[Avarion]

REGISTER TO REMOVE THIS AD

Welcome to the world. Enjoy your stay.

[bhamlaxy]

Welcome to the world. Enjoy your stay.

Luckily, the world changes. The way we view human life may not be the same in the future.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by bhamlaxy

So the only value you place on individuals is the extent to which they can aid you in capitalistic transactions? This is what the commodification of individuals is all about. Unless they can help you achieve profit, you don't give a rats ass about them. Why help poor people when they can't pay for it? This is what directs everything our government does. We invade Kuwait in order to protect oil, but we don't stop multiple genocides, which would take a FRACTION of the force used in Kuwait. Literally a plane or two of troops could stop the killing of millions of innocent people, but because they can't make us money, we don't give a shit. Oil companies go tear the living shit out of the lands of indigenous people all over the world, because they have no money, therefore are of no value to us. Capitalism puts a price tag on every life, and if it's not high enough, you are deemed worthless and disposable.

Things aren't that simple though. It's easy to justify stepping in when you have country A invading country B. When you have a country oppressing their own people, or a civil war, it's harder to justify intervention. Condemning the actions and cutting off relations are just about all you can do. Countries do have a right to govern their own affairs after all.

Besides, you didn't see the soviet union sending troops to stop this sort of thing when they were around. If a capitalist country doesn't take action it's cause capitalism is bad and doesn't care about people who can't make them money? So what's the reason a communist country does nothing then?

[Fipherion]

Originally Posted by bhamlaxy

So the only value you place on individuals is the extent to which they can aid you in capitalistic transactions? This is what the commodification of individuals is all about. Unless they can help you achieve profit, you don't give a rats ass about them. Why help poor people when they can't pay for it?

If this were the way the world worked then private charities would not exist. It makes some people feel good to donate money to charity and so it serves their self interest by making them feel good. Its a complex system where the gains of our money is not always material and so oversimplifying it in this way does not represent the real system. The beauty of capitalism is that individuals are free to donate as much or as little to whichever cause they see fit. The choice is up to the individual not the government. If you don't like the way your money is being spent, you have every right and ability to withhold your money from that organization and distribute it to other outlets. If the organization wants to keep receiving your donations, they must use the money wisely. In effect, its competition for charitable donations which encourages charities to improve and use their donations in the best possible ways. Otherwise, they loose donations.

[bhamlaxy]

If this were the way the world worked then private charities would not exist. It makes some people feel good to donate money to charity and so it serves their self interest by making them feel good. Its a complex system where the gains of our money is not always material and so oversimplifying it in this way does not represent the real system. The beauty of capitalism is that individuals are free to donate as much or as little to whichever cause they see fit. The choice is up to the individual not the government. If you don't like the way your money is being spent, you have every right and ability to withhold your money from that organization and distribute it to other outlets. If the organization wants to keep receiving your donations, they must use the money wisely. In effect, its competition for charitable donations which encourages charities to improve and use their donations in the best possible ways. Otherwise, they loose donations.

Private charities are a drop in the bucket when compared to the government. And their effects are minimal at best. A huge amount goes to providing housing in extreme weather and food. Living in Chicago, those nights where it is extremely cold, all over you can see messages from the shelters reminding all that there is more than enough room. These charities ensure that the extremely poor don't die, and thats about it. At the point where our countries governing body and entire economic system are profit driven and view human life as a means to the end of profit, it outweighs the small example of charity. If the government were to cut even 1% of the military budget (so high because of the need to "defend economic interests" (Iraq, Taiwan, terrorism), and because of the extreme power of the defense industry in government), then a HUGE amount of poverty could be reduced, through an array of programs. Unfortunately, the government doesn't represent everyone, they don't represent the interests of the poor, and the minuscule impact of charities will never balance that out.

In a system of capitalism, people will inevitably choose to spend the smallest amount possible on charity while maintaining the standard of living they desire, which is almost always extremely excessive. Charity cannot solve poverty within capitalism.

And what is a portion of charity? Things like "donating to cancer/aids/X disease cure research" that none of the poor would even be able to access. Not saying all charity is bad, but parts of it take money in for reasons besides the poor.

Things aren't that simple though. It's easy to justify stepping in when you have country A invading country B. When you have a country oppressing their own people, or a civil war, it's harder to justify intervention. Condemning the actions and cutting off relations are just about all you can do. Countries do have a right to govern their own affairs after all.

Besides, you didn't see the soviet union sending troops to stop this sort of thing when they were around. If a capitalist country doesn't take action it's cause capitalism is bad and doesn't care about people who can't make them money? So what's the reason a communist country does nothing then?

First, Iraq was justified in many ways, a good portion of them ignoring sovereignty. All of the "Saddam is a murderer" and all that jazz denies Iraq sovereignty. We all know Iraq had no WMD's, and had nothing to do with 9/11, thats the official policy of even our own government. I'd rather not get into the messy debate about whether or not the main planners of the Iraq war actually knew they had nothing before going in, since there are no solid facts, just speculation, but if they knew there was no involvement, it would most definitely lean my way, so thats just one potential example. But either way, arguments that deny Iraq sovereignty have been used to justify it.

In response to the second part, the world was an extremely different place back then, a completely bipolar world. And the political atmosphere has changed. Ever since the Rwandan genocide of 1994 there has been the echoing "Never again", yet it's happening right now, and unfortunately there is no powerful truly socialist country around.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by bhamlaxy

First, Iraq was justified in many ways, a good portion of them ignoring sovereignty. All of the "Saddam is a murderer" and all that jazz denies Iraq sovereignty. We all know Iraq had no WMD's, and had nothing to do with 9/11, thats the official policy of even our own government. I'd rather not get into the messy debate about whether or not the main planners of the Iraq war actually knew they had nothing before going in, since there are no solid facts, just speculation, but if they knew there was no involvement, it would most definitely lean my way, so thats just one potential example. But either way, arguments that deny Iraq sovereignty have been used to justify it.

That's all well and good, but you brought up Kuwait. That means we're talking about desert storm, not the current operation in Iraq.

The current operation we went in under the excuse that Iraq was partly resonsible for 9-11 and they were making wmds in violation of UN resolutions and repreented an imminent threat, making a strike justified. This wasn't true of course, but if it had been action would indeed have been justified.

In something like Dafur, there's no such justifications that can be used as an excuse to go in. Many in congress have called for military action, but it hasn't gotten anywhere.

In response to the second part, the world was an extremely different place back then, a completely bipolar world. And the political atmosphere has changed. Ever since the Rwandan genocide of 1994 there has been the echoing "Never again", yet it's happening right now, and unfortunately there is no powerful truly socialist country around.

China could send troops. They're still somewhat socialist, and they may not have the logistics to support an operation on their own, but many contries not willing to send troops themselves would be willing to support other nations who do with logistics. Of course they're too busy funding the people commiting the genocide in Darfur to do anything to stop it.

Oh and just where did all the guns and rpgs that were used to turn africa into the nightmare it currently is come from. Somehow I doubt the US was the one who supplied all these groups with massive quanities of AK-47s.

[bhamlaxy]

That's all well and good, but you brought up Kuwait. That means we're talking about desert storm, not the current operation in Iraq.

The current operation we went in under the excuse that Iraq was partly resonsible for 9-11 and they were making wmds in violation of UN resolutions and repreented an imminent threat, making a strike justified. This wasn't true of course, but if it had been action would indeed have been justified.

I know, but desert storm AND the current operation in Iraq are both good examples.

For the current operation, again, it is debatable whether or not the high up politicians who drew up the Iraq plans actually knew they had no WMD's, in which case although they sold the war from a WMD/Terror perspective, they had hidden motives, many of which are tied to the economy. Publicly, there have been something like 18 given justifications for Iraq, including "Bringing democracy to an oppressed people" and "Getting a genocidal dictator out of power", both of which are clear violations to sovereignty.

This argument came about because I argued we intervene for economic reasons, which leads us valuing people solely on how they can help us economically, which justifies these huge invasions when a TINY force could stop mass genocide of Africans, whom we don't care about because they can't further our economic interests. You argued no, it's because the Darfur thing is an issue of sovereignty, which we don't interfere in. You're argument fails at the point where there are dozens of examples of where didn't give a shit about sovereignty, and interfered in other countries to further our economic standing. Examples include support of a coup in Venezuela in 2002, the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act and other military policies designed to prevent China from reuniting with Taiwan, and countless other examples of funding rebel groups or insurgency groups against regimes who were not economically in line with American policy.

What I'm trying to say is capitalism has led to this mentality where if you can't help the US economy, you are worthless in the eyes of the government. We can support rebellions and coups, invade countries, or threaten invasion in order to protect economic interests, but we won't send a few hundred troops to prevent the deaths of millions of Africans, because they are deemed worthless to us.

In something like Dafur, there's no such justifications that can be used as an excuse to go in. Many in congress have called for military action, but it hasn't gotten anywhere.

Of course, it hasn't gotten anywhere because it is viewed as a waste of military resources, because helping Africans doesn't present any economic advantage to us.

China could send troops. They're still somewhat socialist, and they may not have the logistics to support an operation on their own, but many contries not willing to send troops themselves would be willing to support other nations who do with logistics. Of course they're too busy funding the people commiting the genocide in Darfur to do anything to stop it.

China is pretty far from being truly socialist. Although the government maintains control of most large enterprises, they lack the true aspects of socialism, like even distribution of wealth and control of prices.

The integration with capitalism continues to place enormous focus on acquisition of capital at whatever cost, even human life. This of course leads to China continuing to support the Sudanese government in order to secure oil, with that money going right into the hands of the perpetrators of genocide.

Even if this weren't the case, you are right, China does lack the logistical capability to invade countries far away. The focus of the US military is placed heavily on mobility. We can launch campaigns across the world with relative precision and efficiency. China on the other hand has different focus; dominance within Asia and the strategic capability to take down Taiwan if necessary.

Oh and just where did all the guns and rpgs that were used to turn africa into the nightmare it currently is come from. Somehow I doubt the US was the one who supplied all these groups with massive quanities of AK-47s.

First, if you are implying that AK47 means it came from the Soviet Union, thats wrong. The AK47 and its variants are produced throughout the world by dozens of companies. And this argument doesn't apply at the point where I'm arguing that after the death of Stalin, the Soviet Union effectively threw the baby out with the bath water by not only shifting from Stalins political policies (bad, of course) but also moving away from his more socialist policies, effectively poisoning their system with capitalism.

Additionally, the US is to blame for all the guns and RPGs that turned Africa into a nightmare. Not only is the US by far the biggest arms exporter in the world, nearly 4 times higher than the 2nd highest, but the US sold arms to many regimes who committed the most atrocious acts in Africa. The US sold arms to 8 of 9 governments involved in the wars in Congo, gave billions in aid over the years to countries like Liberia, Somalia, Sudan, and the former Zaire. The US sells Africa tens of millions of dollars worth of weapons a year.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by bhamlaxy

I know, but desert storm AND the current operation in Iraq are both good examples.

For the current operation, again, it is debatable whether or not the high up politicians who drew up the Iraq plans actually knew they had no WMD's, in which case although they sold the war from a WMD/Terror perspective, they had hidden motives, many of which are tied to the economy. Publicly, there have been something like 18 given justifications for Iraq, including "Bringing democracy to an oppressed people" and "Getting a genocidal dictator out of power", both of which are clear violations to sovereignty.

True, but that's not what we went in on. Those were attempts to justify the war after the initial reasons were revealed to be wrong. Had it turned out that Iraq was making wmds, and supporting al qaeda, we would have been fully justified and wouldn't need those additional excuses.

This argument came about because I argued we intervene for economic reasons, which leads us valuing people solely on how they can help us economically, which justifies these huge invasions when a TINY force could stop mass genocide of Africans, whom we don't care about because they can't further our economic interests. You argued no, it's because the Darfur thing is an issue of sovereignty, which we don't interfere in. You're argument fails at the point where there are dozens of examples of where didn't give a shit about sovereignty, and interfered in other countries to further our economic standing. Examples include support of a coup in Venezuela in 2002, the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act and other military policies designed to prevent China from reuniting with Taiwan, and countless other examples of funding rebel groups or insurgency groups against regimes who were not economically in line with American policy.

The problem with that arguement is there are political reasons not related to the economy for all those too. You can't say they were solely made based on economic considerations. Let's not forget that most of those "countless other examples" you mention in passing were against regimes the Soviet Union created and supported. Capitalism and communism seem to have very little impact on the decision making process for a nation to sell weapons to people who probably shouldn't have them as long as it's in their short term interest.

What I'm trying to say is capitalism has led to this mentality where if you can't help the US economy, you are worthless in the eyes of the government. We can support rebellions and coups, invade countries, or threaten invasion in order to protect economic interests, but we won't send a few hundred troops to prevent the deaths of millions of Africans, because they are deemed worthless to us.

I'm saying that capitalism isn't responsible for that, and there are plenty of examples of communist nations enacting similar policies. Further communism gives too much control to the central governemnt and invites abuses. Capitalism spreads things around, which helps prevent widespread abuses. Sure you may get an Enron every now and then under capitalism, but at least they didn't have control over the entire economy. Under socialism that's a very real possibility.

Of course, it hasn't gotten anywhere because it is viewed as a waste of military resources, because helping Africans doesn't present any economic advantage to us.

No, it hasn't gotten anywhere because thanks to the fuck up of the Iraq war, the US doesn't have the international clout to take action. Worse China has a veto on the UN security counsal, so we can't get anything done that way. If we were to send troops unilaterally, it would be portrayed as yet another example of american imperialism by the very people who are currently critizing the US for not taking action. Besides, it is not our responsibility to solve all of the world's problems.

Let's not forget the US contributes more in foriegn aid than any other nation.

China is pretty far from being truly socialist. Although the government maintains control of most large enterprises, they lack the true aspects of socialism, like even distribution of wealth and control of prices.

True, they have a hybrid economy. Unfortunately I believe their economy incorporated the worst aspects of each, rather than the best.

The integration with capitalism continues to place enormous focus on acquisition of capital at whatever cost, even human life. This of course leads to China continuing to support the Sudanese government in order to secure oil, with that money going right into the hands of the perpetrators of genocide.

Which they'd be doing anyway, since they'd need the oil regardless of their economic system. Besides, if there's oil there, under your arguement, shouldn't the US take action to save those people as an excuse to secure the oil supplies?

Even if this weren't the case, you are right, China does lack the logistical capability to invade countries far away. The focus of the US military is placed heavily on mobility. We can launch campaigns across the world with relative precision and efficiency. China on the other hand has different focus; dominance within Asia and the strategic capability to take down Taiwan if necessary.

The problem is they won't even if the US, EU, and AU pledge to support them logisticly.

First, if you are implying that AK47 means it came from the Soviet Union, thats wrong. The AK47 and its variants are produced throughout the world by dozens of companies. And this argument doesn't apply at the point where I'm arguing that after the death of Stalin, the Soviet Union effectively threw the baby out with the bath water by not only shifting from Stalins political policies (bad, of course) but also moving away from his more socialist policies, effectively poisoning their system with capitalism.

The soviets provided arms to communist groups in Africa for most of the cold war. In addition, the varients produced in other countries were for the most part authorized by the soviets. AK varients make up the majority or arms you'll see in africa. They most certainly did not come from the US, as you'd be seeing more M-16 varients if that were the case.

Additionally, the US is to blame for all the guns and RPGs that turned Africa into a nightmare. Not only is the US by far the biggest arms exporter in the world, nearly 4 times higher than the 2nd highest, but the US sold arms to many regimes who committed the most atrocious acts in Africa. The US sold arms to 8 of 9 governments involved in the wars in Congo, gave billions in aid over the years to countries like Liberia, Somalia, Sudan, and the former Zaire. The US sells Africa tens of millions of dollars worth of weapons a year.

Most of that in the form of higher end weapon systems like planes and tanks. In terms of small arms, you can trace them directly back to the soviets. Unless you want to argue that the AK-47 and rpg-7 are of US manufacture.

You keep saying how capitalism is bad and did all these things, while ignoring the same things done by communism. Let's not forget about things like the Khmer Rouge, where Pol Pot tried to enforce pure communism, resulting in the deaths of millions.

I'll say it again, yes capitalism is bad, but communism is far worse as history shows.

[bhamlaxy]

True, but that's not what we went in on. Those were attempts to justify the war after the initial reasons were revealed to be wrong. Had it turned out that Iraq was making wmds, and supporting al qaeda, we would have been fully justified and wouldn't need those additional excuses.

All I'm saying is the other justifications prove the US doesn't give a rats ass about sovereignty, your justification as to why we aren't stopping the genocide in Sudan.

The problem with that arguement is there are political reasons not related to the economy for all those too. You can't say they were solely made based on economic considerations. Let's not forget that most of those "countless other examples" you mention in passing were against regimes the Soviet Union created and supported. Capitalism and communism seem to have very little impact on the decision making process for a nation to sell weapons to people who probably shouldn't have them as long as it's in their short term interest.

Political reasons? Taiwan has a huge industry that would probably be severely harmed during a Chinese invasion, and Venezuela's current regime is extremely stingy and insecure on oil.

And how do the other examples have to do with the Soviet Union? Give some specifics. And who cares who created them, you are straying fro
m the point at hand. The US values life based on whether or not it can further our economic interests. Regardless of who created regimes who were hesitant to participate in US capitalism or whatever, the US still interferes with sovereignty with economic justification, but not when these people can't provide us with economic benefits.

Arms sales are absolutely linked to capitalism. Sure the Soviet Union sold arms, but that was after Stalin fell, when the country strayed away from the true socialist ideals towards capitalism. So yes, the capitalist US has contributed to extreme violence in the name of profit, and the socialist USSR with a huge dash of capitalism also contributed. True socialism doesn't put such a drive on profit that contributing to conflict is worth it.

I'm saying that capitalism isn't responsible for that, and there are plenty of examples of communist nations enacting similar policies.

List them. I want you to point to a strictly socialist country whose private companies sold mass amounts of arms in the name of profit to poor countries.

Further communism gives too much control to the central governemnt and invites abuses. Capitalism spreads things around, which helps prevent widespread abuses. Sure you may get an Enron every now and then under capitalism, but at least they didn't have control over the entire economy. Under socialism that's a very real possibility.

Capitalism functionally gives the same amount of control to the government, except only the rich get control. A huge portion of congress and past presidents are millionaires, and huge individual and PAC contributions are what influence politics. Money is influence in the government, which leads to the rich staying rich and the poor staying poor. Historically, countries whose political campaigns use private financing (the US) have lower rates of welfare and policies to help the poor than those that use public funding (set amount of money from the government).

No, it hasn't gotten anywhere because thanks to the fuck up of the Iraq war, the US doesn't have the international clout to take action.

Rwanda proves that even when we aren't involved in a huge war, we don't intervene. And screw international clout, we can do whatever we want, as proven by the Iraq war. I'm sure the world wouldn't nuke us for sending a few hundred troops to protect villages in Darfur.

If we were to send troops unilaterally, it would be portrayed as yet another example of american imperialism by the very people who are currently critizing the US for not taking action.

So all the liberals who are clamoring for intervention would see the US intervening and stopping the genocide, then say "YOU IMPERIALIST PIGS! LET THE GENOCIDE CONTINUE AND GET OUT!" People who believe intervention into Sudan would be a good thing think so because it would be justified for something that is actually a good thing, not economic interests or the war on terror. Why would they criticize the US for not taking action and campaign for intervention, only to protest intervention when it actually happens?

Besides, it is not our responsibility to solve all of the world's problems.

Unless they involve our economic interests.

Let's not forget the US contributes more in foriegn aid than any other nation.

Actually we are at the BOTTOM of the developed countries when it comes to foreign aid, based on per capita aid and % of the nations wealth. So yea, we give the most, but thats because we have the most money. We don't give nearly the most %. An index of foreign contributions puts the US at 19th out of 21 developed countries.

Which they'd be doing anyway, since they'd need the oil regardless of their economic system. Besides, if there's oil there, under your arguement, shouldn't the US take action to save those people as an excuse to secure the oil supplies?

Socialist countries don't have gigantic oil lobbyists who, through millions of dollars of donations and millions spent on lobbyists and attorneys who give heavy influence to the government, controlling many aspects of energy.

And the oil supplies are already developed by China. If there were huge undeveloped oil reserves sitting in Sudan, god damn right we would have intervened years ago.

The problem is they won't even if the US, EU, and AU pledge to support them logisticly.

The whole China argument goes away at the point where we both agree they are a mixed economy.

The soviets provided arms to communist groups in Africa for most of the cold war. In addition, the varients produced in other countries were for the most part authorized by the soviets. AK varients make up the majority or arms you'll see in africa. They most certainly did not come from the US, as you'd be seeing more M-16 varients if that were the case.

Most of that in the form of higher end weapon systems like planes and tanks. In terms of small arms, you can trace them directly back to the soviets. Unless you want to argue that the AK-47 and rpg-7 are of US manufacture.

First, the soviet union started leaning more towards capitalism after Stalin was in, so their actions are irrelevant. If you can prove Stalin gave huge amounts of arms to Africa, then this argument would go away, since both a predominately socialist and predominately capitalist country sell lots of arms. In my research, I can't find too much about Stalin and Africa. All I have found is a partial article that you have to buy or something, titled "Soviet Arms Trade with the Noncommunist Third World" and the only part I can read is "In the immediate post- Stalin period, Soviet leaders expressed interest in the revolutionary potential of the Third World." I can't get any more details, but this indicates that intervention and interaction with African countries after Stalin, when his more socialist policies were integrated with capitalism.

You keep saying how capitalism is bad and did all these things, while ignoring the same things done by communism. Let's not forget about things like the Khmer Rouge, where Pol Pot tried to enforce pure communism, resulting in the deaths of millions.

Oh come on, these slimy attacks should be below you. The way you phrase it is so illogical it hurts. Pol Pot tried to enforce pure communism AND extremely harsh political policies that led to the execution of people who were connected with the previous government or foreign governments, homosexuals, and educated people. It is so stupid to even try and blame political policies and EXTREME applications of socialism for all the deaths. Marx never preached the destruction of everyone educated. Just because a dictator bastardized socialism doesn't mean all socialism is bad.

Specifically, your statement that "Pol Pot tried to enforce pure communism, resulting in the deaths of millions." is so oversimplified it makes me want to bang my head on my desk. If I use your logic, I am justified in saying "Hitler tried to enforce capitalism, resulting in the deaths of millions."

Pure socialism has NOTHING to do with mass murder.

[Moshineko]

Originally Posted by bhamlaxy

So all the liberals who are clamoring for intervention would see the US intervening and stopping the genocide, then say "YOU IMPERIALIST PIGS! LET THE GENOCIDE CONTINUE AND GET OUT!" People who believe intervention into Sudan would be a good thing think so because it would be justified for something that is actually a good thing, not economic interests or the war on terror. Why would they criticize the US for not taking action and campaign for intervention, only to protest intervention when it actually happens?

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.

Socialist countries don't have gigantic oil lobbyists who, through millions of dollars of donations and millions spent on lobbyists and attorneys who give heavy influence to the government, controlling many aspects of energy.

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.

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

And the oil supplies are already developed by China. If there were huge undeveloped oil reserves sitting in Sudan, god damn right we would have intervened years ago.

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

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.

The whole China argument goes away at the point where we both agree they are a mixed economy.

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.

First, the soviet union started leaning more towards capitalism after Stalin was in, so their actions are irrelevant. If you can prove Stalin gave huge amounts of arms to Africa, then this argument would go away, since both a predominately socialist and predominately capitalist country sell lots of arms. In my research, I can't find too much about Stalin and Africa. All I have found is a partial article that you have to buy or something, titled "Soviet Arms Trade with the Noncommunist Third World" and the only part I can read is "In the immediate post- Stalin period, Soviet leaders expressed interest in the revolutionary potential of the Third World." I can't get any more details, but this indicates that intervention and interaction with African countries after Stalin, when his more socialist policies were integrated with capitalism.

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.

Oh come on, these slimy attacks should be below you. The way you phrase it is so illogical it hurts. Pol Pot tried to enforce pure communism AND extremely harsh political policies that led to the execution of people who were connected with the previous government or foreign governments, homosexuals, and educated people. It is so stupid to even try and blame political policies and EXTREME applications of socialism for all the deaths. Marx never preached the destruction of everyone educated. Just because a dictator bastardized socialism doesn't mean all socialism is bad.

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.

Specifically, your statement that "Pol Pot tried to enforce pure communism, resulting in the deaths of millions." is so oversimplified it makes me want to bang my head on my desk. If I use your logic, I am justified in saying "Hitler tried to enforce capitalism, resulting in the deaths of millions."

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.

Pure socialism has NOTHING to do with mass murder.

Neither does pure capitalism. You'll find the dreamers who come up with these ideas are rather like Terry Pratchett's character Leonardo DeQuirm, a genius who bears a striking resemblance to one of our historic heroes.
Anyway, DeQuirm does lovely work on all manner of great inventions, and, incidentally, on a few horrible devices of war. When questioned about them, he invariably points out their value as exercises in mechanics, as well as their benefit to mankind in stopping war. They are so horrible, he says, that no one would use them, as no one except the very sick wants to murder their fellow man.

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.

[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