June 10
To Joe Carter and his blogpost accusing Senators Sanders and Van Hollen of being ignorantly intolerant of orthodox Christian beliefs when they accused Russell Vought of being intolerant for expressing the belief that Jesus is the only way to God. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
Yes, Sanders and Van Hollen exhibit an ignorance of basic Christian doctrine in their statements against Vought. So does the ACLU. But didn't Vought display intolerance and the same regarding Larycia Hawkins when he suggested that Hawkins, a Christian, did not have a 'prayerful and faithful relationship' with God? After all, Hawkins was explicitly clear in saying that whether one can say if Muslims worship the same God depends on the context of the statement. And yet, most Christians ignored the distinctions and contexts of which Hawkins spoke. After all, in one context, Hawking said something very orthodox regarding the faith and her other statements, because of the context of her statements, did not contradict the statements she made that was orthodox.
We might also look at acts of intolerance religiously conservative Christians have associated with Christianity by the stands they have taken. In particular, many of us religiously conservative Christians have shown intolerance for refugees, despite the fact that it is America's foreign policies that have caused the refugee crisis, and the LGBT community. The intolerance for the latter was shown by opposing same-sex marriage in society. So now, why shouldn't Sanders and Van Hollen see intolerance in Vought's statements? Yes, we know that Vought was theologically correct in saying that Jesus is the only way to God--though his statement failed to observe that Hawkins agreed with him on that point because he failed to see the distinctions she was making. But having associated other Christian beliefs with intolerance means that belief in Jesus as the only way to God will be viewed with suspicion and greater vigilance than normal.
Yes, we religiously conservative Christians have been exhibiting intolerance toward others in some of the practices and beliefs we have been practicing and promoting. So should we be surprised by the views Sanders and Van Hollen exhibited in their judgments on Vought?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 13
To Joe Carter and his blogpost supporting Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Accords and how it is human creativity, rather than government agencies, that can help us produce a cleaner environment. This appeared in the Acton blog.
By itself, Trump's withdraw from the Paris Accords is ambiguous. But along with his dismantling of regulations, including environmental regulations, and his tax cuts, the purpose of his withdrawing from the Accords becomes more and more obvious. Add to that his mistake in using a MIT study on the environmental impact of the Paris Accords in his speech(see [sent invalid link]), his intentions are clearer and clearer. Businesses are not to be hampered or constrained by regulations meant to protect the environment in their search for increased profits.
But something should also be said about the title of the article above. For it presents a false dichotomy between employing human creativity and technocrats. Aren't the technocrats those from agencies like the EPA whose study of the environment produce regulations? And without the regulations, who says that the human creativity involved will be directed toward reducing a business's environmental impact especially where ever increasing profits for shareholders trump most, if not all, other concerns?
It's not that government agencies like the EPA don't commit errors when producing regulations. But it is that the government can provide a buffer between the people and the business world where government can represent the concerns of the people to the business world. Ideally that is how it is suppose to work. But in today's society where everybody, both big business and the little individual, is on the take, we find that those with the most wealth get the most representation by the government and the rest of us have to live with that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Donald Devine and his blogpost discussing the ideological splits in Conservatism partially caused by Trump’e election and Presidency. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
Three points here. First, it seems that in an effort to categorize all of the ideologies that could be associated with conservatism, Devine overlooks a group of neverTrumpers. That group consists of those who, for personal and moral reasons, found themselves opposing Trump. For them, character mattered more than any pretense to a conservative ideology.
Likewise, some who voted Trump because they were voting against the person of Hillary are also overlooked. It isn't just the promise to help that swayed their votes, it was, again, the character of a candidate whom they could not trust.
The short of it is that some who found either candidate too personally objectionable were leery of associating their ideology with character flaws. And so they vote for the other candidate.
Second, the conservative attack on entitlement programs are not very honest. They don't talk about the lack of economic opportunities that some on entitlements face. For example, they don't talk about how gov't assistance programs subsidize corporate payrolls because of the poverty wages being paid by those corporations for certain jobs. In addition, while conflating all entitlement programs together in order to say that we can't afford these, we forget that two entitlement programs are financially self-funded. And both are threatened by corporate interests. Social Security for example is totally self-funded and the only risk it faces is due to the fact that it is the largest holder of federal debt--it even holds more of our federal debt than the Chinese. Since some of this debt was used to pay for unfunded wars where the use of private contractors spiked as well as the use of goods and services from the Military Industrial complex, what we are seeing is the transfer of public funds into private coffers.
Medicare is also self-funded however it is, by law, prohibited from negotiating for lower pharmaceutical prices. Thus, the pharmaceutical industry also gains unnecessary profits at the expense of public funds.
In addition, by longing for the days that preceded the New Deal, one is pining for the conditions that led to the Stock Market collapse of 1929 and the subsequent depression. We should note that the economic collapse of 2008 saw either a prohibiting of regulations that would oversee new financial products or a lack of enforcement of existing regulations. In the end, the bailout given to the financial sector also saw a transfer of public funds to private coffers.
Finally, the assumption made by Conservatives who want to limit government is that government will be run by elites. And thus, to restrict the power of elites, government must be restricted because one cannot guarantee that the right elites will be in power after any given election. And there are liberals who also make the same assumption except that they don't believe in limited government. The condition that allows a democratic nation to be run by elites is that the populace must embrace a passive authoritarianism. This authoritarianism not only promotes loyalty and obedience to elites, it sustains divisions by groups who adhere to different elites.
Now if we, the people, could see our way clear of this passive authoritarianism, both conservatives and nonconservatives would benefit by gaining a measure of independence for the two corporate major political parties: the Republican and Democratic Parties. In addition, if we could free ourselves from this authoritarianism, instead of placing too much reliance on elites, we could see a more participatory political system. And such would ease the need to restrict the power of government lest the wrong group of elites take power.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joseph Sunde and his blogpost claiming that free trade is fair trade. This appeared in the Acton blog.
Free Trade is fair trade for those who benefit the most. But what about those who don't?
Proponents of free trade forget that the United States, with all of its emphasis on freedom by the founding fathers, did not practice free trade at first. Rather, protectionism was employed to allow for American industries to start and become competitive. Without that protectionism, our nation would not have developed its industries either as fast or as far as it did.
Those who would force free trade on undeveloped nations are not promoting fair trade. They are not allowing nations to develop past their current capabilities. Rather, they are 'kicking away the ladder' that allowed their own nation to develop its industries. And by doing so, they are, at least in part, promoting an economic caste system on undeveloped nations. Undeveloped nations need to use protectionist measures that would allow desired industries to get off the ground, succeed, and then become competitive with their counterparts from the more developed nations.
And it isn't just the undeveloped nations that could benefit from protectionism. Nations that want to revive dead industries because such industries gives balance to their economic portfolio should also be free to employ protectionism.
In the end, it is not the case that either free trade or protectionism are always right or wrong. It is the case that depending on the economic needs and goals of a given nation, both free trade and protectionism have their roles to play in helping a nation develop and sustain a healthy economy. To force free trade on a nation, especially an undeveloped nation, makes that free trade neither free nor fair. After all, is kicking away the ladder fair?
www.flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com
(Only one person pictured is a Christian Fundamentalist. And so which one pictured is not like the others)
Showing posts with label Donald Devine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Donald Devine. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 12, 2017
April 8
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on the rejection of objective reality in today’s universities. This appeared in Heidelblog.
I'm sorry but this is just an intellectual form of the parable of the two men praying. The similarities between the above article and that parable is that, again, it is the religious expert who claims to be above all others and thankful that they are not like the poor souls who reject o objective reality. However, like the pharisee from the parable, the religious expert here makes similar mistakes.
First, basically we have 3 time periods that have dealt with reality and the world around us: Pre Modernism, Modernism, and Post Modernism. Of those 3, only Post Modernism rejects the necessary metanarratives that allow for objective reality. That means that modernity, as represented by modernism, did not reject objective reality. It merely said that it isn't found in the faith narratives.
But why did Post Modernism reject the metanarratives that provide a basis for objective reality? It was because of what those from both periods associated with their metanarratives: conquest, imperialism, colonialism, marginalization of others, false claims of superiority, and major wars. And just as those establishment figures who lost to Trump in the election because they failed to be up front with their failures, so too does the religious figure here refuse to see what is apparent to everyone else. That those who adopted his particular metanarrative associated that metanarrative with horrendous acts. It is because of those atrocities that many Post Modernists have embraced an outcome-based truth system because they honestly want to correct past abuses.
Yes, the Post Modernists are wrong, but at least they are concerned about past abuses. The Pre Modernists and Modernists are only more than happy to deny their part in past atrocities, that is if they care to admit to their existence. So we see that the Post Modernists might have virtues that are absent in Pre Modernists and Modernists.
Finally, having taught in different colleges for 19 and 1/2 years, I see no evidence for the claim that our universities are full of people who reject objective reality. Then again, if you hang around engineers, computer scientists, information tech people, and mathematicians, one can't afford to deny objective reality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 10
To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost lamenting the demise of the West through an ever increasing number of immigrants and a decreasing birth rate for Europeans. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
This article kind of mirrors articles and statements that lament the good old days when America was a Christian nation under God. That is because of what we see and don't see when we look back at those days. We see one set of problems and faults being replaced by another. Only those who reminisce seem to have a greater tolerance for the older problems and faults than the newer ones. And thus, they see the current trends and run around yelling that the sky is falling.
We need to remember that it was the associations that were made with Christianity in Europe's past that have caused people to reject much of the past. For when Europe was at its strongest, there were multiple empires and these empires not only waged wars against and even partially exterminated non-Europeans on their own continents, they fought each other often in the name of God. WW I, according to Karl Barth, saw the reshaping of God into a tribal god with each participant demonizing others while canonizing themselves. And though WW II did not see the making of God into a tribal god as was done in WW I, it saw almost unprecedented destruction and cruelty. And now we are to mourn the loss of the West?
We also need to remember that part of what is called the biggest threat to the West, the increased immigration of people from the Middle East, is the result of Western foreign policies. It takes Westerners to adopt a bull in a china shop mentality not to see this.
In addition, Pearce's math does not make sense. For, according to Pearce, the survival of a civilization must be seen in bipolar terms. Either survival is guaranteed with an ever increasing population growth or it is about to cause its own demise by an ever decreasing population. Never has Pearce considered that there can be an ebb and flow of population increase and decrease from one time period to another.
To mourn the demise of the West and link it to Europe's population, shows a fear that one's race will disappear. But if one's religion is multiracial and one's religion is more important to one than one's race, why is this such a significant fear? And aren't their components of the West, such as its imperialism and lack of self-awareness, that should be allowed to become extinct?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Donald Devine and his blogpost citing Allan C. Carlson as he states that crony capitalism is the enemy of families while a free market capitalism that relies on small businesses are every family’s friend. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
When one sees a title like the one for the above article, one anticipates an either deductive or inductive approach to proving what was said. In this article both approaches are used but not on the same objects. For a somewhat inductive approach is used to show that crony capitalism is not only bad for families, but exploits family dysfunctions. However, there is hope because of the assertion that a family friendly, small is beautiful approach to free markets provides the relative utopia we are all looking for. That such a system works is assumed.
The next partial paragraph is the result of a lack of adequately editing the comment
http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/04/capitalism-enemy-family-donald-devine.html population that came from centering society on the family, comes the need to for bigger and bigger businesses that have the resources to provide for people's needs. In addition, whether one is talking about 'crony capitalism' or the ever idyllic free markets for small businesses, the fuel that feeds the economy is greed. And so even without the population explosion, comes the drive to build bigger and bigger businesses.
In addition, the free market approach above favors the mass number of small self-sustaining units because the free markets of people like Hayek join Cain in asking his rhetorical question: 'Am I my brother's keeper?' That is the purpose of joining the free market with small businesses as its participants. Such a mindset is really only embraced by those who want their own personal growth to not be infringed on by notions of solidarity or social responsibilities. In addition, this mindset also includes a modern and restricted definition of the term 'stakeholder.' For in the past, stakeholders were all who were impacted by a business. Without government regulations to protect the environment, workers, and consumers, the new definition of stakeholder is reduced to the owner(s) either of a business or in an economic system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 11
To Joe Carter and his blogpost stating that the gender gap in pay is a myth because of the kind of jobs generally taken by men vs those taken by women. This appeared in the Acton blog.
If only Carter would continue to research the gender gap in pay after he found what is to him a satisfactory answer, perhaps this article would be more educational.
A valid point that Carter makes is that one cannot just look at the big picture to see if their is a problem in gender gap pay. And certainly, a partial explanation can be seen in the ones provided by the article he cited. But that doesn't fully explain the gender gap pay we have. Two other factors can be added from documentation provided by the Pew Research Center (see http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/03/gender-pay-gap-facts/ ). Another reason for the gender gap in pay, according to women surveyed in 2013, was taking time off to raise a family affected long-term earnings. In addition, the same 2013 survey saw a majority of both men and women reporting that discrimination also exists against women in the workplace. Finally, the same Pew Research Article states that the gender gap in pay is decreasing. One source of the discrimination is found in the leadership opportunities not given to quallified women in the workplace (see http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/01/14/women-and-leadership/ ).
The reason for just citing one source is rather obvious. There is no need, according free market supporters, to pass and enforce regulations that ensure equal pay. However, this view is more concerned about the place of regulations than gender pay gap.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Bruce Walker and his blogpost warning against intellectuals and tyrants. In particular, he attempts to group all together as belonging to the Left. This appeared in the Acton Blog.
In the list of leaders who oversaw mass killings of people, those who were left off that list include American Presidents who saw to it that Native Americans were removed from their land or who oversaw mass killings from American invasions such as those of the Philippines (1899 to 1902) where hundreds of thousands of people were killed and Vietnam, where millions of people were killed. Nor would murderous leaders whom the US either installed or supported included in the list. Here, examples include Pinochet in Chile, The Shah in Iran, and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. And, of course, what was also not included was the violence we supported in Latin America nor the Cuban leader whom we supported who preceded Castro.
In addition, the tendency to label the leaders listed as being non conservatives also seems puzzling and forgets the leading distinction between the Soviet failed experiment and Fascism. In the former, government elites sought control with a pretense of support from the workers even though these elites were seeking their own power over all. In Fascism, the supporting force behind the tyrannical governments came from business elites. To read Marx and assume that a central government is socialism regardless of who is supporting central control is the same as falling asleep during most of a movie and yet pretending to be able to comment on it. In addition, if we take Hitler for example, we should note that part of his party's campaign platform was to make Germany First, to bring back traditional values, and to oppose Marxism.
As for Hugo Chavez, why are we listing him with the likes of people who favored using violence to silence dissidents? And to discredit Chomsky because he and Chavez agreed on a couple of issues is beyond the pale of being overly simplistic. Perhaps, Walker did not see Chomsky's criticisms of Latin America's Leftist governments to build sustainable economies (see https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/5/chomsky_leftist_latin_american_governments_have ). Had Walker listened to or read Chomsky on Latin America's Leftist leaders, he would have found Chomsky criticizing them for basing their economies on commodity prices rather than on manufacturing and agriculture. The former is more volatile in terms of its contribution to a nation's economy. As a result, Venezuela suffered the same problems under Chavez's leftist government as it did under a Capitalist supporting government in the 90s. But we should also note something else about Chavez. He was criticized by the Left for not advancing participation by the workers in decision making positions. Certainly Chavez had to deal with an always present threat of American subversion. However, he chose to run Venezuela under elite-centered rule. We should note that with America being more classified as an oligarchy than a democracy (see http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746), we now live under elite-centered rule as well.
As for West, I think he took a too simplistic approach to Chavez and criticism of him on his support of Chavez is warranted.
And though we should group Lenin on the Left, a fellow Socialist and contemporary Rosa Luxemburg criticized him for establishing a bourgeoisie dictatorship rather than a Socialist government that relies on the rule of elected members from the proletariat. In fact, the above article gives evidence to this point in citing Lenin as he refers to those to the left of him. We don't have to take the quote from the above article for it, we can read it (see https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm ). So how much of a Socialist was Lenin? You will get a mixed response.
Some of the others whom Walker mentioned merited his criticisms though his criticisms don't tell the whole story.
As Walker rants and rails against intellectuals and tries to scapegoat those on the Left, we should note that he is in infamous company in doing so. That company includes Adolf Hitler. And we should note that the Roman Church signed a Konkordat with the Nazi government because the Church then saw an ally in Hitler because Hitler opposed the Bolshviks. However, if Walker is concerned about elite-centered rule, he needs to be concerned about this kind of rule whether it comes from the left, liberalism, or conservatism. And if he is concerned about all elite-centered rule, then perhaps he would prefer to stand with the Menshoviks, who were Socialists, as opposed to the Bolsheviks and their descendants or the Bourgeoisie. And that would suite me fine.
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on the rejection of objective reality in today’s universities. This appeared in Heidelblog.
I'm sorry but this is just an intellectual form of the parable of the two men praying. The similarities between the above article and that parable is that, again, it is the religious expert who claims to be above all others and thankful that they are not like the poor souls who reject o objective reality. However, like the pharisee from the parable, the religious expert here makes similar mistakes.
First, basically we have 3 time periods that have dealt with reality and the world around us: Pre Modernism, Modernism, and Post Modernism. Of those 3, only Post Modernism rejects the necessary metanarratives that allow for objective reality. That means that modernity, as represented by modernism, did not reject objective reality. It merely said that it isn't found in the faith narratives.
But why did Post Modernism reject the metanarratives that provide a basis for objective reality? It was because of what those from both periods associated with their metanarratives: conquest, imperialism, colonialism, marginalization of others, false claims of superiority, and major wars. And just as those establishment figures who lost to Trump in the election because they failed to be up front with their failures, so too does the religious figure here refuse to see what is apparent to everyone else. That those who adopted his particular metanarrative associated that metanarrative with horrendous acts. It is because of those atrocities that many Post Modernists have embraced an outcome-based truth system because they honestly want to correct past abuses.
Yes, the Post Modernists are wrong, but at least they are concerned about past abuses. The Pre Modernists and Modernists are only more than happy to deny their part in past atrocities, that is if they care to admit to their existence. So we see that the Post Modernists might have virtues that are absent in Pre Modernists and Modernists.
Finally, having taught in different colleges for 19 and 1/2 years, I see no evidence for the claim that our universities are full of people who reject objective reality. Then again, if you hang around engineers, computer scientists, information tech people, and mathematicians, one can't afford to deny objective reality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 10
To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost lamenting the demise of the West through an ever increasing number of immigrants and a decreasing birth rate for Europeans. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
This article kind of mirrors articles and statements that lament the good old days when America was a Christian nation under God. That is because of what we see and don't see when we look back at those days. We see one set of problems and faults being replaced by another. Only those who reminisce seem to have a greater tolerance for the older problems and faults than the newer ones. And thus, they see the current trends and run around yelling that the sky is falling.
We need to remember that it was the associations that were made with Christianity in Europe's past that have caused people to reject much of the past. For when Europe was at its strongest, there were multiple empires and these empires not only waged wars against and even partially exterminated non-Europeans on their own continents, they fought each other often in the name of God. WW I, according to Karl Barth, saw the reshaping of God into a tribal god with each participant demonizing others while canonizing themselves. And though WW II did not see the making of God into a tribal god as was done in WW I, it saw almost unprecedented destruction and cruelty. And now we are to mourn the loss of the West?
We also need to remember that part of what is called the biggest threat to the West, the increased immigration of people from the Middle East, is the result of Western foreign policies. It takes Westerners to adopt a bull in a china shop mentality not to see this.
In addition, Pearce's math does not make sense. For, according to Pearce, the survival of a civilization must be seen in bipolar terms. Either survival is guaranteed with an ever increasing population growth or it is about to cause its own demise by an ever decreasing population. Never has Pearce considered that there can be an ebb and flow of population increase and decrease from one time period to another.
To mourn the demise of the West and link it to Europe's population, shows a fear that one's race will disappear. But if one's religion is multiracial and one's religion is more important to one than one's race, why is this such a significant fear? And aren't their components of the West, such as its imperialism and lack of self-awareness, that should be allowed to become extinct?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Donald Devine and his blogpost citing Allan C. Carlson as he states that crony capitalism is the enemy of families while a free market capitalism that relies on small businesses are every family’s friend. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
When one sees a title like the one for the above article, one anticipates an either deductive or inductive approach to proving what was said. In this article both approaches are used but not on the same objects. For a somewhat inductive approach is used to show that crony capitalism is not only bad for families, but exploits family dysfunctions. However, there is hope because of the assertion that a family friendly, small is beautiful approach to free markets provides the relative utopia we are all looking for. That such a system works is assumed.
The next partial paragraph is the result of a lack of adequately editing the comment
http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/04/capitalism-enemy-family-donald-devine.html population that came from centering society on the family, comes the need to for bigger and bigger businesses that have the resources to provide for people's needs. In addition, whether one is talking about 'crony capitalism' or the ever idyllic free markets for small businesses, the fuel that feeds the economy is greed. And so even without the population explosion, comes the drive to build bigger and bigger businesses.
In addition, the free market approach above favors the mass number of small self-sustaining units because the free markets of people like Hayek join Cain in asking his rhetorical question: 'Am I my brother's keeper?' That is the purpose of joining the free market with small businesses as its participants. Such a mindset is really only embraced by those who want their own personal growth to not be infringed on by notions of solidarity or social responsibilities. In addition, this mindset also includes a modern and restricted definition of the term 'stakeholder.' For in the past, stakeholders were all who were impacted by a business. Without government regulations to protect the environment, workers, and consumers, the new definition of stakeholder is reduced to the owner(s) either of a business or in an economic system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 11
To Joe Carter and his blogpost stating that the gender gap in pay is a myth because of the kind of jobs generally taken by men vs those taken by women. This appeared in the Acton blog.
If only Carter would continue to research the gender gap in pay after he found what is to him a satisfactory answer, perhaps this article would be more educational.
A valid point that Carter makes is that one cannot just look at the big picture to see if their is a problem in gender gap pay. And certainly, a partial explanation can be seen in the ones provided by the article he cited. But that doesn't fully explain the gender gap pay we have. Two other factors can be added from documentation provided by the Pew Research Center (see http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/03/gender-pay-gap-facts/ ). Another reason for the gender gap in pay, according to women surveyed in 2013, was taking time off to raise a family affected long-term earnings. In addition, the same 2013 survey saw a majority of both men and women reporting that discrimination also exists against women in the workplace. Finally, the same Pew Research Article states that the gender gap in pay is decreasing. One source of the discrimination is found in the leadership opportunities not given to quallified women in the workplace (see http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/01/14/women-and-leadership/ ).
The reason for just citing one source is rather obvious. There is no need, according free market supporters, to pass and enforce regulations that ensure equal pay. However, this view is more concerned about the place of regulations than gender pay gap.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Bruce Walker and his blogpost warning against intellectuals and tyrants. In particular, he attempts to group all together as belonging to the Left. This appeared in the Acton Blog.
In the list of leaders who oversaw mass killings of people, those who were left off that list include American Presidents who saw to it that Native Americans were removed from their land or who oversaw mass killings from American invasions such as those of the Philippines (1899 to 1902) where hundreds of thousands of people were killed and Vietnam, where millions of people were killed. Nor would murderous leaders whom the US either installed or supported included in the list. Here, examples include Pinochet in Chile, The Shah in Iran, and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. And, of course, what was also not included was the violence we supported in Latin America nor the Cuban leader whom we supported who preceded Castro.
In addition, the tendency to label the leaders listed as being non conservatives also seems puzzling and forgets the leading distinction between the Soviet failed experiment and Fascism. In the former, government elites sought control with a pretense of support from the workers even though these elites were seeking their own power over all. In Fascism, the supporting force behind the tyrannical governments came from business elites. To read Marx and assume that a central government is socialism regardless of who is supporting central control is the same as falling asleep during most of a movie and yet pretending to be able to comment on it. In addition, if we take Hitler for example, we should note that part of his party's campaign platform was to make Germany First, to bring back traditional values, and to oppose Marxism.
As for Hugo Chavez, why are we listing him with the likes of people who favored using violence to silence dissidents? And to discredit Chomsky because he and Chavez agreed on a couple of issues is beyond the pale of being overly simplistic. Perhaps, Walker did not see Chomsky's criticisms of Latin America's Leftist governments to build sustainable economies (see https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/5/chomsky_leftist_latin_american_governments_have ). Had Walker listened to or read Chomsky on Latin America's Leftist leaders, he would have found Chomsky criticizing them for basing their economies on commodity prices rather than on manufacturing and agriculture. The former is more volatile in terms of its contribution to a nation's economy. As a result, Venezuela suffered the same problems under Chavez's leftist government as it did under a Capitalist supporting government in the 90s. But we should also note something else about Chavez. He was criticized by the Left for not advancing participation by the workers in decision making positions. Certainly Chavez had to deal with an always present threat of American subversion. However, he chose to run Venezuela under elite-centered rule. We should note that with America being more classified as an oligarchy than a democracy (see http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746), we now live under elite-centered rule as well.
As for West, I think he took a too simplistic approach to Chavez and criticism of him on his support of Chavez is warranted.
And though we should group Lenin on the Left, a fellow Socialist and contemporary Rosa Luxemburg criticized him for establishing a bourgeoisie dictatorship rather than a Socialist government that relies on the rule of elected members from the proletariat. In fact, the above article gives evidence to this point in citing Lenin as he refers to those to the left of him. We don't have to take the quote from the above article for it, we can read it (see https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm ). So how much of a Socialist was Lenin? You will get a mixed response.
Some of the others whom Walker mentioned merited his criticisms though his criticisms don't tell the whole story.
As Walker rants and rails against intellectuals and tries to scapegoat those on the Left, we should note that he is in infamous company in doing so. That company includes Adolf Hitler. And we should note that the Roman Church signed a Konkordat with the Nazi government because the Church then saw an ally in Hitler because Hitler opposed the Bolshviks. However, if Walker is concerned about elite-centered rule, he needs to be concerned about this kind of rule whether it comes from the left, liberalism, or conservatism. And if he is concerned about all elite-centered rule, then perhaps he would prefer to stand with the Menshoviks, who were Socialists, as opposed to the Bolsheviks and their descendants or the Bourgeoisie. And that would suite me fine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)