Metal Reviews

Interesting stuff coming from Iran:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/200 ... ran-crisis

I love how much love Moussavi gets in Western media, as if he is Iran's saviour. Far from the truth, of course, as Moussavi will hardly be able to change anything regarding foreign policies. The only thing he'll manage are just a bit less homosexual hangings and just a bit less female discrimination, etc. Funny how it reminds me of last year's U.S. elections, with Obama and McCain largely being two sides of the same coin as well. In the States it's the American-Jewish lobby, in Iran it's the Ayatollah.

The "Jewish Lobby" is really a lot smaller than people say it is. In fact, it's almost nonexistent. (If by "lobby" you mean an actual political lobby, not just some vague generalization of Zionist sympathizers within the US).

Well yes, and Rio and trapt will be along in a moment to agree and tell you how Iran needs a socialist revolution. But it's better than it was, and that's the bottom line. Less homosexuals hung, less rapes, more rights for women, (presumably) slowing down on the old nucular weaponisation, all good things.

And Obama and McCain were not two sides of the same coin, at all. One picked Sarah Palin as a running mate, the other gave a speech where he didn't more or less threaten the lives of all the Muslims he was speaking too. Progress is a trickle, not a raging river.

Socialist revolutions are soooo 1933. Seriously, how anyone can still believe in that is beyond me. Those are often the same people that deny Che Guevara was a cruel mass murderer...

... who was going to put homosexuals in camps. Hm, just like the Nazis did.

Yep. He made some pretty discriminating comments about blacks as well, f.e.: "The Negro is indolent and lazy, and spends his money on frivolities, whereas the European is forward-looking, organized and intelligent."

Funny how all the cool kids run around with shirts and badges of Che, innit? I'll try walking around town with some Goebbels merch, we'll see how that turns out.

120 million dead because of various marxist regimes, and counting...

Why soooo 1933 in particular?

This would be the Randian logic (aka gibberish) that puts the Nazis as a socialist organisation and Hitler as a Marxist, right?



Oh, you!

You're the one that was on about how there would be no progress in China without Obama's input.

As a matter of fact, I, on the other hand, believe there is generally an inexorable slide towards greater democratisation in dictatorships, barring outside interference. The conditions for democratisation are inherent to the conditions for dictatorship.

So it doesn't surprise me at all that Iran is more progressive now than it was; these are the laws of society IMO.

By the way, the correct way to respond to the arguments made by trapt, DM or I is to wait for several days/weeks, then post something about Che Guevara being mean.

Bah, here we go again. OK, in order:

Yes, a bit of outside support for the protesters in Iran would go down nicely, I'd assume. Obviously if you oppress a population they'll arise eventually, but why should they suffer through all that waiting (years and years, in some cases) rather than have a little help from their friends? Isn't there something in Trotsky about spreading revolution across Europe?

Heh, you know I treat these little tete-a-tetes with less than 100% seriouscatness. Castro! Now he was a shit. Pity these revolutionaries have to get all violent.

How many deaths are being caused in South Africa due to free market policies and the WTO preventing the use of generic AIDS drugs being created? Haven't we realized that all ideologies cause death? "And counting", what do you mean? Oh my gosh, somebody was racist in the 60s?

Oh but about Moussavi? I don't like him cause he is for privatization. He is criticizing Ahmadinejad reliance on oil sales while he wants to sell the oil industry off to Exxon, probably. His social policies seem nice but I wonder if it is just a facade.

In reference to Africa, I was surprised that none of you brought this up:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ju ... ape-survey

Bloody hell.

Goat!

Ok, but I'm sure you're aware that what Trotsky meant by "spreading revolution across Europe" was lightyears away from what we would take today as the liberal idea of humanitarian interventionism, which is rooted in the idea of nation states pursuing their own interests. International Socialism is about rank-and-file internationalism; i.e. oppressed peoples cooperating regardless of national divisions.

So, it's not to say that ALL outside intervention is destructive, of course not. But, when it comes in the form of governmental intervention under rhetorically "humanitarian" (yeah right) means, it certainly can be. No doubt, there are cases that show otherwise. The "intervention" against Nazi Germany in WWII, being the most obvious example.

But look at somewhere like Cuba, seeing as how you mention Castro. The "outside intervention" of the US embargo surely prevented democratisation, right? Had it not been there, I think it's very likely that the country would not have turned out the way it did. I also suspect it would have been more democratic than it was under Batista.

Even these situations like Cambodia, have to be seen in terms of international context. Any serious history of the Pol Pot regime points to the bombing of that country during the Vietnam war as instrumental in generating support for the Khmer Rouge.

Holy moly

I don't know - I find the whole simplification of politics depressing. There's so many shades of grey, and either 'wing' trying to say one thing or the other, when it's a combination of both... There were Iraqis whose lives were improved by the American invasion, whatever Cheney's plans for the oil reserves were. There were people whose lives were saved by Clinton's bombings... With hindsight, I'm sure plenty of the current left will come to see the occupation of Iraq in a positive light, not to say that that's the best way to view it, obviously.

Of course government intervention can be destructive, whatever rhetoric it comes under. I could mention how the selfish allies didn't bomb the concentration camps in WW2, for example, how they were willing to watch Czechoslovakia get swallowed up, how the US and USSR only joined the war when their own interests were threatened... We're arguing the same point. I was just in favour of supporting the Iranian protesters, which you seemed to be against.

The US fucked up on Cuba, true, aside from the whole missile thang. Probably a good job the Russians were there, since Guevara said he'd have launched them. And it all leads to western support for Israel -> 9/11, I suppose.

I have family there. They have to sleep with a pistol under their pillows there. The end of apartheid has brought them nothing but misery.

I wonder what the ratios of black-on-black, white-on-black and black-on-white rapes are.

I wonder.

*leaves thread before shitstorm*

Exactly

Or the dirt cheap auctioning off of the government to multinational corporations, leaving the government with no money and the multinationals to jump to another country a decade later after decimating the country's economy? Am I wrong or are you saying ending an institutionalized injustice is what is causing all the rape because if so it seems as if you're missing the fact that the IMF has decimated their economy and workforce, acts which tend to breed criminality.

The ANC got rolled by the IMF leaving the country in a state worse than what it was before they took power is all I'm saying.

You remind me of the FAG in Team America: World Police with your ranting about multinationals

Goat!

I'm not against supporting the Iranian protesters at all. You mentioned Trotsky, and no doubt he would say something similar to me. International cooperation between victims of state oppression is the most admirable of things. But, it's also one of the most idealistic of things, with little proven track record of success at all.

Of course, we can imagine a situation where powerful governments such as the US intervene in a situation such as Iran, disempower Ahmadinejad, and turn power over to the Iranian people. And then we can hold up this vision as something to aim for, as a lot of people like Chris Hitchens have done. But, it's not something to aim for, because it won't happen. The reason it won't happen, is because national governments ultimately act in their own interests, in which the good of the Iranian people plays a negligible role.

Which brings me to this assertion. You say we shouldn't oversimplify politics, but I say there are indeed factors which are almost universally bad. First among these is nationalism/the nation state. What good has the idea of dividing the earth's land up into segments of territory, governed by an institution to which inhabitants of that territory are expected to pledge allegiance, ever brought us? Where are the shades of grey that can convince me that it's not been such a bad thing after all?

Of course, those that disagree will point to events like WWII, and say that "oh, the US and USSR were acting in their own national interest and look how important that was". Sure, but the question they never, ever, go on to answer after that argument, is what caused WWII in the first place?

If we read Russian history, we find that one of the most murderous processes in human history was the massive industrialisation of the country under Stalin, with people being forced into factories for starvation wages and with the utmost brutality. But why was this done? You could take the Karmakosmonaut route, and say "Stalin identified himself as a Marxist. Ergo it is Marx's fault". Or you could ask why this was done? It was done so that the USSR could compete economically, and therefore militarily, with the US. So are Marxist or Nationalist principles to blame?

Got off track a bit there... But yes, I support the Iranian protesters. It doesn't necessarily follow that I support the efforts of other governments to involve themselves directly in the situation.