Everybody, even the greatest

Everybody, even the greatest minds, make mistakes and say stupid things. At the same time, the biggest criminals in history have also said and done many good things.

The most important fact history should teach us is that it is never peoples, or countries who go to war against others, but ruling classes, governments and dictators on their way to "weallth creation", or defending their resources .

Of course, now they beat their chests, demanding more and more for "defence" so they can sell the defended resources, treasures and peoples to the multinational corporate mafia for directorships.

The "Seven Deadly Sins", by Ghandi have been pasted to my desk for many years, and they're some of the greatest wisdoms ever uttered by a human being.

Wealth without work

Pleasure without conscience.

Knowledge without character

Commerce without morality.

Science without humanity.

Worship without sacrifice

Politics without principle.

Ed Deak, Big Lake.

tapestry

I would offer, to the degree one subscribes that wars are fundamentally "caused" by others - and to the degree that one believes that others are not, in key part a reflection of ones own ideas, to the same will one will perceive apparently unsolvable externalised irrationalities such as war.

One cannot fundamentally believe that war is an agency outside of oneself and hope to witness peace at the scale or context one observes. Believing that fundamental morality is absent "in some" will present its own grim door, and, by rational seeming default - present the apparent need for perpetual arms until the non-humans are put away. They will not be. The idea will thrive.

This is not about being about inner "blame" or inner "guilt", or being an ostritch - or advocacy of some trite practise of naive "denial" - but rather about the most important of responsibilites - truly looking at the contents of ones own mind and core beliefs one holds. Beliefs cannot be faked - and pronouncements alone are not necessarily one's felt belief. The perceived world is a mirror.

Yes Ed, and as with any

Yes Ed, and as with any great soul what interests me more are the seemingly personal contradictions exposed to all when their lives become a subject of public scrutiny. I am also careful about those we would like to think as altruistic. Reminds me of a choice offered to me "out of context" as to whom I would vote for when presented with select personal characteristics of two historical personalities. One was a vegetarian, never smoked, a teatotaller, never cheated on his wife and always said what he was going to do while the other was a smoker, a heavy drinker, associated with crooked politicians and had mistresses. The former was Adolf Hitler and the latter Franklin D. Roosevelt.

tapestry

..further, the above certainly would not (to me) imply (nor do I support) the worst of the worst practises - blame of the trumatised.

What is the point of this column?

Let us see if I get this right: sometimes non-violence does not work and it is necessary to fight. Fine. The questions then are: When to fight, how to fight, and how do you define success, given that history as it develops is an experiment that does not allow running a test and a control side by side? Looking back at the conflicts of the last century is not particularly helpful, we are still dealing with some of the aftermath. Did the Allies fight Hitler to save the Jews? Few people knew about the concentration camps. The Russians defeated Hitler, and Europe had Communism for 40 years. Should the West have fought the Soviets then? The Americans helped free part of Europe from dictatorship, but not South America. Should they have? The Chinese traded the Japanese for Mao; the Algerians traded the French for Moslem fundamentalists. The Afghans traded the Russians for the Taliban. In other places the transition from dictatorship to democracy was peaceful (Spain, Portugal). The Israelis and the Palestinians have been fighting each others for 60 years, who is justified in fighting, who has the moral high ground? Whose hands are not covered in blood? It may be true that sitting cross-legged and singing folk songs will not work against the Taliban, but the present military action is likely to fail, as we know from past experience.
How can we do better?

Say what?

I really don't understand the point of this column. We all understand that there are some people against whom we have to fight, but if it is at all possible violence should be the last resort. Is this a revelation, or something?

So, as usual, I'm thinking Terry's trying to justify some war somewhere.

Of course, there's nothing

Of course, there's nothing wrong with fighting in defence. I try to be as non-violent as possible, but if anybody came here with bad intentions, he/she could easily end up with a few holes in unwanted places.

As a rancher, I'm permitted to keep a gun handy at all times and never hesitate to use it for protection.

But here we come back to my often repeated definition: "Wealth can not be created, only taken...." and this has always been the main cause of fights and wars.

All wars are fought for the purpose of some forms of energy control and once we work out ways for the rational distribution of energy, the cause of most conflicts will disappear, as it has disappeared between all good naighbours.

Ed Deak.

PS. Is everybody getting these postage stamp sized comment boxes with tiny letters? I almost need a magnifying glass to read what I've written.

The Point

In my view the point of this column was to:

a) trash this book, as a review
b) enourage the world view that this 'war on terror' is somehow winnable or at least a contest worth dieing for
c) get the comentator his minimal amount of input so that he could be paid this month...january is such a long month with so little work normally.

More problems with the changeover

I''ll comment about Glavin's 'review' later.
At this point, just another echo of complaint about the absurdity of the tyee's NEW look. Without composing elsewhere - or POSTING MESSAGES IN ALL CAPS - this is just stupid.

The preview function is nice, and I know lots of readers have asked for it, but this is too high a price to pay. Once you get to the preview pane - thinks go much more smoothly - but not all commenters will know this of course.

If you see this message, Ed and others, the problem can be worked around by posting a few nonsense letters in the teeny box - just a few words will do the trick. Then hit the preview button and you get a much more useable edit pane into which you can actually type something intelligible.
My view.

correction

wrote 'thinks' above, rather than 'things'

Poor understanding

Terry, I suggest you deepen your understanding of nonviolence and the situation in Afghanistan before using two brief examples of nonviolence resistance as the basis for your argument that sometimes nonviolence must be backed up by the threat of arms.

In particular, you cite these two examples in support of sometimes needing to use force, claiming that they demonstrate that nonviolence needs to be backed by the threat of force. However, you make no mention of violence/force not working in Afghanistan either. It's been over five years since they were bombed and invaded. Using the same logic you apply to nonviolence, then you should also be concluding that the force of arms clearly does not work in Afghanistan either. If your logic were to hold, then why is there still a Taliban resistance?

Secondly, before Afghanistan was ever invaded, there was enough public outcry in some parts of Afghanistan over some of the draconian Taliban rules (in particular, the ban on playing soccer), that the Taliban actually lifted their ban on playing soccer and you know what? The people of Afghanistan didn't have to take up arms to make it happen.

The fact that people may die or be injured as part of nonviolent resistance is not proof that nonviolence cannot work without the support of arms. Armed resistance also results in numerous casualties on all sides, yet you don't hear the general public decrying that as proof that violent force does not work either.

gandhi

The British, as a "Christian" nation, were particularly susceptible to moral suasion, because Gandhi was using tactics consistent with Christian teachings of turning the other cheek and not offering resistance to evil. Although the Hindu principle of satyagraha was later used to fram Ganhi's tactics, I understand that his original inspiration for non violent resistance came from Tolstoy's writings.Playing upon one's enemy's valued cultural principles was simply astute on Gandhi's part.

I agree that non-violence

I agree that non-violence simply will not work against fascists since fascism includes the brutal repression of all forms of dissent. What I don't like about this review is picking on the Taliban, perhaps a weak attempt to shore up some support for our war on Afghanistan. Better to pick on the vicious actions of the world's fascist elite who finance both sides of the wars they foment, including the Nazis. The Taliban are babes by comparison.

non violence is a dream

Any creature that lives by non violence will eventually DIE OUT.

your food lie down to die for your dinner table folks ???

you got a big beef steer licking you while you slaughter it for supper,that pig kissing your feet for comfort or mercy ???

We are all delivered to the slaughter house.

Only some of us are willing to pick up a weapon to defend ourselves...the JEWS that are being slaughtered in todays holocaust are the poor in the poorest nations and they all die for the GREEDY in places like the UNITED MISTAKES,CANADA AND ENGLAND...THE RICH THE GREEDY !

Small wonder GUN CONTROL IS SUCH A POWERFUL TOPIC...EVEN HITLER USED GUN CONTROL!

more foolishness

More foolishness from Glavin. Of course, no one other than absolute pacifists believes that complete and total non violence can always be the rule. Big deal. I think our resident lefty-cum-neocon is seeking a way to bolster the wars he supports.

By the way, this tiny comment box REALLY SUCKS!

...simply promoting a threat.

Excellent comments Ed Deak and Truman Thanks...:-)

My thoughts are, what is the point of discussing the bottom line in survival? I believe most of us would fight to the end to protect ourselves and the lives of our loved ones, but only as a last resort. Discussing the lowest common denominator is not promoting peace, and there is little of more importance to most of us then promoting peace both as individuals, and as a nation.

This kind of talk is simply promoting a threat. Keeping our chests in and our egos checked, will go a lot further in promoting peace and supporting a higher value, morality, and code of ethics,imo :-)

Peace,

Bear

Full Monty

Wow this stamp is pretty small. Maybe trying to encourage commentors to be breif.
My first log in since the new format and so far I agree it's small and SLOW!

Glavin's article: We learn a bit about Terry here. I was pretty well in agreement with him till I read the comments.

In George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" the struggle that Glavin describes is accounted for: Orwell was not just and "Embedded" journalist, he was a grunt on the front line. I am recommending that book. The Spanish Civil War was not "lost" by the IFF. It was forfeited by the Russians according to Orwell

umm

how am I supposed to log out?

Reviewing the Reviewer

One wonders if Terry Glavin read the whole book. He fails to note, in his haste to make a point he might otherwise better have done in one of his 'Dissent' features, much of what Kurnlasky writes about the history of non-violence and the subtle but important distinction between pacifism and non-violence itself. So concerned is he with his own political agenda that he mentions not a word about the Cathars, the Anabaptists, the Mennonites and the Quakers – all of which are dismissed thusly:

Non-violence is a political tactic, something Gandhi knew very well and something George Orwell noted clearly in his essay "Reflections of Gandhi" (Partisan Review, January 1949). Surely Glavin's read that too, along with Orwell's conclusion that, relative to Gandhi "...regarded simply as a politician, and compared with the other leading political figures of our time, how clean a smell he has managed to leave behind!"

It would have been nice if the author of this review had left the reader with as pleasant a smell about his own motives.

In effect, while Kurlansky was at least interested in providing a narrowly-focused appreciation of a small but important feature of note (in a similar fashion to the way he dealt with both ‘salt’ and ‘cod’ and their important but not often remarked historical role) – whether one agrees with his pacifist conclusions or not. Glavin, on the other hand, is so determined to push his own brand of neo-liberal activism that the reader has to be constrained from suggesting that he hasn’t actually read the whole book at all.

Oh, and that remark of Gandhi’s about the Jews and the Holocaust. It comes from Orwell’s essay (cited above) and needs to be quoted a little more fully and in context to make sense:

Glavin’s dismissive attitude towards the ‘foolishness’ of non-violence and pacifism would have been at least nominally honest if he’d acknowledged that its practitioners, like Gandhi and the Cathars, to name just two examples, were not afraid to confront the real implications of the philosophy.

Glavin's error

He wrote quoting Kurlansky, "To establish a world living in peace would require the abandonment of power politics both on the grand scale -- states trying to bend other states to their will -- and on the small scale -- legal systems coercing social behaviour with the threat of prison."

"No peace without the state, in other words"

If you read Kurlansky's quote you will see there is no peace WITH the state, not the other way around.

Glavin misunderstands.

I noticed that too, anarcho. Kurlansky is saying that the state gets in the way of peace.

(Bizarrly, Glavin quotes Kurlansky as meaning: "There is no peace without the state.")

Kurlansky's idea is that in order to 'establish peace,' you have to abandon 'power politics' and legal systems that 'coerce social behaviour.'

Therefore, he is saying that there is no peace WITH the state.

Glavin interprets his own Kurlansky quotes incorrectly
and doesn't seem to have a clue what Kurlansky was talking about on this issue.

Truman and anarcho

I don't believe Glavin actually read the whole book. I think he just pulled together a few observations that suited his own political agenda. And he clearly hasn't read Orwell on Gandhi either.

In that same essay, Orwell wrote: . "If you are not prepared to take a life, you must often be prepared for lives to be lost in some other way,"

One may not agree with the ideas that Kurlansky supports, but he can't be accused of dodging their implications in the way Galvin would like the reader to believe.

The fact that someone still suggests pacifism and non-violence are as valid, or even more valid, than murder, terror and intimidation is something to be cheered, not criticized.

We all know that there is a point beyond which none of us would go to avoid violence; and we all know numerous current examples of states who could have gone much further along that road than they have decided 'politically' to go.

Pollution

What to do when some countries want to cut back on CO2 emissions and others don't? I'm sure we all are familiar with the old "death of the commons" story and can see the connection with emissions and global warming.

Violence on a mass scale is going to happen unless human nature changes remarkably over a short period of time.

A Mute Point but nevertheless...

No - Gandhi may have exhorted the Jews to die if necessary after Kristalnacht in 1938 but the cited quote does indeed come from the June, 1946 interview with Fischer and I'll add what I left out: "Hitler killed five million [sic] Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany. As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions." The original 1938 commentary on the November pogrom greatly pained people like Martin Buber who responded: "We did not proclaim, as did Jesus, the son of our people, and as you do, the teaching of nonviolence, because we believe that a man must sometimes use force to save himself or, even more, his children." I agree, even if at the same time I deeply respect the individuals who lived and died in Nazi Germany having never picked up the gun on principle to fight this unholy terror.

Gandhi

bpither:
That's why I quoted the whole section from Orwell. Whether Martin Buber's point is valid, relative to Gandhi, depends I suppose, upon where Gandhi's ideas actually come from - Hindu or Christian precedents. One could hardly have expected Gandhi to react otherwise - it would have been inconsistent and dishonest. Actually, the fate of the Jews was, in my view, the result of Nazi action and the inaction and unconcern of the West at the point where the tragedy could have been prevented.

Glavin pretends that pacifists, and those who practice non-violence (which is actually a political philosophy), are somehow disingenuous because they don't take their philosophy to its logical end.

I think Gandhi, and the Cathars (among others) for that matter, are proof that they do. Whether or not one agrees with them, Glavin's attack is unfair and reflects Kurlansky's point of view dishonestly.

He's busy making a political point instead of actually reviewing a flawed, but troubling, book.

My view.

It's all quite simple....

The struggle is not nearly so important as what replaces the oppressor when the struggle is won. So far in history, all we have done is replace one oppressor with another.
The American Insurrection of 1776 was the world's only (successfuo) middle class revolution - and was immediately subverted by the Federalist Party which began consolidating power at the cost of individual freedoms.
The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 simply replaced one set of meglomaniacs with another.
And most of the arguments in this forum about the inequities of present governments, would have yet more government undo the "sins" of the present ones.
The only lasting "solution" to any change is for the people to "consolidate" power within their individual selves, and to do anything it takes to retain that power. Investing it, and entrusting it to anyone else, is merely consigning any "new won freedoms" to the dustbin of history.

Geez!

Where did I put my magnifying glass........!!??

Kurlansky's madness

Surely most people are missing the point here. Glavin does the left a very great service by exposing the foolish and childish and intellectually dishonest views of Kurlansky and many others on the left who reflexively reject the use of military force under all circumstances, and actually think they are making some kind of contribution to peace by this nonsensical and immoral stance. The time has come to root out this simplistic knee-jerk anti-military impulse of so many "progressive" thinkers and face up to the harsh realities of international politics which very often may require military force to save innocent lives and preserve justice and freedom.

The "puerile and cartoonish" view Kurlansky espouses represents a mortal danger to the left, because it is so widely and unquestioningly accepted by many. Not only is Kurlansky's position morally repungnant in its failure to really imagine the consequences of its implementation in many cases, but it is politically suicidal for the left and gives comfort to those who argue the left is populated by unrealistic dreamers.

The left is missing in action in the debate on how to confront the real dangers of international terrorism, how our armed forces ought to be used and structured, how to strengthen international law, how to confront genocides and human rights catastrophes - all because of the pervasiveness of the lack of thinking and realism so well captured by Kurlansky's book.

Bullgoose's point

You and Glavin may disagree with Kurlansky's thesis but I think attacking him from a moral point of view is a non-starter. Even the linkage with the 'left' is tendentious in my view. It's quite possible, as Kurlansky's book actually points out, for people from all kinds of political backgrounds to come together and agree upon the tactical usefulness of non-violence as an effective approach to raising people's consciousness. The history of principled pacifism during the First World War is just one example. To suggest that those who reject violence are not making a valid moral point is both dangerous and silly.

You have to actually read the book though because, as I pointed out above, Kurlansky does not dodge the problems of his pacifism. What's repugnant to me is the idea that this was a fair book review.

I wonder if you bothered to read it either bullgoose.

I have respect for those who

I have respect for those who adopt pacifism as a moral personal belief, and are consistent in their belief. I have no respect for faux "pacifists" who think they are doing wonderful things for peace by remaining aloof to and ignorant of, all things military. I hold similar distain for those who think they are advancing the cause of peace by viewing all militaries, and all military action everywhere and always as evil. This nonsensical and ultimately immoral (because it would result in the deaths of many innocents if it were implemented) belief desperately needs examining. I have not read Kurlansky beyond what Glavin cites, but I will research him further and apologize if I am misrepresenting his views. As I understand them now, I find them counterproductive, to put it as kindly as I possibly can.

Glavin's Straw Man

"Kurlansky and many others on the left who reflexively reject the use of military force under all circumstances, and actually think they are making some kind of contribution to peace by this nonsensical and immoral stance."

45 years on the left and I really don't know many people who fit this caricature. The vast majority of us think the anarchists and socialists were correct to fight Franco, that the Sandinistas were correct to militarily repulse the US backed Contra terrorists and that today Venezuela and Bolivia have the righgt, if need be to use military asction against counter-revolutionaries or US backed terror groups, should this be necessary, etc. etc and etc.

think twice

I agree with you that this categorical rejection of military utility is not universal, Anarcho, but it is widespread, as Kurlansky's book suggests. I hope you are right that it is not as prevalent as I fear, but a quick scan of many leftwing blogs and magazines indicates it is. If demonstration is needed, I will cast around for a few prime examples. Thank you and other posters for not roundly attacking me as a warmonger for my views - I think people see that if I am correct, this reflexive anti-military stance is a danger to the credibility of the left. I invite all to join me in examining and critiquing it when it pops up.

And in the end it can't be avoided

And in the end, it can't be avoided that the military have, one way or another, killed a lot more people - both innocent and guilty - than the pacifists have.

Adding in the cost of the treasure squandered in wars - not one of them fought to spread non-violence - I think Glavin needs to look to his premises a little more comprehensively.

Let's place the credit, and the blame, where it's due.

Few Are Pacifist

Let's look at it this way, Bullgoose. Suppose you were to poll the left with the following question. The US invades Venezuela. Should the Venezuelans resist using NV civil disobedience only, or should they resist with both NV and arms? I am certain the vast majority would chose the latter. Died-in-the wool pacifists are only a minority of the left and always have been. We are all opposed to imperialist war, in fact opposition to imperialist war is one of the attributes of being a socialist or anarchist. We are divided on the nature of popular resistance with a minority favoring NV only, with a majority favoring the use of arms under certain circumstances such as a right-wing coup or an invasion by imperialist forces. Glavin and other ex-leftist cynics like Chrisopher Hitchens, want the left to cease being a left (ie cease being anti-imperialist) and become a smiley-face toady of the ruling class. Hence, he deliberately mis-represents our views as to NV and armed action.

Well said Alci...

Well said Alci...

Let's make a "bad impact" on human life, moral, and spirit, list. On the top, headings: Row 1-Violence and Row 2-Pacifism ... Which list do we think would be longer??

I wonder if more discussions would be better spent on issues that support peace, not challange it.

What do you think Glavin?

Just a thought, Peace.

Bear

One more thing...

I should point out that, unlike Hitchens, I mean Glavin, I have the deepest respect for all-out pacifists. Most resistence is NV anyway and even in a situation of popular armed resistance there is plenty of room for pacifist activity. Trying to stir up hostility toward pacifists is the act of someone who is trying to divide our movement.

Exactly anarcho...

Exactly anarcho...and that, I believe, is one of the main motives behind Glavins article.

Yes indeed, divided or different in the way the movement may express the intolorance of the other, but, there is no divide in the movements objectives to be sure. We all oppose the same forces, and all support the same message. The message is that of active and "inactive" intolorance to the ways of say the rightwing coup for example...

Anyways, well said anarcho...

Bear

responding to this review is a waste of time, I think

Exactly, anarcho, Glavin's died in the wool pacifist exists only in Glavin's imagination -- which didn't stop him from trying to use this invisible character to bash around the left a bit more.

I've never in my life spoken to anybody who'd "reject the use of military force under all circumstances."

Who is this mystery pacifist, anyway? I bet Glavin's never met him/her, either.

So, may I respectfully suggest that the next time Glavin comes up with one of his insipid strawman arguments, we just ignore him.

The real key is that Gandhi

The real key is that Gandhi had studied his opponent and understood how the British thought and reacted, Gandhi would have not succeeded against another Empire or against someone like Hitler, Stalin. Gandhi carefully played his opponent trying not to press them to far into a corner, appealing to their conscious. It was also a matter of timing had he been born 100 year prior, the British Empire would not have been interested in dealing with him.

Hey Colin...

...Interesting angle Colin. "Timing" is a powerful concept in life, isn't it. "Egolessness" also seems to be presentt in most great leaders.

Tao Te Ching no. 22 says:

Peace,

Bear

messy

what the heck is going on? This was better yesterday.