If you are implying that Dr. King would have supported the war in Iraq, I don’t think you know much about him. THe democratic socalist probaly would have had the same view as Vietnam. Here is a quote of him pretty much changing his mind on what he said in your post.
“More recently I have come to see the need for the method of nonviolence in international relations. Although I was not yet convinced of its efficacy in conflicts between nations, I felt that while war could never be a positive good, it could serve as a negative good by preventing the spread and growth of an evil force. War, horrible as it is, might be preferable to surrender to a totalitarian system. But now I believe that the potential destructiveness of modern weapons totally rules out the possibility of war ever again achieving a negative good. If we assume that mankind has a right to survive then we must find an alternative to war and destruction. Don’t ever let anyone pull you so low as to hate them. We must use the weapon of love. We must have the compassion and understanding for those who hate us. We must realize so many people are taught to hate us that they are not totally responsible for their hate. But we stand in life at midnight; we are always on the threshold of a new dawn.”
--Martin Luther King, Jr., “Pilgrimage to Nonviolence” in Strength to Love
Graeme Anfinson - 10:11am on 11/05/2005
fight or flight? I think philosophising war is as stupid as it gets. “War”...it’s a conglomerate idea in itself for something that should be seen for what it is: people killing people. It’s not an institution, it doesn’t deserve philosophy, it doesn’t deserve praise or reward anywhere within it’s self inclusive ranks..."war" should be seen as a ridiculous idea our ancestors had, and our government shouldn’t even humor the notion.
keep it simple - 11:11am on 11/05/2005
Er, did a quick internet search and I had the wrong essay. It was actually in Orwell’s “No, Not One”.
Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively, the pacifist is pro-Nazi.
Dave - 12:11pm on 11/05/2005
Simple,
What do you do if there are people bent on your destruction? How do you stop someone who does not want peace? Surely you are not naive enough to think that if you just put down your arms, you will be spared from the suicide bomber. At some point, pacifism equates to suicide. Do you remember the lessons learned from the conflict between the Mori and Maori tribes in the South Pacific?
War is the last alternative for a nation, when diplomatic and peaceful measures fail.
Sluggo - 12:11pm on 11/05/2005
At some point, pacifism equates to suicide.
At another point it equates to genocide.
As Orwell pointed out in his essay on Gandhi, pacifists were objectively pro-Nazi.
Dave - 12:11pm on 11/05/2005
I’m not going to presume to speak for Dr. King, Graeme, but that quote is hardly convincing of the idea that he would have opposed the war in Iraq.
After all, what are the Islamo fascists if not a group of people seeking to foist a toltalitarian regime on the whole world?
And, for that matter, where do you get off calling King a socialist? The man was clearly against toltalitarianism, so why would he be for socialism?
Rob - 01:11pm on 11/05/2005
Carl B. holier than thou holier than marty get a grip keep it simple said, It’s not an institution, it doesn’t deserve philosophy, it doesn’t deserve praise or reward anywhere within it’s self inclusive ranks…”war” should be seen as a ridiculous idea our ancestors had, and our government shouldn’t even humor the notion.
This only makes sense to the naive and/or moral relativist or in a world of peace where evil does not exist. We do not live in a world of peace where evil does not exist.
likwidshoe - 02:11pm on 11/05/2005
Toltalitarianism is a political system not an economic system.
King endorsed “democratic socialism,” while making “it clear to close friends that economically speaking he considered himself what he termed a Marxist.”
Toltalitarianism is a political system not an economic system
Don’t the leaders of one get to make all economic systems. You could either go with the Facist system where the dictator where the benefits of ownership go to the owners but they have to run it as the dictator wishes.
Or you could go Socialist/Communist where benefits of ownership go to the bureacrats, but they have to run it as the dictator wishes.
Doesn’t make much difference to me, but don’t say they don’t have a wish to decide how the economy is going to be run.
By the way, anybody notice that they NEVER talk about Iraq’s pre-war econimic system. What I’ve found is that is was Stalinist communism.
The Whistler - 03:11pm on 11/05/2005
And, for that matter, where do you get off calling King a socialist? The man was clearly against totalitarianism, so why would he be for socialism?
You are talking about the bureaucratic communists, not democratic socialism. Democratic socialists are for socializing basic needs. They think the market works fine for alot of things. They favor mixed economy . democratic socialists are some of the biggest critics of those totalitarian regimes. MLK, along with Albert Einstein, george orwell,hellen keller among others, stated his support for democratic socialism many times.
If you are implying that Dr. King would have supported the war in Iraq, I don’t think you know much about him. THe democratic socalist probaly would have had the same view as Vietnam. Here is a quote of him pretty much changing his mind on what he said in your post.
“More recently I have come to see the need for the method of nonviolence in international relations. Although I was not yet convinced of its efficacy in conflicts between nations, I felt that while war could never be a positive good, it could serve as a negative good by preventing the spread and growth of an evil force. War, horrible as it is, might be preferable to surrender to a totalitarian system. But now I believe that the potential destructiveness of modern weapons totally rules out the possibility of war ever again achieving a negative good. If we assume that mankind has a right to survive then we must find an alternative to war and destruction. Don’t ever let anyone pull you so low as to hate them. We must use the weapon of love. We must have the compassion and understanding for those who hate us. We must realize so many people are taught to hate us that they are not totally responsible for their hate. But we stand in life at midnight; we are always on the threshold of a new dawn.”
--Martin Luther King, Jr., “Pilgrimage to Nonviolence” in Strength to Love
fight or flight? I think philosophising war is as stupid as it gets. “War”...it’s a conglomerate idea in itself for something that should be seen for what it is: people killing people. It’s not an institution, it doesn’t deserve philosophy, it doesn’t deserve praise or reward anywhere within it’s self inclusive ranks..."war" should be seen as a ridiculous idea our ancestors had, and our government shouldn’t even humor the notion.
Er, did a quick internet search and I had the wrong essay. It was actually in Orwell’s “No, Not One”.
Simple,
What do you do if there are people bent on your destruction? How do you stop someone who does not want peace? Surely you are not naive enough to think that if you just put down your arms, you will be spared from the suicide bomber. At some point, pacifism equates to suicide. Do you remember the lessons learned from the conflict between the Mori and Maori tribes in the South Pacific?
War is the last alternative for a nation, when diplomatic and peaceful measures fail.
At another point it equates to genocide.
As Orwell pointed out in his essay on Gandhi, pacifists were objectively pro-Nazi.
I’m not going to presume to speak for Dr. King, Graeme, but that quote is hardly convincing of the idea that he would have opposed the war in Iraq.
After all, what are the Islamo fascists if not a group of people seeking to foist a toltalitarian regime on the whole world?
And, for that matter, where do you get off calling King a socialist? The man was clearly against toltalitarianism, so why would he be for socialism?
Carl B. holier than thou holier than marty get a grip keep it simple said, It’s not an institution, it doesn’t deserve philosophy, it doesn’t deserve praise or reward anywhere within it’s self inclusive ranks…”war” should be seen as a ridiculous idea our ancestors had, and our government shouldn’t even humor the notion.
This only makes sense to the naive and/or moral relativist or in a world of peace where evil does not exist. We do not live in a world of peace where evil does not exist.
Toltalitarianism is a political system not an economic system.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/archives/fm/02-91.html
Don’t the leaders of one get to make all economic systems. You could either go with the Facist system where the dictator where the benefits of ownership go to the owners but they have to run it as the dictator wishes.
Or you could go Socialist/Communist where benefits of ownership go to the bureacrats, but they have to run it as the dictator wishes.
Doesn’t make much difference to me, but don’t say they don’t have a wish to decide how the economy is going to be run.
By the way, anybody notice that they NEVER talk about Iraq’s pre-war econimic system. What I’ve found is that is was Stalinist communism.
You are talking about the bureaucratic communists, not democratic socialism. Democratic socialists are for socializing basic needs. They think the market works fine for alot of things. They favor mixed economy . democratic socialists are some of the biggest critics of those totalitarian regimes. MLK, along with Albert Einstein, george orwell,hellen keller among others, stated his support for democratic socialism many times.