Iraq Should "Learn from El Salvador"

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Associated Press
Rumsfeld: Iraq Can Learn From El Salvador

SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador - Iraq can learn from the recent history of El Salvador, a country wrecked by civil war that has developed into stable democracy and close U.S. ally, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday.

"We are deeply in your debt," Rumsfeld said during a Veterans Day ceremony honoring U.S. and Salvadoran soldiers. He held up El Salvador as "a nation that understands well the human struggle for liberty and democracy."

"The fight is not easy. It never is. It requires patience. And it has costs," Rumsfeld said before laying a wreath on a monument remembering U.S. citizens, including 20 U.S. military personnel, who were killed in the civil war.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138361,00.html

From 1979 to 1992, El Salvador suffered a bloody civil war in which an American-sponsored semi-fascist dictatorship murdered upwards of 75,000 civilians. Today at least half the population there lives in desperate poverty while American oil corporations freely plunder that nation's most valuable resource.

The neo-colonial "government" in El Salvador currently has 370 combat troops in Iraq...inspite of considerable local protest.

I also hope that Iraqis are learning from El Salvador...that the price of submission to the Empire is too high!

:redstar2000:

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

[Hawker]

Fox News: "Fair and Balanced" :)

[no_bourgeoisie_liberals]

El Salvador is your typical banana republic. They are "free". However, they are not free from poverty. When will America learn that people want food, health care, shelter and education. They don't care about freedom of speech, press etc. As if these freedoms really exist under a fascist dictatorship.

[Professor Moneybags]

They are "free". However, they are not free from poverty.

That is a misuse of the term "freedom". Germany was relatively "free from poverty" under Hitler.


When will America learn that people want food, health care, shelter and education.

At whose expense ?


They don't care about freedom of speech, press etc.

In other words, real freedom doesn't matter.

[no_bourgeoisie_liberals]

That is a misuse of the term "freedom". Germany was relatively "free from poverty" under Hitler.


I did't say capitalism (or fascism) for that matter can't succeed in destroying poverty. Obviously it did in 1930's Germany. And GW's fascism has practically destroyed poverty for southerners today. There all happy with thier
SEC football, SUV driving, Wal - Mart shopping lives. You know at one time that
was a poor backward part of the USA (for whites and blacks).

Capitalism is great for some countries and peoples. But It can't help the whole world.


When will America learn that people want food, health care, shelter and education.

They will never learn. They don't care. So Communists have to focus on
setting up communist governments outside the USA. US capitalism will
be destroyed when there are no countries left to exploit.


At whose expense ?

The expense of Wal - Mart shopping good ole boys of course !


In other words, real freedom doesn't matter.

Yes, your right on the money. I don't care about civil liberties. You can't have an
American style democracy. Only a Cuban style communist government will
end poverty in the 3rd world. Do you really think Cuba's government would have lasted if there had been free elections? Heck no! The enemies of the revolution would have came back to power. They would have wiped out all of Castro's
followers.

Only years of Communist control can result in a destruction of poverty.
Neither a flip flop government (one that's communist sometimes) or a capitalist government would have ended poverty. Of course, a flip flop government can't survive. Free elections are just a code word for kicking out the commies.


The bottom line is that the ending of poverty is more important than silly civil liberties. The rise of Hitler proves that people don't care about civil liberties. They just want food on the table. Of course, Hitler also lead them into World War II and was a racist sicko. Hitler would have done better to follow the lead of Franco and become an anti-communist US ally. I guarantee his government would still be around today.

[LSD]

That is a misuse of the term "freedom". Germany was relatively "free from poverty" under Hitler.

Hey, don't blame us, blame Roosevelt!

"freedom from want..." was one of his key rallying cries. Got him elected four times if I remember correctly. I guess you'd better go back and inform Mr. Roosevelt that he's "misuing the term". You'd better inform the 100 million people who agreed with him too.

"Freedom" means both freedom from force (not being killed) and freedom from want (not starving). You see in english, words are nuanced, they can mean more than just one thing.


Do you really think Cuba's government would have lasted if there had been free elections? Heck no! The enemies of the revolution would have came back to power. They would have wiped out all of Castro's
followers.

"The enemies of the revolution"

But of course the people shouldn't choose their own "enemies". No, no, we need a "vanguard" to tell us who are our enemies.

Because if the people were allowed to decide for themselves they might all too quickly discover that they don't need rullers at all. And then where would your rulling elite be?

I guess the revolution isn't "any fun" unless you get to "be in charge" when it's done.


You can't have an American style democracy. Only a Cuban style communist government will end poverty in the 3rd world.

American democracy? No.
Cuban "communism"? Never.

Believe me, we can do much better than Castro!


Yes, your right on the money. I don't care about civil liberties.

The bottom line is that the ending of poverty is more important than silly civil liberties.

Without "silly civil liberties", what's really left?

Ending poverty alone is not enough!!

"We don't say to the rich, "give to the poor", we say "german people help each other"! Rich or poor, each one must help, thinking "there's someone even poorer than I am and I want to help him as a folk-comrade"!!" - The Reichschancellor and Reichspresident of Germany 1934-1945.

You hear that "Folk-Comrade"? Your Fuhrer is calling.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Rumsfeld is a real ass.

[komon]

more than at many time in history mankind faces a cross roads.one path leads to despair and upper hopelessness,the other one to total extinction ......hopefuly we will choose the one we can not see

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Today at least half the population there lives in desperate poverty while American oil corporations freely plunder that nation's most valuable resource.


If this is true, then it's just terrible what our government did to that country. Maybe I'm naive, but I really believed that we went into Iraq to dethrone Saddam and help create a democracy for Iraq. I don't see any evidence of American oil companies plundering their oil supply. Am I wrong???

[Osman Ghazi]

If this is true, then it's just terrible what our government did to that country.

It's worse. When the Americans first started to support the government, El Salvador didn't even have a constitution. And yet, Washington willingly supported an obvious military dictator.

Right now, the economic situation there is horrible. While the unemployment rate is nominally 6.5%, there is "much underemployment" (the CIA's words) in their economy. And even though the unemployment rate is nominally low, a whopping 48% of the Salvadoran population is under the poverty line (and this isn't American poverty with colour TV's, this is Salvadoran poverty, being poor in a country where the per capita GDP is $5000.

It is also a highly stratified society. Their GINI index (a function of a country's Lorenz curve of economic distribution) is a whopping 52, compared to America which has a GINI of 40. The most stratified country is Namibia with a GINI of 70.

They now even use the American dollar, which meant giving up control of their own economic policy.


Maybe I'm naive, but I really believed that we went into Iraq to dethrone Saddam and help create a democracy for Iraq.

As much as we'd all like to believe it, I can't remember a single incident of a politician doing something because he thought it was 'the right thing to do'. That just isn't what motivates them.


I don't see any evidence of American oil companies plundering their oil supply. Am I wrong???

Umm, yes actually. I mean, their first goal was the oil ministry, and even now, troop concentrations are all around the pipelines, nominally to protect Iraq's major source of income and preserve it for the Iraqis. Again though, the motivation, for war of all things is not usually altruism.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

And what percentage of El Salvador's population was living in poverty PRIOR to 1992?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

And what percentage of El Salvador's population was living in poverty PRIOR to 1992?

Still waiting..........

[Osman Ghazi]

I don't know. Why don't you look it up on the internet?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I don't know. Why don't you look it up on the internet?

Don't ask me to substantiate your claims.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 23 2004, 08:55 AM
And what percentage of El Salvador's population was living in poverty PRIOR to 1992?
Beats me...as does the relevance of the question.

El Salvador was a miserable hellhole prior to the peasant insurrection. It certainly didn't get any better during the civil war (starvation deaths might have declined somewhat with the large number of rural casualties). And, as a typical American neo-colony, it's still a hellhole.

In fact, I read an article in Harper's not that long ago which pointed out an interesting consequence of the civil war and American power.

It seems as if substantial numbers of urban Salvadorian kids were "evacuated" to the U.S. during that war to "escape the violence". Guess what they learned in the Latin ghettos of Los Angeles?

Yeah, how to be "gangstas" (I don't know the equivalent word in Spanish). Now, urban parts of El Salvador are plagued with clones of LA gangs.

Yet another benefit of American imperialism.

:redstar2000:

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

[EneME]

I've been meaning to post in this thread, but there is so much info swirling in my head, that I knew it would take awhile for me to pin it down and what not...so bear with me...I hope its not rambling..

Seriously, I'm not surprised that Rumsfeld brought up El Salvador, because what is happening in Iraq is similar to what happened in ES. Rebel forces came from being oppressed and murdered for trying to use democratic means of political change and non-violent forms of protest. They tried to supress the rebel forces by massacring them, which only added more fuel to the fire. It ignited ppl, and polarized the population to either for/against the government forces. This comment comes in light with a recent comment by the current Salvadoran conservative-asshole president, Saca, who said that he sent forces to Iraq against the wishes of 72% of his ppl, because he was "indebted" to the North Americans who "helped" the Salvadoran government forces during the Civil War. Who armed, trained, and turned a blind-eye to the human rights violations for decades at a time. Cheney also brought up ES in the recent Vice-Presidential debate stating:

Twenty years ago we had a similar situation in El Salvador. We had -- guerrilla insurgency controlled roughly a third of the country, 75,000 people dead, and we held free elections. I was there as an observer on behalf of the Congress.

The human drive for freedom, the determination of these people to vote, was unbelievable. And the terrorists would come in and shoot up polling places; as soon as they left, the voters would come back and get in line and would not be denied the right to vote.

And today El Salvador is a whale of a lot better because we held free elections.

The power of that concept is enormous. And it will apply in Afghanistan, and it will apply as well in Iraq.

Funny that they don't mention that 80% of the deaths during the civil war were commited by death squads/government soldiers that were backed by the U$. Anyway...


And what percentage of El Salvador's population was living in poverty PRIOR to 1992?
I've looked and looked for statistics online in Lexis-Nexis, the UN, CIA Factbook, and googled for poverty rates before the 1992 peace treaty, but I've found nothing concrete. During the war, the poverty level was obviously high, but that is because there was a war going on....it was not a market-friendly economy. What you SHOULD be asking, is what the poverty rate was BEFORE the war began in 1980. Unfortunatly, what is focused on historically about El Salvador is the civil war, not what led up to it.

What I did find, I found here; (http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/mungal/social-capital-theory.html)


According to the Constitution of the Republic of El Salvador, implemented in 1962, El Salvador is "republican, democratic, and representative." However, during the 1970s, the disparate economic and social gap between the wealthy and the peasant class grew to an unprecedented level. As the economic situation worsened throughout the decade and the political system offered no opportunity for change or compromise... in 1972, a broad coalition of political parties experienced a wide electoral victory, only to be immediately overturned by the military. As the book El Salvador's Civil War explains, the
"failure to bring about change in the political system through elections and other legal means convinced many would-be democrats that reforms could only be achieved through extralegal methods. This closing off of the possibility of democratic change was crucial to expanding the viability of the revolutionary option."


Currently, as this great democratic nation stands:

According to the World Bank's statistics from its World Development Report 2000/2001, 25.3% of the population of El Salvador lives below the international poverty line on less than US $1 per day, and 51.9% of the population lives on less than US $2 per day... Thus, poverty is a widespread Salvadoran reality... El Salvador has demonstrated that El Salvador possesses a very rich civic culture and a high level of social capital. However, statistics and public discourse on four different levels reveal that El Salvador does not demonstrate a high level of democratic participation.


It seems as if substantial numbers of urban Salvadorian kids were "evacuated" to the U.S. during that war to "escape the violence". Guess what they learned in the Latin ghettos of Los Angeles?

Yeah, how to be "gangstas" (I don't know the equivalent word in Spanish). Now, urban parts of El Salvador are plagued with clones of LA gangs.

It's true RS, and the worse part is that most Salvadorans who came here during the war, were not given visa's because it was considered a democratic country. I've done research on it through the USCIS.Gov reports, that not one single person was given asylum during the war and while there were hundreds of thousands Salvadorans coming into the US, only about 500 were given visa's unlike the huge amount of visa's given to those coming from Vietnam, Afghanistan, Soviet Union, etc. So, all these gang members are deported once they're arrested for violent crimes, and they wreak havoc on the Salvadoran population today. On top of all this, all the guerillas and government forces who were trained to kill/torture for 12 years are now free citizens. Government forces have been granted amnesty for the deaths during the war...so what other skills do they have for employment now?


Poor Salvadorans today join the rest of the world's destitute members, facing increasing violence... According to the United Press International, El Salvador has one of the highest murder rates in Latin America. The BBC reports that street gangs have multiplied across El Salvador... and entrance into these associations increasingly fosters homicide, as "aspiring members often have to participate in random murders." Violence is one of the most crucial problems in El Salvador. It affects the daily life and welfare of Salvadorans carrying negative consequences ranging from health to economic concerns. "El Salvador ranks 12th among 102 countries worldwide in the number of assault cases involving Peace Corps volunteers since 1990."

Okay, sorry it was so long...but I warned you. ;) I know that these statistics and reports are true because my entire family is still there... so this is not just on text for me...

[redstar2000]

That was an awesome post, EneME! :D

:redstar2000:

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

[EneME]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 02:30 PM
That was an awesome post, EneME! :D

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
:cool: Thanks...means alot comin' from you :D

[The New State]

Iraq should Learn From El Salvador

There is nothing incorrect in the above statement. I had not known that El Salvador has troops in Iraq, this fact overjoys me.

Antiprogressive forces in Iraq, and all over the Islamic world, should learn from examples of former American victories during the cold war: there is no point to resistance. That is, of course, a lesson taught from an era when the USSR restricted the extent to which the US could bring progress to the world; in our era, the new era of Pax Americana, this restriction no longer exists - great things are on our horizon.

[EneME]

Originally posted by The New [email protected] 27 2004, 12:32 AM

Iraq should Learn From El Salvador

There is nothing incorrect in the above statement. I had not known that El Salvador has troops in Iraq, this fact overjoys me.

Antiprogressive forces in Iraq, and all over the Islamic world, should learn from examples of former American victories during the cold war: there is no point to resistance. That is, of course, a lesson taught from an era when the USSR restricted the extent to which the US could bring progress to the world; in our era, the new era of Pax Americana, this restriction no longer exists - great things are on our horizon.
Victories at the expense of who? So, it is justifiable to slaughter people into democracy? That makes no sense! And what KIND of democracy exactly? Only one that the U$A agrees with? That is NOT democracy. It is up to the Iraqui people, just like it was supposed to be up to the Salvadoran people what form of government they will have.

What's ironic is that you agree with the statement "Iraq should learn from El Salvador," so do you agree with 12 years of rebel forces fighting against the U$A-backed army? So, you want another decade in Iraq? Do you agree with the ES guerilla forces now being a very active and strong political party with socialist leanings? Do you agree with the fact that as the war progressed, the more people sympathized with the rebels, as they will in Iraq? And that to this day, there is MUCH bitterness towards the U$A, that Salvadorans will never forget....just like the Iraqui's won't forget...


Many Latin Americans, Guatemalans, Chileans, Nicaraguans, Salvadorans, to name a few, harbor a deep and abiding hatred of the United States... Iraqis, too, will long remember the murderers of their innocents. Yes, Saddam Hussein gassed and murdered his own citizens, but we dropped bombs on innocent civilians, destroyed the infrastructure of their cities, and now want to take credit for bringing them freedom and peace. It’s like the guy who rapes your sister and impregnates her then wants credit for having married her.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0622-13.htm

[The New State]

Victories at the expense of who? So, it is justifiable to slaughter people into democracy? That makes no sense! And what KIND of democracy exactly? Only one that the U$A agrees with? That is NOT democracy. It is up to the Iraqui people, just like it was supposed to be up to the Salvadoran people what form of government they will have.

Who are you arguing, exactly? I never mentioned anything about Democracy. When you leave grade school, your teachers may talk to you about fallacies in debate, one of which will be "strawman" - listen carefully.

I do not believe democracy is necessary, or even preferrable. Pinochet ran Chile well, this is the best model for "3rd world"(I do hate that label) management.



What's ironic is that you agree with the statement "Iraq should learn from El Salvador," so do you agree with 12 years of rebel forces fighting against the U$A-backed army? So, you want another decade in Iraq? Do you agree with the ES guerilla forces now being a very active and strong political party with socialist leanings? Do you agree with the fact that as the war progressed, the more people sympathized with the rebels, as they will in Iraq? And that to this day, there is MUCH bitterness towards the U$A, that Salvadorans will never forget....just like the Iraqui's won't forget...

I believe we will be in Iraq for much longer than a decade, though it is my opinion that the infantile terrorist movements in Iraq are failing; future engagements will involve less organized insurgency.

The most important question is: Is El Salvador under the control of the United States, or the USSR. Answer this question, and all of your defenses of the communist insurgency's attempts crumble. socialism failed. We won.

[LSD]

I do not believe democracy is necessary, or even preferrable.

No, you wouldn't....

You want a government run on "martial principles" right?

I guess you and a certain German chancellor would get along wonderfully.


Pinochet ran Chile well, this is the best model for "3rd world"(I do hate that label) management.

:blink:

I'm going to assume that you're just trying to piss people off, because no one in their right mind believes that Pinochet was anything but a mass murderer.

[EneME]

I do not believe democracy is necessary, or even preferrable. Pinochet ran Chile well, this is the best model for "3rd world"(I do hate that label) management.

That's all you had to say.....oh thanks for clearing up the insensitivity of using the label "3rd world" in the middle of complimenting a fascist murdering dictator that can be compared to Hitler...


The most important question is: Is El Salvador under the control of the United States, or the USSR. Answer this question, and all of your defenses of the communist insurgency's attempts crumble. socialism failed. We won.
El Salvador should never be under the control of ANY super-power, it should be under the control of it's people. The USSR had nothing to do with the movement in ES. Socialism was never instated, so no, it did not fail, the attempts to instate it did against the will of the people who were fighting for change. And they will continue to suffer because of this failure, because they will always be a slave to the first world. Check the labels of your clothes and remember that someone was paid less than a U$ dollar to make it.


Who are you arguing, exactly? I never mentioned anything about Democracy. When you leave grade school, your teachers may talk to you about fallacies in debate, one of which will be "strawman" - listen carefully.
Ironic to criticize someone's form of debate by insulting them...did your grade school teacher teach you that form of debate? How about some actual substance to your argument?

[The New State]

That's all you had to say.....oh thanks for clearing up the insensitivity of using the label "3rd world" in the middle of complimenting a fascist murdering dictator that can be compared to Hitler...

1. There is no evidence that Pinchoect was a fascist, both in his own regime's rhetoric, and in economic practice.

2. 6 million compared to...less than 10,000? Pinochet was neither a ractist nor a socialist - he is nothing like Hitler.


El Salvador should never be under the control of ANY super-power, it should be under the control of it's people.

A tear almost formed in the corner of my eye; this belongs on a pillow, you'll sell millions :)


The USSR had nothing to do with the movement in ES. Socialism was never instated, so no, it did not fail, the attempts to instate it did against the will of the people who were fighting for change.

They were socialists. Next you will tell me the Sandinistas were just misunderstood libertarians.


And they will continue to suffer because of this failure, because they will always be a slave to the first world. Check the labels of your clothes and remember that someone was paid less than a U$ dollar to make it.

Considering prices are lower in proletarian-land, I am not at all sad. They agreed to that wage. The contract is fulfilled.


Ironic to criticize someone's form of debate by insulting them...did your grade school teacher teach you that form of debate? How about some actual substance to your argument?

Making fun of an opponent's logical fuck-up is nothing compared to the orignial fuck-up:


Person 1: I like cheese, alot, especially Brazilian cheese.

Person 2: YOU SUPPORT SLAVERY, LET ME PROVE SLAVERY IS WRONG!
*criticized Person 1's newfound support for slavery*

Person 1: ...retard.


In the above scenario, who is making the bigger logical error? Who is using a fallacious argument to make himself fell better?
See?
---

Lysergic Acid Diethylamide,



No, you wouldn't....

You want a government run on "martial principles" right?

I guess you and a certain German chancellor would get along wonderfully.


I tend not to support racist socialists, but hey, to each his own, brother.


I'm going to assume that you're just trying to piss people off, because no one in their right mind believes that Pinochet was anything but a mass murderer.

By no one, you probably mean the members of the proletarian intelligentsia that visit this board.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

1. There is no evidence that Pinchoect was a fascist, both in his own regime's rhetoric, and in economic practice.

2. 6 million compared to...less than 10,000? Pinochet was neither a ractist nor a socialist - he is nothing like Hitler.

He still killed thousands, and not for a progressive cause, either.
He killed people to combat the rising popularity of socialism and Allende.

And right-wing extremists that kill their leftist opponents, nationalize production, concentrate wealth in the hands of the capitalist class, and escalate class dominance to a brutally oppressive level are indeed fascists.


A tear almost formed in the corner of my eye; this belongs on a pillow, you'll sell millions

So, do you condone the control of El Salvador's economy by American multinationals?


Considering prices are lower in proletarian-land, I am not at all sad. They agreed to that wage. The contract is fulfilled.

This is a common, but failed argument.
What they earn is enough to sustain a life of misery, hunger, ignorance, and sickness, no matter where you go in the world. Sweatshop workers do not live in suitable conditions. It is inhumane.

And they hardly have a choice. American multinationals drive out all national industries, leaving sweatshops as the only alternative. There is no abundance of jobs, as you're used to in the first world.

They would be poor whether or not foreign corporations had claimed their land and resources and labor, but they are still under terrible subjugation by the capitalist class.

[The New State]

He still killed thousands, and not for a progressive cause, either.
Yes, he did. He killed them to secure political power.

His regime freed the economy; hence progressive.



He killed people to combat the rising popularity of socialism and Allende.

Yea, winning by such a small plurality that the election gets thrown to the congress where comrade Allende had to promise to assent to some constitutional amendments is definitely my definition of "popular"


And right-wing extremists that kill their leftist opponents,

oops!


nationalize production,

I hope you're kidding. Allende privatized.


concentrate wealth in the hands of the capitalist class,

incorrect, there is no capitalist class.


and escalate class dominance to a brutally oppressive level are indeed fascists.

rhetoric.


So, do you condone the control of El Salvador's economy by American multinationals?

No, if there is a connection between the host state and badguy multinational, then no. But I support globalization, if that's what you're hinting at.


This is a common, but failed argument.
What they earn is enough to sustain a life of misery, hunger, ignorance, and sickness, no matter where you go in the world. Sweatshop workers do not live in suitable conditions. It is inhumane.

And they hardly have a choice. American multinationals drive out all national industries, leaving sweatshops as the only alternative. There is no abundance of jobs, as you're used to in the first world.

They would be poor whether or not foreign corporations had claimed their land and resources and labor, but they are still under terrible subjugation by the capitalist class.


HAHAHAHA

"This is a cliche argument that is easily refuted...
*rhetoric not refuting claim*"

wonderful.

question. How do those evil multinationals drive out their competition?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

"This is a cliche argument that is easily refuted...
*rhetoric not refuting claim*"

No actually, I did indeed address your point. You said that they agreed to a contract, however, this is not so. They are subjugated by capital. They are forced to work for these multinationals. They have no other choice other than to starve.


His regime freed the economy; hence progressive.

Freed the economy? Gimme a break.
Private capital equals class warfare, which equals hierarchy, which equals oppression, which equals subjugation. "Free" market is the anti-freedom.


Yea, winning by such a small plurality that the election gets thrown to the congress where comrade Allende had to promise to assent to some constitutional amendments is definitely my definition of "popular"

How does this in any way prove that he wasn't democratically elected?


I hope you're kidding. Allende privatized.

heh, typo

However, Pinochet concentrated wealth and capital in the hands of the ruling class. The ruling class directly catered to by the government. That is essentially the premise of fascism.


incorrect, there is no capitalist class.

How absurd! There is an economic capital-wielding class. How can you possibly deny that?


question. How do those evil multinationals drive out their competition?

They are wealthier and have an international market, as opposed to the national market of national companies.

:lol:

[The New State]

No actually, I did indeed address your point. You said that they agreed to a contract, however, this is not so. They are subjugated by capital. They are forced to work for these multinationals. They have no other choice other than to starve.

There is always choice. They are not forced.


Freed the economy? Gimme a break.
Private capital equals class warfare, which equals hierarchy, which equals oppression, which equals subjugation. "Free" market is the anti-freedom.

Again, you provide no evidence for these wild claims. Try again.


How does this in any way prove that he wasn't democratically elected?

Bush had more popular support in 2000 than Allende had during his election. Perspective.


heh, typo

Understood. I don't rely on simple spelling/grammar/whatever mistakes to construct an argument :)


However, Pinochet concentrated wealth and capital in the hands of the ruling class. The ruling class directly catered to by the government. That is essentially the premise of fascism.

1. There is no ruling economic class
2. By using the marxist definition of the state, that is essentially what EVERY government does. Read "State and Revolution" by Lenin for more information.


How absurd! There is an economic capital-wielding class. How can you possibly deny that?

Then I, and a huge percentage of Americans, are by your rhetoric-filled definition, capitalists. I own a mutual fund and a few bonds my grandmother gave me when I was born.

Vive le bourgeoisie :lol:


They are wealthier and have an international market, as opposed to the national market of national companies.


mmmkay, that's nice background info, but how, specifically, are those national companies driven out? Do the multinationals use an army of robots to intimidate the poor local business man? what, exactly?

[LSD]

By no one, you probably mean the members of the proletarian intelligentsia that visit this board.

No, I mean Amnesty, Human rights watch, and every other Human Rights organization in the world. Not to mention the the Chilian people.


Bush had more popular support in 2000 than Allende had during his election. Perspective.

So what?

Again, I see that you don't deny that Allende was democratically and constitutionaly elected. General Pinochet lead a military coup d'etat to overthrow a legally elected government.


Yes, he did. He killed them to secure political power.

His regime freed the economy; hence progressive.

So it is justified to mass murder innocent people to "progress" the economy?

But wait I thought: "The state posesses the power to kill, while the individual may only kill with permission of the state, otherwise, his action is considered murder."

Pinochet was acting against the legal state, therefore, by your argument, he must be a murderer.

Furthermore, how about "Morality, or Moral code(use what you will), is universal, since humans are of the same species, and share a common nature that is constant."

Is that "universal morality" so frail to you that you would support the murder of thousands ....to help the economy??


mmmkay, that's nice background info, but how, specifically, are those national companies driven out? Do the multinationals use an army of robots to intimidate the poor local business man? what, exactly?

No, but they do have an army of people to intimidate local business men, murder huaman rights workers, subdue local peoples...

You don't need "robots" when you have big men with guns.


There is always choice. They are not forced.

"Choice" is an interesting word.

If I put a gun to your head and give you the "choice" to either give me your money or die... do you really have a "choice"?

Now nominally, you do! You can say "NO!"...and die.

But it is a choice you are very unlikely to make, self-preservation is a remarkably powerful force.

Likewise, if the choice is work for this company or starve!... what would you choose? What would anyone choose?


Then I, and a huge percentage of Americans, are by your rhetoric-filled definition, capitalists. I own a mutual fund and a few bonds my grandmother gave me when I was born.

The amount you own is petty compared with the true capital-wieling class.

Don't imagine that a few "stocks and bonds" makes you a member of the rulling class.

Call me when you've bought a multinational! :lol:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by The New State
There is no ruling economic class.

Although even bourgeois sociologists study "economic elites" and even businessmen themselves use the phrase "corporate decision-makers", TNS ventures to disregard all historical experience and assert ex cathedra that "there is no ruling economic class".

If faith could really move mountains, then not even Mount Everest would be safe from TNS. :lol:

No, I'm afraid there really is a capitalist class and it really does rule...or do you imagine the bias in American law and policy in favor of property and those who own most of it is sheer coincidence?

Or, perhaps, the result of divine intervention? :lol:

:redstar2000:

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

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Yet another benefit of American imperialism.


And exactly how much in taxes are we collecting from them?

[The New State]

Although even bourgeois sociologists study "economic elites" and even businessmen themselves use the phrase "corporate decision-makers", TNS ventures to disregard all historical experience and assert ex cathedra that "there is no ruling economic class".

How does "corporate decision makers" translate to an economic class?

Your example doesn't prove that class exists in the marxist sense:


"In the process of production, human beings work not only upon nature, but also upon one another. They produce only by working together in a specified manner and reciprocally exchanging their activities. In order to produce, they enter into definite connections and relations to one another, and only within these social connections and relations does their influence upon nature operate — i.e., does production take place.

"These social relations between the producers, and the conditions under which they exchange their activities and share in the total act of production, will naturally vary according to the character of the means of production.

KARL MARX



No, I'm afraid there really is a capitalist class and it really does rule...or do you imagine the bias in American law and policy in favor of property and those who own most of it is sheer coincidence?

The state protects the institution of property - the very fact that the government does do this could be an argument out of a Libertarian's hat as well.

This mere fact proves nothing.


Or, perhaps, the result of divine intervention?

No.


I mean Amnesty, Human rights watch, and every other Human Rights organization in the world. Not to mention the the Chilian people.

Pincohet's image is still controversial in Chile, there is no great consensus that he was "hitleresque" at all.

Also, those "human rights" organizations have agendas, and are uselesss in my opinion.


"Choice" is an interesting word.

If I put a gun to your head and give you the "choice" to either give me your money or die... do you really have a "choice"?

Now nominally, you do! You can say "NO!"...and die.

But it is a choice you are very unlikely to make, self-preservation is a remarkably powerful force.

Fallacy. There is no gun, metaphorical or otherwise, at the heads of peopel working at American companies in the "3rd world"





The amount you own is petty compared with the true capital-wieling class.

Don't imagine that a few "stocks and bonds" makes you a member of the rulling class.



Oh? I hadn't known Marx wrote an extra chapter on "how much capital ya gotta own to be a capitali$t"

Is this after that long pointless section about the chartists?


Call me when you've bought a multinational!

Likewise, call me when you get a job and subsequently realize the lunacy of socialism!

[El Brujo]

Originally posted by The New [email protected] 27 2004, 08:32 AM
Antiprogressive forces in Iraq, and all over the Islamic world, should learn from examples of former American victories during the cold war: there is no point to resistance. That is, of course, a lesson taught from an era when the USSR restricted the extent to which the US could bring progress to the world; in our era, the new era of Pax Americana, this restriction no longer exists - great things are on our horizon.
The rest of the world isn't interested in recieving "progress" from America, believe me. It's really easy to live a decadent Judeo-Christian lifestyle and ***** about how "backward" other cultures are, but nobody will bend over backwards to commit cultural suicide and adhere to another peoples' definition of "progress." That is why the USSR was doomed to collapse after the Stalin era and why the US is doomed to collapse if things continue the way they are if it dosen't come to terms with reality and accept that nobody wants their scrupules imposed on them.

[Morpheus]

Pinochet hired Walter Rauff, a superviser at Auschwitz and inventor of the mobile gas chamber, to help him exterminate the opposition. Pinochet implemented a right-wing dictatorship that ruthlessly suppressed all opposition and didn't hesitate to slaughter dissidents en masse. Given all this, classifying him as a fascist is entirely justified.


There is no gun, metaphorical or otherwise, at the heads of peopel working at American companies in the "3rd world"

Yes there is - that's what things like Pinochet's dictatorship are. "Do what we tell you to or the CIA will overthrow your government and impose a ruthless military dictatorship that will kill everyone who doesn't do what we tell you to." It's force used to make other countries implement policies favorable to US corporations and compel the population to go along with it.

[Guerrilla22]

I hope you're kidding. Allende privatized

Are you serious? try picking up any book on Chile from the library, all of them will tell you that indeed Allende did nationalize. He nationalized the copper mines, booting ITT and Anaconda out and refused to pay the US corporations any compensation, unlike Arbenz in Guatemala.


Bush had more popular support in 2000 than Allende had during his election. Perspective.

Yes, however unlike the United States, Chilean politics involve more than two parties, so that isn't a very relevent point.

[RedAnarchist]

I dont think you can compare a small country (population wise) in 1973 with a country of hundreds of millions of people in 2000. There is almost no similarity between 1970's Chile and 2000's USA - well, Bush is as bad as Pinochet, that is sort of a similarity.