ayi ATISH be male mellat zadim raye mellato harraj karim be sharte chaghu? be sharte … shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
biya baba man rayamo hamin juri ye dasti midam be shoma shomam jibetuno do dasti bedid be man
halale halal
biba baba ta azade melat tamum nashode dare tamum mishe ha
raye xodemuno haraj kardim
tu in hyry wri ke yaru pul nadare ye kilu sibzemini bexare entexabat kiluyi chand dadash?
walla ma xaste shodim
base dige dadash
byayid ye hoyi ye ryis jomhur wase 100 sale ayande entexabkonid xalas ke maham be zendegiman beresim
motmaenan dar asri ke bombe atom ke wase hame hata ye bacham mi2ne ke mghayere kole ensanyato harchi ke begi hast ma darim misazim ke dige nazar mazar ani chi ?
albate man khodam mirayam?
yani rayi midam
Che Guevara. He is loved and he is hated. He is one of the biggest commercial successes and one of the most brutal murderers in recent history. It is no wonder that a man so passionately loved and hated is familiar to most people. This list looks at some of the less familiar aspects of his life. If you have other little known facts about Che Guevara, be sure to tell us in the comments.
The name “Che Guevara” either incites love or hate. The name is synonymous with freedom fighting to some, and butchery to others. What most people don’t know is that Che’s real name was not quite so romantic; he was born Ernesto Lynch. That’s right – Che Guevara was actually plain old Mr Lynch. It doesn’t have quite the same ring to it does it? His surname comes from the fact that his family was half Irish. Ernesto Lynch is pictured above at the age of 22.
Che Guevara as a youth was nicknamed “Chancho” (pig) because of his bathing habits (or lack thereof) and the fact that he proudly wore a “weekly shirt” – ie, a shirt he changed once a week. All through his life people commented on his smelliness (though obviously not to his face once he had the power to execute people on a whim).
Contrary to the image we all have of Guevara, in his youth he was quite the geek. He loved playing Chess and even entered local tournaments. In between hanging out with his chess buddies, Ernesto would read poetry which he loved with a passion. His favorite subjects at school were mathematics and engineering. I think we could safely say that if he were a teenager today, he would be EMO. Pictured above is an artist’s impression of EMO Ernesto Lynch (AKA Che Guevara).
While Guevara is best remembered for his actions in Cuba, he was actually born in Argentina to wealthy parents and he never became a Cuban citizen. When he was born, his father said “the first thing to note is that in my son’s veins flowed the blood of the Irish rebels.”
There seems to be some dispute about this fact around the Internet, but in June 1953, Guevara completed his medical studies and graduated as Doctor Ernesto Guevara. While studying he was particularly interested in the disease Leprosy.
5
In 1964, Guevara travelled to the United States to give a speech to the United Nations in New York. You can watch a portion of it in the video clip above. Whilst there he condemned the US for their racial segregation policies: “Those who kill their own children and discriminate daily against them because of the color of their skin; those who let the murderers of blacks remain free, protecting them, and furthermore punishing the black population because they demand their legitimate rights as free men — how can those who do this consider themselves guardians of freedom?
4
We tend not to see Guevara as a family man, but in fact he had one child with his first wife, Hilda Gadea, a daughter who was born in Mexico City on February 15, 1956, and he had four children with his second wife, the revolutionary Aleida March. Pictured above is Camilo – Che’s son.
After hie execution, a military doctor amputated Che’s hands. Bolivian army officers transferred Guevara’s body to an undisclosed location and refused to reveal whether his remains had been buried or cremated. The hands were preserved in formaldehyde to be sent to Buenos Aires for fingerprint identification. (His fingerprints were on file with the Argentine police.) They were later sent to Cuba.
2
The high-contrast monochrome graphic of his face has become one of the world’s most universally merchandized and objectified images, found on an endless array of items, including t-shirts, hats, posters, tattoos, and even bikinis, ironically contributing to the consumer culture he despised. The original image was snapped at a memorial service by newspaper photographer Alberto Korda. At the time, only Korda thought highly of the shot, and hung the picture on his wall, where it stayed until an Italian journalist saw it, asked if he could have it, and Korda obliged.
Guevara remains a beloved national hero to many in Cuba, where his image adorns the $3 Cuban Peso and school children begin each morning by pledging “We will be like Che.” In his native homeland of Argentina, where high schools bear his name, numerous Che museums dot the country, and in 2008 a 12 foot bronze statue of him was unveiled in his birth city of Rosario. Additionally, Guevara has been sanctified by some Bolivian farm workers as “Saint Ernesto”, to whom they pray for assistance. Needless to say, the Catholic Church does not consider Guevara to be a saint and strongly opposes the adulation of him.
”
By Steven Plaut
Marxists claim that Marxism is a science. It is not. It is a sort of pagan religious cult. It is a theology. It is a form of superstition.
Marxists claim that Karl Marx understood capitalism and economics. He did not. They also claim that the entire validity of Marx’s set of theories on all subjects rests ultimately on how valid Marxist economic thought is. Marxist economic thought was completely wrong.
Marx claimed that all products contain value that is directly proportional to the amount of labor embodied within them. He was wrong. All the rest of Marxism is based entirely on this mistaken and falsifiable premise.
Marxists claim that the operations of markets have a natural tendency to spawn monopolies. They call this «monopoly capitalism.» In reality, markets have a natural tendency to break up and undermine monopolies. Almost all monopolies under capitalism are those set up by governments stifling and interfering in the operations of markets.
The most harmful monopolies in modern economies are the labor unions.
Marxists claim that corporate monopolies are growing in importance and in power. In fact, monopolies have been losing power and strength under capitalism for well over a century.
Marxists think that large corporations collaborate and operate power-sharing arrangements among themselves. They do not and cannot. Large corporations compete, undercut, and threaten one another’s market shares every day. As one of many proofs, just look at the number of inter-corporate law suits.
Marxism is based on conflict between «social classes.» But social classes do not exist at all. This is not to say that there are not richer folk and poorer folk all about. It only means that all the richer folk share no collective common interests, and the same is true for all the poorer folk.
Marxists claim that people’s ideas and ideals are dictated by property relations. They are wrong.
Marxists and socialists in general care a lot about the distribution of material wealth. But they have no idea how to bring about the creation of the material wealth that they wish to redistribute. They just assume it all gets produced all by itself. That is why people in communist regimes starve.
Marxists claim that workers are oppressed in capitalist societies. Workers in communist societies always try to sneak out into capitalist societies. No one in South Korea is trying to sneak into North Korea. The Berlin Wall was not built to keep West Germans from sneaking into East Germany’s collective farms. Cubans in Florida do not steal boats to seek asylum in Cuban collective farms.
Marxists claim that lower-income people support the Left and that higher-income people support the Right. Generally the opposite is the case. Let’s not forget the Hollywood Left.
Marxists claim that capitalism creates «crises of surplus,» where materials build up that cannot be sold. They are wrong. Surpluses just cause prices to drop.
Marxists claim that capitalists do not work and that workers do not own capital. That is why they comprise «social classes.» But nearly all capitalists work, often in work days with very long hours. Meanwhile, a huge portion of capital is held by workers themselves through their pension funds and other institutional investment intermediaries.
Marxists claim that businesses are owned by a small closed clique of capitalists. Actually, most businesses are «public,» meaning they are owned by shareholders and anyone at all can be a shareholder in them.
Marxists claim that capitalism cannot be democratic. But every single democratic society on earth is predominantly capitalist. Not a single communist regime was ever democratic. Communists take power via military coups and military conquest, not via elections.
Marxists claim that capitalists use violence to protect their perquisites and privileges. In truth, Marxists in power use violence to protect their perquisites and privileges. They use violence to suppress opposition wherever they manage to seize power, including violence against opposition groups of workers. It is conservatively estimated that 100 million people were killed by Marxism and by Marxists in the twentieth century.
Marxists claim that people are prisoners of their material circumstances and of their classes of birth. Tell that to the limousine Marxists, the endowment-fund Trotskyists, and the tenured socialists.
Marxists claim that all workers share common interests and shared goals, making them into a «class.» In reality, they share nothing in common and have no common interests.
Marxists think that all capitalists share common interests and get together in large stadiums every few weeks to plan out a program to achieve those. In reality, if capitalists were ever to congregate in such a stadium, they could agree on absolutely nothing, not even on the price of the beer. There is no single issue in economic policy over which all capitalists have the same position or share the same interest.
Marxists claim that workers in capitalist societies feel «alienated.» In reality, pampered children in capitalist society feel alienated because capitalism produces wealth, makes material comfort possible, and so creates the opportunities for idleness and leisure that lead to recreational feelings of alienation.
Marxists think that if you earn more money than me, it means you are exploiting me. In reality, it means you are more talented, harder working, better skilled, and luckier than me.
Marxists think that if one person has more wealth than a second person, it can only be because the first one stole the wealth of the second. Ditto for richer and poorer countries.
Marxists think that only things matter in economics, meaning tangible products, and so services do not. They believe that big products are more important than small products, big industries being more important than small industries. They also believe that consumer goods are superfluous and should not be produced much. All those ideas are why the quality of life and the standard of living are so miserable under communist regimes. In wealthy countries, small- and medium-size enterprises are the main engines for producing wealth.
Marxists do not see why workers should need to be allowed to vote. The interest of workers is always defined as whatever those claiming to speak in the name of the working class happen to support and desire.
Marxists think that socialism works. It does not. The only form of «socialism» that has not produced mass impoverishment and starvation is Scandinavian capitalism merged with a bloated «socialist» welfare state.
Marxists claim that most Marxists come from the working class. In reality almost all Marxists are the pampered children of middle class and wealthy parents. There are more Marxists today on the campuses of some American universities than in all of eastern Europe.
Marxists claim that under Marxism everyone receives according to his needs and contributes according to his capabilities. In reality, under Marxism everyone receives according to whatever the entrenched party apparatchiks decide their needs are, usually sub-sustenance levels of consumption, and the same people decide what are your abilities, generally assumed to be your ability to work endlessly at whatever you are told to do without getting paid much. To put this differently, in the absence of positive incentives, no one is capable of doing anything and everyone’s needs are infinite.
Marxists think that «experts» can tell what needs to be produced. They cannot. That is why Marxist experts produce starvation. In some cases Marxist starvation has produced cannibalism. There is not a single Marxist scholar or expert on earth who could produce a pencil by himself.
Marxists think that efficiency in production can be achieved by terrorizing factory workers and communal farm members. While terrorizing them, it has never successfully achieved efficiency that way. People are always smarter than the terrorizing officials and manage to thwart them.
Marxists believe that economic incentives do not matter. That is why they think there is no need to pay people more for working hard or exerting effort. It is enough to appeal to their «class interests.» That is why people starve under communism.
When a Marxist speaks of «dictatorship of the proletariat,» he means he thinks he has the right to use violence to impose his own arbitrary dictatorship upon members of the working class and upon everyone else, without asking for their approval or votes.
Marxists claim that Marxism is fundamentally democratic. In reality it is always fundamentally anti-democratic.
Marxists pretend to be in favor of the working class collectively owning all property. In reality Marxists always steal the property of members of the working class and turn it over to well-paid party apparatchiks.
Marxists think that Marx understood economics. In fact, virtually all Marxist «theories» were completed debunked 160 years ago. Marx was wrong about virtually everything he wrote on economics. It is more difficult to say whether he was correct about anything in sociology, but that is more a commentary on the nebulous and muddled nature of sociological thinking.
Marxists see no need at all for «finance capital.» That is why they always steal everyone’s savings in communist societies. It is also why workers in communist societies hide their savings in banks in capitalist societies.
Marx did not have the slightest inkling about what determines wages of workers in markets. He had even less understanding of what determines prices.
Marxists use the term «concrete» whenever they do not know how to finish a sentence, or whenever they have no idea of what is being discussed.
Marxists think that women live better lives under Marxism. That is because they never speak with any women who grew up under communism.
There is not a Marxist on earth who has actually read and understood Karl Marx’s tedious book «Das Kapital.» You can read a summary of the book on Wikipedia, written by people who did not read it either. In reality, Marx had no idea at all even what capital is.
Marxists often want to abolish the family, but that is because they became Marxists in the first place as a way to antagonize and irritate mommy and daddy.
Marxists believe that people living under Marxism lose interest in religion. They do not.
Marxists believe that in every voluntary transaction, one side wins and the other loses, and so it is impossible for two sides to profit from it. That is why they think you should be told what to buy and how much you should pay for it.
Marxists claim that capitalist countries engage in imperialism. But since World War II the largest empires of imperialist conquest were those headed by Marxist regimes.
Marxists believe that there are no real conflicts of interest between the workers living in different countries and speaking different languages or coming from different cultures. That is without a doubt the very stupidest idea of all coming from Marxism. In any case, that is why Marxism is generally spread only via military conquest.
Marxists think that capitalism makes people greedy. Actually people living under communism become much greedier because they are poor and desperate.
Marxists claim that Marxism is a science. It is not. It is today little more than a form of mental illness.
Steven Plaut is an economist and teaches business administration.
آزادی چیست؟
انسان تا چه اندازه می تواند ازاد باشد؟
آیا شما احساس ازادی می نمایید؟
این یک نظر سنجی ست نظرتان را ارسال نمایید
اورهان پاموک نویسنده ترک و برنده جایزه ادبی نوبل در سال 2006 گفت: استفاده از خشونت و جنگ را برای دستیابی به آزادی و حقوق بشر محکوم میکنم.
به گزارش PNA، وی پس از حضور در فستیوال بینالمللی «های» که در گرانادای اسپانیا برگزار شد در یک کنفرانس مطبوعاتی حاضر شد و به تعدادی از پرسشهای فراوان خبرنگاران پاسخ داد.
پاموک گفت: بسیارند کسانی که هر نوع ممانعت از دستیابی انسانها به حقوق و آزادیشان را محکوم میکنند و شاید از من هم سرسختتر باشند.
این نویسنده ترک همچنین در پاسخ به سوالی درباره ملیتش با رد انتقادات پارهای منتقدانش که معتقداند او حس ملیگرایی ضعیفی دارد گفت: به ترک بودنم افتخار میکنم و هرگز از آن جدا نمیشوم و با آن هم به زیر خاک خواهم رفت!
پاموک با نام کامل فریت اورهان پاموک متولد 7 ژوئن 1952 است. وی در سال 1982 ازدواج کرد و اکنون یک دختر با نام رویا دارد.
پاموک نخستین ترک تباری است که جایزه نوبل ادبیات را دریافت کرده است. کتابهای پاموک که از مشهورترین نویسندگان معاصر ترکیه است به 34 زبان ترجمه و در بیش از 100 کشور جهان منتشر شده است. آقای جودت و پسرانش، خانه ساکت،کتاب سیاه، اسم من قرمز است، رنگهای دیگر، برف، استانبول؛ خاطرهها و شهر و موزه معصومیت از جمله کتابهای این نویسنده ترک به شمار میروند.
قلعه سفید و زندگی نو از جمله کتابهای پاموک هستند که با ترجمه ارسلان فصیحی توسط انتشارات ققنوس در ایران منتشر شدهاند که البته قلعه سفید دو سال پیش توسط دولت نهم لغو مجوز شد و این روزها در بازار کتاب ایران نایاب است
by Leo Panitch
NPR.org, April 29, 2009 · The economic crisis has spawned a resurgence of interest in Karl Marx. Worldwide sales of Das Kapital have shot up (one lone German publisher sold thousands of copies in 2008, compared with 100 the year before), a measure of a crisis so broad in scope and devastation that it has global capitalism—and its high priests—in an ideological tailspin.
Yet even as faith in neoliberal orthodoxies has imploded, why resurrect Marx? To start, Marx was far ahead of his time in predicting the successful capitalist globalization of recent decades. He accurately foresaw many of the fateful factors that would give rise to today’s global economic crisis: what he called the «contradictions» inherent in a world comprised of competitive markets, commodity production, and financial speculation.
Penning his most famous works in an era when the French and American revolutions were less than a hundred years old, Marx had premonitions of AIG and Bear Stearns trembling a century and a half later. He was singularly cognizant of what he called the «most revolutionary part» played in human history by the bourgeoisie—those forerunners of today’s Wall Street bankers and corporate executives. As Marx put it in The Communist Manifesto, «The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. . . . In one word, it creates a world after its own image.»
But Marx was no booster of capitalist globalization in his time or ours. Instead, he understood that «the need for a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe,» foreseeing that the development of capitalism would inevitably be «paving the way for more extensive and exhaustive crises.» Marx identified how disastrous speculation could trigger and exacerbate crises in the whole economy. And he saw through the political illusions of those who would argue that such crises could be permanently prevented through incremental reform.
Like every revolutionary, Marx wanted to see the old order overthrown in his lifetime. But capitalism had plenty of life left in it, and he could only glimpse, however perceptively, the mistakes and wrong turns that future generations would commit. Those of us now cracking open Marx will find he had much to say that is relevant today, at least for those looking to «recover the spirit of the revolution,» not merely to «set its ghost walking again.»
If he were observing the current downturn, Marx would certainly relish pointing out how flaws inherent in capitalism led to the current crisis. He would see how modern developments in finance, such as securitization and derivatives, have allowed markets to spread the risks of global economic integration. Without these innovations, capital accumulation over the previous decades would have been significantly lower. And so would it have been if finance had not penetrated more and more deeply into society. The result has been that consumer demand (and hence, prosperity) in recent years has depended more and more on credit cards and mortgage debt at the same time that the weakened power of trade unions and cutbacks in social welfare have made people more vulnerable to market shocks.
This leveraged, volatile global financial system contributed to overall economic growth in recent decades. But it also produced a series of inevitable financial bubbles, the most dangerous of which emerged in the U.S. housing sector. That bubble’s subsequent bursting had such a profound impact around the globe precisely because of its centrality to sustaining both U.S. consumer demand and international financial markets. Marx would no doubt point to this crisis as a perfect instance of when capitalism looks like «the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the netherworld whom he has called up by his spells.»
Despite the depth of our current predicament, Marx would have no illusions that economic catastrophe would itself bring about change. He knew very well that capitalism, by its nature, breeds and fosters social isolation. Such a system, he wrote, «leaves no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‹cash payment.'» Indeed, capitalism leaves societies mired «in the icy water of egotistical calculation.» The resulting social isolation creates passivity in the face of personal crises, from factory layoffs to home foreclosures. So, too, does this isolation impede communities of active, informed citizens from coming together to take up radical alternatives to capitalism.
Marx would ask first and foremost how to overcome this all-consuming social passivity. He thought that unions and workers› parties developing in his time were a step forward. Thus in Das Kapital he wrote that the «immediate aim» was «the organization of the proletarians into a class» whose «first task» would be «to win the battle for democracy.» Today, he would encourage the formation of new collective identities, associations, and institutions within which people could resist the capitalist status quo and begin deciding how to better fulfill their needs.
No such ambitious vision for enacting change has arisen from the crisis so far, and it is this void that Marx would find most troubling of all. In the United States, some recent attention-getting proposals have been derided as «socialist,» but only appear to be radical because they go beyond what the left of the Democratic Party is now prepared to advocate. Dean Baker, codirector of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, for example, has called for a $2 million cap on certain Wall Street salaries and the enactment of a financial transactions tax, which would impose an incremental fee on the sale or transfer of stocks, bonds, and other financial assets. Marx would view this proposal as a perfect case of thinking inside the box, because it explicitly endorses (even while limiting) the very thing that is now popularly identified as the problem: a culture of risk disassociated from consequence. Marx would be no less derisive toward those who think that bank nationalizations—such as those that took place in Sweden and Japan during their financial crises in the 1990s—would amount to real change.
Ironically, one of the most radical proposals making the rounds today has come from an economist at the London School of Economics, Willem Buiter, a former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee and certainly no Marxist. Buiter has proposed that the whole financial sector be turned into a public utility. Because banks in the contemporary world cannot exist without public deposit insurance and public central banks that act as lenders of last resort, there is no case, he argues, for their continuing existence as privately owned, profit-seeking institutions. Instead they should be publicly owned and run as public services. This proposal echoes the demand for «centralization of credit in the banks of the state» that Marx himself made in the Manifesto. To him, a financial-system overhaul would reinforce the importance of the working classes› winning «the battle of democracy» to radically change the state from an organ imposed upon society to one that responds to it.
«From financialisation of the economy to the socialisation of finance,» Buiter wrote, is «a small step for the lawyers, a huge step for mankind.» Clearly, you don’t need to be a Marxist to have radical aspirations. You do, however, have to be some sort of Marxist to recognize that even at a time like the present, when the capitalist class is on its heels, demoralized and confused, radical change is not likely to start in the form of «a small step for the lawyers» (presumably after getting all the «stakeholders» to sit down together in a room to sign a document or two). Marx would tell you that, without the development of popular forces through radical new movements and parties, the socialization of finance will fall on infertile ground. Notably, during the economic crisis of the 1970s, radical forces inside many of Europe’s social democratic parties put forward similar suggestions, but they were unable to get the leaders of those parties to go along with proposals they derided as old-fashioned.
Attempts to talk seriously about the need to democratize our economies in such radical ways were largely shunted aside by parties of all stripes for the next several decades, and we are still paying the price for marginalizing those ideas. The irrationality built into the basic logic of capitalist markets—and so deftly analyzed by Marx—is once again evident. Trying just to stay afloat, each factory and firm lays off workers and tries to pay less to those kept on. Undermining job security has the effect of undercutting demand throughout the economy. As Marx knew, microrational behavior has the worst macroeconomic outcomes. We now can see where ignoring Marx while trusting in Adam Smith’s «invisible hand» gets you.
The financial crisis today also exposes irrationalities in realms beyond finance. One example is U.S. President Barack Obama’s call for trading in carbon credits as a solution to the climate crisis. In that supposedly progressive proposal, corporations that meet emissions standards sell credits to others that fail to meet their own targets. The Kyoto Protocol called for a similar system swapped across states. Fatefully however, both plans depend on the same volatile derivatives markets that are inherently open to manipulation and credit crashes. Marx would insist that, to find solutions to global problems such as climate change, we need to break with the logic of capitalist markets rather than use state institutions to reinforce them. Likewise, he would call for international economic solidarity rather than competition among states. As he put it in the Manifesto, «United action, of the leading . . . countries, at least, is the first condition for the emancipation of the proletariat.»
Yet the work of building new institutions and movements for change must begin at home. Although he made the call «Workers of the world, unite!» Marx still insisted that workers in each country «first of all settle things with their own bourgeoisie.» The measures required to transform existing economic, political, and legal institutions would «of course be different in different countries.» But in every case, Marx would insist that the way to bring about radical change is first to get people to think ambitiously again.
How likely is that to happen? Even at a moment when the financial crisis is bleeding dry a vast swath of the world’s people, when collective anxiety shakes every age, religious, and racial group, and when, as always, the deprivations and burdens are falling most heavily on ordinary working people, the prognosis is uncertain. If he were alive today, Marx would not look to pinpoint exactly when or how the current crisis would end. Rather, he would perhaps note that such crises are part and parcel of capitalism’s continued dynamic existence. Reformist politicians who think they can do away with the inherent class inequalities and recurrent crises of capitalist society are the real romantics of our day, themselves clinging to a naive utopian vision of what the world might be. If the current crisis has demonstrated one thing, it is that Marx was the greater realist.
Leo Panitch is Canada research chair in comparative political economy and distinguished research professor of political science at York University in Toronto, and coeditor of the annual Socialist Register.
MUKRYAN 