Doug1943
Platinum Member
- Jan 3, 2016
- 1,243
- 618
- 928
I'm afraid I don't understand your point.
United States Imperialism
- Thread starter Socialist
- Start date
- Status
Doug1943
Platinum Member
- Jan 3, 2016
- 1,243
- 618
- 928
"Ideology" is not the point. If we want to oppose a political movement, and its ideology, we have to present a better alternative to it.
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 145,542
- 32,636
- 2,180
Yes, it is.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Some places don't advance very much.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
He was a socialist which means he was a Democrat always and for fair capitalism with a good safety net. But English speakers enjoy conflating the two systems so they can screw them all, brainwashed functional imperialist. The Republicans are mainly behind this. The Dulles brothers Kissinger Rumsfeld Cheney. OMG what a bunch of swine. And of course the orange clown screwing over Venezuela and Nicaragua, the reason we are having so many asylum seekers from there now,,,
gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 79,033
- 43,460
- 2,605
He’s stuck on stupid. So, you never will.
gipper
Diamond Member
- Jan 8, 2011
- 79,033
- 43,460
- 2,605
And yet your boy dumb old Joe does nothing about Venezuela and Nicaragua.
See a pattern yet?
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
A commie loving libertarian/anarchist. Hilarious!
Doug1943
Platinum Member
- Jan 3, 2016
- 1,243
- 618
- 928
Yes. Human advance is slow, and uneven, and basically three steps forward and then two steps backward. The twentieth century saw huge advances in human welfare, but it also saw huge deviations from that advance, as in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia.
In the long term, we go forward, but that's just on average.
The key to resuming a general forward advance is China. It's been modernizing rapidly, once it adopted capitalist economics. It's not like North Korea.
Once you allow private ownership of the means of production, you get people -- both owners and employees -- who are not directly dependent on the state for their economic welfare, unlike in genuine socialist countries where everyone is a dependent of the state, for everything.
When I visited China, about 20 years ago, I was surprised to find that many taxi drivers (1) spoke basic English, and (2) were quite critical of their government. And we have many examples now, starting with Tienanmen Square, of Chinese people who think for themselves.
They use the internet, they travel and study abroad ... eventually, one way or another, we'll see liberty come to China, although with 'Chinese characteristics'. (Think Singapore, which is not yet a civil libertarian paradise, but is far ahead of China. Singapore will be the model for China.)
Once China goes, North Korea won't be far behind.
It will probably require the death of Xi, just as it required the death of Mao for the other Central Committee members to stop holding their breath, arrest Mao's closest supporters, and put China on the road to economic liberty.
What's not going to happen is for China to become like America. They know the West, and Japan, were treating them like a giant cake, and eating them up. Mao and the Communist Party ended that.
So he will be remembered as their liberator, and forgiven for his crazy course afterwards. And they saw what happened to Russia when they simply dismantled everything and took our advice to have 'shock treatment'. That's not going to happen in China.
Our job in the meantime is the same as it was with Russia after WWII: containment, and encouraging our allies to take up their fair share of the burden of defense.
But note: China is going to treat the area around it just as we treat Latin America. We haven't invaded any Latin American county recently (the last time was under the first Bush), but if they don't stay in our good graces, we can make them hurt.
In fact, we ought to more aggressive with respect to Latin America -- for example if the military of El Salvador is not too corrupt and complicit in their criminal gangs' drug smuggling and extortion operations, and are genuine patriots who want to see their country freed from the criminals who now run riot in it, then we ought to encourage them to make a coup, and then to have a massive social purge: round up all the gang members and their supporters, having chased away the reporters, and then start putting a lot of human organs up for auction to the organ transplant trade.
'Shot while trying to escape' or 'committed suicide' or whatever excuse seems best to describe what happened to the organ donors. And if it takes some help from the CIA and Marines and Airborne, so be it.
Last edited:
Ringo
Platinum Member
What the hell you are talking about!?
I understand that in brainwashing bourgeois propaganda you have to put Nazis and Communists side by side. Well, like, for example, writing the words astronauts and faggots. You didn't call cosmonauts faggots, but the unpleasant feeling of using these words side by side remains. A common psychological warfare technique.
For example, as a result of such warfare, people with brainwashed minds are unable to see the gigantic improvement in the welfare of Soviet people during the years of Soviet power. And this despite the worst conditions of the initial situation of devastation after the Civil War and foreign intervention in 1918-22 and the heavy losses of World War II. In spite of this, the USSR was able to go into space ahead of the United States.
And I know about the improvement of life in the USSR not by hearsay, but by the example of my family.
Ringo
Platinum Member
Why does this happen? What prevents humanity from moving forward at high speed?
Capitalism prevents it.
The public nature of production and the private nature of appropriation.
Long ago, the development of science and technology was able to destroy hunger, illiteracy, the exploitation of man by man. Only the cessation of the arms race and the use of all the resources that humanity spends on the production of weapons for the benefit of man would improve human life many times over.
Capitalism gets in the way...
Not only does it hinder, but it threatens the very existence of humanity. Because it cannot do otherwise.
The death of capitalism or the death of humanity, that is the modern choice.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Human advance is slow, and uneven, and basically three steps forward and then two steps backward.
And in comminist countries, one step forward three steps back.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
you have to put Nazis and Communists side by side.
Six of one, half a dozen of another.
In spite of this, the USSR was able to go into space ahead of the United States.
They were awesome!! LOL
Doug1943
Platinum Member
- Jan 3, 2016
- 1,243
- 618
- 928
Yes, and the improvement was so remarkable, and the living standards so high, and the wonderful freedom from having to hear opinions contrary those of the ruling single party so soothing .... that as soon as they were able to, they brought the whole splendid system down in a crash.
Oh, the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth! But dry your tears ... you've still got North Korea.
Doug1943
Platinum Member
- Jan 3, 2016
- 1,243
- 618
- 928
More like a step sideways. The main Communist countries, Russia and China, never had even the semblance of democracy, and the others had only, at best, an extremely imperfect simalcrum of it.
There is no doubt that authoritarian governments (totalitarian and not-so-totalitarian), can, if their ruling elites want to, make serious improvements in the lives of their peoples. Teach everyone to read and write and add up. Build elementary sanitation. Pave the roads. Vaccinate everyone. Give access to at least rudimentary health care to everyone. The arguments made by a Stalinist apologist in another post here are not entirely false, by a long chalk. The same was true in China and Cuba.
But as the wise Chinese realized pretty quickly, a Centrally Planned Economy is massively inefficient, especially as the number of things produced grows. For first steps, digging coal mines, making roads, educating the children of peasants to become workers, it's not so terrible.
But once you get a population that wants consumer goods, forget it. (Every commodity in the Soviet Union had a 'Gos-number', 'Gos' being the first syllable of the Russian word for 'government'. The last one was in the 12 000 000 range.)
A good fiction description of the impossibility of mimicking market efficiency can be found in the wonderful and very readable book by Francis Spufford, Red Plenty. From my brief few months of living in the Soviet Union in 1985, he captures the psychology exactly. Here's a review from the leftwing British Guardian newspaper:
[ Red Plenty by Francis Spufford | Book review ] )
Leftwingers who weren't either totally cynical, or terminally naive, used to acknowledge that there was no liberty or democracy in these countries, but justified this by saying this was necessary: you had to wring surplus value (as the Marxists might call it) out of the population in order to have forced-march industrialization. Democracy might come later.
And indeed Stalin, in about 1930, said, We are 100 years behind Europe. We must catch up in ten years, or go under. And so he proceeded to wring a surplus out of the peasantry by collectivizing them, to invest in heavy industry.
And about ten years later, Russia was put to the test when Hitler invaded. And they were able to meet the test, albeit with American help, but they made their own T34s and artillery and airplanes, and that, combined with a blood sacrifice that we cannot even imagine -- for every American who died in that war, 100 Russians died -- , was enough.
We were lucky. We had an industrious immigrant population, a rich continent easily taken from the original owners, two great oceans to protect us and weak or friendly neighbors on our southern and northern borders. Plus a large amount of slave labor.
The anti-feudal revolution had been fought already by our English ancestors ... and if you study the English Revolution which put the monarchy in its place, you'll find that Cromwell was no sweet liberal democrat. Democracy did not come into the world via democratic means. We inherited it. Lucky us.
Other countries have a different history and different geography. Their path towards liberal democracy has not been so easy. It's too facile to just attribute their condition to the motiveless malignancy of Hollywood-style 'Dr Evils'.
American patriots, above all others, should be able to understand how Russian and Chinese patriots feel about their countries, and their history. Just as our history is not all slavery and Wounded Knee massacres, so theirs is not just slave labor camps and firing squads.
There are things in their history that they are rightly proud of:
The Russians, under the Communists, threw out the Nazis, when the mighty capitalist democracies of Europe had collapsed before them. (Hitler always regarded the war in the East as the real war, which never saw less than 75% of the Wehrmacht engaged there, and sometimes 90%.)
The Chinese, led by the Communists, defeated the Japanese, who were merciless slaughterers, as in Nanking [ Nanjing Massacre - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ]. Yes, the Nationalists also get some of the credit for that, but don't think that they were kindly democrats, or that the Communists did not have a lot of mass support.
Socialism doesn't work (very well), and both countries have abandoned it, peacefully, each in their own way. Both have got some ways to go, a long way, before they reach the Euro/American standard of political liberty. But they'll have to get thereby the actions of their own peoples, just as will Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan.
There are things we can do to help, but direct interference is not the way. Anyway, as we learned in 2016, for one country to interfere in the elections of another country is very wicked indeed.
In the meantime, we need to heed the words of Robespierre, of all people, who observed that people do not love missionaries with bayonets.
Last edited:
Doug1943
Platinum Member
- Jan 3, 2016
- 1,243
- 618
- 928
Allende was a democrat, and his overthrow, and the bloody represion that followed, was a crime, for which the people making US foreign policy at the time bear some responsibility.
But ... if you look closely at what was happening in Chile at the time, it was NOT on a path to a social-democratic capitalism, with the support of the majority of the population.
Allende was a democrat, but he was also a serious Socialist. His problem was, he never had majority support for his policies (even though many of them were just a continuation of the policies of previous non-Socialist governments). He was elected with just 36% of the vote -- but the two non-Socialist parties had a bit less than that, and in Chile, the candidate with a plurality wins -- as had happened several times before. And he never had a majority in Congress.
The insane Far Left component of his coalition -- the Chilean equivalent of AntiFa -- didn't help, with their openly-stated goal of armed revolution and a communist state, nor did a four-week tour by an approving Fidel Castro. Nor did the assassination of a conservative politician by a far-left groupuscule.
Wikipedia gives a pretty good summary of what happened:
Presidency of Salvador Allende - Wikipedia
Revolutionary Left Movement (Chile) - Wikipedia
Edmundo Pérez Zujovic - Wikipedia
Note to patriots: the Far Left group, the MIR ('Movement of the Revolutionary Left'}was pretty well-armed, and had something of a mass base in the slums and in certain rural areas of Chile. They even manufactured their own mortars. They fought a long guerilla resistance war against the ruling junta. But they lost.
In situations where society is deeply polarized and the normal channels of political struggle are blocked, the struggle is not WITH the army, but FOR the army.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
Nixon and Kissinger screwed the hell out of chile and Argentina and supported dictators around the world against an imaginary socialist threat. The communist threat is different from the socialist threat which doesn't exist, is only for always democratic fair capitalism with a good safety net. Which Republicans will do anything and everything to obstruct and stop.Allende was a democrat, and his overthrow, and the bloody represion that followed, was a crime, for which the people making US foreign policy at the time bear some responsibility.
But ... if you look closely at what was happening in Chile at the time, it was NOT on a path to a social-democratic capitalism, with the support of the majority of the population.
Allende was a democrat, but he was also a serious Socialist. His problem was, he never had majority support for his policies (even though many of them were just a continuation of the policies of previous non-Socialist governments). He was elected with just 36% of the vote -- but the two non-Socialist parties had a bit less than that, and in Chile, the candidate with a plurality wins -- as had happened several times before. And he never had a majority in Congress.
The insane Far Left component of his coalition -- the Chilean equivalent of AntiFa -- didn't help, with their openly-stated goal of armed revolution and a communist state, nor did a four-week tour by an approving Fidel Castro. Nor did the assassination of a conservative politician by a far-left groupuscule.
Wikipedia gives a pretty good summary of what happened:
Presidency of Salvador Allende - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Revolutionary Left Movement (Chile) - Wikipedia
Edmundo Pérez Zujovic - Wikipedia
Note to patriots: the Far Left group, the MIR ('Movement of the Revolutionary Left'}was pretty well-armed, and had something of a mass base in the slums and in certain rural areas of Chile. They even manufactured their own mortars. They fought a long guerilla resistance war against the ruling junta. But they lost.
In situations where society is deeply polarized and the normal channels of political struggle are blocked, the struggle is not WITH the army, but FOR the army.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
Allende received a plurality with 36.2% of the vote. Christian Democrat Radomiro Tomic won 27.8% with a very similar platform to Allende's. Both Allende and Tomic promised to further nationalize the mineral industry and redistribute land and income among other new policies. Conservative former president Jorge Alessandri, standing for the National Party, received slightly under 34.9% of the vote.[5]Allende was a democrat, and his overthrow, and the bloody represion that followed, was a crime, for which the people making US foreign policy at the time bear some responsibility.
But ... if you look closely at what was happening in Chile at the time, it was NOT on a path to a social-democratic capitalism, with the support of the majority of the population.
Allende was a democrat, but he was also a serious Socialist. His problem was, he never had majority support for his policies (even though many of them were just a continuation of the policies of previous non-Socialist governments). He was elected with just 36% of the vote -- but the two non-Socialist parties had a bit less than that, and in Chile, the candidate with a plurality wins -- as had happened several times before. And he never had a majority in Congress.
The insane Far Left component of his coalition -- the Chilean equivalent of AntiFa -- didn't help, with their openly-stated goal of armed revolution and a communist state, nor did a four-week tour by an approving Fidel Castro. Nor did the assassination of a conservative politician by a far-left groupuscule.
Wikipedia gives a pretty good summary of what happened:
Presidency of Salvador Allende - Wikipedia
Revolutionary Left Movement (Chile) - Wikipedia
Edmundo Pérez Zujovic - Wikipedia
Note to patriots: the Far Left group, the MIR ('Movement of the Revolutionary Left'}was pretty well-armed, and had something of a mass base in the slums and in certain rural areas of Chile. They even manufactured their own mortars. They fought a long guerilla resistance war against the ruling junta. But they lost.
In situations where society is deeply polarized and the normal channels of political struggle are blocked, the struggle is not WITH the army, but FOR the army.
wiki. So actually it was the right wingers that had the minority vote and were pushed into power by Nixon and Kissinger- so much intervention. Disgusting. And a catastrophe for chile and Latin America every time. Republicans going after socialists and forcing them into being communists and allied somewhat with the USSR. And then usually intervention and a right wing oligarchy dictatorship. Get the hell out of Latin America except to help them and their democracies.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
Although it was involved in military actions, particularly during the Resistance to the 1973 Chilean coup d'etat, the MIR rejected assassination as a tactic[9] (see below on the assassination of Edmundo Pérez Zujovic by the VOP).Allende was a democrat, and his overthrow, and the bloody represion that followed, was a crime, for which the people making US foreign policy at the time bear some responsibility.
But ... if you look closely at what was happening in Chile at the time, it was NOT on a path to a social-democratic capitalism, with the support of the majority of the population.
Allende was a democrat, but he was also a serious Socialist. His problem was, he never had majority support for his policies (even though many of them were just a continuation of the policies of previous non-Socialist governments). He was elected with just 36% of the vote -- but the two non-Socialist parties had a bit less than that, and in Chile, the candidate with a plurality wins -- as had happened several times before. And he never had a majority in Congress.
The insane Far Left component of his coalition -- the Chilean equivalent of AntiFa -- didn't help, with their openly-stated goal of armed revolution and a communist state, nor did a four-week tour by an approving Fidel Castro. Nor did the assassination of a conservative politician by a far-left groupuscule.
Wikipedia gives a pretty good summary of what happened:
Presidency of Salvador Allende - Wikipedia
Revolutionary Left Movement (Chile) - Wikipedia
Edmundo Pérez Zujovic - Wikipedia
Note to patriots: the Far Left group, the MIR ('Movement of the Revolutionary Left'}was pretty well-armed, and had something of a mass base in the slums and in certain rural areas of Chile. They even manufactured their own mortars. They fought a long guerilla resistance war against the ruling junta. But they lost.
In situations where society is deeply polarized and the normal channels of political struggle are blocked, the struggle is not WITH the army, but FOR the army.
Ringo
Platinum Member
When Obama promoted health care reform, conservatives criticized it as intolerable to the U.S. economy, capable of crushing the country. The USSR had free health care, free higher education, free housing, first-rate science, a powerful military and the second most powerful economy on earth, and no such vile phenomenon of capitalism as unemployment.
But the richest capitalist country, of course, could not and can not afford such a thing... Oh yes!
Of course it can't, because capitalists need the unemployed, the homeless, illiterate and the hungry. Without them, their fat asses and their stinking system cannot exist. Neither economically nor politically.
- Status
Similar threads
