NationStates Jolt Archive

Why are (almost) all anti-war activists left-wing or anarchists?

Surely opposition to war should reach across the political spectrum?

It depends on the war and the circumstances.

VietNam protestors had all types.

The people you mention tend to be "extreame" and can be found at most protests(ie WTO).

Don't forget news reports show and talk to the loud mouths. The Iraq protestors and supporters cross all boundries.

Hmmm Anarchists? Wouldn't they be for war? :p

The war was polticized.

Different values. The left values peace more, while the right values freedom from oppressive government more. So a war against a oppresive regime would be seen by the left as against peace, while seenby the right as bringing freedom to others.

But opposition to wars and support for wars cause bounds. Isolationists on the right our against any war that doesn't directly affect national interests, while some on the left support war for humanitarian reasons.

The reason most protesters are on the left is that they are mostly students. Students tend to be idealistic and believe that peace war will not bring freedom and that peace should win out. They tend to be more on the left as acadmia usually is. As well, students tend to have more free time and energy to participate in protests and rallies. SO it's ussually the left represented at anti-war rallies, because of the high preponderance of students.

Liberal is, by default, a progressive stance on politics.

War is, by default, a very basic and tradition form of diplomacy.

So by definition a liberal cannot support war.

It depends on the war and the circumstances.

VietNam protestors had all types.

The people you mention tend to be "extreame" and can be found at most protests(ie WTO).

Don't forget news reports show and talk to the loud mouths. The Iraq protestors and supporters cross all boundries.

Hmmm Anarchists? Wouldn't they be for war? :p
I'm judging by people I know, protests I've gone to (so many "socialist party" signs!) and the anti-war organisations I have encountered. I'm not basing all of this on the media.

Different values. The left values peace more, while the right values freedom from oppressive government more. So a war against a oppresive regime would be seen by the left as against peace, while seenby the right as bringing freedom to others.
But isn't it liberals who value freedom and conservatives who value protection?

Hmmm Anarchists? Wouldn't they be for war? :p

Eh?

Why would Anarchists be "for war"?

Different values. The left values peace more, while the right values freedom from oppressive government more. So a war against a oppresive regime would be seen by the left as against peace, while seenby the right as bringing freedom to others.

But opposition to wars and support for wars cause bounds. Isolationists on the right our against any war that doesn't directly affect national interests, while some on the left support war for humanitarian reasons.

The reason most protesters are on the left is that they are mostly students. Students tend to be idealistic and believe that peace war will not bring freedom and that peace should win out. They tend to be more on the left as acadmia usually is. As well, students tend to have more free time and energy to participate in protests and rallies. SO it's ussually the left represented at anti-war rallies, because of the high preponderance of students.


I just protest the more free time

I am a student

I work 70 + hours a week on top of a full class load (and I am not the only one by FAR) lol

At least at the school I tend to go to it is almost a 50/50 split of those that work their asses off and those that get a free ride … sure there are some but its hard to say most :-P

But isn't it liberals who value freedom and conservatives who value protection?
Yes but democrats do not (I don't like liberal sorry the right has muddied it up too much for now) like to go over other people's freedoms usually. When absolutely necesary we will fight like WW 1 or 2.

See Country A is a corrupt nation and is mean to its citizens.

Democrats do not want to go over your freedoms to give other freedoms to you. Its kinda of hypocricy. Granted sometimes it has to be done. But its a last resort.

Republicans rarely use war as a last resort with the except of the cold war with Reagon and Russia. It might not be number 2 in methods but its close to top.
But that is how I see it at least.

Dark Kanatia, you put it well.

To take me and the recent Iraq war into consideration, I am a liberal-nationalist [British], and I was against the war. Simply, it wasn't in our national interests. A stable but Saddam-ran Iraq would suit us better than an unstable Iraq, as harsh as that sounds.

The freedoms the Iraqis now have, while it is good for them, came at a too higher price for us: hundreds of dead British soldiers and civilians; further polarisation of our nation; billions of pounds desperatley needed for public works and an increase in chances of us getting attacked by terrorists looking for vengeance.

And since when has a country that has had democracy installed by force, (that hasn't developed it itself beforehand) ever really succeeded? If the so-called 'minority' of Iraqis in support of Saddam can cause this much trouble to our forces in Iraq (the forces that overthrew Saddam with such ease), then the why didn't the 'majority' of Iraqis left in opposition to Saddam overthrow him years ago? My reason - they disliked Saddam, but not passionatly. Like the Scots drove out Edward Longshanks, like the Americans drove out King George, like the French drove out their monarchy, the Iraqis didn't throw out Saddam because while the desire was their, it wasn't that strong. The Kurds had the desire, and in their homeland up North they did it, so don't say it can't be done.

I just protest the more free time

I am a student

I work 70 + hours a week on top of a full class load (and I am not the only one by FAR) lol

At least at the school I tend to go to it is almost a 50/50 split of those that work their asses off and those that get a free ride … sure there are some but its hard to say most :-P

I'm a student too and except in summer I don't have much free time between work and studies. I'm talking about the upper-middle class kids whose parents pay for their tuition and have money to take a trip to Washington or some other place to protest the G-8 summits, some war, or the latest protest craze.

First of all, not all of the anti-war people are anti-war. Many of them are just on the other side.

Second of all there have been several examples of successful democracies being imposed by force. Japan would be one. Germany had some democratic leanings before the wars, but it wasn’t until after WW II that it was stabilized in the form imposed upon them by the victors. Korea wasn’t a democracy until it was rescued from Japan as a result of WW II. Shall I go on?

But isn't it liberals who value freedom and conservatives who value protection?

In general, liberals value peace more than political freedom on the international stage. But conservatives value freedom more than peace on the international stage.

But when you talk about conservative, liberal, left and right it's absolutely crazy.

For example: Fascism and Communism are extreme right and extreme left and yet both have similar characteristics. Facism is the centralization of political power and to a lesser extent economic power, while communism (in practice) is the centralization of economic and political power.

or

Liberatarionism and Anarchism, are right and left, on is a minimalist state the other is no state, there's very little difference but they're on opposite extremes of the spectrum.

Plus terms mean different and even contradictory things to different people. So judging by these categories is rather hard.

The left has always had a soft spot for those who murder for the right cause, which is why Stalin and Mao probably have more fans on university campuses than Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

After all, much of modern liberalism, as Churchill suggested, is often the ideology of a narcissistic teen-aged sensibility that chafes at the limits reality places on the utopian idealism and inflated expectations typical of most left-leaning thought.

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is worth fighting for, is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight; nothing that he cares about more than his own safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

The inverse also tends to be true, the far right and even the nazi party and kkk (yes, they still exist, no, I don't konw why, Yes I live near Cooke County Tennessee, no, I don't think many sane people support either of them) have been outspokently for this war. Statistics can be interpreted just about any way you want to, and if I felt particularly ornary I could campain against certain pro-life senators, especialy the ones who say no abortion for any reason, as being pro-incest and pro-rape. As for why the Left has decided to campain against this war, it is simply because they were not given any proof that this war was justified. Now that it has come out that there were infact no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I'm surprised that they haven't been pushing the issue as hard as they were before it.

Is Iraq a better place because Saddam is out of power? Yes.

Is the World a better place because Saddam is out of power? Yes

Are either Iraq or the World safer places because Saddam is out of power? Resoundingly no. It is estimated that Al Queda has grown even more powerful and picked up even more fighters because military actions in Iraq and the inevitable civilian casulties that occure durring any and all wars have turned some borderline anti-american Iraqis even further against us. . . and make no mistake, the terrorists are watching.

Even further, in the idology of both parties, War has different meanings. There are some liberals who belive that War should never be the answer, there was even a senator who voted against WWII after Pearl Harbor was bombed. The Right tends to be more miliaristic, and while I'm trying to avoid making them sound like war-mongers, which most of them aren't, they simply see War as an acceptable methodology of diplomacy. Neither is inherantly right nor wrong, and both have a purpous for existing, the Left tends to be more open and willing to talk and resolve differences with other countries through civil discourse, while the Right tends to be more willing to fight and if need be, die whenever it is needed. What this nation needs is simple balance between the two ideals. . . and before people begin to throw the "Kerry lost, get over it" lines at me, I remind you that 48% of the voting populice is hardly a small minority and that most people in this nation are moderates, meaning that they want a balance between the ideals of the Republicans and the Democrats.

The left has always had a soft spot for those who murder for the right cause, which is why Stalin and Mao probably have more fans on university campuses than Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

After all, much of modern liberalism, as Churchill suggested, is often the ideology of a narcissistic teen-aged sensibility that chafes at the limits reality places on the utopian idealism and inflated expectations typical of most left-leaning thought.

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is worth fighting for, is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight; nothing that he cares about more than his own safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

Lots of five dollar words there that don't add up to two cents worth of thought.

Sorry to disagree with you Dark Kanatia, but both Fascism (the political party) and the Nazis were socialists.

The left has always had a soft spot for those who murder for the right cause, which is why Stalin and Mao probably have more fans on university campuses than Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

After all, much of modern liberalism, as Churchill suggested, is often the ideology of a narcissistic teen-aged sensibility that chafes at the limits reality places on the utopian idealism and inflated expectations typical of most left-leaning thought.

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is worth fighting for, is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight; nothing that he cares about more than his own safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

Isn't that quote useable against Bush supportersduring the election?
Security was most important issue.

But I digress. Stalin and Mao why? Hitler has the only good economy of the three. His morals lacked though.
But he was the most fiscially conservative person. He made a broken nation a super power while he was in office.

Sorry to disagree with you Dark Kanatia, but both Fascism (the political party) and the Nazis were socialists.

True both had large social support programs based mainly around the military (don't have a job, then join the army). But at least in the case of the Nazi's; they didn't ahve full control over the economy, there was still private enterprise so economic control was less so than political control. But both are considered by most to be extreme right-wing parties. Which was my point.

Communism and Facism are very similar yet are usually considered to be at opposite extremes of the right left spectrum.

Taka writes: “before people begin to throw the "Kerry lost, get over it" lines at me, I remind you that 48% of the voting populice is hardly a small minority and that most people in this nation are moderates, meaning that they want a balance between the ideals of the Republicans and the Democrats.”

Still, Bush's 51% is better than Clinton did in 1992 or 1996. Much, Much better.

“Hitler has the only good economy of the three. His morals lacked though. But he was the most fiscially conservative person.”

I’m not sure I would call it "conservative", but certainly he did improve the country’s economy by seizing the Jews wealth.

“He made a broken nation a super power while he was in office. “

And then he destroyed it as a super power, taking the rest of Europe along for the ride.

Why is everyone who is pro war a beer guzzling wrasslin watchin nascar fanatic brainless product of incest?

“True both had large social support programs based mainly around the military (don't have a job, then join the army). But at least in the case of the Nazi's; they didn't have full control over the economy, there was still private enterprise so economic control was less so than political control.”

I believe that you are wrong about that, at least after the war started, the Nazi’s took full control over all aspects of the economy.

“But both are considered by most to be extreme right-wing parties.”

They are only considered right-wing by lefty professors and their students who don’t know any better. What aspects of their policies are right wing?

"Lots of five dollar words there that don't add up to two cents worth of thought. "

Perhaps I need to use smaller words for you.

“Are either Iraq or the World safer places because Saddam is out of power? Resoundingly no.”

Are you sure?

Certainly Iraq is a better place without Saddam. I believe in his 20 years in power he gassed Kurds and killed an estimated 300,000 of his own people plus started a couple of wars that resulted in another million or so dead.

Is the rest of the world safer? Hard to say. The US hasn’t had anymore skyscrapers toppled (or bombed) in the last few years. Nor has there been any hijackings or embassies bombed.

What is your answer? Roll over and play dead.

“True both had large social support programs based mainly around the military (don't have a job, then join the army). But at least in the case of the Nazi's; they didn't have full control over the economy, there was still private enterprise so economic control was less so than political control.”

I believe that you are wrong about that, at least after the war started, the Nazi’s took full control over all aspects of the economy.

“But both are considered by most to be extreme right-wing parties.”

They are only considered right-wing by lefty professors and their students who don’t know any better. What aspects of their policies are right wing?

That's exactly my point. Different people have different meaning (often contradictory) of the same word in reference to politics.

The right-wing policies of the Fasists and Nazi's included extreme militarism and extreme nationalism.

Why is everyone who is pro war a beer guzzling wrasslin watchin nascar fanatic brainless product of incest?

We're not. I don't watch 'wrasslin', I've never drank any type of alcohol, and I've never watched NASCAR. I'm very intelligent as I completed high school with honors and am now in the Honors political program in University. My mother came from a Norwegian family, while my father came from a German Mennonite family, so neither was any where near remotely related to the other.

Yet, I'm still for the war in Iraq. Seems your poorly written, poorly punctuated, highly bigoted, inane statement is wrong.

By the way, there's this thing called a comma. It looks like this , and it should be used.

Taking drugs is cool, that's why I buy 'em.
You're probably stoned right now you hippy.

"Lots of five dollar words there that don't add up to two cents worth of thought. "

Perhaps I need to use smaller words for you.

Perhaps you need to stop co-opting other people's words to give your arguments substance.

You're probably stoned right now you hippy.
I never posted that. I've never taken any kind of drug other than Tylenol, Aspirin, ear medication, and cough medicine. I've never been stoned. And no one has ever accused me of being a hippy, and I'm opposed to pretty much everything hippies stand for.

Now, may I ask you, why did you post this?

Sdaeriji writes: “Perhaps you need to stop co-opting other people's words to give your arguments substance.”

I’m sorry, did you have something to say, or are you just here to insult people? I haven’t seen either arguments or counter arguments from you.

I'm a student too and except in summer I don't have much free time between work and studies. I'm talking about the upper-middle class kids whose parents pay for their tuition and have money to take a trip to Washington or some other place to protest the G-8 summits, some war, or the latest protest craze.

lol my parents are mid to upper middle class ... lol

:D
But dosent mean they will help me ;)

They worked for every peny so will I lol

People tend to have their own reasons why they are against going to war. They can be grouped into three basic groups. Although the same can be applied to people who are for war. The anti war groups are Crazy idealists, pussies, and the well informed. However the well informed could be influenced by the pussy in them or by their ideals. Although usually they feel that the benefits of war don’t quite outweigh the benefits. But even that can be influenced by pussy and ideal factors. Meanwhile the pro war groups are the crazy idealists, Power hungry war monger, and the well informed that has probably been influenced in a similar manner as the anti war well informed group. Just be aware of the crazy idealists who think that they are well informed. They can be found on either side and can be very influential.

Why are (almost) all anti-war activists left-wing or anarchists?

Surely opposition to war should reach across the political spectrum?
Well, activism, for whatever cause, is an opposing position to centrist or moderate views. And its the left cos currently, this war is being waged at the behest of a right-wing president for right-wing causes, principles and beliefs (freedom and democracy being understood to be complete bullshit as the reasons for going to war)

They are only considered right-wing by lefty professors and their students who don’t know any better. What aspects of their policies are right wing?
The authoritarian crushing of your dissenters, repressing free speech and political freedom? Not especially left wing ideas if you ask me.

Is the rest of the world safer? Hard to say. The US hasn’t had anymore skyscrapers toppled (or bombed) in the last few years. Nor has there been any hijackings or embassies bombed.

What is your answer? Roll over and play dead.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Simply because Saddam is out of power, and simply because no more tall buildings have fallen down, doesn't mean that the two are in any way connected.

The left has always had a soft spot for those who murder for the right cause, which is why Stalin and Mao probably have more fans on university campuses than Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
Is your point here to contrast Mao and Stalin who murdered for the right causes to Thatcher and Reagan who murdered for the wrong causes? Or that Stalin and Mao killed people, which Thatcher and Reagan never did?

Forgive me for pre-empting your response, but either of those two positions (the only two which I can distill from that point) seem exceptionally odd. Have I missed something fundamental here?

After all, much of modern liberalism, as Churchill suggested, is often the ideology of a narcissistic teen-aged sensibility that chafes at the limits reality places on the utopian idealism and inflated expectations typical of most left-leaning thought.
Wow. That's remarkable, that sounds almost identical to his opinion of communism. How strange that two diverse ideologies that a political giant like Churchill would never have confused are criticised in the exact same way.

The reason most protesters are on the left is that they are mostly students. Students tend to be idealistic and believe that peace war will not bring freedom and that peace should win out. They tend to be more on the left as acadmia usually is. As well, students tend to have more free time and energy to participate in protests and rallies. SO it's ussually the left represented at anti-war rallies, because of the high preponderance of students.

In Australia, the Students were the first to protest about the War in 2002 (in Australia of course). The first student anti-war protest was joined with the 'NO to WTO' protest with only 150 students. At this time I joined 'Resistance's- Books not Bombs' and 'Stop the war coalition (I was in year 9 and went to a private christian school).
From 150- 10,000 students; than adding from 10,000- 40,000 nationwide student protests, we were the first down here to protest against the war.

But no. Students aren't Left- they just go because they are angry with the leadership/adult hypocrisy. Some also just go to see how much freeom of speech they have in their Democracy. Others go just to see what trouble they can cause or see what they can get away with. There are many reasons.
I protested because it was against Christianity to go to war.