Second update.
The above link will take you to the Workers Vanguard leaflet on this issue.
After nearly starving the Palestinian people in Gaza for weeks, cutting their power, threatening their elected leaders and sabotaging all attempts at normal government, Israel came under rocket attack by Hezbollah petty-bourgeois religious nationalists stationed in Southern Lebanon. Using the capture of two Israeli soldiers as a pretext for war, Israel has mobilized massive and bloody retaliation against the whole population of Lebanon!
The Associated Press reports the following:
“At least 548 Lebanese have been killed since the fighting began three weeks ago, including 477 civilians and 25 Lebanese soldiers and at least 46 Hezbollah guerrillas. The health minister says the toll could be as high as 750, including those still buried in rubble or missing.
In all, 56 Israelis have died — 37 soldiers as well as 19 civilians killed in Hezbollah rocket attacks.”
Newsweek reports that Israel regards any building where Hezbollah hides is “a legitimate target.” Furthermore, Newsweek tells us, that this policy practically means that any building suspected of housing Hezbollah is a legitimate target. This demonstrates from the mouths of the U.S. bourgeois media that the Israeli bombing will necessarily target civilians as we have abundant proof.
The U.S. for its part has rushed to use the attacks by its sub-imperialist enforcer in the Middle East, Israel, to threaten Syria and Iraq! This all must be viewed in the context of U.S. imperialism's global "war on terror" which is an ideological obfuscation of the real war on potential rivals, minority movements, nationalist movements, and the remaining deformed workers states: China, Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam.
Western bourgeois Media has taken up the line of the U.S. and Israel without dissent. They minimize the totally asymetrical attack by wealthy and well armed Israel against barley reconstructed Lebanon. Workers, Marxists, Anarchists, and all of the oppressed must see Israel's attacks as part of imperialism. All should Defend Lebanon from these attacks!
Why should workers and Marxists Defend Lebanon, Gaza, and Palestine? Spartacist No. 55 Autumn 1999 states, quoting Lenin’s 1915 ‘Socialism and War’: “A revolutionary class cannot but wish for the defeat of its government in a reactionary war, and cannot fail to see that the latter’s military reverses must facilitate its overthrow.”
Meaning that “…in the case of an imperialist war against a small nation or semicolonial people, it is the duty of the working class not only to fight for the defeat of one’s “own” government but to defend the victims of imperialist aggression (ibid)”.
Let's consider some more arguments about this conflict:
First, look at the death toll and see how disproportional the Israeli response is: 370 Lebanese killed to 35 Israelis (New York Times, July 23, 2006), which is nearly 10: 1! If Hezbollah and Hamas have attacked civilians in “terrorist” attacks as many point out then Israel must be a state terrorist actor themselves in destroying the homes of “suspects,” deliberate segregation of Arabs, bombardment from tanks and aircraft of civilian areas, huge wall building (remember how the Western imperialists hate walls and denounce those who build them i.e. the Berlin Wall) and widely suspected possession of WMD’s in the form of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. As for kidnapping and torture, we can say the same for Israel, if not on a larger scale. The point is that the targeting of civilians by both Israel and various Arab nationalist militias are criminal acts and must be condemned. However we cannot forget the actual power dynamic in which Israel acts as a proxy for U.S. imperialist repression of Arabs.
Second, what is it that “throws the Middle East into instability?” Is it the involvement of other Middle Eastern countries or is it the involvement of the United States and their imperialist powers? It is the involvement of the U.S., the largest imperialist power in the world that makes the region unstable. It is the areas where Imperialist rule is being enforced that are unstable: Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel/Palestine. In addition, what does ‘stability’ mean? Does it mean that Arabs quietly acquiesce to outside domination and interference into their affairs? Does it mean that the class rule of the property owners is enforced through military states? That is not stability. Real “stability” is when every country and nation is free from the domination by another country or nation. In the current world, this national freedom must also be linked to a fight against imperialism and capitalism, and for socialist emancipation of the working class from its own greatest oppressors, their own ruling classes. National liberation without socialist revolution merely creates the conditions for the domination of workers by capitalists.
Unfortunately, the current leaders of the Palestinians and the Arab resistance are nationalistic misleaders. They use fundamentalist Islam, anti-woman bigotry, and anti-Semitism to marshal their populations, restrain women’s rights, and deter inter-communal, internationalist cooperation. On the Israeli side the workers are mislead by a nationalist Zionist Labor party and bureaucratic union leaders that are more interested in the preservation of the Israeli exclusionary militarist state than they are in international labor solidarity, and self-determination for all peoples. Both sides need internationalist workers parties that will champion the cause of Palestinian independence, the overthrow of capitalism through socialist revolution the creation of a united federation of the Middle East.
28 comments:
Excellent! I just wrote something on this as well and it's getting published in a newspaper soon.
http://analogsoul.blogspot.com/2006/07/israel-earned-nation-or-imperialist.html
I highly agree with you. I'm anti-zionist and Israel has been oppressing these people for to long. The worst of it is that they would complain about losing two soldiers, yet they have 9,400 Palestinian prisoners. It's hypocritical.
Be sure to check out my post as well! Keep up the fight, comrade.
-Kai
Well, not to denounce Israel as Israel itself, but Hezbollah and Hamas have both attacked Israel citizens in acts of terrorism, both have kidnapped soldiers and civilians to torture and or kill in both past and present.
Lebanon has done nothing to control Hezbollah, which have been receiving aid from both Syria and Iran which throws the middle east into instability. Now any nation or sovreignty of people has the right to defend itself, if someone takes a swing at me I'll swing back, I'm not going to be bullied every day of my life because I back down.
Israels attack on Lebanon, is for the most part justified, there was a direct threat and they responded. I'd expect Lebanon to do the same thing if Israel attacked (which is happening right now)
As for Israel itself it belongs to both the Jewish and the Muslim, before Islam itself their was the Temple Mount, both the Hebrew people and those of different creeds resided within this territory, both before and after Roman occupation and Assyrian control.
This land is not one factions ownership but all peoples country, most of modern religion was created and resides within this land. Do I oppose Israeli control? No, do I oppose Palestenian sovreignty? No, I just feel that Israel's actions are justified in terms of rules of engagement.
No body has the right to commit merciless acts of murder on another this goes for both sides of ths conflict...
Alrighty, what is your response?
You should reread the post, especially the part about more arguments.
As for the "10:1" ratio, it's war, I should't kill one then they kill one to make it a nifty 1:1, if I was a general I'd slaughter as many enemies as I could until they fled the battle.
In my opinion the United States is in no way imperialist, but more of an expansionist, we don't seek to dominate this culture but to influence it with western customs (McDonalds, JC Penny, Levi Jeans)
Which I don't particullary see as a problem, assimilation usually elads to a more confided population, when people can agree and not go to extremes on things it's usually better for all.
As a capitalist, I'd like to see democracy in the middle east because it opens alot of doors for me and the peopple of those nations. Historically, if we look at Hong Kong we can see how capitalism, political freedom, and foreign influence allowed it to be a hub to the rest of the world.
Because we allow freedom and the ability to self-control on'es property, capital, and life, we see a large jump in prosperity to all citizens. Which in the middle east would be a HUGE benefit to all!
In capitalist society, even the poorest and most downtroden have it better than 99% of the poor people in other societies, and can you honestly say that is bad?
It's great to see someone who's not only critical of Israeli imperialism, but also of the reactionary politics of Hezbollah.
On the British Left, most people are saying stuff like "we are all Hezbollah" and "demanding" that it is victorious.
A democratic solution in the Middle East cannot be won by the military victory of the IDF or of Hezbollah - it needs to be won by internationalist, democratic working-class movements.
I do not agree with those on the Left who say that Israeli "settlers" (including, we presume, its working-class) should be "driven out" of Israel. I think that Palestine should be its own state, with equal national rights as Israel (no to Israel's separation wall, checkpoints, bantustans etc.)
Yes David,
however the Israeli working class and labor movement needs to moved away from its labor-zionism toward labor-internationalism. Israeli workers must champion the cause of Palestinian self-determination. When this is accomplishes, only after hard struggle can we hope that Arab and Hebrew working class parties have any chance of beng victorious.
As for the "Hezbollah left" they are I think part of a long line of leftists who like to tail third world nationalism instead of real worker solidarity. They are jumping in bead with the petty bourgeois mullahs and their capitalist-nationalist backers.
I think that self-professed "Trotskyists" who line up behind political Islam in fact have a basically Stalinist world-view, which is that absolutely anything has to be "defended" against the primary imperialism, that of the USA.
Hence, the argument "North Korea oppresses its people"... "Yes, but you'd defend it against imperialism, wouldn't you!?"
Just as Stalinism destroyed capitalist relations but put none of the positive, working-class, socialist programme in its place, the Hezbollah left can only see the need to oppose the USA/Israel, but don't actually do anything to fight for working-class politics or democracy.
The way in which they differ from early Stalinism is that they see national liberation as the main fight against oppression to be had.
Stalinism is a bad thing? During WWII under Stalin, look at the economic superiority Russia had gained since the "Great Purge" and the Collectivized Farming incident.
It's my opinion that Stalinism is the only effective form of communism in terms of getting things done. People work well under the fear of a gun, brings out potential.
Once more America is not "Imperialist" we're not colonizing in that definition. The correct term is "EXPANSIONIST" as we seek to influence our culture and way of life on other nations. We haven't been imperialistic in years!
If we were imperialist we would have already wiped the middle east with chemical and nuclear arms, and claimed it New-New Jersey...
And, indeed, look at the millions (if not tens of millions) of people Stalin butchered.
Socialism means working-class power and working-class democracy, giving real economic control to the workers. Stalinism starved workers of any political or economic influence.
Your anti-humanist "People work well under the fear of a gun" is pretty disgusting. Work well for what? Yes, that's right, for the benefit of the bureaucratic ruling caste.
And what do you think happened to Stalinist economics in the end? Having exhausted the growth which could be achieved from a low base, the system had no dynamism, as workers had no ability to be creative and no reason to create. With no power to control their lives, workers had no reason to work for the system.
The fact that the US is not classically "colonialist" does not stop it being imperialist. It controls foreign regimes so that it can dominate investment (exporting semi-monopolistic capital) and control resource flow.
It doesn't just want to spread a way of life - it wants to make their economies subservient!
Yes, and being subserivant is a form of expansionism not imperialism. I'm not taking over countries specifically to control the people, I'm more interested in controlling their ecnomies, making trade deals, gaining capital, I could care less of the internal politics of let's say Sudan? Why do you think we haven't helped? There's nothing economical to gain.
As for the Stalin comment, it was sarcasm, I denounce any form of control by any state. Absolute power should be in the hands of the individual. There should be no restrictions on what the individual does for example:
Prostitution, drugs (weed to heroin) should be legal, the age restrictions on alcohol and tobacco should be removed, assisted suicide and suicide should be legal. If I wanted to buy a RPG, then so be it I shouldn't be told what to buy.
I think same sex marriage should be allowed, so should polygamy, and if you want to marry a shovel or a horse go ahead and do it. The only role of government is to provide protection of citizens through a police, legal, and military system. other than that it has no role in society.
Socialism deters individualism to some aspect. I doubt the socialist society would allow me to buy drugs, heavy machine guns, and sell myself for cash.
Basically I'm a proponent of a near moraless, godless society, to which freedoms are unlimited. If I want to masturbate in the public mall why shouldn't I? I'm not physically harming anyone so I shouldn't be stopped.
Only physical harm should be outlawed, unlimited freedom to the tip of your nose.
By the way "Socialism" doesn't mean working class power and democracy. It means "State Central Planning" I assume you gear toward a more contemporary version of socialism, "worker's rights, unionism, enviromentalism, equality"
Which would be political socialism in a sense, I only see socialism as an economic system alone. Which it deters personal responsibility, and pens up central planning. THese are not fair to white collar or highly educated people. This only helps blue collar folk in the run.
It's a classist system just as much as capitalism is, where capitalism favours your Harvard Grad. 150K+ a year, golf club member. Socialism favours your 25k a year high school grad. who works for a cable company.
Same classist principle, different class.
No, I mean socialism in the classical Marxist sense (150 year old version of socialism...)
Socialist revolution was never meant to have the aim of a new bureaucratic ruling caste, as happened after the isolated USSR degenerated in the late 20s.
I think your talk of rights/hurting people is rather abstract. Sure, all that stuff should be ok, but what do you have to say about economic relations?
A guy who owns a factory doesn't exactly "hurt" his workers (although he may well do so thanks to negligence etc.), but he does exploit their labour to make profits. That's unfair... so the system needs to change.
By socialism I don't just mean the government nationalising a few industries. I mean workers seizing control!
That's not fair to the entrepeneur! I don't like the aspect of everyone making $35,000 a year regardless of education, committment, and job title. As the entrepeneur can throw MILLIONS of dollars, down take risks, and all around goes through a alot of bureaucratic garbage, he deserves to make a profit.
I'd only go as far as to accept Keynesian policy, I would not want to go from a medium free market to full geared socialism in one day it's not productive.
The other thing that is not fair is, I can earn four Ph.D's write a best selling book, and win the Nobel Prize in physics, but that doesn't make me the "working" class because I don't essentially do any "work" so therefore my role in society is meaningless and is of less importance to the steel mill worker. Don't you think I earned a little prestige?
As for the working class as a whole, I'm not sure about the U.K but in the U.S it's dwindling, we have automation that does most of the work a blue collar man would do. We're moving far into a service sector and getting far more white collar workers. THe working class has been on steady decline for decades and will not be around in the next 20 to 30 years.
So what would you advocate then? Socialism for the office workers? Granted in society we will still have por people that can use societies support, but the worker's rebellion, and the grand vision of social-economic equality has long faded as the working class in America reaches retirement and their children go off to be, Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, etc.
James, let me tackle two points: 1. The view of socialism as simple leveling and 2. The so-called new economy theories.
1. Actually part of the theory (and don’t start whining about its only theory) about socialist society is that the stultifying division of labor between classes and occupations will be eliminated. Thus, “workers” and “capitalists” will not exist. There probably will be some specialization but on the whole, labor will be shared. There should no longer be a distinction between those who think for a living and those who physically labor for a living, or at least to reduce this as much as possible. The ideal would be that of rotating shifts of different kinds of work and the application of as much technology as possible to eliminate the most onerous of tasks. So all people not just or mainly women would participate in the raising of children in communal settings, everybody would do some production, everybody would democratically participate in the formation of the plan. Yes James is right, there must be a large scale plan for the prioritization of resources, or else it is back to capitalism and the market. The point is not to satisfy every possible human desire but to make possible the meeting of the needs of all of humanity. In order for each to develop all must develop, not just the entrepreneurs!
2. The new economy theories posit that the old distinctions of workers and capitalists, commodities, manufacture, class struggle, the state, etc. have been superceded by a new economy of service and finance, information, digitization, networks, and non-state actors. This is not the place to go into all of it but I suggest reading Forces of Labor by Beverly Silver for part of a refutation of new economy theories. The point about the working class is that it is not just industrial proletarians but almost any wage-workers including bus drivers, oil workers, hotel and restaurant workers, clerks of all kind, miners, pilots, longshoremen, steelworkers, electricians, the list goes on. These people are not disappearing but actually becoming more numerous. What is declining recently is the number employed in particular sectors involved in certain kinds of heavy industry like auto, steel, and semi-conductors. Other sectors have been gone a long time like textiles. So the working class is changing not disappearing
How did we get so far of the topic of Lebanon and Israel??
Basically all your saying is that is I receive my payment as a "salary" I'm not a worker, and I have no place in socialist society.
I have no idea where you got that notion from.
If you’re solely for the "Working class" then you're being classist. It should be a unification of all classes, entrepreneurs, industrialists, servicers, managers, the list goes on.
Stating that you support a "working class" and a working class alone, is the same ideology as in saying I support "white people and white people alone" You're saying a rather classist point of view is all I'm saying.
The thing is how do you suppose socialism will work? It wouldn't be absolute but rather a mask. Behind these masks of equality, lies corruption and the black market. You deny freedom of economic expression, things will be outlawed unfairly and individualism will curb itself.
In the name of the whole my individual rights are non existent. I can't freely purchase or sell drugs in a socialist society, I can't buy or become a prostitute if I so wished, your idea is that of a statist. In the name of all the glory of socialism, you deny libertarian principles.
You can't be truly equal economically no matter how you cut the pie, besides "equality" is a term that really only applies to mathematics. I am no equal to you based on biology, chemistry, psychology, economically, and socially. We can never be equals and it would be foolish to think there is a such thing as human equality.
You can guise it as much as you'd like, but to do so is naive and taking human nature out of the equation. It's a utopia a truly utilitarian society that can never be achieved. If there was a thing called "equality" in human society that would be the equality of opportunity, we have the equality of choice and that is it.
Stating we are equals, or that we ever will be equals in all of human existence is that of a dreamer, a dreamer that will never wake up and realize that the world is cold, cruel, and merciless.
People die each day; it doesn't affect me I don't care. Mostly because things are done in self-interest alone, you only look out for yourself and your family that is it. If you donate to charity usually it's a form of self-satisfaction the knowledge you are making a difference makes you content.
One thing you'll have to accept is just that, no matter how socialist you make society, capitalism will always exist in the black market, no matter how equal you want to make us we still are very different and will hold prejudices.
So in all sense of the argument the entire philosophy of communism is futile! It's better to just adapt to Nihilism...
You really need to get more informed about race, nothing that can do for you here. It is late and I will write a longer response later.
What about race? The only thing I stated about race is that classist ideology is similar to a racist ideology?
If you are talking about my philosophy that no one is ever equal, it's not even about race. It's about pure science and human nature. Everyone is unequal to each other, there is no equality in the sense of the words. You seem to think that if one person is unequal it makes them "inferior" or one person "superior"
Totally not the case, unequal only meand different, as equal means the same. There is no case of superiority, there is only a case of difference. If we look at natural selection, it's not because of a superiority that things evolve on the contraire, it's because they evolve to be "different" or unequal.
If we all we're equal or the same we'd inhibit evolution in more ways than just scientific.
The thing is you can never prove equality in terms, of economics, government, society, biology, chemistry, or anything else. You can find similarities but that still is far from equal.
So in a very praexological way of thinking yes, ther eis no equality, yes, communism is purely ideological and can never work. Yes human nature is inherently "evil" in terms to which we cannot fully understand.
Well, it seems that you have brought in some terms and meanings that are not part of the vocabulary nor the meanings I am using. First, your use of “equality” seems to me to be in a primitive leveling sense. You are mistakenly conceiving of equality as some kind of “one size fits all” equality. I do not, nor do Marxists use this term much. Equality is usually used in the capitalist sense as in an equality of opportunity, access to markets; everybody’s money is equal etc. Marxism’s focus is on exploitation. Where one class labors and does all of the useful, value creating activity (proletariat) while the other class manages, controls, delegates, rewards, punishes, and expropriates the formers labor (capitalists) this is exploitation. The calls for freedom for the entrepreneur, for free trade, etc are old demands from at least the nineteenth century. They all mean the exploitation of the vast majority of the population, the workers. In the same way the “liberty” enshrined in the U.S. Constitution is the liberty of the slave owner to own and exploit slaves, his freedom of property!
The point about race is that there is not a comparison between race and class in a one to one way. Race is not just a flip side of class or vice versa. They are different phenomena, with different histories, different dynamics and very different meanings. They are related and influence each other, for sure. Also your comparison of white supremacy to believing in and promoting working class power was totally off. A better one would have been to say socialists are like abolitionists, they want to end wage slavery and capitalism just like John Brown and Fred Douglas fought to end Black slavery. You missed the dynamic of who oppresses whom.
The point is to end the parasitic rule of the capitalist class and put the massive resources of modern society to use meeting human needs and not supporting the private accumulation of a small class. Nevertheless, you will comically call this classism! Of course, I am classist against the ruling class!
Another point you mentioned about imperialism is that the U.S. does not care about the internal politics, but only trade, resources, etc. How elso does on control trade and resources but through internal politics. Imperialism is all about controlling the interanl politics of other nations
The thing that I don't get is why do you care? Are you specifically a underpaid worker or perhaps playing the role of a champagne socialist? You refute a ruling class despite it's productive and required for civilized society. There are those that command and those who are commanded.
Everytime you bring up well, one only manages the worker's do all the labour. Do you have any idea how hard managing actually is? It's not sit in the office all day jacking off, it's alot of work, responsibility, and produces far more stress than collecting garbage.
The thing is we NEED a ruling class, we NEED capitalist people who take risks and utelize the labour of people.
Let me ask you a question, your step-daughter she gets sick from time to time no doubt, of course you buy medication (bam capitalism!) so you go pick up medication and give it to her. Do you know something as simple as cough syrup took millions of dollars in research? Paid for by the CAPITALIST class to better icnrease the profit margin
Because I'm always looking for a way to make money, I generate things that help people every day. THe AC/DC power adapters we use, do you think we created those for shits and giggles? No, we created those solely to make money from an idea.
The ruling class and the capitalist system makes all this possible, from that cola you just enjoyed, to the computer your using, to the comfortable living space you are in right now. All products of capitalism, all products that benefit man, that man takes advantage of.
But to me you do seem like a champagne socialist, in other words the things you preach you don't do. You'll praise socialism, but given the choice for a partnership at a firm for 100k a year you'd take it right up if your poverty level is just right.
That's why I love money, doesn't matter how strong your beliefs are, or how valiant you may be you'll always need more money to do things.
By the way the thing about "slavery" didn't we fix it? To my knowledge we removed the aspect of slavery 140 something years ago. The aspect of slavery in the first system had to do more with utilitarianism than capitalism, whatever produced the most good and happiness was deemed okay.
Socialists are just like white supremicists, you're ideology is unwaivering, you wish to change the world with views not in popular opinion. You both are bigoted towards certain things, and both seek control. Your one in the same et different in principle.
We don't care about "internal politics" if we did we'd jump all over the world rescuing nation after nation. We seek an expansionist policy, we'd care as long as there's a benefit. If I was imperialistic I'd take things regardless, since I am expanionist I would solely wish to incorporate peoples, states, and economies for my own economical benefit.
One other thing, if Socialism is a championer for people's rights, explain the National Socialist Worker's Party, based after the will of the workers? Yes, they might have been anti-communist, but they we're just as anti-capitalist.
Why do I care? Because I am human and I see the suffering caused by capitalism. It is quite presumptuous of you to assume you know anything about me. My profile should tell you all you need to know, except that the professions academic part is on hold because of the need to work. Again you employ little clichéd catch phrases like “Champaign socialist” to make your argument, but it simply fails.
There is no need for a ruling class. They create nothing, invent nothing, and are simply parasites on the rest on society, even upon managers. As for managers read some of my other responses, I’ve covered this role but you do not seem to hear it.
Yes capitalism has created a lot of commodities to meet needs and wants: cars, cough syrup, Mac’s, mass produced clothes, lattes, etc. But we can create these things without capitalism now. Capitalism has developed society, civilization, as Marx would put it, to such a point where it is no longer progressive but reactionary and needs to be overthrown and replaced with a new system, as different from capitalism as it was different from feudalism. It is silly to say, “oh thank you capitalism for soothing my daughter’s throat.”
I would like to refrain from slander but the things you say you support and do certainly do not make you sound like a highly ethical person, merely a base greedy utility maximizer. So when you presume that I do not practice what I preach I say to you that I certainly do all I know to do to bring about the organization of the workers and socialist revolution.
I think you mean the National Socialist German Workers Party, the Nazi’s. The key terms are ‘National’ and ‘German’ they were extreme nationalists, preaching all for the German National community (Deutche Volksgemeinschaft) through murderous racism and white supremacy. The aspects of “socialism” if one can even call it that were simply state centralization of control of many aspects of life, what some have called “totalitarian” a very bad imprecise word that stops people from thinking about real events and processes. There really was nothing socialist about them. They simply expropriated the name. And yes they were extremely anti-communist and anti-socialist. Their anti-capitalism consisted of using the fear, instability, alienation felt in the German petty bourgeoisie and among some workers caused by Germany’s rapid, very dislocating and rapacious capitalist industrialization. Fascism is part of capitalism.
What are you talking about? You are a champagne socialist, you're reaping all the benefits of a capitalist society as you denounce them. I'm human aswell but I don't like to be told what I CAN or CANNOT do with my body, money, and conscious. Socialism indoctrinates people to deny individual freedoms.
Who are you to say the "ruling" class as you put it hasn't invented anything? Working class is very limited, and Doctors, Scientists, Legislators the works don't fall under this spectrum of society.
Instead of living life and dying like everyone else does, you like to stir the pot so to speak. Socialism offers nothing good via history and via theory. To state that it does is realtivly naive.
I'm sure you can throw up "But the depression" or something like that which capitalism failed. What failed was classical liberalism, we adopted Keynesian, and it wasn't the "New Deal" that brought us out of the depression it was WWII.
You say "I see the suffering caused by capitalism" pot calling the kettle black? Communism is responsible for MILLIONS of deaths it's record is no different.
I'll go back to my one statement the working class is a dying class, in the next century all the worker's roles will be fully automated. It would take 1 person to run a factory instead of 2000. It's all thanks to the Capitalist and the Scientist.
You seem to hate on anarco-capitalism however, despite being both socially and economically free is what human beings are intended to be. We shoould have no governing factor over our body and our capital.
As for the Nazi's "Same flag, different symbol" the fact is that history proves to you time and time again that socialism in ALL cases devolves to an autocratic state. Germany didn't particulary like the business owners, that is unless you we're state owned and made weapons.
The Nazi's managed to socialize all business making it a corporate state, the business leaders we're given military and party affiliations for christ sakes, they we're far from a free market capitalist.
Another thing I don't get is your "anti-war" but you support a class war, which is infact a civil war in retrospect. Which I don't see happening anytime soon or ever, all those happy far left people just spout anti-Bush propaganda, then go home in their hipster clothing they bought at Hot Topic and listen to some Rage Against the Machine.
I'm divided on the war personally, as a Libertarian it violates an isolationist policy, but my anarco-capitalist, only see's money, and the benefits we can reap. Ultimately that is what war was created for gaining capital.
Post a Comment