The U.S. is not imperialist

[5th Generation US Vet]

"Imperialism" refers to the belief or process of creating an empire. To create an empire, you use your army to invade smaller, less powerful neighbors and absorb their recources and people into your own.

The two most powerful imperialist states in the 20th century were both Communist!

The reason why the US is not an imperialist state is because we have, with our more powerful army, invaded and conquered dozens of nations in Europe and Asia (and more recently in the Middle East), and we left each territory free to govern itself.

Seriously, do you guys actually believe this crap you post?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

"Imperialism" refers to the belief or process of creating an empire. To create an empire, you use your army to invade smaller, less powerful neighbors and absorb their recources and people into your own.
Imperialism does not always require military action, for the same reason why an armed robber usually doesn't need to actually shoot people to get what he wants. It is usually enough to just have a gun (or more guns than anyone else) and threaten to shoot unless you get your way.

The US is an imperialist country because it constantly uses threats of military action or economic blackmail to get other countries to submit to its will.


The two most powerful imperialist states in the 20th century were both Communist!

The reason why the US is not an imperialist state is because we have, with our more powerful army, invaded and conquered dozens of nations in Europe and Asia (and more recently in the Middle East), and we left each territory free to govern itself.
What do you mean by "free to govern itself?"

The countries of Eastern Europe during the Cold War were free to pursue whatever domestic policies they wanted (with two exceptions), as long as they obeyed and followed Soviet foreign policy.

The countries in the American sphere of influence are free to pursue whatever domestic policies they want (with some exceptions), as long as they obey and follow American foreign policy.

I don't really see the difference. Of course the US doesn't dictate every aspect of domestic policy for every country within its empire - most empires don't. Most empires tell their conquered nations: "From time to time we will give you orders. You must always follow those orders. In other matters, do as you wish."

[5th Generation US Vet]

Imperialism does not always require military action, for the same reason why an armed robber usually doesn't need to actually shoot people to get what he wants.

The only place where this is true is Hollywood. Everyone else in the world knows that a small conventional army paired with the UN is enough to kick Russia out of Georgia. Your comparison doesn't work because robbers hit soft targets (unarmed people) and they "hit and run". Imperialist states like the Soviet Union and China stay for generations, and that requires the concentrated power of a police state and superior arms.


The US is an imperialist country because it constantly uses threats of military action or economic blackmail to get other countries to submit to its will.

Having been in the military, I always laugh at people who say things like this. Our military probably does more charity and community work than drilling or using guns. Consider a story from the book "American Heroes" by Oliver North. When the US 1st expeditionary marines entered Baghdad for the first time, they passed through one of the city's poorest neighborhoods. The tanks and personnel carriers were met all along the way by children and young adults curious about them, all of them clearly in various stages of starvation. By the time the the expeditionary unit exited that neighborhood, none of the individual people had "ready to eat" rations, all of their food had been dropped along the way for the Iraqi's, leaving the marines vulnerable from lack of supplies.

THAT is what characterizes every uniformed unit in our military, including those in which I served.



What do you mean by "free to govern itself?".

"Free" means exactly what it says, and it includes an entire media system in Europe that is anti-American, and it includes running for office candidates who are clearly anti-American and electing leaders such as in France, Germany, and Spain that were clearly threats to the United States.

"Free" means we don't interfere, even when it's clearly in our interest to do so.


The countries in the American sphere of influence are free to pursue whatever domestic policies they want (with some exceptions), as long as they obey and follow American foreign policy.

When nations refused to participate in the War on Terror, how did we enforce this imaginary control you think we have over their foreign policy?

We let them go.

[Dean]

Having been in the military, I always laugh at people who say things like this. Our military probably does more charity and community work than drilling or using guns. Consider a story from the book "American Heroes" by Oliver North. When the US 1st expeditionary marines entered Baghdad for the first time, they passed through one of the city's poorest neighborhoods. The tanks and personnel carriers were met all along the way by children and young adults curious about them, all of them clearly in various stages of starvation. By the time the the expeditionary unit exited that neighborhood, none of the individual people had "ready to eat" rations, all of their food had been dropped along the way for the Iraqi's, leaving the marines vulnerable from lack of supplies.

It's a shame they didn't take you out, too. Fuck off you imperialist goon.

[Phalanx]

The reason why the US is not an imperialist state is because we have, with our more powerful army, invaded and conquered dozens of nations in Europe and Asia (and more recently in the Middle East), and we left each territory free to govern itself.


You know what? The Roman Empire did the exact same thing.


Having been in the military, I always laugh at people who say things like this. Our military probably does more charity and community work than drilling or using guns. Consider a story from the book "American Heroes" by Oliver North. When the US 1st expeditionary marines entered Baghdad for the first time, they passed through one of the city's poorest neighborhoods. The tanks and personnel carriers were met all along the way by children and young adults curious about them, all of them clearly in various stages of starvation. By the time the the expeditionary unit exited that neighborhood, none of the individual people had "ready to eat" rations, all of their food had been dropped along the way for the Iraqi's, leaving the marines vulnerable from lack of supplies.

I don't think anyone here denies that the US tries to win hearts and minds. But when it comes down to it, it'll use the threat of force an economic sanction when it's favorable to the Empire (see: Iran).

What aren't you telling us when you regale us with you war stories? I've talked to many Iraq vets and many recounted times when US Humvees would speed through the streets of Baghdad, civilians be damned.

[FreeFocus]

*sigh* I think we can allow right-wing libertarians, and even capitalists in general, but don't you think allowing proud pigs to post here is pushing it? :lol:

[Dr Mindbender]

The only place where this is true

When nations refused to participate in the War on Terror, how did we enforce this imaginary control you think we have over their foreign policy?

We let them go.

yep, you're so free thats why you cant borrow a 'subversive' book from an american library without the government taking an interest. (also google my new custom title)

As for your comment about the most imperialist 20th century nations being communist, i'd say the british empire was pretty much devoid of any communist tennents.

[turquino]

Imperialism is the present international economic system in which nations are exploited by other nations. This can be achieved through control over currency markets, high interest rate loans, transfer pricing, and unequal exchange on an international level. The US along with France, Japan, Canada and the rest of the first world all qualify as imperialist.

[LSD]

You're arguing over the meaning of the word "imperialism". That is an incredibly stupid thing to do.

No, the United States is not "imperialist" in the sense that it's actually an "empire" with an "Emperor", but that's not the sense they're using it.

You see, 5G (can I call you 5G? I know we just met, but it's hell of a lot shorter than your ridiculous chosen name and it's shorter than troll tooo...), you see, to these folks, "imperialism" is something that a fellow named Lenin discovered oh about 90 years ago, and believe it or not it has nothing to do with empires at all. I know, I know, it seems impossible. How can something called "imperialism" not involve an "empire"?

Well, 5G, logic isn't exactly important to these folks and they don't much care for etymology either (etymology means the history of words. It can be your word of the day :)). And so they didn't really mind that old Lenin's "imperialism" didn't really make any damned bit of sense.

But gouchy old Lenin he yelled and he yelled and he wouldn't let anyone get any sleep until they'd heard him rant on and on about "imperialism" and "neo-colonies". Seems that this other fellow, named "Marx" or something, had thought that something called "capitalism" was about to die (capitalism is good. Good like America :)), except it didn't.

That made Lenin mad. :mad:

Then he god sad. :crying:

Then he got an idea! :thumbup:

Maybe capitalism just hadn't died ...yet! Maybe there was a "last stage" of capitalism! And since Lenin happened to live in the Russian Empire he decided to name his new made up idea "imperialism"!

And that's why all the little commies go around chanting about "imperialism" even though there hasn't been an actual empire around since the Ottomans bit the dust. Not that you really care, though, you just thought it'd be fun to rile 'em up by pointing out that "imperialism" doesn't actually make lexigraphical sense.

And good for you! :) I bet it took a lot of hard work to come up with that idea, right? Be proud!

You're my number one. :thumbup1:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

And that's why all the little commies go around chanting about "imperialism" even though there hasn't been an actual empire around since the Ottomans bit the dust.
Actually, if you're going to define "empire" as a country ruled by an Emperor, then the Japanese Empire is alive and kicking.

Also, you forgot the British Empire. British monarchs held the title of "Emperors of India" until 1947.

And that, boys and girls, is why it's stupid to classify countries by what they call themselves.

[Winter]

"Imperialism" refers to the belief or process of creating an empire. To create an empire, you use your army to invade smaller, less powerful neighbors and absorb their recources and people into your own.



Imperialism has two meanings, one describing an action and the other describing an attitude. Most commonly it is understood in relation to Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire) building, as the expansion of a nation's authority by territorial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territory_(country_subdivision)) conquest establishing economic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic) and political (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political) powers in other territories or nations ( Iraq? ), and when such encompasses non-contiguous "colonies" or "protectorates" then the term also subsumes Colonialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism). In that sense, most European seafaring powers were at one time or another Colonialistic and therefore Imperialistic, regardless of their exploitation or benevolence toward their colonial possessions and people.

Just because the government says that America is invading so and so country to bring democracy does not make their statements true. Are you so blind with nationalism to see the country that we live in may not be as benevelont as you were told it is?


The two most powerful imperialist states in the 20th century were both Communist!

China and the Soviet Union? Wrong. Where do you get this information from? I want to see your sources.


The reason why the US is not an imperialist state is because we have, with our more powerful army, invaded and conquered dozens of nations in Europe and Asia (and more recently in the Middle East), and we left each territory free to govern itself.

It may appear that the U.S. gives the country back, but the reality is that they only fix the way things are operated in order to benefit themselves. For instance, the U.S. prefers the new Iraqi government to Saddam's because it benefits them. Along with Israel, Iraq is now the U.S.'s eyes and ears in the middle east...who's next?

See, that's the beauty of puppet governments. America has also taken out democratically elected officials in foreign countries to replace them with right-wing military dictators that exploited their citizens even more. Why? Because it is in the American government's and the corporations' interest. Nothing the U.S. government does is for the well being of the working and poor class.


Seriously, do you guys actually believe this crap you post?

The feeling's mutual, nationalist.

[JimmyJazz]

"Imperialism" refers to the belief or process of creating an empire. To create an empire, you use your army to invade smaller, less powerful neighbors and absorb their recources and people into your own.

The two most powerful imperialist states in the 20th century were both Communist!

The reason why the US is not an imperialist state is because we have, with our more powerful army, invaded and conquered dozens of nations in Europe and Asia (and more recently in the Middle East), and we left each territory free to govern itself.

Seriously, do you guys actually believe this crap you post?

Here you go, but do your own homework next time. I'm serious!

General imperialism lists:
link (http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/history/interventions.htm)

link (http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2004/01bases.htm)

link (http://question-everything.mahost.org/History/demImperialism.html)

link (http://www.zompist.com/latam.html)

link (http://www.mindfully.org/WTO/2003/Economics-Of-EmpireMay03.htm)

link (http://eatthestate.org/07-03/FactsonEconomic.htm)

Specifics:
Intervention in Russia 1917 (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1346.html)

Intervention in China (just one example) (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEFD61538F931A35753C1A96E9582 60)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Your comparison doesn't work because robbers hit soft targets (unarmed people) and they "hit and run". Imperialist states like the Soviet Union and China stay for generations, and that requires the concentrated power of a police state and superior arms.
The point is, the Soviet Union almost never had to actually use its concentrated power in Eastern Europe. It only used it on two occasions - Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. The rest of the time from 1945 to 1989 the Soviets didn't have to fire a single shot.

Take Bulgaria for example. The Soviets never invaded Bulgaria. They never fired a single bullet at any Bulgarians. Yet Bulgaria was one of the most loyal and obedient Soviet allies during the Cold War - at one point its president even offered to merge Bulgaria into the Soviet Union.

So, was Bulgaria free, or not? If not, then you admit that a country can control another country without any use of military force whatsoever.


Having been in the military, I always laugh at people who say things like this. Our military probably does more charity and community work than drilling or using guns. Consider a story from the book "American Heroes" by Oliver North. When the US 1st expeditionary marines entered Baghdad for the first time, they passed through one of the city's poorest neighborhoods. The tanks and personnel carriers were met all along the way by children and young adults curious about them, all of them clearly in various stages of starvation. By the time the the expeditionary unit exited that neighborhood, none of the individual people had "ready to eat" rations, all of their food had been dropped along the way for the Iraqi's, leaving the marines vulnerable from lack of supplies.
Even if that were true, the US military didn't exactly enter Iraq for the purpose of distributing food rations, did it? Even if all US soldiers were sweet little angels - which of course they aren't, just look at all the atrocities that have been committed - an occupation army is still an occupation army, no matter how nicely it behaves.

If, say, the Russians invaded America and started giving food and gifts to everyone, I bet you still wouldn't like it.


THAT is what characterizes every uniformed unit in our military, including those in which I served.
The point is that they are the tools of an evil government. The fact that they might be nice people in private doesn't change that. Soldiers don't get to decide what they are sent out to do, so their personal moral qualities don't make any difference.


"Free" means exactly what it says, and it includes an entire media system in Europe that is anti-American, and it includes running for office candidates who are clearly anti-American and electing leaders such as in France, Germany, and Spain that were clearly threats to the United States.
Are you familiar with something called NATO? It is utterly laughable to say that a pro-NATO government - like all the governments of Europe - is "anti-American." A true anti-American government is one that actively opposes the foreign policy of the United States. European governments never do that. The most they ever do is complain and shed crocodile tears and refuse to help the US. Refusing to help someone is not the same as opposing him.


When nations refused to participate in the War on Terror, how did we enforce this imaginary control you think we have over their foreign policy?

We let them go.
So you allow them to refuse to help you. Would you allow them to actively work against you, or side with the enemy, if that's what their people wanted?

Didn't think so. They are "free" to either help the US, or do nothing. They are not free to actively oppose the US.

[Fedorov]

Its a shame that the vet hasn't responded to all the "crap" that was posted. I couldn't have put the rebbutles better myself although I'd like to add that recent actions (aside from Iraq and Afghanistan) does nicoragua or perhaps the American coup in Iran in the 50s ring a bell? American imperialism isnt as obvious as say tanks rolling in Prague but take a closer look and many countries not in line with Americas view simply get invaded or have a coup ushering true "democracy", thank god for that great export of America. I also assume that you are proud of serving in the military and by all means you can but dont use that experience as a way to legitimize your argument.

[Demogorgon]

"Free" means exactly what it says, and it includes an entire media system in Europe that is anti-American, and it includes running for office candidates who are clearly anti-American and electing leaders such as in France, Germany, and Spain that were clearly threats to the United States.

How anyone could think that the leaders of those countries are threats to America is beyond me.

[Bud Struggle]

You're arguing over the meaning of the word "imperialism". That is an incredibly stupid thing to do.

No, the United States is not "imperialist" in the sense that it's actually an "empire" with an "Emperor", but that's not the sense they're using it.

You see, 5G (can I call you 5G? I know we just met, but it's hell of a lot shorter than your ridiculous chosen name and it's shorter than troll tooo...), you see, to these folks, "imperialism" is something that a fellow named Lenin discovered oh about 90 years ago, and believe it or not it has nothing to do with empires at all. I know, I know, it seems impossible. How can something called "imperialism" not involve an "empire"?

Well, 5G, logic isn't exactly important to these folks and they don't much care for etymology either (etymology means the history of words. It can be your word of the day :)). And so they didn't really mind that old Lenin's "imperialism" didn't really make any damned bit of sense.

But gouchy old Lenin he yelled and he yelled and he wouldn't let anyone get any sleep until they'd heard him rant on and on about "imperialism" and "neo-colonies". Seems that this other fellow, named "Marx" or something, had thought that something called "capitalism" was about to die (capitalism is good. Good like America :)), except it didn't.

That made Lenin mad. :mad:

Then he god sad. :crying:

Then he got an idea! :thumbup:

Maybe capitalism just hadn't died ...yet! Maybe there was a "last stage" of capitalism! And since Lenin happened to live in the Russian Empire he decided to name his new made up idea "imperialism"!

And that's why all the little commies go around chanting about "imperialism" even though there hasn't been an actual empire around since the Ottomans bit the dust. Not that you really care, though, you just thought it'd be fun to rile 'em up by pointing out that "imperialism" doesn't actually make lexigraphical sense.

And good for you! :) I bet it took a lot of hard work to come up with that idea, right? Be proud!

You're my number one. :thumbup1:

One of the best rants I've ever read on any forum ever on Al Gore's blessed Internet. :lol::lol::lol::thumbup:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

"Imperialism" refers to the belief or process of creating an empire. To create an empire, you use your army to invade smaller, less powerful neighbors and absorb their recources and people into your own.

Why do images of Shock and Awe come into my head after reading this?

[Comrade B]

The reason why the US is not an imperialist state is because we have, with our more powerful army, invaded and conquered dozens of nations in Europe and Asia (and more recently in the Middle East), and we left each territory free to govern itself.
The US sets up puppet governments, and denationalize the industries (such as oil in Iraq). If the country disobeys the US, the US returns, and kicks their asses. Still imperialism.



The two most powerful imperialist states in the 20th century were both Communist!
Two? The soviet union was Stalinist. I laugh at people who place all communism under Stalinism. If you mean Cuba, as the other country, Cuba never took the nations resources. They allowed the countries to do what they wanted with their government, and they always were backing a rebel group, not independently raiding the country.
If you mean China, I think there were only 3 people in the last poll here to say that China was communist, shut your mouth Ami Arschloch. You preach what your high school textbook says.

I would also go to say that the US economy is imperialistic, and has turned the northern part of Mexico into an American colony for tourism. No (recent) military was involved in that take over.

[Dros]

This argument is rooted partly in 5th G's misunderstanding of imperialism. Certainly, the kind of imperialism you are talking about is anachronistic at this point and the US rarely participates in this kind of activity. A materialist understanding of imperialism as a process recognizes that imperialism is an economic, not a military act. Imperialism is the extraction of surplus value and other kinds of resources from third world countries. The US economy is fundamentally grounded in this.

You might want to check this (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm) out.

-=-=-=-

I'm more than happy to debate with you about this. However, understand that you came here to talk to us. If you are interested in arguing and discussing with us, that's really great! If you're here to yell and scream and ask us if we "really believe that crap" then you are just trolling and really don't belong here. We respect your right to have an opinion opposed to ours. If you are interested in a mutually educational dialogue, then by all means stay. I think you'll find that there are many people in OI who aren't leftists and have chosen to post consistently and are valued members of our board. Some of them have learned some from us and we have learned some from them. If you're here to insult us, then you probably don't belong here and the CC will act accordingly. I really hope that you will stay and talk.

[Killfacer]

why are you here? To gawp incredulously at our stupidity?

[Raúl Duke]

"Imperialism" refers to the belief or process of creating an empire. To create an empire, you use your army to invade smaller, less powerful neighbors and absorb their recources and people into your own.

The two most powerful imperialist states in the 20th century were both Communist!

The reason why the US is not an imperialist state is because we have, with our more powerful army, invaded and conquered dozens of nations in Europe and Asia (and more recently in the Middle East), and we left each territory free to govern itself.

Seriously, do you guys actually believe this crap you post?

Forgotten the Philippines and Puerto Rico?

The U.S. made both into colonies...and Puerto Rico is still a colony under a "pretty" name (Commonwealth)!

Imperialism has a new form (probably usually cheaper from it's older form), you don't usually need to physically subjugate a nation. All you need now is to control their economy (which is what always mattered; to extract wealth) and make sure their government does not oppose your economic interests in their country.

That's the process that's happening in Iraq-Afghanistan...the U.S. advisors first thought about leaving the oil of these nations under their governments control yet decided to put them all on the free market so that corporations, most likely U.S.-U.K. corporations, will buy it up. The U.S. government will also make sure that the new Iraqi and Afghani government are subservient to it's (U.S.) economic interests.

[Dr Mindbender]

Forgotten the Philippines and Puerto Rico?




...and thats forgetting Hawaii, Grenada and Guantanamo bay.

[Flash]

"Imperialism" refers to the belief or process of creating an empire. To create an empire, you use your army to invade smaller, less powerful neighbors and absorb their recources and people into your own.

The two most powerful imperialist states in the 20th century were both Communist!

The reason why the US is not an imperialist state is because we have, with our more powerful army, invaded and conquered dozens of nations in Europe and Asia (and more recently in the Middle East), and we left each territory free to govern itself.

Seriously, do you guys actually believe this crap you post?


We actively support dictators such as Musharraf in Pakistan, and call them freedom-fighters. We installed the Shah dictatorship of Iran and helped maintain it. We supported the Taliban and aided Bin Laden against the Soviets. Now we invaded Iraq even though the CIA had good evidence Iraq hadn't developed WMDs. And infact the weapons used to gas the kurds were given to them by the American government in the Iraq-Iran war (we supported both sides by the way). The old Imperialist Empires are impractical and insane in today's modern world. Now wars are fought with ideas (propaganda) and economics.

America rules through proxy governments, it was a lesson learned from the old British Empire. Do you remember when someone from Pakistan's ISI said:

"America threatened to blow our country back to the stone age if we didn't comply"

It was a big news story a while back. It just goes to show what is really going on.

Or do you remember when Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki came out and openly condemned Israel's invasion of Lebanon to weed out 'Hezbollah'? In response to this the American media labeled him as an 'anti-american' and 'anti-semitic', while the Democrat party chairman Howard Dean openly called for his removal from office (a big slip up, he implied that WE owned the Iraq government not the people of Iraq. Just another puppet government).


America changed ever since the Federal Reserve act was passed into law by corurpt Senators on Christmas vacation when most senators were having dinner with their family. President Woodrow Wilson said:

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit.We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

These dominant men are the bankers that use Britain and America as proxy states for their own interests. I would suggest the documentary on Google Video called "The Money Masters" for more information since its created by Economists.


Imperialism has a new form (probably usually cheaper from it's older form), you don't usually need to physically subjugate a nation. All you need now is to control their economy (which is what always mattered; to extract wealth) and make sure their government does not oppose your economic interests in their country.

[Plagueround]

America changed ever since the Federal Reserve act was passed into law by corurpt Senators on Christmas vacation when most senators were having dinner with their family.

America changed, but the country's imperialism pre-dates the creation of the Fed. To reflect on the times before that as some great "golden age" is fetishism (My apologies if that wasn't your intent).

[spice756]

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit.We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

I seen a good youtube video that was explaining that the federal reserve is private.When the US government need money they ask the federal reserve I need $1,000,000 and the reserve gives them the money but bills them.

Thay also saying the federal reserve owns the gold and use that has collateral.Thay own all the money .If the government or people cannot pay of the deficit they could do any thing they want.

Here is a good video clip.

The Money Masters - How Bankers Gained Control of America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnwLgrSJZKs




These dominant men are the bankers that use Britain and America as proxy states for their own interests. I would suggest the documentary on Google Video called "The Money Masters" for more information since its created by Economists.


So you saying Britain federal reserve is private too?

[Demogorgon]

Let's keep federal reserve conspiracies out of this, eh? God knows, it is not a nice institution, but the thought that everything was wonderful (or even tolerable) when America was going through the economic swings back and forth is just silly. Not to mention those who come up with these notions really mean they want to see the gold standard back, and that is nuts.

[spice756]

On the subject of imperialism :crying: there is different types of imperialism .

1.invading a country for resources

2.taking out leaders you don't like and putting leaders you like in

3 going in a country to take a state-run secter and removing it and put a US businesses in it's place

4 removing anti-imperialism groups or freedom fighters

5 allowing US run businesses there to exploit them than their own businesses .

6 Give money or military aid to fight a group you hate in that country.

-Vietnam war do to communist who are anti- US imperialism
-Cuba embargo do to anti- US imperialism
-military aid to fight the FARC in Colombia
-US invade venezuele do to anti- US imperialism

Anyways others here will explain it much better than me.

[spice756]

Let's keep federal reserve conspiracies out of this, eh?

US banks are fascism ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNtYQqx392U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNtYQqx392U)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y6w1344JpM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y6w1344JpM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWrRiGQ4T98&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWrRiGQ4T98&feature=related)

No this is conspiracies !! What is above is not.No is it fascism ?

One last thing about imperialism .Is Canada proxy imperialism or just imperialism ? Why becuse most businesses in Canada are US own :( that means the Canadians do not own the means of production.:(

How much trade does Canada need from the US ? Can the US make it hard for Canada do to not good trade ?

I know Canada now and than support the US when it comes to wars .The US will say we are going to war :confused: You support us or not!!

[Hiero]

THAT is what characterizes every uniformed unit in our military, including those in which I served.

http://peacework.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/Abu%20Ghraib%20Torture-715244.jpg

[Flash]

Let's keep federal reserve conspiracies out of this, eh?

The Federal Reserve conspiracies are the only explanation as to why America changed so dramatically into what it is now. That is why I believe in them. It all happened around the same time Imperialist America was born.

[PigmerikanMao]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6DVGygFp-8

Anywho, just one sentence if I be not too late to interject:

SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GO TO HELL YOU FUCKING BABY KILLER!!

thanks

[RGacky3]

What did that video have to do with anything that has to do with the discussion!!? Stupid Maoists, I swear sometimes Maoists arguments are on the same level as "The terrorists hate our freedoms" just emotional bull, and any one could make the exact same emotional video about the USSR and China under mao.

"Shut the fuck up and go to hell you fucking baby killer!!" Brilliant! Who are you talking to Jackass?

Of coarse the United States is Imperialistic, any country with that amount of power would be. History repeats itself. Thats the biggest folly of most Leninst thinking, that somehow, if you put power it someone elses hands, they will act differently, that somehow different leaders will be more noble for some reason. ANYONE WITH THAT MUCH POWER WILL ACT IMPERIALISTICLY, BE IT AMERICA, CHINA, BRITAIN, WHOEVER!!!

[spice756]

I think PigmerikanMao was talking to 5th Generation US Vet of what Imperialistic means.

The USSR and China was not communist do to capitalism .

The communist manifesto does not talk about.

1.US fascism propaganda
2.US ultra conservative
3.State capitalism like USSR and China
4.deformed workers state
5 profit in command
6.mixed communism
7.running it in a capitalism way

If there was a fix to those problems than the USSR and China would be true communism.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't understand where this thread is going. spice and Mao seem to be going off on a tangent of their own.

[theraven]

The Federal Reserve conspiracies are the only explanation as to why America changed so dramatically into what it is now. That is why I believe in them. It all happened around the same time Imperialist America was born.


You confuse correlation with causation. Could it not be that an america that was moving towards a more pro-active foreign policy (as was seen in the Spanish American war, as well Teddy Roosevelt's mediation of the Japan-Russian War) and a hugely advancing industry felt the need to have a more centralized banking system.

What most lefties define as US imperial policy began before the Fed existed, and some would argue has always existed (they cite America's conquest of Indian lands).


Forgotten the Philippines and Puerto Rico?

The U.S. made both into colonies...and Puerto Rico is still a colony under a "pretty" name (Commonwealth)!

Phillipines was freed in the 40's, Puerto Rico regularly votes on its status.

[theraven]

I don't understand where this thread is going. spice and Mao seem to be going off on a tangent of their own.

They don't seem to know wtf is going on that is for sure. Methinks drugs are involved.

[Revolution 9]

I guess that installing capitalist dictatorships around the world doesn't count as imperialism any more, right?

[danyboy27]

US banks are fascism ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNtYQqx392U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNtYQqx392U)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y6w1344JpM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y6w1344JpM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWrRiGQ4T98&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWrRiGQ4T98&feature=related)

No this is conspiracies !! What is above is not.No is it fascism ?

One last thing about imperialism .Is Canada proxy imperialism or just imperialism ? Why becuse most businesses in Canada are US own :( that means the Canadians do not own the means of production.:(

How much trade does Canada need from the US ? Can the US make it hard for Canada do to not good trade ?

I know Canada now and than support the US when it comes to wars .The US will say we are going to war :confused: You support us or not!!à


wtf are you talking about? i am canadian and you can be sure we have s trong autonomy on our mean of production, canada is not, and never been owned by the us. we always been kind to the us beccause its our main trade partner, and we never had any strong reasons to kill eachother. if america would ow n the canada there will be no more free healthcare, and so fdar, we still have that, along with a plethora of social services.

btw we actually refused to participate to the war in iraq and we didnt had any problem beccause of that.

[Bud Struggle]

I guess that installing capitalist dictatorships around the world doesn't count as imperialism any more, right?

Not anymore than when the Soviet Union installed Communist dictatorships around the world. ;)

[Bud Struggle]

They don't seem to know wtf is going on that is for sure. Methinks drugs are involved.

They do seem like good drugs, though! :thumbup:

[RGacky3]

Not anymore than when the Soviet Union installed Communist dictatorships around the world. http://www.revleft.com/vb/u-s-not-t88154/revleft/smilies/wink.gif

No one denies that, whats the point, 2 evils don't make a good.

[Bud Struggle]

No one denies that, whats the point, 2 evils don't make a good.

The point is: power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's just the way human being work. When you debate if a world power is Imperialistic you might as well be debating if the sky is blue.

A world power can't help being Imperialistic--if it wasn't that way it wouldn't be a world power.

The whole premise is a tautology. Human beings weren't meant to have that much power. Our tribal instinct is being focused to the extreme by our technology. We don't seem to be able to control ourselves.

[RGacky3]

The point is: power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's just the way human being work. When you debate if a world power is Imperialistic you might as well be debating if the sky is blue.

A world power can't help being Imperialistic--if it wasn't that way it wouldn't be a world power.

EXACTLY!!! Your getting it. That applies with political and economic power. TomK your the road to becoming an Anarchist (don't worry, the road has good pussy just like the road to becoming a big shot Capitalist, difference is your helping society)

EXACTLY!!!

[Revolution 9]

Not anymore than when the Soviet Union installed Communist dictatorships around the world. ;)

I hate the USSR more than the USA.

[Hiero]

The whole premise is a tautology. Human beings weren't meant to have that much power. Our tribal instinct is being focused to the extreme by our technology. We don't seem to be able to control ourselves.

Why? How do you determine this, Christanity or human nature?

[Bud Struggle]

Why? How do you determine this, Christanity or human nature?

This is just a personal observation on my part--nothing rwitten stone, but it seem to me that man is through some ancient instinct tribal in some respects--and that all worked fine when he was hunting and gathering in the forrest, my tribe will compete with your tribe for the best land for hunting, etc.

But with the advent of technology he's turned that "tribe" into vast nations and further some of those nations have such vast power that is concentrated in one man, like George Bush at present but lots of others in the past--and they do what comes naturally--compete for land and rescources. But that compitition is being done with such great amounts of firepower and technology that the fight has long ago ceased to be anything like "fair." It's a one sided grab all.

It's over the top tribalism.

[Annie K.]

- Hey dialectician, aren't you coming to see the comrades ?
- Little guy, i want you to tell the comrades that whatever is lost in partial contestation becomes part of the repressive function of the old world. Don't forget. Also, an insurrection is needed in the capitalist countries. All powers reenforce each others.
- You must destroy all powers then. Reminds me of the First International.The power is not concentrated in the hands of one man. The use of coercion is one of the basic schemes of social relations in industrialized and post-industrialized societies, and all actions conform to this scheme ensure the continuity of the use of coercion at the level of international relations. The nature of the power exerted by an us president has nothing to do with the one exerted in tribal times (even though your claim about the tribal behaviours being ruled by instincts seems too much intuitive to be right).
Instincts now are not at issue. The inherent logic of accumulation of the capital (intended not only in the financial meaning) and actions of the institutions of social control are sufficient to explain the inhuman scale of some powers.
Human beings are not meant to anything.



Anyway, when did you become anti authoritarian, and when did you start to use old revolutionnary slogans ?

[Hiero]

This is just a personal observation on my part--nothing rwitten stone, but it seem to me that man is through some ancient instinct tribal in some respects--and that all worked fine when he was hunting and gathering in the forrest, my tribe will compete with your tribe for the best land for hunting, etc.

But with the advent of technology he's turned that "tribe" into vast nations and further some of those nations have such vast power that is concentrated in one man, like George Bush at present but lots of others in the past--and they do what comes naturally--compete for land and rescources. But that compitition is being done with such great amounts of firepower and technology that the fight has long ago ceased to be anything like "fair." It's a one sided grab all.

It's over the top tribalism.

It is quite a stagnent view of history and man.

Given that we are constantly developing in sciences more power is going to come to man. I don't think there is any point we can say that we have surpassed a biologically determined limit. You have defined in relation to the present and the past, yet I said we are constantly growing and developing.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm an anarchist, but I firmly believe in imperialism as a phenomenon within capitalism. If you look at statements from business leaders way before Lenin even spoke the word, you can see that the need for global expansion was critical. And, of course, it made it much easier to accomplish with the military might of the United States ("trade follows the flag").

So yes, in that sense, the United States was and remains an imperialist nation.

[Bud Struggle]

It is quite a stagnent view of history and man.

Given that we are constantly developing in sciences more power is going to come to man. I don't think there is any point we can say that we have surpassed a biologically determined limit. You have defined in relation to the present and the past, yet I said we are constantly growing and developing.

You seem to equate wired in human biological urges with human's ability to grow intelectually. There is no problem with the second, but the wired in biological urges and pathways took a million years to develop, man has only been scientificly active for 2500 years--since Plato invented the dialectic--not enough time for people to change their biological imperatives.

[Hiero]

You seem to equate wired in human biological urges with human's ability to grow intelectually. There is no problem with the second, but the wired in biological urges and pathways took a million years to develop, man has only been scientificly active for 2500 years--since Plato invented the dialectic--not enough time for people to change their biological imperatives.
No. The difference between me and you is that I view tribes as social organisations that form people's pyschology. You view tribal social organisations as reflection of human's innate pyschology.

So I view each epoch of history, as defining human pyschology. I don't view man as pyschological stagnent. Todays is not greater tribalism, it is something completely different, and globalisation is evidence of that.

[Bud Struggle]

No. The difference between me and you is that I view tribes as social organisations that form people's pyschology. You view tribal social organisations as reflection of human's innate pyschology. Very true.


So I view each epoch of history, as defining human pyschology. I don't view man as pyschological stagnent. Todays is not greater tribalism, it is something completely different, and globalisation is evidence of that. I see globalization as tribalization by other means. Companies are "tribes". Businesses are all about us against them.

I guess it's just different ways of looking at the same thing.