 |
| |
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:18
|
|
quote:
I wonīt limit myself to just those questions though.
|
I am not surprised . .... 
this is just a number of things that are core issues. There are other core issues, after all we want this to be the way things are done for the whole human race. If so,
well, we would be hurting the animals in that place , but not hurting the planet itself , i.e. not destroying the soil , polluting the water or the air. We would alter conditions . yes. We hurt animals , yes. but we don't destroy the planet.
for example , I really don't know how important are the wildlife of the Sarangetti to the ecosystem. Why don't we let cows graze them instead , and be eaten by us , not lions  ...
on the other hand , I want to preserve lions, not " eqality for all species " , like that stupid slogan said , but for our children to enjoy them.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Oh, I don't really think they have anything to offer us, other than an understanding of our own history and the development of our ideas.
But I'd honestly like to Comrade Miller try and argue otherwise. Rigorous intellectual debate is good for us, and at the very worst, it will be educational (as long as every stays nice). |
Hmm
I would gladly do so
but my expereince with the pioneers of communism was 4-5 years ago (I was actually studying utopias and philosphers (ok the philophers started out being for a class) and came to the conclusion that Communism was the most effeient and humain way to go)
since than I have been focused on other things
while it would not take long for me to recover my old treatises (which had the locations of the gained insight), it will take more time than the allotment I will spend this semester (since this is the last semester to spend with my college freinds, I spend a fair portion of my time with them)
so I will recover them and present the ideas gained from them this summer (and maybe a bit until then depending on when I don't feel like working)
also since many of my ideas are a synthesis of my readings over the years (from my first readings in religion and philosophy in third grade), and so it is difficult to determine sometimes what the ideas were influenced by
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalgetti
Let's say what we stand for.
for me it is:
-a Planned economical system in all aspects of economical life.
-an system that brings all people to similar working and living conditions.
-Equality between all people.
-Free education with acceptance to every faculty/department to fill up that workforce needed for future plans of development.
-Free Healthcare
-In the field of personal consumers , A number of products that would serve the same purpose , to let the consumer choose what they want to , and thus enjoy material freedom.
-Incentives in bonuses in payment for workers that work harder.
-Science promoted, Science honoured , Science tested. Because scholars are people too.
-Enviroment for the future of our children. If the enviroment goes against the interests of the Human race , ( and yes it could be , like those dams ) , I think the choice is clear.
-Everyone can have his own little private property. A book , Table, Chair , Car, and maybe even a small boat, when one gets older , and retires.
-Media owned by the government , run by itself. ( as the courts )
-Court system , a different branch of the government .
yes I think Jon is right here (again!  ) Marx was correct on many points , but taking ideas from everywhere is the way.
neo-communism! 
 |
yes
neo-communism
but still communism
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
Basically Chi
the central truth from the early communists' remains the same
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Zoidberg
|
 |
Communist Party of Apolyton
Jan 2002
time: 06:18
|
|
I thought this could get the discussion rolling. Sorry for the cut īn paste 
Despite the fact that isīs written 54 years ago, itīs still accurate on most counts.
--------
Fourth International, May 1948
The Trotskyist Position in Palestine
Against the Stream
The following editorial is translated from the Kol Ham'amad (Voice of the Class), Hebrew organ of the Revolutionary Communist League of Palestine, Section of the Fourth International. It exposes the reactionary role of the United Nations' partition plan, which stifles the rising tide of class struggle in Palestine, blurs class lines and creates an atmosphere of antagonistic "national unity" in both of the national communities in Palestine. As we can see from the editorial, the CP of Palestine has not escaped the nationalist hysteria in both camps, and has split into two national parties.
Only the Palestinian Trotskyists have maintained the Socialist position by calling upon Jewish and Arab workers to break away from the class enemies within their ranks and conduct their independent struggle against imperialism. Despite the present high tide of chauvinism accompanying the new "Hebrew" state set up by Hagana arms on one side, and the invasion of the Arab "Liberation" army on the other, the internationalist working class program put forward by the Trotskyists will alone provide the means of solving the Palestine problem.
Politicians and diplomats are still trying to find a formula for the disastrous situation into which Palestine has been plunged by the UNO deciding upon partition. Is this a "breach of international peace" or are we dealing with merely "hostile acts"? As far as we are concerned there is no point in this distinction. We are daily witnessing the killing or maiming of men and women, old and young, Jew or Arab. As always, the working masses and the poor suffer most.
Not so very long ago the Arab and Jewish workers were united in strikes against a foreign oppressor. This common struggle has been put to an end. Today the workers are being incited to kill each other. The inciters have succeeded.
"The British want to frustrate partition by means of Arab terrorism," explain the Zionists. As if this communal strife were not the very instrument by which partition is brought about! It was easy for the imperialists to foresee that and well may they be satisfied with the course of events.
WHAT AXE HAVE BEVIN-CHURCHILL TO GRIND?
Britain was a loser in the last world war. She has lost the bulk of her foreign assets. Her industry is lagging behind. Building up her productive apparatus requires dollars and manpower.
"Keeping order" in Palestine costs England over 35 million Pounds a year, an amount which exceeds the profit she can extort from this country. Partition will release her from her financial obligations, enable her to employ her soldiers in the productive process while her source of income will remain intact. - But this is not all. By partition a wedge is driven between the Arab and Jewish worker. The Zionist state with its provocative lines of demarcation will bring about the blossoming forth of irredentist (revenge) movements on either side, there will be fighting for an "Arab Palestine" and for a Jewish state within the historic frontiers of Eretz Israel (Israel's Land)." As a result the chauvinistic atmosphere created thus will poison the Arab world in the Middle East and throttle the anti-imperialist fight of the masses, while Zionists and Arab feudalists will vie for imperialist favors.
The price Britain has to pay for the advantages gained by partition is to renounce her ruling monopoly in this country. On the other hand, Wall Street has to come out into the open and contribute its share toward the foul business of safeguarding imperialist positions. This, of course, blackens the "democratic" reputation of the dollar state while at the same time it addes to the prestige of Great Britain. Partition, therefore, is a compromise between the imperialist robbers arising from a changed power constellation.
THE FUNCTION OF THE UNO
If the Anglo-American imperialists had forced this "solution" on Palestine of their own, the rotten game would have been patent in the whole Arab East. However, they dodged - the problem was passed on to the UNO. The function of the UNO was to sweeten the bitter dish cooked in the imperialist cuisine, dressing it, in Bevin's words, with the twaddle of the "conscience of the world that has passed judgement." Exactly. And the diplomats of the lesser countries danced to the tune of the dollar flute, reiterating the "public opinion of the world." And the peculiar casts in this performance enables Great Britain to appear as the Guardian Angel overflowing with sympathy for either side.
And the Soviet Union? Why did not her representative call the UNO game the swindle it really is? - Apparently the present foreign policy of the SU is not concerned with the fighting of the colonial masses. And as the Palestine question is a second-rate affair for the "Big," the Soviet diplomats saw fit to dwell upon what Stalin had said about the "the Soviet Union being ready to meet America and Britain halfway, economic and social differences notwithstanding.
This is how the UNO has "solved" the Palestinian problem. Yet it is the same unsavory dish that has been set for India, Greece and Indo-China.
WHAT DO JEWS STAND TO GAIN BY PARTITION?
The Zionists were overcome with a sense of triumph when offered the bone by the UNO cooks. "Our work, our righteous cause have won... before the forum of the nations."
The Zionists have been in the habit of asking "justice" from the enemies of the Jewish people ever since Herzl: from the Tsar, the German Kaiser, the British Imperialists, Wall Street. Now they saw their chance. Wall Street is distributing loans and "political independence". Of course, not for nothing. The price has to be paid in blood.
The Jewish state, this gift of Truman's and Bevin's, give the capitalist economy of the Zionists a respite. This economy rests on very flimsy foundations. Its products cannot compete on the world market. Its only hope is the inner market from which the Arab goods are debarred. Thus the problem of Jewish immigration has come to be a problem of live or die. The continuous flow of immigrants who would come with the remnants of their possessions is apt to increase the circulation of goods, will allow the bourgeois producers to dispose of their expensive wares. Mass immigration would also be very useful as a means to force down wages which "weigh so heavily" on the Jewish industry. A state engaged in inevitable military conflicts would mean orders from the "Hebrew Army," a source of "Hebrew" profits not to be underrated at all. A state would mean thousands of snug berths for Zionist veteran functionaries.
WHO IS GOING TO FOOT THE BILL?
The workers and the poor. They will have to pay the stiff prices following the ban on Arab goods. They will break down under the yoke of numberless taxes, direct and indirect. They will have to cover the deficit of the Jewish state. They are living in the open, having no roof over their heads, while their institutions have "more important business" to attend to.
The Jewish worker having been separated from his Arab colleague and prevented from fighting a common class struggle will be at the mercy of his class enemies, imperialism and the Zionist bourgeoisie. It will be easy to arouse him against his proletarian ally, the Arab worker, "who is depriving him of jobs and depressing the level of wages" (a method that has not failed in the past!). Not in vain has Weitzmann said that "the Jewish state will stem Communist influence." As a compensation the Jewish worker is bestowed with the privilege of dying a hero's death on the altar of the Hebrew state.
And what promises does the Jewish state hold out? Does it really mean a step forward toward the solution of the Jewish problem?
The partition was not meant to solve Jewish misery nor is it likely to do so. This dwarf of a state which is too small to absorb the Jewish masses cannot even solve the problems of its citizens. The Hebrew state can only infest the Arab East with anti-Semitism and may well turn out - as Trotsky said - a bloody trap for hundreds of thousands of Jews.
PARTITION IS GRIST IN THE MILL OF THE ARAB REACTIONARIES
The leaders of the Arab League reacted to the decision on partition with speeches full of threats and enthusiasm. As a matter of fact, a Zionist state is to them a godsend from Allah. Calling up the worker and fellah for the "holy war to save Palestine" is supposed to stifle their cries for bread, land and freedom. Another time-honored method of diverting an embittered people against the Jewish and communist danger.
In Palestine the feudal rule has of late begun to lose ground. During the war the Arab working class has grown in numbers and political consciousness. Jewish and Arab workers stood up against the foreign oppressor, against whom they together went on strikes. A strong leftist trade union had come into existence; and the "Workers Asssociation of the Arabs of Palestine" had been well on the way of freeing itself from the influence of the Husseinis. The murder of its leader, Sami Taha, committed by hirelings of the Arab High Committee could not restrain this development. But where the Husseinis failed, the decision of the imperialist agency, the UNO succeeded. The partition decision stifled the class struggle of the Palestine workers. The prospect of being at the hands of the Zionist "conquerors of soil and labor" is arousing fear and anxiety among the Arab workers and fellahs. nationalist war slogans fall on fertile soil. And feudal murderers see their chance. Thus the policy of partition enables the feudalists to turn back the wheels of history.
A FIRST SUMMARY
The early crop of partition policy: Jews and Arabs are drowned in a sea of chauvinist enthusiasm. Triumph on the one hand, rage and exasperation on the other. Communists are being murdered. Pogroms among Jews instigated. A *** for tat of murder and provocation. The "strafing expeditions" of the Haganah are oil for the propaganda machine of the Arab patriots in their campaign to enlist the masses for more bloodshed. The military conflict and the smashing to pieces of the workers' movements are a boon to the chauvinist extremists in either camp.
WHAT ABOUT THE JEWISH "COMMUNISTS"?
The patriotic wave makes sitting on the fence very uncomfortable. The Zionist "Socialist" parties soon "corrected" their anti-imperialist phrases and stubborn "resistance" against "cutting up the country to pieces" and gave way to full and enthusiastic support of the imperialist partition policy. That was a trifling matter, a question of merely changing Zionist tactics.
Yet the Communist Party of Palestine might have been expected to take up a different position. Have they no repeatedly warned against the fatal results bound to come with the establishment of a Jewish state? "Partition must needs be disastrous for Jew and Arab alike ... partition is an imperialist scheme intended to give British rule a new lease on life..." (evidence given by the PCP before the Anglo-American Commission of Enquiry on Mar. 25, 1946). The secretary of the party loyally stuck to this attitude as late as July 1947 when he said before the UNO commission: "We refuse the partition scheme pointblank, as this scheme is detrimental to the interests of the two peoples." However, after this scheme had been pulled off with the support of the Soviet representatives, Kol Ha'Am (the Stalinist central organ) hastened to declare that "democracy and justice have won the day (!)." And overnight there appeaed a newly baptized party: the name of Communist Party of Palestine was changed to Communist Party of Eretz Israel (Communist Party of the Hebrew Land). Thus even the last vestige of contact with the Arab population was broken off. The gap that still separated them from Zionism was finally bridged. Instead of being the vanguard of the anti- imperialist struggle of the Arab and Jewish masses, the Palestine Communist Party became the "Communist" tail of the "left" Zionists. Precisely in an hour when Zionism shows to everyone its counter-revolutionary face, its blatant servility to imperialism. Thus the Communist Party itself held up all its former exposure of imperialist and Zionist deceoptions to ridicule.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Zoidberg
|
|
Communist Party of Apolyton
Jan 2002
time: 06:18
|
|
WHY HAVE THEY GONE BANKRUPT?
The policy of the Palestine Communist Party lacks a continuous line. The policy of the P.C.P. reflects both the needs deriving from the class war of the Jewish worker in Palestine and the needs of Soviet foreign policy. The needs of class war, however, require a consistent international policy, the negation of Zionism, of its discrimination beween Arab and Jew. On the other hand, the need to adjust the party line to the diplomatic maneuvers of the S.U. calls for an "elastic" policy, one that lacks backbone. As a result we find the notorious shilly-shallying and zigzagging, which has harnessed the PCP now to the Zionist wagon. The fifth wheel!
AND THE ARAB "COMMUNISTS"?
The Arab Stalinists, the "National Liberation League," did not fare better than their Jewish counterparts. They were in a pretty fix having to justify the Russian support of the Jewish state. The Arab workers could not be expected to accept this line. Not by a long shot. They knew the meddling of Soviet diplomacy for what it was: breaking up the Palestine workers' unity and a treacherous blow. After the pro-partition declaration of Zarapkin, the National Liberation League people found themselves surrounded by scorn and hostility.
The policy of the Soviet Union has undermined the position of the League among the Arab toilers. Thus it opened a door to the reactionary, chauvinist campaign against the "red danger". At present, the National Liberation League stands for peace and it is busy exposing the provocative role played by the British government. But since it had cried out for "national unity" (with the feudal Husseinis, the present war instigators during the past years), its present atitude fails to convince. But the National Liberation League did convince the Arab workers that the driving force behind its policy is not the interest of the Palestine proletariat, but that of the Kremlin.
A WAR OF DEFENSE?
The two camps today mobilize the masses under the mask of "self-defense." "We have been attacked, let us defend ourselves!"- say the the Zionists. "Let us ward off the danger of a Jewish conquest!" - declares the Arab Higher Committee. Where does the truth lie?
War is the continuation of politics by other means. The war led by the Arab feudalists is but the continuation of their reactionary war on the worker and the fellah who are striving to shake off oppression and exploitation. For the feudal effendis "Salvation of Palestine" means safeguarding their revenues at the expense of the fellahin, maintaining their autocratic rule in town and country, smashing the proletarian organizations and international class solidarity.
The war waged by the Zionists is the continuation of their expansionist policy based on discrimination between the two peoples: they defend kibbush avoda (ousting of Arab labor), kibbush adama (ousting of the fellah), boycott of Arab goods, "Hebrew rule." The military conflict is a direct result of the Zionist conquerors.
This war on neither side be said to bear a progressive character. The war does not release progressive forces or do away with social and economic obstacles in the path of the development of the two nations. Quite the opposite is true. It is apt to obscure the class antagonism and to open the gate for nationalist excesses. It weakens the proletariat and strengthens imperialism in both camps.
WHAT IS TO BE DONE?
Each side is "anti-imperialist" to the bone, busy detecting the reactionary - in the opposite camp. And imperialism is always seen - helping the other side. But this kind of exposure is oil on the imperialist fire. For the inveigling policy of imperialism is based upon agents and agencies within both camps. Therefore, we say to the Palestinian people, in reply to the patriotic warmongers: Make this war between Jews and Arabs, which serves the end of imperialism, the common war of both nations against imperialism!
This is the only solution guaranteeing a real peace. This must be our goal which must be achieved without concessions to the chauvinist mood prevailing at present among the masses.
HOW CAN THAT BE DONE?
"The main enemy is in our own country!" - this was what Karl Liebknecht had to say to the workers when imperialists and social democrats were inciting them to the slaughter of their fellow workers in other countries. In this spirit we say to the Jewish and Arab workers: the enemy is in your own camp!
Jewish workers! Get rid of the Zionist provocateurs who tell you to sacrifice yourself on the altar of the state!
Arab worker and fellah! Get rid of the chauvinist provocateurs who are getting you into a mess of blood for their own sake and pocket.
Workers of the two peoples, unite in a common front against imperialism and its agents!
The problem worrying all in these days is the problem of security. Jewish workers ask: "How to protect our lives? Should we not support the Haganah'? And the Arab workers and fellahin ask: "Ought we not to join the Najada', Futuwa' to defend ourselves against the Zionists' attacks?
A distinction must be made between the practical and political sides of this question. We cannot thwart mobilizations and do not therefore tell workers to refuse to mobilize. But it is our duty to denounce the reactionary character of the chauvinist organizations, even in their own house. The only way to peace between the two peoples of this country is turning the guns against the instigators of murder in both camps.
Instead of the abstract "anti-imperialist" phrases of the social-patriots which cover up their servility to imperialism, we are showing a practical way to fight against the foreign oppressor: unmasking its local agents, undermining their influence; so that the Arab worker and fellah will understand that the military campaign against the Jews helps to bring about partition and helps only the feudalists and imperialists, while it is fought on his back and paid for with his blood; so that the Jewish worker recognizes at last the illusion of Zionism and understands that he will not be free and safe as long as he has not done away with national discrimination, isolationism and imperialist loyalty.
We have to keep up contact between the workers of both peoples at whatever place of work that this can still be done in order to prevent provactive acts and to safeguard the lives of the workers at work and on the roads. Let us forge revolutionary cadres. In this burning hell of chauvinism we have to hold up the banner of international brotherhood.
AGAINST THE STREAM!
World capitalism being on the downgrade tries to endure by inflating imaginary national conflicts, trampling down the masses and brutalizing them. In the long run that remedy will fail. The masses will have learned their lesson through suffering. They will get to know their enemy: monopolistic capitalism that is hiding behind its local ruling agency. With the class struggle getting more intensive all over the world and in particular in the Arab countries, the end of the fratricidal war in this country is bound to come.
The patriotic wave today sweeps everyone lacking the principles of international communism off his feet. Revolutionary activity at this juncture requires patience, persistence and far-sightedness. It is a way full of danger and difficulties. But it is the only way out of this patriotic mire. Well may we remember the words of Lenin which, spoken in a similar situation, apply also to ours:
"We are not charlatans ... We must base ourselves on the consciousness of the masses. Even if it is necessary to remain in a minority, be it so. We must not be afraid to be in a minority. We will carry on the work of criticism in order to free the masses from deceit ... Our line will prove right ... All the oppressed will come to us. They have no other way out."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kamrat X
But does this country also contain palestinians? Surely, the situation that we see today is the result of nationalism on both sides?
Do you agree to the statement:
"Make this war between Jews and Arabs, which serves the end of imperialism, the common war of both nations against imperialism!
This is the only solution guaranteeing a real peace. This must be our goal which must be achieved without concessions to the chauvinist mood prevailing at present among the masses." |
I am actually pro-nationalism
I think that is one of the points where I differ with many communists
there are many reasons I think this, I will go into later (maybe this weekend
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I don't really understand what you mean by this. When you say 'degenerate[d] workers state', you mean the Soviet Union and places like that right? Cause the Soviets did not outperform the capitalist nations. |
I do mean the USSR and China. The basic problem that confronts people trying to compare the two systems is that they compare unequal situations. They compare the USSR vs the West, when in fact Russia/the USSR/Russia has never been comparable to the West. It wasn't an imperialist nation, it didn't have access to huge reserves of capital, it was a neo-colony before it liberated itself, and is rapidly becoming one again today. It was twice devasted by war, it was blockaded and starved, and it suffered constant terrorism. I think that facing the same conditions, the West would have been at least as messed up, perhaps more. And there are more capitalist nations than simply the West. All of the West's former colonies, Latin America, India, and so on are capitalist nations.
I think it would be better to compare say . . . the USSR vs Brazil. Both were/are neo-colonial states. Both have huge areas of resources they lack the techology to exploit. Both are poor. Brazil has homelessness and starvation and a porrly educated population. It can't even hope to be a world power, hasn't put anyone in space, etc. The USSR managed all these things, with all of the disadvantages it faced. It achieved more with less.
Also consider that what capitalists measure as to the success of an economy, communism isn't necessarily interested in. The degenerated workers states were first interested in taking care of their population: feeding, clothing, housing, and educating everyone. Making sure everyone had access to a job. Foreign trade earnings, etc. aren't the primary focus of these economies. And when the essentials of life are provided at extremely low cost, the amount of money that people make isn't equivalent to the amount that people make in the capitalist world, North and South.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I do mean the USSR and China. The basic problem that confronts people trying to compare the two systems is that they compare unequal situations. They compare the USSR vs the West, when in fact Russia/the USSR/Russia has never been comparable to the West. It wasn't an imperialist nation, it didn't have access to huge reserves of capital, it was a neo-colony before it liberated itself, and is rapidly becoming one again today. It was twice devasted by war, it was blockaded and starved, and it suffered constant terrorism. I think that facing the same conditions, the West would have been at least as messed up, perhaps more. And there are more capitalist nations than simply the West. All of the West's former colonies, Latin America, India, and so on are capitalist nations.
I think it would be better to compare say . . . the USSR vs Brazil. Both were/are neo-colonial states. Both have huge areas of resources they lack the techology to exploit. Both are poor. Brazil has homelessness and starvation and a porrly educated population. It can't even hope to be a world power, hasn't put anyone in space, etc. The USSR managed all these things, with all of the disadvantages it faced. It achieved more with less.
Also consider that what capitalists measure as to the success of an economy, communism isn't necessarily interested in. The degenerated workers states were first interested in taking care of their population: feeding, clothing, housing, and educating everyone. Making sure everyone had access to a job. Foreign trade earnings, etc. aren't the primary focus of these economies. And when the essentials of life are provided at extremely low cost, the amount of money that people make isn't equivalent to the amount that people make in the capitalist world, North and South. |
Cuba especially has been screwed over by the West (particulary the US)
of course, Cuba is still far from perfect (in fact I would take western states over it), but it would be doing decent without the screw over
just has some issues because of Castro
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GeneralTacticus
|
 |
of Melbourne, Australia
Dec 2001
time: 15:18
|
|
quote:
when Communism will look on the way of triumph to me , I'd gladly join. Sadly, it's not even near. Since both goals apeal me, I'd rather first secure the one that is , though less apealing to me in the way of world order , Is way more close. |
What exactly do you mean by this??
quote:
I do mean the USSR and China. The basic problem that confronts people trying to compare the two systems is that they compare unequal situations. They compare the USSR vs the West, when in fact Russia/the USSR/Russia has never been comparable to the West. It wasn't an imperialist nation, it didn't have access to huge reserves of capital, it was a neo-colony before it liberated itself, and is rapidly becoming one again today. It was twice devasted by war, it was blockaded and starved, and it suffered constant terrorism. I think that facing the same conditions, the West would have been at least as messed up, perhaps more. And there are more capitalist nations than simply the West. All of the West's former colonies, Latin America, India, and so on are capitalist nations. |
Well a problem with trying to say how capitalism and communism would perform under equal conditions is that it has never happened before. There has never been a communist nation on the same basic fotting as the West, so we can't say how it would have performed.
quote:
But does this country also contain palestinians? Surely, the situation that we see today is the result of nationalism on both sides?
Do you agree to the statement:
"Make this war between Jews and Arabs, which serves the end of imperialism, the common war of both nations against imperialism!
This is the only solution guaranteeing a real peace. This must be our goal which must be achieved without concessions to the chauvinist mood prevailing at present among the masses." |
I personally feel that different peoples do have the right to their own state, but without harming others to get it. I think an idea that was proposed before partition was that Palestine become a single federal state for both the Jews and the Arabs.
And I personally dilike communist rhetoric about 'imperialism', since I don't think there is some kind of 'imperialist conspiracy'. Calling upon people to 'fight against imperialism' is just another means of unifying them against the non-existent foreign threat.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
|
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:18
|
|
quote:
Comrade Dalgetti is strangely absent in this thread
|
Hello, I am back.
I could , of course , counter your argument , that in order that we and the palestinians would "overthrow our respective capitalist opressors" ( I'll explain why I use " " later ) , we at least would need to have a borgoise capitalist society in the palestinian territories.
but I won't.  .
I'd just say that if these people are allowed to win, ( and the issue is their struggle right , is completely irrelevant now ), that would be another chip in the game for minds that is going over the world now. This isn't quite the battle of civilizations, as there are no single ruler over niether european democracies , neither the muslim world . But rather two groups of forces , with each group pushing in a very similar direction , in the way of how should people think. And I am on the side of the evil west. Remember your palestinian/arab friends? I just wonder how many years will it take to , say , be a majority in a european country? And since, as you already told me, they're still muslims , and still adhere to stupid idiotic laws , and governments of countries from which they came from mostly accept these laws as THE laws, I feel it's quite right for me to be concerned? If only oppressed people are having high birth rates , how come it's the same for mid-eastern communities in europe? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Zoidberg
|
|
Communist Party of Apolyton
Jan 2002
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalgetti
Hello, I am back. |
So, you are
quote:
I could , of course , counter your argument , that in order that we and the palestinians would "overthrow our respective capitalist opressors" ( I'll explain why I use " " later ) , we at least would need to have a borgoise capitalist society in the palestinian territories.
but I won't. . |
Aww... 
quote:
I'd just say that if these people are allowed to win, ( and the issue is their struggle right , is completely irrelevant now ), that would be another chip in the game for minds that is going over the world now. This isn't quite the battle of civilizations, as there are no single ruler over niether european democracies , neither the muslim world . But rather two groups of forces , with each group pushing in a very similar direction , in the way of how should people think. And I am on the side of the evil west. Remember your palestinian/arab friends? I just wonder how many years will it take to , say , be a majority in a european country? And since, as you already told me, they're still muslims , and still adhere to stupid idiotic laws , and governments of countries from which they came from mostly accept these laws as THE laws, I feel it's quite right for me to be concerned? If only oppressed people are having high birth rates , how come it's the same for mid-eastern communities in europe? |
Iīm not quite sure where youīre going with this argumentation, Neither am I sure that there is a battle for world dominance between the muslim world and the christian world (or what you like to call it). Itīs just a construction of USA and the other imperialist powers. There must always be an enemy you can scare people with, otherwise your power base will crumble. Remember back in the days of the pre-Gorbatjov Soviet era? Then communism was the greatest threat to human survival and freedom and whatnot. Now that communism is vanquished as a global power the focus is shifted towards islam. Now islam is the greatest threat to human survival and freedom and whatnot. If they vanquish islam another power will take itīs place.
See a pattern developing here?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
And I personally dilike communist rhetoric about 'imperialism', since I don't think there is some kind of 'imperialist conspiracy'. Calling upon people to 'fight against imperialism' is just another means of unifying them against the non-existent foreign threat. |
By imperialism, communists mean something different that what most people think of it to mean. The generally accepted definittion is a military empire. But no one really examined capitalist imperialism before the 20th Century to understand it and discern its key features.
A Brit named Hobson first examined imperialism, and came to the conclusion that it was a fools game, because the imperial country always spent far more on the colony than it received from the colony in taxes, tribute, etc. What Hobson failed to look at was both the private exploitation going on in the colonies, as well as the roll that imperialism plays in capitalism.
According to Lenin, unregulated capitalism tends towards monopoly. This has been born out in reality, since it is only through the intervention of the state that monopolies are prevented from forming. In the late 19th Century, however, this was not the case, and monopiles, trusts, and cartels were busily forming (I'll just use monopoly for all three, since they all serve the same function, to abolish competition). By abolishing competition, monopolies could charge higher prices for their goods and services than a competitive market would allow. This allows them to extract a surplus profit (the difference between a competitive price and amonopoly price). (As an aside, the reason why monopolies are regulated is because their surplus profit comes at the expense of profits in other areas, which makes other capitalists mad).
Now, part of the purpose of capitalism is to accumulate capital (hence the name). But to what purpose? Very little capital is used by the capitalist himself, even if he builds Biltmore or Trump's yacht. Capital by itself is worthless unless it's doing something. And the more capital there is, the less it is worth. These surplus profits enabled monopolies to build up a huge amount of surplus capital very quickly, more than could be profitably invested in the home country. So where to invest it? Abroad!
In the Third World, a little bit of capital goes a long way, and investements there tend to be extremely profitable. This was no less true during the period of colonialism than it was today. However, investments abroad are risky, since you never know what those pesky natives will do, and you can't go running to your own state to get something done . . . unless your state owns the foreign country, hence, colonialism.
In Lenin's day, much of the world had been divided up between a handful of European powers. In fact, it was the need for Germany to find a place for it to invest the surplus profits of its capitalists that was the most important reason for turning what should have been a little regional war into The Great War.
But, direct colonialism is, as Hobson noted, expensive. Another way to engage in imperialism was be investing in independent countries. Germany, for example, supplanted Great Britain as the principle foreign investor in Latin America until WWII, when the US became the principle foreign investor in LA. Germany would grant loans to, say, Brazil, would be obligated to use that loan money to buy matierals from Germany, and build railways from Germany resource extraction companies to ports, etc. It would also be required to secure the German investment and put down any potential trouble makers, like union organizers.
The US was also a firm believer in this method of imperialism, but, being in the same hemisphere as Latin America, was able to intervene much more easily should some country default on a loan or seize a businessman's property.
What you should see by now is that an economic connection is tieing the foreign country to the investor country. Rather than a relationship of equals, the Third World countries enters into an unequal relationship that grants substantial control of the economy to foreign countries. In effect, these countries have almost all of the same qualities as colonies, except that they have their own govnerment. Hobson's problem is negated, the local countries police themselves at little cost to the imperialist.
This isn't to damn or blame the capitalist. After all, he's simply being a good business man, looking for someplace to invest his money. However, the relationships that are created as a result of this investment end up enslaving the recipient country.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-04-2002 01:34
I wonīt limit myself to just those questions though.
|