Just because I'm talking politics doesn't automatically mean I'm lying Dwarfy.
So now that I'm back from my
physio...
Part 2: The Empire Strikes Back
Plenty of other contradictory examples like the above in what you have written, but not going to go into those at length because, well, everyone will get bored and piss off.
What I would like to puncture, however, is your basic tenet on what is commonly refered to as modern imperialism, 'exporting democracy', US and British troops galavanting all over the globe to bring peace, justice and the [Anglo-]American Way to the heathen. Not, in fact, to deny it - it is essentially true, certainly as presented by the Bush administration - but to point out that Western 'imperialism' has been alive and well for decades and you, I and almost everyone decrying military imperialism in Iraq have been part of it, benefiting from it, and being very, very quiet about it. In fact, unless you have been living in a tree for thirty years or hiking around the world to have a ruck at the G8, you don't have a leg to stand on. It's the economy, stupid.
Western (mostly American) economics, trade, and the success of the capitalist system have been quietly insinuating themselves around the world since the end of the Second World War, and in doing so we have both been exporting Western culture, and in many places exploiting the cultures we impose on by using both cheap labour and goods from these countries, and using economic power to control or block their own development. This is a large contributing fact to Middle-Eastern feelings of international injustice. Actually, if you are smart and 'left-leaning', you should be arguing FOR military imperialism over its cultural and economic forms. It's bloody hard to maintain, takes a huge amount of men and money, and provides a clear target to resist in the countries you are trying to colonise. Look at the results of European imperalism in the 18th and 19th centuries. Former colonies Europe still control / have troops in...er, the Falklands, Ivory Coast, um, Nepal, Brunei (kinda). But India still drinks tea, plays cricket, half of Africa and Canada speak French as a second language, and EVERYONE speaks English and uses our legal system. Cultural imperalism sticks, military imperialism fails.
So, wait a second, say you; 'Then I'm right!'. Perhaps. But what exactly are you doing about it? University age usually means a boycott on Nestle, Nike trainers, and much earnest discussion about Marxism. But how about the food you eat (screwing third world farmers), clothes you wear (cheap labour imports), transport you take (you were mentioning Iraqi oil?), etc, etc. How do you think you are reading this? US run internet has been the single largest factor in globalising capitalism.
In fact, as a student, you are most likely a relatively benign influence. Where it gets really interesting is this: on average in the West the richer you get, the more liberal you become (aside from the super-rich), the more likely you are to disagree with capitalist / globalised policies which made you rich in the first place, and yet
do exactly nothing about it. I've been at a friend's Hampstead engagement dinner party, eating Sainsburys food, (organic of course, and thus more expensive, which just makes Sainsburys richer, and allows them to lower their prices on imported food, grab a larger share of the market, and expand exploitation of developing world produce where they get 90% of their product),
espousing the evils of capitalism and globalisation, and flashing a diamond engagement ring. Nothing says I love you like a piece of carbon mined by wage slaves in Africa. I would love to say that this is extraordinary, but it isn't. Most of your mates with a subscription to Socialist Worker, in three years time will have either converted to the other side to earn lots of cash, shut up about their
deeply held socialist views, or the worst: earn lots of cash but bang on about how it is wrong.
So read again this statement...
If our politicians and civil society talk about morality, ethics, freedom, etc, they should practise it. Otherwise it is pure hypocracy built upon lack of empathy, apathy and ignorance, and I would [sic; surely "wouldn't"] lay down my life for that.
...and ask yourself if you are really so squeaky clean. I might respectfully suggest that unless you have been living as a self-sufficient hermit your entire life, you already are a hypocrite.
This, of course, is not to suggest these things shouldn't be said. As you pointed out, there would be no difference between democracy and totalitarianism, world tyranny, whatever - though by year two of uni, three at the latest, I suspect you will be subscribing to the view that democracy is, in fact, just tyranny by majority. Though what alternative is there? The left, unfortunately, doesn't have a great record on this. Democracy and Capitalism might look suspiciously like totalitarianism at times, but try telling that to anyone who lived in communist Russia or in modern North Korea. They would laugh in your face. Socialism has a worse record of tyranny than capitalism, in that not every fully capitalist/democratic state has been a totalitarian dictatorship.
Every communist state has been. Even the benign ones like Cuba and modern China (which is largely attributed to, shock, the import of capitalist economics).
The basic fact is that human beings have two very deep-rooted instincts which no politics will overcome - social instinct, and survival instinct. This means that people will always, on average, group together and screw other groups over if it is to their advantage. You are never going to change this.
What you can change is YOUR behaviour. We've already covered how your global ideas on economics and justice probably don't live up to your actions. So until you are building that hermitage, at least shut the hell up about them. Or at the
very least, don't accuse
others of hypocracy. Aside from anything else, people don't tend to listen to hypocrites, you will never convince anyone of your ideas.
In fact, you might do well do ditch the entire liberal moral gospel and start honestly thinking for yourself.
Be very clear, I'm not arguing for conservatism here, which has it's own, equally ridiculous, moral hypocracy - the Christian Right has been picked to pieces already for it, I don't need to bother. No matter which side it is on, if morality needs to be taught,
it isn't morality. What matters is your conscience, the gut instinct that something is wrong; that is what will make a difference between a soldier torturing Iraqis in Abu Ghraib and standing up and saying no; that is what will make a difference between an aid worker abandoning their charges or standing up to soldiers who would take them away; between the crowd scattering in Tianamen Square and one kid standing in front of a tank.
The Ghandis of this world rarely aimed to change the world, they just listened to conscience, had an indefatiguable will, and the rest is down to luck of the place and time. I guarantee you, when faced with sacrificing your friends, career, life, relying on nice ideals won't make you sacrifice them all to do the right thing, relying on your conscience will.