thedrifter
02-12-07, 12:02 PM
A Blast From The Past
Posted By Laughing_Wolf
Recent antics inside the Beltway, compounded with some asininities outside of same, caused me to step back from several important issues and look at a larger picture. A lot of the posturing had struck a chord, and when I stepped back I recognized an old pattern -- a Cold War pattern. That scares me on several levels, for what didn't work in the Cold War is most assuredly not going to work in the war against global islamofacism. Even using what was alleged to have worked then, will not work now.
Since we have at least one generation who has come along since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a quick trip down memory lane is in order. The Cold War can actually be predicated as having started in the late 1800s, as an offshoot of The Enlightenment and the rise of the concept of self-governance. Moving from the divine right of kings through the idea if individual determination, the pendulum swung even further into the secular with the publication of "The Communist Manifesto." What was proposed by Marx and Engels was a form of utopianism in which the workers of the world controlled their own destiny, all was placed to the greater good, and all shared the rewards (and food, etc.). Yes, this is a gross over simplification, but this is not a debate on this work which all should have read. Continuing the Wolf Notes Version, buried within the document was where some workers were more equal than others. Among other little gems...
The manifesto became the "bible" of the Red part of the Russian Revolution. The red part you say? Yes, there were actually several sides involved, of which the red/communist part was a key player. My own preference is to call them Red, for what this group did was make use of the interest and fervor sparked by the manifesto so as to draw to it a large and motivated group who wanted to create the utopia envisioned by the book. The Red faction, under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky, used the manifesto and the people it influenced to not only help overthrow the Czar, but to mobilize and beat the other factions. That took some time, for despite Hollywood and some really bad history texts, it was a fight and quite a large segment of the Russian populace who desired change did not want Lenin and company.
Yet, they did prevail and the orthodoxy declared and demanded that Communism would spread out to the rest of the world. The "science" of the manifesto proved it was so, and if such did not spontaneously happen, well then it was because those evil reactionary autocratic elements were preventing it. Meantime, even as the zealots worked to spread, Lenin and company dug in for power and the people soon learned that for the workers of the world, the equal meant equal access to low-quality everything. Equal but for a special caste of leaders, that is, the nomenclatura.
It is important to remember that the manifesto, along with various forms of socialism, were indeed an offshoot of The Enlightenment. Many in academia, as well as true progressive thinkers, felt that communism, socialism, or some merger of the two was indeed the inevitable course of humanity. From their point of view, it was clear that America was not working out in the way they would like, and that individuals would not always vote for their true self interest, but rather for short-term gain -- at least from the progressive viewpoint. Most of the communist and socialist ideologies recognized that education was crucial, if the proletariat was to truly make an informed vote; and, if they did not want to make that vote then they should be educated sufficiently so that they would no matter what. In short, individuals were not able to think or act for themselves or for their ultimate best interest, so a rule by a progressive elite was required. This, of course, was different from any form of monarchy because it was a group rule and they were out for the best interest of those they served. They were an educated elite, not some hereditary cretin or low-born war lord who best by force of arms!
So, anyway, there was great interest in and support for the experiment that was renamed the Communist Revolution from without. This stood up even amidst the various "betrayals" of the revolution (Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, take your pick of who betrayed what and when according to a variety of internal and external groups). This shaped a great deal of the thought that went into what became the Cold War.
The Cold War was never truly cold. Though not well known outside of those with a strong interest in military history, U.S. armed forces engaged in combat against the Red Faction during the revolution, though on a limited scale. Once again with the oversimplified Wolf Notes, both the U.S. (and some allies) and the what became the Soviet Union, engaged in a series of proxy wars and isolated "incidents" that stopped short of full-scale war between the two powers.
In the West, there were a large and influential group (teachers/academics, politicians, pundits, etc.) who either had a vested interest in seeing the Soviet Union (and world communism) succeed, or who liked the idea of an elite led form of socialism. The latter group felt strongly that the peasants were revolting, and really did need guidance by their betters. That rather than monarchs or right wing dictators, that a benevolent group of right thinking people would be better to lead said masses. The conflict between this group of right thinkers, the far right analogs, and those who held true to the idea of the great experiment that is the Republic, shaped politics and foreign policy in the West from the late 20s on.
And despite MAD it was a comfortable exchange and effort for many of the progressives. First up, there were some in politics and without who were active agents for the Soviet Union. They had assurances that come the revolution, they would take their rightful place in the leadership. Then there were those who felt that the revolution had been betrayed in the Soviet Union, but that a socialist utopia could be created in the United States (and other Western countries) and that once such was done they would be the leaders and peace could be made with the Soviet Union because, hey, we're all just socialists here. This group had a remarkable ability to rationalize and/or not admit the bloody doctrinal wars within the Soviet Union (and elsewhere) that made the Hundred Years War and various inquisitions seem like a tea party... The second group was also quite assured that no good communist/socialist would ever start a real war, only those evil right-wing capitalists, who had to be disarmed so they couldn't stop same.
Ever wonder where the whole "all war is evil no matter what" meme came from? Looking at such things, and where funding for a whole variety of causes, political groups, and even candidates came from is an interesting and worthwhile endeavor...
There was also what I consider a third group in the West (and the East too), what I would call the realists. Those interested in power, from obtaining to maintaining. Ideology was of less concern to them than was doing what was necessary to obtain and keep power. They would use anyone and anything to advance said cause, and all the better if it could be done in a completely legal and proper manner.
Each of these groups had a comfortable run, because none of them truly expected a major war and that if something did happen, that they would survive and be able to stay in a position of power. After all, the others side either agreed with them or were practical people who could be dealt with in order to maintain power.
Each group, however, ignored any number of fundamental realities and were, in my opinion, exceedingly foolish and naive. Yet, they and/or their legacy live on and they are making the same bad assumptions again.
1. Reasonable Men. The idea is that the ultimate leadership is ultimately rational and reasonable is a large driver. It ignores the fact that the Politburo and Supreme Soviet were not reasonable and were not interested in sharing power at any point or time. This was made clear in numerous statements and even more so in a variety of strong and bloody actions both internal and external. Currently, it ignores the fact that the senior leadership of AQ and Wahabism are not rational (by Western or even most Oriental standards), are acting out of religious reasons and are seeking total and complete world-wide power -- a power they do NOT plan on sharing as demonstrated by numerous statements and by actions internal and external.
2. Accommodation. Hey, we made a change, we can all be friends now. Those evil capitalists/whatevers are gone now, so let's be friends and live in peace. Again, the Politburo would have loved such, and would have agreed to peace. Just check the definition (the absence of all opposition, per the Soviet dictionary), as I suspect the AQ/W dictionary holds the same one as the old Soviet dictionary.
3. Partition. Hey, we made a change, we're in power now, so you stay over there and we will stay over here and all will be good. The Soviet Union spent literally decades building up military power internal and external for just such an opportunity. They also made good use of time and resources relating to real partition (Germany, Eastern Europe, etc.) and in making treaties that they ignored as soon as it was convenient or possible to do so. Hmmmmm. Sounds a lot like taqiya and the temporary peace to me...
4. Agreement. It was possible to agree with the aims and goals of the revolution, and/or with the aims and goals of the Politburo and leaders of what became the Soviet Union. It was possible to try and influence the U.S. electorate towards same. I don't think the majority of the electorate would care for the AQ/W brand of religion, and the political changes that would take place with same. Do I suspect some in politics or other leadership do agree with them and want to see them implemented? Yes. Do I think they dare say so or attempt same openly? No. So, watch the back door...
While it doesn't fit in a list of past mistakes per se, I do think there is one other fundamental flaw in thinking that needs to be brought up. I think that a number of the chattering classes have trouble accepting the religious aspects. Their own lack of religious/spiritual experience and beliefs causes them to see this as a play for power masked by religion. Just as they use religious or spiritual phrases in a cynical effort to make the masses believe that they believe (in something other than themselves), they believe that those in leadership in AQ/W are doing the same.
Just as these elements shaped discussions, ROEs, and other factors of the Cold War, they now appear to be shaping the current discussions, ROEs, and other factors in the clash between non-civilization and Western Civilization. Those attitudes brought untold suffering to hundreds of millions and death to millions. It put troops open and clandestine into harms way, and resulted in a number of them being killed. It gave aid and comfort to the enemy then. It does the same today, but today the enemy shares little or nothing with our history, values, or civilization. It is this lack of connect that makes it far more dangerous today than all of what went on yesterday.
Watch the current grandstanding in Congress (and elsewhere) and compare it to the Cold War model. You might be surprised at what you recognize if you lift that curtain.
LW
Ellie
Posted By Laughing_Wolf
Recent antics inside the Beltway, compounded with some asininities outside of same, caused me to step back from several important issues and look at a larger picture. A lot of the posturing had struck a chord, and when I stepped back I recognized an old pattern -- a Cold War pattern. That scares me on several levels, for what didn't work in the Cold War is most assuredly not going to work in the war against global islamofacism. Even using what was alleged to have worked then, will not work now.
Since we have at least one generation who has come along since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a quick trip down memory lane is in order. The Cold War can actually be predicated as having started in the late 1800s, as an offshoot of The Enlightenment and the rise of the concept of self-governance. Moving from the divine right of kings through the idea if individual determination, the pendulum swung even further into the secular with the publication of "The Communist Manifesto." What was proposed by Marx and Engels was a form of utopianism in which the workers of the world controlled their own destiny, all was placed to the greater good, and all shared the rewards (and food, etc.). Yes, this is a gross over simplification, but this is not a debate on this work which all should have read. Continuing the Wolf Notes Version, buried within the document was where some workers were more equal than others. Among other little gems...
The manifesto became the "bible" of the Red part of the Russian Revolution. The red part you say? Yes, there were actually several sides involved, of which the red/communist part was a key player. My own preference is to call them Red, for what this group did was make use of the interest and fervor sparked by the manifesto so as to draw to it a large and motivated group who wanted to create the utopia envisioned by the book. The Red faction, under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky, used the manifesto and the people it influenced to not only help overthrow the Czar, but to mobilize and beat the other factions. That took some time, for despite Hollywood and some really bad history texts, it was a fight and quite a large segment of the Russian populace who desired change did not want Lenin and company.
Yet, they did prevail and the orthodoxy declared and demanded that Communism would spread out to the rest of the world. The "science" of the manifesto proved it was so, and if such did not spontaneously happen, well then it was because those evil reactionary autocratic elements were preventing it. Meantime, even as the zealots worked to spread, Lenin and company dug in for power and the people soon learned that for the workers of the world, the equal meant equal access to low-quality everything. Equal but for a special caste of leaders, that is, the nomenclatura.
It is important to remember that the manifesto, along with various forms of socialism, were indeed an offshoot of The Enlightenment. Many in academia, as well as true progressive thinkers, felt that communism, socialism, or some merger of the two was indeed the inevitable course of humanity. From their point of view, it was clear that America was not working out in the way they would like, and that individuals would not always vote for their true self interest, but rather for short-term gain -- at least from the progressive viewpoint. Most of the communist and socialist ideologies recognized that education was crucial, if the proletariat was to truly make an informed vote; and, if they did not want to make that vote then they should be educated sufficiently so that they would no matter what. In short, individuals were not able to think or act for themselves or for their ultimate best interest, so a rule by a progressive elite was required. This, of course, was different from any form of monarchy because it was a group rule and they were out for the best interest of those they served. They were an educated elite, not some hereditary cretin or low-born war lord who best by force of arms!
So, anyway, there was great interest in and support for the experiment that was renamed the Communist Revolution from without. This stood up even amidst the various "betrayals" of the revolution (Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, take your pick of who betrayed what and when according to a variety of internal and external groups). This shaped a great deal of the thought that went into what became the Cold War.
The Cold War was never truly cold. Though not well known outside of those with a strong interest in military history, U.S. armed forces engaged in combat against the Red Faction during the revolution, though on a limited scale. Once again with the oversimplified Wolf Notes, both the U.S. (and some allies) and the what became the Soviet Union, engaged in a series of proxy wars and isolated "incidents" that stopped short of full-scale war between the two powers.
In the West, there were a large and influential group (teachers/academics, politicians, pundits, etc.) who either had a vested interest in seeing the Soviet Union (and world communism) succeed, or who liked the idea of an elite led form of socialism. The latter group felt strongly that the peasants were revolting, and really did need guidance by their betters. That rather than monarchs or right wing dictators, that a benevolent group of right thinking people would be better to lead said masses. The conflict between this group of right thinkers, the far right analogs, and those who held true to the idea of the great experiment that is the Republic, shaped politics and foreign policy in the West from the late 20s on.
And despite MAD it was a comfortable exchange and effort for many of the progressives. First up, there were some in politics and without who were active agents for the Soviet Union. They had assurances that come the revolution, they would take their rightful place in the leadership. Then there were those who felt that the revolution had been betrayed in the Soviet Union, but that a socialist utopia could be created in the United States (and other Western countries) and that once such was done they would be the leaders and peace could be made with the Soviet Union because, hey, we're all just socialists here. This group had a remarkable ability to rationalize and/or not admit the bloody doctrinal wars within the Soviet Union (and elsewhere) that made the Hundred Years War and various inquisitions seem like a tea party... The second group was also quite assured that no good communist/socialist would ever start a real war, only those evil right-wing capitalists, who had to be disarmed so they couldn't stop same.
Ever wonder where the whole "all war is evil no matter what" meme came from? Looking at such things, and where funding for a whole variety of causes, political groups, and even candidates came from is an interesting and worthwhile endeavor...
There was also what I consider a third group in the West (and the East too), what I would call the realists. Those interested in power, from obtaining to maintaining. Ideology was of less concern to them than was doing what was necessary to obtain and keep power. They would use anyone and anything to advance said cause, and all the better if it could be done in a completely legal and proper manner.
Each of these groups had a comfortable run, because none of them truly expected a major war and that if something did happen, that they would survive and be able to stay in a position of power. After all, the others side either agreed with them or were practical people who could be dealt with in order to maintain power.
Each group, however, ignored any number of fundamental realities and were, in my opinion, exceedingly foolish and naive. Yet, they and/or their legacy live on and they are making the same bad assumptions again.
1. Reasonable Men. The idea is that the ultimate leadership is ultimately rational and reasonable is a large driver. It ignores the fact that the Politburo and Supreme Soviet were not reasonable and were not interested in sharing power at any point or time. This was made clear in numerous statements and even more so in a variety of strong and bloody actions both internal and external. Currently, it ignores the fact that the senior leadership of AQ and Wahabism are not rational (by Western or even most Oriental standards), are acting out of religious reasons and are seeking total and complete world-wide power -- a power they do NOT plan on sharing as demonstrated by numerous statements and by actions internal and external.
2. Accommodation. Hey, we made a change, we can all be friends now. Those evil capitalists/whatevers are gone now, so let's be friends and live in peace. Again, the Politburo would have loved such, and would have agreed to peace. Just check the definition (the absence of all opposition, per the Soviet dictionary), as I suspect the AQ/W dictionary holds the same one as the old Soviet dictionary.
3. Partition. Hey, we made a change, we're in power now, so you stay over there and we will stay over here and all will be good. The Soviet Union spent literally decades building up military power internal and external for just such an opportunity. They also made good use of time and resources relating to real partition (Germany, Eastern Europe, etc.) and in making treaties that they ignored as soon as it was convenient or possible to do so. Hmmmmm. Sounds a lot like taqiya and the temporary peace to me...
4. Agreement. It was possible to agree with the aims and goals of the revolution, and/or with the aims and goals of the Politburo and leaders of what became the Soviet Union. It was possible to try and influence the U.S. electorate towards same. I don't think the majority of the electorate would care for the AQ/W brand of religion, and the political changes that would take place with same. Do I suspect some in politics or other leadership do agree with them and want to see them implemented? Yes. Do I think they dare say so or attempt same openly? No. So, watch the back door...
While it doesn't fit in a list of past mistakes per se, I do think there is one other fundamental flaw in thinking that needs to be brought up. I think that a number of the chattering classes have trouble accepting the religious aspects. Their own lack of religious/spiritual experience and beliefs causes them to see this as a play for power masked by religion. Just as they use religious or spiritual phrases in a cynical effort to make the masses believe that they believe (in something other than themselves), they believe that those in leadership in AQ/W are doing the same.
Just as these elements shaped discussions, ROEs, and other factors of the Cold War, they now appear to be shaping the current discussions, ROEs, and other factors in the clash between non-civilization and Western Civilization. Those attitudes brought untold suffering to hundreds of millions and death to millions. It put troops open and clandestine into harms way, and resulted in a number of them being killed. It gave aid and comfort to the enemy then. It does the same today, but today the enemy shares little or nothing with our history, values, or civilization. It is this lack of connect that makes it far more dangerous today than all of what went on yesterday.
Watch the current grandstanding in Congress (and elsewhere) and compare it to the Cold War model. You might be surprised at what you recognize if you lift that curtain.
LW
Ellie