The Iraq war, for example, is TOTALLY consistent with neo-conservative philosophy. It was argued for by neo-conservatives and in reference to their philosophic foundations.
More specifically --Your post includes the statement "What does matter is how their actual foreign policy is run"
Who are you claiming is a "Neo-Con" ? So -- which particular self-procalimed neo-cons are you referring to -- that is, which of them is responsible for how "their actual policy is run."
On August 26 2008 05:14 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: The neo-conservative movement was developed by a group of New York, Jewish, Ex-Communist intellectuals. The neo-cons agree with the communists/socilialists // democratic socialists (ie., those who don't advocate a violent worker revolution) that promoting "the greater good" "common good" etc etc. is the goal of the government. However, as communism failed again and again around the world (that doesn't mean it can't ever work) these socialists began to draw new conclusions. That is, they began to think that something was wrong at the very foundation of their political philosophy (probably based on the inability to restrict self-interset). They saw the relative prosperity in market based economies and the relative poverty of state-controlled markets. Perhaps their analysis was premature, but when they looked at the facts presenting themselves around the world they decided to shift their views. The new view was one that advocated capitalism only as much as their economists and analysts tell them is good for economic growth//common good. They are not advocates of laissez-faire. They agree with Marx's arguments on the accumulation of capital .They don't think that self-interset is a "good" thing. They are pragmatists through and through who beleive the free-market should be used only because of its social value. They are collectivists. They beleive positive (ie., literal not merely negative-obligatory) moral values can (and possibly should) be asserted by the government -- which anyone who argues for the redistrubution of wealth by force implicitly accepts.
Your criticism -- a marxist shot [ie., monopoly/explotation] would be better leveled at libertarians or conservatives that fall under the milton friedman type.
Btw, I'm gonna try to be tactful here and just say, that if you want to be taken seriously, take out all the jargon. I understand it fine, but what it does is destroy your credibility. You look like a guy who's fresh out of a 1200 lvl course in college and is quoting as many buzz-words out of his textbook as possible. Not saying that's what you are, but this type of writing is symptomatic of that. Keep academic jargon to academic journals. When you actually want to debate ideas with people, talk to them like a normal human being. Professors resort to that kind of behavior because they are constantly struggling for prestige and there's a certain standard of snobbery in academic circles, where that kind of self-masturbatory "intellectualism" is status quo.
Now on to your actual point:
How I'm reading your post - and correct me if I'm wrong here - is that you're saying Neo-cons have these central tenets in their philosophy:
1. Gov't should work for the greater good. 2. Capitalism should be controlled and determined by societal needs. 3. Gov't should be an arbiter of moral values.
Now my own opinion of this is that half of this is common sense, and the other half is highly questionable.
Gov't should work for the greater good. Really? That's a new idea? I'm kind of at a loss of words here for why that should even be mentioned. Aside from Machiavelli and other antiquated notions of governance, I fail to understand how that stands out from any other philosophy of gov't. I'm not even going to open up the can of worms for what "greater good" should be defined as. Or get into any kind of philosophical debate over what is good or bad.
Capitalism should be controlled and determined by societal needs. Okay. Personally, I think only the most asinine individual would think rampant free market capitalism would lead to anything except chaos and extreme heights of volatility. It's always been a central tenant of capitalism that it needs a strong stable government to adjudicate laws, break up monopolies, and provide a safe, stable, honorable climate for economic activity.
Now if this tenet of neo-conservatism is dipping into more extreme territory, where they start to dictate what societal needs are and how they should be met, well... that's another story. How do they call the shots for what "society" needs? How do they determine what is healthy economic activity and what's not? There are certain economic decisions that are sensible in anyone's view, but there are many many more economic decisions that are just not predictable enough to determine what the final outcome will be. Trade agreements are at the top of this list.
Gov't should be an arbiter of moral values. This to me is far and away one of the most controversial aspects of neo-conservatism. The abortion debate. Affirmative action. Environmentalism. Creationism. Legalization of marijuana. PATRIOT ACT. Who determines "right" and "wrong?" Again, this is leading into dangerous territory. Neo-conservatives seem to espouse that gov't has the RIGHT, or should have the RESPONSIBILITY to arbitrate in matters of economy and ethics. Fiscal policy is one thing. Fair enough, someone's got to make the tough decisions. But when it comes to ethics, that is a matter of the people, not the state.
And aside from all the idealistic chatter, get to the heart of it. What do Neo-cons actually want? Logging in the Southwest USA, cutting down reservations for what? Lower paper costs? Drilling for oil in the Alaskan preserve? Funding crock "science" to prove that global warming is cyclical and not an actual issue? Rampant militarism and hawkish "diplomacy" toward the rest of the world? Unilateral action without global consensus to wage war on other countries? Discreet usage of tactical nuclear weapons for standard military operations? Pushing for prayer in schools, and offering of "alternative" explanations for life on Earth? Yeah, real believable. Seeing as how the schools choose only to teach the Christian belief for life on Earth. What happened to the thousands of other religions that have their own theory?
Time and time again, the neoconservative political platform and executive agenda betray their true intentions. This is not some reactionary movement that fuses liberalism with realism. It's a front for standard power-grabbing, economic exploitation of a nation, and deep corruption of the political process by third parties with a lot of money to buy politicians with.
Call me Marxist if you like, but I've said nothing to support leftist beliefs. Far from it. Politics is a dirty game. There is no "right" side. But I guess in typical fashion, you think I must be socialist if I'm not capitalist. Cool.
Now stop ducking behind the jargon and double-speak and get to the point. If you think Neo-conservatism is something great, talk about what they do that is great. The Iraq War is consistent with their ideology? No shit. Their ideology is to always keep military action on the table. Neo-Cons believe in a world order where the US maintains their position at the top. They justify military spending by saying the world will descend into chaos if the US isn't powerful enough to conquer the world alone. They spend billions of dollars every year to make weapons to fight enemies that would have to come from outer space to pose a challenge. This is the same political party that refuses to sign a treaty that bans weapons in space. Fantastic.
The thing is, I could write a book on this, but I'd rather not waste TL's bandwith. But you're going to have to come a lot harder, with a lot better material, if you plan on trying to make neo-cons look wholesome. Giving a cookie-cutter definition that is rooted in semantics more than anything is not going to work. Trying to justify their catastrophic foreign policy by claiming it's "consistent with their philosophy," is not enlightening, in fact it casts the neo-con movement in an even more unflattering light.
HILARY!! vote for her! remove obama the nigger!(<-- Racistist remark) ..who need a nigger(again with racist remark) that gonna go for africa than united states
On August 27 2008 10:01 nien wrote: HILARY!! vote for her! remove obama the nigger!(<-- Racistist remark) ..who need a nigger(again with racist remark) that gonna go for africa than united states
On August 27 2008 10:01 nien wrote: HILARY!! vote for her! remove obama the nigger!(<-- Racistist remark) ..who need a nigger(again with racist remark) that gonna go for africa than united states
Before responding, let me address your statements on Jargon:
You wrote that (perhaps?) I write in jargon, and sound like [[or at least display the symptoms of]] someone fresh out of a class spouting buzzwords. Further, you state that it is a mistake to mimic my prof's vocabulary (or at least articulate my ideas in a similar manner) -- since they only speak that way because of their battle for prestige. You also say:: "When you actually want to debate ideas with people, talk to them like a normal human being."
Fair enough. However, I don't know which words you are referring too. You don't mention any. The words I used were, simply put, the first ones that came to mind. On further reflection -- they seem to be the most efficient to convey my meaning. However, if you have some words that you would rather not see used (presumably for the sake of others reading) in any further dialogue between us, just list them out and I'll do my best not to write them.
Now, let me move to your post proper.
You wrote:
"That's exactly what I'm saying." In response to the statement: "Why not instead argue that the military-industrial complex is bad and that the neo-cons preach one thing but are actually simply concealing the MIC?"
Good -- if that is what you are saying that we are in basic agreement on at least that point. Your original post gave the impression that neo-conservatives ARE the military industrial complex. I was only trying to point out that the two concepts are not synonymous even if there are some shared characteristics.
The reason I brought this up was because of the closing argument made on your previous post ( the post I first responded to ). Here you made the claim that if you think neo-conservative political philosophy is a good thing than you might as well support selling "our country to...Exxon, and the fed already..."
[[Please note: You did not say you were referring to so-called neo-conservative policies, you said quite specifically "neo-con philosophy" --- Neo-Con philosophy means their explicit political philosophy as set out in their prominent journals.]]
The thrust of my argument was that Neo-conservatives evolved out of ardent socialists -- that the accumulation of capital is something they view with disdain and that a statement like yours, above, does not accurately describe the neo-conservatives. Rather, it seems that such a critique is more accurately placed on libertarians or more traditional fiscal conservatives.
Again, all I am contesting is the relationship between accumulation of capital and the neo-conservatives political philosophy. For your post (the original post of yours I responded too) to make sense, I think you will have to prove that the political philosophy of the neo-conservatives (or at least those who claim to be acting under the guidance of neo-conservatives) is being used as a screen for the more devious schemes of the powerful. I don't think it would be difficult work to piece together something like this -- indeed, as you say in your most recent post "Politics is a dirty game." It appears so. All kinds of (presumably) benevolent political philosophies have been hijacked by individuals and groups who -- it appears -- were interested only in power.
Before addressing the bulk of your response, I want to mention why I believe the above distinction is called for. Very often those opposed to republicans use the term "neo-conservative" to label the current executive branch's (and some policies in congress) policies or philosophy. I think that the term is used because many of the stronger minds on the left recognize that the real danger to the ideology they express does not come from those who advocate "liberty" or "freedom" for its own sake -- but instead from those who advocate those concepts only as a means to the "common good". That is, only as a means their shared goals. The neo-conservatives depart from the founding fathers as well as many other brands of conservatives in that they strongly endorse positive, not negative obligations on citizens. By that I mean, they do not argue for a let-alone government for its own sake -- justified by the "inalienable rights of man". Instead, they argue a let-alone policy because "it works" best toward "the common good." The disagreement, then, between neo-cons and Marxists/democratic socialists is not one of the proper goal of a government, but the proper method used to achieve it. This stands in contrast to a libertarian type view which argues the purpose of the government is not "the common good" but simply the preservation of some type of liberty/individual rights or something like that.
Thus, I think it would be better to have the concept "neo-conservative" free of misplaced references --like the one alluded to in your previous post, that seemed to portray the neo-con political position as one of unhampered market power -- in order to allow the debate about which method achieves "the greater good" better -- planned or free (or whatever mixture in between) economy.
Now, I'd like to address some points of your most recent response.
You wrote: "How I'm reading your post - and correct me if I'm wrong here - is that you're saying Neo-cons have these central tenets in their philosophy:
1. Gov't should work for the greater good. 2. Capitalism should be controlled and determined by societal needs. 3. Gov't should be an arbiter of moral values. "
I am not sure if that is all the tenets -- and I am a little hesitant of #3 because I am not sure of the particular extent (or standard used in deciding the extent) neo-cons believe the government should control moral values. However, I think that is a pretty fair portrayl of my previous post.
You then elaborate on these three tenets when you write:
"Now my own opinion of this is that half of this is common sense, and the other half is highly questionable.
Gov't should work for the greater good. Really? That's a new idea? I'm kind of at a loss of words here for why that should even be mentioned. Aside from Machiavelli and other antiquated notions of governance, I fail to understand how that stands out from any other philosophy of gov't. I'm not even going to open up the can of worms for what "greater good" should be defined as. Or get into any kind of philosophical debate over what is good or bad.
Capitalism should be controlled and determined by societal needs. Okay. Personally, I think only the most asinine individual would think rampant free market capitalism would lead to anything except chaos and extreme heights of volatility. It's always been a central tenant of capitalism that it needs a strong stable government to adjudicate laws, break up monopolies, and provide a safe, stable, honorable climate for economic activity.
Now if this tenet of neo-conservatism is dipping into more extreme territory, where they start to dictate what societal needs are and how they should be met, well... that's another story. How do they call the shots for what "society" needs? How do they determine what is healthy economic activity and what's not? There are certain economic decisions that are sensible in anyone's view, but there are many many more economic decisions that are just not predictable enough to determine what the final outcome will be. Trade agreements are at the top of this list.
Gov't should be an arbiter of moral values. This to me is far and away one of the most controversial aspects of neo-conservatism. The abortion debate. Affirmative action. Environmentalism. Creationism. Legalization of marijuana. PATRIOT ACT. Who determines "right" and "wrong?" Again, this is leading into dangerous territory. Neo-conservatives seem to espouse that gov't has the RIGHT, or should have the RESPONSIBILITY to arbitrate in matters of economy and ethics. Fiscal policy is one thing. Fair enough, someone's got to make the tough decisions. But when it comes to ethics, that is a matter of the people, not the state."
I take responsibility for not making my original intention clear. As a result of my un-clarity you set out to evaluate neo-conservative philosophy itself. I intended only to fix the description of 'what' neo-conservativism is, not whether it is a good political philosophy. I elaborated on my justification for this project above.
You then move on to say:
"And aside from all the idealistic chatter, get to the heart of it. What do Neo-cons actually want? Logging in the Southwest USA, cutting down reservations for what? Lower paper costs? Drilling for oil in the Alaskan preserve? Funding crock "science" to prove that global warming is cyclical and not an actual issue? Rampant militarism and hawkish "diplomacy" toward the rest of the world? Unilateral action without global consensus to wage war on other countries? Discreet usage of tactical nuclear weapons for standard military operations? Pushing for prayer in schools, and offering of "alternative" explanations for life on Earth?"
Earlier I made clear that this is a discussion of the explicit philosophy of neo-conservatives not actions that are carried out in their name. It can be the case that someone argues for a particular point and is a hypocrite. But simply pointing out that a particular person is a hypocrite is not an argument against a political philosophy -- it is an argument against a person.
[[If you are willing -- just for my own purposes -- do you have any those policies advocated by neo-cons you alluded to above? Id be interested in having these (and of course, the accompanying arguments of why these are "bad" for the "social interest" or "common good") in store when I discuss things with self proclaimed neo-conservatives.]]
You wrote: "Call me Marxist if you like, but I've said nothing to support leftist beliefs. Far from it. Politics is a dirty game. There is no "right" side. But I guess in typical fashion, you think I must be socialist if I'm not capitalist. Cool."
I didn't call you a Marxist. I did say that the criticism you leveled in your post was rooted in, what is most easily identified as, the marxist view of the accumulation of capital. So I don't think your comment -- the "in typical fashion, you must think..." comment applies. I wasn't drawing a perimeter around your political views I was labeling one criticism you made as rooted in another thinkers work. I didn't mean to give you the impression that I was smearing you as a communist etc.
You wrote:
"Now stop ducking behind the jargon and double-speak and get to the point. If you think Neo-conservatism is something great, talk about what they do that is great. The Iraq War is consistent with their ideology? No shit. Their ideology is to always keep military action on the table. Neo-Cons believe in a world order where the US maintains their position at the top. They justify military spending by saying the world will descend into chaos if the US isn't powerful enough to conquer the world alone. They spend billions of dollars every year to make weapons to fight enemies that would have to come from outer space to pose a challenge. This is the same political party that refuses to sign a treaty that bans weapons in space. Fantastic."
First, as I stated in my previous post, I am not a neo-conservative nor do I think they properly defend their political philosophy. Earlier in this post I describe my motivations in responding to your post. Also, I don't know what you are referring to as double-speak but I don't mean to do that -- so if you are more specific in regards to that accusation hopefully I can clarify my point.
Finally, you wrote:
"The thing is, I could write a book on this, but I'd rather not waste TL's bandwith. But you're going to have to come a lot harder, with a lot better material, if you plan on trying to make neo-cons look wholesome. Giving a cookie-cutter definition that is rooted in semantics more than anything is not going to work. Trying to justify their catastrophic foreign policy by claiming it's "consistent with their philosophy," is not enlightening, in fact it casts the neo-con movement in an even more unflattering light."
I'd agree with the harder and better material -- I don't agree with the neo-con political position.
As far as your statement on semantics is concerned -- I don't doubt that you realize that what someone means by "semantics" is not at all initially clear. All discussion involves semantics. I am left to assume that you mean that neo-cons don't practice what they preach. This relates back to my original point -- which I have made several times now -- that there is a difference between an explicit political philosophy and an individual or groups actions or policies and that making clear note of hypocrisy does not necessarily damage an explicit political philosophy.
My apologies then. Thanks for not losing your temper and letting my more wayward extrapolations distract you. After reading your post, I better understand what you're saying and I think it's a very good point.
I don't mean on a philosophical level that the neo-con movement is "bad." (Although, I believe their ideology on foreign policy is a very very flawed one). But it's like you said, there is a distinction between the political philosophy and politics as they're actually exercised. It is indeed a classic case of not practicing what they preach. But in my view, the term has been so corrupted that it is literally synonymous with the Bush administration. That's my bad for getting to caught up in it. I should be more accurate in what I say.
It's kind of like the difference between capitalism and predatory financial systems. Most people cry that capitalism is the root of economic evil, whereas in my opinion I think it has a lot more to do with how the financial system operates, rather than any tenets of the actual capitalist philosophy. It always irks me when people claim capitalism is at fault, so I can understand exactly why you'd be annoyed by how I tried to label neo-conservative thought as just another adjective for the Bush administration. So again, sorry, and thanks for taking the time to clarify .
On August 27 2008 11:52 fusionsdf wrote: hillary's speech is pretty good
seriously, this is like the perfect speech
I'm 5 minutes in and she's already done plenty of sucking her own cock. Ok, granted I'm not the bulldyke and/or barren 50 year old woman demographic that they're going for, but the speech is a typical uninspiring Hilary speech.
I don't think I can ever attend a convention for either party. The amount of phoniness would probably drive me towards a quadruple homicide. The chance to take out 70,000 Huffingtonpost readers at once is just way too tempting.
BTW FBI I'm only kidding, plz don't arrest me.
Yay, lets politicize their deaths.
Even better are the cameramen showing ONLY ugly chicks during her speech. It's all so fake.
That guy is from fucking PA. You think Pennsylvania has democrats? He's just some dude they dragged out that can "relate" to the trashy hicks from the old steel and auto industries. On top of that, he's just a stooge for the Clintons. Demos come from 2 places, the Northeast and the West coast. The rest of the US is uhh... I mean there's good people sprinkled all over the states, but they're not anywhere near a voting majority in any place but the NE and West coast.
On August 27 2008 11:52 fusionsdf wrote: hillary's speech is pretty good
seriously, this is like the perfect speech
I'm 5 minutes in and she's already done plenty of sucking her own cock. Ok, granted I'm not the bulldyke and/or barren 50 year old woman demographic that they're going for, but the speech is a typical uninspiring Hilary speech.
I don't think I can ever attend a convention for either party. The amount of phoniness would probably drive me towards a quadruple homicide. The chance to take out 70,000 Huffingtonpost readers at once is just way too tempting.
BTW FBI I'm only kidding, plz don't arrest me.
Yay, lets politicize their deaths.
Even better are the cameramen showing ONLY ugly chicks during her speech. It's all so fake.
I didnt enjoy it either
Im just looking at it from a purely political point of view
the pundits will love it, some of her voters will go to obama, and she did pretty much everything she could
Nothing against the girl, but something about Chelsea's facial expressions always look so unstable. Like right underneath the veneer, there's some psychotic person lurking, waiting to go red-faced and snap at everyone in sight. I don't blame her though. I'd be pissed as hell if my parents were Bill and Hillary too. It sucks balls when your parents' marital issues are a national topic of debate. And then being followed around for 8 of the most important years of her life because she's a president's daughter. I feel for her. But I can't shake the feeling she's a nut... she just hasn't shown it in public yet. After all, she IS Hillary's daughter!!
On August 27 2008 13:55 Kaesi wrote: Nothing against the girl, but something about Chelsea's facial expressions always look so unstable. Like right underneath the veneer, there's some psychotic person lurking, waiting to go red-faced and snap at everyone in sight. I don't blame her though. I'd be pissed as hell if my parents were Bill and Hillary too. It sucks balls when your parents' marital issues are a national topic of debate. And then being followed around for 8 of the most important years of her life because she's a president's daughter. I feel for her. But I can't shake the feeling she's a nut... she just hasn't shown it in public yet. After all, she IS Hillary's daughter!!
I have to agree. She does look a little psycho. However, I'll give her props for looking considerably better over the years. Cheers to Extreme Makeovers.
EPT
remove obama the nigger!(<-- Racistist remark) ..who need a nigger(again with racist remark) that gonna go for africa than united states 
.
