Max B. Sawicky wrote:
> I'm not a pacifist. I would have supported U.S. entry into WWII, with or
> without Pearl Harbor, though I do not see Imperial Japan as a book-end to the
> Nazi/Fascist coalition.
>
> I think you can read the book in two different ways. One is as a brief for
> pacifism. A second is as a sad rumination on the failure of humanity to
> renounce violence and embrace pacifism.
>
> Re: WS's point, the book begins with WWI, in effect finding the roots of WWII
> in the prior conflict. I think this supports His point.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org
> [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Wojtek Sokolowski Sent:
> Thursday, February 26, 2009 10:04 AM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re:
> [lbo-talk] Human Smoke
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ---- From: Max Sawicky <sawicky at verizon.net>
>
> There's stuff like this on every page. Every paragraph, really. For those
> who don't know, the whole book is a series of these disconnected bits, but as
> you go along they weave themselves together. All meticulously documented in
> citations and footnotes. Amazing book. I've got to get me some more
> Nicholson Baker.
>
> [WS:} I ordered the book (used, as usual) on Amazon.com, and while doing it I
> read some of the reviews, which were pretty thoughtful, imho, if not always
> favorable.
>
> The main criticism was that pacifism that Baker advocates would not work with
> Hitler. It is posture easy to take by Westerners who were for the most part
> spared Hitler's atrocities, but those who experienced it first-hand (mainly
> Eastern Europeans) have a very different perspective.
>
> I have not yet read the book, so obviously I cannot comment on its merits or
> demerits, but based on what I read in the reviews it appears that
> interpreting Baker's view as simplistic Gandhian pacifism of self-sacrifice
> and "turning the other cheek" is not the only one that is possible. If I
> were to argue the case of pacifism in the WW2 era, I would point out that it
> was the whole series of events, tit-for-tats, hyper-nationalism and bigotry,
> rabid anti-communism, and machiavellian geo-politics (i.e. "we" will take a
> piece of land for the sole reason of preventing "them" from taking it, which
> "we" are sure "they" are planning) that led to the war. It is not that
> important who fired the first shot in the game - it happened to be Hitler,
> but if it were not him it would be another villain playing this game.
>
> In that context, teh argument for pacifism is not for refusing to fire the
> second shot (and "trun the other cheek"), but to stop playing that game
> before it escalates to a point when firing shots is anything but inevitable.
> If that is what Baker implies in his book - I am all for it, but it it is
> simply "turn-the-other-cheek-ism" - I am not buying.
>
> While we are at that, I think that labor and most affiliated parties bear
> their fair share of responsibility for the two World Wars, because they
> jumped on the bandwagon of nationalism (e.g. German social democrats) and few
> were willing to sabotage the war efforts of their national governments (Rosa
> Luxemburg was a commendable excpetion.)
>
> Wojtek
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk