What makes a leftist ?

[Korol Aferist]

Korol Aferist is a pro-Israeli wanker, who also supports Islam Karimov's tyranny in Uzbekistan.

Someone said that about me recently on here.
I guess on his own views I'm not a leftist.
Tell me people, does a leftist must have the same believes that doesn't involve around marxism as the others?
Can't a leftist be in support of the U.S.A political but not economy wise ?
Sometimes when I'm on this site half of you guys don't make sense.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I guess on his own views I'm not a leftist.

Not just in his opinion, but it is the opinion of a lot of the members here that you are not a leftist.


Tell me people, does a leftist must have the same believes that doesn't involve around marxism as the others?


I don't really understand what you are saying here, but I would hazard a guess that you are saying does a leftist have to be a Marxist?

Of course they don't, there are plenty of Anarchists here etc. A leftist though, needs to be both socially and economically left. You are neither.


Can't a leftist be in support of the U.S.A political but not economy wise ?


No you can't, if supporting the USA politically means you support a tyrant who boils people alive. You are in no way a leftist.


Sometimes when I'm on this site half of you guys don't make sense.

And you do?

[Korol Aferist]

I guess on his own views I'm not a leftist.

Not just in his opinion, but it is the opinion of a lot of the members here that you are not a leftist.

Actually to tell you the truth only one person on this site knows really what I support...I'm not saying who he is but he been on this site for the long time and he's anarcho-communist.
He refer me to this site...



Tell me people, does a leftist must have the same believes that doesn't involve around marxism as the others?


I don't really understand what you are saying here, but I would hazard a guess that you are saying does a leftist have to be a Marxist?

Of course they don't, there are plenty of Anarchists here etc. A leftist though, needs to be both socially and economically left. You are neither.

No.Lets say someone disagree with most of the others on certain subjects half of the time, Should he condsider to be a non-leftist?

Especially the subjects that are way off marxism....



Can't a leftist be in support of the U.S.A political but not economy wise ?


No you can't, if supporting the USA politically means you support a tyrant who boils people alive. You are in no way a leftist.

Well to me it seems you guys oppose everything that is backed up by the U.S.



Sometimes when I'm on this site half of you guys don't make sense.

And you do?

Yes but only on the weekends when I feel sexy.

[Red Flag]

Well to me it seems you guys oppose everything that is backed up by the U.S.

Of course. The U.S. is the bastion of world imperialism.

[Fascist-Hunter]

Well to me it seems you guys oppose everything that is backed up by the U.S.

no, I don't think that people hate the U.S. in general. I'm glad that us-troops once destroyed hitlers army. but if you compare the situation today ... i really see no reason for invading Iraq. it was just done to get some oil.

and of course it makes a huge different to dislike bush and to dislike the people living in the U.S. - you can certainly hate bush and respect the american people at the same time.

what do you mean by supporting the usa in political ways and not in economical ways? you think that bush should have the right to deny women an abortion??????

[Korol Aferist]

Well to me it seems you guys oppose everything that is backed up by the U.S.


no, I don't think that people hate the U.S. in general. I'm glad that us-troops once destroyed hitlers army. but if you compare the situation today ... i really see no reason for invading Iraq. it was just done to get some oil.

Well look at this way, he's still a religious nutcase and supported terrorism.
We're against religions.
But then again I feel only anti-Semitism when I'm on this site even when I read "free palestine"'s threads.it really seems he and some others is not just agaisnt Israelis but jews.


and of course it makes a huge different to dislike bush and to dislike the people living in the U.S. - you can certainly hate bush and respect the american people at the same time.
He only got like how many years left in office?
3 years? after that what is going to happen to Iraq??? leave it for religious nutcases more worst than Saddam and the Ayatalloh Khameni?


what do you mean by supporting the usa in political ways and not in economical ways? you think that bush should have the right to deny women an abortion??????

I'm pro-choice.

Well one of the reasons marxism seems so good to many people because everyone will have everything they need,"From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need."

[Amusing Scrotum]

Actually to tell you the truth only one person on this site knows really what I support...I'm not saying who he is but he been on this site for the long time and he's anarcho-communist.
He refer me to this site...


I know who that person is and he thinks you are an "Anarcho Capitalist". Which means you are certainly not a leftist in the economic sense.


No.Lets say someone disagree with most of the others on certain subjects half of the time, Should he consider to be a non-leftist?

Especially the subjects that are way off marxism....


Leftists disagree all the time on certain subjects. Marxists disagree with other Marxists. The difference is that you are not a leftist to start with.

Plus tyrants who rule over the workers' with an iron fist and a boiling pot, are certainly something Marxism opposes. Therefore a Marxist cannot possibly support them. The same way a Marxist cannot support Halliburton or BP.


Well to me it seems you guys oppose everything that is backed up by the U.S.


Been as almost all US foreign interventions, especially in Latin America, are either a direct attempt to harm the workers' or are driven by profit, often both these things. It is logical to oppose these interventions.


Yes but only on the weekends when I feel sexy.


Well today is Monday, so you are obviously not making sense.

[NE_Liberal]

Well, I think one problem you make is that you distinguish between US political and economic policy. There is no difference. Almost every move the US makes POLITICALLY is ECONOMICALLY motivated.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 08:26 AM

Can't a leftist be in support of the U.S.A political but not economy wise ?


No you can't, if supporting the USA politically means you support a tyrant who boils people alive. You are in no way a leftist.
what?

[Amusing Scrotum]

what?

Look at the pictures (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3943.htm), which Korol Aferist called "tough love".

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by Korol [email protected] 12 2005, 12:49 AM
We're against religions.
But then again I feel only anti-Semitism when I'm on this site even when I read "free palestine"'s threads.it really seems he and some others is not just agaisnt Israelis but jews.

i disagree with this entirely

he [and others] may be anti-zionist [as i am] but not anti-semitic. i'd like to see evidence of any anti-semitic comments he made?

[timbaly]

At times people on this site come off as too anti-US for their own good. They despise and criticize the USA not matter what they do and whether or not they understand the details fully. There are also people who are too pro-palestinian to the point that they want to banish jews from the land. However these people are not the majority and are simply more radical leftists than most. At the same time you can agree with some US polices and still be a leftist, but it's harder too when you dig deep into them and see the true motives involved in most of the policy.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 05:14 PM

what?

Look at the pictures (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3943.htm), which Korol Aferist called "tough love".

i thought you were syaing that we had done this, but anyways...

supporting the US in the world means i support every facet of US foriegn policy?

thats to bad for that guy, but just because we aided a country where this happened doesn't mean i should go against everything the US does in the world.

hell, i don't even believ ein foriegn aid enless its somehow benefitial to US citizens. still, as long as i live here, im going to try and look out for whats best for america

[RedCeltic]

I feel only anti-Semitism when I'm on this site even when I read "free palestine"'s threads.it really seems he and some others is not just agaisnt Israelis but jews.

There are four Semitic languages;

Hebrew, Aramaic, Tigrinya, and Arabic.

Therefore it is factually impossible for an individual to be in support of the rights of Palestinians and be anti Semitic.

Furthermore, the idea of racism against the Jewish population worldwide being supported on Che-Lives goes against the principles of both the founder of rev-left / che-lives (Malte) as well as the principles of the admin, mods, and the general goals of this board.

Please do report or show evidence of any such racism taking place on this board and the claims will be investigated. We exhibit zero tolerance for racism, sexism and homophobia on this board and strive to uphold such a standard.

[Intifada]

People such as Free Palestine refuted claims by Korol Aferist that the state of Israel is in fact not inherently racist, and KA had no factual response.

Therefore, like a good old Zionist, he accuses people like Free Palestine of being "anti-semitic."

[Amusing Scrotum]

i thought you were syaing that we had done this, but anyways...


If I pay a contract killer to murder someone, I am just as guilty as the murderer. Therefore when America rewards this despot with aid, they are at the very least absolving him and his Governments policies.


supporting the US in the world means i support every facet of US foriegn policy?


What does supporting the US in the world mean?

If it means, as I suspect it does, that you support American dominance of the world both economically and militarily. Then it doesn't mean you cannot dislike individual policy that tries to enhance this dominance. You may think there is a different way to bring about this dominance, but you still support the dominance. The way you view individual policy is not the issue, the issue is whether you support the aims of this policy and all that it will entail.


thats to bad for that guy, but just because we aided a country where this happened doesn't mean i should go against everything the US does in the world.


Why shouldn't you look more critically at American policy in the world. Why is it the case that some dictators are the "enemy of freedom" and some aren't. What makes Saddam's crimes more horrific than Islam Karimov's?

Ask yourself, if America really believed in bringing the virtues of democracy to the world. Why would it fund such a tyrannical dictator.


hell, i don't even believ ein foriegn aid enless its somehow benefitial to US citizens. still, as long as i live here, im going to try and look out for whats best for america

How about reparations to the African countries effected by slavery, or the South American countries which have been brutalised by American backed dictators, the people of Afghanistan who had the Taliban imposed on them by America or the Vietnamese people who are still horrifically scarred thanks to American Napalm?

This is not aid, its compensation, and if America were to pay the rest of the world compensation for the American backed actions it has imposed on the world in just the past fifty years. America would end up bankrupt.

And all this misery was caused by shitheads like yourself taking the view that whats most important is "look(ing) out for whats best for america".

[Free Palestine]

I don't understand why you keep alleging anti-Semitism against me. This is a baseless accusation. If you want to talk about anti-Semitism, why don't you condemn Israel’s racist occupation against a Semitic people — the Palestinians. That is the real anti-Semitism. I have said nothing that would cause me to deserve to be castigated as such. You need to work at providing clear proof or stop reciting this lie. I think you are just trying to tar-and-feather any critic of Israel through your promiscuous use of the label "anti-Semite." And saying I'm anti-Semitic because I'm anti-Zionist is like saying I'm anti-Semitic because I'm anti-racist and pro-human rights. It is an incredibly weak argument.

[Fascist-Hunter]

Ok, now lets summarize everything:

1. you are not a leftist; you believe in anarcho-capitalism (whatever this may be).
as a pro-capitalist you can NEVER be a leftist. so why do you think you should waste your time here??? i'm not a communist but more an anarchist and i have realized that about 80% here on this board seem to be pure communist which is no problem for me. at the beginning i was irritated and thought of leaving this board. but then i realized that (even though people here might not agree in every point) we have at least a common enemy: the cappies and the nazis/fascists. i have nothing in common with hippys like organic revolution or stalinists like marxism-leninism but at least we share the same enemys. therefore we can work together, communicate and respect each other. that doesn't work with a person who claims to be a capitalist (or in your case an anarcho-capitalist). you could also go to a nazi forum and claim to be a leftist; you would be banned immediately.

2. it is somewhat strange that free palestine and intifada seem to have only one topic that they are interested in (i have noticed that too); but this is not a prove that they are antisemites. i don't know about free palestines or intifadas experiences in life. maybe they are living in palestine and have made very bad experiences in life with zionists and therefore see their main goal in informing people about the situation in palestine and not in theoretical things like reading marx or bakunin? i also don't talk about theoretical things for three reasons: i can't express my ideas in english, i don't have that much time and i'm more interested in D.I.Y. stuff due to my experiences in life (living on the street etc.).
even though nazis (for example) often use antizionistic views/arguments as an indirect form of antisemitism you cannot blame anyone who is an antizionist to be an antisemit.

3. no one here discriminates jewish people; there are many of them in the commie club (as far as i have noticed) - and i have never seen anyone here on this board expressing his hatred towards jewish people.

4. your arguments for supporting the us politics are simply ridiculous. saddam was a dictator, but there are many other dictators who don't get attacked. iraq was just invaded to made some money - sad but true.

[colonelguppy]

If I pay a contract killer to murder someone, I am just as guilty as the murderer. Therefore when America rewards this despot with aid, they are at the very least absolving him and his Governments policies.

we didn't pay them to boil people alive. we paid them because they're a supporting ally in the region.

i imagine that allot of people donate money to homeless people, and they intern do something illegal using that money. does that make the donater guilty?

note: i don't agree with giving this dictator money. it serves little purpose for us.


What does supporting the US in the world mean?

it means that i support whats best for americans


If it means, as I suspect it does, that you support American dominance of the world both economically and militarily. Then it doesn't mean you cannot dislike individual policy that tries to enhance this dominance. You may think there is a different way to bring about this dominance, but you still support the dominance. The way you view individual policy is not the issue, the issue is whether you support the aims of this policy and all that it will entail.


you suspected wrong. i don't agree with every policy, and just because i agree with the idea of looking out for americans, doesn't mean that i always agree with US policy. some of the time, US policy goes against whats best for americans.


Why shouldn't you look more critically at American policy in the world. Why is it the case that some dictators are the "enemy of freedom" and some aren't. What makes Saddam's crimes more horrific than Islam Karimov's?

well, i agree, you should look more critically. to do otherwise is foolish.

it wasn't that fact that saddams crimes were more horrific, its the fact that at the time he represented a greater threat. please note, i don't agree with the war. i'm just giving the reasons.


Ask yourself, if America really believed in bringing the virtues of democracy to the world. Why would it fund such a tyrannical dictator.

i can't speak for most americans, but i don't support bringing democracy to the world. that would be quite a burden. i support whats best for us. however, that doesn't mean i support anything in the name of the citizens, but we shouldn't go out of our way to the best thing for everyone


How about reparations to the African countries effected by slavery, or the South American countries which have been brutalised by American backed dictators, the people of Afghanistan who had the Taliban imposed on them by America or the Vietnamese people who are still horrifically scarred thanks to American Napalm?

1. no. no current slaves are alive, as no slave owners. no one deserves to get these reperations, or give them, especially not the american tax payer.

2. i don't see why people in south america somehow deserve tax payer's money, who had nothing to do with the actiosn of dictators.

3. we only backed the taliban when the soviet union invaded. they were given weapons to drive back soviets, not to oppress its people. i again fail to see why american tax payers are responsible for the soviet invasion a quarter century ago.

4. war is war. if you're in the crossfire, you know what can happen. once again, its not the tax payers burden


This is not aid, its compensation, and if America were to pay the rest of the world compensation for the American backed actions it has imposed on the world in just the past fifty years. America would end up bankrupt.

no its not compensation, its ambiguosly thrown money at people who may or may not have been affected by the events that caused the payment. just because america allowed it to happen doesn't mean america is responsible. let the opresserors make the reperations.


And all this misery was caused by shitheads like yourself taking the view that whats most important is "look(ing) out for whats best for america".

i don't think any of those events were really in the name of american citizens best interest. i don't agree with any of them, but that doesn't mean people now should have to shell out there money because some people feel guilty

[KC]

it wasn't that fact that saddams crimes were more horrific, its the fact that at the time he represented a greater threat. please note, i don't agree with the war. i'm just giving the reasons.


And how in the fuck exactly was Saddam a threat?
Better yet, how is he a greater threat than North Korea?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 12:19 AM


it wasn't that fact that saddams crimes were more horrific, its the fact that at the time he represented a greater threat. please note, i don't agree with the war. i'm just giving the reasons.


And how in the fuck exactly was Saddam a threat?
Better yet, how is he a greater threat than North Korea?
i don't know. that was the reasoning behind the war, i don't agree with it. but i suppose he was a greater threat to us than this other prick, but that hardly justifies invading.

iraq certainly wasn't a greater threat than n. korea.

[Amusing Scrotum]

we didn't pay them to boil people alive. we paid them because they're a supporting ally in the region.

i imagine that allot of people donate money to homeless people, and they intern do something illegal using that money. does that make the donater guilty?

note: i don't agree with giving this dictator money. it serves little purpose for us.


You see there is a huge difference between giving a homeless man money and him then committing a crime and giving a dictator money who has already committed a crime. By giving the money when you are in full knowledge of what that money has been previously used for and what it will be used for in the future, you are at the very least excusing the crime.

Question, would you support giving a man who boils people money, if he was providing, in your opinion, a beneficial service to US supremacy?


it means that i support whats best for americans


Pinochet was good for America and Americans', as was Batista, Hitler, Mussolini and at one time Saddam Hussein. Does this mean you support America having good relations with these tyrants?


you suspected wrong. i don't agree with every policy, and just because i agree with the idea of looking out for americans, doesn't mean that i always agree with US policy. some of the time, US policy goes against whats best for americans.


US policy goes against whats best for average Americans' the majority of the time, but always benefits the American elites, sometimes benefiting the average American by chance more than good planning. The question is are you going to support the rich American or the poor American?

If you choose to support the rich American, you will be condoning acts that while causing disastrous effects for the rest of the world, enhance American dominance and sometimes average Americans' lives.

I suggest to you the only way you can truly look after the interests of average Americans' is by actively rejecting the American elites dominance of the world and its own population.


well, i agree, you should look more critically. to do otherwise is foolish.

it wasn't that fact that saddams crimes were more horrific, its the fact that at the time he represented a greater threat. please note, i don't agree with the war. i'm just giving the reasons.


I accept that you don't agree with the war, but I would suggest the reason for the war was not as you suggest that Iraq offered a greater threat, but rather that Iraq offered better potential as an American colony.

If the war had really been about removing potential threats to world peace, then the bombs would have been dropped on Washington not Baghdad.


i can't speak for most americans, but i don't support bringing democracy to the world. that would be quite a burden. i support whats best for us. however, that doesn't mean i support anything in the name of the citizens, but we shouldn't go out of our way to the best thing for everyone


If America was really interested in bringing democracy to the world all it would need to do is top meddling and subsidising tyrannical governments.

Though your position of doing whats best for the US, means you obviously support the funding of various despots who agree to let American investors into their country, to rape the countries labour force and pillage the countries natural resources.


1. no. no current slaves are alive, as no slave owners. no one deserves to get these reperations, or give them, especially not the american tax payer.

2. i don't see why people in south america somehow deserve tax payer's money, who had nothing to do with the actiosn of dictators.

3. we only backed the taliban when the soviet union invaded. they were given weapons to drive back soviets, not to oppress its people. i again fail to see why american tax payers are responsible for the soviet invasion a quarter century ago.

4. war is war. if you're in the crossfire, you know what can happen. once again, its not the tax payers burden


1. The businesses founded on slavery are still there and the relatives of slaves still live in poverty.

2. America backed and funded numerous South American dictators. Without American financial aid, these dictators would have never stayed in power for as long as they did.

3. While I do not support the Soviet Unions' policy of Socialism via Imperialism. I would point out to you that the Russians' pointed out and the Americans knew full well, the political aims of those they funded in Afghanistan.

Many of these people were already seving prison terms in Arab countries for attempting to overthrow Arab Governments and replace them with theocracies. Before America financed them to fight in Russia.

The truth is that America didn't care at all about the welfare of the Afghan people, as they only cared about the threat to American supremacy Russia posed.

4. Fuck you. The Vietnamese people did not ask for the war, they wanted the Viet Cong. It is the most basic principle of a democracy that the people choose who they want to govern them. The Vietnamese wanted Communism, however just because Washington didn't think the Vietnamese were bright enough to decide their own future does not mean America has the right to bomb the shit out of Vietnam. Or do you propose that people should only be allowed to elect Governments who serve American interests?

As for the crossfire comment, where do you propose the Vietnamese people went when America was bombing Vietnam?


no its not compensation, its ambiguosly thrown money at people who may or may not have been affected by the events that caused the payment. just because america allowed it to happen doesn't mean america is responsible. let the opresserors make the reperations.


America was the oppressor with regards slavery, Vietnam, Guatemala, Nicaragua etc. America was not neutral as you suggest, they actively supported and financed the people committing the crimes and in some cases, Vietnam etc. they were the directly committing the crime.

If Americas' only crime was that they let it happen, then they should not be forced to pay compensation, however in most cases America was the puppet master supplying and funding these crimes. This makes America as responsible as the people committing the actual crimes.


i don't think any of those events were really in the name of american citizens best interest. i don't agree with any of them, but that doesn't mean people now should have to shell out there money because some people feel guilty

Americas' economic and military dominance of the world was greatly enhanced by these events and in some cases as a by product the average American received benefits too.

These events may not have always been in the American workers' best interests, however they were always in the interests of the American elites'. So the logical conclusion to all this would be to get rid of the American elites.

[colonelguppy]

ok, now i'm just arguing for stuff i don't agree with. sooo...

1. when i say look out for the citizens, i mean protect citizens rights. see the quote in my signature.

2. the compensations you mentioned were referring mostly in reaction to cold war related global politics. in reality, they were very ambiguos attempts of the government to full-fill its purpose, and were loaded with other agendas. i cannot support that.

on that note, do you believe that the soviets should pay reperations to afghani people for starting the war? if the US should pay reperations for adding fuel to that conflict, surely the soviets should

3. as for the slavery reperations... what industry are you exactly referring to that made its profits on slavery? the cotton industry? if so, then that money made has long been redistributed through out the economy, being used by businesses who don't infact use african american slavery.

if you can track down exactly which property was seized and tally that mount, and then figure out exactly who stole it and who it was stolen from, and then who are the descendants of those people who are properly deserving, then go ahead. any other attempt to directly redistribute wealth from federal funds is absolutely unfair. i pay taxes, none of my ancestors owned slaves, i shoul dnot pay towards reperations. less then 1 and 4 of southerners owned any slaves at all (this is only in slave states), and only 1% owned more than a few.

anyways...

i don't believe that US foriegn policy should favour in particular citizen... just look out for their rights.

oh. and iraq is not a colony. it may be a mistake, but it's no colony.

[Amusing Scrotum]

ok, now i'm just arguing for stuff i don't agree with. sooo...


What exactly don't you agree with? You are countering my arguments with your own opinions. Seems simple enough to me.


1. when i say look out for the citizens, i mean protect citizens rights. see the quote in my signature.

In that case you must not support the majority of the decisions made by the various American political establishments.


2. the compensations you mentioned were referring mostly in reaction to cold war related global politics. in reality, they were very ambiguos attempts of the government to full-fill its purpose, and were loaded with other agendas. i cannot support that.


Most of them were not Cold War policies, they were simply policies of protecting American business interests in the world. Through the veil of the Cold War.

There was also a deliberate strategy to present any liberation movement as having links with Russia, in order to polarise the world into a good and evil situation. Meaning America could do whatever it wanted to these so called "evil" states and therefore protect and enhance American business interests.


on that note, do you believe that the soviets should pay reperations to afghani people for starting the war? if the US should pay reperations for adding fuel to that conflict, surely the soviets should


Yes they should.


3. as for the slavery reperations... what industry are you exactly referring to that made its profits on slavery? the cotton industry? if so, then that money made has long been redistributed through out the economy, being used by businesses who don't infact use african american slavery.


I've just searched on Google quickly an the following links name companies who have apologised for profiting off slavery -

New York Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/col/story/318694p-272507c.html) and CNN (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/03/26/slavery.reparations/) are the first two articles that named companies. There will doubtlessly be more sources listing companies still around who made money off slavery.

Plus if the money had ever been redistributed fairly throughout the African American community we would not see such appalling levels of poverty in African American communities.


if you can track down exactly which property was seized and tally that mount, and then figure out exactly who stole it and who it was stolen from, and then who are the descendants of those people who are properly deserving, then go ahead. any other attempt to directly redistribute wealth from federal funds is absolutely unfair. i pay taxes, none of my ancestors owned slaves, i shoul dnot pay towards reperations. less then 1 and 4 of southerners owned any slaves at all (this is only in slave states), and only 1% owned more than a few.


Again, I am sure there are reports out there somewhere showing just who owes what and why.


anyways...

i don't believe that US foriegn policy should favour in particular citizen... just look out for their rights.


Then I suggest you start rallying against the majority of American policy. Most of which aims to promote American military and economic dominance. Nothing of which really helps the average American.


oh. and iraq is not a colony. it may be a mistake, but it's no colony.

Have you seen the constitution?

It was originally filled with Social Democratic promises like free health care and nationalised industries. However the American elites did not like this and therefore used their muscle and forced the democratically elected Iraqi Government to bow down to American business interests.

[colonelguppy]

meh, devil's advocate i suppose




anyways...

i don't believe that US foriegn policy should favour in particular citizen... just look out for their rights.


Then I suggest you start rallying against the majority of American policy. Most of which aims to promote American military and economic dominance. Nothing of which really helps the average American.



i rally by voting. note, i don't want to help the average american. i just want their rights upheld.



oh. and iraq is not a colony. it may be a mistake, but it's no colony.

Have you seen the constitution?

It was originally filled with Social Democratic promises like free health care and nationalised industries. However the American elites did not like this and therefore used their muscle and forced the democratically elected Iraqi Government to bow down to American business interests.

that's not a colony

[Amusing Scrotum]

i rally by voting. note, i don't want to help the average american. i just want their rights upheld.


What rights are these?

The right to free health care, good education, clothing, decent shelter, enough food, employment. These are all rights both major American political parties don't seem to uphold. So I fail to see what rights you are voting to uphold. The right to exploit?

Out of interest who do you vote for?


that's not a colony

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=colony)


1.
a. A group of emigrants or their descendants who settle in a distant territory but remain subject to or closely associated with the parent country.
b. A territory thus settled.
2. A region politically controlled by a distant country; a dependency.
3.
a. A group of people with the same interests or ethnic origin concentrated in a particular area: the American colony in Paris.
b. The area occupied by such a group.
4. Colonies The British colonies that became the original 13 states of the United States.
5. A group of people who have been institutionalized in a relatively remote area: an island penal colony.
6. Ecology. A group of the same kind of animals, plants, or one-celled organisms living or growing together.
7. Microbiology. A visible growth of microorganisms, usually in a solid or semisolid nutrient medium.

Note definition two in bold text. Iraq is politically controlled by a distant country, America, and it is also dependent on said country.

Please tell me how Iraq does not fit the definition of a colony?

[colonelguppy]

i rally by voting. note, i don't want to help the average american. i just want their rights upheld.


What rights are these?

The right to free health care, good education, clothing, decent shelter, enough food, employment. These are all rights both major American political parties don't seem to uphold. So I fail to see what rights you are voting to uphold. The right to exploit?

those aren't rights. rights are: life, liberty, and property

see: constitution


Out of interest who do you vote for?

LP some of the time and independents other times. voting may not be the perfect way to rally, but it is by far the best.



that's not a colony

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=colony)


1.
a. A group of emigrants or their descendants who settle in a distant territory but remain subject to or closely associated with the parent country.
b. A territory thus settled.
2. A region politically controlled by a distant country; a dependency.
3.
a. A group of people with the same interests or ethnic origin concentrated in a particular area: the American colony in Paris.
b. The area occupied by such a group.
4. Colonies The British colonies that became the original 13 states of the United States.
5. A group of people who have been institutionalized in a relatively remote area: an island penal colony.
6. Ecology. A group of the same kind of animals, plants, or one-celled organisms living or growing together.
7. Microbiology. A visible growth of microorganisms, usually in a solid or semisolid nutrient medium.

Note definition two in bold text. Iraq is politically controlled by a distant country, America, and it is also dependent on said country.

Please tell me how Iraq does not fit the definition of a colony?

because we don't currently have full political control, and we have intentions to lose what control we do have. if it were any kind of federal territory, we wouldn't bother letting them vote tomorrow. we also do not settle the region with our own people.

rebuilding =/= colonization

[KC]

because we don't currently have full political control, and we have intentions to lose what control we do have.

:lol: That was a good laugh.



if it were any kind of federal territory, we wouldn't bother letting them vote tomorrow. we also do not settle the region with our own people.

1. Voting means nothing when it is fraudulent.
2. People don't vote on all issues. Once the puppet government is installed, they will cater to whatever the US wants them to.

[Amusing Scrotum]

those aren't rights. rights are: life, liberty, and property


What good is life if you are ill and can't get health care, ignorant and can't obtain education etc.

You refer to these rights as if just by having them on a piece of paper, means everyone has them. There are plenty of people who don't and never will own property, so what good is the right to property to them?
Also liberty, what is liberty? The liberty that allows you to be poor, that allows you to earn just enough to cover the costs of living.

Protecting these rights is pointless, unless everyone can benefit from these rights.


see: constitution

I'd rather burn it. :lol:


LP some of the time and independents other times. voting may not be the perfect way to rally, but it is by far the best.


Voting is definitely the best way to rally, however unless those votes are equal, the process of voting is useless.


because we don't currently have full political control, and we have intentions to lose what control we do have. if it were any kind of federal territory, we wouldn't bother letting them vote tomorrow. we also do not settle the region with our own people.

rebuilding =/= colonization


So why are American business and military interests being advanced in Iraq. It only helps create a situation where Iraq is dependent on America.

Also what good is there in the Iraqis' voting for a constitution which has not been written by the democratically elected Iraqi officials. But rather has been written, in the most part, by an occupying force. Breaking countless International Laws by the way.

The Iraqi people are not voting on a future for Iraq which they have decided upon, they are voting on whether to allow the future for Iraq Washington has decided on. This in no way constitutes real democracy and I sincerely hope the Iraqis' reject the constitution. For this would be a truly democratic achievement on their part.

[Comrade Hector]

Korol Aferist, tell me specifically what exactly do you believe. You gave somewhat of a vague discription which appeared to be oxymoron.

[Freedom Works]

Armchair.Socialism., do you understand the concept of natural rights?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Armchair.Socialism., do you understand the concept of natural rights?

Depends what you consider a natural right, the right to life or the right to property?

Personally I consider the right to health care, education, shelter, food, water and clothing far more important than the right to property or the right to own a gun.

Saying do I understand the concept of natural rights is plain dull, because that concept is different to everyone.

[Freedom Works]

Personally I consider the right to health care, education, shelter, food, water and clothing far more important than the right to property or the right to own a gun.
Do you believe I have the right to kill you to utilize your food?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Do you believe I have the right to kill you to utilize your food?

What a stupid fucking question.

Of course if I wished to answer this question seriously, I'd say it all depends on the situation. Do I have lots of food and you none? Am I hoarding this food while your starving? Would killing me and taking my food mean that ten other people can eat?

You can't ask such a vague question and expect a response of any substance. You leave too many options open by not describing the situation.

For all I know you could be referring to the French Revolution and the death of the Royal family. They perished because while they were well fed their "subjects" were starving. Was it right that they were killed so people could eat, possibly not. Was it right that had plenty of food while others had none, definitely not.

Don't try to be a smart arse with silly hypothetical questions which are to vague to warrant a serious response.

[Korol Aferist]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 15 2005, 06:24 AM
Korol Aferist, tell me specifically what exactly do you believe. You gave somewhat of a vague discription which appeared to be oxymoron.
Well someone told people I'm anarcho-capitalist on this site but in reality I consider myself an anarchist but I really mix my views with many ideas of every form of anarchy.

I believe in a free market but only with strong unions for every trade there is because I believe in this because my parents came from the U.S.S.R. 25 to 28 years ago and they told me how the system works with the education,training and employment... It's quite fucked up back then.before accepting such a concept I was into anarcho-syndicalism hence why I believe in a Free/very loose market with very strong unions.
I know I know anarcho-syndicalism rejects the free market and one of the reasons I rejected most of anarcho-syndicalism because it suupports a form of serfdom.



If anyone wants me to change my mind and join a certain branch than do it and tell why I should join and why it's good for the people.

I'm nothing but a person for the greater good of the people.
and for now I'm an individualist anarchist... for now.

[colonelguppy]

those aren't rights. rights are: life, liberty, and property


What good is life if you are ill and can't get health care, ignorant and can't obtain education etc.

You refer to these rights as if just by having them on a piece of paper, means everyone has them. There are plenty of people who don't and never will own property, so what good is the right to property to them?
Also liberty, what is liberty? The liberty that allows you to be poor, that allows you to earn just enough to cover the costs of living.

Protecting these rights is pointless, unless everyone can benefit from these rights.

everyone owns property. the government protects that right, for everyone. well, they used to anyways... liberty usually refers to personal freedoms, as well as civil rights. those should be protected. rights are a two way street, and should be the same for everyone. i think its clear that we value different things :)



see: constitution

I'd rather burn it. :lol:

.... the constitution would protect that right :D



LP some of the time and independents other times. voting may not be the perfect way to rally, but it is by far the best.


Voting is definitely the best way to rally, however unless those votes are equal, the process of voting is useless.

elaborate



because we don't currently have full political control, and we have intentions to lose what control we do have. if it were any kind of federal territory, we wouldn't bother letting them vote tomorrow. we also do not settle the region with our own people.

rebuilding =/= colonization


So why are American business and military interests being advanced in Iraq. It only helps create a situation where Iraq is dependent on America.

Also what good is there in the Iraqis' voting for a constitution which has not been written by the democratically elected Iraqi officials. But rather has been written, in the most part, by an occupying force. Breaking countless International Laws by the way.

The Iraqi people are not voting on a future for Iraq which they have decided upon, they are voting on whether to allow the future for Iraq Washington has decided on. This in no way constitutes real democracy and I sincerely hope the Iraqis' reject the constitution. For this would be a truly democratic achievement on their part.

private entities setting up shop has nothing to do with the US government controlling the country in a colonial manner. they ultimately will have complete political control.

iraqis didn't get to vote for the drafting officials? what do you think that election in january was about?

no, they are getting ultimate control of there country. if this constitution displeases them, they can ammend it, or get rid of it in the future.

[Amusing Scrotum]

everyone owns property. the government protects that right, for everyone. well, they used to anyways... liberty usually refers to personal freedoms, as well as civil rights. those should be protected. rights are a two way street, and should be the same for everyone. i think its clear that we value different things

Just for the record while everyone may own personal property, not everyone owns private property, and private property was what I was referring to when I spoke of property.

And I think you are still missing my point regarding rights, unless they benefit everyone they are not rights worth upholding. There is no personal freedom for the single mother forced to work two jobs to support her family, nor is there personal freedom for the uneducated person trying to gain employment and being turned down frequently.

Unless you start everyone on an equal footing, you can be sure that the rights will only protect some people, not everyone.

Also as good as your constitutional rights may sound, there have been numerous times when the Government has infringed on or shown complete disregard for them. The only thing your rights serve is to create a placebo effect that makes you think you live in a just country. When the truth is you don't.


.... the constitution would protect that right

Would I not be arrested as a preacher of hate and an opponent of Western decadence?


elaborate


Quite simple really, campaign contributions. If you don't believe that campaign contributions to the major political parties from big companies influences the policy proposals. Then I really think you need to do some research.

If parties are influenced more by a select group of businessmen than the electorate, then inevitably this creates uneven democracy. The votes of 4 million people are only equal to the opinion of one company. This is not true democracy, its money politics that even the Anarcho Capitalists admit goes on, they call it Corporatism.

The best example of this has to be health care. For many years at least 60% of Americans have been in favour of free health care despite the fact that both major political parties have been telling the electorate it is an unworkable proposal. Though every major industrial country other than the US and I think South Africa has a form of National Health Service. Now why have the parties been telling people this, well it could be that health care companies make generous contributions to their campaign funds. What do you think?


private entities setting up shop has nothing to do with the US government controlling the country in a colonial manner. they ultimately will have complete political control.

iraqis didn't get to vote for the drafting officials? what do you think that election in january was about?

no, they are getting ultimate control of there country. if this constitution displeases them, they can ammend it, or get rid of it in the future.

By making Iraq reliant on foreign capital, this detaches the Iraqi people from the democratic process as they cannot have any say over this foreign influence.

It also creates money politics, which I briefly explained, that means whoever Iraqi's elect, the policy decisions would be influenced less by the Iraqi people and more by American businesses. Therefore making Iraq dependent on America and therefore a colony. Quite simple really.

[KC]

Would I not be arrested as a preacher of hate and an opponent of Western decadence?


They'd have to justify it in some legal way. They'd probably get you for vandalism and for being a suspected terrorist. :P

[colonelguppy]

everyone owns property. the government protects that right, for everyone. well, they used to anyways... liberty usually refers to personal freedoms, as well as civil rights. those should be protected. rights are a two way street, and should be the same for everyone. i think its clear that we value different things

Just for the record while everyone may own personal property, not everyone owns private property, and private property was what I was referring to when I spoke of property.

And I think you are still missing my point regarding rights, unless they benefit everyone they are not rights worth upholding. There is no personal freedom for the single mother forced to work two jobs to support her family, nor is there personal freedom for the uneducated person trying to gain employment and being turned down frequently.

Unless you start everyone on an equal footing, you can be sure that the rights will only protect some people, not everyone.

we protect rights for everyone. period. no one is allowed to walk in and steal a poor man's property, and it is the same for a rich man. no one is allowed to kill either, or (untill recently) told them what to do with their property. no one is taking away there right to vote. no one is taking way anyways right to unionize, or fire union workers. it is equal oppurtunity in terms of government. except now, it is unequal, as proved by the progressive income tax.


Also as good as your constitutional rights may sound, there have been numerous times when the Government has infringed on or shown complete disregard for them. The only thing your rights serve is to create a placebo effect that makes you think you live in a just country. When the truth is you don't.

you don't think i know this? you're talking to a classical lib here :D



.... the constitution would protect that right

Would I not be arrested as a preacher of hate and an opponent of Western decadence?

yeah might be, but that would clearly go against your constitutional rights



elaborate


Quite simple really, campaign contributions. If you don't believe that campaign contributions to the major political parties from big companies influences the policy proposals. Then I really think you need to do some research.

If parties are influenced more by a select group of businessmen than the electorate, then inevitably this creates uneven democracy. The votes of 4 million people are only equal to the opinion of one company. This is not true democracy, its money politics that even the Anarcho Capitalists admit goes on, they call it Corporatism.

The best example of this has to be health care. For many years at least 60% of Americans have been in favour of free health care despite the fact that both major political parties have been telling the electorate it is an unworkable proposal. Though every major industrial country other than the US and I think South Africa has a form of National Health Service. Now why have the parties been telling people this, well it could be that health care companies make generous contributions to their campaign funds. What do you think?

oh, i thought you were implying the voting rights were inequal

thats more of an effect of the two party system then anything else. if we had more choice in the election, perhaps we would have a more clear voice to the government

i don't know why pharmeceutical companies would be opposed to national healthcare... they operate in close monopoly, and would benefit immesnely from government funding. with that, which ever companies wouldn't be chosen to supply the government with medicine would pretty much cease to exist, and after that point the companies who did get the government contracts could steadily increase prices, thus making healthcare more expensive then it was before. well, increasing it for the government atleast. if we wanted to make healthcare more affordable, we owuld deregulate to allow market forces to lower prices in the industry. but of course, the pharmaceutical companies don't want that either :D

i agree, elections need serious reform. because political parties are essentially government entities, i don't believe private investment should be allowed.



private entities setting up shop has nothing to do with the US government controlling the country in a colonial manner. they ultimately will have complete political control.

iraqis didn't get to vote for the drafting officials? what do you think that election in january was about?

no, they are getting ultimate control of there country. if this constitution displeases them, they can ammend it, or get rid of it in the future.

By making Iraq reliant on foreign capital, this detaches the Iraqi people from the democratic process as they cannot have any say over this foreign influence.

It also creates money politics, which I briefly explained, that means whoever Iraqi's elect, the policy decisions would be influenced less by the Iraqi people and more by American businesses. Therefore making Iraq dependent on America and therefore a colony. Quite simple really.

yes, but private corporations don't equate to the government, so we couldn't view that as a "US colony". they were able to pick the drafters, they are voting on the constitution now, the people ahve the ultimate politcal control. if they don't want to have private campaign contributions in there country, then they can. "colonialism" describes something that you, as the subject nation, don't have a choice over. the iraqis clearly have a choice

[Amusing Scrotum]

we protect rights for everyone. period. no one is allowed to walk in and steal a poor man's property, and it is the same for a rich man. no one is allowed to kill either, or (untill recently) told them what to do with their property. no one is taking away there right to vote. no one is taking way anyways right to unionize, or fire union workers. it is equal oppurtunity in terms of government. except now, it is unequal, as proved by the progressive income tax.


Protecting the personal property is all well and good providing it is done for everyone. It is clearly the case however that the poorer areas of the America are given far less protection than the more prosperous areas. This means that rights are not protected equally, it shows the rights of some are seen as more important than the rights of others. Mainly because those with great wealth can buy Government protection and private protection, where as those with little or no wealth can't. The rights are not the problem, it is the wealth disparity that means the rights of the rich are viewed as more important.

Also please explain the statement "or fire union workers."

And how does America practise "progressive taxation" and also how does progressive taxation increase inequality? Surely if it distributes wealth equally it cannot be unequal.

I will add your willingness to want to protect the constitutional rights of the American citizen is admirable, but until you realise that where there is unequal wealth there cannot be equal rights, you will be fighting a lost cause.


you don't think i know this? you're talking to a classical lib here

My point was these rights afforded to you via the constitution have always been a placebo. It has not changed recently, it has always been this way and as long as there is inequality in wealth, there will be inequality with regards the enforcement of rights.


yeah might be, but that would clearly go against your constitutional rights


The constitutional rights of American citizens have been abused ever since they were written down. The constitution is a nice idea but virtually impossible to enforce properly whilst there is economic inequality.


oh, i thought you were implying the voting rights were inequal

thats more of an effect of the two party system then anything else. if we had more choice in the election, perhaps we would have a more clear voice to the government

i don't know why pharmeceutical companies would be opposed to national healthcare... they operate in close monopoly, and would benefit immesnely from government funding. with that, which ever companies wouldn't be chosen to supply the government with medicine would pretty much cease to exist, and after that point the companies who did get the government contracts could steadily increase prices, thus making healthcare more expensive then it was before. well, increasing it for the government atleast. if we wanted to make healthcare more affordable, we owuld deregulate to allow market forces to lower prices in the industry. but of course, the pharmaceutical companies don't want that either

i agree, elections need serious reform. because political parties are essentially government entities, i don't believe private investment should be allowed.


For there to be more choice, more parties need more funding and while that funding is still given mainly by corporations. It will always be the case that no matter how many parties there are, the people they serve will still be the same elite group.

And health care providing companies don't want national health care because this would replace them as the main health care provider. Free national health care isolates market forces from health care provision meaning there is no longer any profit in providing health care. After all you can't make a profit by treating a person who can't pay for the treatment.

Admittedly there could be a business opportunity in Private Government partnerships, however it should be noted the profit only comes about either through massive overcharging of treatment or dramatic reduction of costs. Which while serving the corporation well, is no good for the consumer.

On a side note, your wish to reform elections is again admirable. However even if private contributions are outlawed, the wealth disparity which comes with Capitalism, means that there will always be a way for the wealthy to influence elections and policies enough to allow them to hoard and protect their wealth. Unless there is equal wealth there cannot be equal elections. For fair and equal elections we need to switch from a political democracy to an economic democracy.


yes, but private corporations don't equate to the government, so we couldn't view that as a "US colony". they were able to pick the drafters, they are voting on the constitution now, the people ahve the ultimate politcal control. if they don't want to have private campaign contributions in there country, then they can. "colonialism" describes something that you, as the subject nation, don't have a choice over. the iraqis clearly have a choice


When private corporations are by far the biggest influence on Government policy, they in effect become the Government, as the Government serves the corporations not the electorate at large.

Plus saying Iraq can outlaw foreign capital from their politics, is the same as saying the people of country A, under colonial rule by country B, can revolt and remove country B. The fact that they can do it, doesn't mean that the colonial rule isn't there in the first place.

As I showed you, the dictionary definition describes a colonial country as a dependent country. Iraq is dependent on America for many things, which therefore makes it a colony. This can and hopefully will change but it doesn't mean it hasn't and isn't happening.

Don't be fooled by the colonial rulers no longer referring to themselves as colonial rulers. Just because they use different language, doesn't mean it isn't so.

[Hiero]

those aren't rights. rights are: life, liberty, and property

They are in the USA. Thats why the US has a poor healthcare system, which its distribution is the same level as Cuba (a poor nation). Cuba has another idea of humans rights, thats how it matches the US in healthcare over the whole popluation.

In other rich countries which promote humans rights primarily as healthcare and eduction they have a higher standard of living over all clases.

In the US there is a crazy idea that healthcare is best in the hands of the individual (regardless of the medical knowledge of the individual). Somewhere along with that idea it goes that being healthy and educated is not a primary human right.

So human rights are constructed on the basis of the economy. If in the US they made health and ecuation a human right, then they would have to nationalise these services. People want to make money off them, so they aren't going to do that.

[Freedom Works]

Healthcare is 'poor' in the US because of the added costs of it being considered a right!