The Right has taken notice of the fashionable Left's embrace of risible rabble like Saddam. Below, historian Daniel Pipes briefly summarises this evolution of Marx's children, culminating in last years cult classsic, "Empire" by by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, which became a best seller in France, Italy, and elsewhere. (See Alan Wolfe's devastating essay review in The New Republic, October 1, 2001) Elsewhere I posted a link to Lee Harris' penetrating essay on this phenomenon in Policy Review http://www.policyreview.org/dec02/harris.html; Pipes merely outlines this amazing topic of self-delusion and intellectual dishonesty. 'Useful idiots' still walk among us. ______________________________________ "t appears that none of the millions of antiwar demonstrators have a bad word to say about Saddam Hussein nor an iota of sympathy for those oppressed, tortured and murdered by his regime. Instead, they vent fury against the American president and British prime minister. "Why is the Left nonchalant about the outrages committed by al Qaeda and Baghdad? "Lee Harris, an Atlanta writer, offers an explanation in a recent issue of the Hoover Institution's journal, Policy Review. He does so by stepping way back and recalling Karl Marx's central thesis about the demise of capitalism resulting from an inevitable sequence of events: * Business profits decline in the industrial countries; * Bosses squeeze their workers; * Workers become impoverished; * Workers rebel against their bosses, and * Workers establish a socialist order. "Everything here hangs on workers growing poorer over time - which, of course, did not happen. In fact, Western workers became richer (and increasingly un-revolutionary). By the roaring 1950s, most of the Left realized that Marx got it wrong. "But rather than give up on cherished expectations of socialist revolution, Harris notes, Marxists tweaked their theory. Abandoning the workers of advanced industrial countries, they looked instead to the entire populations of poor countries to carry out the revolution. Class analysis went out the window, replaced by geography [and Third-Worldism]. "This new approach, known as 'dependencia theory,' holds that the First World (and the United States above all) profits by forcefully exploiting the Third Word. The Left theorizes that the United States oppresses poor countries; thus Noam Chomsky's formulation that America is a 'leading terrorist state.' [And decades of evidence contradicts the third-world immiseration thesis, including systematic evidence from the UN, World Bank, and academic economists.] "For vindication of this claim, Marxists impatiently await the Third World's rising up against the West. Sadly for them, the only true revolution since the 1950s was Iran's in 1978-79. It ended with militant Islam in power and the Left in hiding. "Then came 9/11, which Marxists interpreted as the Third World (finally!) striking back at its American oppressor. In the Left's imagination, Harris explains, this attack was nothing less than 'world-historical in its significance: the dawn of a new revolutionary era.' "Only a pedant would point out that the suicide hijackers hardly represented the wretched of the earth; and that their objectives had nothing at all to do with socialism and everything to do with - no, not again! - militant Islam. "So desperate is the Left for some sign of true socialism, it overlooks such pesky details. [Denial of reality.] Instead, it warily admires al Qaeda, the Taliban and militant Islam in general for doing battle with the United States. The Left tries to overlook militant Islam's slightly un-socialist practices - such as its imposing religious law, excluding women from the workplace, banning the payment of interest, encouraging private property and persecuting atheists. "This admiring spirit explains the Left's nonchalant response to 9/11. Sure, it rued the loss of life, but not too much. Dario Fo, the Italian Marxist who won the 1997 Nobel Prize for literature, explains: 'the great [Wall Street] speculators wallow in an economy that every year kills tens of millions of people with poverty, so what is 20,000 dead in New York?' "The same goes for Saddam Hussein, whose gruesome qualities matter less to the Left than the fact of his confronting and defying the United States. In its view, anyone who does that can't be too bad - never mind that he brutalizes his subjects and invades his neighbors. The Left takes to the streets to assure his survival, indifferent both to the fate of Iraqis and even to their own safety, clutching instead at the hope that this monster will somehow bring socialism closer. " http://danielpipes.org/article/1040 -------------------------------------------- Hope springs eternal among the Left--but why? (Their numbers keep dwindling--Christopher Hitchens, Oriana Falaci....) --Orson
Orson, this applies to a very small percentage of the so-called Left. Are you really suggesting that organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch--which have opposed Saddam's human rights violations for years, but also oppose the war--are pro-Saddam? I don't know why I'm bothering to post this; you're obviously just using this forum as an excuse to vent your own hatred and prejudices. I hope it makes you feel better. Peace,
Who am I kidding; I'm arguing with somebody's blog. Well, I'm on the Left, which appears to be only one of your special Hated Groups--but if I only changed my name to Muhammad, moved to France, and joined the Roman Catholic Church, I might be up to four. Do you hate people who wear bowties? I can wear bowties. Or maybe you hate people who wear knitted socks? Or vegetarians? Or people who listen to Tangerine Dream? How many of your prejudices can I appeal to? Can I make an argument that I'm genetically inferior? Does it help if I have big feet? Come on, let's see how much you can hate me. In all seriousness: I'm sure I'd respect what you're doing, if I knew what the hell it was. But as things stand now, there's no way on earth that I can keep up with these ridiculous tirades. I have added you to my ignore list. You may call me intellectually dishonest or cowardly or whatever it is you call people you disagree with, but I don't have time for this foolishness and don't have the patience to sit by serenely and read it without responding. Hasta la vista! Cheers,
Saddam received a great deal of assistance and aid in his aggression against Iran from the administration of that well-known leftist and Democrat, Ronald Reagan. (Whose administration, of course, also sold arms to Iran.) The Shah of Iran, noted despot, was returned to the Peacock throne by the CIA during the administration of that known leftist and Democrat, Dwight Eisenhower. Closer to home, Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez of El Salvador was supported by the deployment of the U.S. Navy to that country during the administration of that well-known leftist and Democrat, Herbert Hoover. Reagan also gave public support to Efrain Riso Mont, the right wing dictator of Guatemala. Reagan also provided more than $240 million in aid to right wing dictator Roberto Suazo Cordova of Honduras in 1985. The CIA paid Manuel Noriega $100,000 per year during the Ford administration (well-known leftist and Democrat). At the time, the CIA was headed up by George Bush, another one. It goes on and on. Of course, a similar list can be compiled for dictators and despots supported under Democratic administrations. But no sense in being fair, huh? "How do you have patience for people who claim they love America, but clearly can't stand Americans?" "The American President"
It was due, Russell--and you can rest confident in the knowledge that if I see folks start flooding the forum with unfair attacks on "the Right," I'll back you up regardless of whether or not I happen to share your views. I'll just have to remember that most folks here aren't going to reciprocate. Cheers,
What makes you think I am among "the Right," Tom? Indeed, we all have the freedom to share our views, which is the beauty of the American system of democracy!
who supports right wing dictators? Historically the right wing and the left wing have both supported dictators. The Shah of Iran was supported by many different USA administrations. The Reagan/Bush Administration supported the dictator in Panana. Then Bush changed his mind. I have heard that it is often easier for a business to deal with a dictatorship than a democracy. All the best! irat
Right you are irat. I may be mistaken but I did not recall seeing any support for the right from Orson, merely recognition of what the right has noticed of the left. It is very possible Orson is an anarchist (either Hobbsian or Rothbardian, Norzickian) or maybe he is a libertarian or maybe none of the above. But by the emotion of some of the replies it is evident who is left, who is right, and who are none of the above. So bravo to you Orson and keep people thinking. something to ponder...
I'm still unclear about what a "blog" is or about why I should care. What's frustrating is that he cuts out exerpts from other people's writings to make his own points (such as they are), but when any of us try to respond we find that we are engaging with shadows. I don't think that it matters, Tom. Orson's targets are so ill-defined: the "Euros", the "left" or whatever it happens to be today, that I've pretty much concluded that they are straw men. The common thread seems to be that they are fanciful and dismissive reinterpretations of anyone that disagrees with President Bush's Iraq strategy. My policy is not to read anything that he quotes. I only read text that he writes himself. The whole point of participating here is intellectual interaction. If I'm going to accept a reading assignment, it will only be after a Degreeinfo participant has introduced me to the ideas that the assignment contains and given me some reason why I should find those ideas interesting and significant.
US "help" to Saddam way over estimated! Actually, the US only sold pre-Gulf War Iraq about $200 million dollars in arms--compared with $25 billion from the Soviet Union, and $5 billion each from France and China (according to SIRS[?--I haven't got the source immediately in front of me], a Swedish disarmament group that tracks such sales. As for the rest of your post, Rich, I know Cold War history, too; but precisely how is it applicable to this one when that one is long over? --Orson PS Chem weaps are easily made from ordinary pesticide component chemicals; and the "Anthrax" the US gave Iraq came from the CDC to fight ordinary, local varieties of the stuff that are naturally occuring. Oh, and it apparently did alarm the US government to find out that people were being gassed in Iraq in the 80s.
When the facts are against you, eh, Tom? Now, Tom, you may be indifferent to the facts, but I am not. When the largest anti-war protests in the latest war are organized by the Stalinist Socialist Workers Party (February), under the front group ANSWER, and that same group stops Michael Lerner from speaking at their rally because he's "too anti-Saddam," as Lerner explained on the Op-Ed pages of the Wall Street Journal--then I'd say the "peace" mevement has a problem! Wouldn't you, Tom? The fact that the media generally ignored these inconvenient facts, of course, tells us more about media bias than it does the leaders of these protests. The fact that these bilious truths rankled almost no one on the Left tells us even more about how the "progessives" have devolved. Perhaps it's up to the Bushies to jump-start progess, liberate the oppressed, and generally, be on the right side of history. I hate that, Tom--don't you? --Orson
From Tom...Orson, this applies to a very small percentage of the so-called Left. Are you really suggesting that organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch--which have opposed Saddam's human rights violations for years, but also oppose the war--are pro-Saddam? Interesting sides of a debate indeed. I do find it interesting though that an American (Demo, Repub, other) does not give fully support to liberate an oppressed people. And given that Saddam is a dictator (not elected) and that dictator is derived from one person or a group of people dictating the actions of other then by definition the Iraqi people are oppressed and then their human rights have been violated ever since the beginning of his rule. So if Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch do not oppose Saddam just as being a dictator (not elected) then it can be actively argue that yes they support him (pro-saddam). To support this note that leftist economic and/or political theory tend believe in centralization of power and positive legistation and rights which is by definition dictatorship which is by definition oppression which is by definition violations of human rights. Interesting indeed but then again I do not presume to know what is best for each INDIVIDUAL person because I do not presume to know each INDIVIDUAL's preferences for the way in which they wish to spend THEIR life.
In the abstract, I think that virtually everyone supports the "liberation" of "oppressed" people. As is always the case, the devil is in the details. One could question whether throwing tons of high explosive at people might not be more injurious to them than the dictatorship one hopes to save them from. Wars carry their own inevitable costs, that have to be weighed carefully against their benefits. One could question whether an exercise of unilateral power that polarizes the world, galvanizes those that fear and resent us, squanders the sympathetic support that America had post 9-11 and weakens international cooperative mechanisms, might not cause long-term diplomatic damage. One could question whether the war plan, no matter how moral or idealistic it seems to us, is pragmatically and operationally sound. Does it have a reasonable chance of achieving its objectives at a reasonable cost? One could question actions that appear to be pushing many of Saddam's opponents into giving him de-facto support. Apparently they hate only one thing more than they hate Saddam: a bunch of arrogant and self-satisfied foreigners shooting their way in and trying to take over their country. That's unacceptable to their Iraqi nationalism and they rally around their flag and cheer their boys' scattered, hopeless but (to them) gallant resistance. One can question whether there is a danger that the people concerned might use their new-found American-imposed democracy to vote in something that we don't approve of, such as an Iran-style anti-Western Islamic republic. One can question whether removing the oppressive Baathist apparatus might not release separatist forces (Kurdish and/or Shiite) that could cause Iraq to fragment into competing enclaves and draw in outside intervention from Turkey and Iran. One can ask what kind of exit strategy we have from all of this. My point is that there are very real questions that can be asked about this adventure. And depending on the answers that one gives to these sorts of questions, opposition to either the war or to particular ways of pursuing it might then be justified. I don't think that one can simply dismiss all criticism of the war as support for dictators.
You do have some legitimate questions there BIllDayson but they would be appropriate only if the comments were not all in the abstract, which they were.
Of course Bill, (in general). But let's except the one-third(!!) of the French poll Le Mond reports supporting the victory of a certain Saddamite dictator, who shall otherwise go unnamed. "'The fact 33% of the French wish for a victory by Saddam Hussein is a clear sign of the triumph of ignorance and the defeat of all critical spirit.' The words of Yves Michaux in Liberation today." http://www.cinderellabloggerfeller.blogspot.com/ (2 Apriol 2003) So what does this "abstract" support fior liberation amount to? It include syndicated LA Times columnist Robert Scheer, who compares the Fedeyeen favorably to the American revolutionaries; nor columnist Eric Alterman and The Nation editor Katha Pollit, who suggested early on that we must hold the US forces in suspicion of purposely targeting civilians, as did New York Congressman Charlie Rangel! It seems this tiny extremist "left" has gotten rather mainstream to me. Finally, leftist critic Pascal Bruckner was interviewed in Paris' Le Figaro saying--quite independently of me--that the uncritical French left-wing peace stance amounted to support for the right-wing Le Pen's platform, which is openly sympathetic to Saddam: "In this affair, it’s the 'nice' left […] which has set the tone. But to end up where? To propose, as the only solution for Iraqi misery, the reintroduction of the status quo. Pacifism is an old French passion. It can be picturesque and derisory. What can you say, on the other hand, when 'anti-war' protesters chant, without causing a scandal, the slogan 'Bush, Sharon, murderers!' but forbid themselves mentioning the name of Saddam Hussein even occasionally. ***All these young people have begun to speak “Le Pen’s text” without knowing it...."*** --Pascal Bruckner, via cinderella blogger, 26 March 2003. [***Emphasis mine***] Let me reiterate another of Bruckner's points: "t's the 'nice left' [like Tom Head?]...antiwar protesters...[who] forbid themselves even mention[ing] the name of Saddam even occasionally." I have not made this observation up--Bruckner and I have simply independently observed the same phenomenon. I say agsin that it's time for the Left--which is so infamous for inflicting conformity upon its dissenters, except when it comes to its own evils--to clean out its stables. More work for Tom and our friends. --Orson
