NationStates Jolt Archive

Fantastic political journal and book review I just discovered - Democratiya:

http://www.democratiya.com/

Based in the UK, and somewhat analagous (though in my opinion more lucid) to the journal Dissent on this side of the pond. It's about time leftists reclaimed the values of real liberalism - and rejected the rancid and stupid "the enemy of our enemy is our friend" attitude, whacked-out and lazy relativistic moral compases, and unthinking rabid anti-americanism trumping real argumentation that the mainstream left has so unfortunately been swept away in.

From the "about" section:

Of course our task is not to sing 'America! America!' As Irving Howe said, 'The banner of critical independence, ragged and torn though it may be, is still the best we have'. But this is 2005 not 1965. It is no longer enough to say 'no' where the US says 'yes'. A more self-confident and constructively critical stance is needed.

We democrats will fare better if we are guided by a positive animating ethic and seek modes of realization through serious discussion and practical reform efforts. Democratiya will stand for the human rights of victims of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity. We will be, everywhere, pro-democracy, pro-labour rights, pro-women's rights, pro-gay rights, pro-liberty, pro-reason and pro-social justice. Against anti-modernism, irrationalism, fear of freedom, loathing of the woman, and the cult of master-slave human relations we stand for the great rallying calls of the democratic revolutions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Democracy, even for the 'poorest he'. Liberte, egalite, fraternite. The rights of man. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those precious ideas were rendered the inheritance of all by the social democratic, feminist and egalitarian revolutions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. No one left behind. No one. We are partisans and artisans of this fighting faith and we pit it against what Paul Berman has called 'the paranoid and apocalyptic nature of the totalitarian mindset'.

[snip]

In line with these aspirations, Democratiya will embrace what the Italian democratic liberalsocialist Norberto Bobbio called 'the most salutary fruits' of a certain intellectual tradition. He had in mind 'the value of enquiry, the ferment of doubt, a willingness to dialogue, a spirit of criticism, moderation of judgment, philological scruple, a sense of the complexity of things'.

Democratiya aims to be accessible to 'the common reader'. The discipline of the plain style, and a refusal of the obscurantist prose of contemporary academia, is today a political act of the first importance. We seek good writing, less adorned and more luminous, as well as thoughtful analysis, and a bit of style. Anyone seeking a model should look at Dissent. Careful exposition of the central arguments of the book under review is important. But so is the critical response of the reviewer. Authors will have a standing right of reply and reviewers a standing right of rejoinder.


The articles are wide-ranging and excellent, the contributors a veritable who's who of high-profile thinkers, and the language readily understandable. The project is aligned with the Euston Manifesto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euston_Manifesto), which some of you might be familiar with. This issue is packed with interesting stuff - an article critiquing Edward Said's writings on Kosovo and the gulf war, a critical mauling of a new book about the plight of Afghani women, the new afterword from Nick Cohen's book "what's left?", and tons more. I encourage you to look at this and previous issues.

But more generally, this is a thread celebrating the existance of Democratiya's alignment and worldview - for me personally, it's about right. Leftists don't need to apologize for internationalism, universalim, morally principled stances, and liberal interventionism. The banner of anti-imperialism shouldn't be used to insulate ourselves from engaing internationally, and even support repugnant non-western creeds.

As Alan Johnson, the editor says, lets abandon "the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."

EDIT - of course, I make a spelling mistake in the title (I'm sure there's more too). "journal, not "jounal". *blush*

You do realise that this is how neoconservatism started, right? ;)

You do realise that this is how neoconservatism started, right? ;)Yes, actually. If you read the interview in this issue of Democratiya, with Joshua Muravchik (a Neoconservative who started out as a marxist), they talk about it quite a bit. Neoconservatism shares many of the same goals as liberal interventionism - basically an active engagement in the world scene to promote the more wide definition of self-interest (which includes democratization, development, aid, pluralistic values etc.) The conservatism/liberalism divide comes in the methods. As Johnson and Muravchik discuss in the interview, neoconservatism as an ideology started as a debate strictly within the democratic party and only switched over with Reagan.

Just want to add though: This isn't a militaristic or even overly interventionist approach by any stretch. What I like here is the fact that they don't suplicate before the overused anti-imperialist/post-colonialist narrative, or the denial stemming from moral and cultural relativism. To me, being a leftist means principled (though flexible) supportive stances for feminism, gay rights, social justice, democracy, and internationalism, as well as support for strong regulation of some parts of the market and protection of collective natural services. That's different than what neoconservatism is now.

It's about time leftists reclaimed the values of real liberalism

Seeing as real liberalism is a right-wing economic philosophy favouring capitalist free markets with little to no government intervention and absolute property rights, why would any leftists want to "reclaim" (how can someone reclaim what was never one's) that? If you didn't know, leftism isn't supposed to be keen on unchecked, laissez-faire capitalism...

Seeing as real liberalism is a right-wing economic philosophy favouring capitalist free markets with little to no government intervention and absolute property rights, why would any leftists want to "reclaim" (how can someone reclaim what was never one's) that? If you didn't know, leftism isn't supposed to be keen on unchecked, laissez-faire capitalism...Leftists run a gamut. just an example, socialists were strongly anti-communist in the 70s when almost nobody else on the left was anymore. Capitalism in some form emerged as the less brutal and more prosperous economic system in the 20th century. Liberalism (the idea that personal liberty is a high value) is a pretty big word, which I don't equate with laisez-faire capitalism at all, and I'm not sure why you do. That's because while laisez-faire may put personal economic liberty first and foremost, it also tends to erode personal freedom in other ways (freedom to breathe clean air, have uncorupted government, not be exploited, etc). Being a leftist in a broadly liberal society and capitalist economy doesn't conflict.

It's about time leftists reclaimed the values of real liberalism

What's "real liberalism"?

and rejected the rancid and stupid "the enemy of our enemy is our friend" attitude,

Who says that? How many leftists are fond of, say, Saddam Hussein, or the Taliban?

whacked-out and lazy relativistic moral compases,

In the left-wing anti-imperialist and "anti-American" literature, where's the "cultural relativism" that is so often complained about?

Tariq Ali, Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, William Blum, Ward Churchill, etc., etc.... I've read them all, and none of them say that cultural beliefs entitle you to do as you please.

In fact, people who actually do advance cultural relativism as philosophical doctrine don't make exactly that claim either. It's positive, not normative: "moral beliefs are ultimately predicated on culture", not "we have no right to apply our morality to others."

Leftists don't need to apologize for internationalism, universalim, morally principled stances,

Absolutely not. Left-wing anti-imperialism is about all of those things.

and liberal interventionism.

Leftists should indeed not "apologize" for this. We should not play the game in the first place.

Humanitarian justifications for war are almost as old as war itself is. But genuine humanitarian interventions are rare in the extreme--maybe, if you try really hard, you can find a few obscure cases, but the general trend is very much in the other direction. Why should we trust a government that in other contexts we admit is disproportionately influenced by wealth and power, that even formally (let alone substantively) does not represent the people of other nations, to run an interventionist foreign policy that respects human freedom and human welfare?

If we really believe in democracy, why should we trust that kind of paternalism?

The banner of anti-imperialism shouldn't be used to insulate ourselves from engaing internationally,

To the contrary, the banner of anti-imperialism can and should be used to get us to engage internationally, with those in other countries who do not appreciate foreign domination.

and even support repugnant non-western creeds.

Again, who does this? Which major leftist figures say that, say, stoning women and gays is okay, as long as it's only done in conservative Muslim countries?

I'll admit the occasional sympathetic sentiments for the likes of Hezbollah and Hamas--sentiments that absolutely should be opposed by principled leftists--but usually this does not go to the point of actually accepting the ideology.

Anyway, thanks for the link. I'll look over the journal's articles later, but not now--I need to sleep soon.

I don't equate with laisez-faire capitalism at all, and I'm not sure why you do.

Because I am not ignorant of political theory and history. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism) Liberalism is all about the unfettered free market, laissez-faire capitalist tendencies and sacrosanct private property rights, with individualism almost always trumping any sort of social or group sovereignty - hence liberalism's staunch animosity towards any form of welfare state. It has nothing to do with the left-wing - it is purely right-wing. Get your terminology straight - it seems as if you're using "liberalism" in the flawed and outright erroneous USA sense.

Because I am not ignorant of political theory and history. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism)

What about Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who attacked the institution of private property and advocated a kind of relative equality with which any socialist would sympathize?

Thomas Jefferson? Thomas Paine? John Stuart Mill? None of them fit neatly into modern right-wing politics.

Or Karl Marx, who generally is not regarded as a liberal thinker, but whose political, social, and economic thought was highly influenced by liberalism?

Liberalism cannot be monopolized by the Right.

Well I have feel sorry for people such as this...

As Lenin's work 'Left Communism: An Infantile Disorder' rightly stated, 'leftism' has become these days an inane and all encompassing soapbox for the degenerate and mishap minorities of society, a showcase of abnormality in the name of 'unity' if you will. Homosexual, feminist and ethnic minority 'rights' (meaning preferential treatment) have all taken center stage, a practical analysis on building socialism through material dialectics in the true Marxist-Leninist way has taken a backseat to the teenage angst politics and 'pack mentality' of the new left opportunism, united under a reflexive 'opposition' of whoever bourgeois group are in power. 'Leftism' has become a selfish act of political opportunism and has become so broad based that it allows any miscreant or environmental nut to march under our banner because he has hated the world since age 16.

The modern 'left' has become an infantile political 'game' with the 'right-wing' to 'Win', instead they compromise and revise Marxism in a desperate attempt to conform to bourgeois standards of 'liberal democracy'. This kinda rubbish fundamentally damages us and stops us creating the public view of a disciplined professional intellectually-sound Leninist party, not just a fan club for socially-rejected weirdos. It means we can't communicate with the working class, and that we can't be their vanguard. The modern 'left' isn't interested in revolution, it's interested in sating their political egos and being the posterboys for the politically-correct champagne left-liberal elite.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm

What about Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who attacked the institution of private property and advocated a kind of relative equality with which any socialist would sympathize?

He was of the French tradition and you paint him out to be much more left-wing than he was - he was most certainly right-wing.

Thomas Jefferson? Thomas Paine? John Stuart Mill? None of them fit neatly into modern right-wing politics.

You seem to think that social conservatism is solely of the right, while nothing could be further from the truth - liberalism and its civil rights protectionism for the individual and above all property is very much right wing.

Or Karl Marx, who generally is not regarded as a liberal thinker, but whose political, social, and economic thought was highly influenced by liberalism?

If you mean "influenced" in the sense that he opposed it and that his ideas go counter to the capitalist individualism inherent in liberalism, then he was "influenced" in the sense that opposites need their opposite to be opposite against.

Liberalism cannot be monopolized by the Right.

It's too late for that, seeing as it is of the right and goes against almost everything collectivist leftists are supposed to stand for. In fact, liberalism is very much critical of the "social liberalism" (which is actually properly called social progressivism) a lot of North Americans in their ignorance seem to confuse it with.

What's "real liberalism"? I mean valuing the personal liberty of people. Closely tied to advocating and promoting democracy.
Who says that? How many leftists are fond of, say, Saddam Hussein, or the Taliban?I know plenty that are great fans of Hassan Nasrallah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhod, and frequent apologists for all manner of vile islamists both at home and abroad under the auspices of warped muliculturalism and post-colonialism, respectively.
In the left-wing anti-imperialist and "anti-American" literature, where's the "cultural relativism" that is so often complained about?

Tariq Ali, Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, William Blum, Ward Churchill, etc., etc.... I've read them all, and none of them say that cultural beliefs entitle you to do as you please.

In fact, people who actually do advance cultural relativism as philosophical doctrine don't make exactly that claim either. It's positive, not normative: "moral beliefs are ultimately predicated on culture", not "we have no right to apply our morality to others." The statment that "moral beliefs are ultimately predicated on culture" isn't exactly controvesial or especially insightful. Yeah, I agree. And some moral beliefs - namely those that subjugate women and impose classism on the basis of patriarchal religion - are repugnant. My main problem is the idea that many leftists (well, alot of the ones I meet on my campus), would shout themselves hoarse demostrating for women's rights in their western democracies, but wouldn't support its active promotion for fear of imposing on foreign cultures. WE in the west are entitled to a full cmplement of rights and freedoms, but people elsewhere are not because that's not how their cultures function right now. Our western culture has only recently valued human rights and so on - that was the result of social change. And leftists should help achieve social change in abusive cultures if practical, not hush up for fear of 'contaminating' them a la star trek.

Leftists should indeed not "apologize" for this. We should not play the game in the first place.

Humanitarian justifications for war are almost as old as war itself is. But genuine humanitarian interventions are rare in the extreme--maybe, if you try really hard, you can find a few obscure cases, but the general trend is very much in the other direction. Why should we trust a government that in other contexts we admit is disproportionately influenced by wealth and power, that even formally (let alone substantively) does not represent the people of other nations, to run an interventionist foreign policy that respects human freedom and human welfare?Well, I'm not sure where you stand on the intervention in Kosovo for instance, or the non-intervention in Rwanda, and I don't know what you think of intervention in Sudan now. But arguments cosisting of a laundry-list of the faults and pathologies of western governments don't answer the immediate question "what should be done, if anything, when humanitarian crises like genocide occur?"

I definitely reject the argument that since western democracies have propped up dicatators and mucked things up inthe past, that means that they should stay resoloutely away in the future. That just doesn't make sense - I don't want cositancy with old bad policy, I want principled and consistant new good policy now. If we are to have principled foreign policy, a lack of consistancy in the past isn't an argument for isolationism now, especially when genocide is being dealt with. Also, liberal interventionism (delivered through soft power, and support of resistance movements) would occur at a much earlier stage, and different level than humanitarian intervention!! it's only when the former utterly fails that the latter is necessary.

If we really believe in democracy, why should we trust that kind of paternalism?A question that I continuously ask myself, and I think it depends on the case: how many people are about to die, and how practical and effective it would be to intervene. I don't think that military intervention should be initiated for the purpose of establishing democracy - there has to be a humanitarian or security reason - what to do with the territory afterwards is where establishing a democracy would probably be preferable to... well, establishing a plutocracy. But these should be extreme rare cases if far more effective forms of grassroots democratization are encouraged.

To the contrary, the banner of anti-imperialism can and should be used to get us to engage internationally, with those in other countries who do not appreciate foreign domination.What if there's a choice between foreign domination for a time, or collapse/opression, etc? For example, in Afghanistan if all the foreigners and foreign money in the aid community (not to mention, military) were to leave, the country's improving health system, school system, and development efforts would collapse from simple lack of resources and personel.

Again, who does this? Which major leftist figures say that, say, stoning women and gays is okay, as long as it's only done in conservative Muslim countries?Can't think of any - not to this extreme anyway. There's definitely some mistiness and aversion with the idea of actively promoting cultural change in these societies.

Anyway, thanks for the link. I'll look over the journal's articles later, but not now--I need to sleep soon.:)

...


So you advocate cultural imperialism?

What about Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who attacked the institution of private property and advocated a kind of relative equality with which any socialist would sympathize?
As a socialist, I don't really sympathise with him.

Pissing people off by taking their things just antagonises those with any kind of wealth. And since socialism is, essentially, the pursuit of human happiness, I can't really see how making people irritated fits the bill much.
Thomas Jefferson?
Owned several thousand acres of land and dozens of slaves, was into fine wines and collegiate secret societies, and the general populace owning weapons.

As to black people, he said that : "[whites and blacks]...cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them."

And of marriage between whites and blacks, he says ""the amalgamation of whites with blacks produces a degradation to which no lover of his country, no lover of excellence in the human character, can innocently consent"

Aye, massively left-wing there.
Thomas Paine?
Is a huge exception to the rule, to be fair.
John Stuart Mill?
Complete nutter, also advocated classic liberalism, which is really laissez-faire almost everything.
None of them fit neatly into modern right-wing politics.
The kind of mercantalism which classic liberalism produces is exactly the kind of thing that Ron Paul et al are in favour of.
Or Karl Marx, who generally is not regarded as a liberal thinker, but whose political, social, and economic thought was highly influenced by liberalism?
Saying that Karl Marx was highly influenced by Liberalism is like saying that Hitler was highly influenced by Communism. Yes, Marx was influenced by Liberalism in terms of that he wanted to end it.
Liberalism cannot be monopolized by the Right.
It really is a theory of the right, though. Left-liberalism is about letting people do what they want with their lives, but then taking away what they produce to help others. Liberalism is just letting everyone do what they want with their lives.

Based in the UK, and somewhat analagous (though in my opinion more lucid) to the journal Dissent on this side of the pond. It's about time leftists reclaimed the values of real liberalism - ...I'd argue that real liberalism and leftism are mutually exclusive, mainly on an economic level.

I'd argue that real liberalism and leftism are mutually exclusive, mainly on an economic level.
Genau.

Genau.Yeah, I mean if you use "real" in the sense of "original", then it's referring to "Classical Liberalism", which stresses transparent government, civil liberties, and, above all, the free market.
If, however, you're using "real" in the sense of "my", then you're wasting everyone elses time with a subjective definition.

Yeah, I mean if you use "real" in the sense of "original", then it's referring to "Classical Liberalism", which stresses transparent government, civil liberties, and, above all, the free market.
Yep.
If, however, you're using "real" in the sense of "my", then you're wasting everyone elses time with a subjective definition.
Quite.

He was of the French tradition and you paint him out to be much more left-wing than he was - he was most certainly right-wing.

Look, if "left-wing" and "right-wing" are terms we can reasonably apply to eighteenth century political thinkers, then Rousseau definitely falls roughly within the left-wing sphere.

It is he, after all, who perhaps best articulates the connection between freedom and equality that is so important to left-wing thinkers... who, exceptionally among the liberal thinkers of the time, advocates democratic legislation as the best and the most free way of running society, and includes within its framework the right to regulate private property as long as it satisfies the standards for legitimacy in law (equality of application.)

It is he who recognizes the necessarily social nature of freedom in modern society, the element that modern right-wing libertarianism overlooks entirely. It is he who rightly notes that if we really believe in any concept of equality with substantive meaning, we cannot accept a purely formal fake "equality" that makes the rich secure in their possessions and the poor secure in their poverty.

You seem to think that social conservatism is solely of the right

Social conservatism has nothing to do with this. I'm talking about property.

If you mean "influenced" in the sense that he opposed it and that his ideas go counter to the capitalist individualism inherent in liberalism, then he was "influenced" in the sense that opposites need their opposite to be opposite against.

No, that's not what I mean at all.

Marxism is not really a liberal political theory... but in many respects it either explicitly echoes liberalism or rejects elements of liberalism for very liberal reasons.

In a variety of respects, Marx argues in effect that liberal policies of the sort you refer to--"capitalist individualism"--undermine their own foundation: they are inconsistent with the notions of political legitimacy and individual autonomy upon which they are founded.

What of the individual autonomy of the laborer, compelled into labor and alienated from it? What kind of political legitimacy can we have when the state is fundamentally representative of only one class, and a minority class at that? We no longer have the public element that is so important to at least the better formulations of liberalism, that modern libertarianism prefers to ignore in any meaningful form: we just have the rule of private power.

It's too late for that, seeing as it is of the right and goes against almost everything collectivist leftists are supposed to stand for.

Ah, this is about the idiotic "collectivist"/"individualist" dichotomy, as if that had any meaning at all.

Even if I bought into that nonsense, I could still cite Rousseau, whose idea of the "general will" is almost prototypically collectivist. Of course, in arguing for the general will, he also defends individual freedom. That's his primary concern in the first part of The Social Contract, arguing against anyone who says that they have the right to take away anyone else's freedom.

Of course, that's because Rousseau, like me and unlike the right-wing liberals to which you refer, recognizes that individual freedom and collective freedom are not independent and are certainly not inconsistent, but are rather inextricably connected. If we believe in individual freedom within society, we must believe in the collective (democratic and egalitarian) freedom necessary to prevent some individuals from ruling over others.

Most forms of liberalism, of course, have always gotten this to some degree. That is why the classical liberals, unlike the right-wing libertarians who claim to inherit their position, were so concerned with government and its legitimacy.

In fact, liberalism is very much critical of the "social liberalism" (which is actually properly called social progressivism) a lot of North Americans in their ignorance seem to confuse it with.

At best this is equivocation, because the North American usage of "liberalism" is not a reference to liberal political philosophy as such. Words can, as surprising as it may be to you, have more than one meaning. To protest that one meaning is wrong because another meaning is different is stupid.

Of course, your argument here is not only equivocation, but also indicates a failure to consider the depth and breadth of liberal political philosophy... which is probably worse than mere ignorance of diversity in usage.

It's absurd to try and hone down such a hugely broad term, since it covers many areas of politics, economic and social. Many different schools of thought identified themselves as liberals, this doesn't mean they are. The only thing that really links all schools of thought together is the promotion of liberty.

Who says that? How many leftists are fond of, say, Saddam Hussein, or the Taliban?
For those familiar with the British left, it is not uncommon to see far left organisations aligning themselves with Islamism. George Galloway glorified (http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2006/07/25/galloway_glorifies_again_in_the_socialist_worker.php) Hezbollah, and the Stop the War (http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/cat_stoppers.html) movement has had Hezbollah speakers at its events. Then there is, of course, Galloway's infamous flattery of Saddam. This connection is widely recognised in moderate leftist circles - including the Democratiya journal linked, writers such as Nick Cohen, Andrew Anthony and Oliver Kamm and the Euston Manifesto.
A piece from The Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8675234) partly describes this phenomenon:
This leftist-Muslim partnership exists not just on the streets, but in the protest movement's heart. Britain's Stop the War coalition, which has organised more than 15 nationwide protests and hundreds of smaller events, was largely forged by two small, intensely committed bodies—the far-left Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Muslim Association of Britain, which is close to the international Muslim Brotherhood. These tiny groups have co-ordinated street protests by up to 1m people.

With its combination of an American-aligned foreign policy and a large, angry Muslim population, Britain is an unusual case among Western countries. But in many other places, too, Muslim grievance has been yoked to a broader anti-capitalist or anti-globalist movement whose leitmotif is loathing of the Bush administration and all its works...

Just as Britain is the heartland of the leftist-Muslim partnership, it is also the main locus of a sharp and trenchant critique of political Islam. At its toughest, the argument of a new school of anti-Islamist leftists—mainly rehearsed on the internet—is that parts of the international left are now making as colossal a mistake as they did over Soviet or Chinese communism. They have let hatred of America and capitalism blind them to darker forces.
The alliance of 'leftists' and extreme Islamists is a very real phenomenon amongst the British left. It is one which some are disgusted by - which is one of the reasons some leftists reassert genuine leftist values such as liberty and equality.

On the question of 'real' liberalism, many of these writers will identify more with the British liberal tradition. This looks back to the social liberalism of the Liberal Party and links with the social democratic wing of the Labour Party. Now you can argue semantics, but these are not classical liberals. They are simply standing up for left wing values in the face of 'anti-imperialists' who ally with Islamofascists in the fight against the Great Satan.

Pissing people off by taking their things just antagonises those with any kind of wealth.

So you're a private property absolutist? Sorry... unless you follow Proudhon I find that hard to reconcile with any kind of socialism.

Owned several thousand acres of land and dozens of slaves, was into fine wines and collegiate secret societies, and the general populace owning weapons.

I did not say he was a leftist by modern standards. I denied that he fit nicely into the generalization Fassigen made, and he didn't. Among other things, he believed in relative equality in land ownership... even through legislation.

Complete nutter, also advocated classic liberalism, which is really laissez-faire almost everything.

While not a socialist in any conventional sense, he was not particularly fond of capitalism, and his support for markets was explicitly pragmatically founded.

The kind of mercantalism which classic liberalism produces is exactly the kind of thing that Ron Paul et al are in favour of.

Neither Ron Paul nor a large portion of classical liberalism advocates mercantilism.

Saying that Karl Marx was highly influenced by Liberalism is like saying that Hitler was highly influenced by Communism. Yes, Marx was influenced by Liberalism in terms of that he wanted to end it.

That is far too simplistic an analysis.

It really is a theory of the right, though. Left-liberalism is about letting people do what they want with their lives, but then taking away what they produce to help others.

Um, no, it isn't. Plenty of left-liberals, for a start, would question whether what people attain in the capitalist market can necessarily be equated with "what they produce" in any substantive, morally relevant sense.

Liberalism is just letting everyone do what they want with their lives.

Not at all. Liberalism, for the most part, has never bought into the equivalence between individual self-determination and "letting everyone do what they want." Government, perhaps, must in some sense arise from consent--but it is not limited to the "minimal state."

...


:confused:

I know plenty that are great fans of Hassan Nasrallah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhod, and frequent apologists for all manner of vile islamists both at home and abroad under the auspices of warped muliculturalism and post-colonialism, respectively.

Yeah, people say stupid things sometimes. I'll admit that this sort of stupidity is encountered fairly often on the left. Anecdotally--though an observation I've heard echoed by others--I'd say that, contrary to the implications if not the explicit statements of the left-liberals seeking to "reclaim" leftism from mindless anti-interventionism, the truly radical left is far less prone to engage in this sort of apologetics than other segments.

My problem is not so much with the recognition of and opposition to these sentiments, because I recognize and oppose them too, but with the false dichotomy that seems to lurk underneath--the idea that the reason some sympathize with religious fundamentalism is because we are "too" skeptical of US foreign policy, or "too" anti-imperialist, and that therefore the solution to it is to move to a more supportive position with respect to interventionism.

To the contrary, I maintain that it is possible to have a radical critique of US foreign policy while at the same time in no way sympathizing with or endorsing religious fundamentalism. In fact, I would say that central to any such critique should be the recognition that US foreign policy is not now and has never been opposed to religious fundamentalism, even Muslim religious fundamentalism, as such: it is only opposed to such fundamentalism when it becomes militantly nationalist, when it begins to oppose US interests. Indeed, the US has a long record of supporting religious fundamentalism as a bulwark against secular nationalism and communism, and even with the end of the Cold War we have not retreated from this: consider Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

To portray, then, the US specifically or even the West in general as the "defender" of liberalism and human rights in the Middle East, and therefore opposition to its intervention as implicitly opposing those advances, is to distort the picture somewhat. The message is not "support democracy, woman's rights, and secularism", it is simply "obey."

The statment that "moral beliefs are ultimately predicated on culture" isn't exactly controvesial or especially insightful.

Well, certainly it is controversial: it implies that there is no absolute standard of morality by which we can judge moral beliefs. If we condemn or endorse certain cultural beliefs, we do so only on the basis of our own, not in accordance with some higher moral structure.

Yeah, I agree.

I do not, but that is another discussion.

My main problem is the idea that many leftists (well, alot of the ones I meet on my campus), would shout themselves hoarse demostrating for women's rights in their western democracies, but wouldn't support its active promotion for fear of imposing on foreign cultures.

It depends on the available means, doesn't it? We are participants in our own culture and society: we can change it, to one degree or another, directly, so this is not so much of an issue. But as pertains to a foreign country, the reaction is more passive because the options are (or appear to be) fewer: it is not as if US or Canadian citizens criticizing the homophobia of Iran or the sexism of Saudi Arabia will make the slightest difference in either country.

Complicating the matter, and returning to the more relevant point, is the fact that sometimes acknowledging human rights abuses seems to endorse unjustified interventions--for instance, plenty of leftists feel reluctant these days to criticize Iran's human rights abuses, not because they think such abuses are okay, but because they feel like they're implicitly endorsing belligerence. Certainly it is true, after all, that the human rights abuses of "enemy states" receive disproportionate attention--and certainly it is also true that such abuses are routinely used as an excuse for aggression. To choose a fairly unambiguous example, the Soviet war in Afghanistan was in part justified as a defense of women's rights... and indeed, in a certain substantive sense it was.

Perhaps we should reject this kind of thinking--I tend to think so--but it is understandable.

And leftists should help achieve social change in abusive cultures if practical, not hush up for fear of 'contaminating' them a la star trek.

Agreed, but I do not think we should do so by trusting our governments to intervene in a way that respects the welfare and rights of the inhabitants.

Well, I'm not sure where you stand on the intervention in Kosovo for instance, or the non-intervention in Rwanda, and I don't know what you think of intervention in Sudan now.

Against the first, conflicted about the other two... somewhat paradoxically, in part because we did not intervene and we do not seem likely to intervene, respectively. A reluctance to do it in the first place seems a recipe for a reluctance to do it right and in full, and an indicator that the motives are not likely to be benevolent.

But arguments cosisting of a laundry-list of the faults and pathologies of western governments don't answer the immediate question "what should be done, if anything, when humanitarian crises like genocide occur?"

No, but they tell us something about the character of foreign intervention, and about the importance of even a very imperfect international legal order. It tells us something about what our governments are actually likely to do with the powers of intervention we are supposed to give them (or at least to accept them using.)

That just doesn't make sense - I don't want cositancy with old bad policy, I want principled and consistant new good policy now.

Who doesn't? But are we going to get it? Can we trust our governments to exercise powers of intervention in a principled and consistent way--even as they has failed to do so historically, and even as we recognize that even ignoring their undemocratic elements, at best they only represents us, not the people of the target countries?

Also, liberal interventionism (delivered through soft power, and support of resistance movements) would occur at a much earlier stage, and different level than humanitarian intervention!!

But, again, do you expect the government to behave in this way? Where has it happened?

It would probably be great if Western governments were willing to give this kind of aid, competently and with a genuine eye towards helping the relevant population, at an early stage and in sufficient quantities... but we can't even get people to care about people being slaughtered en masse in Sudan. How do you expect to bring about this kind of effort long before anything so drastic happens?

What if there's a choice between foreign domination for a time, or collapse/opression, etc? For example, in Afghanistan if all the foreigners and foreign money in the aid community (not to mention, military) were to leave, the country's improving health system, school system, and development efforts would collapse from simple lack of resources and personel.

That depends on the views of the population being helped, and on the likelihood of the problems actually being solved by foreign intervention.

Can't think of any - not to this extreme anyway. There's definitely some mistiness and aversion with the idea of actively promoting cultural change in these societies.

Shouldn't there be? Isn't there a record of unjustifiable cultural imperialism on the part of the West?

I'm not saying it should stop us, but I'm saying that there are good reasons to be hesitant, to require a high standard of justification.

Yeah, I mean if you use "real" in the sense of "original", then it's referring to "Classical Liberalism", which stresses transparent government, civil liberties, and, above all, the free market.
If, however, you're using "real" in the sense of "my", then you're wasting everyone elses time with a subjective definition.Yeah, I'm guilty. Sorry about that - I guess I meant liberalism in a more simple literal meaning, not the historically loaded versions of various sorts. But I found the clarifications everyone offered useful, so thanks for that.


Yeah, people say stupid things sometimes. I'll admit that this sort of stupidity is encountered fairly often on the left. Anecdotally--though an observation I've heard echoed by others--I'd say that, contrary to the implications if not the explicit statements of the left-liberals seeking to "reclaim" leftism from mindless anti-interventionism, the truly radical left is far less prone to engage in this sort of apologetics than other segments. I want to agree. Unfortuneately there is very little that's truly radical about the typical anti-war anti-everything groups I see marching around a few times a year.

My problem is not so much with the recognition of and opposition to these sentiments, because I recognize and oppose them too, but with the false dichotomy that seems to lurk underneath--the idea that the reason some sympathize with religious fundamentalism is because we are "too" skeptical of US foreign policy, or "too" anti-imperialist, and that therefore the solution to it is to move to a more supportive position with respect to interventionism.Right, the idea is that debates of intervention, imperialism or whatever should be principled, not based on the assumptions that dissagreeing with enemies of the west is supporting the other, etc. The sad thing is that many intellectuals (Said and Chomsky among them) seem to form opinions with the assumption that US foreign policy or Western intervention is by definition, bad. Positions that should be ambivalent are turned into very strident ones.

To the contrary, I maintain that it is possible to have a radical critique of US foreign policy while at the same time in no way sympathizing with or endorsing religious fundamentalism. In fact, I would say that central to any such critique should be the recognition that US foreign policy is not now and has never been opposed to religious fundamentalism, even Muslim religious fundamentalism, as such: it is only opposed to such fundamentalism when it becomes militantly nationalist, when it begins to oppose US interests. Indeed, the US has a long record of supporting religious fundamentalism as a bulwark against secular nationalism and communism, and even with the end of the Cold War we have not retreated from this: consider Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

To portray, then, the US specifically or even the West in general as the "defender" of liberalism and human rights in the Middle East, and therefore opposition to its intervention as implicitly opposing those advances, is to distort the picture somewhat. The message is not "support democracy, woman's rights, and secularism", it is simply "obey."I agree - countries have yet to exhibit principled foreign policy consistantly, and thus labeling the West as a defender of human rights and liberalism is wrong. On a case-by-case basis though, "defender of human rights and liberalism" might be a fair description. By the same token, opponants of intervention across the board may not be implicitly against such advances, but that's what they in practice are when a justified intervention comes along. I think it's fair to ask those who oppose intervention across the board what their real motivation is: promoting democaracy, or flinging cheap shots at their governments without deep thought about the costs/benefits of a given action.

Well, certainly it is controversial: it implies that there is no absolute standard of morality by which we can judge moral beliefs. If we condemn or endorse certain cultural beliefs, we do so only on the basis of our own, not in accordance with some higher moral structure.
Yeah, I agree.
I do not, but that is another discussion.Look, it's pretty obvious that different people from different cultures have certain divergent moral beliefs, which they each hold to be unnasailably true. I also think some moral beliefs (ones that minimize suffering and maximize freedom, for instance) are more moral than others, but that's part of my moral belief system. So I dunno if "absoloute" or "higher" morals exists (and asserting that they do, and what they are, is just another moral belief to add to the pile). Be that as it may, arguing for and advocating OUR morals, while acting within those morals, is totally fair game! So I don't think it really matters which side of the cultural/moral relitivism line you stand on for the purposes of the interventionism conversation as long as you have a set of morals you like above others.

Complicating the matter, and returning to the more relevant point, is the fact that sometimes acknowledging human rights abuses seems to endorse unjustified interventions--for instance, plenty of leftists feel reluctant these days to criticize Iran's human rights abuses, not because they think such abuses are okay, but because they feel like they're implicitly endorsing belligerence. Certainly it is true, after all, that the human rights abuses of "enemy states" receive disproportionate attention--and certainly it is also true that such abuses are routinely used as an excuse for aggression. To choose a fairly unambiguous example, the Soviet war in Afghanistan was in part justified as a defense of women's rights... and indeed, in a certain substantive sense it was.

Perhaps we should reject this kind of thinking--I tend to think so--but it is understandable.What I bolded is a manifestation of the other side of the false dichotomy you mentioned earlier, and just as foolish.
I don't know why some humanitarian issues get so much more attention than others (there's probably subconcious racism involved), but even if it's the case that the real motivation is something else, I don't think we can reject the humanitarian arguments even still. Of course, real humanitarian intervention and intervention due to other motivations may look quite similar, be sold jointly, and accomplish similar things. If we care more about saving lives than whatever other concern we have (and I typically do), then it might not matter what the "true" motivation is.
Agreed, but I do not think we should do so by trusting our governments to intervene in a way that respects the welfare and rights of the inhabitants.I'm ambivalent. depends on the case. Ideally, the UN would be a more reliable arm to do this type of thing, but universal membership and imptonce make it a poor tool for both promoting democracy and intervening in humanitarian crises. Governments intervening without the UN may be seen as national vigilantism (sp?), but what other organizations are there that have anything approaching a mandate and a capability to do so? Bill Gates? Maybe an international cross-party democracy-promotion agency is needed.
Against the first, conflicted about the other two... somewhat paradoxically, in part because we did not intervene and we do not seem likely to intervene, respectively. A reluctance to do it in the first place seems a recipe for a reluctance to do it right and in full, and an indicator that the motives are not likely to be benevolent.I don't think reluctance signals poor intent - the opposite. If someone were hugely eager to intervene I would be suspicious (Iraq anyone?). Intervention is incredibly expensive and hugely risky even with the strongest political motivation. Large swaths of the electorate are against it due to conservative isolationism or distrust. Being reluctant to intervene is probalby better than being over-eager. Once a decision is made to intevene it needs to be done to maximize chances of success of course! You're sounding a bit pessimistic, verging on fatalistic here, actually.
Who doesn't? But are we going to get it? Can we trust our governments to exercise powers of intervention in a principled and consistent way--even as they has failed to do so historically, and even as we recognize that even ignoring their undemocratic elements, at best they only represents us, not the people of the target countries?So again, if not governments, who should intervene? Is it ok that 800 000 people died in Rwanda? It's not. it's not. that was an enormous failing.

But, again, do you expect the government to behave in this way? Where has it happened?

It would probably be great if Western governments were willing to give this kind of aid, competently and with a genuine eye towards helping the relevant population, at an early stage and in sufficient quantities... but we can't even get people to care about people being slaughtered en masse in Sudan. How do you expect to bring about this kind of effort long before anything so drastic happens?fatalistic, agian. I don't expect. I want to demand through a political system ,and support those that already do.
Shouldn't there be? Isn't there a record of unjustifiable cultural imperialism on the part of the West?

I'm not saying it should stop us, but I'm saying that there are good reasons to be hesitant, to require a high standard of justification.Just before you were saying that hesitance is a reason not to intervene in and of itself. I agree with this part of the post though. We have much reason to be hesitant, but also much reason to protect and assist.