[lbo-talk] Islamofascism Awareness Week

Jerry Monaco monacojerry at gmail.com
Thu Oct 25 13:59:04 PDT 2007


On 10/25/07, Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu> wrote:
> Jerry Monaco wrote:
> > Simply put, the U.S. state is within some compass of your agency and
> > my agency, and the Iranian state is not. Therefore you bear
> > responsibility for the actions of the U.S. state. You don't bear
> > responsibility of the actions of the Iranian state because it is not
> > in the compass of your agency. At least in name, the rulers of the
> > U.S. state act as agents for you and it takes more than words to
> > negate the effect of that __de facto__ agency. That de de facto agency
> > is both moral and practical. There is no collective responsibility i> > the abstract, but there is both relative responsibility and practical
> > responsibility for the situations you can have an effect upon, as
> > contrasted with the situations that you have no effect upon.
> >
> >
> This position assumes that we live in a truly democratic society in
> which ordinary people can significantly affect the decisions and actions
> of the U. S. government.

Where did I make this assumption. I talked about __relative__ responsibility and the effects of our speech and actions. I made no assumption about "democracy" in the U.S. If you actually read what I wrote you would have seen I talked about responsibility, relative to our freedom, power and privilege. What you would like to do, I gather, is to say that we have as much effect on the governments of our official enemies and of the governments "over there" as the state institutions here. Well quite frankly this is bullshit Miles and I am surprised at you for even presenting this as an argument. We have limited violence of our government in the past and we can do better in the future.

In fact our intellectual culture is highly undemocratic or else I would never have to explain, to generally good hearted people such as Doug, that we have a lot more freedom to effect the policies of the U.S. government and that speaking out against the governments of our official enemies is not only counterproductive but will only contribute to war fever and lead to war. If we did not have an elite intellectual cultural that accepts violence, terrorism and war crimes as a matter of course, I would never have to explain to people like Brian that U.S. terrorism kills far more people (and thus homosexuals) than Iran will ever kill. If those who rule and own our society weren't intractably anti-democratic, I would never have to point out that we can only limit the crimes of our rulers and owners but we do not yet have the power to stop them. And if our intellectual culture were more democratic, those of us who are privileged would not follow the agenda set by the rulers and owners of society and maybe I would never have to point out that vastly greater crimes are committed by the U.S. in places like Colombia and U.S. allies in places like Saudi Arabia, than ever have been committed by Iran.

"Speaking out" against Iran, in the current political context, is just a way to soothe the conscious with even-handed good intentions. It is a way to not feel embarrassed in front of friends so that they don't accuse you of being a crazy leftist who can't see how bad our official enemies are. It is a way to come to some modicum of conformity to the very undemocratic and pro-violence intellectual culture of our society, and to accept the premises of the agenda of the anti-democratic rulers and owners of our society.

The U.S. holds a gun to the head of people in Iran, not just the government. It threatens to bomb, even to the extent of not ruling out nuclear war. And then citizens of the U.S. turn around and lecture Iranians out the faults of their society! Miles, you don't find this at all problematic or strange? What effect do these lectures have? Do you think that U.S. intellectuals "speaking out" against Iran's crimes at all helps the people in Iran? How? You don't think that U.S. intellectuals speaking out against the Iran state contributes to the war fever and the general culture of violence and terrorism here?

For these subjects I think I have history on my side. Unfortunately for Doug and Brian, there positions are not much different in this case than many of the people around Dissent in regards to Nicaragua and also Panama. They are not as bad as Paul Berman, but.... At the time that massive slaughter was being perpetrated by our government in the rest of Central America, the Dissenters could only write about the violations of freedom in Nicaragua. That's basically the same as most of the left now as far as Iran is concerned.


>Perhaps I'm getting cynical in my old age, but
> we have ample evidence that the U. S. government does whatever it bloody
> well wants, regardless of needs and attitudes of the majority of people
> in our society. The state is (mostly?) a tool for the wealthy and
> powerful to consolidate and expand their wealth and power. So in
> practical terms, you or I taking responsibility for the actions of the
> U. S. state is about as silly as you or I taking responsibility for the
> actions of the Iranian government. --And even worse: taking
> responsibility for the actions of the U. S. government reinforces the
> pernicious myth that we live in a society governed "of, by, and for the
> people".
>
> Miles
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list