creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Paul Craig Roberts
Paul Craig Roberts
26 Mar 2010
Washington Murdered Privacy at Home and Abroad

In the Swiss newspaper Zeit-Fragen, Professor Dr. Eberhard Hamer from Germany asks, "How Sovereign is Europe?" … Read More.

19 Mar 2010
American Naifs Bringing Ruin to Other Lands

According to news reports, the U.S. military is shipping "bunker-buster" bombs to the U.S. Air … Read More.

17 Mar 2010
The Offshored Economy

In the 20th century, Detroit, Mich., symbolized American industrial might. Today it symbolizes the offshored economy. Detroit'… Read More.

Morality vs. Material Interests -- Myths of Our Time

Share Comment

It is conventional wisdom that it was the draft that ended the Vietnam War. According to this explanation, cowardly college students subject to the draft and their unpatriotic families forced an end to the war. This is Karl Marx's explanation. Material interests, not empty morality, are said to have brought the war to an end.

That fact that in those days the U.S. still had an independent media of sorts that sometimes framed the war in moral terms is ignored. Are we sure, for example, that the film of the naked little girl running in terror down the road burning with napalm was ineffectual in arousing moral opposition to the war? Are we certain that it wasn't an aroused moral conscience that brought about the end of the war but was college students' fears for their lives and limbs?

If we ascribe ending the war to material interests, it makes ending the war look as unworthy as the war itself.

Yet, virtually every conservative columnist, commentator, newsperson and politician, as well as today's antiwar protesters and apparently the Pentagon, believes that a military draft would reduce Americans' toleration for wars because of body bags coming home to middle- and upper-class parents. Apparently, the lower class doesn't mind its kids coming back in body bags.

Those in thrall to this explanation, which derives from Marx's materialist explanation of history, do not notice that Vietnam was our longest war. It apparently took almost forever for the material interest of students and their parents to realize itself and stop the war.

Why are we afraid to say that the war stopped because American troops and the American population got tired, offended even, from killing women, children and noncombatants? Vietnam had not attacked the U.S. The U.S. had interjected itself into a civil war in a far off place, as it has done in Afghanistan.

By invading Iraq, the U.S. started a civil war between Sunni and Shi'ite. In Pakistan, the U.S. has started a civil war between the religious tribal population and the secular U.S. puppet state.

In Palestine, the U.S. started a civil war between Fatah and Hamas.

One continuously reads from those Americans opposed to America's wars of aggression that the wars are possible because they don't affect Americans, just those few who sign up for the voluntary military. Thus, there are insufficient material interests at stake to stop the war. This is a common explanation for the weakness of the antiwar movement.

One could argue instead that it is the triumph of Karl Marx's materialist thinking that has made moral protests impotent. What is morality? You can't weigh it, define it, measure it. It can be dismissed as the whining of material interests. In contrast, material interests, such as lives, limbs and bank accounts, are real.

For whatever the reason, morality has shown itself to be an impotent force in 21st century America. Americans show no remorse at over 1 million dead Iraqis and 4 million displaced Iraqis due entirely to an American invasion based on lies and deception. The lies and deception are now well proven. Yet, there has been no apology for the horrors that Americans inflicted on Iraq.

Afghanistan is another example. Intentional lies conflated the Taliban with al-Qaida and "terrorists." The diverse peoples in Afghanistan who were first ravaged by Soviet bombs are now ravaged by American bombs. Weddings, funerals, children's soccer games, people waiting for fuel or food, people asleep in their homes, people attending mosques have all been murdered and are murdered routinely by U.S. and its NATO puppets.

Each time civilians are murdered, the U.S. denies it, only to be contradicted every time by the evidence.

Why is the president of the United States contemplating sending yet tens of thousands more U.S. troops to kill people in Afghanistan?

The answer is that the United States is an immoral country, with an immoral people and an immoral government. Americans no longer have a moral conscience. They have gone over to the Dark Side.

Humanity has endeavored for millennia to control evil with morality. In the American "superpower," this effort has collapsed and failed.

The United States needs to be censured for its immoral behavior, not have that behavior rationalized as being in its material interests.

To find out more about Paul Craig Roberts, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM


Comments

3 Comments | Post Comment
I would say the events of 9-11 have exposed a lot about present day America. While its been said that America went along with the obvious lies of Bush and company because of fear, I think we just don't want to admit that our long standing hatred and contempt for Muslims, which is so marked in our popular culture, was an equal driving force in our easy acceptance of obvious mistruths. Along with that, there has been a general decline in citizenship and true patriotism, something the allegedly stupid Bush so well recognized when his only request of us after 3,000 Americans were murdered on 9-11 was for us to go shopping. That is not something any leader of a nation of engaged and caring people would ask. The problem with capitalism, as with any ideology, is it must be subjected to flawed human nature, and in this country, capitalism has brought embarrasing levels of greed and materialism. Too many of us seek happiness from acquiring things and since extreme materialsim is not the true answer, like junkies looking for a better high, we acquire more and more of these things in an effort for a contentment they cannot bring. For most, the role of consumer has blotted out the role of citizen; in a democracy, that allows power to fall into the hands of the few as we spend our days heading to the mall instead of in the streets. The multi national corporations now control our government not because they lavish money on pols, but because nearly all Americans are uninformed, unengaged and just too damn uncaring to take the time out and do their civic duty. When you live in a country where the prevailing characteristic is every man for himself, it must be remembered that the more money and power you have, the better that system works for you. That has been the genius of recent GOP success until its recent demise due to events; they have convinced people that being selfish will work as well for them as the top 1%. With all the recent bad news regarding the economy, Wall Street's reemerging arrogance and greed, rising joblessness etc., any nation of serious people would not be behaving as we are, but the ethos of living for yourself and over the top materialsim have done their magic on a people who while they still maintaIn that life style cling to it ever more desperately, as though by doing so they can avoid the truth they know is around the corner, getting closer every day; it's all going to end, and badly.
Comment: #1
Posted by: michael nola
Sat Nov 14, 2009 8:24 AM
Re: michael nola

I well remember the NAFTA debate. Robert Dole, senator from Kansas, said that his mail and constituency ran 80% against. He voted for it anyway. I am only using him as an example. There are probably many others. He probably got some benefit from Archer Daniels Midland..

It will end badly as long as the politicians are bought and paid for.
Comment: #2
Posted by: RJH
Mon Nov 16, 2009 2:48 AM
Nola, as a true Republican, a non-neocon, a fiscally conservative and socially moderate individual, I agree with nearly 90% of what you said. It is amazing. I must say though, that Republican belief was not always of individualism for the good of individual. It was actually individualism for the good of society. But individualism consisted of being fiscally conservative, of saving, of investing for the long-run, and not of delving into luxuries, too much of which have destroyed not only individuals but also governments throughout world history. But again, I commend you for what you posted. Let's hope things will improve ... which I doubt in the short to medium term.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Ali Mogharabi
Mon Nov 16, 2009 10:11 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Paul Craig Roberts
Mar. `10
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
28 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 27 Feb 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 20 Feb 2012
Mark Levy
Mark LevyUpdated 18 Feb 2012

24 Dec 2008 The Greatest Gift for All

29 Mar 2008 A Little Sugar Makes the Medicine Go Down

17 Jan 2008 Bringing Death and Destruction to Muslims