Part Two, Section 9
According to third chapter of Goldstein's book, "war is peace" because "it eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War is now a purely internal affair..., and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact." (Italics are mine.)
Robespierre needed an enemy to justify his continued emergency powers, and so he had "reactionaries" sent to the guillotine. Lenin and Trotsky justified their own severe measures by speaking of the danger of "bandits" and "tsarists." In show trials, Stalin identified leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution as "counter-revolutionaries," and Mao would later do the same in China. Hitler even burned down his own capitol building to argue against the dangers of the Communists and Jews.
To what extent is war peace today? Must we have an enemy, or as Green Day might put it, do you know your enemy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
War is peace in that there always needs to be scapegoats for mishaps, and also constant war, much like 1984, would eat up resources so that specific classes wouldn't become to privileged but would stay about where they were. However, war is not peace to the extent that is was during revolutionary times; during revolutionary times, great change is underwent and major scapegoats are created. During (mainly) peaceful times such as today, most citizens are able to see through the framing of some enemy. In some countries, however, the government fools the people and creates this type of scapegoat. This is to keep the peoples' attention on their "enemy" rather than the shortcomings of their own state. In the US this does not happen because we have many liberties and can see through those framings.
Are we smart enough to see it? This week there has been great controversy of Rep. Peter King's hearings on the "radicalization of American Muslims." Rep. King famously has stated that "more than 80 percent of American mosques were tainted by radicalism." If that isn't making sure you know your enemy, I'm not sure what is!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/10/AR2011031002045.html?hpid=topnews
War does equal peace in an economic sense. There are requirements for the war, in terms of size, materials needed, and things like that. If the war is not large enough and does not encompass enough of the people, it is not peace because there are still people not working for the cause. The Great Depression started to be cured when World War Two broke out because everyone needed things to be made for the war. There was an enemy to fight against. Obviously it does not work if the enemy is within the people and the war is a social battle. Then there is not really a peace, because the people are not at peace in jobs and in opinion. The people are the key to peace.
The enemy has to be a tangible object, like a group of people, a nation, a state (not of being though). In the US, however, there are a lot of opinions and ways to find news. Some people are almost religious about believing Fox news, and some are able to see through the opinions Fox presents or just do not watch Fox news. So just because one newscaster says something does not mean everyone will suddenly believe it and think of that one fact as true. There’s a scale of being gullible in the United States. Some people are unable to decide for themselves and rely on people in power to tell them.
And the hearings seem almost like racism more than making sure people know their enemy. There are people who feel that their racism should be what everyone thinks and cannot see past religion or the color of someone’s skin. That is a misguided enemy- the enemy in my opinion has to be a group outside of the state’s borders- like Eastasia and Eurasia to Oceania.
In today’s society, the phrase “war is peace” holds some truth. Take for example the war in Iraq. America has thousands of troops over sea just so the people at home have peace of mind. If America didn’t have as many troops over there as they do now, do you really think Americans would feel safe on planes or in crowed areas? If there weren’t any troops over in Iraq, mass hysteria would break out when ever somebody saw a Muslim. The American government is still in the war so that home is peaceful even though Americans are disrupting homes in Iraq. Americans do not know their enemy because many do not know what it is like to grow up in an environment where bombs are exploding every day, and sound of rifle shots is a common occurrence. Americans cannot place themselves in the shoes of an Iraqi because they believe all Iraqis are Muslims and all Muslims are the devil. From this Christian extremist point of view (which many Americans hold), Americans will never be able to know their enemy just because their enemy is different.
I would like to first respond to mr. Shulman's comment and say that we would be smart enough to see it; if not as a society than as a small group who pay attention. If the issue were large enough, that small group would push it into public attention.
I would also like to say regarding the earlier prompt that we probably do spend too much on our military. I would add, however, that our military is a vital part of out international relations. As the only real superpower, we need a large military to make the world stable enough to support trade. As the only country with that power, we have the ability to manipulate international crisis to better serve our interests. We differ from Oceania in that sense because we cannot survive on only our own internal recourses. We need to trade with other countries, and for that we need stability. The countries in 1984, however, need the war for the exact opposite reason: to prevent the citizens from interacting and to keep them focused. This difference can be clearly seen in the war in iraq: while Amarican citizens have a bad opinion of our war, the Oceanians have a high opinion of their "war for justice"
On an economical and political sense, war is not peace in modern society today. As said earlier, going to war first off ultimately hurts both fronts, making presidents and generals to resort to a "loss-benefit" analysis route. Being at war today, in such a globally connected world, puts countries at disadvantages for they not only consume trillions of dollars, but they also pave the way for future "aggressive negotiations" which ultimately ends neutrality among states. I also agree with Calvin on that basis that war has evolved into a political strike, where one leader can rally up the people in order to convince them that what they are doing is for the sake of the country's future in a utilitarian like fashion, as HItler did. I believe though for the general population, at least in the United States, wars seem to always band everyone together in hopes of supporting our troops which thereby gives them a "false sense of security" that their nation will not be attacked. This is how far I think that war goes to the extent of being "peace."
I hear "War is Peace" now and all I can think of is Mussolini's idea for Fascism. He said that constant war was the ideal state of being for a nation; the direct quote, "War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it." He believed that that was the highest form of life, that all other forms were "substitutes." In our society, peace offers that high form, as it brings economic prosperity and less dead.
And plus, always having someone to blame takes the blame off you! Don't worry, its always the terrorists fault. Always the radicals. Never the human beings.
War, in the sense that Goldstein put it, is peace. It is sacrificing peace with other countries for union, solidarity, and peace at home. As Calvin stated it can be a very powerful and unifying force for political leaders. Both sides used it during the second world war. War was the driving force that brought Germany out of its depression as it built its army, and similarly it brought the United States out of its depression when it mobilized for war against Germany. Having an enemy to rally against is necessary, but who the enemy is is unimportant. All that is necessary is that him and his views be shown as different from you and your allies views. He needs to be just different enough from you and your countrymen that you can put aside your differences to unite to fight him. If you're too busy focusing on an outside enemy, then there is no time for challenging what is going on where you are. The sort of perfect war like this is peace. People who believe Bush caused 9/11 believe that he did it in order to unite America against an enemy and build power and prosperity back in America. Whether one believes this or not is a matter of opinion, but this sort of manufactured incident, if it were true, would be a perfect example of creating this type of war, a war that is peace.
Many of you have a correct idea in that war can bring about solutions to many issues, including "stalling for time" for many of the bigger issues. As Mr. Shulman once sarcastically stated during class, "its not like anybody has ever started a war to take people's minds off the real problems..." (paraphrased). This is true countless times throughout history including the recent US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. War is not literally peace, which should be a given. However, war is peace in that war can help a state politically and economically. This is a very fascist idea, and similar to how Hitler put Germany's mess into order through started Nazism and invading Europe, war can bring about internal peace along with economic peace. WAR CAN ALSO LEAD TO NATIONALISM, which often can help bring internal peace within a nation by focusing all problems on a common enemy. And because of this, it is important for all nations to have an enemy, in order to have National unity in "being at war" with a common enemy.
(Gideon Gross)
I would Agree with Erik that War is PEace sounds alot like Mussollinis Idea that WAr is neccessary for an Empire, that Imperialism is inevitable. The Italina dictator used war as propoganda to justify his rule of Italy and unite ITlay and use nationalism and the IDea of ITaly to control the masses and maintain power. War is peace also sounds like realpolitic use by Otto von Bismark. Bismark used nationalism to increase the power of his state of PRussia and create a unified Germany. Bismark was a master at using nationalism to unite his people and create a unified Germany
Post a Comment