[FallenRaptor]

As a Marxist, I have heard many arguments against my world-view. Some of them make valid points. Most of them are fallacious. One such fallacy is the baseless argument that Marx believed that communism is inevitable due to some rigid laws of history(to this day, I don't know what these so-called laws are or who wrote them). This has led liberals and other anti-Marxists to say that this makes Marxism religious dogma.

But who are these liberals to criticize of dogmatism when they fail to see the senseless dogma that exists within their own ideology? Dogma such as the idea that free markets can somehow turn despotic governments into democracies*, that democratic governments never go to war with each other, that liberal democracy is the final form of government and that it will spread through out the world(I think even Fukuyama ultimately ended up rejecting this view, but I'm not completely sure)), and of course, in Keynes words, the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone. History has disproven all of this dogma and most of it doesn't even make sense theoretically.

*What the liberals consider "democracy" anyway, which is a farce since systems of liberal "democracy" were never intended for such purpose and is not at all democratic in practice.

Thoughts?

EDIT: I almost forgot the dogma of natural rights, which in my opinion runs parallel to the divine right of kings from feudal times, since according to the founding fathers they come from a higher being. If rights are in fact natural and inalienable, why is it necessary to use something as unnatural as government to protect them?

[Dave]

The dumber stratum of Marxists are themselves to blame for the common misconception that Marxists believe communism is inevitable. Dumber Marxists have been frequently known to espouse this vulgar conception of historical materialism and state things like, "HA! COMMUNISM IS INEVITABLE!" Political Compass even has a question about this.

This forum is about loser left-liberalism and not neoliberalism, so your criticism about free markets turning despotisms into democracies (asterisk not required, democracy just means mob rule dominated by elites) is possibly not suitable here.

At any rate I agree with you, and there is no evidence that economic freedom leads to political freedom. This link merely exists today due to the postwar dominance of the United States, which imposes its own politico-economic system on the rest of the world. Many capitalist despotisms that have become democratic have done so due to US interference, or by people seeking to emulate the United States.

Prior to 1945, when authoritarian capitalist powers were a prominent part of the international scene, there was no observed link between economic freedom and political freedom. While contemporary historians are aware of this, they have never bothered to develop a theory for it and just babble about the "paradox" of "conservative modernization" (German and Japanese Empires, Russian Empire prior to revolution, etc.), even though there was no indication that this was unusual or unsuccessful.

[canadiancapitalist]

Liberals, in the American sense, don't belive in free markets (although they might mention them in rhetoric, actions speak louder than words). They do believe democratic governments TEND not to go to war with each other (which seems empirically somewhat correct, until you start to question 'what is a democratic government'). As for the last part "the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone" of course it is completely true, and I'm floored Keynes recognized it, but liberals are always talking about "the greater good". I think you might have the European and American liberals confused a little, but not completely.

[Okonkwo]

I think you might have the European and American liberals confused a little, but not completely.

canadiancapitalist has already pointed out your seeming confusion regarding the word "liberalism". Your question sounds as if it is directed to European "Neoliberalism" and classical liberalism.
Of course modern social liberalism, for which this sub-forum is intended has its roots in classical liberalism and the two movements are intertwined. But social liberalists do not believe that a free market will take care of everything, they believe in Keynesian economics and a tiny little bit of protectionism.
Your critique seems to be rather directed at classical liberalism or libertarianism, I would suggest moving your question to the libertarian subforum, or even the Political Circus.

I can try however to answer your question from a social liberal/social-democratic point of view:

Dogma such as the idea (...) that democratic governments never go to war with each other

Well, it is fact that liberal democracies as they are called have less genocide, politicide and democide, more freedoms and human rights, the greatest gains in life expectancy.
The fact that a liberal democracy prevents large power from being concentrated makes it less easy to lead the nation to war. Hence liberal nations tend not to go too war.

[FallenRaptor]

The dumber stratum of Marxists are themselves to blame for the common misconception that Marxists believe communism is inevitable. Dumber Marxists have been frequently known to espouse this vulgar conception of historical materialism and state things like, "HA! COMMUNISM IS INEVITABLE!"

Perhaps, but I think it has more to do with passages taken out of context and the inherent biases of Marxism's many critics.

I think you might have the European and American liberals confused a little, but not completely.

I was refering to liberalism in the broad sense of the term, which includes social and neo-liberals, but I guess this applies more to the latter.

They do believe democratic governments TEND not to go to war with each other

Tony Blair said that no two democracies have ever gone to war with each other, if that means anything. (Around 2:30)

I would suggest moving your question to the libertarian subforum, or even the Political Circus.

Perhaps the Political Circus would be better. If a moderator wants to move it, then that's fine.

[Okonkwo]

Tony Blair said that no two democracies have ever gone to war with each other, if that means anything.

Well you could go forward and name two liberal democracies that have gone to war with each other.

[FallenRaptor]

Here's a list of debated exceptions to the democratic peace theory: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm#n.6

[Okonkwo]

Here's a list of debated exceptions to the democratic peace theory: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm#n.6

The list refutes itself.
Never were both of the belligerent forces considered liberal democracies.
Take into account that what we nowadays understand as liberal democracy has only been really implemented after World War II. Claiming that for example the Greek city-states had what we call democracy is foolish.
There is no dogmatism to be refuted anyway, liberal democracies usually don't suffer from that: they don't claim to have the last word or final solution on anything.

[FallenRaptor]

The list refutes itself.
Never were both of the belligerent forces considered liberal democracies.

The lists has rebuttals and counter-rebuttals, and many of them show that liberal democracies have been to war against each other.

American Indian Wars, 1776-1890
Democracies: United States vs. various Native American Indian tribes.
Rebuttal: The tribes did not have enough formal structure to be considered real democracies.
Counter-rebuttal: Well, just for starters, the Iroqouian Confederation was rather complex.

French Revolutionary Wars, 1793-1799
Democracies: France vs. Great Britain, Switzerland, the Netherlands
Rebuttal: For Britain, see the comments for 1775. Also, France at this time was lurching left and right, with bloody purges each time, so it hardly qualifies as a stable democracy.
Counter-rebuttal: Under the Directory, 1795-99, France was a relatively stable republic.

Franco-American Naval War, 1797-1799
Democracies: United States vs. France
Rebuttal: It was a Quasi War, for God's sake; even historians call it that. It was little more than a trade war with sporadic ritualized broadsides.
Counter-rebuttal: According to official Navy statistics (http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq56-1.htm), the US lost 20 sailors and marines in the Quasi War. Relative to the numbers involved, it was bloodier than the Gulf War.
Anglo-American War, 1812-1815
Democracies: United States vs. Great Britain
Rebuttal: For Britain, use the same two hands as with the 1st Anglo-American War of 1775.

Franco-Roman War, 1849
Democracies: France vs. the Roman Republic.
Rebuttal: Both democratic regimes were less than a year old, and therefore don't count as stable democracies.
Counter-rebuttal: C'mon, that's just cheating. You're redefining your terms in order to exclude an awkward exception.

American Civil War, 1861-65
Democracies: United States vs. Confederate States
Rebuttal: The Confederacy was a slave-holding nation and therefore definitely not a democracy -- and while we're at it, the same could be said for the Union as well. Also, "[t]he South was not a sovereign democracy at that time... President Jefferson Davis was not elected, but appointed by representatives selected by confederate states. There was an election in 1861, but it was not competitive." [Rummel]
Counterrebuttal: Both nations used almost identical Constitutions, which were easily the most democratic in the world at the time. Both nations conducted state and congressional elections on schedule, despite the difficulties of wartime. They both allowed substantial dissent within their Congresses, even if the opposition in the South never quite formalized into a two party sytem. Every major policy decision in both nations was enacted and approved by elected officials. (And since when is being "appointed by representatives selected by [individual] states" undemocratic? Technically, that's how every American president has been chosen.)

Occupation of Veracruz, 1861-62
Democracies: Great Britain vs. Mexico
Rebuttal: Yes, democratic Britain assisted France and Spain in seizing Veracruz from democratic Mexico (Juarez had been properly elected.), but this was achieved without fighting. As soon as their French allies geared up for military conquest of the whole country, the British pulled out.
Counterrebuttal: An invasion is war, even if the defenders don't fight back.

Spanish-American War, 1898
Democracies: United States vs. Spain
Rebuttal: In Spain, "the two major political parties alternated in power, not by election but by arrangement preceding elections." [Rummel]
Counterrebuttal: It's hardly unknown for rival parties in a democracy to make a time-sharing agreement or grand coalition. In one form or another, it has happened in Austria (1955-66), Columbia (1958-74), Switzerland (from 1959), UK (1931-45). More importantly, when Spain lost the war, prime minister Sagasta resigned, and national leadership passed to his parliamentary opponents, exactly the same as we would expect in any other constitutional monarchy.

Anglo-Boer War, 1899-1901
Democracies: Great Britain vs. Transvaal and the Orange Free State
Rebuttal: The franchise in the Boer Republics was limited to the white male elite.

First World War, 1914-18
Democracies: France, Belgium, Great Britain, the USA, et. al. vs. Germany.
Rebuttal: Well, yes, the Imperial Reichtag was democratically elected by universal manhood suffrage, but it was a largely powerless body, like the UN. The real power in the German federation was in the hands of the Emperor who appointed the Chancellor and commanded the Army, and in the hands of the Junkers running the undemocratic parliament of the Kingdom of Prussia, which made up around half the federation.
Counterrebuttal: Sure, there were aristocratic privileges and traditions that were inconsistent with one-man-one-vote and full equality under the law, but Germany was every bit as democratic as the United Kingdom (cf. the House of Lords and English dominance over the indigenous peoples of Scotland, Ireland and Wales.) And the Reichtag controlled the budget, which is not exactly "powerless".

Occupation of the Ruhr, 1923
Democracies: France vs. Germany.
Rebuttal: Germany didn't fight back.
Counterrebuttal: The same counterrebuttal as with the 1861 occupation of Veracruz.

Second World War, 1940-45
Democracies: Great Britain, United States, et al. vs. Finland.
Rebuttal: Finland fought on the same side as the Nazis against the Soviet Union, not against the democratic Allies.
Counterrebuttal: Well, the British bombed Finland; that sounds like being at war. And 69 Finnish merchants ships were sunk outside of the Baltic Sea. [n.9] Also, every Finnish soldier fighting the USSR meant that one German soldier could be sent west to fight the Allies. Every Russian soldier killed by the Finns weakened the Allied war effort.

Iran, Guatemala and Chile, 1953, 1954 and 1973 respectively.
Democracies: United-States-backed coups in Iran, Guatemala and Chile.
Rebuttals: It's not certain how deeply the CIA was involved in overthrowing these democratically elected governments, but even if it was in up to its neck, these were coups and not wars. Covert operations by shadowy, bureaucratic elites are not democratic. They are not publicly debated and approved beforehand by the citizenry.
Counter-rebuttal: Technically, every military operation in the modern world is enacted by secretive bureacracies without public debate. (Was D-Day put to a vote?) If using the CIA is undemocratic, then so is using the Army; and if using the Army is undemocratic, then democracies can't fight wars, period. QED.

Croatian War of Independence, 1991-92
Democracies: Croatia vs. Yugoslavia.
Rebuttal: These regimes hadn't been around long enough to qualify as a stable democracies.
Counter-rebuttal: Even so, both nations had government that had been put in place through free elections. Even Weart admits that.

Kosovo War, 1999
Democracies: The countries of NATO vs. Yugoslavia.
Rebuttal: Milosovic was a dictator.
Counter-rebuttal: In the legislative elections of Nov. 1996, Milosovic's supporters won a mere 64 out of 138 seats in parliament, and control of government probably would have gone to the opposition had not infighting and internal divisions prevented them from claiming their place at the helm. In 1997, Milosovic was re-elected president by a plausible margin of 59% to 38% [n.1] which suggests that these elections were not entirely rigged either. In October 2000, a soundly beaten Milosovic actually conceded defeat after an apparently free presidential election. Sure it took a week or so of prodding to get him to vacate the presidential palace, but a concession is a concession nonetheless. (and he gave in quicker than Al Gore.)

Fourth Indo-Pak War (Kargil War) 1999
Democracies: India vs. Pakistan.
Rebuttal: Those weren't Pakistanis. They were independent, volunteer guerrilla forces operating out of Pakistan, not regular troops.
Counter-Rebuttal: A technicality, at best. A cover story at worst. According to CNN [n.2], the insurgents were stiffened by Pakistani regulars, and supported by Pakistani artillery firing over the border into the neighboring democracy of India. The nations' air forces raided back and forth regularly.
Bad Rebuttal: And Pakistan wasn't even a democracy anyway. I seem to recall that they had a military coup sometime around then
Counter-Rebuttal in the form of a brief summary of a rather obscure war: That came later. The Pakistanis were driven back to the de facto international border on 17 July after two months of war. The civilian Prime Minister was deposed in October. The 2-month death toll was 1100, according to CNN.

[Okonkwo]

The lists has rebuttals and counter-rebuttals, and many of them show that liberal democracies have been to war against each other.

This list has far too little explanation to be considered valid.

Well, just for starters, the Iroqouian Confederation was rather complex.

That's really not a helpful statement or even one for or against democracy. The USA at this time would not be considered a liberal democracy by modern standards anyway.

French Revolutionary Wars: Counter-rebuttal: Under the Directory, 1795-99, France was a relatively stable republic.

Again, how does stability make a counter rebuttal of the fact that the chute de Robespierre, le 9 Thermidor an II was as much a regime as the preceding Terreur and the following coup d'état du 18 brumaire.

The counter-rebuttals are too simple to even be considered, my two examples are just two of many that are too be found in this list, it has a rather unclear and loose definition of liberal democracy, which I am quite sure Mr Blair didn't refer to when he gave his speech.
I'd much appreciate it if you would quote one exact example that you deem irrefutable, which can then be discussed.

But how can I discuss with you anyway, if I just love your avatar.

[Kylie]

Mod note, I'm not going to move this thread to political circus because it does deal with various facets of liberalism, so I'll leave it here. Plus, this place needs some good discussion. Continue on.

[NoRapture]

But who are these liberals to criticize of dogmatism when they fail to see the senseless dogma that exists within their own ideology? Dogma such as the idea that free markets can somehow turn despotic governments into democracies*, that democratic governments never go to war with each other, that liberal democracy is the final form of government and that it will spread through out the world(I think even Fukuyama ultimately ended up rejecting this view, but I'm not completely sure)), and of course, in Keynes words, the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone. History has disproven all of this dogma and most of it doesn't even make sense theoretically.

I know of no U.S. liberals who believe these assertions, or have given them much thought or discussion for that matter. Certainly I have not and I consider myself nothing if not liberal.

And the apparent fact you regard Tony Blair as liberal in any way, other than the amount of sweetener he may put in his tea, doesn't add much to your credibility as someone in touch with liberal vs. conservative to me.

[Okonkwo]

And the apparent fact you regard Tony Blair as liberal in any way, other than the amount of sweetener he may put in his tea, doesn't add much to your credibility as someone in touch with liberal vs. conservative to me.

Well isn't Blair what you would call liberal in the USA. In Europe he is certainly considered one, having the lost the highly regarded status of "social democrat" when he started to support Bush's American imperialism.

[evercloserunion]

I used to be a socialist but am now more of a social democrat. I, like many, think socialists today are highly dogmatic. But it's not for the reasons you describe. In fact, it's not for any historical or theoretical reason but rather because of how socialists (and anarchists, the far left in general) act. An example of this can be seen on leftist boards like RevLeft.com where you can be restricted for opposing abortion at any time before birth or for thinking that cops are workers. But the most irritating example for me was the opposition to the Lisbon Treaty by the far left. The Lisbon Treaty contained many positive provisions, including axing useless bureaucrats, fighting climate change and most importantly strengthening the rights of workers and other citizens. But it was invariable opposed by the far left because it was written, not by Lenin or Trotsky, but in fact by capitalists!

I think that accounts for much of the public perception of leftists as dogmatic. They are professional agitators. All they do is oppose, and shout clichés.