Thread
Inflammatory Comments Inside
My personal broad analysis, appropos of nothing in particluar:
U.S. foreign policy in the 20th Century has primarily served one goal: securing the interests of American Industry. This goal has taken two distinct approaches, namely the insistence on �open-door� foreign markets for domestic product surplus (the chief concern prior to the Great Depression), and the unhindered access to both raw materials and labor overseas. Purported concerns such as supposed democracy can be easily dismissed as not only a thinly veiled necessity for the subsequent imposition of exploitative capitalist practices, but also blatantly contradictory in light of both American domestic policies and support for countless foreign dictatorships whose economic policies are aligned with our own.
Furthermore, in virtually no instance has this drive for U.S. supremacy been presented for what it is; rather, it is most always couched in sloganeering, propaganda, and deception (willful or otherwise). It is only when significant time has passed, memoirs have been written, and government documents declassifed that a cohesive picture comes to light. To sum up: since we have come into our own as an industrial power, we have systematically exported aggression and conquest and grossly misrepresented our motives to rally popular support., Why, then, would anyone assume this has changed in the past 20 years, an era virtually defined by the increasing stranglehold on public policy by private interests?
Do you feel this is an accurate assessment of American foreign policy in the 20th Century? If not, why not? If so, can we agree, as citizens rightly concerned with the growing concentration of economic and political power in fewer hands, that there is something fundamentally wrong with a system so designed, a system based on the unchecked consumption of finite resources, a system rooted in the tyranny of profits over people?
By what right is anyone entitled to as much as they can grab, as fast as they can grab it?
Thoughts?
(note: I�ll be happy to provide numerous supporting examples for the points outlined above, despite the fact that they should be so self-evident as to dispense with the need for documentation, i.e. it�s common sense. Please do the same in any refutations or support)
U.S. foreign policy in the 20th Century has primarily served one goal: securing the interests of American Industry. This goal has taken two distinct approaches, namely the insistence on �open-door� foreign markets for domestic product surplus (the chief concern prior to the Great Depression), and the unhindered access to both raw materials and labor overseas. Purported concerns such as supposed democracy can be easily dismissed as not only a thinly veiled necessity for the subsequent imposition of exploitative capitalist practices, but also blatantly contradictory in light of both American domestic policies and support for countless foreign dictatorships whose economic policies are aligned with our own.
Furthermore, in virtually no instance has this drive for U.S. supremacy been presented for what it is; rather, it is most always couched in sloganeering, propaganda, and deception (willful or otherwise). It is only when significant time has passed, memoirs have been written, and government documents declassifed that a cohesive picture comes to light. To sum up: since we have come into our own as an industrial power, we have systematically exported aggression and conquest and grossly misrepresented our motives to rally popular support., Why, then, would anyone assume this has changed in the past 20 years, an era virtually defined by the increasing stranglehold on public policy by private interests?
Do you feel this is an accurate assessment of American foreign policy in the 20th Century? If not, why not? If so, can we agree, as citizens rightly concerned with the growing concentration of economic and political power in fewer hands, that there is something fundamentally wrong with a system so designed, a system based on the unchecked consumption of finite resources, a system rooted in the tyranny of profits over people?
By what right is anyone entitled to as much as they can grab, as fast as they can grab it?
Thoughts?
(note: I�ll be happy to provide numerous supporting examples for the points outlined above, despite the fact that they should be so self-evident as to dispense with the need for documentation, i.e. it�s common sense. Please do the same in any refutations or support)
I think you are right. The US does what is in their own interest because they can, not because it is right.
Sure there is something wrong with unchecked consumption, it is not sustainable. At some point the system will crack and implode. Perhaps just like Suddam's Iraq, which was equally unsustainable. Ofcourse the US as a country is a wee bit more resiliant than the facade of a country Iraq was trying to be with Saddam at the helm
IMO if countries of the world take unilateralism to heart, we are all ****ed. The only way the situation is going to improve is for everyone to work with the UN, it is still the only institution the world has that can do what it does. I don't think that it can do all this in its present form however (those veto powers really scew up everything) but it is something to work with.
Sure there is something wrong with unchecked consumption, it is not sustainable. At some point the system will crack and implode. Perhaps just like Suddam's Iraq, which was equally unsustainable. Ofcourse the US as a country is a wee bit more resiliant than the facade of a country Iraq was trying to be with Saddam at the helm
IMO if countries of the world take unilateralism to heart, we are all ****ed. The only way the situation is going to improve is for everyone to work with the UN, it is still the only institution the world has that can do what it does. I don't think that it can do all this in its present form however (those veto powers really scew up everything) but it is something to work with.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Nicko: Sure there is something wrong with unchecked consumption, it is not sustainable. |
But how does one reconcile this, the most basic of truths, with the near total support for state-capitalism, not just among CEOs, but among the genral populace? I mean, these are the people being screwed, all while giving the thumbs up to their screwers. Is it simply that enough people are doing well enough individually to overlook the more dramatic global outlook? That is, "I've got my HDTV, the rest of the world is not my problem." Aside from the obvious callousness, this fails to take into account the fact that we are a global society, and the world's problems are everyone's problems.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by dgs212: But how does one reconcile this, the most basic of truths, with the near total support for state-capitalism, not just among CEOs, but among the genral populace? I mean, these are the people being screwed, all while giving the thumbs up to their screwers. Is it simply that enough people are doing well enough individually to overlook the more dramatic global outlook? That is, "I've got my HDTV, the rest of the world is not my problem." Aside from the obvious callousness, this fails to take into account the fact that we are a global society, and the world's problems are everyone's problems. |
It may be a basic truth but that doesn't mean we have to like it or accept it. We can only judge by our actions. So uhhhh... fight the power!
Actually I think it is quite clear that drastic action, such as the invasion of Iraq would never have happened without the recent terrorist attacks in the US. Of course taking such pre-emptive active carries its own grave dangers.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Nicko: It may be a basic truth but that doesn't mean we have to like it or accept it. We can only judge by our actions. So uhhhh... fight the power! Actually I think it is quite clear that drastic action, such as the invasion of Iraq would never have happened without the recent terrorist attacks in the US. Of course taking such pre-emptive active carries its own grave dangers. |
What I meant, though, is that for the most part, the general populace does not see anything wrong with capitalistic exploitation. SOme of us do, and should rightly "fight the power," but why don't the rest of Americans?
As for the "drastic action" and its relation to 9-11, no doubt the spetember tragedy provides a convenient pre-text. Would a general U.S. push for power in the Middle East have happened anyway? We'll never know, but I suspect it would have at some point.
Aren't any of the pro-US posters going to jump in, or are we all agreed that US economic and political intervention in other nations is ignoble at best?
That is, is it morally right to "make the world safe for capitalism?"
That is, is it morally right to "make the world safe for capitalism?"
Quote:
|
Originally posted by dgs212: What I meant, though, is that for the most part, the general populace does not see anything wrong with capitalistic exploitation. SOme of us do, and should rightly "fight the power," but why don't the rest of Americans? As for the "drastic action" and its relation to 9-11, no doubt the spetember tragedy provides a convenient pre-text. Would a general U.S. push for power in the Middle East have happened anyway? We'll never know, but I suspect it would have at some point. |
I will tell you why. It is because most people are STUPID.
They don't know how the world works nor do they care. This wouldn't really bother me as much as it does if the US didn't have such a moron for a president, but what can you do?
I'll agree with you also about the inevitable US involvement in the middle east. The palastinian/isriel issue obviously had to be dealt with by the US, so that is one. The other is ofcourse the OIL issue. Most experts agree that in 20-30 years supply will peak. This means that after that time period, supply will decrease. This is a reality. Even with all the new tech coming out, the western world - hell the whole world will still need alot of oil. This requires stability in the region. I can only hope for those who live there that this will mean the proliferation of democratic societies rather than oppresive regimes.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by dgs212: Aren't any of the pro-US posters going to jump in, or are we all agreed that US economic and political intervention in other nations is ignoble at best? That is, is it morally right to "make the world safe for capitalism?" |
I think promoting capitalism is fine. What angers me most is that the US thinks they have the monopoly on what are acceptable forms of democracy and capitalism. This more than anything I think is what breads the resentment and hate for them around the world.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Nicko: I will tell you why. It is because most people are STUPID. |
Careful. I think this isn't so much about being stupid as it is about being lazy. Any adult is smart enough to recognize the basics here and put them together. It is exceedingly difficult, however, to do so because it flies in the face of conventional wisdom. Oh, how I wish for a culture of skepticism.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by dgs212: Careful. I think this isn't so much about being stupid as it is about being lazy. Any adult is smart enough to recognize the basics here and put them together. It is exceedingly difficult, however, to do so because it flies in the face of conventional wisdom. Oh, how I wish for a culture of skepticism. |
Hehe I know that, I was just making a broad generalization
::applause::
The original post is so right on.
As for the discussion as to why no one talks about unsustainability, I offer a quote from George Monbiot:
I think "great heresy of our times" sums it up quite perfectly.
The original post is so right on.
As for the discussion as to why no one talks about unsustainability, I offer a quote from George Monbiot:
Quote:
|
Our economic system depends upon never-ending growth, yet we live in a world with finite resources. Our expectation of progress is, as a result, a delusion. This is the great heresy of our times, the fundamental truth which cannot be spoken. It is dismissed as furiously by those who possess power today -- governments, business, the media - as the discovery that the earth orbits the sun was denounced by the late mediaevel Church. Speak this truth in public and you are dismissed as a crank, a prig, a lunatic. Capitalism is a millenarian cult, raised to the status of a world religion. Like communism, it is built upon the myth of endless exploitation. Just as Christians imagine that their God will deliver them from death, capitalists believe that theirs will deliver them from finity. The world's resources, they assert, have been granted eternal life. One reason why we fail to understand a concept as simple as finity is that our religion was founded upon the use of other people's resources: the gold, rubber and timber of Latin America, the spices, cotton and dyes of the East Indies, the labour and land of Africa. The frontier of exploitation seemed, to the early colonists, infinitely expandable. Now that geographical expansion has reached its limits, capitalism has moved its frontier from space to time: seizing resources from an infinite future. |
I think "great heresy of our times" sums it up quite perfectly.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by dgs212: My personal broad analysis, appropos of nothing in particluar: |
I think the title of this thread should be "FNG TRoll inside."
Quote:
|
Originally posted by finboy: I think the title of this thread should be "FNG TRoll inside." |
Insightful rebuttal as usual, finboy.
How do you find the time to correct the errors of other's assumptions in such detailed and informative ways without resorting to name-calling?
Oh wait, you never do that. Nevermind.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by finboy: I think the title of this thread should be "FNG TRoll inside." |
I'm confused.
Why is this trolling? I made what I think is a cogent arguement and asked for opinions, not because I want to bait people, but because I want to guage the level of consensus across the political spectrum of the beleif that unbridled capitalsim may in fact be ruining us. As I understand it, class cuts across party lines.
P.S. The use of the word "inflamatory" in the title was tongue in cheek, as there is nothing really inflamatory about recognizing power structures as they are, except to the helmsman of such structures. I doubt very much if anyone who posts here is a captain of industry.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by thunderous_funker: Insightful rebuttal as usual, finboy. How do you find the time to correct the errors of other's assumptions in such detailed and informative ways without resorting to name-calling? Oh wait, you never do that. Nevermind. |
There have plenty of decent discussions on this forum over the last couple of years. Some of which I have participated in. My rush to begin name-calling and deliberate slamming of content is directly proportional to the vapidity of the post.
I refuse to be baited into intelligent discussion of ridiculous theses. It's kind of like the frustration I feel with the "Holocaust never happened" bunch. Or the "moon shot hoax" bunch.
Do the folks who feel that the Holocaust is a myth get equal time. No chance. Nor should they -- their idea is obscene, offensive.
To me, the "American Imperialism" and "Capitalist Oppression" bunch are wonking the same sorta tune. They obviously don't get it, and short of outright ridicule they deserve no comment.
I fully agree with your assessment dgs212. I believe people don't want to think about what you have brought up. People can be extremely selfish and lazy.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by finboy: To me, the "American Imperialism" and "Capitalist Oppression" bunch are wonking the same sorta tune. They obviously don't get it, and short of outright ridicule they deserve no comment. |
Wait, what?
You're comparing my pointing out the plight of the third world at the hands of capitialism to people who don't believe in the holocaust? Because that's completely backwards. If anything, I would liken support for the exploited in other countries to those brave few Americans who caused a ruckus about the Germans prior to Pearl Harbor. You know, american jews, socialists, communists, etc.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by finboy: There have plenty of decent discussions on this forum over the last couple of years. Some of which I have participated in. My rush to begin name-calling and deliberate slamming of content is directly proportional to the vapidity of the post. I refuse to be baited into intelligent discussion of ridiculous theses. It's kind of like the frustration I feel with the "Holocaust never happened" bunch. Or the "moon shot hoax" bunch. Do the folks who feel that the Holocaust is a myth get equal time. No chance. Nor should they -- their idea is obscene, offensive. To me, the "American Imperialism" and "Capitalist Oppression" bunch are wonking the same sorta tune. They obviously don't get it, and short of outright ridicule they deserve no comment. |
So if you think some powerful capitalist interests have influenced the government to adopt exploitative policies regarding regions of the world you're the same as people who think the holocaust never happened???
Quote:
|
Originally posted by thunderous_funker: So if you think some powerful capitalist interests have influenced the government to adopt exploitative policies regarding regions of the world you're the same as people who think the holocaust never happened??? |
Both are cynical conspiracy-type theories, requiring the suspension of logic, reason, and economic substance. So, yeah, in that sense they're about equal.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by finboy: Both are cynical conspiracy-type theories, requiring the suspension of logic, reason, and economic substance. So, yeah, in that sense they're about equal. |
Are honestly saying that the US has never engaged in economic exploitation?
Quote:
|
Originally posted by finboy: Both are cynical conspiracy-type theories, requiring the suspension of logic, reason, and economic substance. So, yeah, in that sense they're about equal. |
There's nothing conspiratorial about it, in the figurative shadowy-cabal sense. It's common sense. To assume that the dominant power structure would not seek to retain its power is to posit the existence of a fundamentally dysfunctional institution that wouldn't survive a week. Refute that.
Originally posted by finboy:
Here's an inconsistency for you: affirmative action. Lefties live ONE WAY and act another. They're in favor (it's in the platform) of affirmative action. But if you look at their personal behavior, they don't actually GO TO surgeons who were admitted and graduated med school due to the benefit of affirmative action. Same with attorneys -- when making the choice PERSONALLY, people choose the best they can afford.
As I point out in the thread in which this comment originally appeared. finboy has revealed himself to be a racist. According to him, no one who got a higher education thanks to affirmative action can be as talented as those who didn't.
Guess what? Affirmative action may get someone into a program, but they still have to get good grades to complete it. Unless, of course, they have a "good" family background (and lots of money), like a certain very mediocre student named George W. Bush.
How do you learn who did or did not get admitted to med school or law school through affirmative action, finboy? Doesn't say anything about that on their diploma, does it?
Oh, I forgot. You obviously draw your conclusion based on skin color.
Here's an inconsistency for you: affirmative action. Lefties live ONE WAY and act another. They're in favor (it's in the platform) of affirmative action. But if you look at their personal behavior, they don't actually GO TO surgeons who were admitted and graduated med school due to the benefit of affirmative action. Same with attorneys -- when making the choice PERSONALLY, people choose the best they can afford.
As I point out in the thread in which this comment originally appeared. finboy has revealed himself to be a racist. According to him, no one who got a higher education thanks to affirmative action can be as talented as those who didn't.
Guess what? Affirmative action may get someone into a program, but they still have to get good grades to complete it. Unless, of course, they have a "good" family background (and lots of money), like a certain very mediocre student named George W. Bush.
How do you learn who did or did not get admitted to med school or law school through affirmative action, finboy? Doesn't say anything about that on their diploma, does it?
Oh, I forgot. You obviously draw your conclusion based on skin color.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by finboy: Both are cynical conspiracy-type theories, requiring the suspension of logic, reason, and economic substance. So, yeah, in that sense they're about equal. |
Sweatshops are a fact, to give one small example. How do you suppose they got there? They're not indigenous elements of the third world, I can assure you. See, this is what I don't understand. How can you ignore the global exploitation of millions of people in the third world? I mean, we're talking about fellow human beings, not some aliens or insects. I mean, how does one willfully ignore the suffering of others? If you've never heard of sweatshops or been outside the US to see just how good we have it here, then by all means let me give you an education. Just say the word. I'd be more than happy to devote my time to winning a convert to the "It's bad to exploit others" school of thought, and I'm not being condescending. I would honestly do it, with glee. But if, on the other hand, you know full well that the third world has been destroyed by western intervention, and you don't care, well that's just sad. I feel for you. There is also, the third option of knowing about it but feeling overwhelmed by it. I can sympathize. It is overwhelming, but not hopeless. You can affect meaningful change.
How would I even know if my doctor or lawyer was admitted to college through affirmative action or because they aced the SAT?
Is that one of the plaques they have on the walls of their offices?
"This is to acknowledge that John Q. Whomever was admitted to Georgetown Law School because he's black despite his mediocre academic record......"
Yep. I look for that plcque and then I bolt for the door!
I usually only go to doctors or lawyers who were admitted to college for athletic scholarships.
Is that one of the plaques they have on the walls of their offices?
"This is to acknowledge that John Q. Whomever was admitted to Georgetown Law School because he's black despite his mediocre academic record......"
Yep. I look for that plcque and then I bolt for the door!
I usually only go to doctors or lawyers who were admitted to college for athletic scholarships.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by malvolio: As I point out in the thread in which this comment originally appeared. finboy has revealed himself to be a racist. According to him, no one who got a higher education thanks to affirmative action can be as talented as those who didn't. Guess what? Affirmative action may get someone into a program, but they still have to get good grades to complete it. Unless, of course, they have a "good" family background (and lots of money), like a certain very mediocre student named George W. Bush. How do you learn who did or did not get admitted to med school or law school through affirmative action, finboy? Doesn't say anything about that on their diploma, does it? Oh, I forgot. You obviously draw your conclusion based on skin color.
|
I wouldn't throw around terms like "racist" quite so casually. Certianly affirmative action is controversial, and not without it's problems. ON that I can agree. However, it has given opportunities to millions who otherwise would have no chance to get their foot in the door, thanks to decades of senseless systemic racism. I'm not sure what that says about the millions of whites "hurt" by affirmative actions. If one were to look, though, at comparative economic levels in white and black populations in america, you'd certainly find poverty skewed to african american communities. If you can't agree that this is the result of system-wide racism (as opposed to individual racism), then I'm afraid you're advocating eugenics, i.e. blacks are poor because it's in their nature. Sickening.
Ah, being racist. Is there anything more pathetic? 
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Nicko: Ah, being racist. Is there anything more pathetic?
|
I'm guessing that open-ended question is going to be too much to resist for some of the board denizens...
Quote:
|
Originally posted by malvolio: Originally posted by finboy: Here's an inconsistency for you: affirmative action. Lefties live ONE WAY and act another. They're in favor (it's in the platform) of affirmative action. But if you look at their personal behavior, they don't actually GO TO surgeons who were admitted and graduated med school due to the benefit of affirmative action. Same with attorneys -- when making the choice PERSONALLY, people choose the best they can afford. As I point out in the thread in which this comment originally appeared. finboy has revealed himself to be a racist. According to him, no one who got a higher education thanks to affirmative action can be as talented as those who didn't. Guess what? Affirmative action may get someone into a program, but they still have to get good grades to complete it. Unless, of course, they have a "good" family background (and lots of money), like a certain very mediocre student named George W. Bush. How do you learn who did or did not get admitted to med school or law school through affirmative action, finboy? Doesn't say anything about that on their diploma, does it? Oh, I forgot. You obviously draw your conclusion based on skin color.
|
**** you, racebaiter. You don't know me, and if you'll read that quote closely, I say NOTHING about the folks who enter school on the basis of affirmative action or graduate after entering that way. I point out that I HAVE OBSERVED what you would call "socially conscious" people, all of my life, shunning the beneficiaries of affirmative action. I've seen it time and time again -- it's hypocritical behavior, and it hurts people. Folks should ACT as they proclaim themselves to think.
If you want to find flaws with what I say, that's one thing, but you can find them without putting words in my mouth and calling me a racist.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Nicko: I think you are right. The US does what is in their own interest because they can, not because it is right. Sure there is something wrong with unchecked consumption, it is not sustainable. At some point the system will crack and implode. Perhaps just like Suddam's Iraq, which was equally unsustainable. Ofcourse the US as a country is a wee bit more resiliant than the facade of a country Iraq was trying to be with Saddam at the helm IMO if countries of the world take unilateralism to heart, we are all ****ed. The only way the situation is going to improve is for everyone to work with the UN, it is still the only institution the world has that can do what it does. I don't think that it can do all this in its present form however (those veto powers really scew up everything) but it is something to work with. |
the UN has proven it has no backbone. and it does that really well
Quote:
|
Originally posted by dgs212: By what right is anyone entitled to as much as they can grab, as fast as they can grab it? Thoughts? |
First of all, it isn't exactly news that a nation looks out of its national interests; that's constitutionally what most countries, and their leadership, are bound to do.
Now then, as for our policy for the 20th century, for a large of the time, we have been quite isolationist. For more than half of it, we have been fighting this:
(and yes, add three zero's to those numbers, as the chart indicates) ...and here is the corresponding article:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM
It's often forgotten, with people in the rush to attack the US, exactly what others have been doing during their tenure in the world...