On January 7th, we took a look at militarism and its impact on a society. Participants gave a veritable laundry list of war and militarism's past, present, and potential future effects on our nation - many of them illustrated with reference to the current conflict in Iraq... and all of them negative. At the top of the list was the horrible cost of war in both blood and treasure. One member asserted that "we haven't even begun to pay the price yet" for the war in Iraq, or indeed for what he viewed as several decades of militarism. It was felt that non-military uses of our resources - from ensuring safe drinking water to building Louisville's bridges - had and would continue to suffer as a result of our government's dedication to building (and exercising) military might. And yet, one of the effects of war is a severely weakened military. As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to wear down both people and equipment, rebuilding our military strength - while meeting all of our other needs - might require both significantly raised taxes and a draft at some point in the future.
In the meantime, lives are lost, loved ones grieve, and some of those who make it home from a war zone continue to suffer from physical and psychological injuries. Nor is the damage limited to those who've served - problems such as post traumatic stress disorder, delayed stress syndrome, homelessness, substance abuse, suicide, spousal abuse, etc., can both negatively impact loved ones and neighbors, and impose a high cost on society at large. For a few, the knowledge of what they themselves have done is the greatest burden; one of our number reported that some of those who have deserted have done so because they came to no longer "know themselves" after committing horrific acts of violence. Another observed how easy it is to become de-sensitized to violence. When he wondered whether this could happen to entire societies, many felt that it could, and none said that it could not.
We even began to build a case that militarism could threaten two of the basic principles of our nation - freedom and democracy. It was observed that militarism "has a tendency to empower federal authorities," restricting some of our freedoms and granting government a greater role in what was once considered personal. We also spoke for a while about President Eisenhower's farewell address, in which he warned about the threats our democratic society could face from the rising power of the "military-industrial complex."
As might be expected, much of the conversation centered around our uncertainties and anxieties about the situation in Iraq. One member expressed ambivalence about whether we should have invaded, and many expressed ambivalence about what should be done now. Once again, the prospect of a regional conflict was raised, this time spurred in part by reported warnings from Saudi Arabia. Such a conflict could disrupt oil flows to the rest of the world, which, in turn, could cause a downturn in the world's economies.
On the other hand, some hope (if not optimism) was expressed that crisis (or crises) might lead to new levels of cooperation in regard to settling international differences and developing sustainable methods of meeting the world's energy needs. Indeed, it was asserted that the world might be ready for a "great turning" toward cooperation and away from the conflict that has plagued the human race since the agricultural revolution. Wikis and Cofound itself were put forth as examples of institutions that create community in modern life - community that might lay the foundation for greater change to come. One member, however, felt that creating community was not enough, and that a Marxist critique and concomitant determined effort to remove the elements that create alienation within our new communities was in order.
As we spoke about our hopes and fears for the future, one subject seemed to lay at the heart of both: the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The membership of the nuclear club is no longer as exclusive as it once was, and there are more nations trying to get in - some not so friendly to the United States or their allies. Are we doomed to nuclear holocaust, or can new levels of international trust and cooperation eventually bring nuclear proliferation under control? Join us, 3 PM, January 21st at the City Café as we examine this question.
3 comments:
I couldn't find a way to work this gracefully into the update (though I know it seems like I didn't leave much out), but Clint mentioned there is a peace monument in Corydon with a quote from Eisenhower.
I discussed Marx and alienation at the meeting, so I will say a few words on the subject.
While I do suggest reading the Wikipedia article to understand Marx’s theory of alienation, I also suggest reading the peer reviewed (written by and run by professional philosophers) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Marx at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/. Below I restate my ideas on alienation and how that applied to our discussion.
Marx claimed that factory workers become alienated from several objects in the process of their work: from the product, which the worker gives over after its production (they have no more of a claim on the product than potential consumers); from work, which is painful and dull; from their own selves, for workers produce in a manner of repetitive tasks on and off assembly lines; from other human beings, for the act of wage earning replaces mutual aid and makes people into classes of objects to be manipulated. These objects of alienation can be applied to other critiques, one being organization and role responsibilities within an organization. If we separate out management from membership of a group (meaning some manage and are members, while others are members), we create alienation within the group members because they are separated from the full range of human abilities (ironically, this same critique might be applied might be applied to all of the "communist" states with its management class; places that were better than capitalist structures). While we may be able to accomplish things with hierarchy in an organization or effective hierarchy (the appearance of horizontalism and the effective practice of people "taking matters into their own hands" to get things done), we must be aware of what that does to the group and group members. How does hierarchy, how does the separation into roles create alienation within a group? Marx assumed it would, I believe; and I thing he is right to say so. How specifically it does so requires an analysis of the particular group from this basic idea of Marxist alienation.
That "all the communist countries achieved nothing better than the capitalist ones" is one viewpoint (notably held by Habermas, Marcuse, Adorno, basically all of the neo-Hegelians). To say that they accomplished nothing more than the capitalist states is problematic; on a fundamental level, they failed; on some level, they succeeded, producing an alternative to the US on a large scale, though an extremely problematic one that reinforced colonialism in a rather different yet similar way to the west. The way that communists succeeded came by rethinking rights beyond the mere political representative sense to the economic sense (though to say that this was their original idea is not true). Through these economic rights, they packaged basic services to all citizens, food, health care, and housing. Through the threat these rights posed to the west and the selfish and paranoid personalities of the leaders and internal threats, these "communist" countries became quite autocratic and bureaucratic. To maintain these basic welfare structures required the state to alienate its citizens, smash dissent. To solve a material problem for the "communist" state required the brutal alienation and pacification of its citizens. Solving a material problem worsened another material and ideational problem, creating a paradox.
David Korten, author of, "When Corporations Rule the World" has written another book, "The Great Turning: from Empire to Earth Community" Korten writes that we have had 5000 years of a dominator society, one with a hierarchical government, and the same top down management when it comes to the business model. Korten states that we were not always a dominator society, that there were once partnership societies. Our current economic system brings out our lower level consciousness where greed and selfish are rewarded. What would happen if society rewarded our higher selves such as cooperation, sharing, and relationship. Would this create a world that works for everyone?
I haven't finished this book yet so I'll report back. For more information on David Korten and Earth Community Dialogues see http://www.yesmagazine.org
Post a Comment