Several weeks ago Smiling Neocon and I were having one of our customary arguments, which usually center on socialism, U.S. foreign policy, or depressing Israeli movies. In the course of the conversation we got to the issue of how in internationale disputes each 'democratic' nation must always giver other democratic governments preference over their more autocratic counterparts, so as to encourage democracy. I contended that no democratic government every actually did this, and that most democratic countries (including the U.S.) had no interest in whether their allies allowed basic freedoms or not. To cap it off, I somewhat sarcastically remarked that "It's not like we're part of some Democratic Internationale which tries to encourage personal freedom and government accountability around the world."
Thinking about it now, though, why aren't we?
It might seem like this idea has been done to death. We've already had at least three Communist internationales, and we've still got a Socialist Internationale (actually for social democrats), a Liberal International, a Green Internationale, and even a right-wing conservative Internationale, which started calling itself the 'Freedom International' after 9/11.
Still, why is this a useless idea? In the world today there is no government or major party that has dedicated its resources to helping other countries achieve popular self-rule. Instead, we have ideologically bound organizations which focus almost exclusively on economic issues. So, private-property rights or collective ownership rights are stressed to the neglect of freedoms of speech, conscience, religion, and equality under the law.
As the symbol of this new Democratic Internationale, there are many options, though I suppose an Athenian laurel crown would do perfectly well.
8 comments:
This is nice You may be interested in karaoke music advice and tips
First of all, democracy means more than just self rule.
Secondly, economic freedom (i.e. - the right to do business and to own things without unreasonable interference) is an absolutely essential aspect of any free state.
What a weeping Bolshevik you are! Democracy is a dream, a nightmare really. The problem with our world is not that so many governments are undemocratic; the problem is that governments exist at all. If you are beating someone unmercifully with a stick, why should she care whether it is an autocratic stick or a stick which has the approval of a majority (or even a mere plurality) of “the people?” The individual experience of the stick is inevitably the same. Somehow, despite all their individualist rhetoric, democrats fail to understand this basic fact. Democracy is just so much shit, and I’d expect a socialist like yourself to understand that, but I guess I overestimated you.
what do you think of this Angela Merkal then?? *sigh
well? doesnt anyone here care about europe??
I'm going to post today about the German elections, musophrenia, so don't worry.
Im interested in what Anonymous proposes as an organizing principle that takes the place of governments or democracy? What economic system is used to allocate resources or utilize productive forces? What values unite people into any kind of society?
As for the German elections, fear will move people to the right and these are scary times.It epecially has a historical tendency to move Germans to the right and should make lovers of liberty very nervous.
I agree a Democratic Internationale could be useful but we neednt separate economics from forms of government because of the intricate and essential linkage between the two.
"There are only two kinds of social structure conceivable - personal government and impersonal government. If my anarchic friends will not have rules - they will have rulers. Preferring personal government, with its tact and flexibility, is called Royalism. Preferring impersonal government, with its dogmas and definitions, is called Republicanism. Objecting broadmindedly both to kings and creeds is called Bosh."
Just a little Chesterton for you folks.
Post a Comment