From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Fri Jan 26 2007 - 11:18:02 EST
Re: [OPE-L] What Ahmadinejad actually said - lost in translation...> It is interesting to see how this debate has turned into a debate about > "bourgeois" so called "imperialist" countries, and "other" nations, that > should be respected when they pursue rational self defense against their > capitalist aggressors. Pretty far from the orginal thread... Hi Martin: Actually, I think it's very close to the original thread concerning Iran and what Ahmadinejad actually said. You're not denying, I presume, that the US is an imperialist nation and Iran isn't, are you? That reality (the very real threat that the US and its possible "coalition" is towards Iran) is at the very heart of the reporting on what he actually said. What we are seeing follows a familiar pattern: a international campaign to demonize another "regime" as a prelude to a possible military attack. We don't have to make Ahmadinejad into an Angel to see that he's not the Devil. > "It is generally accepted that North Korea prohibits organized political opposition or independent civil society. The country > has an abysmal human rights record, including arbitrary arrests, pervasive use of torture, lack of due process and fair trials, > and executions. There is no freedom of information or freedom of religion. There are no independent trade unions or labor > activism. Most North Koreans do not enjoy the freedom to choose their own occupation, because job assignments follow > the state’s central economic plan, rather than individual talents or wishes.2 " No doubt, but this doesn't demonstrate that he's either a madman or someone who is likely to use WMD against the population of N. Korea. All it shows is that he's your garden variety Stalinist dictator. > Now why would you want to defend Kim Jung Ill? Because he is "anti imperialist" ? If this is the result you get from applying imperialist > equations on reality, well then I reject that theoretical framework. To defend N. Korea from the threat of military attack by the US is not the same thing as defending its leader anymore than opposition to the invasion of Iraq was support for Saddam Hussein. > Someone said that George Bush is a "bourgoies" [bourgeois, JL] leader. That was I. > I do not know what that is really, but Kim Jung Ill owns one of the largest > private collections of exclusive liquor in the world. He also has his own harem > and he likes to party well into the morning, according to people who have visited > him or managed to run away. His lifestyle really sounds more bourgeois than the > lifestyle of anybody else I can think of. Having a huge collection of liquor or a harem doesn't make someone a capitalist. They do not represent means of production. Lifestyle does not define someone as capitalist. > Oh yeah, he is also the world's greatest golfer. He also likes to dress like Elvis Presley. So what? It doesn't make him a madman. If everyone who has eccentricities was a madman or madwoman then my community would be overflowing with them. Dare say I also, using that criteria, could be considered to be a madman! In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 31 2007 - 00:00:05 EST