The biggest question of all is the one concerning the c-word. We have little difficulty in dealing, in theory at least, with the medium-sized issues: What should be done about the World Bank? How can the anti-union laws be reversed? But we have scarcely attempted, as a movement, to tackle the big issue: what should be done about capitalism? Whenever anyone in Paris announced that capitalism in all its forms should be overthrown, everyone cheered. But is this really what we want? And, if so, with what do we hope to replace it? And could that other system be established without violent repression?
In Paris, some of us tried to tackle this question in a session called “life after capitalism”. By the end of it, I was as unconvinced by my own answers as I was by everyone else’s. While I was speaking, the words died in my mouth, as it struck me with horrible clarity that as long as incentives to cheat exist (and they always will) none of our alternatives could be applied universally without totalitarianism. The only coherent programme presented in the meeting was the one proposed by the man from the “League for the Fifth International”, who called for the destruction of the capitalist class and the establishment of a command economy. I searched the pamphlet he gave me for any recognition of the fact that something like this had been tried before and hadn’t worked out very well, but without success. (Instead I learned that, come the revolution, the members of the Fourth International will be the first against the wall, as they have “obscured the differences” between Marxism and its opponents.)
It seems to me that the questions we urgently need to ask ourselves are these: is totalitarianism the only means of eliminating capitalism? If so, and if, as almost all of us profess to do, we abhor totalitarianism, can we continue to call ourselves anti-capitalists? If there is no humane and democratic answer to the question of what a world without capitalism would look like, then should we not abandon the pursuit of unicorns, and concentrate on capturing and taming the beast whose den we already inhabit?
The surprise — this is from George Monbiot. True introspection or the millionth monkey? I live in hope but not expectation.
But if MoveOn.org succeeds in helping unseat President Bush, it would mean an unfamiliar territory for an organization that has been defined more by what it is against than what it is for.
Some wonder if MoveOn.org would be able to make that transition. Jonah Seiger, a visiting fellow at the Institute for Policy, Democracy and the Internet at George Washington University, said: “There is something to be said about fighting losing battles. At least you are keeping your constituency together.”
“One of the things that killed the civil rights movement,” Mr. Seiger added, “was getting what they asked for.”
That’s a rather interesting lesson to draw from the civil righs movement. Note that Seiger thinks the movement has been “killed” even though there seems to be a lot of it around. Seems like a clear admission of its undead status to me.
One can also read this as meaning that MoveOn does not intend to win but rather to keep fighting the good fight. That’s the modern Leftist narcissism in a nutshell.
The mainstream press is still ignoring the leaked Al Qaeda / Ba’ath connection memo. It would seem very explosive stuff. One might argue that it’s not been confirmed, but doesn’t stop Big Media when it would reflect badly on the Administration.
[source]
Calls for papers from a planned meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology on “The Political Psychology of Hegemony and Resistance:”
The failure of the Bush administration’s facile assumptions about the ease and speed with which post-invasion Iraq could be transformed into a secure democratic state and thriving free market economy was painfully apparent by late summer, 2003. […]
The long apparent ideological difficulty of European Zionism to recognize the moral and psychological requirements for a humane accommodation of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine continued to exact a costly and bloody toll on Jews and Palestinians alike. […]
The failed foreign policy of the Bush administration based on Hubris called for a major transformation in American domestic thinking on the way to enhance regional and international security through respectful collaboration with the UN and other multilateral organizations […]
This workshop invites submissions on the flawed thinking behind hegemony and the institutional political, economic and moral dimensions of a caring community of nations.
No preconceptions there! Normally this wouldn’t be worth the notice but the ISPP seems to be bleeding members. The President of the organization doesn’t understand:
It is readily understandable why reservists and Gis would decide not to reenlist, but a puzzle to me that scholars in our field would not “reup” in ISPP. We haven’t invaded anybody, searched unsuccessfully for weapons of mass destruction or kept combatants from other disciplines locked up without even access to their professional journals. I am therefore baffled that many of you have not renewed your membership, and write to urge you to reconsider.
Clearly the kind of perceptivity you’d want in the president of a “Political Psychology” organization. The summing quote is from Karl Bade:
Apparently, ISPP President Lebow thinks snide mockery is an effective method of getting people to re-up their memberships. What does this say about his grasp of political psychology?
Anti-terror, anti-Ba’ath protests in Iraq.
Picture of anti-Ba’ath protestors.
These of themselves won’t do much good, but as a statement of opposition to the Ba’ath and their supporters currently active in Iraq it is a good sign of itself and should also encourage other Iraqis to stand up. It also heartens those of us here who also stand for a self-ordered, prosperous Iraq that is a member of the civilized nations of the world. The US can help, but ultimately only the Iraqis can make it happen.
“Arguably the most important intellectual alive” - The New York Times
Blurb on Noam Chomsky’s new book
“Arguably the most important intellectual alive, how can he write such nonsense about international affairs and foreign policy?” - The New York Times
The original quote
This one is kind of amusing, but I have to say that the basic claim in the blurb quote is in fact not contradicted by the full quote, even though the latter is not very complimentary. Even there, it’s a bigger hit on the NY Times — despite the fact that the NY Times says that Chomsky writes onsense the NY Times still considers him “arguably the most important intellectual alive”.