The Final Dialectic
Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2004 2:37 am
I'm curious have you read 1984? One of the themes of the book is that big brother came about gradually with freedoms being eroded one by one in a graduyal process that nobody noticed till one day big brother was there and nobody was able to speak against him. Orwell was a socialist that originally supported the communist revolution in Russia and after experiences in spain and in Russia seeing the way things were going became disillusioned, not by socialism per se but by its corruption in to the stalinist state. His book was intended as a warning of what could happen if you accept that a little loss of freedon for the common good is acceptable then it is easy to accept the next then the next and then one day you wake up with none.
The same theme in ray Bradbury's 451 where banning one book is OK then another and that's ok then another till one day the choice has disappeared and nobody realisess what is happening and any book is bad.
Its human nature and nothing to do with the moral decay of society, That implies that society has fallen from a higher moral point and is the kind of logic that leads on to burning books and quashing dissent.
It's not that long ago that many americans opposed inter racial marraiges on moral grounds quoting the bible freely to make their case and I suppose many still feel the same way (I'm not american so I am wary of making comment but I was looking for a an extreme example to make a point) They thought it was acceptable to kill those who transgressed and really did not understand what was wrong with their action, most of america was appalled, Morality is relative and you can justify almost any action on moral grounds from the father beating his child to make him good or the husband viewing his wife as a chattel, go back two generations and many would have thought that only right and proper, women had to give up work if they got married and god help you if you were a single mother because society wouldn't.
Many cite the prevalence of dicvorce as a sign of moral dacay. Go back to the turn of the century 1900 I mean or even the century before women couldn't vote (or most men come to that) they couldn't own property, If they were widowed they would find themselves completely at the mercy of those around them
even 50 or 60 yrears ago the only work available was in a factory or on the streets, if they left their husbands they were social pariahs.
Now they have economic freedom, if in an unpleasant marraige, abusive husband whatever they can get out because economically they can support themselves and their children. Morally many people think it only right that in such circumstances you can get out whereas before it was economically impossible and widely condemned, yet many think this morally reprehensible and condemn divorcees as lacking in moral fibre because you should stay with someone no matter what.
There are perhaps two strains in our society, one egalitarian and willing to work with others and the other the desire to control and rule with the latter often being the ones with the drive to impose their will until the rest get fed up and exert themselves to pull them down. In europe we had aristocracy that managesd to convince us they had a right to rule and it took a lot to get rid of them. In the US you have what seems to be a socio political elite setting the agenda (it;s hard to avoid not quite right genaralisations isn't it)
In the past the gulf between rich and poor in America would have resulted in massive social unrest, but you live in the land of opportunity where everyone can get their dream, anyone pushing for social reform seems to be demonised as a nasty communist and any valid point of view they may have gets ignored. You seem to have got to the point where any criticism of your administration is unpoatriotic-end of discussion. That kind of attitude is bad for democracy especially if you let it hold sway.
America is more than a capitalist country, I suggest you have a look at the history of social change in america, forget the detail get an overview, have a look at macarthyism and what was behind that, have a look at the civil rights movement or the arguements over vietnam and how america got involved in that one, or the long term effect of the great depression on society.
Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. In a complex society the one who has all the answers probably doesn't. If somebody laments the moral decay and the break down of the fabric of society just ask them what was so good about before.
http://www.liv-coll.ac.uk/pa09/europetr ... moller.htm
Hope the link works
Everbody loves to quote Martin Niemöller’s lines about moral failure in the face of the Holocaust: 'First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.'
But interestingly, people use the quotation to imply different meanings – even altering it to suit their purpose. When Time magazine used the quotation, they moved the Jews to the first place and dropped both the communists and the social democrats. American Vice-President Al Gore likes the to quote the lines, but drops the trade unionists for good measure. Gore and Time also added Roman Catholics, who weren't on Niemöller's list at all. In the heavily Catholic city of Boston, Catholics were added to the quotation inscribed on its Holocaust memorial. The US Holocaust Museum drops the Communists but not the Social Democrats; other versions have added homosexuals.
Why history matters, DD Guttenplan, The Guardian, Saturday April 15,
2000:
I can type, I can spell why is it so hard to do both at the same time?
The same theme in ray Bradbury's 451 where banning one book is OK then another and that's ok then another till one day the choice has disappeared and nobody realisess what is happening and any book is bad.
Its human nature and nothing to do with the moral decay of society, That implies that society has fallen from a higher moral point and is the kind of logic that leads on to burning books and quashing dissent.
It's not that long ago that many americans opposed inter racial marraiges on moral grounds quoting the bible freely to make their case and I suppose many still feel the same way (I'm not american so I am wary of making comment but I was looking for a an extreme example to make a point) They thought it was acceptable to kill those who transgressed and really did not understand what was wrong with their action, most of america was appalled, Morality is relative and you can justify almost any action on moral grounds from the father beating his child to make him good or the husband viewing his wife as a chattel, go back two generations and many would have thought that only right and proper, women had to give up work if they got married and god help you if you were a single mother because society wouldn't.
Many cite the prevalence of dicvorce as a sign of moral dacay. Go back to the turn of the century 1900 I mean or even the century before women couldn't vote (or most men come to that) they couldn't own property, If they were widowed they would find themselves completely at the mercy of those around them
even 50 or 60 yrears ago the only work available was in a factory or on the streets, if they left their husbands they were social pariahs.
Now they have economic freedom, if in an unpleasant marraige, abusive husband whatever they can get out because economically they can support themselves and their children. Morally many people think it only right that in such circumstances you can get out whereas before it was economically impossible and widely condemned, yet many think this morally reprehensible and condemn divorcees as lacking in moral fibre because you should stay with someone no matter what.
There are perhaps two strains in our society, one egalitarian and willing to work with others and the other the desire to control and rule with the latter often being the ones with the drive to impose their will until the rest get fed up and exert themselves to pull them down. In europe we had aristocracy that managesd to convince us they had a right to rule and it took a lot to get rid of them. In the US you have what seems to be a socio political elite setting the agenda (it;s hard to avoid not quite right genaralisations isn't it)
In the past the gulf between rich and poor in America would have resulted in massive social unrest, but you live in the land of opportunity where everyone can get their dream, anyone pushing for social reform seems to be demonised as a nasty communist and any valid point of view they may have gets ignored. You seem to have got to the point where any criticism of your administration is unpoatriotic-end of discussion. That kind of attitude is bad for democracy especially if you let it hold sway.
America is more than a capitalist country, I suggest you have a look at the history of social change in america, forget the detail get an overview, have a look at macarthyism and what was behind that, have a look at the civil rights movement or the arguements over vietnam and how america got involved in that one, or the long term effect of the great depression on society.
Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. In a complex society the one who has all the answers probably doesn't. If somebody laments the moral decay and the break down of the fabric of society just ask them what was so good about before.
http://www.liv-coll.ac.uk/pa09/europetr ... moller.htm
Hope the link works
Everbody loves to quote Martin Niemöller’s lines about moral failure in the face of the Holocaust: 'First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.'
But interestingly, people use the quotation to imply different meanings – even altering it to suit their purpose. When Time magazine used the quotation, they moved the Jews to the first place and dropped both the communists and the social democrats. American Vice-President Al Gore likes the to quote the lines, but drops the trade unionists for good measure. Gore and Time also added Roman Catholics, who weren't on Niemöller's list at all. In the heavily Catholic city of Boston, Catholics were added to the quotation inscribed on its Holocaust memorial. The US Holocaust Museum drops the Communists but not the Social Democrats; other versions have added homosexuals.
Why history matters, DD Guttenplan, The Guardian, Saturday April 15,
2000:
I can type, I can spell why is it so hard to do both at the same time?