Posted on: 07-03-05 15:03:00
You raise a very important and valid point about war being the only way to promote and maintain the capitalist system.
I think we both have been hovering around that since the start of the thread, but haven't said it in so many words.
It also ties in with the entire history repeating itself theme, and my auto-sig.
I think that war - both among imperialist countries (like WW I and WW II) as well as between an imperialist power and an underdeveloped country like Iraq - is a natural consequence of the capitalist system.
Capitalism thrives on self-interest and hence exploitation of available resources (natural as well as labour) and creating new markets for itself.
This process cannot go on indefinetely because both of those are limited.
Eventually, a conflict arises that can only be resolved by war.
We have witnessed this (in recent history) during both the World Wars.
We are now seeing the same in the current "war on terror".
It is not that much different from the Nazi position during the 30s, where war was the only option for Germany to preserve and promote its interests.
Ditto for Japan during the same time.
Every industrialising country must come to terms with this - just as Germany and Japan did then, the USA is doing now.
So, I see GWB as the representative of those tendencies and the moral and ideological leader of that thought.
I am not saying only GWB is evil, and if somehow if he had lost the election, things will suddenly become a heaven.
Or even after he goes out of term in 4 years - it won't.
But currently, he is the embodiment of that imperialist process.
Quote:I am confused - didn't you say that you support GWB's ideology, except for the war.
I am not a defender of all his economic policies. Again I do not even support his Ideology.
And now you are saying that you do not support his ideology.
So, if you do not support his ideology, you do not support the war, and you do not support his economic policies, just what the heck are we talking about here ?
Or maybe I misunderstood.
Regardless, my position is that this constant imperialist war scenario is not in the interest of the ordinary hard-working average person.
So then it is a question of individual awareness and "jagriti" - how aware people are of their interests and how willing are they to effect a change - both through the electoral process, as well as using (maybe) non-violent means of protest like the ones adopted by Gandhi in South Africa and of course in India.
There are several tools available at the disposal of people to effect such changes - there is your favourite electoral process, there is the non-violent means of protest (Gandhi style), there is non-cooperation labour action, and there is outright violent action against authorities (we see that time to time - e.g. Venezuela in recent times).
There is a fascinating interplay among all those forces which is interesting to watch and analyse.
Hope this clarifies my thoughts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Mah deah, there is much more money to be made in the destruction of civilization than in building it up."
-- Rhett Butler in "Gone with the Wind"
Ok atleast...we are on common ground except when you say
Quote:
I am confused - didn't you say that you support GWB's ideology, except for the war.
And now you are saying that you do not support his ideology.
That proves it...you have not been reading my posts
. I support the iraq war(because I see it only as normal in todays world that self-interest drives world politics) but do not identify with the rest of their ideology.I'm just cutting and pasting from what I wrote
-----------------------------------------
On the outset I want to make clear that I dont agree with many of the republican stances like
1) Anti-gay
2) Anti-Abortion(I personally dont believe in it but I dont think I have a right to oppose it since I do not have an uterus)
3) Us vs Them, ideology.
--------------------------------------------
quote]Orginally posted by pratickm
How can that be?
You don't support the Iraq war, but you agree with Bush's \"ideology\"?
But they are inseparable, mon ami
Not at all(atleast in my mind). Just like the Vatican agrees with the anti abortion and anti gay stands of the right-wing. However, when it comes to the death penalty and the iraq war...they oppose the republican agenda.
I just do the opposite. I do NOT support the core ideology but I do support the way they are furthering their national interest. The difference in my mind is one(i.e.ideology)deals predominantly(though not exclusively) with *personal* rights while the other(i.e foreign policy) deals mostly with *external threats* and safeguarding *national interests*.
----------------------------------------------------------
I have always been consistent. Its you guys who support the rightwing ideology in one country but not in the other. I support self-interest based world policies in both situations(countries).
Until we as a species all decide that its not in our long term interests to go down that road.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
Jake --
While on this thread, please stick to what I am saying and not what everybody else is saying, and attribute it to me.
I haven't said anything about supporting or not supporting the Indian right-wing.
The only comment I made on the other thread was that Advani is a shrewd politician - he stood up to Mush during the Agra submit - that is all I said, and I stick by it.
I have said nothing about supporting BJP's policies or agenda - just because I think *one* member of a party is a shrewd politician, doesn't mean that I am endorsing the entire party's agenda.
So take that discussion with the others who have said so and let us focus on dear ol' GWB here
Quote:
Orginally posted by jake3d
I just do the opposite. I do NOT support the core ideology but I do support the way they are furthering their national interest.
Your statement is self-contradictory to me - you do not agree with GWB's core ideology, yet agree with the way he is promoting interests?
But his core ideology *is* promoting his interests - they are one and inseparable.
He does not have any ideology other than promoting his own interests, and those of his core group.
All other "ideology" talks are simply wool over the eyes of the people.
I think this is where we differ - you think GWB's Govt. is protecting USA "national interest" - I think GWB is protecting the interest of GWB only.
To quote my favourite character from American history again, when Scarlett asks Rhett Butler - "don't you believe in any casuse?", he replies - "Ma'am, the only cause I believe in is Rhett Butler".
Similarly, the only interest that GWB is furthering is his own, his family's and that of his closest associates and campaign contributors, not that of the American masses.
If we presume that every elected Govt. in the world furthers the interests of the country and the masses that electing him, we would not have conflicts and clashes within each country, and among countries.
So I think we all agree and know that the war in Iraq (and according to me, the "war on terror" in general) is simply a mechanism for furthering a certain interest set .
We differ because you think the interests being promoted are of the American masses, whereas I think that the interests being promoted are those of the core group surrounding GWB & Family.
Quote:As far as I know, I have not discussed the Indian right-wing in this thread, or the other.
I have always been consistent. Its you guys who support the rightwing ideology in one country but not in the other. I support self-interest based world policies in both situations(countries).
See above - all I have expressed is a personal admiration for Mr. Advani, which is regardless of his political party.
Just as some of us (myself included) have expressed a personal admiration for Jawharlal Nehru without agreeing with a lot of his policies.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Mah deah, there is much more money to be made in the destruction of civilization than in building it up."
-- Rhett Butler in "Gone with the Wind"
Quote:
Orginally posted by pratickm
Jake --
While on this thread, please stick to what I am saying and not what everybody else is saying, and attribute it to me.
I haven't said anything about supporting or not supporting the Indian right-wing.
Youre right. I dont think you have indicated anything otherwise...though I think Advani is as shrewd as wolfowitz,
Quote:
Similarly, the only interest that GWB is furthering is his own, his family's and that of his closest associates and campaign contributors, not that of the American masses.
We have been through this..you have already said that you agree that ultimately it is all of us who have enabled Bush, In other words all of us are integral parts of the capitalist machine of which Bush is a symptom.
Now above you are again drawing a distinction. That we do not buy directly from Haliburton does not matter. We are ultimately interested in our economic imprvement and this almost always comes at a cost to someone...albeit in another part of the world. This is how capitalism works in todays world and all govts try to promote their own economic interest. They would not have any economic interest if their citizens did not aspire to the same.
We are running around in circles. I think you need to reread what Ive been saying all along. This extends to my distinction between the war on Iraq and bush's other policies.
Probably you have the same problem I have. I still see 'Patrick' inspite of being aware that its 'Pratick'
.-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
Quote:How can you claim that everything else is a part of the same cohesive system and this is somehow different?
Orginally posted by jake3d
We are running around in circles. I think you need to reread what Ive been saying all along. This extends to my distinction between the war on Iraq and bush's other policies.
How can everything be related to each other and be a cause and effect of each other, yet GWB's war on Iraq and his other policies be different?
Or maybe it is because you want it to be so - it makes you comfortable to think that you can pick and choose what you like and reject what you don't like?
You like certain aspects of GWB's policies, so you approve of them - you do not like other aspects so you dismiss them by saying that there is a distinction?
How can there be - everything is tied with one single string - the string of "self-interest" of GWB and Co.
As I see it, we differ on two main points -
1. You think that GWB is promoting the interests of the American nation - I think he is promoting the interests of his own self, his family and those of his very close associates.
2. You think that it is possible to separate his war-mongering ideology with the rest of his ideology, so that you can pick and choose what you like.
I think that it is all a part of the same package - you either approve of the whole package or reject it in its entirety.
I can also claim that you are not following the import of my posts - all of GWB's policies are part of the same pill - you either swallow it whole or spit it out whole.
But you cannot pick and choose which elements of his policy you approve of and which you don't.
Quote:Yes, you did get my name wrong several times, and I will leave you to deal with that problem.
Probably you have the same problem I have. I still see 'Patrick' inspite of being aware that its 'Pratick'
Me, I take no offense
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Mah deah, there is much more money to be made in the destruction of civilization than in building it up."
-- Rhett Butler in "Gone with the Wind"
Quote:
Orginally posted by pratickm
As I see it, we differ on two main points -
1. You think that GWB is promoting the interests of the American nation - I think he is promoting the interests of his own self, his family and those of his very close associates.
2. You think that it is possible to separate his war-mongering ideology with the rest of his ideology, so that you can pick and choose what you like.
This is exactly it.
About # 2
I believe that his war-mongering is done in order to promote American economic interests(we have already been throught that). I DO NOT believe that the war mongering is morally justified. At the same time YOU and I both agreed that world politics has nothing to do with morals. Economic interests rule world politics. Every nation who CAN further their economic interest by war, have always done so under one pretex or the other. Its due to this I support his war on Iraq. I only support his right to do what every other nation( mostly but not exclusively, under a right wing govt) would do under similar conditions.
The above para also explains #1. I assure you we have been through it before
(and you did agree)...remember ? economic interest=corporate interest=capitalism=american and other people are parts of the system= american interest=economic interest=corporate interest=capitalism=american and other people are parts of the system=economic interest...you know the rest?
I also reserve the right to pick and choose just as one can admire/support Manmohan singh or Advani, based on one policy(economic or standing upto Mush) and still not agree with the BJP and Congress Agenda. Does that ring a bell?
.Honestly...does it not ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
