Women in the "Islamic Republic"

[redstar2000]

From Interviews with Iranian Brothel Workers conducted by Roya Karimi for Zanan, a women's magazine in Tehran. Translated from the Farsi by Kamran D. Rastegar. These excerpts first appeared in Harper's Magazine, March 2004, pp. 22-25.

---------------------------------------------------

That night my half brother...came home, ate dinner, and then beat me. He kept saying, "Two days you've been in Tehran and you've been corrupted!...You've ruined my reputation!" If his wife hadn't been there, he would have killed me.

I was in so much pain that I couldn't sleep. When the morning call to prayer sounded, I ran away...

It was nightime when I got to the southern bus terminal, and the tickets were sold out. I didn't have much money, so I went into the bathroom, where a few other girls were sleeping. I had just started to fall asleep when a loud sound awakened me. The religious police were conducting a raid, and they took us all to the police station...in the end I was sentenced to eighty lashes and a 30,000 toman fine (U.S.$35.00).

When they whipped me, it hurt. My stomach hurt, my feet burned. At first, I screamed out loud. Then I just bit down hard on the edge of my chador...I was only 16 years old. I was locked up for three months...

...Later my half-brother found me. I laughed and called out, "Have you come looking for me?" He said, "Yes, come on, let's go." We walked towards the woods and I saw he had a rope. I knew he was going to beat me...But instead he tied the rope to a tree, made a noose with it, and grabbed me and put my head in the noose. I couldn't breathe. I was about to die. I said "I'm dying". He said, "Good, good."...The branch broke, and I fell down, choking.

The police took me to the hospital. I wanted to file charges against my half-brother, but they said, "You're not legally an adult".

* * * * *

I'm fifteen...That night my father beat me until my whole body was black and blue. Then he locked me in the cellar. There were rats down there...after a month, I broke a window and escaped...I was on my way to the bus terminal when I was picked up by the police. At 6am they took me back home. I was beaten again. This time my father hung me by my feet from the hook he used to hand slaughtered lambs. That night my sister cut me down...She gave me a chador and some money...[later] I called and spoke to my sister. She said that my father beat her for a week after I left, so she would tell him where I was. And my mother told her that if she sees me she'll burn me alive...since I am going to burn in the next life, it is her duty to set fire to me in this one.

* * * * *

I was just starting high school when Ahmad started getting interested in me...when I realized I was pregnant, I told Ahmad...He said "There's nothing I can do about it...If my father were to find out, he'd kill me. If your uncle were to find out, he'd kill you. The best thing to do is kill yourself."

I cried all day, knowing that he was right...I filled a pan with oil and took it into the bathroom...I poured the oil over my hair and clothes and lit a match...

When my burns began to heal, I was taken to the police and given eighty lashes for having an illicit relationship.

My uncle (now) says that the first time he saw my eyes, he knew they were the eyes of a whore.

-----------------------------------------------------

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Kez]

What the fuck.

I hope the ****s who say that the Islamic revolution was a progreesive one have read this.

I personally hope that when the Iranian Reovlution breaks out every fuckin mullah **** is blown into a million pieces, and a court is set up to put the bastards who abide the rules can be blown to pieces too.

[Saint-Just]

I don't see why the girl was beaten for having an illicit relationship in the last paragraph unless her parents wanted her to have an arranged marriage, in which case she would not have been able to marry Ahmed.

[Iepilei]

she wasn't married and was pregnant.

[redstar2000]

I was sort of expecting the defenders of "tolerance" and the advocates of "culture" to come rushing to this thread with numerous "excuses" for these atrocities.

Since they've not chosen to do so (at least not yet), I've made a note of this link. The next time they do crawl out from under their rocks, I'll post a link to this thread...or maybe just copy and paste the whole thing.

By the way, if this is what Iran is like for women, can it even be imagined what horrors take place in "Saudi" Arabia?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[PenguTheMightyPenguin]

Me being Iranian myself know that this dose not happen in most familys, anyway the Iranian revoloution was first about socialist and even communist ideas, that was the main fact that people supported the regime at first. :o For me it is interesting to hear that this was printed in Iran! :o

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 03:56 PM
she wasn't married and was pregnant.
Yes, but she could have got married, although it depends what stage of the pregnancy she was at. Also it is quite likely they would check she was a virgin. And, as I said, her parents probably wanted her to have a marriage they had already arranged and so she could not marry this individual, in addition she was obviously not of the mind to marry if her and her partner got her pregnant outside of marriage.


I was sort of expecting the defenders of "tolerance" and the advocates of "culture" to come rushing to this thread with numerous "excuses" for these atrocities.

I think the atrocities are that when they come to western countries suppress their culture and overly westernise their children. At least this happens in Britain, I suspect we may have more middle eastern immigrants in Britain. Not these kinds of acts, but other cultural practices they have.

[redstar2000]

Me being Iranian myself [I] know that this does not happen in most families...

How could you possibly "know" what happens in "most" families? Usually, all one can know about another's family is what they choose to make public knowledge...unless one of the members of that family confides in you about what's really going on. Or you can actually hear the screams.

And it's not as if teenage Iranian girls go to the neighborhood swimming pool and show off their bruises and welts, is it?

Maybe it happens in lots and lots of families in Iran. I strongly suspect it does!


For me it is interesting to hear that this was printed in Iran!

Me too! I would surmise that the publication has since been shut down in the latest wave of clerical reaction...but I don't really know. I rather doubt that it was ever openly sold at the newsstands in Teheran...but I can't say for sure.


I personally hope that when the Iranian Revolution breaks out every fuckin mullah **** is blown into a million pieces...

Kez and I are rarely in full accord...but in this case I second his motion with enthusiasm.

There is no hope for Iran until Islamic fundamentalism is ruthlessly exterminated, leaders and supporters alike.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[PenguTheMightyPenguin]

How could you possibly "know" what happens in "most" families? Usually, all one can know about another's family is what they choose to make public knowledge


It's like you know that in most American Familys they dont beat their children.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 01:57 AM

How could you possibly "know" what happens in "most" families? Usually, all one can know about another's family is what they choose to make public knowledge


It's like you know that in most American families they don't beat their children.
No, I don't "know" that "most" American parents don't beat their kids.

Unless the kid is hospitalized and the matter comes to the attention of the police, no one "knows" what really happens...in American families, Iranian families, or families in any other place.

I do know we have had threads on this board where so-called "leftists" defended the parental "right" to "discipline" (beat) their kids. (!!!)

After all, Christian and Jewish theology is just as much in favor of kid-beating as Islamic theology...in fact, that may be another one of those ideas that is universal (or nearly so) in all religions.

And God commanded us, saying "Beat your brats that they might learn to obey you and ME!"

In the U.S., there are periodic scandals in the media (for a day or two) when some particularly atrocious incident comes to the attention of the police...especially when the victim is an infant or very small child.

But what really happens? Routinely?

Nobody "knows"!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Comrade BNS]

I was sort of expecting the defenders of "tolerance" and the advocates of "culture" to come rushing to this thread with numerous "excuses" for these atrocities.

Since they've not chosen to do so (at least not yet), I've made a note of this link. The next time they do crawl out from under their rocks, I'll post a link to this thread...or maybe just copy and paste the whole thing.

By the way, if this is what Iran is like for women, can it even be imagined what horrors take place in "Saudi" Arabia?

hahahaha!! nice one redstar, how can you still hold credibility on this board? i've been a member of this board for around 2 weeks and am already tired of you radicalist, ignorant, unfounded, parochial, crap!

How fucking dare you pay lip service to these poor girls in Iran, to simply use their stories as an opportunity to lash out at opposionists on this board. You are no less cruel and callous then the "evil Islamic Tyrants" you like to continually demonise...

I am amazed that you have been able to make the same post 4627 times. From all I have read, every single one of your posts seems to consist entirely of "It's Marxists vs. the evil corrupt, conservative, backward, ignorant, filthy world of the un-enlightened. All non marxists, and those who didn't interpret marx's works "correctly" should be oppressed, shot, or imprisoned. Let's change the world from one of monopoly capitalism, to one of monopoly convention of thought and ideas."

I will not disagree that the situation in Iran is disgusting, and that in Saudi Arabia women's rights are less then on par with our own, however this does not by any means give you the right to make arrogant pontifications and value judgment on other's lives! have you by any chance digested every single word michael moore has ever published? you seem to spill forth the same ignorant, morally superior, "left", "people's" and "right" views that he so in-eloquently publishes in a gross affront to forestation the world over. The only positive you seem to have over Michael Moore is that while he helps to destroy the amazon with his crass garbage, you merely waste "people's" time.

Let me ask you, if the world accepted your views, where would they lead? to another constricted monopolistic state of affairs? you may quite easily be able to assert your narrow and parochial extremeist views on this board, but what do you really hope to achieve by doing so? all you are doing is alienating others with differing views, and ensuring that anyone with any kind of academic knowledge and/or forsight will simply ignore your views and move on. ( and yes i am well aware of the irony of that statement)

grow up! get an education! hell get something, just stop with all the pointless confrontations which all inevitably degenerate in BDCs (Big Dick Competitions)...

Comrade BNS

[Kez]

i'd put it down to old age and becoming senile

[redstar2000]

i've been a member of this board for around 2 weeks and am already tired of you radicalist, ignorant, unfounded, parochial, crap!

Well, that's a real shame, because there's lots more on the way!


You are no less cruel and callous then the "evil Islamic Tyrants" you like to continually demonise...

Yes, I have a "world-wide reputation" for cruelty to women, don't I?


From all I have read, every single one of your posts seems to consist entirely of "It's Marxists vs. the evil corrupt, conservative, backward, ignorant, filthy world of the un-enlightened. All non marxists, and those who didn't interpret marx's works "correctly" should be oppressed, shot, or imprisoned.

It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.


...this does not by any means give you the right to make arrogant pontifications and value judgment on other's lives!

I don't know if anything ever "gave me the right", I just took it.

If you don't like my "value judgments", make some of your own...unless you're scared that "Allah" will stick you in "Hell".


have you by any chance digested every single word michael moore has ever published?

I have never read anything by Mr. Moore nor did I see his movie (or movies).


Let me ask you, if the world accepted your views, where would they lead?

Communism.


grow up!

Every time I've ever heard this statement, the literal meaning always turned out to be "learn to like the taste of shit!".

This time is no exception.


get an education! hell get something, just stop with all the pointless confrontations which all inevitably degenerate in BDCs (Big Dick Competitions)...

Given the poor writing quality of your posts, I think "an education" should be your priority much more than mine.

Given the complete nonexistence of anything approaching a rational argument on your part, it would seem you are arguing with your penis, not me. From the general tone of your posts, I gather it is somewhat smaller than average.

Here's a suggestion: instead of trying to flame me, why don't you offer some "rational" arguments for Islamic practice towards women? Why don't you tell us exactly why "Allah" thinks it's "so bad" that women should run their own lives, dress as they please, have consensual sex with whoever appeals to them, drive cars, etc., etc., etc.

Of course, if you'd rather rant at me, I'll understand. The world is full of superstitious nutballs and none of them have a good word to say for me!

For some strange reason, I'm kind of proud of that.


i'd put it down to old age and becoming senile

This is my "reward" for agreeing with you, you Trotskyite fuckwit???

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[pandora]

Okay Redstar,

Then what's your take on Iraq, now that we (US, etc) have fucked up and basically put the entire country on unemployment; whilst bombing the shit[sorry for lang. but necessary here] out of Iraqi buisnesses such as clubs where Iraqi servicemen might have rountinely gathered, we're left with a nation of men, many who come from Shite, or fundamental roots who have nothing to do except go to religious centers and pray for relief because they have no job, and nothing to support their families.

Meanwhile, they have nothing to do so on daily walkabouts with a smoke they may pass a "guarded-secured" area and have to be "put-down" as the military calls it, to the ground with a gun to the back of their head to instill a "boy don't go there" attitude on the population.

Of course all this does is piss our unemployed Islamic friend off and hurt his pride, often he was not able to further his education as he was drafted out of the lower grades, and possesses few skills in which to gain employment in the occupation. Even if he could many "returnees" not all but many have used the their control of English and occupational skills from the West for material gain, and if he gets a job he must pay have his daily fee of say $5 to the damn harbour master for his job, if he can get a job.

So now his pride is hurt, both you and I [I being a radical feminist socialist witch; although I'm sure you have another name for it] would disagree with him throwing his support into Islamic Fundamentalism, but it is where his community support is. Even though most Iraqis are not Fundamentalist and really want their own buisnesses and trade, but the fundamentalists have the most organization and power, due to these facts.[Unemployment and suppression by US forces resulting in a lot of angry young men with no socialist ideology.]

The cure, do we continue to occupy a country to enforce that Islamic Fundamentalism does not take hold, keeping real democracy from happening because the Fundamentalists would control the majority of the system, or do we get out and let the Fundamentalists do what they will praying the majority of Iraqis eventually overpower the local priests.

Currently there is another plan, that is to bring in education and rebuild the university. But many Islamic Fundamentalists oppose the teaching of science and technology for the same reasons the Christian Right in the American South forces Creationist bullshit in US Southern school books, science goes against "Gods Will"

I don't know, we fucked up we should have never been there, but I do know that more superior than thou attitudes will only reinforce isolationism and cause Fundamentalism to have more support not less.

PS. In regards to new material being published according to the author of Reading Lolita in Tehran, whose students are still studying in Tehran, changes with the morality police have been happening slowly due to the courage of women fed up with the system risking being beaten within an inch of their lives to constantly challenge the system, but this resistance has cost lives, blood and honor. The little progress has been paid in blood.-- but I relate this second hand, and have no direct knowledge.
an overly arrogant Pandora,

[BuyOurEverything]

BNS: Congradulations, you managed to write six paragraphs without actually addressing the issue. I'm curious as to your justification for supporting Islamic fundamentalist theocracy, I failed to see any in your post. I'm going to work off the assumption that you oppose Christian fundamentalist theocracy in this country (correct me if I'm wrong,) so why is it so hard to oppose essentially the same thing in other countries? What is so sacred about 'other cultures'?

pandora: Congradulations to you too on a completely off topic post. I guess if you can't form a decent argument on one topic, give one on another topic. Nice strategy. For the record, I don't hink anyone here (except maybe Enigma) supports the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

[pandora]

Thank you BuyEverything, I really try to divert the issue, lie, no I was more addressing people's antagonistic hatred towards fundamentalism.
No I am not a fan of Fundamentalism anywhere, it breeds ignorance and contempt for other ideas, but in Iraq I see the US as pushing people deeper into the faith of a generation past.

As far as Fundamentalists in Iran watching everything people do or say, not allowing a heel to show or a strand of hair, i think it's fucked
All the while people drink behind closed doors and become prisoners in their own houses
I think the Fundamentalists stole a revolution that would have been more socialist, but the CiA made sure that didn't happen,
and paid the price in hostages, of course it was not a coincidence that Reagan brokered a deal to get them back on his nomination,
talk about propaganda. Meanwhile the people have suffered while the CIA gave Iraq and Iran weapons to beat the hell
out of each other and basically finish each other off. You want to look at why Sadam went really tolitarian that war is why
Millions of people died for nothing, and the US pressed it all anxious to get at the oil underneath,
Hell why not just drop a neutron bomb

The leaders are ignorant because we helped the most ignorant sons of b get into power and made sure they stayed there while selling arms to them to support our war in Nicarqua.
When I think of any young woman being shamed by her family, beaten and raped by police, and imprisoned for handing out a flyer for 7 years, Being shot in the head in front of a stadium of people for one's hair slipping, I can't express it how I feel. See dialogue project set up by Iranian women regarding dialogue between the Muslim world and the west at http://dialogueproject.sais-jhu.edu
My point was it's happening again, we're doing it right now in Iraq, if a coalition government that is fundamentalist suits our needs and makes the right promises everyone else is fucked that's all I'm saying. I just tried to state it subtlely, I can't help it if you were not taught to read between the lines, but don't worry I won't blame you I'll just blame the public schools.

[redstar2000]

Okay Redstar,

Then what's your take on Iraq...

Immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all occupation forces, of course. They should never have been there in the first place and the longer they remain, the worse things will be.

I'm unsure how this is relevant to the topic of the thread; the United States has never been known to support any but the most reactionary quislings they could manage to find.

Of course, the "quisling" part is just as important as the "reactionary" part. The U.S. is always "righteously" opposed to reactionaries that won't obey American commands.

The U.S. obviously does not care if Muslim fundamentalists take over in Iraq...as long as it's the "right kind" of fundamentalist: one that obeys American orders.

(Check out the draft of the new constitution of Afghanistan...one feminist called it "Taliban Lite".)


...but I do know that more superior than thou attitudes will only reinforce isolationism and cause Fundamentalism to have more support not less.

I don't know whether you mean this literally or not (does redstar2000 have such awesome power???).

But I think secular forces in the Islamic world (and everywhere) are "superior" and should aggressively attack superstitious bullshit on every possible occasion. If repression is so severe that it must be done anonymously and with great caution, then so be it.

But it must be done...constantly!

There is no place for cringing, servile "respect" for an institution that has long since lost any right to respect. Islam might have been "progressive" in 9th century Baghdad or 13th century Grenada...in our own time it has been utterly reactionary and barbarous to boot!

(Just to show I'm not being "Euro-centric" here, I don't think Christianity ever had a "progressive" era. The progress made in the "Christian world" was almost always made against the vehement and sustained opposition not only of Christian fundamentalists but of mainstream Christianity.)


I being a radical feminist socialist witch; although I'm sure you have another name for it...

Yes I do: confused.

Radical feminist socialist is a political description.

There are no such things as "witches"...although one is certainly free to describe oneself as such.

A radical feminist socialist who claims supernatural powers is an oxymoron.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[pandora]

There is no hope for Iran until Islamic fundamentalism is ruthlessly exterminated, leaders and supporters alike.
:redstar2000:] [/QUOTE]

This is the quote I wanted to question you about Redstar, that was the point of describing life in Iraq; yes I also want the US the heck out of there, but recognizing that Islamic Fundamentalists may gain power due to organization of it's members is a risk that may well be the end result.

Of coarse as you say and I agree, as in Iran the US could really care less if Fundamentalists take power as long as they get their oil, the only stickler being Fundamentalists may take their arms and [gasp] lie to the CIA about how they will use them. But like the arms for War on Drugs in Southern Mexico being used against the Zapatista, we don't care and may even condone. Just like we helped out the Kurds so well after the last war in Iraq.

As far as the witch comment, I use that word because it denotes power, I much prefer it to the b word it rhymes with which I find degrading to women. It's not about supernatural powers, it's about being a strong woman who speaks her mind regardless of the consequences, much like yourself, and most "witches" that were burned at the stake in years past were precisely the same, many were alchemists, scientists, and midwifes, and "witchy" outlandish woman like myself are precisely the one's that are the targets of the morality squads in Iran. So I feel for these women and enjoy my right to have an opinion.
Cheers :P

[Comrade BNS]

BNS: Congradulations, you managed to write six paragraphs without actually addressing the issue. I'm curious as to your justification for supporting Islamic fundamentalist theocracy, I failed to see any in your post. I'm going to work off the assumption that you oppose Christian fundamentalist theocracy in this country (correct me if I'm wrong,) so why is it so hard to oppose essentially the same thing in other countries? What is so sacred about 'other cultures'?


well Congratulations "Buyoureverything" you have completely missed the point, failed to think analytically, and wasted everyone's time.

Before I adress Redstar i think people need to go back and read my previous post. Redstar obviously doesn't give a flying fuck about these poor girls in Iran, as he himself quoted, he was waiting for all the "cultural defenders" and "tolerant" people to respond, so he could use this as some sort of credible standpoint to justify his own views.

He doesn't care about the state of Islamic republics, he doesn't care about the sharing of views and information. He has made this very clear, I continually open up points of discussion based on tolerance and other arguments from a standpoint of acceptance. If you [redstar] really did care about Islamic law, Islamic society and Islam in general you would have already gone by your own accord to sources and institutions of learning, to learn, and to understand before criticising. I myself have pointed board users towards very intelligent, very analytical and very objective studies of Islam and its myriad of facets.

Why is the law in Islamic "Republics" so repressive? because it is not actually Sahri'ah (Islamic social system, not just Law). Sharia'ah was originally devised and implemented as a wholisitic approach to social problems. It was not just a legal code, but a set of "unofficial" socialtal "do's" and "dont's", a social security service and an area of public appeal. However in it's current diminished state, it is merely a legal code. And the reason it is so brutal is because, as it is, under fundamentalist control, it is not a progressive legal code or system. As it is, Shari'ah, is just the simpl application of decisions made in the 13th century. During the 13th century these decisions were perfectly acceptable to the society of the time. However taken in today's context are completely innappropriate and in many cases barbaric. But at the time the laws were progressive and were not intended to be eternal Jurisprudence, but instead where interpretations of Shari'ah at the time, from the main sources of Shari'ah (the Qu'ran and the Sunnah, sayings and actions of the prophet). Thus it was progressive, however after the decline of state within Islam, the unofficial clergy became much more powerful, and so to maintain their power, they enforced/enforce fundamentalist and historically outdated phillosophies and practices to maintain their grip on power. So that these days to the majority of Muslims, anything with the tag "Islamic" is seen as holy, so they feel they cannot challenge the Imams, or challenge current implementations of Shari'ah, and tend also to follow set interpretations of the Qu'ran. This however is not correct, and is not how things should be. Only the Qu'ran and the Sunnah are sacred to believers and infalliable (and yes it is their choice to believe this, so don't talk about it being an opressive religion). The Qu'ran actually charges each believer with interpreting the text in their own way, challenging the established way of things, and engaging on a journey of self learning. So in the case of Islam, science is not adverse to it, but is indeed a divine injunction of it. And i think also that is worth noting those Magistrates whose judgements are now simply rehashed and reapllied, did not intend for their decisions to be eternal whatsoever. They in fact forbade their followers from establishing schools of thought based around their decisions, as they stated their judgements were merely their own interpretation at the time, derived from the divine sources of Shari'ah.

So as you can see Islam is intrinsically a progressive religion, although i do not agree with all parts of it.

And why are other cultures so sacred? because they are not founded on postmodern consumerist ideologies, and yes even your precious Marxism (as much as i do agree with parts of it) is based on the western notion of consumption and production, thus implicitly implying a consumerist, materialist mentality....correct me if I'm worng, but isn't the main focus of Marxism/communism to ensure that all people recieve the same amount of material wealth? and i despise postmodernism for its abandonment of history, culture and therefore Identity.

Comreade BNS

[redstar2000]

As far as the witch comment, I use that word because it denotes power...

Well, as you wish. I think most people won't read it that way -- they will think it means you are a follower of "the horned god", "the maid, mother, and crone", etc. Some of them will probably ask you if you will "cast a spell" for them...and so on.

I think just calling yourself a feminist is a major challenge and assertion of female autonomy in and of itself -- many very "up front" women will say "I'm not a feminist, but..." and proceed to articulate a strong feminist position. Any woman who says bluntly "I am a feminist" is claiming the right to power over her own life and no one misunderstands the depth of that assertion.

And now back into the muck...


Redstar obviously doesn't give a flying fuck about these poor girls in Iran, as he himself quoted, he was waiting for all the "cultural defenders" and "tolerant" people to respond, so he could use this as some sort of credible standpoint to justify his own views.

And you, at least, didn't disappoint me.

Oh yes, you're just overflowing with sympathy for "those poor girls in Iran" while springing to the vigorous defense of the barbarous superstition directly responsible for their plight.

With "friends" like you, they really don't need any enemies, do they?


...I continually open up points of discussion based on tolerance and other arguments from a standpoint of acceptance.

Haven't you understood it yet? Communists are not "tolerant" or "accepting" of oppression!

Whether in the name of "Jesus", "Allah", "Vishnu" or even in the name of the greater glory of the American Empire, we reject it totally!


Why is the law in Islamic "Republics" so repressive? because it is not actually Sahri'ah (Islamic social system, not just Law).

The same pathetic excuse! Do you have any idea how often I've heard that crap from the Christians on this board?

I point out some atrocity and they invariably reply "Oh, those were not 'real' Christians"...even when their own "Bible" backs up the atrocious deed and speaks of even worse atrocities committed at the direct command of their "God".

When someone on this board quoted from a Hindu "holy book" that advocated rape, the Hindu apologist replied that "the text was corrupted by sinful men". It's just an "accident" or "coincidence", I suppose, that even female delegates to international conferences held in Indian cities are not safe from being raped.

Yes, any time a Muslim does something atrocious...well, he's not a "real" Muslim.

Guess what? He thinks he is! And if you told him to his face that he was a disgrace to Islam, it would be you that would be facing "80 lashes"...or worse!


So as you can see Islam is intrinsically a progressive religion, although I do not agree with all parts of it.

No, I don't see that at all. But I note that you want to "cherry-pick" from it. Christians do that too! You pick out the parts you like and try to be discreetly silent about the embarrassing parts.

It's a "package deal", like it or not. When you sign up, you sign up for the whole package. Otherwise, "Allah" will think you're trying to supplant Muhammed...and it's the fiery pit for you, boy.


And why are other cultures so sacred? Because they are not founded on postmodern consumerist ideologies...

No, they are founded on conquest, mass murder, oppression of still other cultures, etc., etc., etc.

I am no particular "fan" of "postmodern consumerism" -- whatever you might mean by that peculiar phrase. But if I had to choose, I would certainly choose that over any possible collection of superstitious barbarisms and their accompanying atrocities.

Whatever your "standards", is it not more civilized to eat pork barbecue in Mecca than to whip teenage girls in Tehran?

Any culture that regards itself as "sacred" is in great need of a wrecking ball.


...correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the main focus of Marxism/communism to ensure that all people receive the same amount of material wealth?

Not exactly. The purpose of communism is the emancipation of the working class from wage-slavery. The material equality is a happy by-product of that...but it's not its purpose.

In a classless society, "the free development of each is the condition of the free development of all".


...I despise postmodernism for its abandonment of history, culture and therefore Identity.

Postmodernism is really just the secular equivalent of the medieval notion of "the unknowable mind of God". It asserts that we can't really "know" anything -- though how postmodernists can "know" this is one of those questions that shall forever remain unanswered.

But that's not relevant in your case: you evidently think that your "identity" derives from a specific culture and a specific history...with the implication that this "identity" is in some sense "superior" to all those humans from a different culture with a different history.

No way, buddy! Capitalism is a powerful acid that eats away at all those old pre-capitalist ideologies...or simply blows them up.

In the end, the human species will consist of two classes: workers and bosses. Everything else will be irrelevant.

And then you'll have to choose: which side are you on?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[BuyOurEverything]

Thank you BuyEverything, I really try to divert the issue, lie, no I was more addressing people's antagonistic hatred towards fundamentalism.
No I am not a fan of Fundamentalism anywhere, it breeds ignorance and contempt for other ideas, but in Iraq I see the US as pushing people deeper into the faith of a generation past.


Well we can agree on that. US imperialism is not an acceptable alternative to Islamic fundamentalism. US involvment in countries such as Iraq simply breeds resentment and makes the problem worse. Although Saddam was not exactly an "Islamic fundamentalist."


My point was it's happening again, we're doing it right now in Iraq, if a coalition government that is fundamentalist suits our needs and makes the right promises everyone else is fucked that's all I'm saying. I just tried to state it subtlely, I can't help it if you were not taught to read between the lines, but don't worry I won't blame you I'll just blame the public schools.

OK, neither of us are fans of US imperialism, correct? It's obvious that the US will support fundamentalist regimes if it suits their needs, nobody is arguing the contrary. My question to you is, do you believe religious fundamentalism a good alternative to imperialism, capitalism and consumerism? I say no.


He doesn't care about the state of Islamic republics, he doesn't care about the sharing of views and information. He has made this very clear, I continually open up points of discussion based on tolerance and other arguments from a standpoint of acceptance. If you [redstar] really did care about Islamic law, Islamic society and Islam in general you would have already gone by your own accord to sources and institutions of learning, to learn, and to understand before criticising. I myself have pointed board users towards very intelligent, very analytical and very objective studies of Islam and its myriad of facets.


Your argument has serious logical flaws. Are you saying that if one disagrees with Islamic fundamentalism, they do not care about the state of Islamic republics? I would argue that is it precisely because they do care about the state of Islamic republics, and their citizens, that they oppose fundamentalism.


Why is the law in Islamic "Republics" so repressive? because it is not actually Sahri'ah (Islamic social system, not just Law). Sharia'ah was originally devised and implemented as a wholisitic approach to social problems. It was not just a legal code, but a set of "unofficial" socialtal "do's" and "dont's", a social security service and an area of public appeal. However in it's current diminished state, it is merely a legal code. And the reason it is so brutal is because, as it is, under fundamentalist control, it is not a progressive legal code or system. As it is, Shari'ah, is just the simpl application of decisions made in the 13th century. During the 13th century these decisions were perfectly acceptable to the society of the time. However taken in today's context are completely innappropriate and in many cases barbaric. But at the time the laws were progressive and were not intended to be eternal Jurisprudence, but instead where interpretations of Shari'ah at the time, from the main sources of Shari'ah (the Qu'ran and the Sunnah, sayings and actions of the prophet). Thus it was progressive, however after the decline of state within Islam, the unofficial clergy became much more powerful, and so to maintain their power, they enforced/enforce fundamentalist and historically outdated phillosophies and practices to maintain their grip on power. So that these days to the majority of Muslims, anything with the tag "Islamic" is seen as holy, so they feel they cannot challenge the Imams, or challenge current implementations of Shari'ah, and tend also to follow set interpretations of the Qu'ran. This however is not correct, and is not how things should be. Only the Qu'ran and the Sunnah are sacred to believers and infalliable (and yes it is their choice to believe this, so don't talk about it being an opressive religion).




So in the case of Islam, science is not adverse to it, but is indeed a divine injunction of it.

Science is a divine injunction of Islam? Is Islam not based on faith and the supersticious belief in a 'higher power,' Allah? This is not compatable with science, which is based on reality and rationality.


And why are other cultures so sacred? because they are not founded on postmodern consumerist ideologies

You believe that any culture not based on postmodern consumerism is sacred? You than support the divine right of kings? Feudalism? You've already said you support religious fundamentalism.


and i despise postmodernism for its abandonment of history, culture and therefore Identity.


Well I'm just going to come right out and say it... you sound like a Nazi. You say that identity is defined by one's history and culture, not by one's self. Does all historical culture need to be protected? Does white culture need to be defended in America from the threat of illegal immigrants, who come here due to capitalism? Do you honestly think that history and culture intrinsically need to be protected?

[Comrade BNS]

Well I'm just going to come right out and say it... you sound like a Nazi. You say that identity is defined by one's history and culture, not by one's self. Does all historical culture need to be protected? Does white culture need to be defended in America from the threat of illegal immigrants, who come here due to capitalism? Do you honestly think that history and culture intrinsically need to be protected?

I take offense to that. No i do not think my culture, and cultural identity is in any way superior, or dominant, nor should it be. I am merely saying that my history, and my culture are part of my identity. In eastern countries, where there is a long cultural history and heritage, which then in turn shapes identity, postmodernism is wreaking havoc with its abandonment of history and historical concepts, because it is seen as quite inappropriate for the average white middle class occupant (the prime propogators of postmodernism) to be seen to be in touch with one's brutal and imperialist past. So by abandoning their own history, and then by forcing their own newly formed culture on other (thus forcing them to abandon their hisotry and cultural identity) it is destroying culture and removing cultural space. The point here is not that my culture is better or their culture is worse, it is that my culture and my identity are shaped by my history, and i resent postmodernists misuse and flippancy towards history.



Your argument has serious logical flaws. Are you saying that if one disagrees with Islamic fundamentalism, they do not care about the state of Islamic republics? I would argue that is it precisely because they do care about the state of Islamic republics, and their citizens, that they oppose fundamentalism.


you have quite obviously missed the point, as i was not refering to this matter at all in my previous posts.


Science is a divine injunction of Islam? Is Islam not based on faith and the supersticious belief in a 'higher power,' Allah? This is not compatable with science, which is based on reality and rationality.

sorry? so where did the basis of modern medical practices come from? and algebra? and what about engineering? and futurist studies and phillosophy?
the basis of Islam, and indeed Islamic society, is that God has provided believers with a framework within which they can shape and change their society. So in regards to science their is no onus of proof placed on the believer to prove or disprove the existance of God. It is merely an accepted fact that he exists and created this world, and the running of this world and the how things work of it are up to the believer to work out.


You believe that any culture not based on postmodern consumerism is sacred? You than support the divine right of kings? Feudalism? You've already said you support religious fundamentalism.

not at all....i do believe however that you should read my previous posts, and stop pontificating on contextural meanings within my posts to give yourself an air of pretension.

to sum up about my own identity, the foundations of which are in my history and my culture. I welcome cultural interaction most definately and am a huge supporter of immigration etc... I absolutely love the study of history of other cultures etc... and engage in many cross cultural activities which i thoroughly enjoy. I believe implcitly in a sense of unity between peoples around the world. The point i was making, was that we all have to define who we are at some stage in our lives. Postmodernists define their existence moment to moment, they say they are tolerant of other cultures, but other cultures are merely a spontaneous experience with no historical grounding or reference, which is then forgotten in the next moment, as the postmodernist seeks to experience another spontaneous moment or event. I however, shape my identity, by who I am, and the moral values and traditions of my culture (alot of these are challenged, and i do not accept alot of them, but intrinsically, i hold true to the fundamental maxims which have guided and united my culture for centuries), as well by the borrowing of ideas and thoughts from other cultures. I have found through my studies of Islam, that it has alot to offer in terms of moral and spiritual guidance, which is why I am a staunch defender of it, although I heartely disagree with aspects of the faith (for instance the treatment of women, and the idea of spreading or preaching the faith to name a few). I find their are ideal expressions of wisdom in all religions and phillosophies, even if i do not agree with them.

Comrade BNS

[redstar2000]

I have found through my studies of Islam, that it has a lot to offer in terms of moral and spiritual guidance...

Except for the embarrassing parts... :blink:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Comrade BNS]

Except for the embarrassing parts...

stop focussing on the negative aspects of everything all the time. I admit that yes there are parts of the religion that I do not agree with whatsoever, but looking at it wholistically, it does have alot to offer.


The same pathetic excuse! Do you have any idea how often I've heard that crap from the Christians on this board?

I point out some atrocity and they invariably reply "Oh, those were not 'real' Christians"...even when their own "Bible" backs up the atrocious deed and speaks of even worse atrocities committed at the direct command of their "God".

When someone on this board quoted from a Hindu "holy book" that advocated rape, the Hindu apologist replied that "the text was corrupted by sinful men". It's just an "accident" or "coincidence", I suppose, that even female delegates to international conferences held in Indian cities are not safe from being raped.

Yes, any time a Muslim does something atrocious...well, he's not a "real" Muslim.

and what if i was to question you on the dealings of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin? you would tell me that they were not real communists, and the USSR wasn't a real communist state! (which it wasn't)....don't be so fucking hippocritical! The difference between the examples u gave of christians denying association and Hindu's claiming corruption of texts are completely irrellevent here! those are just case judgements thrown together to save face. As i said earlier, Shari'ah is not as it should be, and can and should and has been much more humane. There are fucking hundreds of prominent scholars both Islamic and secular who have written about this, it is not just some cock n' bull story made to diminish responsibility. I direct you to the works of Ziauddin Sardar if you still doubt me.

Comrade BNS

[redstar2000]

Stop focusing on the negative aspects of everything all the time.

Sorry, that's what communists do...if I'm not mistaken, it's in our job description.


...but looking at it holistically, it [religion] does have a lot to offer.

So does a self-inflicted pre-frontal lobotomy...you never have "negative thoughts" about anything again. In fact you get to stop thinking altogether.

What a relief!


And what if I was to question you on the dealings of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin? You would tell me that they were not real communists, and the USSR wasn't a real communist state![sic] (which it wasn't)....don't be so fucking hypocritical!

Actually, I've spent a lot of time on those three gentlemen and the nature of the USSR.

Instead of saying that they were not "real communists" and that the USSR was not a "real communist state" [sic], I think it more useful to apply a Marxist (materialist) analysis to those questions.

In other words, it's not a theological determination; e.g., Lenin did X, "therefore" he was "not" a "real communist".

Much more interesting is the question of what Lenin thought he was doing and what the actual effects were and why material conditions produced that result.

Apprentice theologians like yourself just set up your "moral code" (on any basis you feel like) and then "cut and measure" the human species; those that "fit" are "saved" and those that don't (like me) are "damned".


I direct you to the works of Ziauddin Sardar if you still doubt me.

Why? I looked him up on google and he doesn't agree with Islamic "terrorists"...thinks they're giving Islam a "bad reputation", etc.

So what? What country does he run? What famous Islamic theological seminary is he in charge of? Why should any Muslim pay any attention to what he says?

He notes that Islam is the "fastest growing religion in the west" (almost the only growing religion in the west, actually).

I smell a "tactical" dispute. Sardar is telling the "terrorists" to "knock it off...we're already winning! Don't screw things up!" Of course, since he's being published in western newspapers, he uses western terms like "fascist" to describe the fundamentalists.

But do you really expect me to believe for a second that he doesn't want "an Islamic state"? Or that such a state would "not" relentlessly persecute not only communists but any secular opinion...not to mention "immoral women"???

Get real!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 12:52 PM

Stop focusing on the negative aspects of everything all the time.

Sorry, that's what communists do...if I'm not mistaken, it's in our job description.
Maybe it means that you should mention the negative aspects but not focus solely on them when looking at something as a whole. The negative aspects are not necessarily representative of a movement or religion. For example, it would be poor practice to make a judgement of Tony Blair based solely on his foreign policy (no that he is a greater leader besides his foriegn policy decisions).

I'm not defending religion here though, of course.

[redstar2000]

Maybe it means that you should mention the negative aspects but not focus solely on them when looking at something as a whole. The negative aspects are not necessarily representative of a movement or religion.

CM, I swear you sound like someone who is studying to be "an inscrutable oriental"...I find your cryptic comments harder and harder to understand.

Communists want a "new world", right?

That means we criticize the existing world in the harshest possible terms, right?

We are trying to convince people to reject "all the old shit", right?

So where do you get this "the negative aspects are not necessarily representative" stuff from?

The "negative aspects" of everything in class society are exactly what we should be focusing on...that is, if we want people to become revolutionary.

I do. Do you?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[pandora]

"[QUOTE=redstar2000,Communists want a "new world", right?
That means we criticize the existing world in the harshest possible terms, right?
We are trying to convince people to reject "all the old shit", right?
So where do you get this "the negative aspects are not necessarily representative" stuff from?
The "negative aspects" of everything in class society are exactly what we should be focusing on...that is, if we want people to become revolutionary."


Although I agree with critical theory, critizing everything to the point that people feel they are helpless or hopeless is futile.
It is important to move slowly in method practices to help people who are interested in communist and socialist thought, and have a critical world view of the chaos and madness that has taken hold a firm grip on a view of a better world that IS possible.

To that end tearing apart everything without end is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In a certain sense certain "breaks" should be made, undying loyalty to any party or faction without analysing logically whether or not someone speaks truth by measuring it with the human heart and seeing if it is true or false is what it means to me to think critically.

BUt we lose support when we evangelistically spell gloom and doom, hell I'd leave the tent if it's about guilt and not empowerment.

Empowerment, education the real weapons against all forms of global tyranny whether by Islamic Fundamendalists and morality squads or the grinding monotony of work and bills with no health care and piss poor education in the west. People need to be inspired if they are going to risk death for a cause. They need to believe that they are leaving a better world behind, that their actions matter, and that the people left in power have the freedom of others in mind and not their own self interest.
Been thinking a lot about Che's change of mind as he initiated the Congo and Bolivian campaigns, about selfless action. Comparing that with the stupid terrorist activities like making oneself explosive and killing and harming others and giving clowns like Sharon all the more power as people move towards him in fear. There are few people I would not sit down to coffee with to discuss ideas in hopes of creating a better world through direct action or through fine tuning a communal theory to a workable level for that time and meditating on how to institute it.
We must move beyond being critical to holding an idea as inspiration for practice

Speaking of which there is a new dialogue project set up by Iranian Women interested in spreading dialogue from the Muslim world into the west set up by Azar Nafasi of John's Hopkins and Reading Lolita in Tehran fame, so if people have questions specifically as to what is happening there they can post them there the address is
http://dialogueproject.sais-jhu.edu
Although it stresses democracy in the Middle East I'm sure they'd welcome your comments Redstar and enjoy your questions no matter how heated.

[redstar2000]

Although I agree with critical theory, criticizing everything to the point that people feel they are helpless or hopeless is futile.

Well, I've written quite a few "positive" posts on the nature of communist society; I think a "positive vision" is important...and even crucial.

But that's not really relevant to this thread, is it?

What exactly are we dealing with here?

I think we're dealing with people who recognize that the existing "order of things" is not going to stand in the long run and who are therefore trying desperately to preserve their own dirty little racket in the face of "the coming storm".

What they want communists to think is that "religion ain't really so bad" or even "you know, religion has some good points to it", etc. To pull this off, they'll play the "peace & love" card, the "tolerance" card, the "Jesus was the first communist" card, and any other shabby rationale that they can patch together.

Why? Because they think that as long as they can hold onto existence -- mainly by getting believers to brainwash their kids -- there's "always the chance" for a big come-back.

Maybe they can't burn witches under communism, but if communist society tolerates their superstition...then who knows what they might be able to do some day.

But if they are eliminated from public life and they lose the chance to brainwash their kids then "all is truly lost". Their dreams of a whole planet ruled by "God" and his "anointed" vanish into the universe of "might-have-beens". They become one with the worshipers of Marduk or Ra...a minor footnote in the long sweep of human history.

And they can't stand that idea! That is truly "Hell" to them! And they'll try anything to keep that from happening.

I wouldn't put it past the bastards for them to attempt to "canonize" Che...they're already circulating his picture in South America with a crown of thorns! (Yes, that's true...I've actually seen it!)

Most of the time, the kids who come to this board still carrying their religious baggage are simply confused...they haven't really begun to think like communists yet. And that's ok...none of us were born "all-knowing" (and none of us ever achieve that either, of course).

But now and then, some genuinely reactionary ideologues show up who aggressively seek to advance this or that "God" and its accompanying doctrines.

That's when I "take the gloves off" and really go after them...as long as I can still use a keyboard, they will not get away with that shit on this board.

I admit that it may be a futile struggle; a new "dark age of faith" may be "in the cards" no matter what anyone does.

Marx made an off-hand comment once that humanity would choose between socialism and barbarism...and it's always possible that the barbarians won this round! When you look at the mass appeal of religious fundamentalism around the world, you can get pretty damn pessimistic sometimes.

But if that's the case, then I choose to "go down fighting" the superstitious bastards "to the bitter end".

And sometimes things don't look so bad after all...the French National Assembly gave us a small but symbolic win a few weeks ago and may give us another one next year. Hopefully the Germans and other members of the EU will follow France's lead.

And I've actually seen people on this board for a while decide to abandon religion altogether...so there's hope.

There's always hope...as long as you haven't surrendered.


Empowerment, education the real weapons against all forms of global tyranny...

Yes, but you often have to "fight like hell" to get either one of those things "off the ground". Open a school for girls in Pakistan and the "holy warriors" will burn it down.

They know their real enemy; many of us have yet to learn ours!


There are few people I would not sit down to coffee with to discuss ideas in hopes of creating a better world...

The fastest growing religion in the west next to Islam is Mormonism...and you could not sit down "to coffee" with them. In their view, drinking coffee is a mortal sin punishable by eternal torment.

Their idea of a "better world" is very different from yours or mine.


...I'm sure they'd welcome your comments Redstar and enjoy your questions no matter how heated.

I went to the discussion board on that site, Pandora, and it looked like a "dead board"...there were only a few posts and almost all of them dated back to last year.

Also, they seemed to be mostly interested in the question of "literature in a closed society" as a kind of "mental" liberation. Nothing wrong with that, of course...look at the literary explosion in 19th century Czarist Russia. But it's an area where I don't honestly feel I have much to contribute.

So, I wish them well and all that, but I think different "weapons" are required in this struggle.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[pandora]

Okay Redstar,
Lets agree to disagree, I don't mind that in Chiapas and Oaxaca who support the Holy Struggle have Che on their alters right next to the Virgin de Guadelupe.
I would still stand beside them any day, I saw more bravery in those children yelling Communist slogans a few days after the Massacre of 97 in front of the army officials with their tank who would no doubt later that same day hunt down those same indigenous children in the mountains like rabbits, then I see in the North where people are too afraid of losing their "position" to declare their views.
Not Iran's morality police but a different sort of morality police, one of public policy and rebuke very much in place
As far as empowerment in education, listed schools for Chiapas website on other thread. I actually have Mayan friends who run a Tibetan Buddhist center encouraging peace in San Cristobel de Las Casas and it's quite popular. One woman I talked to wanted to gain Tantric vows and become Enlightened to help save her friends who were slaughterd. As a beautiful and respected female Mayan leader she also did education projects, etc. Another woman I met down there ran a secret safe house for battered women and yes used superstition of her being a witch to scare off campezinos trying to force their wives to return from entering her property, she could stare them down with a look because they fear her, actually she has a degree from Columbia in NY but she keeps that hidden and plays crazy bruja.

And for Iran yes I do really respect Azar Nafisi because she has courage to stand her ground and help others to stand theirs, even though she is still Muslim, but fights against Fundamentalism and morality squads who squander any point.
Yes I disagree with Marx on the point of religion, my small minded belief was that he saw that mere seperation of church and state was not stopping anti-Semitism in the US and sought to level the playing field.
You know my Buddhist beliefs, yes I try not to talk of them too much here, and espouse too much socialist doctrine in Buddhist study groups and meetings, but sometimes I cross over both lines. Its who I am is person, it's what helps mellow me out, and believe me I am of no use to any struggle without a trained mind from meditation, it empowers me and helps me mellow, check how badly I screwed up today under "Pacifist" Meditation beats psychatic bs for me, and bodchitta corresponds to comradeship for me, it means putting aside me for we.
Yes I do have coffee with a Mormon friend, and a friend who's Jehovah's Witness taking care of others. I believe she drinks tea :P

[redstar2000]

I am not at all clear about your post.

Are you saying that superstition is "ok" if it "helps the cause"? Or "helps you"? Or what?

As to the situation in rural Mexico, I hardly think it matters what "communist slogans" they may shout...communism is not a matter of slogans, even if they understood what they were shouting.

They are peasants, are they not? And particularly backward peasants at that, right? So if they each had a plot of land that would grow enough food to (barely) live on, that would be fine with them, right?

Do they even know that the earth is round? Or that it revolves around the sun?

Of course they have altars and icons and fear witches (and ghosts as well, probably). Of course they beat their wives and their children...where is that not found in peasant cultures?

To be honest, Pandora, I don't even see how this has any relevance at all -- rural Mexico is like something out of the year 1500CE...maybe not the total shithole that rural Afghanistan is, but pretty damn awful.


I actually have Mayan friends who run a Tibetan Buddhist center encouraging peace in San Cristobel de Las Casas and it's quite popular.

Mind-boggling.

I suppose I could ask why anyone would want to do that...but the answer would probably be even more incomprehensible.


Yes I disagree with Marx on the point of religion, my small minded belief was that he saw that mere separation of church and state was not stopping anti-Semitism in the US and sought to level the playing field.

No, that's all muddled up. His views on religion didn't have anything to do with anti-semitism, the United States, or the separation of church and state.

To Marx, it was necessary to criticize religious illusions in order to "clear away" the obstacles to criticizing reality. As he wrote while still a young man, "to criticize illusions is to criticize a world that requires illusions."

For example...


One woman I talked to wanted to gain Tantric vows and become Enlightened to help save her friends who were slaughtered.

The sequence of events is unclear, but if her friends have already been slaughtered, then there's nothing she can do to "save them".

If they have not yet been slaughtered, her personal "enlightenment" is not going to help; a bus ticket to Costa Rica will be far more useful (along with the necessary bribe to the border guard, of course).

This woman's illusions about reality actually block any real effort to save them...if that's still possible.


Yes I do have coffee with a Mormon friend, and a friend who's Jehovah's Witness taking care of others. I believe she drinks tea.

Better you than me. :(

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 09:48 PM

Maybe it means that you should mention the negative aspects but not focus solely on them when looking at something as a whole. The negative aspects are not necessarily representative of a movement or religion.

CM, I swear you sound like someone who is studying to be "an inscrutable oriental"...I find your cryptic comments harder and harder to understand.

Communists want a "new world", right?

That means we criticize the existing world in the harshest possible terms, right?

We are trying to convince people to reject "all the old shit", right?

So where do you get this "the negative aspects are not necessarily representative" stuff from?

The "negative aspects" of everything in class society are exactly what we should be focusing on...that is, if we want people to become revolutionary.

I do. Do you?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas
Yes, sorry, I'm wrong.