The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Arm-in-arm with US imperialism > Comments

Arm-in-arm with US imperialism : Comments

By John Passant, published 9/9/2008

Imperialism is the clash between the major economic powers and the system behind the horror of war.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
JOHN PASSANT says in this article-: "our ruling class wants to help the US contain china."

If the Chinese or any other country invades Australia then John will find out that the invading army won't know the difference between a ruling class Australian and himself and he will die also.

In seeking to protect Australia they also protect JOHN PASSANT.
Posted by sharkfin, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 11:32:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sharkin: "Would you also agree that China or Japan, should also open their borders to Somalianss, Bangladeshis, algerians,Pakistanisand Sudanese."

The West are a noble and self-righteous lot chanting the mantra of 'democracy', 'human rights', 'gay rights', etc. and so attract many from the third world. The other reason being that the West is morally obligated to take in these people because they grew rich on the back of these colonies.

China is a third world country having problems taking care of its very own. She is having difficulty trying to prevent the Chinese from leaving for the West

As for Japan, it does not have a colonial past and is among the world's top donor country in term of foreign aid.
Posted by Philip Tang, Saturday, 13 September 2008 5:03:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the comments on my article.

The McDonald's McDonnell Douglass comment was a reference to a remark by a retired US army general. Presumably he said that before 1997. So what? The idea encapsulates American imperialism.

And to all those who keep telling me the USSR or Cuba or Venezuela (is China still in your lists?) socialist - OK. Equating state ownership with socialism is I suppose arguable, although the real question is which class is doing the nationalisation.

This idea of nationalisation equaling socialism presumably for some means that the US is on the road to socialism. I disagree.

Nationalisation by capitalist Governments under capitalism is in the interest of capitalism and capitalists. Nationalisation under capitalism does nothing to address the fundamental exploitation of workers, and certainly doesn't address wage slavery or the profit grundnorm.

My idea of socialism, drawn from Marx, is that it is the democratic rule of the working class to organise production to satisfy human need. None of those countries mentioned - the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, China) fit the bill and never did. Russia in 1917 had the possibility until foreign intervention, civil war and the destruction of the Russian working class coupled with the failure of the revolution to spread to Europe (although in Germany it was a close run thing) destroyed the revolution and allowed Stalin to rise to power.

The thing that worries me now is that politically we are approaching 1914.

Economically we may be, and I stress this is only a possibility, approaching 1929.

1 billion starving. US imperialism under challenge from other imperialisms. Financial crisis throughout the world. Isn't capitalism such great system?
Posted by Passy, Friday, 19 September 2008 10:45:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Passy “it is the democratic rule of the working class to organise production to satisfy human need.”

Couple of problems with that assertion

1 ‘working class’: is an ambiguous description, when ‘working’ can include those who earn $1 a year, those who earn $1,000,000+ a year and presumably excludes those who receive only public welfare.

2 ‘organise’: invariably requires specialist skills which are, economically, more valuable and cost a premium compared to those ordinary working class folk who, lacking said skills, provide merely the ‘sweat and toil’ in the production process.

3 ‘human need’: little of what we dream of or spend what resources we have available have to do with “human need”. They have a lot more to do with “human wants”

And in that lays the nub.

Wherein,

"Socialism" has an almighty problem defining just how “entitled” anyone should be to satisfy their personal “human need”

yet

"Capitalism is capable of responding to fluctuating variations in demand to satisfy both ‘human need’ and ‘human wants’.

We could go on to other considerations in the real equation, like risk, design, innovation etc all of which carry a cost in the delivery of the final product but I feel you will shy away from going there.

“1 billion starving. US imperialism under challenge from other imperialisms. Financial crisis throughout the world. Isn't capitalism such great system?”

If

US imperialism was so bad, why are there thousands queuing up to get in

Compared to

the socialist utopias of the old USSR, where people were not allowed to leave and shot if they tried?

Somehow your rhetoric is misaligned with the evidence of the real world.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 19 September 2008 12:56:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Passy,

Seems very keen to distance socialism from the socialist regimes of USSR, China etc. And technically speaking perhaps he's right.

The problem is Passy, that every time socialism has been tried it has very quickly led to these totalitarian post-socialist regimes. They are intimately linked to the inherent failures of the socialist model.

Socialism WILL always fail because at its heart is a fatally flawed concept. Human beings simply WILL NOT prosper in a system where there is NO INCENTIVE.

That is the basic problem with socialism/communism. "From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs" is a simplistic nirvana which HAS NEVER, and WILL NEVER work. It requires people to sit by and watch while the idle and stupid are rewarded for their indolence. This type of system stifles innovation (what point is there in finding a different/more efficent way of doing things if you aren't going to be rewarded for your effort). Furthermore, it very quickly leads to each worker doing the absolute minimum required of him/her and thus production slows significantly, quality control goes out the window.

You point to the fact that capitalism has failed to feed everyone. Yet look at the socialist countries where the incentive motive was removed. They couldn't actually produce goods and food needed by their own people, let alone worrying about Africa.

It is entirely irrelevant to an argument about the merits of socialism vs capitalism whether people are starving in Africa. Its not capitalism which causes that to happen. Its dictators and totalitarianism which almost inevitably creates those shortages. Those people need to replace their gov'ts in general, not their economic system.

Finally, by looking at how socialist states evolved in the past it is clear that the socialist revolution ALMOST INEVITABLY brings those with a passion for totalitarianism to the fore. The anti-democratic nature of socialism actively promotes this. The system itself relies upon the benelovence of the party and it's leaders. But as they say about power " it corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

Socialism breeds stalinism/maoism as sure as night follows day
Posted by Paul.L, Friday, 19 September 2008 2:16:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the further comments.

My main point was that Rudd (and Howard before him) have sent Australian troops into Afghanistan (as invaders) to get an insurance contract with the major imperialist power, the US. This enables Australian imperialism to dominate the immediate region and perhaps get support from the US in a time of real conflict in the future (eg with China).

Unlike Howard and Rudd I believe our young men and women are more valuable than as cannon fodder for that.

On feeding the world, the food crisis is actually two crises. The first is the failure long term of global capitalism to provide one of the most basic necessities to hundred of millions and condemning billions to malnutrition becuase they are too poor to buy food even though enough is produced to feed everyone..

Second the recent food price increases have driven hundreds of millions more into starvation. Dictators didn't cause that.

even if I accept captialism is the ultimate in human development (something I think Fukiyama now recognises may not be true) it's a pretty crap existence for half of humanity.

I suppose for US merchant bankers (and all that incentive stuff Col Rouge talks about) a 2 trillion take over of their losses is pretty good.

I wonder how much it would take to feed those 1 billion who were starving. Good to see we got our priorities right.

I mention in the article that the defeat of Russian imperialism in Afghanistan was a step forward for humanity. (I hope that was left in.) Who agrees?

Think about it before answering.
Posted by Passy, Friday, 19 September 2008 9:02:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy