Israel will attack Iran on its own

[marxist_god]

Israel will attack Iran on its own


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST Dec. 21, 2007

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

"I came back from a trip to Israel in November convinced that Israel would attack Iran," Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official and senior adviser to three US presidents, George W. Bush among them, told the American Newsweek magazine in an article published Friday.

Citing conversations he had in Israel with officials in Mossad and the Israeli defense establishment, Riedel concluded that "Israel is not going to allow its nuclear monopoly to be threatened."

While some US experts doubt Israel's ability to tackle Iran alone, David Albright, of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, was quoted by Newsweek as saying that although information on the exact location of Iran's nuclear facility is incomplete, Israel's air strike on an alleged Syrian nuclear facility on September 6, widely discussed in foreign media outlets, could be seen as a test run for any future strike on Iran's facilities, as well as a direct warning to Teheran.

Riedel told the magazine his impression that Israel would venture a strike on Iran on its own was formed before the publication of the joint US intelligence agencies' report, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). "This [the NIE] makes it [a strike on Iran] even more likely," he said.

Since the publication of the NIE, which reversed a previous American assessment by concluding that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, leaders worldwide have been adjusting their publicly stated positions on the Iranian nuclear issue.

Even inside the US, President Bush attempted some damage control by stating a day after the report's publication that "Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous."

In Israel, responses to the report ranged from subtle criticism of the report's conclusions to outright slamming of the US intelligence community's capabilities, so much so that on last Sunday's cabinet meeting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert instructed his ministers to refrain from commenting any further on the report.

In the international scene, Russia's decision to renew fuel shipments to Iran main nuclear facility at Bushehr was interpreted by many anlysts as stemming directly from the NIE's publication; another development possibly stemming from the report is Russia and China's hardened position on further sanctions against Teheran.

In Teheran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quick to capitalize on the NIE, calling it an "Iranian victory" and demanding that the United States publicly apologize for its previous bellicose stance.

Uzi Arad, a former Mossad official and adviser to opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu, told Newsweek that on a recent trip to Moscow, a Russian general poked fun at the naiveté of the NIE, commenting that if the Iranians had halted weapons development in 2003 it was partly because they were satisfied with progress there and wanted to devote investment to harder parts of the nuclear equation, like enrichment.

"The irony is that the effect of this report may be self-negating - by itself it will accelerate Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons," Arad told the magazine.


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

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

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847398265&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[ Back to the Article ]


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

[spartan]

One reactionary, racist and religious state wanting to attack another reactionary, racist and religious state?

I hope that they both blow each other to smithereens and finally be done with it.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 11:27 pm
I hope they both blow each other to smithereens :D
I hope not.

I hope the people in each of those countries destroy their respective states.

Luís Henrique

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 11:27 pm
I hope that they both blow each other to smithereens and finally be done with it.

Man, you are a fascist like Hitler, how can you wish the death of millions of people?

marxist_god

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by marxist_god+December 22, 2007 05:02 am--> (marxist_god @ December 22, 2007 05:02 am)
[email protected] 21, 2007 11:27 pm
I hope that they both blow each other to smithereens and finally be done with it.

Man, you are a fascist like Hitler, how can you wish the death of millions of people?

marxist_god [/b]
I don't think he meant it quite that way. What he was saying is that we of course oppose both imperialist terrorist nations like Israel and reactionary fundamentalist states like Iran. Of course if we were simply talking governments, I would say the same thing.

However, this view sees the class struggle in terms of personalities rather than the class warfare position of the proletariat internationalism. It also rules out the certain and very real possibility of revolutionary change before or during any conflict such as another workers revolution in the US, Israel, Iran, Russia, etc.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 11:27 pm
One reactionary, racist and religious state wanting to attack another reactionary, racist and religious state?

I hope that they both blow each other to smithereens and finally be done with it.
Your violent gung-ho attitude worries me. Israel and Iran has a working class too. Do you really believe that such a war would bring about anything other than suffering for them?

[Cheung Mo]

I would only support military action against Iran if it was to bring someone with ideas like Mossadegh's to power...Obviously, neither the Zionist nor the American regime intend to do this.

[spartan]

Your violent gung-ho attitude worries me. Israel and Iran has a working class too. Do you really believe that such a war would bring about anything other than suffering for them?
I meant there governments and ruling classes not all the people.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 22, 2007 10:31 am
I would only support military action against Iran if it was to bring someone with ideas like Mossadegh's to power...Obviously, neither the Zionist nor the American regime intend to do this.
Why Mossadegh's ideas? Sure, his ideas were progressive, but he wasn't a revolutionary socialist, at best he would've nationalized the oil industry.

[Zurdito]

Is Israel really that suicidal? Why do the one thing which would unite the Arab world (yes, I'm aware Iranians are mostly not Arabs), and piss off their only friends? Also, from what I've read, Iran could easily retaliate and cause Israel a lot of casualties. Have I been misinformed?

[RNK]

Hopefully, the governments of Israel and Iran will destroy one another (with minimal collateral damage), and Palestinians can return to their homes while authentic Iranian revolutionaries can replace fundamentalism with progressive socialism.

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 04:11 pm
Is Israel really that suicidal? Why do the one thing which would unite the Arab world (yes, I'm aware Iranians are mostly not Arabs), and piss off their only friends? Also, from what I've read, Iran could easily retaliate and cause Israel a lot of casualties. Have I been misinformed?
You underestimate the power of the human mind (especially the religious human mind) to believe what it wants to believe. If Israel truly believe that God is on their side an their messiah is coming back, they will undertake any action in order to secure their sovereignty. And with the might and money of the U.S. behind them, they are still a huge threat to Middle Eastern peace.

If it came down to it and I absolutely had to make a choice, I would support Iran over Israel. I hate to side with those disgusting religious zealots, but my first priority is anti-imperialism. Zionism is a racist and imperialist ideology that must be stamped out, ad even Iran's government supports freedom for the Palestinian people.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I don't think we should take sides with nationalist bourgeois states.


Lenin, March 1915:

“The question of which group delivered the first military blow or first declared war has no importance whatsoever in determining the tactics of socialists. Phrases about the defense of the fatherland, repelling invasion by the enemy, conducting a defensive war, etc., are on both sides a complete deception of the people.” For decades, three bandits armed themselves to despoil Germany. Is it surprising that the two bandits launched an attack before the three bandits succeeded in obtaining the new knives they had ordered?”

Iran is apart of its own inter-imperialist alliances – one of its closest trading partners is China. Iran exports over twenty-five billion in crude oil yearly to this developing country, and there is a greater 'partnership' between trinational conglomerates from Pakistan, Venezuela, Lebanon, and Syria in the nation. Russia has increased investment in the country, scoring off of Iran's petrochemical, textile, and armaments market, as well as their abundant petroleum resources. They receive arms and military training from these allies, and numerous sanctions that would hurt their relationship has been broken by Russia and China in the United Nations Security Council.

I would, personally, not support any of the imperialist blocs, no matter how 'weak' they are in comparison to the United States and their allies.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 03:34 pm

Your violent gung-ho attitude worries me. Israel and Iran has a working class too. Do you really believe that such a war would bring about anything other than suffering for them?
I meant there governments and ruling classes not all the people.
I know what you meant. My point still stands.

[Zurdito]

Iran is apart of its own inter-imperialist alliances – one of its closest trading partners is China. Iran exports over twenty-five billion in crude oil yearly to this developing country, and there is a greater 'partnership' between trinational conglomerates from Pakistan, Venezuela, Lebanon, and Syria in the nation. Russia has increased investment in the country, scoring off of Iran's petrochemical, textile, and armaments market, as well as their abundant petroleum resources. They receive arms and military training from these allies, and numerous sanctions that would hurt their relationship has been broken by Russia and China in the United Nations Security Council.

I don't follow. None of that makes Iran imperialist. It trades - so what? Do you want it to attempt autarchy?

[spartan]

I don't follow. None of that makes Iran imperialist. It trades - so what? Do you want it to attempt autarchy?
Just because Iran stands up to an Imperialist power (USA) and some of its allies (Israel) that doesnt make Iran anti-Imperialist.

This middle east issue is between two Imperialist powers (Iran and the USA) who both want to dominate this resource rich region and who both have allies to carry out most of the dirty work for them in this region (America has Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey whilst Iran has Hamas, Hezbollah, Shia Iraqi insurgents and Syria).

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 07:50 pm

I don't follow. None of that makes Iran imperialist. It trades - so what? Do you want it to attempt autarchy?
Just because Iran stands up to an Imperialist power (USA) and some of its allies (Israel) that doesnt make Iran anti-Imperialist.

If Iran is being attacked by an imperialist power or it's proxy (Israel), then the resistance to that is anti-imperialist.


This middle east issue is between two Imperialist powers (Iran and the USA) who both want to dominate this resource rich region and who both have allies to carry out there dirty work in this region (America has Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey whilst Iran has Hamas, Hezbollah, Shia Iraqi insurgents and Syria).

How is Hamas a tool of the Iranian government? Hamas is a resistance movement which has grown up out of 60 years of occupation and betrayal by the PLO. An act like the creation of Israel will inevitably create a resistance. Iran wasn't behind any of that.

I think the war is much more between the US and the UK, "old Europe", Russia, and China, who are all in a scramble for the Middle East/Central Asia's resources, and can variosuly cut deals with different groups and governments across the region. Most of the world's multinationals are based in Europe or America (with a large minority in Japan), and are behind a push to open up the markets of the third world to ever more penetration, which is carried out by proxies like the IMF, World Bank, WTO, etc. That is the imeprialism we live under today. What does the Iranian government do which equates to that? Look at the way the Iranian people are being starved into submission due to their governments refusal to go along with this as much as the imperialist powers demand. If Iran resists what the imperialists tell it to do, it either has comlicit rulers placed on it (i.e. the Shah) or it's put under seige until it crumbles. Yet Iran can do nothing of the sort to the US, Israel or the EU. So how is that an imperialist state? Which Iranian multinationals are seizing foreign markets and pumping the profits back into Iran?

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by Zurdito+December 22, 2007 08:08 pm--> (Zurdito @ December 22, 2007 08:08 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 07:50 pm

I don't follow. None of that makes Iran imperialist. It trades - so what? Do you want it to attempt autarchy?
Just because Iran stands up to an Imperialist power (USA) and some of its allies (Israel) that doesnt make Iran anti-Imperialist.

If Iran is being attacked by an imperialist power or it's proxy (Israel), then the resistance to that is anti-imperialist.


This middle east issue is between two Imperialist powers (Iran and the USA) who both want to dominate this resource rich region and who both have allies to carry out there dirty work in this region (America has Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey whilst Iran has Hamas, Hezbollah, Shia Iraqi insurgents and Syria).

How is Hamas a tool of the Iranian government? Hamas is a resistance movement which has grown up out of 60 years of occupation and betrayal by the PLO. An act like the creation of Israel will inevitably create a resistance. Iran wasn't behind any of that.

I think the war is much more between the US and the UK, "old Europe", Russia, and China, who are all in a scramble for the Middle East/Central Asia's resources, and can variosuly cut deals with different groups and governments across the region. Most of the world's multinationals are based in Europe or America (with a large minority in Japan), and are behind a push to open up the markets of the third world to ever more penetration, which is carried out by proxies like the IMF, World Bank, WTO, etc. That is the imeprialism we live under today. What does the Iranian government do which equates to that? Look at the way the Iranian people are being starved into submission due to their governments refusal to go along with this as much as the imperialist powers demand. If Iran resists what the imperialists tell it to do, it either has comlicit rulers placed on it (i.e. the Shah) or it's put under seige until it crumbles. Yet Iran can do nothing of the sort to the US, Israel or the EU. So how is that an imperialist state? Which Iranian multinationals are seizing foreign markets and pumping the profits back into Iran? [/b]


All states are evil and repressive, we still live in a world of states. Venezuela, Cuba, are not socialist-systems, are not workers-state. They are state-capitalist welfare systems. We haven't seen a socialist-state yet. However it is fair to state, that Iran is a lot better and less evil than Israel.

In a war between Israel and Iran, i'd back Iran and allies

marxist_god

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 22, 2007 06:22 pm
I don't think we should take sides with nationalist bourgeois states.


Lenin, March 1915:

“The question of which group delivered the first military blow or first declared war has no importance whatsoever in determining the tactics of socialists. Phrases about the defense of the fatherland, repelling invasion by the enemy, conducting a defensive war, etc., are on both sides a complete deception of the people.” For decades, three bandits armed themselves to despoil Germany. Is it surprising that the two bandits launched an attack before the three bandits succeeded in obtaining the new knives they had ordered?”

Iran is apart of its own inter-imperialist alliances – one of its closest trading partners is China. Iran exports over twenty-five billion in crude oil yearly to this developing country, and there is a greater 'partnership' between trinational conglomerates from Pakistan, Venezuela, Lebanon, and Syria in the nation. Russia has increased investment in the country, scoring off of Iran's petrochemical, textile, and armaments market, as well as their abundant petroleum resources. They receive arms and military training from these allies, and numerous sanctions that would hurt their relationship has been broken by Russia and China in the United Nations Security Council.

I would, personally, not support any of the imperialist blocs, no matter how 'weak' they are in comparison to the United States and their allies.

Iran doesn't have a lobby inside US government. Israel is *real* evil, a lot more evil than Iran, even though Iran is still a repressive state. But don't compare Iran with Israel. That's like comparing USA with Norway or with Venezuela

marxist_god

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 07:50 pm

I don't follow. None of that makes Iran imperialist. It trades - so what? Do you want it to attempt autarchy?
Just because Iran stands up to an Imperialist power (USA) and some of its allies (Israel) that doesnt make Iran anti-Imperialist.

This middle east issue is between two Imperialist powers (Iran and the USA) who both want to dominate this resource rich region and who both have allies to carry out most of the dirty work for them in this region (America has Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey whilst Iran has Hamas, Hezbollah, Shia Iraqi insurgents and Syria).

http://www.amazon.com/Target-Iran-Houses-R...e/dp/1560259361 (http://www.amazon.com/Target-Iran-Houses-Regime-Change/dp/1560259361)

Target Iran: The Truth About the White House's Plans for Regime Change.

It is Mr. Ritter's contention that the Busch administration's primary tool of foreign policy is that of regime change. Any efforts by those nations that are so targeted to engage us in diplomacy have and will be rebuffed. This administration will not talk to those it considers it's enemies. This has been challenged in the media by the James Baker group, but it remains to be seen if they will effect any changes. Target Iran, according to Mr. Ritter, in based on press coverage in the Middle East and private confirmation of those stories by members of our intelligence community. The story is that America is already working inside Iran with dissidents to identify targets. We are also said to be negotiating the details of staging areas for our base of attack for this widening of the Middle East war. Once that is completed, this administration intends to attack.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Reading this discussion gave me the impression that few people here have anything to do with the theories of Marx and Lenin.

Considering Iran to be a "racist" state, and then calling for Israel and Iran to "destroy" each other's states and magically leave their people free and liberated... :huh:

What is this? Some sort of video game?

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:41 pm
Iran doesn't have a lobby inside US government. Israel is *real* evil, a lot more evil than Iran, even though Iran is still a repressive state. But don't compare Iran with Israel. That's like comparing USA with Norway or with Venezuela

marxist_god
I don't think you read my post.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by Spirit of [email protected] 23, 2007 03:10 am
Reading this discussion gave me the impression that few people here have anything to do with the theories of Marx and Lenin.

Considering Iran to be a "racist" state, and then calling for Israel and Iran to "destroy" each other's states and magically leave their people free and liberated... :huh:

What is this? Some sort of video game?
You don't mean to say that the bourgeoisie would send other people to fight do you? Next you'll be telling me a nuclear holocaust isn't a desirable precursor to a communist society!:o

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 03:34 pm

Your violent gung-ho attitude worries me. Israel and Iran has a working class too. Do you really believe that such a war would bring about anything other than suffering for them?
I meant there governments and ruling classes not all the people.
L M A O!!!!!

[Lenin II]

Iran is apart of its own inter-imperialist alliances – one of its closest trading partners is China.

China is a heavily degenerated workers’ state, but they are not imperialist. Tibet chooses to continue to live under Chinese rule and Tibetans are given far more freedom than the bourgeoisie press would have you believe. China saved them from the feudal capitalist society that they had before and allows them to live the way they wish.


Iran exports over twenty-five billion in crude oil yearly to this developing country, and there is a greater 'partnership' between trinational conglomerates from Pakistan, Venezuela, Lebanon, and Syria in the nation. Russia has increased investment in the country, scoring off of Iran's petrochemical, textile, and armaments market, as well as their abundant petroleum resources. They receive arms and military training from these allies, and numerous sanctions that would hurt their relationship has been broken by Russia and China in the United Nations Security Council.

A capitalist state trading with other capitalist states? :blink: Ya don't say. Apparently you don't understand the meaning of "imperialism."
Anyway, I did not say they were any kind of socialist/leftist/workers’ state or that were not capitalist oppressors and religious zealots themselves. What I said was that their practices are not imperialist any more than China’s, and they certainly cannot hold a candle to U.S. or Israel in terms of supremacism and imperialism. For this reason, their struggle should be supported, as destroying imperialist states is our highest priority, followed by agitating a peoples’ revolution in any weaker states.


Just because Iran stands up to an Imperialist power (USA) and some of its allies (Israel) that doesn’t make Iran anti-Imperialist.

Actually, it does.


All states are evil and repressive

If you believe that, you should join the anarchists. I believe what you mean is bourgeoisie states, which is true. However, a workers’ state is not oppressive.


Venezuela, Cuba, are not socialist-systems, are not workers-state. They are state-capitalist welfare systems.

Not true. Socialism =/= welfare. Simply because money still exists and there is still free trade in those countries does no automatically disqualify them from being socialist. It disqualifies them from being communist.


However it is fair to state, that Iran is a lot better and less evil than Israel. In a war between Israel and Iran, i'd back Iran and allies

Agreed.

[spartan]

Just because Iran stands up to an Imperialist power (USA) and some of its allies (Israel) that doesn’t make Iran anti-Imperialist.
Actually, it does.
No it doesnt because it is obvious that Iran has economic Imperialist ambitions in Iraq and if the USA and Israel were not in the way i think that it is fair to say that Iran would be much more aggressive in there actions.


However it is fair to state, that Iran is a lot better and less evil than Israel. In a war between Israel and Iran, i'd back Iran and allies
Agreed.
What so you would support a state that said that an entire nation should be wiped off the map, questioned the existence of the Holocaust, has started forcing women to dress "modestly" and who's leadership believes in a hardline Conservative Islam that when fully implemeted (Its already starting to happen now with the forcing of women to dress modestly thing) would be both homophobic and sexist?

And all because they are "anti-Imperialist" against nations that allow women to dress however they wish and are far more tolerant, though not at times Liberal in its attitude, towards homosexual people.

I think that Marx was right when he said that even Capitalism can be a progressive force in the right circumstances.

[Lenin II]

No it doesnt because it is obvious that Iran has economic Imperialist ambitions in Iraq and if the USA and Israel were not in the way i think that it is fair to say that Iran would be much more aggressive in there actions.

How is opposing an imperialist power not anti-imperialist? How many time must I say that Iran is an oppressive reactionary state, but is not imperialist? Imperialism is not the same same as oppressive. How is Iran somehow just as bad the US when the US are the ones who invaded and occupied Iraq in the first place? One cannot occupy an occupier.


What so you would support a state that said that an entire nation should be wiped off the map, questioned the existence of the Holocaust and has started forcing women to dress "modestly"?

As to the workers' rights, see the post above. As to the anti-Semitism, nobody said they weren't fucking crazy, but their hatred is somewhat understandable, if not commendable. It is simply the reaction of an oppressed class of people reacting to their oppressors with hatred, the same way Black Nationalism is a reaction against white supremacists. And finally, I agree with them when it comes to the liberation of the Palestinian people.

[Reuben]

Lenin II is essentially right. People need to understand that referring to a state or an army as anti-imperialist, is not a moral judgement on them, it is not an assertion thaat they have the correct attitude, or even that such states or armies would not pursue imperialism under different material/geopolitical trations. It simply means that under the given conditions , such forces play an anti-imperialist role. What is signfiicant for marxists is not the morality of state x but the material role it plays under existing conditions.

[spartan]

Yes but the USA advancing Capitalism and Liberal values in the middle east will do less damage to this region, then Iran advancing its unique brand of Conservative, homophobic and sexist Islam, and will, IMO, make alot more middle easterners understand the nature of there oppression and help them embrace Socialism far easier then before and create the material conditions necessary for a revolution.

Which is something that reactionary Iran will never be able to do in its current state.

Remember that the enemy of our enemy should not necessarily be our friend just because of that fact.

[Lenin II]

Yes but the USA advancing Capitalism and Liberal values in the middle east will do less damage to this region, then Iran advancing its unique brand of Conservative, homophobic and sexist Islam, and will, IMO, make alot more middle easterners understand the nature of there oppression and help them embrace Socialism far easier then before and create the material conditions necessary for a revolution.

So the American's brand of conservative, homophobic and sexist--not to mention racist--Christianity is somehow better? What the fuck are you talking about? If anything, it is much worse because it is much more powerful! Imperialism will do "less" damage than radical Islam? You sound like a Bush supporter. By that logic, the more Middle Eastern states the U.S. invades, the better!

The American imperialists "civilizing" the Middle Eastern states with Jesus, the American dollar, Wal-Mart and McDonalds while raping their lands and may appeal to you, but as for us, we will continue to fight imperialism and capitalism as the greatest evil.

[Revolution Until Victory]

Yes but the USA advancing Capitalism and Liberal values in the middle east will do less damage to this region, then Iran advancing its unique brand of Conservative, homophobic and sexist Islam, and will, IMO, make alot more middle easterners understand the nature of there oppression and help them embrace Socialism far easier then before and create the material conditions necessary for a revolution.

what??? how much more disgusting can you get??

So racist, western, imperialist, capitlaist values are better to the people of the middle east than relegious and culutral values of that region?? hmm...

not even a right-wing, racist, imperialsit woud dare say such things.


What so you would support a state that said that an entire nation should be wiped off the map

That's probably among the most wounderful things the Iranian ruling class has ever said.


questioned the existence of the Holocaust, has started forcing women to dress "modestly" and who's leadership believes in a hardline Conservative Islam that when fully implemeted (Its already starting to happen now with the forcing of women to dress modestly thing) would be both homophobic and sexist?

no one said that tactically and temprorarly supporting the anti-imperialist force against the imperilaist would make you support eveything they do.

Iran is against "Israel" (imperilasit) and the US (imperialist) = Iran is anti-imperialsit. end of story.

Our main contradiction lies with the imperialists. All other contradictions become secondary, in order for the anti-imperialist front to be strong and not devided by inner issues.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 02:34 am

Your violent gung-ho attitude worries me. Israel and Iran has a working class too. Do you really believe that such a war would bring about anything other than suffering for them?
I meant there governments and ruling classes not all the people.
Yeah, because I am sure each respective leading theocrats, government bureaucrats and national bourgeois will gladly fight each other to death.

Regardless of what your point is, the comment is ignorant of the million of lives that would be effected by the war.


Yes but the USA advancing Capitalism and Liberal values in the middle east will do less damage to this region,

That's not what the USA does.

[spartan]

So the American's brand of conservative, homophobic and sexist--not to mention racist--Christianity is somehow better?
The Americans arent forcing Christian values on Iraqis (Thats not why they are there believe it or not) like Iran forces Conservative Islamic values on women who wish to dress in skirts or short dresses.

This war in Iraq is Americas attempt at gaining Iraqs abundance of natural resources to prop up Americas economy when the shit hits the fan (Which by the looks of things recently might not be far off).

Now i am not saying that we shouldnt resist this obvious economic Imperialism on the part of America, but supporting a reactionary state such as Iran as part of our support for the anti-Imperialist forces come on!

The end doesnt justify the means.

So racist, western, imperialist, capitlaist values are better to the people of the middle east than relegious and culutre values of that region?? hmm...
Where is racism an official policy of the US forces in Iraq?

As to all the other stuff i do believe that if the US attempts to force these values on Iraqis, then the Iraqis will then properly understand the nature of their oppression (Capitalism as oppossed to the "west") far easier than something that creates order like religion does (Which is what your average Iraqi probably wants right now with all the chaos that affects there daily lives).


What so you would support a state that said that an entire nation should be wiped off the map
That's probably among the most wounderful things the Iranian ruling class has ever said.
Yeah because every Jew in Israel is a Zionist right? :rolleyes:

Believe it or not you cant just say "right this is Palestine now so all you Jews who have made a life for yourself here in the last century can fuck off" as this isnt the right thing to do (And yes i know that this is exactly what the leadership of Israel did to the Palestinians in the first place).

I would really like to here how you propose to settle this Israel-Palestine issue as sometimes you sound as if you want to stick every Israeli in a concentration camp or force them off to other countries for all the shit that has happened in the holy land.

Not every Israeli is a Zionist just like every Palestinian isnt an Islamic fundamentalist.

The only way the Israelis and Palestinians are going to solve all this shit is to get rid of all the fanatics (Zionists, Hamas, etc) and have moderates gain power so that the sides can live together in a moderate state that respects each others unique rights and has both sides sharing equal amounts of power and neither side having a military to gain any sort of upper hand.

Unfortunately this obviously isnt going to happen as the situation there is so fucked up that, although this appears to be the only way foward, i doubt that this will happen as it would need to be forced on the people (The majority of whom on both sides have extreme views which prevents any sort of lasting peace) and all sides in this conflict have allies who are unwilling to have both sides be at peace with each other (For whatever fucked up reason).

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:15 pm
Yes but the USA advancing Capitalism and Liberal values in the middle east will do less damage to this region, then Iran advancing its unique brand of Conservative, homophobic and sexist Islam, and will, IMO, make alot more middle easterners understand the nature of there oppression and help them embrace Socialism far easier then before and create the material conditions necessary for a revolution.

Which is something that reactionary Iran will never be able to do in its current state.

Remember that the enemy of our enemy should not necessarily be our friend just because of that fact.


"Do you wanna know what capitalism really means? Capitalism means to get fucked." -Al Pacino, Antonio Montana, Scarface

[Goatse]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 11:41 pm


What so you would support a state that said that an entire nation should be wiped off the map
That's probably among the most wounderful things the Iranian ruling class has ever said.
Yeah because every Jew in Israel is a Zionist right? :rolleyes:
That quote was poorly translated. He actually said that the state in Israel should be destroyed.

And don't you think that's slightly ironic coming from you, considering your initial reaction to this thread was:


One reactionary, racist and religious state wanting to attack another reactionary, racist and religious state?

I hope that they both blow each other to smithereens and finally be done with it.

Hmm?

[spartan]

And don't you think that's slightly ironic coming from you, considering your initial reaction to this thread was:
One reactionary, racist and religious state wanting to attack another reactionary, racist and religious state?

I hope that they both blow each other to smithereens and finally be done with it.
Hmm?
Nice try:

I meant there governments and ruling classes not all the people.
Try again later.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 10:15 pm
Yes but the USA advancing Capitalism and Liberal values in the middle east will do less damage to this region, then Iran advancing its unique brand of Conservative, homophobic and sexist Islam, and will, IMO, make alot more middle easterners understand the nature of there oppression and help them embrace Socialism far easier then before and create the material conditions necessary for a revolution.
This looks like a horrible mutation of the already mangled corpse of the "stagism" strawman that has some popularity on the left.

Anyway, what would you conclude from this, then? How would the question of the Middle East be solved in practice, using your argument? Should communists throw their full support behind the imperialists, because "liberal values" will "do less damage", and, better yet, pave the way to socialism?

If so, this is a line of thinking that stems from the "Catechism of a revolutionist" by the anarchist Nechayev. He wrote:


22. The Society has no aim other than the complete liberation and happiness of the narod -- i.e., of the people who live by manual labor. Convinced that their emancipation and the achievement of this happiness can only come about as a result of an all-destroying popular revolt, the Society will use all its resources and energy toward increasing and intensifying the evils and miseries of the people until at last their patience is exhausted and they are driven to a general uprising.
http://www.uoregon.edu/~kimball/Nqv.catechism.thm.htm

In other words: revolutionaries should allow capitalism to grind the masses into such terrible poverty and oppression that, pushed beyond all decency, they will revolt, and the revolution will take place.

Now, I don't have the time to find rebuttals to this theory tonight, but there should be plenty of material on it. I hope that anyone on this forum can see that this idea is not only mistaken, but also highly dangerous.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 12:34 am



And don't you think that's slightly ironic coming from you, considering your initial reaction to this thread was:
One reactionary, racist and religious state wanting to attack another reactionary, racist and religious state?

I hope that they both blow each other to smithereens and finally be done with it.
Hmm?
Nice try:

I meant there governments and ruling classes not all the people.
Try again later.
I don't care, you're still advocating war which will undoubtedly produce nothing but suffering for the working class.

[Labor Shall Rule]

To Lenin II:

I don't understand how a political structure could be a 'worker's state' while simultaneously acting as a military-police dictatorship that protects western corporations as they vicously withdraw a surplus from the torn bodies of millions of working men, women, and children. Deng Xiaoping, opened China to the capitalist market in 1979 and actively sought investment from the émigré Chinese bourgeoisie in Hong Kong and Taiwan, and just recently, Hu Jinato and Jiang Zemin have officially abolished the clause in the constitution that prohibits private businessmen from becoming party members and serving in the government. The "sweatshop of the world" is in no way a 'worker's state'.

All bourgeois nation-states are imperialist by nature. China has been seeking access to Pacific energy reserves and has been forming closer alliances with nations controlling key communications routes, such as Malaysia and Singapore. As the second-largest oil consumer, they have also sided with 'anti-imperialist' regimes that export crude oil. China is the world’s largest importer of Iranian oil, and they have acted as a political and economic guard of the country based on their own hegemonic interests.

In short, just because these countries are 'less developed', or 'paticularly dependent' to the United States, it does not discredit from the fact that their economies have developed independently within their national boundries, and that as they become an essential component of the world capitalist economy, their growth brings them into ever-greater conflict with American imperialist interests and hegemonic aims, which means the forging of new alliances and the sharpening of greater tensions between the global powers are inevitable.

[spartan]

What is more progressive?

Capitalism or religion?

Was it not Marx (Or Engels) who said that even Capitalism can be a progressive force?

What have we got today in Iraq?

The only major resistance forces are all apart of a reactionary ideology/religion that will suppress anyone who doesnt dress properly or who happens to like people of the same gender sexually or who doesnt follow the rules of a stupid book written thousands of years ago that should have no bearing in our modern times.

At least Capitalism will bring development to these under developed regions and thus oppression, and the material conditions (Which for the most part dont properly exist yet in this region) necessary for Socialism, which should lead to middle eastern workers embracing Socialism rather than reactionary religion as a liberating force.

The fact is Capitalism will be progressive as it is the only system that can create the material conditions necessary for a Socialist revolution (Not religion which is just reactionary) or so Marx said.

One half of the world being rich and Capitalist and one half of the world being primitive, under developed and, for some regions, religious will not lead to the material conditions necessary for Socialism.

It is only when the whole world is Capitalist, and the Proletariat is equal everywhere in there oppression, that Socialism will be welcomed by the Proletarians as a liberating force for everyone regardless of what race, sexuality or gender you are (Not religion which oppresses people for such stuff as race, sexuality and gender).

That doesnt mean that i support the actions of the Capitalist Imperialists in the middle east right now, but it also doesnt mean that i support the reactionary "anti-Imperialist" forces fighting them there either, as none of them are truely for the liberation of the working classes in these under developed regions.

So whats it going to be?

Progression, to the material conditions necessary for Socialism, through Capitalism and development in under developed regions?

Or going backwards by supporting religiously inspired "anti-Imperialist" groups, who want to force outdated values on people via religion, just because they are resisting the, even though it doesnt want to be, progressive force (That will lead to the material conditions necessary for Socialism) that is Capitalism?

When it comes down to it Capitalist Imperialism is actually the Capitalists stupidly shooting themselves in the foot (But not because they are being resisted) as they are developing under developed regions (Because they want that regions resources to make themselves even richer) and thus creating more Proletarians in tose regions to work for them (More exploitation of labour) who sooner or later will start to feel oppressed and will embrace the only ideology that there is for oppressed workers, that ideology being Socialism (It also balances the world more fairly as development of the under developed third wolrd will lead to it becoming equal to the first world which will then make the material conditions necessary for Socialism a reality as every Proletariat from Africa to Europe and Asia to America will be equal in there oppression in a world that is developed on every continent instead of the great gap, in wealth and development, that exists currently between the first and third worlds).

NOTE: When i say "Capitalism is progressive" i mean it in the sense of Marx when he said that Capitalism is the only thing that will lead to the material conditions necessary for Socialism (Which thus makes Capitalism progressive especially when it is developing under developed regions, still clinging on to un-progressive and backward ideas, to obtain resources).

So dont go restricting me for being a "pro-Capitalist" when this is not the case (Hell you would have to restrict Marx himself if that was the case :P ).

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:03 am
What is more progressive?

Capitalism or religion?

Was it not Marx (Or Engels) who said that even Capitalism can be a progressive force?

What have we got today in Iraq?

The only major resistance forces are all apart of a reactionary ideology/religion that will suppress anyone who doesnt dress properly or who happens to like people of the same gender sexually or who doesnt follow the rules of a stupid book written thousands of years ago that should have no bearing in our modern times.

At least Capitalism will bring development to these under developed regions and thus oppression, and the material conditions (Which for the most part dont properly exist yet in this region) necessary for Socialism, which should lead to middle eastern workers embracing Socialism rather than reactionary religion as a liberating force.

The fact is Capitalism will be progressive as it is the only system that can create the material conditions necessary for a Socialist revolution (Not religion which is just reactionary) or so Marx said.

One half of the world being rich and Capitalist and one half of the world being primitive, under developed and, for some regions, religious will not lead to the material conditions necessary for Socialism.

It is only when the whole world is Capitalist, and the Proletariat is equal everywhere in there oppression, that Socialism will be welcomed by the Proletarians as a liberating force for everyone regardless of what race, sexuality or gender you are (Not religion which oppresses people for such stuff as race, sexuality and gender).

That doesnt mean that i support the actions of the Capitalist Imperialists in the middle east right now, but it also doesnt mean that i support the reactionary "anti-Imperialist" forces fighting them there either, as none of them are truely for the liberation of the working classes in these under developed regions.

So whats it going to be?

Progression, to the material conditions necessary for Socialism, through Capitalism and development in under developed regions?

Or going backwards by supporting religiously inspired "anti-Imperialist" groups, who want to force outdated values on people via religion, just because they are resisting the, even though it doesnt want to be, progressive force (That will lead to the material conditions necessary for Socialism) that is Capitalism?

When it comes down to it Capitalist Imperialism is actually the Capitalists stupidly shooting themselves in the foot (But not because they are being resisted) as they are developing under developed regions (Because they want that regions resources to make themselves even richer) and thus creating more Proletarians in tose regions to work for them (More exploitation of labour) who sooner or later will start to feel oppressed and will embrace the only ideology that there is for oppressed workers, that ideology being Socialism (It also balances the world more fairly as development of the under developed third wolrd will lead to it becoming equal to the first world which will then make the material conditions necessary for Socialism a reality as every Proletariat from Africa to Europe and Asia to America will be equal in there oppression in a world that is developed on every continent instead of the great gap, in wealth and development, that exists currently between the first and third worlds).

NOTE: When i say "Capitalism is progressive" i mean it in the sense of Marx when he said that Capitalism is the only thing that will lead to the material conditions necessary for Socialism (Which thus makes Capitalism progressive especially when it is developing under developed regions, still clinging on to un-progressive and backward ideas, to obtain resources).

So dont go restricting me for being a "pro-Capitalist" when this is not the case (Hell you would have to restrict Marx himself if that was the case :P ).



Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered In U.S. War On Iraq 1,139,602 (http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html)

marxist_god

[Zurdito]

Spartan,

you're being anti-materialist. Countries like Iran are prone to such regimes because of their material poverty, which is caused by the actions of imperialist states. The USA is not exporting "capitalism" to the Middle East, the Middle East is already capitalist. All the imperialists do is destroy the internal markets of third world nations, i.e. prevent the industrialisation which is a cornerstone of an advanced society.

[spartan]

All the imperialists do is destroy the internal markets of third world nations, i.e. prevent the industrialisation which is a cornerstone of an advanced society.
Yes but when the Imperialists go to these regions they need to develop them further and employ the native inhabitants (Which makes them, almost overnight, an exploited working class) so that they can get all that regions resources which is why the Imperialists invaded in the first place.

Look at the third world and the huge gap in wealth, development and living standards when compared to the first world and tell me that the material conditions necessary for Socialism exist right now in the whole world.

[Zurdito]

Yes but when the Imperialists go to these regions they need to develop them further and employ the native inhabitants (Which makes them, almost overnight, an exploited working class) so that they can get all that regions resources which is why the Imperialists invaded in the first place.

That's where you're wrong. Third world countries which "liberalise" their trade bring in massive UNEMPLOYMENT and DEINDUSTRIALISATION.


Look at the third world and the huge gap in wealth, development and living standards when compared to the first world and tell me that the material conditions necessary for Socialism exist right now in the whole world.

Of course not, because third world countries are under the kosh of the developed world already. Being invaded is just an extension of this, the last resort of imperialism. Iran is underdeveloped because it's opressed by the imperialist states already. This underdevelpment then leads to opressive regimes. Saying that imperialism is the solution to problems caused by imperialism is basically saying that the cause of the problem is the solution

[spartan]

Yes but these countries oppressive regimes are standing in the way of the Capitalist Imperialists who want that under developed countries resources.

Now if the Capitalists get control of these resources they will have to develop this under developed industry and employ the cheap labour provided by the native population of the region to gain a profit.

Now the oppressive regimes that spring up, usually do so as a defence against this economic Imperialism on the part of the Capitalists, but the problem is that if the Capitalists do indeed gain control of this countries resources, then they would have to develop it and exploitation, of the labour provided by the native inhabitants employed, would follow which will lead to them sooner or later embracing Socialism as their only liberating force (Rather than reactionary religion which is what they are doing right now in the middle east).

Now if all this was done in all resources rich areas of the third world, then the third world would quickly start to develop and become closer in wealth, development and living standards to the first world, which would have the affect of making all Proletariats in the world, on all continents, equal in there oppression and will create the material conditions necessary for a Socialist revolution.

Hence the Capitalists shooting themselves in the foot with this economic Imperialism and development of under developed resource rich regions just to gain new markets and more money for themselves.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 02:17 pm
Yes but these countries oppressive regimes are standing in the way of the Capitalist Imperialists who want that under developed countries resources.

Now if the Capitalists get control of these resources they will have to develop this under developed industry and employ the cheap labour provided by the native population of the region to gain a profit.

Now the oppressive regimes that spring up, usually do so as a defence against this economic Imperialism on the part of the Capitalists, but the problem is that if the Capitalists do indeed gain control of this countries resources, then they would have to develop it and exploitation, of the labour provided by the native inhabitants employed, would follow which will lead to them sooner or later embracing Socialism as their only liberating force (Rather than reactionary religion which is what they are doing right now in the middle east).

Now if all this was done in all resources rich areas of the third world, then the third world would quickly start to develop and become closer in wealth, development and living standards to the first world, which would have the affect of making all Proletariats in the world, on all continents, equal in there oppression and will create the material conditions necessary for a Socialist revolution.

Hence the Capitalists shooting themselves in the foot with this economic Imperialism and development of under developed resource rich regions just to gain new markets and more money for themselves.
How do you "develop" the Middle East/Central Asia's resources? It's not like the oil isn't getting pumped. The imperialists just want to take control of the oil and gas by force so they can pay the third world less for its resources. How will that make the third world richer?

In fact one of the only places where what you are arguing for has actually happened is China, and it's only because of the immense power of the Chinese government and excpetionally good terms and conditions which the imperialists granted them that China was able to develop a strong industrial base, rather than just going the way of Russia and undergoing economic collapse. For example, the privatisation in China took place via the Communist Party - the new private owners of the businesses are int he CP, they are a national bourgoisie, they are Chinese, and they are tied to a national project. SO industrialisation there happened due to the strengthening of a third world borugeoisie, not due to it being overthrown by enlightened self-interest of the imperialists. No way could that industrialisation have happened if the owners had been foreign, as is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan today.

In those countries productive forces aren't being developed at all, they're just changing hands. On the one hand the exploitation of the working class is being stepped up as the country gets further opened up to the global market, on the other hand less money is actually invested in the domestic market. So how can you argue that the working class is empowered in those countries as it fights for a slice of the pie, when the pie itself gets smaller! That's absolutely insane.

You need to start thinking of workers in Iran as real human beings with day to day struggles under capitalism, rather than simply irrelevant pawns who can be brushed aside by your big historical masterplan which will all work out better in the end.

[Noah]

Iran is against "Israel" (imperilasit) and the US (imperialist) = Iran is anti-imperialsit. end of story.

Our main contradiction lies with the imperialists.

That's a very simplistic view of one country's whole foreign policy. That action in itself may seem 'anti-imperialist' but look at the wider picture...Iran has political/economic interests in Iraq, just like America have. How do we know they're not there to solely stop Americans? They harbour important Shi'ite figures and arm terrorists, they murder minorities and they fucking push political figures such as Zarqawi into the public eye. If you don't realise that that is imperialism then you need to sort your head out, Ahmadinejad and his gangbang group of Imams want us to see him as some sort of liberator - don't fall into that trap.

Fuck both governments of Israel and Iran; both are reactionary imperialist regimes. If there's a war the governments will continue their comfortable beauracratic lifestyle, it's the working classes that will be fucked.

I imagine a war will make Israel extremely unstable but that doesn't mean Iran will be the successor, it's a hard call in my opinion.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 11:27 pm
One reactionary, racist and religious state wanting to attack another reactionary, racist and religious state?

I hope that they both blow each other to smithereens and finally be done with it.
Well Iran's population is very western friendly. Iran's president doesn't have quite as much power as other world leaders do. He's mostly in charge of economics and things like that. Plus he's very unpopular there and I won't be surprised if the people go a different direction in their next election. They already did with their parliament elections. I just think Israel should have the higher ground because of their past and I find it disgusting they use the past to justify killing people who did nothing to them like with Lebanon. I say we stop doing their dirty work for them. They have the largest army in that region.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected]ecember 22, 2007 10:31 am
I would only support military action against Iran if it was to bring someone with ideas like Mossadegh's to power...Obviously, neither the Zionist nor the American regime intend to do this.
But that wouldn't be the people deciding though wouldn't it?

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by Lenin II+December 22, 2007 05:57 pm--> (Lenin II @ December 22, 2007 05:57 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 04:11 pm
Is Israel really that suicidal? Why do the one thing which would unite the Arab world (yes, I'm aware Iranians are mostly not Arabs), and piss off their only friends? Also, from what I've read, Iran could easily retaliate and cause Israel a lot of casualties. Have I been misinformed?
You underestimate the power of the human mind (especially the religious human mind) to believe what it wants to believe. If Israel truly believe that God is on their side an their messiah is coming back, they will undertake any action in order to secure their sovereignty. And with the might and money of the U.S. behind them, they are still a huge threat to Middle Eastern peace.

If it came down to it and I absolutely had to make a choice, I would support Iran over Israel. I hate to side with those disgusting religious zealots, but my first priority is anti-imperialism. Zionism is a racist and imperialist ideology that must be stamped out, ad even Iran's government supports freedom for the Palestinian people. [/b]
Doesn't Israel mean "God's warriors"? I thought I heard that from some place. Anybody know for sure?

[Hiero]

And don't you think that's slightly ironic coming from you, considering your initial reaction to this thread was:
One reactionary, racist and religious state wanting to attack another reactionary, racist and religious state?

I hope that they both blow each other to smithereens and finally be done with it.
Hmm?
Nice try:

I meant there governments and ruling classes not all the people.
Try again later.


Yeah, because I am sure each respective leading theocrats, government bureaucrats and national bourgeois will gladly fight each other to death.

Regardless of what your point is, the comment is ignorant of the million of lives that would be effected by the war.

Try again Pig

WW1 was an imperialist war, and the losers were not the bourgeois, but the workers of Europe. In any imperialist war the losers are always the workers, we should only support war where the workers defeat the international bourgeoisie.


How do you "develop" the Middle East/Central Asia's resources? It's not like the oil isn't getting pumped. The imperialists just want to take control of the oil and gas by force so they can pay the third world less for its resources. How will that make the third world richer?

This is excactly correct. Spartan is obviously reading capitalist propaganda. They promote the idea that Western intervention increases production. It does, but in such small cases as to what could be achieved under socialist construction. As you mention they only invest in what the Western market wants. So in the case of the Middle East they invest in oil production.

As socialist, this is not nearly good enough, it does not solve employement, it does not industralise the nation. It simply feeds off the high level of unemployment in the country, to this advantage the international bourgeoisie can pay the lowest wages to it's proleteriat.

Here is a short clip on under-development by Michael Parenti. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eKMspN-7Co)


Now if all this was done in all resources rich areas of the third world, then the third world would quickly start to develop and become closer in wealth, development and living standards to the first world, which would have the affect of making all Proletariats in the world, on all continents, equal in there oppression and will create the material conditions necessary for a Socialist revolution.

There are two reason why you are wrong. As stated above, with the aid of Michal Parenti the 1st world bourgeoisie causes under-developement in the 3rd world

Secondly, 1st world industrialization and living standards were created on the expliotation of 3rd world nations. The 3rd world can never develop under capitalism to level of the 1st world, they can not reach the point of imperialism that the 1st world reached at the start of the 20th century.


In fact one of the only places where what you are arguing for has actually happened is China, and it's only because of the immense power of the Chinese government and excpetionally good terms and conditions which the imperialists granted them that China was able to develop a strong industrial base, rather than just going the way of Russia and undergoing economic collapse. For example, the privatisation in China took place via the Communist Party - the new private owners of the businesses are int he CP, they are a national bourgoisie, they are Chinese, and they are tied to a national project. SO industrialisation there happened due to the strengthening of a third world borugeoisie, not due to it being overthrown by enlightened self-interest of the imperialists. No way could that industrialisation have happened if the owners had been foreign, as is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan today.

I belive this to be incorrect. I think the correct description of the bourgeoisie in China is comprador bourgeoisie. The national bourgeois in China is linked to invest from foriegn bourgeois. This is how neo-colonialism/imperialism works. It is indirect control of foriegn resources via the comprador bourgeoisie.

Anyway the improvements in China is occuring on such a small level. The majority of Chinese are mising out on these improvements. Foreign investment could never feed the need for industrialisation of China.

It's like any capitalist propaganda. They can show large numbers or produce and billions of dollars of investment. These numbers never really materialise into improvements for the proleteriat. Such is the same as China under market socialism, as the same as say for a place like India.

As to Spartans imperialist propaganda, think of all the investment over around 200 years of foriegn influence in India. Yet today there are still peasants in that country livingin semi-fuedal class standards.

[Zurdito]

I think the correct description of the bourgeoisie in China is comprador bourgeoisie. The national bourgeois in China is linked to invest from foriegn bourgeois. This is how neo-colonialism/imperialism works. It is indirect control of foriegn resources via the comprador bourgeoisie.

Anyway the improvements in China is occuring on such a small level. The majority of Chinese are mising out on these improvements. Foreign investment could never feed the need for industrialisation of China.

It's like any capitalist propaganda. They can show large numbers or produce and billions of dollars of investment. These numbers never really materialise into improvements for the proleteriat. Such is the same as China under market socialism, as the same as say for a place like India.

Don't get me wrong, I realise that capitalist development in China is uneven and brutal. However, Spartan described a process of the proletariat being built up by capitalism, and industrialisation occurrring which empowers third world nations. I believe China is a good example of this. However in contrast to what spartan says, this didn't happen because the imperialists weakened the Chinese ruling class and were able to build a "progressive" capitalism, like he wants to see in Iran. It happened because the Chinese ruling class itself was strong enough to integrate into the global market on terms which increased its power relative to the developed world and was able to reinvest profits into expanding the means of production at home: the opposite of what would happen if Iran was invaded.

Also, he ignored the fact that the west viewed China as its industrial power-house and the source of cheap goods, whereas Iran is only viewed as oil pit.