Denis Sullivan writes:
> He cracked and opened Pandora's Box. Did he crack because of
> constant political/media harassment over his minor sexual pecadillos
> although he is merely an example of "l'homme moyen sensuel".

I think he "cracked" mostly because of a strong belief that the US
*should* do something, and I think he *believes* that what he did was
justified.  I think he believed he made the right choice, but I don't
think the concepts of "should", "justification", and "right" mean much
to him.  His belief that the US *should* do something is probably
derived from many influential sources, one of which is the pressure
politial/media harrassment you suggest.  Another is the indoctrination
that US children still receive in school that paints the US as the
world's policemen.  When I was in school, about the same time as
Clinton, the phrase "the world's policeman" was regularly used by
teachers to describe what the US's purpose was in the world.  I think
another source of his beliefs is the problem you refer to below.

> I've derived some stimulating amusement from the semantic battle
> between Martin,Bill etc.over terms like "socialism",
> "anarcho-syndicalism" etc.There is wide-spread misuse of these words
> which merely have an historical significance. Haven't they noticed,
> at least, how Ludwig Wittgenstein described "Language Games"? Such
> labels are not relevant to the changing times and no longer have a
> commonly accepted meaning.

Well, a major part of our discussion was an attempt to arrive at
agreement on a common definition for those terms.  That's important.
The problem that I mean you refer to, and that you seem willing to
participate in, is the forgetting of the meanings of important words
that are used in discussions that refer to human values.  Dilutiong or
forgetting the meanings of important words, like socialism and
capitalism, while still using those same words in discussions that
refer to human values, amounts to contributing to the destruction of
human values.

Of course the meanings of words change over time, but that is no
excuse to let the meanings of those words become vague.  Capitalism
and socialism are terms that are still heavily used, and I agree that
most people who use them, perhaps including me, probably don't know
what they mean.  Bartlett and I clearly don't mean the same thing, and
it is important to know that.  There is meaning in the difference.  I
wasn't playing devil's advocate when I said the US military is a
socialist institution.  I meant it, and think I adequately defended my
position.  I never did think it was a widely held position, and I
didn't expect to change anyone's mind.  But it is useful, to me anyway
and I hope to others, to ask yourself what you really do *mean* by a
term like socialist and then try to explain it.  Then, when your
explanation is criticized, defend it as best you can, not just to be
arguing but because you are actually defending what you really
believe.  The effects are that (a) you really nail down what your
belief actually is, and (b) you find problems with it that can't be
ignored.  And so you must change your mind.

The alternative, if you don't do that regularly, results in the
destruction of your own human values, because if you don't know what
you actually mean when you use certain terms, then you will end up
saying things like "There is wide-spread misuse of these words which
merely have an historical significance. Haven't they noticed, at
least, how Ludwig Wittgenstein described `Language Games'? Such labels
are not relevant to the changing times and no longer have a commonly
accepted meaning."

I think that's a serious mistake that is the mother of all Language
Games.

> They are a form of out-dated shorthand which few can now
> interpret. New closely defined coinages are required so that people
> have at least a clue as to what they disputing. Today, for example,
> I choose to define "global capitalism" as
> "corporate/marketing-driven consumer capitalism". But tomorrow?
> Don't forget that language is often used to obscure rather than
> illuminate, even if subconsciously or as a conditioned reflex
> response, eg "co-lateral damage".

I agree.  Using language to obscure is dishonest discourse.  It should
never be engaged in, but, of course, we all do it.  I say that one of
the requirements of human being is to try to eliminate that character
flaw from one's self.  Most of us don't have to look very hard to find
it in ourselves.

> (I veer towards the more positive meaning of anarchy as co-operative
> local endeavour of roughly equal benefit to all rather than say the
> media use of "anarchy" as "chaos".)

That definition appeals to me from the effect view, but it doesn't say
anything about how the local endeavor fits into the global endeavor.
It doesn't even admit to anything outside the local endeavor, but
because I know there is always something outside the local endeavor, I
am immediately suspicious of this definition.  I say it is incomplete.

martin

Martin Smith                    Email: [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 35701