babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Liberating Afghanistan, One Girl at a Time

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Liberating Afghanistan, One Girl at a Time
Jay Williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11367

posted 22 December 2005 09:51 AM      Profile for Jay Williams        Edit/Delete Post
"While women ostensibly have more opportunities since the fall of the Taliban'they can go to school, receive health care and gain employment'the reality is that few can take advantage of these new freedoms. Most women, through fear of attack and social pressure, still wear the all-enveloping burqa, a third of the women in Kabul do not leave the house, forbidden to do so by the male members of the family, and it is still almost impossible for women to get a divorce.

One of the most egregious acts is the widespread practice of forcing girls, sometimes as young as 8, to marry. "It's all over Afghanistan," Kamrany says. "They even sell their daughters." "

Overall though, things are slightly better in Afghanistan for women now than they were 5 years ago. Probably take 100 years or so to reach where Canadian society was in 1950.


Palisades Post


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 22 December 2005 02:10 PM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Things were also a lot better for women in the 1970s.

One of the reasons why the Mujahideen (back then ultra-conservative jerks that no one liked) began their campaign against the communist Afghanistan regime, was its forced integration of schools. The Mujahideen began a campaign of terror against the government, killing teachers and destroying schools, and throwing acid on the faces of women who chose not to wear the Burqa. Eventually, the situation became so bad, that the Soviets intervened.

The rest is history. The Americans by supporting the Mujahideen, lent legitimacy to the ugliest elements of that society, elevating them to the level of national heroes. They also tacitly accepted Pakistan's rationale for propping up the Taliban. So it has always been ironic that they proclaimed themselves the the saviours of women in the region, when they did the most to make their lives miserable.

It seems like the US has always preferred conservative Islamic regimes from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, rather than nationalist secular states. They always side with them in international fora on anything from reproductive rights to the death penalty.


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Carter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8667

posted 22 December 2005 02:35 PM      Profile for Carter        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Eventually, the situation became so bad, that the Soviets intervened.
Intervention, Humanitarian intervention, Police action, Escalation... why is it so hard for people (especially apologists for American and Soviet imperialism) to call an invasion an invasion?

EDIT: I should probably clarify that I wasn't calling ceti a Soviet apologist, I was just speaking in general terms. There are a depressing number of people with a certain worldview who seem not to realize that the US invaded Vietnam, and an equally depressing number of people with a different worldview who seem not to realize that the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

[ 22 December 2005: Message edited by: Carter ]


From: Goin' Down the Road | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 22 December 2005 02:48 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ceti

I would disagree with you, the only women with rights in Afghanistan during the 1970s, were the women living and working in Kabul, and these women were from the upper class. The lower class of women in Afghanistan have always been subdued by Afghan males.

Women outside of Kabul have never really had any rights.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 22 December 2005 02:50 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Carter: word.

Contrary to what is said above - and what Fidel is just bound to come along and recite any time now - Afghanistan did not need the Soviets in 1979, thanks very much, and Afghanistan did not need the Americans either, thanks very much.

It was the Soviets and the Americans who needed to fight over Afghanistan.

To anyone who would claim that either intervention was done for "humanitarian" purposes, or that Afghan women in the urban centres needed the Soviets to liberate them, or that all the mujahideen were creatures of the CIA, or any other oversimplying crap comme ca, all I can say is barf.

And if Fidel calls the people of the mountains - you know, those people who are called Afghans because they live in Afghanistan? belong there? unlike the Soviets and Americans? - "hillbillies" one more time, I shall scream non-stop for days.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 22 December 2005 02:59 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The question is how can we improve the situation in Afghanistan? I believe the situation is improving slowly however at this pace, the women of Afghanistan will repressed for decades.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 24 December 2005 02:20 AM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well tell that to the Americans when they poured three billion dollars into supporting the Mujahideen who were nobodies before the the invasion.

My position remains the same. Many if not most of these insane fundamentalist groups were and remain creatures of the US. Most secular or nationalist governments with democratic pretensions have ran a foul of the US at some point or another.

I'm not saying the Soviets were right to enter Afghanistan (and there is clear evidence that they were provoked by the US, but also made their own mistakes) and or what they did was humanitarian in anyway (almost two million people died in the fighting). However, it is wrong to say Afghanistan is in any way equivalent to Vietnam, as Rambo and the gang would like you to believe.

But if any Westerner starts in on how backwards the Afghanis are, they I'll let them have it. There is a long and torturous history there where no one is clean. However, the West seems to have cleaned its hands of their earlier involvement in fanning the flames of the conflict. We should at least not forget this history, but I guess forgetfullness has its uses.

[ 24 December 2005: Message edited by: ceti ]

[ 24 December 2005: Message edited by: ceti ]


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 24 December 2005 02:36 AM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Strange here how Afghanistan has been absorbed into begin discussed in the middle east section, when it really is a part of Central and South Asia.
From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 24 December 2005 08:58 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
The question is how can we improve the situation in Afghanistan? I believe the situation is improving slowly however at this pace, the women of Afghanistan will repressed for decades.

Well, it is hellishly revealing of what is wrong with "us" that we think it is "we" who will be "improving" things. Over two hundred years of history should have taught us that it is "we" who are causing the worst problems.

However: Afghanistan is one of the (if not the) most heavily mined countries in the world. Our government could immediately inform the Americans that we are out of the deal to join them in warlike aggression in the south in the new year and instead pull our forces back to areas where they can begin to do some serious reconstruction work and de-mining without fighting. We would have to start small and build slowly, given that most Afghans by now regard us as either stupid or evil, but at least we would be doing something positive, and we deserve to do the penance.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 24 December 2005 03:55 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
skdadl

I agree that the western world (I would even include the parts of the eastern world) has screwed over Afghanistan for the last 1000 years and that we are part of the problem.

But if we do not correct the problem, Afghanistan will collapse into civil war again just like after the Soviets left. We started the problem and now we have to clean up our mess.

“inform the Americans that we are out of the deal to join them in warlike aggression in the south in the new year and instead pull our forces back to areas where they can begin to do some serious reconstruction work and de-mining without fighting.”

The areas were the fighting is taking place is where we need to rebuilt the most. If we do not rebuild in these areas, the fighting will never stop.

Here is a good website on the rebuilding efforts

Afghanistan Weekly Activity Update

On another note, did you hear that Ali Mohaqiq Nasab has been released from prison this weekend.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 24 December 2005 04:01 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, Webgear, I had not heard that, but I am very glad. Thank you. That is good news.

Merry Christmas, Webgear.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 24 December 2005 04:22 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Merry Christmas to you also.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 24 December 2005 04:36 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Has anyone ever thought to ask the Afghanis -- particularly the *women* -- what they want? I rather suspect the answer would be, "clear out, the bloody lot of you..."
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 24 December 2005 04:39 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
RAWA

The major heroic source of resistance to the Taliban - not that the current crop of imperialists and their puppets are paying any attention to them.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 24 December 2005 04:49 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I'd love to dump Donald Rumsfeld naked and unarmed into the middle of a group of pissed-off RAWA activists. They wouldn't have to actually *kill* him... just give him the beating of his life.

[ 24 December 2005: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 24 December 2005 05:27 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh Heph you are too kind. The things I would like to do to Rumsfield include a very large cactus and a specific orifice of his.
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
skeptikool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11389

posted 24 December 2005 11:00 PM      Profile for skeptikool        Edit/Delete Post
Stargazer,
A cactus suppository? Wow! Since we're talking shrubbery, I'd not be averse to first running a trial on a certain, G.W.Bush.

From: Delta BC | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 26 December 2005 01:24 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
It was the Soviets and the Americans who needed to fight over Afghanistan.

Oh, I think it was the American's who weren't satisfied with just populating Latin American seats of power with SOA graduates, they wanted the world, too. Skdadl, I don't subscribe to the evil empire mentality of western world cold war rhetoric. But I do believe that evil is real, yes. The U.S. aided and abetted the emergence of militant Islam
in Afghanstan, Iran and undermined socialist democracy in Iraq with former point man for the CIA and Brits, Saddam Hussein.

The Yanks were intervening beyond Vietnam that time. And it was more than just aiming nuclear missiles at Moscow from Istanbul. In fact, it was the other side of the planet, and they were undermining a women's rights movement beginning with, yes, the Soviet-backed PDPA government. The American's would pledge support for Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, CIA operative and homicidal maniac accused of arranging the first World Trade Tower bombing attempt in 1995. These are the hillbilly war lords I was referrring to in earlier posts and who advocated that Afghani children not attend Soviet schools but rather immerse themselves in CIA/Dept of Agriculture and serreptitiously by way of U. of Nebraska financed text books, which were essentially pictoral albums depicting guerilla warfare and how to ID Soviet cargo and passenger planes - spotters if you will. Terrorist training camps are still being dismantled today, only now we and the Russian's and Euros have dozens and dozens of terror cells and splinter cells to deal with world-wide, and Pakistan/Afghanistan were the incubators for militant Islam graduate schools for terrorism funded by western taxpayers and the bin Laden organization. The west backed Hitler, and we backed Osama bin Laden at one point - how diabolically evil can the implied axis of good be in one century ?. Our fascists prop'em up and then profit two-fold when the taxpayers have to declare war on their abortions - aka war-fiteering.

And I think Meena was the equivalent of Emma Goldman pleading with Lenin for freedom of speech while civil war raged in Russia. Let's just have an election and solve everything ?. How realistic was that ?. I think it was a case where they couldn't get there from where they stood then or now.

quote:
One picture taken shortly after the Taliban takeover says it all: a trembling woman covered in a head to toe veil, her face completely obscured, sobs as she speaks with a Western reporter. Who is she? An impoverished peasant? A homeless woman? No, she's the recently removed chief surgeon at the country's largest hospital!

U.S. Policy Has Betrayed Afghan Women for 20 Years

[ 26 December 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 December 2005 09:10 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fidel, I refuse to discuss the history of Afghanistan with you as long as (1) you remain in the grip of any imperialist school of propaganda; and (2) you keep referring to Afghans as hillbillies.

If you don't think that the Russians/Soviets have been for two centuries and remain horrifically destructive imperialists in Central Asia, quite separate and apart from anything the Americans have done, there's no point in talking to you until you come to your senses.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 26 December 2005 08:35 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But those twains have only ever met in battles of annihilation against the other. Let's not confuse imperialist-fascists with the largest, most direct opposition they've ever faced in the former USSR. According to western figures, 30 million dead Russian's might have wanted to object to your reference to them as imperialists, Skdadl. I think it's insulting to call them imperialists after what Russian's had suffered under centuries of brutal imperialist rule. And if we must discuss the product of several imperialist attempts to put down the revolution, ie. Uncle Joe, then let's not consider just him in an historical vacuum without considering German/western-financed aggression against the revolution parts one, two and three. Because I don't think that's being fair with the truth and real consequences of weak and corrupt leadership ie. what they've had to endure in imperialist Britain, China, Japan, Spain and the colonies throughout Latin America.

Who were the imperialists who invested in Hitler's Germany and supported the fascist invasion of Russia in 1941, Skdadl ?.

And who were the imperialists who aligned themselves with militant Islam in turning back the clock on Afghani women, and after they'd made unprecedented gains from 1978 to 1989 with the PDPA government ?.

No, we don't have much to discuss here. You may continue with the hand-wringing over what is an appalling state of abject poverty and lack of women's rights in Afghanistan. I really don't have anything more to add. I'm sorry I even mentioned the links to John Pilger and Glenn Sacks describing real gains made by women in Afghanistan under the PDPA. That's too bad. I don't think Afghani women can regain what they've lost anytime soon with this charade called liberal democracy. The professional men and women of Afghanistan who fought tooth and nail for the PDPA against the Taliban have the Northern Alliance to side with, but realistically, how far will those Islamic fundamentalists carry the torch for women's issues?. I can't help but feel badly for them. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Afghani women enjoyed unprecedented freedoms, not during imperialist rule leading up to the bloodless overthrow of King Zahir Shah - not during Taliban rule but during sweeping reforms under the Soviet-backed PDPA. I still like virtual you, Skdadl.

Merry Christmas and have a Happy New Year, I insist.

[ 26 December 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 26 December 2005 10:51 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Soviet adventurism and brutality can be excused by pointing to all the nasty things done to Russia over the centuries, and the psychological damage thus inflicted on the tender, sensitive souls in the Kremlin? Isn't that the excuse the Shrubbies use to justify their current imperial rampages, beating their breasts in anguish and appealing to the outrage of 9/11?

Sorry. No go.

Look, I don't doubt that had the Bushniks planned their conquest of Iraq better, had they not fucked things up so badly, had they been able to achieve their intented goals and set up a stable, viable US puppet regime in Baghdad -- had all those things happened, the standard of living of Iraqis would have undoubtedly improved from what it was before. Would that have justified Bush's invasion? Hardly. Any such gains would have been entirely an accidental byproduct of US policy, easily reversed had the winds of political expediency blown the other way. And the same goes for the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Had it suited Moscow's purposes, they would have ground Afghan women's rights into the dirt as savagely as anyone else: the Taliban, the Northern Alliance, whoever.

Leonid Brezhnev, feminist crusader? Puh-leeze.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 26 December 2005 11:05 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Uh... no. Show me where the US has ever implemented freely accessable education, the building of basic infrastructure and furthering of women's rights to win support of the people - the Iraq situation aside when Bush and co argued shadowy NSA figure, Robert Blackwill, to use Iraqi oil to pay for the rebuilding of what was essentially universal health care in Iraq under fomer CIA stooge turned rogue nationalist leader with a mind of his own, Saddam Hussein.

Where did anything close to that happen in Haiti, El Salvador, Chile under the Chicago School plan, Argentina and the rest of Latin America under SOA tutelage. Not to mention any of the 21 countries bombed by the MIC since Nagasaki and Hiroshima?.

Where did the Yanks offer one thin dime into Viet Nam for the cleanup of millions of gallons of agent orange that destroyed precious farmland, not to mention the massive destruction and loss of life ?. The hawks tend to lose interest in the objects of their imperialist disaffection once the gig is up with Keynesian-militarism at home with taxpayers.

That'd be a no go several times over for US imperialism.

Immediately after the Soviet pullout of Afghanistan, I seem to remember western news reports and political commentators suggesting that the PDPA government would fall within days.

But it was real live Afghani's who fought for the PDPA against the Taliban for two years after the Soviets pulled-out of Afghanistan ie. enough was enough. The men and women of the PDPA volunteer army defeated the mujihaden during the battle for Jalalabad. The Yanks were almost run over by about 300K Korean's on the border with China. I remember images of helicopters and the pullout from Saigon.

Eventually, U.S. imperialists showering the mujihaden with billions of dollars in aid and weapons took its toll as rockets rained down on Kabul with several thousand innocent people dying as a result.

Pull the American troops out of Iraq, and let's see how long the US-trained Iraqi army holds out against insurgents. They'd fold-up in a week.

[ 26 December 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 26 December 2005 11:25 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fidel

I really doubt that the women outside of Kabul and the other major cities in Afghanistan (Jalalabad, Kandahar, and Herat) have ever been free. The women of Afghanistan have never been much more than property of their fathers or husbands.

While it is true the Soviets did improve parts of Afghanistan, the same could be said of the Americans in the 1950’s. Did you know the Kandahar International Airfield was built by the US Military after World War Two?

“PDPA volunteer army defeated the mujihaden during the battle for Jalalabad” Yes that is true but they lost the war.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 27 December 2005 12:09 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fidel: I don't think either I or skdadl need to be informed of the nefarious activities of US imperialists. We merely dispute that the Soviets were any better.

Any imperial power is going to sometimes improve the lot of those brought under their "benevolent" sway, if only by accident. Not often, but it happens.

I defer to RAWA, and their opposition to the Soviet incursion was unflinching.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 27 December 2005 12:12 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
But it was real live Afghani's who fought for the PDPA against the Taliban for two years after the Soviets pulled-out of Afghanistan.
Yeah, South Vietnam also lasted two years after the U.S. pulled out, so that's not real a guideline to be too proud of.

From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 27 December 2005 12:14 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
Fidel

I really doubt that the women outside of Kabul and the other major cities in Afghanistan (Jalalabad, Kandahar, and Herat) have ever been free. The women of Afghanistan have never been much more than property of their fathers or husbands.


That's stating the obvious. Before the PDPA reforms, and probably forever and lifetime before that, 90 percent of the country was illiterate. One in three Afghani newborns died in infancy. Today, after one Taliban regime and several years of ensuing chaos, the infant mortality rate in that country stands at 165 per 1000 births - horrendous!.

quote:

While it is true the Soviets did improve parts of Afghanistan, the same could be said of the Americans in the 1950’s. Did you know the Kandahar International Airfield was built by the US Military after World War Two?

What can I say ? I'm klept ?. And since the 1950's, US-imperialists have rigged elections world-wide, bombed 21 nations since Nagasaki and Hiroshima, had generals contemplate the incineration of hundreds of millions in Asia to kill an idea, have been directly responsible for what was a holocaust in Latin America, and yes, built several more air strips around the world in Indonesia, Thailand, Phillipines etc etc.

What they have never done is invest any money whatsoever in any of those countries bombed to kingdom come or offered anything in reparations for massive loss of life and destruction. Nation-building is not an objective of Keynesian-militarism, in case no one has noticed.

quote:

“PDPA volunteer army defeated the mujihaden during the battle for Jalalabad” Yes that is true but they lost the war.

And there the women and children of Afghanistan go - those princes of Kabul, those princesses of Jalalabad. Good luck to them. What a frigging mess!

[ 27 December 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 27 December 2005 12:54 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by beluga2:
Fidel: I don't think either I or skdadl need to be informed of the nefarious activities of US imperialists. We merely dispute that the Soviets were any better.

Oh I have an idea of the company I keep, and it's faster than I probably know. But I've just dropped this into your laps - the PDPA were in the process of implementing socialized medicine, freely accessable higher education and more.

IFF the Soviets were on equal footing with U.S. imperialism, then which of the countries where the cold war was fought have US taxpayers forked-out for anything more than the cost of aerial bombing, missiles, bullets, pots and pans and K-rations for troops ?. I know that Angola exports oil to the U.S., and yet that country's most successful domestic industry is manufacturing artificial limbs for those who've lost limbs to land mines. Of 12 major wars in Africa, the CIA was involved in 11 of them. And the SOA's motto was to try and teach democracy through the barrel of a gun in Latin America. The families of the desaperacidos are still looking for their family members remains, R.I.P.

quote:

I defer to RAWA, and their opposition to the Soviet incursion was unflinching.

It was civil war. There were confederates and other anti-northern sentiment in the U.S. for some time after that revolution as well. But separate domestic interests didn't stop the revolution from occurring. The billions of dollars in U.S. didn't go to propping-up RAWA. It went to Islamic fundamentalists who are still raising cane in that country today and Islamist mercenaries from around Europe and Asia who are now splintered into hundreds of terror cells around the world - which is one more imperialist act you will not convince me the Soviets were responsible for.

quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Yeah, South Vietnam also lasted two years after the U.S. pulled out, so that's not real a guideline to be too proud of.

That was a ten thousand day war against a peasant population's will to be free and began with US military aid for the French occupation as far back as the 1940's ?. In fact, US-trained and armed Khmer Rouge were still marauding on the Vietnamese-Thai border up until a just a few years ago. Pardon who ?. The Soviets didn't intervene in that lopsided war against poor people until much later.

[ 27 December 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 27 December 2005 02:33 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
IFF the Soviets were on equal footing with U.S. imperialism,

Equal footing? In terms of scale, certainly not. The USSR was always the junior of the two imperial powers which divided the world between them. And it is true that there is a qualitative difference between the oppression suffered in the US sphere vs. that suffered in the Soviet sphere (post-Stalin, that is): the US ones were invariably worse. Eastern Europe was a dungeon, with secret police, torture, etc., but nothing like the wholesale bloodbaths and massacres perpetrated under US auspices in Indochina, Central America, Indonesia, etc.

But that's damning with pitifully faint praise, isn't it? And ironically enough, Afghanistan was the exception to that pattern; it was the one case during the Cold War where the USSR engaged in wholesale, outright slaughter of peasants, US-style. It was "their Vietnam" in more ways than one. Aghanistan was the worst bloodstain on the Russian record between Stalin and Chechnya.

quote:
which is one more imperialist act you will not convince me the Soviets were responsible for.

Solely responsible, no. Responsible, yes. The US may have indeed suckered Moscow into a quagmire in Afghanistan, but that doesn't absolve the Kremlin of its share of the blame for the catalogue of horrors unleashed upon that country by interfering foreigners.

[ 27 December 2005: Message edited by: beluga2 ]


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 27 December 2005 08:55 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Really well said, beluga. Thank you.

The title of this thread, and many of the arguments made throughout, anger me above all for their cynical use of women's rights and women's culture to justify the unreflective ethnocentrism of Western men.

Others may be worse, Fidel, but I can't get over how little you hear in your own rhetoric. You cannot admit that Afghan women ever did anything for themselves until the kindly Soviets came along and liberated them. You see no value in a culture that is not your own; you are not interested in the internal logic of how the Afghans have reacted to invasions. All that interests you is the logic of the big players, the big guys, but you, like the person who started this thread, will use women when it suits you for your political arguments.

And you are such a believer in the external trappings of modernity, Fidel. Really: when many of the male posters to this topic talk about the liberation of the women of Afghanistan, I am reminded over and over again of 1950s TV commercials for new refrigerators and kitchen gadgets. Live better electrically.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 27 December 2005 09:15 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I said nothing of the sort, Skdadl. Like Latin America, Africa, Phillipines etc where they certainly could have used outside help, Afghani's have had their own history of Marxist movements in overhauling centuries of imperialism - true imperialism. The PDPA existed before the Soviets intervened, and they had the support of Afghani men and women who could see real change happening in Afghanistan and of which could have been a new beginning for their countrymen. What they have now is not socialized medicine or universal access to higher education. The west doesn't intend for that country to pick itself off its fourth world knees like Russia and China after the revolutions. I'll state another obvious fact: What they have now in Afghanistan is utter chaos, and it's a crying shame.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104

posted 27 December 2005 08:10 PM      Profile for Vigilante        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Fidel:
true imperialism

This pretty much says it all about Fidel's intelligence. Who the hell can determine objectively what "true" imperialism is? Fuck if you want to focus on imperialism, focus on what began at the fertile cresent more then 10 000 years ago. I think the following quote is fitting of fidel.

"there a lot of dumb people in the world, and then there are people who don't, at first, seem dumb, but once you get to know them, turn out to be fucking stupid, full of shit, or fucking nuts."

George Carlin


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 27 December 2005 08:19 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Carter:
EDIT: I should probably clarify that I wasn't calling ceti a Soviet apologist, I was just speaking in general terms. There are a depressing number of people with a certain worldview who seem not to realize that the US invaded Vietnam, and an equally depressing number of people with a different worldview who seem not to realize that the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

Well so long as no one's accusing anyone of being apologists for imperialism, let's keep in mind that Ho Chi Minh wrote letters to the UN and Harry Truman asking for assistance as more than 2 million Vietnamese had starved to death by spring of 1946 as a direct result of French troops flooding rice fields. Minh's pleas went unanswered, and by 1954 the U.S. was supplying approximately 85 percent of the small arms, machine guns and ammunition for the French occupation. The quiet American's did not apologize to Ho Chi Minh for 1946, or for what was roughly an equal number, 2 million additional Vietnamese, who lost their lives to aerial bombing and land war waged on them by corporate-sponsored invaders after the US military inisisted on relieving French troops. Equally depressing, I agree.

[ 27 December 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 27 December 2005 08:47 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fidel

I am wondering what faction of the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan would you have supported more of Taraki's or Karmal's.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 27 December 2005 08:56 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vigilante:

This pretty much says it all about Fidel's intelligence. Who the hell can determine objectively what "true" imperialism is? Fuck if..


So when will you and "Morpheus" be embarking for Tierra del Fuego ?. Bring a flashlight, batteries, Kaopectate, Muskol, and bring some reading material - Heidegger, perhaps ?.

[ 27 December 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104

posted 27 December 2005 09:00 PM      Profile for Vigilante        Edit/Delete Post
Why don't you answer the question as to why US imperialism is any greater then what the founders at the fertile did to hunter-gatherers.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 27 December 2005 09:21 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
Fidel

I am wondering what faction of the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan would you have supported more of Taraki's or Karmal's.


It's hard to tell which leader might have benefited Afghani's most, afterall it was brief period - less than the Chicago Schoolers and Milton Friedman enjoyed in Chile. As divided as the warring fundamentalist factions were in the surrounding countryside, so too were the communists divided within the PDPA. I would liked to have known what Taraki, could have done if he had continued. The Soviets backed Hafizullah Amin originally but decided he was too much a Marxist-Leninist to succeed in what was largely a conservative, fundamentalist nation. The Soviets played a bad hand, but they left when they realized the futility of a bad situation taking a turn for the worse with warring factions sliding in and out of Afghanistan from Pakistan, Iran and mercenaries arriving from across EurAsia. The Russian's had no incentive to profit from civil war. They refused to do what was done to them in 1914, 1922 and one for the road in 1941.

I think yours is a question that begs the answer, you can't always get what you want. I also like to think that our leftist comrades' views, including my own, vary moreso than within centre or right-rightist circles. And that's what I like about the left and this forum in general.

Viva la revolucion!

[ 27 December 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 27 December 2005 09:52 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fidel

Do you think a civil war would happen again if the ISAF, NATO and the UN pulled out of Afghanistan?

And what warlord, political group or ethic element would win the civil war in your opinion?

Who would you like to see in power?

I think Karmal had the better plan for Afghanistan.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 27 December 2005 10:13 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
Fidel

Do you think a civil war would happen again if the ISAF, NATO and the UN pulled out of Afghanistan?

And what warlord, political group or ethic element would win the civil war in your opinion?


No idea who would "win" a civil war now. I think that Afghanistan is in danger of falling back into conservative religious control if something isn't done. I think you were one of us who advocated a larger UN peace keeping role in this situation ?. I think that is clearly what's needed.

quote:

Who would you like to see in power?

Any Afghani with the courage to lead them out of this mess, or at least toward something positive. Who would be you choice ?.

quote:

I think Karmal had the better plan for Afghanistan.[/QB]

I liked Taraki because he chose Marxism first without outside influence. He did so without attending higher educational institutions where thoughts are shaped and often become second hand. Not that there's so much wrong with second hand, but Taraki's early writings on the Nomadic people of his country and their needs were clearly socialist in nature.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104

posted 27 December 2005 10:23 PM      Profile for Vigilante        Edit/Delete Post
Yes we must give those "backward" nomadic people what they need.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 27 December 2005 10:54 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fidel

I do not think the UN could mount an effective peacekeeping force for Afghanistan considering the military and criminal threat that they would face.

I do support the UN and peacekeeping however at this time, the UN are not in the proper mindset for this level or style of peacekeeping.

Look back the earlier days of ISAF when the UN was running the peacekeeping operation in Kabul. I arrived in Kabul in August 2003 just before the UN handed the mission over to NATO, had there been a creditable UN force in Kabul, 4 German soldiers would have never died on the 4th of July in a suicide attack. The UN force there did not take the threat seriously and the paid for it with 4 dead and about 30 wounded Germans.

Like Haiti, there were nations in Afghanistan as part of the UN that have no right to insure another country is working properly.

I would hate to see a battalion of Sri Lanka or Jordan infantry running around the country side. Having seen them in action before in Bosnia, they are would be slaughter by an Afghan threat they came across, they are not very professional military forces.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 27 December 2005 11:20 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yep, and UN soldiers were ordered to stand down while the first and last democratically elected Prime Minister of the Congo, Patrice Lumumba, was hunted down like an animal and tortured to death in 1960. Afghanistan and elsewhere present lovely opportunities for the UN security council to redeem itself.

Viva la revolucion!


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 28 December 2005 02:01 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
The Russian's had no incentive to profit from civil war. They refused to do what was done to them in 1914, 1922 and one for the road in 1941.
Like any typical post from Fidel; utter foolishness. Try telling that to Poland which the Soviets tried to crush as soon as it was created following the First World War, or the Finns for that matter. I'm sure the people of Czechslovakia and Hungary would also agree that the U.S.S.R. certainly never acted as an imperialist agressor, but rather were always kind-hearted idealists and humanitarians

I don't care whether someone wants to make the case that between the U.S. and the Soviets one might have been slightly worse than the other (it's a futile effort nonetheless, though I'd pick the Soviets as being the most repugnant, by a hair), but Fidel's pathetic cheerleading of the Soviets is unconscionable.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Afghanistan has been horribly exploited by both the Soviets and the U.S. American meddling probably created (intentionally) the basis for the war, but the Soviets still took it upon themselves to invade and bring down a brutal occupation on the country. Funny, nobody accuses the U.S.S.R. and China of using the Vietnamese to drag the Americans into a quagmire that would kill millions. No, that's only something big bad Brzezinski would come up with, not those blessed saints in the Kremlin. Now it's time for there to finally be a positive presence in the country where there has never been one before - it's too much a problem of our creation (and too much a problem for us) to be any other way.

I have to however, in all honesty, hand it to webgear for approaching this with far more patience than most people could ever muster and for giving Fidel the (huge) benefit of the doubt that perhaps his drivel actually means anything.


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 28 December 2005 09:25 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, I think now it's you who is way off tangent, Andrew. And I never read your posts enought to comment on what kind of thoughts you harbor. I think you're a young person who needs to experience life a little more than just living that of a giant leech in your parents basement. I think you and Vigilante both should get out there, get some jobs and see the world a little more than your dim surroundings have permitted up to now.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 28 December 2005 11:51 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
And you are such a believer in the external trappings of modernity, Fidel. Really: when many of the male posters to this topic talk about the liberation of the women of Afghanistan, I am reminded over and over again of 1950s TV commercials for new refrigerators and kitchen gadgets. Live better electrically.

Skdadl, how long has it been since the Soviets left and the clock turned back to medieval times ?.

How long since the head surgeon of the country's largest hospital, a woman, had to step down as a result of Taliban decree ?. The bloody Taliban ruled Afghanistan more years after the Soviets pulled the pin on that country.

The bloody US imperialists have almost 900 military bases around the globe today, and you're chimimg in with those bozos above and trying to equate the Soviet with imperialism on an equal footing with these half-baked capitalists, these Keynesian-militarists, these blood-thirsty Smithian mama's boys of taxpayer handouts and death and destruction for the betterment of the few, the proud, the one's born to kill but not serve ?. ha ha

Let's be serious about this "They were equally as evil and imperialist" ?. Let's define "Evil Empire" as the religious right might have come to understand this term in the bible belt regions of faithful Republican support.

Let's begin with Prescott Bush's great grandfather's war-fiteering in the 19th century and we'll observe just how psychopathic and megalomaniacal the Bush crime family alone have been as they continue to cast shadows on humanity.


I can play hit and run too, so consider this a drive-by post and run, Skdadl. Beep-Beep

[ 29 December 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104

posted 29 December 2005 09:32 PM      Profile for Vigilante        Edit/Delete Post
As someone pointed out, just because the US is more succesfull at the big I then the Soviet Union and other red fascists countries were does not make them inherently better. The insrumentality behind both forces remained the same more or less. And do I have to even tell you that the USSR was a capitalist country as well. Though the fact that Fidel believes in that spook called evil really does explain things. You'd like a number of religious people would do well to read Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil where he explains both master and slave morality.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 29 December 2005 10:15 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vigilante:
And do I have to even tell you that the USSR was a capitalist country as well. Though the fact that Fidel believes in that spook called evil really does explain things.

The USSR was an industrialist state. The Russian's did not have Wall Street or a stock market. Private enterprise was not central to the Soviet economy anymore than it was to the American economy after the American experiment in pure Smithian laissez-faire capitalism took a grand nose dive in 1929. Industries in the USSR were, by and large, state-owned. And the real biggy, the concept of private property and heavy hand of the state required to enforce it on the population, didn't exist in the Soviet Union. Their economy was planned five years in advance.

In fact, Vigilante, the so-called capitalists responsible for propping-up the elephant party in the US today are no more capitalist than you or me. Big pharmas, big oil companies, military industrial complex etc, Dubya's "base", all depend on favourable federal patent protection laws, taxpayer handouts, tax breaks and publically-funded programs for their bread and butter and have relatively little to do with the "free market." Even the rich don't want to see a return to strict market fundamentalism because socialism for the rich is so much more appealing to the corporate welfare bums and wealthy friends of the right.

quote:
While laissez-faire economy was the product of deliberate state action, subsequent restrictions on laissez-faire started in a spontaneous way. Laissez-faire was planned - planning was not. Polanyi

From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104

posted 01 January 2006 02:40 PM      Profile for Vigilante        Edit/Delete Post
Yes Fidel it was an industrial state. Industrialism happens to be a huge prerequisit of capital. The difference between the the soviet model and the US is that one emphasizes the state. The institutionalized rationality/rationalization and the enlightenment based instrumentality remain the same. And the heavy hand of the state remains regardless.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 01 January 2006 03:48 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vigilante:
Yes Fidel it was an industrial state. Industrialism happens to be a huge prerequisit of capital.

I think that the ruble didn't represent money as the western world relied on it then. Money in Russia was used as payment for services rendered, but it wasn't so important to people that it was horded in banks and funelled to the top one percent through various machinations of rent, usury and obscene compound interest. Like China, the USSR didn't borrow billions of dollars from the IMF and World Bank to finance its economy. Like China before just recently, the ruble was not a way for super-wealthy currency speculators to undermine their economy because it wasn't convertable. Western corporations inside Russia were, at one point I think, trading rubles for Russian vodka and re-selling on the world market in order to extract profits from Russia.

quote:
The difference between the the soviet model and the US is that one emphasizes the state

This is juicy, but I don't have time young man. You're a deep well of interesting thought. Happy new year, Vigilante.

Peace out!


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104

posted 01 January 2006 04:58 PM      Profile for Vigilante        Edit/Delete Post
Your point on russia being sqeezed by the imf means nothing. What it shows is competing capitalist interests globally. The market variety happened to win out over state brand. Good ridence to one of them I say.

As far as your laughing of the state thing, most marxists nowadays tend to be libertarian nowadays. I sometimes wonder whether you have actually read marx and not too much lenin and the vanguards. Marx actully did significantly critique the state and wanted it gone in the end. He made the fatal mistake of assuming that the state is at the control the class that controls it. The anarchists gave the state the autonomous identity it deserved alongside capital. Thus a macro revelution is one that should simultaniously shoot both beasts in the head. And thus kill of civilization once and for all.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 01 January 2006 05:30 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vigilante:
Your point on russia being sqeezed by the imf means nothing. What it shows is competing capitalist interests globally. The market variety happened to win out over state brand. Good ridence to one of them I say.

The Russian's bartered for goods with Cuba, Spain, China etc and the republics leading up to the dissolution of the USSR. Our weak and ineffective leadership in Canada bowed to USian pressure not to trade our wheat for Russian gold. And then they turned around and sold wheat to the Soviets anyway. Go figure.

Barter is very old, Vigilante, pre-capitalism. In fact, Barter is making a comeback in Russia. IOW's, barter is not capitalism last time I checked.

quote:

As far as your laughing of the state thing, most marxists nowadays tend to be libertarian nowadays. I sometimes wonder whether you have actually read marx and not too much lenin and the vanguards. Marx actully did significantly critique the state and wanted it gone in the end.

Marx wrote the manifesto in a different time, Vigilante. He put his thoughts to paper as six million Irish starved to bloody death while pork and corn left Ireland from 13 sea ports and destined for "the market." This is part of what Marx saw as a failure of the market system. In fact, 85 percent of chronically hungry third world capitalist nations export food to "the market" today, and anywhere from six million to thirteen million children die of malnutrition and preventable diseases annually. It's planned and enforced genocide each and every year!. Capitalism is a monumental failure still. How could they go from being threatened by fascists on all sides to meek and mild Marxism ?. The west wouldn't allow that to happen, Vigilante. Enter Hitler. Hitler was the admittal by western capitalists who funded the rise of Nazi Germany that capitalism as an economic system had failed on all levels.

Capitalism requires extensive state interventionism as a maxim to its own survival.
True Smithian, laissez-faire capitalism died around the western world after 1929, Vigilante. Corporatism based on upside-down socialism is its newest, most abominable form yet. But this is not the capitalism that Marx wrote about. Noam Chomsky describes what a farce capitalism and "free markets" have become. Capitalism is just a word now, Vigilante. The invisible hand was really top-hatted, well-heeled capitalists and industrialists influence pedaling their corruption of the market to crooked state power brokers. There were no comparative billionaires to do this in the Soviet Union. There were crooked dealings and political favoritism in the former USSR, yes. Caviar and cottages on the Crimea were there perks. But Soviet wealth was not concentrated at the top to nearly the same degree that paper money and assets are funelled to the two or three percent of tax dodging, enormously wealthy oligarchs in the west today. They've learned from the revolutions not admit their wealth or even their existence. At least some of the super-wealthy in France have made attempts to explain their obscene wealth - that the poor benefit by it in some indirect, obscure way. Not so in the far west.

Czar Nicholas, with his umpteen summer and winter palaces and living a life of unprecedented opulence while Russian conscripts marched without winter boots and fought Nicky's cousins' army of darkness, would have been envious of todays uber-wealthy, for sure. Life meant nothing to the imperialists then or now as we observe this unhinged mess in Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti and so on.

It's not about capitalism anymore. It's about even heavier-handed state interventionism propping-up comparative wealth while repressing whole nations of people and their basic human rights - corporate fascism. Imperialism gave way to feudalism to colonialism to what we have now - predatory capitalism/corporatism. The next logical phase of human development has to be socialism - socialism or barbarism.

[ 01 January 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104

posted 03 January 2006 01:37 AM      Profile for Vigilante        Edit/Delete Post
sigh, as I reply to Fidel, Einstein's definition of insanity pops into my head.

quote:
Fidel:
The Russian's bartered for goods with Cuba, Spain, China etc and the republics leading up to the dissolution of the USSR. Our weak and ineffective leadership in Canada bowed to USian pressure not to trade our wheat for Russian gold. And then they turned around and sold wheat to the Soviets anyway. Go figure.

Barter is very old, Vigilante, pre-capitalism. In fact, Barter is making a comeback in Russia. IOW's, barter is not capitalism last time I checked.


Awww, they bartered, I supose any collapsing state in will do this type of thing in its last choking days. However how does this challenge the fact that the USSR was a state capitalist country.

quote:
Marx wrote the manifesto in a different time, Vigilante. He put his thoughts to paper as six million Irish starved to bloody death while pork and corn left Ireland from 13 sea ports and destined for "the market." This is part of what Marx saw as a failure of the market system. In fact, 85 percent of chronically hungry third world capitalist nations export food to "the market" today, and anywhere from six million to thirteen million children die of malnutrition and preventable diseases annually. It's planned and enforced genocide each and every year!. Capitalism is a monumental failure still. How could they go from being threatened by fascists on all sides to meek and mild Marxism ?. The west wouldn't allow that to happen, Vigilante. Enter Hitler. Hitler was the admittal by western capitalists who funded the rise of Nazi Germany that capitalism as an economic system had failed on all levels.

How does this legitimize the state in anyway. No matter how bad the compition is, you do not separate your means and ends. Besides creating a state to take on a state,besides being mutually enslaving, is not even on the rictor scale when it comes to succesfull tactics. To beat the big body one must make like small sporadic germs. Such is the way of cell nomadic based warfare, which has evolved to be the way to wear down an industrial army as the Ukrain, Vietnam, and Iraq are showing. As busness 2.0 told US capitalists, "no military on earth can toe-to-toe with the US armed forces, but no heirarchy on earth can keep up with a well-functioning network". That fused with anti-authoritarian principles is what it will take to get to any true post-civilized communal existance as the means and ends remain 69.

quote:
Capitalism requires extensive state interventionism as a maxim to its own survival.
True Smithian, laissez-faire capitalism died around the western world after 1929, Vigilante. Corporatism based on upside-down socialism is its newest, most abominable form yet. But this is not the capitalism that Marx wrote about. Noam Chomsky describes what a farce capitalism and "free markets" have become. Capitalism is just a word now, Vigilante. The invisible hand was really top-hatted, well-heeled capitalists and industrialists influence pedaling their corruption of the market to crooked state power brokers.

What are you telling me that I don't know already? It's interesting you mention Chomsky, you would do well to read what he also said about the USSR. Particularly Lenin lying through his teeth with unbecoming libertarian retoric which the mainly pro-subsistance peasants wanted to hear.

quote:
There were no comparative billionaires to do this in the Soviet Union. There were crooked dealings and political favoritism in the former USSR, yes. Caviar and cottages on the Crimea were there perks. But Soviet wealth was not concentrated at the top to nearly the same degree that paper money and assets are funelled to the two or three percent of tax dodging, enormously wealthy oligarchs in the west today. They've learned from the revolutions not admit their wealth or even their existence. At least some of the super-wealthy in France have made attempts to explain their obscene wealth - that the poor benefit by it in some indirect, obscure way. Not so in the far west.

Ah yes, I suppose the russian oligarchs post 89 were pulled out of Yeltsin's ass. Their sudden wealth was just spontanious. Nothing to do with noing the right state official(equivelent to knowing the right market official) Same class based capitalist shit different words.

quote:
It's not about capitalism anymore. It's about even heavier-handed state interventionism propping-up comparative wealth while repressing whole nations of people and their basic human rights - corporate fascism. Imperialism gave way to feudalism to colonialism to what we have now - predatory capitalism/corporatism. The next logical phase of human development has to be socialism - socialism or barbarism.

The history of this cold cruel 11 000 world is certainly not a linear one. What creates these developements is environmental conditions as well as good old fasion human existential power. Besides why is the neolithic revolution "progress"? The whole idea of that falty positivist,capitalist ideological construct is predicated on that question. Any non-positivist anthropoligist(Jared Diamond for instance) will show you that the idea is bullshite.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 03 January 2006 03:05 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Have you been drinking again ?.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 03 January 2006 11:19 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vigilante:
sigh, as I reply to Fidel, Einstein's definition of insanity pops into my head.

But Einstein was a socialist.

quote:

Awww, they bartered, I supose any collapsing state in will do this type of thing in its last choking days. However how does this challenge the fact that the USSR was a state capitalist country.

What I meant to point out was that it was the US themselves who traded wheat for Russian gold while Canadian grain stayed home. The Russian's were willing to barter gold and oil for a wide range of commodities, but cold war embargo policies of the west ran hot and cold. For example, Russian's couldn't get chocolate and oranges as global monopolies on cocoa and citrus at the time, Sunkist, Nestles and Cadbury's, refused to trade with the USSR. The Soviet's did lack modern food distrubution technology, but it wasn't for a lack of trying to obtain these items. Meanwhile, western propaganda had Russian's and Eastern Bloc nations believing that everyone in the west was rich and lived very well. But the Soviets used a barter system to trade goods with other communist nations, Vigilante. Chavez and Castro are doing this today, and the pseudo-capitalists couldn't be more disapproving.


quote:

How does this legitimize the state in anyway. No matter how bad the compition is, you do not separate your means and ends. Besides creating a state to take on a state,besides being mutually enslaving, is not even on the rictor scale when it comes to succesfull tactics.

The Soviets were never in competition with the US militarily. At the height of the cold war, the Soviets still dedicated far less of their annual output to military. The Yanks, and being the believers in Keynesian-militarism(socialism for the rich) that they continue to be, follow a British empire rule of thumb that says they must spend more than twice on military that their two closest rivals do. The Soviets simply built a few more nukes. Notice that no country with both nukes and oil ever gets carpet bombed and women and children beckoned to banquets of death and destruction in the middle of the night.

According to Gore Vidal, the US war hawks were stabbed in the back by the Soviets when they ceded the cold war. The chickenhawks are having to create new enemies in order to profit from American taxpayer's fears.

But this is all immaterial to you, Vigilante. You're not interested in real events of recent history - how we got from where we were to this point. So as one superpower dropped out of what was really just a race to enrich a small percentage of American elitists, we have the disintegration of the American military industrial complex to look forward to. When they run out of oil to lubricate the fascist machinery, then will the world revolutions come full circle. The evil empire knows their time is relatively short on this earth without "the guzzoline."

And then you anarchists will be able to leave your lairs in the forests and mountains and live with the rest of civilized society based on people's needs and not this middle class illusion to prop-up a lie.

[ 03 January 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104

posted 03 January 2006 04:29 PM      Profile for Vigilante        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Fidel:
But Einstein was a socialist.

Yes he was, and he also believed in god and progress respectively. It really went against the radical subjective nature of his relativity theory but I digress.

And I could care less about the bartering point. The fact is if Russia and all the euro east had gone for communal subsistance(as most peasents wanted) these problems would not exist.

And the existance of the US/World military/industrial/scientific complex is no excuse to create a rival social relationship of enslavement. The USSR did far more harm to people by stalins starvations, and such things as chernobyl then the US ever could. Those things are indeed material to my mind.

quote:
When they run out of oil to lubricate the fascist machinery, then will the world revolutions come full circle. The evil empire knows their time is relatively short on this earth without "the guzzoline."

Well it depends on the form these revolutions take. So long as they are not based on good and evil and instrumentality and are geared towards as much decentering as possible we should be fine.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 03 January 2006 04:41 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vigilante:

Yes he was, and he also believed in god and progress respectively.



quote:
The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery‹ even if mixed with fear‹ that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds‹ it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity; in this sense, and this alone, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind we experience in ourselves. Neither can I, nor would I want to, conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or from sheer egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.

-- Albert Einstein, The World As I See It (1931) pp. 8-11, from Ideas and Opinions , Crown Trade Paperbacks, New York, 1982


(emphasis mine)

From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 03 January 2006 05:12 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The emphasis is yours and the pleasure mine, Heph. Thank you.

quote:
Originally posted by Vigilante: And the existance of the US/World military/industrial/scientific complex is no excuse to create a rival social relationship of enslavement.

That's bass ackwards. Everyone knows that without DARPA, or about a hundred publically-funded scientists and engineers who were responsible for developing a wide range of USian computer tech, lasers, satellites(after sputnik and then Yuri, of course), important metallurgical and medical advances, fiber optics and more which were handed-off to "private enterprise" and the military industrial complex to profit from, then there could be no industrial complex to thrive as a result. Like Hitler did, the New Deal Democrats replaced what would be the last of a string of failed conservative governments that believed in an "invisible hand." Faith in invisible things comes easy to conservatives for some reason. The Dems borrowed heavily and spent "liberally" on make work programs, publicly-funded R&D and Keynesian-militarism as the driver for their propserous post-war economy thru the 50's, 60's and early 70's. But true capitalism has been dead a long time, V. Soviet communism lasted longer. The "capitalists" have made a few motions and sounds as if they're speaking of capitalism, but it's as if the senators in Rome are paying lip service to the gods of prosperity all over again. They only really believe in wage slavery and living a parasitic existence off the backs of over a hundred million workers down there.

quote:

Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves.
- Albert Einstein [/qb]

Einstein really was a genus. Everything is relative. So glad you admire the famous socialist, Vigilante. Go get yourself some "afternoon delight" kid. Don't blow a gasket in the mean time.

[ 03 January 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 04 January 2006 01:26 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Need I point out that communism lasted under the gun for a long time... The folks holding the guns were communists themselves.

Socialism is a thing of beauty. Communism, as it turned out was a thing of pure evil.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 04 January 2006 02:50 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This pretty much says it all about Fidel's intelligence. Who the hell can determine objectively what "true" imperialism is? Fuck if you want to focus on imperialism, focus on what began at the fertile cresent more then 10 000 years ago. I think the following quote is fitting of fidel.

At this point, one obsessed individual meets another. Clash of the hobby-horses!

From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 04 January 2006 03:12 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm sorry Mandos, but you've not posted anything of relevance to the thread topic. I'll have to scroll past you now.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 04 January 2006 03:21 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You can scroll past this one, too, Fidel, as it's pure thread drift:

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
- Albert Einstein: The Human Side (1954, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman)

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest, I am, of course, and always have been, an atheist. . . .We have to admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of this world -- as far as we can grasp it. And that is all."
- Albert Einstein, in a letter he wrote in 1945.

[ 04 January 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104

posted 05 January 2006 06:04 PM      Profile for Vigilante        Edit/Delete Post
I shall apologise to albert for misrepresentation. That being said, he did have reified views of the world which included progress and well as the "universal theory". He never thought of the potentially intersubjective implications of his theory.

Phenomenologists and pomos such as Merlo Ponte and Steve Gould really took Einstein to a philisophical level. When one pushes the big E to his limits, one cocieves of a world of many words and ever becoming subjects.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 05 January 2006 10:34 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have no idea what you just said.

Funny how Einstein is so much easier to understand than you are.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 January 2006 11:45 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's wide, man. Wide.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104

posted 08 January 2006 12:41 PM      Profile for Vigilante        Edit/Delete Post
I wouldn't expect positivist addicts such as yourselves to understand alot of things.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mush
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3934

posted 08 January 2006 01:12 PM      Profile for Mush     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All I want to say is
it's "Merleau-Ponty"

Edited to add, and I consider myself a scientist.

[ 08 January 2006: Message editied by: Mush ]

[ 08 January 2006: Message edited by: Mush ]


From: Mrs. Fabro's Tiny Town | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104

posted 08 January 2006 03:37 PM      Profile for Vigilante        Edit/Delete Post
My bad
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 13 January 2006 02:13 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vigilante:
I wouldn't expect positivist addicts such as yourselves to understand alot of things.

Quote some more Einstein for us. Maybe it will rub off on you.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca