Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Thursday, July 5, 2007
To build peace, we need to build more than peace
Excerpt from Raymond Williams (1921 - 1988):
Necessary Linkages
"… the socialist contribution to the politics of nuclear disarmament must be more than simply collaborative, and must include solidarity with Third World struggles against an imperialist economic system which globally reproduces hunger and exploitation. This is no matter of riding the peace campaign for some partisan objectives. …
This can appear only to add to our burdens, for which our present strength is still insufficient. But this must be the final point of the present argument. It is, fortunately, still possible to generate movements for peace and for disarmament on the most general human grounds. That these are again growing is a significant gain against the culture and politics of violence. Yet alike for their intellectual adequacy and for extension of their support, it is necessary to reach beyond the moving and honourable refusals on which many of them still characteristically depend. To build peace, now more than ever, it is necessary to build more than peace. To refuse nuclear weapons, we have to refuse much more than nuclear weapons. Unless the refusals can be connected with such building, unless protest can be connected with and surpassed by significant practical construction, our strength will remain insufficient. It is then in making hope practical, rather than despair convincing, that we must resume and change and extend our campaigns."
* * *
This short excerpt is from the late Raymond Williams’ article in "Exterminism and Cold War", Verso Editions, 1982, pp. 65 – 85. The text above is from pp. 64 – 65. The ISBN # of the book is: 0-86091-746-0. Raymond Williams, in his article, is making explicit reference to 'anti-imperialist' movements. I am not a socialist, nor have I ever been one. Still, I wholeheartedly agree that "To build peace, now more than ever, it is necessary to build more than peace. To refuse nuclear weapons, we have to refuse much more than nuclear weapons".
For more info on Raymond Williams (31 August 1921 - 26 January 1988), you may visit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Williams
Apparently, the original article appeared in:
New Left Review I/124, November-December 1980
More info at:
http://newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=1572
==========
It seems to me that one of the first things that we need to build is trust. Many people who choose not to join a movement for disarmament or 'peace' need to be convinced that we are capable of building a political and economic system that can offer a higher level of security. Most people may never believe that sustainable peace can be promised by a 'man-made' political system. We, those who dare to offer 'global security', should at least convince them that we can predict, avoid, and suppress more instances of organized violence.
Followers of a purely nonviolent ideology or moral system have a vital role in creating such a climate of global security. I am aware that many people find such 'pure' nonviolent activists too weak and too naive. On many levels, I think they are wrong, and it may be possible to prove them wrong. However, nor do I think that it is realistic to suppress certain acts of organized violence only with methods of nonviolent activism. Those who claim otherwise should, of course, be welcome to try the methods that they think are best for the purpose. If they fail, they should not be authorized to stop others from trying different kinds of interventions --provided, of course, that they limit their harm (deadly harm, if need be) to those who are presently engaged in organized violence.
No doubt, those who adhere to 'purely nonviolent methods' will not trust those who are prepared to resort to quasi-military interventions. Fortunately or unfortunately, their opinions, prejudices, and fears are not the most critical for the creation of a system of trust. The vast majority of people who need to be convinced of the viability of a global security system need to be shown that the protectors and builders of peace have 'teeth' as well. No less importantly, those who are planning to engage in organized violence must be sent a clear message that they are not likely to 'get away with murder'.
Far too much loose talk has been made about "an eye for an eye leaving everybody blind". As I see it, a global security system, or a global justice system can be viable if and only if clear distinctions are made between innocence and guilt, between those who initiate violence and those who punish violent acts. Ideally, even some of those who are punished can be made to understand that their original crimes were far less excusable than the punishment that they receive (assuming that they continue to think that the punishment was unfair)...
In addition to the need to build trust in the capacity of peace-builders and peace-keepers to create a higher level of global security, there is also need to build trust that a higher level of economic security can be created under that system of security. No doubt, many of those who reap profits from wars cannot, and should not, be promised similar gains from a climate of peace. But we need to show that the vast majority of humankind stand to gain a great deal more (economically, as well as socially and morally) from times of peace.
I am opposed to those who argue that a single economic system needs to be imposed on all of humankind. I believe that a great variety of economic systems can be realized, provided that they are kept from harming each other, or even depriving each other of vital resources. One thing that the present system cannot offer or promise is 'intentional economic communities'. Once a system of global security is created, people can and should be given the freedom to move away from their local, regional, or 'national' economies, and form ties with like-minded people elsewhere on earth. They should also be given the freedom to travel, to migrate, and to start communities in new places.
In other words, although I believe that it is vital to build trust among those who are reluctant to support anti-war movements, although I believe that this trust should include trust in our ability to build a better economic system, I do not think that we should seek to create that trust by offering a detailed, 'positive' economic program. Instead, our program needs to be one that specifies many prohibitions that try to prevent economic harm, while making room for a wide variety of different economic systems. It is my view that it would be 'epistemically immodest' for anyone to pretend that there is a single best economic system for all humankind. But even if such a system is brought forward, and outperforms all other economic systems in a fair competition, it would be unjustifiable to impose such a system on those who do not wish to practice it. After all, economic success, efficiency, etc., are neither the sole nor the primary goals of all grown-ups, let alone all human beings. It is also unfair to deprive people of the 'freedom to fail' in ways that are likely to harm only themselves (and not their neighbors or the flora or fauna).
It seems to me that, presently, there is an attempt to avoid discussions of alternative economic systems. I do agree that there has been too much distraction and 'analysis paralysis' in the near past, owing to the demands by some communists and socialists that peace movements should first aim at abolishing capitalism. But I do not think that it is wise or even realistic to try to suppress all questions about alternative economic systems. Many people, throughout the world, risk governmental oppression for their anti-war activism. Many risk their very lives simply to show their opposition to wars. Those who are prepared to die for their ideas need to be given permission to make clear how they would prefer to live...
Also relevant to arguments against war and organized violence (including terrorism) are arguments for (or against) different value systems. Much of this can be distracting also. To pick comical examples, some people argue that world peace can be possible only after the conversion of all humankind to (some version of) Christianity, or Islam), or after a certain number of people practice Transcendental Meditation... Still, it is unwise and unfair to try to block all such arguments. As Arthur Koestler tried to address (with limited success) in his essay "Yogi and the Commissar", we need to strike a balance between the extreme positions concerning individual morality and bringing about social change.
[More on this later.]
Necessary Linkages
"… the socialist contribution to the politics of nuclear disarmament must be more than simply collaborative, and must include solidarity with Third World struggles against an imperialist economic system which globally reproduces hunger and exploitation. This is no matter of riding the peace campaign for some partisan objectives. …
This can appear only to add to our burdens, for which our present strength is still insufficient. But this must be the final point of the present argument. It is, fortunately, still possible to generate movements for peace and for disarmament on the most general human grounds. That these are again growing is a significant gain against the culture and politics of violence. Yet alike for their intellectual adequacy and for extension of their support, it is necessary to reach beyond the moving and honourable refusals on which many of them still characteristically depend. To build peace, now more than ever, it is necessary to build more than peace. To refuse nuclear weapons, we have to refuse much more than nuclear weapons. Unless the refusals can be connected with such building, unless protest can be connected with and surpassed by significant practical construction, our strength will remain insufficient. It is then in making hope practical, rather than despair convincing, that we must resume and change and extend our campaigns."
* * *
This short excerpt is from the late Raymond Williams’ article in "Exterminism and Cold War", Verso Editions, 1982, pp. 65 – 85. The text above is from pp. 64 – 65. The ISBN # of the book is: 0-86091-746-0. Raymond Williams, in his article, is making explicit reference to 'anti-imperialist' movements. I am not a socialist, nor have I ever been one. Still, I wholeheartedly agree that "To build peace, now more than ever, it is necessary to build more than peace. To refuse nuclear weapons, we have to refuse much more than nuclear weapons".
For more info on Raymond Williams (31 August 1921 - 26 January 1988), you may visit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Williams
Apparently, the original article appeared in:
New Left Review I/124, November-December 1980
More info at:
http://newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=1572
==========
It seems to me that one of the first things that we need to build is trust. Many people who choose not to join a movement for disarmament or 'peace' need to be convinced that we are capable of building a political and economic system that can offer a higher level of security. Most people may never believe that sustainable peace can be promised by a 'man-made' political system. We, those who dare to offer 'global security', should at least convince them that we can predict, avoid, and suppress more instances of organized violence.
Followers of a purely nonviolent ideology or moral system have a vital role in creating such a climate of global security. I am aware that many people find such 'pure' nonviolent activists too weak and too naive. On many levels, I think they are wrong, and it may be possible to prove them wrong. However, nor do I think that it is realistic to suppress certain acts of organized violence only with methods of nonviolent activism. Those who claim otherwise should, of course, be welcome to try the methods that they think are best for the purpose. If they fail, they should not be authorized to stop others from trying different kinds of interventions --provided, of course, that they limit their harm (deadly harm, if need be) to those who are presently engaged in organized violence.
No doubt, those who adhere to 'purely nonviolent methods' will not trust those who are prepared to resort to quasi-military interventions. Fortunately or unfortunately, their opinions, prejudices, and fears are not the most critical for the creation of a system of trust. The vast majority of people who need to be convinced of the viability of a global security system need to be shown that the protectors and builders of peace have 'teeth' as well. No less importantly, those who are planning to engage in organized violence must be sent a clear message that they are not likely to 'get away with murder'.
Far too much loose talk has been made about "an eye for an eye leaving everybody blind". As I see it, a global security system, or a global justice system can be viable if and only if clear distinctions are made between innocence and guilt, between those who initiate violence and those who punish violent acts. Ideally, even some of those who are punished can be made to understand that their original crimes were far less excusable than the punishment that they receive (assuming that they continue to think that the punishment was unfair)...
In addition to the need to build trust in the capacity of peace-builders and peace-keepers to create a higher level of global security, there is also need to build trust that a higher level of economic security can be created under that system of security. No doubt, many of those who reap profits from wars cannot, and should not, be promised similar gains from a climate of peace. But we need to show that the vast majority of humankind stand to gain a great deal more (economically, as well as socially and morally) from times of peace.
I am opposed to those who argue that a single economic system needs to be imposed on all of humankind. I believe that a great variety of economic systems can be realized, provided that they are kept from harming each other, or even depriving each other of vital resources. One thing that the present system cannot offer or promise is 'intentional economic communities'. Once a system of global security is created, people can and should be given the freedom to move away from their local, regional, or 'national' economies, and form ties with like-minded people elsewhere on earth. They should also be given the freedom to travel, to migrate, and to start communities in new places.
In other words, although I believe that it is vital to build trust among those who are reluctant to support anti-war movements, although I believe that this trust should include trust in our ability to build a better economic system, I do not think that we should seek to create that trust by offering a detailed, 'positive' economic program. Instead, our program needs to be one that specifies many prohibitions that try to prevent economic harm, while making room for a wide variety of different economic systems. It is my view that it would be 'epistemically immodest' for anyone to pretend that there is a single best economic system for all humankind. But even if such a system is brought forward, and outperforms all other economic systems in a fair competition, it would be unjustifiable to impose such a system on those who do not wish to practice it. After all, economic success, efficiency, etc., are neither the sole nor the primary goals of all grown-ups, let alone all human beings. It is also unfair to deprive people of the 'freedom to fail' in ways that are likely to harm only themselves (and not their neighbors or the flora or fauna).
It seems to me that, presently, there is an attempt to avoid discussions of alternative economic systems. I do agree that there has been too much distraction and 'analysis paralysis' in the near past, owing to the demands by some communists and socialists that peace movements should first aim at abolishing capitalism. But I do not think that it is wise or even realistic to try to suppress all questions about alternative economic systems. Many people, throughout the world, risk governmental oppression for their anti-war activism. Many risk their very lives simply to show their opposition to wars. Those who are prepared to die for their ideas need to be given permission to make clear how they would prefer to live...
Also relevant to arguments against war and organized violence (including terrorism) are arguments for (or against) different value systems. Much of this can be distracting also. To pick comical examples, some people argue that world peace can be possible only after the conversion of all humankind to (some version of) Christianity, or Islam), or after a certain number of people practice Transcendental Meditation... Still, it is unwise and unfair to try to block all such arguments. As Arthur Koestler tried to address (with limited success) in his essay "Yogi and the Commissar", we need to strike a balance between the extreme positions concerning individual morality and bringing about social change.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Willing to Work for the Poor (Who Fight against Poverty)
I suppose I am not the only person who would rather make a very modest living working for a good cause than make oodles of money working for rich people (and/or for a cause that is harmful to life on this planet). Sadly, poor people are not hiring...
As I see it, those who are serious about fighting against poverty should be prepared to punish a great many poor people who work hard to perpetuate poverty. (They should also be prepared to take wealth from a lot of undeserving rich, and punish many of them for perpetuating poverty --but that should go without saying.)
I was not raised in a society where there was much (or any?) talk of blaming the poor for their plight. Nor was it common to hear people accuse the poor of laziness, stupidity, etc. Although I spent most of my adult years in the US (and most of it in New York), I never bought into such thoughts. I may add that the prevailing 'groupthink' among the 'progressives' in this country does not, generally, include any analysis that places any responsibility for the perpetuation of poverty on the poor themselves.
Despite all these, I consider it an unforgivable example of intellectual cowardice to ignore the significant role that _some_ poor people play in the perpetuation of poverty.
I will go further into this topic. For the time being, I want to make it clear that I am in favor of a global redistribution of wealth (and the creation of intangible resources for everyone). I also believe that unearned (or unchosen), chronic, human material poverty on this planet can be abolished within two generations.
Next, I will elaborate on the kind of poverty that I believe can be abolished (UCHMPE).
As I see it, those who are serious about fighting against poverty should be prepared to punish a great many poor people who work hard to perpetuate poverty. (They should also be prepared to take wealth from a lot of undeserving rich, and punish many of them for perpetuating poverty --but that should go without saying.)
I was not raised in a society where there was much (or any?) talk of blaming the poor for their plight. Nor was it common to hear people accuse the poor of laziness, stupidity, etc. Although I spent most of my adult years in the US (and most of it in New York), I never bought into such thoughts. I may add that the prevailing 'groupthink' among the 'progressives' in this country does not, generally, include any analysis that places any responsibility for the perpetuation of poverty on the poor themselves.
Despite all these, I consider it an unforgivable example of intellectual cowardice to ignore the significant role that _some_ poor people play in the perpetuation of poverty.
I will go further into this topic. For the time being, I want to make it clear that I am in favor of a global redistribution of wealth (and the creation of intangible resources for everyone). I also believe that unearned (or unchosen), chronic, human material poverty on this planet can be abolished within two generations.
Next, I will elaborate on the kind of poverty that I believe can be abolished (UCHMPE).
Monday, April 2, 2007
Who is Anseynol?
Anseynol is a name that I made up for myself. To the best of my knowledge, this is not a word in any language. (Google searches yield only results that relate to me.)
As someone said before, "I am not an open book, least of all to myself" [I am not sure if General Gordon was the first to say this --see "Khartoum"]. Among other things, I am the author of "On the Threshold of ...", a 3-part book that remains a 'work in progress'.
I am the first and present 'advocate' of Laruunash.
I uploaded a summary of Laruunash to www.archive.org.
A search for Anseynol may yield:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Anseynol%22%20AND%20subject%3A%22humanism%22
To be continued.
As someone said before, "I am not an open book, least of all to myself" [I am not sure if General Gordon was the first to say this --see "Khartoum"]. Among other things, I am the author of "On the Threshold of ...", a 3-part book that remains a 'work in progress'.
I am the first and present 'advocate' of Laruunash.
I uploaded a summary of Laruunash to www.archive.org.
A search for Anseynol may yield:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Anseynol%22%20AND%20subject%3A%22humanism%22
To be continued.
Peace Movement? What Peace Movement?
I started my theoretical work on 'world peace' in 1980 (when I was 18). By 1983, I had written a few hundred thousand words generally related to some of our global problems and issues. Although I did not consider my writings to be ready for publication, I was convinced that they were worthy of the attention of all 'peace activists' throughout the world. I traveled to Paris and London in August 1983, on a very short tourist visa. I tried to contact a few anti-war activists and members of CND and END. I corresponded with E. P. Thompson, but was unable to meet him face to face.
Ever since 1980, my commitment to 'peace and justice' has been unwavering. I came to the US in 1988, hoping to make some waves here.
...
To this day, I do not see a 'peace movement' in the US. An 'anti-war' movement would presumably require a commonly-held and clearly-articulated set of values that oppose any war. Sadly, I do not believe that a 'movement' for this exists in the US. There is not even a (strong enough) movement for disarmament. Instead, we have an 'anti-this-war' movement. If this movement has any 'leaders' to speak of, they should realize that their record has been pathetic.
Some of my posts on this blog site are intended to offer some constructive criticism to my peace-loving contemporaries.
Ever since 1980, my commitment to 'peace and justice' has been unwavering. I came to the US in 1988, hoping to make some waves here.
...
To this day, I do not see a 'peace movement' in the US. An 'anti-war' movement would presumably require a commonly-held and clearly-articulated set of values that oppose any war. Sadly, I do not believe that a 'movement' for this exists in the US. There is not even a (strong enough) movement for disarmament. Instead, we have an 'anti-this-war' movement. If this movement has any 'leaders' to speak of, they should realize that their record has been pathetic.
Some of my posts on this blog site are intended to offer some constructive criticism to my peace-loving contemporaries.
Support These Organizations
I support Orbis, Free the Children, and Edhi International (order of my first hearing about them). I am not sure if I would agree with all of what they do, but I salute their main goals and dedication. All three of these organizations deserve more coverage than they get. I believe that it is scandalous that Edhi gets too little. As I stated before I am a laruuni, not a Muslim. But I do feel, along with some Muslims who make the point, that Edhi could easily have won a Nobel Peace Prize if he were not such a 'scary-looking' Muslim --white beard and all. More info about the organization at:
http://www.edhifoundation.com/contact.asp
http://www.edhifoundation.com/contact.asp
Conscientious Nonprocreator
I am a conscientious nonprocreator. I started the Yahoo group Conscientious Nonprocreators Contranational. The URL is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conscientiousnonprocreators/
It has not, so far, been an 'active' group. Still, it continues to present a voice against 'pronatalism'.
By 18, I decided to remain childless (I do not remember exactly when I made the decision). I am now 47, and I never had a split second of regret over my decision not to have a child. This does not, however, suggest that my view of having children is pessimistic --from my own perspective. Of course, if I had a child like Shirley Temple, Craig Kielburger, Greg Smith, Alia Sabur, ... , I could personally benefit from parenthood. Although I do not think it prudent to assume that I would be that lucky, my conclusion about nonprocreation is a moral one. I believe that my decision was morally right. Holding the values that I do, I could not have a clear conscience even if I found myself blessed to have a one-in-a-million child. Put differently, I can easily imagine myself being 'rich and famous' mainly due to an exceptional child, but I cannot imagine myself feeling any better about the matter of procreation/nonprocreation.
I am generally kind to children. I was raised in a place where (and at a time when) most grown-ups were friendly to and protective of children --anybody's children. Perhaps my own parents were also close to 'good enough', when it comes to kindness to children. Thanks in part to these facts, I often make faces at other's children, even tap their heads occasionally, and show kindness and generosity when I am allowed to interact with them (which is not often enough). I wish there were a shortcut gesture that could tell the parents: "Hey! I am kind to babies and children. I want to 'welcome' them, in my capacity. But I do not condone your decision to add another human being to this planet!"
"Babies are not responsible for population growth. Parents are."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conscientiousnonprocreators/
It has not, so far, been an 'active' group. Still, it continues to present a voice against 'pronatalism'.
By 18, I decided to remain childless (I do not remember exactly when I made the decision). I am now 47, and I never had a split second of regret over my decision not to have a child. This does not, however, suggest that my view of having children is pessimistic --from my own perspective. Of course, if I had a child like Shirley Temple, Craig Kielburger, Greg Smith, Alia Sabur, ... , I could personally benefit from parenthood. Although I do not think it prudent to assume that I would be that lucky, my conclusion about nonprocreation is a moral one. I believe that my decision was morally right. Holding the values that I do, I could not have a clear conscience even if I found myself blessed to have a one-in-a-million child. Put differently, I can easily imagine myself being 'rich and famous' mainly due to an exceptional child, but I cannot imagine myself feeling any better about the matter of procreation/nonprocreation.
I am generally kind to children. I was raised in a place where (and at a time when) most grown-ups were friendly to and protective of children --anybody's children. Perhaps my own parents were also close to 'good enough', when it comes to kindness to children. Thanks in part to these facts, I often make faces at other's children, even tap their heads occasionally, and show kindness and generosity when I am allowed to interact with them (which is not often enough). I wish there were a shortcut gesture that could tell the parents: "Hey! I am kind to babies and children. I want to 'welcome' them, in my capacity. But I do not condone your decision to add another human being to this planet!"
"Babies are not responsible for population growth. Parents are."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)