International Relations

[G. Adams]

Yep, sorry FA but that was for John.

And I do see myself as an idealist, theres no shame in wanting a better world. The moment people sit back and become cynics is the beginning of the end.

I don't have a problem with people bringing up race in an argument. I agree that positive discrimination isn't the answer, but just because thats wrong doesn't mean we should have a go at the race in question for it. Its usually the result of liberals who nobley want to do something, but not really too much. So throw some money at the case, whether it works or not doesn't matter because it looks like you've tried.

We can't just keep trying to solve social problems like this while we are under capitalism. Capitalism has too many side effects that will undermine whatever you try. I can't remember who said it but its true "if your stuck with capitalism, you may as well vote for a right wing government, at least they look after the economy". While capitalism persists, these social problems will too, and if you want to solve the social problems, you going to have to get rid of capitalism first.

[G. Adams]

I don't deny that the UN is bugged with problems, but this is one it can help solve.

And if were getting all noble here, why are the Coalition countries not striving to stop the million a day dead from starvation, or help get clean water in Africa? If we solved those problems we would cut civil wars and terrorism right down, because the people would be less desperate, and less inclined to follow lunatics.

[Fallen Angel]

And replace Capitalism with..Communism right?

[G. Adams]

Bingo.

Real communism. As in total democracy.

[Fallen Angel]

Originally posted by G. Adams@Aug 31 2003, 10:28 PM I don't deny that the UN is bugged with problems, but this is one it can help solve. And if were getting all noble here, why are the Coalition countries not striving to stop the million a day dead from starvation, or help get clean water in Africa? If we solved those problems we would cut civil wars and terrorism right down, because the people would be less desperate, and less inclined to follow lunatics.

If the UN want to help it may finally have to show abit of ticker and use lethal force, trying to councel and reason with people does'nt really work that well, when they have already committed themselves with explosives strapped to them for the delight of 40 virgins or more.
However the whole problem really I see with that is I don't think too many guys would want to die fighting for the UN, it would be truly hard enough I think to fight and die fighting for your country, let alone a nonsense organisation that has failed to deliver humanity what it was set up for in almost every way possible.
The only way you can keep peace is to enforce it with the sacrifice of people dying to keep it, sad to say, but the only real thing that inspires people to die fighting is to see their mates doing the same.
As for Peace, I think the price we have to pay for that is eternal vigilance or a war could happen.

[Fallen Angel]

Originally posted by G. Adams@Aug 31 2003, 10:31 PM Bingo. Real communism. As in total democracy.

Real Communism?
Wasnt that tried in Russia, did'nt work for some reason, might have something to do with individuality and incentive.

[G. Adams]

We don't have peace, nor do I ever remember peace happening, ever. We go from one war to the next. We don't even try for peace. Do you know what would happen if we had peace? The economies of the world would go balls up. Know why? Because the biggest three industries are, in this order: Arms, Oil, Drugs. If we don't kill each other, nobody buys weapons. If nobody buys weapons, principle industries collapse. So we have to keep killing each other. Ahh capitalism, don't you just love it?

The UN has never had a chance, nor will it ever. The US would never let it have the power neccesary to do what it needs to when it needs to, or else it would claim its impinging its sovereignty. Yeah, like bombing countries without provocation isn't doing the same but hey, what you gonna do?

I wouldn't fight for the UN because it has no accountability. Now if we scrapped national governments and had one, then we would have a better place. At the moment the US gov. tell the rest of the world pretty much what to do. Step out of line too far and oops, military coup. If there was one world government, then we would all elect its president, rather than Americans electing the leader of the world. More importantly, this government could get on with important things like guarding Universal Human Rights, making sure everyone is fed and housed etc

That government I might fight for. But as it stands, I have more chance of fighting against my own governmnet than I do for it.

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by Fallen Angel@Aug 31 2003, 10:54 PM Wasnt that tried in Russia, did'nt work for some reason, might have something to do with individuality and incentive.

Nope. That wasn't communism. That wasn't even close to communism.

If some guy claimed to be the son of god, would you believe him? Right, of course you wouldn't. Now just because the USSR claimed to communist doesn't mean it was.

P'raps the first thing to say about communism is that there has not been, nor is their currently, a communist country or government.

The essence of communism is, as Marx put it, extreme democracy. Currently we have in the west political democracy, but not economic democracy. The majority have no control over the wealth and resources of this planet, despite the fact we have a right to it, just as you have the right to free speech. This is because...

Every human is a slave to resources. We must eat, drink and cloth ourselves. If somebody owns these resources, we then become enslaved to those owners. We must do as the owners ask, or else we shall die.

Communists argue that slavery of any form is wrong, and that there must be democratic control over resources, or else we have no control over our own lives.

That is the basis of communism.

Now in the USSR, the wealth was put in the hands of the party, not the people. Thus the USSR fails the basic test of communism.

What happened, in my opinion, was that Lenin rushed ahead, because he knew he was dying. Instead of waiting for a better time, he pushed forward when Russia was not ready. The 'Communist Party' is only meant to be a tool to organise, not to control. But when the Bolsheviks got in power, Russia needed industrialising fast, so used the party. The party was not made for governing, and was easily converted into a dictatorship.

The USSR bears more resemblance to fascism than to communism. Note the cult of the leader, the crushing of liberties, the nationalism, and most importantly all power invested in a single person or group, in this case the party. All of these things communism rejects.

[G. Adams]

time for sleep now, its 4:10 am and the booze has ran out...

[Fallen Angel]

Yes would'nt it be lovely, humanity finally grows up and gives everyone a big hug, sigh.. unfortunately G.Adams, much as I wish it would it will never happen, the human species is primed from instinct to fight, which is natural otherwise we would never have survived the prehistoric era.
We are still in the mind set of Booga and his club or flint headed spear, except now the weapons have become too dangerous.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Seems like there are some pretty odd views on what communism is. Yes, Russia never made it to Communism, but they were following the program exactly, except they were using a little more force than Marx had predicted.

Yes, True Communism is exactly like True Democracy, only difference is the route taken to get there. But that is the rub, no True form of government can exist in an imperfect world and a prefect world does not need any form of government.

The problem with communism/socialism is the step where it breaks down. The thoery is all the power is taken by the state and then handed back to the individuals. What fool actually believes that government volentarily gives power back.

The problem with Democracy is that popularity is a poor thing to base power on, but it is a better system than communism/socialism because it has a major flaw rather than a fatal one.

[Fallen Angel]

Democracy is terrible, but its better than anything else we have at the moment.

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@Sep 1 2003, 12:52 AM Yes, Russia never made it to Communism, but they were following the program exactly, except they were using a little more force than Marx had predicted

Marx is not the bible to communism, he is one scholar who became famous for highlighting the major flaws in capitalism, and how those flaws would become big enough to destroy it. I don't agree with your view that they toed the Marx line exactley, as they had no interest in giving power to the people and dictatorship of the people does not mean dictatorship of the party, but even if they had followed it to the letter, doesn't mean that they were following the right method to communism. As you state, no government would give power to the people, by its nature it is self preserving, which is why no group should be given any monopoly of power in the socialist period, and as much power as possible must stay in the peoples hands.

The first changing from a socialist route in the Russian Revolution, as far as I have seen, is Lenin expelling all factions in the party. Rather than doing the right thing, which would have been to step up to the platform and argue his points, and if his views were better would succeed (in theory), he cowardly chucked them all out.

Yes, there are multiple possible routes to communism, and some believe the Russian route is one. I don't, it failed. It would take another proletarian revolution to power from the party and go to the people. Which is why I believe democratic elections must be held throughout the socialist interrim period. More importantly, there can be no banning of weapons. If the people are armed, then if a government becomes tyrannical, they can fight back. Especially if they are the generation who fought in the first revolution, they will be veterans, and should be able to take power easily. And I know other people might cringe at the thought, but the government should have no army, so it can't opress.

In this way, power does not have to be taken by the state, because the people are the state.

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by Fallen Angel@Sep 1 2003, 04:43 AM Democracy is terrible, but its better than anything else we have at the moment.

We don't have democracy. Democracy isn't possible while some individuals have far more power than the norm. That corrupts democracy. But this is what will always happen under capitalism, because the rich have vastly more power than the rest of us. Thus, democracy is only possible under communism.

[rmnunez]

Brilliant:

>But it is true that we would be glad for more help than we are getting. Nations that have useful peacekeepers at their disposal probably aren't going to come in to do their share about the collegial problem in the Mideast. The administration acknowledges this by the verve with which we are setting up an Iraqi Governing Council to take over as much of the burden as can be shared. The crystallizing position of our summer friends is that they wish U.N. authority to replace U.S. authority in Iraq. The French and the Germans are pretty direct on this point, and the U.N. bureaucracy is itching for authority. It isn't immediately obvious just what points of contention there would be between the U.S. and the U.N. in the management of the Iraqi problem. Oil revenue, perhaps, though any surplus is many years down the road. What would threaten joint action is the importunate voice of Muslim fundamentalism. Kofi Annan is not built to press his own views athwart the hard opposition of non-Western opinion.

Particularly that last bit on Annan’s build.

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buck...ckley090503.asp

Iran is ‘Phase III’:

>America will tomorrow demand that the UN takes urgent action to prevent Iran acquiring the atom bomb as fears mount that Teheran is on course to develop a nuclear weapons capability within two years. US officials will make the demand at a special meeting of the IAEA in Vienna that has been arranged to consider a 10-page report by Mohammed al-Baradei, the agency's director-general, into the state of Iran's nuclear programme.

>Washington has already expressed deep concern about the discovery of traces of weapons grade uranium found in soil samples taken from one of Iran's top secret nuclear facilities last July.

>In his report, a copy of which has been obtained by The Telegraph, Mr al-Baradei lists serious concerns raised by UN weapons inspectors about the scope of Iran's nuclear programme, which Teheran continues to insist is aimed at developing a nuclear power industry. Inspectors are particularly concerned about activity at a nuclear complex at Natanz, in central Iran, which has sophisticated equipment for enriching uranium to weapons grade standard. Even though the complex was built five years ago, the Iranian authorities only confirmed its existence to the IAEA earlier this year after its location was revealed by Iranian exiles.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...requestid=43073

Now I’m going to make a ‘wild’ guess and anticipate the critical leftie reaction; hoax, faulty intelligence, unsubstantiated, American arm-twisting, oil greed, a crusade against Islam, the CIA trying to conceal its date smuggling trade, Bushian effort to distract American public from his failure to deliver OBL and Saddam’s heads on a platter, pre-election positioning of force for a patriotic victory parade close in November…

[rmnunez]

Bush’s speech:

>We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength, they are invited by the perception of weakness." The "surest way" to avoid attacks on Americans, he said, "is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans" so that "we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/08/internat.../08PREX.html?hp

I’m not sure this is what has been shown (that using force deters terrorism). Seems to me using force encourages terrorism, seems that way with Israel at least. I do think perceptions of weakness foster terrorist attacks, though. I also think it is preferable to engage the enemy “over there” rather than in one’s own streets and cities. It is one of the advantages of intervention in Iraq, that if half the rumours of all sorts of Islamic fundamentalists joining the fight there are true, this is a good thing as they can be more easily engaged in a military setting abroad than they could in an urban western setting.


Those inimitable French ‘diplomats’:

A new book alleges the French secret service convinced a French government minister to pass on false information to the CIA in the 1990s. The book, "Carnets Intimes de la DST" to be published this week, says Henri Plagnol, currently the secretary of state for civil service reform, passed on false information about France's position in the GATT world trade talks, the London Telegraph reported. At the time, Plagnol was a part-time adviser to then-Prime Minister Edouard Balladur. Plagnol has denied he ever passed on any information to Mary-Ann Baumgartner, an American woman later identified as a spy. The Telegraph, however, said he has admitted meeting with the woman and receiving about $850 every time they lunched.

http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtm...er=World%20News


Arafat to exile?
>The United States will not negotiate with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, but does not want to see him sent into exile, Secretary of State Colin Powell said. Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said earlier Sunday that Arafat's expulsion was the "inevitable result" following the resignation of his moderate prime minister Mahmud Abbas. But Powell told NBC television that "I would not support it at this time," adding that exile would only serve "to put him on the world stage as opposed to the stage he is currently occupying," Powell said.

Saw nothing on the news about this, would Arafat in Parisian exile put the Palestinian cause in the spotlight better?

>The secretary added that Abbas' resignation would not lead the US to negotiate with Arafat, whom Washington long has sought to sideline. "No. Period. He is not an interlocutor for peace, he demonstrated that over the years," Powell said.

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/030907/1/3dzw2.html

Adams:

>Europe gives more AID than the US to developing countries, which minimises terrorist attack far more than attacking countries and creating new ones.

I don’t suspect you are saying the US ought to pay terrorists not to make them targets? I have data which suggests USAID disbursements per annum since WW2 have exceeded the EU’s per annum over same period every year. Some individual EU member states have a higher per capita foreign aid spending than the US does, but that’s as far as it goes. The assistance typically has an ‘appraised’ value which includes actual money sent or credited to the recipient plus (usually about 60%) in goods purchased by the donor at home and transferred to the beneficiary (this is true for all donors, including the EU). Likewise, need is not a primary determinant as more ‘deserving’ recipients are passed over for political reasons (also by all donors).

On Bush II’s diplomatic skills there sure isn’t much to say (‘poor’ or ‘low’ seem best). I would note that Powell’s do seem excellent. The global shuttle diplomacy in the days immediately following 911 achieved a lot and the solidarity then felt still promotes commitments and deployments from many governments in Europe, Asia, Latin America and the Anglosphere. Did Bush sense Powell’s outstanding diplomatic skill and thus deserves kudos for his appointment? Bush is seen a bully in most of Europe, they don’t see the urgency for the attack on Iraq, but they didn’t see it from the get go either (neither did or do I).

Divergence with the American “War on Terror” first emerged with the expansion of the agenda to include “pursuit of WMDs”. Not that this isn’t a good thing, just that it was seen as a change not meriting as wholehearted an endorsement. The Euros generally were 100% behind fighting international terrorism with military force wherever it could be found and Afghanistan certainly was that. Targetting states known to harbour or shelter terrorists seemed acceptable. While some remain 100% committed to the “War on Terror”, others have either expanded their commitment to include “WMD pursuit” or withdrawn levels of commitment to even fighting international terrorism.

The arguments against too much latitude in targetting are multiple and range from the need to recognize authentic struggles for self-determination and freedom from human rights violations, to concern over self-interested focusing on locales at strategic geographic locations or with valuable resources of interest to those promoting intervention.

[rmnunez]

Adams, the problem with this ideal (authentic or genuine) democratic communism espoused is that it has to be implemented by people who are not that idealistic. International socialism has a very appealing platform, particularly to the dispossesed, but people are people and when it comes down to applying this problems arise. Ideally there would be some sort of 'revolving door' to let everyone and anyone take a hand at the helm, but this would surely set the ship of state adrift. Ideally international socialism would abolish all borders, the ship of state would be no more and the world governed from some central organ (the UN?) but then the bureaucracy becomes interminable and the sensitivity to and imput from those directly afflicted becomes tenuous. Finally there are serious problems implementing this model as the propertied classes are unwilling to surrender their possessions meekly. Thus they came up with the "dictatorship of the proletariat" but we saw this didn't work in Russia at all. Communism cannot succeed in a world which allows any other model to exist, its either universal or fails, but most people don't want to give up their property though they do want others to do so for their more or less 'collective' interest.

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by rmnunez@Sep 8 2003, 03:54 AM Adams, the problem with this ideal (authentic or genuine) democratic communism espoused is that it has to be implemented by people who are not that idealistic. International socialism has a very appealing platform, particularly to the dispossesed, but people are people and when it comes down to applying this problems arise. Ideally there would be some sort of 'revolving door' to let everyone and anyone take a hand at the helm, but this would surely set the ship of state adrift. Ideally international socialism would abolish all borders, the ship of state would be no more and the world governed from some central organ (the UN?) but then the bureaucracy becomes interminable and the sensitivity to and imput from those directly afflicted becomes tenuous. Finally there are serious problems implementing this model as the propertied classes are unwilling to surrender their possessions meekly. Thus they came up with the "dictatorship of the proletariat" but we saw this didn't work in Russia at all. Communism cannot succeed in a world which allows any other model to exist, its either universal or fails, but most people don't want to give up their property though they do want others to do so for their more or less 'collective' interest.

The problem of the propertied class not giving up their property is dealt with as has always been predicted, by arms.

The dictatorship of the proleteriat is not a USSR concept, it is an integral part of Marx's predictions of how history will move. As I have said elsewhere, this dictatorship of the proleteriat simply reflects that all power would be in the hands of the proles rather than the bourgois.

People don't want to give up their property? Most people don't have ANY property at all to begin with. Remember that if your household earns £25 000 a year or more you are in the top 1% of the world population. Thats about $35 000 for the Americans. So if this is a world movement, which it must be to succeed, I don't see the majority giving up the property that they don't have.

[rmnunez]

Adams, defining who are the 'propertied' is key to 'selling' the "world proletarian revolution". If the person being 'sold' the idea is told they have to give up their car, TV, tools, they oppose socialism, if they are told its about taking Bill Gate's billions and spending on better schools for their kids, then socialism sounds much better.

[Geoff332]

You're dead right that Marx presented communism as a progressive system that would replace capitalism. You're also right that the majority of people in the world don't have much by way of possessions. The problem is, that same vast majority of people also don't live in societies that are in any practical sense capitalist. They tend to be primarily agrarian or feudal economies (or even subsistance). The very progression outlined by Marx would be that they will supplant these systems with capitalist systems. Once these systems settled in, one would expect to see a capitalist revolution.