An antifascist war

[cema]

A friend leaned across a bar and said, "You call the war in Iraq an antifascist war. You even call it a left-wing war—a war of liberation. That language of yours! And yet, on the left, not too many people agree with you."

I am glad I do not have to serve drinks in this journal, anyhow. :-)

Comments

[email-animal.livejournal.com]

What a wonderful article! Not because I agree with what he writes, no - as you might have expected, I do not!

It is wonderful, because he articulates his positions so clearly and so precisely that it is a pleasure to argue with him (even if I would be using your LJ as the proxy).

I have serious comments to all points he is making, and some more points I can add to his. Would you rather have me post them here or shut up? (=:

[cema.livejournal.com]

Sure, go ahead.

His article was not in a blog, so there is little room for comments there. LJ, on the other hand, fits nicely to the discussion mode. The only drawback is its fleeting time-based nature.

[email-animal.livejournal.com]

This turned out to be beyond what I am allowed to post as a comment.So,

http://www.livejournal.com/users/email_animal/16473.html

[cema.livejournal.com]

Yes, I was afraid it would not fit in a comment.

[email-animal.livejournal.com]

(-:

What bothers me, is that he appears to be absolutely sure that his position is the righteous one for any liberal. I, personally, think that the key distinction between a liberal and a conservative, is the liberal's ability to admit that a different point of view might be valid --- tolerance for another's opinion. I am merely trying to point out why war with Iraq is a topic where such tolerance must be exercised by liberals.

[cema.livejournal.com]

What bothers me, is that he appears to be absolutely sure that his position is the righteous one for any liberal.

Typical, isn't it?

the key distinction between a liberal and a conservative, is the liberal's ability to admit that a different point of view might be valid --- tolerance for another's opinion

Well... History shows this is not quite true, at least if we use the American meaning of the word "liberal". And what you said about being righteous seems to be today's fashion: it is not unusual for a "liberal" to think that his position is based on the morals and ethics and therefore those who think differently are not just wrong but also immoral.

[email-animal.livejournal.com]

One of the key tenets of liberal thought, in my humble opinion, is tolerance of (to?) the views, opinions and positions of others, willingness to seriously consider them.

In this particular example, I am talking about tolerance in the context of a relatively narrow "liberal vs. liberal" argument. I can step into Paul Berman's shoes and see his position, even if I disagree with it. I am sure, he should be able to do the same with the shoes of a token pacifist liberal.

[cema.livejournal.com]

One of the key tenets of liberal thought, in my humble opinion, is tolerance of (to?) the views, opinions and positions of others, willingness to seriously consider them.

Turns out, this is not necessarily so. Again, if we use the American understanding of who is a liberal, who is a conservative. I am sure Saltykov-Schedrin used a different definition.

I can step into Paul Berman's shoes and see his position, even if I disagree with it.

This is not the same thing as tolerance. The question is, if you consider his position immoral or not.

[email-animal.livejournal.com]

>Turns out, this is not necessarily so. Again, if we use the American
>understanding of who is a liberal

Why? The high moral ground you have described is the prime feature of local religious right.


>This is not the same thing as tolerance. The question is, if you >consider his position immoral or not.


I do not reason in terms of morality, period. I may reason in terms of logic, rationality, justification and, if you will, ethics, but not morality.

So, I consider his position, silly pathos aside, a reasonable, ethical and defensible. I just do not agree with it. From my point of view, he arrived at his position via a meaningful process of evaluating pros and cons and then made a choice. He might not have considered certain issues (see the last part of my article), and he might be underestimating the importance of certain observations he is discarding. But so have I, and so have you.

Each of us is, probably, aware of the spectrum of concerns. Each of us chooses the ones that appear to be more important, and based on them draws logical conclusions.

This is a situation, where, in my opinion, any liberal, absolutely must recognize the possibility of different valid positions. And this is my main complaint about Berman - it appears that he does not.

[cema.livejournal.com]

The high moral ground you have described is the prime feature of local religious right.

Of course, but we are not discussing them now, but the so called liberals. If something is typical of the RR, it still may be typical for the liberals too.

Modern liberalism, I think, is a descendant of the age of Enlightenment, which, to some extent, originated as a revolt against the hipocrisy of the Church: that is, a moral movement (and to a large extent, a "scientific" movement, but I am looking at the moral side now). This streak is visible in a lot of the liberal or, more broadly, Left ideas. Even extremes like communism were based on the alleged immorality of the existing order of things and alleged morality of the world to come (to borrow an expression from a different religion). This, of course, was the main reason for the popularity of communist ideas among the Western intelligentsia. Another example: proponents of such modern "liberal", left-wing, causes as environmentalism are usually considering the moral and ethical, as opposed to economical or aesthetical, aspects of the relationship between the humanity and the nature.

I do not reason in terms of morality

I too regularly distinguish between morality and ethics, but I am not sure I can always separate the two properly. In any case, morality is relevant to the issue we are studying now.

This is a situation, where, in my opinion, any liberal, absolutely must recognize the possibility of different valid positions.

Just a liberal? What about a conservative? Or someone unaffiliated?

[email-animal.livejournal.com]

Traditional problems with morality is that it is in the eye of the beholder. It is actually much more likely for extreme left and right groups to base their views on percieved morality or immorality of activities. People with their views closer to the middle tend to ground their opinions in more rational reasoning.

In many situations, the phrase "it is immoral to do X" (e.g., kill baby seals) is just a convenient way to express a much more rational thought behind it (pollution that kills baby seals will kill a lot of other flora and fauna and change the ecosystem). The question is whether people uttering such phrases really think that thre is nothing but morality behind them. I still think that the latter is more of an RR feature than of local liberals, or left in general.


>Just a liberal? What about a conservative? Or someone unaffiliated?


My point was about the arguments liberals have amongst themselves. My bar for intelligence and common sense for liberals is much higher than for conservatives - I explicitely expect liberals to be able to "recognize the possibility of different valid positions". Whether or not conservatives might be as accepting was not really an issue to me. Good for them if they are.

[cema.livejournal.com]

It is actually much more likely for extreme left and right groups to base their views on percieved morality or immorality of activities. People with their views closer to the middle tend to ground their opinions in more rational reasoning.

Yes, seems right.

But why do people choose to be right or left? To what extent is it logical reasoning, parental guidance, peer pressure, genetical predisposition? I think the moral and ethical foundation of this choice is strong.

Keep in mind also that one does not have to share someone's morality in order to either (1) decide if that someone is behaving according to his morality or (2) evaluate how important the question of morality is for the someone.

The question is whether people uttering such phrases really think that thre is nothing but morality behind them. I still think that the latter is more of an RR feature than of local liberals, or left in general.

I am sure that religious people tend to believe what they claim, even if their behavior differs. I do not know how many left liberals believe in what they are saying, but certain groups are full of such people. True, many such groupd tend to the extreme (environmentalists, anti-Zionists), but not all (vegans).

arguments liberals have amongst themselves

Right; I got a little carried away.

My bar for intelligence and common sense for liberals is much higher than for conservatives

Which is based on what exactly?

I explicitely expect liberals to be able to "recognize the possibility of different valid positions"

I think this is not part of any definition of what makes one a liberal. Am I wrong here?

[email-animal.livejournal.com]

Why do people choose to be left or right? Liberal or conservative? Heck, you want me to give you a short answer????

Now, things I actually can answer...

Me:

>My bar for intelligence and common sense for liberals is much higher >than for conservatives

You:

Which is based on what exactly?


I expect higher intelligence from the "good guys" (((-:


>I think this is not part of any definition of what makes one a >liberal. Am I wrong here?


Tolerance certainly is part of my definition of "liberal". And not only mine. ACLU defends the rights of all kinds of bigots, even when ACLU does not recognize any validity of their political positions.

Recognition of possibility of people to have their own systems of values is an important part of tolerance. In my opinion, this is what social liberalism is all about.

It appears that we derive our notions of "liberal" from different sources. You are trying to trace current liberalism from its historical sources. I am looking for an operating definition that is based on today's realities.

[cema.livejournal.com]

ACLU has "civil liberties" in its title. Does it mean you would call anyone who defends civil liberties a liberal?

Tolerance certainly is part of my definition of "liberal".

I used to have a similar disposition. But there are things that hit close, like antisemitism. I suppose the antisemitism of the Right does not surprise you, but antisemitism of the Left does? It used to surprise me, anyway, until I figured out how to deal with those labels.

Recognition of possibility of people to have their own systems of values is an important part of tolerance. In my opinion, this is what social liberalism is all about.

What would have been a liberal position in the American Civil war? Let them have their plantations, state rights, etc? The South had a well developed system of values of its own. But I expect you would rather talk about abolishing slavery?

[email-animal.livejournal.com]

ACLU.... American Civil Liberties Union... Are you seriously suggesting that it is anything but a liberal organization these days?

Yes, protection of civil liberties should be a business of everyone. Yet, somehow, ACLU has the stigma that no conservative would dare approach. So, returning back from theoretical discussion into the area of reality - yes, ACLU is a liberal organization, and its president, one Nadine Strossen is one of the most consistent liberals I have seen in the US public life.

I used to have a similar disposition. But there are things that hit close, like antisemitism.

I am approaching this as two questions: one about what is tolerable,
another - how I would explain intolerance in liberals. First of all, I never said tolerance was absolute. There are clearly different levels of tolerance in different people, and there are some ideas that do not deserve being tolerated. My previous mentions of tolerance were in comparing shades of one color to each other, if you look at the entire spectrum of opinion.

Now, how do I approach antisemitism of the Left? I am deeply troubled by it. I can see very clearly the origins of it in the Israeli-Palestine conflict, and the one-sidedness of the desire, in certain circles, to make the plight of Palestinians better, without really understanding the true complexity of things there. Under certain circumstances, such position grows into antisemitism.

Yet, I would NOT here equate all Left with liberals. I have a nice metaphor for the perennial liberal vs. conservative political struggle. Explaining it requires a separate post, and possible some graphical artistry - a picture is worth a thousand words. But in a nutshell the idea is that "liberal" is not an ideology that is constant regardless of the situation in a specific country. In my opinion, liberals, in each case choose positions which, in their opinion, move the country towards a certain "liberal ideal" - the latter being, in a fuzzy form, a constant. Thus you can see liberals in one country advocating one thing, while in another - a completely different one. It's a vector, not a point.

[cema.livejournal.com]

ACLU is a liberal organization in almost any reasonable definition, but my question was different.

I never said tolerance was absolute.

You never said anything about tolerance except that liberals are supposed to possess it.

there are some ideas that do not deserve being tolerated

Isn't the difference between conservatives and liberals more in the realm of what ideas they consider deserving of tolerance?

how do I approach antisemitism of the Left? I am deeply troubled by it.

Aren't we all... Golda Meir reported having been deeply hurt by her fellow Socialists with respect to the question of Zionism; I can only imaging how furious she would be had she seen what is going on these days.

[From the Arab-Israeli conflict] Under certain circumstances, such position grows into antisemitism.

What about anti-semitism of certain key figures of Enlightenment, like Voltair and Marx? Did it not affect the Left, or perhaps aren't there forces in existence now that were also present in earlier times which play out like that?

Yet, I would NOT here equate all Left with liberals.

Certainly, there must be a useful distinction. But what kind? Left vs Right could be reduced to the economical questions; where would the Liberal vs Conservative dichotomy lie then?

a picture is worth a thousand words

Or five hundred double words...

"liberal" is not an ideology that is constant regardless of the situation in a specific country. In my opinion, liberals, in each case choose positions which, in their opinion, move the country towards a certain "liberal ideal"

Were Republicans liberals in the 1860s due to the struggle against the slavery in the US? Were Democrats liberals in 1930s due to the struggle for building a social safety net? Do you call people who want to help Iraqis (or make Iraqis) build a free democratic country liberals? How about the environmentalists? What's your idea of the liberal ideal, in other words?

And, in contrast to liberals, what do you call conservatives? Or do you avoid this dichotomy?

[email-animal.livejournal.com]

I am tired to being constantly pushed to the margins of this discussion.
Here! http://www.livejournal.com/users/cema/126279.html?view=506439#t506439

Civil war

[email-animal.livejournal.com]

One of the principles of liberalism is "Egalite, Fraternite, Liberte".
So, from the ethical point of view, certainly, the right thing to do was to fight for abolition. Not to mention that there are objective economical reasons for why slavery hurts, reasons so deep that South is still feeling them, 150 after the war.

Now, whether or not that was also a reasonable and rational thing to do, depended on a number circumstances. You see, if the federalists did not have enough of manpower to fight the Confederacy, would they stand a chance of winning? Under the historic circumstances - they did and they did.

To summarize: when you are considering whether to do something, you should ask yourself two questions: (a) is it the right thing to do and (b) what is the best way to achieve success....

Re: Civil war

[cema.livejournal.com]

One of the principles of liberalism is "Egalite, Fraternite, Liberte".

Is that one or three? Anyhow, the slogan came from the French revolution. How universal is it?

from the ethical point of view, certainly, the right thing to do was to fight for abolition

And they did. Although it seems to be moral, rather than ethical, but I often make mistakes in these matters.

(a) is it the right thing to do and (b) what is the best way to achieve success

This is rather universal. What were conservatives supposed to do at the time, in your opinion?

Re: Civil war

[email-animal.livejournal.com]

What were conservatives supposed to do at the time, in your opinion?

Conserve. (-:

Re: Civil war

[cema.livejournal.com]

That would be conservants.

[email-animal.livejournal.com]

now, that I think about it, I have one more comment about the article itself. Fascism, the way I understand it teaches racial supremacy. In its German execution, it boiled down to a hierarchy of races and within races (actually, within white race) - hierarchy of ethnicities. Aryans, Romans, Slavs, Jews.... (did I miss anyone?)

Now, I am not familiar with the Baath party ideology, but I do not recall hearing theses about the supremacy of the Arab "race" from Saddam & Co. The anti-Israeli stance is based, in my opinion, not on any racial supremacy (heck, both are Semites), but on purely geopolitical and religious grounds.

So, I am starting to have some serious doubts in "Iraq is the new basinet of fascism" theory.

[cema.livejournal.com]

German Nazism is often considered a version of fascism, and it certainly belongs to the broad definition of fascism. However, the original Fascism, of Italian extraction, was not particularly racist.

Baath was created after the German Nazi party, but AFAIK it did not borrow its official view of the Semitic ethnic groups as untermenschen, for a number of reasons. :-)

So, whichever definition of fascism we use, it does not fit 100%, but is not completely foreign to them either.

[email-animal.livejournal.com]

Isn't the difference between conservatives and liberals more in the realm of what ideas they consider deserving of tolerance?

From the point of view of pure philosophy, perhaps. In practice - no. In practice, conservatives show almost no tolerance for any ideas that fall outside their dogma.

What about anti-semitism of certain key figures of Enlightenment, like Voltair and Marx?

What about it?

Did it not affect the Left?

I strongly doubt that any modern liberal, looking at the reasons for his/her antisemitism would go "hey, Voltair did not like them either."

We have to admit, that over large periods of time, there was no love lost towards Jews in Europe. Antisemitism transcended other opinions. The issue was that some, like Dostoyevsky, made a clinic out of it, and some - didn't.


Certainly, there must be a useful distinction. But what kind? Left vs Right could be reduced to the economical questions; where would the Liberal vs Conservative dichotomy lie then?

Consider two countries: US and Russia. Who is the Right in Russia and wh o is the Left? Who is the Right in the States and who is the Left? In both cases, the Right is pushing in the same direction, towards, some free-market ideal, and the Left is pushing in the same direction, towards some socialist ideal. (I am somewhat trvializing things, but I do not want to spend hours in my reply to you).

Now, who are the liberals in Russia and in the US? Well, looks like the liberals in the US are on the Left and in Russia - on the Right. In one case "liberalization" means more government involvment and in another - more free market, if we boil it down to economic views (social views tend to be similar and based on similar concepts of civil liberties).
This gives me an idea that "liberal" is not a unique ideological position. Rather, as an ideological position it is constructed as (beware, mathematical analogies are coming up) the delta between quantity I: some liberal ideal of a state and quantity R: the real state of the state. Thus,
L = I - R
Presumably, I does not change significantly outside of some range. R, on the other hand is quite different in different countries - Russia, Israel, USA. So, liberal position is the one that tries to restore missing parts from the "liberal ideal".

Does that make sense to you?

Were Republicans liberals in the 1860s due to the struggle against the slavery in the US?

Yes.

Were Democrats liberals in 1930s due to the struggle for building a social safety net?

Yes.

Do you call people who want to help Iraqis (or make Iraqis) build a free democratic country liberals?

No, in general. I would call Iraqis who want to build a free democratic country liberals. Outside of Iraq, in Western world, this does not appear to have discriminatory power. We ALL want Iraqis to build a free democratic society. That is NOT the issue.

How about the environmentalists?

Most, certainly, are.

What's your idea of the liberal ideal, in other words?

Sweden without the monarchy ??? (-:
I do not think I can answer this question in 100 words or less.