eimar, the fraudulence of the beheading videos and the clear link between these fakes and the Ziogorgon Rita Katz and her SITE disinformation conduit is blatant. It screams for MSM investigation. I will now commence laughing. The Zionazies’s cunning is not as great as they think it is, but the MSM presstitutes’ groveling obeisance to their Zionazi betters only grows and grows.
Why, oh dear lord why, did the Iranians sign up to this?
It’s utterly pointless!
First of all: the sanctions won’t be lifted immediately, it will takes years (it’s written in the agreement itself) in a long and dragged out process.
Second; one of the longest sanctions to be lifted [in 8 years-time, if I remember correctly] it’s the type of stuff Russia should be providing Iran with: like the S-300s. Thirdly; they’ve agreed to very invasive “inspections” which include civilian AND military facilities [Bravo, Iran! Provide the hegemon with a road map to bomb the shit out of your most sensitive sites without them having to gather the intelligence first! Might as well advertise those sites in Google map and get it over and done with].
Lastly; the American POTUS can veto the agreement at any time he chooses, this means Obongo or whoever else would be sitting in Office at the time… like the next warmongering US president, whoever he or she would be…
I can warrantee you [and I’m totally in agreement with PCR’s prediction on this] the next POTUS will tear this agreement up, and even if s/he won’t do that, it’s still not good news at all. It just means Iran caved-in and decided to become a US vassal state :/
Yes, I feel sorry for the Iranians as well. They have been put into this always-losing situation with the totally unjustified sanctions. They have suffered for some many years under sanctions I’m surprised they are not all in tatters. Knowing the neocons, I am sure the next POTUS will cause “snapback” sanctions to take place once elected. I have no misguided fantasy that a leapard will change it’s spots.
To further my earlier point, here is an article that precisely describe the “creative ambiguity” of agreements signed by POTUS since Nixon. They make everyone believes they have a “good agreement”, but it means different things to each side. This is of tremendous disadvantage to the non-Hegemon. As the sole Hegemon, US is then able to force it’s interpretations on its vassal states like the EU and of course, the ass-kissers like the 5-eyes to get its way… and obviously, the Western MSM will only broadcast the US’s interpretation of every agreement, the other side don’t even get any say in that. Should have been obvious for years.
I pray that Iran has not made some back room deals with the Modern West in order for this “historic” agreement. I hope Iran does not become an “ally” of the Modern West similar to the Zionist Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
I also hope that after everything the US and CO have pulled in the last 20 years, the ayatollah and the revolutionary guard have some kind of fall back plan when the US inevitably does a 180 on this deal.
you guys who are uncertain about Iran’s intentions…listen to Hassan NasrAllah on Saker’s last week…he has no doubts about Iran…forever and ever Iran has been true to their own intentions….never double faced….
Short term, I would say no, as memory of the injustice is still fresh in the minds of current leaders and citizens; but over time, I would not be surprised that Iranians bought into “the West is good” nonsense, due to (a) great MSM propaganda that may now be received by Iranians and (b) memory on the original injustice of sanctions based on manufactured “evidence” fade…
A great example would be Vietnam. Heck, despite US having dropped more bombs on them than all bombs dropped in Europe during WWII, including such atrocities as MyLai, Napalm, Agent Orange, Vietnamese by now seem eager to “forget” what was done to them, and welcoming Uncle Sam with open arms. Go figure!
That amazes me too.I think it has to do with the governments decision to normalize relations.Most of peoples “historical memory” is what they are taught and told the memory should be.Unless you lived through something (which by now most Vietnamese probably didn’t,unless as little kids) you are reminded by your society to remember.If the government (for their own reasons) tamped down the “remembering”,then people don’t remember.
I must say; I agree with you both [alan & Uncle Bob]… because, can anyone explain to me the Japanese case? The one and only country ever nuked – no hyperbole here: NUKED by the USofA and they’re still kind of fond of ‘merikans…
PS: no disrespect intended to the Japanese. If anything, I’m in huge fan of their society and culture.
I think it has to do with culture.Remember in the old Japanese culture if you failed you lost honor and committed “hari kari”.I thing somehow the US and Japanese leaders were able to use that with the bombings.That they were Japan’s punishment for failure.And in those days the US was very concerned that Japan would turn Communist.So unlike most of their vassal states they actually worked to restore Japan’s economy.A prosperous Japan wasn’t likely to go Communist was their thinking.They also used the schools to push Americanization of the soft culture.Today is different.The financial looting has started.But in the early years it was different.A good example of those different policies are Japan,South Korea,and Taiwan.Where the US was afraid of Communism taking hold.And helped their economies to grow in the beginning.And a country like the Philippines that the US actually owned.They had no fear for their control there.And did nothing for that country’s economy.You can easily see the difference in the levels of development between those areas today.The first 3 to 1st World levels,and the 4th at 3rd World level.
“[..] if you failed you lost honor and committed “hari kari”. I think somehow the US and Japanese leaders were able to use that with the bombings. That they were Japan’s punishment for failure.”
Oh I see, a bit like guilt-tripping Catholics (or some other religion/ideology based on self-flagellation) into compliance.
“So unlike most of their [other] vassal states they [the US] actually worked to restore Japan’s economy. A prosperous Japan wasn’t likely to go Communist was their thinking.”
Very true, but that was back in the day. Nowadays Japan is carrying a deficit, plus an internal national debt that would make your eyes water just by reading the figures (aren’t they, like, the most indebted country in the whole of the word – and considering the state of the world finances, that’s saying something…)
To me it reads like, no matter what ‘special’ status [I’m looking at Israhell and other protégé nations] your vassal nation may currently hold, they’re all thrown under the bus when the time is ripe… eventually.
“A good example of those different policies are Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Where the US was afraid of Communism taking hold. And helped their economies to grow in the beginning [..]”
I know ;-)
“You can easily see the difference in the levels of development between those areas today. The first 3 to 1st World levels and the 4th at 3rd World level.”
Hey! The Philippines is one thing, but the North Koreans are not doing too bad for themselves – despite what western propaganda may say [and if you manage to get over that freaky ‘we worship our leader’ thing they got going…] Point is; they’re really not doing so bad.
And also, we, of course; have China in that region. They’re pretty much kicking everybody into the mud when it comes to the subject of global ‘markets’ – forget ‘emerging’ markets – they’ve been the leader of the global markets/economy for years now, it’s just that the US like to employ Goldman Sachs style of dodgy “book-keeping” in order to reward themselves with the pole position in global markets… after all; they’re the one and only exceptionally-exceptional country on Earth, as we all know…
With the recent discussion about socialism, and what it means, but also regarding what the US and imperialism means, and what changes are needed, this article provides an important perspective of differences two major political ideologies, as well specific points about Sanders — the so-called ‘alternative’ to the two-wing US political machine.
The growth of support for the campaign of the “socialist” Bernie Sanders is an indication of the leftward shift of broad layers of the American population. The senator from Vermont, who calls himself an independent but caucuses with the Democrats, is seeking to tap into popular anger over ever-rising social inequality by placing the issue at the center of his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.
In his campaign speeches, he declares that income inequality is “the great moral issue of our time” and attacks the greed of the “billionaire class,” while calling for the restoration of “the once-great American middle class.”
Sanders has been gaining on Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, in key early primary states. In two months, Clinton’s lead in New Hampshire has shrunk from 38 points to 8. In Iowa, Sanders is currently polling at 33 percent, 19 points below Clinton. The Clinton campaign, which was expected to cruise to an easy nomination, now admits that she may lose to Sanders in Iowa.
The Vermont senator has generally drawn larger crowds than any other announced presidential candidate. A July 1 rally in Madison, Wisconsin drew 13,000 people. By contrast, Clinton’s largest rally thus far, held in New York City, attracted only 5,000 people.
Support for Sanders is all the more significant given that anti-communism has served as the bedrock of official politics in the United States for more than 70 years. From the McCarthyite witch-hunts and Hollywood blacklists of the 1950s, through the triumphalism that accompanied the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, socialism has been effectively banned from official political discourse in the United States.
Broad layers of the population, particularly young people, are alienated and disaffected from the political establishment and its two right-wing parties of big business. Voter turnout in the 2014 mid-term elections was a mere 36.3 percent, the lowest in over seven decades.
Recent polls give an indication of the depth of this sentiment. According to a Pew Survey, the portion of the voting-age population that identifies with neither of the two major parties has reached a record-high 39 percent. A Gallup poll last month found that fully 47 percent of respondents were willing to vote for a socialist for president.
Many people are looking for alternatives to the existing political and economic order, which offers nothing but inequality, war and escalating attacks on democratic rights. For this reason, Sanders’ “socialism,” far from being a liability, has actually contributed to his popularity. Young people, in particular, are intrigued by the prospect of a socialist presidential candidate.
But is Bernie Sanders really a socialist? This question raises a related one: What are the basic principles of socialism?
Internationalism: Since the publication of the Communist Manifesto in 1848, which proclaimed, “Workers of the world, unite!” the socialist movement has been an international movement. Engels described the International Workingmen’s Association as “the first international movement of the working class.”
The basic orientation of bourgeois politics is nationalism, according to which workers should identify their interests with those of the nation, which, of course, is ruled by the capitalist class. To this, socialism counterposes the perspective and program of working class internationalism, stressing the identity of interests of workers of all countries, races, religions, etc., who are objectively united in a common struggle against the capitalists of all countries.
Socialism strives to unite the workers of all countries on the basis of a common revolutionary program and stresses that the struggle to put an end to capitalist exploitation and establish socialism is, by its very nature, an international struggle. Socialism opposes all attempts to scapegoat or discriminate against immigrants and rejects all forms of nationalist or racial politics, which serve to divide the working class.
Bernie Sanders is not an internationalist. He is an American nationalist. He is a consistent advocate of economic nationalism and protectionism, which seek to place the onus for layoffs and unemployment in the US on the workers of other countries. By virtue of his “America First” politics, he seeks to line up American workers behind “their” American exploiters and in opposition to their class brothers and sisters in other countries. He has long agitated, in particular, against China, opposing trade deals from a chauvinist standpoint.
Sanders opposes the Obama administration’s Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) from a right-wing, nationalist standpoint. The proposed economic bloc is a reactionary initiative, part of American imperialism’s drive to isolate, militarily encircle and ultimately attack China. But Sanders does not oppose it on an anti-imperialist basis. Rather, he accuses the TPP of “undermining American sovereignty.”
For years, Sanders has attacked immigrant workers, accusing them of taking the jobs of American workers. He has sponsored multiple bills opposing the federal visa program, while supporting the immigration policy of Obama, who has deported more immigrants than any other administration in history. For his efforts, right-wing anti-immigrant talk show host Lou Dobbs called Sanders “one of the few straight-talkers in Congress.”
Social ownership of the means of production: The rational development of a complex global economy to benefit the world’s population is blocked by the anarchy of the capitalist market, which subordinates all decisions to the profit interests of a few. The American and world economy is dominated by a handful of banks and hedge funds whose operations are entirely parasitic and essentially criminal. The resources of the world, first and foremost, human labor, are subordinated to the drive of a narrow financial aristocracy to accumulate ever greater wealth. A necessary first step in the development of a planned economy geared to social need and the promotion of social equality is the expropriation of the major banks and corporations and their transformation into publicly owned and democratically controlled institutions.
The question of social ownership of industry and finance is not even mentioned in Sanders’ speeches. He talks about the “billionaire class,” but is careful not to speak of the capitalist class. His use of phrases such as the “billionaire class” and the “great American middle class” are indicative of the intellectual vacuity of his politics, which serves to conceal rather than reveal the underlying roots of social inequality and other social evils.
The term “billionaire class” has no scientific validity. Social class is determined not by the scale of wealth, but by the relationship of social layers to the basic economic structure of society. Sanders seeks to divert attention from the economic system on which obscene levels of personal wealth are based.
Similarly, talk of the “great American middle class,” a nebulous and essentially mythical construct, has long served to cover up and blur the basic division between the working class and capitalist class that dominates society.
None of Sanders’ programmatic demands touch on the private ownership and control of the main levers of economic life. His program is not only not socialist, it is not particularly left-wing. Democratic presidential platforms during the last great period of economic crisis, the 1930s, were far more radical. The 1936 platform, for example, pledged to make full use of the law “in stamping out monopolistic practices and the concentration of economic power.”
Sanders’ reform proposals—a $15 minimum wage, a federal jobs program—modest as they are, cannot be realized outside of a broad mobilization of the working class in opposition to the ruling class and both of its political parties. The Vermont senator promotes the illusion that they can be achieved within the framework of the Democratic Party and the capitalist system.
His most radical proposal is the breakup of the biggest banks, a reform measure that was carried out in isolated cases during the Great Depression as part of Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” program, which was enacted for the purpose of saving capitalism from the threat of socialist revolution. Sanders knows, of course, that the Democratic Party of today, whose nomination he is seeking, would never carry out such a measure and has instead used the financial crash of 2008 to transfer trillions of dollars in public funds to Wall Street and strengthen the grip of the biggest banks on the economy.
Anti-imperialism: We continue to live in the epoch of imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism. Imperialism emerged at the end of the 19th century. Its main features were defined by Lenin during World War I as the monopolistic concentration of production, the domination of finance capital and economic parasitism, the great power striving for global geo-political and economic dominance, the oppression of weaker nations, and the universal tendency toward political reaction.
Lenin called imperialism the epoch of wars and revolutions. The irreconcilable contradictions—between global economy and the division of the world into rival nation-states, the basic geo-political framework of capitalism, and between socialized production and private ownership of the means of production—inevitably give rise to wars of colonial conquest and wars between rival imperialist powers. They also give rise to the objective conditions for the overthrow of capitalism by the working class.
Socialists oppose all wars waged by imperialist powers such as the United States and oppose all of the efforts of imperialism, whether by economic, political or military means, to subjugate and exploit poorer and weaker countries. Socialists place at the very center of their activities the development of a mass international working class movement against war, insisting that the prevention of a third world war is possible only on the basis of a revolutionary struggle to put an end to capitalism.
Sanders is a supporter of American imperialism. Although he boasts that he voted against the Patriot Act and the Iraq War, he has voted for numerous defense spending bills and has supported imperialist interventions under the guise of human rights, including the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia and the current war against ISIS.
Sanders supported the US-led regime-change operation, spearheaded by neo-Nazis, that overthrew a pro-Russian government in Ukraine and installed a rabidly anti-Russian, right-wing government, which has carried out a bloody war against pro-Russian separatists in the east of the country. The US has used its puppet government in Kiev to carry out a massive US-NATO militarization drive in Eastern Europe, threatening the outbreak of war with nuclear-armed Russia.
Sanders supports this reckless and reactionary policy, portraying it as a defensive response to “Russian aggression.” In a 2014 television interview he declared, “The entire world has got to stand up to Putin.”
Sanders is also a staunch Zionist. He defended Israel’s barbaric war in Gaza last year. Video has emerged of Sanders at one of his public meetings shouting down and threatening protesters challenging his support for the state of Israel.
He is a supporter of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a next-generation warplane that has a unit price of $350 million and whose development has already cost $1 trillion. Sanders supports the basing of F-35s in Burlington, Vermont, where he served as mayor in the 1980s.
Social equality: Capitalism, which is predicated upon the exploitation of the working class, is incapable of providing economic security and a decent standard of living for working people. Even at its height during the post-World War II economic boom, American capitalism was characterized by massive discrepancies of wealth and income and widespread poverty.
The past 40 years have seen a vast decline in the global economic position of American capitalism. This has produced ever greater levels of social inequality, the result of a relentless attack on the living standards of the working class. This process is bound up with the dismantling of large parts of the country’s industrial infrastructure and the rise of a new financial aristocracy, which accumulates its wealth on the basis of non-productive, parasitic and semi-criminal activities.
Social inequality is not some aberration of capitalism, it is its essential feature.
Sanders, for all his populist rhetoric, defends capitalism and opposes the mass mobilization of the working class. On a host of issues, from public health care to mandated vacation time, Sanders holds up European countries as a model to be emulated—at a time when these countries are carrying out brutal austerity measures and dismantling the welfare state programs established after the Second World War. All that is necessary is that we “make better choices,” a recent statement on his web site declared.
Sanders avoids any concrete explanation of the social and political dynamics behind the growth of social inequality and the decades-long assault on the working class. He covers up the role played by the Democratic Party in this process.
On his web site, he declares that “the economy today is much better than when President George W. Bush left office.” In reality, the Obama administration has overseen the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in American history. One Harvard study found that 95 percent of all income gains went to the wealthiest 1 percent of the country between 2009 and 2012.
The political independence of the working class: Socialism insists that the struggles of working people for decent jobs, wages, health care, education, housing, etc. are in essence political. The capitalist ruling class, by virtue of its control of the means of production, controls the political system. For the working class to free itself from economic exploitation, it must conduct a political struggle consciously directed at the taking of power and establishment of a workers’ government.
The most critical question is the political independence of the working class from all parties and politicians of the capitalist class. The working class must advance its own solution to the crisis, and to do so, it must have its own mass socialist party.
That is why in the United States socialists have always opposed the political subordination of the labor movement to the Democratic Party. The tying of American labor to the Democrats by the trade unions has been the primary means for upholding the political dominance of the ruling class. In a country that has seen violent, bitter and heroic workers’ struggles, the political subordination of labor to the Democrats has been the Achilles’ heel of the workers’ movement.
The major political function of Sanders’ campaign is to divert the growing social discontent and hostility toward the existing system behind the Democratic Party, in order to contain and dissipate it. His supposedly “socialist” campaign is an attempt to preempt and block the emergence of an independent movement of the working class. This is underscored by his decision to conduct his campaign within the framework of the Democratic Party. Indeed, Sanders announced at the start of his campaign that he would throw his support behind the eventual Democratic presidential nominee, whomever that might be.
As a comparison of Sanders’ positions to these core conceptions of socialism makes clear, his “socialism” is a ruse to prevent the emergence of the real thing.
This article is interesting two ways.1st,Sanders isn’t a socialist.I’m not sure he even claims to be.What he is ,is a “populist”.Something not seen in the US for so long,Americans don’t even remember them.They have some similar ideas to socialism.But are specific to their own country. 2nd,That article is an example of why nothing changes in the US.To the author it is far more important that there be “ideological purity” than needed changes happen.To the author if he isn’t a “real socialist” then screw him.We’d rather have a fascist rule us,than support a candidate not “pure enough”.There are a lot of questions I have about Sanders myself.But considering the other candidates,I’d choice him over them any day.Not that I think he can be elected though.All the machinery of both parties (plus the “purists” like that author) will be targeting him in a heartbeat.And they’ll destroy him like they did to Ron Paul’s campaign.But what Sanders campaign does show is there is a hunger in the US for a Populist/Socialist candidate/party.And if there was ever a way for them to get the money to battle the 2 party machine they could possibly win.
While I tend to agree with most of your posts, I have to disagree with your conclusion on Sanders that he is perhaps the “better choice”. I learnt the hard way from Obama that it could turn out to be “just as bad, if not worse” choice. The reason is similar to “a wolf in sheep clothing is worse than a naked wolf’. Why? because all the expected opposition (from sheep) would simply disappear, thinking that the creature is a sheep! This happened clearly with Obama, where there is practically no anti-war opposition against him, and there only an invisible opposition to his expanded droning operations, expanded surveillance etc from the left (hardly any to speak of), all becuase he is “from the left”. To be honest, I rather see thousands of US citizens in protest against such policies because POTUS is a republican than no one because he’s a democrat!
I don’t want any of them.But if a gun was at my head and forced to pick.I’d pick him over the other two.As I said before we will never win because we look for “purity”.The Empire’s elite never worry about Socialism in the US for that reason.As for Obama? He is a horrible President.I never thought he would be a good one (Not as bad as he is though.But that’s another story).But let’s not forget who the choices were back then.Would John “I’m an insane warmonger” McCain,have been better.We’d already be in WW3 with Russia if he was President.And the second time around,Mitt “Russia is our number one enemy” Romney.The poster-boy for the billionaire elite in the US. Would he have been better? The US doesn’t have good candidate’s running for President.I can’t think of a single one in my lifetime that I wanted as my President (Kennedy was probably closest).So I always ask myself which one is the one to do me “less” harm.In Donbass and Russia they seem to be able to put aside their differences to work together for their people.We can’t/won’t do that.
“He knows what the corporate media might do with his answer, but whatever . . . “Yeah. I wouldn’t deny it. Not for one second. I’m a democratic socialist.” ”
Linked to from a comment in article I post from WSWS / socialist Equity Party last night.
Sanders tries to skirt the issue while still gaining the benefit of being a ‘socialist’, but as that article argues he is not actually a socialist at all. He’s a fraud — of course he’s a fraud: he’s an American politician with the Democratic Party. He may actually be better than the other fascist candidates — a kinder and gentler imperialist — but he’s no socialist even he pretends to be.
Here’s what Theirry Messan has to say…”Having neutralised the Cuban opposition, the neutralisation of the Iranian opposition is a master-stroke for Barack Obama, because it leaves Russia and China isolated. And indeed, it really is a neutralisation – while Iran has not completely abandoned the anti-imperialist ideals of Ali Shariati and the Imam Rouhollah Khomeiny, it has renounced the idea of entering into conflict with the United States, which means it has given up the idea of exporting the revolution.”
Not sure I agree with him…I’d rather agree with Hassan NasrAllah…Voltairenet is usually off field a bit in MNSHO (my not so humble opinion)
For those wondering about “Cuba selling out,etc”.Here is what the Cuban FM said yesterday at the re-opening of the Cuban Embassy in Washington.It doesn’t sound much like selling out to me:
“While praising the current step in rebuilding relations between the US and Cuba, Rodriguez noted that full normalization will come only when the US lifts the blockade, hands over the “illegally occupied” territory of Guantanamo Bay, and compensate Cuba for “human and economic damages” inflicted by the decades-long siege of the island nation.”
and:
“Speaking to reporters at the State Department Monday, the visiting Cuban minister called the relations with Washington “asymmetric,” and noted that Cuba was not blockading anyone, barring anyone’s citizens from visiting, or occupying anyone’s territory.
Still, he was optimistic about the prospect of real change in relations with the US. “We strongly believe we can both cooperate and coexist in a civilized way,” Rodriguez said.
As for questions about political changes in Cuba as a result of the normalization, he brushed them off by saying that “political opening in Cuba happened in 1959,” the year Castro’s revolutionary forces overthrew the US-backed dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista.” http://www.rt.com/usa/310278-cuba-embassy-us-reopens/
And what are the “actions” you speak of? Renewing diplomatic relations? Something that they tried for from the 1970’s. Cuba doesn’t want (never did) permanent war with the US.They want to be treated as an equal sovereign state.The same as Russia wants.Renewing relations that should never had been cut in the first place,does nothing to help or hurt.I don’t see Russia or China cutting relations with the US.And I also don’t see them kneeling to the US.
I meant you as your above post mentions Dr. Ali Shariati, who is a social writer and social conscious about poor and common people rights. These two books I quoted of his are excellent, and you can think of Jesus feeding the whole village of 10,000+ with only 4 fish. Whenever there is Will then there is the Power too!
Good post – very clear on what is at stake in the US.
I have often been baffled by what Americans call ‘socialism’. They don’t seem to understand what it means at all, and seem to conflate identity politics/liberalism (typically the ‘limousine’ variety) with Marxism.
I can only assume this mental confusion is because hardly anyone has actually read ‘Das Capital’, the best analysis ever of the true nature of the capitalist system, whatever the relevance of the solutions (Marx wrote of British industrial conditions of the late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries and did not envisage economic activity where financiers are also called ‘producers’, even though they are outside of the process completely. Think of Hollywood producers who contribute nothing to the end-product (the film), yet get production credits as a matter of course.)
Nor did he envisage a communications/marketing ‘industry’ which generates very little original content relative to its size: a huge firm like Facebook is basically an information scavenger, with no invention or craft.
Another is bio-tech which justifies its existence on alleged improvement, and claims modifications of natural processes are ‘inventions’ deserving of patent-protection, even when such modifications bring no consumer benefits and are even harmful in the medium/long-term.
The secretive and totalitarian TTIP is the logical outcome: the essentially parasitic nature of much of contemporary industry would not survive without top-down control.
The primary battle is with educating people as to what the term ‘socialism’ really means and to reclaim the true meaning of ‘ production.’
The US is still sabre-rattling at Iran:
““One of the reasons this deal is a good one is that it does nothing to prevent the military option . . . which we are preserving and continually improving,” Carter told reporters en route to Tel Aviv. “But the point of the nuclear deal is to get the result of no Iranian nuclear weapon without carrying out a military strike.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/post-nuclear-deal-carter-says-military-option-against-iran-remains-on-table/2015/07/19/323bb878-2e1f-11e5-bf54-9c6cf6a79573_story.html
He is heading for Israel so he’s got to say that!
Looks like there is Israeli involvement in the reports on the Chatanooga attack:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/israeli-linked-site-intelligence-involved-in-chattanooga-shooting-narrative/5463207
Iran would be foolish indeed to let its guard down too far.
eimar, the fraudulence of the beheading videos and the clear link between these fakes and the Ziogorgon Rita Katz and her SITE disinformation conduit is blatant. It screams for MSM investigation. I will now commence laughing. The Zionazies’s cunning is not as great as they think it is, but the MSM presstitutes’ groveling obeisance to their Zionazi betters only grows and grows.
Why, oh dear lord why, did the Iranians sign up to this?
It’s utterly pointless!
First of all: the sanctions won’t be lifted immediately, it will takes years (it’s written in the agreement itself) in a long and dragged out process.
Second; one of the longest sanctions to be lifted [in 8 years-time, if I remember correctly] it’s the type of stuff Russia should be providing Iran with: like the S-300s. Thirdly; they’ve agreed to very invasive “inspections” which include civilian AND military facilities [Bravo, Iran! Provide the hegemon with a road map to bomb the shit out of your most sensitive sites without them having to gather the intelligence first! Might as well advertise those sites in Google map and get it over and done with].
Lastly; the American POTUS can veto the agreement at any time he chooses, this means Obongo or whoever else would be sitting in Office at the time… like the next warmongering US president, whoever he or she would be…
I can warrantee you [and I’m totally in agreement with PCR’s prediction on this] the next POTUS will tear this agreement up, and even if s/he won’t do that, it’s still not good news at all. It just means Iran caved-in and decided to become a US vassal state :/
-TL2Q
Yes, I feel sorry for the Iranians as well. They have been put into this always-losing situation with the totally unjustified sanctions. They have suffered for some many years under sanctions I’m surprised they are not all in tatters. Knowing the neocons, I am sure the next POTUS will cause “snapback” sanctions to take place once elected. I have no misguided fantasy that a leapard will change it’s spots.
To further my earlier point, here is an article that precisely describe the “creative ambiguity” of agreements signed by POTUS since Nixon. They make everyone believes they have a “good agreement”, but it means different things to each side. This is of tremendous disadvantage to the non-Hegemon. As the sole Hegemon, US is then able to force it’s interpretations on its vassal states like the EU and of course, the ass-kissers like the 5-eyes to get its way… and obviously, the Western MSM will only broadcast the US’s interpretation of every agreement, the other side don’t even get any say in that. Should have been obvious for years.
http://atimes.com/2015/07/the-fallacy-behind-the-iran-deals-creative-ambiguity/
I wouldn’t worry too much about Iran ‘caving in’:
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940429001105
I pray that Iran has not made some back room deals with the Modern West in order for this “historic” agreement. I hope Iran does not become an “ally” of the Modern West similar to the Zionist Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Me too.
I also hope that after everything the US and CO have pulled in the last 20 years, the ayatollah and the revolutionary guard have some kind of fall back plan when the US inevitably does a 180 on this deal.
you guys who are uncertain about Iran’s intentions…listen to Hassan NasrAllah on Saker’s last week…he has no doubts about Iran…forever and ever Iran has been true to their own intentions….never double faced….
Short term, I would say no, as memory of the injustice is still fresh in the minds of current leaders and citizens; but over time, I would not be surprised that Iranians bought into “the West is good” nonsense, due to (a) great MSM propaganda that may now be received by Iranians and (b) memory on the original injustice of sanctions based on manufactured “evidence” fade…
A great example would be Vietnam. Heck, despite US having dropped more bombs on them than all bombs dropped in Europe during WWII, including such atrocities as MyLai, Napalm, Agent Orange, Vietnamese by now seem eager to “forget” what was done to them, and welcoming Uncle Sam with open arms. Go figure!
That amazes me too.I think it has to do with the governments decision to normalize relations.Most of peoples “historical memory” is what they are taught and told the memory should be.Unless you lived through something (which by now most Vietnamese probably didn’t,unless as little kids) you are reminded by your society to remember.If the government (for their own reasons) tamped down the “remembering”,then people don’t remember.
I must say; I agree with you both [alan & Uncle Bob]… because, can anyone explain to me the Japanese case? The one and only country ever nuked – no hyperbole here: NUKED by the USofA and they’re still kind of fond of ‘merikans…
PS: no disrespect intended to the Japanese. If anything, I’m in huge fan of their society and culture.
I think it has to do with culture.Remember in the old Japanese culture if you failed you lost honor and committed “hari kari”.I thing somehow the US and Japanese leaders were able to use that with the bombings.That they were Japan’s punishment for failure.And in those days the US was very concerned that Japan would turn Communist.So unlike most of their vassal states they actually worked to restore Japan’s economy.A prosperous Japan wasn’t likely to go Communist was their thinking.They also used the schools to push Americanization of the soft culture.Today is different.The financial looting has started.But in the early years it was different.A good example of those different policies are Japan,South Korea,and Taiwan.Where the US was afraid of Communism taking hold.And helped their economies to grow in the beginning.And a country like the Philippines that the US actually owned.They had no fear for their control there.And did nothing for that country’s economy.You can easily see the difference in the levels of development between those areas today.The first 3 to 1st World levels,and the 4th at 3rd World level.
“[..] if you failed you lost honor and committed “hari kari”. I think somehow the US and Japanese leaders were able to use that with the bombings. That they were Japan’s punishment for failure.”
Oh I see, a bit like guilt-tripping Catholics (or some other religion/ideology based on self-flagellation) into compliance.
“So unlike most of their [other] vassal states they [the US] actually worked to restore Japan’s economy. A prosperous Japan wasn’t likely to go Communist was their thinking.”
Very true, but that was back in the day. Nowadays Japan is carrying a deficit, plus an internal national debt that would make your eyes water just by reading the figures (aren’t they, like, the most indebted country in the whole of the word – and considering the state of the world finances, that’s saying something…)
To me it reads like, no matter what ‘special’ status [I’m looking at Israhell and other protégé nations] your vassal nation may currently hold, they’re all thrown under the bus when the time is ripe… eventually.
“A good example of those different policies are Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Where the US was afraid of Communism taking hold. And helped their economies to grow in the beginning [..]”
I know ;-)
“You can easily see the difference in the levels of development between those areas today. The first 3 to 1st World levels and the 4th at 3rd World level.”
Hey! The Philippines is one thing, but the North Koreans are not doing too bad for themselves – despite what western propaganda may say [and if you manage to get over that freaky ‘we worship our leader’ thing they got going…] Point is; they’re really not doing so bad.
And also, we, of course; have China in that region. They’re pretty much kicking everybody into the mud when it comes to the subject of global ‘markets’ – forget ‘emerging’ markets – they’ve been the leader of the global markets/economy for years now, it’s just that the US like to employ Goldman Sachs style of dodgy “book-keeping” in order to reward themselves with the pole position in global markets… after all; they’re the one and only exceptionally-exceptional country on Earth, as we all know…
-TL2Q
I was surprised the Outlaw Empire didn’t veto the UNSC sanctions removing resolution
Does anyone still seriously trust the US?
yes, Americans
OT
With the recent discussion about socialism, and what it means, but also regarding what the US and imperialism means, and what changes are needed, this article provides an important perspective of differences two major political ideologies, as well specific points about Sanders — the so-called ‘alternative’ to the two-wing US political machine.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/07/16/sand-j16.html?pk_campaign=Newsletter
Is Bernie Sanders a socialist?
By Tom Hall and Barry Grey
16 July 2015
The growth of support for the campaign of the “socialist” Bernie Sanders is an indication of the leftward shift of broad layers of the American population. The senator from Vermont, who calls himself an independent but caucuses with the Democrats, is seeking to tap into popular anger over ever-rising social inequality by placing the issue at the center of his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.
In his campaign speeches, he declares that income inequality is “the great moral issue of our time” and attacks the greed of the “billionaire class,” while calling for the restoration of “the once-great American middle class.”
Sanders has been gaining on Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, in key early primary states. In two months, Clinton’s lead in New Hampshire has shrunk from 38 points to 8. In Iowa, Sanders is currently polling at 33 percent, 19 points below Clinton. The Clinton campaign, which was expected to cruise to an easy nomination, now admits that she may lose to Sanders in Iowa.
The Vermont senator has generally drawn larger crowds than any other announced presidential candidate. A July 1 rally in Madison, Wisconsin drew 13,000 people. By contrast, Clinton’s largest rally thus far, held in New York City, attracted only 5,000 people.
Support for Sanders is all the more significant given that anti-communism has served as the bedrock of official politics in the United States for more than 70 years. From the McCarthyite witch-hunts and Hollywood blacklists of the 1950s, through the triumphalism that accompanied the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, socialism has been effectively banned from official political discourse in the United States.
Broad layers of the population, particularly young people, are alienated and disaffected from the political establishment and its two right-wing parties of big business. Voter turnout in the 2014 mid-term elections was a mere 36.3 percent, the lowest in over seven decades.
Recent polls give an indication of the depth of this sentiment. According to a Pew Survey, the portion of the voting-age population that identifies with neither of the two major parties has reached a record-high 39 percent. A Gallup poll last month found that fully 47 percent of respondents were willing to vote for a socialist for president.
Many people are looking for alternatives to the existing political and economic order, which offers nothing but inequality, war and escalating attacks on democratic rights. For this reason, Sanders’ “socialism,” far from being a liability, has actually contributed to his popularity. Young people, in particular, are intrigued by the prospect of a socialist presidential candidate.
But is Bernie Sanders really a socialist? This question raises a related one: What are the basic principles of socialism?
Internationalism: Since the publication of the Communist Manifesto in 1848, which proclaimed, “Workers of the world, unite!” the socialist movement has been an international movement. Engels described the International Workingmen’s Association as “the first international movement of the working class.”
The basic orientation of bourgeois politics is nationalism, according to which workers should identify their interests with those of the nation, which, of course, is ruled by the capitalist class. To this, socialism counterposes the perspective and program of working class internationalism, stressing the identity of interests of workers of all countries, races, religions, etc., who are objectively united in a common struggle against the capitalists of all countries.
Socialism strives to unite the workers of all countries on the basis of a common revolutionary program and stresses that the struggle to put an end to capitalist exploitation and establish socialism is, by its very nature, an international struggle. Socialism opposes all attempts to scapegoat or discriminate against immigrants and rejects all forms of nationalist or racial politics, which serve to divide the working class.
Bernie Sanders is not an internationalist. He is an American nationalist. He is a consistent advocate of economic nationalism and protectionism, which seek to place the onus for layoffs and unemployment in the US on the workers of other countries. By virtue of his “America First” politics, he seeks to line up American workers behind “their” American exploiters and in opposition to their class brothers and sisters in other countries. He has long agitated, in particular, against China, opposing trade deals from a chauvinist standpoint.
Sanders opposes the Obama administration’s Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) from a right-wing, nationalist standpoint. The proposed economic bloc is a reactionary initiative, part of American imperialism’s drive to isolate, militarily encircle and ultimately attack China. But Sanders does not oppose it on an anti-imperialist basis. Rather, he accuses the TPP of “undermining American sovereignty.”
For years, Sanders has attacked immigrant workers, accusing them of taking the jobs of American workers. He has sponsored multiple bills opposing the federal visa program, while supporting the immigration policy of Obama, who has deported more immigrants than any other administration in history. For his efforts, right-wing anti-immigrant talk show host Lou Dobbs called Sanders “one of the few straight-talkers in Congress.”
Social ownership of the means of production: The rational development of a complex global economy to benefit the world’s population is blocked by the anarchy of the capitalist market, which subordinates all decisions to the profit interests of a few. The American and world economy is dominated by a handful of banks and hedge funds whose operations are entirely parasitic and essentially criminal. The resources of the world, first and foremost, human labor, are subordinated to the drive of a narrow financial aristocracy to accumulate ever greater wealth. A necessary first step in the development of a planned economy geared to social need and the promotion of social equality is the expropriation of the major banks and corporations and their transformation into publicly owned and democratically controlled institutions.
The question of social ownership of industry and finance is not even mentioned in Sanders’ speeches. He talks about the “billionaire class,” but is careful not to speak of the capitalist class. His use of phrases such as the “billionaire class” and the “great American middle class” are indicative of the intellectual vacuity of his politics, which serves to conceal rather than reveal the underlying roots of social inequality and other social evils.
The term “billionaire class” has no scientific validity. Social class is determined not by the scale of wealth, but by the relationship of social layers to the basic economic structure of society. Sanders seeks to divert attention from the economic system on which obscene levels of personal wealth are based.
Similarly, talk of the “great American middle class,” a nebulous and essentially mythical construct, has long served to cover up and blur the basic division between the working class and capitalist class that dominates society.
None of Sanders’ programmatic demands touch on the private ownership and control of the main levers of economic life. His program is not only not socialist, it is not particularly left-wing. Democratic presidential platforms during the last great period of economic crisis, the 1930s, were far more radical. The 1936 platform, for example, pledged to make full use of the law “in stamping out monopolistic practices and the concentration of economic power.”
Sanders’ reform proposals—a $15 minimum wage, a federal jobs program—modest as they are, cannot be realized outside of a broad mobilization of the working class in opposition to the ruling class and both of its political parties. The Vermont senator promotes the illusion that they can be achieved within the framework of the Democratic Party and the capitalist system.
His most radical proposal is the breakup of the biggest banks, a reform measure that was carried out in isolated cases during the Great Depression as part of Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” program, which was enacted for the purpose of saving capitalism from the threat of socialist revolution. Sanders knows, of course, that the Democratic Party of today, whose nomination he is seeking, would never carry out such a measure and has instead used the financial crash of 2008 to transfer trillions of dollars in public funds to Wall Street and strengthen the grip of the biggest banks on the economy.
Anti-imperialism: We continue to live in the epoch of imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism. Imperialism emerged at the end of the 19th century. Its main features were defined by Lenin during World War I as the monopolistic concentration of production, the domination of finance capital and economic parasitism, the great power striving for global geo-political and economic dominance, the oppression of weaker nations, and the universal tendency toward political reaction.
Lenin called imperialism the epoch of wars and revolutions. The irreconcilable contradictions—between global economy and the division of the world into rival nation-states, the basic geo-political framework of capitalism, and between socialized production and private ownership of the means of production—inevitably give rise to wars of colonial conquest and wars between rival imperialist powers. They also give rise to the objective conditions for the overthrow of capitalism by the working class.
Socialists oppose all wars waged by imperialist powers such as the United States and oppose all of the efforts of imperialism, whether by economic, political or military means, to subjugate and exploit poorer and weaker countries. Socialists place at the very center of their activities the development of a mass international working class movement against war, insisting that the prevention of a third world war is possible only on the basis of a revolutionary struggle to put an end to capitalism.
Sanders is a supporter of American imperialism. Although he boasts that he voted against the Patriot Act and the Iraq War, he has voted for numerous defense spending bills and has supported imperialist interventions under the guise of human rights, including the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia and the current war against ISIS.
Sanders supported the US-led regime-change operation, spearheaded by neo-Nazis, that overthrew a pro-Russian government in Ukraine and installed a rabidly anti-Russian, right-wing government, which has carried out a bloody war against pro-Russian separatists in the east of the country. The US has used its puppet government in Kiev to carry out a massive US-NATO militarization drive in Eastern Europe, threatening the outbreak of war with nuclear-armed Russia.
Sanders supports this reckless and reactionary policy, portraying it as a defensive response to “Russian aggression.” In a 2014 television interview he declared, “The entire world has got to stand up to Putin.”
Sanders is also a staunch Zionist. He defended Israel’s barbaric war in Gaza last year. Video has emerged of Sanders at one of his public meetings shouting down and threatening protesters challenging his support for the state of Israel.
He is a supporter of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a next-generation warplane that has a unit price of $350 million and whose development has already cost $1 trillion. Sanders supports the basing of F-35s in Burlington, Vermont, where he served as mayor in the 1980s.
Social equality: Capitalism, which is predicated upon the exploitation of the working class, is incapable of providing economic security and a decent standard of living for working people. Even at its height during the post-World War II economic boom, American capitalism was characterized by massive discrepancies of wealth and income and widespread poverty.
The past 40 years have seen a vast decline in the global economic position of American capitalism. This has produced ever greater levels of social inequality, the result of a relentless attack on the living standards of the working class. This process is bound up with the dismantling of large parts of the country’s industrial infrastructure and the rise of a new financial aristocracy, which accumulates its wealth on the basis of non-productive, parasitic and semi-criminal activities.
Social inequality is not some aberration of capitalism, it is its essential feature.
Sanders, for all his populist rhetoric, defends capitalism and opposes the mass mobilization of the working class. On a host of issues, from public health care to mandated vacation time, Sanders holds up European countries as a model to be emulated—at a time when these countries are carrying out brutal austerity measures and dismantling the welfare state programs established after the Second World War. All that is necessary is that we “make better choices,” a recent statement on his web site declared.
Sanders avoids any concrete explanation of the social and political dynamics behind the growth of social inequality and the decades-long assault on the working class. He covers up the role played by the Democratic Party in this process.
On his web site, he declares that “the economy today is much better than when President George W. Bush left office.” In reality, the Obama administration has overseen the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in American history. One Harvard study found that 95 percent of all income gains went to the wealthiest 1 percent of the country between 2009 and 2012.
The political independence of the working class: Socialism insists that the struggles of working people for decent jobs, wages, health care, education, housing, etc. are in essence political. The capitalist ruling class, by virtue of its control of the means of production, controls the political system. For the working class to free itself from economic exploitation, it must conduct a political struggle consciously directed at the taking of power and establishment of a workers’ government.
The most critical question is the political independence of the working class from all parties and politicians of the capitalist class. The working class must advance its own solution to the crisis, and to do so, it must have its own mass socialist party.
That is why in the United States socialists have always opposed the political subordination of the labor movement to the Democratic Party. The tying of American labor to the Democrats by the trade unions has been the primary means for upholding the political dominance of the ruling class. In a country that has seen violent, bitter and heroic workers’ struggles, the political subordination of labor to the Democrats has been the Achilles’ heel of the workers’ movement.
The major political function of Sanders’ campaign is to divert the growing social discontent and hostility toward the existing system behind the Democratic Party, in order to contain and dissipate it. His supposedly “socialist” campaign is an attempt to preempt and block the emergence of an independent movement of the working class. This is underscored by his decision to conduct his campaign within the framework of the Democratic Party. Indeed, Sanders announced at the start of his campaign that he would throw his support behind the eventual Democratic presidential nominee, whomever that might be.
As a comparison of Sanders’ positions to these core conceptions of socialism makes clear, his “socialism” is a ruse to prevent the emergence of the real thing.
thanks for the link. I figured as much, and it just confirm what I suspected.
Blue, I’ve also heard a prediction that Sanders will drop out of the race late in the game and all his ‘voters’ will turn to Hillary Clinton.
This article is interesting two ways.1st,Sanders isn’t a socialist.I’m not sure he even claims to be.What he is ,is a “populist”.Something not seen in the US for so long,Americans don’t even remember them.They have some similar ideas to socialism.But are specific to their own country. 2nd,That article is an example of why nothing changes in the US.To the author it is far more important that there be “ideological purity” than needed changes happen.To the author if he isn’t a “real socialist” then screw him.We’d rather have a fascist rule us,than support a candidate not “pure enough”.There are a lot of questions I have about Sanders myself.But considering the other candidates,I’d choice him over them any day.Not that I think he can be elected though.All the machinery of both parties (plus the “purists” like that author) will be targeting him in a heartbeat.And they’ll destroy him like they did to Ron Paul’s campaign.But what Sanders campaign does show is there is a hunger in the US for a Populist/Socialist candidate/party.And if there was ever a way for them to get the money to battle the 2 party machine they could possibly win.
While I tend to agree with most of your posts, I have to disagree with your conclusion on Sanders that he is perhaps the “better choice”. I learnt the hard way from Obama that it could turn out to be “just as bad, if not worse” choice. The reason is similar to “a wolf in sheep clothing is worse than a naked wolf’. Why? because all the expected opposition (from sheep) would simply disappear, thinking that the creature is a sheep! This happened clearly with Obama, where there is practically no anti-war opposition against him, and there only an invisible opposition to his expanded droning operations, expanded surveillance etc from the left (hardly any to speak of), all becuase he is “from the left”. To be honest, I rather see thousands of US citizens in protest against such policies because POTUS is a republican than no one because he’s a democrat!
I don’t want any of them.But if a gun was at my head and forced to pick.I’d pick him over the other two.As I said before we will never win because we look for “purity”.The Empire’s elite never worry about Socialism in the US for that reason.As for Obama? He is a horrible President.I never thought he would be a good one (Not as bad as he is though.But that’s another story).But let’s not forget who the choices were back then.Would John “I’m an insane warmonger” McCain,have been better.We’d already be in WW3 with Russia if he was President.And the second time around,Mitt “Russia is our number one enemy” Romney.The poster-boy for the billionaire elite in the US. Would he have been better? The US doesn’t have good candidate’s running for President.I can’t think of a single one in my lifetime that I wanted as my President (Kennedy was probably closest).So I always ask myself which one is the one to do me “less” harm.In Donbass and Russia they seem to be able to put aside their differences to work together for their people.We can’t/won’t do that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/04/AR2006110401124.html
“He knows what the corporate media might do with his answer, but whatever . . . “Yeah. I wouldn’t deny it. Not for one second. I’m a democratic socialist.” ”
Linked to from a comment in article I post from WSWS / socialist Equity Party last night.
Sanders tries to skirt the issue while still gaining the benefit of being a ‘socialist’, but as that article argues he is not actually a socialist at all. He’s a fraud — of course he’s a fraud: he’s an American politician with the Democratic Party. He may actually be better than the other fascist candidates — a kinder and gentler imperialist — but he’s no socialist even he pretends to be.
Now I see (with links to other articles)
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/bernie-sanders-anti-russian-propaganda-and-vermont-socialism/ri8857
Bernie Sanders Is a Russia-Bashing, Pro-Israel, Militarist Tool
He’s not what he seems to be
Caleb Maupin Subscribe to Caleb Maupin
(New Eastern Outlook)
US Election 14 hours ago |
[…]
Here’s what Theirry Messan has to say…”Having neutralised the Cuban opposition, the neutralisation of the Iranian opposition is a master-stroke for Barack Obama, because it leaves Russia and China isolated. And indeed, it really is a neutralisation – while Iran has not completely abandoned the anti-imperialist ideals of Ali Shariati and the Imam Rouhollah Khomeiny, it has renounced the idea of entering into conflict with the United States, which means it has given up the idea of exporting the revolution.”
Not sure I agree with him…I’d rather agree with Hassan NasrAllah…Voltairenet is usually off field a bit in MNSHO (my not so humble opinion)
For those wondering about “Cuba selling out,etc”.Here is what the Cuban FM said yesterday at the re-opening of the Cuban Embassy in Washington.It doesn’t sound much like selling out to me:
“While praising the current step in rebuilding relations between the US and Cuba, Rodriguez noted that full normalization will come only when the US lifts the blockade, hands over the “illegally occupied” territory of Guantanamo Bay, and compensate Cuba for “human and economic damages” inflicted by the decades-long siege of the island nation.”
and:
“Speaking to reporters at the State Department Monday, the visiting Cuban minister called the relations with Washington “asymmetric,” and noted that Cuba was not blockading anyone, barring anyone’s citizens from visiting, or occupying anyone’s territory.
Still, he was optimistic about the prospect of real change in relations with the US. “We strongly believe we can both cooperate and coexist in a civilized way,” Rodriguez said.
As for questions about political changes in Cuba as a result of the normalization, he brushed them off by saying that “political opening in Cuba happened in 1959,” the year Castro’s revolutionary forces overthrew the US-backed dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista.”
http://www.rt.com/usa/310278-cuba-embassy-us-reopens/
Relying on words from a politician, instead of facts or actions… again.
And what are the “actions” you speak of? Renewing diplomatic relations? Something that they tried for from the 1970’s. Cuba doesn’t want (never did) permanent war with the US.They want to be treated as an equal sovereign state.The same as Russia wants.Renewing relations that should never had been cut in the first place,does nothing to help or hurt.I don’t see Russia or China cutting relations with the US.And I also don’t see them kneeling to the US.
Salam Sister Ann,
Excellent Post!
Dr. Ali Shariati was a gem. To understand him fully, I will suggest two of his smallest books:
Hajj – Pilgrimage
and
Red Shieism vs. Black Shieism
http://www.shariati.com/kotob.html
All his books are small and excellent!
Best regards,
Mohamed
Thanks Mohammed..I think you might have meant eimar, but thanks anyways !!
Dearest Sister Ann,
I meant you as your above post mentions Dr. Ali Shariati, who is a social writer and social conscious about poor and common people rights. These two books I quoted of his are excellent, and you can think of Jesus feeding the whole village of 10,000+ with only 4 fish. Whenever there is Will then there is the Power too!
Enjoy your readings!
Best regards,
Mohamed
Good post – very clear on what is at stake in the US.
I have often been baffled by what Americans call ‘socialism’. They don’t seem to understand what it means at all, and seem to conflate identity politics/liberalism (typically the ‘limousine’ variety) with Marxism.
I can only assume this mental confusion is because hardly anyone has actually read ‘Das Capital’, the best analysis ever of the true nature of the capitalist system, whatever the relevance of the solutions (Marx wrote of British industrial conditions of the late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries and did not envisage economic activity where financiers are also called ‘producers’, even though they are outside of the process completely. Think of Hollywood producers who contribute nothing to the end-product (the film), yet get production credits as a matter of course.)
Nor did he envisage a communications/marketing ‘industry’ which generates very little original content relative to its size: a huge firm like Facebook is basically an information scavenger, with no invention or craft.
Another is bio-tech which justifies its existence on alleged improvement, and claims modifications of natural processes are ‘inventions’ deserving of patent-protection, even when such modifications bring no consumer benefits and are even harmful in the medium/long-term.
The secretive and totalitarian TTIP is the logical outcome: the essentially parasitic nature of much of contemporary industry would not survive without top-down control.
The primary battle is with educating people as to what the term ‘socialism’ really means and to reclaim the true meaning of ‘ production.’
Salam brother eimar,
Excellent Post!
To fully appreciate the Islamic and Religious Socialism one need to read Dr. Ali Shariati. I will suggest two of his smallest books:
Hajj – Pilgrimage
and
Red Shieism vs. Black Shieism
http://www.shariati.com/kotob.html
All his books are small and excellent!
Best regards,
Mohamed