[The] Brontosaurus left [...] probably still thinks that the nationalised means of production in North Korea represent some sort of "progress" worth defending. What will you have left when the democratic revolution reaches North Korea, Belarus, Cuba and China ?
...
Abuse is always the first resort of left-wing sectarians unable to win an argument.
...
I've heard such defences of the Communist system. But I'm sure if the communist system was so wonderful, the East Europeans wouldn't have risen against it in 1989.
============
There are times when debate is useful and necessary: for example, when there's a chance to modify your debating opponent's views - or have your own views modified - via the presentation of opinion-altering information. Debate is also useful when it exposes onlookers to strongly (and, one can hope, well) argued opposed positions.
And then there are those times when debating isn't really debating at all - merely a kind of shouting of insults across a high fence.
*****
I have to admit that before reading the "Chomsky v Marko" thread I'd not heard of Dr. Hoare. I was intrigued however by his use of jargon such as "Brontosaurus left" which isn't an idle insult of the sort Americans toss around ('wingnut' comes to mind as an example) but a very specific kind of attack: the kind a practiced left-basher might use, particularly a person who considered himself to be, more or less, on the left but not trapped in (from his POV) an antique maze of Pleistocene ideas.
In other words, the kind of insult used by a person who thought he was not only correct, but part of a vanguard.
And so it appears to be with Dr. Hoare, who's a member of the Henry Jackson Society. The Society's web bio describes him:
Dr. Marko Attila Hoare
Section Co-Director, Greater Europe
Marko Attila Hoare is a Research Fellow at the Faculty of History, University of Cambridge. He received his BA from the University of Cambridge in 1994 and his PhD from Yale University in 2000.
[...]
full at --
<http://www-hjs.pet.cam.ac.uk/organizing_committee/hoare>
The bio provides a good explanation for Dr. Hoare's keen interests in Bosnian events.
But even more telling than that is the Society's Statement of Principles which, pretty clearly, places its philosophical position in the polar opposite camp of many people who actively participate at LBO TALK (including yours truly) --
Statement of Principles
Cambridge, 11th March 2005
The pursuit of a robust foreign policy was one of Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson’s most central concerns. This was to be based on clear universal principles such as the global promotion of the rule of law, liberal democracy, civil rights, environmental responsibility and the market economy. The western policies of strength and human rights, which later hastened the collapse of the Soviet dictatorship, owed much to Jackson’s example. The fundamental and enduring values of the modern democratic world eventually prevailed.
Yet perhaps we were too complacent during the immediate post-Cold War period. New threats to the very essence of liberal democracies challenged our resolve. Our failures in the former Yugoslavia (especially Bosnia) were more than just moral.
<snip>
We believe, therefore, that Henry Jackson’s legacy is as relevant today as his policies were during the Cold War; indeed, perhaps it is even more important than at any time previously. Therefore, the Henry Jackson Society:
1. Believes that modern liberal democracies set an example to which the rest of the world should aspire.
2. Supports a ‘forward strategy’ to assist those countries that are not yet liberal and democratic to become so. This would involve the full spectrum of our ‘carrot’ capacities, be they diplomatic, economic, cultural or political, but also, when necessary, those ‘sticks’ of the military domain.
3. Supports the maintenance of a strong military, by the United States, the countries of the European Union and other democratic powers, armed with expeditionary capabilities with a global reach.
4. Supports the necessary furtherance of European military modernisation and integration under British leadership, preferably within NATO.
5. Stresses the importance of unity between the world’s great democracies, represented by institutions such as NATO, the European Union and the OECD, amongst many others.
6. Believes that only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate, and that any international organisation which admits undemocratic states on an equal basis is fundamentally flawed.
7. Gives two cheers for capitalism. There are limits to the market, which needs to serve the Democratic Community and should be reconciled to the environment.
8. Accepts that we have to set priorities and that sometimes we have to compromise, but insists that we should never lose sight of our fundamental values. This means that alliances with repressive regimes can only be temporary. It also means a strong commitment to individual and civil liberties in democratic states, even and especially when we are under attack.
<http://www-hjs.pet.cam.ac.uk/principles_html>
========
This is a well articulated list of principles for what might be called end-stage leftism, which shares certain characteristics with that moment when Christianity moved from being an outsider religion to the official faith of the Roman Empire.
When Dr. Hoare accuses listmembers who disagree with his interventionist views as being part of the "Brontosaurus left" he's not merely saying you might have a cherished copy of Mao's Little Red Book lying around but that you've failed to see the light -- that the true mission of the left should be encouraging the use of the West's power to fashion the globe after its image and, by so doing, create a more perfect world.
Of course, many of us here consider this to be, at best, a dangerous and ahistorical fantasy. More dangerous perhaps, than even Kissinger-esque realpolitik.
.d.