[fontis]

According to the modern Euro-feminism, it's wrong and oppressive for a woman to choose to give birth to more than 1 child and actually choose to stay at home.
The woman must have evidently been forced to stay at home by the big bad man, who's responsible for all the bad things in the world btw.

[arif_moin]

Quote:

According to the modern Euro-feminism, it's wrong and oppressive for a woman to choose to give birth to more than 1 child and actually choose to stay at home.
The woman must have evidently been forced to stay at home by the big bad man, who's responsible for all the bad things in the world btw.

What's mind boggling is that most cosmopolitan Western feminist movements were spearheaded by corporate heads such as the Rockerfellers, just so that these topshots could have a larger labour pool to exploit from. And as per simple economic law, when the supply of something goes up, prices go down. This applies to wages & labour too.

The only method of offsetting this is by increasing the demand (of anything- of labour in case of balancing wages against labour supply). There was no such effort undertaken by these capitalists, as the economy was moving rapidly away from a labour to a capital intensive one. SO, you have an increasing supply of labour against a depreciating demand. And that's supposed to be "women's rights."

In the end these so called "free" women just ended up getting a capitalist exploitator as a boss along with a crappy cramped cubicle rather than a comfortable home & a family. Not to mention EVERYONE in the labour pool was left with depleted bargaining power in the end.

And another side issue, there was some sociological study done here w/ regards to social setup & one's general social outlook. It was found that single income households were more prone to supporting Socialism than their dual income counterparts, who were more keen on leissez faire capitalism.

Is this an observation valid only for India or can it be applied globally? If the latter is the case (nobody did a global survey yet though)- this is something we Socialists may want to incorporate & encourage in our societies, if we become leaders someday.

[Dagoth Ur]

Quote:

And another side issue, there was some sociological study done here w/ regards to social setup & one's general social outlook. It was found that single income households were more prone to supporting Socialism than their dual income counterparts, who were more keen on leissez faire capitalism.

This is probably due to a far smaller income. Here in america you need (working class) dual incomes to maintain our standard of living. Only the bourgeois can afford stay at home moms/dads. Although what with it being America, there are few families with a socialist outlook.

[arif_moin]

Quote:

This is probably due to a far smaller income. Here in america you need (working class) dual incomes to maintain our standard of living. Only the bourgeois can afford stay at home moms/dads. Although what with it being America, there are few families with a socialist outlook.

So, since most families in the US are dual income, it would kind of support this study, at least conceptually.

But seriously though, as far as India (where the study was conducted) goes, an urban train conductor with a wife who works in a garmet factory doesn't have a significantly larger income levels than a villager with a home-bound wife- who has farms over a plot of land to feed his family & sells surplus in the state granary depository for cash.

As a matter of fact, in a typical urban setting in India, in a typical blue collar dual income household, the husband's AND about 75-80% of the wife's combined income is barely enough to cover rent. Considering electricity, food etc., that won't leave you with much more disposable $$$. And most dual working homes in urban locales are running on debt.

What was interesting is despite all these difficulties of their current lifestyles, these folk still preferred capitalism. A sociological conclusion drawn was that regardless of difficulties faced or income levels, dual working culture imparts only materialistic & financial values (i.e. desiring more material amnities, consumerism) on the household. Which reflects on their mentality & outlook.

And materialism is inevitably closer to capitalist models more so than Socialist ones. In a single income proletarian household, one of the family members is immersed in work whereas the other in the household itself. So you have a combination of values- i.e. family welfare & material standard of living- as inputs to the household and not just a unitary value (material well being) , which is the case in dual income households, as both the husband & wife spend the majority of their active hours in the workplace, thereby leaving very little interospection & thought for non monetary values & ideals.

Now- I wouldnt pass this off as fact but just a theory. We'll only know whether it's true or not if we do a worldwide survey.

Now, in the study of course there were dual income households with very strong family & social values. But it's speaking with an AGGREGATE (majority) analysis in mind. The study also acknowledged that people in dual income households may not be canniving thieves or evil or whatever of that sort, but a dual income family will have goals along the lines of "next car", "next trip", "plasma TV", "shut the kid up w/a gift" mentality more so than single income households who'd have goals along the side of "free time", "lesiure", "holiday", "next kid", "next get together" etc., etc.

Don't know if this applies anywhere else outside S. Asia, though...

Quote:

This is probably due to a far smaller income. Here in america you need (working class) dual incomes to maintain our standard of living.

I know, which is one of the main reasons I left the US eventhough the $$$ in places like LA was pretty damn good.

[Roam]

Quote:

you're the one claiming that I'm the idiot for supporting the resistance in Iraq and in Palestine

nooo ... don't take it personal I didn't mean any offence;

I partly support them and not fully. I partly support them because they have a common aim with me at this moment and are fighting against the imperialist america. I don't support them fully because what they are fighting for(in a long run, is different to mine)

[Crimson Flag]

Quote:

understands the modern concept of "feminism" & modern cosmopolitan

Feminism in the west in basically one of two things. A bunch of women who sit around and complain about thier husbands, or a bunch of diky lesbians who sit around and complain about how evil men are. Usually its the latter. I have to deal with them all the time. They hate you just for being man(particularly if you a masculine heterosexual man who they see as competition for women), the ones that I use to deal with would always follow me and glare at me. The thing that stinks about them is you don't feel comfortable hitting them because their women, but you just want to so much because they act like men. God I hate diky feminist.

[Roam]

Quote:

A bunch of women who sit around and complain about thier husbands, or a bunch of diky lesbians who sit around and complain about how evil men are. Usually its the latter.

Yes, it is just like the way you are describing. instead of complaining they should think of a possible way to change the system, these systems never lead to real equality between sexes, races etc...
you don't know but complain it's easy...

see, how In fact originally feminists were meant to attain equality between men and women, but the modern day feminists in the west are just like you say, quite sexist towards men.

[Roam]

even the iraqis are getting sick of these islamic fundamentalists in there. today the sunni people revolted against al-qaeda.
They're not helping, they are only making things worse.
and those so called "iraqi-resistance" are good for nothing; They made a civil war in Iraq between Iraqi Sunni and Shi'a peoples which cost the lives of many people including civilians. they carried out attacks on famous iraqi people:

Leading Muslim calligrapher shot
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6696503.stm

they're destroying themselves rather than only americans & fighting effectively. making violence = giving USA more excuse for occupying iraq.

His death will be seen as another attack on culture and learning by insurgent groups and militias in Iraq who in the past have targeted scientists, doctors and academics.

Revolt:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070601/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=Ajux3Z0dni9i0ccS86uBDxhvaA8F

But in Vietnam people fought for an almost common aim.

*****************************************************************************

Quote:

The second world view: says the brain is largely a blank state devoid of any inborn inscription beyond reflexes and primitive bodily urges. As a consequence the mind originates almost wholly as a product of learning, and it is a product of a culturethat itself evolvesby historical contingency. Because there is no biologically based human nature, people can be moulded to the best political & economic system, named Communism.

[arif_moin]

Quote:

But in Vietnam people fought for an almost common aim.

How's about the ARVN comrade? That was a uniformed Vietnamese force - opposing comrade Ho Chi Minh right there.

Also there was the LLDB & numerous pro US Bahnar tribesfolk who operated on a contract basis w/ the US & the ARVN.

Quote:

They're not helping, they are only making things worse.

On a macro-societal level of things, yes you're right 100% & nobody can argue you on that.

But on a more individual / family level, theocratic outfits tend to be quite territorial. You have Madinath Al Tawara (Revolution City- renamed Sadr City) run by Sadr. Then you had the Ansar Ul Islam hiding out in some mountain range in the North. Then you have many, MANY Sunni bastions, not to mention a plethora of black market gangs who inevitably have ties w/ the theocratic groups as they provide a good source of covert funding & smuggling options. And no semi sane theocratic head would deny himself such options to expand his own personal influence.

As a result however, in the public eye- they are "merged" with the theocratic outfit. Often times, in the press, most kidnaps & vandalism are usually the handiwork of criminal elements.

Coming back to the territorial aspect of these theocratic outfits, each one controls a rather limited area & have a very specific agenda in mind. Such as- more empowerment for slum folk from Sadr City, for example. And many times, you have different theocratic outfits vying for power & they tend to clash if they're in close geographic proximity, eventhough they're all fighting a common foe.

A person from Sadr City has the assured protection of Al Sadr & his Mehdi Army. A person from a similar Sunni bastion has the protection of his appropriate cleric. A civil strife at this point in time adds to the Iraqis' woes, as you rightly pointed- but nevertheless- in their own "hoods"- guarantee the citizens more protection from US raids, US sponsored incarcerations, random checkups & detention by US / Iraqi army etc.

The people who protested against the Al-Qaeda were most certainly from a Sunni bastion that was formerly a competitor to pro Al-Q factions such as the AUA. You'd go practically insane if you tried to figure out Iraqi factional allegences.

What's preventing the people from uniting as a front and opposing the US & the fanatical clerics is not some religious brainwashing or anything but the mere fact that in a very fractured sort of way- these clerics have given those who afford them protection money safety from the frustration & wrath of the US & puppet Iraqi Army.

People are clearly fed up, I agree, but they are fractured & presist because the various theocratic bastions have protected the bare dignity of whoever they're "ruling" over (area of operations- usually from a few 'hoods to a large portion of a city / town) from the US.

I mean dude- if you were a married man with a 14 year old daughter, and there was a chance that the US Army or members of the Iraqi army would barge in & rape your daughter (which has happened btw) during the next "random check"- would you not rush to the nearest person who'd offer to protect you for say- $20 a month w/ gunmen, and offer emergency relocation services, if need be?

Often time, in such setups- you'd be required to pledge allegence to the cleric & HIS outfit and also pay a minimum fee each month. As far as that particular Cleric & outfit go, adding numbers in their ranks add to their populist legitimacy. Also, a large population loyal to a Cleric makes him & his area of ops more immune from say- an Apache helicopter raid. An AH-64 raid on a populated bastion would generate more media spotlight & attention and thus it expands his legitimacy (as the "liberator" of Iraq) further.

As a guy- you get MORE protection and basic civic safety- like a woman won't get gangraped or shot at in broad daylight- as long as you remain within their area of ops (usually urban locales). But as the "guys" accumulate, the Cleric gets more $$$ base and a bigger resource pool.

There are many groups, nationalist & theocratic centric that are doing exactly this. And as each group vies for power over the other, as the "liberator" aka leader of Iraq- ugly clashes do tend to happen as several groups fighting the US share that in mind. The common enemy US is a unifying factor but the desire for individual power is a dividing one.

On the external front, you have Iran trying to create a buffer zone in Iraq through the various Shia outfits & you have the Saudis doing the same with the Sunni ones. And in the middle of this, you have pro Al-Q sunnis, nationalist theocrats...and a whole assortment of other combinations, each rushing to get the "top spot." This sort of thing wasn't common to Iraq alone.

This happened for many revolutions worldwide, Socialist ones included. Even during Lenin's time, there were still the "Reds" Vs "Whites." Don't forget.

In India, during independence days, there was a camp that wanted to wait it out & appeal to the USSR for intervention after the war's end, there was a camp that joined the IJA & the Nazis. Then you had the passive resistance. YOu also had a local guerilla movement, which wanted to achieve independence thru armed struggle but with ZERO external interference or inputs. Though all these camps had a common foe- the British- they fiercely criticizd each other as well.

How's about the whole "Gang of Four" fisaco in Communist China? They had a rift even when there was no war.

At this point in time, it's still too premature to judge the Iraqi resistance. But having a theocratic centric stance sort of puts it at a disadvantage- a fault which the Socialist world is largely responsible for.

If you want Socialism to win the loyalties of people- then you got to offer them guarantees which are given by the various armed theocratic outfits, but at proletariat friendly terms. Any Socialist power up to take the challenge?

The potential "Socialist world" of the future (considering there are none that can do this sort of thing right now) have to invest in Iraq as much as the Soviets & the Chinese invested in Vietnam. The external efforts rendered by the USSR & the PRC in Vietnam played a huge part in making the unification under a proletariat ideal a success.

Vladimir Putin of Russia took a cue, when he changed Russia's stance recently as the "Defender of the Muslim World."

www.mosnews.com/news/2005/12/12/muslimfriend.shtml

We must too. Being an ex-KGB agent, he knew that the Socialist world failed big time in the M-E to embalm Socialism into the minds & hearts of the masses due to lethargy and indifference.

So, theocratic elements took over & assumed centrestage. And there is an imperialist all out domination attempt & presence there.

So, logically speaking- if we want to re-embalm SOcialism in the M-E, the first step would be to respect & cooperate with the direct & aspiring anti imperialist elements today and acknowledge that they've done a better job over there than we Socialists have, as far as the Middle EAst is concerned (in its struggle against imperialism). And set the differences for later. With cooperation, united common achievable goals, all that theocratic right wing stances tend to fall. They merge into a more patriotic & nationalist worldview.

To clear things up, Putin's worldview obviously isin't SOcialism- it's more Russian wealth (for an elite), but still- he understood the dynamics of the Middle East & adopted similar tones when dealing with them.

[fontis]

Funny Putin should say that, considering the slaughter in Chechnya

[arif_moin]

Quote:

Funny Putin should say that, considering the slaughter in Chechnya

I agree. Putin isin't really a UNIFIER of folks, but is merely looking out to increase RUSSIAN WEALTH.

I only bought up Putin is because at least he realized the ground realities in the Middle East in sense that theocracy is a dominant force over there, thanks to the failures of the Socialist world.

Hoping to establish an ANTI WESTERN FRONT in the Middle East will require ANYONE who wishes to do so to realize this fact. Russian interests (although) sometimes collide w/ Western imperialism as in the ME. Putin, to forward HIS CAUSE has acknowledged this when dealing with them.

He's trying to woo attention away from Chechnya and into future cooperation w/ the Muslim world by acknowledging their current setup & respecting it, rather than say shit like "Oh those Chechen Islamic savages terrorist scum did X, Y and Z...and despite all that Russia is still strong har har har" and so on & so forth.

The Socialist world must do this as well. The sooner, the better for all of us. Unless of course you want the region to get dominated by other, non Socialist circles. As of now, Putin has opened up scholarships & technology training for aspirants from the Middle East & has even allocated a special quota for ME folk in such training institutes in Russia.

S#$t like that will eventually make people in ME see Russia as a "anti US" force rather than an "anti Islamic" one. Socialists should work to induce that sort of reaction from the ME too.

Speaking of Chechnya, indegenous would be separatists like Shamil Basayev voluntarily enrolled w/ the Red Army in SOviet times, but turned against capitalist Russia. Maybe, the USSR was doing for Chechnya something which modern Russia has failed to do? As a regional initiative, Putin should perhaps focus more on those elements as well.

[Ash]

Islam has proven to be necessary in the region to establish cohesive states. The teachings of the prophet Muhammad were a response to the acute crisis in Arabian society brought about by the breakdown of tribal relations and the undermining of corresponding moral-ethical and religious (polytheistic and fetishistic) concepts and by the emergence of early class society. The times required the creation of a stable sate and social organization in Arabia, and it fell to the religious and political movement of Islam to accomplish this task.

The religious-egalitarian ideal of Islam, the extreme ease of conversion, and the absence of an ecclesastical hierarchy contributed to the univerisilization of Islam. Islam in principle excludes mediators between man and god. The professional jurists-theoogians were not bearers of "divine grace" and unlike the Christian clergy had no exclusive right to perform religious ceremonies, to excommunicate, or to pardon sins. Islam, as a universal ideology of the peoples professing it, often objetively aided the rise of their national liberation movements, in turn assuring Islam's great influence in social life .

It hardly needs to be emphsized that anti-imperialism as one form of active struggle of the peoples of the East against presentday neocolonialism is progressive in its very essence. In cases in which the struggle begins and continues under slogans that by virtue of a country's specific features take on a religious coloring, the anti-imperialist essence of this struggle does not change.

Islam is a complex and variable social and political force. The green banner of Islam casts its shadow over fighters against imperialism, supporters of revolutionary-democratic transformations, and the most doubleeyed reactionaries. Islam's flexible ideology makes it possible for it to be used by various political forces who sometimes pursue diametrically opposite goals. The Iranian Revolution was manifestly progressive and anti-imperialist. But the Islamist regime of General Zia in Pakistan was reactionary because of his assertion that Islam and capitalism are natural allies.

[Luigi Hammarlund]

Islam, as any other religion, is a dangerous superstition.

[Red Hemler]

Quote:

No. Islam has many ideas that are conducive to communism. The current atmosphere in the middle east isn't conducive to communism, but Islam is.

I agree with this very much. Alot of Islam's ideas are conductive to communism. Then again I do not like religion and think it is a complete superstition. I think the church is just a big crime organization that preaches insted of shaking down buisness for money.

[TheRedScout]

I voted no. Most religions preach sharing and social unity and Islam's no different. But that is in theory, I cannot think of one state that applies genuine Islam (which is more compatible with Socialism than many may think). Instead, the nature of there being key figures to look up to in an Islamic society tends to lead to corruption and then you get a very unwanted form of Islam. This seems to be the case more often than not with most religious societies so this is why I am against religion playing much of a role. Then again it seems to be the case with most human societies when they get too big so maybe I should despair of humanity as well.

[DSCHBACH]

Did not the Bolsheviks organise rapidly with muslims in central Asia and give them dual sharia and Soviet courts to seek justice in?

[Endimion]

But The true comrads is the islam still exist and if the communist stil exit how do you think they shall support the capitalist ?

At least they are fighting for they one dreams