lost&outofcontrol

I guess reading the dozen or so lines from the wikipedia link was too much... From the "marxist" (wikipedia, really?) link I provided: I'm sure you will disregard any economist that does not fit in with your world view, whether bourgeois or marxist. But there is demand! Demand and markets are not the same thing. Not being able to afford something does notmean that I don't want things. Perhaps a link like the one I already provided and you conveniently ignored. If you want a theoretical explanation for this empirically observable fact then you will have to turn to dirty marxist theory. I never said anything about people being "shut out" of world markets. I thing you are confused with the concept of alienation. People are poor (2.6 billion people live on less than $2 a day) because they are too stupid to pull themselves out of their squalor? We are just smarter than your average African - it has nothing to do with structural exploitation? How the hell do you think they made all that money? Milk an idea for all its worth all the while holding back innovation in the name of progress. Wow, where to begin... I don't think I ever said the more our goods are inferior the better the economy is. If you equate quality of life with having a bigger television (or better cars, better crap in general) than I must say I feel sorry for you. The more we alienate ourselves in the products we make, the more this oppressive power (the world markets) control us. It's not for a lack of demand that we have oversupply, I sure the billions of people living below the poverty line would love our worthless (no markets right) goods. A lack of markets does not indicate a lack of demand...

Overproduction Even with safeguards in place to prevent oversupply, this only leads to a reduction of production and then what are we left with? The capability to produce more but due to a lack of markets for this oversupply we are forced into a recession under the Godly power of Markets, our own creation! Today, 2.6 billion - 40 percent of the world’s population lives on less than $2 a day and we have to hold back production for lack of markets! Remind me who creates this Global Market again - Humanity of God? The attack on the labour movement gave the US ruling class wider opportunities across the world leading to unbridled expansion on the back of debt. It mean exactly what it says. In a (very) simplified way: the more we produced the more we alienate ourselves from labour (our creations), i.e. the more of trinket A we produce, the less labour goes into the commodity itself (mechanization, efficiency i.e., things that are should logically good for humanity in general). The less labour, the more surplus value and as a result the more profit. Less labour invariably means less wages (jobs) to go around and the poorer we are for it. The economy is (was) great but we are none the richer for it. Debt levels are spiraling out of control, real wages have remained stagnant since the WWII, and profit level have declined significantly. This thing you call the economy appears to only be a good thing for a select few. I guess you subscribe to the idea that the more billionaires we have the better we (as in everybody else) are better off. World markets are the deciding factor in the lives of billions of people. Should it not be the other way around? Pot calling the kettle black... You dismissed an entire article with only one short smart ass response in your original post.

To quote myself I also quoted Alan Greenspan but I guess you stopped reading before that. Your silence on everything I wrote speaks volume to your ability to comprehend even simple problems let alone complex ones such as we are facing now. Can you could point me to any specific issue you have with Lenin's post concerning the current financial crisis? Please don't tell me you agree with August that the crisis is caused by a bunch of boomers that are scared of death!? Are you dismissing an entire point of view because you did not read it? Is it that you have not develop any analytical skills whatsoever? What part of "The devaluation of the human world grows in direct proportion to the increase in value of the world of things." do you not understand. I'd be more than happy to explain it to you... As you can clearly see, your unwillingness to engage in any kind of discussion save for a smart ass remark leaves me to imagine your point of view and the results is not pretty. The more we produce the less we are worth, funny how that works out...

But is this not this fair game for Wall Street and capitalism in general? I will admit that my knowledge of the political-economy is very limited. But for you you qualify the current financial crisis in the US ('[...]the most wrenching since the end of the Second World War," Alan Greenspan) as nothing more than a bunch of baby boomers scared of death is absolutely ridiculous. This ignores the systematic attack and thorough destruction of the labour movement during the past three decades leading to massive borrowing* on everyone part (corporations and consumers). It also ignores the declining rate of profit of the past century. It goes without saying that the neoliberal's version of the economy clings to fantasies in thought instead of finding truth in actual reality simply because its version of reality is based on fantasies. *The more we alienate our essence (as human beings living and working) in something which is seemingly unrelated to us (capital), the more we have to borrow from our own future. The devaluation of the human world grows in direct proportion to the increase in value of the world of things.

Great article on Lenin's Tomb today about the financial crisis. Auguring Armageddon

Move that goal post! This only pushes the question into the background only to emerge later on. I asked why they resort to terrorism, you answer "hate". The next logical question is why they hate. To which I'm sure you have another appropriately short but to the point answer and we will go on ad infinitum. You will not accept terrorism as a historical product, i.e. a real problem rooted in reality. You see the floating tip of the iceberg, as an abstraction of the mind devoid of any relations (terrorism is caused by hate - terrorism is a tool used to gain victory). You see oppositions in isolation from their relations. You identify alienation in its mystical form as hate and brand it as unwanted but you fail to go any farther. Things happen for specific reasons. It is our duty to find out why so that they may not reproduce themselves in the case of unwanted things. This is again only part of the whole. By gaining a deeper theoretical understanding we can attempt to rectify unwanted situations by putting our theories into practice all the while learning from our experiences What you call ideology, I call science. (not to say that ideology does not exist or anything like that) I guess this is part of the reason why we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past; we just kind of walk around bumping into things. The simplest reply to this statement is: What about your children, and their children? I'll let the afternoon and evening crew take over from here. ciao

I think placing Canadians in a situation similar to the Iraqi people would do well. This situation would of course included all the joys of living in the hell hole which years of oppression from British - - American - Locally borne tyranny etc... include. Of course I cannot posit cause without result nor can I isolate cause and result unless this included every phenomenal thing. Doing so would be a fallacy of the mind.

We should not ask why for it will only serve as justification?! How do we learn anything new then? How can we rectify situations which we deem unwanted without finding out there cause(s)? Should we only ask why when we like the outcome? I'm assuming you have a magical way to transcending knowledge through something other than experience. Your opinion interest me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

I sure Canadians would resort to terrorism if faced with similar circumstances as was faced by previous cases. I'm might not of been very clear. Capitalism was already well developed and was well on its way to becoming modern capitalism which was present in germ form during the pre-war period in both countries. The process was accelerated by the massive amounts of foreign investments ( the simplistic explanation is bribing the population). This partially explains why the local population was more willing to subjugate themselves. As I stated earlier I was not clear enough with the use of the word conventional in the context with which I was using it. Any weapon can be used in an unconventional fashion by way of guerrilla tactics. The fact that Hamas does not have access to weapons which formal armies normally have, i.e. air power, sea power, armored vehicles, support framework (weapons production and purchase) etc... can explain in part why they resort of guerrilla warfare and terrorism. That is not what I'm saying at all. The Western Allies led by the US invested billions in rebuilding Europe and Japan. While the conquered populations of Germany and Japan were subjugated economically as satellites the Western Allies did not eliminate all forms of conscious expression by a policy of inherent inferiority as producers (living agents). This is only a relative comparison. In the absolute sense, they are not doing so well... I do not pretend to have all the answered but to reduce the Palestinian people's plight to such a simplistic view of cause and effect as you describe is useless. Here I thought things could be explained. What a fool I am! Things just happen without any specific reasons. When Japan was defeated in WWII they did not turn to terrorism because they just plum didn't feel like it! When I go to the store to buy milk, it's not because I'm out of milk but because I just felt like go out and getting milk! It's of no use to find out why...

Your reply is barely worth notice. The argument is not based solely on this point and in fact is merely a result. Can you be any more disingenuous.

Your ability to ignore my argument is staggering. I argue that any people placed with the specific circumstances required for terrorism will resort to it. Of course they think it works, why else would they resort to it. If you place someone in situation x they will do y. The accuracy of the predicted y outcome gets better as you gain more information (about the person and the situation). Both your examples do not have the required conditions for guerrilla warfare and terrorism to take place (as displayed by the simple and obvious fact that none took place). I don't think the population of Japan was ever occupied by a foreign power which could subdue trough direct military subjugation a population exponentially larger than Palestine. The acceptance of capitalism in its Imperialist form due to its formation during the pre-war period (present in germ form at the very least) in both countries paved the way for a more docile and prepared population as well. The need on the part of the western allies for the quick acceptance by the local population vis-à-vis the Western worlds global domination in the face of a growing soviet threat cannot be overemphasized.

Escalating the situation can only worsen it although I do understand why you would resort to such a simplistic solution given you previous position. Following your logic, the only possible outcomes are: Complete eradication of the side branded as terrorists, i.e. a holocaust A cause and effect scenario ad infinitum without ever addressing the source of opposition Am I to infer from your silence concerning the historical circumstances leading to terrorism that you do not agree with it?

I was the first to mentioned disproportionate military strength... I think you are the one who is lost. You appear to be concentrating your argument on the reactions to terrorism and its intent without ever addressing the circumstances which give rise to it. The final intent is to win but the conditions in which a people resort to suicide bombings and to terrorism in general is only found in specific historical circumstances. We can apprehend the precise circumstances in an objective manner by studying the historical instances of terrorism and discovering the characteristics that are alike in them. I've provided links to supports my argument which you have apparently ignored. We can argue all we want about Israel justification for retaliation. Even if I were to agree with you that Israel actions are justified by the threat of terrorism; it does not address the root cause of terrorism in general. It is merely a reactionary explanation. Cause and effect are part of a larger whole which we must tackle if we are to gain a more thorough understanding of the situation.

Suicide bombing is a historical product of specific conditions. Whether it ultimately leads to victory or not is irrelevant.

History of suicide bombing So you believe that this is a clash of religious beliefs and nothing more? Robert Pape appears to disagree with you:

This does not answer my question. It only serves to push further back. What is their motivation for hating (which is what I think you are trying to get at) the Jews then? And this justifies the oppression of an entire people?! Conscious slave

I will use the correct terminology in future post. I was confused by the unguided part of the terminology and lumped them in with RPGs. This ignores the statistics buffycat posted. Let's reverse your statement: Israel is launching coordinated attacks (disproportion in military strength) on the civilian population of the Gaza strip. Seemingly you would prefer it if Hamas sat on it hands and did nothing? What kind of government would that be? Of course this ignores that the Palestinian people have lived under some form of occupation or another (direct or indirect) for the past century as conscious slaves within their own territory. Seemingly everyone has ignored my link to the vanity fair story about the White House funding death squads to incite a civil war. And no one has answered the basic question; Why are they firing missiles in the first place; what is their motivation. Does anyone truly believe that Palestinians live under normal circumstances? Did they just decide to shoot some missiles one day for the heck of it without any motivation?

I agree, we are well past this point Israel never strikes the general population? Trying to find a single party to blame is no better than determining who shot first. Is it possible that the cause of missile attacks stems from the fact that foreign powers have occupied (direct or by proxy) Palestine in one way or another for the past century? Do you think Canadians would "have the absolute moral and legal right to defend themselves if foreign countries were to decide Canada's fate? Do you think Canadians would act if a foreign power was funding a murderous civil war within Canada? Your acknowledgment that Israel's reaction is justified by the rocket attacks shows that you accept the one sided situation as presented by the medias in general. You accept the cause and effect as merely a time based development and never question the cause of Israel's reaction. Only by answering why they are they firing the rockets in the first place can this discussion advance.

The RPG attacks are because they are unable to live peaceably? That simple huh...

They have no conventional weapons In desperation they resort to suicide bombing like countless other people placed in a similar situation They are so pissed that they lob rocket propelled grenades towards their neighbor The only super power in the world is funding a murderous campaign to incite a civil war They cannot move about freely within their borders The threat of imminent destruction (holocaust -the 'you brought it on yourselves' angle) What is common to all these statements? Are they a Bunch of nut jobs who just want to kill some Jews? Do they lack strong ethical principles (they are not Christians after all)? Or is the cause of violence more profound than just simplistic media and government created situations--compartmentalized for mass consumption. We are way past the cause and effect excuse. Why do they "insist on firing rockets across the border" Argus? Do the Palestinian people not "have the absolute moral and legal right to defend themselves against attack" as well? I'm not laying blame solely on one side. The situation is much more complex than what people have portrayed it to be.

You've completely ignored the essence of my post. What makes them unable to acquire such weapons?

Amazing how we can rationalize genocide by branding an entire people as terrorists? How can a people living under constant socio-economic oppression with no formal power outside its own border (a case could be made for internal as well) be termed as the aggressor? Why are they firing rocket propelled grenades (rpg) and not other types of conventional weapons? One can trace the motivation behind suicide bombings by looking at the historical conditions which are specific to it: the complete elimination of al possible conscious expression of individuality and communal identity. This as the direct result of theft and destruction of all materiality through which life is manifested. Suicide bombings and rpg attacks are not questions of ethics or lack thereof but of specific historical conditions. The use of ready made (media, governments, NGO etc…) concepts to investigate unique and specific situations should stop or else we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

The Gaza Bombshell

He was arrested for violating immigration laws. He has never been arrested by the United States for his terrorist activities. Nice try.

I don't know and certainly don't care. All I know is that the United States knew he masterminded the attack on Cubana Flight 455 in 1976 and that in 1990: Stop moving the goal post. The US knew he was a terrorist and could have stopped him anytime they wanted.