Stop it early, before it gets this far
Posted 20 January, 2008 in Diary, Politics
I was listening to ABC Newsradio this afternoon, to an article on Anne Frank and her diary. I can’t find a transcript on the ABC site, but I’m quoting as best as possible from memory. A fellow was being interviewed and my understanding is he was Jewish and had some experience of the holocaust, whether that was through personal experience or family I didn’t pick up.
He was speaking at 2:55pm EDT when he closed his piece. He said he was happy that the diary of Anne Frank was a school text in many places around the world. He also stated that he understood these events occurred a long time ago and that for many people this would be ‘the first and last book’ they read on the matter. When asked what the most important point he would want people to take away from this book, he replied that if this happens again we must ’stop it early’ before it gets this far.
Most readers would realise I’m raising this in the context of the War on Terror. Are the parallels between the WWII, Islamofascism and the War on Terror strong enough to make this comparison? I agree there’s a lot of room to find differences, but I don’t think the comparison is unreasonable. If we were to value this opinion then I’d be inclined to say that foreign military intervention is inevitable, sometimes, if we are going to ’stop it early’.
5 comments to “Stop it early, before it gets this far”
Jim Fryar, January 20th, 2008 at 11:17 pm:
-
Well mate I think Islamofascism is appropriate, for the expansionist form of militant Islam.
Joel Baltaks, February 18th, 2008 at 6:45 am:
-
While reading this post, when I came to the line “I’m raising this in the context of the War on Terror”, I thought to myself “yes, the US government is, in some ways, getting further and further out of control”. What with Guantanamo bay, military security companies, etc. there is a threat that the US will continue down its path of “pseudo fascsim”.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/The%20Rise%20Of%20Pseudo%20Fascism.pdf
I recommend this article as a good analysis of the reasons why Nazi Germany did start, and parallels to the current right wing US government.I actually do agree with the content of your blog post, but I thought I’d bring in a different perspective on it, too, since the end doesn’t always justify the means. And I honestly don’t think that the sole goal of the US (and Australian) invasion of Iraq was to simply stop an evil, fascist regime - there’s also the oil.
Thought provoking post!
Michael Sutcliffe, February 18th, 2008 at 4:55 pm:
-
Hey Joel, good to hear from you.
I’ll have a look over that document and put up a more detailed reply later tonight. I’ve given it a cursory glance and I think there’s a few points I’d love to address, but let me have a look at it in full.
The question I was really addressing with this article is whether foreign military intervention is good foreign policy, and under what circumstances is it morally justifiable. Obviously in a lot of libertarian circles non-intervention and ‘homeland style defence’ is the order of the day. I don’t believe this position is tenable, which is why I add the ‘neo’ to the front of ‘libertarian’ when describing myself.
After all, to use a simplistic example, if you had reason to believe someone was going to attack you, would you wait until they did to prove they have criminal intent? If the evidence is there, i.e. they’re getting a baseball bat out of their car in your driveway and putting a balaclava on , wouldn’t you consider it ethical to act first?
By the way this isn’t philosophic pragmatism either. I’m never claiming the ends justifies the means.
With regards to Gitmo, I believe that it is ethical to try a combatant caught on a battlefield under a military tribunal, but in this case it would be better served with an open trial, probably by a jury. With regards to private military companies, I don’t have a problem with them. It’s not force itself that is wrong, it’s whether it is used morally. The fact remains the private sector is more efficient in military matters, just like in most things!
As for the oil, I think there’s two considerations when going to war. 1. Is is morally justifiable? 2. Does the cost/benefit ratio add up? Iraq is morally justifiable. Sadaam was a tyrant. How many more UN resolutions should we have passed before we admitted he was going to ignore all of them? Terrorism does pose a threat to the West. Democratically elected governments in free and open countries voted, and they decided they should go to war. And the US should be admired and thanked for leading the good fight.
However, the cost is substantial. Does the cost/benefit ratio add up? Well, oil certainly helps it come close. Why should the US fight a costly war which benefits all of the free world - unless you believe the world would be a better place with Sadaam’s regime - and have to foot all the bill. If they obtain some benefit from Iraq’s oil then good on them. Not to mention that it could provide the means for Iraq to become independently wealthy in a relatively short time if they could get rule of law.
Michael Sutcliffe, February 18th, 2008 at 7:06 pm:
-
OK, I’ve had a good look at it. I agree it contains a number of valid ciriticisms of the neoconservative movement. The neocons are too keen to pounce on civil liberties, they like big government especially big military and policing programs, and they’re way too keen to bring religious values into politics. However that article is written from a very biased left wing perspective - this sort of shit is just rubbish:
as in all the talk about “shock and awe” in the Iraq invasion – they have suggested there is a kind of beauty to violence, especially in the service of the imposition of American will.
Yeah, right. If right-wingers are happy about Iraq then I think it might have more to do with the overthrowing of a tyrant who killed thousands, hated the West, and abused any effort to respect his sovereignty by ignoring institutions like the UN.
Joel, I must admit I don’t feel critiquing this paper is worth my while, and while I agree there is some truth behind it I feel it’s just supporting a lot of rubbish, à la Michael Moore. I’ll just close by considering a few of the “motivating passions” of fascism identified by Paxton (page 51) but from a right-wing perspective
1. – a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions;
Like the global warming crisis? I mean this ‘crisis’ is bigger than any of us, isn’t it? This calls for drastic action NOW! We need to ban cars. We need heavy taxes on hydrocarbon fuels and airline tickets. In fact, the only people who should be able to fly are speakers on the global warming circuit and Greens senators. The government should impose a public transportation levy on anyone earning more than $40K, and everyone should be forced to walk or take the bus to work. The electricity grid should be shut down at 8:00pm each night. Luxuries like air conditioning are no longer viable. This is a CRISIS God dammit! What, you want to wait for the science? YOU SELFISH BASTARD! There’s no time to wait! By the time we investigate what’s going on it will be too late! This is like no other crisis we’ve ever faced. We need to act NOW!
2. – the primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether universal or individual, and the subordination of the individual to it;
That’s right. From each according to his means, to each according to his need. You have an obligation to your fellow man to forgo a good portion of your income to fund welfare, environmental protection programs, the arts and community inclusiveness. Society is bigger than just you and you need to learn to give. Individualism is just selfishness. You shouldn’t expect to make your own decisions on whether you can smoke tobacco, or watch sexually explicit movies, play violent video games, decide who you want to associate with, or do politically incorrect things like ride motorcycles or hunt ducks, even on your own property. Your society, through your government, will decide if these things are acceptable and you should submit to them for the good of your society.
6. – the need for authority by natural leaders (always male), culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the group’s destiny; and 7. – the superiority of the leader’s instincts over abstract and universal reason;
For these ones I’ll quote an essay by Peter Saunders from the the Centre for Independent Studies. He debated über-lefty Clive Hamilton on ‘‘capitalism is bad for the soul’, which is obviously something Clive holds quite dear. He also wrote an essay encapsulating his viewpoint from the debate. This is a quote:
And people do drop out, or at least scale down. A survey conducted by Hamilton’s Australia Institute claims that 23% of Australians between the ages of thirty and sixty have taken a cut in their income to get more control over their lives, spend more time with friends and families, or achieve greater personal fulfilment. Clive calls them ‘downshifters.’
However, 23% isn’t good enough for Clive, for it means more than 75% of us are still accumulating and consuming. Too many of us are still making the ‘wrong’ choice. Like Marcuse, Hamilton thinks this is because we are beguiled by advertisers who promote false needs. We are all suffering from what Engels famously called ‘false consciousness’ (or what Frank Parkin mischievously described as ‘collective brain damage’). We need to have our consciousness raised by those who know better.
In a passage reminiscent of Engels and Lenin, Hamilton writes: ‘The downshifters are the standard bearers in the revolt against consumerism, but the social revolution required to make the transition to a post-growth society will not come about solely through the personal decisions of determined individuals … Making [this] transition demands a politics of downshifting.’ The phrase is ominous. Just as Lenin couldn’t trust the proletariat to make the transition to socialism, so too Hamilton cannot trust us to make the transition to the ‘post-growth’ society he thinks we should have. Left to ourselves, we’ll never get there. We need a leader to give us a shove. As to who this leader will be, Clive is far too modest to say.
I think there’s plenty of people on the left who believe their thinking is superior, and if other people knew what was good for them they would live by their rules, and this is why we need a kindly but firm government putting in place plenty of laws to make these silly people behave ‘correctly’.
Joel Baltaks, February 19th, 2008 at 10:33 am:
-
Firstly, thanks for the well thought out reply, Michael.
I think we’re mostly on the same page with this really - I do think it’s justifiable to attack the balaclava wearing bandit - and I do agree with the notion that the Jewish man puts forward, that we have an obligation to stop oppressive regimes before they get out of hand. In honesty, I’m a little ignorant of much of the details surrounding the Iraq invasion, so I’m relying on the opinions of others to decide whether the invasion was justified for this reason.
Regarding “The Rise of Pseudo Fascism” document I linked, yeah, I don’t quite buy everything it purports, but it’s an interesting perspective. I would certainly place the USA as being more the “good guys” and the Hussein regime as the “bad guys”. But the USA also has elements of being bad guys, and it’s been a growing trend over the last decade particularly (well, since sept 11th especially). And the question then proceeds, how much further would this shift to the right need to proceed before the USA starts to resemble Fascist Germany enough to be worrisome?
Personally, I think Australia has one of the safest government systems in the world because of the checks and balances in place.
On your comments to the “motivating passions”: I agree with you whole heartedly that far left wingers can have just as over-the-top ideas as far right wingers can. If you’re at either extremity you can be tempted to throw away reason and stable law, and just follow makers of rash decisions. And the best antidote to this is of course individuals who take the time to think this kind of stuff out for themselves.
Anyway, I didn’t intend to take the discussion off onto a tangent - my original comment was to raise a juxtaposition that both the Hussein regime and the USA might both be (to some degree) on the path to a Nazi-like state.
haha - maybe it’s because I watched V for Vendetta recently. It explores these issues quite well.