Skip to comments.The Intellectual Origins Of America-Bashing
Posted on 10/18/2005 1:28:54 PM PDT by baseball_fan
America-bashing is anti-Americanism at its most radical and totalizing. Its goal is not to advise, but to condemn; not to fix, but to destroy. It repudiates every thought of reform in any normal sense; it sees no difference between American liberals and American conservatives; it views every American action, both present and past, as an act of deliberate oppression and systemic exploitation. It is not that America went wrong here or there; it is that it is wrong root and branch. The conviction at the heart of those who engage in it is really quite simple: that America is an unmitigated evil, an irredeemable enormity.
This is the specter that is haunting the world today. Indeed, one may even go so far as to argue that this America is the fundamental organizing principle of the left as it exists today: To be against America is to be on the right side of history; to be for it is to be on the wrong side.
But lets pause to ask a question whose answer the America-bashers appear to assume they know: What is the right side of history at this point in history?
(Excerpt) Read more at policyreview.org ...
It had to be the French....though I wouldn't go as far as calling them intellectuals.
Cheese-eating, surrender-monkeys has a much better ring to it..
"The Intellectual Origins Of America-Bashing"
There are no intellectual origins of America-Bashing, just moronic origins.
The great speculators [of American capitalism] wallow in an economy that every years kills tens of millions of people with poverty [in the Third World] so what is 20,000 dead in New York? Regardless of who carried out the massacre [of 9-11], this violence is the legitimate daughter of the culture of violence, hunger and inhumane exploitation.
Let me guess, he is a fan of Communism -- that killed 60 million people.
Yep but over 100 million dead.
I don't think the author meant "intellectual" in a good way.
I read that it was higher that 60 million but never had any stats to prove it. It is difficult to get an exact number since Communism was and still is very closed.
But by the mid-1860's, when Marx wrote Capital, it was already becoming apparent that this set of events was at least delayed if not outright invalid. By the time Baran wrote his thesis it was so glaringly wrong that something had to be done to preserve it, and that Baran did by proposing that the immiserization had been distributed to the developing world, not, incidentally, in the least Marxian in that the newly immiserated were not the industrial proletariat.
There was another turn in the plot in the French academe in the 1960's when such luminaries as Foucault proposed that Marxian power relationships between economic classes were, in fact, prevalent between classes described by ethnicity, sexual preference, gender, sanity, nearly anything but economics so long as the Marxian "class consciousness" was retained, and sometimes despite the fact that it wasn't.
Marxism's true roots were always sociological rather than philosophical, historical, or economic, and by the time of Foucault practical Marxism had been systematically stripped of nearly everything but. Though yet another twist its remnants found a home in post-modernism, with the latter's heavy emphasis on dialectical and textual analysis and its distillation of modern thought into a form of quasi-literary criticism. None of this is what Marx had in mind; indeed, if his reactions to similar heresies during his lifetime are any guide, he would have exploded.
COrrection - probably closer to 210 million
I figured it was higher. But didn't have any reference to the higher number.
Figured Mao killed more. Of course, no one will ever know for sure how many died.
This analysis is brought to you by the letters N and V.
First off, check out my handle. Yes, I am in fact a visiting liberal. I understand that most of you won't agree with me on many ideological issues, and vice versa. I peruse Free Republic to get an idea of how conservatives think, because I honestly believe we should try to understand one another better.
That being said, this particular article inspired me to comment for the first time. I see the term "America-Bashing" used regularly in reference to liberals, and it honestly confuses me.
I love America. I grew up here, I've lived here all my life, and I wouldn't choose to live anywhere else unless I absolutely had to. But this doesn't - at least for me - equate to loving the government of America, or its policies. To me, love of America means supporting it when it's in the right, and correcting this country when it veers off course.
When the American revolution happened, this country's first patriots knew what it meant to love the British people and hate the British government. The first Americans basically were British, and thought of themselves as such. But the government had become too greedy, too powerful, too overbearing, and was punished for it.
We have a better system of punishing the government now. We remove our officials from office peacefully during elections. If they are criminal while in office, we remove them immediately and put them in jail. We replace them with, hopefully, better people. But we aren't beholden to them... They are beholden to us.
Now, it happens that you and I disagree on who in our current government are worthy individuals and who are not. We also strongly disagree on current foreign policy. You believe we are largely on the right course, while I believe we are not.
But what in that leads you to believe I actually hate America? Does a mother who corrects her child's misbehavior hate her child? No. She does it not despite her love, but because of it.
Disagree with me all you want... Disagreement is one thing that makes America great. But don't accuse me of hating my country.
So I take it that you didn't actually read the article, which is an analysis of the Marxist response to the failure of Marx's essential thesis - that the constant squeeze on the bottom line caused by competitive enterprise would force capitalists to immiserate the working class to such a degree that revolution becomes inevitable.
No immiseration - no revolution. No revolution - no socialism.
Thence the move to condemning America as the immiserator of the world.
So as an itinerant 'liberal', are you for or against that analysis?
I can see why the Muslim Arabs like this theory - it says their failure isn't their fault. Then they use the USA as a scapegoat.
Or else what?
This is because the original immiserization thesis was set within the context of a class war within a society an actual civil war between different classes of one and the same society, and not between different nations on different continents.
Which explains the fanaticism of the leftist mania for immigration. They are importing a proletariat to make that confrontation local, and the inevitable confrontation will be terrible because it will be racial: between a largely white ruling class and a non-white working class. In fact, because modern capitalism is seen as a white phenomenon the mere presence of these non-white immigrants is considered to be revolutionary since it is in and of itself destructive of the culture that nutures capitalism.
Or else I'll ask you more sternly not to do it. :)
Seriously, I don't hate my country. The idea that I should even have to point that out is sad.
"This is an older article, I believe..."
>Yes, Dec '02, but still seems important, I was unaware of the evolution in the debate and how some left opinion-makers see themselves.
"This is not necessarily the root of America-bashing..."
I don't think you do. However, there are those, on both sides of the isle, that profit politically from the differences of policy between "Conservative" and "Liberal". It's not America that's at stake, or freedom, or World Peace, but just some peoples careers.
"Honestly? No, I didn't read the article...I suppose I should."
That would help.
Just as I suspected the 'liberal' position to be:
communism is a perfect system - it's people who are flawed.
It is my observation that this is the Big Lie that is the foundation stone of every totalitarian regime.
Bump for later
Liberals DO America Bash.
Look at how they treat the flag, how they spew hatred at US soldiers, how they call our soldiers 'baby killers', how they scream and shout at people who proudly display the flag, how they constantly say stupid things along the lines of America deserving 9/11...
You cannot say that Liberals don't bash America.
Dude. I live in Frisco. I go to all of the commie rallies. The left is lousy with people who hate America. So you say you aren't one of them? Whoopty-frickin'-doo! The very fact that you come on to this thread and spew a bunch of whiny nonsense, while ignoring the plain reality that many of your fellow lefties are evil, lying haters of America, makes me think that you, yourself, are a profoundly dishonest person. Thus, I conclude that you almost certainly hate America.
Let me be frank.
IMHO, your posts demonstrate a naivete about the possibility of melding free human action with socialism in any guise.
To me, the clear evidence of history is that the state has the skills and power to kill and destroy, but not to nurture or create.
But that's okay - that's all I, as a conservative, can ask the state to do!
It's you guys who have the problem of reconciling the sordid realities of the human experience wth your 'ideals'.
"Painting me with the same blanket statements you would use to paint the most fringy of the fringe does both you and me a disservice."
Sorry, it is the heart and core of Liberalism.
If you don't likei that it is pointed out, change it.
Any Dem senator or Representative that slams the U.S. and blames America for what happened on 9/11 should get teh boot, right?
If you don't like the so-called 'blanket statement', change the reason it is a true statement.
"I have a problem with the way most people in my city display the American flag."
So you don't like someone displaying the flag?
There are all weather flags, and if you have a light shining on it, it may be left up at night.
Er, yes...that would be the largish bold letters at the top that I read right over, wouldn't it? Hmm...
When I said it wasn't necessarily the root of America-bashing I meant that that wasn't the thrust of the article. I do think that the idea of distributing immiserization to the Third World was more of a polemical idea than an advance of Marxist theory - it was controversial in Marxist circles at the time and has become a keystone more through longevity than through theoretical soundness.
In point of fact, America-bashing of at least the current European variety does have a long and storied Marxist origin. Jean-Francois Revel wrote an excellent treatment of this in his recent Anti-Americanism, a must-read on the topic. Highly recommended.
The difference is that when a 'conservative' takes an anti-semitic/racist/name your PC favorite stance he is called on it by fellow conservatives.
Liberals can say the most outrageous things in any category and no one on your side calls them on it. Take the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd..... and on and on.... Where are those on your side to call your leaders on their hypocrisy?
Here's a puzzle for you, then. If the state only has the "power to kill and destroy," why exactly are we in Iraq at the moment? We seem to be engaged in a nation-building exercise using the tool least suited to the task - i.e., the state.
Now, as it stands I actually agree with you on some levels. However, I firmly believe we, in this country, have succeeded in creating the best possible state, as it's the first to be by, of, and for the people. The worst thing that could happen would be if that stopped being the case.
Click on this link here....
And shove it. We don't WANT liberals here. This is a CONSERVATIVE site.
Saddam repeatedly violated the 1991 surrender agreement, repeatedly funded terrorism, repeatedly and systematically murdered his own people, and most certainly did have ties to AQ.
Saddam was forking out roughly 28,000 dollars to the families of Hamas homicide bombers.
Saddam also tried to assassinate G.H.W. Bush, but Saddams secret police were so completyel;y inept at their task that they got caught.
You see, they'd tried to put dynamite in the flower boxes on the building GHWB was in, but somebody saw the wires and dynamite bundles sticking out of the boxes and blew the whistle.
Actually, as far as internal America-bashing goes, we inherited a lot of it from the British. There's a reason that Koko's little list (in Mikado) includes an entry for 'All those who praise with enthusiastic tone/Every century but this and every country but their own.'
Not sure what your point in showing me a photo of our soldiers is. Did you think I'd respond with automatic revulsion? I have nothing but respect for people who are willing to literally die for their country.
What frightens me is the passion and the hatred that comes with anti-Americanism. The facts are there to be distorted so long as they advance the anti-American cause. It is OK to be anti-American, even if it puts one on the side of the Saddam Husseins.
Why, it's Phil Donohue! Thanks for stopping by!
Do your own homework, kid. You are a liar and you hate America; that is why you are attempting to disrupt this site. I can see through your wickedness without even trying.
I move the previous question. Can we get your take on the actual article?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.