Floyd-Joby Debate

[La Comédie Noire]

In every class society there are times when class relations are so loose it seems as if classes don’t exist at all. What does this mean? Simply, things are working for the ruling class. So they can afford to be benevolent. It seems like reform is possible but in actuality it’s really not. You are forgetting something LSD.

The ruling class fucks up; even now one of the wealthiest sections of the bourgeoisie, the American oil cartel, is fucking up. They started a war in the Middle East, hoping they could illegally seize the oil supply before other Capitalists could buy it with the euro dollar. As to why they didn’t just try to buy in Euros, your guess is as good as mine.

Either way the United States is now in full blown war with Iraq and it’s only going to get worse (Iran?) Will there be a draft? Depends, maybe the oil capitalists will remember the lessons of the Vietnam War. It would be nuts to call another draft then again people have been known to eat each other when they are desperately starving.

A smart, young, and vibrant ruling class would have invested capital in alternative energy development. However this ruling class has decided it’s much safer to buy up energy patents and cause regional chaos and possible civil war in a bunch of backwards nations.
So what does this mean for us in the United States? Well if you’re not fortunate enough to be ineligible for the draft like myself, guess there is a bright side to asthma, it means either Iran, Iraq, Jail, or Canada. But just as the ruling class learned a lesson from Vietnam so did the working class namely, war is bullshit and the best way to stop imperialist war is to resist it violently.

When people start getting beaten and arrested for resisting death that’s when they usually start asking questions. Despite what your political science teacher says politics aren’t relevant to you right now. People only engage in political action when they feel their lives are in danger, politics are a survival tactic. Anyone would be disparaged by the amount of activity in the left today, but there’s a reason for lack of enthusiasm in “the movement” namely, the system works!

But as history has taught us, class societies aren’t stable for very long. The Roman Empire had Pax Romana, the United States Empire has Pax Americana, but just like Rome’s peace, America’s peace is going to end.

This ensuing conflict could very well be it but I’m not going to pretend to know. To me “just around the corner” sounds exactly like “when you get to heaven.”

[Joby]

In every class society there are times when class relations are so loose it seems as if classes don’t exist at all. What does this mean? Simply, things are working for the ruling class. So they can afford to be benevolent. It seems like reform is possible but in actuality it’s really not. You are forgetting something LSD.

Or it means that nobody is tied to the class they were born in.



The ruling class fucks up; even now one of the wealthiest sections of the bourgeoisie, the American oil cartel, is fucking up. They started a war in the Middle East, hoping they could illegally seize the oil supply before other Capitalists could buy it with the euro dollar. As to why they didn’t just try to buy in Euros, your guess is as good as mine.


And every time a ruling class has gone down, a new set has taken it's spot.


Either way the United States is now in full blown war with Iraq and it’s only going to get worse (Iran?) Will there be a draft? Depends, maybe the oil capitalists will remember the lessons of the Vietnam War. It would be nuts to call another draft then again people have been known to eat each other when they are desperately starving.

Yeah, what a horrible war the US is losing in Iraq...

oh wait, we've lost what, 4,000? 5,000? 10 minutes worth at Ohama beach?

No, there will not be a draft.



A smart, young, and vibrant ruling class would have invested capital in alternative energy development. However this ruling class has decided it’s much safer to buy up energy patents and cause regional chaos and possible civil war in a bunch of backwards nations.

So vote Democrat.

Either way, this is more a failure of the American electorate, especially the dumbass low-class scum who voted for W. Fuckin Rednecks.



So what does this mean for us in the United States? Well if you’re not fortunate enough to be ineligible for the draft like myself, guess there is a bright side to asthma, it means either Iran, Iraq, Jail, or Canada. But just as the ruling class learned a lesson from Vietnam so did the working class namely, war is bullshit and the best way to stop imperialist war is to resist it violently.


If the draft is instated, the war will be over in about 15 minutes.

The US isn't like the Soviet Union; conscription is strongly looked down upon.

Good luck with your violent alternative, though.



When people start getting beaten and arrested for resisting death that’s when they usually start asking questions.


No, they get beaten and arrested for being a disturbance to everyone else.

Protest all you want, but you should be stopped from harming a policeman, causing a traffic jam, starting a riot, or defacing public property.


Despite what your political science teacher says politics aren’t relevant to you right now.

No, voting for a candidate to end the war, instead of expand it, is relevant to millions of people.

Spending 10 minutes to go vote will accomplish a hundredfold what any protest might.


People only engage in political action when they feel their lives are in danger, politics are a survival tactic.

What? There's never been an election were our survival as a people literally depended on it, nor will there be.

A succes of the ruling class.


Anyone would be disparaged by the amount of activity in the left today, but there’s a reason for lack of enthusiasm in “the movement” namely, the system works!

Yes, it does.


But as history has taught us, class societies aren’t stable for very long. The Roman Empire had Pax Romana, the United States Empire has Pax Americana, but just like Rome’s peace, America’s peace is going to end.

So when Rome fell, did a classless society develop?

Or was it a horrible time for western civilization?


This ensuing conflict could very well be it but I’m not going to pretend to know. To me “just around the corner” sounds exactly like “when you get to heaven.”

Yup.

[La Comédie Noire]

Or it means that nobody is tied to the class they were born in.

For now, of course those aspiring to "improve their station" during economic hardship will find obtaining membership extremely difficult if not impossible.


And every time a ruling class has gone down, a new set has taken it's spot.

Hopefully it will be the working class this time.


Yeah, what a horrible war the US is losing in Iraq...

oh wait, we've lost what, 4,000? 5,000? 10 minutes worth at Ohama beach?

No, there will not be a draft.

Well let's not begin comparing World War 2, an imperialist on imperialist war, to an invasion of a povertous country for resources. Honestly the goals are markedly different. During World War 2 it was about defeating a definate force so it could no longer carry on an offesnive.

Iraq on the other hand is an imperialist conquest which involves taking over a country and making it into a sphere of influence, which the U.S. has not been able to do. At all.

Unless of course you consider 195,000 glorified traffic guards, and falling, backing an interim goverment no one listens to "mission accomplished!"


So vote Democrat.

Either way, this is more a failure of the American electorate, especially the dumbass low-class scum who voted for W. Fuckin Rednecks.


Wouldn't make much of a difference either way. It isn't a case of having the "wrong guys" it's a case of having the "wrong system."

That's just how Imperialism works.


If the draft is instated, the war will be over in about 15 minutes.

The US isn't like the Soviet Union; conscription is strongly looked down upon.

Good luck with your violent alternative, though.

That's what I'm hoping will happen, conscription usually does mobilize the masses to end an unpopular and lost war.

Losing Imperialist wars just don't sit well with people, especially when they are being forced to serve. You have a draft, people refuse, people get arrested, people protest, people get beaten. Look at Vietnam.

Oh by the way conscription has been used in the United States during the Civil War, World War 1, World War 2, Korea, and Vietnam. Hell it was even used from 1945 to 1968 continously! Right around Korea we started getting bad at the war game, is it coincidence conscription ended 18 years later? I think not, as I said nobody likes a lost Imperialist war.


But like I said maybe the ruling class of this country has learned it's lesson.



No, they get beaten and arrested for being a disturbance to everyone else.

Protest all you want, but you should be stopped from harming a policeman, causing a traffic jam, starting a riot, or defacing public property.

DNC 1968, Kent State 1971, Contelpro

Honestly the U.S does not have a great history in this regard.



No, voting for a candidate to end the war, instead of expand it, is relevant to millions of people.

Spending 10 minutes to go vote will accomplish a hundredfold what any protest might.

Who said I advocated protest? Look at Vietnam again,neither protests nor voting worked. The U.S military left when it realized it could not make Vietnam(north or south) a stable sphere of influence. They lost about 60,000 troops, I wonder, how many minutes is that on Omaha Beach? :lol:

Save it, no one likes a World War 2 nut.



What? There's never been an election were our survival as a people literally depended on it, nor will there be.

A succes of the ruling class.

Usually by then people have already abandoned the electorate route, for the more efficent hanging of leaders. But the point I was making was people only care about politics when their means of sustanece or life itself is threatened. Once again Vietnam, the voter turn out was huge, to no avail.

Even a cursory glance at U.S. or any parlimentary goverment's history reveals people only vote enmass during times of looming or current strife.

And when that doesn't work they become violent. Unless of course those they voted in are so repressive they keep the masses in check.


So when Rome fell, did a classless society develop?

Or was it a horrible time for western civilization?

Check that, it was an extremley horrible time for western civillization. However the fall of a highly technological society is much different from the fall of an antiqitous empire.

Highly technological societies are well, highly technological. Better means of production = Better ability to produce an abundance. Which means it is harder to put private restraint on things.

[Joby]

LSD seems to have dropped any pretense of actually discussing with revolutionary leftists.

One can't help but wonder why :rolleyes:

I understand.

Y'all are dreadfull....I have to be stoned to actually debate this stuff.

[Joby]

For now, of course those aspiring to "improve their station" during economic hardship will find obtaining membership extremely difficult if not impossible.

Membership were? the country club?


Hopefully it will be the working class this time.

I doubt it will be anyone who has sweated in the last year while working.



Well let's not begin comparing World War 2, an imperialist on imperialist war, to an invasion of a povertous country for resources. Honestly the goals are markedly different. During World War 2 it was about defeating a definate force so it could no longer carry on an offesnive.

Iraq on the other hand is an imperialist conquest which involves taking over a country and making it into a sphere of influence, which the U.S. has not been able to do. At all.

Unless of course you consider 195,000 glorified traffic guards, and falling, backing an interim goverment no one listens to "mission accomplished!"


Who said that was the goal?

Perhaps they wished to destroy the center in Iraq, have the shiites rise up, and set the stage for a massive war in the ME were Iran/Syria are completely destroyed, and all of Iraq's oil fields are put under Sunni control.

Perhaps.



That's what I'm hoping will happen, conscription usually does mobilize the masses to end an unpopular and lost war.


Right, the revolutionaries are the type that hope the sky falls.



Losing Imperialist wars just don't sit well with people, especially when they are being forced to serve. You have a draft, people refuse, people get arrested, people protest, people get beaten. Look at Vietnam.


Yup.

All that fervor was dead by 1970, though, and even during the war reached it's low ebb when McGovern won 1 state against Nixon.



Oh by the way conscription has been used in the United States during the Civil War, World War 1, World War 2, Korea, and Vietnam. Hell it was even used from 1945 to 1968 continously! Right around Korea we started getting bad at the war game, is it coincidence conscription ended 18 years later? I think not, as I said nobody likes a lost Imperialist war.


We didn't lose Korea. We didn't lose Vietnam. Let's get that strait first.

Secondly, yes, we have used conscription in the past. Every strong nation has.



DNC 1968, Kent State 1971, Contelpro

Honestly the U.S does not have a great history in this regard.


You name 3 events (all fucked up, I admit) from at least 30 years ago.

Honestly the US has one of the best records in the world in this regard.



Who said I advocated protest? Look at Vietnam again,neither protests nor voting worked. The U.S military left when it realized it could not make Vietnam(north or south) a stable sphere of influence. They lost about 60,000 troops, I wonder, how many minutes is that on Omaha Beach?

Save it, no one likes a World War 2 nut.


Uhhh....Voting didn't work because low-class scum vote Republican.

They lost 60,000 over 15 years, and were still extremely succesfull in their goals long-term.


Usually by then people have already abandoned the electorate route, for the more efficent hanging of leaders. But the point I was making was people only care about politics when their means of sustanece or life itself is threatened. Once again Vietnam, the voter turn out was huge, to no avail.

Even a cursory glance at U.S. or any parlimentary goverment's history reveals people only vote enmass during times of looming or current strife.

And when that doesn't work they become violent. Unless of course those they voted in are so repressive they keep the masses in check.

Right.

And as every violent revolution of the last 100 years or so has shown, revolution always leads to a very repressive government which keeps the populace in check.




Check that, it was an extremley horrible time for western civillization. However the fall of a highly technological society is much different from the fall of an antiqitous empire.

Highly technological societies are well, highly technological. Better means of production = Better ability to produce an abundance. Which means it is harder to put private restraint on things


How many people does America feed?

How much of countries improving technology are now in the American sphere of influence, if not under America's thumb?

If you were to take all of the technology that America's sphere has produced out of the nations not in it, they'de be back in the Roman Era.

Except they'd have AKs and T-72s, I suppose.

[STI]

I understand.

Y'all are dreadfull....I have to be stoned to actually debate this stuff.

Oh that was a solid burn.

[La Comédie Noire]

Who said that was the goal?

Perhaps they wished to destroy the center in Iraq, have the shiites rise up, and set the stage for a massive war in the ME were Iran/Syria are completely destroyed, and all of Iraq's oil fields are put under Sunni control.

Perhaps.


Thats still the same thing. It's still trying to put a country under your control whether you use traffic guards or dictatorships.



We didn't lose Korea. We didn't lose Vietnam. Let's get that strait first.

Secondly, yes, we have used conscription in the past. Every strong nation has.


Yeah, the U.S didn't accomplish any of it's imperialist goals.

Well it's nice to know you can have a draft and frown upon it at the same time. everybody wins! :D



Uhhh....Voting didn't work because low-class scum vote Republican.

They lost 60,000 over 15 years, and were still extremely succesfull in their goals long-term.

Well here's where you and I disagree. For you it's a case of "the wrong guys" I still think illegal wars are going to happen no matter who you vote into office. Why? Because the United States is Imperialist.

In fact I hope Obama gets elected President. Why? Because I want to see the look on the fake lefts' faces when the same shit happens anyways.




Right.

And as every violent revolution of the last 100 years or so has shown, revolution always leads to a very repressive government which keeps the populace in check.

I agree. Here's what happens; some group of people liberate a country from Imperialism under the banner of Marxist rhetoric, then they make some social reforms but people usually wallow in human misery then they proceed to build Capitalism.

China, Vietnam, Soviet Union, are all examples of this.


How many people does America feed?

How much of countries improving technology are now in the American sphere of influence, if not under America's thumb?

If you were to take all of the technology that America's sphere has produced out of the nations not in it, they'de be back in the Roman Era.

Except they'd have AKs and T-72s, I suppose.

I bet the british and every other like minded Imperialist would've agreed with you, 100 years ago, but modern Imperialism doesn't seem to "civilize" the savages anymore. I think if anything Imperialism holds back progress. It hyper develops certain sectors of the economy, like mineral mines and agriculture, and just says fuck all to the rest.

Look at China, totally backwards ass nation with Imperialist hooks in it, then bam! "communist" Revolution happens and look at them now.

Same with Russia.



You name 3 events (all fucked up, I admit) from at least 30 years ago.

Honestly the US has one of the best records in the world in this regard.


Well people were obviously much more political back then, in the good sense. Now people just have ritualistic marches on Washington with homemade signs that say "Support Our Troops!" There's really nothing very political about them though, they might as well just go to church and pray for change.

I'm saying give things a chance to get bad, which they will, then watch how nice our goverment is to us.

Like I said there are times in class society where class antagonisms are so loose it seems as though classes don't exist at all. But they do.




Yup.

All that fervor was dead by 1970, though, and even during the war reached it's low ebb when McGovern won 1 state against Nixon.


Well the draft was over by 1968 so people were no longer forced to die for a lost imperialist war. No danger to life, No political action. Point proved.

[Joby]

Thats still the same thing. It's still trying to put a country under your control whether you use traffic guards or dictatorships.

What if their goal is a large regional war?

Whose gonna stop us, Russia? :laugh:


Yeah, the U.S didn't accomplish any of it's imperialist goals.

No, it did. Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Korea have all become abysmal failures as nations which dared defy the will of the US. Vietnam was pummeled until a repressive dictatorship (very repressive in the eyes of much of the world) would take over, ensuring that no bad example would emerge among 3rd world nations.

Of course, you can now get your Bakin Robin in Hanoi.



Well it's nice to know you can have a draft and frown upon it at the same time. everybody wins! :D


Let me clarify.

In US history, conscription has been used for about 40 years, total.

The Civil War (2% of the Army was drafted in, while 8% were paid to get drafted)
World War I, 1917-1918
World War II, 1940-1947
Cold War, 1948-1973

Now, you have to remember, the US had the world at it's feet at the end of WWII, and those rulers nobody has overthown needed some hands.



Well here's where you and I disagree. For you it's a case of "the wrong guys" I still think illegal wars are going to happen no matter who you vote into office. Why? Because the United States is Imperialist.


Yes, it is very imperialist.

With most of the world on it's side.



In fact I hope Obama gets elected President. Why? Because I want to see the look on the fake lefts' faces when the same shit happens anyways.


grrrrr.....Evil Clinton incursion of Kosovo!



I agree. Here's what happens; some group of people liberate a country from Imperialism under the banner of Marxist rhetoric, then they make some social reforms but people usually wallow in human misery then they proceed to build Capitalism.

China, Vietnam, Soviet Union, are all examples of this.


Africa is another example of collossal failure. It simply wasn't ready for freedom...

But no, they build capitalism after they fail at socialism, if, of course, they don't fall apart at ethnic lines.



I bet the british and every other like minded Imperialist would've agreed with you, 100 years ago, but modern Imperialism doesn't seem to "civilize" the savages anymore. I think if anything Imperialism holds back progress. It hyper develops certain sectors of the economy, like mineral mines and agriculture, and just says fuck all to the rest.


And these people we're talking about have clearly failed to show any initiative towards another direction.

With some highly publicized exceptions, of course.



Look at China, totally backwards ass nation with Imperialist hooks in it, then bam! "communist" Revolution happens and look at them now.


bam! look at Hong Kong



Same with Russia.


Look at Japan.

So far, nations who used the ultra-nationalist warmongering path have the most developed economies and best living standards.

All the USSR did was make a lot of shitty tanks. Without color TVs.



Well people were obviously much more political back then, in the good sense. Now people just have ritualistic marches on Washington with homemade signs that say "Support Our Troops!" There's really nothing very political about them though, they might as well just go to church and pray for change.


Yup.



I'm saying give things a chance to get bad, which they will, then watch how nice our goverment is to us.

Like I said there are times in class society where class antagonisms are so loose it seems as though classes don't exist at all. But they do.


The point of the electoral process is to allow you a say in making sure it doesn't get bad.

And there are times when ethnic sectarian divisions aren't seen, but they're there.

Well, unless you're in Beirut, Israel, or LA. Then you see the lines. :laugh:


Well the draft was over by 1968 so people were no longer forced to die for a lost imperialist war. No danger to life, No political action. Point proved.

Nixon kept the draft going until 1972.

Nixon was a fascist.

Mike Gravel was the biggest opponet of this in the senate, by the way.

[La Comédie Noire]

What if their goal is a large regional war?

Whose gonna stop us, Russia?

Who the United States? then they will probably need more man power to run that kind of show. I wonder how they'll muster "support" for that one. It boggles the mind.


No, it did. Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Korea have all become abysmal failures as nations which dared defy the will of the US. Vietnam was pummeled until a repressive dictatorship (very repressive in the eyes of much of the world) would take over, ensuring that no bad example would emerge among 3rd world nations.

Of course, you can now get your Bakin Robin in Hanoi.

The U.S did not want to make these countries "abysmal failures" they wanted to make them spheres of influence or protect near by speheres of influence(South Vietnam, South Korea) from anti imperialists.

In the case of Vietnam, they failed. In the case of Korea, they broke even.


Let me clarify.

In US history, conscription has been used for about 40 years, total.

The Civil War (2% of the Army was drafted in, while 8% were paid to get drafted)
World War I, 1917-1918
World War II, 1940-1947
Cold War, 1948-1973


You fail to understand the Civil War, World War I, and Wolrd War 2 were all wars the United States had popular support for. You don't need to force people to participate in a war they feel they not only can win but is nessesscary to win.

Let's make a quick comparison to prove a point. American Civil War, the Union had 90% volunteer force, unless you count the Irish immigrants they tircked into service.

Think it was the same for the Confederates? No, resistance was both widespread and violent.


Now, you have to remember, the US had the world at it's feet at the end of WWII, and those rulers nobody has overthown needed some hands.

Trust me, the U.S. Installed and then over through it's own dictators more than they removed "communist" dictators.


grrrrr.....Evil Clinton incursion of Kosovo!

Yeah but the bombings of Kosovo didn't affect a majority of the U.S. population in a negative way.

Tell you the truth, we would've bombed Kosovo no matter who got in.


Africa is another example of collossal failure. It simply wasn't ready for freedom...

But no, they build capitalism after they fail at socialism, if, of course, they don't fall apart at ethnic lines.

Africa still suffers under the brunt of reactionary Imperialism actually. But China seems to be taking steps to actually open markets to them.

But we won't see any real development unless foreign capital is thrown out!


The point of the electoral process is to allow you a say in making sure it doesn't get bad.

And there are times when ethnic sectarian divisions aren't seen, but they're there.

Well, unless you're in Beirut, Israel, or LA. Then you see the lines. :laugh:

Well, like I said here's where we disagree. I think U.S. Imperialism is a system that continues sustaining itself no matter what it's citizen's say. The most effective way to stop it is to support armed resistance abroad and civil unrest at home. Which seems to be the only two things that stop it.


bam! look at Hong Kong

Or as I like to call it, the vestiges of foreign capital. The Chinease have done something quite amazing, they've made imperialism work for them, how? Simple, any business that wishes to do business in their country must give them 51% control as well as divuldge all trade secrets.

Which means aspiring Chinease Capitalists can replicate what they've learned from the Americans. Thus while they are working with foreign capital they are also pushing it out.

[Joby]

Who the United States? then they will probably need more man power to run that kind of show. I wonder how they'll muster "support" for that one. It boggles the mind.

I can think of a million different ways it could go down.

Perhaps an attack on Saudi Arabia, with the blame on Iran. Or Israel getting itself into trouble in Lebanon, then dragging in Syria.

Maybe the US is simply trying to create a situation were the war that follows the US's exit out of Iraq will be very long and make the current occupation look like a picnic.

Dubya's a dumbass, but I have to believe there are cold, hard calculating minds behind what's going on.


The U.S did not want to make these countries "abysmal failures" they wanted to make them spheres of influence or protect near by speheres of influence(South Vietnam, South Korea) from anti imperialists.

In the case of Vietnam, they failed. In the case of Korea, they broke even.


Chomsky in 1982:


We fought the war to prevent Indochina from carrying out successful social and economic development. Well, I think the chances of that happening are very slight because of the devastation, because of the brutality of war. But the U.S. wants to make sure it will continue. And therefore we first of all of course refused any reparations. We refused aid. We try to block aid from other countries. We block aid from international institutions. I mean, sometimes it reaches a point of almost fanatic effort to make them suffer.

For example, there was one point when the United States prevented the government of India from sending a hundred buffalo to Vietnam. (The buffalo stock in Vietnam had been decimated by American bombing.) We prevented them by threatening to cut off Food for Peace aid.
So in every conceivable way the United States has tried to increase the harsh conditions of life in Indochina. And right now one of the main ways we're doing it is by supporting the Khmer Rouge on the Thai-Cambodian border.


We won.

Vietnam is now entering the US sphere, if only economically.



You fail to understand the Civil War, World War I, and Wolrd War 2 were all wars the United States had popular support for. You don't need to force people to participate in a war they feel they not only can win but is nessesscary to win.

Let's make a quick comparison to prove a point. American Civil War, the Union had 90% volunteer force, unless you count the Irish immigrants they tircked into service.

Think it was the same for the Confederates? No, resistance was both widespread and violent.


Yes, most of the times the US has used conscription, it was for a war the people believed was necessary.


Trust me, the U.S. Installed and then over through it's own dictators more than they removed "communist" dictators.

Is it the US's fault that many people are easy to control by a few?



Yeah but the bombings of Kosovo didn't affect a majority of the U.S. population in a negative way.

Tell you the truth, we would've bombed Kosovo no matter who got in.


Probably, yes.



Africa still suffers under the brunt of reactionary Imperialism actually. But China seems to be taking steps to actually open markets to them.

But we won't see any real development unless foreign capital is thrown out!


So Chinese capital good, Western capital bad? :confused:



Well, like I said here's where we disagree. I think U.S. Imperialism is a system that continues sustaining itself no matter what it's citizen's say. The most effective way to stop it is to support armed resistance abroad and civil unrest at home. Which seems to be the only two things that stop it.


As long as most of the world submits itself to US imperialism, they shouldn't depend on America's good conscience to free them.



Or as I like to call it, the vestiges of foreign capital. The Chinease have done something quite amazing, they've made imperialism work for them, how? Simple, any business that wishes to do business in their country must give them 51% control as well as divuldge all trade secrets.

Which means aspiring Chinease Capitalists can replicate what they've learned from the Americans. Thus while they are working with foreign capital they are also pushing it out.


You're looking at it the wrong way.

China isn't going back to isolation; slowly but surely, liberalization is happening. It's not a matter of pushing American Capital out, but creating Chinese capital.

Just because they're sucessful doesn't mean we'll be any less well off. For example, the price of steel has gone through the roof (mainly b/c of China) and kept many miny mills, and some open-hearth ones, in business here.

China is going to become the #1 customer for Coca-Cola, Ford, GM, and, quite possibly, the NBA in not-too-long. Likewise, we're a huge customer for their products as well.

And, unlike Russia, both the US and China benefit from low oil prices.

[Unicorn]

Yeah, what a horrible war the US is losing in Iraq...

oh wait, we've lost what, 4,000? 5,000? 10 minutes worth at Ohama beach?

No, there will not be a draft.

So vote Democrat.

Either way, this is more a failure of the American electorate, especially the dumbass low-class scum who voted for W. Fuckin Rednecks.

If the draft is instated, the war will be over in about 15 minutes.

The US isn't like the Soviet Union; conscription is strongly looked down upon.

Good luck with your violent alternative, though.
Many "anti-war" Democrats actually support the draft.

Here is John Murtha:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQKspxWa-44

[La Comédie Noire]

Chomsky in 1982:

Quote:
We fought the war to prevent Indochina from carrying out successful social and economic development. Well, I think the chances of that happening are very slight because of the devastation, because of the brutality of war. But the U.S. wants to make sure it will continue. And therefore we first of all of course refused any reparations. We refused aid. We try to block aid from other countries. We block aid from international institutions. I mean, sometimes it reaches a point of almost fanatic effort to make them suffer.

For example, there was one point when the United States prevented the government of India from sending a hundred buffalo to Vietnam. (The buffalo stock in Vietnam had been decimated by American bombing.) We prevented them by threatening to cut off Food for Peace aid.
So in every conceivable way the United States has tried to increase the harsh conditions of life in Indochina. And right now one of the main ways we're doing it is by supporting the Khmer Rouge on the Thai-Cambodian border.
We won.

Vietnam is now entering the US sphere, if only economically.


No, not really. Vietnam now has one of the best national economies in indochina. The U.S. sanctions the hell out of a lot of countries, think of it as the U.S foreign policie's middle finger.




Manufacturing, information technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_technology) and high-tech industries form a large and fast-growing part of the national economy. Vietnam is a relative new-comer to the oil business, but today it is the third-largest oil producer in Southeast Asia with output of 400,000 barrels per day. Vietnam is one of Asia's most open economies: two-way trade is around 160% of GDP, more than twice the ratio for China and over four times India's.


Anyways, sanctions alone are not imperialist control, we lost.


Yes, most of the times the US has used conscription, it was for a war the people believed was necessary.


No, they've just used conscription because it works. Now they don't dare think to use it unless it's something they can drum up mass support for, or need in times of desperation.



Is it the US's fault that many people are easy to control by a few?

Back wards peasents and small sections of isolated proletariats?, yes. First world workers?, we shall see.


So Chinese capital good, Western capital bad?

Western capital seems to only be interested in mining natural resources and developing agriculture. However, China on the other hand is actually selling goods to people. Maybe the Chinease think a kinder Imperialism will nab them more oil, who knows?



As long as most of the world submits itself to US imperialism, they shouldn't depend on America's good conscience to free them.

Change "submits itself to" to "is being viciously attacked by" and we agree.



China isn't going back to isolation; slowly but surely, liberalization is happening. It's not a matter of pushing American Capital out, but creating Chinese capital.

That's exactly what I said is happening. They are allowing u.s capitalism in so they can improve their own capitalism, it's the exploited's exploiters exploiting the foreign exploiters. I know! Capitalism does some crazy shit.


Just because they're sucessful doesn't mean we'll be any less well off. For example, the price of steel has gone through the roof (mainly b/c of China) and kept many miny mills, and some open-hearth ones, in business here.

Could very well be but a day is coming when China will start selling to the highest bidder and the U.S may not be it.


China is going to become the #1 customer for Coca-Cola, Ford, GM, and, quite possibly, the NBA in not-too-long. Likewise, we're a huge customer for their products as well.

And, unlike Russia, both the US and China benefit from low oil prices.

Agian could very well be but remeber coca cola, Ford, and GM are international countries, who also must sell to the highest bidder. We may not be the highest bidder in the years to come.

Curious, why do you keep bringing up Russia?

[Joby]

No, not really. Vietnam now has one of the best national economies in indochina. The U.S. sanctions the hell out of a lot of countries, think of it as the U.S foreign policie's middle finger.


That was then. This is now.

We did pummel them. Now, however, we trade with them. Vietnam has grown greatly under Capitalism:



The Vietnam War destroyed much of the economy of Vietnam. Upon taking power, the Government created a planned economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy) for the nation. Collectivization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization) of farms, factories and economic capital was implemented, and millions of people were put to work in government programs. For many decades, Vietnam's economy was plagued with inefficiency and corruption in state programs, poor quality and underproduction and restrictions on economic activities and trade. It also suffered from the trade embargo from the United States and most of Europe after the Vietnam War. Subsequently, the trade partners of the Communist blocs began to erode. In 1986, the Sixth Party Congress introduced significant economic reforms with market economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy) elements as part of a broad economic reform package called "đổi mới (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doi_moi)" (Renovation). Private ownership was encouraged in industries, commerce and agriculture. Vietnam achieved around 8% annual GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product) growth from 1990 to 1997 and continued at around 7% from 2000 to 2005, making it the world's second-fastest growing economy. Simultaneously, foreign investment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_investment) grew threefold and domestic savings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings) quintupled.


and to mark the complete end of Vietnamese communism:


Among other steps taken in the process of transitioning to a market economy, Vietnam in July 2006 updated its intellectual property legislation to comply with TRIPS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS). Vietnam was accepted into the WTO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization) on November 7, 2006. Vietnam's chief trading partners include Japan, Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia), ASEAN countries, the U.S. and Western European countries.



Anyways, sanctions alone are not imperialist control, we lost.


Lost what?

Did a nation set a sucessful example out of the US sphere of influence? No.

Did it play upon the bigger fear--That the 3rd world would see it and overthrow the US? No.

Are they still outside our sphere of influence? No.



No, they've just used conscription because it works. Now they don't dare think to use it unless it's something they can drum up mass support for, or need in times of desperation.


As in unless the people consent to it.


Western capital seems to only be interested in mining natural resources and developing agriculture. However, China on the other hand is actually selling goods to people. Maybe the Chinease think a kinder Imperialism will nab them more oil, who knows?

Yeah...In nations which have been rejected by the West.

lol maybe the US-led West got angry with these nations so we could hand them to China in order to appease they're oil tastes.


Change "submits itself to" to "is being viciously attacked by" and we agree.

130 out of 190 Nations have US bases on them.

If a US base has and is on your soil, you're submitting yourself.


That's exactly what I said is happening. They are allowing u.s capitalism in so they can improve their own capitalism, it's the exploited's exploiters exploiting the foreign exploiters. I know! Capitalism does some crazy shit.

:confused: By making us cheap Plasma TV's we're being exploited?

It's not like US corporations are investing there because China is forcing them to. They're there because they'll be making huge sums in a huge market--And improving the quality of life for most Chinese.


Could very well be but a day is coming when China will start selling to the highest bidder and the U.S may not be it.

Right. My Nikes are now going to Africa lol

China benefits from selling to the largest nation-market on the planet.


Agian could very well be but remeber coca cola, Ford, and GM are international countries, who also must sell to the highest bidder. We may not be the highest bidder in the years to come.

First, I highly doubt the American Market is going to really evaporate any time soon.

Secondly, it's not like there's a finite limit on production. Also, increased competition in any sector will encourage innovation.

Third, who cares? GM and Ford are losing money hand over fist in the US. Japanese and European auto makers are doing a better job.


Curious, why do you keep bringing up Russia?

Because they're the only superpower which is truly outside the US sphere. They're also a main competitor of both US and China because they love high gas prices.

[Joby]

Many "anti-war" Democrats actually support the draft.

Here is John Murtha:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQKspxWa-44

For different reasons.

Mainly because they feel that if Bush III wants to launch another war, his kids should be on the frontline. The logic being, therefore, that another No-reason War wouldn't happen.

[Zurdito]

For different reasons.

Mainly because they feel that if Bush III wants to launch another war, his kids should be on the frontline. The logic being, therefore, that another No-reason War wouldn't happen.

yes, because a draft would surely in practice apply equally to the welll-connected elite and the working class.:rolleyes:

[La Comédie Noire]

Lost what?

Did a nation set a sucessful example out of the US sphere of influence? No.

Did it play upon the bigger fear--That the 3rd world would see it and overthrow the US? No.

Are they still outside our sphere of influence? No.

We do not control Vietnam like a sphere of influence, like we had envisoned upon invading them. Saying oh we invaded them then sanctioned the hell out of them then when they started to build there own capitalism then they let foreign investors in on their own terms is a victory of U.S. might!!!

It's not a victory for the U.S. It was inevitable, it would of happened anyways.

Not over throw the U.S. throw them out until such a time they actually wanted Capitalism and could benefit from it. On their own terms. Which they did.



As in unless the people consent to it.

Well, like you said the draft continued after 1968 albeit to a lesser extent, who ever thought winning "the lottery" could be a bad thing? But I'm saying if the ruling class had found the benefit of the war, that is the value of their plunder, more important than the risk they would've kept forcing people to sign up for the military.


Yeah...In nations which have been rejected by the West.

lol maybe the US-led West got angry with these nations so we could hand them to China in order to appease they're oil tastes.


Proof Western Capitalism is on the decline, they fear taking risk.


130 out of 190 Nations have US bases on them.

If a US base has and is on your soil, you're submitting yourself.

Well I think what a U.S. military base does in Germany or Italy is much different from what a military base does in oh say Iraq or Afganhastan.


:confused: By making us cheap Plasma TV's we're being exploited?

It's not like US corporations are investing there because China is forcing them to. They're there because they'll be making huge sums in a huge market--And improving the quality of life for most Chinese.

Yeah but don't you think the U.S. Companies like giving "the goods" to their future competitors? I don't think so. Western Capitalism is killing itself.


Right. My Nikes are now going to Africa lol

China benefits from selling to the largest nation-market on the planet.

Over one hemisphere and another 20 years and I think you've got it.





First, I highly doubt the American Market is going to really evaporate any time soon.

Secondly, it's not like there's a finite limit on production. Also, increased competition in any sector will encourage innovation.

Third, who cares? GM and Ford are losing money hand over fist in the US. Japanese and European auto makers are doing a better job.


I think it will over the next 50 years when our purchasing power drops tremendously. We already have to use credit for most things.

[Joby]

We do not control Vietnam like a sphere of influence, like we had envisoned upon invading them. Saying oh we invaded them then sanctioned the hell out of them then when they started to build there own capitalism then they let foreign investors in on their own terms is a victory of U.S. might!!!

It's not a victory for the U.S. It was inevitable, it would of happened anyways.

Not over throw the U.S. throw them out until such a time they actually wanted Capitalism and could benefit from it. On their own terms. Which they did.

Yes, because Communism has inevitably failed when confronted by the US-dominated capitalist world.

By joining the WTO, et al, they demonstrate that they are willing to allow US capital in in order to have their economy grow.


Well, like you said the draft continued after 1968 albeit to a lesser extent, who ever thought winning "the lottery" could be a bad thing? But I'm saying if the ruling class had found the benefit of the war, that is the value of their plunder, more important than the risk they would've kept forcing people to sign up for the military.

Ok, I agree.

Granted, we had created a situation in which the parties we opposed would clearly be devastated for many years.


Proof Western Capitalism is on the decline, they fear taking risk.

Yes, we realize we can no longer dominate China.

Nor do we want to.

Though what I wrote is just a theory, of course.


Well I think what a U.S. military base does in Germany or Italy is much different from what a military base does in oh say Iraq or Afganhastan.

You're right.

But only Iraq or Afghanistan.


Yeah but don't you think the U.S. Companies like giving "the goods" to their future competitors? I don't think so. Western Capitalism is killing itself.

Right...The system that has endured for centuries is murdering itself.

By your logic, no Britsh investor would dared have touched the American maket, right? America did, after all, outpace Britain in growth once they got rolling.

Was Britain negatively affected by America's growth, long term? Certainly not.


Over one hemisphere and another 20 years and I think you've got it.

Over were?


I think it will over the next 50 years when our purchasing power drops tremendously. We already have to use credit for most things.

Most things?

[Joby]

yes, because a draft would surely in practice apply equally to the welll-connected elite and the working class.:rolleyes:

I'm not saying I support it.

[La Comédie Noire]

Ah you have returned! I thought you disappeared as most in the O.I. forums often do.



Yes, because Communism has inevitably failed when confronted by the US-dominated capitalist world.

By joining the WTO, et al, they demonstrate that they are willing to allow US capital in in order to have their economy grow.

I don't believe communism was even attempted. But atleast they threw off the yoke of U.S. Imperialism whcih anybody will tell you can limit the possibilities of Capitalism immensley.



Right...The system that has endured for centuries is murdering itself.

By your logic, no Britsh investor would dared have touched the American maket, right? America did, after all, outpace Britain in growth once they got rolling.

Was Britain negatively affected by America's growth, long term? Certainly not.


Britain did try to hang on for dear life when the Colonial Bourgeoise tried to make a seperate Republic.

You could say that however, you must agree Imperialism is a different bird than it was in the 1700's with far greater consequences if it proves victorious or fails.

It can be argued endlessly either way what would happen if the United States' oil cartels lost their grip on the market. Some say they'd just convert to alternative energy others say they would'nt be able to make the transition.

Unfortunately all we can do is wait and see.



Over were?

Latin America.




Most things?

Take a look at your average middle class family. You got your house(or apartment), your car, your kid's education, your kid's school supplies, vacations

Most people's actual wages go to food, gas, and utilitiy bills, although some use credit for those things as well.

It's pretty interesting to watch, have you been viewing CNN Money lately by chance? I heard an anyalyst on their yesterday who said "Americans are going to have to learn not to consume so much." Which I take as meaning "Your not worth the loans we give you!"

Consumer spending is much higher than consumer saving.

Whose gonna want to loan to a nation of people with bad credit reports?

I expect to see a dramatic down turn in peoples' standards of living very soon, if not already.

[Bud Struggle]

Ah you have returned! I thought you disappeared as most in the O.I. forums often do.


Don't know about anyone's case in particular--but OIers often have a thing they do that's called a "job" which can often take way from their posting on RevLeft and plotting for the revolution time. :laugh:

[La Comédie Noire]

Don't know about anyone's case in particular--but OIers often have a thing they do that's called a "job" which can often take way from their posting on RevLeft and plotting for the revolution time. http://www.revleft.com/vb/floyd-joby-debate-t74123/revleft/smilies2/lol.gif


I have a job and go to school, I come on this site whenever I can. If you'll notice, my posting history is quite eradic. I'll post a lot in a short amount of time then you won't hear from me for months.

However, I can't speak for everyone else on the board.

[Joby]

Ah you have returned! I thought you disappeared as most in the O.I. forums often do.

Nope, I'm a regular down here.

I also work and go to school (and an attempt at a social life), but I only sleep 4 hours a night or so.

Great Cappie drugs these days :cool:


I don't believe communism was even attempted. But atleast they threw off the yoke of U.S. Imperialism whcih anybody will tell you can limit the possibilities of Capitalism immensley.

All right, I apologize for stereotyping. There are so many different Leftist brand names that I kind of make asumptions.

But anyway, I don't see it that way, I believe Capitalism is the prepatory stage for another social order. Not that fascism, et al, should be encouraged, but that globalization should.



Britain did try to hang on for dear life when the Colonial Bourgeoise tried to make a seperate Republic.


That was before the Industrial Revolution really got things going; I meant British investors who later threw money at America's steel mills, railroads, auto industry, etc etc etc



You could say that however, you must agree Imperialism is a different bird than it was in the 1700's with far greater consequences if it proves victorious or fails.


Yes, I'd say that.



It can be argued endlessly either way what would happen if the United States' oil cartels lost their grip on the market. Some say they'd just convert to alternative energy others say they would'nt be able to make the transition.


I think we'll be able to adapt to an alternative energy source.

Forst, by using Chemical coctails to lower the dependence on petroleum (especially in the infrastructure ie diesal) and eventually replacing internal-combustion altogether.



Unfortunately all we can do is wait and see
.

I got a feeling alternative fuels will be the next "plastics"


Latin America.

It's a stretch for 20 years, but hopefully their economy will develop strongly.



Take a look at your average middle class family. You got your house(or apartment), your car, your kid's education, your kid's school supplies, vacations

Most people's actual wages go to food, gas, and utilitiy bills, although some use credit for those things as well.

It's pretty interesting to watch, have you been viewing CNN Money lately by chance? I heard an anyalyst on their yesterday who said "Americans are going to have to learn not to consume so much." Which I take as meaning "Your not worth the loans we give you!"

Consumer spending is much higher than consumer saving.

Whose gonna want to loan to a nation of people with bad credit reports?

I expect to see a dramatic down turn in peoples' standards of living very soon, if not already.


Yeah, I agree with a lot of your points.

Much of the growth we've was funded on credit, and this was unfortunate. But, to be frank, I can't feel sorry for a lot of these people.

Granted, Universal Healthcare would take away one of the largest factors of bakruptcy, while increased college aid and infrastructure imporovements is a must of we want to keep up.

But soooooo many people were making $60,000 a year...Then financing a $800,000 mortage while eating out 10+ times a month (and not at Denny's) while taking a vacation a year.

That failure of our schools in teaching how to write a budget has been a huge disaster.

But I was arguing with the way I interpreted what you wrote; I think people will have to slim down, not starve. Though, there will certainly be more welfare recipients.

[La Comédie Noire]

But anyway, I don't see it that way, I believe Capitalism is the prepatory stage for another social order. Not that fascism, et al, should be encouraged, but that globalization should.


I believe Capitalism can be progressive to a point. But more important I believe Imperialism stunts the growth of Capitalism because it only allows for the development of certain sectors of industry.



That was before the Industrial Revolution really got things going; I meant British investors who later threw money at America's steel mills, railroads, auto industry, etc etc etc

Exactly and no one called it a victory of british Imperialism/Colonialism did they?



I think we'll be able to adapt to an alternative energy source.

Forst, by using Chemical coctails to lower the dependence on petroleum (especially in the infrastructure ie diesal) and eventually replacing internal-combustion altogether.

Depends how willing some companies are to spend money on that. Although it can't be as expensive as a war, but late capitalism does some crazy things.



Yeah, I agree with a lot of your points.

Much of the growth we've was funded on credit, and this was unfortunate. But, to be frank, I can't feel sorry for a lot of these people.

Granted, Universal Healthcare would take away one of the largest factors of bakruptcy, while increased college aid and infrastructure imporovements is a must of we want to keep up.

But soooooo many people were making $60,000 a year...Then financing a $800,000 mortage while eating out 10+ times a month (and not at Denny's) while taking a vacation a year.

That failure of our schools in teaching how to write a budget has been a huge disaster.

But I was arguing with the way I interpreted what you wrote; I think people will have to slim down, not starve. Though, there will certainly be more welfare recipients.

Couple that with the weakened U.S. Dollar too. People may have trouble meeting even the bare minimum. Although It would be a lie to say there aren't people already out there in that situation.

As for welfare reforms, all indications say they are planning to dismantle social and economic reforms such as welfare.

Am I too much of a pessimist or are you too much of an optimist? We shall see.