Top   /  New
said Saïd Amin (@said) replied to ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd) on Pinned comment
My pleasure! I personally love thought provoking articles and/or discussions that challenge my assumptions (so long as they remain civil, void of personal attacks). The article's premise/argument would of been better served as a longer length essay--as you point out, it's more nuanced than the generalized statements made by the author. Anyway, thanks for the back and forth. Upward and onward>>>
See More
2 +
ChamoshChamoshvnd ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd) replied to Saïd Amin (@said) on Pinned comment
Yes, we could discern elements of a "creative destruction" in some wars, but could that be generalized to all wars?
Germany and Japan were already established industrial capitalist societies prior to WWII, and the US in its competition with USSR strongly pushed to revive their economies, as allies and a buffer against its Cold War nemesis. The Marshall Plan was a gargantuan, massive plan of action that hasn't been repeated yet.
Iran's introduction to full fledged capitalism began only after shah's "White Revolution" in the 60's, and even then our capitalism has always remained malformed and a Rentier capitalism, more than anything else.
Is war the ultimate capitalist solution in resolving its crisis of accumulation?
Such a claim could be proven empirically and historically, since the advent of capitalism up to now.
And thanx for posting a provocative article in here. 👍
See More
2 +
said Saïd Amin (@said) replied to ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd) on Pinned comment
I think I understand what you're saying, but you might be interpreting the author's message literally. I don't read it as Kukis advocating war (for the sake of nation building), but rather acknowledging that conditions, in the aftermath of devastating wars, were historically more conducive for nations to rebuild. From Germany, Iran, Japan...look at how those nations rose from the ashes--why is that and why is this not happening with recent wars, post Iran/Iraq?
Increasingly, the fabric of nations are in flux, with fault lines/divisions exposed like no other time in history---and as such, it's perhaps possible that the aftermath of war is less of of unifier than it's historically been.

All that said, yes, "War ALWAYS destroyed nations" and sadly, it will continue to do so.
See More
2 +
ChamoshChamoshvnd ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd) on Pinned comment
Seriously?
War "helped" with "building" nations through a process of destroying the smaller nations that couldn't win against the big nations which invaded them.
War ALWAYS destroyed nations, still destroys nations and will continue to destroy nations; smaller nations in favor of bigger, stronger ones.


See More
1 +
Kargar Kargar (@Kargar) on Pinned comment
The centenary of October Revolution is once again bringing up the debates and issues related to the greatest revolution of the 20th century.
One of the topics less dealt with in this historical reexamination and critique of the October revolution is the rare nature of the Russian working class in early 20th century, with overwhelming majority of workers being first or second generation workers; newly arrived from the countryside. And more importantly how this 'pure' working class was heavily influenced by social democratic and other types of populist, Leftist literature.
Such a combination of newly industrialized workers and an army of socialist, populist organizers is indeed rare in modern history, and a phenomenon not seen in many subsequent labor movements in other countries.

We would remiss not to recall how Marx thought about the reflexive nature of workers' revolutions and how they are constantly involved in a permanent process of critiquing themselves.

"Proletarian revolutions, on the contrary, such as those of the nineteenth century, criticize themselves constantly; constantly interrupt themselves in their own course; come back to what seems to have been accomplished, in order to start over anew; scorn with cruel thoroughness the half measures, weaknesses and meannesses of their first attempts; seem to throw down their adversary only in order to enable him to draw fresh strength from the earth, and again, to rise up against them in more gigantic stature; constantly recoil in fear before the undefined monster magnitude of their own objects—until finally that situation is created which renders all retreat impossible, and the conditions themselves cry out:
"Hic Rhodus, hic salta!"


Last but not least let's recall how he thought about the social revolutions of the nineteenth century:

"The social revolution of the nineteenth century can not draw its poetry from the past, it can draw that only from the future. It cannot start upon its work before it has stricken off all superstition concerning the past. Former revolutions require historic reminiscences in order to intoxicate themselves with their own issues. The revolution of the nineteenth century must let the dead bury their dead in order to reach its issue."


The same approach ought to be taken towards social revolutions of the 20th century, including but not limited to the October Revolution.
See More
0 +
MashGhasem MashGhasem (@MashGhasem) on Pinned comment
نژاد پَرَستی و ایرانی پرستی احمقانه؟

.
See More
1 +
ChamoshChamoshvnd ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd) on Pinned comment
Anti-War Demonstrators Storm Pentagon 1967/10/24





The Armies of Night By Norman Mailer

www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/04/reviews/mailer-armies.html


See More
0 +
ChamoshChamoshvnd ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd) on Pinned comment
In 1924 Georg Lukács wrote a slim little short book on Lenin, titled: "Lenin: A Study on the Unity of his Thought." Notably he never, ever once uses the term 'Leninism.' After 93 years Lukács book remains of one the best,if not the best book on the substance and significance of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.


Lenin: A Study on the Unity of his Thought
www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/1924/lenin/index.htm

Out of the chaos following Lenin’s death and the mounting fury against Lukács and his freshly penned History and Class Consciousness (1923), this book bears an assessment of Lenin as “the only theoretical equal to Marx.” Lukács shows, with unprecedented clarity, how Lenin’s historical interventions — from his vanguard politics and repurposing of the state to his detection of a new, imperialist stage of capitalism — advanced the conjunction of theory and practice, class consciousness and class struggle. A postscript from 1967 reflects on how this picture of Lenin, which both shattered failed Marxism and preserved certain prejudices of its day, became even more inspirational after the oppressions of Stalin. Lukács’s study remains indispensable to an understanding of the contemporary significance of Lenin’s life and work.


See More
1 +
ChamoshChamoshvnd ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd) on Pinned comment
Lenin was definitely a tremendous organizer and a great revolutionary. He also had some great shortcomings in his analysis of the Russian society and its implications as far as constructing Socialism was concerned.
The article below is a critical assessment of the Russian Revolution.

The Russian Revolution Revisited
www.solidarity-us.org/site/node/3733
See More
1 +
ashianeh ashianeh (@ashianeh) replied to ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd) on Pinned comment
Thanks for your gracious words. It was the age of giants. Unfortunately mediocrity has replaced talent.
See More
2 +
ChamoshChamoshvnd ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd) replied to ashianeh (@ashianeh) on Pinned comment
Dear ashianeh thank you so much, proving once more why you're so indispensable in here.
I had never seen this before.
The first scenes showing kids throwing stuff as each other sort of reminded me of Jean-Paul Sartre's memories about his youth:
On early Sunday mornings, in elite French universities, having nothing better to do than throwing bags of piss at the Bourgeois students coming back from their Saturday night debauchery, and shouting in full voice:
"Thus Spoke Zarathustra!"
See More
2 +
ChamoshChamoshvnd ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd) on Pinned comment
Mario Savio on the operation of the machine


There comes a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part, you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, the people who own it, that unless you're free the machine will be prevented from working at all.
See More
0 +
FitFanatic FitFanatic (@FitFanatic) on Pinned comment
The picture is too small :(
See More
0 +
pokemongirl pokemongirl (@pokemongirl) on Pinned comment
Omg thank u so much. It's just sad that the Nazis broke her arms and legs cuz she smuggled Jewish infants/children in.
See More
1 +
ashianeh ashianeh (@ashianeh) on Pinned comment
The question is whether Eisenhower and Kennedy throughly believed in democratic reforms in Iran. The same interests that pushed CIA and British to overthrow Mossadegh would have undermined any serious attempts toward democracy.
See More
0 +
ChamoshChamoshvnd ChamoshChamoshvnd (@ChamoshChamoshvnd) on Pinned comment
ماجرای ترجمه "کمدی انسانی"- سیمین دانشور
bukharamag.com/1390.02.14587.html


.
See More
0 +
said Saïd Amin (@said) on Pinned comment
As one person on Twitter said, "Far and away the greatest privilege is time privilege -- being born now, as opposed to a century or millennium earlier."
See More
0 +
Dakho Dakho (@Dakho) on Pinned comment
The relationship between the modern state and concentration camp has also been studied by the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben.
For now here's just a few lines from an article on this subject, of the relationship between the modern state and concentration camp.
Hopefully we'll have a full discussion about Agamben's philosophy, especially as it might relate to the context of a totalitarian theocratic state, like the ones rune by the terrorist thieving turbans of Tehran.

ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-giorgio-agamben-the-state-and-the-concentration-camp/
---------------------
Giorgio Agamben: the state and the concentration camp

"....Agamben’s theory of the state is constructed as an ontological theory of sovereignty. ‘Ontology’ is the philosophical study of the nature of being, reality and existence as such....

Agamben’s account treats sovereignty as a primary or original aspect of social life, not a secondary or derivative aspect. Agamben rejects the Marxist view of the state as superstructure, and does not see power as mystified. Rather, state sovereignty operates directly on life, reshaping it according to the state’s perspective or way of seeing....

Agamben defines sovereignty mainly in terms of exclusion or exception. Sovereignty is constitutive of the state and of statist politics, because it constitutes the political body by deciding who is to be incorporated into it. This decision is grounded on a fundamental exclusion of what is to remain outside. Sovereignty is more basic to the state than law, because it is the sovereign who decides where and whether law applies,...

There are many different kinds of ‘exceptional’ power to which Agamben’s concepts are frequently applied. The sovereign power to declare an exception is associated with the suspension of normal legal guarantees and protections, and the denial of basic rights. Sometimes, such a situation can pertain across an entire society...

Cases of prison camps like Guantanamo Bay, which was asserted by the Bush regime to be outside American law, and Abu Ghraib, where US soldiers committed abuse under the cover of military impunity, are straightforward examples of the state of exception. The theory also tends to be applied to prisons and policing regimes more broadly, especially when they are apparently lawless or outside normal laws – the refugee detention and border control regime for example.

noborders.org.uk/
See More
1 +