[bhamlaxy]

Probably due to how the intervention happens. Military intervention is not always what we mean when we talk about intervention. And most of the (to be absolutely frank) invasions of other countries undertaken by the US result in the US showing off its power and doing nothing to bolster any sort of system that would protect the country when the US leaves. Keep in mind this is also the norm for the NATO nations. Not so much the UN, but by the time they get off their asses, everything's too far gone for them to help anyway.

An invasion in Sudan would be much more clear cut than Iraq, but what is generally proposed is a very small force. The people committing genocide just come in on horseback with some guns and kill people and light stuff on fire. A dozen troops and a small tank in the big villages would stop the violence.

Heh, they don't need them. The lobbyists become part of the government, just like here in the US, or the government claims ownership of the oil industry in that country. The millions spent on lobbyists and attorneys becomes millions spent on bribes and getting influential people on your side. So, pretty much the same deal, under a different name.

Politicians wouldn't be so ready to abuse the environment, and use political action to protect oil interests if they weren't getting so much money from oil companies.

This, however, is the function of government, period, not an economic system.

When this argument involves a huge actor within the economic system using money (part of the economic system) to influence and change government policies, the two become heavily intertwined.

Why aren't we involved in Russia and Venezula then?

An invasion of Russia would lead to nuclear war, and a war with Venezuela would be pretty damn hard. The point is that if foreign interests interests weren't so heavy in Sudan, or their oil wasn't being drilled for at any reasonable level, and the justification of genocide existed there, we would bounce right in there. And although we haven't exactly invaded Venezuela, we were most certainly involved, supporting a coup to overthrow their government and all...

We want weak governments in those places. Weak governments need money more than strong ones. After the collapse of the USSR, if that theory holds true, we should have been doing everything in our power to weaken the former USSR countries that held oil reserves.

Russia is really the only former USSR country that holds really big oil reserves. And we aren't working for their collapse because we wouldn't be able to collapse them in the first place, and they are an ally (of sorts). This is just a bad example. If Russia were an extremely poor African country with oil for the taking and huge human rights abuses, we would invade. But they aren't.

Instead, we gave them aid and began friendly relations, well, relatively friendly relations, with Russia, and now it's got an iron-firm grip on the European oil market.

Iron firm grip? They aren't even the biggest importer of oil to Europe. If anything, OPEC countries have an "iron firm grip" with nearly 30% of EU oil coming from the Middle East, in addition to other OPEC members.

Well, then, does the US argument go away as well? As stated, we are also a mixed economy. We fiddle with intrest rates, give welfare, and do a lot of other things that pure capitalist countries don't do. Really, in a few years, we won't be that different from China.

Nope. I'm arguing capitalism is bad. The argument made against me was "China is socialist and they do bad things." I responded by saying they are mixed, so not a good representation of socialism, and the bad things are caused by capitalism. Regardless of how mixed the US is, welfare and fiddling with the interest rates isn't what I'm basing my criticism of capitalism on, its the truly capitalist policies.

Nazis had a strong foothold in Africa (remember Rommel?), so it is likely that the Russians and other allies left quite a bit of firepower there. Russia did give a large amount of arms to its communist allies in Iran and Pakistan, as the Americans gave Iraq and Japan some preferential treatment. One of the great ironies of the world is that nearly every bullet that finds a target in one of our soldiers in Iraq was probably sold to the Iraqis by us.

The USSR and US played some pretty vicious games with the undeveloped countries during the cold war, I don't think it's fair to discount the influence of either superpower.

True, but the argument is that pre-mixed USSR influence in Africa was extremely low. The US has almost always, and continues to have extremely high arms imports to Africa. My argument still stands- Stalins more pure socialism didn't have the arms shipments to Africa that cause so much war that we see from capitalist countries and mixed economy USSR.

Well, you could similarly argue that all the wrongs of capitalism were caused due to misinterpretation of it. Capitalism is dedicated to a free market, not to keeping countries down. Logically, Taiwan and Mexico should be getting very rich fairly soon, as they present vast resources in the way of cheap labor. Price down = demand up, as we learn in basic economics.

Yet, as OwL pointed out elsewhere, we've tripped that up through tarrifs and abusing NAFTA and other treaties, so that it's the case that NO MATTER what capitalistic theories say about increased demand driving up prices and wages, the wages of Mexican workers will always be abnormally low. The system you have an issue with is Feudalism, not capitalism.

All of my arguments against capitalism- destruction of the environment, extreme focus on profit over everything, commodification of goods and life, the military industrial complex all link to any form of "free market". I've got issues with capitalism, not feudalism.

Hitler promoted Nationalism, not capitalism. Hitler was actually a big proponent of a more socialist state, hence his attack on Jews, who were thought to be a big influence in banking. Bankers and intellectuals in general suffered in Nazi Germany, just as they did in Soviet Russia, where the Bible and Plato's Republic were banned, (a great tragedy to Russia's long and storied literary history), and as they did in Communist China, where Taoism and Bhuddism were outlawed, as was the teaching of martial arts, and, incedentally, as they haven't in America, which, despite its faults, does allow a more open discussion of radical ideas than most other countries on Earth, relying on the mass population to restrict anything too radical.

Anyway, your arguments on both sides don't fly. Pol Pot, as most every other Communist leader, attempted to really do a quick version of Communism, using Totalitarianism as a first step. Unfortunately, as we see with Castro, it's not a step most places get over. Nazi Germany was not about capitalism, but about nationalism, and more specifically about how, after WW 1, the Allies demanded reparations from the already war-torn Germany, which left it unable to rebuild, fostering frustration, ultimately expressed by a support for Hitler's very un-German ideas.

No big deal, I was just pointing out how ridiculous his argument was, and made my own example using his logic. It still proves the point I was trying to make; socialism didn't result in millions of deaths, the crazy genocidal policies of the Khmer Rouge did.

Neither does pure capitalism.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious, never said it did.

The writers of A Communist Manifesto and The Wealth of Nations probably never thought that their ideas would become the basis for war and destruciton. They likely thought their ideas would end poverty and strife forever. Unfortunately, there are a great many sick people who looked at those ideas and saw power, rather than salvation for man.

I think those ideas will end poverty and strife. I think our current situation is not sustainable, both because the environment can't sustain being fucked forever, and distribution of wealth will inevitably get more and more unequal. I think we can all agree that sometime down the road, whether it be in 100 years or 10,000 years, there are going to be some gigantic collapses and destruction, and what little is left of humanity will realize how bad things got and change. It reminds me of an argument I used to run in high school policy debate called "de-dev", short for dedevelopment. The argument was that economic collapse is good, because it is inevitable (better to happen now than later) and will change human culture into a smaller, more localized setting, sort of like setting humans back to early civilization, both population and technology wise, but with existing levels of philosophy.