United Nations

[j.guevara]

Im doing a school project where i have to decide whether i want to join the leaugue of nations or not. I was wondering how marxists view the UN now and how the idea of the League of Nations was first recieved by marxists and socialists.( and when the league of nations was first proposed was Italy fascist?)

[el_profe]

The UN is corrupt, useless and never does what its suppose to do.
http://www.unisevil.com/

The named Libyan leader Colonel Gadaffi to Head the U.N. Human Rights Commission. How ironic isnt it the Libyan leader head of Human rights commision. http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1991
They might as well of named Saddam Hussein (this happened before Hussein was out of Iraq).

[STI]

Are you a Marxist, el profe? Were you asked?

Anyway, i don't trust a site named 'unisevil' any more than i would trust the old man with a gin bottle offering me candy from his van across the road (though it IS good candy :P ). Find a decent source, and I'll have a more open mind.

[Y2A]

Oh c'mon el_profe. I understand that the UN may be a little useless but the only form of an international government that we have at the moment. I would agree that there is much more room for improvement but no UN would just lead to Nationalism all over again.

Edit: I actually agree with ST :o , we don't like them using "U$isevil".com why do you think it would be reasonable to use UNisevil.com?

[STI]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 02:32 AM
Oh c'mon el_profe. I understand that the UN may be a little useless but the only form of an international government that we have at the moment. I would agree that there is much more room for improvement but no UN would just lead to Nationalism all over again.

Edit: I actually agree with ST :o , we don't like them using "U$isevil".com why do you think it would be reasonable to use UNisevil.com?
Wow. We agree on something. Quick, take a picture, somebody! I want this moment to last :tearofjoy:

[el_profe]

NO, just go there, they have good articles on why it is evil, the articles like the other link I have, just read it , its not long.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 02:32 AM
Oh c'mon el_profe. I understand that the UN may be a little useless but the only form of an international government that we have at the moment. I would agree that there is much more room for improvement but no UN would just lead to Nationalism all over again.

Edit: I actually agree with ST :o , we don't like them using "U$isevil".com why do you think it would be reasonable to use UNisevil.com?
Didnt you see the link, how could they name the lybian leader to head of the human rights commision?
also Cuba is on that commision? they violate human rights just by not letting there own people out of there country?
Look at the UN peacekeeping force, its a joke, they went to Somalia and got run over by those rebels, they go to Kosovo and dont do shit.. and many more examples.

[STI]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 02:37 AM
NO, just go there, they have good articles on why it is evil, the articles like the other link I have, just read it , its not long.
I went there as soon as I saw the link, and the first article i clicked to read gave me capitalism.com or something (the site which labelled Y2A a 'marxist', i believe, which destroyed any credibility they would have had to begin with).

[cormacobear]

It may not be as efficient as we could hope. but it gives even small countries an international platform on which to express their concerns and opinions. Besides I'd say it works it was designed to prevent world war three. we're all still here.........I think

[el_profe]

Originally posted by socialist_tiger+Mar 3 2004, 02:45 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (socialist_tiger @ Mar 3 2004, 02:45 AM)
[email protected] 3 2004, 02:37 AM
NO, just go there, they have good articles on why it is evil, the articles like the other link I have, just read it , its not long.
I went there as soon as I saw the link, and the first article i clicked to read gave me capitalism.com or something (the site which labelled Y2A a &#39;marxist&#39;, i believe, which destroyed any credibility they would have had to begin with). [/b]
Read the article and that website did not tell Y2A he was a marxist it was one person in the Forum.

The capmag.com website only puts articles from different people. NOthing more.
So read that article, I mean how could they name that lybian dictator to head of human rights commision.

[STI]

Originally posted by el_profe+Mar 3 2004, 02:47 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (el_profe @ Mar 3 2004, 02:47 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 02:45 AM

[email protected] 3 2004, 02:37 AM
NO, just go there, they have good articles on why it is evil, the articles like the other link I have, just read it , its not long.
I went there as soon as I saw the link, and the first article i clicked to read gave me capitalism.com or something (the site which labelled Y2A a &#39;marxist&#39;, i believe, which destroyed any credibility they would have had to begin with).
Read the article and that website did not tell Y2A he was a marxist it was one person in the Forum.

The capmag.com website only puts articles from different people. NOthing more.
So read that article, I mean how could they name that lybian dictator to head of human rights commision. [/b]
If somebody here were to mislabel you, how credible would our newswire be to you? Not very.

It would be the same as me submitting a website which cited communism.org as a source. The whole site lost all credibility.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 02:46 AM
It may not be as efficient as we could hope. but it gives even small countries an international platform on which to express their concerns and opinions. Besides I&#39;d say it works it was designed to prevent world war three. we&#39;re all still here.........I think
That is why I agree with the UN despite it&#39;s inefficenticy. You can call out the numerous flaws in the UN el_profe but like the communist attacks on the capitalist system, it is meaningless until you find another more efficient proven way of bettering the system to insure that every nation is protected in some small way be international law.

[Y2A]

I agree that capitalist mag isn&#39;t so bad. Just take out the bias crap and just look at the facts, that is what I do when I read workers and communist magazines.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by socialist_tiger+Mar 3 2004, 02:52 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (socialist_tiger @ Mar 3 2004, 02:52 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 02:45 AM

[email protected] 3 2004, 02:37 AM
NO, just go there, they have good articles on why it is evil, the articles like the other link I have, just read it , its not long.
I went there as soon as I saw the link, and the first article i clicked to read gave me capitalism.com or something (the site which labelled Y2A a &#39;marxist&#39;, i believe, which destroyed any credibility they would have had to begin with).
Read the article and that website did not tell Y2A he was a marxist it was one person in the Forum.

The capmag.com website only puts articles from different people. NOthing more.
So read that article, I mean how could they name that lybian dictator to head of human rights commision.
If somebody here were to mislabel you, how credible would our newswire be to you? Not very.

It would be the same as me submitting a website which cited communism.org as a source. The whole site lost all credibility. [/b]
Actually i quoted communism.org to use it in one of my arguments about Castro and Stalin, some people then said they didnt like communism.org
And i have read from the website some of you give me, the fact is the article I gave you is not propaganda, its a fact, that really happened the author criticized the UN for putting a dictator as head of the human rights commision.

[STI]

Originally posted by el_profe+Mar 3 2004, 02:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (el_profe @ Mar 3 2004, 02:56 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 02:45 AM

[email protected] 3 2004, 02:37 AM
NO, just go there, they have good articles on why it is evil, the articles like the other link I have, just read it , its not long.
I went there as soon as I saw the link, and the first article i clicked to read gave me capitalism.com or something (the site which labelled Y2A a &#39;marxist&#39;, i believe, which destroyed any credibility they would have had to begin with).
Read the article and that website did not tell Y2A he was a marxist it was one person in the Forum.

The capmag.com website only puts articles from different people. NOthing more.
So read that article, I mean how could they name that lybian dictator to head of human rights commision.
If somebody here were to mislabel you, how credible would our newswire be to you? Not very.

It would be the same as me submitting a website which cited communism.org as a source. The whole site lost all credibility.
Actually i quoted communism.org to use it in one of my arguments about Castro and Stalin, some people then said they didnt like communism.org
And i have read from the website some of you give me, the fact is the article I gave you is not propaganda, its a fact, that really happened the author criticized the UN for putting a dictator as head of the human rights commision. [/b]
Actually, i didn&#39;t know that communism.org actually existed. It was an example i pulled out of my ass. Sorry for any confusion. I&#39;ll take a look at it tommorrow when i have a bit more time, but i&#39;m gone for tonight.

Later.

[Severian]

Lenin described the League of Nations as a "den of thieves". Basically it was a combination of the main imperialist powers of the time, or the ones that won the First World War. Germany and Russia were excluded. Colonial peoples were not represented, despite Wilson&#39;s rhetoric about self-determination, and the Mandate system served as a cover for continuing colonialism.

Bolshevik leaders later commented that the League had become dominated by Britain in particular, and that this was the reason for U.S. withdrawal. (In the period between WWI and 1933, British-U.S. rivalry was one of the major tensions in the world.)

The U.N.&#39;s different in some respects, but not fundamentally. Real power - permanent Security Council membership, with veto - belongs to the five countries that were the major winners in WWII. &#39;Course that&#39;s a different set of countries than WWI, which makes it a little broader.

Among the 5, the U.S. gets its way more often than most, due to its economic and military leverage and close relationship with another veto-holder, the UK. And due to Washington&#39;s willingness to use its veto - more often than anyone else - where other powers sometimes abstain or compromise with Washington.

The UN often acts as an implement of US foreign policy, as in Iraq, or now Haiti. But the US often gets impatient with it, or prefers other orgs like NATO, as the UN is not completely US-controlled and its necessary to cut competitors like French capitalism in on a share of the loot.

Also, many formerly colonized countries now belong, and hold a majority in the Gen. Assembly, which serves as a forum for world public opinion. That&#39;s one major real reason for opposition to the UN from the right. But the GA has no real power.

The UN also includes a bloated bureaucracy in the various agencies, which does carry out some humanitarian work, but tends to be influenced by major powers that can get bureaucrats fired. Even a Secretary-General can be cashiered if he offends the US (Boutros-Ghali.)

The UN is not a world government, or the beginnings of one. For starters, it has no armed force of its own. Nor is such a world government possible under capitalism - different capitalist classes depend on nation-states for the armed force to defend their interests, from each other and from their own working classes.

Rather, it the UN is an arena where member governments, especially the 5 veto-holders, play out their rivalries.

An example of a communist attitude towards the UN - (http://www.themilitant.com/2002/6639/663950.html) Fidel Castro tells the UN Sec-Gen that Cuba will not accept UN "arms inspectors" after the Cuban Missile Crisis (transcript of a meeting).

[synthesis]

The whole site lost all credibility.

Not really. Let&#39;s say I want to give an opponent a history of U.S. terrorist attacks against Cuba early in the revolution. Sites that are &#39;unbiased&#39; almost always gloss over American attacks on Cuban industry. Marxists.org is the only website that carries this information. Would you assume that this source isn&#39;t credible, either?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 08:44 PM
Didnt you see the link, how could they name the lybian leader to head of the human rights commision?
How? Because it was a secret ballot. Countries could vote without worrying about whether the U.S. would retaliate economically if they voted the wrong way.

[Commie Girl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 09:09 PM
Basically it was a combination of the main imperialist powers of the time, or the ones that won the First World War. Germany and Russia were excluded.






Colonial peoples were not represented, despite Wilson&#39;s rhetoric about self-determination, and the Mandate system served as a cover for continuing colonialism. Bolshevik leaders later commented that the League had become dominated by Britain in particular, and that this was the reason for U.S. withdrawal. (In the period between WWI and 1933, British-U.S. rivalry was one of the major tensions in the world.)




That is because they didn&#39;t win&#33;

The U&#036; NEVER DID even ratify the League of Nations(or the Treaty of Versailles, for that matter) much less withdraw.