Comments on: Militarism Within The Context of Democracy http://www.matthewgood.org/2007/04/militarism-within-the-context-of-democracy/ Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:09:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: steff http://www.matthewgood.org/2007/04/militarism-within-the-context-of-democracy/#comment-13433 steff Fri, 11 May 2007 05:59:59 +0000 http://www.matthewgood.org/2007/04/introduction-%e2%80%93-militarism-within-the-context-of-democracy/#comment-13433 Reading this reminds me of the Panopticon. If you don't know what it is, I suggest you research it and see what comes up, because it applies to human nature, especially in times like these where we are fuelled with fear and lies that perpetuate this war on terror. Instead of campaigning for the armed forces and such, we should be campaigning for democracy. And I think you should be it's spokesperson. Seriously-I will back you up beyond 100%. You speak the truth about it like no other, and it needs to be realized: the power is in the hands of the people and we can do something to change the state of the world in which we live. Reading this reminds me of the Panopticon. If you don’t know what it is, I suggest you research it and see what comes up, because it applies to human nature, especially in times like these where we are fuelled with fear and lies that perpetuate this war on terror.
Instead of campaigning for the armed forces and such, we should be campaigning for democracy. And I think you should be it’s spokesperson. Seriously-I will back you up beyond 100%. You speak the truth about it like no other, and it needs to be realized: the power is in the hands of the people and we can do something to change the state of the world in which we live.

]]> By: dirk http://www.matthewgood.org/2007/04/militarism-within-the-context-of-democracy/#comment-13381 dirk Wed, 09 May 2007 20:33:52 +0000 http://www.matthewgood.org/2007/04/introduction-%e2%80%93-militarism-within-the-context-of-democracy/#comment-13381 I think we are misunderstanding each other.I was talking more in general terms (of history). For sure one can say Europe went from Feudalism to capitalism(thats a fact)and that capitalism might result in communism.If ordinary people act and understand they are the only ones that can make this a reality,the operative word being-if-(communism is not inevitable) My point was that this was peculiar to Europe.This does not imply some kind of inevitability or natural state of affairs. Take North America for example,If N.A had not been colonized by European countries,Capitalism might not have developed in NA. Many people believe that history moves through inevitable or "natural" periods of "progression",for example; feudalism,capitalism,socialism,communism. Capitalism developed in part out of the circumstances and openings made possible by Feudalism and the same is true of Feudalism,you can't have one with out the other. But back to this idea of a stagiest theory of history. This idea(that societies and history advance thru stages) would also implying that European societies are more "advanced" which is just nonsense. Indeed I would add this kind of notion has led to a Eurocentric prejudice,and the idea of primitives as opposed to an "advanced" Europe. I could provide reference if you desire. Marx made his scorn for a stagiest theory of history quite clear. Communism is a return to the past albeit a higher form.When "man" lived collectively and communally. Capitalism is the aberration,without all the laws,police and armies capitalism would not be possible. I think we are misunderstanding each other.I was talking more in general terms (of history).
For sure one can say Europe went from Feudalism to capitalism(thats a fact)and that capitalism might result in communism.If ordinary people act and understand they are the only ones that can make this a reality,the operative word being-if-(communism is not inevitable)
My point was that this was peculiar to Europe.This does not imply some kind of inevitability or natural state of affairs.
Take North America for example,If N.A had not been colonized by European countries,Capitalism might not have developed in NA.
Many people believe that history moves through inevitable or “natural” periods of “progression”,for example; feudalism,capitalism,socialism,communism.
Capitalism developed in part out of the circumstances and openings made possible by Feudalism and the same is true of Feudalism,you can’t have one with out the other.
But back to this idea of a stagiest theory of history.
This idea(that societies and history advance thru stages) would also implying that European societies are more “advanced” which is just nonsense.
Indeed I would add this kind of notion has led to a Eurocentric prejudice,and the idea of primitives as opposed to an “advanced” Europe.
I could provide reference if you desire.
Marx made his scorn for a stagiest theory of history quite clear.
Communism is a return to the past albeit a higher form.When “man” lived collectively and communally.
Capitalism is the aberration,without all the laws,police and armies capitalism would not be possible.

]]> By: Moonlight Graham http://www.matthewgood.org/2007/04/militarism-within-the-context-of-democracy/#comment-13187 Moonlight Graham Mon, 07 May 2007 22:24:15 +0000 http://www.matthewgood.org/2007/04/introduction-%e2%80%93-militarism-within-the-context-of-democracy/#comment-13187 Both my grandfather's fought in WWII, and both of them wouldn't talk about it. I'd imagine if i went to a war & spend my days trying to shoot people in the forehead while seeing my friends being ripped apart beside me i wouldn't want to talk about it either. Its a lot different than playing GI Joes or being outside w/ water guns. I don't know why human males love fictional violence so much, since real violence would horrify most of us. We love to fantasize about it, whether its on TV, movies, comicbooks, videogames etc. I'm no psychologist or sociologist, but I'm not convinced this is something entirely instilled in them as they grow-up. I was playing with He-Man & GI Joes before i could ride a bike or go to school. Like most boys i was excited about sharks, dinosaurs, snakes, and fictional monsters. It seems like its a deep natural part of the male psyche. There has been the good vs evil thing in our society long before WWII. The Hobbit, King Arthur, the Bible, Beowulf, Homer's 'Iliad' & 'The Odyssey' etc. we see these violent hero vs villian stories throughout history. Pre-WWII, boys played Cowboys & indians in their backyard. They made swords, shields, bows, and guns out of wood to play with. Is fictional violence a societal thing, or ingrained in our genes, or both? Both my grandfather’s fought in WWII, and both of them wouldn’t talk about it. I’d imagine if i went to a war & spend my days trying to shoot people in the forehead while seeing my friends being ripped apart beside me i wouldn’t want to talk about it either. Its a lot different than playing GI Joes or being outside w/ water guns.

I don’t know why human males love fictional violence so much, since real violence would horrify most of us. We love to fantasize about it, whether its on TV, movies, comicbooks, videogames etc. I’m no psychologist or sociologist, but I’m not convinced this is something entirely instilled in them as they grow-up. I was playing with He-Man & GI Joes before i could ride a bike or go to school. Like most boys i was excited about sharks, dinosaurs, snakes, and fictional monsters. It seems like its a deep natural part of the male psyche.

There has been the good vs evil thing in our society long before WWII. The Hobbit, King Arthur, the Bible, Beowulf, Homer’s ‘Iliad’ & ‘The Odyssey’ etc. we see these violent hero vs villian stories throughout history. Pre-WWII, boys played Cowboys & indians in their backyard. They made swords, shields, bows, and guns out of wood to play with. Is fictional violence a societal thing, or ingrained in our genes, or both?

]]> By: so it goes http://www.matthewgood.org/2007/04/militarism-within-the-context-of-democracy/#comment-13171 so it goes Mon, 07 May 2007 07:22:34 +0000 http://www.matthewgood.org/2007/04/introduction-%e2%80%93-militarism-within-the-context-of-democracy/#comment-13171 dirk, Marx absolutely did believe that Communism was the inevitable final 'stage' of man. Capitalism, he argued, was the inevitable successor of feudalism, but was ultimitely unsustainable due to his 'Theory of Alienation', in which he asserted that capitalism distanced the worker too much from his innate human nature. 'Self-actualization', Marx believed, was only possible with communism, which would inevitably replace capitalism and be, as some might say, the end of history. dirk,
Marx absolutely did believe that Communism was the inevitable final ’stage’ of man. Capitalism, he argued, was the inevitable successor of feudalism, but was ultimitely unsustainable due to his ‘Theory of Alienation’, in which he asserted that capitalism distanced the worker too much from his innate human nature. ‘Self-actualization’, Marx believed, was only possible with communism, which would inevitably replace capitalism and be, as some might say, the end of history.

]]> By: dirk http://www.matthewgood.org/2007/04/militarism-within-the-context-of-democracy/#comment-13047 dirk Fri, 04 May 2007 23:42:40 +0000 http://www.matthewgood.org/2007/04/introduction-%e2%80%93-militarism-within-the-context-of-democracy/#comment-13047 Matt you said;"Marx’s theory of history states that Communism is what is referred to as the fifth stage," Perhaps I am being a bit picky here( I probably am,your no bodies fool). But I think it is important to point out that Marx never believed in any kind of stagiest view of history.That would imply a kind of inevitability. But,by our understanding of the inner workings etc,of capitalism(as outlined by Marx)we can then begin to take certain action(s) that will help to undermine the conditions (i.e private property) that makes capitalism possible. Returning us eventually,to our "natural" condition of governance and being,i.e; a collective/communal way of life. Matt you said;”Marx’s theory of history states that Communism is what is referred to as the fifth stage,”
Perhaps I am being a bit picky here( I probably am,your no bodies fool).
But I think it is important to point out that Marx never believed in any kind of stagiest view of history.That would imply a kind of inevitability.
But,by our understanding of the inner workings etc,of capitalism(as outlined by Marx)we can then begin to take certain action(s) that will help to undermine the conditions (i.e private property) that makes capitalism possible.
Returning us eventually,to our “natural” condition of governance and being,i.e; a collective/communal way of life.

]]>