Nato Airstrikes in Yugoslavia

May 1, 2000

Although it has been over a year now since NATO started its bombing campaign in Kosovo, I believe the air war still deserves to be examined. As the popular saying goes, "those who fail to learn the lessons of history are bound to repeat them." I believe the media interpretations of the U.S. led air strikes was misleading, and unless the record is set straight the wrong lessons will be drawn. Washington and the mainstream media seek to spin the events as an example of a humanitarian victory, not the reality.

I consider myself a Christian pacifist, and believe strongly that the use of military force is never justified. I find myself in agreement with Gandhi when he says, "It is blasphemy to say that non-violence can be practiced by individuals and never by nations which are composed of individuals"1. I also agree with Martin Luther King Junior, who said, "World peace though nonviolent means is neither absurd nor unattainable. All other methods have failed. We must begin anew"2. The problem with the Yugoslavian air strikes is that they are often portrayed as a positive example of military intervention. This view is not only wrong, but believing it will lead to support of further military activities in the future. That is why it is important to see that NATO’s actions demonstrate all too well that "aggression and militarism go hand in hand"3.4

United States Hypocrisy
To begin with, the whole concept of the United States intervening in Yugoslavia for humanitarian reasons is sickening in its hypocrisy. As David McReynolds, War Resisters League Emeritus and current Presidential Candidate of the Socialist Party, said, "While I am not clear why the US is doing this, I am very clear why it is NOT doing it. It is not doing it because of the slightest humanitarian concerns.5" This is all too evident by examining the United States track record internationally. Two thousand people had died in Kosovo prior to NATO intervention, but 80,000 were killed in Algeria, 820,000 were killed in Rwanda, and 1,500,000 were killed in the Sudan. The United States did nothing6. The United States have never threatened to intervene to stop the Russian led massacres in Cheneya, despite the fact that the situation there is very similar to Kosovo (a renegade province)7. In Laos the death toll is also very similar to that of Kosovo, only it is more concentrated among children8.

The United States supported Saddam Hussien during his bloody war with Iran in the 1980s9. We supported the Shah in Iran when his secret police conducted tortures at least as bad as anything occurring in Kosovo10. The list goes on and on. The United States supported the Contras in Nicaragua, and mined Nicaragua’s harbors in 198411. The U.S. colluded in the Indonesian slaughters in East Timor12. Through covert aid, financial and military help, and training at the school of Americas in Fort Benning, we have been actively involved in Massacres in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. United States aggression in Vietnam is not even ancient history13.

But the hypocrisy does not stop there. Currently Colombia is the leading recipient of U.S. arms and training, despite the fact that "the annual level of political killing by the government and its paramilitary associates is about at the level of Kosovo, and refugee flight is well over a million." The Clinton administration has praised President Gaviria even though human rights abuses during his time in office have even surpassed that of his predecessors14.

Turkey, itself a member of NATO, has been involved in a horrific repression of the Kurds which "by very conservative estimate … falls in the category of Kosovo15." Events in Turkey have been called some of the most extreme examples of ethnic cleaning in the mid 90s. Tens of thousands have been killed, and 3,500 villages have been destroyed (seven times the number in Kosovo). Some 2.5 to 3 million refugees have been created. However because Turkey is an ally of the United States not only do these atrocities not get picked up by the media but Turkey carries out its genocide with massive military support from the United States, increasing under Clinton16. When human rights groups made public how US jets were bombing villages in Turkey, the Clinton administration simply found ways around laws requiring the suspension of arms deliveries17. Several of these atrocities occurred in 1998, but no one seemed to notice them during the celebration of 50 years of NATO18.

Both Turkey and Colombia will defend their US supported atrocities on the grounds that they are fighting terrorists. Milosevic has made the same defense for his activities in Kosovo19.
In Iraq, half a million children were killed in five years as the result of United States weaponry. Madeleine Albright commented that it was "a very hard choice …[but] we think the price is worth it.20" At the time of the Air strikes, 5000 Iraqi Children were killed a month from United States policies concerning Iraq21.

So, I think it is firmly established that the United States could not care less about humanitarian concerns. Why then the bombing campaign? Much has already been made how this occurred shortly after the impeachment proceedings, and so causing many critics to wonder about a "Wag the Dog" type scenario.

However, the United States record in Yugoslavia goes back much further. The structural adjustment policies of the U.S. dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank have bankrupted Yugoslavia’s industrial sector (causing large amounts of the labor force to be laid off), and restructured the economy to divert money from social programs to paying off debt. These debts were passed onto the newly independent republics of the former Yugoslavia. For these reason many accuse the IMF and the World Bank of being primarily responsible for the destabilization of the Balkans22.

The Dayton Agreement for a peace Accord in Bosnia seems to be more concerned with protecting Western economic rights in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) than human rights. Bosnia is not allowed self-determination, but its government and economy are put under the control of a European Union (E.U.) governor and the IMF23.

Did the United States engineer the break up of Yugoslavia to gain access to Bosnian oil and oil pipelines connecting the Caspian and the Black Sea across the Balkans? Was the air war to protect economic interests? Many people think so. Many also think that the air strikes were designed to strengthen NATO, undermine the United Nations Security Consul, and further suppress Russia24. As Noam Chomsky pointed out, now that the cold war is gone, suppressing Communism is no longer a convenient cover for United States Imperialism. Humanitarian concerns must replace it instead25.

Failure to Seek Non-violent Alternatives
Although it has been called one of the most censored news stories of the year, Yugoslavia was virtually forced into a war with the United States. On March 23, there were two potential peace plans on the table. One of which was the Rambouillet agreement proposed by NATO, the other was the Serbian National Assembly Resolutions.

Diplomatic options appeared to be open, until last minute conditions were added to the Rambouillet agreement, in the form of Appendix B: the Status of Multi-National Military Implementation force. This appendix outlined that a NATO’s forces would be stationed in the former Yugoslavia. Tens of thousands of NATO soldiers can not legitimately be called a peace-keeping force. An occupation force is perhaps more accurate. The very wording of the Appendix is so harsh that it is speculated that this Appendix was designed to be rejected. Either way, "It is hard to imagine any country would consider such terms except in the form of unconditional surrender26."

The Serbian proposal called instead for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the UN to facilitate peaceful settlement. The Serbians were ready to enter negotiations leading to "wide ranging autonomy for Kosovo," and even to review the size and character of the international presence in Kosovo. However, NATO refused to budge.27

And what happened on the Kosovo peace accord of June 3? It was a compromise between the two peace agreements, and NATO abandoned its major demands that the Serbs had objected to. Instead NATO agreed to an international peace keeping force, among other concessions28. This outcome suggests diplomatic initiatives could well have been successful, and the whole tragedy of the air strikes could have been avoided.

Even if one assumes that diplomatic relations would not have been successful, violence is never the only solution. NATO instead could have sent unarmed peacekeepers trained in the principles of non-violence and non-violent resistance. Unarmed observers would have accompanied them from the OSCE. Non violent tactics have worked in South Africa, in the Philippines, and even before in the Balkans. In fact up until 1996 there was a non-violent resistance movement in Kosovo, which received no United States support and consequently died out. The terrorist group KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) emerged instead29.

Do No Harm Principle
Suppose one makes another false assumption and pretends that non-violent alternatives would not work. Is war then justified? By no means. Noam Chomsky describes it eloquently. "One choice, always, is to follow the Hippocratic principle: "First, do no harm." If you can think of no way to adhere to that elementary principle, then do nothing30." Chomsky reiterates himself in another article. "Suppose you see a crime in the streets, and feel that you can’t just stand by silently, so you pick up an assault rifle and kill everyone involved: criminal, victim, bystanders31." Surely this is a ridiculous approach to dealing with a crisis. David McReynolds also expressed the same sentiment. "If I hear one more sweet soul say ‘yes, but do you mean you won’t do anything for the poor people there’ I may bloody well scream. There are people being butchered and murdered and raped all over the world and I live in horror of it. There is almost nothing I can do about these actions in Sudan, Congo, Indonesia, etc. But where my country is involved … then I have to give priority to stopping my country from making a very nasty world much worse32."

Milosevic and his crew are not nice figures. However this fact does not justify NATO’s actions. What’s more, Clinton and NATO have offered no long-term solutions to the problem in Yugoslavia, other then just dropping a few bombs.

International Law
NATO actions also violate many international laws. For instance, both the United Nations charter and NATO’s charter state that every effort should be made to resolve conflicts peacefully. If the matter can not be resolved peacefully, the UN’s charter states that the UN Security Council must vote to act against an aggressor33. In the case of Serbia, the UN Security Council was completely by-passed. France’s call to refer the matter to the UN was flatly refused34. NATO also ignored calls for larger input, including one from Russia that recommended the Group of seven be involved35.

Without the authorization of the UN security consul, force can only be used in cases of legitimate self-defense, which the air strike was clearly not. Even threats to use force are prohibited under articles 2 and 4 of the UN charter, and yet threats to bomb Serbia were made as early as 1998. Also it is good to keep in mind that under international law Kosovo is legally part of Serbia36.

Harm Done by NATO
The harm done by NATO’s actions in the FRY will be hard to repair. For one thing it caused all of Serbia to become united against NATO, and destroyed the possibility of any true democratic change from opposition parties. It also enraged much of the rest of the world, hurting our relationships internationally37.

Worse, since January 1, 1999, the atrocities committed by the Serbs had been proceeding at a very steady level. Once the bombing campaign started, the atrocities sky rocketed38. As David McReynolds pointed out, the bombing campaign only made the Albanians more of a threat to the Serbs, causing more of a need to kill them39. What’s more, the casualties among Serb civilians in the first three weeks of the air war are higher then all the casualties on both sides of the Kosovo conflict in the three months preceding the NATO strikes, and yet these three months are considered the humanitarian crisis40.

A huge amount of refugees were created, which threaten stability with in the region. A group of international experts estimate that NATO bombings produced more refugees and victims then any other conceivable solution. Many non-Albanians fled the region, including Serbs, Gypsies, Slavs, Muslims, Jews, Turks and Croats41. In the year before the bombings, NATO estimates some 2-300,000 refugees were created within Kosovo. Three days after the bombing started the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) registered 4000. The toll increased until by June 4 there were 670,000 refugees in the neighboring countries, Albania, and Macedonia. This does not count the 70,000 in Montenegro, and 75,000 in various other countries42.

NATO also deliberately hit civilian targets, including Serbian radio, television, and factories that produced consumer good43.

Perhaps most puzzling is the use of Depleted Uranium weapons in NATO’s air campaign. From a military standpoint these weapons are very nice. They are able to slice through the thick armor of military vehicles and underground bunkers very easily. However from a humanitarian standpoint they are not so nice. Its chemical and toxic effects are long standing. They enter the food chain and can poison it for a significant amount of time. Depleted Uranium weapons were also used in the campaign against Iraq, and have caused many fetuses to develop deformed. The United States showered the Southern region of Kosovo with depleted Uranium, firing 31,000 rounds of it during 100 missions. Concern is now developing over whether it was used in other regions as well. Many of the depleted uranium weapons were used in highly populated areas. NATO has effectively destroyed the environment of the very region it claimed it was going to save.

What is more, dozens of oil refineries, petrochemical complexes and factories were destroyed. Thousands of tons of toxic chemicals were released into the air, soil and water. Cancers are predicted to rise in the area over the years to come. Local gynecologists in the area recommended termination of early pregnancies after the air strike because of the health hazards to the unborn children. Some gynecologists recommend women wait two years before attempting to have children44.

And what are the results of NATO’s campaign? A sustainable peace has not returned to the region. In fact violence is regularly reported. Serbs and Albanians have now found it impossible to live side by side with each other. There have even been reports of human rights abuses, including rape, by the "Peacekeepers.45" The whole affair has only confirmed the futility of military means as a way to peace.

Footnotes
1. As quoted by Mark Mattison (member of the Michigan Peace Team) in an E-mail to the author. 13 Mar. 2000
2. As quoted by Mattison
3. Mattison
4. Of course this paper is by no means meant to downplay the atrocities committed by either side prior to NATO’s involvement.
5. David McReynolds. "Nato and Kosovo/ Part two". (Nonviolence Web Upfront. 28 Mar. 1999: http://www.nonviolence.org/board/messages/6890.htm). 1.
6. Mattison
7. David McReynolds. "Quick Analysis of Kosovo." (Nonviolence Web Upfront. 23 Mar. 1999: http://www.nonviolence.orb/board/messages/6749.htm). 2
8. Noam Chomsky. "The Current Bombings: Behind the Rhetoric." (http://www.zmag.org/crisescurevts/current_bombings.htm) 3
9. McReynolds. "Quick Analysis of Kosovo." 1
10. McReynolds. "Quick Analysis of Kosovo." 1
11. McReynolds. "NATO and Kosovo/ Part Two." 1-2
12. McReynolds. "NATO and Kosovo/ Part two." 1
13. McReynolds. "NATO and Kosovo/ Part two." 2
14. Chomsky. "The Current Bombings: Behind the Rhetoric." 3
15. Chomsky. "The Current Bombings: Behind the Rhetoric." 3
16. Noam Chomsky. "Kosovo Peace Accord." (Z-Magazine. July 2000: http://www.zmag.org/crisecurevts/peace_accord.htm) 2
17. Chomsky. "The Current Bombings: Behind the Rhetoric." 3
18. Chomsky. "Kosovo Peace Accord." 3
19. Chomsky. "The Current Bombings: Behind the Rhetoric." 3
20. As quoted in Chomsky. "The Current Bombings: Behind the Rhetoric." 4
21. Chomsky. "The Current Bombings: Behind the Rhetoric." 4
22. Mattison
23. Mattison
24. Mattison
25. Chomksy. "The Current Bombings: Behind the Rhetoric." 7
26. Chomsky. "Kosovo Peace Accord." 4
27. Chomsky. "Kosovo Peace Accord." 4-5
28. Chomsky. "Kosovo Peace Accord." 4
29. Mattison
30. Chomsky. "The Current Bombings: Behind the Rhetoric." 7
31. Noam Chomksy. "World Order and its Rules." (Z-magazine. Oct. 1999: http://www.zmag.org/crisecurevts/current_bombings.htm) 10
32. McReynolds. "NATO and Kosovo/ Part two." 3-4
33. Mattison
34. Chomsky. "The Current Bombings: Behind the Rhetoric." 5
35. Oliver Corten, et al. "Kosovo Must not be Forgotten: Brussels Appeal."
(http://www.zmag.org/brusappeal.htm). 1
36. Oliver Corten et al. 1
37. Mattison
38. Chomsky. "Kosovo Peace Accord." 2
39. McReynolds. "NATO and Kosovo/ Part 2." 2
40. Chomsky. "Kosovo Peace Accord." 2
41. Oliver Corten et al. 2
42. Chomsky. "Kosovo Peace Accord." 2
43. Oliver Corten et al. 2
44. Vesna Peric Zimonic. "Enviroment-Yugoslavia: NATO’s Chemical Warfare." (One World. Mar.2000: http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/mar00/10_22_031.html). 1-3
45. Mattison

Bibliography
Chomsky, Noam. "Kosovo Peace Accord." Z-Magazine. July 2000. Available http://www.zmag.org/crisecurevts/peace_accord.htm

---. "The Current Bombings: Behind the Rhetoric." Available
http://www.zmag.org/crisecurevts/current_bombings.htm

---. "World Order and its Rules." Z-Magazine. Oct. 1999. Available http://www.zmag.org/Zmag/articles/oct1999chomsky.htm

Corten, Oliver, et al. "Kosovo Must not Be Forgotten: Brussels Appeal." http://zmag.org/brusappeal.htm

Mattison, Mark. E-mail to the author. 13 Mar. 2000.

McReynolds, David. "NATO and Kosovo/ Part two." Nonviolence Web Upfront. 28 Mar. 1999. Available http://www.nonviolence.org/board/messages/6890.htm

---. "Quick Analysis of Kosovo." Nonviolence Web Upfront. 23 Mar. 1999. Available http://www.nonviolence.org/board/messages/6749.htm

Zimonic, Vesna Peric. "Environment-Yugoslavia: NATO’s Chemical Warfare." One World. Mar. 2000 On line. Available http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/mar00/10_22_031.html

Professors Comments: Joel, in spite of my comments throughout [Ed. note--I have not duplicated the marginal comments] I share a number of your concerns and you make some good points. My problems with your paper in brief are these:
1). Too many sweeping generalizations and unqualified and unsupported positions are taken and
2). Your sources are questionable and I think too extreme (which helps explain #1). Chomsky, of course, is well known, but hardly the most credible or knowledgeable source on the Balkans. The others I have not heard of. You needed to have looked at some more scholarly sources--even those for the alert general public such as Foreign Affairs and the NY Review of books a vigorous debate took place.
Grade: B+/A-

Nato in Kosovo

Google: drive, docs, pub


May 11, 2000

Although the NATO bombings in Yugoslavia are a year in the past, questions about the effectiveness are far from over. Even during the NATO air strikes a vocal element of the American population claimed that they were doing more harm then good. Now, evidence is coming out that the military figures were vastly inflated. The subject seems to be still controversial.

To begin with, NATO’s actions violated many international laws. For instance, both the United Nations charter and NATO’s charter state that every effort should be made to resolve conflicts peacefully. If the matter can not be resolved peacefully, the UN’s charter states that the UN Security Council must vote to act against an aggressor1. In the case of Serbia, the UN Security Council was completely by-passed. France’s call to refer the matter to the UN was flatly refused2. NATO also ignored calls for larger input, including one from Russia that recommended the Group of seven be involved3.

Without the authorization of the UN security consul, force can only be used in cases of legitimate self-defense, which the air strike was clearly not. Even threats to use force are prohibited under articles 2 and 4 of the UN charter, and yet threats to bomb Serbia were made as early as 1998. Also it is good to keep in mind that under international law Kosovo is legally part of Serbia4.

Perhaps more troubling is the fact that diplomatic alternatives were ignored. At the Rambouillet talks, the Serbs were willing to agree to some sort of international presence in Kosovo, as well as allow the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the United Nations (UN) to negotiate a peaceful settlement. The Serbs even indicated they would be willing to enter negotiations for increased autonomy for Kosovo. What the Serbs were not willing to agree to was Appendix B: the status of Multi-National Military Implementation Force.

The appendix outlined that tens of thousands of NATO forces would enjoy free reign throughout Yugoslavia and would not be subjected to Yugoslavian laws. This is not so much a peacekeeping force at it is an occupation. It is difficult to imagine any country agreeing to this.

However the peace accord on June 3 was a compromise, allowing an international peacekeeping force instead of a purely NATO one. Other demands the Serbs had objected to were withdrawn. This suggests that the tragedy of the air strikes could have been avoided.5

And the air strikes were a tragedy. Ever since January 1999, Atrocities in Kosovo had been preceding at a rather steady level. Once the bombing began, the atrocities sky rocketed upwards. The number of refugees went off the charts as well. According to NATO estimates, the number of refugees in Kosovo the year before had between 200,000 and 300,000. The days after the bombing alone the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees reported that 4000 refugees were registered outside of Kosovo. By June 4, that toll had increased to 670,000 refugees in Albania and Macedonia, 70,000 in Montenegro, and 75,000 who had fled to other countries. Most non-Albanian ethnic peoples in the region fled, including Serbs, Gipsies, Slavs, Muslims, Jews, Turks and Croats. The huge amount of refugees created has threatened stability in the region even more.6

NATO also openly targeted civilian targets, including factories that produced consumer goods and Serbian radio or television.7 In fact the casualties among the Serbs in the first three weeks of the air war were higher then the casualties on both sides in the three months that proceeded it.

Even less defendable is the environmental damage done to Kosovo. NATO has confirmed that it did in fact use depleted uranium (DU) weapons in its campaign. These weapons are convenient from a military standpoint because they are able to penetrate armored vehicles or underground bunkers. However, many groups fear that they present a health risk.

NATO has admitted to having used 31,000 rounds of DU in its missions in Southern Kosovo last spring. Questions are now arising as to whether they were used in Serbia or Montenegro. The United States pentagon claims that the 31,000 rounds do not present a significant health risk, but the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is not so sure. Members of the UNEP along with other scientists are concerned that the DU will result in the contamination of land and water. There are also concerns that it will enter the food chain and remain there for a long period.

However, DU is not the only environmental problem. During the air strikes "dozens of oil refineries, petrochemical complexes and factories were destroyed." One hundred twenty one industrial plants with hazardous chemicals were also bombed. Thousands of tons of dangerous chemicals were released into the environment.

Because of all this, it is feared that cancers in the area will rise in the coming years. Many local gynecologists recommended that pregnant women choose abortion due to health risks.8
In addition, information is now coming out that the NATO air strikes were not near as effective as the Pentagon claimed.

The number of targets verifiably destroyed was a tiny fraction of
those claimed: 14 tanks, not 120; 18 armored personnel carriers, not 220; 20 artillery pieces, not 450. Out of the 774 ‘confirmed’ strikes by NATO pilots during the war, the Air Force investigators ... found evidence of just 58.9

These new reports indicated that Yugoslavian army was only slightly smaller after the air strikes then what it had been before. Because of a zero casualty tolerance, NATO did not want its pilots flying low to the ground, despite the fact that this is the only sure way to destroy mobile ground targets.10

And the situation in Kosovo is still volatile. The NATO bombing provided no long term plans for peace. Violence is still regularly reported, and there have even been some reports of human rights abuses by the "peacekeepers", including rape. The air strikes actions have also caused all of Serbia to become united against NATO, undermining any possibility of true democratic change from opposition parties.11 We can only hope the situation does not further deteriorate.

Footnotes
1. Mark Mattison (member of the Michigan Peace Team) in E-mail to the author. 13 Mar. 2000
2. Noam Chomsky. "The Current Bombings: Behind the Rhetoric."
(http://nonviolence.org/board/messages/6749.htm)
3. Oliver Corten, et al. "Kosovo Must not be Forgotten: Brussels Appeal."
(http://www.zmag.org/brusappeal.htm).
4. Oliver Corten et al.
5. Noam Chomsky. "Kosovo Peace Accord." (Z-Magazine. July 2000: http://www.zmag.org/crisecurevts/peace_accord.htm) 4-5
6. Noam Chomsky. "Kosovo Peace Accord." 3
7. Oliver Corten , et al. 1
8. Vesna Peric Zimonic. "Enviroment-Yugoslavia: NATO’s Chemical Warfare." (One World. Mar.2000: http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/mar00/10_22_031.html). 1-3
9. John Barry and Evan Thomas. "The Kosovo Cover-Up." (Newsweek. 15 May 2000.) 23
10. John Barry and Evan Thomas. "The Kosovo Cover-Up." (Newsweek. 15 May 2000.) 23-26



Bibliography

Barry, John and Evan Thomas. "The Kosovo Cover-up." Newsweek. 15 May 2000. pp: 23-26

Chomsky, Noam. "Kosovo Peace Accord." Z-Magazine. July 2000. Available http://www.zmag.org/crisecurevts/peace_accord.htm

---. "The Current Bombings: Behind the Rhetoric." Available
http://www.zmag.org/crisecurevts/current_bombings.htm

---. "World Order and its Rules." Z-Magazine. Oct. 1999. Available http://www.zmag.org/Zmag/articles/oct1999chomsky.htm

Corten, Oliver, et al. "Kosovo Must not Be Forgotten: Brussels Appeal." http://zmag.org/brusappeal.htm

Mattison, Mark. E-mail to the author. 13 Mar. 2000.

McReynolds, David. "NATO and Kosovo/ Part two." Nonviolence Web Upfront. 28 Mar. 1999. Available http://www.nonviolence.org/board/messages/6890.htm

---. "Quick Analysis of Kosovo." Nonviolence Web Upfront. 23 Mar. 1999. Available http://www.nonviolence.org/board/messages/6749.htm

Mostert, Mary. "The Problem Forgotten by our Presidential Candidates: No Peace in Kosovo." http://www.originalsources.com

Zimonic, Vesna Peric. "Environment-Yugoslavia: NATO’s Chemical Warfare." One World. Mar. 2000 On line. Available http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/mar00/10_22_031.html

Professor's Comments: A solid indictment of the bombing. I tend to agree with much of what you write, but I don't know if the Serbs actually intended to implement ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. If they did plan to do so, then some of these concerns are of less weight.
Grade: A-

The Imperative of American Leadership by Joshua Muravchik: Book Report

Video Version HERE

             Originally submitted to Political Science 308, April 19, 2000

            In his book, The Imperative of American Leadership, Joshua Muravchik discusses the phenomenon of Neo-Isolationism.  Muravchik argues against what he identifies as the tendency of the United States to shy away from taking a strong leadership role.  Muravchik cites the example in Yugoslavia as a case study of how neither Europe nor the United States was able to exert strong leadership in a time of crisis.  His conclusion is a unilateral leadership role that the United States should assume.

            I found reading Joshua Muravchik to be an interesting experience.  One thought that frequently reoccurred to me as I was reading his book was: “how could a man who knows so much be so stupid?”  Muravchik continually amazed me with his logical gaps and his outrageous statements.  My personal favorite was: “We entered World War II late and won it.  We entered the cold war late and won it” (208).  This not only ignores the fact that the Soviet Union was largely responsible for turning Germany back, but also leaves any intelligent reader wonder how the cold war could exist before the United States entered it.

            In order to refute all of Muravchik’s logical shortcomings would require almost a page by page analysis.  I have decided instead to focus on three general assumptions he bases his book on.  These are what I primarily objected to.

            To begin with, I consider myself a Christian pacifist.  I do not believe that military intervention is an acceptable Christian alternative in any situation.  I realize that this is not mainstream political thought, and I do not expect Muravchik to agree with me.  What I resent is the way he ignored the distinction between pacifism and isolationism.  Muravchik was all too eager to lump pacifists in the same category as Pat Buchanan.

            Like Muravchik, I believe America has a responsibility to help the rest of the world.  Like Muravchik, I believe that all life is sacred, not just that of American citizens.  However, I do not believe that dropping bombs and sending troops will solve anything.  It is unfair of Muravchik to then assume I am an isolationist and care nothing about the rest of the world.  Muravchik does not even address the pacifist alternative.

            There is a second problem I have with Muravchik.  At one point in the book, he uses an analogy of global politics as the hawks preying on the weaker birds. Muravchik asserts that the American leadership is needed to stop the hawks.  This is his assumption throughout the book, but Muravchik gives no thought to the idea that the United States might well be the hawk.

            Muravchik cites the example in Iraq as an example of positive United States foreign policy.  Not mentioned is the devastation that the Gulf War and the following economic sanctions have caused the Iraqi people.  Muravchik does not even consider this.  (Although perhaps the fact that this book was written four years ago does excuse Muravchik somewhat.  The debate on the Iraqi sanctions has increased in recent years.)

            Worse, Muravchik cites Reagan’s policy in Nicaragua as another positive example.  Personally I believe what Reagan did to Nicaragua was unforgivable.  Again, I realize this is still a matter of debate, and I do not expect Muravchik to agree with me.  However, Muravchik treats Nicaragua as if there were no debate. In doing this, Muravchik loses much of his credibility and shows what a narrow perspective he has on world events.  (I can not resist mentioning here that last semester I read another Muravchik book: Media Coverage of the Sandinista Revolution.  I found this book narrow-minded as well).

            More telling is the examples Muravchik does not bring up.  Perhaps if Muravchik wanted to see a good example of American foreign policy, he should look at Guatemala in the 1950s, or Argentina in the early 1970s.  He should take a closer look at El Salvador during the 1980s, as well as current United States funding to Colombian military.  Of course, Muravchik should not forget the School of the Americas.  Finally Muravchik should consider the current exploitation of third world countries by American corporations.  Then perhaps Muravchik would agree with me that America is not the white knight protecting the world from hawks, but the hawk from whom the rest of the world needs protection.  The United States has proven repeatedly that it is not the kind of leader the world wants.

            And then there is Muravchik’s discussion on world trade.  As with the Iraq example, Muravchik should be given some slack for having written the book in 1996, before the debates about the World Trade Organization were forced into the public eye.  However, Muravchik again bases his argument off of assumptions that are not universally shared.

            At a recent IMF protest I saw a sign that said, “Hey Bankers, your profits are being made with the bodies of third world women.”  Although this sign is an obvious oversimplification of the problems surrounding globalization, it brings up a point completely absent from Muravchik’s discussion.  Muravchik says that “The less-developed countries do not want to slow their ascent from poverty for the sake of the environment.  Who are we to stand in their way?” (203).  Not only does this quote ignore the fact that the welfare of third world people is frequently closely connected to their environment, it makes the assumption that the wealth of the third world elites will benefit the mass of the third world.  In fact one could make the argument (as thousands of Americans did in Seattle) that the policies of the World Trade Organization is harmful to the great majority of third world workers.  Perhaps America should use its influence to secure the rights of the third world people instead of just focusing on opening up their markets.

            Although Muravchik has plenty of data at his disposal in the writing of this book, it is obvious he is looking only at a narrow set of data and examples.  Muravchik sees the world through patriotic lenses, but he does not realize the world neither wants nor needs American leadership.  Hopefully others will find his ideas as ridiculous as I do.

Professor’s comments:

On Outsourcing Jobs:  This is a mixed bag—outsourcing has given millions of jobs to people in the 3rd world…Poor ones by our standards, but good by theirs.  Of course improvements can and should be made…I think the WTO can be a plus in this regard.

On the world desiring American leadership: The world is a complex place—some parts want and have benefited from American involvement…including Bosnian Muslims and others throughout Eastern Europe.  So your statement needs qualification.

On the WTO: Complicated Issue—but I tend to disagree from what I know.  The WTO hasn’t been around long enough to make any conclusive judgements.

Final Comments:  I think we are a leader in some ways whether we like it or not.  WE are too big not to have a big impact on other states in the world.  I think the world does need the right kind of U.S. leadership—The UN and other multilateral approaches requires active positive U.S. involvement (leadership) if they are to be effective.

The question is what kind of leadership we will give.  On this question you rightly make some telling comments.

A well argued and written paper (critique).  Some points could use qualification.

Grade: A/A-

Reflection Paper: Marx's Legacy

Google: drive, docs, pub
Video HERE

A philosopher like Karl Marx certainly has a mixed legacy.  Machiavelli has endured a reputation for being a unethical philosopher.  However, more people have died as a result of Karl Marx’s philosophy then as a result of Machiavelli.  Between Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao, Marxism perhaps has killed more people than any other philosophy (and those are just the more notorious examples).

Of course it is ludicrous to blame this on Karl Marx.  By the same logic, Jesus would be responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, or the witch trials, or any of the other atrocities committed in his name.  And clearly official communism was a far cry from what Karl Marx actually intended.

So what went wrong?  This question has been debated by philosophers and historians for a long time, and I will not try and tackle such a big question in such a small journal entry.  Besides, if I did I would simply be repeating what I have heard others say.  I don’t think I have anything new and fresh to bring to the discussion.

I guess my main comment is that it is hard to disassociate Karl Marx from his legacy.  It is really too bad because his genuine concern for the poor and humanitarian concerns may be forever overshadowed by the evil done in his name.

In a way it is kind of ironic.  Karl Marx mentioned at one point that he believed ideas are not important, but the material reality is.  Idealism is just a cover to disguise the material reality.  This seems to have played out in his own ideas.

Official communists, followers of Marx, claimed to be following ideas.  However many of them (especially near the end), were actually just using the ideology as a way to better themselves materially.

Reflection Paper: Eichmann in Jerusalem

Google: drive, docs, pub

Somehow, I managed to work my way all the way through, “Eichmann in Jerusalem,” and seemed to have missed the point.  Arendt rambles on with various facts about Eichmann’s life, but I’m not sure what they all mean.

Arendt does bring up several interesting points in the essay though.  The question of Nazism is one that has fascinated us ever since its demise.  And of course, it is a phenomenon we are not yet rid off.

I recently saw a movie that tried to address this question.  Why would anyone become a Nazi?  The film, “American History X”, dealt with Neo-Nazi’s in America, but many of the same questions apply to Germany.  The film suggested several things: influence of one’s upbringing, friends, and experiences with minority groups.  It is always a scary question when I ask myself, “If the circumstances had been right, would I have been a Nazi?”

Arendt tries to show what went on in the minds of the Nazis.  Eichmann was facing a boring life as a nobody, and so became a Nazi for a life of excitement.  Arendt said he never regretted it.

More interesting is the claims of Nazis, including Eichmann, recorded by Arendt, that cite that they were in their position in an attempt to be a moderating influence.  They didn’t want the “real” Nazis to be in those positions, so they sought to act like Nazis to try and slow the damage.  Arendt points out that they often acted worse then the real Nazis did.

At times I thought Arendt was implying that these “moderating Nazis” were just straight out lying in hopes of being treated favorably.  However, if they are not lying, then this really gives insight into the human condition (or just confuses us more maybe).  What an interesting psychological question this is.  While they thought they were moderating the damage, they were actually more zealous than the real Nazis.

Or maybe Arendt is trying to say there are no actually “real Nazis”.  Maybe this is an example of how totalitarianism takes on a life of its own.  No one truly believes in the Nazi cause, but everyone is acting out the part because they believe everyone else is a believer.  Either way it is an interesting question.

Reflection Paper: Marx's Critique of the Family

Google: drive, docs, pub
Video HERE

I find very much interesting in Karl Marx’s critique of the family.  Although I have read no Marx prior to this class, I had heard of the critique through secondary sources.

There is much appealing in it.  From a Christian standpoint it at first appears ridiculous.  However perhaps there is Christian support for this ideal as well.  For instance, does not Paul say that it is better not to get married?  (At this point my friends usually yell out at me that I am taking Paul out of context, and they are probably right.  Not having enough biblical knowledge to proceed much further, I will leave this point).

Another interesting passage though is when the Sadducees approached Jesus.  Since the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead, they tried to trick Jesus by asking him a hypothetical situation.  They hoped that this would show the silliness of the idea of the resurrection.

The story proceeds as follows.  A woman marries a man, and then he dies.  She then marries his brother, and he dies as well.  In fact she marries seven brothers, and all seven of them die.  The Sadducees then ask Jesus, “when the resurrection comes, whose wife will she be?”  Jesus answered that in heaven no one will either be married or be given into marriage.

This is really a fascinating concept that I do not we analyze enough.  This means that in God’s ideal society, there is no such thing as marriage.  And shouldn’t we try and imitate heaven here on earth?  At the very least it takes a lot of the sacredness out of marriage, because it is only an earthly institution, not an eternal one.

Perhaps marriage was God’s way of controlling society before effective birth control was invented.  After all, a women who became pregnant out of wedlock in a patriarchal society was in a lot of trouble.  Now that it is socially acceptable for women to support themselves, and now that birth control is much more effective, is marriage becoming obsolete?  As Karl Marx noted, there is always a lot of emotion involved whenever an institution like marriage is questioned, but these questions do interest me.

Reflection Paper: The Communist Manifesto

Google: drive, docs, pub
Video Version HERE

Karl Marx is a name everyone has heard of but few have actually read.  That was the position I found myself in prior to this class.  I had heard the name plenty of times, but had never actually sat down and worked my way through his writings.  (I never took History 102 at Calvin, opting for History 101 instead).

After reading, “The Communist Manifesto”, I was surprised by a couple of things.  To begin with, I thought that his work would focus on the morality of the situation.  He would rail about how immoral it was for the capitalists to have so much wealth when there were people starving.  To my surprise, he focuses very little on the morality of the situation.

Instead Karl Marx talks about the inevitableness of the workers revolution.  I almost got the impression from reading this work that he did not view it as either a good thing nor a bad thing, simply a historical inevitability.  A cold fact that people should prepare themselves for.

Of course the belief in the historical inevitability of communism is something I had heard before in history classes many times.  However I always kind of got the impression it was simply a side note in the ideology.  I thought the morality was the main thrust, with a little bit of “by the way it is inevitable.”  I also thought that most Marxists did not truly believe that communism was inevitable.  If it was inevitable, why did Marxists sacrifice so much in attempts to bring it about?

Seeing that the inevitableness is the main thrust causes some things to make a little more sense.  If communism is inevitable, perhaps that explains why the communist party had so much power in Communist states.  It was as if they ruled by divine right.

Final Exam for Political Science Class

[This is a final exam for a political science class.  We had a choice of questions to answer, and each I selected 1, 3, and 4.  Unfortunately I didn't save the actual questions themselves, so these answers now lack context.  But perhaps the questions can be inferred from the answers.]

Google: drive, docs, pub

Joel Swagman

Political Science 240

Goi

May 15, 2000

Final Exam

1.  Whenever one is in a course like this, certain questions arise as to the usefulness of it.  One might ask what the purpose of reading dead political theorists is?

To be honest this is not a question which I frequently ask myself.  After making my way through middle school, high school, and college, I have had to read dead theorists my whole schooling career.  It has not been anything I really questioned.  I just took it as a given that in school one would read dead political theorists.  I have had very few people challenge me on this, so the concept has rarely been examined in my mind.

Therefore, in order to better answer this question, I would like to imagine what possible reasons a person might give for the political theorist being a waste of time.  I will then proceed to offer my own explanation for why these reasons are wrong.  However, in order to fully answer the question I must show why reading dead political theorists is useful, not just why it is not not useful.  The final part of this essay will be geared toward this end.

One objection someone could have is that the dead political theorists are hard to access.  This is true of many of the theorists we have read, especially I believe Karl Marx.  Karl Marx’s ideas have captured millions (no pun intended), but I have come to suspect many Marxists may never have made it through Marx’s works.  After all, a sentence like,

However, the privileged position of our capitalist is not of long duration; other competing capitalists introduce the same machines, the same division of labour, introduce them on the same or on a larger scale, and this introduction will become so general that the price of linen is reduced not only below its old, but below its new cost of production [WLC 213]

is not exactly easy reading.  Perhaps this would produce charges that it is somewhat elitist to study these authors when the majority of people have never read them.  Charges could also be leveled that since the readings are not mainstream, they don’t affect events and therefore are not worth reading.

Of course just because something is difficult does not mean it is not worth looking at.  In fact, perhaps the most intelligent ideas can not be expressed in a simple, easy to understand way.  Perhaps these ideas are worth struggling through what seems like the mumbo jumbo of the author’s words.  For instance, on page 186 and following of the Republic, Plato describes the allegory of the Cave.  According to this allegory, philosophy is very useful because it frees us to see things as they really are, not just as illusions.

Moreover, if these ideas are truly insightful into the human condition and politics, then they are worth reading about whether the public is influenced by them or not.  Even if one is not influenced by Marx, one might still act in ways that Marx would have predicted. Also, while the greater public might not have read “The Prince,” chances are greater that a politician would have.  Therefore these works are having an influence on the people that are most directly involved in political thinking, and it is good to know what their influences are.

A second charge that could conceivably be leveled is that these theorists are writing in political times that are out dated.  Again the most common example is Marx.  It is frequently said that his analysis of capitalist society no longer applies.  The same case can be made for all of them though (although granted some better then others).  Is it really worth while to read about the subjection of women after the second wave feminism has made such great strides?  Women may not be equal, but they are hardly subjected in the way that they were in Mill’s time.  Or now that democracy has triumphed in many areas of the globe, does the advice contained in “The Prince”, really matter?

The obvious answer is that while these texts may no longer be current, they show philosophers struggling with the politics of their day.  By seeing how these philosophers responded to the issues of their day, students are able to learn critical thinking skills that will help them to analyze politics in their own lifetime.

The second obvious answer is perhaps summed up in the old saying, “the more things change, the more they stay the same.”  Plato, although he is long dead, was trying to deal with the issue of how society is best structured.  His solutions were not made obsolete by the changing times.  Many of these theorists apply more to society than our imaginary critic has given them credit for.

Finally, these sources tell us how political thought has evolved.  Reading John Stuart Mill makes us sharply aware that it was not always taken for granted that women should be equal to men.  Reading Machiavelli or Locke makes us realize that democracy was not always the dominating philosophy in the West.  Understanding where our political notions came from not only makes us more appreciative of them but perhaps more critical of them as well.  We know that they were not given to us on stone by God, but evolved by men over the years.

These are the only two criticisms I can see of a course like this.  Now I would like to proceed to look at the benefits of it, using the course syllabus in part.  The course syllabus emphasizes using the texts to get students to wrestle with to current “pressing issues in political life.”  I believe class discussions have helped to facilitate the link between these dead theorists, and our current political position.  While reading Machiavelli, we as a class were forced to struggle with the question of the ends justifying the means.  While reading Plato, we wrestled with concepts of freedom and justice.  While reading Karl Marx, we focused on the ethics of unequal distribution of wealth.  I also believe that the journal entries were helpful in this regard as well.  I come out in favor of this course.

3.  Both Marx and Machiavelli have different views of history.  It is useful to study these different views in order to fully understand their thinking.  This can be done by first looking at Marx and his idea of history.  Then Machiavelli and his conception of history will be looked at.  Next Marx and Machiavelli will be compared to each other, before I reveal my own analysis of Marx and then Machiavelli.

Marx was influenced by Hegel.  Older Hegelians tended to believe that history is moved by a geist, or spirit.  This spirit moved history toward a specific end.  Older Hegelians put somewhat of a Christian spin on their interpretation.

Younger Hegelians, of which Marx was a part of, rejected the Christian spin but also believed that history was moving in a specific direction.  Marx believed history progressed along a certain line, even if there was not divine force guiding it.

Marx believed that the driving force that moved history along this line was class struggle.  (“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” [CM 473].  In every period of history there exists a certain mode of production.  The mode of production is the arrangement of the means of production, which are land, labor and capital.  As various classes struggle with each other, the mode of production is always changing.  Marx believed in a dynamic view of history, which was a constant play of struggles and contradictions.  At first human nature existed in a hunter gatherer society.  Then it changed it to a slave type system.  Then the feudal system emerged, followed by capitalism.  Marx believed that the next step in the progressive history would be a transformation to communism.  Each step in the ladder was marked by class struggle, and one class was able to contradict the established order.  For example when the middle class revolted in the French Revolution against the aristocracy, capitalism was created.  When the working class revolts against the middle class, socialism will be created.  [Most of this is explained on CM 474.]

In this interpretation of history, Marx differed from Hegel in one important aspect.  Marx said that the driving force behind history is material.  What causes history to develop is the way that humans handle physical things.  Put another way, history is driven by the relationship between land, labor, and capital.

As a result of this materialist view of history, Marx did not believe history was about the actions of great men.  Men are simply the pawns in reacting to the material.  Marx would argue, for instance, that even if Adolf Hitler had never existed, conditions in Germany would have thrown someone extremely similar to him into power.

Another important result of the materialist view is that Marx did not believe history was about ideas.  This is contrary to a number of other writers we have read in this course, who praised the value of ideas.  In particular, Marx was writing some what in reaction to John Stuart Mill, who had argued that ideas are the driving force behind history.  Mill believed that if all ideas were allowed free expression, the best ideas would naturally emerge as the dominant ones.  [OL 52 and following: Thoughts and Discussion.]  However Marx argued that the dominant ideas simply reflected the material reality of the time.  Thus Mill was a Liberal who believed in the power of the individual, where as Marx was a structuralist who believed in the dominance of structures.

Machiavelli, by contrast, had a different view of history.  Machiavelli believed that it is important for successful politicians to study history so they can find patterns in it.  Politicians can learn the mistakes and victories made by their predecessors, and act accordingly in able to do whatever it takes to stay in power.  In fact, most of the advise in the Prince is made using historical precedent.  All of the examples given come from history, and Machiavelli repeatedly implores his reader to learn from history.

It appears obvious at first that their are many differences between Marx and Machiavelli.  Marx’s view of a constantly changing history would not coincide well with Machiavelli, who was trying to find patterns in history.  And yet one could suggest that Marx’s theory of history is based on a pattern as well: a pattern of change.  Nevertheless, a Marxist would not seek to find patterns in history in the same way a Machiavellian would.  A Marxist would say that the nature of history is constantly changing because people’s relationship to the material structures are changing.  Therefore strategies that worked in 1002 would not work in 2001.  However a ruler with a Marxist view of history might study history to try and find out when the next revolution might be.  A Machiavellian ruler would study history in order to better manipulate it, but a Marxist ruler would believe that since men are powerless to change history, studying history will not save you from it.

I believe there is much truth to what Marx argues when he says that history is motivated by class struggle.  Certainly when one studies history it is hard to deny that a large part of it is a struggle between the haves and the have-nots.  However, I think Marx sells short the complexity of the human condition when he says that this is the only motivating factor in history.  Humans are complex individuals, and react based on a variety of impulses, not just material ones.

Examples from history abound.  Perhaps a good one is the civil-rights movement.  This was a struggle in our country that shaped the course of history, and it wasn’t about material, it was about ideals of freedom and equality.  Of course I know Marx would explain it away very quickly.  The idealism and rhetoric on both sides was simply a cover for the same old story about poor people (in this case blacks) wanting more material benefits and rich people (whites) that refused to give it to them.  The equality bit was simply an idea that fitted the material reality at the time.  (Just as Marx claimed religious ideology was in many cases just a cover for blatant exploitation [CM 475]).  However when I look at old documentaries from this time period it is hard for me to believe that material concerns was the primary motivation for either side.  And what about all the middle class white college kids who flocked to the civil rights movement?  Surely this demonstrates the power of an idea over material reality.  (I don’t know how Karl Marx would answer this.  I am sure he (and other Marxists) have some way to explain away all this, but I think it is really hard to deny the importance ideas play in history).

I also have some problems with Machiavelli.  As mentioned in the previous paragraph, Marx would critique Machiavelli in several areas.  Marx would say that since the nature of history is constantly changing, humans will not react the same way because the material structures have changed.  I would agree with this, although I would add that other things have changed as well.  The ideology or dominant ideas have changed over time as well.

Machiavelli would no doubt like the popular saying that, “those who have failed to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.”  However the problem with this saying is that very seldomly does history repeat itself exactly.  Conditions are never exactly the same.  For instance after World War I, waves of pacifism swept Europe.  Of course World War I is one of the ugliest wars in history for one of the silliest reasons, so that is a suitable lesson to draw from World War I.  It has been argued however that Hitler was given too many concessions during the 1930s, when he could have been easily stopped, ultimately leading to World War II.  Europe’s desire for peace just made Hitler stronger.  Therefore the lessons drawn from 1919 didn’t necessarily apply to 1930.

Perhaps a better example is Vietnam.  We got into the war expecting it to play out rather similar to the Korean War, and were gravely mistaken.  After Vietnam, Americans were reluctant to get involved in another war.  However after the success of Desert Storm, politicians announced that we had beaten the “Vietnam Syndrome.”  The lessons learned in Vietnam did not necessarily apply to Iraq, and the lessons learned in Iraq proved not to apply to Haiti or Somalia.  So, even with in the same historical era, conditions are vastly different from area to area.  If the time factor is added to this as well, things become even more complicated.

So things are not quite as simple as the saying goes.  Often we learn the wrong lessons from history, or try and apply them in situations where they do not apply.  However, there is certainly some truth to the idea that history does repeat itself.  For instance, one of the lessons we have learned during the 20th century from all sorts of different circumstances is that revolutions seldom live up to their expectations.  This was demonstrated all over the globe, with Communist revolutions leading to disaster, and the post communist revolutions of 1989 leading to disappointment.  It was true in South America and in China.  And it has also been fairly true

looking across the spectrum of time as well, going back to the French Revolution or the Revolutions of 1848.  The point of course is history does have something to teach us, we should just be careful about how we read it.  I think the reading Machiavelli intended was to specific, and would lead to errors.  General trends can definitely be learned from however.

4.  Two different political theoriticians, with different views on what it means to be a citizen, are Plato and Marx.  To better understand their differing perspectives, it is useful to examine first of all their views on women in society, secondly their views on the family, thirdly their views on equality, and finally their views on freedom.

Gender equality is a big part of Plato’s Republic.  In fact, Plato was called the first Feminist.  Plato envisions a world in which females are just as politically active as males.  “Everything should be held in common,” Plato argues, qualifying his statement by adding, “except that the males are stronger” [R 125].  A couple lines latter he adds, “Therefore, if we use women for the same things as the men, they must also be taught the same things” [R 125].  This is, of course, a radical break from the thought of the time.

Marx’s view of the female in society was also radically different.  Although Marxists have at times been a the forefront of movements to equalize women, Marx himself is strangely silent on the question of gender equality.  (Although, just by glancing at the tittles of some of the other selections in our book, it appears Marx might have had more to say on the subject in selections we did not read in class).  From the high value Marx places on the equality between men, and the vision of a classless society, perhaps we can assume that Marx would have advocated gender equality as well.  Perhaps this is why feminist causes have often found support with Marxists.  The idea of equality fits in so well.  Like Plato however, Marx did advocate a radical change in the position of women.  Marx claimed that in the bourgeois system, a lot of hypocrisy exists.  Males claim to be faithful to their wives, but in reality seduce the wives of their friends.  Therefore, Marx advocates doing away with the hypocrisy and establishing “an openly legalized community of women”  [CM 488].  Marx believes that he is improving the condition of women by doing this, because he is freeing them from the domination of their husbands, who, in their bourgeois mindset simply see their wife as a tool to be exploited [CM 488].  Marx also claims that by doing away with marriage, prostitution “both public and private” [CM 488] is done away with.  [Many of these same arguments are also in EPM 82-84].

This is of course a terrific lead in to the next point, the condition of the family.  Marx goes as far as to suggest the dissolution of the family.  This is an example of his radical mindset, and how he sought to completely transform society (similar to Plato).  Marx advocated that the family was simply a tool for “the exploitation of Children by their parents” (CM 487), and that it was based on private gain.

Plato also favored radical changes in the way the family was set up.  Plato also thought that the spouses and children would be held in common, like Marx [R 123].  Both viewed their utopias as being set up as one big family among all the citizens.

Next comes the question of equality.  Marx thought that everyone in his society should be given equal rights and treated equally.  Everyone should have an equal amount of money, and an equal amount of power.

Plato, by contrast, thought that the ideal society should be based on a strict hierarchy, with philosopher kings at the top.  In fact, in the Republic Plato scoffs at democracy for being too egalitarian.  Instead Plato argues for a society in which, “the desires of the inferior many are controlled by the wisdom and desires of the superior few” [R 106].  This is one important way in which Plato differed from Marx.  However, Plato, liked Marx, believed that the material well being of all the citizens in Kallipolis should be equal.  Interestingly enough, those at the top of the hierarchy, the philosopher kings, live with the least amount of material goods.

Although Marxists states have been famous for their lack of freedom, it sounds like Marx sought to maximize the freedom of the people living in his ideal state.  Marx identifies freedom at one point as being a value of the bourgeois [GI 173].  At another point however, Marx says that Communism will reconcile the conflicting ideals of freedom and necessity [EPM 84].  

Citizens in Plato’s state Kallipolis, on the other hand, lose a lot of freedom.  Freedom of expression is taken away.  The most notable example is on page 53 of the Republic, where Plato outlines which literary passages would no longer be allowed.  Plato viewed freedom as not being an important thing.  In fact he is openly disapproving of a democratic society and the values of freedom it would bring with it.  The important thing is that everyone worked together to make sure the state went as smoothly as possible.