News Uncovering the Hidden Motives Behind the Iraq War

[Smurf]

As your former statement would indicate the goals of the individuals responsable for US foreign policy and their level of real influence and decision making are very important.

Actually no, the idea that Americans are responsible for the actions of the US government is a macro-political view. This is almost opposite to the interactionist micro-political view that would examine individual's personal actions and reasoning.

 

[outsider]

Bush is a dupe. I don't understand how people can think him to be so much an ignorant embicile yet so very devious and clever at the same time.

Actually... the reason why he looks like such an imbecile is because he is being dishonest... the smartest crooks don't look like crooks at all... they seem to be the least likely crooks due to a foolish way about them... never get to the point and make light of situations when cornered. Highly deceitful as they will beg for mercy, then kill you the first chance they get. They will pretend to be your friend until the right time to snuff you out.

People who lie try to give reasons and explanations, but the reasons change over time and the story changes over time as the true intentions are still hidden. Now, this time it's oil. When the truth becomes apparent, a way of tying the lies with the truth are necessary... so there you go. Mastermind groups work together to plot and ploy... Amway was my experience. I've experienced my unfair share of dishonesty in my life...

this isn't my best writing, but it's hard to explain how the criminal mind works... it's a tangled web and all perceptions are skewed purposely... deny, deny, deny!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Actually... the reason why he looks like such an imbecile is because he is being dishonest... the smartest crooks don't look like crooks at all... they seem to be the least likely crooks due to a foolish way about them... never get to the point and make light of situations when cornered. Highly deceitful as they will beg for mercy, then kill you the first chance they get.[ect...]

I'm meaning he just isn't very smart at all. I'm sure you have heard about all of his failures and how he barely made it through school, he barely passed the test to enter the national guard, ect...

 

[Lisa!]

Well perhaps he's doing something good for his country, but I don't think anything in the world would be more valuable than humans' lives. He doesn't value his countryman life and his country's reputation in the world. If he wants to continue in this way, US hatred will increase more and more. And it has a negative affect on US's security and Americans' security in the world! We're always talking about how dangerous terrorism is, but we usually don't ask ourselves why terrorism exists. What's the terrorists' motivation.

 

[outsider]

I'm meaning he just isn't very smart at all. I'm sure you have heard about all of his failures and how he barely made it through school, he barely passed the test to enter the national guard, ect...

he doesn't work alone.

 

[vanesch]

I agree with Vanesch that these people in the Admin probably thought or think they are doing good but have a twisted perspective on the whole affair.

I think Bush made several errors:

1) he put his admin full of hawks and business linked people, so he should have expected a "slight push" from them from the moment there was a plan on the table to do stuff that would please these people for non-ethical reasons, such as corporate profit and military fun. He should have had the nerve to counter this pushing, or not have put these people in charge in the first place.

2) He followed the so-called neocon plan which is very macchiavellic: the aim justifies the means, even if that means lying, cheating and all that. He should have had the judgement that what he was doing was self-contradictory: he wanted to instore a democracy somewhere, while denying his own citizens their democratic rights of being correctly informed so that they can base their opinion on correctly reported facts. You believe, or you don't believe in democracy; you cannot do both at once. From this follows the entire disaster of lack of moral high ground. You cannot fight "the good cause" when you're lying and cheating ; there are not two moral standards.

3) he had a total misappreciation of the situation in the Middle East, the mentality of Arab people and all that, and he believed gullibly that Chalaby guy and others who told him that this would be a pleasure ride and a glorious moment. In fact, the same tricks he wanted to play on the American people were played upon him by true bastards.

At least, I'm still inclined to believe all this for the following reason: If it were true that Bush is a smart crook, he would have been smarter than this. He would not have worked himself into this deep ****.

The problem I have with him is twofold:
- when you hold such a high office as he does, making such mistakes cannot be allowed for. You cannot fly unpunished a 747 and admit that you never knew how to land an airplane.
- he should stop lying and cheating now. Enough harm has been done. It would be better for everybody (even himself) if he could bring himself in putting his true cards on the table.

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

Somehow I'm happy Iraqis got rid of Saddam, but I'm not sure if their situation would be better now. Anyway it was an unfair war and Bush had no right to attack Iraq.

PS I totally agree with your reasons.

Well Saddam was goin to die oneday, and they were going to get rid of him, the thing is they knew how to deal with such a situation, they coped with it...And then they r not even a country now, they r a wreck of something that was a country 2 years ago...

Some people say that Bush is an extremetist anti muslims, and wants to extreminate them, and that's why he';s doing all this reasonless crap...

Of course this has given extra reasons for other side extremists to attack the world, to revenge...

Both cases are terrorism cases, wether the war on Iraq gets its legacy from the 2 countries that funded it from the 1st place, or the other illegal communities like al qaeda and stuff...

 

[BobG]

I think Bush made several errors:

1) he put his admin full of hawks and business linked people, so he should have expected a "slight push" from them from the moment there was a plan on the table to do stuff that would please these people for non-ethical reasons, such as corporate profit and military fun. He should have had the nerve to counter this pushing, or not have put these people in charge in the first place.

Fighting a war for oil shouldn't necessarily be considered just for corporate profit. The US has become dependent on a resource controlled by foreign countries and oil affects the lives of every person in America. People are pretty riled up about the high price of gasoline and over 60% think the President can affect oil prices. It was no coincidence that Bush's first reaction to Hurricane Katrina dealt with oil and natural gas before the people in New Orleans.

Invading a Middle Eastern country hasn't been the only way the US has dealt with a need for oil. Over the years, the US has tried to shift its oil imports to countries like Mexico, Venezuela, Canada and so on. The US uses too much oil to cut out reliance on the Middle East completely and now Asia's demand for oil is increasing to the point that it gets tougher for the US to get the oil it needs at the price it needs.

2) He followed the so-called neocon plan which is very macchiavellic: the aim justifies the means, even if that means lying, cheating and all that. He should have had the judgement that what he was doing was self-contradictory: he wanted to instore a democracy somewhere, while denying his own citizens their democratic rights of being correctly informed so that they can base their opinion on correctly reported facts. You believe, or you don't believe in democracy; you cannot do both at once. From this follows the entire disaster of lack of moral high ground. You cannot fight "the good cause" when you're lying and cheating ; there are not two moral standards.

Definitely. America would have never have supported an invasion for oil. We still see ourselves as being powerful enough that only noble ideals should motivate us. It's a real come down to see the US invade a foreign country with no provocation, simply to secure resources.

Democracy can be frustrating, especially if the majority don't see things the same way you do. It doesn't always do a good job putting long range goals over short term goals.

Still, you expect a democratically elected politician to understand and deal with the problems of democracy, not circumvent them.

3) he had a total misappreciation of the situation in the Middle East, the mentality of Arab people and all that, and he believed gullibly that Chalaby guy and others who told him that this would be a pleasure ride and a glorious moment. In fact, the same tricks he wanted to play on the American people were played upon him by true bastards.

I think carnies and shuysters have a saying, "You can't cheat an honest man" (the easiest person to cheat is someone looking to take advantage of an easy mark). The goal was to find evidence justifying an invasion of Iraq. The conclusion to invade was made before the search for evidence ever began. In that sense, it wasn't gullibility that lead the administration to rely on Chalabi - it's that accuracy just didn't matter.

Still, considering how things in Iraq have gone, Bush clearly did not have an appreciation of things in Iraq.

 

[Lisa!]

Well Saddam was goin to die oneday, and they were going to get rid of him, the thing is they knew how to deal with such a situation, they coped with it...And then they r not even a country now, they r a wreck of something that was a country 2 years ago...

Some people say that Bush is an extremetist anti muslims, and wants to extreminate them, and that's why he';s doing all this reasonless crap...

Of course this has given extra reasons for other side extremists to attack the world, to revenge...

Both cases are terrorism cases, wether the war on Iraq gets its legacy from the 2 countries that funded it from the 1st place, or the other illegal communities like al qaeda and stuff...

Yeah, I agree with you. You should't take me wrong and think I supports this war. I knew Bush didn't attack Iraq in order to help Iraqies to get rid of Saddam. I was just mentioning the only positive point of this war. I was upset for a long time because of this war and I don't accept any of US' excuses and reasons in starting this war. And I think Iraq's situation is even worse than before. You know some people say that US has to stay in Iraq now Otherwise Iraq's situation would get worse. I don't agree with them . I think US is trying to make us think like that.

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

I understand u don't support the war Lisa, don't worry about it. I was saying that it's not even that positive to get rid of Saddam...There r many other negative aspects...

 

[Lisa!]

Yeah, it's nothing in compare with negative aspects.

 

[alexandra]

The population of the United States is perfectly responsible for the actions of the governing body that represents them. I can't see any way you could make a case against this, how can americans not be responsible?

Good question, Smurf. Here is my reasoning:

There are two reasons why I say US citizens are not to blame: firstly, a very large number of them seem to have wanted to change government, but for one reason or another their votes didn't count/do the job (they lacked the power). Surely you cannot hold these people, who are just as anti- the current foreign policy, responsible for what their government is doing?

Secondly, there is the other group of ordinary citizens... those who do not have a very good education and who don't really understand that this administration is ruling against their own interests. And here are the reasons why I think they can't see what's happening:

It seems to me that US citizens are subjected to huge (HUGE) amounts of pro-capitalist propaganda (this is just what I believe from my observation of the kinds of media channels they seem to have common access to and from readings I have done in sociology etc). The propaganda starts from birth. The US school system does not seem to teach critical thinking skills about some things, especially when it comes to questioning the US government itself (not that this is much taught in other countries either). The very fact that ID is even being considered for inclusion in the *science syllabus* in the US seems to point to the situation becoming worse (if science is being weakened in the science school syllabus, what hope is there that the new generation will learn to think objectively?).

Patriotism is pushed at all times - for sure, other countries (the ones I have lived in) are not at all as patriotic as the US seems to me to be. Patriotism is like religion: it is blind. People who have neither the tools (critical thinking skills) nor the freedom ("You're either with us or against us") to think cannot really be held responsible for the actions of their leaders. What they *are* responsible for is the fact that they don't somehow manage to see that they are being subjected to all this propaganda and that they don't somehow develop critical thinking skills by themselves. But it's a hard ask, isn't it?

Socialisation theory tells us that whatever values you manage to instill in children in the primary stage (between ages 0 and about 5 or 7) are most likely to become core values throughout life. What do US kids learn? They seem to learn to become consumers (one of my references: 'The Corporation' DVD, but I have read a lot about this issue too). TV advertising deliberately attempts to foster this: advertising companies even hire child psychologists to do research and tell them how to best 'nab' children and make them consumers from a young age - 'The Corporation' DVD has an interesting section on this issue. Individualism, competition, consumerism... these are the values. Not 'think for yourself' or 'justice'... People become what they are shaped to become.

All the above are my considered opinions - my interpretation (based on readings and general observations) of why things are as they are. I did not mean to offend anyone, and I hope no-one takes offence. I am merely presenting the case for my argument, as Smurf asked me to do.

alex

EDIT: To put my argument in more technical political terminology - the American working class has not developed a consciousness of itself as a class. It seems to be completely taken in by bourgeois ideology. But then look at all the powerful forces working against its ever developing its class consciousness... not to say that this can't and/or won't happen. It's just going to be hard.

 

[Art]

To put my argument in more technical political terminology - the American working class has not developed a consciousness of itself as a class. It seems to be completely taken in by bourgeois ideology. But then look at all the powerful forces working against its ever developing its class consciousness... not to say that this can't and/or won't happen. It's just going to be hard.

It's like when the conservative party get elected to power in England - I always likened it to turkeys voting for christmas.

 

[alexandra]

It's like when the conservative party get elected to power in England - I always likened it to turkeys voting for christmas.

That's a *wicked* sense of humour you have, Art.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

There are two reasons why I say US citizens are not to blame:

There is a difference between responsability and blame.

 

[Smurf]

Good question, Smurf. Here is my reasoning:

There are two reasons why I say US citizens are not to blame: firstly, a very large number of them seem to have wanted to change government, but for one reason or another their votes didn't count/do the job (they lacked the power). Surely you cannot hold these people, who are just as anti- the current foreign policy, responsible for what their government is doing?

This is the major difference between our ideologies (marxism vs. anarchism). You view the people as victims of society, I view the people as being a part of society and having social responsibility, especially to direct democracy. It is not enough to simply say "I voted". That's not democracy, (rule by people) that's choosing your dictator. The American people, as a nation and general populous, are weak. This is not to say that because Joe Blog is an american, and therefor he is weak; but the American people, as a people, have utterly failed at defending their own country from tyranny (so far).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

This is the major difference between our ideologies (marxism vs. anarchism). You view the people as victims of society, I view the people as being a part of society and having social responsibility, especially to direct democracy. It is not enough to simply say "I voted". That's not democracy, (rule by people) that's choosing your dictator. The American people, as a nation and general populous, are weak. This is not to say that because Joe Blog is an american, and therefor he is weak; but the American people, as a people, have utterly failed at defending their own country from tyranny (so far).

I look at it as a pass the buck mentality. If things don't go the way they want them all people do, for the most part, is say "That's not what he said in his campaign." or "I didn't vote for him." It's the same with paying taxes for social programs. They automatically assume that money will do what it is supposed to so now they don't have to help their community themselves. And ofcourse when it comes out that the money didn't go where it was supposed to it's time to pass the buck again. "It's not my responsability."

 

[Smurf]

I look at it as a pass the buck mentality. If things don't go the way they want them all people do, for the most part, is say "That's not what he said in his campaign." or "I didn't vote for him." It's the same with paying taxes for social programs. They automatically assume that money will do what it is supposed to so now they don't have to help their community themselves. And ofcourse when it comes out that the money didn't go where it was supposed to it's time to pass the buck again. "It's not my responsability."

It's the damn service economy, it doesn't solve problems any more, you just move them around

 

[SOS2008]

Bush wanted to remove Saddam before 9-11, and neocons in his administration (previously listed elsewhere, such as Wolfowitz) capitalized upon this. Bush is not the sharpest tool in the shed IMO, and as stated above this is concluded from his track record of failures in his life, very poor verbal skills, etc. I agree with TSA that he is manipulated, but at the same time I believe he has gone through life denying truth, acting the big man, etc. so contributes his fair share to the problem.

As for responsibility for the mess, the buck stops at the top, but at the same time plenty of Americans are to blame. The media is to blame, the neocons are to blame, the greedy multinationals are to blame, the fundamentalists are to blame, the apathetic are to blame, etc. I agree with posts above that socialization in America is part of the problem--that Americans don't invest much time and effort in learning what is going on around them and in the world, so don't recognize poor policies--often even when it it bites them in the arse. Those that they do try to 'question authority' are suppressed by "overweight Americans in patriotic jumpsuits" as the lyrics go--after all even discussing politics is not PC. There is a 'cultural problem' here IMO.

Since I believe the 2000 and 2004 elections were rigged enough to help Bush win in these close elections, however, I don't feel these elections can be used as an indicator of American support of Bush and his policies. If we don't see improvement in the upcoming elections of 2006 and 2008, I'll have to see if someone will sponsor me so I can move to another country.

 

[Skyhunter]

I look at it as a pass the buck mentality. If things don't go the way they want them all people do, for the most part, is say "That's not what he said in his campaign." or "I didn't vote for him." It's the same with paying taxes for social programs. They automatically assume that money will do what it is supposed to so now they don't have to help their community themselves. And ofcourse when it comes out that the money didn't go where it was supposed to it's time to pass the buck again. "It's not my responsability."

Excellent observation.

One of the main reasons I feel we need a grassroots change in the way we elect our leaders. We need to motivate people to become involved in the process in a more meaningful way than voting every two or four years and then blaming the government for not living up to our expectations.

I know that I am one of the guilty parties here. It is so easy to just blame Bush and then have another latte.

 

[Smurf]

I know that I am one of the guilty parties here.

I'm not, and quite proud of it.

Pengwuino sucks more

 

[SOS2008]

http://hnn.us/articles/3015.html

Review of Chalmers Johnson's The Sorrows of Empire
By Stanley Kutler

Johnson, president of the Japan Policy Research Institute and professor emeritus at UC San Diego, is a formidable writer whose many books have garnered considerable acclaim. His work on the Japanese postwar political economy is unrivaled.

Blowback, his study of the unintended consequences of U.S. overseas military and political adventures, published before Sept. 11, 2001, proved prescient. It forms the backdrop for this new and eagerly awaited work.

…Today's leaders bristle at being characterized as imperialists yet curiously wax nostalgic about the good old days of the British Empire. …Why did the British retreat from their empire in the 1950s, and why did the Soviets leave Afghanistan in the 1980s?

…Although Iraq is not Vietnam, our experience in Indochina should have taught us the limits of our ability to be the world's policeman. We could not impose our will and force people to surrender their aspirations for independence and freedom (by their lights) only to become our client. Alas, those lessons now seem lost, even overwhelmed as House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) confidently asserts that we would have won the Vietnam War had George W. Bush been president. [ <-- added]

…Now a determined group of policymakers has induced amnesia on the subject. It doesn't acknowledge limits to U.S. power. In fact, Johnson describes how its members have launched a new era, with President Bush instituting preemptive war as the foundation of our international role and insisting that the United States offers the "single sustainable model for national success," one that is "right and true for every person in every society."

…Johnson seeks to hoist the "neo-conservatives" with their own petard. They love, he writes, to breathe the air of "originalism" in the Constitution, yet they openly reject the framers' wisdom. James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," wrote in 1793: "In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not the executive... The trust and the temptation would be too great for anyone man."

Yet President Bush unilaterally declared a long war against terrorism. Johnson notes that a White House spokesman at the time remarked that the president "considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason." Treason? In his campaign, Bush joked in October 2000, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." After Sept. 11, he told a reporter: "I'm the commander - see, I don't need to explain - I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." So much for James Madison.

Johnson has given us a polemic, but one soundly grounded in an impressive array of facts and data. The costs of empire are our sorrow, he contends.
He anticipates a state of perpetual war, involving more military expenditures and overseas expansion, and presidents who will continue to eclipse or ignore Congress. He documents a growing system of propaganda, disinformation and glorification of war and military power. Finally, he fears economic bankruptcy as the president underwrites these adventures with a congressional blank check while neglecting growing problems of education, health care and a decaying physical infrastructure.

 

[alexandra]

This is the major difference between our ideologies (marxism vs. anarchism). You view the people as victims of society, I view the people as being a part of society and having social responsibility, especially to direct democracy. It is not enough to simply say "I voted". That's not democracy, (rule by people) that's choosing your dictator. The American people, as a nation and general populous, are weak. This is not to say that because Joe Blog is an american, and therefor he is weak; but the American people, as a people, have utterly failed at defending their own country from tyranny (so far).

I think I've given the wrong impression re-Marxism. Voting in western two party 'democracies', as you say, gives only a choice between dictators (and it is, in any case, no real choice since both major parties are clearly representatives of capital - I think I've mentioned before that I see no real difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican or, in Australia, between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party). The key difference between you and I may be more that I see no other option for a revolutionary change than the working class becoming aware of itself as a class and acting in its class interest (ie. not voting in either of the parties representing capital but organising their own political party). I agree with you, Smurf - people are responsible for shaping their society. They have failed (so far). I just put it down to the failure of the working class to figure out what is in its own interests (so I agree they have failed, but I also say why I think they have failed). It's more the 'liberal' in me (which I try to fight, but not always successfully) that sees people as 'victims'; this view is certainly not marxist! And it's good that you remind me when I give into my more middle class 'liberal' leanings; Marxists should be a lot more plain-speaking than I sometimes am. So here - I'll state my agreement with you more clearly: as you say, people in 'western democracies' (not only the US, but also in the UK and in Australia) have failed to defend themselves from tyranny. Unless they challenge and change the very structure of the entire economic and political system, they will continue to fail.

 

[Smurf]

Then we agree
Really though, I don't see how North America especially is capable of this change. There is a century of precedence of things like red scare in mass propoganda preventing them from accepting any of these ideas into their culture. Look at what townsend said in another thread:

It's the same thing with nearly all democrats!

I would love nothing more than to be able to vote for a dem for next election but they need to represent my views before I will vote for them.

Too many people cannot stand the idea of anti-gun, anti-hunting, progressive tax, bigger government,... the list goes on. On a whole tonne of issues I go the way of the dems... I want funding for stem cells, I want to give women the right to choose if they want to have an abortion,... and the list goes on.

I really don't like the idea of having a religious president in office. I want a president that can actually give a decent speech without making an a$$ out of himself most of the time. I also know that Kerry or Gore would have been those things...

Alas I could not vote for either...why? Government is downward inflexible. It is a lot easier to make laws than it is to repeal laws. I have always been fearful of some ultra left wing president taking away too many of my personal liberties. Increasing taxes on income, sales, and investments, making more government programs...more bureaucrats, less private industries...and the list goes on.

Frankly that scares the crap of me!


You might not understand that but I hope it answers your question to at least some degree.

That's not a personal belief, that's the result of a culture who's been told that communists eat their babies right up until the 70s, just a few years before I was born AND I WASN'T OLD ENOUGH TO VOTE JUST A MONTH AGO. North America is doomed, Canada only slightly less than the USA. (hey, at least we don't patent higher life forms you capitalistic bastards!)
(this is my cynical-depressive side, not my anarchist side)

 

[Art]

Alex - the closest to working class members getting together to gain a greater voice in the class war against the owners of capital is the trade union movement.

Now I don't know if you have ever been a member of a trade union but I have and I can tell you without fear of contradiction that the vast majority of people who claw their way to the top of these organisations are the most corrupt, bullying, self-serving, pigheaded, greedy and undemocratic people you will ever meet in your life.

IMO they are people who probably had management ambitions but were considered too extreme rightwing to be considered for promotion in their companies and so seek other alternative career paths to gain power and to vent their spite against the employers who failed to recognise their talents.

In conclusion I cannot think of a single example in modern times where 'workers' have united and actually benefitted from the experience. It's nice in theory but in practice human nature always gets in the way.

 

[alexandra]

Then we agree
Really though, I don't see how North America especially is capable of this change. There is a century of precedence of things like red scare in mass propoganda preventing them from accepting any of these ideas into their culture. Look at what townsend said in another thread:
That's not a personal belief, that's the result of a culture who's been told that communists eat their babies right up until the 70s, just a few years before I was born AND I WASN'T OLD ENOUGH TO VOTE JUST A MONTH AGO. North America is doomed, Canada only slightly less than the USA. (hey, at least we don't patent higher life forms you capitalistic bastards!)
(this is my cynical-depressive side, not my anarchist side)

Uh-oh, Smurf. I recently went through a very debilitating cynical-depressive mood (those are even worse than my 'liberal' tendencies - but at least more based on reality). Get back to the anarchism asap!

 

[alexandra]

Alex - the closest to working class members getting together to gain a greater voice in the class war against the owners of capital is the trade union movement.

Now I don't know if you have ever been a member of a trade union but I have and I can tell you without fear of contradiction that the vast majority of people who claw their way to the top of these organisations are the most corrupt, bullying, self-serving, pigheaded, greedy and undemocratic people you will ever meet in your life.

IMO they are people who probably had management ambitions but were considered too extreme rightwing to be considered for promotion in their companies and so seek other alternative career paths to gain power and to vent their spite against the employers who failed to recognise their talents.

In conclusion I cannot think of a single example in modern times where 'workers' have united and actually benefitted from the experience. It's nice in theory but in practice human nature always gets in the way.

Hey, Art - I couldn't agree with you more about trade union leaderships and organisations. Trade unions are by their very nature flawed organisations - they accept the premises of the exploitation of labour without question: they never challenge the capitalist system of slave labour Marx, for instance, never saw trade unions as having the slightest potential to secure the long-term interests of the working class. At best, he saw trade unions as organisations in which workers could learn organisational skills that they could then use to organise their own political party. Trade unions have always (always) been used by capital to control the labour force.

Human nature is what we make it - it's not biological. I know this statement is going to open a can of worms (we've argued about this before, people - remember? So don't start... )

alex

 

[Art]

Hey, Art - I couldn't agree with you more about trade union leaderships and organisations. Trade unions are by their very nature flawed organisations - they accept the premises of the exploitation of labour without question: they never challenge the capitalist system of slave labour Marx, for instance, never saw trade unions as having the slightest potential to secure the long-term interests of the working class. At best, he saw trade unions as organisations in which workers could learn organisational skills that they could then use to organise their own political party. Trade unions have always (always) been used by capital to control the labour force.

Human nature is what we make it - it's not biological. I know this statement is going to open a can of worms (we've argued about this before, people - remember? So don't start... )

alex

Don't you think this 'political party' is going to be controlled by the same individuals who currently hold sway in the trade union movement?

Personally I think capitalism is the best of a bad bunch if it is properly regulated and controlled. All socialist systems lead to the flight of capital and stagnation and I don't mean the former leading to the latter. The stagnation is due to the lack of motivation. Very, very few people truly get their highs from unselfishly helping others particularly if it is at a tangible cost to themselves.

I know you think it is all about early conditioning but I disagree. Competition and the desire to climb to the top of the heap is in our genes. Probably because it is necessary for the survival of our species.

[Edit]Apart from ignoring human nature the other catastrophic flaw in socialist ideolgy is the self evident mistaken belief that 'all men are created equal'. Some are born stronger, some faster, some cleverer and some even better looking. These inate differences will manifest themselves in inequalities throughout a person's life no matter what political doctrine is followed.

 

[alexandra]

Don't you think this 'political party' is going to be controlled by the same individuals who currently hold sway in the trade union movement?

This happened in the Soviet Union. Stalin managed to oust the Left Opposition and to gain totalitarian control. It is a danger that must always be guarded against. The 'soviets' obviously did not do their jobs - but people would have to be active participants in their local communities and also in the wider society (truly democratic structures would have to be set up at a 'grassroots' level). I think one of the other keys may be in education (well, that's also what the Left Opposition in the Soviet Union thought): people must be highly educated and intelligent enough to see through the plays for power. They must be ready and willing to protect their society against tyranny And they must never forget that their strength lies in unity. Because of these and a complexity of additional reasons (eg. economic), the first worker's revolution (the Russian one, I mean) failed.

Personally I think capitalism is the best of a bad bunch if it is properly regulated and controlled. All socialist systems lead to the flight of capital and stagnation and I don't mean the former leading to the latter. The stagnation is due to the lack of motivation. Very, very few people truly get their highs from unselfishly helping others particularly if it is at a tangible cost to themselves.

I believe that socialism cannot be achieved at a 'national' level. This is precisely what Trotsky was arguing, and why he started the international workers' movement. You are right that in a capitalist world, islands of socialism cannot survive. But I disagree with you that stagnation would occur due to lack of motivation. I think we are conditioned to be motivated by money and for individualistic gain; I don't believe this is natural. It just seems to be so because that is the sort of society we have been born into, these are the only ideas that have ever been granted legitimacy, this is the propaganda that permeates all our social institutions, etc. If capitalism truly is the only option, I'm afraid the human species is doomed - there is no such thing as a benevolent capitalism, and since political power is so intricately connected to economic power in this system, there is no way that capitalists will ever allow their activities to be regulated and controlled. That would eat into their profits!

I know you think it is all about early conditioning but I disagree. Competition and the desire to climb to the top of the heap is in our genes. Probably because it is necessary for the survival of our species.

Sometimes the survival of a species depends on cooperation (eg. colonies of bees and ants have to cooperate, I believe). Even if the survival of humanity did not, in the past, depend on cooperation, I really believe it does now. Environmental and social problems are now global in this 'globalised' world. You can't get away with polluting someone else's air - it's going to come back to bite you. If it is true that our genetic material makes us be competitive and greedy, and if we do not overcome these 'natural drives' (just assuming you are correct), we will not overcome the pressing problems facing us and so will not survive. These are my beliefs/opinions.

 

[alexandra]

[Edit]Apart from ignoring human nature the other catastrophic flaw in socialist ideolgy is the self evident mistaken belief that 'all men are created equal'. Some are born stronger, some faster, some cleverer and some even better looking. These inate differences will manifest themselves in inequalities throughout a person's life no matter what political doctrine is followed.

But a socialist does not believe that all are born equal - just that everyone should be given an environment and opportunities with which to realize whatever potential they have. I think there is a misperception that socialism/communism does not value individuals. This is not true - I would argue it is the only ideology that values individuals: and that it is the only one that could provide the social conditions that will allow one's individual potential to become realized. Ideology followed by capitalists purports to value the individual - but how many individuals to you see around you, Art? Isn't everyone doing the same thing (making money to buy the latest fashion goods, to buy the latest model car, to buy a house, etc, etc - 'to buy')? How much creativity do you see in our societies? How much knowledge (or even desire for knowledge)? Hmm, I wonder if I've stated this clearly...?