Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
What if Blackwater and Co. were used as a force supporting a liberal overthrow of undemocratic government?  What about the French, Russian and American revolutions?

Do you support the violent overthrow of the US government?

Uh,,  no. Gringo, you will never get a government job if you have to think about the answer to that question.

Here's the thing.

What makes the state?

I would say the fundamental definition of the state is the social contract, the basic law that defines relations in society and binds all alike regardless of wealth or power.  So long as that exists, the use of lethal force must be subject to that basic law.  

To do anything else is to revert to an animal state, and invite a war of all upon all.  Laws don't exist for the 99& of humanity that can operate in their absence, they exist for the poisonous 1% that have to be extracted from society, before they sow disorder and disregard for the rights of others.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 12:24:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The questions were rhetorical as I'm sure you realized.  I had a govt. job for 35 yrs and answered the pertinent question several times.

However, as I've stated several times on the site, we need to vote out (all of them) and start over.  There's not enough difference between the two parties and their ties to big business interests. When one party becomes stronger than the other, business just shifts the money a little.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 12:34:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm a bit of an odd duckling in that I believe that the state and the market are socially embedded.  Which means that if either the state or the market attempt to colonize society and break down social norms and conventions, they prompt social backlash.

Yet that social backlash must be formulated in accordance with those same social rules or it prompts a countervailing social response.

If the Revoution eats its own it leaves no heirs.  

Thus, social revolution is preferable to a violent break with the existing social order.  Change from within the system rather than without.

What does this mean?

That if a group chooses to exclude itself from the society on the grounds of preserving purity, it will often undermine itself.

Take for example the differing strategies of the Spanish Socialists and Communist parties in reference to participation in the Francoist union movement.  While the Socialist refused to participate, and issued bold statement to no effect from the safety of France, the Communist throughly infiltrated the sydincalists unions, such that when the Transition came they already had a mass base in Spanish society.

And in the early 1980's the Communists enjoyed great success until the Socialists were able to take advantage of the Transicion to recreate their own trade union wing (UGT, General Worker's Union) which lagged significantly in membership behind the Communist CCOO (Worker's Commissions) until the early 90's.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 12:48:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series