Russia's support for the Right Wing Parties

[Drace]

While some polls show that the majority of Russians regret the downfall of the USSR, other show the outstanding number of votes for Medvedev who secured 71% of the votes against the 17% the CPRF received.

Polls taken prior to the election showed that 82% of the people would vote for Medvedev.

It seems to me that the polls saying most most were reminiscing for the USSR were false.

[Tablo]

The love for the USSR comes from the Nationalistic tendencies of many Russians. So I think both polls were true, it is just people are more concerned about the glory of Russia than the struggle of the working class.

[Drace]

But its not the "love for the USSR"
I think how the question was presented in the poll was "Was life better in the Soviet Union". So really it was a simple question of whether life under the USSR was harder than the current capitalistic system or not.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Many people across Eastern Europe agree that life was better before 1989, but it's very important to understand that almost no one believes there is the slightest possibility of going back to something resembling those times.

Russians may wish the USSR still existed, but most of them don't believe there is any realistic chance of bringing it back - CPRF or no CPRF. That is why they vote for Putin and Medvedev. There is a widespread feeling that stability is the best we can hope for. Things have been going from bad to worse most of the time for the past 20 years, and most people have given up hoping their lives will get better - they're willing to settle for not getting any worse.

[Drace]

Russians may wish the USSR still existed, but most of them don't believe there is any realistic chance of bringing it back - CPRF or no CPRF. That is why they vote for Putin and Medvedev. There is a widespread feeling that stability is the best we can hope for. Things have been going from bad to worse most of the time for the past 20 years, and most people have given up hoping their lives will get better - they're willing to settle for not getting any worse.

But it seems like such a close victory. All they have to do is vote for the CPRF.
I suppose though, they will not be able to change anything unless they once again undergo a revolution. Though I would expect more votes for it.

And how is the capitalist class of Russia handling the situation? It seems the US ruling class panics even when socialism is a distant threat.
With the CPRF being the second largest party, there must be some fear in the capitalist class of Russia?

[ls]

But it seems like such a close victory. All they have to do is vote for the CPRF.
I suppose though, they will not be able to change anything unless they once again undergo a revolution. Though I would expect more votes for it.

And how is the capitalist class of Russia handling the situation? It seems the US ruling class panics even when socialism is a distant threat.
With the CPRF being the second largest party, there must be some fear in the capitalist class of Russia?

It doesn't look close from what people say, which is that communism is in a bad state in Russia right now. Nonetheless, even Gorbachev himself said restoring 'democracy' in Russia would "take time", I think perhaps it is high time that some organ of working-class rule really establishes its base among the Russian workers before the United Russia party has been in power for more than tw decades....

[Kwisatz Haderach]

But it seems like such a close victory. All they have to do is vote for the CPRF.
Heh, if only it were that easy. The CPRF already won the elections once - in 1996. So the government forged the results. The fact that they stole the election in 1996 is a widely known fact today, and I imagine that many Russians think the same thing would happen again if the CPRF won. And there is also the memory of 1993, when Yeltsin (you know, the glorious democratic leader beloved by the West) sent tanks to fire on the parliament building because the Duma was dominated by communists who refused to vote his way.

Remember: if voting changed anything, the capitalists would make it illegal. And every time voting threatens to change something, they do make it illegal.

If the CPRF won an election (again), the Russian government would try to forge the results. If that didn't work, they would send in the FSB to arrest the leaders of the CPRF and beat the crap out of their supporters. Then they would tell the working class to shut the fuck up. There is only one argument that can persuade the Russian ruling class to give up power, and that is the sound of gunfire on their doorsteps.

[Kayser_Soso]

While some polls show that the majority of Russians regret the downfall of the USSR, other show the outstanding number of votes for Medvedev who secured 71% of the votes against the 17% the CPRF received.

Polls taken prior to the election showed that 82% of the people would vote for Medvedev.

It seems to me that the polls saying most most were reminiscing for the USSR were false.


First of all, don't trust the results of Russian elections, which are always corrupt. Nearly all of Tatarstan votes Communist in every election, yet United Russia wins every time. The KPRF itself is rather wishy-washy when it comes to supporting the Kremlin's official line. KH's formulation is right- the Russian ruling class can only be taken out by force. I also doubt the Russian working class' ability to carry out the necessary revolution at the moment. There needs to be a movement amongst the large minorities(like Tatars and Bashkirs), and revolutions on the periphery of European Russia.

[Demogorgon]

Remember that United Russia presents itself as on the side of the "ordinary guy" and has implemented some relatively generous social welfare and such. It isn't a s right wing as-say-the Republican Party in the US.

Also you have to consider the fact that it monopolises the media and there is at least some electoral fraud going on.

[Kayser_Soso]

Remember that United Russia presents itself as on the side of the "ordinary guy" and has implemented some relatively generous social welfare and such. It isn't a s right wing as-say-the Republican Party in the US.

Quite the opposite actually. Read Politkovskaya's Russian Diary and see how they cut benefits not only for veterans but even Heroes of the Soviet Union.



Also you have to consider the fact that it monopolises the media and there is at least some electoral fraud going on.

There is a lot of electoral fraud. There has never been a fair election in this country since 1991.

[Demogorgon]

Quite the opposite actually. Read Politkovskaya's Russian Diary and see how they cut benefits not only for veterans but even Heroes of the Soviet Union.

I'm aware of that, but I am comparing Russia to its neighbours here. Things like child benefit (I'm not sure its name in Russia) are fairly high compared to elsewhere and so forth.

Obviously Russia has gotten worse in this regard, but the simple fact it is "less bad" allows United Russia to present itself as on the people's side. Note of course that I don't believe its rubbish, just that this is why people vote for it.

[Dimentio]

While some polls show that the majority of Russians regret the downfall of the USSR, other show the outstanding number of votes for Medvedev who secured 71% of the votes against the 17% the CPRF received.

Polls taken prior to the election showed that 82% of the people would vote for Medvedev.

It seems to me that the polls saying most most were reminiscing for the USSR were false.

Medvedev and Putin are considered as centrists.

The right-wing in Russia is composed of libertarians who are indulging in Russophobia and worshipping the west, and ultra-authoritarians who want some kind of dictatorship.

[Kayser_Soso]

Medvedev and Putin are considered as centrists.

The right-wing in Russia is composed of libertarians who are indulging in Russophobia and worshipping the west, and ultra-authoritarians who want some kind of dictatorship.


The Kremlin is closely allied with certain right-wing nationalist groups, and even created at least one(Nashi). They are hardcore rightists.

[Edelweiss]

The CPRF is not a left-wing at all anymore aswell. It's just another russian nationalist, right-wing party, mixed with some Soviet and Stalin nostalgia. Active, militant leftists in Russia are totally and entirely denouncing the CPRF.

[Bud Struggle]

As Putin said: "He who doesn't miss the Soviet Union is without a heart, he who wants the Soviet Union back again is without a head."

I would venture to assume that his views are shared by the vast majority of Russians.

[Drace]

Heh, if only it were that easy. The CPRF already won the elections once - in 1996. So the government forged the results. The fact that they stole the election in 1996 is a widely known fact today, and I imagine that many Russians think the same thing would happen again if the CPRF won. And there is also the memory of 1993, when Yeltsin (you know, the glorious democratic leader beloved by the West) sent tanks to fire on the parliament building because the Duma was dominated by communists who refused to vote his way.



Good input, but according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_presidential_election,_1996), Yeltsin won by 53% 1996. Though it says he was financed by oligarchs and stole the election by making false promises and gaining massive media coverage in favor of him.


And Lol I found this interesting.


On the occasion of Zyuganov's 65th birthday in June 2009, Putin presented him with a copy of the first Soviet edition of the Communist Manifesto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Manifesto) as a birthday gift.

Also, I'm looking for evidence on the existence of electoral fraud.

@Bud

As Putin said: "He who doesn't miss the Soviet Union is without a heart, he who wants the Soviet Union back again is without a head."

I would venture to assume that his views are shared by the vast majority of Russians.

Putin being in the ruling class, no one gives a shit about what he thinks about the Soviet Union. And the purpose of the post was to show that was not true. Why'd my tread have to be moved to OI? -:rolleyes:

[rednordman]

As Putin said: "He who doesn't miss the Soviet Union is without a heart, he who wants the Soviet Union back again is without a head."

I would venture to assume that his views are shared by the vast majority of Russians.I have always found that quote to be very intruiging. This is mainly because it is obvious that there was a few things wrong within the USSR. Thus, if it was to come back, it would be different and all the wrongs would be rectified. I think that he refered to the USSR in any positive light, sort of re-enforces the 'people miss soviet union' argument. Im sure that despite the end of the quote, it still sends chills up the spines of most western bourgoise politicans, and buisnessmen.

I think mabey its the ideology and values that are missed most. In a world where they simply have no power, baring or force at all.

[Bud Struggle]

I think mabey its the ideology and values that are missed most. In a world where they simply have no power, baring or force at all.


What Russia needs for once in its thousand year history is some Democracy. The real thing. It has had just had too many Czars: the Romanoffs the Communists and the Putins.

[greymatter]

What Russia needs for once in its thousand year history is some Democracy. The real thing. It has had just had too many Czars: the Romanoffs the Communists and the Putins.Somehow I find that really hard to visualize. This makes me sad. :crying:

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah. America needs to install "democracy" there.:rolleyes:

Noooooooooooooooo.

They need to install their own. America should get out of the Democracy installation business.

[Drace]

They need to install their own. America should get out of the Democracy installation business.

But I thought the profit motive was good?

[Bud Struggle]

But I thought the profit motive was good?

Profit has nothing to do with Democracy. There are a lot rich people in Singapore. Really, life is a balance.

[Drace]

You mean profit isn't what drives imperialism?

[Bud Struggle]

You mean profit isn't what drives imperialism?

Power.

[Drace]

....which they gain through the search for profit....a characteristic and driving force of the capitalist system.

Or else you want to argue that once someone has power, all of a sudden they go nuts and start hitting the big red button on everything just because they have power?

[Bud Struggle]

....Through the search for profit....a characteristic and driving force of the capitalist system.

Once you have maybe 100x what you need to live on beyond all you could ever wish for--something else kicks in.

Successful businessmen never talk about how much money they have--they talk about how they got what done what they wanted done.

Trust me on this--it's all about power.

[Drace]

Once you have maybe 100x what you need to live on beyond all you could ever wish for--something else kicks in.

Successful businessmen never talk about how much money they have--they talk about how they got what done what they wanted done.

Trust me on this--it's all about power.
And profit is a reflection of power.
Both ways, the capitalist class, perused by power, seeks out imperialist crimes.

[anticap]

What Russia needs for once in its thousand year history is some Democracy. The real thing.

Since "real democracy" would instantly relegate capitalism to the dustbin of history alongside slavery and feudalism, you can't mean what you've said.

What I suspect you mean by "real democracy" is something that would be at home in a Newspeak dictionary.

[Bud Struggle]

And profit is a reflection of power.
Both ways, the capitalist class, perused by power, seeks out imperialist crimes.

Agreed that profit is often a reflection of power. But there are other things there, too. Look at the war in Iraq--it's about power all right but very few Capitalists are making any money off of that was. In general it's costing Capitalists (just like it's costing Proletarians) a good deal more than they are getting.

Any way you look at it that war was about Saddam thumbing his nose at George Bush and George Bush whacking him back. The rest was incidental. Same with Afghanistan. There is NOTHING there for American business--no money to be made. There are a few companies that supply the military, etc. --but in the general scheme of things they are all money loosing operations. And we, America that is, is suppling the money for those wars--nothing is comming out of those countries.

A better business decision for America would have been to put the money into rebuilding infrastructure at home. The problem with America is not that it is Capitalistic--it's that it's not Capitalistic enough. And that's why a lot of right wing Americans distrust the government--they make BAD business decisions.

[cska]

Agreed that profit is often a reflection of power. But there are other things there, too. Look at the war in Iraq--it's about power all right but very few Capitalists are making any money off of that was. In general it's costing Capitalists (just like it's costing Proletarians) a good deal more than they are getting.

Any way you look at it that war was about Saddam thumbing his nose at George Bush and George Bush whacking him back. The rest was incidental. Same with Afghanistan. There is NOTHING there for American business--no money to be made. There are a few companies that supply the military, etc. --but in the general scheme of things they are all money loosing operations. And we, America that is, is suppling the money for those wars--nothing is comming out of those countries.

A better business decision for America would have been to put the money into rebuilding infrastructure at home. The problem with America is not that it is Capitalistic--it's that it's not Capitalistic enough. And that's why a lot of right wing Americans distrust the government--they make BAD business decisions.

Are you serious? You really think it is just a few companies? Just take a look at how high it is keeping our defense budget. It means that more taxpayer's dollars go to the capitalists, rather than to benefiting the working class. There is a massive industry behind the wars.

[Bud Struggle]

Are you serious? You really think it is just a few companies? Just take a look at how high it is keeping our defense budget. It means that more taxpayer's dollars go to the capitalists, rather than to benefiting the working class. There is a massive industry behind the wars.


Defense department money is money down the drain. REALLY. It goes to building things no one needs or no one wants that does nothing for the borugeoise and nothing for the proletariat. A couple of companies make out nicely from war--the VAST majority do not.

War, and war budgets and government money and foreign conquests and nation building do nothing for REAL Capitalism here in the USA. Sombody atttacks us--we fight back. Otherwise it's none of our business.

Stop the wars, lower the taxes and raise the minimum wage. We can all live pretty decently if we just behave. I have no problem with America having an army--but it should be kept ENTIRELY within the boundries of the USA.

[Kayser_Soso]

Defense department money is money down the drain. REALLY. It goes to building things no one needs or no one wants that does nothing for the borugeoise and nothing for the proletariat. A couple of companies make out nicely from war--the VAST majority do not.

War, and war budgets and government money and foreign conquests and nation building do nothing for REAL Capitalism here in the USA. Sombody atttacks us--we fight back. Otherwise it's none of our business.

Stop the wars, lower the taxes and raise the minimum wage. We can all live pretty decently if we just behave. I have no problem with America having an army--but it should be kept ENTIRELY within the boundries of the USA.

First of all, capitalism is capitalism- "real" capitalism is just a qualifier to used by apologists. Defense money doesn't go down some drain, it goes into the pockets of very wealthy capitalists. The problem is that you are looking only at defense contractors and not considering all the private agencies upon which the Pentagon has become increasingly dependent. Also, as the shareholders, CEOs, and managers of defense contractors get rich, they put their money into banks, which then make money as they loan it out- so it is not just going into the pockets of a small group of capitalists.

[Bud Struggle]

First of all, capitalism is capitalism- "real" capitalism is just a qualifier to used by apologists. Defense money doesn't go down some drain, it goes into the pockets of very wealthy capitalists. The problem is that you are looking only at defense contractors and not considering all the private agencies upon which the Pentagon has become increasingly dependent. Also, as the shareholders, CEOs, and managers of defense contractors get rich, they put their money into banks, which then make money as they loan it out- so it is not just going into the pockets of a small group of capitalists.

All true. But then there's the other 98% of the Capitalist America. FWIW, I've made things for the DoD--I've considered it my "patriotic duty" and thought nothing more of it.

Dealing with the American government is not a moneymaker for most businesses. Most American companies don't have government contracts and make no money off of them. Besides--for us to be real Imperialists we have to be making money off of the people we conquer--and we are FAR from doing that--we just feed off of ourselves, and as I said: that's not real Capitalism or Imperialism.

Real Imperialism is like having sex with a beautiful woman (partner.) What America is doing now is just jerking off.

[Drace]

Agreed that profit is often a reflection of power. But there are other things there, too.

Like what? We invaded Afghanistan for its candy?



Look at the war in Iraq--it's about power all right but very few Capitalists are making any money off of that was. In general it's costing Capitalists (just like it's costing Proletarians) a good deal more than they are getting.Do you think the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is just a way for Bush and, now, Obama to brag about their egos?

What capitalist is losing profit off this? It is being fought by the proletariat and their taxes!

http://rinf.com/alt-news/war-terrorism/151-congressmen-profit-from-war/3283/
http://www.businesspundit.com/the-25-most-vicious-iraq-war-profiteers/
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/185/40586.html



Any way you look at it that war was about Saddam thumbing his nose at George Bush and George Bush whacking him back. The rest was incidental. Same with Afghanistan. There is NOTHING there for American business--no money to be made. There are a few companies that supply the military, etc. --but in the general scheme of things they are all money loosing operations. And we, America that is, is suppling the money for those wars--nothing is comming out of those countries.Is that way you say about Nicaragua, Cuba, El Salvador, Haiti, Brazil, Bulgaria, South Africa, Philippines, Dominican Republic, Korea, Vietnam, Iran and the other countries the US intervened in?

Its a lot more complex than your ridiculous explanation. What was the US doing in Iraq in the first place? The US supported Saddam militarily and financially, sending lot of money in aid and weapons for it to fight against Iran.
There is one interesting thing Saddam did that it turned the US against it.
He started nationalizing the companies, including the oil companies that exploited the fuck out of Iraq.

The war itself makes many companies money because they supply the weapons, as you said yourself.
As of Afghanistan, of course it does! The Middle East region has the 2nd largest reserve of oil, much of it untapped. It will also gain influence in the Middle East by building military bases and establishing a puppet government.

And I suppose you don't know about the US's intervention in Afghanistan during the late 70s and into the 80s?

Nothing is coming out of the countries, for you or for me. But the capitalists are lovin' it.


A better business decision for America would have been to put the money into rebuilding infrastructure at home. The problem with America is not that it is Capitalistic--it's that it's not Capitalistic enough. And that's why a lot of right wing Americans distrust the government--they make BAD business decisions.
There are a million things America could have done to better spend the money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnGj9sKfLls

Infrastructure in America is your biggest concern when 30,000 people a day are starving to death?

The problem is capitalism. The war serves to profit the rich and to devastate the war. It is an imperialist act committed by the capitalists. To excuse the war simply as "Oh Bush got offended by Saddam" is pure shit.


. A couple of companies make out nicely from war--the VAST majority do not.

That's not really relevant. The few major corporations that can profit immensely is enough influence for the government to go to war.

And it shows what an Imperialist Empire America is.


War, and war budgets and government money and foreign conquests and nation building do nothing for REAL Capitalism here in the USA. Sombody atttacks us--we fight back. Otherwise it's none of our business.[
As said, the US has had a long history of imperialism. That's probably what your hoping for, but its not true that the US has not had businesses in other countries.

And as long as capitalism exists, the struggle will continue. Its only going to get worse.
As long as the dominant class exists whose pure interest is to make profit and exploit the few, things can't get better, unless the proletariat fight back.
I don't see what separates the American Empire from the French Empire under Napoleon, the Roman Empire under Caesar, and the Ottoman Empire.


Besides--for us to be real Imperialists we have to be making money off of the people we conquer--and we are FAR from doing that--we just feed off of ourselves, and as I said: that's not real Capitalism or Imperialism. As shown by the articles, a quite handy amount of people do profit off the war.
I don't see what is so hard to understand.
How can you separate the profit motive from imperialism but yet praise it as a lovely attribute of capitalism that creates innovation and competition?
This is imperialism and capitalism. It is no different than slave socities or feudual societies, the only thing is we are substituting the feudalism with capitalism. But the same driving force exists. There are the upper class who have their interest of making a profit and expanding their power.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Once you have maybe 100x what you need to live on beyond all you could ever wish for--something else kicks in.

Successful businessmen never talk about how much money they have--they talk about how they got what done what they wanted done.

Trust me on this--it's all about power.

Money is the route to power, under a capitalist regime

[Kayser_Soso]

All true. But then there's the other 98% of the Capitalist America. FWIW, I've made things for the DoD--I've considered it my "patriotic duty" and thought nothing more of it.

Then you prove my point.



Dealing with the American government is not a moneymaker for most businesses. Most American companies don't have government contracts and make no money off of them.

LOL WUT Private companies make tons of money off the government, because privatization encourages government waste. Tell the folks at Halliburton or Bechtel about how they don't make any money from the government.

This Christmas, if you are lucky enough to receive the World at War Boxed Set, watch the interview with Steven Ambrose. He would explain to you how many fortunes were made off the war, when many civilian enterprises switched over to military production.



Besides--for us to be real Imperialists we have to be making money off of the people we conquer--and we are FAR from doing that--we just feed off of ourselves, and as I said: that's not real Capitalism or Imperialism.

Did the average British citizen benefit visibly and directly from colonization of Africa or India? No.



Real Imperialism is like having sex with a beautiful woman (partner.) What America is doing now is just jerking off.

Correction- it's like raping a beautiful woman, sometimes with several other buddies.

[eyedrop]

Good input, but according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_presidential_election,_1996), Yeltsin won by 53% 1996. Though it says he was financed by oligarchs and stole the election by making false promises and gaining massive media coverage in favor of him.

Wiki isn't worth shit on any fact that are contested. Find some better sources.

[Drace]

Wiki I find actually to have lot of good info.

[Bud Struggle]

Then you prove my point.



LOL WUT Private companies make tons of money off the government, because privatization encourages government waste. Tell the folks at Halliburton or Bechtel about how they don't make any money from the government. Worthless crappy companes--yea they made money, but so what--how did American Capitalism make out overall? The answer is--poorly.


This Christmas, if you are lucky enough to receive the World at War Boxed Set, watch the interview with Steven Ambrose. He would explain to you how many fortunes were made off the war, when many civilian enterprises switched over to military production. Yea SOME people make money. I'm not denying that--but over all American business has lost and lost big time from these wars. This is croneyisn--NOT Capitalsim.


Did the average British citizen benefit visibly and directly from colonization of Africa or India? No. I would think yes. But no matter, at least the British were smart enough to TAKE from the people they conquered. America--not so much. (And I'm not advocating Imperalism--but if your are going to do it, al least do it right. ;) )

[Drace]

Bud, respond to my last post, will you?

[Bud Struggle]

Sorry.


Like what? We invaded Afghanistan for its candy?
Do you think the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is just a way for Bush and, now, Obama to brag about their egos?

I have no idea why we are there. Really.


What capitalist is losing profit off this? It is being fought by the proletariat and their taxes!

http://rinf.com/alt-news/war-terrorism/151-congressmen-profit-from-war/3283/
http://www.businesspundit.com/the-25-most-vicious-iraq-war-profiteers/
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/185/40586.html


Is that way you say about Nicaragua, Cuba, El Salvador, Haiti, Brazil, Bulgaria, South Africa, Philippines, Dominican Republic, Korea, Vietnam, Iran and the other countries the US intervened in?

Its a lot more complex than your ridiculous explanation. What was the US doing in Iraq in the first place? The US supported Saddam militarily and financially, sending lot of money in aid and weapons for it to fight against Iran.
There is one interesting thing Saddam did that it turned the US against it.
He started nationalizing the companies, including the oil companies that exploited the fuck out of Iraq.

The war itself makes many companies money because they supply the weapons, as you said yourself. But in the end it it AMERICAN money that is supporting the war. It's money that America would have spent anyway on roads and education and other things too help itself. Insead it bought guns--but anyway the money would have been taxed and spent. Money went this way instead of that--but no new money came in. That's my problem.


As of Afghanistan, of course it does! The Middle East region has the 2nd largest reserve of oil, much of it untapped. It will also gain influence in the Middle East by building military bases and establishing a puppet government. The middle east hasoil--sure but Afghanistan has nothing just about a million people that care about nothing else then to shoot invaders and drink camel juce. A worthless place to conquer.


And I suppose you don't know about the US's intervention in Afghanistan during the late 70s and into the 80s? That was to screw the Soviets--that was another matter.


Nothing is coming out of the countries, for you or for me. But the capitalists are lovin' it. Not this capitalist.


There are a million things America could have done to better spend the money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnGj9sKfLls I agree.


Infrastructure in America is your biggest concern when 30,000 people a day are starving to death? Fair enough--that would be a more important start--but work in infrastructure creates jobs.


The problem is capitalism. The war serves to profit the rich and to devastate the war. It is an imperialist act committed by the capitalists. To excuse the war simply as "Oh Bush got offended by Saddam" is pure shit. NOOOOO. The problem is that none of this is Capitalism. Capitalism is about those who could do the best business--not those that can influence the government the best. What we are talking about here is really a mild form of Fascism.


As said, the US has had a long history of imperialism. That's probably what your hoping for, but its not true that the US has not had businesses in other countries. Business is MAKING MONEY off of someone else--not yourself.


And as long as capitalism exists, the struggle will continue. Its only going to get worse.
As long as the dominant class exists whose pure interest is to make profit and exploit the few, things can't get better, unless the proletariat fight back.
I don't see what separates the American Empire from the French Empire under Napoleon, the Roman Empire under Caesar, and the Ottoman Empire.
As shown by the articles, a quite handy amount of people do profit off the war.
I don't see what is so hard to understand.
How can you separate the profit motive from imperialism but yet praise it as a lovely attribute of capitalism that creates innovation and competition?
This is imperialism and capitalism. It is no different than slave socities or feudual societies, the only thing is we are substituting the feudalism with capitalism. But the same driving force exists. There are the upper class who have their interest of making a profit and expanding their power.

A bit of rhetoric here--but Capitalism has to be make workable and made FAIR. Realisticly there's a lot better chance of that happening than some Revolution that will make everything wonderful.

Realisticlly, I think things will progess to Democratic Socialism and that will be how things are till the end of the world.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

...and that will be how things are till the end of the world.
Any sentence ending with those words is wrong.

[Bud Struggle]

Any sentence ending with those words is wrong.

Sorry: "Amen."
:D

[Drace]

I have no idea why we are there. Really.How bout profit?



But in the end it it AMERICAN money that is supporting the war. It's money that America would have spent anyway on roads and education and other things too help itself. Insead it bought guns--but anyway the money would have been taxed and spent. Money went this way instead of that--but no new money came in. That's my problem.And the capitalists and the government give a shit? That's what were accusing them of doing. Neglecting the interests of the majority of the people and instead supporting the few in power through pursuing profits and conquest.

And the way you talk about money is that somehow just because its American means that were all united in this.




The middle east hasoil--sure but Afghanistan has nothing just about a million people that care about nothing else then to shoot invaders and drink camel juce. A worthless place to conquer.
The poorer their people are the better. Britain didn't exactly conquer a modern civilized world when taking over India and Africa. They sure had resources though!


That was to screw the Soviets--that was another matter.
It was much more complex than that. The US actually started aiding the muhajeeden 6 months before the Soviet invaded them. Their purpose was to get the Soviets to invade Afghanistan. Nonetheless, it showed the US's imperialistic interests.

The US supported terrorists while helping to overthrow a progressive democratic government. It wasn't until the terrorists went against US interests that they started to talk about how bad the Taliban were and started a war.


Not this capitalist.Well you weren't one of the people to invest in the war.
I'm sure when Austria invaded Prussia, the nobles in Britain didn't benefit anything either.
The bourgeoisie work separately unless they can cooperate to make profits for both of them.

So your argument that "OH but not all capitalists benefited off the war" is mute.



Fair enough--that would be a more important start--but work in infrastructure creates jobs.It also creates jobs to pay people to jump up and down like a chicken.


NOOOOO. The problem is that none of this is Capitalism. Capitalism is about those who could do the best business--not those that can influence the government the best. What we are talking about here is really a mild form of Fascism.

Business is MAKING MONEY off of someone else--not yourself.
I don't see why you can't see the link between Imperialism, capitalism, past empires, and the profit and power motive.

As long as a dominant class exists, which is the case under capitalism, there will be the oppressor and the oppressed. The wars have always been waged in the favor of the upper class. We don't have wars simply just because politicians are stupid. They know exactly what there doing, they just don't want you to know.

Im sure you would love to think that capitalism has nothing to do with imperialism but you haven 't shown any reasons why it separates it from past class societies.
To lower wages as much as possible and to start wars, conquer lands in search of the most profit possible is no different than the concept of serf and nobility.


A bit of rhetoric here--but Capitalism has to be make workable and made FAIR. Realisticly there's a lot better chance of that happening than some Revolution that will make everything wonderful.

Realisticlly, I think things will progess to Democratic Socialism and that will be how things are till the end of the world.How the hell do you make that happen?
Capitalism by nature cannot be fair. The profit motive which you advocate so much has turned the dominant class against the proletariat. In a capitalist world where the bourgeoisie have all the power to influence media, politicians, lobbyists and government, their unquenchable thirst for profit cannot be stopped.

And things aren't going to progress for no reason. Inequality and poverty, on the contrary, are increasing.

[Skooma Addict]

Well you weren't one of the people to invest in the war.
I'm sure when Austria invaded Prussia, the nobles in Britain didn't benefit anything either.
The bourgeoisie work separately unless they can cooperate to make profits for both of them.

So your argument that "OH but not all capitalists benefited off the war" is mute.

When Austria invaded Prussia, many capitalists in Austria did not benefit. It is true that not all capitalists benefit from war. Some do, just like some workers benefit from war.

[mykittyhasaboner]

When Austria invaded Prussia, many capitalists in Austria did not benefit. It is true that not all capitalists benefit from war.
It is true. Yes, not all capitalists benefit from war. Often times wars are fought by one capitalist class to defeat another. In which case the defeated capitalist class is pretty much fucked. They usually don't fight each other though, they send in workers who've been conscripted or volunteered to die for them.

Then there are those capitalists in say, the US for example, who do not benefit at all from any war. Well if capitalism was a homogeneous system, where the bourgeoisie all agreed to go to war, then maybe your argument holds some ground. Really though, nobody asked the owner of a small restaurant in New York if they wanted to invest in the war. This is because capitalism as it exists today is not about free market competition, but rather intricate monopolies, which arguably arise as a result of so called "competition". The real capitalists, that is, the "big capitalists" are the ones who profit from expeditionary warfare. This is because they have a monopoly on the investment in the markets of the victim countries, often times totally taking control of a weaker country's economy.


Some do, just like some workers benefit from war.I'd love to see how you pulled those logical gymnastics.

[Skooma Addict]

It is true. Yes, not all capitalists benefit from war. Often times wars are fought by one capitalist class to defeat another. In which case the defeated capitalist class is pretty much fucked. They usually don't fight each other though, they send in workers who've been conscripted or volunteered to die for them.

I wouldn't really say wars are fought by a capitalist class. There may sometimes be special interests that fuel a war, but it is not something inherent in capitalism. There have been wars which have been detrimental to capitalism. It is the state that conscripts people, not the capitalists. The CNT Anarcho-Statists of Spain used conscription to fight a war. They also attempted to eliminate capitalism.


I'd love to see how you pulled those logical gymnastics.

What logical gymnastics? Are you denying that some workers benefit from war?

[Drace]

When Austria invaded Prussia, many capitalists in Austria did not benefit. It is true that not all capitalists benefit from war. Some do, just like some workers benefit from war.

Capitalists didn't exist in 1866 in Austria

[Skooma Addict]

Capitalists didn't exist in 1866 in Austria

Whatever. But there was an actual point to my argument which you didn't address.

[Drace]

When Austria invaded Prussia, many capitalists in Austria did not benefit. It is true that not all capitalists benefit from war. Some do, just like some workers benefit from war.

I did earlier.
Whether all capitalists benefit from a war is irrelevant. I am not saying capitalists work together in everything they do. Thats actually the point I made with the Prussian-Austrian war.

Just because all capitalists don't benefit from war doesn't instantly mean capitalism has no role in starting war.

Capitalists actually often wage war and compete with other capitalists.

[tradeunionsupporter]

I think Nationalism is a bad thing.

[Delenda Carthago]

what russia needs for once in its thousand year history is some democracy. The real thing. It has had just had too many czars: The romanoffs the communists and the putins.

+1000000000

[Ventadv]

The CPRF is not a left-wing at all anymore aswell. It's just another russian nationalist, right-wing party, mixed with some Soviet and Stalin nostalgia. Active, militant leftists in Russia are totally and entirely denouncing the CPRF.

I will agree with you. CPRF is right-wing populists party. CPRF uses nostalgia across the USSR in the pre-election interests, also as well as aggressive nationalist rhetoric. The party constantly speaks about "Russian national socialism" and about "a special way of Russia". Zyuganov declared that its favourite authors are Hattington and Fukuyama. In party anti-Semitism is extended. Members of the CPRF told me about "the Jewish plot" which wishes to destroy Russia:D