What Do Totalitarians Do When They Gain Power Democratically?

[shira]

<snip>


Now we are on to the fourth point. When totalitarians take power, by election or other means, they proceed to consolidate power. There are ways to do this other than lining up all of your opponents and shooting them or chopping off their heads. The strategy is to take control of national institutions, transform the national debate, use the amount of repression that’s necessary, and pursue populist policies (both economic and demagogic) to win mass support. This is what the Turkish model is all about. After several years you get reelected; or, in Iran’s case, steal the election; or, in the Palestinian Authority’s and Hamas’s case, stop holding elections altogether.

<snip>

–Education. Textbooks to be rewritten; the principle that Islam is the only proper religion to be made as central as possible; all teaching of Islam according to their interpretation. Christians and Jews are evil; non-Muslims are enemies; Israel is demonic and must be destroyed. Teachers and administrators who reject their program of indoctrination to be fired; opportunists and careerists will go along.

–Government bureaucracies. The hiring of as many ideological supporters as possible; those who go along will be promoted; those who don’t will be fired or pushed aside. Requirements to be altered so that religious educational certificates will be made equal to academic education degrees in qualifying for high posts. If your wife doesn’t wear a hijab forget about being promoted.

–Media. Government control over state-run media will be renewed and strengthened. Licenses, censorship, subsidies, the whole panoply of government powers will be applied to reward flatterers and punish critics. If necessary, riots will be organized, threats made, fines imposed on those who don’t toe the line, though some margin of freedom will be permitted as long as it threatens nothing.

more...
http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/11/25/what-do-totalitarians-do-when-they-gain-power-democratically/

[shira]

1. Distorting the truth in the Middle East

Every day in the Middle East, terrible things happen. The worst are the acts of violence and oppression. The second worst are the lies and distortions of truth that help ensure things don’t get better. Every day in the West, the lies are echoed and amplified, and new ones invented. This not only helps ensure things don’t get better in the Middle East, it guarantees they will get worse in the West.

There is an ancient Navaho proverb that explains this phenomenon: You cannot awaken someone who is only pretending to be asleep. Or in other words, someone who deliberately believes a lie cannot be convinced of the truth. Such people have abandoned professional ethics, democratic and intellectual norms. They are propagandists and supporters of authoritarian and bloody regimes.

<snip>

In the words of the Greek playwright Euripides, though many have said something similar, “Those whom God wishes to destroy, he first deprives of their senses.”

Those who willfully misinterpret events in the Middle East are setting up their own destruction. Perhaps the real reason they cannot forgive Israel is that it does not choose to join them in this endeavor.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=242890

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Same can be said about the neocons.

[shira]

4. Definitely. n/t

[vminfla]

84. non sequitur

let's stay focused on the topic at hand.

[shira]

2. The Arab Political Left and the Islamist Drive for Power

<snip>

So the Arab Left is not the polar opposite of the Islamists for several reasons:

–Like the Islamists, the Left hates the old regime.

–The Left agrees a lot with the Islamists on international issues. It wants to wipe out Israel, expel Western influence, and views external imperialism (rather than a failure of internal reform and progress) as the cause of their country’s stagnation. It may not use violence itself but is bloodthirsty in rhetoric on international issues.

–Generally, the Left does not feel comfortable with the liberal moderates. There is no sign of a united front against Islamism, paralleling the Stalinists’ United Front Against Fascism between 1933 and 1939, and then again between 1941 and 1945.

–Indeed, there is far more willingness to work with the Islamists than one finds among liberal groups (though there is more even in that camp than a Western observer might expect). Here I refer mainly to Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria. In the Syrian opposition, for example, leftists are far more likely to be satellites of the Islamists than are liberal moderates.

–There is an exaggerated confidence that the Left can manipulate the Islamists, though to an external observer this seems suicidal. In part the Left’s misconception is due to ideological and socially snobbish arrogance—Islamism is reactionary, outdated and thus sure to fail, the ideology of fools and peasants, the doctrine of those who foolishly cling to their guns and religion. But those guns can kill and that religion is a powerful motivator of the masses.

In Tunisia, there are two significant Leftist parties: Congress for the Republic (CPR) won 30 seats and the Ettakatol won 21 seats in the 217-member parliament. That total of 51 constitutes almost 25 percent, far more than the 36 gained by the two main liberal parties.

Why did Tunisians vote for the Left? I would guess—though I don’t know—that they did so more out of hope that these parties would stand up for the country’s relatively liberal and secular society than because of agreement with their ideologies or because they wanted socialism.

If that’s true, however, those voters miscalculated. The two Leftist parties are ready to enter into an Islamist-led coalition. Of course, they could argue they must constrain the Islamists. What’s clear, however, is that their leaders are also willing to be apologists, assuring everyone that the Islamists are really moderate. It is left to the liberals to ring the warning bells.

So will the Left get eaten up by the Islamists or play a role of junior partner, get some of the things they want, and slow down the Islamization of society? Only time will tell.

<snip>

http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/11/06/the-arab-political-left-and-the-islamist-drive-for-power/

[shira]

5. Why Don’t Western Elites Get the Middle East? Because They Think It’s Just Like Them (Sort of)

I’ve come to realize a hitherto hidden dimension of why it is so hard for Western establishment figures (policymakers, journalists, and academics) to understand the Middle East. It is the conflict between the thirst for good news and the reality of bad news.

Being optimists (based on the relatively good course of their own societies?) and believing that positive change is really easy if people only put their minds to making it happen (ditto and also liberal thinking), they exaggerate any sign that things are getting better.

Moreover, contemporary thinking trembles in horror about saying anything critical about Third World peoples (racism, Islamophobia) while it is considered noble to criticize “ourselves.” On top of that is the assumption that no one can really be radical. They are just responding to past mistreatment and will revert to being moderate the minute the oppression is corrected.

So constantly we are led to an artificial optimism that ignores threats or even converts them into benefits.

How many examples I see every day!

A group of young Palestinians in Fatah, who explicitly say they want to wipe out Israel, form a new group and–hocus-pocus–we are informed that this is the long-awaited Palestinian equivalent of the dovish Israeli Peace Now movement!

We are told that the Libyan masses are fighting for democracy against dictator Muammar Qadhafi and suddenly we have prisoners being tortured and murdered, arms being sold to terrorists elsewhere, gun battles among factions, and a radical Islamist state emerging.

In Turkey the regime arrests hundreds of people, represses the media, pushes women out of government jobs, promotes antisemitism and, voila!, it is first called moderate Muslim (they deny it is Islamist) and then promoted (?) to moderate Islamist!

Radicals (except in the West?) are apparently representatives of backward, irrational, primitive societies and so if all Third World societies are equal to those of the West they just can’t have such people. Everyone must be a moderate, concerned about global warming and ecology; dedicated to democracy; and passionate about getting more material goods as the highest goal in life.

It never ceases to amaze me that those who most loudly proclaim Multiculturalism, diversity, and the equality of all societies simply can’t seem to comprehend that cultures and societies are different. They are in fact diverse! Living 40 years under Muammar Qadhafi in a semi-literate, tribal-based society does not create people like those on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. And not even the Upper West Side for that matter.

Equally ironic, is that while Western elites are quick to look down on their own unwashed masses (bitterly clinging to their guns, religion, and hating outsiders, right?), they fail to comprehend that this is precisely the central theme throughout the Middle East and many other parts of the world.

Perhaps I should suggest an amazing new formula that would make it easy for Western elites to understand what’s going on in the Middle East:

Just think of the Islamists in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Turkey; the regimes in Iran and Syria; Hamas, Hizballah, and even the Palestinian Authority as being like the…Tea Party!

Scary, huh?

http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/11/18/why-don’t-western-elites-get-the-middle-east-because-they-think-it’s-just-like-them-sort-of/

[tabatha]

6. What a load of crap

"We are told that the Libyan masses are fighting for democracy against dictator Muammar Qadhafi and suddenly we have prisoners being tortured and murdered, arms being sold to terrorists elsewhere, gun battles among factions, and a radical Islamist state emerging."

"and a radical Islamist state" - did you notice that Belhaj was not appointed to the new government, and most of them have spent time in the West? They have repeatedly stated that they are MODERATE. There is nothing effing radical about Libya.

"being sold to terrorists elsewhere" - there are people from the West on the ground helping to keep weapons under control. If anything is being sold. it is NOT the policy of the govt. They discovered undeclared chemical weapons and immediately reported them to the West.

"gun battles among factions" - there are gun battles between factions all over the world, even in the US. There have been two skirmishes recently in Libya, and in one of them, the two groups met and one side apologized to the other.

"prisoners being tortured" - this is NOT the policy of the TNC and it is being investigated and stopped.

Democracy is messy, especially after a war. How much of the above goes on the US, after some 200 years of democracy? I could make exactly the same case against the US including selling arms to bad guys. So, yes, the "middle east is just like them, sort of". Full of the good and the bad, where the bad of the West covers all of the above charges. And I would add, the West lies and makes crappy allegations against others without looking in the mirror.

The arrogance of the West and the author.

[shira]

7. Libyan leader's embrace of Sharia raises eyebrows

At a rally on Sunday in Benghazi, National Transitional Council leader Mustafa Abdul Jalil said, "As a Muslim country, we have adopted the Islamic Sharia as the main source of law. Accordingly, any law that contradicts Islamic principles with the Islamic Sharia is ineffective legally."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/26/world/africa/libya-sharia/index.html

That's pretty clear, and very very bad - especially for Libyans who will suffer under that.

But as I understand it, Leftists have no big problem with this and supports it fully. So long as Libya is anti-western, anti-Israel, anti-capitalist then no matter how extreme, rightwing and fascist Libya becomes, they're a natural ally to the Left (the enemy of my enemy, etc.) and the tyrants in charge (whether secular or Islamist) can be as brutal to others as they wish. Useful idiots (Western elitists) will just hope for the best and pretend all is well despite evidence to the contrary....

[tabatha]

8. More crap.

You must have missed this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2374387


Also, read up about Sharia here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
and read the paragraph: "Contemporary practice"


"as Libya is anti-western, anti-Israel, anti-capitalist"
wrong again - Libya is pro-West, not anti-capitalist and not anti-Israel.
(btw, there are people on this board who are anti-capitalist --- oooh the horrors)


The below has to be one of the worst and most incorrect statements I have ever read - and completely baseless. It is a Rush Limbaugh-type statement of sheer mendacity:
"But as I understand it, Leftists have no big problem with this and supports it fully. So long as Libya is anti-western, anti-Israel, anti-capitalist then no matter how extreme, rightwing and fascist Libya becomes, they're a natural ally to the Left (the enemy of my enemy, etc.) and the tyrants in charge (whether secular or Islamist) can be as brutal to others as they wish. Useful idiots (Western elitists) will just hope for the best and pretend all is well despite evidence to the contrary...."

[shira]

9. You're hoping there is such a thing as a moderate Muslim Brotherhood...

And the best you have is to kick and scream as if you're debating Rush Limbaugh. FTR Rush idiotically equates all liberals with the extreme totalitarian Left.

:eyes:

Here's a well respected (albeit virtually unknown) Leftist/Marxist on how pathetic the Left's worldview is WRT what we're discussing...

But that doesn’t mean that I think the sad excuse of much of the European Left is any better (even though I myself am on the Left).

It is an anti-colonial movement whose perspectives coincide with that of the ruling classes in the so-called Third World. This grouping is on the side of the ‘colonies’ no matter what goes on there. And their understanding of the ‘colonies’ is Eurocentric, patronising and even racist. In the world according to them, the people in these countries are one and the same with the regimes they are struggling against just as the ‘Muslim community’ here is one and the same with reactionary Islamic organisations, Sharia councils, and parasitical imams. Which is why at Stop the War Coalition demonstrations, they carry banners saying ‘We are all Hezbollah;’ at meetings they segregate men and women and urge unveiled women to veil out of ‘solidarity’ and ‘respect’.

This type of politics denies universalism, sees rights as ‘western,’ justifies the suppression of rights, freedoms and equality under the guise of respect for other ‘cultures’ implying that people want to live the way they are forced to and imputing on innumerable people the most reactionary elements of culture and religion, which is that of the ruling class.

In this type of politics, the oppressor is victim and any criticism racist…

http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/2009/10/pathetic-excuse-of-much-of-european.html

So tell me before we move on, what do you think of those people Maryam Namazie is describing?

Are you one of them?

[tabatha]

11. People can have opinions right or wrong.

I listen to what Libyans say about their country and not what non-Libyans say about Libya.

Sorry.

[shira]

13. What do you say to LIbyans who do not want to be ruled under Sharia? How do you listen to them?

Further, does Maryam Namazie describe you and your movement in that paragraph cited for you?

[tabatha]

16. This is not about me. And I don't have a movement.

And find an article that states that Libyans do not want Sharia, and I will happily read it.

[shira]

18. "Find an article that states that Libyans do not want Sharia"....

You believe all Libyans want sharia, from women to children, gays, religious minorities, etc.

And that's the problem Namazie addresses...

[tabatha]

20. I have not seen anything otherwise.

Repeat - provide the information, and I will read it and remember it.

I believe, from what I have read, that Libya wants a system much like Turkey.

They have also said over and over again that they are moderates.

However, there is a small number who are not moderates.

Those are the conclusions I have gathered from what I have read.

[shira]

26. Will Libya's Revolution Bring About Sharia Law?

http://www.alternet.org/world/153099/will_libya%27s_revolution_bring_about_sharia_law?page=entire

November 16, 2011 |

The announced introduction of Islamic law in post-Gaddafi Libya has drawn strong opposition from women, the non-religious and the Amazigh minority.

"Sharia means to live in full harmony with the law of God, and that is the most natural thing for a Muslim," explains Ibrahim Mashdoub, the imam at the al-Garamaldi mosque in Tripoli’s old town.

[tabatha]

27. SHARIA LAW WAS INSTATED BY GADDAFI in 1971

Qadhafi and other RCC members believed that the separation of state and religion, and thus of secular and religious law, was artificial--that it violated the Quran and relegated sharia to a secondary status. Two postrevolutionary bodies dealt with this situation. The Legislative Review and Amendment Committee, composed of Libyan legal experts, was created in October 1971 to make existing laws conform to sharia. The ultimate aim was for Islam to permeate the entire legal system, not only in personal matters, but also in civil, criminal, and commercial law. The Higher Council for National Guidance was created the next year. Among its philosophical and educational duties was the presentation of Islamic moral and spiritual values in such a way that they would be viable in contemporary Libyan society.

http://countrystudies.us/libya/75.htm

What is this about "bring about"?

[shira]

38. You asked about Libyans against sharia and that's what you got...

How are you listening to the concerns of those Libyans who are against sharia, like many women or gays?

Or do you just ignore them?

[tabatha]

40. Third time I have asked.

Show me an article that states that.

[bemildred]

41. I was hoping for an admission that Libya already had sharia law

and therefore was, possibly, getting rid of sharia law, but I guess that would interfere with catapulting the propaganda.

[tabatha]

43. Yep.

Libya already had Sharia law before the revolution. Jalil was just repeating what existed.

He is already willing to listen and walk back his comments about polygamy.

This is all new to Libyans - there is no road map after 42 years of not having a voice.

Sharia is familiar to them, and it is implemented differently in different countries.

I read an article where some women stated that they supported Sharia - hence my request for an article that stated the opposite. I would be interested in reading it. I like to hear all sides of the argument. If Libyans, all of them, support Sharia them that is their choice. If they don't, then they should be accommodated.

But, women in Libya want equal rights, and according to one article I read by a guy, he stated that women are very strong in Libya and will not keep quiet if they are unhappy.

[shira]

55. Oppressed people do not choose to live the way they are forced to live.

That's cultural relativism and it's evil.

People in the mideast deserve the same human rights as people throughout the Western world.

[bemildred]

57. It's always a pleasure when we can agree. nt

[Dick Dastardly]

87. Sharia law did not exist under Gaddafi Duck. He claimed he was implementing sharia law but was

just implementing his own twisted version of the law and his Green Book. By 1974 all islamization ceased and the Green book was law. He stated in many speaches that islamic law was not compatible with modern economic and social relations as well as with a socialist based country. So while he may have stated Islamic law was the law of the land in practice it was far from it. He only used very few parts of sharia law.


This explains better than me


When Muammar Gaddafi came to power in the Libyan Revolution, he promised to reinstate sharia law and abrogate imported laws which contradicted Islamic values.<9> Initially, however, Article 34 of the 1969 constitution stated that all old laws remained in effect, except for those which contravened the new constitution.<10> In 1973, Gaddafi suspended all legislation, and stated that sharia would be the law of the land.<11> The dual-court system was also abolished that year, replaced by a single court system which aimed to bring together Islamic and secular principles.<12> However, by 1974, progress in the Islamicisation of the law had come to a halt.<13>

The Green Book, Gaddafi's outline of his political and economic philosophy for Libya, officially accepts religion and customary law as sources of law for society.<14> In 1977, the Libyan government promulgated the Declaration of People's Power, which superseded the constitution; this also stated that the Qur'an was the source of legislation for Libya.<15> However, throughout the late 1970s and 1980s, TGaddafi repeatedly emphasised in speeches that Islamic law was an insufficient basis for modern economic and social relations, and that the traditional Islamic guidelines for property and commerce had no legal standing.<16> In practise, secular policies overrode religion as a source of law.<14> Thus, by 1990, Ann Elizabeth Mayer of the University of Pennsylvania described Gaddafi's actual progress towards the Islamisation of Libyan law as "very modest", and largely aimed not at reviving specific sharia rules, but enforcing public morality consistent with Libyan values.<11>

One area in particular in which Libyan laws are inconsistent with sharia is in the penal law, where the punishments are lighter than those mandated by traditional hudud, especially in the case of needy offenders. Mayer analyses this as leniency inspired by the Libyan government's socialist principles.<17> The Libyan government also viewed sharia's protection of private property, along with principles of Islamic law regarding contracts and commerce, as incompatible with a socialist economic programme.<18> However, Libyan law follows the sharia rules of evidence; the testimony of women and non-Muslims is not accepted in criminal matters.<19> The Maliki school continued to be used as the source of Islamic law; however, if Maliki sources do not cover a certain question, reference is made to the Libyan Penal Code and the Libyan Code of Penal Procedure, rather than other schools of sharia law. The practical aim of this procedure seems to have been to limit the number and scope of sharia laws applied.<19>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Libya#Post-revolutionary_law

[shira]

42. It was in the first line of the article cited...

"The announced introduction of Islamic law in post-Gaddafi Libya has drawn strong opposition from women, the non-religious and the Amazigh minority."

[tabatha]

44. Yes, I did not read the article. My bad.

However, the last paragraph debunks everything you said about radical islam.

"For the time being, moderate Islam is probably Libya’s only chance to cope with the increasing chaos in the country," Santiago Alba Rico, writer and political analyst based in Tunisia for the last 12 years tells IPS. "Despite its faults, an Islamic democracy in Libya would still be much more progressive than Gaddafi’s dictatorship, as well as the most realistic approach towards the constant clashes between militias."

[shira]

45. You're still ignoring the people in the first line of that article...women, minorities, seculars.

Would you tell them they have nothing to worry about?

[tabatha]

14. Here's another opinion, if you know who Uri Avnery is.

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Editorials/2011/August/29%20o/To%20The%20Shores%20of%20Tripoli,%20The%20World%20Rejoices%20Overthrow%20of%20Qadhafi%20By%20Uri%20Avnery.htm

THOUGH THE Bible tells us “Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth” (Proverbs 24:17), I could not help myself. I was happy.

Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi was the enemy of every decent person in the world. He was one of the worst tyrants in recent memory.

This fact was hidden behind a façade of clownishness. He liked to present himself as a philosopher (the “Green Book”), a visionary statesman (Israelis and Palestinians must unite in the “State of Isratine”), even as an immature teenager (his innumerable uniforms and costumes). But basically he was a ruthless dictator, surrounded by corrupt relatives and cronies, squandering the great wealth of Libya.

This was obvious to anyone who wanted to see. Unfortunately, there were quite a few who chose to close their eyes.

WHEN I expressed my support for the international intervention, I was expecting to be attacked by some well-meaning people. I was not disappointed.

[shira]

17. I agree Gadaffi was a terribly evil and vile tyrant...

But as bad as he is, the Islamist theocrats for sharia law are just as bad, and arguably worse.

I don't see the point of pretending otherwise.

[Raksha]

86. Thanks for posting this, Tabatha

I know who Uri Avnery is and I have the utmost respect for him. But since I usually read his articles in Haaretz, I might have missed this one because the source is unfamiliar to me. It isn't one I can recall reading before. I feel very vindicated by this article because I also supported the NATO intervention in Libya. It was disconcerting to find myself at odds with so many on the left, including the Jewish left, with whom I normally agree. They kept painting it as one more exercise in Western imperialism, but I couldn't see it that way. I still can't. I had been following the Libya threads in General Discussion very closely, and the facts on the ground just didn't bear out the picture of one more neocon adventure to get control of Libya's oil reserves. Quote from the article:

While the rebels were already fighting their way into his huge personal compound, the socialist leader of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, was praising him as a true model of upright humanity, a man who dared to stand up to the American aggressors.

Well, sorry, count me out. I have this irrational abhorrence of bloody dictators, of genocidal mass-murderers, of leaders who wage war on their own people. And at my advanced age, it is difficult for me to change.

I am ready to support even the devil, if that is necessary to put an end to this kind of atrocities. I won’t even ask about his precise motives. Whatever one may think about the USA and/or NATO - if they disarm a Milosevic or a Gaddafi, they have my blessing.

I agree with him on all counts. I especially couldn't understand Hugo Chavez in his unqualified praise and support for his "friend" Moammar Gaddhafi. It caused me to lose a lot of respect for Gaddafi which I have yet to regain.

[tabatha]

24. gun battles among factions - look in the mirror

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/25/9012057-black-friday-violence-2-shot-in-armed-robberies-15-others-pepper-sprayed

[bemildred]

25. Dang, shoppers are terrists. Who knew?

:sarcasm:

[tabatha]

28. There were a couple gun battles amongst civilians in Libya.

One was patched up, with one side apologizing to the other.

The other was about food.

The ones in the US are about merchandise.

[bemildred]

31. It's all about values, eh?

Do you care about people or do you care about plastic stuff?

[tabatha]

34. I don't care about plastic stuff.

I also don't care that people here can make a big deal about problems in other countries, but ignore stuff here. It is hypocritical.

Violence is bad. I admire people who can come together after a violent disagreement, apologize, and move on with better terms and relations. That is what happened in Libya. That is what Mandela preached.

I think fighting over plastic is beyond despicable.

But Libya will be painted as bad, and fighting over plastic will be ignored.

[bemildred]

36. OK. nt

[bemildred]

49. MUST SEE VIDEO: Nail salon fight breaks out

Snellville, GA - It all happened at the the Regal Nails Salon located in the Centerville Highway Walmart. When this out of control brawl started, a nail salon customer grabbed her cellphone and started shooting video.

---

Four people, possibly mothers and daughters, tussled together on the floor ripping out each others' hair.

If you listen closely to someone on the video, you can hear them saying that a girl got hit in the face. 17-year old Ashley Corbett, was just an innocent bystander.

Police say, a mother and daughter entered the salon and started yelling at employees. Then another woman, a customer, started yelling back. A fight started and police say that third woman threw a ceramic bowl which shattered on the floor. A piece of it hit corbett square in the face. The impact shattered two teeth and cut her chin.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/222595/58/MUST-SEE-VIDEO-Nail-salon-fight-breaks-out

[bemildred]

10. Has Rubin really been reduced to publishing on Pajamas Media?

He is really freaking out about all those elections and new governments, isn't he? Who is the reactionary, people who want to hold honest elections, or people who long to bring the friendly dictators back?

[shira]

12. Your words: "People who want to hold honest elections..."

You really do not have a problem with more reactionary Islamist forces coming to power as a result of an election, do you?

For example, the Ayatollah or Hamas? Or the Muslim Brotherhood replacing more secular dictatorships?

:shrug:

I guess you don't have a problem with that. Only with those who do have a problem with that...

What a complete betrayal of everything (human rights wise) that the Left or Liberals/Progressives say they stand for...


====


I don't see how any right minded Liberal shouldn't freak out over what's happening in the mideast.

[bemildred]

15. We have the same problem here, so does Israel, religious political parties.

I don't notice that they or we are planning to cancel elections or stage a coup if the fundies win. That is the whole idea with elections, if you win you get to govern. You seem to be assuming elections only count if the right party wins. Now THAT is how dictatorships work, they like elections, but only if they win.

[shira]

19. No, we don't have the same problem here with Bush refusing to step down...

...controlling the media, judiciary, and all government hirees.

We have checks and balances here, a free media, and Bush Jr. quietly stepping down and allowing the opposition to replace him.

OTOH, there is Gaza and Iran. So we see what happens when extreme Islamists are elected - and remain - in power.

Not the same.

Not that I expect you to agree...

[tabatha]

21. Iran is Iran.

Turkey is Turkey. Tunisia is Tunisia.

Iran does not equal Turkey does not equal Tunisia does not equal Libya

If you think Libya (Sunni) will become like Iran (Shia), then you have no idea of what the Libyan revolution was about.

[shira]

29. Sunni Hamas has been working closely with Shia Iran for years...

Both have found they have a common enemy and are therefore allies.

WRT moderate Islamists vs. more extreme, you should read Maryam Namazie...
http://maryamnamazie.com/articles/artspch.html

[tabatha]

37. Once again you have to look at the entire picture.

Not just concentrate on a small part that fits your narrative.


The Origins of the Sunni/Shia split in Islam
by Hussein Abdulwaheed Amin, Editor of IslamForToday.com

History
Ali is the central figure at the origin of the Shia / Sunni split which occurred in the decades immediately following the death of the Prophet in 632. Sunnis regard Ali as the fourth and last of the "rightly guided caliphs" (successors to Mohammed (pbuh) as leader of the Muslims) following on from Abu Bakr 632-634, Umar 634-644 and Uthman 644-656. Shias feel that Ali should have been the first caliph and that the caliphate should pass down only to direct descendants of Mohammed (pbuh) via Ali and Fatima, They often refer to themselves as ahl al bayt or "people of the house" .

http://www.islamfortoday.com/shia.htm

[shira]

46. The point is both extremes are very, very bad. n/t

[bemildred]

23. Yep, you like to stick with your own "facts", I know that.

Our government is better than Mubarak's, but not by much. The main problem our rulers have here is that they have to win elections to have any legitimacy, i.e. in order to get enough people to obey, and particularly to get the military to obey, and you cannot rig elections consistently in this country unless they are close, so when the elections are not close because you have done such a shitty, self-serving job of running the place, you let the other supposedly less-evil party get into office so they can take the heat for you; and that way meanwhile you can savage your enemies constantly until you are ready to get yourself selected by the USSC again, or rig the results of enough close elections to take back power.

[shira]

30. Hahahaha! Our US gov't "is better than Mubarak's, but not by much." Classic! n/t

[bemildred]

33. Who has killed more people: Mubarak or the USA? By far?

And for what? So we can keep our noses plunged deeply into the trough of plastic consumer culture? Laugh at that, it won't be funny much longer.

[shira]

47. Now it makes more sense, as to why the Left has been silent WRT Egypt all this time...

...even under Mubarak or with Libya under Gaddafi.

Those governments aren't much worse (from a human rights POV) than the USA so there's no reason to raise a big fuss.

No flotillas, bigtime UN resolutions, mass demonstrations, endless OP-EDs...

[bemildred]

48. The left has not been silent WRT Egypt all this time.

The left has been complaining about Egypt ever since the British made a colony out of it, and when they installed Farouk, and when Nasser staged a military coup, and ever since too.

[shira]

50. Not just Egypt, but Libya, Syria, Iran. No mass rallies, UN resolutions, flotillas, countless OP-EDs

Israel's left needs to wise up to Middle East reality:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israel-s-left-needs-to-wise-up-to-middle-east-reality-1.354548

This is a deep, broad issue that goes beyond just the Israeli left. One of the outstanding characteristics of Western enlightenment in the 21st century is its inability to denounce forces of evil in the Arab-Muslim world. Western enlightenment likes to criticize the West. It especially likes to criticize the West's allies in the East. But when it runs into evil originating in the East, it falls silent.

It does not know how to deal with it. It is easy to come out against pro-Western Hosni Mubarak, but hard to come out against the Muslim Brotherhood. It is easy to come out against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but hard to come out against Bashar Assad. The enlightened West is incapable of fighting Iran's Ahmadinejad as it fought against America's Bushes, South Africa's Botha or Serbia's Milosevic.

The result is a long line of distortions. The blood of the Marmara flotilla fatalities is thicker than the blood of those who were murdered and hung in Iran. The blood of the people killed in Gaza is thicker than the blood of those killed in Damascus and Dara'a.

A post-colonial complex makes Western enlightenment systematically ignore injustices caused by anti-Western forces. Thus it loses the ability to see historic reality as a whole, in all its complexity. It also makes it act unfairly and unjustly.

It discriminates between different kinds of evil, different kinds of blood and different kinds of victims. It treats third-world societies as though they are not subject to universal moral norms.

==========

Israel has received more attention from the Left in the past decade than all other mideast countries combined. There's no excuse for it, and in fact it's still happening as Israel receives more attention right now than Syria, Iran, and all other mideast nations combined.

[bemildred]

51. THE LEFT IS NOT SILENT.

That is a ridiculous claim. All of those issues you mentiion and many others get regular and vituperative attention all the time, here and a brazillian other places, in print and on the web. If you read around anywhere but all those rightwing sites begging for your money, you would know that. Your problem is you only have one issue, and you are on the wrong side of it.

[shira]

54. The Left is busy whitewashing Palestinian/Arab crimes against their own civilians...

...in the name of cultural relativism. So the Left doesn't just ignore oppression and brutality within Arab society, it legitimitizes it!

An example is the latest "pinkwashing" article from the NYT:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=35&x_article=2156

What's good for anti-Israel activists, though, is dangerous for homosexuals in the Middle East. Schulman, a supporter of the fringe BDS movement, which advocates boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel, turns her back on Arab and Muslim gays by whitewashing the persecution they endure in Arab and Muslim countries at the hands of regimes the author apparently doesn't believe should be boycotted.

That's the Left today (not liberals, not all progressives - but the Left). Preferring to whitewash Arab/Palestinian crimes (against gays in this example) in order to further delegitimize and tarnish Israel's image...

The Left is the same WRT Islamist misogyny, child abuse via female genital mutilation and all other civil/human rights violations within mideast society. The silence of the Left WRT Syria, Egypt, Sudan, Iran, and Libya the past decade or so is proof enough....

Maryam Namazie (a Leftist/Marxist) writes about the pathetic excuse of the Left today...
http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/2009/10/pathetic-excuse-of-much-of-european.html

It is an anti-colonial movement whose perspectives coincide with that of the ruling classes in the so-called Third World. This grouping is on the side of the ‘colonies’ no matter what goes on there. And their understanding of the ‘colonies’ is Eurocentric, patronising and even racist. In the world according to them, the people in these countries are one and the same with the regimes they are struggling against just as the ‘Muslim community’ here is one and the same with reactionary Islamic organisations, Sharia councils, and parasitical imams. Which is why at Stop the War Coalition demonstrations, they carry banners saying ‘We are all Hezbollah;’ at meetings they segregate men and women and urge unveiled women to veil out of ‘solidarity’ and ‘respect’.

This type of politics denies universalism, sees rights as ‘western,’ justifies the suppression of rights, freedoms and equality under the guise of respect for other ‘cultures’ implying that people want to live the way they are forced to and imputing on innumerable people the most reactionary elements of culture and religion, which is that of the ruling class.

In this type of politics, the oppressor is victim and any criticism racist…

How can the Left criticize mideast society when they think it's racist to do so? :shrug:

[bemildred]

58. Doesn't it make your brain hurt after a while? nt

[shira]

59. Help me here. I'm under the impression that the author of that Pinkwashing article...

...who is also part of BDS is representative of the Left.

The same Left that has a problem criticizing Hamas for human rights violations and has been pretty quiet about abuses in Sudan, Libya and Syria...

Am I wrong?

[bemildred]

61. Look, if you want to go around chasing your tail, I don't mind.

Do you find it somehow surprising that an advocate for BDS would think that pro-Israel propaganda is pro-Israel propaganda? Isn't that just the other side of how you feel about the OpEd? I quite agree they don't care that much about FGM in Sudan or whatever, people who are all-worked up about one particular topic are like that. What do you want me to do about it? You can't do much about it, why expect me to?

There is a Women's Rights Forum here, but I don't see you posting much there.

And there is NO SUCH THING as "the left" with some well-defined agenda or program. People pick and choose among the issues they care about, often with a healthy dose of self-interest.

[shira]

64. Would you call this a fair critique of your views, or views of people generally on the Left?

But that doesn’t mean that I think the sad excuse of much of the European Left is any better (even though I myself am on the Left).

It is an anti-colonial movement whose perspectives coincide with that of the ruling classes in the so-called Third World. This grouping is on the side of the ‘colonies’ no matter what goes on there. And their understanding of the ‘colonies’ is Eurocentric, patronising and even racist. In the world according to them, the people in these countries are one and the same with the regimes they are struggling against just as the ‘Muslim community’ here is one and the same with reactionary Islamic organisations, Sharia councils, and parasitical imams. Which is why at Stop the War Coalition demonstrations, they carry banners saying ‘We are all Hezbollah;’ at meetings they segregate men and women and urge unveiled women to veil out of ‘solidarity’ and ‘respect’.

This type of politics denies universalism, sees rights as ‘western,’ justifies the suppression of rights, freedoms and equality under the guise of respect for other ‘cultures’ implying that people want to live the way they are forced to and imputing on innumerable people the most reactionary elements of culture and religion, which is that of the ruling class.

In this type of politics, the oppressor is victim and any criticism racist…

http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/2009/10/pathetic-excuse-of-much-of-european.html

[bemildred]

65. Mixed bag.

She says some things I would argue with, e.g. that Galloway somehow represents "the left". Galloway represents Galloway.

"The left" does not support religious law, that is a reactionary position, though - as with Galloway - they might support islamists because they think something else is more important, and that could prove to be a mistake.

It's interesting she calls it an "anti-colonial" movement, speaking of the "European left".

I have mixed feelings about her critique of what I will call "sympathy islamism" and "We are all Hezbollah" banners, I'd have to think about it and it would depend on the context whether I thought it was being polite or being phony.

I quite like this paragraph, but I would apply to to almost every government on the planet:

This type of politics denies universalism, sees rights as ‘western,’ justifies the suppression of rights, freedoms and equality under the guise of respect for other ‘cultures’ implying that people want to live the way they are forced to and imputing on innumerable people the most reactionary elements of culture and religion, which is that of the ruling class.

She is an interesting writer, I'll have to read some more to be sure what I think of her though. You will note that she herself asserts she is of "the left".

[shira]

66. Thanks for replying...

Yes, she is from the Left and in fact she's a Marxist.

Her views on Israel are far more similar to yours than mine.

[bemildred]

74. Well. I'm not a Marxist.

I take a dim view of all "-isms", dogmas, ideologies, and so on.

Marx was a seminal figure in political economics and history, and that I have to recognize.

She probably is closer to my views than you are, but I am reluctant to posit any general sense of agreement with her without a wider reading of her work. I have not seen anything by her on I/P so far, and as we all know that is a subject that easily gets people worked up. I would not be at all surprised to find she is somewhat to "the left" of me, as you would see it.

[shira]

67. Comparatively, the Left is very QUIET about human rights violations elsewhere around the world...

The UN and human rights NGOs spend far more valuable time and resources condemning Israel than Sudan, Egypt, Libya, and Syria combined.

That may not be silence, but it's shameful nonenetheless. The agenda of extremely vile and totalitarian 3rd world oppressive tyrannies is to run interference and distract from their own horrendous and wide scale abuses.

The Left aids and abets these cruel dictatorships by doing their bidding and focusing disproportionately on Israel instead.

[bemildred]

69. Israel is very important, so naturally it gets lots of attention,

Good and bad. And Israel richly deserves the criticism of it gets over it's treatment of Palestinians in the OPT, just like the USA deserves criticsm for its human rights record.

[shira]

71. No, Israel gets more attention because that's the way the despots running the UN want it...

It's shameful trying to defend the amount of valuable time and resources the UN and NGOs waste on Israel when they should be spending a LOT more time on more serious issues in Sudan, Burma, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Korea, Cuba, China, etc....

Think of the 100's of millions of victims being ignored for apartment building in Jerusalem, or Goldstone's waste of a report, for example...

Think of Richard Falk's bigoted agenda.

Indefensible.

And that's the Left today...

[bemildred]

72. Look, if you are going to call the UN a despotism, we are not going to get far.

The UN is an incoherent hodge-podge with no autonomous power to speak of. The wonder about the UN is that it can do anything at all. It is not the UN that is after Israeli government policies, it's the governments of most of the countries on the planet. The UN, despite its many flaws is way the heck better than nothing, but it's a debating society, that's all. If Israel was behaving itself in the OPT and the UN was still after it, OK, you would have a gripe. But the message to draw now is that you are losing the argument internationally, and you won't fix that by continuing on the same course.

You can make a good argument that some other wars get far too little attention, Congo for example, even a great example, millions dead, guns up the wazoo, big corporations engaging in massive cheap resource extraction, etc.; but that is how the modern propaganda system works, like the Eye of Sauron it looks one place at a time, and it never looks at itself, it's job is not to keep us informed. The last thing TPTB want to do is bring attention to the very profitable situation in the Congo, or Nigeria, or Sudan.

And in fairness Israel works really hard to raise its media profile, it is constantly in the news, good and bad. If it were not so advanced, it would not get so much attention, eh? Is all the talk about the USA and its activities relative to China, Russia, or India really fair? No, not really, but considering our vaunting ambitions to police the world and teach them all our ways, it's not inappropriate either.

[shira]

75. It's not just the UN which the Left supports, but also major NGOs...

...which are just as bad with their disproportionate focus and utter disregard for the hundreds of millions suffering in the 3rd world . Here's an article about Amnesty, Sudan and Israel from 2004:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/NGO-Human%20Rights%20NGOs%20and%20the%20Neglect%20of%20Sudan.htm

Both the UN and major NGOs are doing the bidding of totalitarian powers that be and the Left supports that. The 3rd world far Right does as well.

So the Left is taking sides with the extreme 3rd world far Right - fascists and marxists uniting - to attack the liberal West. This isn't breaking news. While there's a lot to criticize the West or the rest of the free world for, it's incomparable to the crimes and agenda of the totalitarian extreme right/left.

Seems you - and a significant portion of the Left - simply don't appreciate basic civil liberties, a rare and very precious achievement in the development of this planet.

There's enough to criticize the West for, but the West already has mechanisms to deal with corruption and criminality (freedom of expression, press, checks/balances, separation of powers). Closed, totalitarian societies do not. I can't see how anyone can openly support the agenda (as followed by the UN and major NGOs) of closed, dark, totalitarian societies.

[bemildred]

76. "the left" objects to what is being done to the Palestinians.

They are not going to change their minds, calling them anti-semites will not change their minds. There are real anti-semites out there, plenty of them, but you will not succeed in painting everybody that objects to what is being done to the Palestinians with that label, nor will you reverse the current trends that way. A fresh approach is needed, and the clock is ticking.

If Rabin had not been murdered, we would not be here now. Maybe a fresh look at Rabin's approach to the problem would not be too late.

I am not saying you are all wrong, I'm saying it doesn't buy you much. What was done to the Palestinians was unfair as can be, the world is not fair. If you want fair, you have to do it yourself.

[shira]

77. So why doesn't "the left" object in the same way to what's being done...

...to the Kurds, Basques, Tibetens, Chechens, etc? Don't those people deserve justice as well?

:shrug:

Apparently not.

Why doesn't "the left" raise humanitarian concerns WRT the way Hamas/PA oppress and brutalize their Palestinian citizens? That is, if "the left" is so concerned about Palestinians?

========

If it's just about Palestinian self-determination, "the left" would have come to the same conclusion Israel's Left came to after the Camp David/Taba and Annapolis Palestinian rejections of Israeli offers. Mainly, that it's not Israel's fault Palestinians don't have their own state today. Rabin didn't go as far as Barak in 2000 and Olmert in 2008...

I'm not saying it's just antisemitism although that plays a significant role. It's also those who are anti-America, anti-capitalist, and pro-totalitarian who find Israel is an easier target than the USA.

[bemildred]

78. Intertia, habit, following the shiny object ...

I quite agree, as I said, that it would have been better to avoid this situation, it did not have to be this way.

Or as I said, the selective nature of how the propaganda organs work in the first place, and the relative nature of how "development" works. And money is being made by expoitation in those places, of natural resources, of cheap labor; that will end if they become developed societies. There is nothing new in international capital crushing local societies the better to exploit them, and you can bet that will not be in the news much, and never mentioned in that way.

“Men nearly always speak and write as if riches were absolute, as if it were possible, by following certain scientific precepts, for everybody to be rich. Whereas riches are a power like that of electricity, acting only through inequalities or negations of itself. The force of the guinea you have in your pocket depends wholly on the default of a guinea in your neighbors pocket. If he did not want it, it would be of no use to you; the degree of power it possesses depends accurately on the need or desire he has for it, – and the art of making yourself rich, in the ordinary mercantile economist's sense, is therefore equally and necessarily the art of keeping your neighbor poor.” – John Ruskin “Unto the Last”

[bemildred]

79. One more thing ...

Advocacy organizations rise and fall by means of contributions, so naturally they focus on where the money is. You might as well ask why AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups are so big and well-funded and so on. Action creates reaction. Why does I/P gets it's own dungeon here? Because of the flame wars. And that is where the money is too.

I have enjoyed chatting with you today, but I have to move on ...

[pelsar]

32. your actually comparing mubaraks rule to the US...

you should talk to some people who lived under Mubarak and are now in the states.....they might explain to you the differences between a dictatorship and a democracy...having freedom of the press and freedom of speech vs not having them...

if you lived under such a regime you could only laugh at such a post that you just wrote

[bemildred]

35. Awww, am I causing cognitive disconnect?

People and governments are much alike anywhere you go, entirely comparable in all their aspects, it is the thought that that is NOT so that is delusional.

[pelsar]

52. governments are much alike anywhere you go?

you have to get out more...talk to a few people who have lived in the USSR, E. Gemany iraq, iran, syria, N. Korea,........you might be surprised to hear that people who have lived under various govts notice the differences......

[bemildred]

53. They have a lot in common too, or do you deny that?

Do you think that there are special categories of countries or people that are somehow capable of governing themselves better than others? I hear that sort of bullshit here all the time.

[pelsar]

56. people are similar and different..

if you asking do govts have things in common?...all societies do, they have those who govern, they have laws, they have those who follow, they have security...but the differences are far more glaring..but to claim that the US is no better than a theocratic regime is laughable

....some in my eyes are better (and yours too, unless your willing to defend cultures that hang homosexuals, have honor killings, have fgm- will you?) and some are worse in terms of human rights.

if you want to scream out that N. Kora is comparable to the US, feel free as thats a character of the US, just don't try the reverse in N,Korea. Don't yell out your a homosexual in iran, you might not get to leave, but fee free to do it in Tel Aviv.

cultures can be changed, Japan had it done to them, as did Germany, without outside help its questionable if japan could have left its militaristic culture behind. Germany didn't do it post WWI and was force to after WWII.

Whether or not the Sudan can change their culture to fit the western democratic mold without help is questionable, perhaps you think its best that they continue with FGM, after all, it is their culture and from what i understand you believe in "respecting other cultures....

[bemildred]

60. I'll take that as a "yes" then:

"Whether or not the Sudan can change their culture to fit the western democratic mold without help is questionable"

I think there is no question that Sudan or anybody else can "change their culture to fit the western democratic mold without help", if they want to and are given the means. It's difficult to fit yourself into the "western democratic mold" without the proper economic underpinnings though, and lots of people don't really think the "western democratic mold" is something to emulate, and that has nothing to do with approval of FGM or any other human rights issues, and also nothing to do with any objection to democratic rule, the "western democratic mold" is not really very democratic, as the economic state of the planet clearly shows, it is democracy for the few, or some shiny simulation of it, and servitude for the many. What people want is real democracy, for everybody, and to stop destroying the planet for a bit of short term profit; putting people first, not things and not corrupt governments and self-serving institutions.

---

“Nothing appears more surprising to those who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye than the ease with which the many are governed by the few, and the implicit submission with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we inquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find that, as force is always on the side of the governed(!), the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded, and this maxim extends to the most despotic and military governments, as well as to the most free and the most popular.” – David Hume “Of the First Principles of Government” 1758

“Governments, whatever their pretensions otherwise, try to preserve themselves by holding the individual down … Government itself, indeed, may be reasonably defined as a conspiracy against him. It's one permanent aim, whatever its form, is to hobble him sufficiently to maintain itself.” H. L. Mencken

[pelsar]

62. those words pretty as they...make no sense in real life

anarchists as i understand perfer no "ruling class"...which is great when your in 7th grade or on the French Riveria living off the govt....but in the real world where societies exist, where people don't agree with one another ( examples;OWS, kibbutz history, the amish, etc) a structure is needed, and that requires some of the members to make the decisions (i.e the govt).

never has a society in the history of the human race managed to survive without such a structure. The sentence below is simply a fantasy.

hich the many are governed by the few, and the implicit submission with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers.

those who govern will of course have power trips and agendas, that where the concept of elections come from, and the concept to keep them as small as possible.

...i see the inevitable contradiction;
I think there is no question that Sudan or anybody else can "change their culture to fit the western democratic mold without help", if they want to and are given the means.

care to be explicit as to what exactly are those "means" (and you said it can't be "help")

[bemildred]

63. You are not the global spokesperson for "real life".

About "means": I live in LA, we have people from all over the world here, that's how the country was built. Give them one or two generations here and they fit right in, you can't hardly tell the difference, that's how I know. You ought to try it, you'd like it once you became used to it.

[pelsar]

68. i'm asking you what are these "means?

did the jews have it while they half starving to death in Palestine, did the early americans have these means where they first started?....what exactly are these "means" you wrote about?

and no i'm not the spokesmen for life, but i also don't speak in 'forked tongues"......

[bemildred]

70. OK, I'll try one more time. nt

[bemildred]

73. OK, another attempt:

anarchists as i understand perfer no "ruling class"...which is great when your in 7th grade or on the French Riveria living off the govt....but in the real world where societies exist, where people don't agree with one another ( examples;OWS, kibbutz history, the amish, etc) a structure is needed, and that requires some of the members to make the decisions (i.e the govt).

Anarchists oppose authoritarian government, and favor local control of local issues, it's not no government at all, it's government scaled appropriately to the problem you want it to address, and empowered minimally to interfere with its citizens. All very democratic. OWS is being done in a way that is very consistent with anarchist priniciples. An anarchist would never approve of the concept of sovereignty as it is commonly used today in politics because it denies the autonomy and power of the citizen, only the citizen is sovereign, and only of him or herself.

never has a society in the history of the human race managed to survive without such a structure. The sentence below is simply a fantasy.

That is simply wrong. Survival without authoritarian government is the norm, authoritarian national government is a recent innovation, and it has a lousy record too. Centralized systems are expensive, inefficient, brittle, and prone to centralized failures, and that certainly applies to government, any government. Look at the USA. They take all the money and all the power and they run the place into the ground, and for what?

hich the many are governed by the few, and the implicit submission with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers.

Mr Hume is a seminal figure in Western Philosophy, and I am not about to try to question his views here.

those who govern will of course have power trips and agendas, that where the concept of elections come from, and the concept to keep them as small as possible.

Elections are just a method, they can be done well or ill, there is no formal structure that will EVER ensure good government. On the other hand, a smaller government, by definition, is less able to do harm.

...i see the inevitable contradiction;
I think there is no question that Sudan or anybody else can "change their culture to fit the western democratic mold without help", if they want to and are given the means.

Means == the necessities of life, supportive institutions, and a generation or two. Furthermore, lacking that, you will never see democracy take root. We did it in both Germany and Japan after WWII, it's not like the method is secret, or Japan is "western". Lots of non-western powers have bootstrapped themselves into being "developed", with varying amounts of help, large and small, and as they have discovered it's hard to compete if you are not also somewhat democratic, educated people do not make good subjects, but they make excellent citizens. But that development is something in progress, a process not a state of being, in the USA, in Israel, and everywhere else. Peaceful, democratic people have to be grown, one at a time, generation by generation.

[pelsar]

80. lets start with your western ethnocentric 'means"

Peaceful, democratic people have to be grown, one at a time, generation by generation.

i happen to agree that civilizations and cultures have to be democratic...which is a western cultural value, which means removing such anti western values such as fgm, honor killings, lack of rights for minorities etc etc etc So i don't know how you square that hole with your 'multiculturalism"..which seems to me is more of a "stealth form" of injecting western values than anything else.
______

as far a governments go..i 'm all for smaller foot prints, the lesser the better, thats a basic liberal concept, but there is no way your going to be able to define what a "authoritarian government," is.

thats one of those buzz words which when you actually try to define it, will not fit all environments, all societies. For some, a western democratic govt that has universal healthcare that everyone must pay for will fit the definition of "authoritarian" with ease

Govts be they big or small can be authoritarian, its the culture not the size that defines the society. (Jonestown was pretty small yet very authoritarian)

and heres another one of those long winded sentences full of buzz words that i have no idea what it means.....
it denies the autonomy and power of the citizen, only the citizen is sovereign, and only of him or herself.

heres your challenge: describe for me a society that actually employes that statement above. Who does what, where they work, how they interact etc.
and i promise to show you a group that tried that type of framework and failed...

fair enough?
___

btw, thanks for the response, i think its the first time you wrote such a thoughtout post to me

[bemildred]

85. Well, it's true that it's been quite a long time since I bothered. nt

[Shaktimaan]

81. what do you mean by "authoritarian?"

It seems like you are using it as a placeholder for any large, centralized government, regardless of whether it is totalitarian or democratic.

Survival without authoritarian government is the norm, authoritarian national government is a recent innovation, and it has a lousy record too.

Does it? Assuming you mean "a large-scale centralized organization" when you say "authoritarian" then I'd argue that it has the most successful track record so far. There is a reason it has become the sole surviving method of governing.

Centralized systems are expensive, inefficient, brittle, and prone to centralized failures, and that certainly applies to government, any government. Look at the USA. They take all the money and all the power and they run the place into the ground, and for what?

Centralized systems are also uniquely able to distribute previously concentrated resources over large areas for the good of the whole nation. They can develop more sophisticated economic systems to better protect individuals, offering more stable access to food, goods, transportation, services, etc. They bring a unified legal system to all areas, which administers justice with far more equality than was previously available. And they are the only way to reasonably defend large groups of civilians from organized criminal groups, whether private or national.

Look at the USA. It successfully defended the west from encroaching fascism and communism. The Marshall Plan revitalized and reunited Western Europe after WWII. At its best it serves as a model of democracy and opportunity for the rest of the world. I once found myself in a tiny single room farmer's shack in rural Morrocco where a family of 5 lived. They had a well, some goats, a few acres of land and were perpetually in debt as they were unable to get out from under the interest on a $120 loan taken out years previously. Their only decoration on otherwise bare walls was a needlepoint of JFK and RFK against an american flag. Without the Peace Corps their lives would have been measurably worse. Groups like the peace corps are the result of centralized planning.

I think there is no question that Sudan or anybody else can "change their culture to fit the western democratic mold without help", if they want to and are given the means.

I have to disagree here. The western democratic mold depends on a specific philosophy based on civil rights and equality. The Hasidim are not the only people who find the concept of freedom to be antithetical to their culture and religion. The obvious counter to this statement: If it's so possible then why hasn't it been achieved in more than a handful of places?

[Shaktimaan]

82. I've never disagreed with you more.

the "western democratic mold" is not really very democratic, as the economic state of the planet clearly shows, it is democracy for the few, or some shiny simulation of it, and servitude for the many.

Freedom exists on a spectrum. If you compare western democracy to an imagined utopia then you're right, it sucks. But in reality it is far and away the best system that has thus far been available. In no other system could a poor kid with few resources like Bill Clinton grow up to become a President.

People and governments are much alike anywhere you go, entirely comparable in all their aspects, it is the thought that that is NOT so that is delusional.

Have you ever visited a country that is truly authoritarian? Have you ever been to Myanmar, Iran, Cuba, Laos or someplace similar? Cambodia under the Khmere Rouge? Chile under Augusto Pinochet? I can assure you that the differences are significant. I'm floored that you might actually think otherwise.

[bemildred]

83. I appreciate you taking the time to write.

I have things to do today, and we are touching on questions that have driven philosophers nuts for millenia, so it's going to have to wait.

I will ask one question: When you say: "it is far and away the best system that has thus far been available", how, exactly, do you know that? You are making a pretty strong claim, so let's have some support for it. Best for whom? Best for how long? Best by what metric? (I like to use "metric" nowadays, it sounds more high-tech than "measure".)

But do bring it up again. We could have a good discussion, probably drive each other nuts too.

[tabatha]

22. Libya history

Qadhafi and other RCC members believed that the separation of state and religion, and thus of secular and religious law, was artificial--that it violated the Quran and relegated sharia to a secondary status. Two postrevolutionary bodies dealt with this situation. The Legislative Review and Amendment Committee, composed of Libyan legal experts, was created in October 1971 to make existing laws conform to sharia. The ultimate aim was for Islam to permeate the entire legal system, not only in personal matters, but also in civil, criminal, and commercial law. The Higher Council for National Guidance was created the next year. Among its philosophical and educational duties was the presentation of Islamic moral and spiritual values in such a way that they would be viable in contemporary Libyan society.

http://countrystudies.us/libya/75.htm

[vminfla]

39. One Man, One Vote, One Time

Vote wisely, you are only getting to vote once.