NP Left responses "disgraceful" says Hitchens

[jbor]

philwise at paradise.net.nz wrote:

> Thanks for posting the link.

You're welcome.

> The piece is, unfortunately, utterly without
> substance - not only does Mr McGuiness completely fail to provide examples -
> he can't even take us through Hitchens' recent arguments with Chomsky, which
> would be ideal for the point he wants to make - but nor does he provide any
> summary of Hitchens' thought on the Sept 11 events, which I have some
> sympathy with even though they ultimately depend upon the assumption that a
> leapard will change its spots (and his views don't contradict Chomsky even
> if he thinks they do).

It's difficult to have a discussion about what he didn't address, so I'll
leave this. I'm pretty sure he's aware of one, if not both of these.

> 
> But onto a couple of choice examples:
> 
> "Hitchens would still consider himself definitely on the Left, and certainly
> espouses views which would be categorised as Left. But he is prepared to
> argue his views and does not show the kind of massive ignorance, dogmatism
> and disrespect for either evidence or rational argument which categorises
> most of the modern Left, in Australia and elsewhere".
> 
> You'd perhaps expect that he'd follow this up with some proof, argument of
> his views rather than assertion, or maybe show some knowledge of the left,
> or something rational, at least so he doesn't seem rediculous, having just
> said that.  

I guess he considers the ignorance et. al. to be self-evident: it's pretty
clear what he's referring to. But the main focus and concrete example of the
piece is Hitchens -- still firmly "on the Left", even though now a critic of
Leftist dogmatism -- which I thought an interesting move from an
arch-conservative as P.P. Mc.

> But no, he goes on to make some reasonable points about the
> limits of libertarianism, the reason for which I have no idea.

It's a critique of Hitchens' position.

> Earlier in
> the article, he does provide something akin to an argument - against demands
> for third world debt relief:
> 
> "Thus when the sillier adherents of left-wing causes propose the forgiveness
> of outstanding debts of poor countries, they are not taking account of the
> fact that the indebtedness, which everybody knows will never be repaid in
> any case, at least provides some sanction for past irresponsibility."
> 
> Yes, clearly a silly thing, especially since he's just explained that many
> of the loans have gone into the pockets of corrupt regimes.  But he forgets
> that some of these corrupt regimes came to power with either the support or
> the acqiescence of the West, and that if the lenders didn't know that much
> of the money was being stolen, then the West's intelligence networks really
> were useless.  Who was irresponsible?  The World Bank and the regimes.  Who
> are suffering the sanctions?  The poor sods working in factories under
> sweatshop conditions, whose countries can't even offer them a decent health
> care system from the taxes they pay.

Again, I don't think he's really interested in allocating fault or blame,
which serves no practical benefit, but in current and future policies of
economic aid to developing nations. I'm less inclined to the notion of
foreign loans as a "sanction for past irresponsibility" than to Kofi Annan's
economic growth and mutual benefit and responsibility arguments. In any
case, the point remains that forgiving the debts and thereby effectively
bringing to a halt to any future investment from developed nations would
actually make the situation in these countries worse rather than better,
with dire results socially and politically.

> I'm no economist, so I'll allow that there may be a decent economic argument
> in favour of not providing debt forgiveness.  It would have to a damn good
> one, though, especially if it is to overcome the somewhat compelling moral
> argument the other way, let alone the economic ones.

The debt forgiveness "solution", though it sounds "moral", is extremely
short-sighted and quite selfish. Foreign investment would cease altogether,
trade doors would close for good (as the corporations retreated to former
operational bases in the West and put up tariff barriers to cover the higher
labour costs and overheads there), the economic infrastructure would soon
begin to crumble and collapse, businesses would close, unemployment and an
inability to supply and distribute essential goods and services would
follow, then, increasing levels of poverty and hardship, civil unrest,
famine, disease, death .... Effectively, a spiral into genocide.

> But, whatever: the
> above quote is at a level of such repugnance that only complete ignorance
> would save Mr McGuinness from accusations of cynical callousness.  Either
> way, offensive in the extreme.
> 
> phil

best

> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
> To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 6:39 PM
> Subject: NP Left responses "disgraceful" says Hitchens
> 
> 
>> Saturday, October 13, 2001
>> 
>> OPINION
>> 
>> The Left's thinkers abandon ship after it collides with reason
>> 
>> By Padraic P. McGuinness
>> 
>> In the wake of the terrorist atrocities in the United States, the
> crumbling
>> of the Left consensus continues. Thus while the usual suspects, especially
>> in the media, heaped blame upon the victim and claimed that fanaticism and
>> poverty in the Third World were the fault of the US and of globalisation,
>> there were sufficient voices from independent thinkers who consider
>> themselves of the Left to show that the centre of the Left consensus
> cannot
>> hold - things are falling apart.
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> [T]he crumbling of the Left consensus in intellectual terms ... has been
>> exemplified by the denunciation by Christopher Hitchens, a leading leftist
>> journalist, of the disgraceful responses to terrorism in Left circles.
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> [H]e is prepared to argue his views and does not show the kind of massive
>> ignorance, dogmatism and disrespect for either evidence or rational
> argument
>> which categorises most of the modern Left.
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> Full opinion at:
>> 
>> http://www.smh.com.au/news/0110/13/opinion/opinion6.html
>> 
>> Interview with Christopher Hitchens in _Reason_ at:
>> 
>> http://reason.com/0111/fe.rs.free.html
>> 
>> best
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>