NP Left responses "disgraceful" says Hitchens

[Phil Wise]

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: NP Left responses "disgraceful" says Hitchens


> 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.

If you are right it makes PP Mc's piece particularly lazy - I would assume
he must be so confident in his readership's views that they can share an
understanding that a large and heterogenious "group" such as the "modern
left" have these failings, as  a whole.  To be honest, not being part of
such a conservative readership, I'm not sure what it is he's referring to at
all.
>
> > 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.

Which he never outlines.  I guess you could click the link and read the
interview, but you'd think he'd do us the favour.

>
> > 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 familiar with that particular argument, although I don't buy it, you
probably won't be surprised to learn.  Sometimes I think that it may work
within a particular paradigm, but it is the paradigm I have trouble with.
The argument as you put it there describes a condition where a debt imposed
irresponsibly or unfairly must be paid back or no more money will be
invested, and yet investment by foreign capital will, by definition mean
that more money leaves the country than comes in.  But without this
sacrafice, any chance of help, in the form of more loans and invenstment, is
gone.  Catch 22.
>
> > 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.

If that's the case within the current paradigm, then it is the paradigm that
should shift, IMO.  This is especially so in light of the mass murders that
went into making some third world economies "safe" for foreign investment,
with Chile's and Indonesia's just the most obvious.  Besides which, foreign
investment would only dry up if it was them that took the hit for the
non-repayment, and not the IMF and World bank, who screwed up in the first
place.  And I remain suspicious of any system of development that relies on
the undercutting of worker conditions as a cornerstone policy lever.

I doubt we are going to convince one another, but thanks for the reply.

phil
>
> > 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 left
ist
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>