This Actually Made Me Cry...

[ebeneezer]

I don't know why, but this brought tears to my cold, cold face.

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005...-year-old-girl/ (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/07/22/last-year-iran-executed-a-16-year-old-girl/)

Two issues:

1) Look me in the proverbial eyes, communists, and tell me with a straight face Iran doesn't need regime change. And if you disagree, tell me how many more like this innocent girl need to die before you care?

2) I hope this will make you understand why capitalism focusses upon the individual. Individual rights are necessary for a fair trial. Individual rights, including property rights are necessary for human rights.

[Janus]

Look me in the proverbial eyes, communists, and tell me with a straight face Iran doesn't need regime change.
When have we ever said otherwise?


And if you disagree, tell me how many more like this innocent girl need to die before you care?
And how many innoncent people must suffer or die before capitalism takes note?

[Eleutherios]

What exactly does that girl have to do with property rights? And who around here do you think supports the existence of the capitalist Islamic theocracy that is the government of Iran?

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:51 AM
I don't know why, but this brought tears to my cold, cold face.

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005...-year-old-girl/ (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/07/22/last-year-iran-executed-a-16-year-old-girl/)

Two issues:

1) Look me in the proverbial eyes, communists, and tell me with a straight face Iran doesn't need regime change. And if you disagree, tell me how many more like this innocent girl need to die before you care?

2) I hope this will make you understand why capitalism focusses upon the individual. Individual rights are necessary for a fair trial. Individual rights, including property rights are necessary for human rights.
fucking idiotic suggestions! what or who ever told you communism exist in iran?

[Rollo]

The US education system.

[Eleutherios]

I think he's trying to suggest that because we don't want the American army going into Iran, slaughtering thousands of people and installing a government more friendly to American interests, we are therefore supporting the government of Iran and its injustice.

[ebeneezer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 07:55 AM
I think he's trying to suggest that because we don't want the American army going into Iran, slaughtering thousands of people and installing a government more friendly to American interests, we are therefore supporting the government of Iran and its injustice.
That's right! You are with us or against us. Nice to see so many of you support us though. We need more 16 year olds in Iran like that to smash the theocracy and replace it with pure captialism, where one can dress or say as one wishes. Only then can one experience true freedom.

[ebeneezer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 07:17 AM
What exactly does that girl have to do with property rights? And who around here do you think supports the existence of the capitalist Islamic theocracy that is the government of Iran?
Property rights are the only thing which can empower the individual. States with property rights have more humane legal systems than those without. States with property rights are civilised.

[Eleutherios]

I agree that the government of Iran desperately needs to be toppled, but it's up to the Iranian people to do that for themselves. But I don't get this "you're either with us or against us" attitude. It's not like there are only two sides to every issue. I disagree with both the Iranian government and the American government, you disagree with both the Iranian government and us communists, and the Iranian government disagrees with both the American government and us communists. Get out of that black-and-white us-versus-them mentality and look at the world for what it really is.

[Dyst]

Property rights are the only thing which can empower the individual. States with property rights have more humane legal systems than those without. States with property rights are civilised.


So you think for example the US has a humane legal system...?! :lol:

Go club yourself with a stick.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by ebeneezer+Aug 2 2006, 08:05 AM--> (ebeneezer @ Aug 2 2006, 08:05 AM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 07:17 AM
What exactly does that girl have to do with property rights? And who around here do you think supports the existence of the capitalist Islamic theocracy that is the government of Iran?
Property rights are the only thing which can empower the individual. States with property rights have more humane legal systems than those without. States with property rights are civilised. [/b]
So what are you saying, Iran doesn't have property rights and that's why the woman got killed for removing her headscarf? :lol:

Misogynistic holy text + government power = trouble

It's really that simple. The legal system here is more humane, I'll grant you that (not entirely humane by a long shot, but significantly better than Iran's). However I think that has more to do with the fact that our laws are not based on the Qur'an than with our government's espousal of property rights, which they do have in Iran by the way.

[ebeneezer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 08:07 AM
I agree that the government of Iran desperately needs to be toppled, but it's up to the Iranian people to do that for themselves. But I don't get this "you're either with us or against us" attitude. It's not like there are only two sides to every issue. I disagree with both the Iranian government and the American government, you disagree with both the Iranian government and us communists, and the Iranian government disagrees with both the American government and us communists. Get out of that black-and-white us-versus-them mentality and look at the world for what it really is.
OK, but you must admit the US toppling the Iranian gov would be exquisitely libertating for its people?

I mean, its not like the US isn't going to try and set up some sort of democracy or something.


Get out of that black-and-white us-versus-them mentality and look at the world for what it really is.
We have no choice. There are very few moral culture forces left in the world. There is American culture. There is Islamic culture. American culture has proven itself to be the most preferable by its universal adoption - except in Islamic countries.

You must choose you see. Would you rather live in Iran or the US? It is a choice between a Western country or an Islamic that the Iranian people face.

[ebeneezer]

Originally posted by sennomulo+Aug 2 2006, 08:13 AM--> (sennomulo @ Aug 2 2006, 08:13 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 08:05 AM

[email protected] 2 2006, 07:17 AM
What exactly does that girl have to do with property rights? And who around here do you think supports the existence of the capitalist Islamic theocracy that is the government of Iran?
Property rights are the only thing which can empower the individual. States with property rights have more humane legal systems than those without. States with property rights are civilised.
So what are you saying, Iran doesn't have property rights and that's why the woman got killed for removing her headscarf? :lol:

Misogynistic holy text + government power = trouble

It's really that simple. The legal system here is more humane, I'll grant you that (not entirely humane by a long shot, but significantly better than Iran's). However I think that has more to do with the fact that our laws are not based on the Qur'an than with our government's espousal of property rights, which they do have in Iran by the way. [/b]
I just threw that property thing in. I think there should be more of a focus in Iran upon capitalism than relgion. I think in Iran religoin is more importantn than making money, unlike in America, hence instead of individual justice, there is religous justice.

If Iran just had sanctitiy for private property, and the private property of an individual over herself, they could not have convicted that girl of being 'cute' with the judge.

[Enragé]

We have no choice. There are very few moral culture forces left in the world. There is American culture. There is Islamic culture. American culture has proven itself to be the most preferable by its universal adoption - except in Islamic countries.

the only place where american culture has been adopted is america.

Nowhere else.

Though Europe and the US are conveniently put together as the 'western world', which indeed does work up to a point, Europe and the US are actually extremely different, especially in regard to christianity and full fledged capitalism (though the latter is changing a bit more to US's point of view)

This is because when Europe was rooting out religion, the US had a revival, and when commies were being put in prison in the US, social democrats created the welfare states in Europe.


OK, but you must admit the US toppling the Iranian gov would be exquisitely libertating for its people?

I mean, its not like the US isn't going to try and set up some sort of democracy or something.

Their only concern is a LOYAL and STABLE government, if they can get that through actual democracy, that'd be great for them, if they cant, they'll simply put some puppets in power and declare to the world that they were democratically elected.

btw, do you mean exquisitely (in which case enlighten me about the difference between exquisitely liberating and "normal" liberating) or exclusively?
If the latter, its for US hegemony over the region, to put it simply, the US wants to control the middle east so that it has an edge over China of which the power is steadily rising.

[Eleutherios]

OK, but you must admit the US toppling the Iranian gov would be exquisitely libertating for its people?

I mean, its not like the US isn't going to try and set up some sort of democracy or something.
Umm, no. The US government has had a long track record of installing dictatorships in countries. Ask a Chilean if they think US intervention is a good way of liberating people sometime.

We have no choice. There are very few moral culture forces left in the world. There is American culture. There is Islamic culture. American culture has proven itself to be the most preferable by its universal adoption - except in Islamic countries.
Nationalists are funny. :lol: Impeccable logic there, buddy.

You must choose you see. Would you rather live in Iran or the US? It is a choice between a Western country or an Islamic that the Iranian people face.
Again, you're presenting your false dichotomy. Why do you reject out of hand the possibility that there might be other options that are freer than both our systems?

[Enragé]

Originally posted by ebeneezer+Aug 2 2006, 08:19 AM--> (ebeneezer @ Aug 2 2006, 08:19 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 08:05 AM

[email protected] 2 2006, 07:17 AM
What exactly does that girl have to do with property rights? And who around here do you think supports the existence of the capitalist Islamic theocracy that is the government of Iran?
Property rights are the only thing which can empower the individual. States with property rights have more humane legal systems than those without. States with property rights are civilised.
So what are you saying, Iran doesn't have property rights and that's why the woman got killed for removing her headscarf? :lol:

Misogynistic holy text + government power = trouble

It's really that simple. The legal system here is more humane, I'll grant you that (not entirely humane by a long shot, but significantly better than Iran's). However I think that has more to do with the fact that our laws are not based on the Qur'an than with our government's espousal of property rights, which they do have in Iran by the way.
I just threw that property thing in. I think there should be more of a focus in Iran upon capitalism than relgion. I think in Iran religoin is more importantn than making money, unlike in America, hence instead of individual justice, there is religous justice.

If Iran just had sanctitiy for private property, and the private property of an individual over herself, they could not have convicted that girl of being 'cute' with the judge. [/b]
I dont see how changing Allah with the Almighty Dollar is progress

an islamist would say
"In america, women are forced to have sex, because in some cases thats the only way to get money"
"In America, women are treated like commodities" (which in fact they are)
etc

also
how do I own myself when i have to sell hours upon hours of my life to a boss to stay alive?

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 08:19 AM
I just threw that property thing in. I think there should be more of a focus in Iran upon capitalism than relgion. I think in Iran religoin is more importantn than making money, unlike in America, hence instead of individual justice, there is religous justice.

If Iran just had sanctitiy for private property, and the private property of an individual over herself, they could not have convicted that girl of being 'cute' with the judge.
The problem isn't that they aren't focusing enough on making money. No communist I have ever met would tolerate such a horrible act, and we're not concerned with maximizing our individual wealth or property rights. Yeah, it's possible to oppose the murder of innocent people AND be an anti-capitalist...at the same time! *gasp*

The only people I can think of who would consider that okay are capitalists, like the capitalist judge who hanged her.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The Shah of Iran, of course, was a noted humanitarian -- and, if memory serves me right, was set up and supported by the 'freedom-loving' uSSa, and UK-illers (having over-thrown the democratically-elected Mossadeq):

http://www.iranonline.com/NewsRoom/Archive/Mossadeq/

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=230

And what about the 3,000,000+ Vietnamese killed by the US-eless of A military murder machine (many of whose victims were under 16), the countless thousands killed by the US and their client regimes in central and south America, and the many being killed as we speak in US/UK-friendly Uzbekistan (check out Craig Murray's recent book: 'Murder in Samarkand' -- Murray was the UK ambassador there until he was sacked for exposing the Karimov regime). The list goes on: UK murder and torture in Kenya, Malaya, N. Ireland, Yemen, S Africa (concentration camps)...).

As much as they might try, the religious leaders of Iran (backward as they are) could not even dream of murdering as many as the 'freedom-loving' 'USA-ssassins' and 'GB-astards' already have.

http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/

The solution: the Iranians themselves need to overthrow their own leaders, and finish off what was started in 1979, just as the UK and US working class need to do the same with their 'leaders' -- but with far more urgency.

[ebeneezer]

Originally posted by sennomulo+Aug 2 2006, 08:32 AM--> (sennomulo @ Aug 2 2006, 08:32 AM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 08:19 AM
I just threw that property thing in. I think there should be more of a focus in Iran upon capitalism than relgion. I think in Iran religoin is more importantn than making money, unlike in America, hence instead of individual justice, there is religous justice.

If Iran just had sanctitiy for private property, and the private property of an individual over herself, they could not have convicted that girl of being 'cute' with the judge.
The problem isn't that they aren't focusing enough on making money. No communist I have ever met would tolerate such a horrible act, and we're not concerned with maximizing our individual wealth or property rights. Yeah, it's possible to oppose the murder of innocent people AND be an anti-capitalist...at the same time! *gasp*

The only people I can think of who would consider that okay are capitalists, like the capitalist judge who hanged her. [/b]
Ok, people, I acknowledge everything you say and I feel you have some valid points. I am just trying to be practical and real though. I feel there are decisions to be made before Iran hands nuclear weapons to terror is all.



The problem isn't that they aren't focusing enough on making money. No communist I have ever met would tolerate such a horrible act, and we're not concerned with maximizing our individual wealth or property rights. Yeah, it's possible to oppose the murder of innocent people AND be an anti-capitalist...at the same time! *gasp*

Yeah but your governemnt is just activism and pie in the sky utopia. It doesn't exist to save that girl. Capitalism does however. That's why you must support cpaitlaist intervention in IRAn.

And How DARE you call the 'judge' who hanged the girl a capitalist. Just thinking about it brings tears to my eyes again. Capitalists respect other people's rights. Criminals do not. Capitalists merely wish to organise people into money making operations, hardly evil as this is voluntary.


Umm, no. The US government has had a long track record of installing dictatorships in countries. Ask a Chilean if they think US intervention is a good way of liberating people sometime.

edit: i dont like any dictators

[Enragé]

Yeah but your governemnt is just activism and pie in the sky utopia. It doesn't exist to save that girl. Capitalism does however. That's why you must support cpaitlaist intervention in IRAn.

Ok

you want to be realist?

What do you think would happen if the US invaded Iran?
The iranian people would rally behind the government (this has been affirmed by MANY people including [female] Iranian critic of the current regime and nobel prize winner Shirin Ebadi) which would only lead to the Iranian government being able to put the clock back 20 years.

So much for progress

also
i find it pretty striking to say the least that when capitalism destroys lives, countries, even leads to starvation you simply dont care, but when someone else does something fucked all of a sudden mr-i-aint-got-no-feelings starts to cry <_<

[RedAnarchist]

There was a documentary about her last week on BBC 1 or 2. Apparently, she was raped and abused, but the guy who raped her only got a few lashes, whilst she was hanged for commiting "crimes against chastity".

[loveme4whoiam]

Capitalists respect other people&#39;s rights.
Do you really believe this? If so, take a good hard look at the state of your country and tell me that again. Capitalists respect money, and care only about keeping that money for themselves.

[ebeneezer]

Ok

you want to be realist?

What do you think would happen if the US invaded Iran?
The iranian people would rally behind the government (this has been affirmed by MANY people including [female] Iranian critic of the current regime and nobel prize winner Shirin Ebadi) which would only lead to the Iranian government being able to put the clock back 20 years.

So much for progress

I wish they would put the clcok back 20 years. Less capitalism = less population growth hence less spread of Islam.


i find it pretty striking to say the least that when capitalism destroys lives, countries, even leads to starvation you simply dont care, but when someone else does something fucked all of a sudden mr-i-aint-got-no-feelings starts to cry
why? there is a difference. I don&#39;t care about general suffering which is necessary for progress. Ever hear the phrase: "That&#39;s the price of progress". Its true. Work and suffering are always necessary for true progress. And let the Africans solve their own affairs without our charity. It hurts more than it helps. screw them, they should be able to feed themselvs and not have 12 children per family when they can&#39;t even feed themselves. You know Its all about natural selection. The clever thrive and the less clever die.

BUT IF YOU STEP UPON THE COMMON FEEDOM OF THE SACROSANT INDIVIDUAL, YOU WILL FACE THE FULL AGGRESSIVE WRATH OF CAPITALIST POWER. AND I DID CRY WHEN I READ ABOUT INDIVIDUAL FEEDOM BEING SQUASHED INTO THE MUD

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comedian:


BUT IF YOU STEP UPON THE COMMON FEEDOM OF THE SACROSANT INDIVIDUAL, YOU WILL FACE THE FULL AGGRESSIVE WRATH OF CAPITALIST POWER.

You clearly live in La La Land.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 10:03 AM

Ok

you want to be realist?

What do you think would happen if the US invaded Iran?
The iranian people would rally behind the government (this has been affirmed by MANY people including [female] Iranian critic of the current regime and nobel prize winner Shirin Ebadi) which would only lead to the Iranian government being able to put the clock back 20 years.

So much for progress

I wish they would put the clcok back 20 years. Less capitalism = less population growth hence less spread of Islam.


i find it pretty striking to say the least that when capitalism destroys lives, countries, even leads to starvation you simply dont care, but when someone else does something fucked all of a sudden mr-i-aint-got-no-feelings starts to cry
why? there is a difference. I don&#39;t care about general suffering which is necessary for progress. Ever hear the phrase: "That&#39;s the price of progress". Its true. Work and suffering are always necessary for true progress. And let the Africans solve their own affairs without our charity. It hurts more than it helps. screw them, they should be able to feed themselvs and not have 12 children per family when they can&#39;t even feed themselves. You know Its all about natural selection. The clever thrive and the less clever die.

BUT IF YOU STEP UPON THE COMMON FEEDOM OF THE SACROSANT INDIVIDUAL, YOU WILL FACE THE FULL AGGRESSIVE WRATH OF CAPITALIST POWER. AND I DID CRY WHEN I READ ABOUT INDIVIDUAL FEEDOM BEING SQUASHED INTO THE MUD
Admit that you&#39;re a troll.

[TC]

The totalitarianism of shia islam is percisely why communists ought to support the Arab Socialist Ba&#39;ath Party in its wars against Shia ayatollah&#39;s in both Iraq and Iran and against the imperialists who support them. Long Live the Fedayeen and Mujahedin-e Khalq, death to the ayatollahs and the imperialists :P.

[Dyst]

BUT IF YOU STEP UPON THE COMMON FEEDOM OF THE SACROSANT INDIVIDUAL, YOU WILL FACE THE FULL AGGRESSIVE WRATH OF CAPITALIST POWER. AND I DID CRY WHEN I READ ABOUT INDIVIDUAL FEEDOM BEING SQUASHED INTO THE MUD

ROFL&#33; :lol:

Stop it, you&#39;re giving me a heartattack.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by ebe[email protected] 2 2006, 09:03 AM

Ok

you want to be realist?

What do you think would happen if the US invaded Iran?
The iranian people would rally behind the government (this has been affirmed by MANY people including [female] Iranian critic of the current regime and nobel prize winner Shirin Ebadi) which would only lead to the Iranian government being able to put the clock back 20 years.

So much for progress

I wish they would put the clcok back 20 years. Less capitalism = less population growth hence less spread of Islam.



20 years ago the islamic revolution was in its heyday
compared to then, today Iran is moderate

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:51 AM
1) Look me in the proverbial eyes, communists, and tell me with a straight face Iran doesn&#39;t need regime change. And if you disagree, tell me how many more like this innocent girl need to die before you care?
who ever said that iran doesn&#39;t need a regime change?

who ever said that iraq didn&#39;t need a regime change?

no question about it.. those places are pure shit-holes. problem is, americans aren&#39;t interested in the regime change for the sake of the iraqi people that, naturally, are involved (after all, it is their country). they have other, more nefarious interests in mind.. i expect the places to be shit-holes beforehand, and especially afterwards.

of course, the choice is not up to me. i&#39;d prefer that these wars would be wars of human and ethical, not economic, interest, but they&#39;re not. they&#39;re very obvious imperialist wars, and forever will be.

haiti needed a regime change for over a century now.. well, we certainly cooked something up, didn&#39;t we? marines occupying the place for two decades? the installation of the duvaliers for a couple of decades on top of that? the subsequent american-backed juntas that followed? eh?

yeah, how utterly noble.. all in the name of playing with the infrastructure.

[RevSouth]

Why don&#39;t you aske the 40,000 dead civilians in Iraq how their "freedom, democracy, and capitalism" are going?

[Comrade-Z]

I think modern, hedonistic, rational, secular, independent capitalism would be a tremendous step forward for Iran. But notice the "independent" part. It is imperative that the Iranian people topple their own government. The U.S. government or any other foreign power would only take the place of the Iranian theocracy. Indeed, to judge from U.S. policies elsewhere in the Middle East, the U.S. would not be adverse at all to an "Islamo-fascist" regime in Iran, so long as that regime takes orders from Washington. Any notion that the U.S. government is interested in truly "liberating" Iran is foolishness.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 04:03 AM

Capitalists respect other people&#39;s rights.
Do you really believe this? If so, take a good hard look at the state of your country and tell me that again. Capitalists respect money, and care only about keeping that money for themselves.
the united states isn&#39;t really capitalist.

[Janus]

the united states isn&#39;t really capitalist.
What? :blink:

If the US isn&#39;t then what is?

[colonelguppy]

no one really. i think hong kong is closest.

this article gives a list in it somewhere

http://www.accountingweb.com/cgi-bin/item....o%20%25B%20%25Y (http://www.accountingweb.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=102316&d=815&h=817&f=816&dateformat=%25o%20%25B%20%25Y)

when people say that the US is in order to make a point against capitalism, it makes me feel like you guys feel when someone rags on communism by pointing to the USSR.

[Janus]

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are mostly privately owned, and capital is invested in the production, distribution and other trade of goods and services, for profit.

This defines the US though you are right that there is a little less red tape in Hong Kong.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:36 PM
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are mostly privately owned, and capital is invested in the production, distribution and other trade of goods and services, for profit.

This defines the US though you are right that there is a little less red tape in Hong Kong.
yes, thats the over all design, but there is no facet of our economy in which our government doesn&#39;t have a hand. our own debt is equal to 60% of our GDP for god sake.

were a mixed economy, based loosely off a keynesian model.

[Janus]

but there is no facet of our economy in which our government doesn&#39;t have a hand.
They get involved in some aspects but have generally left much of it alone. Still, the tenets of capitalism exist in the US so it is by all means capitalist.

[Invader Zim]

OK, but you must admit the US toppling the Iranian gov would be exquisitely libertating for its people?

Not even for a second. What will happen is that the US will invade topple the Iranian government. This will drastically lower the quality of life and danger for its people for years to come.

But to make things worse, the US, if their current record is anything to go by, will only put in the expence to maintain its own position not restore stability. That will of course inevitably lead to the collapse of the new regime soon after they pull out and we will be stuck with another, if not the origional, hardline Islamic government. Att hat point we will be back to square one having achieved fuck all except killing and maiming &#39;x&#39; number of people, making however many more homeless and basically make Iran into more of a mess than it already is.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:52 PM
They get involved in some aspects but have generally left much of it alone. Still, the tenets of capitalism exist in the US so it is by all means capitalist.
but the intervention warps the market into performing differently then would be normal, and then when you call that system capitalist, people will assume that that whatever happens is inherent to a capitalist system, which of course isn&#39;t necessarilly true.

the term mixed economy is more accurate.

[Janus]

But the corporations still make the vast majority of the decisions and the gov. has only had a small hand in it.

Mixed economy leaning strongly towards full capitalism IMO.

[southernmissfan]

1953: The democratically elected government in Iran is overthrown in a CIA coup and the despotic Shah is installed. Why? The populist government there intended on nationalizing the oil industry, which was controlled by the US and UK. SAVAK, the Shah&#39;s secret police, is founded a few years later (with the assistance of the CIA).

1979: The Iranian people, having had enough of the puppet dictator, overthrow the Shah in a revolution unfortunately hijacked by religous fundamentalists. This would lead to a resurgence of fundamentalism throughout the Muslim world. Khomeini actually recieved support from the CIA due to its fears of the large left-wing presence in the revolution.

1980: Saddam Hussein&#39;s Iraq, encouraged by the US, launches an invasion of Iran, starting the Iran-Iraq War. For the next 8 years, the two nations would engage in one of the bloodiest wars in the post-Vietnam era. The US supported Saddam with economic and financial aid, dual-use technology, intelligence, weapons, and even direct attacks on Iran. Of course, the US also sold weapons to Iran (Iran-Contra Scandal) to fund anti-communist guerrillas in Nicaragua.

What needs to happen in the Muslim world is their own 1789--their own bourgeoisie, democratic revolutions than can develop them into modern capitalist nations and hopefully kill as many imams as possible along the way. Of course, Western imperialism, being the driving reactionary force in the world has often prevented this from happening and opposed most changes in this direction, and it&#39;s brutal actions in the region have served only to bolster backwards fundamentalism. The resurgence of fundamentalism in the region is a direct result of the Iranian Revolution and other instances of backlash against imperialism. I would imagine the only thing keeping the regime in Tehran together is the threat of the US. Otherwise, I imagine the people, especially the youth, would have already revolted.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 07:02 PM
But the corporations still make the vast majority of the decisions and the gov. has only had a small hand in it.

Mixed economy leaning strongly towards full capitalism IMO.
most the decisions yes, but some of the most important ones (the monetary supply) are left to the government.

[Comrade-Z]

most the decisions yes, but some of the most important ones (the monetary supply) are left to the government.

Now now now, wait a second, you know you don&#39;t really want to do that. The current government intervention does such a nice job of managing the capitalist system and periodically tweaking it to make sure it continues to run smoothly, you wouldn&#39;t want to give that up. To decrease the duties of the executive committee of the capitalist class simply means much more argument among the individual capitalists and a much less stable system. Isn&#39;t it nice to have a large government when the workers "get uppity"? A large government allows the capitalist class to safely defuse those situations by granting non-threatening concessions. If you truly desire a return to the "gangster capitalism" of the robber-baron era, then get ready for massive proletarian upheaval as well.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 11:28 PM

the united states isn&#39;t really capitalist.
are you a libertarian?

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 11:57 PM
but the intervention warps the market into performing differently then would be normal, and then when you call that system capitalist, people will assume that that whatever happens is inherent to a capitalist system, which of course isn&#39;t necessarilly true.

the term mixed economy is more accurate.
oh, i guess that answers the question in my previous post.

and, you&#39;re very right.. intervention does warp the market into performing differently than would be normal.

in the rotten, "ideal" capitalist-libertarian system, you&#39;d have a dozen corporations fucking each other for the better profit, leaving nothing for the workers. a century and a half ago was closer to libertarianism than it is now.. yet, i already know heard objections: "of course the workers will progressively get higher wages, as the existence of more than one corporation will force wages to be competitive."

sure, as if a few giant companies couldn&#39;t get together and set the normal wages, while blowing the "competition" to little pieces. as if a few charities and privately-owned libraries and a handful of dim-witted schools will do something good for people, will do something good for general education.. yeah, it&#39;ll do good for &#39;em alright, in the same way that charity does a shitload for africa.

personally, i&#39;d take the "warped" mixed-market economy over this lovely vision any day. but, maybe i haven&#39;t heard all the objections.. what would you propose for a libertarian-capitalist society so that it doesn&#39;t degenerate into corporatism? i assume, of course, that you&#39;re against corporatism, but for capitalism. to me, capitalism inevitably degenerates into the corporatism of an 1800s robber-barron society, in the same way that, in your eyes, communism inevitably degenerates into an un-equal dictatorship of the party. and, in my eyes, only certain kinds of "communist" arrangements (e.g., of the forced and leninist variety) end in a broken dictatorship.. in the same way that, to you, only certain capitalist arrangements (e.g., the mixed economy) end in corporatism and poverty. in the end, we accuse you of mis-understanding communism as you&#39;re looking at the wrong models, and you acuse us of mis-understanding capitalism because we are, supposedly, looking at the wrong models, too.

so, do discuss.. tell me how you think that a mixed-market degenerates into corporatism, and the preventive measures you&#39;d suggest to keep things fair and equal.

remember, adam smith advocated a free and equal society, where classes were, more or less, non-existent, as wages would progressively tend towards equalization, and people would, according to him, leave jobs as freely as they reasonably please, without any consequences or worries; employment, thus, would be guaranteed, and dignity distributed. well, i love adam smith&#39;s humanity and all, but i see (and have seen) a flaw in the methodology, namely, if a person is given that kind of power, to actually employ others underneath them, and expand this trafficking locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally, they&#39;ll do it, and if there&#39;s a profit involved, quite a few other wicked people will be in on it, too.

which is why, as a communist, i oppose things such as "communist parties" and "leadership".. to me, a change in terms (capitalist to communist, communist to capitalist) does not imply a change in structures, as things, if left to their own devices, to the will of "dignified" leaders and other kinds of elites, will fundamentally stay the same. so, it&#39;s not even a matter of "economics" with me.. the basic thing that is distributed unevenly is power, and "economics", in this society, just happens to be the title of these relationships. well, dignity should never be politicized.. nothing, in fact, should be politicized, and, at least to me, if anything is left alone, it&#39;ll probably rot as long as the people aren&#39;t there to oversee it, completely and unequivocally.

that is, at bottom, my criticism of capitalism and especially capitalist libertarianism, as well as my criticism of leninism and its offshoots.

[colonelguppy]

Now now now, wait a second, you know you don&#39;t really want to do that. The current government intervention does such a nice job of managing the capitalist system and periodically tweaking it to make sure it continues to run smoothly, you wouldn&#39;t want to give that up.

no it doesn&#39;t, it does a shitty job.


To decrease the duties of the executive committee of the capitalist class simply means much more argument among the individual capitalists and a much less stable system.

when you say decrease duties, do you mean give the government more? if so then yeah your right that system would be pretty unstable.


Isn&#39;t it nice to have a large government when the workers "get uppity"? A large government allows the capitalist class to safely defuse those situations by granting non-threatening concessions.

if by non-threatening you mean bad for everyone in the long run then no not really it sucks. oh yeah and somehow i don&#39;t think anyone in our country really cares enough to revolt. our economy provides for a pretyt decent standard of living.


If you truly desire a return to the "gangster capitalism" of the robber-baron era, then get ready for massive proletarian upheaval as well.

when did i say i wanted that?


are you a libertarian?

haha how&#39;d you guess?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Brooklyn&#045;Mecca+Aug 2 2006, 09:11 PM--> (Brooklyn-Mecca @ Aug 2 2006, 09:11 PM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 11:57 PM
but the intervention warps the market into performing differently then would be normal, and then when you call that system capitalist, people will assume that that whatever happens is inherent to a capitalist system, which of course isn&#39;t necessarilly true.

the term mixed economy is more accurate.
oh, i guess that answers the question in my previous post.

and, you&#39;re very right.. intervention does warp the market into performing differently than would be normal.

in the rotten, "ideal" capitalist-libertarian system, you&#39;d have a dozen corporations fucking each other for the better profit, leaving nothing for the workers. a century and a half ago was closer to libertarianism than it is now.. yet, i already know heard objections: "of course the workers will progressively get higher wages, as the existence of more than one corporation will force wages to be competitive."

sure, as if a few giant companies couldn&#39;t get together and set the normal wages, while blowing the "competition" to little pieces. as if a few charities and privately-owned libraries and a handful of dim-witted schools will do something good for people, will do something good for general education.. yeah, it&#39;ll do good for &#39;em alright, in the same way that charity does a shitload for africa.

personally, i&#39;d take the "warped" mixed-market economy over this lovely vision any day. but, maybe i haven&#39;t heard all the objections.. what would you propose for a libertarian-capitalist society so that it doesn&#39;t degenerate into corporatism? i assume, of course, that you&#39;re against corporatism, but for capitalism. to me, capitalism inevitably degenerates into the corporatism of an 1800s robber-barron society, in the same way that, in your eyes, communism inevitably degenerates into an un-equal dictatorship of the party. and, in my eyes, only certain kinds of "communist" arrangements (e.g., of the forced and leninist variety) end in a broken dictatorship.. in the same way that, to you, only certain capitalist arrangements (e.g., the mixed economy) end in corporatism and poverty. in the end, we accuse you of mis-understanding communism as you&#39;re looking at the wrong models, and you acuse us of mis-understanding capitalism because we are, supposedly, looking at the wrong models, too.

so, do discuss.. tell me how you think that a mixed-market degenerates into corporatism, and the preventive measures you&#39;d suggest to keep things fair and equal.

remember, adam smith advocated a free and equal society, where classes were, more or less, non-existent, as wages would progressively tend towards equalization, and people would, according to him, leave jobs as freely as they reasonably please, without any consequences or worries; employment, thus, would be guaranteed, and dignity distributed. well, i love adam smith&#39;s humanity and all, but i see (and have seen) a flaw in the methodology, namely, if a person is given that kind of power, to actually employ others underneath them, and expand this trafficking locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally, they&#39;ll do it, and if there&#39;s a profit involved, quite a few other wicked people will be in on it, too.

which is why, as a communist, i oppose things such as "communist parties" and "leadership".. to me, a change in terms (capitalist to communist, communist to capitalist) does not imply a change in structures, as things, if left to their own devices, to the will of "dignified" leaders and other kinds of elites, will fundamentally stay the same. so, it&#39;s not even a matter of "economics" with me.. the basic thing that is distributed unevenly is power, and "economics", in this society, just happens to be the title of these relationships. well, dignity should never be politicized.. nothing, in fact, should be politicized, and, at least to me, if anything is left alone, it&#39;ll probably rot as long as the people aren&#39;t there to oversee it, completely and unequivocally.

that is, at bottom, my criticism of capitalism and especially capitalist libertarianism, as well as my criticism of leninism and its offshoots. [/b]
hold on, i&#39;ll get back to this later tonight, i&#39;m going out, i might be drunk though haha

[Comrade-Z]

no it doesn&#39;t, it does a shitty job.

The last I checked, the U.S. working class was pretty docile, whereas before the establishment of the social safety net and various government restrictions on business, there was much more radical sentiment in the U.S.


if by non-threatening you mean bad for everyone in the long run then no not really it sucks.

By non-threatening I mean lacking in any real substance to the extent that the concessions don&#39;t change the fundamental power relations between the two classes. The system is left safely intact, only some cosmetic changes are granted.


oh yeah and somehow i don&#39;t think anyone in our country really cares enough to revolt. our economy provides for a pretyt decent standard of living.

That&#39;s the way it appears to people right now. Take away the social safety net and pro-labor reforms, though, and watch out&#33; Don&#39;t say I didn&#39;t warn ya. ;)


when did i say i wanted that?

You said you wanted a sort of laissez-faire economy. At least that&#39;s how I interpreted what you said. And the last time we had a sort of laissez-faire capitalism in the U.S., we had robber-barons, child labor, huge exploitation all around, terrible working conditions (50,000 Americans dying due to workplace accidents and unhealthy conditions each year in the late 1800s), huge monopolies, economic instability, bank panics, and ultimately a crippling economic depression (not to mention lots of radical civil unrest). Unless you think you can make it work better this time. By all means, go right ahead... :evilgrin:

[Rollo]

I think somebody needs to find the statistics for all the wrongful inprosenments in the USA. I know for a fact that a man went to prison and was murdered that night and they found out that he wasn&#39;t the person who commited the crime. What a great legal system where an innocent man can be put to death for nothing.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:51 AM
I don&#39;t know why, but this brought tears to my cold, cold face.

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005...-year-old-girl/ (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/07/22/last-year-iran-executed-a-16-year-old-girl/)

Two issues:

1) Look me in the proverbial eyes, communists, and tell me with a straight face Iran doesn&#39;t need regime change. And if you disagree, tell me how many more like this innocent girl need to die before you care?

2) I hope this will make you understand why capitalism focusses upon the individual. Individual rights are necessary for a fair trial. Individual rights, including property rights are necessary for human rights.
What does this ahve to do with captialism being good?

This is about pencil dicked men taking advantage of Islam to compensate for their own weaknesses.
See them in HELL.

[ebeneezer]

I think you guys make some very fair points. With the exception of the Phillipines, and a few other examples, US is generally not successful in installing free countries elsewhere. But we can still topple their regime. So why not end the suffering now?

[MiniOswald]

Would it end the suffering though?

So lets say another coalition force like that in Iraq or Afghanistan goes into Iran. Gets rid of the regime. Then what? It turns like Iraq again, like all occupations do. The invading force is stuck their trying to hold together a country in chaos and when they leave the country slips into chaos.

In Iraq, the attacks will not stop, no matter how long the coalition forces stay there and the weak new government, will always be weak, again, no matter how long the coalition forces stay there. Now with Iraq, eventually the US, Britain and the other lot, poles and whatnot, will pull out. What do you think Iraq will be then? A capitalist country? Not for long, its going to slip back into chaos, either that or a brand new dictator will take charge.

It wouldnt be any different in Iran. Coalition goes in, gets rid of government and is stood round for the next ten years getting picked off one by one, eventually leaving and allowing a new regime to take charge.

[R_P_A_S]

is it a sin to spit on a cappie&#39;s face?

[ebeneezer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:07 AM
Would it end the suffering though?

So lets say another coalition force like that in Iraq or Afghanistan goes into Iran. Gets rid of the regime. Then what? It turns like Iraq again, like all occupations do. The invading force is stuck their trying to hold together a country in chaos and when they leave the country slips into chaos.

In Iraq, the attacks will not stop, no matter how long the coalition forces stay there and the weak new government, will always be weak, again, no matter how long the coalition forces stay there. Now with Iraq, eventually the US, Britain and the other lot, poles and whatnot, will pull out. What do you think Iraq will be then? A capitalist country? Not for long, its going to slip back into chaos, either that or a brand new dictator will take charge.

It wouldnt be any different in Iran. Coalition goes in, gets rid of government and is stood round for the next ten years getting picked off one by one, eventually leaving and allowing a new regime to take charge.
No, the US cannot end suffering, but we cannot stand idly by while the rights of the individual are destroyed. And RPAS if you spit in my face, I dont&#39; care.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:09 AM
is it a sin to spit on a cappie&#39;s face?
No.

Cause you werent put here to be nobodys *****. Man or Woman.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:13 AM
No, the US... cannot stand idly by while the rights of the individual are destroyed.
Like in Guantanamo Bay, Parliament Square in the UK (I actually spoke to Brian Haw a few days ago), Iraq, Occupied Palestine and Lebanon...

The list of incidents where the US is actively or passively supporting an oppressive/aggressive government is incredibly long.

The US cannot give lectures about "individual rights" when the biggest violations of human rights in the world is being committed/supported by the US itself.

Indeed, on the very subject of Iran, it was the US (and the UK) who by overthrowing Mossadegh, destroyed democracy in Iran and allowed for what we have since seen under both the Shah of Iran and now the Ayatollahs.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:13 AM
No, the US cannot end suffering, but we cannot stand idly by while the rights of the individual are destroyed.
By that logic, we should be marching into Saudi Arabia tomorrow. And Myanmar. And China. And Indonesia. And the Sudan. And Belarus. And North Korea. And Vietnam (again). And Libya. And Turkmenistan. And Zimbabwe...

[TC]

Originally posted by sennomulo+Aug 3 2006, 04:46 PM--> (sennomulo @ Aug 3 2006, 04:46 PM)
[email protected] 3 2006, 10:13 AM
No, the US cannot end suffering, but we cannot stand idly by while the rights of the individual are destroyed.
By that logic, we should be marching into Saudi Arabia tomorrow. And Myanmar. And China. And Indonesia. And the Sudan. And Belarus. And North Korea. And Vietnam (again). And Libya. And Turkmenistan. And Zimbabwe... [/b]
except that there are far fewer human rights violations in China and Belarus and North Korea and Vietnam and Libya and Zimbabwe than there are in America...really they should be invading the US and UK.

[Eleutherios]

True. But even if one accepts the idea that freedom means living in a bourgeois republic, and we need to invade anywhere that isn&#39;t free by that definition, there is still no reason to pick on Iran over any of those other countries.

[Janus]

With the exception of the Phillipines, and a few other examples, US is generally not successful in installing free countries elsewhere.
I would hardly consider the Philippines a success in light of their rocky history.

[southernmissfan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 09:46 AM
I think you guys make some very fair points. With the exception of the Phillipines, and a few other examples, US is generally not successful in installing free countries elsewhere. But we can still topple their regime. So why not end the suffering now?
I noticed my post was conviently ignored. As I already stated, the US already has experience in toppling the Iranian government.


1953: The democratically elected government in Iran is overthrown in a CIA coup and the despotic Shah is installed. Why? The populist government there intended on nationalizing the oil industry, which was controlled by the US and UK. SAVAK, the Shah&#39;s secret police, is founded a few years later (with the assistance of the CIA).

1979: The Iranian people, having had enough of the puppet dictator, overthrow the Shah in a revolution unfortunately hijacked by religous fundamentalists. This would lead to a resurgence of fundamentalism throughout the Muslim world. Khomeini actually recieved support from the CIA due to its fears of the large left-wing presence in the revolution.

1980: Saddam Hussein&#39;s Iraq, encouraged by the US, launches an invasion of Iran, starting the Iran-Iraq War. For the next 8 years, the two nations would engage in one of the bloodiest wars in the post-Vietnam era. The US supported Saddam with economic and financial aid, dual-use technology, intelligence, weapons, and even direct attacks on Iran. Of course, the US also sold weapons to Iran (Iran-Contra Scandal) to fund anti-communist guerrillas in Nicaragua.

What needs to happen in the Muslim world is their own 1789--their own bourgeoisie, democratic revolutions than can develop them into modern capitalist nations and hopefully kill as many imams as possible along the way. Of course, Western imperialism, being the driving reactionary force in the world has often prevented this from happening and opposed most changes in this direction, and it&#39;s brutal actions in the region have served only to bolster backwards fundamentalism. The resurgence of fundamentalism in the region is a direct result of the Iranian Revolution and other instances of backlash against imperialism. I would imagine the only thing keeping the regime in Tehran together is the threat of the US. Otherwise, I imagine the people, especially the youth, would have already revolted.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ebeneezer:


the US cannot end suffering, but we cannot stand idly by while the rights of the individual are destroyed.

In fact, the uniformed murderers in the uSSa/UK-military (and other organs if US/UK power) have caused more suffering than any force on earth since the Nazis.

And they fight against democracy (Iran, Guatemala, Haiti, Chile, Lebanon) and impose or support dictators/oppressive regimes where they see fit (Iraq (under Saddam), Indonesia, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan).

Hence the need to see the US/UK-military defeated in Iraq, and anywhere else they show their murderous faces.

Mercifully, we are witnessing the rapid decline of US power; they cannot even impose their will on a beaten-up third-rate power like Iraq, and they can no longer bully S. America, nor push countries like Venezuela around.

The same goes for the UK.

More please....

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 09:46 AM
I think you guys make some very fair points. With the exception of the Phillipines, and a few other examples, US is generally not successful in installing free countries elsewhere. But we can still topple their regime. So why not end the suffering now?
because the suffering shall not end.

things were bad in countless countries before america either directly or indirectly toppled their regimes.. things became worse soon afterwards. the most stereotypical example i can think of is haiti, as no one can honestly say that things were better after the duvaliers.. and america recognizes this fact. it&#39;s impossible that they don&#39;t recognize it.

but, what will they ever do about the fact that they&#39;re simply aggravating the situation there, all the time? nothing, in the way they do nothing for anybody else.