Vietnam- who won?

[ComradeMan]

This is an interesting theoretical question I came across.

Who "won" the Vietnam War?

I say the US actually won in real terms but a lot of people seem to disagree with this.

What are your opinions?

EDIT I- The "common" wisdom on the Vietnam War.


Result: North Vietnamese victory

Withdrawal of American forces from Indochina
Dissolution of South Vietnam
Communist governments take power in Cambodia and Laos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war

EDIT II- US critical victory.

The United States achieved its major objectives in the Indochina region. Vietnam was wrecked and the US ensured that no successful development model in the region alternative to US capitalist models would be attained.

The check on this "victory" is that the US failed to achieve the full incorporation of Indochina within the US-dominated global system.

[Obs]

First off, this isn't a thoeretical question.

What are 'real terms'? The US killed more people, but wars aren't decided on kill count unless you're 12. On the other hand, while Vietnam was united as a socialist state for a while, on the long term, the US have gained power over Vietnam to the point where it is now entirely capitalist. Therefore, while Vietnam did win the Vietnam War, they have since lost their sovereignty.

[ComradeMan]

First off, this isn't a thoeretical question.

What are 'real terms'? The US killed more people, but wars aren't decided on kill count unless you're 12. On the other hand, while Vietnam was united as a socialist state for a while, on the long term, the US have gained power over Vietnam to the point where it is now entirely capitalist. Therefore, while Vietnam did win the Vietnam War, they have since lost their sovereignty.

Theoretical in the sense of there are different views on the "outcome" depending on which theoretical analyses you follow.

Anyway, "real" terms- i.e. objectives/end-goals.

What do you say were the "real" terms of the conflicts in Indochina?

[Magón]

Theoretical in the sense of there are different views on the "outcome" depending on which theoretical analyses you follow.

Anyway, "real" terms- i.e. objectives/end-goals.

What do you say were the "real" terms of the conflicts in Indochina?

Then by you saying the US won is be completely wrong, because the US was looking to kick Communism out of Vietnam, which it obviously didn't at the end of the Vietnam War.

[Revolutionair]

Nobody wins wars.

[ComradeMan]

Then by you saying the US won is be completely wrong, because the US was looking to kick Communism out of Vietnam, which it obviously didn't at the end of the Vietnam War.

But what were the real objectives- "kicking" communism out of Vietnam or something else?

[Rainsborough]

The Vietnamese won the war in the short term, but the long term winners are, as usual, the capitalists.
I agree with Revolutionair, "nobody wins wars", and add, but some people get to impose their peace.

[RGacky3]

But what were the real objectives- "kicking" communism out of Vietnam or something else?

Those were the objectives.

[ComradeMan]

Those were the objectives.

You see I don't think those really were the end- objectives. That's why I don't think the US lost.

[William Howe]

Short-term victory: NV

Long-term: US/SV


US/NV took extremely heavy casualties despite immense numerical supremacy, but attritioned the NV and then took their sovereingty later on. Though, I must say, the NV weren't entirely good, as they did treat SV civilians with a rather harsh degree of cruelty, but then again, the US/SV treated the NV cruelly also.

[Magón]

You see I don't think those really were the end- objectives. That's why I don't think the US lost.

Then what were their objectives in Vietnam?

I can assure you, if the US had won, or thought they won, it wouldn't be a World Wide consensus that the US lost the war. If the US Government didn't think they lost, it would have said so many a times in a high schooler's history book.

[Bud Struggle]

Kentucky Fried Chicken won.

http://noodlepie.typepad.com/blog/images/kfc-front.jpg

Capitalism is much more effective at taking care of itself than the US Army. The US made a strategic mistake in Vietnam similar to the mistake it is now making in places like Iraq and Cuba and Iran but introducing hositlity and warfare. The interesting thing about Capitalism is how insidious it is. It starts quite wonderfully with Coca Cola or McDonalds or jeans and then spreads like cancer. The US Army on the other hand really works AGAINST Capitalism. They create a target that isn't all the pleasent and that people can fight and hate.

If America had as much faith in Capitalism as you Communists have in Marxism the US Army would never fight anywhere.

The best way for America to conquer the world is to let American corporations alone to sell their products.

[ComradeMan]

Then what were their objectives in Vietnam?

I can assure you, if the US had won, or thought they won, it wouldn't be a World Wide consensus that the US lost the war. If the US Government didn't think they lost, it would have said so many a times in a high schooler's history book.

I find that very naive. Consensus does not mean correctness, does it?

High school history books are the last place you want to look for an objective analysis.

[Magón]

I find that very naive. Consensus does not mean correctness, does it?

High school history books are the last place you want to look for an objective analysis.

It's in Left and Right Ideological history books, no matter how much they try and cover it up with something like, "A withdrawal of US Forces from Indochina" or whatever. But if you're going to try and get a generation to think that a previous one won a war, you'd start when they're young, hence why I said a school book.

Crack open any history book from around the world that's on Vietnam, and I can promise it'll say in some form or another, the US lost the Vietnam War. I mean, the NV Won their objective which was a single Vietnamese State, under their form of Communism. They kicked out all foreign invaders, and made it what they saw.

That's why they won Vietnam.

[ComradeMan]

It's in Left and Right Ideological history books, no matter how much they try and cover it up with something like, "A withdrawal of US Forces from Indochina" or whatever. But if you're going to try and get a generation to think that a previous one won a war, you'd start when they're young, hence why I said a school book.

Crack open any history book from around the world that's on Vietnam, and I can promise it'll say in some form or another, the US lost the Vietnam War. I mean, the NV Won their objective which was a single Vietnamese State, under their form of Communism. They kicked out all foreign invaders, and made it what they saw.

That's why they won Vietnam.

Small Wars/Proxy Wars in the greater theatre of the Cold War. What were the US objectives in the conflict? Solely eliminating the Viet Minh?

[Magón]

Small Wars/Proxy Wars in the greater theatre of the Cold War. What were the US objectives in the conflict? Solely eliminating the Viet Minh?

The Viet Minh were when the French were still there, they became the Viet Cong when the US was there. And no, they'd already had a Proxy War in Vietnam a decade earlier when the US was the supplier of 90% of the French's military might. Such as tanks, weapons, gear, planes, and other things. The US's Proxy War in Vietnam ended when the French pulled out and Ho Chi Minh started up with his single Vietnam State.

It's obvious that if the US couldn't achieve their primary goal of kicking Communism out of Vietnam/South East Asia, their back up plan was to do what they'd done in Korea which was to cut the country in half and get it back to being a "Free" South and "Communist" North. Obviously their plans ate shit and the North Vietnamese won their objectives; which I'll state again.

1. Unify Vietnam as a single Communist State.

2. Kick out all foreign forces who mean harm to the Vietnamese people.

The American Goals were

1. Kick Communism out of Vietnam/South East Asia. (Hence why there was also secret bombings Cambodia, and Special Forces going into Cambodia.)

2. If the first plan doesn't go right, do like what happened in Korea and split the country in half.

This whole Proxy War idea had already been tried and tested, which obviously ended in failure and couldn't work to the US's advantage; hence why they went in themselves to knock out Communism in South East Asia, since the French were obviously inept to do so.

[Bud Struggle]

The American goal was to destroy Communism in Southeast Asia and they are acheveing that goal slowly but steadily. America lost the battle in Vietnam but they are winning the war.

[Revolution starts with U]

Vietnam set us on a path of gross military spending and a state of constant warfare. It has crippled our economy and sucked wealth from our people. This military-industrial complex is probably the biggest contributor to our debt. And who owns our debt?
China won the vietnam war.

[mikelepore]

If part of the question is how did the war end, the answer is: the U.S. gave up. After 1945, the way that a war gets authorized in the U.S. is the president asks the congress to pay for it, and the congress votes to allocatate the money for one year at a time. Nixon wanted to continue the war until he could obtain, not just peace, but something that he called "peace with honor", a way to end it without the government officials being embarrassed. During the Nixon administration, the congress voted to stop paying for it.

[Rainsborough]

In the end the winners of the Vietnam war were the same as the winners of every war, whether overt or covert.
Is anyone here old enough to recall who were the first people over the Berlin Wall once it had fallen (I mean West to East)?

[ComradeMan]

Can't believe that revolutionaries, marxists and anti-cap people are missing the whole point!!!!!! :confused::confused::confused: The nearest is Rainsborough- hat off to you Sir, and Bud- the avowed Cappie!!! :crying:

[Revolution starts with U]

I think you're wrong tho. Sure, America lost the battle, and has seemed to win the war. But the expanionist government that developed out of Korea and Vietnam is being, and will be her eventual downfall. History doesn't stop in 2010.
China won the vietnam war.

[Wanted Man]

Can't believe that revolutionaries, marxists and anti-cap people are missing the whole point!!!!!! :confused::confused::confused: The nearest is Rainsborough- hat off to you Sir, and Bud- the avowed Cappie!!! :crying:

What does that have to do with the US's "real objective", though? What do you think, that the US entered Vietnam to deliberately lose 58,000 soldiers, lose a client state in Asia, suffer domestic upheaval, only to regain the ability to trade with Vietnam 20 years later? Of course not.

Obviously, historical events don't exist in isolation from one another, but stating that the US "won" Vietnam because of events decades later is pushing it. Hey, maybe the French were the true winners of the Franco-Prussian war because they ended up beating Germany in two subsequent world wars. :rolleyes:

[scarletghoul]

Vietnam won, obviously. What a silly question.

[Bud Struggle]

Vietnam set us on a path of gross military spending and a state of constant warfare. It has crippled our economy and sucked wealth from our people. This military-industrial complex is probably the biggest contributor to our debt. And who owns our debt?
China won the vietnam war.

It was that very military spending by the United States that was responsible for bring down the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain countries.

[Bud Struggle]

Vietnam won, obviously. What a silly question.

Maybe the question should be: who won the POST Vietnam War? The answer to that question is quite different.

Vietnam is a perfect example of the cancerous power of Capitalism.

[Magón]

Can't believe that revolutionaries, marxists and anti-cap people are missing the whole point!!!!!! :confused::confused::confused: The nearest is Rainsborough- hat off to you Sir, and Bud- the avowed Cappie!!! :crying:

No, you're just an idiot because you can't post/ask a proper question, and when it's answered "wrong" you say people are missing the whole point. Maybe you should learn to properly ask a proper question, rather than have people guessing what you mean by "this or that". Then you might get a more "logical" answer to your question.

If you'd asked properly like Bud said, "Who won the Post-Vietnam War" you might have gotten a the answer, "The US won" in the end.

[Property Is Robbery]

But what were the real objectives- "kicking" communism out of Vietnam or something else?

Yeah, believe it or not they saw Communism as a threat. lol

[Bud Struggle]

If you'd asked properly like Bud said, "Who won the Post-Vietnam War" you might have gotten a the answer, "The US won" in the end.


But that "defeat" was really the best way to win. It's a lot better than "winning" like we did in Iraq or Afghanistan.

It's best to just sit back and let people's natural inclination towards Capitalism do the work for you. Communism is at it's best fighting in jungles. It is at it's worst when things are calm.

[Rainsborough]

No, you're just an idiot because you can't post/ask a proper question, and when it's answered "wrong" you say people are missing the whole point. Maybe you should learn to properly ask a proper question, rather than have people guessing what you mean by "this or that". Then you might get a more "logical" answer to your question.

If you'd asked properly like Bud said, "Who won the Post-Vietnam War" you might have gotten a the answer, "The US won" in the end.

Gosh, I get the feeling someones a little pissed off because they couldn't guess the answer.
Maybe he should have made it a multiple choice question?

[ComradeMan]

Gosh, I get the feeling someones a little pissed off because they couldn't guess the answer.
Maybe he should have made it a multiple choice question?

LOL!!!! The reason I posted the question in such manner is that I wanted to see what the analyses and responses were. Not to get into semantic battles about the question itself.

The common, accepted "wisdom" is that it was a North Vietnamese victory- I wanted to challenge that and I have a well-known source and thinker from whom I draw my argument as well. That's all...

I think it's telling that some people get "angry" because of the question and the best they can do is shout what they read in high-school books... :lol::thumbup1:

I will EDIT in the answer and the source to the OP, I just wanted to give more people chance to reply and read their interesting views- not get into a flame war.:rolleyes:

The Post-Vietnam War isn't over yet....

[Revolution starts with U]

I think I should get more credit. I had a different, and imo a far better answer than any of you :rolleyes:
/end self-gratification

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

One could argue America won if it is able to use Vietnam like japan and "contain" China.

[danyboy27]

Kentucky Fried Chicken won.

http://noodlepie.typepad.com/blog/images/kfc-front.jpg

Capitalism is much more effective at taking care of itself than the US Army. The US made a strategic mistake in Vietnam similar to the mistake it is now making in places like Iraq and Cuba and Iran but introducing hositlity and warfare. The interesting thing about Capitalism is how insidious it is. It starts quite wonderfully with Coca Cola or McDonalds or jeans and then spreads like cancer. The US Army on the other hand really works AGAINST Capitalism. They create a target that isn't all the pleasent and that people can fight and hate.

If America had as much faith in Capitalism as you Communists have in Marxism the US Army would never fight anywhere.

The best way for America to conquer the world is to let American corporations alone to sell their products.
I think you are mistaken bud, capitalism cannot exist without the use of physical or psychological threat at some degree.

everywhere capitalism tried to enter ''peacefuly'' and failed, a coup, a chiurgical strike or an invasion took place.

what happen to countries who dosnt want to fallow the rules of the world bank or the IMF? Some misterious folks appear from nowhere, armed to the teeth and start kicking asses and purging people.

Remember chiles, indonesia, burkina-faso? that what happen when you dont want to compromise with the IMF or the world bank.

go spend a little 10 buck on this bud, you wont regret it.
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1289629695&sr=8-1

[Bud Struggle]

I think you are mistaken bud, capitalism cannot exist without the use of physical or psychological threat at some degree.

everywhere capitalism tried to enter ''peacefuly'' and failed, a coup, a chiurgical strike or an invasion took place.

what happen to countries who dosnt want to fallow the rules of the world bank or the IMF? Some misterious folks appear from nowhere, armed to the teeth and start kicking asses and purging people.

Remember chiles, indonesia, burkina-faso? that what happen when you dont want to compromise with the IMF or the world bank.

go spend a little 10 buck on this bud, you wont regret it.
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1289629695&sr=8-1

I understand--but you are mistaking "Capitalism" as a movement with individual capitalistic units like the IMF or the World Bank or Exxon or even the United States. The Capitalist units sometimes need or think they need to expend force to get to THEIR PARTICULAR END. And that may be true. But none of those particular capitalist units are Capitalism itself ore necessery for Capitalism to grow and exist.

Capitalism as an ideology will always win because of the goods and services it offers. It also offers people that partake in more goods and services than those that don't on a small scale. So that Vietnamese guy that owns the KFC franchise will live a bit better than his neighbour--and isn't that was lifre is all about? :D

Saying the IMF is Capitalism is like saying Stalin was Communism.

[Revolution starts with U]

I've made the point numerous times that we should not run from the stalin is communism assertion. We should correctly point out it's disjunct with true socialist theory. But we should also point out that (per capita) it was far more progressive, and far less abusive than the development of capitalism.
If we run from Stalin, it lets them run from slavery, forced displacement of natives, imperialism, the military-industrial complex, globalization, and the numerous wars/massacres/puppet dictators around the world that support the capitalist system.
McDonald's cannot exist without Mcdonald/Douglas.

[Bud Struggle]

I've made the point numerous times that we should not run from the stalin is communism assertion. We should correctly point out it's disjunct with true socialist theory. But we should also point out that (per capita) it was far more progressive, and far less abusive than the development of capitalism.
If we run from Stalin, it lets them run from slavery, forced displacement of natives, imperialism, the military-industrial complex, globalization, and the numerous wars/massacres/puppet dictators around the world that support the capitalist system.
McDonald's cannot exist without Mcdonald/Douglas.

I couldn't disagree more. Capitalism works best when people buy into it on their own. American could not FORCE Vietnam to be Capitalist. They couldn't force Communism to go away. This guns and bombs thing is America's great failure.

Capitalism is taking hold of it's own accord in Vietnam. No guns, no bombs just people wanting to what comes natural to them--make a couple of bucks.

As far as Stalin goes--don't run from him but don't take him as any sort of template for the future either. Acknowledge him as an attempt at Communism and move on.

[danyboy27]

I understand--but you are mistaking "Capitalism" as a movement with individual capitalistic units like the IMF or the World Bank or Exxon or even the United States. The Capitalist units sometimes need or think they need to expend force to get to THEIR PARTICULAR END. And that may be true. But none of those particular capitalist units are Capitalism itself ore necessery for Capitalism to grow and exist.

Those organisation are exactly what capitalism is all about bud! the accumulation of wealth and its use to generate more wealth for the members of it. Like it or not, that what capitalism generate: powerful group of fews individual with capital, with the precise goal of maximize it at the expense of others.

I am sure that, in an alternate reality, with the same economic system, somthing like the IMF or the world bank would have popped anyway. There was an opportunity back then after ww2 to cash in on reconstruction, wealthy men took it, and today we have the IMF.



Capitalism as an ideology will always win because of the goods and services it offers. It also offers people that partake in more goods and services than those that don't on a small scale. So that Vietnamese guy that owns the KFC franchise will live a bit better than his neighbour--and isn't that was lifre is all about? :D

those good and services where offered in burkina-faso, chile and indonesia before the big cheese from the world bank and the IMF moved in to privatize and cash in on the local natural ressources.

the only reason why Capitalism is so widespread is beccause of the constant bullying the IMF and the world bank does constantly on diverses regimes to force them to privatize and export their ressources at their expenses.

IF vietnam and Syria got Mc Donald and KFC, that beccause somewhere, a IMF guy done is job right in intimidating the right person or baiting him into taking a loan they cant possibly repay.

the fews countries who havnt adopted those globalisation standards are at the moment either too poor in ressources and manpower to be used, or currently a potential Target for a coup d'etat or an invasion.

Try to put yourselves in the Shoes of the IMF guy for a minute, you have ton of wealth, basicly total control over the world ressources, and a small third world countries with natural ressource dosnt want to give up is nationalisation? you would take him down, by any mean necessary.

[Revolution starts with U]

Capitalists never want to admit that coercion has been the means of capitalism since its onset. It has not, nor cannot survive without it.
Their pitiful attempts to equate markets (and markets only) with capitalism is delusion par excellence. :cool:

[Bud Struggle]

Those organisation are exactly what capitalism is all about bud! the accumulation of wealth and its use to generate more wealth for the members of it. Like it or not, that what capitalism generate: powerful group of fews individual with capital, with the precise goal of maximize it at the expense of others. The AREN'T what Capitalism is all about. They are the Frankenmonster that Capitalism coulbe the same way that Pol Pot and Kim Il and Stalin are wat Communism could become. And it's not goode. But just taking the worst parts of Capitalism and saying "that's all there is." is missing the point of what is going on.



I am sure that, in an alternate reality, with the same economic system, somthing like the IMF or the world bank would have popped anyway. There was an opportunity back then after ww2 to cash in on reconstruction, wealthy men took it, and today we have the IMF. Yea, and back when WWII took place the Iron Curtain was put in place by people with their power aganda. It doesn't mean that was Communism--or that the IMF is Capitalism.


those good and services where offered in burkina-faso, chile and indonesia before the big cheese from the world bank and the IMF moved in to privatize and cash in on the local natural ressources. The difference is that in Poland and in Hungary--nobody offered those people a choice. The Imf does--lots of countries bought in--lots didn't.


the only reason why Capitalism is so widespread is beccause of the constant bullying the IMF and the world bank does constantly on diverses regimes to force them to privatize and export their ressources at their expenses. The only reason Capitalism is widespread is because people naqturally trade goods and services.


IF vietnam and Syria got Mc Donald and KFC, that beccause somewhere, a IMF guy done is job right in intimidating the right person or baiting him into taking a loan they cant possibly repay.[/qyuote] Or maybe sometimes some people wanted to eat a hamburger. Too many polts here. People like to eat at McDonalds. That's just how it goes.

[quote]the fews countries who havnt adopted those globalisation standards are at the moment either too poor in ressources and manpower to be used, or currently a potential Target for a coup d'etat or an invasion. Like China?


Try to put yourselves in the Shoes of the IMF guy for a minute, you have ton of wealth, basicly total control over the world ressources, and a small third world countries with natural ressource dosnt want to give up is nationalisation? you would take him down, by any mean necessary. The IMF is a player but not that big of a player--and further they tried to develop some very backward places and the idea wasn't always successful--but it wasn't some big plot as your book suggests.

[RGacky3]

The AREN'T what Capitalism is all about. They are the Frankenmonster that Capitalism coulbe the same way that Pol Pot and Kim Il and Stalin are wat Communism could become. And it's not goode. But just taking the worst parts of Capitalism and saying "that's all there is." is missing the point of what is going on.


The difference is these organizations are the natural outcome of the actual capitalist principles in action.

Your examples of Pol Pot Kim Il and Stalin are not the outcome of communism or even socialism, they don't represent ANY socialistic or communistic principles by definition.

What your doing would be like me saying that Hitler was the natural outcome of capitalism, which would be untrue because what he did was'nt really about capitalism or socialism or anything.


Yea, and back when WWII took place the Iron Curtain was put in place by people with their power aganda. It doesn't mean that was Communism--or that the IMF is Capitalism.


The IMF promotes free trade, one of the main principles of capitalism, the Iron Curtain had nothing to do with worker control, a democratic economy, or any principle of socialism.


The only reason Capitalism is widespread is because people naqturally trade goods and services.


People are also naturally cooperative, people also naturally want to be masters of their own lives and production, "nature" has nothing to do with the power of capitalism, the same way it had nothing to do with the power of feaudalism.


and further they tried to develop some very backward places and the idea wasn't always successful--but it wasn't some big plot as your book suggests.

TRIED TO DEVELOP???? Really? the whole point of the IMF was to open up markets in the THIRD WORLD for FIRST WORLD exploitation. If the IMF was serious, it would attack the farm subsidies in the west.

[Revolution starts with U]

You should really read Confessions of an Economic Hitman.

[RGacky3]

I read that book a while ago, interesting stuff.

[ComradeMan]

I heard the Khmer Rouge were secretly backed by Uncle Sam.

[danyboy27]

i wont reply to all of your last post bud, gacky pretty much explained my point of view on this.

lets talk about china then.

Has long the chinese governement can make the IMF guy happy, wich mean allow them to build big unregulated factories in China and manufacture incredibly cheap good, there wont be any problems about how much the chinese governement cash in or ''control'' the whole scheme.

But, the funny thing is, the IMF is currently being screwed by the chinese governement. Instead of individual reaping all that money(like in most banana republics), its the state itself who absorbed those benefits.

and instead of spending that money on the people, the state used it develop the economical and industrial sector. Not for the people living in it, but for the state itself.

Eventually, the CHinese state will destroy the IMF, and replace it with its own brand of exploitation.

Instead of just raping the countries of its natural ressources, the Chinese state propose to build infrastructures, School, Roads, all in exchange of raw material. But there is a catch! No effort are put into teaching those people how to maintain or operate it! that make their countries dependent on chinese , forcing them to continue exploitative deal!

the IMF, the chinese, more of the same.

[Bud Struggle]

The difference is these organizations are the natural outcome of the actual capitalist principles in action.

Your examples of Pol Pot Kim Il and Stalin are not the outcome of communism or even socialism, they don't represent ANY socialistic or communistic principles by definition. That is a matter of opinion. There is the real problem in Communism of it ALWAYS becommimg somthing other than ideal. IT may be Mao and Stalin and Kim may just ALWAYS be what Communism looks like when tried in the real world.


What your doing would be like me saying that Hitler was the natural outcome of capitalism, which would be untrue because what he did was'nt really about capitalism or socialism or anything. I don't know any such thing. Hitler was a one shot wonder. Communism has a long history of always ending up other than ideal.


The IMF promotes free trade, one of the main principles of capitalism, the Iron Curtain had nothing to do with worker control, a democratic economy, or any principle of socialism. Both are corruption of what was actually intended.


People are also naturally cooperative, people also naturally want to be masters of their own lives and production, "nature" has nothing to do with the power of capitalism, the same way it had nothing to do with the power of feaudalism. People are cooperative--that is why business works so well. Each person cooperates with each other to achieve their own personal goals.


TRIED TO DEVELOP???? Really? the whole point of the IMF was to open up markets in the THIRD WORLD for FIRST WORLD exploitation. If the IMF was serious, it would attack the farm subsidies in the west. Of course it could do things better.

[ComradeMan]

I don't know any such thing. Hitler was a one shot wonder. Communism has a long history of always ending up other than ideal.

Argentinian juntas,
Paraguay under Stroessner,
Pinochet,
Franco,
Saddam,
Pol Pot,
Suharto,
Amin,
Bokassa,
...
....
.....:crying:

[Bud Struggle]

Argentinian juntas,
Paraguay under Stroessner,
Pinochet,
Franco,
Saddam,
Pol Pot,
Suharto,
Amin,
Bokassa,
...
....
.....:crying:

Those distinguish gentlemen have nothing to do with Capitalism. None of them started revolutions to overthrow Communism and form Capitalist Democracies.

None of them ever claimed to be what Capitalism is all about. You might have picked someone like Putin.....

[danyboy27]

That is a matter of opinion. There is the real problem in Communism of it ALWAYS becommimg somthing other than ideal. IT may be Mao and Stalin and Kim may just ALWAYS be what Communism looks like when tried in the real world.
.
Its not an opinion bud, its a fact; individual with tremendous power will always work to get more and more power at the expense of the group, that why the early version of ''communism'' failed so hard, it was only the continuation of what have been going on for thousand of year; unlimited power come in the hands of the fews, the fews struggle to keep it at the expense of the majority.

if those exemple you call ''communism'' failed, it was mainly beccause the power, wealth and ressources where not share amongst the people. but concentrated either into the structure of the state itself, or concentrated in the hand of the rulers of that state.





I don't know any such thing. Hitler was a one shot wonder. Communism has a long history of always ending up other than ideal.

Hitler wasnt a one shot wonder. People overestimate the role this guy had to play in all this. Hitler couldnt have done what he did without the support of the old monarchists and their friends, the bourgeois of the old military who where disgrunted by the way the democratic system wasnt good for germany. Most of the modernisation of the german military was prepared and organiside by the old guard at the end of ww1, and the suspension of the civil right and democratic oversight of the country affairs was ultimately what those guy wanted.



People are cooperative--that is why business works so well. Each person cooperates with each other to achieve their own personal goals.

there is a difference between sharing your crops with your neigbor for some milk and 2 multinational sharing assets that dosnt belong to them in order to make profit on the back of hard worker like gacky and me.
Capitalism dosnt work beccause its cooperative, its work beccause its a fraudulent system based on coercion.

Take your buisness for exemple bud, for what reason none of your employee never asked you to distribute the profits equally, to have a say in production and spending?

Beccause they are scared. They might not even realize it themselves, but they know that you, have complete control over their lives. You can Fire people, stall wages, make the working condition horribles.

they rely on you to pay the rent, put gas in the car, feed their childs, pay their insurance bills, that the sort of power you have.

Look at France, where the safety net is enormous, people protest, shout, come after their bosses, demand more wages, that what would happen tomorow x100 if america would have the same degree of safety net, people wouldnt be so affraid to speak out and make demand to their bosses, to protest, and who know. bring a social revolution.

[Bud Struggle]

Its not an opinion bud, its a fact; individual with tremendous power will always work to get more and more power at the expense of the group, that why the early version of ''communism'' failed so hard, it was only the continuation of what have been going on for thousand of year; unlimited power come in the hands of the fews, the fews struggle to keep it at the expense of the majority.

if those exemple you call ''communism'' failed, it was mainly beccause the power, wealth and ressources where not share amongst the people. but concentrated either into the structure of the state itself, or concentrated in the hand of the rulers of that state. I agree with all of that. That is why the domocratic state is formed--to defend the many againt the few that would try to take them over. And that's the way it will always be. Hawks and lambs. And that's why Communism has always been a failure and well you know the rest.


Hitler wasnt a one shot wonder. People overestimate the role this guy had to play in all this. Hitler couldnt have done what he did without the support of the old monarchists and their friends, the bourgeois of the old military who where disgrunted by the way the democratic system wasnt good for germany. Most of the modernisation of the german military was prepared and organiside by the old guard at the end of ww1, and the suspension of the civil right and democratic oversight of the country affairs was ultimately what those guy wanted. Hitler was as much a Socialist as he was a Capitalist. His connection of Democratic Capitalism is tenuous at best.


there is a difference between sharing your crops with your neigbor for some milk and 2 multinational sharing assets that dosnt belong to them in order to make profit on the back of hard worker like gacky and me.
Capitalism dosnt work beccause its cooperative, its work because its a fraudulent system based on coercion. That's preaching. But I agree it certainly always ins't always fair--but we have domocracy to change that. Citizens of Canada just like the citizens of the US can pass any law they desire to make things more fair.


Take your buisness for exemple bud, for what reason none of your employee never asked you to distribute the profits equally, to have a say in production and spending? First of all it is as you first said--my business. Each employee can do exactly what I did and start their own business--and they know it. Or at least try--few if any do.


Beccause they are scared. They might not even realize it themselves, but they know that you, have complete control over their lives. You can Fire people, stall wages, make the working condition horribles. There isn't any difference between being scared and not having any "balls." And I certainly can do all of that--and there is no profit in it. I (believe it or not) am in business to make money no torture people. :rolleyes:


they rely on you to pay the rent, put gas in the car, feed their childs, pay their insurance bills, that the sort of power you have. Yea, they give me their labor and I give them my money. We have a deal.


Look at France, where the safety net is enormous, people protest, shout, come after their bosses, demand more wages, that what would happen tomorow x100 if america would have the same degree of safety net, people wouldnt be so affraid to speak out and make demand to their bosses, to protest, and who know. bring a social revolution. And when the people of France didn't get what they wanted they all went home. It's a different system--it's theirs--good for them. We have a different system here.

[RadioRaheem84]

Vietnam won the struggle. Ho Chi Minh made sure of it.

Yet, the current Vietnamese rulers have since then killed that spirit and caved into foreign investment.

It seems that these new planners (along with their Chinese counterparts) seem to think that the road to socialism is liberal Bastard Keynesianism?

[ComradeMan]

Those distinguish gentlemen have nothing to do with Capitalism. None of them started revolutions to overthrow Communism and form Capitalist Democracies.

None of them ever claimed to be what Capitalism is all about. You might have picked someone like Putin.....

Sorry Bud, but they were all lackeys of you know who! :lol:

[Revolution starts with U]

I agree with all of that. That is why the domocratic state is formed--to defend the many againt the few that would try to take them over. And that's the way it will always be. Hawks and lambs. And that's why Communism has always been a failure and well you know the rest.

Capitalism would get rid of democracy, if it could. And it has many times through the CIA. Just check LvMI for "democracy" in their search to see what capitalists think of the democratic process. Or ask a company to allow their workers to vote on the direction of the company. Capitalism despises democracy, and has used and perverted it to support itself.



That's preaching. But I agree it certainly always ins't always fair--but we have domocracy to change that. Citizens of Canada just like the citizens of the US can pass any law they desire to make things more fair.

If only that were true in economic life as well.... don't you get it?


First of all it is as you first said--my business. Each employee can do exactly what I did and start their own business--and they know it. Or at least try--few if any do.

Only if they have money to begin with. Capitalists try to claim meritocracy, but in reality "you have to have money to make money" in capitalism. How did you get your initial investments Bud?


There isn't any difference between being scared and not having any "balls." And I certainly can do all of that--and there is no profit in it. I (believe it or not) am in business to make money no torture people. :rolleyes:

And if it proved profitable to torture people? Were this a slave society, would you use slaves because that way you can "make more money?" Being in business to make money can mean anything, up to and including letting your workers starve if they are so desperate that they will accept a lower than subsistence wage.


Yea, they give me their labor and I give them my money. We have a deal.

Ya, they give me their money, I give them some ladies" said the pimp, or better yet, international sex slave trader.

[Revolution starts with U]

Also, define "failure." And define "capitalism."
The soviet union collapsed. So did Weimar germany. What's your point?

[ComradeMan]

We could get into arguments of when socialism is communism and when it isn't.

Communism has never been a failure. Socialist attempts to reach communism have been a failure. Just because parties themselves have ruled and tried to implement communism and failed miserably does not mean communism is a failure per se, it means that socialism and/or the attempts to implement communism failed.

Communism is the goal that was not reached.

[gorillafuck]

But what were the real objectives- "kicking" communism out of Vietnam or something else?
Establishing an American puppet in Vietnam. Which at the end of the Vietnam war and at the time of withdrawal, they did not do. So it's safe to say that the Vietnamese won the war, in that they defeated the American war effort.


Those distinguish gentlemen have nothing to do with Capitalism. None of them started revolutions to overthrow Communism and form Capitalist Democracies.
Yes, they were clearly about capitalism, they were propped up to defend the global capitalist system and be servants to western capital.

[ComradeMan]

Establishing an American puppet in Vietnam. Which at the end of the Vietnam war and at the time of withdrawal, they did not do.

Nope wasn't that really at all. Come on guys, anyone here play chess? It's not about who takes the most pieces is it?

[Revolution starts with U]

That's kind of my point. But I would go even as far to say that socialism, as practiced, has not failed. Cuba is still kicking. North Korea too. China is doing better than the US. Even admitting that these are not socialism, they claim to be, and have not failed.
The only thing to fail so far is Soviet socialism. Meanwhile, there were numerous european capitlaist states to have failed, regimes to have failed, even the Confederacy failed. I would be willing to bet I can point to far more capitalist states that have failed than "socialist" ones.

[gorillafuck]

Nope wasn't that really at all. Come on guys, anyone here play chess? It's not about who takes the most pieces is it?
You're right, it's not about who takes the most pieces. So the fact that the entire country was near demolished and that the Americans killed more people doesn't mean that the US was victorious. It just meant that Vietnam was in a bad situation.

[ComradeMan]

That's kind of my point. But I would go even as far to say that socialism, as practiced, has not failed. Cuba is still kicking. North Korea too. China is doing better than the US. Even admitting that these are not socialism, they claim to be, and have not failed.

The only thing to fail so far is Soviet socialism. Meanwhile, there were numerous european capitlaist states to have failed, regimes to have failed, even the Confederacy failed. I would be willing to bet I can point to far more capitalist states that have failed than "socialist" ones.

Probably because there are more capitalist states... perhaps? But then states don't declare themselves to be capitalist in the same way other states declare themselves to be socialist or communist, so capitalism sneaks around the problem. I'm not sure about the dynamics of the confederate south but I'm not sure if it would be deemed capitalist or not- large slave owning plantation society, more like feudal in a way. Not sure about that one though.

Cuba has not been able to get past the immediate post-Revolutionary vanguard party stage, not all Cuba's fault either.

China is State Capitalism and it's not doing as well as I think we are being led to believe. The whole tying of the yuan to the US dollar didn't help them much either when the dollar weakened. If the boom continues their costs are going to grow too as the workers begin to demand more, the prices will rise and they are in danger of their economy overheating.


North Korea.... :rolleyes:

[Revolution starts with U]

The problem is, as you alluded to, capitalism's incidious nature. States, other than the US, rarely call themselves capitalist. So you have to judge them based on their actions. But if you try to do the same with socialism, there has been no socialist government, ever. So it is a strange dichotomy where you judge one side on what they do (because they exist only to profit, and their words are not trustworthy; subjective value and all that), and the other on what they say.
Capitalist history is like a weird form of doublespeak.

[ComradeMan]

The problem is, as you alluded to, capitalism's incidious nature. States, other than the US, rarely call themselves capitalist. So you have to judge them based on their actions. But if you try to do the same with socialism, there has been no socialist government, ever. So it is a strange dichotomy where you judge one side on what they do (because they exist only to profit, and their words are not trustworthy; subjective value and all that), and the other on what they say. Capitalist history is like a weird form of doublespeak.

You are presuming of course that the state and "capitalism" are the same thing. I don't think they are. The capitalists hold power and influence within a state and thuse the state acts in the interests of capitalism but they are not synonymous.

doublespeak- most propaganda usually is....

[Revolution starts with U]

If the state acts in their interests, it is a capitalist state, no?

[ComradeMan]

If the state acts in their interests, it is a capitalist state, no?

Yes and no. It's too simplistic an analysis, especially these days with globalisation and multinationals that are now richer and more powerful than states- I read somewhere, can't vouch for the data, that Wallmart is "richer" than Austria- just to give one example.

[danyboy27]

revolution start with u pretty much explained what i felt about your last post bud, so i wont develop my point, no need for duplicate of the same opinion eh?

so lets talk about materialism!


Bud, you seem to ignore the fact that an individual fate is dirrectly linked with the material condition in wich he start with and develop in that verry system.

Granted there are a fews ''exceptional cases'' of people who started up poor and made it to the top, but then again, if those person wouldnt have been inspired by x book or x person, then the story would be verry different.

so no, not everyone is born to be a astronaut or a buisnessman, its all about Luck and material condition.

take you for exemple bud, remember when you where young, all those people around you, their values, their knowledge, the quality of your education, this is what made you what you are today, that plus luck of course.

you did effort, there is no debate about it, but you wouldnt have made those if you where born in a completly different environnement.

and this whole scheme is what make capitalism even more absurd, individuals should all have the right to have a decent start, and the only way to provide it is throught a more equal wealth distrubution, so that every children, even if their parents are assoles, should have support from society in order to be a real master of his life.

Right now, if you are born in an impovrished place, you got a shitty school, your fate is practicly sealed,

I am born poor, but at least i got a decent education and my mother was an intellectual, the same cannot be said for most of my classmate who have either killed themselves or are currently drunk somewhere in a shitty appartement.

i am not even exagerating, got some recent news from my old turf and a lot have killed themselves.

[Albania]

Vietnam won in the sense that they managed to unite into one nation. But this was only achieved when the US packed up and left since priorities changed.

US military had there hands tied by politicians back in the US. They say if the generals had had there way that they would have bombed Vietnam back to the stoneage. Afterall, there jobs were to win wars if possible. But constant interference by politicians in military manners tied there hands.

US got involved in Vietnam because mainly they did not want the Soviets to establish themselves there. If there had been no Soviets chances are the US would not have cared about Vietnam since by themselves they were no threat to US security.

One problem the US had was that Vietnam had a common border with China. So the Chinese could resupply them. But in the end the US was in Vietnam more because of the Soviets then China. Afterall, historically the people of Vietnam tended to be wary of the Chinese.

[Lt. Ferret]

the vietnamese communist party won. the vietnamese people lost. the US had a losing stalemate. china lost, and invaded vietnam briefly in 1979. the soviet union won.

i grew up in houston where a huge vietnamese community emerged after the way, houston and a few other cities welcomed refugees with open arms. one of my best buddies there, his father was imprisoned and tortured brutally by the communists for writing pacifist poetry. he has scars all over his body for it.

[Ele'ill]

Were they communist?

[Lt. Ferret]

i highly doubt it. just anti-war. he sure came here and capitalisted it up though, owned 3 liquor stores and retired pretty well off.


and no, writing poetry is not grounds for torture.

[Ele'ill]

I meant the Vietnamese Communist Party.

[danyboy27]

the vietnamese communist party won. the vietnamese people lost. the US had a losing stalemate. china lost, and invaded vietnam briefly in 1979. the soviet union won.

i grew up in houston where a huge vietnamese community emerged after the way, houston and a few other cities welcomed refugees with open arms. one of my best buddies there, his father was imprisoned and tortured brutally by the communists for writing pacifist poetry. he has scars all over his body for it.

This is hardly an exceptionnal case, both side brutally tortured civilians for political or military goals, that amazing what the south vietnamese army was able to do with a car battery, some electric cable and a bowl of water.

[Lt. Ferret]

oh i know the reason the communists won was because there was nobody in their right mind who would support the south vietnamese leadership.


and mari3l i honestly dont know the answer to exactly what he was up to in vietnam, im pretty sure he was just a well known vietnamese poet, or well known enough to attract the attention of the communist authorities.

[Ele'ill]

I meant was the Vietnamese Communist Party actually communist.

[Lt. Ferret]

not in perfect theoretical land, no. but in real world political land, id say yes.

[#FF0000]

not in perfect theoretical land, no. but in real world political land, id say yes.

That doesn't make sense to me.

[Lt. Ferret]

if this is a gateway into "was X party really communist?" where X can be the soviet union, maoist china, vietnam, laos, cuba, etc the answer inevitably becomes no. but in the case of all real world applicable ways of describing north vietnam's political system to basically anyone, they were good ole dirty reds.

[gorillafuck]

The Vietnamese Communist Party were actual Marxist-Leninists, which is a communist of a certain variety. Whether they are good or not is a different discussion, but they were definitely Marxist Leninists.


the vietnamese communist party won. the vietnamese people lost. the US had a losing stalemate. china lost, and invaded vietnam briefly in 1979. the soviet union won.

i grew up in houston where a huge vietnamese community emerged after the way, houston and a few other cities welcomed refugees with open arms. one of my best buddies there, his father was imprisoned and tortured brutally by the communists for writing pacifist poetry. he has scars all over his body for it.
That's terrible, but it's not like US rule would have been anything better or even remotely good. In fact, US involvement was dropping napalm on children and burning down villages with flamethrowers, and I guarantee that that sort of torture would have happened to different people had the US won out in Vietnam.

[danyboy27]

oh i know the reason the communists won was because there was nobody in their right mind who would support the south vietnamese leadership.


and mari3l i honestly dont know the answer to exactly what he was up to in vietnam, im pretty sure he was just a well known vietnamese poet, or well known enough to attract the attention of the communist authorities.

south vietnam lost beccause of the debilitating effect american advisor had on the south vietnamese military and beccause the us political intervention left them politicly bankrupt.


South vietnamese troops where well known for their 0ver-relience on american logistics and advisors, when they where gone, the well trained north vietnamese troop overwhelmed them.

the U.S could have won, but the political cost would have been enormous. Perhaps if they would have suspended the American constitution for a decade or two, they could have succeded.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

The U.S. won in the short-term: The U.S. bombed Vietnam so intensely it won't recover anytime soon. And that was their objective: to send a message. Even if a "socialist" regime was set-up, they knew it was doomed to fail after what they had done to them. Plus, their main objective was to, as I said, "send a message" because what they really feared was Vietnam's neighbors (Thailand specifically) turning communist.

The U.S. won in the long-term: Vietnam is no longer a socialist-orientated country, and the capitalists hold them by the balls.

[RGacky3]

I'm not using this as an arugment for vietnam, because as far as I know they have their balls held by the capitalists.

But foreign investment is not always a sign of the Capitalist winning, if foreign investment is done on the investested countries terms many times that is positive, especially if that investment is done with sufficient public control. When Capital makes the rules, then it sucks. So a Picture of a KFC does'nt mean anything unless you include context.

[Bud Struggle]

So a Picture of a KFC does'nt mean anything unless you include context.

It means that a large intenational coglomerate (in this case Yum Brands with global sales of $11 Billion; they also own Toco Bell, A&W Root Beer, Pizza Hut, etc...) has a location in the country. It also means that it is the tip of the iceburg becuase if you see such a highly visible international company--there are no doubt hurdreds if not thousands of not so visible companies.

[ComradeMan]

It means that a large intenational coglomerate (in this case Yum Brands with global sales of $11 Billion; they also own Toco Bell, A&W Root Beer, Pizza Hut, etc...) has a location in the country. It also means that it is the tip of the iceburg becuase if you see such a highly visible international company--there are no doubt hurdreds if not thousands of not so visible companies.

It shows the bourgeois commodity market fetishists are invading the economy.

[RGacky3]

It means that a large intenational coglomerate (in this case Yum Brands with global sales of $11 Billion; they also own Toco Bell, A&W Root Beer, Pizza Hut, etc...) has a location in the country. It also means that it is the tip of the iceburg becuase if you see such a highly visible international company--there are no doubt hurdreds if not thousands of not so visible companies.

Which does'nt mean anything, that company could be at the beck and call of the communist party, or the other way around.

[ComradeMan]

Which does'nt mean anything, that company could be at the beck and call of the communist party, or the other way around.

In which parallel universe?

You can't defeat an argument based on fact with an appeal to a hypothesis.

A communist party at the beck and call of a capitalist multi-naltional- would that really be a communist party in the true sense?

[Bud Struggle]

company could be at the beck and call of the communist party,

Yea, that happens all the time. :rolleyes: :cool:

[ComradeMan]

Okay- I think this thread has run its course. So I will post my "answer" here and in the edit.

The United States achieved its major objectives in the Indochina region. Vietnam was wrecked and the US ensured that no successful development model in the region alternative to US capitalist models would be attained.

The check on this "victory" is that the US failed to achieve the full incorporation of Indochina within the US-dominated global system.

Source: N. Chomsky.

[RGacky3]

A communist party at the beck and call of a capitalist multi-naltional- would that really be a communist party in the true sense?

No, but many countries are reliant on investment.


Yea, that happens all the time.

Venezuela has done it, Bolivia did it, where I live the Fast Food chains have tons of public controls on them and they can't say a damn thing to the state.

[Bud Struggle]

NoVenezuela has done it, Bolivia did it, where I live the Fast Food chains have tons of public controls on them and they can't say a damn thing to the state.

No those countries own their companies--they aren't dealing with just internationals. And of course there are rules for the internationals--McDonalds can't flaunt health coeds--actually they WRITE the codes to make it more difficult for restaurants without huge resources to compete.

But the bottom line is where the profits go--the rest is just local codes.

[empiredestoryer]

the terrorist nation usa simpley ran out of money and had to leave

[Lt. Ferret]

sometimes people like eating KFC and drinking root beer. you can let companies into your country without betraying the communist ideal if done correctly.

[danyboy27]

sometimes people like eating KFC and drinking root beer. you can let companies into your country without betraying the communist ideal if done correctly.

or, you do like the chinese and create a chinese controlled food chain that offer basicly the same products made by chinese and that chinese will consume.

at the end, everybody is ''happy'' and the wealth stay in your country and is not exported oversea.

No wonder the chinese are the best capitalists on earth.

[ComradeMan]

So.... the US won the Vietnam War despite Rambo and people are hung up on KFC!!!!!! I'd thought Lieut. Ferret would have been pleased.

http://cdn2.knowyourmeme.com/i/6516/original/polar-bear-face-palm_thumbnail.jpg

[Ele'ill]

I'm not using this as an arugment for vietnam, because as far as I know they have their balls held by the capitalists.

But foreign investment is not always a sign of the Capitalist winning, if foreign investment is done on the investested countries terms many times that is positive, especially if that investment is done with sufficient public control. When Capital makes the rules, then it sucks. So a Picture of a KFC does'nt mean anything unless you include context.

Yes and no.

A KFC would indicate that KFC thought the conditions were perfect. Corporations rarely engage in a half-assed deal- they'd stomp their feet through the WTO and sue for barrier to trade.

[RGacky3]

Corporations rarely engage in a half-assed deal- they'd stomp their feet through the WTO and sue for barrier to trade.

They can do that sometimes, other times they can't. Corporations would MUCH rather have some profit than none profit, thats why there is tons of investment in China, even though the State regulates and controls it heavily.


No those countries own their companies--they aren't dealing with just internationals.

No they do, there are internationals that do buisiness and invest in those countries, but they do it on Venezeulas and BOlivias terms, they did ***** and moan about it but in the end, if they can't change the situation, they'd rather make a little money than none.

[ComradeMan]

They can do that sometimes, other times they can't. Corporations would MUCH rather have some profit than none profit, thats why there is tons of investment in China, even though the State regulates and controls it heavily.

Or they pull an "Italian job"- spend all the money, go bankrupt and get the government to bail them out with public funding.

[RGacky3]

That does'nt make sense, that only works if they are already heavily invested in the country.

[ComradeMan]

That does'nt make sense, that only works if they are already heavily invested in the country.

LOL!!!!!! Note which southern mediterranean companies have been going bankrupt for the last 40 years or so and always get balied out. The government can't win- if the factories go under the workers will be striking and rioting on the streets, it's all a big game....

When the shit really explodes- what do you do? You devalue the currency- oh wait, we can't do that anymore! Ooops!!!
:lol:

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I will also say that being in the Navy, I hope I get to make a port call there, since Vietnam is again in the US sphere.



The United States achieved its major objectives in the Indochina region. Vietnam was wrecked and the US ensured that no successful development model in the region alternative to US capitalist models would be attained.

The check on this "victory" is that the US failed to achieve the full incorporation of Indochina within the US-dominated global system.

Source: N. Chomsky.


I don't know what you mean by this. The USS John S McCain made a port call in Hanoi earlier this year (ie Vietnam is helping the US imperialize the world), the George Washington does excersizes with the Vietnamese from its home port in Japan, and as Bud pointed out, US corporations are investing in Vietnam and making money. What more would bring "full incorporation," an Air Force Base there? A few hundred Wal-Marts? Statehood?

All that time when we were fighting them people here seemed to think Vietnam was going to be an extension of China, but lo and behold Vietnam seems to care way less about not working with the US and way more about keeping the Chinese out. I think it's ironic.

[RGacky3]

LOL!!!!!! Note which southern mediterranean companies have been going bankrupt for the last 40 years or so and always get balied out. The government can't win- if the factories go under the workers will be striking and rioting on the streets, it's all a big game....



Those southern medeteranian companies were already in the countries and they already held the strings. Thats a whole different situation.

[ComradeMan]

Those southern medeteranian companies were already in the countries and they already held the strings. Thats a whole different situation.

Never heard of food for oil/aid?

In poorer countries big multinationals have just as many strings they can pull, and perhaps a lot harder too.

[Lt. Ferret]

vietnam was no longer a threat after 1979, when china invaded it as a show of force against the soviet union. it was shown to be a useless soviet satellite, and an enemy of china. it had no power. it has been a much better tool for the US to trade with it and use it as a bulwark against china, oddly enough.

[RGacky3]

Never heard of food for oil/aid?

In poorer countries big multinationals have just as many strings they can pull, and perhaps a lot harder too.

What I'm saying is if a country has a revolution, and then later allows foreign investment in WITH strings, thats a different situation.

[Rafiq]

Kentucky Fried Chicken won.

http://noodlepie.typepad.com/blog/images/kfc-front.jpg

Capitalism is much more effective at taking care of itself than the US Army. The US made a strategic mistake in Vietnam similar to the mistake it is now making in places like Iraq and Cuba and Iran but introducing hositlity and warfare. The interesting thing about Capitalism is how insidious it is. It starts quite wonderfully with Coca Cola or McDonalds or jeans and then spreads like cancer. The US Army on the other hand really works AGAINST Capitalism. They create a target that isn't all the pleasent and that people can fight and hate.

If America had as much faith in Capitalism as you Communists have in Marxism the US Army would never fight anywhere.

The best way for America to conquer the world is to let American corporations alone to sell their products.


This is bullshit.

The purpose of the US army is to make sure certain areas allow for corporations like Mcdonald's and KFC to sell their products.

Fail.

[Bud Struggle]

This is bullshit.

The purpose of the US army is to make sure certain areas allow for corporations like Mcdonald's and KFC to sell their products.

Fail.

Your "Fail" here is a little unclear.

[Dimentio]

This is an interesting theoretical question I came across.

Who "won" the Vietnam War?

I say the US actually won in real terms but a lot of people seem to disagree with this.

What are your opinions?

EDIT I- The "common" wisdom on the Vietnam War.


Result: North Vietnamese victory

Withdrawal of American forces from Indochina
Dissolution of South Vietnam
Communist governments take power in Cambodia and Laos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war

EDIT II- US critical victory.

The United States achieved its major objectives in the Indochina region. Vietnam was wrecked and the US ensured that no successful development model in the region alternative to US capitalist models would be attained.

The check on this "victory" is that the US failed to achieve the full incorporation of Indochina within the US-dominated global system.

North Vietnam won. The US goal was to contain socialism, and it failed.

Vietnam today is an economic powerhouse. Maybe it would have been so if South Vietnam had continued to be independent too, as most other South East Asian nations.

[Dimentio]

vietnam was no longer a threat after 1979, when china invaded it as a show of force against the soviet union. it was shown to be a useless soviet satellite, and an enemy of china. it had no power. it has been a much better tool for the US to trade with it and use it as a bulwark against china, oddly enough.

Uhh.

The Chinese were repelled and failed to stop the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia.

Talk about some "defeat", heh?

[ComradeMan]

North Vietnam won. The US goal was to contain socialism, and it failed.

Vietnam today is an economic powerhouse. Maybe it would have been so if South Vietnam had continued to be independent too, as most other South East Asian nations.

That's not Chomsky's view however.

Powerhouse? Hmmmmmmm China is a powerhouse. The US is a powerhouse....

[Rafiq]

Your "Fail" here is a little unclear.

Those buildings don't plop out of no where.

America has to make sure country's allow for Corporations like Mcdonald's to strive there, or else they will be put on America's shit list, or invaded.

In General, this is what the US military does when it invades nations:

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x271/DukeBuzzy/McFreedom.jpg

[Lt. Ferret]

Strangely enough the people in these countries flock to these new businesses and make them profitable.

[Revolution starts with U]

They flocked to Roman merchants as well.
(What I'm saying is, cheap prices are easy to maintain with superior weaponry and outright slaughter :lol:)

[Lt. Ferret]

dude people arent being coerced by laser guided bombs to go get a McDouble with cheese.

[milk]

Uhh.

The Chinese were repelled and failed to stop the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia.

Talk about some "defeat", heh?

Nope.

The Chinese didn't use air power or much in the way of artillery. The Vietnamese would have had more of a challenge if the Chinese had really meant business, but it was only a diversionary move, to draw Vietnamese forces to the border, giving the Pol Pot forces still in Cambodia time to breath. It was also a demonstration to the Vietnamese that the friendship treaty they had signed with the Soviet Union (which included military assistance) as insurance prior to the invasion of December 1978 wasn't worth the paper it had been printed on when it came to military back-up.

[Revolution starts with U]

They weren't being coerced by sword to buy from Roman merchants either. They were coerced to accept roman rule, and Roman economic interests exploited that (because that's their job).
A government is just a collection of its people. Too often people forget that.

[Rafiq]

dude people arent being coerced by laser guided bombs to go get a McDouble with cheese.

If a government refuses to allow McDonald's to do business in their country, yes they are.

[ComradeMan]

]They weren't being coerced by sword to buy from Roman merchants either. They were coerced to accept roman rule, and Roman economic interests exploited that (because that's their job).[/B]
A government is just a collection of its people. Too often people forget that.

... and were thus coerced into buying from Roman merchants... paying taxes to Rome and so on.

War-Politics-Economics- go hand in hand and always have done.

[Bud Struggle]

If a government refuses to allow McDonald's to do business in their country, yes they are.

Should a government not allow their citizens the freedom to buy what they like?

People LIKE to buy McDonald cheeseburgers. The problem with Capitalism is that it knows what people like and it sells it to them. Communism seems to want to limit people's freedom in this area.

[Dimentio]

Should a government not allow their citizens the freedom to buy what they like?

People LIKE to buy McDonald cheeseburgers. The problem with Capitalism is that it knows what people like and it sells it to them. Communism seems to want to limit people's freedom in this area.

The problems with capitalism is that it:

Perpetuates poverty and submission by establishing sweatshops and destroys local production.

Doesn't at all care for the wholeness of the social or the natural system, and could actually being destroying the planet for generations to come just to maximise the quarterly profits for a tiny minority.

Keeps the resources concentrated into the hands of that same tiny minority, meaning that most people are tied to the system.

As for socialism as applied in the Soviet Union and China during Mao's time, it was really more a kind of "social state authoritarianism". Socialism should mean that the people control the means of production, not a tiny minority.

As for product diversity, for example energy accounting allows for as much diversity as capitalism, with the difference that all people will have access to everything, and not just those who would afford it today.

[Revolution starts with U]

... and were thus coerced into buying from Roman merchants... paying taxes to Rome and so on.

War-Politics-Economics- go hand in hand and always have done.
That was kind of my point tho.

[ComradeMan]

How many different burgers would there be if it were not for the strangle hold certain chains have on the market?

I don't always buy into this "we give you variety" argument either- although the Soviet system did not provide much choice either, to be fair.

[Bud Struggle]

The problems with capitalism is that it:

Perpetuates poverty and submission by establishing sweatshops and destroys local production. OK, I'll take your word.


Doesn't at all care for the wholeness of the social or the natural system, and could actually being destroying the planet for generations to come just to maximise the quarterly profits for a tiny minority. Maybe true.


Keeps the resources concentrated into the hands of that same tiny minority, meaning that most people are tied to the system. Well, yea.


But for the money people like McDonald's cheeseburgers the best.

See the problem?

[Bud Struggle]

How many different burgers would there be if it were not for the strangle hold certain chains have on the market?


There is no strangle hold. You can make a burger. Go make one better than McDonalds--that's all you have to do.

They just are GOOD AT WHAT THEY DO.

[Revolution starts with U]

I've had many burgers better than Mc's. In fact, I havnt been to McD's in a few years. What they do is provide a convenience; cheap, fast, and everywhere.
No doubt McD's started well. It's when it gets big and starts demanding favors that it becomes a problem; too big to fail and all that.

[Bud Struggle]

I've had many burgers better than Mc's. In fact, I havnt been to McD's in a few years. What they do is provide a convenience; cheap, fast, and everywhere.


I didn't say they were good at making burgers--I said they were good at what they do--and people seem to like it.

[Rafiq]

Should a government not allow their citizens the freedom to buy what they like?

People LIKE to buy McDonald cheeseburgers. The problem with Capitalism is that it knows what people like and it sells it to them. Communism seems to want to limit people's freedom in this area.


Mcdonalds should not exist in the first place.

People "like" to buy McDonald's cheeseburgers, mostly from their propaganda ads.

Without advertising, where do you think McDonald's would be?

Even if people like McDonald's, they are one of the reasons for world starvation!


People like to have power, no?

So why not make me a dictator? I like power! You are limiting my freedom to be a dictator! You savage!

You are just fueling the vice of Man.

And stop throwing the word "communism" around. Something Libertarian Capitalists always do.

Compare Capitalism to Socialism, not Communism...

No, people shouldn't have the right to buy things from Company's who exploit workers and play into world hunger.

People shouldn't have the right to buy from Wal-Mart, a company that enslaves workers all across the globe.

I'm sorry, but people cannot always get what they want.

I suggest you read Karl Marx's "The Capital".

100% of the World is Capitalist and 80% is in poverty.

How's a say you go munch on your hamburger and fuck off.

[Rafiq]

But for the money people like McDonald's cheeseburgers the best.

See the problem?

Do you think people are born liking McDonald's?

I'm pretty sure Culture and Advertising are the real reason they like those cheeseburger's...


Which wouldn't exist in our future Society.

With twenty some years of hardcore propaganda implemented into a child from birth, your argument fails.

[Rafiq]

There is no strangle hold. You can make a burger. Go make one better than McDonalds--that's all you have to do.

They just are GOOD AT WHAT THEY DO.

Yeah, they are good at propaganda.


McDonald's cheeseburgers would taste like shit if you minus the culture and advertising.

Go make a better burger than Mcdonald's, then get a expert degree in Propaganda, infiltrate your countries government, implement bullshit into small children, have a P.H.D. in Child Psychology...

Seems a little unfair.

[Rafiq]

I've had many burgers better than Mc's. In fact, I havnt been to McD's in a few years. What they do is provide a convenience; cheap, fast, and everywhere.
No doubt McD's started well. It's when it gets big and starts demanding favors that it becomes a problem; too big to fail and all that.

McDonald's got big because of their commercials...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt4LWppOLtE&feature=related

Just watch that... Tell me it isn't targeting children

[ComradeMan]

And stop throwing the word "communism" around. Something Libertarian Capitalists always do.

He is a libertarian capitalist!

No need to flame people either.

Your ideas are hardly great at times either.

McDonald's don't do what anyone else wouldn't do in this system. I don't like them, but at the same time they are just as much part of the system as everything else-

At the same time Bud- you know how big companies don't always play by the rules themselves too... ;)

[Bud Struggle]

Mcdonalds should not exist in the first place. So YOU say.


People "like" to buy McDonald's cheeseburgers, mostly from their propaganda ads. so you say.


Without advertising, where do you think McDonald's would be? Just about where they are now. You have a problem with people telling other people what they do?


Even if people like McDonald's, they are one of the reasons for world starvation! Right. :rolleyes:



People like to have power, no?

So why not make me a dictator? I like power! You are limiting my freedom to be a dictator! You savage!

You are just fueling the vice of Man.

And stop throwing the word "communism" around. Something Libertarian Capitalists always do.

Compare Capitalism to Socialism, not Communism...

No, people shouldn't have the right to buy things from Company's who exploit workers and play into world hunger.

People shouldn't have the right to buy from Wal-Mart, a company that enslaves workers all across the globe.

I'm sorry, but people cannot always get what they want.

I suggest you read Karl Marx's "The Capital".

100% of the World is Capitalist and 80% is in poverty.

How's a say you go munch on your hamburger and fuck off.

zi6wNGwd84g

[ComradeMan]

Shariati- show me one company that didn't get "big" through advertising?

To say McDonald's are responsible for world starvation is a bit over the top, don't you think? I repeat, I personally don't like them, but you are making them out to be like the Empire in Star Wars.

Quote Shariati:
Which wouldn't exist in our future Society.

With twenty some years of hardcore propaganda implemented into a child from birth, your argument fails.

Doesn't that comment kind of blow your own argument about freedom and liberty etc away? Or do you mean the advertising is the propaganda?

[RGacky3]

To say McDonald's are responsible for world starvation is a bit over the top, don't you think?

Partially, its not at all over the top to say that corporations including McDonalds are responsible for world starvation.

I just read an article in the Economist (An extremely Capitalist magazine) about how Churchills policies lead to the mass starvations in Burma, I'm pretty sure that if you pointed that out back in Churchills day you'd be called a Lunatic, no no, power is never responsible for bad things that happen in the world.

[ComradeMan]

Partially, its not at all over the top to say that corporations including McDonalds are responsible for world starvation.

I just read an article in the Economist (An extremely Capitalist magazine) about how Churchills policies lead to the mass starvations in Burma, I'm pretty sure that if you pointed that out back in Churchills day you'd be called a Lunatic, no no, power is never responsible for bad things that happen in the world.

Sorry Gacky, but I don't see how those two examples are linked?

a = b = c ?

[Bud Struggle]

Partially, its not at all over the top to say that corporations including McDonalds are responsible for world starvation. Corporations!!!! It's like saying PEOPLE are responsible for whatever goes bad.


I just read an article in the Economist (An extremely Capitalist magazine) about how Churchills policies lead to the mass starvations in Burma, I'm pretty sure that if you pointed that out back in Churchills day you'd be called a Lunatic, no no, power is never responsible for bad things that happen in the world. And who was talking about Churchill??? :D

Yea, a guy with that much going on--screwed up--and did it big time.

Equating Winston Churchill with McDonalds is a streach.

Now comparing McDonalds with Church's Chicken---

http://www.755restaurant.com/images/churchs.jpg

;) :D

[RGacky3]

Corporations!!!! It's like saying PEOPLE are responsible for whatever goes bad.


Generally people are :P, but corporations are institutions.


And who was talking about Churchill??? :D

Yea, a guy with that much going on--screwed up--and did it big time.

Equating Winston Churchill with McDonalds is a streach.


My point is that people you consider "good guys" not actually being "good guys" is not crazy.

[Revolution starts with U]

People do cause mass starvation Bud. That's the point
corporate personhood should not exist

[Ele'ill]

Do you think people are born liking McDonald's?

I'm pretty sure Culture and Advertising are the real reason they like those cheeseburger's...




Bingo!


A company spends 3 million dollars advertising how they've gone green because their factories are run on snail queefs but they've just leveled thousands of acres of rainforest or dumped toxic waste into rivers somewhere because they can because there are no environmental protections in that host country

A company spends 20 million on advertising salaries and hires child psychologists onto the team to figure out the best 'hook'. Is this ok? This is mainstream now.

[Bud Struggle]

People do cause mass starvation Bud. That's the point
corporate personhood should not exist


Or maybe COLLECTIVE personhood. :)

[ComradeMan]

So-called "green" bio-fuels may well be responsible for more starvation in pushing the price of staples up. But no one attacks bio-fuels so much.

I repeat, I don't like McDonalds, but I don't think you can single them out either.

[Ele'ill]

So-called "green" bio-fuels may well be responsible for more starvation in pushing the price of staples up. But no one attacks bio-fuels so much.

I repeat, I don't like McDonalds, but I don't think you can single them out either.

It isn't just McDonalds doing it- any fast food chain that is still around uses the same tactics.

Each industry has these competition tactics.

[Revolution starts with U]

I agree, collective personhood should not exist. There is no need for the state. Persons themselves can form partnerships, but those partnerships should not become people in and of themselves.

[ComradeMan]

It isn't just McDonalds doing it- any fast food chain that is still around uses the same tactics.

Each industry has these competition tactics.

Well, don't buy their products then! ;)

[Bud Struggle]

It isn't just McDonalds doing it- any fast food chain that is still around uses the same tactics.

Each industry has these competition tactics.

If you don't like then don't pay attention to their advertising and don't buy what they have to sell. If other people like it--that's their life.

[Bud Struggle]

Well, don't buy their products then! ;)

We're brothers!

[Robert]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lt. Ferret http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1933450#post1933450)
dude people arent being coerced by laser guided bombs to go get a McDouble with cheese.
If a government refuses to allow McDonald's to do business in their country, yes they are.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1934015)

"Yes they are" what? "They" are coercing people to buy McDonalds hamburgers by refusing to allow McDonalds to do business? Maybe you mean if they allow McDonalds to do business it's the same as coercion? Either way it's complete nonsense. Do you feel obligated to eat at McDonalds?

What's stopping you from buying the ingredients and cooking the burger yourself? Other than laziness, I mean.

[Rafiq]

Shariati- show me one company that didn't get "big" through advertising?

To say McDonald's are responsible for world starvation is a bit over the top, don't you think? I repeat, I personally don't like them, but you are making them out to be like the Empire in Star Wars.

Quote Shariati:
Which wouldn't exist in our future Society.

With twenty some years of hardcore propaganda implemented into a child from birth, your argument fails.

Doesn't that comment kind of blow your own argument about freedom and liberty etc away? Or do you mean the advertising is the propaganda?

Advertising Is the propaganda.

And I'm not singling out McDonald's, every big corporation in the world does the same.

But Bud, the "libertarian" is defending McDonald's.

[Rafiq]

If you don't like then don't pay attention to their advertising and don't buy what they have to sell. If other people like it--that's their life.

Too bad.

They have too much money, money that belongs to the proletarian, which they stole and theived from their labour.


Sorry to tell you this, but they don't have the right to exist, nor should they have the money to advertise in the first place.

Libertarian Capitalism does not exist.

You would be soon controlled by private institutions, therefore the "Libertarian" part makes it contradiction in terms.

[Rafiq]

What's stopping you from buying the ingredients and cooking the burger yourself? Other than laziness, I mean.

Not everyone has billions and billions of dollars to campaign mass propaganda.

That's the only way you get big in the corporate world, advertising.

[ComradeMan]

Too bad.

They have too much money, money that belongs to the proletarian, which they stole and theived from their labour.

Sorry to tell you this, but they don't have the right to exist, nor should they have the money to advertise in the first place.

Sorry, but this doesn't work.

Who decides in this (reactionary) world who has a right to exist or not?

McDonald's started out like most other small take-aways? Didn't they? Would you shut down all restaurants and kebab shops etc in case they became franchises?

The proletariat are McDonald's major customers!!!!!!!

Don't buy their products if you don't like them and if enough people do that things will change.

They get their money for advertising from their profits.

As for the rest, they are no better or worse than any other capitalist enterprise, quite honestly I can think of a few that are much worse...

[Bud Struggle]

Too bad.:tt2:


They have too much money, money that belongs to the proletarian, which they stole and theived from their labour. Says you!



Sorry to tell you this, but they don't have the right to exist, nor should they have the money to advertise in the first place. More "says you."


Libertarian Capitalism does not exist. A further edition of "says you.."


You would be soon controlled by private institutions, therefore the "Libertarian" part makes it contradiction in terms. They try but Struggle Enterprises struggles on!

[Robert]

Who decides in this (reactionary) world who has a right to exist or not?

Shariati.:rolleyes:

[Rafiq]

Sorry, but this doesn't work.

Who decides in this (reactionary) world who has a right to exist or not?

McDonald's started out like most other small take-aways? Didn't they? Would you shut down all restaurants and kebab shops etc in case they became franchises?

The proletariat are McDonald's major customers!!!!!!!

Don't buy their products if you don't like them and if enough people do that things will change.

They get their money for advertising from their profits.

As for the rest, they are no better or worse than any other capitalist enterprise, quite honestly I can think of a few that are much worse...



Are you joking right now?

Have you ever read any Marx?

LOL, what is Communism to you?

We as Communists should oppose all forms of big business.

yes, the proles are their target, so? Does that make them Proletarian supporters?

I don't get it, what are you digging for exactly?

Maybe you're on the wrong forum.

[Rafiq]

:tt2:

Says you!


More "says you."

A further edition of "says you.."

They try but Struggle Enterprises struggles on!

Are you on the wrong forum or something?

Why do you go on Revleft?

To troll us?

All of your comments are counterproductive and trollish.

Come up with good arguments besides "Says you".

[Rafiq]

Shariati.:rolleyes:

No Marxist holds the belief that Corporations like McDonald's can exist...

Not just me.

[Robert]

Come up with good arguments besides "Says you".


Don't you understand the argument? We have to let majorities decide basic questions of commercial access, otherwise tyranny. Don't you believe in the People?

[Rafiq]

We have to let majorities decide basic questions of commercial access, otherwise tyranny. Don't you believe in the People?

Ay, but we must do this without the influence of a third party.

Meaning, you can't let majorities decide basic questions of commercial access, until:

1. All means of Propaganda are Destroyed

1A. The educational system refrain from indoctrination of competitive and Capitalistic attitudes

1B. The educational system halt all forms of propaganda

1C. The Mass education of the masses, until they can create there own opinion

1D. Abolition of Corporate Propaganda

Otherwise, it wouldn't be the majority deciding, it would be corporate bourgeois deciding!

Don't you ever take into consideration that propaganda plays a huge role in all of this?

Propaganda and Culture dominate the Average Proletarian's life and opinion

[Robert]

1C. The Mass education of the masses, until they can create there own opinion

Lovely.

Goodbye.

[ComradeMan]

Are you joking right now?

Not particularly



Have you ever read any Marx?

Yes


LOL, what is Communism to you?

The ultimate true form of democracy, not some pseudo-Soviet tyranny or authoritarian Orwellian thought-control state.


We as Communists should oppose all forms of big business.

No, we should oppose the systems and mechanisms that create and perpetuate those forms of big business. But on that note, I opposed narco-capitalism and was accused of being this, that and the other.


yes, the proles are their target, so? Does that make them Proletarian supporters?

McDonalds don't have "targets" as you make out. Anyone can buy a burger or not buy a burger. It's not the same as say, the banking system, which you cannot avoid and have forced upon you. See the difference? It's not the same as other sectors in which people have no choice whatsoever.

I don't have any stats, but I think you could reasonably and safely argue that McDonalds customer base, who are not coerced into buying hamburgers, are mostly proletarian.

I don't like fast food chains, I don't think they are "healthy" and like most capitalist enterprises, i.e. part of capitalism, the do what they have to do to survive within capitalism. At the same time I don't think they are resonsible for half of world starvation- as you suggested.



I don't get it, what are you digging for exactly?

Well this thread was about the Vietnam War, and Bud- in his Buddish way- pointed out that when US businesses are opening and flourishing in a given territory it could be viewed as a "victory" for the US. Fundamentally the US does not seek to conquer territories with armies, sack cities and enslave populations like some medieval conquering army- although even then economics were a driving factor. US foreign policy is dictated primarily by securing terrain fertile for economic exploitations by US capitalists. It's nothing personal- it's just business. I don't like that of course, but that is the reality of the world we live in.


Maybe you're on the wrong forum.

Why? The fact of the matter is that you haven't presented a solid argument against a capitalist like Bud, I don't support his views but they are valid views in that they are the views that capitalists would use as a counter-arguments. What do you want? An echo-chamber?

Like Chomsky said- if you don't want terrorism then don't participate in it. If you don't want capitalism then do your best not to participate in it. Revolutions begin in the mind, they begin with YOU!

[Revolution starts with U]

Check the name byitches :D

[Rafiq]

Like Chomsky said- if you don't want terrorism then don't participate in it. If you don't want capitalism then do your best not to participate in it. Revolutions begin in the mind, they begin with YOU!


So if you're against war, STOP participating in it, stop paying your taxes.

Are you against War?

Are you against Murder?

Stop participating in it.

Otherwise, it means you like War and Murder.

This is form your own logic.

So never go against those two, unless you don't pay taxes (according to your logic),

[Rafiq]

Not particularly





The ultimate true form of democracy, not some pseudo-Soviet tyranny or authoritarian Orwellian thought-control state.




Why? The fact of the matter is that you haven't presented a solid argument against a capitalist like Bud, I don't support his views but they are valid views in that they are the views that capitalists would use as a counter-arguments. What do you want? An echo-chamber?

Like Chomsky said- if you don't want terrorism then don't participate in it. If you don't want capitalism then do your best not to participate in it. Revolutions begin in the mind, they begin with YOU!

Obviously you didn't read my comments.

Don't fucking ask for them either, just read.

[ComradeMan]

So if you're against war, STOP participating in it, stop paying your taxes.
Are you against War?



Are you against Murder?

Stop participating in it.

Otherwise, it means you like War and Murder.

This is form your own logic.

So never go against those two, unless you don't pay taxes (according to your logic),

Where I live errhum... paying taxes.... errhumm.... LOL!!!!!!!!!! :laugh:

Italy- number one for tax evasion in Europe I believe. In fact the recent amnesty on tax evasion yielded $129 billion- however most of the serious tax-evaders, the bourgeois "have-yachts" as they were called would thus be revolutionaries by your logic.

Secondly, I have no choice paying taxes do I?

But I do have a choice going to a fast-food outlet, don't I?

So, by being coerced with the threat of jail and prosecution I am forced to pay my taxes it means I like war and murder? :confused:

Despite the fact of course that my taxes also pay for things like schools, public healthcare, road maintenence and the Christmas Lights for the kids....

Yeah... master of perspective tonight, aren't we?

Please...

[RGacky3]

So if you're against war, STOP participating in it, stop paying your taxes.

Are you against War?

Are you against Murder?

Stop participating in it.

Otherwise, it means you like War and Murder.

This is form your own logic.

So never go against those two, unless you don't pay taxes (according to your logic),

Thats not logic at all, because that won't change anything except get you in prison, you'll influence things much more through trying to pressure the powers that be through other means.

BTW, that quote was directed against people who have power and who claim to want to fight terrorism.

[S.Artesian]

This is an interesting theoretical question I came across.

Who "won" the Vietnam War?

I say the US actually won in real terms but a lot of people seem to disagree with this.

What are your opinions?

EDIT I- The "common" wisdom on the Vietnam War.


Result: North Vietnamese victory

Withdrawal of American forces from Indochina
Dissolution of South Vietnam
Communist governments take power in Cambodia and Laos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war

EDIT II- US critical victory.

The United States achieved its major objectives in the Indochina region. Vietnam was wrecked and the US ensured that no successful development model in the region alternative to US capitalist models would be attained.

The check on this "victory" is that the US failed to achieve the full incorporation of Indochina within the US-dominated global system.


Not hardly. The US did not keep in power the regime it wanted to keep in power. The US did not prevent the expropriation of private property. This wasn't about development models. That the US was prepared to destroy the entire economy, and kill millions only shows how important that property form is.

The US did not have any long term objectives in Vietnam, and certainly did not have the foresight to say-- "hah... let's destroy the country, lose the war, destroy a presidency [Nixon's], fuck our economy, so that in the long term we'll actually be victorious in Vietnam. "

If you have that much foresight, why even go to war? Why not just bomb the hell out of them with Visa cards, Mastercards, American Express Cards; why not fire beehive rounds filled with student loan applications, mortgage agreements, rather than flechettes? Why not just drop inflatable malls into the highlands and delta and let the Vietnamese shop themselves write into the circuits of capital?

Nixon and Kissinger, all through and even at the conclusion of the Peace Accords thought they could win in VN through air power and logistical support to the ARVN.

Yet, despite the destruction, the US was not capable of creating a regime that could sustain itself and win support from the population in opposition to the NLF/PRG-- thus the US lost. Plain and simple. And it the process, wrecked its army for about a decade.

[S.Artesian]

It was that very military spending by the United States that was responsible for bring down the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain countries.

No, that is not the case at all. What brought down the Soviet Union was its inability to resolve the issues of productivity in city and countryside; to develop agriculture in order to reduce the numbers required to sustain it [almost 33% of the population].

This in turn was a legacy of Russia's relative backwardness, the uneven nature, and impact, of the 5 year plans, the incredible destruction inflicted by Nazi Germany in WW2, and-- the real source of all the foregoing-- the failure of the proletarian revolution to conquer power internationally.

Defense spending may have exacerbated certain conflicts in the fSU economy. "Trying to keep up with the US" certain did not create those conflicts, weaknesses.

[RGacky3]

It was that very military spending by the United States that was responsible for bring down the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain countries.

And what a great investment that was :)

[Bud Struggle]

No, that is not the case at all. What brought down the Soviet Union was its inability to resolve the issues of productivity in city and countryside; to develop agriculture in order to reduce the numbers required to sustain it [almost 33% of the population]. And all that could have been resolved if there was no compitition from the outside (i.e. the United States.)


This in turn was a legacy of Russia's relative backwardness, the uneven nature, and impact, of the 5 year plans, the incredible destruction inflicted by Nazi Germany in WW2, and-- the real source of all the foregoing-- the failure of the proletarian revolution to conquer power internationally. That was in general was the failure of Communism in general. If if is (was) so delecate that it couldn't compete in the Marketplace--could it actually be of any use?


Defense spending may have exacerbated certain conflicts in the fSU economy. "Trying to keep up with the US" certain did not create those conflicts, weaknesses. I think it did. Soviet defence spending was the same as US defence spending in the cold war--it was like space--a competition.

[Bud Struggle]

And what a great investment that was :)

And it worked! :D

[RGacky3]

It did, but honestly, what good did it really do for America? Is America better off now that the USSR is gone?

[Bud Struggle]

It did, but honestly, what good did it really do for America? Is America better off now that the USSR is gone?

Yea. We have a new enemy and we're moved on. There's never going to be a resolution.

It goes on and on. To think there's going to be a happy=happy coffee bean picking land at the end of all of this conflict is just--happy=happy!

WAKE UP!!!

[RGacky3]

Yea. We have a new enemy and we're moved on. There's never going to be a resolution.


Ok ..... So, what good did it do for the American people???

[Bud Struggle]

Ok ..... So, what good did it do for the American people???


All good Brother, All good. We are and will be selling more goods into our once enemy. In a little while there'll be McDonalds in Afghanistan. And Iraq. The oil will move, the minerals will move.

All good.

[RGacky3]

Ok ...... So ...... What good did it do for the American people?

[Rafiq]

Thats not logic at all, because that won't change anything except get you in prison, you'll influence things much more through trying to pressure the powers that be through other means.

BTW, that quote was directed against people who have power and who claim to want to fight terrorism.

I know that logic is faulty, I was just stating that Comrademan's logic is not good at all.

[Rafiq]

Where I live errhum... paying taxes.... errhumm.... LOL!!!!!!!!!! :laugh:

Italy- number one for tax evasion in Europe I believe. In fact the recent amnesty on tax evasion yielded $129 billion- however most of the serious tax-evaders, the bourgeois "have-yachts" as they were called would thus be revolutionaries by your logic.

Secondly, I have no choice paying taxes do I?

But I do have a choice going to a fast-food outlet, don't I?

So, by being coerced with the threat of jail and prosecution I am forced to pay my taxes it means I like war and murder? :confused:

Despite the fact of course that my taxes also pay for things like schools, public healthcare, road maintenence and the Christmas Lights for the kids....

Yeah... master of perspective tonight, aren't we?

Please...


So, do you think that every American wants War and Murder?

And do you advocate every American stop paying his taxes and go to jail?

[Bud Struggle]

Ok ...... So ...... What good did it do for the American people?

It's fine. It's how we make a living.

[RGacky3]

The American people make a living investing in Russia? We'll I don't know any of those American people.


I know that logic is faulty, I was just stating that Comrademan's logic is not good at all.

My Bad.

[Rafiq]

That was in general was the failure of Communism in general. If if is (was) so delecate that it couldn't compete in the Marketplace--could it actually be of any use?


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Do you really think Russia was ever Communist? Hahahhahaa!

LOL do you even know what Communism is? Have you ever read ANYTHING by Karl Marx?

Even under Semi-Socialism, the USSR brought up the living standards of it's people TREMENDOUSLY.

Now it's right back into the shithole it was before Semi-Socialism.

Don't give me a fucking link to fox news stating otherwise either, bud.

Please don't use the word Communism until you know what it means.

Hey, I guess I have sympathy for uneducated people like you though..

Besides, the Soviet Union was constantly under siege by every Capitalist superpower existing... I think they did a pretty good job surviving for more than twenty years!

[Rafiq]

All good Brother, All good. We are and will be selling more goods into our once enemy. In a little while there'll be McDonalds in Afghanistan. And Iraq. The oil will move, the minerals will move.

All good.

Russia is a huge shithole right now...

Capitalist success!

[Redliberation]

This is an interesting theoretical question I came across.

Who "won" the Vietnam War?

I say the US actually won in real terms but a lot of people seem to disagree with this.

What are your opinions?

EDIT I- The "common" wisdom on the Vietnam War.


Result: North Vietnamese victory

Withdrawal of American forces from Indochina
Dissolution of South Vietnam
Communist governments take power in Cambodia and Laos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war

EDIT II- US critical victory.

The United States achieved its major objectives in the Indochina region. Vietnam was wrecked and the US ensured that no successful development model in the region alternative to US capitalist models would be attained.

The check on this "victory" is that the US failed to achieve the full incorporation of Indochina within the US-dominated global system.

I will hold a presentation about Vietnam tomorrow @Uni. Actually Vietnam was economically very successful until December 1978 when they occupied Cambodia and international help/trade relationships were cancelled for the most parts of the world.

[ComradeMan]

So, do you think that every American wants War and Murder?

And do you advocate every American stop paying his taxes and go to jail?

Before being an asshole why don't you check the posts and see what I was replying to?

I was pointing out the lack of argument that Shariati used against me... DUH!!!!!!

Edit- sorry, you are Shariati- you've just changed your name. Even more of a prick then seeing as you are contradicting your own argument.

So, do you think that every American wants War and Murder?

No and that wasn't my point.

Try reading a few posts back already! :lol: That would be logical.

[Bud Struggle]

Russia is a huge shithole right now...

Capitalist success!

Russia was a huge shithole before....Communist success!

[RGacky3]

So Bud, I take it your conceding that it did'nt do Jack for the American people?

[Bud Struggle]

So Bud, I take it your conceding that it did'nt do Jack for the American people?


Gee, never said that. We are here--they are gone. :)

[Rafiq]

Before being an asshole why don't you check the posts and see what I was replying to?

I was pointing out the lack of argument that Shariati used against me... DUH!!!!!!

Edit- sorry, you are Shariati- you've just changed your name. Even more of a prick then seeing as you are contradicting your own argument.

So, do you think that every American wants War and Murder?

No and that wasn't my point.

Try reading a few posts back already! :lol: That would be logical.


Go back to the comment where I asked you if you should pay your taxes.

You then stated that you live in Italy, not America.

So I'm asking

People who do live in America, should they pay their taxes?

[S.Artesian]

And all that could have been resolved if there was no compitition from the outside (i.e. the United States.)

Exactly what "competition from the outside"? Exactly how did US competition in the world markets act to restrict Soviet productivity?


That was in general was the failure of Communism in general. If if is (was) so delecate that it couldn't compete in the Marketplace--could it actually be of any use?

This is not about Milton Friedman's mythology of the free market; the fairy tale of laissez-faire; the phony baloney of Hayek's economic liberty. We're talking about class struggle, not a failure to return a required profit in the market place. This is something decided in blood. So the failure was the failure to seek out, close with, engage, and destroy the enemy before the enemy seeks out, closes with, and destroys your attempt to engage it. We're not talking distributing surplus value. We're talking about power.


I think it did. Soviet defence spending was the same as US defence spending in the cold war--it was like space--a competition.

I know you think that. You have to prove that, however. You need to show how the economy could have and would have survived, and prospered, had it not been for defense spending.

The economic conflicts and weaknesses of the fSU were of long-standing. Under the "forced march" "war socialism" of WW2, those conflicts were contained by the sheer weight of events.

Reconstruction after WW2 never resolved the fundamental issues of productivity in agriculture and relations between city and countryside.

[Rafiq]

Russia was a huge shithole before....Communist success!

Again, I fill pity for you if you think that was Communism.

But even with only Semi Socialism, Russia was not a shithole.

In fact, the Soviet Standards of living drastically improved.

Now they are far worse then before.

Bud Struggles Response:

Wall I tink dat Russa was Kommunest bekuz may schkool historuy buuk sayd it was Communist.

No, gtfo and read Marx before you post stupid bullshit.

Then we can talk :)

[S.Artesian]

Russia was a huge shithole before....Communist success!


Wait a minute... before the good old Jeff Sachs/Chicago School economists took over, the life expectancy for men was much much higher; education and employment opportunities for women were much greater, much closer to, but not completely equal to that of men; public healthcare and medicine was much more expansive. In short, living standards were much better.

Maybe that doesn't mean anything to you... but in the scheme of things, in history it counts for something.

So less of a shithole before collapse and capitalist restoration.

[RGacky3]

Gee, never said that. We are here--they are gone. :)

Ok, how is them being gone of any benefit at all to the American people.

[ComradeMan]

Go back to the comment where I asked you if you should pay your taxes.

You then stated that you live in Italy, not America.

So I'm asking

People who do live in America, should they pay their taxes?


Do they have a choice?

And is it the same as going to McDonald's?

Completely silly analogy and argument in my opinion.

[Bud Struggle]

Again, I fill pity for you if you think that was Communism.

But even with only Semi Socialism, Russia was not a shithole.

In fact, the Soviet Standards of living drastically improved.

Now they are far worse then before.

Bud Struggles Response:

Wall I tink dat Russa was Kommunest bekuz may schkool historuy buuk sayd it was Communist.

No, gtfo and read Marx before you post stupid bullshit.

Then we can talk :)

Ever try to get a cup of coffee in Moscow before the Soviet Union fell?

Been there done that. Et tu?

[Bud Struggle]

Ok, how is them being gone of any benefit at all to the American people.

America if a successful economy. Ask the Mexicans why they they trust their countrymen to sometimes smuggle (somestimes betray) them into entry into the US.

[S.Artesian]

Ever try to get a cup of coffee in Moscow before the Soviet Union fell?

Been there done that. Et tu?

That's great. That's how we judge. Whether or not there's a Starbucks on every fucking corner.

Forget about that little thing called life expectancy; that thing called literacy; that meaningless thing called access to safe drinking water [as compromised as it may have been in areas of industrial pollution]. Yeah what counts is whether or not me and my friends can get a double whipped latte frappuccino with an extra shot and soy ice cream.

Do us a favor, will you and.... blow?

[Rafiq]

Ever try to get a cup of coffee in Moscow before the Soviet Union fell?

Been there done that. Et tu?

No, I wasn't old enough.

I doubt you were too.

In Moscow, in soviet times, You could get a cup of coffee.

I promise.

[Rafiq]

America if a successful economy. Ask the Mexicans why they they trust their countrymen to sometimes smuggle (somestimes betray) them into entry into the US.

America does have a successful economy.

But for who?

America

Doesn't have a democracy either.

So where is their successful economy concentrated into?

And how'd they get there?

War had nothing to do with it?

[Rafiq]

Ask the Mexicans why they they trust their countrymen to sometimes smuggle (somestimes betray) them into entry into the US.

Ask the Mexicans why they think Capitalism in America will turn out any different then it did in Mexico.

[Rafiq]

Man, I feel bad for you bud.

Having to limit yourself to Capitalist beliefs.

It's so much better being a Socialist. It just feels so much greater

Sucks for you.

[ComradeMan]

America does have a successful economy.

But for who?

America



Since when did countries really act altruistically in a real sense?

Not that I agree with the reality, but- yeah- just like a man works for himself America works for herself and her own interests. That's the way things are.

There is no point trying to paint the USSR as an economic success because it wasn't.

That's not to say I think it was a complete failure on every level either.

However by the 1980s it was crumbling economically and that cannot be denied.

http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/the_soviet_model_and_the_economic_cold_war_01331.h tml


But what has this got to do with your point about McDonalds?

[Ele'ill]

america if a successful economy. Ask the mexicans why they they trust their countrymen to sometimes smuggle (somestimes betray) them into entry into the us.

nafta

[Revolution starts with U]

Bud's a luxurious guy. Stop oppressing his right to eat cake while watching someone starve! :rolleyes:

[ComradeMan]

Bud's a luxurious guy. Stop oppressing his right to eat cake while watching someone starve! :rolleyes:


Do you eat cake?

[S.Artesian]

America if a successful economy. Ask the Mexicans why they they trust their countrymen to sometimes smuggle (somestimes betray) them into entry into the US.

I don't have to ask them: because a) in anticipation of NAFTA, land laws were changed so that village land, pueblo land, and individual land could be privatized, bought and sold-- that as a result many in rural areas could no longer maintain subsistence production and had to leave the land.

At the same time, the fluctuations of oil prices, and the overproduction of world markets drove real wages in the cities down by more than 50% during the crises of the 1980s, and drove them down again in the crisis of 1994, forcing wage levels below subsistence requirements and forcing people to migrate to El Norte.

So, no, the migration wasn't produced by US capitalism being so attractive, but rather by capitalism on the international scale dispossessing rural populations, and driving wages below subsistence levels.

Why don't you take your head out of your free market ass and trying saying something that doesn't stink of shit?

[Revolution starts with U]

There is a little bit of a point, Comrade. You can point out what successes it did have to combat the right wing portrayal of it as absolute desperation. You can also point out that the problems of M-L and vangaurdism, and how statism has no real relevance to socialist theory. Statism is a means proposed by some, and opposed by others.

[Revolution starts with U]

It was a joking reference to Marie Antoinette. :blushing:

[Rafiq]

Since when did countries really act altruistically in a real sense?

Not that I agree with the reality, but- yeah- just like a man works for himself America works for herself and her own interests. That's the way things are.

There is no point trying to paint the USSR as an economic success because it wasn't.

That's not to say I think it was a complete failure on every level either.

However by the 1980s it was crumbling economically and that cannot be denied.

http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/the_soviet_model_and_the_economic_cold_war_01331.h tml


But what has this got to do with your point about McDonalds?



The USSR, a Nation creating an economy out of completely nothing,

constantly under siege and harassment by Imperialist states,

With America doing Anything it can to crumble it's economy,

I'd say they were successful.

[Rafiq]

Do you eat cake?

He's making a point.

Are you even a Communist?

Because it looks like you're just trying to kiss Bud's capitalist ass to keep your friendship with him.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't have to ask them: because a) in anticipation of NAFTA, land laws were changed so that village land, pueblo land, and individual land could be privatized, bought and sold-- that as a result many in rural areas could no longer maintain subsistence production and had to leave the land.

At the same time, the fluctuations of oil prices, and the overproduction of world markets drove real wages in the cities down by more than 50% during the crises of the 1980s, and drove them down again in the crisis of 1994, forcing wage levels below subsistence requirements and forcing people to migrate to El Norte.

So, no, the migration wasn't produced by US capitalism being so attractive, but rather by capitalism on the international scale dispossessing rural populations, and driving wages below subsistence levels.

Why don't you take your head out of your free market ass and trying saying something that doesn't stink of shit?

No offense but the "fluxuations in oil prices" and the price of the peso and all of that is nonsense.

[S.Artesian]

No offense but the "fluxuations in oil prices" and the price of the peso and all of that is nonsense.

None taken.

No offense, but you're an idiot. Why don't you look at the supposed "recovery" of the fSU and tell us again how fluctuations in oil prices had nothing to do with it?

Why don't you take a gander at Venezuela and tell us how fluctuations in oil prices have had nothing to do with the economic distress of the last 2 years and the declining popularity of Chavez?

Take a look at the actual results of the currency crises in Mexico in the 1980s, and the 1994 re-funding by the US and look at the trends in wages and living standards, and the direct results of those crises on employment levels. Tell us again how the severe economic contractions are nonsense.

Or don't take a look... but you are obviously a smug, self-satisfied, poseur and not worth a second of anyone's time.

[Bud Struggle]

None taken.

No offense, but you're an idiot. Why don't you look at the supposed "recovery" of the fSU and tell us again how fluctuations in oil prices had nothing to do with it?

Why don't you take a gander at Venezuela and tell us how fluctuations in oil prices have had nothing to do with the economic distress of the last 2 years and the declining popularity of Chavez? That's life!


Take a look at the actual results of the currency crises in Mexico in the 1980s, and the 1994 re-funding by the US and look at the trends in wages and living standards, and the direct results of those crises on employment levels. Tell us again how the severe economic contractions are nonsense. It's obvious that Mexico os a two teir economic state--rich and poor. Not ideal for any economic growth, they need to sort that out. Mexico tends to have a low employment low wages economy--they could do better especially with oil income, but they choose another path. It's Mexico's choice.


Or don't take a look... but you are obviously a smug, self-satisfied, poseur and not worth a second of anyone's time. Well now your coopted the Gacky plan of discussion. :D

[ComradeMan]

He's making a point.

Are you even a Communist?

Because it looks like you're just trying to kiss Bud's capitalist ass to keep your friendship with him.

Okay gloves.. off...

Now listen to me very carefully you insiduous two-faced political dwarf :lol: when all your contributions are nothing but one liners and stupid analogies with half-baked "luoghi communi" (common knowledge sayings) that you do not even attempt to substantiate and when you blatantly contradict your own argument in some weird attempt to prove I don't know quite what it hardly persuades me to take you seriously, does it?

I have never and never will kiss anyone's ass in my life but I may have kicked a few in my time and I don't need to be questioned by the likes of you or anyone else for what I choose to say or choose not to say here or anywhere else.

I suggest you look up what communism is because people like you give Bud and argument against it.

Peace and love....

[Revolution starts with U]

I got $10 on the big guy :D

[Bud Struggle]

Originally Posted by Chapayev http://www.revleft.com/vb/vietnam-woni-t144813/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/vietnam-woni-t144813/showthread.php?p=1935340#post1935340) He's making a point.

Are you even a Communist?

Because it looks like you're just trying to kiss Bud's capitalist ass to keep your friendship with him.


Stop it..CM disagrees with me more than he agrees.

But unlike most Communist HE'S HONEST.

Honesty would have gotten him shot in Soviet Russia and Maoist China--why not on RevLet?

[ComradeMan]

I got $10 on the big guy :D

I know you were joking about the cake! ;) So was I!!!

But did you know there is another twist to that phrase let them eat cake? I heard that "cake" was military slang for the kegs of powder used in the canons, so let them eat cake could possibly have meant "let them eat canon fire"...

Who knows?

Anyway. I just don't think you can compare being coerced into paying taxes with supporting war and murder... as was Shari_Chapayev's pseudo-point.

If everyone where I live did pay their fucking taxes the roads might be repaired better and public services wouldn't suffer.

[Ele'ill]

Okay gloves.. off...

Now listen to me very carefully you insiduous two-faced political dwarf :lol: when all your contributions are nothing but one liners and stupid analogies with half-baked "luoghi communi" (common knowledge sayings) that you do not even attempt to substantiate and when you blatantly contradict your own argument in some weird attempt to prove I don't know quite what it hardly persuades me to take you seriously, does it?

I have never and never will kiss anyone's ass in my life but I may have kicked a few in my time and I don't need to be questioned by the likes of you or anyone else for what I choose to say or choose not to say here or anywhere else.

I suggest you look up what communism is because people like you give Bud and argument against it.

Yeah but why haven't you said this to Bud yet?

[Bud Struggle]

I got $10 on the big guy :D

Mao? :D

[ComradeMan]

Yeah but why haven't you said this to Bud yet?


...err..... because Bud didn't accuse me of supporting war and murder for paying taxes when I was merely stating that McDonald's customer base is mostly proletarian and if you don't like McDonald's don't buy a Big Mac...:confused:

[Ele'ill]

Okay gloves.. off...

Now listen to me very carefully you insiduous two-faced political dwarf :lol: when all your contributions are nothing but one liners and stupid analogies with half-baked "luoghi communi" (common knowledge sayings) that you do not even attempt to substantiate and when you blatantly contradict your own argument in some weird attempt to prove I don't know quite what it hardly persuades me to take you seriously, does it?

I have never and never will kiss anyone's ass in my life but I may have kicked a few in my time and I don't need to be questioned by the likes of you or anyone else for what I choose to say or choose not to say here or anywhere else.

I mean this could have been a valid response to several of Budstruggle's posts- I was questioning why you didn't call Bud on these same tactics.

[ComradeMan]

I mean this could have been a valid response to several of Budstruggle's posts- I was questioning why you didn't call Bud on these same tactics.

Well if we are going to start playing this little game....

Mari3L's favourite revolutionary quote...

"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a
really easy way: stop participating in it." Chomsky

When I talked about not participating in narco-capitalism, as best possible, it wasn't valid. When I talked about boycotting companies, it wasn't valid.

So how come you don't call people out on that?

FYI- I have many disagreements with Bud, and if you do notice have attempted to try and keep the topic on track too- on both sides, and rebuked him from being over-facetious.

[Bud Struggle]

...err..... because Bud didn't accuse me of supporting war and murder for paying taxes when I was merely stating that McDonald's customer base is mostly proletarian and if you don't like McDonald's don't buy a Big Mac...:confused:

I (unfortunately for you Communists) am pretty honest in what say. I may spin the fact to my liking--but the facts are the facts.

And I'm a non aggressive poster. I attack positions not people.

My politics may be despicable to you, but I try not to be that way personally. Unlike most posters here who are something of the opposite. :)

[Ele'ill]

I (unfortunately for you Communists) am pretty honest in what say. I may spin the fact to my liking--but the facts are the facts.

And I'm a non aggressive poster. I attack positions not people.

My politics may be despicable to you, but I try not to be that way personally. Unlike most posters here who are something of the opposite. :)

Good defense, and what relation are you to the accused? oh..

[Ele'ill]

Well if we are going to start playing this little game....

Mari3L's favourite revolutionary quote...

"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a
really easy way: stop participating in it." Chomsky

That isn't my favorite revolutionary quote. You posted it and then asked where it was from. I said I thought it was from Chomsky's 'Power and Terror'.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolutionary-quotes-t145074/index.html


When I talked about not participating in narco-capitalism, as best possible, it wasn't valid. When I talked about boycotting companies, it wasn't valid.With due respect to a base level of honesty and integrity on this forum there was 30+ pages of explanation as to exactly why your views were being attacked. Some of your stances were correct but your tactics were shit and it was explained in painfully detailed prose, song, novel and manuscript format why. Even more importantly, this has nothing to do with anything at all in this thread.


So how come you don't call people out on that?If you couldn't find the reasons in 30+ pages that's your fault or your intention. Let's stop trying to kid the world for a moment- what does this have to do with what I said two posts above?

You were ridiculing a poster for
Now listen to me very carefully you insiduous two-faced political dwarf :lol: when all your contributions are nothing but one liners and stupid analogies with half-baked "luoghi communi" (common knowledge sayings) that you do not even attempt to substantiate and when you blatantly contradict your own argument in some weird attempt to prove I don't know quite what it hardly persuades me to take you seriously, does it?

When that can be a perfectly valid critique of BudStruggle's posts :confused:

It was an honest question.


FYI- I have many disagreements with Bud, and if you do notice have attempted to try and keep the topic on track too- on both sides, and rebuked him from being over-facetious.I see you thanking a lot of BudStruggle's posts that are in the same format as that other user's who you criticized for it.

[ComradeMan]

That isn't my favorite revolutionary quote. You posted it and then asked where it was from. I said I thought it was from Chomsky's 'Power and Terror'.

Do you agree with the quote? If so....



With due respect to a base level of honesty and integrity on this forum there was 30+ pages of explanation as to exactly why your views were being attacked. Some of your stances were correct but your tactics were shit and it was explained in painfully detailed prose, song, novel and manuscript format why. Even more importantly, this has nothing to do with anything at all in this thread.

I seem to remember people insulting others, contradicting themselves, using ad hominems and refusing to answer the points... seems to be a common tactic here. And anyway, if you agree with the Chomsky quote.. then well......

Second point, if you are going to accuse people of being hypocrits, which is what you did- then you are going to be put under the magnifying glass too...

This whole thread was about the fucking Vietnam War and different perspectives on who "won" it... as I seem to recall...


.....You were ridiculing a poster for....
When that can be a perfectly valid critique of BudStruggle's posts :confused:


I wasn't ridiculing anyone- the posts were so inane that they actually made Bud's cappie arguments seem valid. :crying:

Shari-Chapayev came out with some non-sensical and weirdly illogical stuff about supporting war and murder by paying taxes and also previously stated that McDonald's was responsible for world starvation....

Look up the meaning of the word Pravda...


I see you thanking a lot of BudStruggle's posts that are in the same format as that other user's who you criticized for it.

Do you see that I also thank a lot of the posts that go against Bud too- except I don't like it when people start getting openly abusive, note I called Gacky out for using the word "retarded"- I thought that would have deserved a thank you for pointing out how prejudiced language is out of place here... why didn't you thank that post Mari3L? OMG You must support prejudiced language OMG OMG.....

Now, you seem to think that thanking posts is some kind of approval for the poster- when in actual fact it is just like saying "good point" and "point taken" or "see where you are coming from"- it's not some little nepotistic circle jerk (I love the vocabulary I'm learning at RevLeft BTW:lol:).

Even if I might not agree with Bud's politics- when he states that he went to Soviet Moscow and couldn't get a coffee- he makes a point- hence the thanks.

Now, the whole point of this thread was about Vietnam.

Bud's point is this, when KFC and McDonald's etc are opening up in Vietnam- does it not point to a "victory" for the capitalists and if people are too obtuse to see this then I don't know what kind of revolutionary socialists they think they are...

[Rafiq]

Okay gloves.. off...

Now listen to me very carefully you insiduous two-faced political dwarf :lol: when all your contributions are nothing but one liners and stupid analogies with half-baked "luoghi communi" (common knowledge sayings) that you do not even attempt to substantiate and when you blatantly contradict your own argument in some weird attempt to prove I don't know quite what it hardly persuades me to take you seriously, does it?

I have never and never will kiss anyone's ass in my life but I may have kicked a few in my time and I don't need to be questioned by the likes of you or anyone else for what I choose to say or choose not to say here or anywhere else.

I suggest you look up what communism is because people like you give Bud and argument against it.

Peace and love....


'Works of Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels' 'The Capital' 'Manifesto of the Communist party'.

Maybe it is you who should look up what Communism is, by reading those.

Because it's not Liberal holding hands capitalist liberal democracy bullshit

[Rafiq]

Stop it..CM disagrees with me more than he agrees.

But unlike most Communist HE'S HONEST.

Honesty would have gotten him shot in Soviet Russia and Maoist China--why not on RevLet?

LOL, you have a fucked up view of both of those countries.

Get your head out of your ass and realize that America isn't the only country with Human rights, in fact, America has shit human rights laws.

He wouldn't get shot, just made fun of.

[Rafiq]

I mean this could have been a valid response to several of Budstruggle's posts- I was questioning why you didn't call Bud on these same tactics.

Because he is too busy kissing bud's ass.

[Rafiq]

I (unfortunately for you Communists) am pretty honest in what say. I may spin the fact to my liking--but the facts are the facts.

And I'm a non aggressive poster. I attack positions not people.

My politics may be despicable to you, but I try not to be that way personally. Unlike most posters here who are something of the opposite. :)

Stop avoiding this question and fucking answer it.

Why are you on Revleft?

To troll us?

There are plenty Libertarian capitalist forums out there..

But why?

I wouldn't sign up for a Capitalist forum..

You do realize this is the 'Revolutionary Left'.

Most of us are Communists..

Can you state a valid reason for being here?

[Rafiq]

Shari-Chapayev came out with some non-sensical and weirdly illogical stuff about supporting war and murder by paying taxes and also previously stated that McDonald's was responsible for world starvation....


Shut the fuck up, for the last fucking time,

I was just stating your logic was faulty, and can be applied to american taxpayers.

No, I don't even fucking eat McDonald's, but that doesn't mean we won't try to smash it from society.

[ComradeMan]

'Works of Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels' 'The Capital' 'Manifesto of the Communist party'.

Maybe it is you who should look up what Communism is, by reading those.

Because it's not Liberal holding hands capitalist liberal democracy bullshit

Well the copy I have in is entitled Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei -Manifesto del Partito Comunista and also Das Kapital.

Have read them a lot actually.

You're already confusing communism with marxism as if they were de facto synonyms and forgetting that the origins of communism go back long before Marx and Marx has been dead for a good while now...

I suggest you actually look up communism... and at the same time look up what strawman means too.

All I know is that I am not a Marxist. ;)

[Rafiq]

Well the copy I have in is entitled Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei -Manifesto del Partito Comunista and also Das Kapital.

Have read them a lot actually.

You're already confusing communism with marxism as if they were de facto synonyms and forgetting that the origins of communism go back long before Marx and Marx has been dead for a good while now...

I suggest you actually look up communism... and at the same time look up what strawman means too.

All I know is that I am not a Marxist. ;)


The Word itself did not exist before Marx.

However if you're refereeing to primitive Communism, good luck with that.

I see you're some kind of Utupian, yeah, good luck with utupia, because you and I both no it will never exist.

Communism was officially put into definition by Karl Marx.

Otherwise, you're just a Utopian Socialist.


What exactly is Communism to you? Please explain.

Marx's famous quote does not apply to this situation.

What Communism is to you, isn't Communism.

It's utopian Socialism.

Sorry

[Ele'ill]

Do you agree with the quote? If so....

In regards to context, yes.





I seem to remember people insulting others, contradicting themselves, using ad hominems and refusing to answer the points... seems to be a common tactic here. And anyway, if you agree with the Chomsky quote.. then well......

Terrorism is far too ethereal of a word to be using as an example.

If a bully or just a general asshole punches someone and it's sort of a daily occurrence and it gets to the point where the person engages the bully in the same fashion- I would say it's justified as self defense.

Basically the culprits have had plenty of opportunity to stop and they haven't.




Second point, if you are going to accuse people of being hypocrits, which is what you did- then you are going to be put under the magnifying glass too...

I certainly didn't have to go out of my way to do so. Let's make sure in your case that you are not being the aggressor (which you are).











I wasn't ridiculing anyone- the posts were so inane that they actually made Bud's cappie arguments seem valid. :crying:

I thought you thought his comments were valid anyways as you thanked most of them- especially the one liners.


Shari-Chapayev came out with some non-sensical and weirdly illogical stuff about supporting war and murder by paying taxes and also previously stated that McDonald's was responsible for world starvation....

I'm not really interested in what anybody else did- had you not thanked BudStruggle's equivalent posts I wouldn't have likely said anything at all- and as it is- I don't really care all that much anyways.


Look up the meaning of the word Pravda...
No




Do you see that I also thank a lot of the posts that go against Bud too-

That just started and the ratio is quite a bit off to even consider note worthy.



except I don't like it when people start getting openly abusive, note I called Gacky out for using the word "retarded"-

Oh yeah, but minus that word and his post is completely justified as a defense against Bud's ridiculousness.



I thought that would have deserved a thank you for pointing out how prejudiced language is out of place here... why didn't you thank that post Mari3L? OMG You must support prejudiced language OMG OMG.....

What?


Now, you seem to think that thanking posts is some kind of approval for the poster- when in actual fact it is just like saying "good point" and "point taken" or "see where you are coming from"

There's a difference :confused:

You just said the same thing four different ways.




- it's not some little nepotistic circle jerk (I love the vocabulary I'm learning at RevLeft BTW:lol:).

You of course mean the thanking between yourself and Budstruggle exclusively here right....


Even if I might not agree with Bud's politics- when he states that he went to Soviet Moscow and couldn't get a coffee- he makes a point- hence the thanks.

Yeah he makes a point maybe if you're ODing on ketamine.


Now, the whole point of this thread was about Vietnam.

Bud's point is this, when KFC and McDonald's etc are opening up in Vietnam- does it not point to a "victory" for the capitalists and if people are too obtuse to see this then I don't know what kind of revolutionary socialists they think they are...

And he's recieved adequate replies to which he's insulted the poster by playing googoo gaga baby language games and not holding any semblance of a conversation.

[Rafiq]

I can see why he was restricted :laugh:

[Revolution starts with U]

I (unfortunately for you Communists) am pretty honest in what say.
Show me one time I have lied. That's a pretty dishonest and self-righteous statement you just made right there.
Also, nobody cares how much you can pat yourself on the back :rolleyes:


And I'm a non aggressive poster. I attack positions not people.
That's not true. You just attacked people, right in this same quote. And you do it all the time.


My politics may be despicable to you, but I try not to be that way personally.
Actually, yes you do. All the time. You're constantly attacking people and talking bad about people. You occasionally post something substantive, but the majority of your posts are ad hominems and self-congratulations.

I mean. I'm a perfectly honest guy, unlike you. I never attack people, unlike your sorry ass. I'm just pointing that out. :laugh:

[ComradeMan]

I can see why he was restricted :laugh:


Let's add circumstancial ad hominems shall we.

Shall we play that game....?

Now- instead of attacking why don't you demonstrate some of your points:-

McDonald's being responsible for world starvation?

How paying taxes means I like war and murder?

How paying taxes, for which I have no choice, is the same as going to a fast food outlet?

Those were your pseudo-points.... continue please....

:laugh:

[Rafiq]

McDonald's being responsible for world starvation?[/B]

McDonald's is partly responsible for world starvation. They are part of the wealthy few who assure unequal distribution of wealth.

How paying taxes means I like war and murder?
It doesn't. I was just pointing out how ridiculous your point was.

How paying taxes, for which I have no choice, is the same as going to a fast food outlet?

I was speaking for average americans. Their indoctrination and culture in society basically shoves it up their mouth.



McDonald's being responsible for world starvation?

McDonald's is partly responsible for world starvation. They are part of the wealthy few who assure unequal distribution of wealth.

How paying taxes means I like war and murder?
It doesn't. I was just pointing out how ridiculous your point was.

How paying taxes, for which I have no choice, is the same as going to a fast food outlet?

I was speaking for average americans. Their indoctrination and culture in society basically shoves it up their mouth.

[ComradeMan]

McDonald's being responsible for world starvation?

McDonald's is partly responsible for world starvation. They are part of the wealthy few who assure unequal distribution of wealth.

How paying taxes means I like war and murder?
It doesn't. I was just pointing out how ridiculous your point was.

How paying taxes, for which I have no choice, is the same as going to a fast food outlet?

I was speaking for average americans. Their indoctrination and culture in society basically shoves it up their mouth.

1) Ah, now we are inserting words in here and there to back track.

2) It was your fucking point you idiot.

3) Who are average Americans? Can you be "averagely" Americans? Sweeping generalisation.....

[Rafiq]

1)

2) It was your fucking point you idiot.



Calm down buddy, I think I would've known if it was my point.

Just take a deep breath and count to ten :)

[thriller]

Didn't care to read other posts. All I have to say is the workers didn't win, and that is the issue.

[Ele'ill]

1) Ah, now we are inserting words in here and there to back track.

2) It was your fucking point you idiot.

3) Who are average Americans? Can you be "averagely" Americans? Sweeping generalisation.....

Wow, let's relax a little bit. There's no need to be so nasty. This was my point in ChitChat with the 'fattist' comment. I was parodying your attempted viciousness over a moot point.

Do you know what average means when applied to a population? ;)

[ComradeMan]

Wow, let's relax a little bit. There's no need to be so nasty. This was my point in ChitChat with the 'fattist' comment. I was parodying your attempted viciousness over a moot point.

Do you know what average means when applied to a population? ;)

This is not chit chat/chatter and inserting little "issues" here is not part of any constructive argument- if anyone else did it you would be pressing the "troll" alert button!

Back to the points:

No, I don't know what average means when applied to a population because it's completely ridiculous in my opinion. It's a sweeping generalisation too. Who is your average American? Your average Italian? I believe they talk about "Middle England" etc in the UK... it's meaningless mediaspeak and an appeal to "common knowledge" and stereotypes etc.

To say your average American is an ignoramus with no independent thought because of state propaganda is a gross insult to a lot of Americans, proletarian Americans, and also such an enormous sweeping generalisation that I don't think you can really use it. What next? Post youtube videos "proving" how stupid Americans are? No, come on, that's not a valid argument for a discussion here. I have encountered a lot of Americans who do seem to conform to the stereotype, they all seemed very petit-bourgeois to me too, and on TV you hear a lot of these attitudes but with a population of over 300 million or more, until I have met every last American and chatted with them then I am not, nor is anyone else, really in a position to make such a general statement.

Re the original part of this "debate" with Shariati/Chapayev.

In response to my saying if you don't like McDonald's don't buy burgers, having repeatedly stated that I dislike fast-food chains personally but don't think they are any more than yet another symptom of the system, Shariati/Chapayev replied:

Shariati

So if you're against war, STOP participating in it, stop paying your taxes.
Are you against War?
Are you against Murder?
Stop participating in it.
Otherwise, it means you like War and Murder.
This is form your own logic.
So never go against those two, unless you don't pay taxes (according to your logic),

He seems to refuse to see the difference between one action, i.e. going to a fast-food outlet, in which one has complete choice- go or don't go and thus one is able to protest by not purchasing and the other, i.e. paying taxes, in which one has no choice whatsoever and is "legally" coerced.

The point is completely stupid on another level too. The taxes that I pay, also go to things like public healthcare, public education, public works and so on- as well no doubt on military spending. On the other hand, by continuing to purchase from these capitalist multinationals we actually do a lot more in some senses to perpetuate the system that promotes economic expansionism that ultimately leads to.... war and murder.

It seems to me that some users here know a lot of theoretical stuff about communism from the books, but they don't seem to understand too well how capitalism works and what drives the foreign policy of capitalist regimes nor how things work out in the real world in real time.

[Revolution starts with U]

I think it's all just one big misunderstanding. But I want some entertainment...
Comrade, I heard he was talkin smack about your great aunt.:cursing:

[Rafiq]

Okay, I'm going to pretend to be Comrademan, using his own logic.

Move to a different country! If you pay taxes it means you blow up babies! Stop complaining about war unless you stop paying taxes! Move to somewhere else! No one is forcing you to live in America!

[ComradeMan]

Okay, I'm going to pretend to be Comrademan, using his own logic.

Move to a different country! If you pay taxes it means you blow up babies! Stop complaining about war unless you stop paying taxes! Move to somewhere else! No one is forcing you to live in America!

Pretending means faking it buddy and faking it is not what I do.:lol:

Those were not my points, that's what you said, and even if you try and backout of it now with some kind of attempt to make out that you were parodying my logic then you can't because I've already explained over and over again, in context of the post, why they are not the same.

It doesn't matter how much you read, if you have no logic to your argumentation it falls flat.

I don't remember the circus coming to RevLeft so GTFO you political clown.

[Lt. Ferret]

honestly if you are serious about opposing capitalism you need to go off the grid. i cant take you seriously if youre hating on america while wearing brand name shoes and eating good food that you bought from the supermarket.

[Rafiq]

Pretending means faking it buddy and faking it is not what I do.:lol:

Those were not my points, that's what you said, and even if you try and backout of it now with some kind of attempt to make out that you were parodying my logic then you can't because I've already explained over and over again, in context of the post, why they are not the same.

It doesn't matter how much you read, if you have no logic to your argumentation it falls flat.

I don't remember the circus coming to RevLeft so GTFO you political clown.



Calm down buddy, it's okay :D

You're logic is, if you agree that any corporation is destroying humanity, don't buy from them.

If Any country is destroying humanity, don't live in it.

This is all your logic. You're just knit picking which one to use.

[Rafiq]

honestly if you are serious about opposing capitalism you need to go off the grid. i cant take you seriously if youre hating on america while wearing brand name shoes and eating good food that you bought from the supermarket.

No one is hating on America, we oppose the state, and the Bourgeoisie.

Sure, I can not eat any food, and not wear any clothes, sure...

And since I won't be able to pay taxes, I'll live on the street, yeah, sure, okay.

What the fuck will that solve?

Lt. Asshole.

Get your head out of your ass. Pro-Capitlaist arguments are laughable to a great extent :laugh:

It's not about what you already have, it's about what you are willing to give up.

Once our goal is achieved, we'll raze those corporations to the ground, and I'll be the first to burn their products.

First Revolution, that's when we "get off the grid".

Otherwise, since we are forced to live under Capitalism, their is no other choice but to buy food.

Your and Comrademan's logic is complete bullshit.

The workers must live in the society as much as they can, and when Revolution comes, this is when the change begins.

[ComradeMan]

Calm down buddy, it's okay :D

You're logic is, if you agree that any corporation is destroying humanity, don't buy from them.

If Any country is destroying humanity, don't live in it.

This is all your logic. You're just knit picking which one to use.


Hello...... reality calling Ronald McSpamDonald here.....

You have no fucking choice where you are born and most people can't up and leave can they? Secondly- go exactly where? Where could you go where you would avoid any of this? Could you tell me exactly?

But... you can avoid going to McDonald's.... think about the difference;)

[Lt. Ferret]

No one is hating on America, we oppose the state, and the Bourgeoisie.

Sure, I can not eat any food, and not wear any clothes, sure...

And since I won't be able to pay taxes, I'll live on the street, yeah, sure, okay.

What the fuck will that solve?

Lt. Asshole.

Get your head out of your ass. Pro-Capitlaist arguments are laughable to a great extent :laugh:

It's not about what you already have, it's about what you are willing to give up.

Once our goal is achieved, we'll raze those corporations to the ground, and I'll be the first to burn their products.

First Revolution, that's when we "get off the grid".

Otherwise, since we are forced to live under Capitalism, their is no other choice but to buy food.

Your and Comrademan's logic is complete bullshit.

The workers must live in the society as much as they can, and when Revolution comes, this is when the change begins.

thats fine. support capitalism all day every day with your purchases. i mean, youre a revolutionary right? but go to the super market and buy some nice shoes and the newest DVD that just came out and be what everyone else is, the smirk you have on your face when you purchase your items is revolutionary, innit?

youre a tool and not a threat to anything. have fun.

[Lord Testicles]

But... you can avoid going to McDonald's.... think about the difference;)

But what difference would that make?

[Rafiq]

Hello...... reality calling Ronald McSpamDonald here.....

You have no fucking choice where you are born and most people can't up and leave can they? Secondly- go exactly where? Where could you go where you would avoid any of this? Could you tell me exactly?

But... you can avoid going to McDonald's.... think about the difference;)

You can go to Cuba, or, you can go to Somalia.

[Rafiq]

thats fine. support capitalism all day every day with your purchases. i mean, youre a revolutionary right? but go to the super market and buy some nice shoes and the newest DVD that just came out and be what everyone else is, the smirk you have on your face when you purchase your items is revolutionary, innit?

youre a tool and not a threat to anything. have fun.

And I wouldn't be a threat if I didn't either.

I'm willing to give up all of those things, but I don't see a point doing it now.

I don't buy any big brand name shoes or clothes, but yes, I watch movies and eat food... Kill me.

I could just starve to death, but I don't see a point?

[Lt. Ferret]

And I wouldn't be a threat if I didn't either.

I'm willing to give up all of those things, but I don't see a point doing it now.

I don't buy any big brand name shoes or clothes, but yes, I watch movies and eat food... Kill me.

I could just starve to death, but I don't see a point?


i went off the grid when i was an anarchist punk. its not that hard. you make changes to your lifestyle. if im supposed to believe that youre a communist who does anything, i would imagine you have made changes to your lifestyle. if youre expecting a christian style rapture/ Revolution, you are in for a wicked surprise when/if it occurs.