Imperialism's Charge Sheet

[peaccenicked]

JAZZRATT'S EDIT: This is too valuable a resource for leftists to simply slip away into the quagmire of old OI threads so it has been pinned. It is a list of imperialist actions/crimes/rights violations, committed on orders issued by the bourgeois ruling class of the United States of America, against as well their own native population and working class, as sovereign states all over the globe -- without exception with a disastrous outcome from a proletarian perspective.

Any members with any other information on the multifarious similar actions that imperial powers have committed against other nations should feel free to post additions.

Let the Bloody Truth Be Told:
A Chronology of U.S. Imperialism








From Wounded Knee to Iraq
by Zoltan Grossman

The following is a partial list of U.S. military interventions from 1890 to 2003. This guide does not include:

mobilizations of the National Guard
offshore shows of naval strength
reinforcements of embassy personnel
the use of non-Defense Department personnel (such as the Drug Enforcement Administration)
military exercises
non-combat mobilizations (such as replacing postal strikers)
the permanent stationing of armed forces
covert actions where the U.S. did not play a command and control role
the use of small hostage rescue units
most uses of proxy troops
U.S. piloting of foreign warplanes
foreign disaster assistance
military training and advisory programs not involving direct combat
civic action programs
and many other military activities.
Among sources used, beside news reports, are the Congressional Record (23 June 1969), 180 Landings by the U.S. Marine Corp History Division, Ege & Makhijani in Counterspy (July-Aug, 1982), "Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798-1993" by Ellen C. Collier of the Library of Congress Congressional Research Service, and Ellsberg in Protest & Survive.



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


Zoltan Grossman is an Assistant Professor of Geography at the University of Wisconsin- Eau Claire (Box 4004, Eau Claire, WI 54701 USA). His peace writings can be seen at http://www.uwec.edu/grossmzc/peace.html and he can be reached at [email protected] .




SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.
ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected.
CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels.
HAITI 1891 Troops Black revolt on Navassa defeated.
IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners' strike.
HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.
CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.
NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields.
CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Japanese War
KOREA 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war.
PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province.
NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto.
CHINA 1898-1900 Troops Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.
PHILIPPINES 1898-1910 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos
CUBA 1898-1902 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.
PUERTO RICO 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues.
GUAM 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base.
MINNESOTA 1898 (-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.
NICARAGUA 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.
SAMOA 1899 (-?) Troops Battle over succession to throne.
NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields.
IDAHO 1899-1901 Troops Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.
OKLAHOMA 1901 Troops Army battles Creek Indian revolt.
PANAMA 1901-14 Naval, troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914.
HONDURAS 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution.
KOREA 1904-05 Troops Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.
CUBA 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election.
NICARAGUA 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.
HONDURAS 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua
PANAMA 1908 Troops Marines intervene in election contest.
NICARAGUA 1910 Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.
HONDURAS 1911 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
CHINA 1911-41 Naval, troops Continuous occupation with flare-ups.
CUBA 1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
PANAMA 1912 Troops Marines land during heated election.
HONDURAS 1912 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests.
NICARAGUA 1912-33 Troops, bombing 10-year occupation, fought guerillas
MEXICO 1913 Naval Americans evacuated during revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1914 Naval Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.
COLORADO 1914 Troops Breaking of miners' strike by Army.
MEXICO 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against nationalists.
HAITI 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation.
CUBA 1917-33 Troops Military occupation, economic protectorate.
WORLD WAR I 1917-18 naval, troops Ships sunk, fought Germany for 1 1/2 years.
RUSSIA 1918-22 Naval, troops Five landings to fight Bolsheviks
PANAMA 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during unrest after elections.
HONDURAS 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign.
YUGOSLAVIA 1919 Troops/Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.
GUATEMALA 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists.
WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombing Army intervenes against mineworkers.
TURKEY 1922 Troops Fought nationalists in Smyrna.
CHINA 1922-27 Naval, troops Deployment during nationalist revolt.
HONDURAS 1924-25 Troops Landed twice during election strife.
PANAMA 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike.
CHINA 1927-34 Troops Marines stationed throughout the country.
EL SALVADOR 1932 Naval Warships send during Marti revolt.
WASHINGTON DC 1932 Troops Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.
WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Naval, troops, bombing, nuclear Hawaii bombed, fought Japan, Italy and Germay for 3 years; first nuclear war.
DETROIT 1943 Troops Army put down Black rebellion.
IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet troops told to leave north.
YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Nuclear threat, naval Response to shoot-down of US plane.
URUGUAY 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength.
GREECE 1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.
GERMANY 1948 Nuclear Threat Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.
CHINA 1948-49 Troops/Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.
PHILIPPINES 1948-54 Command operation CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.
PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.
KOREA 1951-53 (-?) Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases.
IRAN 1953 Command Operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat French offered bombs to use against seige.
GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners.
LEBANON l958 Troops, naval Marine occupation against rebels.
IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.
CHINA l958 Nuclear threat China told not to move on Taiwan isles.
PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation.
VIETNAM l960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war.
CUBA l961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
GERMANY l961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
CUBA l962 Nuclear threat, naval Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union.
PANAMA l964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.
INDONESIA l965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA l966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.
DETROIT l967 Troops Army battles Blacks, 43 killed.
UNITED STATES l968 Troops After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.
CAMBODIA l969-75 Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
OMAN l970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
LAOS l971-73 Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.
SOUTH DAKOTA l973 Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.
MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.
CHILE 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.
CAMBODIA l975 Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.
ANGOLA l976-92 Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
IRAN l980 Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.
LIBYA l981 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
EL SALVADOR l981-92 Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.
NICARAGUA l981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
LEBANON l982-84 Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions.
GRENADA l983-84 Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution.
HONDURAS l983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders.
IRAN l984 Jets Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA l986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.

BOLIVIA 1986 Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region.
IRAN l987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.
LIBYA 1989 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.
VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 Troops St. Croix Black unrest after storm.
PHILIPPINES 1989 Jets Air cover provided for government against coup.
PANAMA 1989 (-?) Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.
LIBERIA 1990 Troops Foreigners evacuated during civil war.
SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.
IRAQ 1990-? Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.
LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.
SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
BOSNIA 1993-? Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.
HAITI 1994-? Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Marines at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.
LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
IRAQ 1998-? Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
YUGOSLAVIA 1999 Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo.
YEMEN 2000 Naval USS Cole bombed.
MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO forces deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels.
UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Reaction to hijacker attacks on New York, DC
AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Troops, bombing, missiles Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime. Forces also engaged in neighboring Pakistan.
YEMEN 2002 Missiles Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen.
PHILIPPINES 2002 Troops, naval Training mission for Philippine military fighting Muslim Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into US combat missions in Sulu Archipelago next to Mindanao.
COLOMBIA 2003-? Troops US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.
IRAQ 2003-? Troops, naval, bombing, missiles Second Gulf War launched for "regime change" in Baghdad. US, joined by UK and Australia, attacks from Kuwait, other Gulf states, and European and US bases.
WHERE NEXT? NO MORE!


Sometimes They Tell the Truth:
"The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist -- McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell-Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps."
-- Thomas Friedman, "A Manifesto for the Fast World", New York Times Magazine, March 28, 1999



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


"We have 50 percent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 percent of its population. . . In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will allow us to maintain this position of disparity. We should cease to talk about the raising of the living standards, human rights, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."
-- George Kennan, Director of Policy Planning of the U.S. Dept. of State, 1948



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


"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933 by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC



Back Home
to Jay's Leftist and "Progressive" Internet Resources Directory

[Dean]

July 2007 48% increase in U.S. arms shipments to Israel (30Bn over the next 10 years); sizeable arms shipment to Saudi Arabia (20Bn over 10 years).

[RedAnarchist]

Heres some I can think of that Britain has commited against the world -

800 years of oppression of the Irish people, eventually splitting up the island

Wiping out the Tasmanian aboriginals

Use of concentration camps in South Africa during the Boer War

Wiping out millions of Native Americans

Taking over and exploiting a quarter of the world for hundreds of years

Participated in the slave trade for hundreds of years

Wiping out many languages and cultures and replacing them with the English language and "Anglo-Saxon" culture

Creating artifical countries in Africa, splitting peoples and cultures and fostering war amongst Africans, which still happens to this day

Supporting and taking part in the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan

[runningmadbull]

Okay, so here is what I was drawn away from. You guys seem to always equate this shit with capitalism. It is not. Capitalism is an economic system based on private property. Walking over people's countries and destroying their lives and properties is not capitalism. Capitalism is not to be equated to the neocon and imperialist camps.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:58 pm
Capitalism is not to be equated to the neocon and imperialist camps.
Yes, it is.
You're taking it out of context.
And misunderstanding the use of "Imperialism"

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:58 pm
Okay, so here is what I was drawn away from. You guys seem to always equate this shit with capitalism. It is not. Capitalism is an economic system based on private property. Walking over people's countries and destroying their lives and properties is not capitalism. Capitalism is not to be equated to the neocon and imperialist camps.
These crimes are the result of the economic system based off of the imperial plunder and pillage-Capitalism. Hell, before industrial Capitalism people were getting exploited of their labour. This goes back wayyyy before the Neo-con camp and the War on Terror, buddy. And yes, Capitalism is a socio-economic system.

[freakazoid]

Walking over people's countries and destroying their lives and properties is not capitalism.

They're doing these things because of Capitalism.

[Tower of Bebel]

It is not. Capitalism is an economic system based on private property. Walking over people's countries and destroying their lives and properties is not capitalism.

You have a State to defend this private property, a State dominated by the ones who own this private possession of the mean of prodcution. In order to defend this State or in order to accumulate more resources for their private property, States do "walk" over other States. Are you an "anarcho-capitalist"?

[ComradeR]

Seems someone should have spent more time reading Marx, Lenin etc. and less time reading that 2,000 year old work of fiction.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 01:27 am
Wiping out the Tasmanian aboriginals


Just as a correction, they weren't completely wiped out. Great book which has stuff on that "Blood on the wattle"
Most depressing book ever.

----
Also, most Indigenous Australians were wiped out. I can't remember the exact figure, but they're about 10% of what they once were (I think thats one -it's an extremely low number).
The number of massacres carried out by White Settlers in Australia is ridiculous.
The Myall Creek massacre and the "Near Genocide at Van Dieman's land (which is what you were referring too)

Really, the colonisation of Australia, which resulted in the mass murder of Indigenous peoples - in various forms; they were poisoned, hunted, starved, raped, shot, etc - and which destroyed most Indigenous nations/tribes should be marked heavily on Britains charge sheet.
The continuation of this injustice should be marked on the Australian government.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Tierra y Libertad+August 27, 2007 02:29 am--> (Tierra y Libertad @ August 27, 2007 02:29 am)
[email protected] 31, 2007 01:27 am
Wiping out the Tasmanian aboriginals


Just as a correction, they weren't completely wiped out. Great book which has stuff on that "Blood on the wattle"
Most depressing book ever.

----
Also, most Indigenous Australians were wiped out. I can't remember the exact figure, but they're about 10% of what they once were (I think thats one -it's an extremely low number).
The number of massacres carried out by White Settlers in Australia is ridiculous.
The Myall Creek massacre and the "Near Genocide at Van Dieman's land (which is what you were referring too)

Really, the colonisation of Australia, which resulted in the mass murder of Indigenous peoples - in various forms; they were poisoned, hunted, starved, raped, shot, etc - and which destroyed most Indigenous nations/tribes should be marked heavily on Britains charge sheet.
The continuation of this injustice should be marked on the Australian government. [/b]
I saw a movie on the Aboriginies. It was long ago, when I was in high school. It was really sad, set back when the massacres and gov't segregation were active.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 03:58 am
Okay, so here is what I was drawn away from. You guys seem to always equate this shit with capitalism. It is not. Capitalism is an economic system based on private property. Walking over people's countries and destroying their lives and properties is not capitalism. Capitalism is not to be equated to the neocon and imperialist camps.
Sigh. Capitalism is not a set of principles. It is an economic reality based on certain forms of ownership. Politicians who support capitalism and wish to defend it or expand it will do what they regard as necessary to do so and that will involve imperialism.

Capitalism does not defend private property or whatnot. It usually maintains it because it thrives on private property, but if it wishes to ignore it, it has never had any qualms about doing so.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Dean+August 27, 2007 01:38 pm--> (Dean @ August 27, 2007 01:38 pm)
Originally posted by Tierra y [email protected] 27, 2007 02:29 am

[email protected] 31, 2007 01:27 am
Wiping out the Tasmanian aboriginals


Just as a correction, they weren't completely wiped out. Great book which has stuff on that "Blood on the wattle"
Most depressing book ever.

----
Also, most Indigenous Australians were wiped out. I can't remember the exact figure, but they're about 10% of what they once were (I think thats one -it's an extremely low number).
The number of massacres carried out by White Settlers in Australia is ridiculous.
The Myall Creek massacre and the "Near Genocide at Van Dieman's land (which is what you were referring too)

Really, the colonisation of Australia, which resulted in the mass murder of Indigenous peoples - in various forms; they were poisoned, hunted, starved, raped, shot, etc - and which destroyed most Indigenous nations/tribes should be marked heavily on Britains charge sheet.
The continuation of this injustice should be marked on the Australian government.
I saw a movie on the Aboriginies. It was long ago, when I was in high school. It was really sad, set back when the massacres and gov't segregation were active. [/b]
They're really sad. :(
Even so, the books are far worse.
Some of the stuff...is just terrible.
When I was telling my friend about this one incident, the Myall creek massacre, I almost started crying. It was just such a disgusting event.
Children were hacked to death with swords because the settlers "didn't want to waste bullets on them", and just things like that.

If you're still interested in the subject, I recommend you read that book (blood on the wattle).
Be prepared though, it's really full on.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Tierra y [email protected] 27, 2007 03:55 am
They're really sad. :(
Even so, the books are far worse.
Some of the stuff...is just terrible.
When I was telling my friend about this one incident, the Myall creek massacre, I almost started crying. It was just such a disgusting event.
Children were hacked to death with swords because the settlers "didn't want to waste bullets on them", and just things like that.

If you're still interested in the subject, I recommend you read that book (blood on the wattle).
Be prepared though, it's really full on.
I'm used to taking shit full on. Probably why I am a communist today, and why I am restricted ;-) Reading Amnesty International for a year can make you pretty open to hearing about a lot of sick conditions.

I'll definitely put that amongst my literature to consider.. If nothing else, I'll look more into the Aboriginies, I had only remembered the conflict vaguely and heard recently of Australians dismissing their past brutality towards them.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by runningmadbull
Okay, so here is what I was drawn away from. You guys seem to always equate this shit with capitalism. It is not. Capitalism is an economic system based on private property. Walking over people's countries and destroying their lives and properties is not capitalism. Capitalism is not to be equated to the neocon and imperialist camps.
This is a charge sheet against imperialism per se. Although as a comrade correctly pointed out, capitalism and imperialism are one and the same. One of my favourite quotes I remember said ''without McDonalds there would be no McDonnell Douglas''

Im surprised no-ones touched on the slave trade (in the wider context) or the dis-posession and slaughter of native americans.

The Irish potato famine would also have been a largely avoidable tradgedy, were it not for anglo-protestant policy at the time.
Then there the massacres in Drogheda by Oliver Cromwell,
The Croake park massacre in the early 20th C
and of course not forgetting Bloody Sunday.

[Comrade Rage]

Don't overlook the restoration of the Duvalier dictatorship in Haiti.

[Jazzratt]

Contributed by Ulster Socialist

Israel:

Yehida: 13 December 1947
Khisas: 18 December 1947
Qazaza: 19 December 1947
Al-Sheikh Village: 1 January 1948
Naser Al-Din: 13-14 April 1948
Abu Shusha: 14 May 1948
Beit Daras: 21 May 1948
Tantura: May 22-23, 1948
Dahmash Mosque: 11 July 1948
http://www.iol.ie/~afifi/BICNews/Harbinger/harbinger18.htm
Dawayma: 29 October 1948
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Hebron/...a/Story670.html (http://www.palestineremembered.com/Hebron/al-Dawayima/Story670.html)
Sharafat massacre: 7 Febraury 1951
Kibya massacre: 14 October 1953: 9:30 pm
Kafr Qasm massacre :29 October 1956
AL-SAMMOU' MASSACRE :13 November 1966
THE SABRA AND SHATILA MASSACRE :15-18 September 1982
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1779713.stm
OYON QARA MASSACRE :(RISHON LEZION: 20 May 1990)
THE IBRAHIMI MOSQUE MASSACRE :25 February 1994
THE JABALIA MASSACRE: 28 March 1994
ERETZ CHECKPOINT MASSACRE : 17 July 1994
Jenin massacre: Thursday, 18 April, 2002
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1937048.stm
Gaza beach blast: June 9, 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_beach_blast


Resources-
http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/to...#AL-SAMMOU' (http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/toread/massac2.htm#AL-SAMMOU')
http://www.palestinecampaign.org/archives.asp?list=102

[jasmine]

I'll definitely put that amongst my literature to consider.. If nothing else, I'll look more into the Aboriginies, I had only remembered the conflict vaguely and heard recently of Australians dismissing their past brutality towards them.

Yes, the Aborigines are a very interesting subject. The Australians murdered and persecuted them, stole their children, seemingly just for the hell of it. Australia is a big place and mostly empty and the Aborigines were never a social, economic, political or any sort of threat. Nor did the persecution of them produce any economic gain for the whites. True they stole some land but there was more than enough land for every body. It was racism pure and simple.

Although I suppose Aboriginal culture is very different from western culture, it's based on a deeply felt relationship with the land and an amazing concept called "dreamtime". Maybe the gulf, the difference, fed the attacks on them - even today anti-Aborigine "jokes" are quiet acceptable at the average Aussie barby.

A great movie on this subject - Rabbit Proof Fence - produced maybe around 2000 but check it out on IMDB.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 05:48 pm
A great movie on this subject - Rabbit Proof Fence - produced maybe around 2000 but check it out on IMDB.
That's actually the one I saw; I recognize the name. It was really good.

[hajduk]

Here is the link for EDWARD SAID speech about imperialism and culture in York University TORONTO ,february 10/1993
it is FUcking good
http://zena.secureforum.com/Znet/zmag/zart...les/barsaid.htm (http://zena.secureforum.com/Znet/zmag/zarticle.cfm?Url=articles/barsaid.htm)

[Led Zeppelin]

Hajduk, either link to the article/speech or don't post it if it's that long. I have removed your long text so you can edit your post to link to it when you see this.

Thank you.

[Zurdito]

great work, this is awesome. :D

[hajduk]

Edward Said: The Last Interview

Directed by Mike Dibb
Produced by D. D. Guttenplan
Interviewer: Charles Glass
http://www.frif.com/new2004/said.html

[hajduk]

Edward Said Discusses ‘Orientalism,’ Arab Intellectuals, Reviving Marxism, and Myth in Palestinian History

By Nouri Jarah
http://www.aljadid.com/EdwardSaidDiscusses...ingMarxism.html (http://www.aljadid.com/EdwardSaidDiscussesOrientalismArabIntellectualsRev ivingMarxism.html)

[hajduk]

Arrogance and amnesia
By Edward Said

Like all people, Americans are so involved in the daily problems of life -- keeping a job, paying for their children's education, worrying about their retirement -- that they seem to have no time to recall or think about America's quite extraordinary role in the world. It is also true that historically this continent is so removed from the difficulties of Africa, Asia and even Europe, it is so vast and so encircled by miles of oceans, that most Americans have very little direct connection to what is being one abroad in their name. They neither know in most instances, and when they do, they are fed the information by an ideological media information system that keeps the idea of "America" pure, altruistic and an infallible source of good, so much so that they never question the systematic horror of invasions, genocide, unjustly supported dictatorships, sheer scheming interference (like the 30 years rgar rhe US singlehandedly supported Suharto and his family and cronies): all this is supposed to be a source o powerful rectitude in a world essentially made up of snivelly smaller states or of jealous powers like France and China who are anxious to steal "our" authority. It should come as no surprise therefore that during the current World Cup session there was universal rejoicing at Iran's solid defeat of the US, which was forced to exit the competition designated the worst team in the world. So strong has resentment grown against the US's overbearing, wasteful and cruel ways that a mighty wave of anti-Americanism sweeps the globe.

The paradox though is that even European powers, to say nothing of the Arab states, nations like India and Pakistan, the countries of Latin America, or most of Asia and Africa, fail to engage the US in anything like a critical dialogue of equals. Take as an instance the egregious US habit of laying sanctions on states it doesn't approve of, or those it has designated terrorist or rogue or pariah countries. The list grows longer everyday. Many of these states (Sudan, Syria, Iran, Iraq) are Muslim states, and several -- like India and Pakistan, against whom sanctions were levied unilaterally in a fit of US petulance and pique -- are considered inferior, less developed, not like "us". Since 1991 Iraq has been subject to the most cruel sanctions that have devasted any country in the history of the world, sanctions that have literally murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. With appalling arrogance the US has made it seem that the sanctions are to last forever. Sadism is the essence of the practice, not security, since even Iraq's close neighbours who have cause to fear Saddam's dreadful regime openly say that he is no threat. Yet the US reminds everyone of its objections, cavalierly forgetting its own blemished record of doing more damage than any other country in history.

In the meantime the US continues to support the Algerian regime which, whether you believe is fighting for law and order or killing for the sake of its own diseased perpetuity, is certainly guilty of a large number of abuses of its own citizens. But Algeria has oil, and that is what concerns the powerful US corporations who now make up Algeria's major trading partners: so Algeria is not a pariah state. The US declared its displeasure with two major subcontinental countries for exploding nuclear devices, and has hit them with its displeasure and economic sanctions. This despite the fact that more than any other power the US has exploded nuclear devices for over 55 years, has attacked Japan with them at a cost of several hundred thousand civilians, and still refuses to acknowledge that particularly damning history of genocide. When the Smithsonian Institution wanted to mount an exhibition on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, including showing the actual plane, the Enola Gay, that dropped the only atom bomb in history, a huge outcry in the Congress and among various "patriotic" citizens' groups forced the Smithsonian to cancel the whole thing. The exhibit was characterised as nothing less than an attack on America: our country, right or wrong, runs the slogan, which means nothing less than that America is always right.

This is a phenomenon unique to the US even though, of course, most states try to inculcate their citizens in the supreme virtue and blamelessness of their culture and heritage. By virtue of its size and immense global reach, more so than any other empire in history, the US has involved itself literally with the entire world. In 1954, because it disapproved the Arbenz presidency (considered communist) in Guatemala, 10 per cent of the population was killed directly under US auspices. Cuba has been under an embargo for 40 years not because it threatens the US -- a tiny, economically depressed island which is hardly a match for the US colossus -- but because Senator Jesse Helms and his Florida colleagues simply repeat "that we want Castro out of there," as if Cuba, or anywhere else for that matter, is supposed to exist at the US's pleasure. But the special thing about the US is that a mechanism for amnesia exists in the public realm which has not been properly addressed by intellectuals, who in large measure (with some notable exceptions) have gone along with the pervasive idea that America is an exceptional country, with a unique mission in the world. All its past misdeeds are buried in the memory hole, to be re-concealed every time they are raised by an assiduous researcher or group.

Public amnesia has gone along with occasional public rituals of fraudulent expiation, confession and regret. Two years ago, Robert McNamara, one of the principal architects of the Vietnamese catastrophe in which over three million South East Asian peasants were murdered, their land and cities and villages obliterated as an act of wanton self-assertion by the US using the highest war technology ever employed 10,000 miles away from its shores, wrote a book admitting with a great deal of unseemly agony and appearances of anguished regret that he had been wrong. Wrong, that is all: wrong to have been the cause of such untold catastrophe to millions of Americans and especially Vietnamese. Wrong. The word fairly sticks in one's throat. Aside from the indecency of the whole thing -- he should have turned himself in as a war criminal -- the book was an occasion for him to endlessly appear on television, painfully going over all the lies and poor decisions he made. What was grotesque was McNamara's contention that he made an "honest" mistake -- note, a mistake that lasted for two administrations and approximately 15 years. So aside from giving McNamara the opportunity to produce his maudlin lies and justify himself, the ceremonies of public confession had the effect of confirming, but by no means questioning, the US's criminal behaviour as really altruistic, trying to save the world from communism, etc.

When it comes to Israel (leaving aside Indonesia, Laos, Cambodia, Bosnia, Chile, Iran, Grenada, Panama, and many other places where the US bears responsibility for international terrorism) there is a sublime sense constantly projected that the US is on the side of right, justice, morality and peace. All challenges to that view are considered terrorism, unless Israel does it. So that the bombing of Lebanon, military occupation, annexation of territory, plus the whole-scale dispossession of an entire people: all this is simply negligible while the US protests that it and its equally blameless ally Israel are fighting for peace and justice. Nothing else, and only those, just good old-fashioned American peace and justice.

The trouble is that as Arabs we never seem willing directly to engage the US intellectually and morally in ways that highlight the crimes committed against us. I have long said that the dismal ignorance of the US that exists in the Arab world -- an ignorance blithely disconnected to the system of US exploitation and its organised cruelties against the non-white peoples of the world -- makes us prey to the illusion that America is the only arbiter, the last superpower, the power with the greatest chance of giving us our due. At the core of our difficulty is the lamentable disunity of the Arab world, where rulers think in terms of the narrowest interest and no concern is given to the way in which Arab states are used against each other, traduced, robbed, punished and endlessly manipulated. To the official US we remain only "the Arabs," an undifferentiated mass of turban-wearing nomads much given to fanaticism and violence. We develop our consumer instincts more than we do our cultural and scientific talent, and we manifest so widespread a degree of helplessness and incompetence with our endlessly proclaimed summits, the new state of Palestine, the new danger of an explosion, that we cannot even take ourselves seriously.

America cannot be confronted by brave slogans and the purchase of more new weapons from it. Like everything in this secular world of ours the US has to be faced in detail, its policies exposed, its positions disallowed and unaccepted. What else is the unseemly begging directed at the US to continue its putrefying "peace process" now, after Netanyahu and the US have made (as they always intended to) a shambles of the whole thing, what else is this indecent appeal to revive the process but a shabby admission of impotence and acquiescence? Why don't the Arab states in their greater wisdom declare their own peace plan -- in which the whole world concurs -- and prove to the whole world that no amount of American chicanery or cruelty will deflect us from our resolve? I suppose that to wait for such determination is like waiting for Arab leaders with policy intellectuals and makers in tow, to come to the conclusion that if we need anything now it is a complete revaluation of our policies vis-à-vis the United States, led by a critical analysis of such arch-villains as Henry Kissinger, whom any Arab today would simply love to meet and have breakfast with. "As Kissinger said to me yesterday over coffee" -- you can imagine one of them ponderously saying.

[hajduk]

Defamation, Zionist-style
EDWARD SAID

Given the approach of the final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, it seems worthwhile to record here the lengths to which right-wing Zionists will go to further their claims on all of Palestine against those of the country's native Palestinian inhabitants who were dispossessed as an entire nation in 1948. To this very end, an article has recently appeared in Commentary, a small, extremely conservative Jewish monthly, which attacks my life and story as a Palestinian by pretending to show that I am neither Palestinian, nor ever lived in Palestine, nor that my family was evicted from Palestine in 1948. It should be remarked that this is the third such attack on me by Commentary in 20 years, the first being an enormously long critique in 1981 of my book The Question of Palestine, the second a reckless article in l988 or l989 entitled "The Professor of Terror," the third being this one, written by someone called Justus Weiner, an Israeli who claims to work for an obscure Israeli right-wing research centre in Jerusalem. Weiner's argument is buttressed by his pretence that he spent three years on his study of my life, spoke to 80 or so witnesses, and found many inconsistencies in what he says is "my story", which he fabricates more or less at will. It seems astonishing that he obtained funding for this project, although he tactfully doesn't say why, how much, for and from whom. Thanks to the extremely pro-Zionist British Daily Telegraph, his article has aroused the interest of the international press, which has been calling me for comment and reaction. It is part of the Palestinian fate always to be required to prove one's existence and history!

The only problem with the current hullabaloo, at the outset, is that during his three years of assiduous research Weiner never once contacted or in any way spoke to me, an extraordinary omission by a man who pretends that he is both a scholar and a journalist but actually uses the methods of neither one nor the other. Another fact about his method is that he did not properly consult my memoir, Out of Place, completed in September 1998, and to appear next month. (Extracts from it will appear shortly in the New York Review of Books, The Observer, Harper's and Granta.) There, I scrupulously record the facts of my early life spent between Jerusalem, Cairo and Dhour Al-Shweir (Lebanon), making clear that, being the member of a privileged class, I was spared the worst ravages of the Nakba. I have never claimed to have been made a refugee, but rather that my extended family, all of it -- uncles, cousins, aunts, grandparents -- in fact was. By the spring of 1948, not a single relative of mine was left in Palestine, ethnically cleansed by Zionist forces. Commentary's Weiner does not mention that, allowing himself the preposterous claim that my memoir (begun in 1994 and completed in 1998) was written to refute him in 1999.

To make matters worse, Weiner's strenuous display of scholarly rigour is undercut by many mistakes of fact. He calls Boulos Said my father's brother, whereas he was my father's cousin. Boulos's wife, Nabiha, was my father's sister. Weiner does not know that. He does not realise that the kuchan or tabo is rarely complete, and that the family house was in fact a family house in the Arab sense, which meant that our families were one in ownership. Together Boulos and Wadie Said, cousins, partners, and close friends, owned the Palestine Education Company, with branches in Jerusalem and Haifa. All, plus the house, were lost to Israel in 1948. Weiner says that we didn't try for reparations, thereby deliberately obfuscating two facts: that my father did in fact try to sue the Israeli government for reparations and, second, that by l950 the law of absentee property passed by Israel had converted all Palestinian property into Israeli property, illegally of course. No wonder our efforts were unrewarded. He says that I didn't attend St George's School. This is an outright lie. He does not admit that the school's records end in l946 and I was there in 1947, or that my father and cousins had attended the school starting in 1906. Had he been a decent researcher, he might have sought out one of my classmates, Haig Boyagian (who lives in the US now and quite coincidentally called me a week ago) and my math teacher, Michel Marmoura, a retired professor at the University of Toronto, for verification. Weiner says that my mother was Lebanese, whereas she was only half Lebanese; her father was Palestinian. She had a Palestinian passport, and in 1948 did in point of fact become a refugee. The Talbiyeh house was built for my family in 1932 by Sab' Samaha. Weiner gets that wrong too. The Egyptian branches of the family business were not nationalised, but sold to the Nasser government; nor were they burned by revolutionary mobs but rather by the Muslim Brothers. And so on and on.

All this from someone who claims that I have falsified the past to pretend that I am a victim. What he cannot understand, and has not been able to understand from any of my writings, is the fact that I have been moved to defend the refugees' plight precisely because I did not suffer and therefore feel obligated to relieve the sufferings of my people, less fortunate than myself. Weiner is a propagandist who, like many others before him, has tried to depict the dispossession of Palestinians as ideological fiction: this has been a constant theme of Zionist "information" since the 1930s. Actual sources are never given, but innuendoes are used. In the body of his article, he does not name the people he allegedly talked to "on four continents" or the documents he consulted, what exactly they said, or when, and in answer to what question. My cousin Robert, for example, told me that when at first he refused to talk to Weiner, Weiner threatened him. And because he is relatively unknown, Weiner tries to make a name for himself by attacking a better known person's reputation. I have had many such attacks levelled against me in the past. Weiner's attempt now may be useful as a way of discrediting all Palestinian claims to return and compensation, which will be a central issue in the terminal phase of the peace process. Weiner's polemic also covers up the racism of Israel's Law of Return, which allows any Jew anywhere to emigrate to Israel, whereas no Palestinian, even someone born there, has no such right. If someone like Edward Said is a liar, runs the argument, how can we believe all those peasants who say they were driven off their land? The Likud argument (Weiner's) is that the land all belongs to the people of Israel, since it was given to them by God. All the other claimants are therefore prevaricators and pretenders.

Luckily, several survivors of 1948 from my family are still alive and well. My oldest cousin, the last person to leave our Talbiyeh house, is 80 years old now and lives in Toronto. Why was he not contacted? As my widowed aunt's oldest son, he negotiated with Martin Buber and took him to court when he refused to leave the house after his lease was up and our family returned from a year in Cairo. What about our neighbours, other relatives, friends, members of the church community? They were never contacted. Several children of the pastor who baptised me are still alive also: they could have been contacted. No: what Commentary wants is not the truth but the Big Zionist Lie. The irony is that a few weeks ago American newspapers carried a front page story on the revision of Israeli history schoolbooks which, thanks to the efforts of the New Israeli Historians and of course the Palestinians themselves, are beginning to acknowledge the events of 1948 as they really occurred, with the ethnic cleansing, destruction of villages, massacres, etc, which have for so long been denied. It is not entirely surprising, however, that an American Israeli and an American Zionist journal turn out to be more Israeli than Israelis themselves, less honest, less willing to deal with facts, more inclined to propaganda and smear tactics, less likely ever to understand history or how their skewed perspective produces only calumny and falsehood.

I have always advocated the acknowledgement by each other of the Palestinian and Jewish peoples' past sufferings. Only in this way can they coexist peacefully in the future. Weiner is more interested in using the past -- either an individual or collective past -- to prevent understanding and reconciliation. It is a pity that so much time and venom as he has expended couldn't have been used for positive purposes

[hajduk]

Confused thinking?
Daud R. Matthews

With the collapse of communism most "Western thinking" countries are pinning their hopes on Market Economy.

There seems to be some inherent flaws in the system of Market Economy:

If the US is the leading exponent of this system, then surely this system must be considered a failure:

* The US official national debt is currently $4.6 trillion and is expected to increase to $6 trillion in the next 7 years,
* Yet total unfunded benefit Federal liabilities amount to a further $14.4 trillion. These are the unfunded pension obligations of the Federal government e.g. military government employee and old-age pensions.
* US dollars holding abroad actually forms an external debt. That is, if there is pressure on US dollar, anyone holding dollars would be liable to loss. The dollar as an international currency would also be affected.

Now, we see particular UN agencies, the World Bank and the IMF attempting to pressurize developing countries to opt for Market Economy reforms. I would suggest that there are deeper waters than appear on the surface.

The UN is "controlled" by former "colonial" powers. The US and all those countries with powers of veto in particular. Small countries whose GNP is less than the "aid" they receive from UN agencies are "forced" (blackmailed) into voting for UN and UN agencies' resolutions or risk having the aid cut off. The recent "UN" sponsored conferences in Cairo and Beijing are cases in point.

Let us consider an example, Pakistan with its nuclear program:

Benazir Bhutto's first government did not get their budget accepted. Nawaz Sharif came as Prime Minister. When he brought the "black money" home and attempted to make Pakistan independent of US aid, his government was brought down.

Qureishi was brought in as acting Prime Minister. He was not even in Pakistan. He was in the IMF. He drafted a package for Pakistan as an interim measure. However, Benazir Bhutto came back and again she couldn't get her budget accepted. What did she do? She and her aides flew to the US and came back with a package from the IMF!!!

Now, we find, Pakistan is heavily committed to debt. It is claimed, "National key organizations have been sold to foreign companies". What is more alarming, perhaps, is the willingness for the government to sign IMF/World Bank funded loans for specific projects. Admittedly, 4% interest is extremely favourable at international rates. However, these projects are usually non-revenue producing. The problem comes 4-5 years afterwards, when the debt is due to be paid off, and the country (Pakistan in this case) cannot pay off the debt because no extra revenue has been generated. The interest rate then shoots to 15% and, of course, the country is firmly in the grip of the IMF or World Bank. This is irrespective of whether the loan is actually used to fund the specific or whether it goes into the pockets of corrupt politicians.

The remaining question is: Who "controls" the IMF and the World Bank?

In this context one should review the situation of Turkey: With a $5 billion deficit with the EU and no hope of balancing this deficit, Turkey must turn to other countries and develop trade. Obviously, the ex-USSR countries are possibilities but equally (or even more so) are the Middle East and Asian countries - especially the Muslim countries.

If it is true that many of the world's resources are in Muslim lands, it is imperative that Prime Minister Erbakan's call for an Islamic equivalent of the IMF/World Bank be established or the control of these resources will pass to others.

The UN is supporting Market Economy. Saudi Arabia is "consolidating" its debt. Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain are under pressure from the US. The UAE is under pressure from the UK. The UN imposes sanctions according to the "strong countries" in the UN. These sanctions are only lifted providing the subject countries agrees to the terms and conditions imposed through the UN. Yet, in many cases, what is the basis for these sanctions? What action is taken against sanction-breakers? Specifically in the case of the former South Africa where there was still US and UK investments despite the sanctions against apartheid? The answer, of course, was none.

There is another aspect to be considered: Non-governmental organizations (NGO's).

In the case of NGO's the Bangladesh Government linked the increase in number of people converting to Christianity with the increase in NGO activity in the country.

On 4th December 1996 in the BBC radio program "News Hour" at 13:00 hours GMT the American Ambassador to Turkey in Ankara told the BBC reporter "The 5000 Kurds being evacuated from Northern Iraq worked for NGO's as gardeners, cooks, etc." These NGO's were financed by the US. When asked if these Kurds were part of some CIA plan, the Ambassador, instead of simply saying yes or no, repeated what he had said before and added that they would be taken to Guam where their cases would be evaluated and some of them would be given refugee status based on the evaluation.

Your guess is as good as mine as to what this actually means. It does sound ominous for any country where NGO's are active, e.g. Afghanistan, Sudan.

Isn't it time the Muslim world began to help themselves? After the calls at the recent OIC Meeting, isn't now the right time to look into the proposals of Prime Minister Erbakan and establish an alternative to the IMF and the World Bank?

Also, until the EU adopts a single currency there is really no strong alternative to the US dollar as the international currency. If the US dollar weakens due to the failure of Market Economy system it would be an excellent idea to have an Islamic dinar as an international currency whether it is low key, kept in the background or whatever.

Finally, which "club" allows a member in default of his subscriptions to vote? Why doesn't the UN suspend America's vote and power of veto until their outstanding debt is settled?

[hajduk]

Public spectacle, public history
Edward Said reflects on the power of CNN

The recent death of Jordan's King Hussein offered the world media -- and CNN in particular -- a unique opportunity to do what it seems to do best so far as its consumers and sponsors are concerned: give spectators the sense that they are present at an important Historical Occasion where something of Great Significance unfolds before one's very eyes. CNN has now shot to an enviable position of almost total global hegemony. Its format (which I shall describe in a moment) is now the dominant one, which dictates to all other broadcasting outlets how they should do things. The formula is a superficially simple one. A prominent reporter sits behind a desk at a news centre like Atlanta or London; then the cameras are kept focused on the event, which is usually a procession, ceremony, or an unfolding series of happenings (like the bombings of Iraq). Then you cut from the public event to reporters who are at the scene itself, often with a local, native accredited expert. And so on for hours and days if necessary (as in the case of the Clinton trial). Thus television outlets like CNN come to be considered the voice and eyes of authenticity and truth: if one wants to get the best perspective on news of major importance, there is now the prevailing assumption that CNN will be the first to deliver that perspective, since what CNN relays is what is the most important news.

The tautology is important. News is what CNN broadcasts, and what CNN broadcasts is therefore news. Therefore the subjects on which CNN spends the most time (for example, the Gulf War, Princess Diana's funeral, the Clinton impeachment) are immediately elevated to the position of preeminence. A generation ago the major global authority was Time magazine, like CNN an American pioneer in the diffusion of news. In both cases it is sheer coverage that matters, the sense encouraged in the consumer that what is served up before his eyes has been put there by an all-knowing, wisely experienced, and tremendously influential authority of some sort. Most important is the feeling that what isn't there to be seen or commented on either does not exist or does not matter if it does. In short, this is a literal instance of contemporary history in the making. A trenchant American media critic, George W S Trow, has described this process succinctly as follows: "The work of television is to establish false contexts and to chronicle the unraveling of existing contexts; finally, to establish the context of no-context and to chronicle it."

Let me try to explain what I think he means. Reality is a confusing, complex dynamic of events, processes, personalities. Consider as an example King Hussein's death, the final chapter in one man's life. The king of Jordan was of course a real person, but he is also the conjuncture of a particular family history (that of the Hashemites), a series of processes that involved several great powers including Britain, the US, the Arab states, and Israel, and events that included (I mention only a few at random) the West Bank elections of 1956-7, the civil war of l970, the relationship between Jordan and Iraq, between Jordan and Israel, the cleavages and problems within Jordanian society, including army, Prince Hassan, the political class, Palestinian refugees and a tiny, but prosperous bourgeoisie.

So far as the presentation of Jordan in the media prior to Hussein's death is concerned, it is safe to say that none of these facts was given much prominence, although some may have been mentioned in passing in accounts of the Middle East peace process. But certainly, to return now to the king's funeral, the perspective provided by CNN and the others is that this was an event that had mostly to do with the passing of "a man of peace", as if a rich, often tragic and contradictory human life, a story of power, struggle, historical collisions and conjunctures, achievement and error, could be reduced simply and neatly to that of someone who served the US peace process as a wise and gifted partner. In other words, the local context was totally removed. Very little, if anything, of Jordan's history as a country was referred to. Occasional "experts" were summoned to aid star reporter Christiane Amanpour -- who has now become almost a parody of the star or celebrity journalist who flies in and out of places to give them some momentary credibility and interest, then flies out, leaving each place to a perhaps deserved subsequent obscurity, until the next crisis may warrant her re-appearance. These local experts were never allowed to say very much -- they were used just to identify somebody, or to give a tiny bit of background, none of it distracting the star reporter or her audience from the story and spectacle at hand. It was striking that a steady dose of misinformation was routinely delivered, e.g., that it is an Islamic tradition that women do not attend funerals, or that the crowd's grief was "authentic" and was unlike the scenes "of sham or manufactured grief so often the case in Arab crowds", which was a comment made by a prominent journalist during the proceedings. According to the coverage, what seemed most important in the end about Hussein was that he served others (i.e. the United States and Israel) more than he thought about himself. This ultimately Zionist perspective on what constitutes a "good Arab" had the dual function of maintaining a general attitude of hostility to all other Arabs and Muslims, and at the same time transforming Hussein -- rescuing him in effect from his own Arab history and thereby placing him into a new, universal one: that of being approved by the US.

Without knowing it, the American spectator was given a false context about Hussein and Jordan, Arabs, Muslims, and others, and in the process encouraged to regard the history of Jordan and its king as essentially unravelled, simplified, reduced from and cleansed of all its density and gravity to the status of a dignified funeral attended by a lot of world leaders, especially Americans and Israelis. Such considerable facts and forces as, for instance, power interests, the structure of Jordanian society influenced by the Palestinian conflict, the composition of the state, its army, bureaucracy, failing economy, difficult political future -- all these were dissolved, and spun away as so many useless threads whose existence no longer mattered to the powerful story constructed before our very eyes. As Trow remarks, a new "no-context" emerged during the transmission: that this man whose funeral was being shown belonged to legend, idealised history, acceptable heroism, and approved-of reality (in the manner of Princess Di), all of them controlled not by his people, for example, but by the camera, the commentators, and in the end CNN itself.

The troubling thing is that CNN's broadcast represents all that one needs to know about the world, reduced, packaged, and delivered without a trace of conflict or contradiction. Its thought, its sensation, what it sees are insidiously substituted for what the spectator might himself see, feel, think about. This gradual replacement of a private and personal process with a ready-made, manufactured and processed system is nothing less than a hijacking of the mind by a sophisticated apparatus whose purpose is, I believe, deeply ideological. The kernel of this ideology is that "we" define the world, state its purposes and meaning, control its unfolding history. In effect then, the funeral became the occasion for re-asserting control over a distant country, its people, history and departed monarch. And this seizure or hijacking permitted a whole series of further distortions which were later amplified by print journalism.

To give one example: The Nation magazine, a prominent left-liberal weekly journal of opinion for which I write regularly both as music critic and as political commentator (it has a circulation of about 100,000) sought the services of one Milton Viorst, a free-lance journalist who has made the Middle East his speciality over the past 10 years or so. It is clear from what he writes that he is attracted to the Arab and Muslim world (without knowing their languages, by now a common qualification for "experts" on the Middle East!) mainly because he is fascinated as to why Arabs and Muslims are in a state of prolonged decline and degeneration. In his article for The Nation he described Hussein as a good and unusual leader in that, unlike most Arab leaders in history, he tried to get close to his people. The vast generalisation is astonishing. What does Viorst know about "Arab history?" Where is his research and writing on the subject? Second, according to the sage Viorst, Hussein single-handedly tried to pull Jordan out of the "second-rateness" of the Arab world, its fate for many centuries. I doubt first of all whether any liberal and respectable journal would allow so enormous and hateful a descriptive phrase for any other culture, but it's considered appropriate for the Arabs. The point, though, is that, given the context provided for Hussein by CNN, this vision of him as something outside the ordinary framework of the other Arabs is now the acceptable one. Interestingly, Viorst further compliments the late king on his achievement in providing his people with "clean water", no doubt forgetting the recent water scandal that plagued Jordan just a few months ago. Never mind: facts are less important than the new context adopted unreflectingly by Viorst, whose lack of knowledge, originality, and insight are irrelevant to the "spin" he has taken over from television and the State Department.

This is not a trivial matter. CNN is now watched by Arabs as an authority on the Arabs. With its new position of dominance goes an uncritical, almost unconscious belief indeed in the spectator that public events are being recorded faithfully as they happen. What we urgently require is a conscious resistance to the framework and its elaboration, a spirit of criticism and sceptical awareness that challenges the new hegemony. Yet unfortunately, this awareness is neither taught in schools nor compensated for by the Arab media, still chained undemocratically to state and corporate interests whose mode is to forbid criticism and disallow open debate. One can take heart, however, that a new generation of intellectuals and young people is not likely to tolerate this state of affairs for long: there are signs everywhere that censorship is under considerable attack.

Nevertheless, it is important to remember that a critical response to what can be called the CNN world view will not arise out of simple rejection of it as "imperialist" or as an unwelcome symptom of "globalisation". What is required is the emergence of critical approaches to the media as exemplified in the work of Trow, Pierre Bourdieu, Chomsky and many others. As their work is better known (and a sophisticated Arab critique arises), one hopes that a new interplay will develop between consumers and suppliers of public spectacle. In the meantime, CNN's distortions and misrepresentations will continue, like Britannia in the 19th century, to rule the waves.

[hajduk]

Europe versus America
By Edward Said



Although I have visited England dozens of times, I have never spent more than one or two weeks at a single stretch. This year, for the first time, I am in residence for almost two months at Cambridge University, where I am the guest of a college and giving a series of lectures on humanism at the university.

The first thing to be said is that life here is far less stressed and hectic than it is in New York, at my university, Columbia. Perhaps this slightly relaxed pace is due in part to the fact that Great Britain is no longer a world power, but also to the salutary idea that the ancient universities here are places of reflection and study rather than economic centres for producing experts and technocrats who will serve the corporations and the state. So the post-imperial setting is a welcome environment for me, especially since the US is now in the middle of a war fever that is absolutely repellent as well as overwhelming. If you sit in Washington and have some connection to the country's power elites, the rest of the world is spread out before you like a map, inviting intervention anywhere and at any time. The tone in Europe is not only more moderate and thoughtful: it is also less abstract, more human, more complex and subtle.

Certainly Europe generally and Britain in particular have a much larger and more demographically significant Muslim population, whose views are part of the debate about war in the Middle East and against terrorism. So discussion of the upcoming war against Iraq tends to reflect their opinions and their reservations a great deal more than in America, where Muslims and Arabs are already considered to be on the "other side", whatever that may mean. And being on the other side means no less than supporting Saddam Hussein and being "un-American". Both of these ideas are abhorrent to Arab and Muslim-Americans, but the idea that to be an Arab or Muslim means blind support of Saddam and Al-Qa'eda persists nonetheless. (Incidentally, I know no other country where the adjective "un" is used with the nationality as a way of designating the common enemy. No one says unSpanish or unChinese: these are uniquely American confections that claim to prove that we all "love" our country. How can one actually "love" something so abstract and imponderable as a country anyway?).

The second major difference I have noticed between America and Europe is that religion and ideology play a far greater role in the former than in the latter. A recent poll taken in the United States reveals that 86 per cent of the American population believes that God loves them. There's been a lot of ranting and complaining about fanatical Islam and violent jihadists, who are thought to be a universal scourge. Of course they are, as are any fanatics who claim to do God's will and to fight his battles in his name. But what is most odd is the vast number of Christian fanatics in the US, who form the core of George Bush's support and at 60 million strong represent the single most powerful voting block in US history. Whereas church attendance is down dramatically in England it has never been higher in the United States whose strange fundamentalist Christian sects are, in my opinion, a menace to the world and furnish Bush's government with its rationale for punishing evil while righteously condemning whole populations to submission and poverty.

It is the coincidence between the Christian Right and the so-called neo-conservatives in America that fuel the drive towards unilateralism, bullying, and a sense of divine mission. The neo-conservative movement began in the 70s as an anti-communist formation whose ideology was undying enmity to communism and American supremacy. "American values", now so casually trotted out as a phrase to hector the world, was invented then by people like Irving Kristoll, Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, and others who had once been Marxists and had converted completely (and religiously) to the other side. For all of them the unquestioning defense of Israel as a bulwark of Western democracy and civilisation against Islam and communism was a central article of faith. Many though not all the major neo-cons (as they are called) are Jewish, but under the Bush presidency they have welcomed the extra support of the Christian Right which, while it is rabidly pro-Israel, is also deeply anti-Semitic (ie these Christians -- many of them Southern Baptists -- believe that all the Jews of the world must gather in Israel so that the Messiah can come again; those Jews who convert to Christianity will be saved, the rest will be doomed to eternal perdition).

It is the next generation of neo-conservatives such as Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleeza Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld who are behind the push to war against Iraq, a cause from which I very much doubt that Bush can ever be deterred. Colin Powell is too cautious a figure, too interested in saving his career, too little a man of principle to represent much of a threat to this group which is supported by the editorial pages of The Washington Post and dozens of columnists, media pundits on CNN, CBS, and NBC, as well as the national weeklies that repeat the same clichés about the need to spread American democracy and fight the good fight, no matter how many wars have to be fought all over the world.

There is no trace of this sort of thing in Europe that I can detect. Nor is there that lethal combination of money and power on a vast scale that can control elections and national policy at will. Remember that George Bush spent over $200 million to get himself elected two years ago, and even Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York spent 60 million dollars for his election: this scarcely seems like the democracy to which other nations might aspire, much less emulate. But this is accepted uncritically by what seems to be an enormous majority of Americans who equate all this with freedom and democracy, despite its obvious drawbacks. More than any other country today, the United States is controlled at a distance from most citizens; the great corporations and lobbying groups do their will with "the people's" sovereignty leaving little opportunity for real dissent or political change. Democrats and Republicans, for example, voted to give Bush a blank check for war with such enthusiasm and unquestioning loyalty as to make one doubt that there was any thought in the decision. The ideological position common to nearly everyone in the system is that America is best, its ideals perfect, its history spotless, its actions and society at the highest levels of human achievement and greatness. To argue with that -- if that is at all possible -- is to be "un-American" and guilty of the cardinal sin of anti- Americanism, which derives not from honest criticism but for hatred of the good and the pure.

No wonder then that America has never had an organised Left or real opposition party as has been the case in every European country. The substance of American discourse is that it is divided into black and white, evil and good, ours and theirs. It is the task of a lifetime to make a change in that Manichean duality that seems to be set forever in an unchanging ideological dimension. And so it is for most Europeans who see America as having been their saviour and is now their protector, yet whose embrace is both encumbering and annoying at the same time.

Tony Blair's wholeheartedly pro-American position therefore seems even more puzzling to an outsider like myself. I am comforted that even to his own people he seems like a humourless aberration, a European who has decided in effect to obliterate his own identity in favour of this other one, represented by the lamentable Mr Bush. I still have time to learn when it will be that Europe will come to its senses and assume the countervailing role to America that its size and history entitle it to play. Until then, the war approaches inexorably.

[hajduk]

EDWARD SAID ON IRAQ
http://www.change-links.org/said.html

[hajduk]

Apocalypse Now
by Edward W. Said
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Middle_E...seNow_Said.html (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Middle_East/ApocalypseNow_Said.html)

[hajduk]

Bombing Without Moonlight
The Origins of Suicidal Terrorism
Abdal-Hakim Murad
http://www.themodernreligion.com/jihad/moonlight.htm

[hajduk]

SAID, SONTAG AND THE LAWS OF INTELLECTUAL SAFETY
By Alexander Cockburn
http://www.ajds.org.au/intifada/cockburn.htm

[hajduk]

intertwined histories
islamic law and western imperialism
http://www.stanford.edu/group/SHR/5-1/text/collier.html

[hajduk]

U.S. policies are not to blame for terrorism



The voice is tinny now because the wound from September 11 is so fresh. But soon enough it will be a chorus, and it will say: This is all America's fault.

Edward Said, a professor at Columbia University and perhaps the world's most influential anti-Israel intellectual, wrote in the London Observer Sunday, "Anti-Americanism in this context is not based on a hatred of modernity or technology-envy: It is based on a narrative of concrete interventions, specific depredations" and America's hostility to Iraq and support for Israel.

"Political rhetoric in the U.S.," Said announces, "has overridden these things by flinging about words like 'terrorism' and 'freedom' whereas, of course, such large abstractions have mostly hidden sordid material interests, the influence of the oil, defense and Zionist lobbies now consolidating their hold on the entire Middle East, and an age-old religious hostility to (and ignorance of) 'Islam' that takes new forms every day."

Patrick Buchanan, always brilliant at crafting lovely prose around unlovely ideas, suggests in a Los Angeles Times op-ed entitled "U.S. Pays the High Price of Empire" that America has brought this attack on herself by playing the role of global policeman, "night-sticking troublemakers" around the world and hence inviting payback.

Because Buchanan never shirks from a fight, he rightly wants to wallop whoever did this and then close the gates around America. "There is no vital American interest at risk in all these religious, territorial and tribal wars from Algeria to Afghanistan. Let us pay back those who did this, then let us extricate ourselves. Either America finds an exit strategy from empire, or we lose our republic."

Most repugnant of them all is Susan Sontag, writing in The New Yorker. She sneers at the idea that this was anything but the result of America's presumably bone-headed policies. She asks sarcastically, "Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a 'cowardly' attack on 'civilization' or 'liberty' or 'humanity' or 'the free world' but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions?" Sontag believes that American pilots in Iraq are more worthy of contempt than the brave skyjackers of September 11.

All of these critics, to one extent or another, fall into the trap of thinking that "freedom" needs quotation marks. Sadly, Said and Sontag read too much Marx, and now their brains are ossified and arthritic with so much left-wing sociological cant. They don't believe freedom really exists at all. "Freedom" is merely so much propaganda used to conceal America's greedy or imperialist schemes - what Edward Said calls our "sordid material interests."

Buchanan sees things a little different. He believes freedom exists, but that it is a fragile crop unique to American soil and unpalatable to most other peoples of the world. Moreover, he believes we dare not let outsiders into our country for fear they will bring foreign weeds with them or, worse, deliberately trample on our way of life.

Despite their differences, Sontag, Said and Buchanan do agree on one essential point: We brought this on ourselves. By saying these attacks were the direct result of American policy, they want to discredit these policies. At best, this is simply an overly verbose version of the battered wife syndrome: "It must be something we did!" At worst, it is a dishonest attempt to exploit a tragedy in order to defame the United States of America.

The truth is simple. And as inarticulate as George W. Bush can be in speaking it, he's nailed it. This is a battle between freedom and barbarity, between the good guys and the bad guys, and no quotation marks are required.

Sure, our policies may have contributed to this attack, but that doesn't make our policies wrong. To the extent our support for Israel contributed to the hatred behind this assault, that's a tragic consequence of the fact that America supports her allies and free nations - and Israel is both.

As the scholar Michael Ledeen has written, "Our support for Israel is not a tactical maneuver, subject to regular reconsideration. We support free democracies, and since Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, our support is automatic and obligatory."

To the extent that the attack was the result of Saddam Hussein's anger at being thwarted in his dastardly aims, and our continued attempts to keep him from developing weapons for more mass murder, that's the price we pay for vigilance. Just because the bad guys hate us for being the good guys doesn't mean we did anything wrong. That may be simplistic, but it also happens to be true.

And, to the extent that the success of our open, free and democratic society causes various criminals and tyrants to resent the United States, that's fine. That is, until you murder Americans. And once you do that, you invite the thunder.

[hajduk]

The Strength of the Symbol

By: Munther Bader Halloum
Translated by: Adib S. Kawar
http://www.thehandstand.org/archive/novemb...icles/esaid.htm (http://www.thehandstand.org/archive/november2003/articles/esaid.htm)

[Marsella]

Hadjuk, stop posting this crap.

No-one is reading it.

It is a waste of bandwidth and prevents serious discussion in OI.

:lol: 'serious discussion.'

But seriously, stop it.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 04:25 pm
Hadjuk, stop posting this crap.

No-one is reading it.

It is a waste of bandwidth and prevents serious discussion in OI.

:lol: 'serious discussion.'

But seriously, stop it.
why this is not for you serious discusion?

[blackstone]

I refuse to believe that even HE is read these articles.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 04:41 pm
I refuse to believe that even HE is read these articles.
look you can read or not that is freedom of choice,and becouse this is shit you have to know how enemys think,so i dont see nothing wrong in that,keep your comraders close but keep imperialists closer ;)

[Marsella]

Originally posted by hajduk+December 08, 2007 02:02 am--> (hajduk @ December 08, 2007 02:02 am)
[email protected] 07, 2007 04:25 pm
Hadjuk, stop posting this crap.

No-one is reading it.

It is a waste of bandwidth and prevents serious discussion in OI.

:lol: 'serious discussion.'

But seriously, stop it.
why this is not for you serious discusion? [/b]
The issue of this thread, Imperialism's Charge Sheet, is a very serious topic.

You don't treat it seriously when posting comment after comment linking to obscure articles about Islam and 'The Laws of Intellectual Safety.'

I'm just asking you to cut it down.

I think Jazzratt is turning a blind eye towards these continuous posts, because, well...its better to group them all together rather than have a a separate thread for each article.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Martov+December 07, 2007 04:49 pm--> (Martov @ December 07, 2007 04:49 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 02:02 am

[email protected] 07, 2007 04:25 pm
Hadjuk, stop posting this crap.

No-one is reading it.

It is a waste of bandwidth and prevents serious discussion in OI.

:lol: 'serious discussion.'

But seriously, stop it.
why this is not for you serious discusion?
The issue of this thread, Imperialism's Charge Sheet, is a very serious topic.

You don't treat it seriously when posting comment after comment linking to obscure articles about Islam and 'The Laws of Intellectual Safety.'

I'm just asking you to cut it down.

I think Jazzratt is turning a blind eye towards these continuous posts, because, well...its better to group them all together rather than have a a separate thread for each article. [/b]
well martov i feel the imperialism charge sheet on my own skin during 92 in Bosnia,so do you think that make me serious about this issue or troller?

[The Gulag]

Why isn't there more against the smothering imperialism used by the Russian and Chinese communists to invade there neighbors and eliminate minorities?

[hajduk]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 28, 2007 04:02 pm
Why isn't there more against the smothering imperialism used by the Russian and Chinese communists to invade there neighbors and eliminate minorities?
find articles and put it here comrade

[Bud Struggle]

OK, since you asked: :D

The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression

The introduction, by editor Stéphane Courtois, states that that "...Communist regimes...turned mass crime into a full-blown system of government". Using unofficial estimates he cites a death toll which totals 94 million, not counting the "excess deaths" (decrease of the population due to lower than the expected birth rate). The breakdown of the number of deaths given by Courtois is as follows:
20 million in the Soviet Union
65 million in the People's Republic of China
1 million in Vietnam
2 million in North Korea
2 million in Cambodia
1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
150,000 in Latin America
1.7 million in Africa
1.5 million in Afghanistan
10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international communist movement and Communist parties not in power."

It explicitly states that Communist regimes are responsible for a greater number of deaths than any other political ideal or movement, including Nazism. The statistics of victims includes executions, intentional destruction of population by starvation, and deaths resulting from deportations, physical confinement, or through forced labor. It does not include "excess deaths" due to higher mortality or lower birth rates than expected of the population.

A more detailed partial listing of some of the repressions committed in the Soviet Union under the regimes of Lenin and Stalin described in the book include:
the executions of tens of thousands of hostages and prisoners, and the murder of hundreds of thousands of rebellious workers and peasants from 1918 to 1922.

the Russian famine of 1921, which caused the death of 5 million people

the extermination and deportation of the Don Cossacks in 1920
the murder of tens of thousands in concentration camps in the period between 1918 and 1930
the Great Purge which put out of existence almost 690,000 people
the deportation of 2 million so-called "kulaks" from 1930 to 1932
the deaths of 4 million Ukrainians (Holodomor) and 2 million others during the famine of 1932 and 1933
the deportations of Poles, Ukrainians, Balts, Moldavians and Bessarabians from 1939 to 1941 and from 1944 to 1945
the deportation of the Volga Germans in 1941
the deportation of the Crimean Tatars in 1943
the deportation of the Chechens in 1944
the deportation of the Ingush in 1944.

The book, among other sources, used material from the (then) recently opened KGB files and other Soviet archives.

Anyway, let's just say BOTH economic systems are equally culpable. ;)

[Dean]

Anyway, let's just say BOTH economic systems are equally culpable. ;)

No, let's not. 3,500 people die every day of starvation. Considering the extremely liberal analysis given against "communist" violence in your post, I will use the same shady analytical practice to call all of those victims of capitalism.

[RNK]

TomK; thank you for regurgitating the same old "crimes" of Communism.

I'm really quite over defending them, so I'll make it short.


20 million in the Soviet Union

This figure has been gone over again and again. In short, demographics and population size and growth of the Soviet Union shows no indication of such a massive loss of life.


65 million in the People's Republic of China

In something of an ironic contrast, figures given by western sources about the rates of death in China come almost exclusively from a comparison of population growth and demographics, without any actual data as to cause or any other relative information. It is well known that during the 1950s China experienced wide-scale natural disasters which are the main cause of loss of life during that period. Secondary reasons are famines caused by organizational errors in the Chinese economy. Overall, blaming these deaths on communism is about as logical as blaming capitalism for the influenza epidemic which erupted during and after WW1.


1 million in Vietnam

This figure is one of the most simplistic. During the Vietnam war, two million Vietnamese died -- roughly 1 million in North Vietnam, and 1 million in South Vietnam. The originators of this figure did nothing more than to attribute half of those losses on communists (and even if it were true, that would mean that capitalism killed just as many people).


2 million in Cambodia

Is this the figure of how many were killed by American firebombings, or Pol Pot's reign? Also, no Marxist today recognizes Pol Pot as anywhere near communist -- he was a primitivist madman. The only ones calling him communist are bourgeois intellectuals.


1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe

Again, these figures are mainly due to the myriad of problems eastern Europe has faced in terms of food production and availability (which still afflicts them today, and, infact, in even more acute and visceral ways now that capitalism has nestled itself there).


150,000 in Latin America

If this figure is true, it is tiny in comparison to the numbers killed by far-right regimes who came to power thanks to the United States.


1.7 million in Africa

No doubt the author of this figure was very liberal in ascribing many paramilitary organizations which operated in Africa as "communist". Again, even if this figure were true, it is tiny in comparison to the number killed directly or indirectly by capitalism (for instance, how many die every day in Africa? Upwards of 50,000? In a little more than a month, capitalism kills more Africans than communism has in the past 100 years).


3,500 people die every day of starvation.

Where, in America? Globally, the figure is in the tens of thousands, minimum.

[Dean]

Where, in America? Globally, the figure is in the tens of thousands, minimum.

I'm sorry, it was 35,000, and it only refers to the deaths of children.

[Bud Struggle]

TomK; thank you for regurgitating the same old "crimes" of Communism.

I'm really quite over defending them, so I'll make it short.


RNK

Sorry for bringing up a well worn topic--I'm new here and now in retrospect I can easily see how this issue might have been discussed before.

Thanks for your response anyway. Still, even if you cut the Communist's atrocities by a half, by three quarters, it's still a lot of dead people. It just seems to me that in it's "imperialism" Communism is (was) no different than any other rapacious political philosophy like capitalism. People died who didn't agree with it.

For those few brief years in the history of mankind when Communism was ascendant it doesn't have a very good record.

[apathy maybe]

Well, most people around here don't accept those regimes as communist, nor do they associate themselves with those regimes.

[Phalanx]

No, let's not. 3,500 people die every day of starvation. Considering the extremely liberal analysis given against "communist" violence in your post, I will use the same shady analytical practice to call all of those victims of capitalism.

You think socialism would stop starvation? What about Mao in his "Great Leap Forward"?

[Bud Struggle]

Well, most people around here don't accept those regimes as communist, nor do they associate themselves with those regimes.

That's fine and very understandable. As a factory owner I really don't associate myself with any of the crimes of Capitalism. Those were a different sort of people that committed those crimes. The Capitalism I practice is quite friendly and kind. It benefits all for the betterment of all.

[apathy maybe]

The difference is though, as an anarchist I oppose the very existence of states. As a capitalist, you support at least two institutions of hierarchy, which create the crimes of capitalism.

(The first being that of money and power that it brings, the second being that of the state, and the crimes it commits.)

[Bud Struggle]

The difference is though, as an anarchist I oppose the very existence of states. As a capitalist, you support at least two institutions of hierarchy, which create the crimes of capitalism.

(The first being that of money and power that it brings, the second being that of the state, and the crimes it commits.)

Actually, we may not be that far apart.

I'm not that keen on the state either. I'm not a fan of government services and social progams and such. I would like the government to leave me alone to do what i wish to do. I believe that each person (or family) should be self sufficient in the world. It is nice that someone paves roads and such though, so I believe in some sort of basic grass roots organization.

As far as money goes--it's a completely neutral item. It can be used for bad or good--piles of money (for example) are being spent to cure AIDS. That can't be anything other than a good thing. On the other hand money is often spent on evil things to be sure--and that's bad. But I choose to associate myself ony with the good things that money does.

[Dean]

As far as money goes--it's a completely neutral item. It can be used for bad or good--piles of money (for example) are being spent to cure AIDS. That can't be anything other than a good thing. On the other hand money is often spent on evil things to be sure--and that's bad. But I choose to associate myself ony with the good things that money does.

If you do that in your private life, that's fine. But the fact that you recognize the evil that money can do shows that you must also see that those who have more money can do more good or more evil - subsequently, if an evil person controls the money, an evil person is in power. If money is power, how can you support a system hich actively denies people the right to control the power which ultimately controls them?

[Bud Struggle]

If you do that in your private life, that's fine. But the fact that you recognize the evil that money can do shows that you must also see that those who have more money can do more good or more evil - subsequently, if an evil person controls the money, an evil person is in power. If money is power, how can you support a system hich actively denies people the right to control the power which ultimately controls them?

Sorry it took a while to get back to you, it was a busy day--the masses don't oppress themselves, you know. :lol:

Dean, money is neither intrinsically good nor evil. Only people have the ability to be moral or immoral--good or bad. The problem of good and evil predates money and economies. Man has a tendency to be evil. Even if one isn't religious one as to note that religions in their core address some basic problems of human society and one of them is the problem of sin. People are indeed bad to one another. Too much greed, too much power in the hands of a single person or a group of people always seem to end up badly for all involved. The problem isn't money, it's human nature.

The best systems are the ones that give each person as much freedom over their own desires as possible, yet make it difficult for people to control other people. and when I say desires, I mean desires for good or ill. The nice thing about capitalism is that if one is so inclined one could make as much money as one wants and coupled with the freedoms that a country like America offers (you don't have to work for or with anyone you don't want,) it offers a very convenient way to live. If you want to be a Communist--great! have at it. I couldn't care less and if I want to be a capitalist, well that's my business. The problem with you communists is that EVERYBODY has to do it your way. And the moment everybody has to do things one way someone shows up and gives himself the job of saying exactly what that way should be. That's why the Soviet Union and China and Cuba (were) are all such ruthless dictatorships. After all the tries of the last century, do you have an example of where a Communist society really works? (FYI: I am happy to have learned from this site that most Communists don't hold truck with Stalin and other dictators.)

And yes, people want power in the Capitalist societies, but at least here in America the power is much more fragmented. And American capitalism is changing--I'm an example. I'm here trying to learn how to give my employees a better life--not just monetarily, I'm looking how I can make their lives deeper, richer, maybe more spiritual not necessarily preaching Jesus, but well, I don't quite know at this point, but something.

In the end taking money away from people isn't going to make the world a better place. The only thing that going to change the world into a better place is people changing their hearts. Sometimes I think it might happen and sometimes I think you 800 or so Commie posters here on RevFeft have a better chance of staging a world wide Communist revolution.

Best of luck though. :thumbup:

[RNK]

The nice thing about capitalism is that if one is so inclined one could make as much money as one wants

Thing is, it is impossible to generate surplus profit without exploiting another.


(you don't have to work for or with anyone you don't want,)

No, but I do have to sell my labour, period, and not receive equal compensation for my efforts -- and that I have no choice about.


The problem with you communists is that EVERYBODY has to do it your way.

Pot-kettle-black? I HAVE to sell my labour for an artificially low price; the conditions of my existence are FORCED upon me as they are 95% of the population.


After all the tries of the last century, do you have an example of where a Communist society really works?

I can tell by you asking this question that you're starting to run out of logical arguements in defense of capitalism.


In the end taking money away from people isn't going to make the world a better place.

You're right -- just confused as to why.

But still, I kinda like the "I'd prefer 95% of people be exploited rather than 5%" neoliberal mentality. It tickles my fanny.

[Dean]

Sorry it took a while to get back to you, it was a busy day--the masses don't oppress themselves, you know. :lol:

Dean, money is neither intrinsically good nor evil. Only people have the ability to be moral or immoral--good or bad. The problem of good and evil predates money and economies. Man has a tendency to be evil. Even if one isn't religious one as to note that religions in their core address some basic problems of human society and one of them is the problem of sin. People are indeed bad to one another. Too much greed, too much power in the hands of a single person or a group of people always seem to end up badly for all involved. The problem isn't money, it's human nature.
I suggest you read "The Anatomy of Human destructiveness" by Erich Fromm. Suffice it to say, the choice for good and evil rests in all of us, but the inclinations are mostly social creations.


The best systems are the ones that give each person as much freedom over their own desires as possible, yet make it difficult for people to control other people. and when I say desires, I mean desires for good or ill. The nice thing about capitalism is that if one is so inclined one could make as much money as one wants and coupled with the freedoms that a country like America offers (you don't have to work for or with anyone you don't want,) it offers a very convenient way to live. If you want to be a Communist--great! have at it. I couldn't care less and if I want to be a capitalist, well that's my business. The problem with you communists is that EVERYBODY has to do it your way. And the moment everybody has to do things one way someone shows up and gives himself the job of saying exactly what that way should be. That's why the Soviet Union and China and Cuba (were) are all such ruthless dictatorships. After all the tries of the last century, do you have an example of where a Communist society really works? (FYI: I am happy to have learned from this site that most Communists don't hold truck with Stalin and other dictators.)
To belittle all the history that culminatd in the creation of such gruesome atrocities in those countries to the point that "communism is to blame" does a terrible injustice to the victims, that we might let it happen again. The truth is, American Capitalism has had a lot to do with perpetual war and genocide around the globe, as illustrated in this thread. If we blame Communism here, what can we say that is good for captialism? Aren't both undesirable if we take your line?


And yes, people want power in the Capitalist societies, but at least here in America the power is much more fragmented. And American capitalism is changing--I'm an example. I'm here trying to learn how to give my employees a better life--not just monetarily, I'm looking how I can make their lives deeper, richer, maybe more spiritual not necessarily preaching Jesus, but well, I don't quite know at this point, but something.
I don't know your conditions, but they can't change the statistics. Our middle class - you - is shrinking. The lower class - most of us at RevLeft - growing bigger. Finally, statistics indicate that most european nations, including social democracy Sweden, have a higher social mobility than the U.S.. Leftist policies must be great if they have th ability to offer free trade, socialized healthcare, a welfare state and more social mobility. Just think, if you started from scratch in another country with the same business plan, your company would probably be much bigger - all because the more liberal parties do, indeed, watch out for the smaller entrepreneur.


In the end taking money away from people isn't going to make the world a better place. The only thing that going to change the world into a better place is people changing their hearts. Sometimes I think it might happen and sometimes I think you 800 or so Commie posters here on RevFeft have a better chance of staging a world wide Communist revolution.
When need a real, positive revolutionary movement that recognizes not just a dogmatic marxist message, but the inherant humanity in all people as its goal. I see too many people talk about freedom, but they don't care about people, human rights (just look at the anti-Amnesty International thread), or what makes a person free. That's why I like Erich Fromm so much, and I strongly urge you to pick up one of his books. It's a much fresher look at the issues here, and I have to say his books changed ime from being a perpetually depressed, dogmatic marxist - leninist to a free-thinking anarcho-marxist. Basically, they taught me that I didn't have to agree with marx to be a good communist, and not having much submission in my thinking has allowed me to prosper emotionally and mentally.


Best of luck though. :thumbup:
I can call it a victory if I genuinely try to do good, and know myself sufficiently.

[pusher robot]

I can call it a victory if I genuinely try to do good, and know myself sufficiently.

A fellow Stoic?

[Bud Struggle]

RNK:

I wasn't trying to write a blow by blow defense of Capitalism, I was just giving some scattershot impressions of why I feel Capitalism is the best, thought far from perfect, economic system for man to live. I'm no theoretician, that's a luxury of the very young and very old.

As for you selling your labor, I don't want to talk directly about you--I don't know any of the facts of your condition, but the general "you" is receiving EXACTLY what you are worth if that is the wage that you are accepting. As long as you have the opportunity to pick up the newspaper and look in the want ads and try to find better paying employment and you don't do it you deserve what you are getting. You can always better yourself, go to school, learn a better trade and make more. As long as that option is open to you, I see no problem. And also, if you want to make MORE than what you feel you deserve you always have the option of starting your own business and making as much or as little money as you choose. Of course in order to do those things you have to be self reliant. You have to be your own self motivator. I am by far no expert in Communist systems but I have been to The Soviet Union and Poland and numerous other "Communist" countries before the fall of their economic systems (and I understand many here don't think these places were truly Communistic,) but all there existed there without the opportunity for individual initiative was stagnation. I have seen the huge supermarkets with nothing in them, people there to serve with nothing to serve and no interest in serving even if there was.

As for exploiting others--that's just a matter of semantics. You could also call it "loving" others by giving them jobs. The truth of course, is somewhere in between: you help me and I help you and the glue that keeps our helping work is called capital. It's does an even better job than love of making the world go round. :D

[Tungsten]

No, let's not. 3,500 people die every day of starvation. Considering the extremely liberal analysis given against "communist" violence in your post, I will use the same shady analytical practice to call all of those victims of capitalism.
I think you'll find that starvation predates capitalism and that starvation is largely absent from the western world thanks to it.

[Bud Struggle]

Dean:

I haven't thought of Fromm in years, I might have a go at some of his books again. I read Escape from Freedom and Man for Himself in college and I seem to remember him saying that reason should lead man to his value system and that should remain independent or at least wary of the dominant value system of the culture in which he lives. The idea I got--and which I can't really disagree is that it is easy to get swept away in the morality and values of the moment, much as nominally good people who happened to be Germans in 1939 said, "killing all the Jews, makes sense to us!" without taking a personal stake in the morality of their decisions. I see that can and is a real problem and as far as I see there can be two, either one can tale the issue only existential grounds and make every decision personally from one's own internal morality--which I see as precarious. While one should always decide for oneself, going on one's "inclinations" isn't always a sure means of success--and the second way is Skepticism. Where one attaches oneself to a morality system that one feels is tried and true and then doubts everything that opposes it. Maybe the best answer is a dialectic between the two.

As to your second point I definitely agree. Both Capitalism and Communism are capable of great evil. A lot of America's (I'm assuming that you're an American) presence around the world is needless. It would have been better to have used US troops to stop the genocide in Rwanda than to go into Iraq to kill Saddam. He was a bad guy, to be sure, but it wasn't exactly America's place to police him. But overall I think capitalism offers vast and diffuse freedoms if one just uses it. The thing is that I don't see economics as all that important in daily life in and of itself. I am interested in making money myself more as an intellectually challenging game with a real time score at the end of the day. That's (one of) my interest. You might collect butterflies. But capitalism allows me to pursue my interest and have a rich vibrant life. It's the quality of life that matters. When I was a kid we were dirt poor, my father never made more than ten grand a year in his life--and we were fantastically happy. Money didn't matter to him and through him to us.

As to your third point, I don't much agree there. As a Capitalist I have put myself in a position where I can control the amount of income I produce to an extent. If I need to keep up with the Jones I can (I just have smash my hobnail boot onto the necks of the workers a bit harder.) That's part of the art of the game ;)

While I can understand how Social Democracy works well in "boutique" countries like Sweden and Denmark (which has 67% tax rate!) I don't feel that sort of thing would work well in the US--though is Obama or Hillary becomes President we may take a stab at it. I just feel that most people don't work when they don't have to and hunger is a good impetus to get people out of bed in the morning.


When need a real, positive revolutionary movement that recognizes not just a dogmatic marxist message, but the inherant humanity in all people as its goal. I see too many people talk about freedom, but they don't care about people, human rights (just look at the anti-Amnesty International thread), or what makes a person free. That's why I like Erich Fromm so much, and I strongly urge you to pick up one of his books. It's a much fresher look at the issues here, and I have to say his books changed ime from being a perpetually depressed, dogmatic marxist - leninist to a free-thinking anarcho-marxist. Basically, they taught me that I didn't have to agree with marx to be a good communist, and not having much submission in my thinking has allowed me to prosper emotionally and mentally.

I'll pass on the Marxist revolution but I do go along with our society finding better ways to see the inherent humanity in all people. As a Christian, that has always been my goal--and that muchly before Capitalism. (I don't see your anarcho-Marxistism as being copasetic somehow with a belief in Jesus--please correct me if I'm wrong.) But for me Christianity (Catholicism with all its blemishes, technically) really fulfills all of that inner need. Interesting you should bring up Fromm, though. Thanks for the suggestion. I'll start reading.

And no Stoic here: I'm an Epicurian. :lol:

[Bud Struggle]

And Dean do you see all your Communist "comrads" happily killing people off in the Che thread?

Charming.

[hajduk]

"Gentlemen. I greet you here on the bank of the James River in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and twelve. First, I shall thank you, the gentlemen of the Colony of Virginia, for bringing me here. I am here to help you solve some of your problems with slaves. Your invitation reached me on my modest plantation in the West Indies, where I have experimented with some of the newest and still the oldest methods for control of slaves. Ancient Rome's would envy us if my program is implemented. As our boat sailed south on the James River, named for our illustrious King, whose version of the Bible we Cherish, I saw enough to know that your problem is not unique. While Rome used cords of wood as crosses for standing human bodies along its highways in great numbers, you are here using the tree and the rope on occasions. I caught the whiff of a dead slave hanging from a tree, a couple miles back. You are not only losing valuable stock by hangings, you are having uprisings, slaves are running away, your crops are sometimes left in the fields too long for maximum profit, You suffer occasional fires, your animals are killed. Gentlemen, you know what your problems are; I do not need to elaborate. I am not here to enumerate your problems, I am here to introduce you to a method of solving them. In my bag here, I HAVE A FULL PROOF METHOD FOR CONTROLLING YOUR BLACK SLAVES. I guarantee every one of you that if installed correctly IT WILL CONTROL THE SLAVES FOR AT LEAST 300 HUNDREDS YEARS. My method is simple. Any member of your family or your overseer can use it. I HAVE OUTLINED A NUMBER OF DIFFERENCES AMONG THE SLAVES; AND I TAKE THESE DIFFERENCES AND MAKE THEM BIGGER. I USE FEAR, DISTRUST AND ENVY FOR CONTROL PURPOSES. These methods have worked on my modest plantation in the West Indies and it will work throughout the South. Take this simple little list of differences and think about them. On top of my list is "AGE" but it's there only because it starts with an "A." The second is "COLOR" or shade, there is INTELLIGENCE, SIZE, SEX, SIZES OF PLANTATIONS, STATUS on plantations, ATTITUDE of owners, whether the slaves live in the valley, on a hill, East, West, North, South, have fine hair, course hair, or is tall or short. Now that you have a list of differences, I shall give you a outline of action, but before that, I shall assure you that DISTRUST IS STRONGER THAN TRUST AND ENVY STRONGER THAN ADULATION, RESPECT OR ADMIRATION. The Black slaves after receiving this indoctrination shall carry on and will become self refueling and self generating for HUNDREDS of years, maybe THOUSANDS. Don't forget you must pitch the OLD black Male vs. the YOUNG black Male, and the black YOUNG Male against the OLD black male. You must use the DARK skin slaves vs. the LIGHT skin slaves, and the LIGHT skin slaves vs. the DARK skin slaves. You must use the FEMALE vs. the MALE. And the MALE vs. the FEMALE. You must also have you white servants and over- seers distrust all Blacks. But it is NECESSARY THAT YOUR SLAVES TRUST AND DEPEND ON US. THEY MUST LOVE, RESPECT AND TRUST ONLY US. Gentlemen, these kits are your keys to control. Use them. Have your wives and children use them, never miss an opportunity. IF USED INTENSELY FOR ONE YEAR, THE SLAVES THEMSELVES WILL REMAIN PERPETUALLY DISTRUSTFUL. Thank you gentlemen."


LET'S MAKE A SLAVE

It was the interest and business of slave holders to study human nature, and the slave nature in particular, with a view to practical results. I and many of them attained astonishing proficiency in this direction. They had to deal not with earth, wood and stone, but with men and by every regard they had for their own safety and prosperity they needed to know the material on which they were to work. Conscious of the injustice and wrong they were every hour perpetuating and knowing what they themselves would do. Were they the victims of such wrongs? They were constantly looking for the first signs of the dreaded retribution. They watched, therefore with skilled and practiced eyes, and learned to read with great accuracy, the state of mind and heart of the slave, through his sable face. Unusual sobriety, apparent abstractions, sullenness and indifference indeed, any mood out of the common was afforded ground for suspicion and inquiry. Frederick Douglas LET'S MAKE A SLAVE is a study of the scientific process of man breaking and slave making. It describes the rationale and results of the Anglo Saxons' ideas and methods of insuring the master/slave relationship. LET'S MAKE A SLAVE "The Original and Development of a Social Being Called "The Negro." Let us make a slave. What do we need? First of all we need a black n-word man, a pregnant n-word woman and her baby n-word boy. Second, we will use the same basic principle that we use in breaking a horse, combined with some more sustaining factors. What we do with horses is that we break them from one form of life to another that is we reduce them from their natural state in nature. Whereas nature provides them with the natural capacity to take care of their offspring, we break that natural string of independence from them and thereby create a dependency status, so that we may be able to get from them useful production for our business and pleasure


CARDINAL PRINCIPLES
FOR MAKING A NEGRO

For fear that our future Generations may not understand the principles of breaking both of the beast together, the n-word and the horse. We understand that short range planning economics results in periodic economic chaos; so that to avoid turmoil in the economy, it requires us to have breath and depth in long range comprehensive planning, articulating both skill sharp perceptions. We lay down the following principles for long range comprehensive economic planning. Both horse and n-words is no good to the economy in the wild or natural state. Both must be BROKEN and TIED together for orderly production. For orderly future, special and particular attention must be paid to the FEMALE and the YOUNGEST offspring. Both must be CROSSBRED to produce a variety and division of labor. Both must be taught to respond to a peculiar new LANGUAGE. Psychological and physical instruction of CONTAINMENT must be created for both. We hold the six cardinal principles as truth to be self evident, based upon the following the discourse concerning the economics of breaking and tying the horse and the n-word together, all inclusive of the six principles laid down about. NOTE: Neither principle alone will suffice for good economics. All principles must be employed for orderly good of the nation. Accordingly, both a wild horse and a wild or nature n-word is dangerous even if captured, for they will have the tendency to seek their customary freedom, and in doing so, might kill you in your sleep. You cannot rest. They sleep while you are awake, and are awake while you are asleep. They are DANGEROUS near the family house and it requires too much labor to watch them away from the house. Above all, you cannot get them to work in this natural state. Hence both the horse and the n-word must be broken; that is breaking them from one form of mental life to another. KEEP THE BODY TAKE THE MIND! In other words break the will to resist. Now the breaking process is the same for both the horse and the n-word, only slightly varying in degrees. But as we said before, there is an art in long range economic planning. YOU MUST KEEP YOUR EYE AND THOUGHTS ON THE FEMALE and the OFFSPRING of the horse and the n-word. A brief discourse in offspring development will shed light on the key to sound economic principles. Pay little attention to the generation of original breaking, but CONCENTRATE ON FUTURE GENERATION. Therefore, if you break the FEMALE mother, she will BREAK the offspring in its early years of development and when the offspring is old enough to work, she will deliver it up to you, for her normal female protective tendencies will have been lost in the original breaking process. For example take the case of the wild stud horse, a female horse and an already infant horse and compare the breaking process with two captured n-word males in their natural state, a pregnant n-word woman with her infant offspring. Take the stud horse, break him for limited containment. Completely break the female horse until she becomes very gentle, where as you or anybody can ride her in her comfort. Breed the mare and the stud until you have the desired offspring. Then you can turn the stud to freedom until you need him again. Train the female horse where by she will eat out of your hand, and she will in turn train the infant horse to eat out of your hand also. When it comes to breaking the uncivilized n-word, use the same process, but vary the degree and step up the pressure, so as to do a complete reversal of the mind. Take the meanest and most restless n-word, strip him of his clothes in front of the remaining male n-words, the female, and the n-word infant, tar and feather him, tie each leg to a different horse faced in opposite directions, set him a fire and beat both horses to pull him apart in front of the remaining n-word. The next step is to take a bull whip and beat the remaining n-word male to the point of death, in front of the female and the infant. Don't kill him, but PUT THE FEAR OF GOD IN HIM,
for he can be useful for future breeding.


THE BREAKING PROCESS
OF THE AFRICAN WOMAN

Take the female and run a series of tests on her to see if she will submit to your
desires willingly. Test her in every way, because she is the most important factor for good economics. If she shows any sign of resistance in submitting completely to your will, do not hesitate to use the bull whip on her to extract that last bit of b-word out of her. Take care not to kill her, for in doing so, you spoil good economic. When in complete submission, she will train her off springs in the early years to submit to labor when the become of age. Understanding is the best thing. Therefore, we shall go deeper into this area of the subject matter concerning what we have produced here in this breaking process of the female n-word. We have reversed the relationship in her natural uncivilized state she would have a strong dependency on the uncivilized n-word male, and she would have a limited protective tendency toward her independent male offspring and would raise male off springs to be dependent like her. Nature had provided for this type of balance. We reversed nature by burning and pulling a civilized n-word apart and bull whipping the other to the point of death, all in her presence. By her being left alone, unprotected, with the MALE IMAGE DESTROYED, the ordeal caused her to move from her psychological dependent state to a frozen independent state. In this frozen psychological state of independence, she will raise her MALE and female offspring in reversed roles. For FEAR of the young males life she will psychologically train him to be MENTALLY WEAK and DEPENDENT, but PHYSICALLY STRONG. Because she has become psychologically independent, she will train her FEMALE off springs to be psychological independent. What have you got? You've got the N-WORD WOMAN OUT FRONT AND THE N-WORD MAN BEHIND AND SCARED. This is a perfect situation of sound sleep and economic. Before the breaking process, we had to be alertly on guard at all times. Now we can sleep soundly, for out of frozen fear his woman stands guard for us. He cannot get past her early slave molding process. He is a good tool, now ready to be tied to the horse at a tender age. By the time a n-word boy reaches the age of sixteen, he is soundly broken in and ready for a long life of sound and efficient work and the reproduction of a unit of good labor force. Continually through the breaking of uncivilized savage n-word, by throwing the n-word female savage into a frozen psychological state of independence, by killing of the protective male image, and by creating a submissive dependent mind of the n-word male slave, we have created an orbiting cycle that turns on its own axis forever, unless a phenomenon occurs and re shifts the position of the male and female slaves. We show what we mean by example. Take the case of the two economic slave units and examine them close


THE NEGRO MARRIAGE
UNIT

We breed two n-word males with two n-word females. Then we take the n-word male away from them and keep them moving and working. Say one n-word female bears a n-word female and the other bears a n-word male. Both n-word females being without influence of the n-word male image, frozen with a independent psychology, will raise their offspring into reverse positions. The one with the female offspring will teach her to be like herself, independent and negotiable (we negotiate with her, through her, by her, negotiates her at will). The one with the n-word male offspring, she being frozen subconscious fear for his life, will raise him to be mentally dependent and weak, but physically strong, in other words, body over mind. Now in a few years when these two offspring's become fertile for early reproduction we will mate and breed them and continue the cycle. That is good, sound, and long range comprehensive planning.
WARNING: POSSIBLE INTERLOPING NEGATIVES
Earlier we talked about the non economic good of the horse and the n-word in their wild or natural state; we talked out the principle of breaking and tying them together for orderly production. Furthermore, we talked about paying particular attention to the female savage and her offspring for orderly future planning, then more recently we stated that, by reversing the positions of the male and female savages, we created an orbiting cycle that turns on its own axis forever unless a phenomenon occurred and resift and positions of the male and female savages. Our experts warned us about the possibility of this phenomenon occurring, for they say that the mind has a strong drive to correct and re-correct itself over a period of time if I can touch some substantial original historical base, and they advised us that the best way to deal with the phenomenon is to shave off the brute's mental history and create a multiplicity of phenomena of illusions, so that each illusion will twirl in its own orbit, something similar to floating balls in a vacuum. This creation of multiplicity of phenomena of illusions entails the principle of crossbreeding the n-word and the horse as we stated above, the purpose of which is to create a diversified division of labor thereby creating different levels of labor and different values of illusion at each connecting level of labor. The results of which is the severance of the points of original beginnings for each sphere illusion. Since we feel that the subject matter may get more complicated as we proceed in laying down our economic plan concerning the purpose, reason and effect of crossbreeding horses and n-word, we shall lay down the following definition terms for future generations. Orbiting cycle means a thing turning in a given path. Axis means upon which or around which a body turns. Phenomenon means something beyond ordinary conception and inspires awe and wonder. Multiplicity means a great number. Means a globe. Cross breeding a horse means taking a horse and breeding it with an ass and you get a dumb backward ass long headed mule that is not reproductive nor productive by itself. Crossbreeding n-words mean taking so many drops of good white blood and putting them into as many n-word women as possible, varying the drops by the various tone that you want, and then letting them breed with each other until another circle of color appears as you desire. What this means is this; Put the n-words and the horse in a breeding pot, mix some assess and some good white blood and what do you get? You got a multiplicity of colors of ass backward, unusual n-words, running, tied to a backward ass long headed mules, the one productive of itself, the other sterile. (The one constant, the other dying, we keep the n-word constant for we may replace the mules for another tool) both mule and n-word tied to each other, neither knowing where the other came from and neither productive for itself, nor without each other.


CONTROLLED LANGUAGE

Crossbreeding completed, for further severance from their original beginning, WE
MUST COMPLETELY ANNIHILATE THE MOTHER TONGUE of both the new n-word and the new mule and institute a new language that involves the new life's work of both. You know language is a peculiar institution. It leads to the heart of a people. The more a foreigner knows about the language of another country the more he is able to move through all levels of that society. Therefore, if the foreigner is an enemy of the country, to the extent that he knows the body of the language, to that extent is the country vulnerable to attack or invasion of a foreign culture. For example, if you take a slave, if you teach him all about your language, he will know all your secrets, and he is then no more a slave, for you can't fool him any longer, and BEING A FOOL IS ONE OF THE BASIC INGREDIENTS OF AN INCIDENTS TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE SLAVERY SYSTEM. For example, if you told a slave that he must perform in getting out "our crops" and he knows the language well, he would know that "our crops" didn't mean "our crops" and the slavery system would break down, for he would relate on the basis of what "our crops" really meant. So you have to be careful in setting up the new language for the slaves would soon be in your house, talking to you as "man to man" and that is death to our economic system. In addition, the definitions of words or terms are only a minute part of the process. Values are created and transported by communication through the body of the language. A total society has many interconnected value system. All the values in the society have bridges of language to connect them for orderly working in the society. But for these language bridges, these many value systems would sharply clash and cause internal strife or civil war, the degree of the conflict being determined by the magnitude of the issues or relative opposing strength in whatever form. For example, if you put a slave in a hog pen and train him to live there and incorporate in him to value it as a way of life completely, the biggest problem you would have out of him is that he would worry you about provisions to keep the hog pen clean, or the same hog pen and make a slip and incorporate something in his language where by he comes to value a house more than he does his hog pen, you got a problem. He will soon be in your house.

(Additional Note: = "Henty Berry, speaking in the Virginia House of Delegates in 1832, described the situation as it existed in many parts of the South at this time: "We have, as far as possible, closed every avenue by which light may enter their (the slaves) minds. If we could extinguish the capacity to see the light, our work would be complete; they would then be on a level with the beasts of the field and we should be safe. I am not certain that we would not do it, if we could find out the process and that on the plea of necessity." From Brown America, The story of a
New Race by Edwin R. Embree. 1931 The Viking Press.

[BIG BROTHER]

It doesn't seem to be on the begining so let me add another charge against the US goverment: The Mexican-American war 1846-1848. More or less 25,000 death or wounded and half the territory "anexed" so much for freedom and justice for all.

[Bud Struggle]

It doesn't seem to be on the begining so let me add another charge against the US goverment: The Mexican-American war 1846-1848. More or less 25,000 death or wounded and half the territory "anexed" so much for freedom and justice for all.

Well the Mexicans are doing a pretty good job of re-anexing that area these days. :D

[Dejavu]

It doesn't seem to be on the begining so let me add another charge against the US goverment: The Mexican-American war 1846-1848. More or less 25,000 death or wounded and half the territory "anexed" so much for freedom and justice for all.

Well I really liked the anarchy in the old Wild West when really no government had firm control. I think the best example of the old Republic playing its cards right was with the Louisiana purchase. The U.S. didn't intervene in the Napoleonic wars and it came at a heavy price for the French. The French received more funds from the U.S. when they sold Jefferson the Louisiana territory. Now that was a big cash in. :laugh:

I wouldn't call the western United States original 'Mexican' territory either. The Indian tribe known as the Mexicans were not that large but arose by conquering other tribes and expanding in various directions. The Mexican governmental claim to territory is just as superficial as the U.S. governmental or any other governmental claim to territory. The territory belongs to the people, not the State.

[BIG BROTHER]

Dejavu you have a good point, but that doesn't justifies US's actions.

[Dejavu]

Dejavu you have a good point, but that doesn't justifies US's actions.

Right, I wasn't justifying the U.S. action. I mean its still government action after all. I was just saying that Mexico (Mexican government) doesn't have any moral high ground either.

Plus, the Louisiana territory was purchased outright and wasn't taken through war. I think thats a better way of getting stuff, trade instead of war.

[BIG BROTHER]

Right, I wasn't justifying the U.S. action. I mean its still government action after all. I was just saying that Mexico (Mexican government) doesn't have any moral high ground either.

Plus, the Louisiana territory was purchased outright and wasn't taken through war. I think thats a better way of getting stuff, trade instead of war.

I ain't arguing anything about the Lousiana territory(or at least right now)
And on Moral ground I would defer just a little(and remember just a little) because unlike in the US, in Mexico the natives are considered Mexicans too, and also the Mexican and Spanish people mixed themselves with the natives, so yea...

[pusher robot]

I ain't arguing anything about the Lousiana territory(or at least right now)
And on Moral ground I would defer just a little(and remember just a little) because unlike in the US, in Mexico the natives are considered Mexicans too, and also the Mexican and Spanish people mixed themselves with the natives, so yea...

How is that "unlike the U.S.?"

[Joby]

Yes yes it's all evil Imperialism.

Hmmmm...There've been posts made blaming the US and most of Europe....

Take those away and there's been no progress for the last few thousand years.

[FreeFocus]

Yes yes it's all evil Imperialism.

Hmmmm...There've been posts made blaming the US and most of Europe....

Take those away and there's been no progress for the last few thousand years.

If your definition of "progress" is merely technological sophistication, that reflects a terribly narrow-minded understanding of human relationships and what can be done to improve them (and therefore producing true "progress").

[Dimentio]

Heres some I can think of that Britain has commited against the world -

800 years of oppression of the Irish people, eventually splitting up the island

Wiping out the Tasmanian aboriginals

Use of concentration camps in South Africa during the Boer War

Wiping out millions of Native Americans

Taking over and exploiting a quarter of the world for hundreds of years

Participated in the slave trade for hundreds of years

Wiping out many languages and cultures and replacing them with the English language and "Anglo-Saxon" culture

Creating artifical countries in Africa, splitting peoples and cultures and fostering war amongst Africans, which still happens to this day

Supporting and taking part in the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan

India exported grain and rice to the UK while 15 million Indians died of starvation in the 19th century

[Bud Struggle]

Tibet crackdown outcry


Mar. 18 - Tibetan activists call on Europe to investigate deaths in Chinese crackdown on protests in Lhasa.

European Parliament President Hans-Gert Poettering on Monday urged politicians to consider boycotting the Beijing Olympic Games to protest against China's crackdown on demonstrations in Tibet in which dozens may have died.

[apathy maybe]

Actually, including China in the Imperialism charge sheet is ingenious.

They are an imperialist country, by the definitions that many people use around here (money, power etc.).

Oh, and anyone who doesn't support self-determination, isn't a real leftist.

[Bronsky]

Capitalism has to expand to survive it doesn’t have a choice it is one of the inherent contradictions within the system hence its move into foreign lands, either for natural resources or as a means of cheaper labour. This is called Imperialism and it’s US’s Imperialist crimes that are listed above.

[Bud Struggle]

Capitalism has to expand to survive it doesn’t have a choice it is one of the inherent contradictions within the system hence its move into foreign lands, either for natural resources or as a means of cheaper labour. This is called Imperialism and it’s US’s Imperialist crimes that are listed above.

With a smattering of Imperialist Communist countries thrown in for flavor. :)

[Phalanx]

I ain't arguing anything about the Lousiana territory(or at least right now)
And on Moral ground I would defer just a little(and remember just a little) because unlike in the US, in Mexico the natives are considered Mexicans too, and also the Mexican and Spanish people mixed themselves with the natives, so yea...

That's true, but it still doesn't justify Mexico moving settlers into the area, just like the US has no excuse moving settlers westward.

[PigmerikanMao]

It'd be great if we could get a total death toll on this thing too. :rolleyes:

[Simia]

Surely you would all agree that capitalism can exist without imperialism? Of course there is the possibility for a non-interventionist government that protects individual rights and private property. Switzerland, for example. Switzerland is not entirely oriented towards free market capitalism, but it is a modern, capitalistic country that does not intervene in the affairs of other nations. We certainly do not need extreme leftism to halt imperialism.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I disagree.

There has always been a capitalist nation that has exploited the third world (more than they exploit their own citizens). In the early days it was the British Empire, then France/Germany joined in the fun, but since WW2 it's been USSR/USA and now just USA. However, there has never been a time, under capitalism, where the big power(s) didn't conduct in some form of imperialism. One could argue, even, that capitalism's growth was in large part due to the expansion of the feudal powers in the colonies.

Nations like Switzerland (and now, most of Europe), can exist as they do because the power that is protects that market from foreign invasion. Europe (and Japan/maybe South Korea/maybe southeast asia) gets the benefits of Imperialism. Everyone else gets the club.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

http://img.search.com/thumb/3/32/China_imperialism_cartoon.jpg/250px-China_imperialism_cartoon.jpg

[NecroCommie]

It'd be great if we could get a total death toll on this thing too. :rolleyes:

Infinite, and continues to rise.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Infinite, and continues to rise.

If you're talking about the body count, absolutely not.
If you're talking about the US deficit, most assuredly :lol:

:(

[IcarusAngel]

I disagree.

There has always been a capitalist nation that has exploited the third world (more than they exploit their own citizens). In the early days it was the British Empire, then France/Germany joined in the fun, but since WW2 it's been USSR/USA and now just USA. However, there has never been a time, under capitalism, where the big power(s) didn't conduct in some form of imperialism. One could argue, even, that capitalism's growth was in large part due to the expansion of the feudal powers in the colonies.

Nations like Switzerland (and now, most of Europe), can exist as they do because the power that is protects that market from foreign invasion. Europe (and Japan/maybe South Korea/maybe southeast asia) gets the benefits of Imperialism. Everyone else gets the club.

Good post. Definitely a thank worthy reply.

Understanding imperialism and its critiques I think are very important to understanding society, especially from the leftist viewpoint.

Unfortunately, the study of it is as complicated as much of the more difficult leftist critique of modern economics.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Thank you IA, I appreciate it.

And yes, it's definitely a much more complicated subject today than during a century ago, but needless to say it's still very much around.

[John Lenin]

http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/54/l_2f39b8ee4498f62d0b01510171b3c57d.jpg

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Places that have bombed the US since WWII:








...

[Plagueround]

Places that have bombed the US since WWII:


...

Well, to be fair, there haven't been many attacks within the US itself, but US allies are constantly being bombed and attacked, and we've had a few embassies get attacked.

One could also argue a plane can be converted into a rather powerful bomb.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

You could say that, but I don't consider a Kamikaze to be one.

As for our allies being attacked, well, that's why we have to bomb many of the people we do. Or at least, that's the argument.

And btw, the US has attacked way more nations than those in that cartoon.

[danyboy27]

http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/54/l_2f39b8ee4498f62d0b01510171b3c57d.jpg


i love that, could be relatively easy to flip it over with what the soviet union /russia did to his neighbor in term of forced regime.

-kazakstan, romania, bulgaria, armenia, tajikistan, tchekoslovakia east germany , poland , georgia , mongolia , china, ukraine, tchechenya, north korea, albania, hungrary.

not that i support one side of another, but being one sided like that is just too manichean.

[RGacky3]

not that i support one side of another, but being one sided like that is just too manichean.

Well the USSR is'nt around anymore.


Well, to be fair, there haven't been many attacks within the US itself, but US allies are constantly being bombed and attacked, and we've had a few embassies get attacked.

One could also argue a plane can be converted into a rather powerful bomb.

Maybe a better example would be "americans killed by their enemies" and "people killed by AMericans", just imagen those numbers. Imagen if you included American supported goon squads and strongmen.

[Bud Struggle]

Well the USSR is'nt around anymore.


Ran out of bombs. :(

:D

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The White man. He should be forced to bare all of the burden. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/White_mans_burden_the_journal_detroit.JPG

Take up the White Man’s burden—

Send forth the best ye breed—

Go send your sons to exile

To serve your captives' need

To wait in heavy harness

On fluttered folk and wild—

Your new-caught, sullen peoples,

Half devil and half child

Take up the White Man’s burden

In patience to abide

To veil the threat of terror

And check the show of pride;

By open speech and simple

An hundred times made plain

To seek another’s profit

And work another’s gain

Take up the White Man’s burden—

And reap his old reward:

The blame of those ye better

The hate of those ye guard—

The cry of hosts ye humour

(Ah slowly) to the light:

"Why brought ye us from bondage,

“Our loved Egyptian night?”

Take up the White Man’s burden-

Have done with childish days-

The lightly proffered laurel,

The easy, ungrudged praise.

Comes now, to search your manhood

Through all the thankless years,

Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,

The judgment of your peers!


Rudyard Kipling

[Richard Nixon]

How come for example World War 2 and Korean War are classifed as "imperialist"? World War 2 was a global struggle against fascism the US was allied with the Soviets and almost everyone else while the Korean War was due to the aggression of the North.

[RGacky3]

Germany was'nt invaded to stop fascism, it was invaded to stop Germany from taking over europe.

[Richard Nixon]

Germany was'nt invaded to stop fascism, it was invaded to stop Germany from taking over europe.

Yes and what was so wrong about attacking a nation that was unjustly conquering all of Europe?

[Bud Struggle]

Yes and what was so wrong about attacking a nation that was unjustly conquering all of Europe?

They didn't support Pre Franco Spain (which was the Anarchist's 15 mins of fame.) :rolleyes:

[Richard Nixon]

They didn't support Pre Franco Spain (which was the Anarchist's 15 mins of fame.) :rolleyes:

That was because back then the US was 1) heavily isolationist, 2) mired in the Great Depression, and 3) worried about Communists and Anarchists equally as fascists. However thousands of Americans did serve voluntarily in the International Brigades.

[Bud Struggle]

That was because back then the US was 1) heavily isolationist, 2) mired in the Great Depression, and 3) worried about Communists and Anarchists equally as fascists. However thousands of Americans did serve voluntarily in the International Brigades.

Lots served to fight for Franco, too. And in the end he was the horse to be on. And the Communists were instrumental in defeating the Anarchists--RevLeft makes strange bedfellows.

[RedAnarchist]

Lots served to fight for Franco, too. And in the end he was the horse to be on. And the Communists were instrumental in defeating the Anarchists--RevLeft makes strange bedfellows.

It was hardly all Communists, just thiose that supported the USSR mostly.

[RGacky3]

Yes and what was so wrong about attacking a nation that was unjustly conquering all of Europe?

Nothing, I'm just saying, don't put the incorrect motives. It was not a disinterested fight against fascism.

[The Idler]

I've done a small table of casualties of United States military interventions since World War II at Anarchopedia (http://eng.anarchopedia.org/List_of_Military_Interventions_of_the_United_State s). I've tried to focus on instances of deliberate/reckless targeting of innocent civilians and to include conservative estimates (sometimes referenced). I've also included lots of interesting sources regarding genocides. R. J. Rummel who often uses the term "democide" seems to take a right-wing approach, which fits awkwardly when he tries to play down American atrocities.

[Richard Nixon]

Also why are troops sent against rioters within the USA considered "imperialist"? It's in our own territory and protection against violence and chaos? Geez, we aren't even allowed to exercise national soverignty in our own territories now?!?!

[#FF0000]

Also why are troops sent against rioters within the USA considered "imperialist"? It's in our own territory and protection against violence and chaos? Geez, we aren't even allowed to exercise national soverignty in our own territories now?!?!

You know I'm pretty sure it isn't the job of the military to enforce the rule of law within their own borders.

[Richard Nixon]

You know I'm pretty sure it isn't the job of the military to enforce the rule of law within their own borders.

The police couldn't stop the rioters so the military had to be called in.

[☭World Views]

You know I'm pretty sure it isn't the job of the military to enforce the rule of law within their own borders.

In one way I think the capitalist sympathizer has a point on this. Suppressing worker movements with violence in Dakota, Idaho, etc. isn't really imperialism. I have a hard time classifying it as such. Instead, I would have thought that military suppressing worker movements and strikes would have been categorized as state sponsored terrorism. Correct me if I am wrong.

[☭World Views]

It'd be great if we could get a total death toll on this thing too. :rolleyes:

Using the framework provided by Stéphane Courtois in the "Black Book Communism" in a comparative analysis of the capitalist world, the only rational conclusion one can reach is that capitalism is easily responsible for over 400 million deaths, over 100 million of those occurring in the 20th century. This does not take into account the living dead in the 3rd world due to the effects of neo-liberal globalization.

Damn I wish the Black Book of Capitalism was translated into English, most people don't even know that the book exists.

[The Idler]

Some stuff I managed to find out for Be an Imperialist (http://www.wikihow.com/Be-an-Imperialist);
The Age of Empire by Eric Hobsbawm
The Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire by Arundhati Roy
Quotes from Cecil Rhodes

We must find new lands from which we can easily obtain raw materials and at the same time exploit the cheap slave labor that is available from the natives of the colonies. The colonies would also provide a dumping ground for the surplus goods produced in our factories.

The world is nearly all parcelled out, and what there is left of it is being divided up, conquered and colonised. To think of these stars that you see overhead at night, these vast worlds which we can never reach. I would annex the planets if I could; I often think of that. It makes me sad to see them so clear and yet so far.

To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonisation by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible, and promote the best interests of humanity.

[☭World Views]

According to the black book of capitalism, capitalism has claimed the lives of over 99,850,000 people in the 20th century.

The list is not meant to be all inclusive. It is only meant to demonstrate the destructive nature of capitalism.

In the figure above, the following was not included:

Between 1990 and 1995 alone, over 5 million people have died due to capitalist wars of plunder. Over 3 quarters of these 5 million have been civilians.

In 1997 alone, malnutrition and famines have claimed the lives of over 6 million children.

These children, along with the rest of the people that died due to malnutrition and famines due to capitalism in the 20th century are also not included in the figure above!

[Bud Struggle]

According to the black book of capitalism, capitalism has claimed the lives of over 99,850,000 people in the 20th century.

The list is not meant to be all inclusive. It is only meant to demonstrate the destructive nature of capitalism.

In the figure above, the following was not included:

Between 1990 and 1995 alone, over 5 million people have died due to capitalist wars of plunder. Over 3 quarters of these 5 million have been civilians.

In 1997 alone, malnutrition and famines have claimed the lives of over 6 million children.

These children, along with the rest of the people that died due to malnutrition and famines due to capitalism in the 20th century are also not included in the figure above!

There is no ACTUAL book--is there?

[Pirate Utopian]

There is no ACTUAL book--is there?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Capitalism

[☭World Views]

There is no ACTUAL book--is there?

lol what do you mean?

The Black Book of Capitalism was published one year after the Black Book of Communism was. It was never available in the USA or in the English language.

The official editions are in French, Czech, and Italian.

I assure you that the majority of the authors in the book are not uncritical towards the USSR or China and use peer-reviewed material. None of them are apologetic towards French imperialism in Africa, there is an entire chapter dedicated to that subject.

[Bud Struggle]

lol what do you mean?

The Black Book of Capitalism was published one year after the Black Book of Communism was. It was never available in the USA or in the English language.

The official editions are in French, Czech, and Italian.

I assure you that the majority of the authors in the book are not uncritical towards the USSR or China and use peer-reviewed material. None of them are apologetic towards French imperialism in Africa, there is an entire chapter dedicated to that subject.

Not one your case about it--I just never heard of it.

Where can I get a French edition?

[danyboy27]

according to the black book of automobile, car killied far more people than capitalism.

[Richard Nixon]

according to the black book of automobile, car killied far more people than capitalism.

According to the Black Book of Food, food has killed far more people then cars, capitalism, and communism combined. :eek:

[ComradeMan]

IL LIBRO NERO DEL CAPITALISMO
9788851521172

ISBN 10: 8851521174
ISBN 13: 9788851521172
Casa editrice: Net
Data di pubblicazione: 2003

Sinopsi: In aperta polemica con gli autori del "Libro nero del comunismo", un gruppo di storici, economisti, sindacalisti e scrittori come Gilles Perrault e Jean Ziegler, ripercorre la storia di questo secolo alla luce degli eventi più tragici e drammatici che hanno segnato con il sangue le democrazie occidentali, i paesi del "primo mondo", dove il capitalismo regna incotrastato.

In English:
In open polemic with the authors of the "Black Book of Communism," a group of historians, economists, trade unionists and writers like Gilles Perrault, Jean Ziegler, the history of this century in light of the most tragic and dramatic events that marked the Blood Western democracies, the countries of "first world", where capitalism reigns unchecked.
http://www.abebooks.it/products/isbn/9788851521172

[Drace]

I've done a small table of casualties of United States military interventions since World War II at Anarchopedia (http://www.anonym.to/?http://eng.anarchopedia.org/List_of_Military_Interventions_of_the_United_State s).Few things.
The nuclear attack on Hiroshima alone killed 80,000 people directly. Estimate are about 90 to 140 thousand total including after effects. Nagasaki is another 60,000-80,000 deaths.

So thats about an estimated 220,000 civilian deaths.

I believe most deaths from Iraq were from the sanctions, not bombings.

Also, only 10,000 dead in Vietnam!?!? The Agent Orange attacks alone killed 400,000 people and caused another 500,000 to be born with birth defects!

[ComradeMan]

Few things.
The nuclear attack on Hiroshima alone killed 80,000 people directly. Estimate are about 90 to 140 thousand total including after effects. Nagasaki is another 60,000-80,000 deaths.

So thats about an estimated 220,000 civilian deaths.

I believe most deaths from Iraq were from the sanctions, not bombings.

Also, only 10,000 dead in Vietnam!?!? The Agent Orange attacks alone killed 400,000 people and caused another 500,000 to be born with birth defects!


The numbers do not matter. It's all wrong. Just one is too many.... each man's death diminishes me for I am part of mankind....

Re Vietnam I have found these data based on approximate figures.

South Vietnam/US and allies- Total dead: 315,831: Total wounded: ~1,490,000+
North Vietnam and allies- Total dead: ~1,177,446: Total wounded: ~604,000+

Civilian dead.

South Vietnamese civilian dead: 1,581,000*
Cambodian civilian dead: ~700,000*

North Vietnamese civilian dead: ~2,000,000
Laotian civilian dead: ~50,000*

[~Spectre]

April 2010: U.S. announces nuclear policy shift that entails an explicit nuclear threat against Iran and North Korea.

[Left-Reasoning]

april 2010: U.s. Announces nuclear policy shift that entails an explicit nuclear threat against iran and north korea.

U.S.A! U.S.A!

not all caps

[Peace on Earth]

Couldn't you add U.S. Predator Drone strikes in Pakistan, in 2010? Hundreds of civilians were killed.

[empiredestoryer]

amercians dont see them selves as imperialists they see them selves as the worlds goodguys and they really believe it ...HOW SAD IS THAT...........................................

[Havet]

amercians dont see them selves as imperialists they see them selves as the worlds goodguys and they really believe it ...HOW SAD IS THAT...........................................

Your hate is blinding your grammar

[Jazzratt]

Your hate is blinding your grammar That was the opposite of a worthwhile post. Consider this a verbal warning for spam.