Notes from the new self-awareness, part whatever it is
Oliver Kamm, of the Henry Jackson Society, gives William Fullbright a walloping for being a "segregationist".
In fairness, the Senator From Boeing could never be accused of having allowed his foreign policy interests to interfere with the mission of bringing pork back to his home state; they were one and the same. Fulbright, on the other hand, committed the political sin of being against the Vietnam War in 1972 - I think that Oliver is the first prominent Decent to actually follow the logic of international democracy promotion to its conclusion and retrospectively support Vietnam, and it will be interesting to see how long it takes for Hitchens to do a similar volte-face (as he has a *lot* more sunk costs in this case).
Update: It gets better! Ethnocentrism and wilfull indifference to Japanese people! This is shaping up to be quite a year.
Somehow it's not surprising to see noted prose stylist Kamm praising Safire's language columns (which, as we say in the states, sucked donkey balls).
ReplyDeleteOliver was surely not old enough to notice the Vietnam war at the time, one way or another. This is more like having a go at Campbell-Bannerman for his position on South Africa.
ReplyDeletehe has a *lot* more sunk costs in this case
ReplyDeleteWell, sunk costs are sunk, but anyway, isn't the renunciation of previously-held positions basically what this crowd do? Except for Kamm, perhaps, who seems never to have changed an opinion or made a mistake.
I think that Oliver is the first prominent Decent to actually follow the logic of international democracy promotion to its conclusion and retrospectively support Vietnam
ReplyDeleteI think what most warm-blooded, sentient beings do is look at each individual case and assess whether the situation demands or invites some form of liberal interventionism. This means that you might support intervention in case A, but not in case B. The idea that the principle of support for what you call "international democracy promotion" demands a one-size-fits-all approach to international relations and logically compels intervention in each and every situation, is not a little silly.
Do you believe that those who do, on the whole, eschew "international democracy promotion" are logically precluded from ever supporting intervention anytime, anywhere? At least this would mean you were consistently silly.
I think what most warm-blooded, sentient beings do is look at each individual case and assess whether the situation demands or invites some form of liberal interventionism
ReplyDeletehmm, this sounds suspiciously like "picking over the rubble" to me. Plenty, plenty of references from Geras, Cohen, Garrard, Kamm etc to the exact opposite effect. At the very least, a consistent Decent could merely "withhold his support" for the Vietnam War - actively opposing it, as Hitchens did, would be a betrayal of one's Vietnamese comrades to a much worse totalitarianism than Saddam Hussein's.
Do you believe that those who do, on the whole, eschew "international democracy promotion" are logically precluded from ever supporting intervention anytime, anywhere?
ReplyDeleteHow does this question derive from the material which precedes it?
Well, it's the flip-side of what DD claims is the logical conclusion of support for democracy promotion (i.e. his euphemism for those who self-describe as liberal interventionists and what some call the "decent" left). DD is clear that support for such a principle has a logical conclusion that in turn demands retrospective support for the Vietnam war. If liberal interventionists are so constrained, then why should default non-interventionists be free to pick and choose?
ReplyDeleteOf course, because if the logic of situation A applies to a similar situation B then it must also apply to situations C-Z and all other alphabets as well.
ReplyDeleteDiscovering implications in people's arguments is very Harry's Place, especially when those arguments are put with a modicum of undetected humour.
If liberal interventionists are so constrained, then why should default non-interventionists be free to pick and choose?
ReplyDeleteLiberal interventionists are defined by their belief in liberal interventionism; that's pretty much the point of having an -ism and an -ist, never mind writing manifestoes, holding meetings, etc. On the other hand, people who dissent from liberal interventionism - or even oppose it - are not defined by that dissent or opposition. The opposite of 'I believe in A' isn't 'I believe in not-A' - it's 'the list of things I believe in does not include A'.
Liberal interventionism, if it means anything, doesn't mean "we tend to believe that there are situations in which intervention may be justifiable on liberal grounds, although of course circumstances alter cases and there is always room for disagreement among reasonable people". At least, it's always meant something a bit more robust up to now.
Of course, because if the logic of situation A applies to a similar situation B then it must also apply to situations C-Z and all other alphabets as well.
ReplyDeleteUmm, well no, but then I think you may have intended this comment for another thread.
If there is a "logical conclusion" that derives from support for interventionism, then there is, or at least ought to be one for non-interventionism. To be clear, I think the idea that interventionist tendencies and their non-interventionist equivalents demand uniform responses in all circumstances is a wee bit potty, but I didn't start this.
The opposite of 'I believe in A' isn't 'I believe in not-A' - it's 'the list of things I believe in does not include A'.
Well yes, but then I'm not suggesting those who oppose liberal interventionism are denied the right to believe in other things apart from the fact that they don't support liberal interventionism, but they necessarily do not support liberal interventionism, which, if we are to apply DD's logical conclusions consistently, means they must exclude themselves from support for intervention in each and every case, just as a liberal interventonist is compelled to give retrospective support to Vietnam.
It's all very silly, isn't it? I mean, I don't know a single person who self-describes as a liberal interventionist who thinks we should be marching into North Kores to precipitate a thermo-nuclear holocaust. Does that mean they are only quasi-interventionists? Does it mean the notion of liberal interventionism doesn't really exist?
I think if someone tells you they are a liberal 'interventionist' then there are certain things you can safely assume about that person's worldview and political sympathies. Telling them they are a fraud because they don't thnik Vietnam was a terrific idea and have no desire to start world war III in south Asia is going to make you look silly.
but they necessarily do not support liberal interventionism, which, if we are to apply DD's logical conclusions consistently, means they must exclude themselves from support for intervention in each and every case
ReplyDeleteThat's only true if the opposite of "I believe in supporting liberal intervention" is "I believe in not supporting liberal intervention". Which it isn't, as I was saying.
which, if we are to apply DD's logical conclusions consistently, means they must exclude themselves from support for intervention in each and every case, just as a liberal interventonist is compelled to give retrospective support to Vietnam.
ReplyDeleteWhoops, we're in the position of deploying the reductio ad absurdam under the pretence that somebody else has deployed one.
Which is why I made the post earlier.
So, let's try again. I see no argument having been made that all "liberal inventionalists" are obliged to support all such, ah, interventions, although they do of course have a strong bias in favour of same. Unless I mistake myself, such was not the case being made with regard to Ollie Kamm.
What is the case, though, is that the terms that were and are made for the Iraq farrago can be and were made to support the Vietnam war and were not significantly weaker with regards to Vietnam than they were with regards to Iraq. And that therefore people who apply the same criteria to both situations may well have to ask themselves whether opposition to US action in Vietnam is really compatible with support for US action in Iraq.
Of course one looks at individual issues and individual circumstances, which is a reasonable means of proceeding (and one wholly at odds with the actual tone and spirit of Harry's Place) but nevertheless it is really hard to see why the case for invasion is stronger in this instance than in the Vietnamese. And given that liberal imperialists, I mean interventionalists, do have a bias in favour of liberal interventionalism, it's also fair to say that they'd want the case for intervention to be pretty weak before they were decidedly against it.
Hence, Kamm's retrospective support for the Vietnamese lunacy may reasonably be viewed as more consistent than the position that what was wrong then is right now.
That's only true if the opposite of "I believe in supporting liberal intervention" is "I believe in not supporting liberal intervention".
ReplyDeleteIsn't the opposite "I don't believe in liberal interventionism"? I think that's what most people would say and you could therfore extrapolate DDs logical conclusion accordingly:
" If you don't believe in interventionism, you would have opposed a hypothetical intervention in Rwanda circa 1996, right? One that might have prevented around 800,000 murders, right?"
My guess is that there are default non-interventionists who can conceive of scenarios where they would support intervention, just as there are default interventionists who look at places like North Korea and back on conflicts like Vietnam who think there are non-interventionist tactics we might employ that are more likely to yield the desired results.
I don't think that means the terms "internvetionist" and "non-interventionist" are therefore without meaning and have no practical use, or, that when they are used, we should play "gotcha" with what are the supposed logical conclusions of holding such positions.
Not playing "gotcha" with supposed logical conclusions?
ReplyDeleteBut what would HP do then, poor thing?
If you don't believe in interventionism, you would have opposed a hypothetical intervention in Rwanda circa 1996, right? One that might have prevented around 800,000 murders, right?"
ReplyDeletethe position would be that I would (and in fact retrospectively do) oppose any realistic hypothetical Rwandan intervention, because I don't believe that it would have prevented 800,000 murders. Specifically, I think that any such intervention would have looked much more like the actual Operation Turquoise, which was a fucked-up, badly-planned, politically-skewed and massively counterproductive intervention (ie, the normal kind).
But more generally, liberal interventionism has to be a policy at least partly about real interventions as well as the hypothetical ones which are always much easier to be in favour of. Both Iraq and Vietnam were real. And as EJH says, the arguments in favour of Vietnam were much stronger than those in favour of Iraq. Specifically:
1) the link to a global existential threat to free societies was much clearer and more credible
2) the humanitarian threat to the South Vietnamese was much greater
3) Vietnam was a much less fissile and ethnically fragmented country
4) there was much more genuine political commitment to it
5) the government of South Vietnam was much more legitimate and much more friendly to the occupation
I see no argument having been made that all "liberal inventionalists" are obliged to support all such, ah, interventions, although they do of course have a strong bias in favour of same. Unless I mistake myself, such was not the case being made with regard to Ollie Kamm.
ReplyDeleteIt's always possible that it is I who is mistaken, but that's *exactly* how I interpreted DD's comemnt thus:
I think that Oliver is the first prominent Decent to actually follow the logic of international democracy promotion to its conclusion and retrospectively support Vietnam
When DD responded to me above, he didn't argue that I'd misinterpreted his post. Indeed, his subsequent comment is vindication of my interpretation. He is explicitly holding that "international democracy promotion" (his euphemism for you-know-what) has a logical conclusion that demands support for the Vietnam war. This is a different assertion to claims that Iraq and Vietnam share enough characteristics that anyone who supported one must support the other in order to retain their intellectual integrity. This latter argument can be made and might even have some legs - I can't pretend I've ever given it sufficient thought to justify dismissing it out of hand - but it's still a different argument and could be defended using your " one looks at individual issues and individual circumstances" rationale which I agree is the only sensible approach.
Which brings me to:
Of course one looks at individual issues and individual circumstances, which is a reasonable means of proceeding (and one wholly at odds with the actual tone and spirit of Harry's Place)
Without specifics, it's difficult to know what to say except perhaps that there is no uniformity on Iraq amongst the 8 contributing authors on HP with at least 2 opposing that intervention. Also, notwithstanding the majority support for Iraq and unanimous support for Afghanistan, there is not a single author who was (when it looked possible/probable)agitating for strikes against Iran.
Perhaps you were referring to the comments rather than the posts at HP? To which I'd say, there is even more division in the threads.
Do you visit often? I know we likely don't agree on much more than what day it is, but I do think you make some insightful comments on this blog and others, so you'd be welcome at HP if you ever fancied slumming it.
the position would be that I would (and in fact retrospectively do) oppose any realistic hypothetical Rwandan intervention, because I don't believe that it would have prevented 800,000 murders.
ReplyDeleteLeaving aside the question of whether you think things could actually have panned out worse, you might still be right. That's not the issue. The issue is that a non-interventionist has no choice but to oppose the hypothetical intervention because that's the logical conclusion of that political philosophy. For consistency's sake, you understand.
Your arguments re similarities between Iraq and Vietnam I've covered with Justin. Again, there may be a case for arguing that support for one implies support for the other, but this is not the same thing as suggesting that support for democracy promotion *demands* retrospective support for the Vietnam war.
FWIW, when considering what might be different between Vietnam and Iraq, how about the fact that 40 years on, the US and allies were better equipped to fight a war thousands of miles from home? How about the "do-ability" of each conflict? In Vietnam, the US had a 10:1 kill ratio in their favour and still were denied military victory. The same goal in Iraq was infinitely more achievable and proved such in a matter of weeks. What happened later is another story, but the military task confronting the US in the 60s was of an entirely different order of magnitude to that faced in March 2003. And we interventionists are nothing if not practical.
For example, I don't look at North Korea and think that Kim Jong-il treats his citizens better than Saddam did his. I think "here's a nuclear power with a standing army of a few million". Catch my drift?
Perhaps you were referring to the comments rather than the posts at HP?
ReplyDeleteNo, appalling as the comments are. I refer to things like calling people who march against war people marching in support of fascism, for one. The general air of witch-hunting and the liking for giving people a chasing on the basis of things they haven't really said. It's not a civilised place to be.
I vaguely recall my first visit to the site. I can't remember the exact joke I made, but it was a suggestion to the effect that if North Korea really represented a threat to the West you'd have expected them to try and nuke Washington by now. Straightaway the deeply unpleasant Harry was in action. what was I saying? That I thought they should nuke Washington? Was I in favour of that....
...ah, bollocks to this, I thought and have had no reason to revise or improve my opinion of HP since.
And that's before I even mention David T.
It's not even the normal Punch-and-Judy show of political debate, not even the normal sometimes-going-too-far. It's consistently vile.
No, appalling as the comments are. I refer to things like calling people who march against war people marching in support of fascism, for one.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I'm out on a limb and claiming that no such thing has ever been written by an HP author at Harry's Place or on anyone else's blog, for that matter. It would be a stupid thing to say and none of us is stupid, whatever you might think. I'll happily concede this point if you can back it up with a link.
I agree the comments can be pretty rough, but I'd also argue that the worst excesses of those who are clearly anti-Muslim bigots are stamped on by the authors (see 'Graham', especially). We took the decision to police comments with a light hand but we will not tolerate racism or bigotry of any kind. Unbridled idiocy is permitted, however, and it's not always pretty. Criticism of Islam - the religion - is considered fair comment (as is criticism of any ideology or credo), even if it is ignorant at times. That said, I'm probably the wobbliest on "free speech" out of all the authors and, for example, supported the religious hatred law precisely because bigtos like the BNP were using anti-Muslim speech as a cover for racism...speech that couldn't be dealt with by existing race hate legislation that doesn't extend to the non-existent Muslim race.
Obviously, some of the shite still gets through the net, but given we're often looking at threads with multiple hundreds of comments and contributors in virtually all timezones, it's impossible to police to the standard we would all like. Just ask DD, who was forced to intervene in a Crooked Timber thread in which the execution of Iraqi interpreters was being celebrated.
Lastly, I'd venture to suggest that we tolerate more dissension from the blog line than any political blog of comparable popularity. I think that should count for something.
This wasn't an antiwar rally; it was a pro-fascist rally
ReplyDeleteHarry's Place, July 22, 2006.
A comment about the STWC rally of the same day at which George Galloway said:
ReplyDelete"I am here to glorify the resistance, Hezbollah. I am here to glorify the leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah."
and the crowad clapped its approval. And your point is what? That the organisation GG was glorifying is not openly fascist? (Please spare me any lectures on Italian politics in the first-half of the last century.) This may have been a STWC march, but it was about anything other than Iraq. Which has kinda been our main point about the STWC from the get-go.
How did we get here from the accusation that we called "people who march against war people marching in support of fascism"?
My brother marched against the war in Feb 2003. He's an arse, but not a fascist. To clariy, our contention has always been that the vast, vast majority of anti-war protestors were simply not aware that the STWC was a front for a SWP/pro-Muslim Brotherhood alliance, rather than they knew but were either happy with that or didn't care one way of the other.
This was not a "stop the war" march at all. It was a "nail your colours to the mast" rally in the middle of the Israel-Lebanon conflict. Outrage at Israel's actions in that conflict didn't demand support for an openly-fascistic organisation committed to Israel's destruction, but that's what we got at that rally. Gene called it sopt on. It's pure misrepresentation to claim this amounts to a "fascist" slur on anti Iraq war marchers, something which I maintain no HP author is guilty of.
I think that sums it up: HP can smear who they like, however they like but to call them on it is "misrepresentation".
ReplyDeleteYou don't really understand why people don't like you, do you?
I think that sums it up: HP can smear who they like
ReplyDelete..says the man who accused us of "calling people who march against war people marching in support of fascism" and then backed this up by referring readers to a comment Gene made about a pro-Hezbollah rally.
The only "smear" is the one you are making against us. And you know it's a smear, otherwise you'd have supplied a less embarrassing link to support your smear. Less embarrassing for you, that is.
You don't really understand why people don't like you, do you?
If you mean I don't understand why people like you would want to make up shit about us, then no, I don't understand. Tell me.
I'll put it like this: I've not come across someone who doesn't like us whom I'd prefer felt differently.
You are a very silly man indeed. I think I will leave your ravings to speak for themselves.
ReplyDeleteI think your inability to back up your smear against HP authors is doing most of the "speaking" on this thread.
ReplyDeleteI've not come across someone who doesn't like us whom I'd prefer felt differently.
ReplyDeleteThe pro-Situs used to say, theory is when you have ideas; ideology is when ideas have you. That's some serious ideology.
Phil,
ReplyDeleteI've met - and I mean "met" in the flesh following blog discussion rather than simply discussed issues with online - people who barely agree with a single word we write. The vast majority are decent, intelligent people whom I respect greatly. The fact people like that take a differnet view to me/HP always give me cause to reconsider my position on various subjects. I won't pretend I change my mind very often, but I've doubted myself many times.
The difference is, these are people who simply disagree with us rather than "don't like" us. I care what the former think and couldn't give a rat's ass about the latter.
Congrtulations on knowing what the pro-Situs used to say, by the way.
The difference is, these are people who simply disagree with us rather than "don't like" us. I care what the former think and couldn't give a rat's ass about the latter.
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting distinction. I do dislike HP rather than simply disagreeing with you on this or that topic; given the right topic, I might actually agree with a lot of what you say, but I'd still dislike you. I dislike HP (and Ollie and Norm) for very much the same reason I dislike Neil Clark (and Pinter and Chomsky). And it's very largely because you (like them) don't confine yourself to 'disagreeing'. There's always a point where disagreement (or any kind of debate) has to stop, because the people on the other side have shown themselves to be evil - or complicit with evil people, or deceived by evil people, or deceived by people who are complicit with evil people, or unwilling to dissociate themselves from people who are complicit with evil people...
I always feel got-at when I read this kind of stuff (from either side), as if I'm under notice to prove that I'm innocent of complicity with the evil of imperialism and/or the evil of Islamist extremism. Which isn't a feeling I enjoy, and I dislike anyone who seems to be devoted to inducing it - particularly when they seem to be enjoying it.
If at times we appear shrill, I think that stems from a perception we have (which I think is valid) that we are a minority voice on the left. There's perhaps a frustration there and tendency to think we must shout in order to be heard. This plus the fact that we have so much dissent in the comments (I'm not complaining), of the unthinking variety (this bothers me), means we have perhaps spent too long debunking shite instead of confronting the sensible, coherent opposing arguments that exist. I'd accept these criticisms.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, at least I haven't bracketed Norman Geras with Neil Clark.
I'd be interested to know who in the MSM you believe rises above the tedium?
a perception we have (which I think is valid) that we are a minority voice on the left. There's perhaps a frustration there and tendency to think we must shout in order to be heard
ReplyDeleteThis is such nonsense. I've never met anyone on the Left with exactly the same outlook as me, and I've certainly never seen my views reflected in anything for sale on a newsagent's. I think my views are valid and important, but I know I'm in a minority of one in holding them.
My blog gets perhaps 100 hits on a particularly good day; I'm certainly not being 'heard' to any great extent. But 'shouting', by which I suppose you mean being aggressive and abusive (literally shouting is hard to do in print) wouldn't get my views heard; it might get me heard, but people would just hear me being aggressive and abusive.
Which comes back to the question of tone, and the difference between 'disagree' and 'dislike'.
at least I haven't bracketed Norman Geras with Neil Clark.
Whereas I have, which clearly puts me beyond the pale. Oh woe. Do you ever get tired of drawing lines in the sand?
"If at times we appear shrill, I think that stems from a perception we have (which I think is valid) that we are a minority voice on the left."
ReplyDeleteOh for god's sakes, this is pathetic. You're not a student anymore. Grow up. Either there's something wrong with your message, or your delivery. Either way, its your fault, not that of the world around you.
"Outrage at Israel's actions in that conflict didn't demand support for an openly-fascistic organisation committed to Israel's destruction, but that's what we got at that rally."
Hezbollah isn't a fascistic organisation, openly or otherwise (this is not a statement of support for Hezbollah. Its perfectly possible to make savage and accurate criticisms of them, and still not resort to this kind of bullshit). This isn't true, its not informative, or useful. Its simply an attempt to shut down debate through demonisation. Its an exercise in propoganda and its bullshit whether its you doing it, Spiked, Neil Clarke, Pilger or David fucking Horowitz. The truth matters, and its your total disregard which is why I despise your website so much (though you'd fit right in in the US, where this kind of thing seems depressingly common among both the left and right). The sad thing is I suspect that your heart is probably in the right place, even I disagree with your conclusions, but you guys are just going to end up alienating everyone you come into contact with using those tactics.
Do you ever get tired of drawing lines in the sand?
ReplyDeleteSays the man who bracketed Norm Geras with Neil Clark.
What gives? Is this what you mean by standing aloof? Do you get to say what you like and then when you're confronted, call it oppression?
I've never met anyone on the Left with exactly the same outlook as me
I'm not surprised given you think Norm and Neil are peas in a pod.
My blog gets perhaps 100 hits on a particularly good day
Well this was kinda my point. We're getting 100 comments a post and probably half are dissenters. That's the context for our "shouting", the admission for which, if you'd read carefully enough, was a mea culpa of sorts. I'm not rejecting your criticism in that regard. I'm accepting it is, at least on occasion, valid.
Cian,
Either way, its your fault, not that of the world around you.
Oh, did you miss my previous comment where I said:
I'd accept these criticisms.
?
Instead of just telling you both to "fuck off", I was attempting to engage with a couple of commenters who I know are critics. There's more "aggression" and antipathy in the comments of you and Phil than anything I've directed at you guys. Which is a little ironc given what you allege about HP.
Hezbollah isn't a fascistic organisation, openly or otherwise
Then you need to read up. I'm serious. The original manifesto and charter can all be found online. Their solution to the Israeli problem. The fact they make no distinction between civilians and soldiers, as the military and religious struggle are one. Oh, and maybe your granny dances like this at parties, but mine doesn't.
"Do you ever get tired of drawing lines in the sand?
ReplyDeleteSays the man who bracketed Norm Geras with Neil Clark."
This is feeble stuff - although I'll grant you that it's annoying, so I guess you haven't lost your touch.
I said I dislike Norm for the same reason I dislike Neil Clark - in other words, I said that two writers with vastly different political positions nevertheless have something significant in common. The sum total of your engagement with this proposition seems to consist of the conclusion that anyone who brackets Geras with Clark must be one of the Bad Men - and should, of course, be reminded that he's a Bad Man Who Brackets Geras With Clark at every opportunity.
Do you ever get tired of drawing lines in the sand? Because I really think you should.
There's more "aggression" and antipathy in the comments of you and Phil than anything I've directed at you guys.
Sure. Because of course ignoring the substance of an argument so that you can try and make the person advancing it look silly - and then doing it again, and again - has nothing to do with aggression and antipathy, does it? Look up 'passive-aggressive' some time.
Incidentally...
ReplyDeleteIs this what you mean by standing aloof?
I didn't say anything about 'standing aloof'.
Do you get to say what you like and then when you're confronted, call it oppression?
I didn't say anything about 'oppression'.
But yes, I do think I should get to say what I like. After I've done that, I think that what I said should be either discussed or ignored. What I don't think is needed (999 times out of 1000) is for anyone to be 'confronted'.
Which brings me back, again, to the question of tone, and the difference between 'disagree' and 'dislike'. Put simply, if you radiate hate, you're going to attract people who like that sort of thing and repel those of us who don't.
Brownie,
ReplyDeletewriting:
"I think that stems from a perception we have (which I think is valid) that we are a minority voice on the left. There's perhaps a frustration there and tendency to think we must shout in order to be heard."
Is simply pathetic. In a 15 year old, or even a 22 year old, I'd probably think "Oh bless" and think no more of it. But you're what, 30 something? Shouting to be heard...jesus. If you haven't yet come to terms with the fact that lots of people don't agree with you, then you're going to die a very bitter man. You're certainly not going to persuade anyone of anything.
"Then you need to read up."
I have. Its a ridiculously simplistic comment about a very complex socio-political phenomenon. And if you can't work out why South Lebanese shi'ites might reasonably hate the Israelis, then you should probably read up.
Obviously you'll probably read the above comment as being some kind of apologia for Hezbollah.
The sum total of your engagement with this proposition seems to consist of the conclusion that anyone who brackets Geras with Clark must be one of the Bad Men
ReplyDeleteNot at all. Nothing to do with" bad men" whatsoever. I expressed astonishment, not least becasue of all the serious criticis of Norm I know - and I know a few - I can't think of one that wold put him in the same category as Neil Clark. Not one. You complain about my not "engaging with your proposition" - which appears to consist of you believing that Norm and Clark don't "simply disagree" with debating partners and wish to project "evil" on the part of their interlocutors. I wouldn't know where to begin with such nonsense, other than to point you to the resepctive of blogs of each. It would be difficult to find two blogs more different. But then, assuming you've bothered to read Norm's blog on subjects other than Iraq, what would be the point? So I contented myself to sinmply "disagreeing" - the very thing you alleged HP and its authors were incapable of. Now you're annoyed that I didn't go further. There's no pleasing some people.
And you'll have to explain the "lines in the sand" accusation as it applies to this issue. Pointing out how thinking Norm and Clark are alike is not "drawing a line the sand" but disagreeing with this point is, would probably help your case.
Look up 'passive-aggressive' some time.
As before, this still beats the hell out of "aggressive-aggresive", which is how you've come across during this discussion.
Is simply pathetic. In a 15 year old, or even a 22 year old, I'd probably think "Oh bless" and think no more of it. But you're what, 30 something? Shouting to be heard...jesus. If you haven't yet come to terms with the fact that lots of people don't agree with you, then you're going to die a very bitter man. You're certainly not going to persuade anyone of anything.
ReplyDeleteFFS, Cian, argue in good faith or not at all. It's a *fact* that HP is a minority voice on the left on some of the most important issues of the day and that half the people who come to our site are dissenters. I'm simply providing context for why some of the discussions pan out the way they do. For the 4th or 5th time, I'm agreeing with some of the criticisms. How does this square with an accusation that I haven't come to terms with the fact that some people will disagree with us? I think a blog with that attitude might take a rather tougher editorial line with the regular trolls and dissenters we get. Certainly, we give more latitude then you get at Crooked Timber. Name me a blog that tolerates the levels of dissent we do?
Then again, a corrollary of this editorial stance is that there will be more arguments and some, inevitably, will turn sour. Still beats the pants off an echo chamber.
I have. Its a ridiculously simplistic comment about a very complex socio-political phenomenon.
Since when were "fascist" and "complex" mututally exclusive? I don't have to deny the complexity of which you speak to arrive at my conclusion. The two characteristics can and do happily coexist.
And if you can't work out why South Lebanese shi'ites might reasonably hate the Israelis, then you should probably read up.
Huh? Are you a mind-reader, now? Who mentioned the South Lebanese? I can think of some reasons why the South Lebanese might hate the Israelis. I can think of some reasons why they might hate Hezbollah who are, after all, responsible for creating a state-within-a-state in the region and effectively pushing south Lebanese onto the frontline of a conflict with Israel.
Obviously you'll probably read the above comment as being some kind of apologia for Hezbollah
Well, you appear to know how I'd think about lots of other things I've been silent now until now, so no doubt you're right about this, also.
I wouldn't know where to begin with such nonsense ... So I contented myself to sinmply "disagreeing"- the very thing you alleged HP and its authors were incapable of.
ReplyDeleteAnything less like 'simply disagreeing' I can't imagine. (Disagreeing is where you start from the assumption that the other person is a rational being like yourself and assess their argument on its merits. Not where you start from the assumption that the other person's evil or an idiot until they can prove otherwise.)
Pointing out how thinking Norm and Clark are alike is not "drawing a line the sand" but disagreeing with this point is, would probably help your case.
How about pointing out that 'disagreeing' is precisely what you aren't doing?
Fascists - oh boy.
ReplyDeleteSince when were "fascist" and "complex" mututally exclusive?
The police are fascists. The US is a fascist state. Gosh, I see what you mean. Those are complex opinions. I stand corrected.
Calling something fascist, without bothering to explain the phenomenon, analyse it, or indeed use a working and reasonable definition of fascism is not what I call complex thinking. Maybe you do.
I don't have to deny the complexity of which you speak to arrive at my conclusion.
Well lets examine how you Gene arrived at your conclusions. First of all we have this link:
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2006/07/22/londons_profascist_rally.php
Argument 1 - a photo of a miliatry rally, with a straight arm salute. Apparently this is meant seriously. See what you mean - complex.
Then there's a quote sourced from the Daily Star about anti-semitism (anti-semitism and fascism are two different phenomenon. Basic, basic stuff - oh dear), a quote which was probably made up given that the other newspaper present didn't mention it, there's no record of Nasrallah saying anything similar (and his speeches are widely reported) and the reporter in question has ideological views close to those of Daniel Pipes. Easy thing to check - interesting that Gene didn't. Hell, given Lebanese politics, the reporter could easily be from a Phalangist background himself (An awful lot of the Lebanese who get involved in right wing US think tanks are), and so a genuine fascist. Wouldn't that be fun.
How about this:
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2006/07/13/supportforfascists_watch.php
Another straight armed salute. Oh dear.
THen a link to a video, which is largely unexceptional - though I guess you're implying that showing the Hezbollah militia is somehow fascistic. You don't actually provide anything as old-fashioned as an argument, and to be honest I can't really see anything terribly unusual (watch Republican ads during successful/popular points of wars). Hezbollah liberated South Lebannon from Israel. This was very popular, they're reminding people of this because they want to do will in an election. The style of the ad isn't particularly subtle, but then TV down there isn't particularly subtle either. South Lebannon isn't militarised, and the militia of Hezbollah is subservient to the political/social arm - and is focused purely on the Israel/Lebannon border.
There's some more allegations of anti-semitism, some of which may be true (one source being an Israeli government web site, the other being MEMRI. The latter is probably more reliable than the former, but both are sources of Israeli propoganda, rather than disinterested observers).
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2006/07/28/why_i_think_hezbollah_is_fascist.php
Finally when challenged by "bob", Gene admits that he can't define it (apparently who books have been written on it, though he doesn't mention it). There's an Orwell quote, which is pretty useless (and quite possibly meant something different in the original context)
But apparently Gene knows fascism when he sees it. Wow! Who needs historians, political scientists or sociologists when you have Harry. He just knows!
He comes up with four definitions:
"It glorifies war, death and martyrdom."
Not strictly true. Hezbollah glorifies their fighters who died fighting the Israelis in a war of liberation against the Israelis. It doesn't glorify pointless martyrdom, one reason why its so effective militarily (dying for a point is seen as honourable - you'll be hard put to find a military in the world that doesn't share this point of view). In this its no different from C19th Britain, or the parts of the US that provide most of the military (mostly the South, with which I'm very familiar through marriage/visits, etc).
"It features mass rallies and regimented parades (and yes, stiff-armed salutes)."
You know Gene would fail GCSE history with this stuff. Its pathetic.
"Its leader is glorified by, among others things, ubiquitous giant photos."
Stalin, notable fascist. Sigh. This is dumb. For all Gene knows the same is true elsewhere in Lebannon (pictures of Aoun in Christian areas for example). Its hardly proof of fascism. It might be proof of something else, but of course that would require him to think.
"It is based largely on hatred of a feared "other."
Yeah, newsflash, people normally don't like the country that invaded them and occupied them - particularly when it was as nasty as the Israeli occupation.
This is just bollocks. Hezbollah is a Shi'ite organisation and is based upon Shi'ite solidarity/cultural ties. It was formed during the Israeli occupation to resist the brutal Israeli occupation. Given the facts of that occupation (and the subsequent raids after Israel had officially withdrawn). Hatred and monomania seems pretty understandable in the circumstances. On the other hand when Israel pulled out, Hezbollah prevented retaliation against collaborators (which included torturers, incidentally). So obviously they have some control over this hatred. Since then Hezbollah has turned itself into another Lebanese ethnic organisation, no different from any of the others that represent Druze, Sunni, Christian etc. Their existence today is largely predicated on representing Shi'ite interests in Lebannon, rather hatred of Israel (though obviously that plays a part, for the simple fact that Israel is there, openly hostile and regularly flies planes across).
Then in an update he mentions Hezbollah's founding statement (founded in the midst of war against, um, Israel on, um, Lebanese soil. Which is why its about, um, war). Although they've never disavowed that statement, they have in practical terms moved a long way from that to accepting pluralism in Lebannon and the modern leaders are far more moderate and pragmatic than the founders (and have focused on things that were never mentioned during the founding). Its not a terribly relevant, or useful, guide to modern Hezbollah. But somebody who had researched Hezbollah, as you claim to have done, would know this. It has a certain use as propoganda I guess, presumably why its on an Israeli government web site.
He also mentions Umberto Eco, so I guess somebody helped him out with a definition. Unfortunately, on most of the points Hezbollah doesn't fit his criteria either. Oh dear, never mind.
Huh? Are you a mind-reader, now? Who mentioned the South Lebanese? I can think of some reasons why the South Lebanese might hate the Israelis. I can think of some reasons why they might hate Hezbollah who are, after all, responsible for creating a state-within-a-state in the region and effectively pushing south Lebanese onto the frontline of a conflict with Israel.
A state within a state - jesus. Look. Hezbollah is a south Lebanese organisation - its a bottom up and heavily devolved organisation. Its extremely popular in South Lebannon, and much of its power and effectiveness comes from this. If Hezbollah was to take a stance that was seriously out of step with opinion in both South Lebannon, and Shi'ite areas of Beiruit, they would be in trouble. People in South Lebannon loathe Israel. Hezbollah ideology comes as much from its base, as the other way round (and arguably Nasrallah is far more moderate than his base). If you want to understand Hezbollah, you have to understand the region. Its ludicrous to pretend, as you seem to want to, that Hezbollah somehow forces itself onto the South Lebanese. Hezbollah is strong in areas where its popular, weak in areas where it isn't.
As for this state with a state bollocks. The Shi'ites are the n***ers of Lebannon. They always got pushed around, never got any resources and are the poorest. As a result there was nothing in the south, and Hezbollah built infrastructure that wouldn't have come any other way (and since gaining political power, have thought to get a larger part of the national pie diverted to their base). Hezbollah are very good at infrastructure - partly because they're honest, partly because they're efficient (and devolve power/responsibility in a way that is most unfascist like). They're now on the rise politically and are the majority (which is why the other other ethnic groups fear them).
If you're talking about their regional supremacy. explain how that is any different to other ethnic regions (maranite, Christian, etc). That's how Lebannon works.
Incidentally if we're talking about fascism - Israel's allies in Lebannon of course were quite openly fascist.
"Well, you appear to know how I'd think about lots of other things I've been silent now until now, so no doubt you're right about this, also."
It was a predication based upon how you respond to dissenters on your own website. No mindreading required. If I'm wrong, I'm glad to hear it.
Brownie,
ReplyDeleteFFS, Cian, argue in good faith or not at all.
It wasn't an argument. Simply a statement of opinion. You're claiming that you're shrill, because you're a minority voice. There was an implicit self-pity in your statement, which I found pathetic. There's also a peculiar passivity about it, as if its not your fault that you're shrill (I'd call it assholery myself, but different perspectives and all), its just because there are so few of you. maybe you find self-pity noble - I don't. My opinion. And hey, you have a fair few journalists, commentators and politicians on your side - so its hardly that isolated.
It's a *fact* that HP is a minority voice on the left on some of the most important issues of the day
Its only a fact if you can come up with a definition of the left that everyone agrees with, and some hard facts to back up that statement. Maybe you do, but I kind of doubt it.
Since half your criticisms seem to be of the extreme left (the SWP mostly), this seems largely irrelivant, as they're pretty marginal also. Of course the SWP do actually engage in real politics (of a sort), rather than creating internet manifestos and arguing on websites. But there is nothing stopping you guys from actually doing politics, rather than commenting from the sidelines. There's even a political party whose leadership's views are very similar to many of yours. Now what's it called...Ah, the Labour Party.
If your argument is that your exact opinion is a minority opinion on the left - well of course it is, nobody is going to agree with you entirely on anything. Some supported Afghanistan, some (Nick Cohen) didn't. Some supported Iraq in theory, but not in practice. Some wanted the UN involved, some didn't trust a group of individuals responsible for crimes against humanity in South America, etc. There are a range of opinions on all these topics, all of which are a minority opinion.
In the mainstream press, your position might even seem a majority one before it became impossible to ignore what a disaster Iraq is. So you can hardly play the dissident card that strongly.
As for importance. Some of us think that they only became important because we started bloody great big wars about them, and even so there are far bigger issues for the left (the pushing of globalisation as a tool for modern forms of imperialism through trade treaties, increased corporate power, the increasing privatisation of the state, reductions in democracy). People on all ends of the spectrum also believe that bigger issues would include global warming, water depletion, coming spikes in energy production, the waning of US global power (and indeed the increasing corruption and incompetence of the US state, whose corruption and incompetence in certain areas resembles the late Roman empire).
I mean jesus, road deaths in the USA for 2001 was 42,196. That dwarfs the most successful terrorist attack ever (and what is likely to remain such). The UK has over 3000 road deaths a year. You're very unlikely to know somebody who dies in a terrorist attack - you are very likely to know several people who die in car accidents.
I have no idea how many people die a year due to corporate pollution, but I'll guess it similarly dwarfs the number who die of terrorism. Where's the outrage, the deranged polemics? And these are tough fights - the toughest maybe.
Disagreeing is where you start from the assumption that the other person is a rational being like yourself and assess their argument on its merits. Not where you start from the assumption that the other person's evil or an idiot until they can prove otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI'm unsure whether this is directed at me, Norm, or both. As I said, I don't recognise this as an accurate descirption of the way Norm approaches discussion with anybody about anything. And again, the best way I could think of disabusing you or anybody else of this opinion would be to point you to his blog. Now, assuming you are arguing in good faith - and I have no reson to suspect otherwise - I'm not sure what good this would do, given 'good faith' in this instance necessarily implies you HAVE read his blog (and I do mean on subjects other than Iraq, by the way, which is obviously a polarising issue like virtually no other in recent times).
Of course, if you'd offered more than a simple assertion - for example, if you'd offered an in-depth critique of Norm's work and analysis of one or two articles where he demonstrated the characteristics you attribute to him - I'd have more to work with. I could begin to engage on the level you appear to want me to. Without that, I don't understand why I am compelled to work harder than you on this issue? If you can't be bothered to support it, that's your prerogative, but don't expect Dr. Johnson in response.
How about pointing out that 'disagreeing' is precisely what you aren't doing?
You're starting to lose me, so work on the basis this is my last comment on this subject.
I am disagreeing, Phil, but not in the way you would prefer. There is a difference. Expressing astonishment at another person's views does not count as an ad hominem. I'm allowed to be astonished, especially when the assertion that prompted my astonishment is as off-the-wall as yours. An assertion, I repeat, that you made next-to-no effort to justify or support.
Cian is currently chiding me for not being able to accept that some people will simply dsiagree with me (and HP). At the same time, you've been complaining that I should be working harder to convince you why my views on Norm are more informed than your own, rather than us two agreeing to disagree, something I'm more than happy to do.
Are you?
All the best.
Calling something fascist, without bothering to explain the phenomenon, analyse it, or indeed use a working and reasonable definition of fascism is not what I call complex thinking. Maybe you do
ReplyDeleteThat's a funny paragraph to write when it is immediately followed by your fisking of its use in relation to Hezbollah, where you deal directly with the definition and justification for its use offered by Gene. You can't have it both ways, Cian. You might be right on every single point regarding what you believe to be the misattribution of the term, but either Gene just hurls the epithet and nothing more - which is the implication of your fisrt paragraph - or he didn't.
There are two kinds of people, Cian: those who think "Fascist" applies to a 20th century Italian political movement and nothing else. And those who think the term has an application outside this narrow definition. I'm not convicned you don't belong in the former camp, but I'll work on the basis you don't.
Essentially, you've taken each piece of evidence offered by Gene and explained how it could be interpreted as indicative of something other than fascistic tendencies. So big pictures mean nothing - look at Stalin. The argument, of course, is that an organization that exhibits all of these characteristics is fascist in nature, notwithstnading any alternative interpretation you can provide for each one in isolation.
The rest of your answer is padded out with observations and comments that although not germane, are neverthelss not altogether objectionable. I even share some of the analysis. Some of it is utter garbage, of course, such as the suggestion that "If Hezbollah was to take a stance that was seriously out of step with opinion in both South Lebannon, and Shi'ite areas of Beiruit, they would be in trouble." With whom, exactly? Of course Hezbollah enjoy some support amongst South Lebanese in their shared antipathy towards Israel, but unlike Hezbollah, your average Lebanese - even Shia Lebanese - is not committed to Israel's destruction and they are not characterized by a hatred of Jews. Or a glorification of martyrdom, come to that.
We had several links to Lebanese blogs during the latest conflict and for every Lebanese sympathetic to Hezbollah, there are many more would wish them gone from the country. Lebanon and Israel may not be swapping votes at the next Eurovision, but peaceful coexistence would be eminently more possible without HA stalking the border.
In any event, this wasn't intended to be a discussion about the ME per se, so I'll just remark that disallowing HA's own charter as evidence of their fascism is a little obtuse. If I/we can't even use their own non-disawaowed words to condemn them, then this presents a problem for any discussion about what/who they are.
Lastly, you again both assert and imply certain things about our blog and our opinions that suggest to me your reading of our output is limited at best. The most obvious example:
But there is nothing stopping you guys from actually doing politics, rather than commenting from the sidelines. There's even a political party whose leadership's views are very similar to many of yours. Now what's it called...Ah, the Labour Party.
It is pretty much impossible for anybody to have the flimsiest of acquaintances with my writing and not know that I am active member of the Labour Party (as are two of the other authors). It's the first thing other bloggers would mention in any analysis of my political orientation. In fact, many of our dissenters accuse(d) us outright of arch-Blairism. It's not a crime for you to not know this, but the fact your sarcsm above is so misplaced and misguided is illustrative of how limited your knowledge of HP really is.
Brownie:
ReplyDeletebut either Gene just hurls the epithet and nothing more - which is the implication of your first paragraph - or he didn't
But he does just hurl the epithet, and its only when called upon it by 'Bob' that he tries, not very successfully, to define it. I mean when his first argument is that they use the same salute as the Nazis, they have military marches and he confuses anti-semitism (ignoring for a moment his sources' dodgy provenance) with fascism - why would anyone think he knows what he's talking about. Its at the level of the student shouting fascist at the police, or whatever. Its not a serious argument, though I suppose its possible he thinks otherwise (how depressing that would be).
The argument, of course, is that an organization that exhibits all of these characteristics is fascist in nature, notwithstnading any alternative interpretation you can provide for each one in isolation.
Yeah, but its not a very good argument because its arguing that you can define a political, social and ideological movement by its symbols. I mean its an argument I suppose, but I've never seen anyone serious make it.
Any definition that encompasses Maoist China, Stalinist Russia, but fails to encompass Falangist Spain (or the Phalangists in Lebannon), certain South American governments, or Dominion Theologists (or half the other fascist movements in the US), the BJP is pretty useless.
And the way he applied some of these criteria (militarism, and fear of an 'other') was simply inaccurate. So yeah, I was criticising that. I don't think he knows what he's talking about.
If you think that Hezbollah are fascist, its up to you to make the argument. I can't disprove a negative, nor is that how respectable intellectual discourse operates. You think Hezbollah are fascist. Prove it. I can only argue against the arguments that you provide.
Some of it is utter garbage, of course, such as the suggestion that "If Hezbollah was to take a stance that was seriously out of step with opinion in both South Lebannon, and Shi'ite areas of Beiruit, they would be in trouble." With whom, exactly?
You don't really know much about Lebannon at all, do you.
With their supporters, who are Shi'ites and based, odd this, in the largely Shi'ite south. I mean its not as if there's another Shi'ite political [cough Amal] organisation [ahem Amal], is it. If they lost significant support from their base (who not only vote for them, but are Hezbollah on the ground), they'd be a much weaker organisation. Hezbollah can't force people to support them, anymore than it can force people to believe the organisation's beliefs. The South Lebanese Shi'ites are poor, religious, and (historically) marginalised oppressed peasants who suffered a brutal war. Oddly, they have the political, religious and social views that go with this.
"Of course Hezbollah enjoy some support amongst South Lebanese in their shared antipathy towards Israel, but unlike Hezbollah, your average Lebanese - even Shia Lebanese - is not committed to Israel's destruction and they are not characterized by a hatred of Jews. Or a glorification of martyrdom, come to that."
Ho hum.
Given that Hezbollah doesn't have the military capability to destroy Israel, or invade it in any serious fashion, this is largely academic, don't you think?
I suspect if you asked a majority of Shi'ites then you would find that they would like the destruction if Israel (as they see it, Israel tried to destroy them, so fair enough). If you limited your questioning to urban and middle class Shi'ites (or possibly Shi'ites elsewhere in the country), you might well find that a minority (possibly a small one) thought that. If you then asked if they thought Hezbollah should do this, they would say no - this is largely Hezbollah's position in practice, though its complicated by frictions between the veterans from the war, and the more moderate politicians. On the other hand, the vast majority of Shi'ites do want Hezbollah to maintain a defensive position on the border - largely because they're terrified of another invasion. I've never seen, outside crazy pro-Israeli propoganda (which I'm distinguishing from the non-crazy kind), suggest otherwise. Incidentally, Israel's invasion was fairly popular at first (the Shi'ites hated, with good reason, the PLO) - Israel earned the loathing of the South Lebanese.
Non Shi'ite Lebanese tend to despise the Shi'ites, though these days this is mixed with a certain amount of fear as they may well be the majority (to maintain some kind of balance, population surveys are illegal, so the fiction is maintained that there are more Christians, but nobody believes this), and Hezbollah are militarily powerful in comparison to the Druze and Christians. Lebanese politics is tribal, though you seem to be in blissful ignorance of this. The Shi'ites are despised because they are poor, uneducated and "Backward".
Shi'ites glorify martyrdom - its a cultural religious thing. Its hardly as if Hezbollah created this out of thin air. And these martyrs, are brothers, sisters, cousins, sons, daughters - who died fighting the Israelis. Pretty much everyone in the South lost close relatives, so yeah its a pretty big deal. They see them as heroes - this seems like a fairly normal human reaction. I've never seen any serious analysis that suggests that it goes beyond this. If you have, I'd be interested to see it.
We had several links to Lebanese blogs during the latest conflict and for every Lebanese sympathetic to Hezbollah, there are many more would wish them gone from the country.
Uh-huh. Well yeah, they'd be largely educated, urban, Lebanese from different tribes. This is surprising because? Walid Jumblitt isn't exactly popular outside Druze areas. Christian leaders have to watch their backs in Shi'ite areas. Only somebody who knew very little of social and political realities of Lebannon could find this at all remarkable. Hezbollah had a certain grudging respect from much of the country due to driving the Israelis out, but they're still Shi'ite at the end of the day.
I'll just remark that disallowing HA's own charter as evidence of their fascism is a little obtuse. If I/we can't even use their own non-disawaowed words to condemn them, then this presents a problem for any discussion about what/who they are.
I know, if you can't use a 20 year old document, written in the heat of a vicious war, by individuals who are now dead to understand an organisation operating in peacetime, who have transformed themselves into a social and political organisation and whose focus is almost entirely on Lebanese politics, and have pragmatically accepted the religious pluralism of Lebannon - well, what can you use? I mean its so unfair.
Cian is currently chiding me for not being able to accept that some people will simply dsiagree with me (and HP).
ReplyDeleteSigh. Given that the entire reason for your sites existence seems to be so that you can condemn people who disagree with you, no I don't. I just find the way that you guys moan about being a minority view on the left, as if you're somehow marginalised (which you're not) and thus in a noble, but desperate, fight to save the left from itself that I find pathetic. Especially when the way that you carry out that fight is by insult, distorition and exageration - and then wonder why those who disagree with you find you so dislikable.
It is pretty much impossible for anybody to have the flimsiest of acquaintances with my writing and not know that I am active member of the Labour Party (as are two of the other authors).
Um, yeah, I know - it was meant ironically, though I guess I could have made it clearer that I knew.
I find your complaint that:
"I think that stems from a perception we have (which I think is valid) that we are a minority voice on the left" kind of ironic. Minority maybe, but shared by the leadership of your party, who control parliament. God I wish my views were that marginal, I really do.
I am disagreeing, Phil, but not in the way you would prefer ... I'm allowed to be astonished, especially when the assertion that prompted my astonishment is as off-the-wall as yours.
ReplyDeleteYou're allowed to do whatever you want, subject only to D^2 letting you do it in his comment box. I'm more concerned with what's useful, constructive and generally worth doing - and for that purpose a lot depends on what it is you're trying to do.
If what you want to do is tell the world that you can't possibly have any kind of exchange of views with someone like me - and that this reflects entirely on me - then I think you're doing fine. But if what you want to do is hold a discussion with me, then I suggest that expressing 'astonishment' at how 'off-the-wall' my argument is - and expressing absolutely nothing else, since, hey, it's too off-the-wall for you to argue with - doesn't really do the job.
Phil first,
ReplyDeleteIf what you want to do is tell the world that you can't possibly have any kind of exchange of views with someone like me - and that this reflects entirely on me - then I think you're doing fine.
What have we been doing for the last few days (in a relatively civilised manner, to boot)? If I thought you weren't worth my time, I wouldn't be making these keystrokes. I'm assuming the same applies to you. Either that, or you're a masochist.
But if what you want to do is hold a discussion with me, then I suggest that expressing 'astonishment' at how 'off-the-wall' my argument is - and expressing absolutely nothing else, since, hey, it's too off-the-wall for you to argue with - doesn't really do the job.
Can we wind back here a sec? You bracketed Norm and Neil CLark and offered no analysis or justification for doing so. You cited no works, drew no comparisons with published texts, nothing. Yet apparently it's incumbent on me to deconstruct your unsupported assertion in minute detail or be accused of debating in bad faith....just throwing fud. Bollocks to that, Phil. This holier than thou preachey act is starting to wear a little thin. Maybe online debate is not for you if you're genuinely convicned you've had a rum deal in this thread? Worth considering, in my view.
Yet apparently it's incumbent on me to deconstruct your unsupported assertion in minute detail or be accused of debating in bad faith
ReplyDeleteNo. It's incumbent on you to debate (or shut up), or else be accused of, well, not debating.
It's all in the tone. If you don't agree with someone, you say "In what way?" or "What do you mean by that?" or "I don't see the similarity myself". You know, kind of like what you'd do if someone said something you disagreed with in real life, and you actually wanted to know what they meant by it. You don't say (for example) "I wouldn't know where to begin with such nonsense" - not, at least, if you're actually trying to hold a discussion with the other person. Similarly, you don't tell the other person their comments are so ridiculous that they need to provide supporting documentation before you'll treat them with anything other than ridicule. Not, as I say, if you're trying to talk to the other person, rather than exhibiting them to invite other people's ridicule or contempt.
I mean, I can't say I'm exactly surprised - it's an MO I'm familiar with from the few times I've looked at HP. I'm just a bit puzzled that you don't seem to be at all aware that you're doing it.
Maybe online debate is not for you if you're genuinely convicned you've had a rum deal in this thread?
I've been engaging in online debate since 1996, ta very much, and don't feel the need to stop now. HP clearly isn't for me, but so many places aren't HP.
Cian,
ReplyDeleteYour points are well-made and stand on their merits. Your snide asides (with a "cough" here and an "um" there) add nothing. Everyone has their own literary flourishes, but really.
You still appear to be deluding yourself that a complex, socio-political organization cannot be simultaneousy fascistic in nature, simply by dint of it being a complex socio-politcal ogrganization. I don't understand this thinking.
If they lost significant support from their base (who not only vote for them, but are Hezbollah on the ground), they'd be a much weaker organisation.
Somewhat weaker, perhaps, but nothing like "much weaker". Hezbollah do not depend on the support of indigenous South Lebanese for their existence, rather the patronage of Iran and (at the very least) tacit support from Syria. They operate on Israel's northern border becasue Iran wants them to and Syria allows such. What Mr. and Mrs. Average Lebanese desires, doesn't come close to deciding anything. Such support does provide a veneer of polical legitimacy and respectability which obviously has its uses, but democratic politics is not the raison d'etre of Hezbollah and this support is very much a 'nice to have'.
Given that Hezbollah doesn't have the military capability to destroy Israel, or invade it in any serious fashion, this is largely academic, don't you think?
Well that depends. I'm not aware of a serious Israeli politician who has ever pretended that they fear destruction at the hands of Hezbollah. But as with any country that operates a system of political accountability, successive Israeli governments have been asked by their citiznes - particularly those living in towns like Haifa - why they are tolerating the existence of an Iranian proxy on their northern border that sends Israeli children scurrying to bomb shelters at regular intervals? And it's not going to take a quantum leap forward in Iranian weapons technology before those rockets probe deeper into Israeli territory and start landing in the gardens of Tel Aviv suburbs. Hezbollah recognise that they don't need to assume super-power status before they can influence events in the region even if you don't.
Secondly, since when did the inefficacy of an organization entitle it to avoid the "fascist" tag? The fact that Hezbolalh cannot currently achieve its ultimate goal of destroying Israel and ridding the earth of the Jew, ought not to count in its favour.
I suspect if you asked a majority of Shi'ites then you would find that they would like the destruction if Israel (as they see it, Israel tried to destroy them, so fair enough). If you limited your questioning to urban and middle class Shi'ites (or possibly Shi'ites elsewhere in the country), you might well find that a minority (possibly a small one) thought that. If you then asked if they thought Hezbollah should do this, they would say no - this is largely Hezbollah's position in practice, though its complicated by frictions between the veterans from the war, and the more moderate politicians.
How does this differ from my view that Hezbollah constitutes a 'state within a state'? They are not in South Lebanon with the blessing of the Lebanese government, nor with the support of the majority of the Lebanese people and there is no pretence they are conducting Lebanese policy. As you concede, the majority support comes from their co-religionists concentrated in the south. A better definition of 'state within a state' would be difficult to find.
Shi'ites glorify martyrdom - its a cultural religious thing.
Oh, I know, but back to the central point, cultural relativism is no defence against accusations of fascism. No, I'm not applying the term to all Shi'ites, but the martyrdom aspect of Hezbollah ideology is one more ingredient. And a "martyr" in Hezbollah language is not just somebody who died fighting the Israelis in 1982, as you know.
As for the charter, Hezbolalh can rewrite and renounce at any time, can they not? The Israeli invasion happened more than a generation ago and no serious Middle East commentator I've read claims that Tel Aviv has designs on Lebanon as part of an Erstaz Israel. Hezbolalh has nothing to protect Lebanese from if the south of the country is not used as a base from which to launch katyushas into Israel's nothern towns. It's that simple.
Given that the entire reason for your sites existence seems to be so that you can condemn people who disagree with you
If a British organisation which preached hatred and violence against a specific ethnic group, ran a TV channel that spewed the most vile racism and went around giving stiff arm salutes, then self-descirbing leftists willing to argue the toss about whether the term "fascist" applied would be thin on the ground. Not only is this not the case with regard to Hezbollah, we witness so-called "leftist" marching in solidarity with them through central London proclaiming "we're all Hezbollah now".
If you want to know why HP exists, this is why.
It's all in the tone. If you don't agree with someone, you say "In what way?" or "What do you mean by that?" or "I don't see the similarity myself". You know, kind of like what you'd do if someone said something you disagreed with in real life, and you actually wanted to know what they meant by it. You don't say (for example) "I wouldn't know where to begin with such nonsense"
ReplyDeleteYou might have checked the thread before posting this lament. It seems you beat me to it.
"This is nonsense".
Posted by 'Phil' at:
1/10/2008 02:45:00 PM
Something about glasshouses and stones, I think.
OK, Brownie, here's me responding to you and using the word 'nonsense':
ReplyDeletea perception we have (which I think is valid) that we are a minority voice on the left. There's perhaps a frustration there and tendency to think we must shout in order to be heard
This is such nonsense. I've never met anyone on the Left with exactly the same outlook as me, and I've certainly never seen my views reflected in anything for sale on a newsagent's. I think my views are valid and important, but I know I'm in a minority of one in holding them.
My blog gets perhaps 100 hits on a particularly good day; I'm certainly not being 'heard' to any great extent. But 'shouting', by which I suppose you mean being aggressive and abusive (literally shouting is hard to do in print) wouldn't get my views heard; it might get me heard, but people would just hear me being aggressive and abusive.
Which comes back to the question of tone, and the difference between 'disagree' and 'dislike'.
And here's you responding to me and using the word 'nonsense':
You complain about my not "engaging with your proposition" - which appears to consist of you believing that Norm and Clark don't "simply disagree" with debating partners and wish to project "evil" on the part of their interlocutors. I wouldn't know where to begin with such nonsense, other than to point you to the resepctive of blogs of each. It would be difficult to find two blogs more different. But then, assuming you've bothered to read Norm's blog on subjects other than Iraq, what would be the point?
It seems to me that there's a bit of a difference between the two.
Phil,
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that there's a bit of a difference between the two.
Yes. You deliver "nonsense" in a much more civilised way.
For one last time, you bracketed Norm with Neil Clark and offered no justification. As any fule no, to be bracketed with Neil Clark is insulting. You were deliberately insulting someone I regard as a friend. I didn't respond by insulting you in return. Instead, during the course of making another point, I said:
At least I didn't bracket Norm with Neil Clark
In your very next repsonse, you addressed this point thus:
Whereas I have, which clearly puts me beyond the pale. Oh woe. Do you ever get tired of drawing lines in the sand?
I think you have a victim complex.
You appear to have convinced yourself that HP authors are devils incarnate and incapable of holding conversations without letting forth a stream of abuse. When this isn't forthcoming, you contrive to be offended regardless. If your skin were any thinner, it would be transparent.
It's now 5 days since you said what you said about Norm and you've still to write a single paragraph to support your assertion, much less justify it. No, you're too busy being offended and whining about "tone".
You're a 24-carat hypocrite.
Last one from me.
ReplyDeleteIt's now 5 days since you said what you said about Norm
Which was:
"I dislike HP (and Ollie and Norm) for very much the same reason I dislike Neil Clark (and Pinter and Chomsky). And it's very largely because you (like them) don't confine yourself to 'disagreeing'. There's always a point where disagreement (or any kind of debate) has to stop, because the people on the other side have shown themselves to be evil - or complicit with evil people, or deceived by evil people, or deceived by people who are complicit with evil people, or unwilling to dissociate themselves from people who are complicit with evil people...
"I always feel got-at when I read this kind of stuff (from either side), as if I'm under notice to prove that I'm innocent of complicity with the evil of imperialism and/or the evil of Islamist extremism. Which isn't a feeling I enjoy, and I dislike anyone who seems to be devoted to inducing it - particularly when they seem to be enjoying it."
I made a statement about HP, with Geras and Kamm brought in for illustration: three blogs in a similar area (I'm not taking a view on Geras's academic work & I only know the others through blogs). Then I said (at some length and in some detail) that I dislike reading those blogs for much the same reason that I dislike reading [the political writings of] Pinter, Chomsky and Neil Clark. I explained that I dislike reading these people's work because they produce a similar unpleasant effect on me, which I described in some detail.
What I was describing is the experience of reading, not dissent, but denunciation; not discussion among people with differing points of view, but demands for everyone to adopt (in certain significant areas) the same point of view, or else to explain and justify their failure to comply. I explained that I don't like reading this kind of stuff because I always feel I could be next in line.
Here's your response:
"at least I haven't bracketed Norman Geras with Neil Clark."
"Says the man who bracketed Norm Geras with Neil Clark."
"...given you think Norm and Neil are peas in a pod."
"I wouldn't know where to begin with such nonsense"
"I'm allowed to be astonished, especially when the assertion that prompted my astonishment is as off-the-wall as yours."
Later there was this:
"You cited no works, drew no comparisons with published texts, nothing."
I say something about why I dislike HP, and about how discussions can be unpleasantly polarised, far more than is necessary, by the way they're conducted. In the course of this I make an admittedly provocative point, involving Norman Geras among other people. (I suppose I should count myself lucky nobody leapt to Chomsky's defence at the same time.) Your immediate response is to go straight through incomprehension and out the other side to derision and distortion ("peas in a pod" indeed). When called on that, you demand quotations. When I don't comply, you get nasty.
It's now 5 days since you said what you said about Norm and you've still to write a single paragraph to support your assertion, much less justify it. No, you're too busy being offended and whining about "tone".
You're a 24-carat hypocrite.
As I was saying, not dissent, but denunciation; not discussion among people with differing points of view, but demands for everyone to adopt (in certain significant areas) the same point of view, or else to explain and justify their failure to comply.
(What's really ironic is that I didn't set this up - I actually thought I could have a civilised disagreement with someone from HP. Won't make that mistake again.)
What's really ironic is that I didn't set this up - I actually thought I could have a civilised disagreement with someone from HP.
ReplyDeleteRubbish. You have preconceived notions about HP authors and you wanted them confirmed on this thread. When I refused to conform to type, you contrived to be offended anyway.
The joke of this entire covnersation is that my one line response to your provocative point about Norm was included in a more comprehensive on-topic reply and it was never intended that it should become the focus. You decided to make it the focus as it gave you a causus belli to adopt your victim status. We could have spent the last 5 days having that intelligent discussion you feign to have desired. The fact we haven't is down to your inability to cope with anything other than your interlocutor's unqualified agreement.
Hilariously, this conversation is taking place on DD's blog, a place hardly unknown for the odd barbed comment from its author. Daniel probably insults as well as anyone else out there. No conscientious objection to be had though, eh Phil? I wonder why that might be...