to you. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I want to really investigate this thoroughly with historical methodology and historical secondary sources as opposed to journalism. Thanks for providing the article link. I'll mention here, though, that complaints I hear about liberal media (in the modern American sense of liberal) and the domination of liberal media don't stand up to news sources like that one, Fox News, Scripps Howard, the National Review, etc. Seems to me there's plenty of not liberal media. 

Weapons and Camps 

Like I said, the one in the north of Iraq wasn't in territory that Hussein controlled. The camp south of Baghdad still yields no evidence that it's specifically al Qaeda. Maybe terrorist, but not necessarily al Qaeda. The Gwynne Roberts article does indicate connections, but I'll want more corroboration. Possible chemical weapons stores are not actual chemical weapons stores. At this point, I wouldn't believe it anyway. I'd think that the Americans just planted it like a cop throwing a baggie of crack into a car trunk. I'm very suspicious. It's easy to lie, even in print or on TV. I want to hear it from NPR, CNN, Reuters, and the AP before I accept it.

Mike, I am puzzled. You keep talking about the pure, received faith in Marx as prophesied by his disciple Engels (and very interesting that you should use such religious imagery, btw.) and how basically almost no one over the last hundred plus years has ever gotten it right. Now, I am more than willing to believe that you are correct and every leftist/Marxist over the last century was completely wrong. Most people are idiots. However, your description seems completely different from the way almost every leftist/Marxist/environmentalist/Commie in the world thinks of themselves.

I worked with hardcore environmentalists for years, and I can assure you that they all believed in Marx. They had copies of the Communist manifesto. They spouted communist doctrine, hated capitalism, the works. They laughed at the watermelon joke (green on the outside, red on the inside.) Marx' picture was on walls throughout those murderous states that were founded by faux communists. But it is curious that as soon as someone gets power and begins murdering people, oh wait, he's not a communist. Can we ever know what a communist government is like? We know what democratic, monarchical, republican, totalitarian and oligarchical governments are like, because we have seen them. It seems that your communist prophecy is completely unverifiable, in that it ceases to be communist as soon as it gains power.

Given the statements in the last paragraph of "Speaking of phony leftism," do you believe that it ever will be verified, that an actual communist government will ever exist - by your definition of communism? If not, why does anyone bother being communist, when the only result is either a) frustrated fringe dwelling in affluent societies or b) rampant murder, terror, and poverty if a communist ever gains power anywhere else? Looking at the wreckage of states whose leadership fervently believed (despite disagreeing with you) that they were communists, and were the followers of Marx, and looking at the stagnant economies in nations that have adopted large scale socialist programs (Sweden, France, Germany) where before there was rising prosperity, I have a hard time swallowing the whole left/Marxist/socialist package on a pragmatic basis. Of course, my classical liberal ideals give me other reasons not to like it. But is there anywhere in the world where this has worked? Not that I've ever heard of.

Libervasion.

It's not an invasion, it's a libervasion!