Thread: I hope this is an appropriate first post.

Mrdie, explain to me why America ruling the world with a big stick is a bad thing


go

Originally Posted by captain castle

Mrdie, explain to me why America ruling the world with a big stick is a bad thing

Because the US, like other imperialist powers in the past, is an exploitative power. Like all capitalist states, it is to be opposed in order to further humanity and to achieve socialism on a worldwide basis.

In the US itself, a labor aristocracy is developed, as the bourgeoisie bribe the workers and to convert them into reformists at best. This has been noted by Lenin, and by other Marxists such as Sultan-Galiev, Lin Biao, and even Marx and Engels to an extent.

In his 1980 work Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism, Enver Hoxha explains this process in Western Europe:

The development of the economy in the West after the war also exerted a great influence on the spread of opportunist and revisionist ideas in the communist parties. True, Western Europe was devastated by the war but its recovery was carried out relatively quickly. The American capital which poured into Europe through the "Marshall Plan" made it possible to reconstruct the factories, plants, transport and agriculture so that their production extended rapidly. This development opened up many jobs and for a long period, not only absorbed all the free labour force but even created a certain shortage of labour.

This situation, which brought the bourgeoisie great superprofits, allowed it to loosen its pursestrings a little and soften the labour conflicts to some degree. In the social field, in such matters as social insurance, health, education, labour legislation etc., it took some measures for which the working class had fought hard. The obvious improvement of the standard of living of the working people in comparison with that of the time of the war and even before the war, the rapid growth of production, which came as a result of the reconstruction of industry and agriculture and the beginning of the technical and scientific revolution, and the full employment of the work force, opened the way to the flowering amongst the unformed opportunist element of views about the development of capitalism without class conflicts, about its ability to avoid crises, the elimination of the phenomenon of unemployment etc. That major teaching of Marxism-Leninism, that the periods of peaceful development of capitalism becomes a source for the spread of opportunism, was confirmed once again. The new stratum of the worker aristocracy, which increased considerably during this period, began to exert an ever more negative influence in the ranks of the parties and their leaderships by introducing reformist and opportunist views and ideas.

Under pressure of these circumstances, the programs of these communist parties were reduced more and more to democratic and reformist minimum programs, while the idea of the revolution and socialism became ever more remote. The major strategy of the revolutionary transformation of society gave way to the minor strategy about current problems of the day which was absolutized and became the general political and ideological line.

So the destruction of imperialism (which is, as Lenin noted, the highest stage of capitalism) also brings forth the rise of socialism as bourgeois regimes propped up by imperialist aid topple and the formerly imperialist state is itself deprived of valuable markets in which it can keep itself alive.

That really wasn't what I was asking, but ok

tell me one person who doesn't like imperialism who isn't a pinko commie fag

Originally Posted by Darth Vader

out of curioisty, how many social based doctorates/degrees do you have that make you authorised to say you are more intelligent then 99.99999% of the worlds social scientists?
30 degrees? 40? By god with all the doctorates you must have you should be making hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

Originally Posted by Darth Vader

I, as a 17 year old, seem to have more wisdom then anyone in the Goddamn country that identifies themselves as either Republican or Democrat. The United States is a great country.

Originally Posted by Darth Vader

ah. point taken.

if the point were really taken you'd stop being stupid on the 'nets and ugly irl

JUST A THOUGHT

I learned about the prisoners dilemma from Dilbert the cartoon

We've established what your face-benefit analysis is



I got this guys

Originally Posted by Husein

Give me a reason why the DPRK should not have a nuclear program to defend its sovereignty.

Since when is geopolitics based on fairness? It can defend its sovereignty without nukes.

Originally Posted by captain castle

I learned about the prisoners dilemma from Dilbert the cartoon

i learned about it from this guy who made a presentation at this math(*sigh*) summer camp i went to. he used two audience participants ("coincidentally" always female), and if i recall the ultimate punishment if one betrayed and the other cooperated was to have the punished participant bound in ropes.

so yeah they had this pervert with a bdsm fetish tie up young teenage girls in order to demonstrate the prisoner's dilemma.

Originally Posted by sycld

i learned about it from this guy who made a presentation at this math(*sigh*) summer camp i went to. he used two audience participants ("coincidentally" always female), and if i recall the ultimate punishment if one betrayed and the other cooperated was to have the punished participant bound in ropes.

so yeah they had this pervert with a bdsm fetish tie up young teenage girls in order to demonstrate the prisoner's dilemma.

I learned from Nash himself.

Originally Posted by TheOriginalGrumpySpy

I learned from Nash himself.

i.e. "i learned from watching A Beautiful Mind."

Originally Posted by Husein

Good point, it has a huge, economically taxing army that it has to maintain because nuclear deterrence is unavailable as an option.

It is also a totalitarian state, which is a huge benefit for any nation planning on fighting a war.

Double Penetrating Racial Kikes

Originally Posted by Husein

Good point, it has a huge, economically taxing army that it has to maintain because nuclear deterrence is unavailable as an option.

Because everyone is just dying to invade North Korea. That army is more to keep the people from leaving the workers paradise in droves than to deter an invasion.

Words that make me laugh:

Boobies.
Bergina.
Rape.
Poppin fresh.
Discharge.
Spooge.

Posters who annoyed me in the last four seconds:

This guy ^

Originally Posted by Hippocrass

Because everyone is just dying to invade North Korea.

The US and South Korea should stop joint military exercises, then. Also the South Korean military has little control over itself in the event of war, since a law gives just about all command powers to the US.

Edit:

Pyongyang, October 27 (KCNA) -- The Solidarity for Implementing the South-North Joint Declaration issued a statement on October 24 to denounce the south Korean authorities and the U.S. for their moves to escalate the confrontation with the DPRK.

The statement accused the south Korean and U.S. bellicose forces of holding the 41st "annual security consultative meeting" in Seoul recently at which they raised a hue and cry over "a nuclear threat from the north" and called for taking an adventurous "posture of military counteraction" to cope with it.

The statement said:

The warlike forces released a "joint statement" in which they underscored the need to deploy reinforced U.S. forces and strategic nuclear weapons in south Korea and establish a missile defense system under the pretext of "providing extended deterrent". This is nothing but a scenario to put military pressure upon the north, going beyond the scope of the existing "sanctions against the north," and drive the situation on the Korean Peninsula into a war crisis again.

The open discussion conducted by the bellicose forces on the "provision of a nuclear umbrella" brought to light the U.S. strategy for establishing hegemony with main emphasis on nukes.

The recent "joint statement" is nothing but a document that confirmed once again that both south Korea and the U.S. are not willing to seek a peaceful solution to the nuclear issue on the peninsula and "a written pledge" to tighten the military sanctions against the north and escalate the moves for a war of aggression against it.

The south Korean authorities and the U.S. should retract at once the secret military agreement concluded at the recent meeting, well aware that the north was compelled to have access to nukes due to the U.S. moves for a war of aggression and threat of its nuclear attack to it, urged the statement.

Edit II: On the law:

Originally Posted by http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fline/fl2319/stories/20061006001505400.htm

BY agreeing that the future issue of "operational control" over South Korea's military forces should not be turned into a political dispute, U.S. President George W. Bush and his South Korean counterpart Roh Moo-hyun have sought to paper over the fissures in the long-time alliance between their countries. However, the understanding, announced after their summit in Washington on September 14, cannot camouflage the reality that the issue has already acquired political overtones. Roh has said that South Korea's sovereignty would remain vacuous as long as its military forces remain under U.S. command in all but name.

At stake is the "wartime control" over South Korean military units on that country's territory itself. At present, the U.S. and South Korea do, in a technical sense, share such control under the rubric of the Combined Forces Command (CFC). But, as Seoul keeps pointing out, the U.S., by far the senior partner and superior force in their military alliance that dates back to the 1950-53 Korean War, holds the much-vaunted "wartime control".

Of course due to pressure in South Korea itself...

Originally Posted by http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/NEWKHSITE/data/html_dir/2009/10/20/200910200046.asp

Plans negotiated in recent years to overhaul military alliances with Japan and South Korea also will take center stage. The projects include handing over wartime operation control of combined defense to South Korea by 2012, and moving U.S. marines to Guam from Okinawa, Japan, as part of a base realignment agreement.

Originally Posted by Husein

The US and South Korea should stop joint military exercises, then.

NK first.

Originally Posted by Hippocrass

NK first.

The DPRK engages in joint military exercises with a superpower?

are you fucking korean or something shut the hell up

No, but I know a member of the Korean Friendship Association in Ireland who works with DPRK officials.

Plus I'm knowledgeable about the DPRK itself, and the original poster did mention it.

I think the World Peace Council has a sensible policy on the DPRK that maybe liberals can learn to accept:

The WPC expresses its solidarity with the Korean people in their desire to achieve the peaceful reunification of the Korean peninsula according to the June 15th Joint Declaration made between North and South Korea. The WPC salutes the six party talks for the peaceful resolution of the conflict, and at the same time demands that the US puts an end to its hostile policy against the DPR Korea.

mr die shut the fuck up

/thread

Well at least Hippocrass subtly conceded defeat.

Edit: Hoxha described Kim Il Sung as a "vacillating revisionist megalomaniac." Just thought you'd all find that interesting.