Did the lord receive wealth through peasants’ work in the field? Yes, he received a lot of wealth by exploiting poor peasants. The peasants had to work on the lord’s field two or even three days a week. Moreover, the lord controls “prices” over the village mill, winepress, sheepfold, stud bull, and oven. Peasants had to pay whatever the lord wants for using these “services.” If peasants did not like this relationship with the lord, sometimes the lord killed these peasants. Therefore, the landlords have oppressed peasants.

The repressive system led peasants to misery and hatred toward lords. Peasants always wanted to liberate themselves, but they did not have the means. Peasants had only their strong hands and backs. Landlords had support from the king’s army with weapons and trained soldiers. TheYemel’yan Pugachev rebellion in Russia in the 18th century is just one of the examples of defeated rebellions.

Usually European expansion at the eve of Feudalism was a struggle between Europeans and natives. At first, in the short run the developing areas are “worse off” after the contact with Europeans. What happened with the area: people, land, animals? How can these areas be “better off” when most of their population died due to European diseases and genocide? After the immediate contact with Europeans these peoples and their land were exploited by Europeans. Sugar, silver, fish, gold, and silver were taken by force to Europe. What was good for these areas according to the conservatives? Some conservatives may point out on salvation of their souls through conversion to Christianity. I do not believe in the soul and religion, and therefore I do not want to prove that Indians’ souls have not been saved through conversion to Christianity.

Some socialists and conservatives have different opinions on the issue of “benefits” of indigenous peoples after the contact with Europeans over time. I believe that you agree with me that, eventually, usually developing areas of the world are “better off” in the long run after their contact with Europeans. The developing areas came from the lower economic society, hunter gathering or slavery, into the capitalistic society. Native peoples learned the achievements of Europeans which pushed them to a higher level of development. Eventually, indigenous people received more material wealth through progress, which leads to communism. I consider that eventually most of the developing areas are “better off” after the contact with Europeans.

Let us examine the northern part of North America. Before the time of their contact with Europeans most of the people were on the lower level of development, hunter-gathering with little accumulated wealth. During just a few hundred years this area became the most technologically advanced in the whole world. The main indicator is the high GNP per capita of the U.S. and Canada. Although most of the indigenous people died during the first hundred years of European expansion, for the last decades in the U.S. the mixture of the white and Indian population (Hispanics) is increasing more than whites, and this trend is expected to be continuous. Although you disagree that progress lead to communism, I bet that you support my position that these areas are ”better off” in North America.

Let us examine non- Slavic parts of the former Soviet Union. Although these areas began to have contacts with Europeans under the Tzarist regime, the real modernization of these areas began in 1920-1930. During that short time period Russians, Ukrainians and other European nations helped the natives to build modern brick houses and plants, to provide electricity and telephones. Moreover, under the influence of communist ideology people received a “new conscience.” These are the people who cooperate with each other and share wealth with each other. Natives became very close friends with Europeans and therefore their cultures merged with each other. Max, my friend from the former Soviet Union, read in the papers that they created the culture of the Soviet man. People stopped fighting with each other. Full employment, free health care, liquidation of homelessness, and a big reduction of crime rates were the results of the contacts with the Soviet communists. Although some conservatives think that industrialization of the undeveloped areas would begin under capitalist Russia, let us not be fooled. You think that competition is a better source for progress than cooperation. Stachanovtzi and heroes of communist labor in the Soviet Union show that, indeed, cooperation leads to productivity and progress.

Although time have changed, the of women rights in Islamic countries have not changed yet. The position of women in traditional Islam is oppressive. They have no rights. In traditional Islam the purpose of the women is to provide children and to be supportive wives. Also, they need to avoid politics. Women do not work outside the family house. Therefore, they depend on their husbands. Since husbands control the main resource for independent living, money, their husbands exploit them. You say that changing this tradition is dangerous. What is the tradition? I think that the human desire for material equality and equality before the law is a good tradition. The first Christians lived with the equal distribution of wealth. Famous writers such as Chernishevsky and Tolstoy, in the 19th and 20th centuries, condemned the terrible exploitation of people and wanted to stop this injustice. Moreover, from about 600 A.D. until today traditional Muslims believe in one important principal of Islam, equality of humans. This pillar of Islam contradicts the past and current treatment of women in Islamic countries.

The laws of purdah is an example of oppression. The Chicago Tribune on 8/21/93 in the article Iran Dress Laws Land 254 in Jail describes the following news, “ Revolutionary Guards in Iran have arrested 29 women for being improperly dressed in public, in violation of regulations on Islamic veil, the Tehran newspaper Kayhan reported yesterday.” You may say that the veil is the indication that women must be separate from men. Men and women are different biologically and psychologically. The difference in the clothing of the sexes can help them to do their duties better. I have scientific evidence that men and women differ only biologically, and patterns of behavior are learned. Therefore, the separation of women, laws of purdah is the learned behavior which helps men to exploit women.

Political leaders use Islam for their own sake! The main problem with the publication of The Satanic Verses is the struggle between religious elite and the author Salmon Rushdie who, according to Muslim leaders, indirectly wrote that the prophet Mohammed, founder of Islam, received the revelation not from God but from Satan, and that Mohammed’s five wives are whores. I think that the religious leaders do not want to lose their power over the Muslim masses and they use a British citizen, Rushdie, as a target which can unify Muslims. The political and religious leader of Iran, the Ayatollah Khomeini, declared to reward anyone who kills the blasphemer of the holy Koran. By mobilizing and unifying Muslims, common people diverted their attention from their real enemies, the exploiting Muslim class with their corrupt governments. In the handout When Politics Hide Behind Islam that professor Sippel gave me a week ago was written the following, “The search for new victims and fresh heresies has been proven a means in Iran of deflecting discontent with joblessness, inflation and clerical corruption.” You may say that some Muslims from the lower class want to kill Rushdie anyway. Why? In my opinion, they were brain washed by the upper class of political and religious leaders. You may say that Rushdie abuses freedom of speech by insulting the feelings of millions of Muslims. I consider that any ideas should be expressed freely, especially if they are against the “opium of the people,” religion.

Wealth is the key to all questions. These who have more wealth have more influence among the people. I consider that changes in technology and ideas lead human kind toward the higher society. I know that you do not like changes, but even one of your favorite philosophers Socrates said that there is nothing constant but change. If humans did not struggle with each other, we would live now in the hunter gathering society. Our desire for comfort make us agree that there is no alternative to progress. In my opinion, these days cooperation can be a good substitute for struggle.