I think the Fallows article brought up some good points. However, when he cited the use of language in the GWOT as counter-productive he laid all the blame on the government’s doorstep. Many of the terms that are used have been picked up and promoted by the independent media, not by government spokespeople, and changing their lexicon will be difficult if not impossible. Even a full-court press on ‘changing the terms’ would most likely be met by a few sniffs and then some saracasm, at least while Bush is still in office. Also, journalists can be assured access to the governments in the west and can therefore use whichever terms they feel like, while access to jihadi/insurgent/terrorist sources is much more restricted and their vocabulary will be contrained by the need to maintain access.

communism, an ideology that has been thoroughly discredited and is responsible for the deaths of tens of millions and the ruin of dozens and dozens of countries what will happen to Islamism?

The political systems that led to WW2 killed 60 million; moreover, we’re seeing the return of ‘economic patriotism’ all over the world. Anyway in ‘Three Billion New Capitalists’, author Clyde Prestowitz recommends a new international currency to take the pressure off the US national currency. “The dollar’s present role makes Americans feel good in the short term, but ultimately it will kill us.” The nation can’t act as the world’s importer of last resort forever. Internationalising monetary policy, with a central bank, could create lots of new money.

Well, I’ll take the bait and diverge from the topic as well. I don’t think Communism has been discredited, but I do think some of the purveyors of Communism have. To me, I see a movement that was crippled by the rise of Stalin as opposed to Trotsky, the premature death of Lenin, the Sino-Soviet split, the cost of World War 2 and the following ‘Cold War’.

Re: The point about middle-class kids embracing communism. I think the idea is ‘rejectionism’ rather than any specific ideology. People who have it easy tend to embrace fairly irrational practices (see neo-Nazis, neo-Marxists, and Republicans), especially at a young age. I think this is a byproduct of a lack of identity created in this environment mixed with a rejection of said environment.

One “wins” in this sense by changing the system to take away the built-in advantages an enemy has. Communism can still be believed here and there, but the whole structure of the world has changed since the 1980s away from Communist aims. That is victory.

To declare victory in the Global War on Terror means something similar—changing the nature of the world.

Winning in the Cold War meant absorbing the Communist Core into the Capitalist Core. Winning in this long war means absorbing the gap into the core.

Declaring victory in the sense that Fallows seems to mean—just ignoring the current system—is a position worthy of Lord Halifax.

I find much to agree with in comments by both Elizabeth and Gollios. Yes, the problem is people. But if you look at the countries that carried out genocides, famines, purges, and the vast majority of deaths in the 20th century, they were all socialist nations: Nazi Germany, China, the USSR, Ethiopia, Cambodia, North Korea, etc etc.

As for fascist countries, while are more prone to violence and war (Tojo’s Japan, Mussolini’s Italy), they generally do not carry out genocide and forced starvation.

The issue is much deeper than socialism v.s. capitalism v.s. fascism; the issue is whether a nation has the rule of law or rule of man. Socialism v.s. capitalism is a decision for the people of a nation to decide for themselves. A country can be socialist and function fine as long as it has a stable system for criminal prosecution, civil complaints, and protections against indiscriminate state persecution. Exhibit A: Sweden is a modern-day socialist country with the rule of law; Zimbabwe is a modern-day socialist country without the rule of law.

Gollios:

“the axis powers in WWII all maintained much more central control of their economies than the allies (except for the USSR)”

Yes. That’s why I pointed out that the real culprit was not communism or capitalism, but fascism.

“Do you belive that Communism as an ideology has NOT been discredited?”

I believe that it was shown to be a foolish ideology from the very beginning, but if you want to believe in heaven and yet can’t stomach God, Communism remains very appealing and you might be willing to overlook a few points. I believe the appeal- as with Islamism- is twofold. First, paradise is just around the corner. Second, certain moral norms can be sacrificed for that paradise (appealing if you’ve always wanted a reason to hate someone).

Dan- ” the whole structure of the world has changed since the 1980s away from Communist aims”

Yes, in economic terms, and that’s good. If only we were getting further from its means…

if you want to believe in heaven and yet can’t stomach God, Communism remains very appealing

Absolutely brilliant.

“anti-capitalist state alliances spanning central land masses are non-existent”

I was more worried about the curtailing of personal freedoms, censorship, and centralization of power that were endemic among communist countries. This is occuring around the world, from the CIS to China, from the United States to Great Britain. Certainly there are differences in scale, but until we are all free to say what we want without fear of prosecution by the government, we cannot declare victory on the war on terror.

“Such a conflation of strategic and Utopian goals is useless at best, deceptive at worst.”

Perhaps I was taking the alleged aim of the War on Terror too literally. I assumed they meant, an end to terror. Am I correct in assuming that you believe it is in fact a war on Islamic militants, and not on terror? In that case, I can see your point: our goal is not an end to terror (controlling and manipulating people through threats of violence) but rather, to certain states, and this is a conflation.

If, however, the goal of the War on Terror really is an end to terrorism, then it will not end until EVERYONE stops terrorizing everyone else, and I don’t think it’s a conflation of strategic goals at all.

Incidentally, since when is free speech a “utopian goal”?

curzon,

while i may agree with your general point (i am still unsure if i would—i think it has more to do with how they wieght a life vs the idealogical goal), you example of fascism is invalid.

you selectively left out Nazi Germany to make your point.
if i follow your logic, i could also left out russia/etc and choose czech/poland/cuba to show that communism does not lead to disregard of the lives of its own people.

btw, fascism is social nationalism. it does value lives, of its own people, but not lives of other people. that is well demonstrated in the atrocity of german/japanese occupation areas.