LWDT 8: Hitting the Marx

[Proctopeo]

He's closer to a blind pragmatist than anything else.

I wouldn't call him a pragmatist either tbh.

He defies proper classification, but "blind pragmatist" is at least in the ballpark.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I wouldn't call him a pragmatist either tbh.

He defies proper classification, but "blind pragmatist" is at least in the ballpark.

Greedy opportunist fits, imo.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Calling Trump a fascist implies that he is loyal to principles.

He's closer to a blind pragmatist than anything else.

He's closer to a blind idiot who believes whatever people tell him.

[Salus Maior]

Quite the contrary people who just throw the word around to describe anything and anyone they don't like have no idea what it is. Trump is in no way a fascist, and if he really is then fascism isn't exactly a spooky specter that people need to be worried about lol.

Tell that to his victims.

Trump is hardly the only president whose policies have created victims.

[Philjia]

Tell that to his victims.

Trump is hardly the only president whose policies have created victims.

The list of Presidents of the United States is a cavalcade of arseholes.

[Gormwood]

Trump is hardly the only president whose policies have created victims.

The list of Presidents of the United States is a cavalcade of arseholes.

Today I learned Jimmy Carter is an arsehole.

[Galloism]

The list of Presidents of the United States is a cavalcade of arseholes.

Today I learned Jimmy Carter is an arsehole.

I mean, he did deliberately sabotage peace between Israel and Palestine when it actually looked like it had a snowball's chance in hell of making it for once.

[North German Realm]

The list of Presidents of the United States is a cavalcade of arseholes.

Today I learned Jimmy Carter is an arsehole.

He was directly and personally responsible for the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and later the emboldening of the IR Regime by failing to respond appropriately to the Hostage Crisis (invasion, execution of all revolutionary authorities, and restoration of the royalty). I'd say he was a bigger asshole than most his predecessors as far as Iran is concerned lmao.

[Byzconia]

Then you have no idea what fascism is.

I don't think you do. Trump isn't a fascist. He's definitely a far-right, xenophobic, faux-populist demagogue, but not a fascist. He has neither questioned capitalism nor repudiated the liberal world order. That said, I also think it's stupid to completely dismiss him, as he has the support of many actual fascists and is pretty contemptuous towards human rights. He's not a fascist, but he's not harmless, either (if only because he's a symptom of a bigger problem).

Are you seriously implying that Trump is liberal???? What planet do you live on?

Given that he supports a capitalist market economy, yes, he's a liberal.

Oh my fucking god... you CANNOT be serious. Trump is NOT a liberal, not by a longshot. I mean... do you even know what liberalism IS? It is an ideology based on liberty, consent of the governed, and EQUALITY before the law. If you have bothered to actually READ liberal philosophers, maybe you'd understand that Trump is FAR from being liberal.

Typical of commies though. Everything they hate is 'liberal' to them.

What liberals believe and what they've practiced are quite different (as with any ideology). Liberal regimes have very much not been egalitarian throughout modern history and, in fact, have often been quite sexist (most capitalist countries were opposed to it for decades), racist (racism is still a massive issue in most Western states, especially the US), and classist (with calling poor people "lazy" and saying they "deserve" to be poor). As Friedrich Nietzsche once said, "Liberal institutions cease to be liberal upon gaining power."

Realistically, liberalism is more about capitalism than anything else.

Both of these points are fair enough, but that doesn't make him a liberal though.

No, what makes him a liberal is his support for free market capitalism. I think you're misunderstanding the word and using it in the context of American politics as a synonym for "progressive," which it isn't. That's exclusive to the US, no one else defines the word that way (except maybe Canadians, since the LPC has been associated with social liberalism for most of its existence, unlike most other liberal parties, which are more heavily market liberal).

"unless capitalism is dismantled" lmao like they were better off starving to death under communism

Implying that Soviet-style communism is the only possible alternative to capitalism.

(Also, the "LOL starving" thing is a meme, not an accurate representation of life in those countries across the decades.)

[Byzconia]

^ A border is implicitly violent because violence is required to maintain it - violence against both people and nature. All socialists should work towards a future without borders.

It is wholly justified violence.

What justifies it?

[Byzconia]

The list of Presidents of the United States is a cavalcade of arseholes.

Today I learned Jimmy Carter is an arsehole.

He moved the US to a direct role as the Middle East's "police officer" by greatly strengthening investment in Israel (and thereby indirectly leading to the current mistreatment of Palestinians by Israel's government) and continued US support for dictators like the Shah and Suharto despite claiming the US was going to begin withdrawing its support (tbf, he did try that last one, but it wasn't as permanent and wide-reaching as he'd claimed). And his rhetoric towards the Soviet Union damaged Soviet-American detente.

Today I learned Jimmy Carter is an arsehole.

He was directly and personally responsible for the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and later the emboldening of the IR Regime by failing to respond appropriately to the Hostage Crisis (invasion, execution of all revolutionary authorities, and restoration of the royalty). I'd say he was a bigger asshole than most his predecessors as far as Iran is concerned lmao.

Given that the Revolution itself was due to the unpopularity of the US-imposed Shahist regime, this is like saying that the best way to put out a forest fire is by pouring gasoline on it. That said, yeah, you're probably right that the only realistic solution for the US (from the perspective of realpolitik) would've been an invasion, but then the US would've been stuck in another guerrilla war in Asia after just getting out of Vietnam. No one in their right mind would've jumped on the opportunity for another Quagmire.

[Totenborg]

It is wholly justified violence.

What justifies it?

"They took our jerbs!"

[North German Realm]

Given that the Revolution itself was due to the unpopularity of the US-imposed Shahist regime, this is like saying that the best way to put out a forest fire is by pouring gasoline on it. That said, yeah, you're probably right that the only realistic solution for the US (from the perspective of realpolitik) would've been an invasion, but then the US would've been stuck in another guerrilla war in Asia after just getting out of Vietnam. No one in their right mind would've jumped on the opportunity for another Quagmire.

No. The revolution was not "due to the unpopularity of the """US-Imposed Shahist regime""", if anything it was due to support from literally everyone in the West. And yes. The correct action would be what you describe as "putting a forest fire out by pouring gasoline in it", if necessary. Not only would it leave to a bunch of Mullahs and other criminals against humanity's execution, it would solve a lot of problems that rose later, not least among them the literal worst war ever fought between two countries on the middle east (that happened only a year later, started due to an emboldened IR regime starting talks about "Islamizing Iraq" and triggering Saddam into a "better safe than sorry" attack on Tehran) and -with that- the entire shitshow that the ME currently is in.

[Byzconia]

No. The revolution was not "due to the unpopularity of the """US-Imposed Shahist regime""", if anything it was due to support from literally everyone in the West.

As if these things are in anyway mutually exclusive? The "support from literally everyone in the West" (itself a dubious claim--who exactly is "everyone"? People? Governments? Both? Citation?) And if the initial protests and riots that "everyone in the West" was supporting weren't against, then what the fuck were they for? Did Iranians just feel like marching for no reason?

And yes. The correct action would be what you describe as "putting a forest fire out by pouring gasoline in it", if necessary.

So, you admit it's a bad idea, but think it's should've been done anyway? Do you happen to work for the Department of Defense, by any chance?

Not only would it leave to a bunch of Mullahs and other criminals against humanity's execution, it would solve a lot of problems that rose later, not least among them the literal worst war ever fought between two countries on the middle east (that happened only a year later, started due to an emboldened IR regime starting talks about "Islamizing Iraq" and triggering Saddam into a "better safe than sorry" attack on Tehran)

It would've preventing the Iran-Iraq War by embroiling the US in a war in Iran instead. Brilliant. "Iraq can't invade them if we do it first!"

and -with that- the entire shitshow that the ME currently is in.

Yes, because the current state of Middle Eastern geopolitics is exclusively due to the Islamic Revolution and has absolutely nothing to do with Western imperialism in the post-Ottoman interwar period and then continuing to meddle in ME affairs throughout the Cold War.

EDIT: a word

[North German Realm]

No. The revolution was not "due to the unpopularity of the """US-Imposed Shahist regime""", if anything it was due to support from literally everyone in the West.

As if these things are in anyway mutually exclusive? The "support from literally everyone in the West" (itself a dubious claim--who exactly is "everyone"? People? Governments? Both? Citation?) And if the initial protests and riots that "everyone in the West" was supporting weren't against, then what the fuck were they for? Did Iranians just feel like marching for no reason?

And yes. The correct action would be what you describe as "putting a forest fire out by pouring gasoline in it", if necessary.

So, you admit it's a bad idea, but think it's should've been done anyway? Do you happen to work for the Department of Defense, by any chance?

Not only would it leave to a bunch of Mullahs and other criminals against humanity's execution, it would solve a lot of problems that rose later, not least among them the literal worst war ever fought between two countries on the middle east (that happened only a year later, started due to an emboldened IR regime starting talks about "Islamizing Iraq" and triggering Saddam into a "better safe than sorry" attack on Tehran)

It would've preventing the Iran-Iraq War by embroiling the US in a war in Iran instead. Brilliant. "Iraq can't invade them if we do it first!"

and -with that- the entire shitshow that the ME currently is in.

Yes, because the current state of Middle Eastern geopolitics is exclusively due to the Islamic Revolution and has absolutely nothing to do with Western imperialism in the post-Ottoman interwar period and then continuing to meddle in ME affairs throughout the Cold War.

EDIT: a word

1- The governments. That the Revolutionaries had media coverage and funding by may Western governments (France, the UK, and [West] Germany being examples), and that the Shah was explicitly coerced out of any form of suppression of the protests by the US is essentially common knowledge at this point. (Hence why the number of people killed in the entirety of the revolution's 2 years was 543, [to compare, it is roughly a third of the number killed in three days by the IR in the recent Aban protests])

2- It was not "the best idea" (the best would be giving the Shah the guns and the "By your leave" that literally every other government in the Cold War got to deal with its own domestic affairs). It was however what should have been done in response to a literal invasion of American territory (i.e. the American Embassy in Iran) after it became obvious the Islamic occupation in Iran wasn't going to return the hostages with compensation.

3- An American expedition into Iran would probably result -at best- in minimal casualties. The Iran-Iraq War literally leveled the entirety of the Iranian South (Khuzestan still hasn't been rebuilt, nearly 30 years after the fact) and resulted in more deaths than nearly any conflict in the region this last century. Yes. "The US should respond to the IR taking hostages first, so that Iraq won't need to attack" is a perfectly good argument in hindsight.

4- Yes. Literally everything wrong in the ME now is directly, completely, and nearly totally the IR's fault and has nothing to do with Western Imperialism in the region. The last conflict that had anything to do with that was the Yom Kippur War nearly five years before the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

[Pasong Tirad]

^ A border is implicitly violent because violence is required to maintain it - violence against both people and nature. All socialists should work towards a future without borders.

It is wholly justified violence.

Everyday you stray further from your supposed libertarianism and it's beautiful to watch as your mask slowly peels off.

[Torrocca]

It is wholly justified violence.

Everyday you stray further from your supposed libertarianism and it's beautiful to watch as your mask slowly peels off.

"A wolf in sheep's clothing" springs to mind.

[Totenborg]

It is wholly justified violence.

Everyday you stray further from your supposed libertarianism and it's beautiful to watch as your mask slowly peels off.

To be fair, right libertarianism is usually just that, a cheap mask for more... unpleasant ideologies.

[Byzconia]

1- The governments. That the Revolutionaries had media coverage and funding by may Western governments (France, the UK, and [West] Germany being examples), and that the Shah was explicitly coerced out of any form of suppression of the protests by the US is essentially common knowledge at this point. (Hence why the number of people killed in the entirety of the revolution's 2 years was 543, [to compare, it is roughly a third of the number killed in three days by the IR in the recent Aban protests])

2- It was not "the best idea" (the best would be giving the Shah the guns and the "By your leave" that literally every other government in the Cold War got to deal with its own domestic affairs). It was however what should have been done in response to a literal invasion of American territory (i.e. the American Embassy in Iran) after it became obvious the Islamic occupation in Iran wasn't going to return the hostages with compensation.

3- An American expedition into Iran would probably result -at best- in minimal casualties. The Iran-Iraq War literally leveled the entirety of the Iranian South (Khuzestan still hasn't been rebuilt, nearly 30 years after the fact) and resulted in more deaths than nearly any conflict in the region this last century. Yes. "The US should respond to the IR taking hostages first, so that Iraq won't need to attack" is a perfectly good argument in hindsight.

4- Yes. Literally everything wrong in the ME now is directly, completely, and nearly totally the IR's fault and has nothing to do with Western Imperialism in the region. The last conflict that had anything to do with that was the Yom Kippur War nearly five years before the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

1. All true. However, the issue still remains that the Shah's regime was unpopular. Something the West must've recognized if they were willing to lend the protests legitimacy. That said, credit where it's due, the Shah did try extremely hard to placate and compromise with the protesters, whereas many others in his position would've immediately resorted to violence. Whereas Khomeini was the one fanning the flames to try and force an uprising. Still, none of that inherently invalidates the protesters' reasons for protest. There were plenty of mistakes and misunderstandings to go around.

2. So, the "best idea" would've been for the Shah to resort to the very act of violence that you literally just condemned the IR for resorting to? Characterizing the storming of an embassy as "an invasion of territory," while technically accurate is still a massive misrepresentation. Embassies are on land granted to that country by the host country. As such, their status is revocable and violable, unlike a country's borders. Ergo, storming of an embassy is not "an invasion." It's certainly an attack, yes, but not an invasion.

3. "Minimal casualties" based on what? Do you have actual, accurate military estimates to back up this claim? Or are you just guessing based on what you'd like to think?

4. "Literally everything wrong in the ME now is directly, completely, and nearly totally the IR's fault and has nothing to do with Western Imperialism in the region." Wow. That's amazing, literally every word in that sentence is wrong. As someone who's actually studied the history and politics of the Middle East, I literally can't express how extremely, ridiculously wrong this is. You might as well have just said, "The earth is flat." Please, explain to me how the Suez Crisis, Arab-Israeli Wars, and the rise of Baathism/Arab nationalism are the result of the Iranian Revolution even though they all happened before the Islamic Republic even existed.

The last conflict that had anything to do with that was the Yom Kippur War nearly five years before the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

And that means it was the last conflict that was ever going to happen in the Middle East before the Revolution.

[Nakena]

It is wholly justified violence.

Everyday you stray further from your supposed libertarianism and it's beautiful to watch as your mask slowly peels off.

It's quite exciting isn't it?

Everyday you stray further from your supposed libertarianism and it's beautiful to watch as your mask slowly peels off.

To be fair, right libertarianism is usually just that, a cheap mask for more... unpleasant ideologies.

To be fair, libertarianism was ok in the Ron Paul era. Nowadays it just feels fallen out of time.

[Nakena]

1. All true. However, the issue still remains that the Shah's regime was unpopular. Something the West must've recognized if they were willing to lend the protests legitimacy. That said, credit where it's due, the Shah did try extremely hard to placate and compromise with the protesters, whereas many others in his position would've immediately resorted to violence. Whereas Khomeini was the one fanning the flames to try and force an uprising. Still, none of that inherently invalidates the protesters' reasons for protest. There were plenty of mistakes and misunderstandings to go around.

This something something was liberal and radical-left-wing dislike for the Shah that had ever been present since the 1960s. Specifically in France and even moreso in Germany where the Shah had, unintending, an important role as cataclyist of the 1968 movement.

The true fact however is that the Shah was, unlike his father, a weak ruler. While Khomeini was much stronger and determined in personality. When the Shah gave concessions to the protestors and resorted from decisive action he made things worse for himself and everyone involved. This wasnt a new pattern and was already present with half-hearted attempts of liberalization beforehand before switching back to an one-party state and so on. All those are signs of indecisiveness, weakness and led to various problems and contributed to the revolution. All this made things even worse and fostered rapid dissolution of the monarchy.

I should add that lack of violence or hesistance to do it, does not necessarily correlates to a weak ruler. In fact those who are strong are not hesistant to put an example or decisive action (killing or locking up Khomeini and associated clerics for example) that may prevent the worse in the long run while the weak often delay with way more bloodshed and suffering being the ultimative outcome. Iran is a prime example thereof.

2. So, the "best idea" would've been for the Shah to resort to the very act of violence that you literally just condemned the IR for resorting to? Characterizing the storming of an embassy as "an invasion of territory," while technically accurate is still a massive misrepresentation. Embassies are on land granted to that country by the host country. As such, their status is revocable and violable, unlike a country's borders. Ergo, storming of an embassy is not "an invasion." It's certainly an attack, yes, but not an invasion.

That would presume that the Shah would have been someone else than he was. The military under General Oveissi several times tried to convince him to crack down hard on the unrest. He didn do that.

3. "Minimal casualties" based on what? Do you have actual, accurate military estimates to back up this claim? Or are you just guessing based on what you'd like to think?

Quite possibly compared to the Iraq-Iran war which was basically WW1 redux - middle east edition with over one million death.

[Byzconia]

3. "Minimal casualties" based on what? Do you have actual, accurate military estimates to back up this claim? Or are you just guessing based on what you'd like to think?

Quite possibly compared to the Iraq-Iran war which was basically WW1 redux - middle east edition with over one million death.

Sure, it's possible--I won't deny that--but they said "probably," which is more definite than "possible" and implies some kind of reasoning for it's "probable." It's a higher burden of proof.

[Duvniask]

To be fair, libertarianism was ok in the Ron Paul era. Nowadays it just feels fallen out of time.

Ron Paul-style libertarianism sucks, not least because of the old geezer himself and the stupid bullshit he has advocated for: returning to the gold standard, abolishing the central banking system, climate-change denial, etc. The near-religious fervor with which right-libertarians view private property and the market is sickening. In the US, also, there's the additional tendency among these folks to essentially worship the United States' Constitution as God-given; it's always struck me as totally ridiculous.

[Northern Davincia]

It is wholly justified violence.

Everyday you stray further from your supposed libertarianism and it's beautiful to watch as your mask slowly peels off.

It is an extension of property rights, the only difference is that the limit of the property is owned by the state.

Everyday you stray further from your supposed libertarianism and it's beautiful to watch as your mask slowly peels off.

To be fair, right libertarianism is usually just that, a cheap mask for more... unpleasant ideologies.

"Borders are signifiers of unpleasant ideologies."

To be fair, libertarianism was ok in the Ron Paul era. Nowadays it just feels fallen out of time.

Ron Paul-style libertarianism sucks, not least because of the old geezer himself and the stupid bullshit he has advocated for: returning to the gold standard, abolishing the central banking system, climate-change denial, etc. The near-religious fervor with which right-libertarians view private property and the market is sickening. In the US, also, there's the additional tendency among these folks to essentially worship the United States' Constitution as God-given; it's always struck me as totally ridiculous.

Ron Paul is pretty much right about everything, give or take a few things. The gold standard is infinitely preferable to fiat.

[Byzconia]

Ron Paul is pretty much right about everything, give or take a few things. The gold standard is infinitely preferable to fiat.

A poll of forty prominent US economists conducted by the IGM Economic Experts Panel in 2012 found that none of them believed that returning to the gold standard would be economically beneficial. The specific statement with which the economists were asked to agree or disagree was: "If the US replaced its discretionary monetary policy regime with a gold standard, defining a 'dollar' as a specific number of ounces of gold, the price-stability and employment outcomes would be better for the average American." 40% of the economists disagreed, and 53% strongly disagreed with the statement; the rest did not respond to the question. The panel of polled economists included past Nobel Prize winners, former economic advisers to both Republican and Democratic presidents, and senior faculty from Harvard, Chicago, Stanford, MIT, and other well-known research universities.

Yep, clearly.