Greetings all!
This post begins my two part ending to May, wherein I will once again make my opinions known on a foreign and domestic issue. I begin with the foreign issue, as I believe it is much more prominent to more people at this moment. As stated in the title, I intend to embark on a topic many of my friends seem to be confused about; namely, the role of religion in the newly free Middle Eastern nations. Due to populist uprisings and regime changes in the past year or so, much has changed in the region, and new governments will have to respond to wildly different attitudes among the people they rule. This week's quote comes from David Ben-Gurion, the founder of Israel and its first prime minister, a man I consider to be a both a level-headed leader and a hero to the Jewish people during his time.
A big part of why the U.S. has become invested in recent Middle Eastern politics is once again a policy of control, in which we hope to ensure that new leaders are beneficial to us so as to eliminate all possible chances of regional enemies. While this is a policy I strongly abhor, I can see why it is pursued. We typically have few friends outside Israel in the Middle East, and for good reasons too. We've never been popular due to our attempts to exert influence and power in a place that had long deserved it. However, with the Arab Spring completed, many new governments have formed, and the process of careful diplomacy has begun once more. This time, nothing easy will come through, and freedom is going to be the very problem the U.S. confronts when looking for more allies. Specifically, religious freedoms are going to make most political situations with the region quite a bit more complex in the coming years. The best way to explain this is to delve into a parallel, which I take in the form of post-communistic Poland. During the Cold War, Poland was run by Soviet-friendly communist governments that for a time both benefited and satisfied the Polish people. But in the later years, economic stagnation coupled with stricter controls led to popular unrest, eventually igniting a fuse that let the Polish government impose martial law in 1981 (http://www.videofact.com/english/martial_law.htm). By the end of the Soviet period, the Solidarity Union was so popular it gained enough strength to topple the communist regime and restore a democratic nation, which gratefully swept Lech Walesa into power. And as such, new freedoms led to overindulgence by the Polish populace. While economic reforms buoyed the nation, religious reforms made it into one of the most devout ones as well. This occurred because communist governments of Eastern Europe were hostile to organized religion, mostly because it could subvert national strength, although it also was simply a fact of the matter that the further left on the political scale you go the less power religion is typically allowed to have. And so, with new freedom the Poles decided to shove religion into strength just as another expression of Polish nationalism and independence.
This ties in with the modern Middle East because the same situation is playing out, but on a far larger scale. Just like communist Poland, many dictators in the Middle East suppressed full-on religious politics, sometimes to prevent isolating minorities, and other times to prevent subversion of national authority in favor of god. I suppose the best two examples of these are Saddam Hussein and Hosni Mubarak, the leaders of Iraq and Egypt respectively. Hussein typically avoided religious moves in his power structure because he was a Sunni Muslim, a minority in Iraq, and by using his religion he risked drawing lines with the majority Sh'ia population. Had he used religion for control or gain, he also risked disillusionment with his secular Ba'ath party, which he feared would lead Iraqis into the hands of his regional rival Iran, a nation which espouses religious politics consistently. As for Mubarak, he typically prevented religion from taking national jurisprudence because of Egypt's ties to its neighbor Israel. As long as the nation remained tolerant of a Jewish state and avoided inflammatory words, peace and trade could be ensured, buoying the Egyptian economy and world image. Avoiding religious politics also helped Mubarak to retain domestic strength, due to the fact that secular politics allowed a secure police state with pro-business policies that did not discriminate against minorities in the country. However, with the fall of dictators and the institution of reforms, the barriers to religion have been broken, and a flood will happen whether we like it or not.
The key now to preserve peace while also ensuring new freedoms is to take things slowly and prevent religion from taking power along with its freedom. As we have seen in Tunisia and Egypt, strong showings by Islamist parties have made this likely impossible (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2011/10/2011102721287933474.html, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/m/muslim_brotherhood_egypt/index.html). By using religion as a political swing point, these nations have ensured that religion will play an active role in governance. However, the chance to keep the Middle East from delving into divisive religious politics still rests with its people, those who brought about the revolutions that created change in the first place. An important part of the new freedom for this region is realizing that whether the U.S.A. or me likes it, religion will likely have some role, due to its support and place in revolutions. Just as in Poland, religious majorities will shape the politics of these nations for years, but this time the chance to prevent hard-liners is present. As in Egypt, secular liberals and the parties that represent them have taken to the political foray, mostly as a force of contradiction by being the ones that opposed dictators and now religious regimes. But as long as these movements show support and power among the youth that propelled revolutions, there is hope. Should Middle Eastern nations choose a conservative religious stance on issues, they risk forming pseudo-theocracies that isolate minorities and crumble economies. Yet at the same time, as long as secular liberals maintain equal representation along with moderate Islamists, these nations reserve the ability to pursue further freedom from oppression while preventing the deterioration of the countries many know and love. The voices of the liberal youth that began revolutions call out today, and as we listened before we must listen now. As such, I call upon all those in the Middle East to see that while religious freedoms are nice and necessary, their power must be limited to ensure a truly free society. I hope that new freedoms will not overpower the old ones that dictatorships held on to, but rather that new societies will foster greater nations. Until political Islam takes its place as a moderating factor in the region, we must be on our toes. Any imposition could set off years of repression and isolation, followed by the creation of states like Iran. I fear that this may happen, but I also know that it is not impossible to prevent this future. It will all play out through elections, and it is through those elections that I seek power for all those that need it, secularists and moderate Islamists included.
That is all for this post, and I hope my analysis has been complete and clear. If you have questions or comments, post them here, anonymously if you must. My Facebook, Twitter, and Google+ accounts are all still open, alongside my email at zerospintop@live.com. Have a happy Memorial Day, and this is SuperJew McLovin signing off.
Greetings all!
This post comes at the end of a brief hiatus due to AP exams, and with those now over I can return to normal scheduling. This time, I take on a topic heavily debated on the domestic front in all of its aspects: our current war, and the war we recently ended. Our 21st century moves against nations have been heavily criticized the world over, from Germany to Indonesia. At home, it has been the Democratic party which has led the charge against our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, said party has gone soft in its rhetoric, with members often stating that the Afghanistan war was inevitable due to the September 11th attacks. This is unacceptable. We cannot listen to any person that would voice support for our actions thus far. In this post, I will make the case as to why both of our wars were and are illegal, and what the effects of the Bush presidency have had on our own sense of democracy in accordance with American foreign relations. This seems to be coming at an opportune time, as Bush and other leaders at the time have finally been convicted of war crimes in absentia in Malaysia (http://tehrantimes.com/opinion/97842-bush-finally-found-guilty-of-war-crimes). This week's quote comes from Robin Gibb, a co-founder of the Bee Gees who recently died, and a man whose music I love dearly.
I'll be starting my case with the Iraq War, because its illegality is far easier to determine. Let's begin with the notion behind the war: preemptive strike. George W. Bush had determined that due to the antagonism of Saddam Hussein in the past and the dangers he presented both for the region and the world, he was justified in invading Iraq in order to bring an end to dictatorship and recreate a nation through democracy. Little did Bush realize the hell he would release by removing a stable dictator. All the hate and division that Hussein was able to repress were allowed free reign with the end of Ba'ath rule, and we were nowhere near prepared for such a situation. The instability that followed the deposition of Hussein and our occupation have caused over 100,000 deaths, both military and civilian, on the part of all nations involved (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/). The main reasoning as to why these deaths would have been justified was the presence of "weapons of mass destruction", or WMDs for short. Due to Iraqi non-compliance with U.N. demands to end weapons enrichment and construction, both the American and British governments had been led to believe that Iraq likely had dangerous weaponry on hand that could be used to attack other nations. In accordance with breach of U.N. Resolution 687, president Bush justified the armed forces authorization of Resolution 678 to be revived. We were wrong, and admitted so here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/07/usa.iraq1.
Yet that didn't stop us, as Bush further argued that our fight was just because it was based upon the removal of an "evil" dictator. The contradictions here go beyond comprehension. How we as humans define evil is subjective, because the psychology of each person is different. Some may define evil through the light of dictators, while others may define evil as someone who leaves the seat up. This idea of setting up enemies in an axis is far off the beaten road of reality, a world where nothing is quite that black-and-white. While certain leaders throughout history can be proven to be nothing more than horrors upon the memory of humanity, there will always be a catch. Stalin caused millions of deaths and caused an irrevocable perversion of communism, but I still credit him with completing the industrialization of the Soviet Union. Yet, we cannot justify or bemoan such leaders based on one quality of their leadership alone. Because Hussein was not evil in his entirety, we cannot say that Iraq was ever "evil". Moving on from that, to what extent does our promotion of democracy go? The Cold War ended over two decades ago, and we no longer have a single major enemy in this world. We are considered by many to be the lone superpower, with friends galore. However, there will always be those that oppose us. Just as the aforementioned Cold War proved, you cannot destroy an idea. No matter how many die, their words and beliefs will move among their followers, and they will reach fresh ears and faces which will follow suit. This is proven by me, a Trotskyist in America, a nation that tried to destroy communism fervently for decades. Trotskyists were persecuted in Russia as well, yet we live on. The same will be true of terrorism, unfortunately. The idea that martyrdom against a great evil guarantees salvation will continue for a few reasons. First and foremost, terrorism will live on because we haven't treated this world well since WWII ended. We committed countless deaths against an ideology simply because it was different than ours, and as a result through time people rose to fight us. We've killed over 12 million people (http://www.the-philosopher.co.uk/whocares/popups/warcrimes.htm), so it's natural that a resistance to us would follow. While communists like me do not physically attack the U.S., the same is not true of terrorists. Why? Religion plays a role here.
The idea of black banners is something that comes nearing the end of the Qur'an. It is said that with the coming of the Mahdi, the Islamic form of a Messiah, an army of those waving black banners in his support will follow him, a sign of the end times in Islam. While only a small part of a book of the past, these passages detail what would become the driver for many terrorists. As terrorism had grown throughout history, Osama Bin Laden had become the head commander of Al-Qaeda, a group dedicated to destroying America and all states keeping it from power. Bin Laden gained support by claiming that he was indeed the Mahdi, and that in order to unite the world through Islam and create universal peace Muslims must follow him and do as he said, with no amount of service being off the table. And as with any idea, fools and idealists would follow him despite the falsehood of his statements. This created the main reason the Iraq War became so long and costly; with the fall of Saddam Hussein, Al-Qaeda was given an opening to a nation where new supporters would be easy to find. Hussein had personally detested the group due to its religious ties which he felt would only strengthen Iran, a regional rival. With Hussein deposed, violent militants caused massive amounts of sectarianism in Iraq for years. While military action and occupation has prevented them from taking over completely, it was the invasion itself which allowed for Al-Qaeda to gain strength. Disenchantment with the West and increasing desperation in a damaged nation have allowed Al-Qaeda to sow fundamentalist seeds. While a certain degree of religious revivalism is to be expected in nations that free themselves from secular dictators (as in Egypt and Tunisia), the current situation in Iraq is far more dangerous and intolerable. As such, our war on terror in Iraq is a hypocrisy, because we have not only pushed terror by our own means as in Abu Ghraib (http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/abu_ghraib/index.html), but we have fostered Iraqi terror as well.
Lastly, our war in Iraq was based in the hypocrisy of democracy by force. While the Afghanistan War can be argued for as retaliation, Iraq cannot. Iraq did not launch the September 11 attacks, and did not harbor the terrorists that planned them. True, Iraq was antagonistic to our policies most of the time. However, they had never launched a direct strike against America. Iraq invaded Kuwait, so an international coalition pushed them out in 1991. I'm certain that Iraqi soldiers attacked American soldiers here, but they were not the ones who started the war. For most of them, not shooting would have meant getting shot by the enemy or tortured by the Iraqi government. Turn back time a few more years, and we actually supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, by giving them weaponry while simultaneously declaring limited support for Iran as part of our double-containment policies (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/united_states_iran_iraq_war1.php). Over 1 million people died here, and by the end of the war both nations had discovered our double support and hated us in a justifiable sense. We had, after all, tried to eliminate the power of both nations for profit. At any point in history past this war, should we have expected Iraq to be compliant or friendly to us, well that is just forgetful and wrong. So let's look at some of the ways Bush justified our invasion with non-compliance. Bush said Iraq would not succumb to internal investigations; this had happened over and over again in the past. Why had we not invaded before if this was our reasoning? Bush said that Iraq was using chemical weapons on its own people and was developing/had WMDs; Iraq certainly was using those chemical and biological weapons, after all we did provide them. It is more cost effective to use high-tech weaponry given by a stronger nation than to spend years developing said weapons yourself. As for the WMDs, Iraq had none, and no real plans had been made to get them as I have already shown. And finally, Bush said it was worthwhile to remove a dictator. This is the worst reason of all. There have been countless dictators throughout the years, yet many of them were either supported by us or personally installed by us. I'll take Saudi Arabia here, because it is within the region. We support a radically conservative religious king who rules a nation where women can't even drive, yet we invade a nation nearby because it supposedly has weapons for terrorism? We know that Saudi Arabia has weapons; they even helped in the Persian Gulf War. We know that Saudi Arabia has terrorists inside the nation; it's inevitable for the country where Islam was founded. Yet we have never declared them an enemy. Saudi Arabia is not a democracy; it is a clerical kingdom, which rarely represents policies that are any better than Iran. But we do not invade them to establish democracy. Why is this? Why would our support of democracy be selective, especially when we claim it as the most important principle this world has ever known? If we're going to support democracy, shouldn't we react against anything that is not democratic? Is it right to bring democracy to a nation which has not asked for it, especially if by doing so we ensure hundreds of thousands of deaths and years of instability?
Most of these questions are rhetorical and have no answers, except the last one, in which case the answer is no. True, democracy can be great. But many responsibilities must be met by the citizenry for it to work at all. At least two-thirds of the population must vote and do it with knowledge at hand, otherwise the government of the nation no longer represents a will of the majority of the people and no mandate is created. The populace must be aware of their rights, and practice them correctly and often. The people must be willing to compromise, or democracy will falter and eventually fail. And lastly, the people must desire democracy; otherwise, resentment for a new system will manifest in radicals which will dissent and attack against the new government. Iraq was not ready for democracy; the country is one of multiple ethnicities which for the most part have not had their days in the sun. Much of the nation has been repressed so long, they can't remember what it was like before Hussein. Without seeds of democracy in place, Iraq was thrust into a freer world which they quickly binged upon. In time, I am certain Iraqis will learn and determine what is right for them. But by proscribing our medicine upon them, we can never know whether Iraq would have wanted democracy, and whether it would have succeeded. Because our system was imposed by military force and has been marked by instability, violence, and suffering, much of Iraq will likely look upon democracy with disgust. And therefore, all hope for a peaceful and democratic Iraq has been shattered, at least for now. Only time heals a wound such as this.
And now, I will move on to Afghanistan, a more contested war in my terms. It is easier to justify this war as retaliation for the September 11 attacks, after all the Taliban-led government did harbor the terrorists who pulled it off. But once again, our history contradicts our actions here. Recently, the man who was convicted of planning and executing the Lockerbie bombing, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi died in Libya, his home (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18137896). The Lockerbie bombing was a terrorist incident committed by the Libya government, along with others like the UTA 772 incident and the LaBelle Disco bombing. Yet we have never invaded Libya. We performed bombing in the 1980s, but never an invasion. We despised Libya and Gadhafi, mostly due to his rejection of capitalism and America in order to foster a "third universal theory". Even in the throes of revolution last year, we simply provided bombs to NATO. No matter how often governments support or tolerated our enemies in the past, we rarely invaded solely for those reasons. During the Cold War, we invaded multiple nations just to get rid of communism, yes. But Afghanistan was the first time we invaded a nation for harboring terrorists. The Taliban is an especially interesting case, because we helped to train them during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/afghanistan-history-pr.cfm). As such, we provided the money, weapons, and intelligence the Taliban needed to take over Afghanistan and, later on, harbor terrorists that would attack us. This brings me back to an old adage: "don't go asking for a fight". It is too bad that we did. I'm not saying we deserved the September 11 attacks in any way; that is false and the attacks were horrible. But to anyone that honestly thinks those moments were an absolutely unpredictable shock, you are wrong. To think that nothing like this would ever happen in spite of our past actions is naive. Lastly, the government of a nation is not responsible for the actions of a few crazed men that live there. The Oklahoma City bombing happened on our own territory and was carried out by men born and raised under our government, yet we do not blame ourselves for these things. The same standard should be applied to Afghanistan. I agree that the Taliban is not the best form of government, and that Afghan life before the invasion wasn't all peaches and cream. But by toppling and persecuting the Taliban and reigniting the instability that Afghanistan was beginning to remove, we showed that we as a nation are not to be trusted and that we are not a good influence. There's a reason much of the world doesn't like us, and invading Afghanistan is a prime reason. You cannot justify so much death and suffering if retaliation against a few is your only back-up. For those wondering, here's a link to the death and suffering we have caused (although it is somewhat dated at this point, http://www.historyguy.com/war_in_afghanistan.html#.T7raj9wV0n0).
That is all for this week, and I hope I have made my case well and that perhaps some of you will consider changing your opinions on these wars as a result. My email at zerospintop@live.com is open to questions and comments, along with my Facebook, Twitter, and Google+ accounts. Commenting here is also encouraged, although I advise avoidance of random swearing and other forms of non-serious discussion. Thanks, and this is SuperJew McLovin, signing off.
Greetings all!
This post comes as elections draw to a close in both France and Greece, nations that are either set to suffer or are dying under current policies, respectively. Happily, I can note that Francois Hollande has secured victory in the French election (http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/06/11565997-french-president-sarkozy-admits-defeat-in-presidential-bid), beating out the incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy in the second round, a feat that hasn't been done since Valery Giscard d'Estaing was voted out in 1981. In Greece's parliamentary elections, a push against austerity has driven voters to throw support to more extreme parties on the left and right, just barely leaving enough power for the conservative New Democracy party to form a government (http://news.yahoo.com/voting-begins-greek-general-election-044821544.html). While this is good news for my supporters of the far left in Greece, a shadow hangs over this victory, and it is the topic of this post. A hard-line conservative Greek party, known as Golden Dawn, was able to garner some success in the Greek elections. The only problem with this is that Golden Dawn is a Neo-Nazi party. In this post, I intend to explain why Nazism and more broadly Fascism are the absolute worst forms of governance, and why we should be careful to prevent them gaining power anywhere at any time. This week's quote comes from Francois Mitterrand, the first leftist president of France who for a time was able to create a better society for a nation that had not experienced any kind of governance besides that of the right wing since before World War 2.
I'll be tearing apart Fascism piece by piece, so first we must identify its main tenets and positions. The points that Fascism hangs upon are acute nationalism, absolute authoritarianism, expansionist imperialism, undeniable militarism, social Darwinism and interventionism, and a form of economics that includes economic planning and often national corporatism. I'll start with nationalism, and at the end I will address Fascist economics. Let's begin.
Nationalism is, in itself, a racist way of building support for a movement. Nationalism promotes a specific people of a country or race above others in order to provide a unifying force for the nation in question. And while nationalism may provide a great way to unify one ethnicity or in some cases one country, it leads to major conflicts between separate peoples. Because nationalism hinges on the assumption that one people surpasses another, it is impossible for other countries to not be angered by a country which is openly nationalistic. Nationalism calls into question the value of different races, ethnicities, and nationalities which many people are quite proud of. By imposing a view that places one over the other, inherent conflict will result. And most importantly, these kinds of conflicts have no logical bases, and therefore it is difficult to justify a logical end to such conflicts. Ultimately, it was nationalism that caused World War 1 (http://americanhistory.about.com/od/worldwari/tp/causes-of-world-war-1.htm). At that time, united Germany was a relatively new nation which had set up contacts with other powerful east European entities like Austria-Hungary. Slavic nations such as Bosnia, Macedonia, and Serbia all wanted independence from Austria-Hungary because said empire was controlling multiple ethnic groups that could not agree with each other. Russia, being a Slavic nation, backed Serbs and other ethnic groups in their struggles, so when Franz Ferdinand was assassinated and Austria-Hungary declared war, Russia did so as well. Complicated alliance systems drew many other nations in as well, and the result was tens of millions of people that were killed or wounded in a pointless war. This was showed the flaws of extreme nationalism, in that without logical reasoning to back up ethnic superiority, costly endless war is inevitable. And while some would argue that war bolsters economies, that didn't happen this time. Years of trench warfare and innocent civilian deaths would leave the aggressor nations in shambles along with the Allies, most specifically Germany and France. The war would provide Russia with all it needed to see the truest flaws of the tsarist system, and allow for a proletarian revolution that would change the face of the nation forever. However, the instability and economic suffering that followed such a conflict simply left holes for more in the form of World War 2. And thus, nationalism's largest problem is exposed; it cannot survive without laying roots for consistent and repetitive conflicts. Even if just one nation is nationalistic, it will always feel better than other nations and therefore act over the rules of the world. This will lead to conflict, which if the nationalistic country loses lays seeds for more nationalism to restore the country to what it once was. This vicious cycle can repeat, as long as nationalism has a hold.
Next, we look at authoritarianism. In Fascism, the state is treated as a united front to make the state itself a full representative of its people. However, instead of representing diversity on the part of a nation, Fascism ensures that all the people are united through ethnicity, nationality, or ideology of some sort so that the nation may not be torn apart by plurality which draws power away from democracy. At the time, the idea of uniting a nation under a banner of one path for life was popular. If anything, it provided the people a sense of belonging to something greater, which they did if they fit the government idea of perfection of the populace. However, all those not quite the same received different treatment. Those of different religion, race, ideology, sexuality, and etc. were excluded from this national identity. Therefore, Fascist governments are left with two choices on how to deal with those different people; elimination or integration. And of course, integration is something that cannot succeed. As I have stated before, people are proud of their heritage and unique ways of thought and daily life. I am not excluded from this either; while I may not agree with everything Poland does today, I am still proud to have a family with Polish ties. I may not be Jewish in the religious sense, but I still participate in some ceremonies and still feel unique as I am ethnically Jewish. Therefore, no people will be content with succumbing to a majority group, especially one that does not follow upon the same grounds. When Hitler took over Germany, Jews and leftists were not considered of the ideal race, so they had to be incorporated if possible. It wasn't, so Jews got ghettos and for the most part, leftists were expelled or detained (http://bigsiteofhistory.com/germany-under-hitler-1933-1939-between-the-world-wars), not allowed to provide any real opposition. With an authoritarian grip on the nation and no way to reconcile differences between peoples, Fascism must ultimately turn to elimination, in Germany's case leading to mass genocide of all non-Aryan people. However, this authoritarianism is not weak in any sense of the word. While military dictatorships represent similar tight-fisted rule often, that is generally without obligatory politically-sided action. Within Fascism, it is the duty of the state to control politics in the most extreme sense of the word, and at any time while social democrats may have existed early on in Hitler's Reichstag, they held no sway and were often carted away for torture anyway. Fascism may propose to be democracy in the purest sense, it deteriorates quickly into a deeply entrenched power structure which betrays its people ostensibly to help them, which it does not. Look, I understand that authoritarianism in general is not absolute atrocity. I am no believer of democracy at all times, as I feel it takes away the voice of minorities, racial or otherwise. A strong state can provide stability in places that need it most, such as Syria. But there are limits, as when authoritarianism leads to death and destruction anyway. The goal of authoritarianism is to prevent this, so when it starts occurring at large levels it generally means a change is necessary at some level.
I'll now tie imperialism and militarism together, since they go that way often anyway. Imperialism is something many European nations are familiar with, as they were generally the ones that started it all. Fascist states tie imperialism into a necessary struggle as a manifestation of vitality for an empire, whereas peace is a sign of decadence. Fascist theory notes that war and violence are natural parts of humanity, for just as common animals often find themselves in combat so too should humans. This belief is ingrained in accepting a natural part of ourselves as "animals". Going along with this philosophy is militarism, which allows Fascist states to justify the buildup of armies and navies overall. If violence is necessary, then whomever has the most advanced weaponry and tactics will come out on top as the better nation, and therefore better people. Once again, Fascists contribute such victories to uniting the people through national comradeship of military service and through success in wartime, something that certainly is a boon to national pride. However, as always, this leads to war, and some of the most vicious wars of all time stem from such beliefs. After World War 2, African decolonization efforts often led to wars that cost millions of lives (http://cuwhist.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/un-and-decolonization-in-africa.pdf), all because European nations thought that imperialism would help the "uncivilized" people of Africa. As such, imperialism and the militarism that justifies it are both faulty, because they both lead to unnecessary deaths, torture, and casualties. Another unintended consequence of expansion based upon military is hatred. This is best seen through the light of the Palestinian conflict. Because many Palestinians view creating Israel in a land they had controlled for years as a kind of imperialism, that inspires hate towards those "colonizing" the land of Israel. However, much time has passed since Israel was formed, and by now that hate while still existent in some, has devolved into racial and religious hatred in others. It is this risk of inspiring others to work against others which ultimately tears apart any ideal of imperialism and militarism, because no unity is worth all of this.
And now, the concepts of social Darwinism and interventionism will come under fire. Both are some of the most detestable parts of Fascism. Social Darwinism theorizes that humans have races and peoples which are genetically superior in some way to others, and that therefore according to the rules of evolution the superior people should be rulers and the inferiors should be disposed of. This is a horribly sick way to think of humanity, especially in light of how terrible these beliefs would become. Also, they can easily be faulted using biology. Since humans are all one species, we have a duty to preserve our species just as animals do. Therefore, by separating ourselves and declaring war on each other to weed the weak out we weaken ourselves overall in the process. If we truly wish to apply social Darwinism to life, we must help to preserve all of our species. For those that are sick, we must find cures. For those that are disabled or too old to work, we must find ways to prolong life so that people will not suffer in these ways. For those that are weak or stupid, we must train or educate them so we don't fall behind. And so on. As for social interventionism, this can be okay given that government is not poisoning society. Unfortunately, Fascism does just that. Fascism advocates indoctrination through education when young, that way the populace never has a chance to provide logical and well-organized opposition. As such, Fascism persecutes intellectuals, seeing them as a threat to government and a drain on the newly "organized" society (http://books.google.com/books?id=kne26UnE1wQC&pg=PT477#v=onepage&q&f=false). Once again, this is simply a ploy to prevent any person within Fascist society to show its wrongdoings and faults. Fascist governments supported eugenics to "perfect" humans, and often outlawed abortions unless the newborns would have birth defects. These horrid policies would lead to human experimentation during the Holocaust, which the Nazis became particularly infamous for. The easy tossing away of supposed "unimportant" life shows the evils that Fascism can come to terms with. I can understand supporting an abortion should the mother's life be in danger, or should the mother be unprepared for a child. But to simply abort out of fear of imperfection is wrong. And lastly, Fascism supports masculinity over feminism unless useful politically, and rejects cultural pluralism along with multiculturalism. This hangs on inherent racist and sexist beliefs among Fascists that the mixing of different groups weakens the majority and leads to degradation of society as a whole. This is false, as some of the most diverse societies in this modern world are some of the most successful, including the United States.
And now we come to Fascist economic theory, which is often convoluted and makes it sometimes hard to place Fascists on a traditional left-right political scale. Fascists typically support a corporatist state economy where private companies hold ridiculous amounts of power over the national economy and the populace simply exists to work for the rich. Fascist governments were in opposition to any organized labor, so it was no wonder labor unions were outlawed in Germany (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/trade_unions_nazi_germany.htm). At the same time, this was also a simple power grab by Hitler. While Fascists rarely support absolute power of state in economic situations, the state in Fascist economies exerts power over the corporations that run said economy. The state often forces the proletariat to work for the benefit of the country. These are typically the things that make Fascism seem to not be on the right, due to the state's role in the economy. I classify it as right-winged due to the strength with which Fascist states give to corporative entities over the economy whilst simultaneously destroying worker's rights. And while Fascists may argue that Hitler's state benefited Germany's economy, this is not entirely true. Hitler came into power after the Weimar Republic, a failing democratic approach to give Germany strength despite payments that had to be made for WWI troubles. By the time Hitler instituted Fascism, the Weimar economy was so weak that any new market design could have fostered improvements essentially. And even if Fascism gave Germany some power, it was the very war which Fascism hung upon, among other failings, that decimated Germany's economy. Turned out that Fascist policy of necessary war conflicted with private economic controls to create an economy that folded in on itself by the end of WWII. And so, Fascist economic policies cannot work alongside Fascist social policies, ending the viability of Fascism itself as a whole.
And so ends my tirade upon Fascism, what I consider the most evil ideology of all. It is my hope that all of you have read and understand why Fascism must never rise again, as it now has a chance to do in Greece where Neo-Nazis won seats. We must prevent the horrors of the past from being brought to the present. If you wish to pose comments or questions, this site is open to appropriate content and my email at zerospintop@live.com is also open. My Facebook, Twitter, and Google+ are also open if necessary. That is all for this week, and this is SuperJew McLovin signing off.
Hello all!
As the latter piece of my two-part work for May Day, I am now posting on the successes and needed improvements of organized labor outside the U.S., particularly Europe. This comes after the first May Day posting for this year about labor in America, which I highly recommend reading before progressing to this one.
We'll start our look at labor rights in Europe, a continent which has had substantially better records for labor relations throughout the decades in comparison to us, but still has much to do. This standard applies especially to the European Union due to the E.U. debt crisis and subsequent responses across the region. However, the differences between the specific problems of each euro nation make this crisis all the more layered and difficult to solve. I'll be starting with those nations which are suffering the most due to the economic fallout, namely Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, and Romania. In these countries, the social safety net has quickly become a thing of the past in response to falling markets. Yet, things weren't always this horrible. In the Iberian peninsula, both Portugal and Spain suffered for years under repressive fascist (or in the case of Salazar, semi-fascist) governments that curtailed civil rights often and prevented any kind of good life for their citizens. This changed in the mid-1970s, when Francisco Franco of Spain died and the Carnation Revolution took place in Portugal. In both cases, liberal democracy soon followed dictatorship and new elected governments sought to restore the old empires to former glory that the old autocratic states prevented. In Portugal, on-and-off socialist party victories both for prime minister and parliament allowed significant steps forward in creating a Portugal that would both develop strong rights for workers and also be integrated into world economic developments over time. In Spain, left-wing government did not take place until 1982 when Spain's socialist party won elections, and began to reform a system plagued with irregularities and favor for the rich and powerful of the nation. Unfortunately, shortly after Spain introduced the euro and the Spanish popular party won elections, extraordinary property prices and high trade deficits would begin to build up until Zapatero and the socialists retook power in 2004. While not much was done in this time period to prevent a crisis that would result from the economic boom, when Spain's property bubble burst in 2008 the pain was well felt. Inflation skyrocketed along with unemployment, and Spanish bond value dropped to essentially nothing. While Portugal has taken economic help from the IMF and agreed to reforms, Spain has avoided bailout despite having unemployment of over 20% (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sp.html), a fate that the socialists did not have time to properly avoid due to the speed of the fallout.
In Greece and Italy, overall sluggish economics combined with inconsistency in credit and debt markets have allowed for holes in economic systems that were pelted with problems come crisis just 4 years ago. Greece suffered under multiple military-styled dictatorships throughout the 20th century, and just a few decades of democracy allowed Greece to liberalize its economy once more and to efficiently produce markets that the world considered highly desirable. For Italy, slow-paced political reforms that came after Mussolini was removed and the U.S. occupation ended led to longing for stable government, which came in the form of prime minister Berlusconi for a long time. Unfortunately, he also introduced quite a bit of corruption and bureaucracy into Italian politics and created a huge wealth gap between the richer north and the poorer south. Consistent faults on the part of multiple Greek leaders would come to light in 2008 to show that Greek bonds and debt were nowhere near as safe as promised, leading to huge market crashes that no country could have handled. Greece has needed bailouts, but Italy has not as of yet. But things are not looking good. The same holds true of Ireland and Romania. For Ireland, growing property prices and the collapse of the construction sector led to huge problems for the Cowen government in 2008. Romania, on the other hand, suffers from corruption, strong inflation, rising energy costs, and at a time drought. All this combined to ensure sharp GDP contraction in the former communist state.
And now, we come upon the solutions. Germany, Finland, and France have been strong proponents of austerity measures in order to bring the spending levels of debtor nations in line and to increase domestic consumption that would drive an economic surge to recovery. However, austerity is the harshest form of getting governments money and hurts economies significantly while applied. Austerity destroys public sector wages, and tightens an economy at a time when fluidity is far more important than structure or order. Oh, and the leaders of Europe have also noted that austerity isn't working (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-04-30/news/31508285_1_austerity-confidence-doctrine). Across European nations that are dying from the draconian measures, there is little public support for removing all the protections that people desired and needed just to balance out falling private demand. In Spain, cost-cutting under Mariano Rajoy has only stagnated an economy that cannot survive long without growing more. In Britain and Ireland, austerity has failed time and again to produce efficient results, and both haven't seen a working recovery in some time. In Romania, Traian Basescu has championed austerity while his people have rioted in the streets against it. How can we ignore the fact that destroying an economy in order to rebuild is not the policy to take? In France and Greece, public discontent is showing and may garner some promising changes. Both countries have elections coming up, and in France the socialist candidate Hollande has already won the first round. We now have a chance to pursue measures of economic growth, rather than ones that have only pushed nations further into recession. The only reason Germany has remained strong has been consistent demand for its products both on international markets and in its domestic consumption. Without this, Germany would be in a hole just like every other euro nation. It is time we finally realized that attacking unions, attacking public sector jobs, only hurts an economy. We must act now in Europe, or else we risk further crashes that can mean no good for anyone. Workingmen everywhere, unite!
That is all for my take on organized labor here and elsewhere, and I hope I've gotten my point across. If you have questions or comments, post them here anonymously if necessary. My email at zerospintop@live.com is active, along with my Facebook, Twitter, and Google+ account. This is SuperJew McLovin, signing off.
Hello all!
April has now come to a close, and I have decided that in honor of International Workers' Day (May Day) I would post both on the date of the holiday and the day afterwards. May Day commemorates the anniversary of the 1886 Chicago Haymarket Riot, in which labor strikes were met with deadly fire from the police. The holiday is celebrated in nations across the Earth as celebration of workers' rights and improvements in labor systems as time has passed. My fellow leftists on the more extreme end use the day to demonstrate and protest against moves by governments that detract from workers' rights. In the spirit of this day, I have decided to take a look at organized labor's successes and needed improvements first here in America, and tomorrow in Europe and elsewhere. This week's quote comes from Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the Bolshevik Revolution and first leader of the Soviet Union, someone I respect greatly.
We begin my look at labor of course in the U.S.A., a place that doesn't have a very good record for keeping corporations in line and guaranteeing that workers get correct treatments. Most of our labor hardships come as a result of the Reagan years, when the Reagan revolution removed huge amounts of regulations that kept big companies in line and allowed large income gaps to brew (http://www.emayzine.com/lectures/1980S.htm). Yes, the great orgy of capitalism that Reagan helped to reestablish made the United States into a powerful creditor nation that had significant national pride. But behind this curtain of so-called greatness millions of new homeless roamed the streets, and the lowly blue-collar laborers that had gotten by under former heads of state were now suffering to degrees they hadn't seen since the laissez-faire policies of the 1920's. This came as part of a new economic theory that conservatives would trumpet for years to come known as trickle-down economics, the belief that making life and earning money easier for the rich would ensure that the wealth would "trickle down" to the lower classes as a result. At the heart of the theory, the logic seems sound to some degree; in some cases, when richer classes gain more money they can then use their new gains to hire new employees and expand operations, driving capitalism. However, people are not predictable, and the assumption that the upper class would bring prosperity for all failed America in time. When Reagan left office, national debt had skyrocketed to incredible levels, and the lower classes were pleading for help. The reason trickle-down theory failed is because people are greedy, and when Reagan essentially gave the rich more money, they saw the extra break as a reward for nothing. And so, in order to preserve their money and avoid economic risk, they started firing people instead of hiring them. The rich already had extra money, so they could take any hit that may or may not have resulted. By the time the first Bush took office, people were beginning to see their mistake, and at the end of his term Bush was wildly unpopular. Sure, he engaged us in the Persian Gulf War and continued Reagan-like policies. But the damage had already been done before he took office, and while I dislike him the majority of our problems were not a fault of his alone.
Our current problems stem from the fact that the second Bush presidency led to a "second chance" for trickle-down economics, even though it was never officially declared. As Bush cut taxes for everyone and allowed loopholes for rich corporations, he started two astronomically costly wars. He spent government money on two fronts in the hopes that this time conservative economic theory wouldn't fail him. For a time, it didn't because trickle-down theory is dependent on active consumerism, which Bush got. But increased costs and wars with no ends in sight defeated this wave of buying, and without that everything was allowed to crash. Bush betrayed a basic principle of economics; speeding up an economy can be helpful, but it must be controlled. If an economy speeds up too much, inflation will skyrocket and a crash becomes highly likely. That's just what happened. A combination of housing and credit crisis drove us into the dumps within weeks of the first signs of trouble on the stock market (http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/investing/articles/2008/10/17/the-crash-of-2008). With investors on Wall Street and powerful banks doing as they pleased, they put our economy at huge risk. In return, many got just what they deserved. And even now, they are still those that believe deregulation is the key to bring us back to prosperity, even though that got us into this mess. The reason it can't is because we are in poor economic times, not great. Businesses and people will not take risks with more money or less regulations because the market is not safe enough to do so currently. Only in prosperity can deregulation be used.
But that doesn't stop us from continuing our heinous labor practices. Wal-Mart and other big companies and banks are under scrutiny by the SEC for illegal practices such as bribery (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/business/at-wal-mart-in-mexico-a-bribe-inquiry-silenced.html?_r=2, http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/26/walmart-bribery-investigations/?section=money_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fmoney_topstories+%28Top+Stories%29, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/25/BUG51O8VB9.DTL&type=business). Yet our banks are still fighting new regulations (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/27/us-financial-regulation-fed-idUSBRE83Q19Q20120427). It's been two years since the BP oil spill, but the first arrest was just recently made (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/kurt-mix-bp-engineer-oil-spill_n_1449316.html). Big oil corporations are fighting regulations on chemical disclosure (http://www.propublica.org/article/alec-and-exxonmobil-push-loopholes-in-fracking-chemical-disclosure-rules). The Supreme Court has denied workers the right to file class-action lawsuits against corporations in desperate times (http://citizen.org/concepcion-anniversary-justice-denied). We've been supporting draconian pension cuts through all of this, even when we need the money the most (http://labornotes.org/2012/04/rhode-island-pension-cuts-set-chilling-precedents, http://labornotes.org/2012/03/unions-seek-regain-foothold-ge). And lastly, not too long ago Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin put to rest collective bargaining rights for unions (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2011/02/23/public-dislikes-wisconsin-gov-scott-walkers-union-busting). We have been attacking workers' rights and needs for years while simultaneously allowing large corporations to get away with paying few taxes and rarely having to answer for poor practices. If you're looking for an answer as to why our economy's growth is anemic, look no further. Giving more wealth and power to those that already have it simply increases their greed, and justifies any horrid actions they take to get more wealth and power. We can't feed these base desires if we wish to grow as a country. The laborers far outnumber the CEOs, and they shouldn't have to essentially prostitute themselves just to earn a livable wage (by the way, minimum wage is not livable by any standard in America).
I ask that anyone facing attacks by companies on the rights of workers stand up, and call out for help. We cannot allow our situation to worsen. We risk creating an economic environment that may not threaten corporations, but will threaten the common laborer, and they are the true backbone of our country. We can't keep doing this to our own people or we risk crashing an economy that cannot handle further damage. While a small government that gives states economic powers may sound nice, it creates a lot of unnecessary problems for a nation as a whole. When a nation becomes too decentralized, it cannot handle crises because every part works differently and there is no way to coordinate a response to troubles. We experienced that in a big way, and if you want a more extreme example look to Spain (I'll get to that case tomorrow, don't worry). It's time we reestablish the rights of workers and crack down on risky economic practices that banks and large corporations championed before the economic crisis of 2008. We need regulations to keep the power of wealthy people and organizations in check, and to give that power back to the people who deserve it most, the laborers. And for everyone who says that we're "punishing success" and hurting the "job creators", we are not. The fact of the matter is that those with more wealth simply have more resources to spare in times of trouble, and there are things we need to get done. Accept the fact that it's easier for one percent of the population to fork over some money rather than ask 99 percent to collectively give in while the richest people sit back and watch. If you think this bigger government will lead to corruption because "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", well that quote is completely untrue. That would mean that anyone with any power would be corrupt. Any person that owned a pet would be corrupt. Every postal worker would be corrupt. The pope would be absolutely corrupt. Learn to realize that power corrupts only if we let it. Workingmen of America unite!
That is all for part 1, and tomorrow I'll take a look at labor in Europe and elsewhere. If you have questions or comments of any kind, simply post them here, anonymously if you have to. My email at zerospintop@live.com is still active and checked every day. My Facebook and Twitter are also open, along with my Google+ account. I hope you enjoyed reading, and this is SuperJew McLovin, signing off.
