You know, the history of communism is complicated. The idea in principle seems nice enough, a government where everyone owns everything. Or as Marx puts it: "all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."

But in reality, it's never been implemented. It's invariably the case that a ruling party emerges as the de facto "we'll make sure everyone is following the rules so that everything is fair and as soon as it's clear that everyone is following the rules, we'll relinquish power completely to the people."

Except...that second part NEVER happens. Russia? China? North Korea? Those are communist countries in name only. In reality, those are all totalitarian states by any definition. Any opposition to the ruling class when they are questioned ends in murder or massacre by the state; see https://newrepublic.com/article/117983/tiananmen-square-massacre-how-chinas-millennials-discuss-it-now

Freedom of political thought, religion, matters of economics are simply unavailable under "communist" rule.

There's decidedly very few ideas that are less democratic and less American than communism.

@bobknight33 you claim to be a patriot, I think you're a Russian troll who's assigned to this corner of the internet. Go preach your anti American propaganda in between borscht bites somewhere else please.

I like him. But he's talking about going back to before nationalism gave everyone an easy identity and consumerism something harmless to power to think about (shopping and tv).
He never mentions how the old way used to work out for the majority - straight up hard power rule. Sadly that seems the more likely outcome of his revolution -spiritual or not - rich kids fixing the libor rates or starting oil wars really don't have a crisis to deal with. They think its awesome and if their choice is to become (relatively) poor or go tiananmen square on our asses.. Guess what. Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven they say and they mean it.

Sure, there is no need to speak in terms of civil war. Unless you're one of these guntoting, armed to the teeth nutjobs who think it would be a good idea. You know, the kind of people who buy an *assault rifle* for self defense.
However, no matter how well trained your riot police is, their less than lethal tactics are only useful up to a certain amount of people, they can become rather useless if the crowds get too big to contain or simply too violent themselves. That's when it gets interesting, that is when protest can turn into riots.
When the cops face huge, somewhat peacful crowds, they might enter Tiananmen Square. At what point would american cops or military personnel start thinking that it's unwise or inhuman to start firing into the crowd? Before the first shot? After the second magazine? On day three?
It's not the 1960s anymore but the sixties are not forgotten. Not by those who faced police officers willing to fire into the crowd. You know, black people. The kind of people whose parents and grandparents are still alive to tell them about their fight against oppression. This is still alive in the american concious, it shaped your country and it won't go away soon. Just ask Barak about his birth certificate.
Civil unrest is part of your recent history, the seed is there. Even under a President Stalin all you'd need go from isolated, contained riots to complete and irreversible shitstorm is a Martyr, a Neda Agha Soltan or a Treyvon Martin. No matter what ethnicity (although african american would be nice), that would present a tipping point.
Your police can bring out the tanks on Times Square if they want but if half of NY shows up, these guys inside the tanks might want to get out ASAP.
The Erich Honecker regime of the German Democratic Republic was basically brought down by somewhat peaceful demonstrations of people shouting "I'm mad as hell and I won't take it anymore" in east german accents.
The StaSi, the Ministry of State Security, who was efficient enough to make *every* citizen a potential informant in the eyes of their opposition, ran from the protesters like little girls. They used to imprison and torture people who spoke up.
The east german border used to be the most secure in the entire world. It was protected by minefields and guards who shot and killed anyone who tried to cross it. Before David Hasselhoff even had a chance to put on his illuminated leather jacket the government caved and just fucking opened it. People just strolled through Checkpoint Charlie and bought Bananas as if it was Christmas.
This was the beginning of the end for the Soviet Union. You know, the guys who lost over 20 Million people in WW2 and still kicked the Nazis in the nuts.
Nobody brought a gun. All the east germans had was shitty cars and lots of anger. They tore down not just a dictatorship, they tore down the iron curtain.
And they didn't even have a Nelson Mandela. Or Lech Walesa.
I still stand by my point: strength in numbers, not caliber.

@hpqp

I’d like to ask you to bear with me a little longer. I'm trying to understand your point of view. I am very interested in the basis of your beliefs--basically, how you came to your conclusion. I would ask you tone down the condescension a bit so we can have a reasonable discussion.

So let's try approaching this from a different angle... what exactly does Harris (and I'm assuming you as well) hope to accomplish with all this? What's the endgame? And how does he/you propose we get there?

By the way, this debate reminds me of the academic debate over whether violence is inherent to the ideology of Communism. There have volumes written on the topic and to date it hasn’t been settled (as far as I know). The evidence presented by those who believe violence is inherent in Communism parallels the evidence you have presented to me—they raise the original writings of both Marx and the Bolsheviks as well as Stalin’s atrocities, Tiananmen Square, etc. Opponents of this view point out that the violence in the writings was to be interpreted as only to be used against oppressors: the subsequent acts of violence that continued after the revolution was complete (for example, Lenin’s use of terror against his own people) was not what the original visionaries had in mind.

See here for an example analysis:

http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/twentiethcenturycommunism/articles/2whorley.html

Not trying to prove anything with that link. Just found the argument fascinatingly similar.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
The intervention in Libya stopped a genocide. If you can't point out something far worse that it is causing, then you'd better not make bold claims about how much better things would be if the genocide had been allowed to play out. You sure as anything better not cry for having done nothing by invoking the lives of the Libyan people that would surely be dead already if that had been done.

Just saying that means nothing, sorry but we really don't know enough to claim it stopped a genocide. Just like we found out later that intervention in the Kosovo didn't prevent anything. Since almost all of the crimes Milošević was accused of occurred after the bombing you could argue it exacerbated an already bad situation, blowing it up into something much worse than it could've been.

Here's what we can say, please point out anything objectionable in these points:
-Gaddafi was a dictator who ruled through absolutely brutal repression.
-Gaddafi's soldiers began killing peaceful protesters, escalating even to the use of heavy weapons and airpower against them.
-Gaddafi then threatened to cleanse the nation of the protesters, house by house.
-Gaddafi also warned the protesters that just as Tiananmen square, nobody would rescue them.
-Gaddafi then deployed the full force of his army against the protesters.
-Gaddafi had reclaimed all but the last city held by the opposition when intervention began.
If that can't be called the beginning of a campaign of genocide what can?
What more evidence must the world possibly have before it should act to enforce international law and prevent genocide?

The evidence that the US has never acted in a humanitarian manner when bombing someone.
Look I'm not going to contest any points you make, I'm simply going to advise caution. This story hasn't come out enough yet...there might be more.


But there's a difference between caution and doing nothing. A genocide would already be underway were it not for the international, UN sanctioned mission. That much we can say with certainty. Even Al Jazeera's article here leaves little doubt where things were going hours before the UN resolution was passed.

The article includes this quote from an interview with Gaddafi's own deputy ambassador to the UN:

In the coming hours we will see a real genocide if the international community does not act quickly.

Advising caution is great. Advising inaction in the face of a pending genocide is cowardice.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
The intervention in Libya stopped a genocide. If you can't point out something far worse that it is causing, then you'd better not make bold claims about how much better things would be if the genocide had been allowed to play out. You sure as anything better not cry for having done nothing by invoking the lives of the Libyan people that would surely be dead already if that had been done.

Just saying that means nothing, sorry but we really don't know enough to claim it stopped a genocide. Just like we found out later that intervention in the Kosovo didn't prevent anything. Since almost all of the crimes Milošević was accused of occurred after the bombing you could argue it exacerbated an already bad situation, blowing it up into something much worse than it could've been.

Here's what we can say, please point out anything objectionable in these points:
-Gaddafi was a dictator who ruled through absolutely brutal repression.
-Gaddafi's soldiers began killing peaceful protesters, escalating even to the use of heavy weapons and airpower against them.
-Gaddafi then threatened to cleanse the nation of the protesters, house by house.
-Gaddafi also warned the protesters that just as Tiananmen square, nobody would rescue them.
-Gaddafi then deployed the full force of his army against the protesters.
-Gaddafi had reclaimed all but the last city held by the opposition when intervention began.
If that can't be called the beginning of a campaign of genocide what can?
What more evidence must the world possibly have before it should act to enforce international law and prevent genocide?


The evidence that the US has never acted in a humanitarian manner when bombing someone.

Look I'm not going to contest any points you make, I'm simply going to advise caution. This story hasn't come out enough yet...there might be more.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bcglorf:
The intervention in Libya stopped a genocide. If you can't point out something far worse that it is causing, then you'd better not make bold claims about how much better things would be if the genocide had been allowed to play out. You sure as anything better not cry for having done nothing by invoking the lives of the Libyan people that would surely be dead already if that had been done.

Just saying that means nothing, sorry but we really don't know enough to claim it stopped a genocide. Just like we found out later that intervention in the Kosovo didn't prevent anything. Since almost all of the crimes Milošević was accused of occurred after the bombing you could argue it exacerbated an already bad situation, blowing it up into something much worse than it could've been.


Here's what we can say, please point out anything objectionable in these points:

-Gaddafi was a dictator who ruled through absolutely brutal repression.
-Gaddafi's soldiers began killing peaceful protesters, escalating even to the use of heavy weapons and airpower against them.
-Gaddafi then threatened to cleanse the nation of the protesters, house by house.
-Gaddafi also warned the protesters that just as Tiananmen square, nobody would rescue them.
-Gaddafi then deployed the full force of his army against the protesters.
-Gaddafi had reclaimed all but the last city held by the opposition when intervention began.

If that can't be called the beginning of a campaign of genocide what can?

What more evidence must the world possibly have before it should act to enforce international law and prevent genocide?

Believe me I'm not arguing that Saddam nor Gaddafi were nice guys. I making the distinction between a country being run by a corrupt leader, and destroying a country because of their corrupt leader. In my opinion Gaddafi didn't suddenly become more of a threat after his speech. In fact, he did what almost EVERY country on the face of the planet would do when faced with an armed uprising (this includes the US and the UK). There are other issues at play here also, such as why Burmese, Rwandan, Ivory Coast, Kenyan, North Korean, Saudi, Bahraini leaders deserve more respect than Iraqi and Libyan (oil rich) leaders.

By UN estimates the US killed 100,000 Iraqis (civilians and soldiers)in the first Gulf War. Other estimates show countless thousands died due to the sanctions in the 90s, and god knows how many in the last Iraq War disaster. The entire infrastructure of the Iraqi state has been in shambles for 20 years. In fact, they went from the most modern, secular, arab state to a destroyed wreck of a country. I strongly feel that a 70 year old Saddam Hussein was less of a threat to the Iraqi people than the US war was. In my opinion time would have been a much kinder ally to the Iraqis than the US was. Though I understand your point about the Kurds, realistically anything said about Iraq could easily be said about Turkey, one of our biggest allies.

"As for other Gulf States, would you really prefer Libya was left to Gaddafi's mercy just because that's exactly what's happening elsewhere?" I guess my answer to you is yes. Foreign policy consistency across the board would go a long way towards stopping dictators from betting that they will get away with human-rights crimes. Inconsistency is not going to help anyone.

Thanks for you civil and informed answer. Just so you know, I probably won't have the time to respond again any time soon.
>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^vaporlock:
Truthfully, I never did pay much attention to Libya. Partially because I figured a nutjob like Gadhafi had to be on the US payroll (which, apparently until recently he was (banking, oil, etc).
Anyway, thanks for the quote. I've been hearing about it for weeks now and never knew where it came from. No offense meant, but like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context, a cultural/religious way of saying things that westerners don't get, or a combination of these. Without too much analysis, I can say that the part about going "house by house" to get rid of a rebellion/uprising is pretty SOP (see Iraq).
I have many more suspicions after reading the AlJazeera blog than I had before I read it (ie. why are so many protester signs in English?), but I don't have time to get into it now. Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^vaporlock:
I'm interested in finding out where he said this. Have you ever found an actual statement by Gadhafi saying this? It isn't something I can imagine him (an arab socialist) saying.
Wearing silk pajamas with a funny hat, yes. "I'm going to commit genocide", no.
This statement has the reak of pre Desert Storm propaganda. Most of which was proven false (ie. Iraqi troops emptying Kuwaiti baby incubators in the hospitals). >> ^bcglorf:
"Gadhafi would currently be finishing off the genocide he promised to commit against the opposition"


Are you at all familiar with Gaddafi? His speech from Feb 22 he threatened to "cleanse the nation, house by house", and warned that just as the world never came to help the victims of Tiananmen square no one was coming to help you(the opposition). Don't take my word for it. Don't take the word of any anti-Arab biased western media. Go read Al Jazeera's live blog from the day that speech was delivered.


like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context
Slow down before you dismiss Gaddafi's statements on genocide because they resemble Saddam's speechs. Nobody, and I mean nobody(Arab,Palestinian,Iraqi) denies Saddam's record on mass killings.
In his Anfal campaign against the Kurds there estimates higher than 200k murdered by Saddam. Half of the dead are from military operations against civilians including the use of chemical weapons, while the other half are mass executions complete with bulldozers to dig large enough graves on site.
The estimates of his crushing of the Shia uprisings at the end of the first gulf war exceed 100k dead as well, with gunships and tanks being used to lower the number of 'unruly' civilians to something more 'manageable'.
You are right about the similarities between Gaddafi and Saddam. It's a reason to take his threats regarding genocide of those opposing him as deadly serious.
Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.
It wasn't just a "speech". He followed the speech up by mobilizing his army and marching across the country killing anyone even suspected of being with the opposition. He was within a single city of having taken back full control of the country and being able to "secure" his gains. I hate having to point that "secure" in this case means systematically hunting down killing as many supporters of the opposition as it takes to be certain no-one will ever consider doing it again. Whether that can be done with 100 or 100 thousand doesn't matter to a dictator, it's just a means to an end.
As for other Gulf States, would you really prefer Libya was left to Gaddafi's mercy just because that's exactly what's happening elsewhere?

>> ^vaporlock:

Truthfully, I never did pay much attention to Libya. Partially because I figured a nutjob like Gadhafi had to be on the US payroll (which, apparently until recently he was (banking, oil, etc).
Anyway, thanks for the quote. I've been hearing about it for weeks now and never knew where it came from. No offense meant, but like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context, a cultural/religious way of saying things that westerners don't get, or a combination of these. Without too much analysis, I can say that the part about going "house by house" to get rid of a rebellion/uprising is pretty SOP (see Iraq).
I have many more suspicions after reading the AlJazeera blog than I had before I read it (ie. why are so many protester signs in English?), but I don't have time to get into it now. Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^vaporlock:
I'm interested in finding out where he said this. Have you ever found an actual statement by Gadhafi saying this? It isn't something I can imagine him (an arab socialist) saying.
Wearing silk pajamas with a funny hat, yes. "I'm going to commit genocide", no.
This statement has the reak of pre Desert Storm propaganda. Most of which was proven false (ie. Iraqi troops emptying Kuwaiti baby incubators in the hospitals). >> ^bcglorf:
"Gadhafi would currently be finishing off the genocide he promised to commit against the opposition"


Are you at all familiar with Gaddafi? His speech from Feb 22 he threatened to "cleanse the nation, house by house", and warned that just as the world never came to help the victims of Tiananmen square no one was coming to help you(the opposition). Don't take my word for it. Don't take the word of any anti-Arab biased western media. Go read Al Jazeera's live blog from the day that speech was delivered.



like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context

Slow down before you dismiss Gaddafi's statements on genocide because they resemble Saddam's speechs. Nobody, and I mean nobody(Arab,Palestinian,Iraqi) denies Saddam's record on mass killings.

In his Anfal campaign against the Kurds there estimates higher than 200k murdered by Saddam. Half of the dead are from military operations against civilians including the use of chemical weapons, while the other half are mass executions complete with bulldozers to dig large enough graves on site.

The estimates of his crushing of the Shia uprisings at the end of the first gulf war exceed 100k dead as well, with gunships and tanks being used to lower the number of 'unruly' civilians to something more 'manageable'.

You are right about the similarities between Gaddafi and Saddam. It's a reason to take his threats regarding genocide of those opposing him as deadly serious.

Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.

It wasn't just a "speech". He followed the speech up by mobilizing his army and marching across the country killing anyone even suspected of being with the opposition. He was within a single city of having taken back full control of the country and being able to "secure" his gains. I hate having to point that "secure" in this case means systematically hunting down killing as many supporters of the opposition as it takes to be certain no-one will ever consider doing it again. Whether that can be done with 100 or 100 thousand doesn't matter to a dictator, it's just a means to an end.

As for other Gulf States, would you really prefer Libya was left to Gaddafi's mercy just because that's exactly what's happening elsewhere?

Truthfully, I never did pay much attention to Libya. Partially because I figured a nutjob like Gadhafi had to be on the US payroll (which, apparently until recently he was (banking, oil, etc).

Anyway, thanks for the quote. I've been hearing about it for weeks now and never knew where it came from. No offense meant, but like most of the media hyped quotes from Saddam Hussein, it is probably either a bad translation, out of context, a cultural/religious way of saying things that westerners don't get, or a combination of these. Without too much analysis, I can say that the part about going "house by house" to get rid of a rebellion/uprising is pretty SOP (see Iraq).

I have many more suspicions after reading the AlJazeera blog than I had before I read it (ie. why are so many protester signs in English?), but I don't have time to get into it now. Starting a bombing campaign based on a "speech" is ridiculous to begin with and Gadhafi's actions are not too far from what all of the Arab Gulf States have been doing in recent weeks.
>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^vaporlock:
I'm interested in finding out where he said this. Have you ever found an actual statement by Gadhafi saying this? It isn't something I can imagine him (an arab socialist) saying.
Wearing silk pajamas with a funny hat, yes. "I'm going to commit genocide", no.
This statement has the reak of pre Desert Storm propaganda. Most of which was proven false (ie. Iraqi troops emptying Kuwaiti baby incubators in the hospitals). >> ^bcglorf:
"Gadhafi would currently be finishing off the genocide he promised to commit against the opposition"


Are you at all familiar with Gaddafi? His speech from Feb 22 he threatened to "cleanse the nation, house by house", and warned that just as the world never came to help the victims of Tiananmen square no one was coming to help you(the opposition). Don't take my word for it. Don't take the word of any anti-Arab biased western media. Go read Al Jazeera's live blog from the day that speech was delivered.

>> ^vaporlock:

I'm interested in finding out where he said this. Have you ever found an actual statement by Gadhafi saying this? It isn't something I can imagine him (an arab socialist) saying.
Wearing silk pajamas with a funny hat, yes. "I'm going to commit genocide", no.
This statement has the reak of pre Desert Storm propaganda. Most of which was proven false (ie. Iraqi troops emptying Kuwaiti baby incubators in the hospitals). >> ^bcglorf:
"Gadhafi would currently be finishing off the genocide he promised to commit against the opposition"



Are you at all familiar with Gaddafi? His speech from Feb 22 he threatened to "cleanse the nation, house by house", and warned that just as the world never came to help the victims of Tiananmen square no one was coming to help you(the opposition). Don't take my word for it. Don't take the word of any anti-Arab biased western media. Go read Al Jazeera's live blog from the day that speech was delivered.

Just like Tiananmen Square but I'm sure with 1/100th of the press coverage.

Oh. My. God. They're adapting. Slowly, over the course of who knows how long, house cats have been building an immunity to water. They're breaking the bonds of oppression, and this is their first act of civil disobedience.

Look into the kitty's eyes at 2:01, and try to quell the grip of horror that takes hold of you. It is a gaze that says, "Look! Though it pains me deeply, I will no longer run from this water; from showers, spray bottles, or hoses! What shall I do next? Learn to work the can opener? Pass casually in front of mirrors without concern for who that other cat is? Or shall I stand firmly in place as you approach with the vacuum cleaner, as a lone man before tanks in Tiananmen Square? Our day shall come. It is almost upon us. We shall rise, your kind shall fall, and you will all know the name of Mr. Cuddlesworth!"

>> ^rottenseed:
My question is?
What's so important about this event?
1.That an innocent girl died?
2.The possible revolution it may spark?
1. Innocent people die everyday...it's sad, I know, but hardly newsworthy to us
2. It'd have to spark something newsworthy before we can tell if this was a pivotal point for the Iranian people...so far, nothing has really happened, see answer #1.


The "Burning Monk" died in 1963. America didn't end its military involvement in Vietnam until 1973, one whole decade later, and the South Vietnamese government didn't fall until 1975. Does that diminish the historical importance of what this monk did? I don't think so, and I believe most historians would agree with that.

Maybe Neda's death won't end Iran's totalitarian regime by tomorrow or next week, but it will still have long-lasting significance. People are still talking about her, and they will for years to come. People still remember Tank Man, even though the Tiananmen Square protests were brutally crushed 20 years ago, right?

Neda's death is a historical moment. It belongs here.

"Iran has executed its Tiananmen Square. Baharestan Square has become synonymous with barbarity, cruelty, massacre and inhumanity.

An Iranian blogger (whose URL I will not publish) live blogging from Baharestan Square in central Tehran today captures but brief glimpses of the unimaginable horror that took place today. Bus loads of protesters were stopped and unloaded from their buses by "black-clad police" and literally herded. When the massing was sufficient, as the barely controllably distraught Tehran caller to CNN described first hand, hundreds of the regime's Basij thugs poured out of an adjoining mosque and commenced a massacre with axes, clubs, guns and gas."

http://threatswatch.org/rapidrecon/2009/06/unimaginable-horror-in-tehran/

"Massacre at Baharestan Square in Iran
Protests continue in Iran today as thousands clashed with police – with one of the bloodiest confrontations happening in Baharestan Square. A newly posted youtube video of the clashes in the Teheran Square details the violence and utter chaos of the situation.

The video shows protesters carrying away a man, bloody from the torso up. It is unclear whether the man is alive. Another account of what many are referring to as the Baharestan square massacre appeared on CNN.

“All of a sudden some 500 people with clubs and woods they uh came out of [unintelligible] mosque and they pulled into the streets and they uh started beating everyone and they tried to beat everyone on [unintelligible] bridge and um throwing them off of the bridge. They beat a woman so savagely that uh, she was a drenched in blood. Her husband who was watching the scene he just fainted. At first people were brave that booed the security forces but they were beating people like Hell, this was a massacre.”

On Twitter, “Persiankiwi,” a regular poster who’s been documenting the protests since they began, says he has to remain on the run for fear of capture and torture. He says “in Baharestan we saw militia with axe chopping ppl like meat - blood everywhere - like butcher.”

http://www.fsrn.org/audio/headlines-wednesday-june-24-2009/4945