America

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Recently, i have been debating with fellow members of this site, about US foreign policy and how it is SOOO Imperialistic and so on and so on. Ok, iv argued how there has only been limited failures in US intervention in other countries like in Vietnam and now Iraq, and how positive success stories have happened like South Korea, Japan, Kuwait and our rebuilding of Western Europe. But i dont want to talk about that, because as i know most of you feel this are all agressions and acts of imperialism which you denounce.

But i have a conflict inside of me, recently, iv been reading a book, called: "A Problem From Hell", by Samantha Power, about acts of genocide during the 20th century, the book deals about the genocides themselves, but also a great deal about how the USA did not intervene to stop them.

Thinking for a while, i was filled with rage, why didn't the most powerful nation intervene in these genocides to stop the murder of people just because they were different and not trying to intervene for personal interests. But at the same time, i started thinking about all the people who im sure is most of you, who denounced America for not doing anything to stop the genocides. And this is where my conflict starts, if you denounce America for going into countries and trying to stop something or make a change, than you must have surely sided with the USA policy throughout the 20th century to not intervene in acts of genocides around the world?! there is such an ironic feeling i get when i talk about America with every member of this website that its unexplainable. Im sure you all denounce America for not doing anything to stop the Rwandan genocide for exmaple, but for god's sake, you all are the same who denounce America for going into foreign countries!!!

[IHP]

I can´t answer for regular members of this board that you have argued with. In fact, I´ve never actually seen you before.

However I think it would be safe to say to you that intervention on the part of the US can be beneficial or, in most cases, not. The other problem is, intervention with only a vested interest.

So Rwanda, your example here, was a place that needed intervention, correct. However, what would the US gain by intervening there? Dead American soldiers surely. Would this be popular? Probably not. What other examples to you wish to speak about.

An example of intervention on the part of the US would be Iraq, no? Here we have a vested interest in oil supplies. That makes intervention a lot more appealing, doesn´t it?

If you want to know about Imperialism, I suggest reading some Giovanni Irighi, a sociologist.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

IHP, defenitaly agree with you, which is where my argument always has been, we do things which will be beneficial to us, something in for our own interest, and this has always been the case, not just America, but any government through history from the Romans to us, it's only normal. US didn't want another Somalia, thats the fact for Rwanda. But what im trying to say is, many people denounce non-intervention, but at the same time, they are the same people denouncing our intervention in other countries through the course of our history.

[redstar2000]

Only the most unsophisticated -- not to say downright ignorant -- "leftist" would argue that the U.S. imperialists "should intervene" anywhere!

U.S. imperialism always makes things worse than would otherwise be the case.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[cyu]

On the other hand, if the US weren't capitalist and just intervened everywhere to help the people set up non-capitalist democracies, that would be fine with me.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 07:55 AM
On the other hand, if the US weren't capitalist and just intervened everywhere to help the people set up non-capitalist democracies, that would be fine with me.
Well if we're doing "what ifs"...

If there was a revolution in one part of the world, I don't think workers should just invade other places and "declare revolution". Revolution is self-emancipation and I think workers in the revolutionary places would want to have solidarity and provide resources to people already fighting in other parts of the world, I don't think workers would or should develop an offensive people's army to "liberate" people where no revolution is already in progress.

Say there was a revolution in Bolivia and the realitively weak domestic ruling class was unable to stop it or counter-attack and the US was engulfed in a loosing war against insurgents in Iraq, Iran and Afganistan so it could not interviene. If Boliva invaded Brazil and Brazil was in a more social-democrat mode, then workers in Brazil would not be prepared to take power and Bolivia would either have to substitute some beurocrats to run workers councils and so on. If Argnetina, on the other hand had a revolution and workers took over factories, but the ruling class was stronger there and fought back, then Bolivian workers might want to send resources to help defend the fledgling revolution in Argentina.

[Atlas Swallowed]

They only go in to countries for political and financial gains. US foriegn policy like any other nations foriegn policy is not benevolent. As the most powerful nation on the earth they are doing the most damage so recieve the most critisism but they are no different from any other government. They serve the wealthy at the exspense of the everyone else and as all governments should be abolished.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

On the other hand, if the US weren't capitalist and just intervened everywhere to help the people set up non-capitalist democracies, that would be fine with me.

hahahahaha!!! yeah it's like if i said, OHH If Bin Laden was American and Christian i would support him! :lol: what a silly comment from you cyu, and ironic as well, would what you support be IMPERIALISM as well?

[cyu]

would what you support be IMPERIALISM as well?

Depends what you mean by imperialism. If you mean extending your nation's rule over other countries, then it wouldn't be imperialism assuming their new government was democratic. It would be self-rule. If by imperialism you mean extending the economic control by your nation's financiers over other countries, then it wouldn't be imperialism assuming their new economic system wasn't capitalist. It would be economic democracy.

As General Smedley Butler once said:

"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses... the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers."


If there was a revolution in one part of the world, I don't think workers should just invade other places and "declare revolution". Revolution is self-emancipation and I think workers in the revolutionary places would want to have solidarity and provide resources to people already fighting in other parts of the world, I don't think workers would or should develop an offensive people's army to "liberate" people where no revolution is already in progress.


I'll have to disagree with you there. They may be under a system so oppressive that they are afraid to rebel. If slaves deserve to be liberated whether there's an active slave rebellion or not, then so do wage slaves. The things is, once given control, they are free to go back to the old system if they choose to. They key is leaving the choice in the people's hands, and not in the hands of their oppressors.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

OMG! :rolleyes: so let me get this straight, if America was not capitalist, our foreign policies wouldn't be labeled "Imperialistic" :lol: typical bias leftist view.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 03:55 AM
On the other hand, if the US weren't capitalist and just intervened everywhere to help the people set up non-capitalist democracies, that would be fine with me.
Historical materialism bud! There will not be any acts of imperialism by communist countries. When the proletariat has developed enough in these nations, they too will have revolutions. If the people can easily set up "non capitalist democracies" I doubt they'd need our help to do it.

[cyu]

so let me get this straight, if America was not capitalist, our foreign policies wouldn't be labeled "Imperialistic"

What does imperialism mean to you? If I look it up on http://onelook.com, I get these definitions:

noun: any instance of aggressive extension of authority
noun: a political orientation that advocates imperial interests
noun: a policy of extending your rule over foreign countries

For the first and third, if the new government was truly democratic, then it wouldn't be an extension of authority or rule. The second just refers to the other definitions.


If the people can easily set up "non capitalist democracies" I doubt they'd need our help to do it.


True. The key is "easy" - it's not easy enough. What's your opinion of Che attempting to spread revolutions in other countries?

[IHP]

Oh Sae Du,

We seem to agree somewhat, however I didn't state my opinion in that post. I only stated what I believe to be true.

I never said that I agree with the US policy. Let me just clear that up.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 12:48 AM


True. The key is "easy" - it's not easy enough. What's your opinion of Che attempting to spread revolutions in other countries?
Che went with a handful of people, and tried to fight the opressors of the nations he went with the people of that nation. What you seem to be advocating is more like sending in 500.000 troops.
This would lead to what stalin did with his satellite states in eastern europe, aka socialism from above..not to mention it wasnt socialism but that isnt the point here ;)

the idea here is; you cannot enforce liberation, it is something the would-be liberated have to do themselves, or else its not actual liberation.

[cyu]

you cannot enforce liberation, it is something the would-be liberated have to do themselves, or else its not actual liberation.

You could give them arms, you could give them protection. As long as the political and economic structures being set up is under the control of the residents and not people who are only there temporarily, I don't see a problem.

[fernando]

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 30 2006, 08:04 PM
OMG! :rolleyes: so let me get this straight, if America was not capitalist, our foreign policies wouldn't be labeled "Imperialistic" :lol: typical bias leftist view.
You probably already know that a pure "capitalist" system doesnt exist in the US, same as that a pure "communist" system hasnt existed yet, but ok if we would stick to these labels I would also consider the "communist" USSR to have been an imperialist nation concerning its policies towards Eastern Europe and Afghanistan.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

^^, umm , iv actually said that same thing in previous posts :)