Conservatives quoting Mao to support Bush!

[gratuitous]

Okay, now I truly have seen everything out of this corrupt administration and its supporters. Today in the New York Times, there's a letter to the editor supporting Stupidhead's greedy and short-sighted invasion:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/08/opinion/l08iraq.html?oref=login

"Now, amid the chaos {in Iraq}, we see great opportunity where before there existed only a miserable status quo."

"Hmmm," I thought to myself. "Chaos? Great opportunity? Where have I heard that before? Of course!"

Chairman Mao: "There is great chaos under heaven and the situation is excellent."

Who would have thought that the neocons are actually neo-Commies?

[skylarmae]

1. this is JUST A BIT SCARY!

Scary, because I don't put anything past georgie porgie.

[German-Lefty]

2. Actually many think they are commies, Trotskies

The Trotsky Hour
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gottfried/gottfried46.html

NeoCons: Radical Foreign Policy for U.S. Global Empire
http://www.peaceaware.com/NeoCon.shtml

They have some roots in Communist philosophy.

[rman]

6. they may have roots there,

but then they strayed all the way over to the other side because they became dissatisfied with communism.

Trotsky certainly was not a proponent of centralized economic- political- and media power, which the neocons are (calling democracy "the tyranny of the majority" - which is a contradiction in terms).

Also Trotsky would not have agreed with what one of the main neocon mentors said: "Those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior" - Leo Strauss (claiming this is based on the philosophy of Plato)

And if "many" republicans think they are commies, then why do so many republicans use the word "communist" as an insult to liberals?

[K-W]

8. It is about seperating method from ideal.

The heart of communism is the communist ideal. A beautiful hypothetical society. The heart of neo-conservatism is the neo-con ideal a much less beatuful hypothetical society.

The parrallels come not in the ideals, which couldnt be more different, but in the methodology. In both cases, capitalism-communism, Iraqi society - weird neo-con ideal, you are talking about making massive changes in the foundation of the society. Both communists and neo-cons want to change the world.

Communists have spent alot of time thinking about ways to change the world, so it only makes sense that those wanting to change it in other ways would borrow from communist thinkers. Neo-cons clearly never were communists. Trostkyites, not communists. They liked being in a movement, so they forgered thier own totally non-sensical movement, borrowing from the methods and rhetoric of other movements.

[charlie]

3. I've seen nothing more akin to Mao worship

in my lifetime than the obsequience and blind fealty dittoheads have for their leaders.

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. You've defined Chaos Economics.

I know L/libertarians believed in it but I didn't know it was a Communist principle too.

[K-W]

5. It is the idea that you cannot build a utopia without first creating chaos

Anyone, communist or otherwise, who thinks the solution to the problems in the world is a massive societal change has rather obvious obstacles to overcome. How do you take a population full of people already participating in one form of society and switch them over to a new one.

Now the only sane choice (in my opinion) is to suck it up and settle for gradual change through democratic processes... many people want faster results.

So the idea of chaos is that society breaks down, in the case of communism, often the breakdown is thought to happen naturally. Marx thought that things would reach the point where the workers themselves said "F*** It" and ended the system themselves, at which point communism would spread as an alternative system. Many people didnt feel that they should wait around for that to happen, they decided to try and make it happen, trying to spark class revolt. The Russian communists took advantage of the collapse of a monarchy and the subsequent chaos to impose thier own brand of order. The same thing happened in many countries.

This is why the argument that communism causes instability is so stupid. Communism was only attempted in extremely unstable nations at extremely unstable times. The likelyhood of any government setting up shop in Russia after the fall of the czars of succeeding in anything outside of creating a new dictatorship were slim to none.

In the PNAC people, the neo-cons, whatever you want to call them we see another example. In thier case the ideal is far from communist. They believe in an idealistic version of American government. It is a very odd belief system. To them the ideal form of government is a representitive democracy with unchecked capitalism and right wing leaders. They dont truely understand democracy as a concept, a fact that is abundently clear.

One could argue that they intentionally pushed for chaos creation in Iraq for the express purpose of coming in and imposing thier model on the Iraqi people. If they could start from scratch, they could setup the ideal society, force the people to participate until the society started reinforcing itself, and the end result would be a perfect 'democratic' state. Complete with US bases, because surely such an ideal country would be a great ally to us.

The neo-cons are learning what the soviets learned, and mao learned. Well many of them never learned, and niether will the neocons, but we hopefully will learn. We (thankfully) do not possess anywhere near the knowledge of human behavior that it would take to design a society from scratch or even to effectively intervene in a society to produce any severe change.

If we want change in the middle east we are just going to have to learn that the reason they have so many problems is that people are constantly trying to go in and fix them. And if we would just let them go, providing support and encouragement, but letting them figure things out, they will, like all human populations, progress. Let them figure out how to take thier rights. Let them figure out, like we had to, how to bring together a fanatical religion and civil society. We can be role models for them, we can be friends and supporters, we cannot be thier parents, and attempts to parent the middle east have always and will always be met with rebellion.

[gratuitous]

7. Well that was certainly a thoughtful answer

To my wise-ass post. Touche.

Your point is incredibly well-taken: "We (thankfully) do not possess anywhere near the knowledge of human behavior that it would take to design a society from scratch or even to effectively intervene in a society to produce any severe change."

There are so many variables, so many unpredictable waves of ebb and flow in a society, that it is folly to think that someone or some faction can control them all. But it's sorely tempting to think you can. Isaac Asimov, in his Foundation series, worked out a system called psychohistory to program a new society even before the collapse of the galactic empire. The books are highly enjoyable reading (if a bit too linear for my taste), but realistic? No. Several times, large complex problems are resolved with a simple decision by a key character. No one is a sore loser; everyone accedes to the new order as it is plainly best for the continued development of the reconstituting society.

Even to this day in Russia, public demonstrations always seem to feature one or two people carrying portraits of Stalin. Whether it's a longing to return to his repressive society, or a public declaration of some people for the Strong Man leadership model, it's clear that some people managed to do well under even the most brutal dictatorships; why wouldn't they want to return to that even at the expense of their neighbors' freedom or lives?

We interrupted the natural flow of Iraqi society with the invasion. As corrupt and evil as Saddam was, there were large segments of Iraqi society that prospered and flourished under his dictatorship. It's not surprising that there are folks who will long for the "good old days" under Saddam, and fight to restore what they can of his regime. In real life, there are always sore losers or hopeful vanquished, who seek to restore what they've lost.

The PNACers like to style themselves as tough realists, who see situations clearly and for what the really are. Yet, they are as blind as they accuse their opponents of being when they fail to recognize reality, even when it's shooting from behind a building or blowing up an IED along a roadway.

[K-W]

10. It is the story of the middle east.

Interrupted progress. The region was progressing alongside europe, then come the crusades, which certainly hurt both sides, but took place entirely on middle eastern soil. No sooner had Western Europe moved on from the times that sparked the crusades than they were in the age of exploration colonizing everything not tied down, certainly including the middle east. When old model colonization died down, the Middle East was left with nations entirely built by outside powers with borders drawn by outside powers, and with government formed by outside powers. Not only that, but a Jewish state was formed in Isreal, which became a constant cause for instability. Pretty soon the networking empires start and you have the World powers vying for economic and military connections culminating now with the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The end result is that the people of the middle east have never been given a luxery that was integral to the progress in our society. A sustained period of time in which movements could take root and produce real progress.

[gratuitous]

11. Which is another point ignored by the hard-eyed realists

The United States, as presently constituted, didn't just spring forth fully formed from the head of George Washington. Our country had the remarkable good luck to be left pretty much to its own devices for over a century after its founding. There was that small incursion by the British 1812-15, a little unpleasantness with Mexico in the 1840s, and the horrible Civil War 1861-65, but by and large the U.S. was allowed to work out its system in relative peace during the 19th Century, and for the first decades of the 20th.

Yet, the myth of America endures: Always free and always strong. And like a lot of myths, it is powerful in our national psyche, seductive to our national ambitions, and wrong. We have enjoyed some fine leadership, as well as withstanding some really bad leadership. We've fucked up, and we've succeeded beyond anyone's expectations. We've benefited from careful planning, as well as by dumb luck. We've elevated fools to our highest offices, and shot our visionaries and prophets. Just like every other country.

We don't hold the patent on development or democracy or wisdom. We insist on the right to order our own affairs. We should recognize that other countries hold that right as well.

[German-Lefty]

9. Very Nice points

But I guess just about any band of extremists can be caught hoping for the current system to fall so their "obviously better" ideas can be tried out.

You get that a little even in DU. "I amost hope we do have 4 more years of Bush and America falls apart, then maybe the right wing electorate will learn its lesson."

[msanthrope]

12. I'm having a flashback to the original "Manchurian Candidate"...

The far right and the far left are ONE.