Russia tests world's biggest bomb

[11ring]

Agree with this view.

Democracy is something that comes naturally when a society evolves, when all the necessary socioeconomic conditions are in place. It's definitely not something that can be forced upon externally. Hence it makes me wonder about all these economic sanctions applied to certain countries, one that kills off the developing middle class, leading to further delays in the democratic change. This bipolar behaviour of some Western countries, where one day it's aid and then sanction the next, is utterly puzzling. There's a thing called leave them alone...

The point is, it doesn't have to be forced, the problem is not that the US forces democracy, but undermines it and subverts it. Saddam Hussein was partly the result of the crushed democratic revolution in 1958. For a bit of breif history and further development of the idea see Noam Chomskeys Deterring Democracy. Time and time again the US has moved to thwart indigenous movements towards democracy, because it is counter to US interests. The people in Iraq, Nicaragua, Chile ect are not backward peasants that can't figure out how to fill out a ballot, compared to 17th century England or 18th century France, they are bloody sophisticated, with better education, higher levels of literacy ect. The only democratic problem they have is that they voted or revolted for the wrong person (from the US perspective, not their own)


Iraq is not (at least was not before the invasion) a backward country, it had very develped civil institutions, universities, scientists, engineers. We are talking about a country that was accused of having a nuclear weapons program!

More to the point, look at Bolivia, a very diverse country with 60% of the polulation coming from several dozen indigenous groups, a massive peasant class and crushing poverty. But it has a functioning democracy with much higher levels of participation than the US, despite voters having to sometimes trek for hours to get to a polling station. The people are engaged in a way that would make you wonder what sort of fraudulent democracy you have been sold, as it looks anaemic indeed by comparison. If paternalism is not justified in Bolivia, why then in the middle east, or elsewhere.

So, what is the problem with the Iraqi democracy? well, I don't think it is a problem with Iraqi people as much as the sham model that has been imposed.

To name just two reasons why the government is weak, and doesn't reflect the wishes of the Iraqi people.

The CPA wrote the constitution, that is why blackwater etc are immune from proscetution. Economic policy is limited by the constitution enshrining the rights of foreign corporations.

The US has lots and lots of troops in Iraq, it can exert "extra parliamentary" or "gunship deplomacy" to restrict the scope of governance. Candidates it doesn't like get killed or blacklisted.

The US has formented sectarianism, including through the use of staged attacks in an attempt to diminish an unfortunately (for the US) strong nationalist desire amongst many Iraqi's.

Now is the problem too much or not enough democracy ???

A real democracy would, as a start

1. Kick out the US, removing the primary reason for violence in Iraq
2. Develop an economic policy consisting of more than guaranteed rights to US contractors and multinationals, and use the oil revenue to rebuild the economy and alleviate poverty.

Which would be a positive step, and one which all sensible people should advocate for, but the US will only allow on pain of defeat.

Given that predicament, we can only wish for a US defeat sooner rather than later.

 

[Carrera]

There was a documentary on T.V. about that sheriff in Arizona. There was an uproar about that guy but the worry is nothing has been done about him. This guy is running chain gangs and to illustrate what a dinosaur he is, he was quoted as stating people who suffered child abuse use the situation as a crutch to commit crimes. So, an individual who was raised by an alcoholic mother and abusive father is simply going to turn out emotionally stable and gain employment, correct? Well, I very much doubt it.
I can't quite work out why such people are put into positions of responsibility in America without being removed or even prosecuted. I mean, come on, chain gangs in this century is beyond belief. Only China has a system that comes close.
Of course, I understand there are very many Americans who are outraged, but there should be far greater safeguards to accomplish the very thing Condi Rice was urging Putin to do - protect ordinary citizens from an overbearing State. I do think it would have been awesome if Putin had confronted Condi Rice with a full report of the chain gangs in the U.S. and the fact gun-tooting, right-wing sheriffs are allowed to bypass the most basic human rights norms and treat often disadvantaged people as garbage.
I can't figure out why if Americans have a constitution they're not in actual fact protected from regional dictators e.t.c.

Guess what? The American society and politics are going strongly toward Christian fundamentalism. Is that what US model of democracy brings?

 

[Carrera]

As I said, why not show Miss Rice a movie/documentary of this stuff next time she visits Moscow to lecture on human rights. See pics below:

"We took away coffee, that saved $150,000 a year. Why do you need coffee in jail?" says Arpaio, patrolling the dusty, barren grounds. "Switched to bologna sandwiches, that saved half a million dollars a year."

Arpaio makes inmates pay for their meals, which some say are worse than those for the guard dogs. Canines eat $1.10 worth of food a day, the inmate 90 cents, the sheriff says. "I'm very proud of that too."

Critics rail against harsh conditions in the prison, where temperatures can top 100 degrees.

"We still have rights, but they act like we're scum," one inmate complains.

Adds Eleanor Eisenberg of the ACLU: "Sheriff Arpaio has conditions in his jail that are inhumane, and he's proud of it."

Arpaio boasts of his chain gangs for men and women, which "contribute thousands of dollars of free labor to taxpayers each month," according to his Web site."

 

[limerickman]

The point is, it doesn't have to be forced, the problem is not that the US forces democracy, but undermines it and subverts it. Saddam Hussein was partly the result of the crushed democratic revolution in 1958. For a bit of breif history and further development of the idea see Noam Chomskeys Deterring Democracy. Time and time again the US has moved to thwart indigenous movements towards democracy, because it is counter to US interests. The people in Iraq, Nicaragua, Chile ect are not backward peasants that can't figure out how to fill out a ballot, compared to 17th century England or 18th century France, they are bloody sophisticated, with better education, higher levels of literacy ect. The only democratic problem they have is that they voted or revolted for the wrong person (from the US perspective, not their own)


Iraq is not (at least was not before the invasion) a backward country, it had very develped civil institutions, universities, scientists, engineers. We are talking about a country that was accused of having a nuclear weapons program!

More to the point, look at Bolivia, a very diverse country with 60% of the polulation coming from several dozen indigenous groups, a massive peasant class and crushing poverty. But it has a functioning democracy with much higher levels of participation than the US, despite voters having to sometimes trek for hours to get to a polling station. The people are engaged in a way that would make you wonder what sort of fraudulent democracy you have been sold, as it looks anaemic indeed by comparison. If paternalism is not justified in Bolivia, why then in the middle east, or elsewhere.

So, what is the problem with the Iraqi democracy? well, I don't think it is a problem with Iraqi people as much as the sham model that has been imposed.

To name just two reasons why the government is weak, and doesn't reflect the wishes of the Iraqi people.

The CPA wrote the constitution, that is why blackwater etc are immune from proscetution. Economic policy is limited by the constitution enshrining the rights of foreign corporations.

The US has lots and lots of troops in Iraq, it can exert "extra parliamentary" or "gunship deplomacy" to restrict the scope of governance. Candidates it doesn't like get killed or blacklisted.

The US has formented sectarianism, including through the use of staged attacks in an attempt to diminish an unfortunately (for the US) strong nationalist desire amongst many Iraqi's.

Now is the problem too much or not enough democracy ???

A real democracy would, as a start

1. Kick out the US, removing the primary reason for violence in Iraq
2. Develop an economic policy consisting of more than guaranteed rights to US contractors and multinationals, and use the oil revenue to rebuild the economy and alleviate poverty.

Which would be a positive step, and one which all sensible people should advocate for, but the US will only allow on pain of defeat.

Given that predicament, we can only wish for a US defeat sooner rather than later.

Very good post and one which clarifies the problem well, in my opinion.

 

[sogood]

Instead we have poured tons of money building the economy of China, which looks more and more like a fascist state.

I wouldn't call it that way. They have their own unique set of cultural and socioeconomic condition that's foreign to most westerners. Based on my contacts there, the degree of freedom is similar to what was said of Russia at present. And believe it or not, people are relatively happy and are hopeful of the future. Based on a recent TV documentary shown here, it would appear that the government understands the necessary conditions of democracy. Essentially, there's work being done to educate and practice democratic principles at primary school level. I think that is a good sign.

 

[sogood]

...the problem is not that the US forces democracy, but undermines it and subverts it...

The funny thing is, a red flag comes up for me whenever the US lectures democracy to another country but not so for many other western countries. I think some European countries in particular really believe what they preach.

The difference with Bolivia is that it lacked deeply divisive religion in its mix.

 

[limerickman]

I wouldn't call it that way. They have their own unique set of cultural and socioeconomic condition that's foreign to most westerners. Based on my contacts there, the degree of freedom is similar to what was said of Russia at present. And believe it or not, people are relatively happy and are hopeful of the future. Based on a recent TV documentary shown here, it would appear that the government understands the necessary conditions of democracy. Essentially, there's work being done to educate and practice democratic principles at primary school level. I think that is a good sign.

China is an interesting case in point.

Certain western media, and certain western goverments, equate capitalism with "democracy".........and they make the misguided leap to try to link China's recent emergence as a trading power with the advent of "democracy".
(I use the word "democracy" advisedly).

Anyone with even a passing knowledge of economic history, would be aware that China has been trading for centuries.
China traded when it was a collection of provinces under feudal rule centuries ago, it traded under Mao decades ago, and it trades now under the present leadership.

The mistake made by commentators in the west......is the attempt to suggest that "democracy" and "capitalism" are one in the same ........and that
"communism" and "market-based economies" are also one in the same.

 

[Wurm]

...It's unfortunate but if Russia feels threatened it will naturally respond. There could even be an alliance with China which would pose a serious counterweight to NATO.

What some of you may not yet know:

"On July 24, 2001, less than two months before September 11, 2001, China and Russia signed the Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation. The latter is a softly worded mutual defence pact against the U.S., NATO, and the U.S. sponsored Asian military network which was surrounding China. [1]

The military pact of the Shanghai Treaty Organization (SCO) also follows the same softly worded format. It is also worth noting that Article 12 of the 2001 Sino-Russian bilateral treaty stipulates that China and Russia will work together to maintain the global strategic balance, “observation of the basic agreements relevant to the safeguard and maintenance of strategic stability,” and “promote the process of nuclear disarmament.” [2] This seems to be an insinuation about a nuclear threat posed from the United States."


Link

No doubt the Neo Cons are well aware of this, yet will continue the smokescreen of "A nuculer Iran? Oh Mai!" for the consumption of the masses in the US.

 

[sogood]

What some of you may not yet know:

Yep, Neocons just love to make enemies so their existence can be justified. A sign of narrow mindedness.

 

[Carrera]

Incidentally - personal opinion: Lenin was a genious. Still hugely misunderstood and under valued today.
Recently Putin made two points during a speech:
(1) The fall of the USSR was the biggest catastrophy to face Eastern Europe and Russia that could be imagined (true from Russian perspective).
(2) Russia would be nothing today were it not for the legacy of the USSR - the technologies developed by Krushchev and co decades ago.
It would take pages to explain what Lenin actually did, but in short, he turned an exploited, backward community of peasants and workers into a superpower. Plus, the USSR defeated the U.S, in every single sphere of space exploration and technology with the sole exclusion of the lunar landing that Russia failed to pull off in time. In sport, the USSR won scores of gold medals. In arms, USSR Migs and fighter craft were unequaled. The Tsar bomb was also the most powerful ever exploded (in Kazakhstan). Soviet education was exceptional.
Plus, Lenin explained how capitalism would inevitably destroy itself as a matter of course and if you look carefully this is what's happening today as the market goes global and profit replaces strategy and planning. That is, greed is leading us along the path of war, pollution and also over-population.
Also, the type of communism that was created in Soviet Russia wasn't specifically what Lenin envisioned. It was Stalin who got it wrong.

 

[11ring]

Incidentally - personal opinion: Lenin was a genious. Still hugely misunderstood and under valued today.
Recently Putin made two points during a speech:
(1) The fall of the USSR was the biggest catastrophy to face Eastern Europe and Russia that could be imagined (true from Russian perspective).
(2) Russia would be nothing today were it not for the legacy of the USSR - the technologies developed by Krushchev and co decades ago.
It would take pages to explain what Lenin actually did, but in short, he turned an exploited, backward community of peasants and workers into a superpower. Plus, the USSR defeated the U.S, in every single sphere of space exploration and technology with the sole exclusion of the lunar landing that Russia failed to pull off in time. In sport, the USSR won scores of gold medals. In arms, USSR Migs and fighter craft were unequaled. The Tsar bomb was also the most powerful ever exploded (in Kazakhstan). Soviet education was exceptional.
Plus, Lenin explained how capitalism would inevitably destroy itself as a matter of course and if you look carefully this is what's happening today as the market goes global and profit replaces strategy and planning. That is, greed is leading us along the path of war, pollution and also over-population.
Also, the type of communism that was created in Soviet Russia wasn't specifically what Lenin envisioned. It was Stalin who got it wrong.

Interesting post.

I think the Russian economy suffered different problems than the market economies but for the same reason- it was a class system. When you had a ruling class of officials sending orders to middle managers and workers who had no say over and little reward for their efforts you ended up with the hording, sabotaging production, stealing etc.

What real socialism and what Lenin advocated was democratic planning, in the words of Lenin "Every cook will govern".

Whereas Stalin took this and said "Every cook will get 500 chickens, 2 cows, 7000 potatoes, 9 pots 2 pans and 14 knives, and make 9000 meals per year".

Just bought a great book Farm to Factory:A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution, By Robert C. Allen. Available from Princeton Uni Press.

Through extensive economic modelling, Allen builds the case that the NEP period of a market in goods combined with soft budget planning was, with a bit more patience, capable of growth comparable to the plan periods but without the famines, hardships etc.

But the main argument, which is again shown through economic modelling, is that without planning the Russian industrial revolution would not have occured and growth rates would have stagnated and even at stages gone backwards as falling grain prices would have hit a capitalist economy very hard in the 30's.

The argument is that the plans were an attempt to force industrialisation to even greater speeds than the NEP period, but that the worst excesses of Stalin were economically destructive and unecessary.

Overall, it gives us a picture of the sort of society that could have been created if Lenin or Trotsky were in charge, although the problems of isolation and backwardness in the original economy would have still meant that the original surplus needed to spur growth would have had to come from very limited levels of consumption.

Regarding China and Russias differing economic fortunes, Russia took the neoliberal medicine (poison) and China didn't, and in fact kept a strong element of planning.

 

[wolfix]

Sure, on many indicators Iran is much more progressive, more women go to university than men, there are elections etc, ,i.e. Iran IS a democracy by commonly used standards.

Isn't it Iran that executes or hangs gay??????
Sounds real progressive to me..........



Iran needs major weaponary. It's been a few years since Europeans have had a neighbor to worry about......
But you will soon have Putin with aspirations again.......... The only thing worse then a Russian wanting your land is a German........ But even Germans are misunderstood........I don't believe that Germans want all the land, they just want the land on the other side of their borders.

Here is the states when we get invaded by neighboring countries, we put them to work in the fields and resturants.

 

[Carrera]

I think Stalin did O.K. as a military leader but as an agriculturalist he wasn't so good.
The funny thing about Lenin is most people assume he was wrong about capitalism being self destructive. For example, immigration: I read in the papers that the U.K. has benefited economically from the thousands of immigrants who are arriving from Romania, Poland and the East as a whole. You could argue for and against that claim but I suspect it may be true as immigrant workers come here with a greater desire to escape the poverty trap so they work hard.
But here is the huge blunder the Government is making and specifically where the flaws of capitalism show their spots: I heard a Labour spokesman say on T.V. that so long as the government can look at the figures and see economic growth, it makes no difference at all who does the work. Their argument is so long as the factories are being manned and profit is rolling in, so what?
What they fail to see in the long term is that at some point, the economies of Poland and Romania will take off and catch up. At that point, many of these workers will return to their homelands and families. This will leave us with a significant remianing population of unskilled or semiskilled Britons, many of whom have remained unemployed since immigrant workers usually take lower wages. Thus, wages are lowered somewhat. Unemployment is rising.
And also we will lack a home grown trained, educated workforce similar to China's and India's populations since China is sending far more students to university than we are. India likewise has a vast army of skilled I.T. employees.
The average Briton has to pay thousands of dollars for an education whereas in China it's not so. And if the average Briton doesn't pay, the Government figures it can simply import skilled workers from overseas.
At some point the bubble is going to burst and the pool of willing migrant workers will dry out when the global economy levels out.
I'd also point out that China has overtaken the economies of Italy, France and the U.K. without relying totally on imported migrant labour and China is spending billions on education and skills for the Chinese population. China has no fears its skilled workers may disappear and reappear at random on a market basis. It's developed a home grown labour force and invested in up-to-date technolgies, skills and education.
We're being overtaken because Governments over here are too profit-orientated and discard socialism entirely.

Interesting post.

I think the Russian economy suffered different problems than the market economies but for the same reason- it was a class system. When you had a ruling class of officials sending orders to middle managers and workers who had no say over and little reward for their efforts you ended up with the hording, sabotaging production, stealing etc.

What real socialism and what Lenin advocated was democratic planning, in the words of Lenin "Every cook will govern".

Whereas Stalin took this and said "Every cook will get 500 chickens, 2 cows, 7000 potatoes, 9 pots 2 pans and 14 knives, and make 9000 meals per year".

Just bought a great book Farm to Factory:A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution, By Robert C. Allen. Available from Princeton Uni Press.

Through extensive economic modelling, Allen builds the case that the NEP period of a market in goods combined with soft budget planning was, with a bit more patience, capable of growth comparable to the plan periods but without the famines, hardships etc.

But the main argument, which is again shown through economic modelling, is that without planning the Russian industrial revolution would not have occured and growth rates would have stagnated and even at stages gone backwards as falling grain prices would have hit a capitalist economy very hard in the 30's.

The argument is that the plans were an attempt to force industrialisation to even greater speeds than the NEP period, but that the worst excesses of Stalin were economically destructive and unecessary.

Overall, it gives us a picture of the sort of society that could have been created if Lenin or Trotsky were in charge, although the problems of isolation and backwardness in the original economy would have still meant that the original surplus needed to spur growth would have had to come from very limited levels of consumption.

Regarding China and Russias differing economic fortunes, Russia took the neoliberal medicine (poison) and China didn't, and in fact kept a strong element of planning.

 

[limerickman]

Isn't it Iran that executes or hangs gay??????
Sounds real progressive to me..........

I'd check the facts about Iran and the execution of homosexuals before posting misleading statements like you did above.
Iran doesn't execute people because they're homosexual.
FOX news misled you on that issue.

I oppose all state executions, of whatever nationality.

To be fair, Iran is a reasonably progressive society. Fair distribution of wealth throughout the country, good education system, good medical system with access to care for all citizens.
Obviously there are areas in which Iran is not as progressive, like womens rights, tolerance of other religions, etc.

 

[Wurm]

Please Lim, let's not let the facts stand in our way when it comes to demonizing other cultures.

 

[Gus Riley]

...The then go onto argue that democracy should be subordinate and sacrificed in the name of property rights.

Property Rights here in Illinois = The Right to pay far more taxes!!

 

[wolfix]

I'd check the facts about Iran and the execution of homosexuals before posting misleading statements like you did above.
Iran doesn't execute people because they're homosexual.
FOX news misled you on that issue.

Iran has executed people because they are gay.
That has been reported before Fox news ran it..... Four years ago I attended a university function where a Iranian **** was one of the speakers. It is common knowledge that there have been gays executed [hung] for no crime but their homosexuality.
It has been reported in many liberal publications and recently there was a interview on NPR.
There has been a Canadian documentary that details several executions.
And one step beyond that....... We had a homosexual Iranian who was a customer at my bar. He spoke of this at least 5 years ago. He was afraid to tell his parents in Iran he was dying of AIDS because of the reprucussions that they might face.

 

[sogood]

Iran has executed people because they are gay.
That has been reported before Fox news ran it..... Four years ago I attended a university function where a Iranian **** was one of the speakers. It is common knowledge that there have been gays executed [hung] for no crime but their homosexuality.
It has been reported in many liberal publications and recently there was a interview on NPR.
There has been a Canadian documentary that details several executions.

Was the execution for for other crime or for being gay specifically. I'd be guarded with those stories told by so called dissidents. Look what info the Bush admin got from the Iraqi dissidents prior to the war. Total BS.

 

[limerickman]

Iran has executed people because they are gay.
That has been reported before Fox news ran it..... Four years ago I attended a university function where a Iranian **** was one of the speakers. It is common knowledge that there have been gays executed [hung] for no crime but their homosexuality.
It has been reported in many liberal publications and recently there was a interview on NPR.
There has been a Canadian documentary that details several executions.
And one step beyond that....... We had a homosexual Iranian who was a customer at my bar. He spoke of this at least 5 years ago. He was afraid to tell his parents in Iran he was dying of AIDS because of the reprucussions that they might face.

Wolf - putting this sort of stuff out and proclaiming it as factual is dangerous
and incorrect.

There were people executed in Iran - they weren't executed because they were gay.
The people concerned with charged with a crime under Iranian law.
There is no law against homosexuality on the statute books of Iran.

I'm not stating that what those people were charged with was equitable.
Nor am I saying that I agree with people being executed.

 

[C'dale Girl]

Of course, I understand there are very many Americans who are outraged, but there should be far greater safeguards to accomplish the very thing Condi Rice was urging Putin to do - protect ordinary citizens from an overbearing State.

The United States Constitution affords certain freedoms to law abiding American citizens. Convicted criminals are not afforded the same rights. The most obvious example is the constitutional right to liberty . . . . convicted criminals sentenced to serve jail time clearly lose this right, as they lose their freedom.

This is not to say that I support the use of chain gangs as punishment. The Eighth Amendment protects individuals from "cruel and unusual punishment." Hence, the issues with the sheriff and his chain gangs that you are hearing about.

It is not analogous to compare convicted criminals to law abiding American citizens, even under the Constitution. It is flawed to argue that on this basis Americans are hypocrits and hardly the representative democratic nation they tout themselves to be.