- Capitalism and Alternatives -

I'm surprised you ahven't brought up the black helicopters yet.

Posted by: Nikhil JAikumar ( DSA, MA, USA ) on December 16, 1999 at 17:04:51:

In Reply to: As an American, and a realist. posted by Frenchy on December 15, 1999 at 16:50:49:

: Yugoslavia? Benevolent? Can you say Chowseskyou (C'mon, don't expect me how to spell it right!)?

You're making me laugh my head off. Yugoslavia=Tito. Romania=Ceausescu.
I believe I already criticized Ceausescu below when I was talking about Chinese satellites. So the upshot is, teh alst comment of yours was ludicrous in every possible way.

Incidentally, the fact that Yugoslavia was benevolent is attested to by the fact that they had direct workers' control of the means of production, worker's councils which ran industries and factories. (called Worker Self-Management or COuncil COmmunism.) They also had freedom of speech and movement (else how do you think that Germany got so many Yugoslav immigrants), and they also had ethnic and racial inequality. Just ask the Bosnians, or the Kosovars, if they were better off under Titoism. My guess is that they'd vote unanimously in favor of Tito. The fact is that Yugoslavia, like much of teh erst of Eastern Europe, had been in an accelertaing downwrad spiral over the last 10-15 years that is almost unprecedented.

: The majority of so called non-alingned nations were to one degree or another in the Soviet camp.

Right, and if you asked the Soviets they would say that the nonaligned nations were American stooges. SO why should people particularly believe YOU as opposed to THEM? The Philippines, supposedly non-aligned, was certainly an American stooge, as were most of teh worst tyrannies in Latin America.

:The U.N. was subverted as a venue for these so called non-alingned nations to use the ballot box to aid the Soviet Bloc while at the same time accept millions of dollars in foreign aid from the US taxpayer.

Right.....I'm surprised you ahven't brought up the black helicopters yet. Montana Militia anyone?

: The best that can be said about the so called non-aligned nations was that many of them served as useful idiots.

'Useful' for who? Look at the nonaligned movement in Africa, Frenchy. Most of those countreis, supposedly non-aligned, were in fact French client states. Do you argue that such nations as Gabon, Cameroon and the Ivory Caost WEREN'T clients of France? You can count the number of legitimate socialist states in Africa on the fingers of two hands.

: : Incidentally, did you know which country has the most consistently anti-American voting record at the UN? It's not China, Russia or Libya. India, the world's largest democracy, has voted against the US in 84% of all UN votes, not counting abstentions. Just as india was idnependent back then, she will be idnependent in teh future. In fact, India stood up for principle and NON-ALIGNMENT during many of the years when China, the Soviet Union and America wete content to give each other three-way blowjobs. (Cambodia? Nixon in China? Stalin on the colonial question? Etcetera).

: $$$$$$$$$Thanks Nickel Jack, youv'e proven my point. India was a supporter of the Communist cause almost from the beginning, when the Brits left. Today they are busy arming themselves with Soviet subs and nuclear weapons. Three guesses where they will have to send their men for training.

Uhhh, Frenchy, you missed my point completely. My point is the following. If the world's largest democracy supports 'the communist cause' as you put it, then does not that mean that A) teh communist cause is compatible with democracy and B) perhaps we ought to reexamien our own viewpoints? America claimed that by opposng communism, it was promoting democracy. But if teh world's largest democracy supports communsim, then that statement can only be exposed as a lie.

Incidentally, where ARE Indian troops going to be sent for training? To teh nonexistent Soviet Union? To China, India's worst enemy besides Pakistan? Are they going to hop into a time machione and hop back to the Brezhnev era? I think you been reading too much science fiction.

: : : Long before there was ever a Soviet Union, the US has waged violence
: : : around the world, from Cuba to the Philippines, from Nicaragua to
: : : Mexican territory, from Hawaii to Haiti..........on behalf of entrenched elite interests and territorial expansion (or "Manifest Destiny" i.e. "God Told Us to Conquer the World" sort of thing)
: $$$$$$$$$$$Yup, same as every other nation in the world and in history. Grow up.

Yes, that would make sense, wouldn't it. Now Frenchy is going to bring up teh nonexistent historiacl accounts of Burkina Faso invading Nigeria, India annexing vast swaths of territory, Nicaragua mining Canadian harbors, the Pygmies dropping nukes on the Xhosa, the San placing sanctions on the Herero, and the Bhutanese taking over Japan. RIght.

: : Indubitably. Anyone who's spent time on this BBS can tell you that my political litmus test is Nicaragua. I will not support any leader who condemned the Sandinistas and defended the El Salvadoran government. The US role in Central America, for teh most part, has been atrocious and many of our actions have been pure evil. Reagan will burn in hell for the 250,000 Guatemalans, 30,000 Nicaraguans, and 70,000 Salvadorans dead as a direct result of his policies.

: Your stance on Nicuaragua is based on willful ignorance, as is your view on El Salvador. The deaths that you refer too were caused by Castro

...for letting the Nicaraguasn and El Salvador peasants know that they need not live the rest of their lives in suffering, slavery and political repression? Thanks, Frenchy, I didn't know hope was a bad word.

: and the small clique of social european elites who control those countries.

conspircay theory anyone?

:Look at the leadership of those countries Nickel Jack, how many mestizos do you see? What is the proportion of indigeneous people to those of Spanish origin?

Well, let's see Frenchy. How many blacks, Catholics, Hispanics, Jews, or working class people have ever been president of this country? I'm sure it's a majority, right? After all, how many percentage points of teh population are rich white Protestant males?

Under Reagan, we subveretd the PNP in Jamaica, a predominantly BLACK nation, and brought to power a WHITE Conservative. How's that for 'social european dominnace'?

: What you are supporting Nickel Jack is totalitarianism.

And what you are supporting is a wosre form of it, where anyoen who dares to hoep or to uplift thsoe who are less frotunate is vulnerable to being beten to death. You knwo which posyt of yours I'm talking about.

:I don't know where you went to school, but youv'e been indoctrinated beyound your wildest dreams.

I went to high school under a conservative Episcopal reverend. i don't think you'd like him though. Because although he was persoanlly a conservative, he demanded that we 1) have a social conscience and 2) think for ourselves. SO in those two ways, eh ahd a great influence on me.
: : On the OTHER hand.....

: : The US HAS done good things, although unfortunately they're far too infrequent. Jimmy Carter was a great man who exterted a vastly positive influence for good in the world. As a demonstration that things tend to deteriorate with time, he was succeeded by the devil Ronald Reagan. A short list:

: : 1) The US stood up for Egyptian freedom and for Nasser's right to nationalize Suez. America in fact threatened war against Israel, France and England if they invaded Egypt.
: : 2) The US did donate food aid and development advisors, although not enough, to the West African countries, and helped out countries liek Mali and Ethiopia during the '80s famines.
: : 3) The US did intervene, although late and half-heartedly, to overthrow the right-wing villains Trujillo and Diem.
: : 4) Carter placed sanctions on South Africa and colonialist Zimbabwe-Rhodesia.
: : 5) Carter also forced the El Salvador junta to nationalize banks and redistribute land. he later called El Salvador 'the most bloodthirsty government in the Americas', an honest statement taht in my book is enough to recommend him to the presidency.
: : 6)The US was one of the few countries to condemn the Chinese invasion of Tibet in '51.
: : 7) The US prevented Kim Il Sung from taking over SOuth Korea, which did not want him as its ruler. We showed restraint, refusing to take over North Korea, merely ensuring taht South Koreans were not subjected to an invasion that they did NOT want. YEs, I know, South Kroea was a tyranny. But at least South Koreans are tyrannized and well-fed, while North Koreans are tyrannized and starving.
: :
: : : Post WW II, though the Soviet Union was a colossal wreck (13 million
: : : people and 7 million soldiers dead, thousands of factories demolished, etc.), the US masters claimed that a large Pentagon establishment was always needed to protect us from "Soviet expansionism" (though the Soviet military NEVER possessed first-rate power projection forces like the USA).

: "Never"$$$$$$$$is a perfect word for describing what may be obvious in the present. Let's not forget either that the Soviet Union's stated goal was world domination.

Yes, and teh US wasn't....NOT. The Leninist goal was world LIBERATION, Frenchy.

: : : Look at the old Soviet record of worldwide violence. It PALES in
: : : comparison to the US catalog in both number AND scope.

: : Now here, sir, is where I must differ. I will happily condemn the actions of right-wing American governments in Central America and other places. I will even accept that at times America was as bad as the Soviet Union, and that the post-Stalin Soviet Union, in its attitude towards democracy in other countries, had as much of a mized record as did the US. But I will not accept that the US was any WORSE than the Soviet Union.

: : Yes, I know that American client states included the Dominican Republic, South Korea, South Viet Nam, Guatemala, Uruguay, Chile, El Salvador, and other sordid terror states, including possibly the most repressive countries in the world. But the Soviets, too had their nasty clients. How about Ethiopia, where the government apparently gave up any pretence of socialist democracy, and blatantly stood for rule by an elite- while starving its people and throwing people in jail for life for trivial offenses? Apparently, in Socialist Ethiopia, if the government shot you your family had to pay for the bullet.

: About our client states, yes, they weren't the sort of places I'd like to live, but at the same time if these places hadn't been clients of America, do you think they wouldn't have gone to the Soviets? They did what they saw as being in their best interest; if they got the better deal siding with America, fine, if with the Soviets, that wouldv'e been fine too.

They might have been non-aligned. India? Burkina FAso? I have a hard tiem thinking of any Amnerican client states taht were really democratic.

: :
: : How about North Korea? How about Equatorial Guinea, where the population fell by a third under the rule of Francisco Macias Nguema, a Russian client? Or Guinea, or Romania, or Afghanistan, or Czechoslovakia (in 1968) or Hungary (in 1956)?

: : The Chinese, of course, were even worse. Every Chinese influenced state turned into a bloody disaster- North Korea, Cambodia, Albania....

: : :Analyze what
: : : the US planners (State Dept.) wanted in 1948 in the Policy Planning
: : : Study #23.............basic US domination of the world's resources (where a "disparity" had to "be maintained"). This document was top secret for 20 years and speaks volumes of the US establishment mindset that go beyond the "freedom and democracy" rhetoric.

: : Oh, yes, but
: : 1) America had some courageous politicains who didn't buy into thsi, who believbed in teh right things (notably Jimmy Carter).
: : 2) do you think that teh Soviets were markedly better? Sure, SOMETIMES the Soviets were idealistic, just as the Americans were SOMETIMES.
: : Evil men sometimes rose to teh top in both systems.

: : : We analyze that the Pentagon establishment was and is a funnel in
: : : which to make the rich even richer through public welfare. For those
: : : who decry Leftists as "anti-patriotic", then how do we (or an economic
: : : "libertarian") justify the Pentagon procurement officers paying $7,477
: : : for ONE motor assembly pin worth TWO CENTS, a fax machine for
: : : $600,000 apiece, a fifty cent light bulb for $50 and $1,200 for a pair of pliers worth $12? (Keep in mind that Pentagon officers move on to nice corporate careers after a fine tenure in government).

: Or the 7,000 dollar toilet seat.

: : I agree.

: : : How do we justify a US military force structure designed to fight two
: : : major world wars at once despite the fact there is no more "hostile" Soviet Union?

: : : We always hear our leaders speak of "our interests" or "US interests" around the world. Can YOU define what they are?

: : : Analyze how Castro's imperfect Cuba is still far more humanizing than
: : : the previous capitalist Batista era of bloodshed and the US puppet capitalist states of today like Colombia, Guatemala and El Salvador........yet all the US policy makers cry tears over "human rights" in Cuba but not in Colombia.
: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$I'll bet if the Cubans could vote for Castro or Baptista, Baptista would win hands down.

And your evidnece for thsi si.....what? Remember teh Cuban elections a few years ago, where they ahd the option to spoil their ballots and indicate dissatisfaction with Castro? How many do you think actually did?

: : : In US-supported Colombia, there are death squads and US-supplied
: : : helicopter gunships terrorizing and slaughtering peasants in the countryside. (Colombia is not something we hear about in the news a lot except when "Marxist rebels" wipe out government outposts or when a "drug lord" is captured.)
: Doesn't a government have a right to defend itself against rebels?

The salient question is really who you defien as terrorists and who you defien as freedom fighters. I could turn teh question around; didn't the Hungarians have teh right to defend tehmselves agaisnt imre Nagy and his rebels? Rhetoricalk question.

: : Well, I agree that the Colombian government is terrible, unwoirthy of American aid, and the right wing detah squads are pathological. But the FARC / ELN are no angels either. Kidnappings, and all that; I knwo they generally don't kill their prisoners, but they're something ratehr un-idealistic about kidnapping random Americans who havcen't committed any crimes, isn't there?

: : : That type of violence does not go on in socialist Cuba yet we know
: : : which country is most demonized by US opinion makers.

: : They don't make MY opinion. I KNOW Colombia is worse than Cuba. HEll, arguably in many respects the US is worse than Cuba.

: $$$$$$$$$Oh God,...none are so blind....

: : : Cubans may not always like what goes on with Castro, but they are
: : : fed, educated and provided with health care. In Colombia, El Salvador
: : : and such places of capitalist heaven, there is mass poverty and hunger
: : : and thousands of children begging on the streets suffering from
: : : malnutrition and dysentry. That is what drove and drives people in those places against US-backed authority.

: $$$$$$$$$$$$$Yes, the Cubans have the security of prisoners. That's humane?

Colombia isn't a prison? Teh US isn't a prison for migrant workers?

: : : Not "drug warlords" and not "Soviet puppet strings."

: : : Newsweek, Bill Clinton, Maddy Albright, TIME, CNN and the rest surely
: : : will not tell you that the Colombian military IS tied with the drug lords. It's not a surprise that the docile US population buys into the hype that the US supports Colombia to "fight drugs" (in lieu of the Soviet hobgoblin pretext which is no longer serviceable).

: : : The World Today. And the USA owns it.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup