Homosexual Militarism

When I think of gayness, I don’t think of weapons of mass destruction. Call me a homophobe, but the cause of gay rights and the promotion of alternative “lifestyles” has not usually been synonymous with a strong U.S. military or neo-conservative (read interventionist) U.S. foreign policy. Then again, if Gomer Pyle really was gay, maybe the Navy’s decision to name a ship after Harvey Milk makes sense:

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus is expected on Tuesday to formally name a fleet replenishment oiler after gay-rights activist Harvey Milk, but one congressional critic says Mabus’ name choice is putting politics ahead of the Navy’s legacy.

Mabus will participate in a naming ceremony for the USNS Harvey Milk on Tuesday afternoon in Treasure Island, Calif. The oiler, which can carry 156,000 barrels of oil, is the first of six that will be built by General Dynamics NASSCO and will replenish Navy ships, as well as the aircraft deployed on them, while at sea.

Some conservatives are not happy, as you might expect. According to Congressman Duncan Hunter:

What this says to the men and women of the Navy is that there wasn’t one of you — at any time in history — who is more suitable for this honor. There are plenty of names out there to pick from, but Ray Mabus makes every decision with politics in his mind first and foremost, and that’s a real disservice to men and women of the U.S. Navy and the service’s legacy.

But are homosexuals also comfortable with having one of their heroes’ names painted on a ship that doesn’t make love but executes war? If, for instance, Equality California, one of the larger LBGT rights organizations, is currently soliciting support for a proposition against gun violence, are they comfortable with military violence?

Then again, if you want a seat at the table of the U.S. of A., for now that means cozying up to the nation’s military. Isn’t integration grand!

Advertisements

47 thoughts on “Homosexual Militarism

  1. What? No lube and oil jokes? What about the USS Bathhouse? It is Milk after all. WESTPAC where you didn’t know you were gay before you shipped out and got over it by the Philippines.

    Like

  2. Gomer Pyle’s character periodically went on dates with women, and he (Jim Nabors) came out of the closet years later, I believe. Since the Marines are technically part of the Navy (at least, I think they still are), we could have a USS Gomer Pyle. Well golly, Sergeant Carter. Shazam.

    Knucklehead.

    Like

  3. The questions at the end are very good. But we should note that believe in a neo-conservative foreign policy is consistent with a denial of corporate sins.

    Like

  4. Curt, “But we should note that believe in a neo-conservative foreign policy is consistent with a denial of corporate sins.”

    You lost me with logic and grammar.

    Like

  5. D.G.,
    The grammar is my fault, lost to do since I am preparing music for a wedding. Will restate the line below:

    We should note that belief in a neo-conservative foreign policy is consistent with a denial of corporate sins. Let me know if that helps.

    Like

  6. Curt,

    belief in a neo-conservative foreign policy is consistent with a denial of corporate sins.

    How so? I can imagine a scenario in which people who affirm corporate sins could say something like, “Yeah, we’ve done some bad things, but our culture/country/politics is still better/more humane than what those people have, so let’s give them what we have and use a gun if necessary.

    Like

  7. Robert,
    What people are you talking about? And since when do we give other countries the same set up that we have when we intervene? We support dictators and have on many occasions installed them while overthrowing democracies that we don’t like.

    The neoconservative approach to foreign policy is basically a rule of force, amoral approach. The denial of corporate sins makes all foreign policies amoral.

    Like

  8. So Chávez and the condition Venezuela is now in is a perfect example of what happens when the socialists take over and turn the country into a perfect utopia?

    Like

  9. Curt, no, an affirmation of sin as personal only is what makes political policy amoral (said an opposer of neo-con interventionist foreign policy).

    Like

  10. Zrim,
    But the scriptures don’t agree with you. Nations outside of Israel are charged with sin in the OT. And corporate sin is mentioned in the NT.

    Again, how is it that murder and theft are sins only when an individual commits it?

    Like

  11. George,
    Really? Did you know that Venezuela the same kind of economic turmoil it faced when there was no socialist leader. Its economy was based too strongly on the price oil and so when that price dipped, the economy sank.

    Your reasoning really simplistic. Don’t you know that when you have worker co-ops that rund democratically, you have socialism? And did you know that in 2015, there was deep concern about the socialist credibility of Venezuela? Do you know why? It was because it was not empowering the workers. Instead, it government’s leadership was too centralized.

    Like

  12. Why is it that every time socialism is tried, it fails and when it does it is because the country was insufficiently socialist? Maybe the problem is the socialism? It requires making people with stuff give it up involuntarily. That requires a strongman. With that power comes the inevitable power to thwart democracy and quash freedom.

    It is false to say that the current humanitarian crisis is comparable to the challenges V faced when oil prices tanked in the late 90’s.

    Like

  13. D.G.,
    It is what I wrote in my note to Robert:


    The neoconservative approach to foreign policy is basically a rule of force, amoral approach. The denial of corporate sins makes all foreign policies amoral.

    How could one who looks at the foreign policies as having possible moral implications be in favor of an amoral foreign policy that revolves around the rule of force?

    Like

  14. Curt,

    Let me first say I am by no means a supporter of neoconservative foreign policy, but I again don’t see the necessary connection between that and a denial of corporate sin. The PCA just admitted corporate sin, rightly or wrongly, and I’m fairly certain that most of the PCA voted for George W. Bush.

    What people are you talking about?

    I didn’t necessarily say such people exist, but I can see affirming corporate sin and endorsing neoconservatism. I’m pretty sure that the US government, even under Republicans, admits that how African Americans were treated was/is wrong and that didn’t stop them from going all neoconservative on us.

    And since when do we give other countries the same set up that we have when we intervene? We support dictators and have on many occasions installed them while overthrowing democracies that we don’t like.

    If you are saying that America is horribly inconsistent and is two-faced about wanting to promote democracy, then I agree. But I still don’t see how denying corporate sin leads inevitably to neoconservatism. As I’ve just said, the USA, at least verbally, admits corporate sin as far as racism. It might do so perfectly, but I don’t see any modern leader saying slavery was a positive. I don’t even see that among most Americans. Even those who are all “America the wonderful” will say something to the effect of “Yeah, we’re not perfect, but our system still leads to better results” or something to that effect.

    The Civil Rights Act and all sorts of things are the fruits of an admission of corporate sin. That’s not specifically Christian, but we have seen specifically Christian groups admit corporate sin and their participation in it—Southern Baptists and PCA this very year—and still endorse neoconservatism. I’m not even concerned with talking about whether or not there is such a thing as corporate sin. I’m just saying that plenty of groups believe in corporate sin AND embrace neoconservative foreign policy. The Democratic wonks such as Hillary Clinton and even Barack Obama do.

    The neoconservative approach to foreign policy is basically a rule of force, amoral approach. The denial of corporate sins makes all foreign policies amoral.

    I’m pretty sure that even hardcore 2Kers would say that aspects of our foreign policy are immoral. They would just say the church shouldn’t issue opinions or at least be reticent to opine on how best to deal with the Middle East. I’m still not seeing the connection between denying corporate sin and neoconservatism.

    Like

  15. Curt, we’ve been through this already, but personal is both singular and corporate (so it’s not a denial of corporate). What you seem to do is make corporate synonymous with social/political, a sleight of hand that not only expands the nature of sin from only personal to political but makes social/political gospel possible. It also gives cover to the likes of Laura Ingraham who tells us it’s immoral not to vote for Trump or the whole ethos of voting to be some grand moral and sacred duty of citizens. It isn’t. It’s simply a political process.

    Like

  16. Zrim,
    There is a difference between making corporate synonymous with social/political and saying that corporate and the social/political have points of intersection. I don’t reduce corporate to just the social/political. But I don’t exclude the social/political from corporate sin either.

    As for your analogy, i don’t point(s) of comparison.

    Like

  17. Curt, right, you expand and by expanding you don’t exclude the social and political. And out pops social and political gospel. Hello, Protestant liberalism and religious right. Tastes great, less filling! And around and around we go.

    Like

  18. Robert,
    The Neoconservative pertains exclusively to foreign policies, not domestic issues. It was classically defined by the Project for a New American Century(PNAC) and many of its founders worked in the George W. Bush’s Administration. These founders came from Reagan’s Administration before they became an actual group. Their website is no longer available nor did the group continue to function (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century ). What is left of the group has formed a new group called The Foreign Policy Initiative (http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/ ).

    Basically, the neoconservative agenda revolves around providing unconditional support for Israel and for American global hegemony. It is basically American dominance that came after WW II put on steroids. BTW, have not had time to see if The Foreign Policy Initiative is significantly different from PNAC

    Like

  19. Zrim,
    Is your objection to the inclusion of the social/political being in included in corporate sins the existence of the social and political gospel as it exists in Protestant liberalism. In other words, are you building a fence around Protestant liberalism which prevents from finding any areas of agreement with Protestant liberalism lest we succumb to their siren call ?

    Like

  20. Robert,
    FYI, I wrote a note identifying about whom I was referring but it included links so I don’t know if it will be posted. The neoconservative agenda pertains exclusively to foreign policies and American Hegemony as providing a Pax Americana. The agenda also gave carte blanche suppport to israel. The group that developed and promoted neoconservatism was called the Project For A New American Century (PNAC). That group no longer exists but some of its founders have started a new or replacement group called The Foreign Policy Initiative. You can google both groups to get more info.

    Like

  21. Curt, it’s a matter of first principles. Christianity is a revealed religion, otherworldly and doctrinal; it isn’t a this-worldly philosophy or an ethical system. Both PLism and the RR are examples of making it the latter. Confessional Prots should be able to recognize both as imposters to the faith, though admittedly we seem to have a much easier time recognizing it in PLism than the RR. There’s always something with which to agree among imposters but so what?

    Like

  22. Zrim, hope you’re teaching your kids that God’s kingdom is here, right now, so near that it in their midst -His rule in their hearts (if they’re believers). here, now, today, every situation, every moment; and that His kingdom is a matter of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. (but of course not, as you were suggesting, a matter of swallowing dove feathers or anything like that)

    Like

  23. sdb,

    “Maybe the problem is the socialism? ”

    True, You hear the same thing with communist revisionists saying the USSR wasn’t actually communist and every so-called communist country somehow mysteriously got hijacked – couldn’t ever be anything inherent to the system’s principles though of course. I agree replacing capitalism with socialism never works. I don’t agree – not that you said such – that a mixed economy with socialist elements cannot work; the Nordic countries, Canada, New Deal/Great Society America didn’t turn into Cuba, USSR, Venezuela, China, etc. Welfare states lie along a spectrum.

    “It requires making people with stuff give it up involuntarily. That requires a strongman. With that power comes the inevitable power to thwart democracy and quash freedom.”

    I would think any government that taxes requires making people give up stuff with a strongman.

    Like

  24. Pretty clearly, some foreign policies are immoral. Invading Poland unprovoked comes to mind. So does spraying Agent Orange on entire forests.

    Like

  25. Jeff, is that a policy or an action item. To make the Eastern border secure (policy) you invade Poland. Sometimes you have to break some eggs when you’re wielding the sword.

    Like

  26. Hm. One man’s action item is another man’s policy — it’s all a question of scope, much like the blurry line between strategy and tactics.

    Or to put it in dictionary terms: pol·i·cy: a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual.

    I get that you want to distinguish between goals and the actions needed to achieve those goals. But even there, goals can also be immoral: to subjugate the Slavs is an immoral goal.

    Like

  27. Zrim,
    Don’t know why you are lecturing me on the revelatory nature of Christianity. But what we should note here is that while the Scriptures are special revelation, there is a revelation that comes from common grace. And realize that Protestant liberalism, because it uses the Scriptures and people in the movement, like all others, have a measure of common grace, that it can at least recognize some unrighteousness and sin and perhaps some partial remedies. Remember that God spoke in various ways in the OT especially when His people were rebellious.

    By deduction, you seem to be saying is that Protestant liberalism can say nothing that is either true or even partially true. Thus, you deduce that everything they say is wrong rather than apply an inductive approach to test what is being said.

    It is this over reliance on deduction that causes us to both not listen to others as well as puff our egos up to make us blind and deaf to the concerns of others.

    In addition, if the Christian faith was purely other-worldly, it would have nothing relevant to say to us in our present circumstances–and that includes that there would be no commands. Again, you point to a disjoint relationship between revealed religion liberalism. Realize that the key fault of liberalism is that it reduces life and the world to the physical and nature. To say that the world and life have nothing to do with the here and now and the physical appears to be an attempt to build fences things like Protestant liberalism rather than using a line item veto on its ideas.

    Like

  28. Cletus,
    Like capitalism, socialism is not a monolith. And if you read what socialists said for themselves, you would find that some supported Lenin while others viewed him as being inconsistent with Marx. I agree with Luxemburg’s analysis of Lenin’s rule in that by relying on a central committee full of elites, his rule was more bourgeoisie like than anything else. Think about how many corporations are run. Aren’t they run the same way?

    In addition, before you want to think of socialism as being a monolith with strong state control, consider libertarian socialism because it does not believe in the state.

    Like

  29. Curt, I notice you keep forgetting the religious right and want to see some conceding to what PLism got right. But are you willing to be more open-minded-than-thou with the RR, that it also has “…a measure of common grace, that it can at least recognize some unrighteousness and sin and perhaps some partial remedies”?

    But when you say I’m saying there isn’t even anything partially true within PLism, I think you missed where I said there’s always something with which to agree among the imposters. But again, so what? Doesn’t being an imposter sort of preclude whatever particulars it might get right? The RR has a point perhaps about abortion and PLism about immigration, but there’s still the 500lb gorilla in the living room.

    Like

  30. Curt,

    I agree socialism is not a monolith – I said welfare states lie along a spectrum and used that term because I didn’t want to run into the issue Bernie did when he called Denmark socialist and his model, then Denmark said, “hey, we’re not socialist”, then his critics nonsensically kept saying, “see, Denmark isn’t socialist!” while in the next breath then tarring him as being a socialist (or even communist).

    Corporations don’t kill me or investors if we don’t support them or throw families in jails for not buying their products.

    Have you read Brown’s Rise and Fall of Communism? He outlines 6 defining features in his view:

    The first defining feature of a Communist system is the monopoly of power of the Communist Party. In Stalin’s time this was known as ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’, since it was taken as axiomatic that the party represented the interests, and the real will, of the proletariat (if they knew what was good for them). In the post-Stalin period, especially from the beginning of the 1960s, the more common official term was ‘the leading role of the party’. There were other important institutions within a Communist state besides the ruling party … All institutions were overseen by the organs of the Communist party, which had a higher authority than any other body.

    The second defining feature of a Communist system was a concept which has already cropped up in this book, democratic centralism – a term adopted by Lenin and invoked throughout the entire Communist era. In theory it meant that there could be discussion of issues – the ‘democratic’ component – until a decision had been reached, but thereafter the decision of higher party organs was binding and had to be implemented in a strictly disciplined manner throughout the party and society.

    The third defining feature of a consolidated Communist system is non-capitalist ownership of the means of production, and linked to this is the fourth – the dominance of a command economy, as distinct from a market economy. State or social ownership of the means of production was regarded as one of the basic objectives of all ruling Communist parties. This was combined with the fourth defining feature of a Communist system – a command economy. Its essential features are well summarized by Philip Hanson, a prominent specialist on the Soviet economy:
    “The fundamental difference from a market economy was that decisions about what should be produced and in what quantities, and at what prices that output should be sold, were the result of a hierarchical, top-down process culminating in instructions ‘from above’ to all producers; they were not the result of decentralised decisions resulting from interactions between customers and suppliers. Producers were concerned above all to meet targets set by planners. They had no particular reason to concern themselves with the wishes of the users of their products, nor with the activities of competitors. Indeed the concept of competition was absent: other producers in the same line of activity were simply not competitors but fellow-executors of the state plan.”

    While there was scope for disagreement among Communists on how the economy should be organized, the overtly ideological character of the system also imposed limits. If leaders were to go beyond these, they would be embarking on the risky path of systemic change. As the political economist Alec Nove put it: ‘Ideological commitment limits choice. Most people, presented with a cheese and a ham sandwich, can choose either. An Orthodox rabbi can not. The Bolsheviks could not choose to revive the Stolypin reform, or long tolerate a mixed economy.’ Thus, all four features of a Communist system discussed so far – the leading role of the Communist Party, democratic centralism, state ownership of the means of production, and a command rather than market economy – have a strong ideological component. They were part of the belief system of the Bolsheviks and of their Communist successors who held that ‘socialism’, as they understood that concept, was not only a higher stage of development than capitalism, but also one which was inevitable. However, the process could be speeded up, and successfully directed, only if political power was firmly in the hands of the party.

    These defining features of Communism, while ideologically significant, were also of clear organizational importance. They were part of the operational code of Communist rule with an everyday relevance to the task of maintaining power. That was obviously true of the monopoly of power of a highly disciplined ruling party. The merging of political and economic power served the same purpose. The absence of private ownership and a market economy meant that the state had control over the career possibilities of all its citizens. To fall foul of the state authorities at times led to imprisonment or death. Even, however, in more relaxed periods of Communist rule, to dissent publicly from the state authorities meant that a person’s career was threatened, for there was no one else you could turn to for employment

    The fifth such feature of a Communist system I take to be the declared aim of building communism as the ultimate, legitimizing goal….In the early years after a Communist party had come to power, the idea of the building of communism doubtless had some motivational and inspirational significance for at least a substantial number of party activists. As years went by, though, there were ever fewer believers in the notion of a harmonious society in which the state would have withered away… If political activity knows, in the words of Michael Oakeshott, ‘neither starting-place nor appointed destination’, a political party could not claim the right to rule on the grounds that it had discerned how to guide society to an ultimate goal. It was because, however, Marxist-Leninist ideologists claimed that there was an appointed destination – that of communism, the classless, self-administering society – that they could justify the permanent exercise of the leading role of the Communist party. It was that party which possessed the theoretical insight and the practical experience to guide less advanced citizens to this radiant future.

    The final goal was the justification for all the toil and hardship that might be encountered along the way. Once that goal was abandoned, Communist regimes were in danger of being judged – and found wanting – on the basis of their capacity to deliver more immediate results. Without the goal of communism, the ‘leading role’ of the party would become far harder to legitimize.

    The sixth defining feature of Communism was the existence of, and sense of belonging to, an international Communist movement… Among members of the worldwide Communist movement, there were many who were genuinely devoted to the ideal of internationalism, but since they recognized the unique role of the Soviet Union as the country which had successfully put their ideology in power, and which thus served as a teacher and exemplar, they became vulnerable to being used as instruments of Soviet state policy and of shifting coalitions within the highest power structures in Moscow. ‘What convinced in Lenin,’ Hobsbawm has written, ‘was not so much his socio-economic analysis … but his palpable genius for organizing a revolutionary party and mastering the tactics and strategy of making a revolution.’

    A certain lecturer, speaking about future communist society, concluded with the following remarks, ‘The breaking day of communism is already visible, gleaming just over the horizon.’ At this point an old peasant who had been sitting in the front row stood up and asked, ‘Comrade Lecturer, what is a horizon?’ The lecturer explained that it is a line where the earth and the sky seem to meet, having the unique characteristic that the more you move toward it, the more it moves away. The old peasant responded: ‘Thank you, Comrade Lecturer. Now everything is quite clear.’

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Cletus,
    Apparently, you know everything about Communism. But if you understand the Communism practiced by the Soviet Union, you’ll note the following. What you call communism is really bolshevism. That Lenin didn’t represent workers was indicated by the fact that he came from a petty bourgeoisie background. That how the Lenin’s Russia operated was not to rely on workers but on a vanguard of elites. Note that Marx stated that it was a proletariat dictatorship that would usher in the classless society. And that proletariat dictatorship relied on democratic processes. Note that Lenin and Stalin opposed the proletariat dictatorship.

    Personally, I don’t believe in utopian Marxism and neither do a lot of other socialists. There are those who do and I think they are wrong. What I like about Marx is his analysis of Capitalism. What I find problematic is his emphasis on the proletariat dictatorship. One of the problems with it is that uch produces only a partial democracy. But that would be at least the level of democracy than what we have today only with a different class in charge–you can google the words ‘America’ and ‘Oligarchy’ to see the documentation. See, when you let wealth accumulate, you let power consolidate. And what some political conservatives don’t recognize is that power is not the same as authority. That power can reside and consolidate in the private sector. From what I see in certain forms of socialism is the increase in the power of workers in both the workplace and government decentralizes power. We should note that with our current political system, we are represented by location, but not by vocation. And if you examine the breakdown of our elected officials, you will find that the vast majority are either businessmen, lawyers, or professional public servants. That leaves many vocations not represented by our government.

    Finally, while you acknowledge that Socialism is not a monolith, you talk about soviet union communism as the definition for the Left, though you do distinguish it from a liberal welfare state. And again, the USSR Communists were bolsheviks. So not only are they not the only representatives of socialism, but many socialists, including contemporaries of people like Lenin, didn’t not regard them as Marxists. BTW, Sanders was confused when he called himself a ‘Socialist’ while espousing a kind of FDR new deal. But see, both Sanders and FDR were liberals, not leftists.

    Like

  32. @cvd

    I don’t agree – not that you said such – that a mixed economy with socialist elements cannot work; the Nordic countries, Canada, New Deal/Great Society America didn’t turn into Cuba, USSR, Venezuela, China, etc. Welfare states lie along a spectrum.

    I more or less agree with you here. I would distinguish between socialism (state control of the means of production) and a social welfare state. The Nordic countries are neoliberal market economies for the most part (though with strong regulation, redistribution, and welfare systems – my understanding is that Denmark outranks the US on AEIs economic freedom index). Are there examples of Canada taking control of various industries? I don’t recall that being part of the New Deal. Of course, in much US political debate socialism just means more leftwing than I like just as fascism means more rightwing than I like. Not very helpful, but what can you do? I’m not so sympathetic to the various qualifiers to socialism (libertarian socialism…really?) – eventually it is qualified into something else and it is better to just adopt a more descriptive label.

    “It requires making people with stuff give it up involuntarily. That requires a strongman. With that power comes the inevitable power to thwart democracy and quash freedom.”
    I would think any government that taxes requires making people give up stuff with a strongman.

    Perhaps. I was thinking of strongman in terms of charismatic leader with unchecked power – Castro, Stalin, Chavez, Mao, etc… (in the cases of the countries you named). FDR could have been a socialist at heart, but the institutions were too strong to give him a free hand at nationalizing all our farms and factories. High taxes on people’s earnings/profit are unpopular (especially when it means the redistribution to people you don’t like), but taking away a person’s business or farm (capital) is something else entirely.

    At any rate, it is hard to argue that neoliberal capitalism hasn’t been remarkably successful at lifting the world out of poverty. The challenges faced by third party negative externalities are real and may eventually prove to be the undoing of the current system (I think the concern over inequality is mostly overblown and the legitimate concerns solvable).

    Like

  33. @Curt

    From what I see in certain forms of socialism is the increase in the power of workers in both the workplace and government decentralizes power.

    Where did you see this?

    Like

  34. sdb,
    You don’t see it in elite-centered governments. But if you read on the Paris Commune and the Spanish Revolution, you will see an increase in the power of the worker. In fact, you could also see it in Russia just prior to when Lenin hijacked the Revolution. It is there in the concept of the soviets–which Lenin opposed because he wanted power.

    Btw, you also see this in the number of worker co-ops throughout the world where decisions are made democratically.

    Like

  35. In other words, we’ve never seen the rise of socialism result in decentralized government power. Over 150yrs of attempts and it either turns into tyranny or is defeated. That should tell you something.

    Like

  36. sdb,
    Not true at all and your comment shows that you did not read the beginning of my last note. Again, you have the Paris Commune and the Spanish Revolution as examples that resulted in decentralized gov’t power–that is until Fascists overthrew them..

    The general tendency I’ve noticed is this, violent revolutions often, not always, produce gov’ts that often imitate the regimes they overthrew. This boils down to what a fellow activist and friend of mine wrote about Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians:


    You appear to have learned far more from the behavior of your oppressors, than from the experience of being oppressed.

    This has an application to America in that while the Declaration of Independence was written against British elites, The Constitution was written for the benefit of American elites. In addition, the tolerance and freedom that the American colonialists sought for themselves they did not extend to Native Americans or Blacks. In fact, until the Revolutionary War, some Christian denominations persecuted members of other denominations.

    BTW, you need itemize where Socialism turned to tyranny. For example, if you want to call what Lenin promoted ‘socialism,’ that turned to tyranny and gives an example of what I said about revolutions. But if you study examples like Iran (’53), Guatemala (’54), and Chile (’73), the resulting tyranny from democratic, not revolutionary, moves to the left resulted in right-wing tyranny. Nicaragua provides a counter-example to what I wrote about revolutions because that turned into a democracy. In fact, the Sandnistas were voted out lf office. But we should note that that election followed several years of US sponsored terrorism practived by the Contras.

    I think it would help if you would break away from the right wing narrative of socialism and read what socialists say for themselves. I say this because you notes indicate an black-white thinking regarding socialism and lack of self-awareness regarding your own nation and its systems.

    Like

  37. @Curt

    Not true at all and your comment shows that you did not read the beginning of my last note. Again, you have the Paris Commune and the Spanish Revolution as examples that resulted in decentralized gov’t power–that is until Fascists overthrew them..

    These examples of 15 minutes of revolution did not decentralize gov’t – they failed. Miserably.

    BTW, you need itemize where Socialism turned to tyranny. For example, if you want to call what Lenin promoted ‘socialism,’ that turned to tyranny and gives an example of what I said about revolutions.

    No I don’t. I just wanted you to give me an example of country that successfully implemented socialism and saw a resulting decentralization of government power.

    But if you study examples like Iran (’53), Guatemala (’54), and Chile (’73), the resulting tyranny from democratic, not revolutionary, moves to the left resulted in right-wing tyranny.

    I don’t dispute that at all. Socialism weakens the fabric of society and makes tyranny more likely – whether it is a left or rightwing boot on your neck is of little consequence in my estimation. Perhaps right wing tyranny has a better track record of producing viable nations (Chile, Germany, and Spain seem quite a bit better off than countries emerging from leftwing dictatorships), but I’d have to think about that more to come to firm conclusion.

    Nicaragua provides a counter-example to what I wrote about revolutions because that turned into a democracy. In fact, the Sandnistas were voted out lf office. But we should note that that election followed several years of US sponsored terrorism practived by the Contras.

    Perhaps. But this isn’t evidence of socialism working to decentralize government power either. In other words, we don’t have any examples of socialism resulting in a more decentralized government – the only places where it has stuck has been where there has been an authoritarian regime in place. That’s fine. It isn’t proof that socialism couldn’t result in decentralization of power. I’m just looking for evidence that it is the case. I stand by my observation that all efforts so far to implement socialism have resulted in either tyranny or defeat.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s