NationStates Jolt Archive

Following on from the 'neocon' thread.

The conversation lead us to imperialism.

So who are/where the great imperial powers? What exactly was it they did that was imperialistic?

Is America's increasing 'sphere of influence' in the Middle East, and its previous interventions in many places (Vietnam, Nicaragua) constitute the beginnings of imperialism, a new form of world power, or a new form of imperialism?

The good/evil conversation about imperialism is enevitable within this thread I expect.

I don't think discussions of good and evil are particularly relevant.

In either case, I'll kick off by saying that technically, the US has an empire (a very few territories remain under US federal control). However I don't think that it's a large empire, as far as empires go, and I feel it's pretty benign.

When you look at things like economic might and make statements like:

"The US's economic power is equivalent to imperialism" you have to ask yourself: "Is it really imperium?" That is to say: are people forced to do what the US says economically?

I think the answer is a resounding no. You can always turn down the check.

In sum: The US technically has a few imperial possessions but I don't think it's fair to call it an empire.

An empire is whatever you want it to be. you want an empire, you're an empire. that's why I am an empire!

Phillip Marshall
President of the Imperial Navy
Head of the Imperial Alliance
UN Delegate for the Super Star Destroyer Iron Fist

Following on from the 'neocon' thread.

The conversation lead us to imperialism.

So who are/where the great imperial powers? What exactly was it they did that was imperialistic?

Is America's increasing 'sphere of influence' in the Middle East, and its previous interventions in many places (Vietnam, Nicaragua) constitute the beginnings of imperialism, a new form of world power, or a new form of imperialism?

The good/evil conversation about imperialism is enevitable within this thread I expect.

The Main Imperial Nation's were Great Britain, France, Prussia (Germany), Austria, Ottoman Empire (Turkey) and Russia

Basically Imperialism is to take control of everything u can possibly take control of, in this case other Nation's and/or part's of them.

According to Wallerstein's theory, nowadays, economic hegemony _is_ a form of imperialism.

Take the case of the U.S. During the 18th Century, we were part of the British Empire. We were forbidden to trade with any country without going through England. More importantly, we were forbidden to develop advanced industries - even though we had lots of raw materials and manpower, we weren't allowed to actually develop them. We were required to ship those raw materials to England, and then buy them back! This was called mercantilism, and it was enforced at the end of a gun. It was most definetely a form of imperialism.

Nowadays, many Third World countries are in similar positions - they lack the ability to develop industry and develop their own raw materials. Instead, they have to export raw materials to developed nations (the so-called "Banana Republics"). Nobody's holding a gun to their head and forcing them to do this, but globalization makes it more profitable to do this.

Wallerstein's Dependency theories, though, were derived from Marxism and offered Marxist solutions, and all the South American countries who adopted his theories eventually had to stop because they wouldn't work. I can only point out that the U.S. managed to crawl out of this status without anything resembling Marxism.

The good/evil conversation about imperialism is enevitable within this thread I expect.

Well, I don't believe in good or evil...

This was called mercantilism, and it was enforced at the end of a gun. It was most definetely a form of imperialism.

I don't think the current economic trends show mercantilistic elements- free trade runs against the very ideas of realist mercantilism. While we do experience symptoms of mercantilism, (the south trading almost exclusively with the north) this trade orginates out of comparitive advantage rather than "the end of the gun" (in most cases). You address this below:

Nobody's holding a gun to their head and forcing them to do this, but globalization makes it more profitable to do this.

It should be pointed out that this profit goes mostly to the ruling elites found in said nations.


Wallerstein's Dependency theories, though, were derived from Marxism and offered Marxist solutions, and all the South American countries who adopted his theories eventually had to stop because they wouldn't work. I can only point out that the U.S. managed to crawl out of this status without anything resembling Marxism.

I would suggest that it is largely the antagonism of the US that shattered socialist rule in the peripheries. Perhaps if the Americans (and indeed much of the West) hadn't been so eager to smash this percieved threat, we may have seen different results, though this is of course purely conjecture.

why do my threads always drop to communism/capitalism? possibly because this has defined history for many years now? history needs to move on.

I would suggest that it is largely the antagonism of the US that shattered socialist rule in the peripheries.

would agree that this is an argument. cuba anyone? how many years of economic sanctions is it now?

So, present economic imperialism, military imperialism, both or neither?

Good discussion so far.

why do my threads always drop to communism/capitalism? possibly because this has defined history for many years now? history needs to move on.

Any discussion of imperialism (which, according to Marx, is the final stage of capitalism) is, by definition, going to be a discussion of capitalism versus socialism.


So, present economic imperialism, military imperialism, both or neither?


I'm not sure there is a real difference- the two tend to blend.

According to Wallerstein's theory, nowadays, economic hegemony _is_ a form of imperialism.

Take the case of the U.S. During the 18th Century, we were part of the British Empire. We were forbidden to trade with any country without going through England. More importantly, we were forbidden to develop advanced industries - even though we had lots of raw materials and manpower, we weren't allowed to actually develop them. We were required to ship those raw materials to England, and then buy them back! This was called mercantilism, and it was enforced at the end of a gun. It was most definetely a form of imperialism.

Nowadays, many Third World countries are in similar positions - they lack the ability to develop industry and develop their own raw materials. Instead, they have to export raw materials to developed nations (the so-called "Banana Republics"). Nobody's holding a gun to their head and forcing them to do this, but globalization makes it more profitable to do this.

Wallerstein's Dependency theories, though, were derived from Marxism and offered Marxist solutions, and all the South American countries who adopted his theories eventually had to stop because they wouldn't work. I can only point out that the U.S. managed to crawl out of this status without anything resembling Marxism.

Amazing. Do you know the origin of the term "banana republic?" The US owned companies that exploited Central and South America did so with the complete cooperation of local governments installed by and maintained by the US. Nobody is holding a gun to their head? Are you kidding? Here's a partial list of US military, both overt and covert, intervention in Central and South America. Yeah, nobody is holding a gun to their heads. We just make sure their leaders hold the guns to their heads then we walk about whistling a happy corporate tune.

1932: Known as *La Matanza,* or The Slaughter, 30,000 campesinos were
killed in El Salvador.
1946: School for the Americas or "School of Coups," trained 45,000 Latin
American officers in counterinsurgency, terrorism, torture. Still operable? (yes!)
1954: CIA-backed coup in Guatemala.
1960: Repeated intervention in Guatemala, the guerrilla forces are nearly
destroyed.
1965: US Marines land in Santa Domingo, the Dominican Republic.
1970: Dan Mitrione, an Indiana policeman, is executed by the Uruguayan
Tupamaros. Mitrione was accused of training Urugyuan and Brazilian police
in torture.
1972: CIA-backed coup in Chile, thousands "disappear."
1979: The fall of Somoza and the beginning of the US-backed *Contras* war. CIA Cocaine *Contra* Connection.
1980s: US support of Rios Montt in Guatemala, called the worst violator of human rights in the western hemisphere by Amnesty International. Since
Guatemala has (had?) a 60% indigenous population, Montt and Company have committed near genocide. Still, Montt is one of many military dictators. Israeli advisors also trained troops here.
1970-1980s: Military and economic aid to El Salvador was 3 billion dollars
since 1980. In 1984, 65,000 civilians were murdered by the National Guard
and right-wing paramilitary forces, and two-thirds of the 750,000 people
who fled El Salvador ended up in the US.: many were deported back to join the imprisoned or the disappeared. Archbishop Oscar Romero was gunned down in 1980 while conducting mass, and many church workers, mostly Jesuits, were assassinated. Three nuns and one layworker from the US were also raped and murdered, their bodies found in a collective grave at a dumpsite. In spite of this contradictory evidence, President Reagan's *National Bipartisan Commission on Central America* (Macmillan, 1984) justified massive military support to El Salvador because of their promise for "democratic reform."
1989: US bombs Panama City at midnight, a densely populated city.
For more information, see *Inside Central America,* by Philip Berryman;
*With Friends Like These,* Cynthia Brown; *The Central America Fact Book,* by Tom Barry and Deb Preusch; *Hidden Terrors: The Truth About US Police Operations in Latin America,* by A. J. Langguth, to name just a few sources.

Yeah, no guns there. No military support for right-wing dictatorships that have a continuous record of human rights abuses against indigenous populations who dared to rise up against the US corporate controlled states (i.e. "Banana Republics"). Now if you meant that no one was holding a gun to right-wing dictator's heads, then I'll agree in part. The fact that they (and in some cases even we the US in person without using a proxy) were not only holding a gun to the people's heads but firing it as well is something we should just gloss over, eh? And when you think about Manuel Noriega, it looks like we sometimes held a gun to the dictator's heads as well, didn't we?

And it continues today. What do you think maquiladora's are other than blatant mercantilism by US companies? We ship duty free goods to Central and South America, Asia and now in some cases Africa, the under paid workers then assemble and sew the products then they are shipped back to the US to be sold. That is mercantilism, plain and simple. If the workers object, then the US-backed governments shoot them. From Mexico to Argentina, the US continues a policy of economic imperialism, that started with Woodrow Wilson. And now we're beginning to export it to Eastern Europe and Asia. See Kazakstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and now Iraq. It imperialism by proxy. We keep the governments in power that bow to our business interests. Indonesia is a real fine example of US imperialism by proxy. As long as Indonesia allows US companies to do as they want, we'll allow Indonesia to do what it wants to its ethnic minorities (see East Timor). Yeah, we're not holding a gun over anyone forcing them to do business the American way. Not at all, we're just using their own governments to hold guns over their heads. All in the name of good ol' corporate capitalism. Mercantilism by any other name still stinks.

was being a little sarcastic about the communism thing, most threads some to digress into 'frickin liberal commie' bashing, of course this one had to raise communism/capitalism. hopefully without 'I HATE COMMIE BABYEATERS. TEH COMMIES SHOULD ALL BE KILLED DEAD'.

Yeah, no guns there. No military support for right-wing dictatorships that have a continuous record of human rights abuses against indigenous populations who dared to rise up against the US corporate controlled states (i.e. "Banana Republics"). Now if you meant that no one was holding a gun to right-wing dictator's heads, then I'll agree in part. The fact that they (and in some cases even we the US in person without using a proxy) were not only holding a gun to the people's heads but firing it as well is something we should just gloss over, eh? And when you think about Manuel Noriega, it looks like we sometimes held a gun to the dictator's heads as well, didn't we?


Interesting. So do you then support regime change to overthrow these dictators? I'm confused- is it wrong to trade with dictatorships? (e.g. sanctions, which tend to starve helpless people) What is our obligation? To overthrow these governments? To support factions whose ideologies are radically, often antagonistically, different than the majority of our populations? (i.e. communists, radical Islamicists, etc) To simply 'hang these nations out to dry', so to speak? Global workers revolution perhaps? (though this is a virtual impossiblity)


And it continues today. What do you think maquiladora's are other than blatant mercantilism by US companies? We ship duty free goods to Central and South America, Asia and now in some cases Africa, the under paid workers then assemble and sew the products then they are shipped back to the US to be sold. That is mercantilism, plain and simple. If the workers object, then the US-backed governments shoot them. From Mexico to Argentina, the US continues a policy of economic imperialism, that started with Woodrow Wilson. And now we're beginning to export it to Eastern Europe and Asia. See Kazakstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and now Iraq. It imperialism by proxy. We keep the governments in power that bow to our business interests. Indonesia is a real fine example of US imperialism by proxy. As long as Indonesia allows US companies to do as they want, we'll allow Indonesia to do what it wants to its ethnic minorities (see East Timor). Yeah, we're not holding a gun over anyone forcing them to do business the American way. Not at all, we're just using their own governments to hold guns over their heads. All in the name of good ol' corporate capitalism. Mercantilism by any other name still stinks.

I don't think I nessecarily agree here. These developing nations would be in even worse shape without maquiladoras or EPZ than without them, especially considering the hefty debt load incurred during the 70's and early 80's. Yes, it is a shame Mexico has been forced to marginalize her workers, but what is the answer? Year of PRI deficits have put their economy in sorry shape, one which MUST be addressed. (as demonstrated in '94)

I too question the export of the "liberal peace", but on the other hand, I'm not sure what else can be done- I lack confidence in anarchism or communism as a solution within our lifetimes. What is to be done?

We need to stop thinking of corporations as the solution to our problems. We should support human rights, freedom of association, political freedom, education, sustainable agriculture and land use, environmental policies that don't allow companies to poison the workers (i.e. the maquiladoras). And most important, we should refrain from backing governments just because they support US interests, specifically corporate interests, while disregarding the above. The Us needs to stop installing governments because we think they are better than the alternative. In every case I can think of, the installed governments have turned out to be horrors for their people. That needs to stop. And every indication is that we're fixing to do it again, in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I hear a lot of capitalist apologists in these forums go on and on about how socialism can only fail. Yeah? Then why are they so worried about letting the people choose socialism? Why does the US continue to support right-wing dictatorships that are more harmful to their people than socialism would be? If they are correct, then the socialists will eventually "see the light" and convert to capitalism anyway, right? So they have nothing to worry about. Or do they?

Its always an exception with america isnt it? They do ahve an economic empire, they forced globalisation. now the top og controls the world ie america.

We need to stop thinking of corporations as the solution to our problems. We should support human rights, freedom of association, political freedom, education, sustainable agriculture and land use, environmental policies that don't allow companies to poison the workers (i.e. the maquiladoras). And most important, we should refrain from backing governments just because they support US interests, specifically corporate interests, while disregarding the above.

These are certainly admirable goals, but how realistic are they? In a world sharply devided between PNAC interventionism and isolationism, which do we turn to? Do we starve nations with sanctions of dubious effeciency, or do we go on some kind of liberal crusade against tyranny? I think, in general, liberal socio-economic policy is more geared towards human rights than dictatorships. I agree with sustainable agriculture and land use, but the trade of is clearly accumulation of wealth- how does a nation develope without exploiting resources or borrowing further from the WB?


The Us needs to stop installing governments because we think they are better than the alternative. In every case I can think of, the installed governments have turned out to be horrors for their people. That needs to stop. And every indication is that we're fixing to do it again, in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I would argue the Interim power put into place in Germany after WW2 was preferable to the Nazi rule, for one, as was the administration of Japan. The US governing of the Phillipines was largely successful as well. Many US backed governments tend to be reasonably good rulers as well, such as S. Korea or Taiwan.

Any government put into power in either Afghanistan or Iraq is unlikely to be worse than the Taliban or Ba'ath respectively, especially if media attention continues to focus on these situations. UN involvement is now a certainty in Iraq, to some degree, and if a liberal peace does in fact emerge in Iraq, this is to the benefit of all.

I hear a lot of capitalist apologists in these forums go on and on about how socialism can only fail. Yeah? Then why are they so worried about letting the people choose socialism? Why does the US continue to support right-wing dictatorships that are more harmful to their people than socialism would be? If they are correct, then the socialists will eventually "see the light" and convert to capitalism anyway, right? So they have nothing to worry about. Or do they?

Socialism can succeed to a certain degree in the present day scheme of things- clearly the Scadinavian democracies show working socialism. However, the socialism we tend to observe either incorporates captilism or is essentially a state capitalist system. I don't agree with US foreign policy, especially during the cold war years, and don't see the threat they did. At the same time, socialist revolution WAS a threat to US interests during this time- if there was any doubt, the Cuban missle crisis proved that. I think we do often see a trend of socialist nations gradually favouring more capitalist systems- Britain was once fairly socialist, and has evolved towards a more free-market system, for better or for worse. I honestly don't think that socialist revolution will occur any time soon ANYWHERE in the world, and if it did, it would be short lived and desperate, unable to attract investment or world bank loans.

We need to stop thinking of corporations as the solution to our problems. We should support human rights, freedom of association, political freedom, education, sustainable agriculture and land use, environmental policies that don't allow companies to poison the workers (i.e. the maquiladoras). And most important, we should refrain from backing governments just because they support US interests, specifically corporate interests, while disregarding the above.

These are certainly admirable goals, but how realistic are they? In a world sharply devided between PNAC interventionism and isolationism, which do we turn to? Do we starve nations with sanctions of dubious effeciency, or do we go on some kind of liberal crusade against tyranny? I think, in general, liberal socio-economic policy is more geared towards human rights than dictatorships. I agree with sustainable agriculture and land use, but the trade of is clearly accumulation of wealth- how does a nation develope without exploiting resources or borrowing further from the WB?

You're painting it as a stark either/or, black and white situation. Which stands in sharp contrast to other statements you make about realism. The US can support those things I listed without supporting the bad things such as dictators, polution, genocide and the rest. And, yes, we should support even those groups which might be diametrically opposed to the US politically. A nation develops with aid from the wealthier countries that does not include restrictions and conditions that are intended solely to support American corporate interests - as the World Bank does now. Refuse to support the bad. Complete refusal, even if that means revolution and overthrow of the governments and the rise of even worse goovernments. Cut them off. If, as the capitalists claim, socialism is inherently flawed then capitalist systems will arise in these countries. I think not, though. If corporations aren't allowed to artifically maintain the semblance of economic prosperity in one place at the expense of people in other places then maybe, just maybe we'll get to look under the sheep's clothing at the wolf.

It will require pain, suffering and misery on a massive scale; but I submit that that is no worse than the pain suffering and misery already exported and maintained around the world to support the comforts of the "West." If the capitalists are right, it will result in world free of socialism and completely capitalist. If they're wrong, then it will result in the opposite. Eventually.


The US needs to stop installing governments because we think they are better than the alternative. In every case I can think of, the installed governments have turned out to be horrors for their people. That needs to stop. And every indication is that we're fixing to do it again, in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I would argue the Interim power put into place in Germany after WW2 was preferable to the Nazi rule, for one, as was the administration of Japan. The US governing of the Phillipines was largely successful as well. Many US backed governments tend to be reasonably good rulers as well, such as S. Korea or Taiwan.

The economy in Germany took the will and money and effort of the Marshall plan in order to rise from the ashes of WWII. Does the US have that will now? We've certainly not shown so in Afghanistan. Karzai came to the US to practically beg for more money, and was given a polite cold shoulder by his erstwhile allies.

As for the Phillipines, our governing resulted in the decades long dictatorial rule of Ferdinand Marcos, who we kept in power at the expense of the Phillipine people for many years to ward off the "communist threat."

We don't really support Taiwan at all. We tell the Chinese one thing, and the Taiwanese another and try to keep the ridiculous situation stable. We either need to tell China, once and for all Taiwan is theirs so ok go for it, or tell China that Taiwan is sovereign and really support them. The US refuses to do either.

Korea is a special situation. The war never ended. There is only a cease fire which has been in effect for almost 50 years now. South Korea sees itself as the eventual ruler of the entire peninsula. North Korea thinks differently. That is eventually going to blow up in someone's face. The nukes don't help. You should see the way the media in South Korea do things. They give the weather for the whole peninsula as just "Korea", they refer only to "Korea" not North or South. They talk only about "Korean people" not North or South. And we wonder why the dictators in the North get a little nervous?

Any government put into power in either Afghanistan or Iraq is unlikely to be worse than the Taliban or Ba'ath respectively, especially if media attention continues to focus on these situations. UN involvement is now a certainty in Iraq, to some degree, and if a liberal peace does in fact emerge in Iraq, this is to the benefit of all.

I don't think the Taliban is done yet. If we fail to support the good things in my list above with healthy doses of financial aid then the Taliban or something like it will eventually arise in Afghanistan again. The trick is aid the people in aiding themselves, not to allow Afghanistan to become just another corporate "banana republic" instead.

The Ba'ath party is forbidden from re-entering power in Iraq. I'll lay odds with you that what the Iraqi's end up with instead is one of two things, a corporate puppet state for American Oil interests or an Islamic fundamentalist state. All things considered, the Islamic state is probably the lesser of the two evils for the people of Iraq. Unfortunately, we'll never allow the Kurds self-determination, because that would annoy the Turks and the Iranians who have their own huge Kurdish populations. More trouble thanks to UK insanity after WWII in setting up boundaries bases on resources and geography rather than ethnicity. So much for democracy. We don't intend to allow the Kurds to have democracy, so why all the fuss?

I hear a lot of capitalist apologists in these forums go on and on about how socialism can only fail. Yeah? Then why are they so worried about letting the people choose socialism? Why does the US continue to support right-wing dictatorships that are more harmful to their people than socialism would be? If they are correct, then the socialists will eventually "see the light" and convert to capitalism anyway, right? So they have nothing to worry about. Or do they?

Socialism can succeed to a certain degree in the present day scheme of things- clearly the Scadinavian democracies show working socialism. However, the socialism we tend to observe either incorporates captilism or is essentially a state capitalist system. I don't agree with US foreign policy, especially during the cold war years, and don't see the threat they did. At the same time, socialist revolution WAS a threat to US interests during this time- if there was any doubt, the Cuban missle crisis proved that. I think we do often see a trend of socialist nations gradually favouring more capitalist systems- Britain was once fairly socialist, and has evolved towards a more free-market system, for better or for worse. I honestly don't think that socialist revolution will occur any time soon ANYWHERE in the world, and if it did, it would be short lived and desperate, unable to attract investment or world bank loans.

First, the Cuban missile crisis was a direct result of US missiles in Turkey. That fact tends to be ignored, because it tends to not make the US look as pristine and angelic as the abridged truth does.

Every capitalist system in the world has elements of socialism in it. No free market, completely capitalist system exists nor does any socialist capitalist-free system. So your argument cuts both ways. Corporations are not thinking entities. They are more like driver ants or army ants. They have one goal, profit (survival). But they are incapable, by themselves, of taking the long view for survival. Left alone, corporations seek to stifle competition not increase it. Left alone, corporations would quite unwittingly strip this world bare and eliminate themselves, choking in their own filth, with no resources left or people to which they can sell "stuff." So socialist practices are necessary to keep the corporate beast from consuming itself. Socialist practices are necessary to make corporate capitalism palatable for the people, to make them sane. I submit that that means that the flaw is in the corporations and capitalism itself, not in socialism.
So, maybe it isn't possible for socialism to flourish. I feel that we have to try.

You're painting it as a stark either/or, black and white situation. Which stands in sharp contrast to other statements you make about realism. The US can support those things I listed without supporting the bad things such as dictators, polution, genocide and the rest. And, yes, we should support even those groups which might be diametrically opposed to the US politically.

Why should a democratic nation be forced to support a movement it does not agree with? Is it morally correct for a leader to go against the will of the people he or she has been elected to represent? Isn't this an abuse of democracy?


A nation develops with aid from the wealthier countries that does not include restrictions and conditions that are intended solely to support American corporate interests - as the World Bank does now.


I agree with you here. The WB restructuring programs have been poorly planned and executed, with disastrous results. I support debt relief, though I think large scale forgiveness is unlikely.


Refuse to support the bad. Complete refusal, even if that means revolution and overthrow of the governments and the rise of even worse goovernments. Cut them off. If, as the capitalists claim, socialism is inherently flawed then capitalist systems will arise in these countries. I think not, though. If corporations aren't allowed to artifically maintain the semblance of economic prosperity in one place at the expense of people in other places then maybe, just maybe we'll get to look under the sheep's clothing at the wolf.

I don't think there is as much demand for socialist governments as you seem to believe, even within developing countries. Consider Mexico- after 70 some odd years of PRI domination, they elected Fox's PAN party- a remarkably conservative neo-liberal government.

How do we determine which governments are "bad"? Those which don't represent the people? Are we justified in forcing our value sets (in terms of governing) on others? If so, why not our economic values as well?

I don't like the way you paint corporations- as long as they in accordance with international and domestic laws, why should their freedom be restricted more than any other organization? I feel that in the spirit of freedom, coorporations should be free to conduct themselves in any legal way, as determined by international agreements and a WTO (not nessecarily the present one, but an international trade organization of some sort).


It will require pain, suffering and misery on a massive scale; but I submit that that is no worse than the pain suffering and misery already exported and maintained around the world to support the comforts of the "West." If the capitalists are right, it will result in world free of socialism and completely capitalist. If they're wrong, then it will result in the opposite. Eventually.


yep. Though I don't think a revolution of any kind is on its way.


The economy in Germany took the will and money and effort of the Marshall plan in order to rise from the ashes of WWII. Does the US have that will now? We've certainly not shown so in Afghanistan. Karzai came to the US to practically beg for more money, and was given a polite cold shoulder by his erstwhile allies.


I agree to a certain point, but lets not draw to many comparisons between Iraq and Afghanistan. In my opinion, an attack on Afghanistan was perfectly justified. Iraq, not at all. It's unfortunate that the US has decided not to restructure Afghanistan, but on the other hand, what are the odds that ANYONE could ever 'fix' that country? Pretty slim.


As for the Phillipines, our governing resulted in the decades long dictatorial rule of Ferdinand Marcos, who we kept in power at the expense of the Phillipine people for many years to ward off the "communist threat."


uhh... no. Marcos was democratically elected by the Phillipinos several decades after the US had withdrawn and repatriated the Phillipines. The US had little, if anything, to do with Marcos' rule. They denied his requests for backing, and he was eventually toppled by his own people in the early 80s (who chose to remain capitalist, by the way ;) Marcos kept himself in power, largely through taking firm control of the Phillipino military.


We don't really support Taiwan at all. We tell the Chinese one thing, and the Taiwanese another and try to keep the ridiculous situation stable. We either need to tell China, once and for all Taiwan is theirs so ok go for it, or tell China that Taiwan is sovereign and really support them. The US refuses to do either.


Tacitly I believe the UN's refusal to recognize Taiwan confirms it as a Chinese teritory. Anyways, why would the US ever want to destablize the situation by drawing a line in the sand?


Korea is a special situation. The war never ended. There is only a cease fire which has been in effect for almost 50 years now. South Korea sees itself as the eventual ruler of the entire peninsula. North Korea thinks differently. That is eventually going to blow up in someone's face. The nukes don't help. You should see the way the media in South Korea do things. They give the weather for the whole peninsula as just "Korea", they refer only to "Korea" not North or South. They talk only about "Korean people" not North or South. And we wonder why the dictators in the North get a little nervous?


Does this change the fact that the US transformed S Korea into a regional economic giant? My point is the US is capable and willing of rebuilding nations.


I don't think the Taliban is done yet. If we fail to support the good things in my list above with healthy doses of financial aid then the Taliban or something like it will eventually arise in Afghanistan again. The trick is aid the people in aiding themselves, not to allow Afghanistan to become just another corporate "banana republic" instead.


In my opinion, Afghanistan is too 'broken' to ever be fixed at this point. The traditions of fundementalism, militia mentality, and violence are far to engrained to be remedied by humanitarian aid. That being said, I also believe the Taliban or a similar group will eventually reemerge in Afghanistan- I just don't think there's too much (outside of martial action) that can be done about it.


The Ba'ath party is forbidden from re-entering power in Iraq. I'll lay odds with you that what the Iraqi's end up with instead is one of two things, a corporate puppet state for American Oil interests or an Islamic fundamentalist state. All things considered, the Islamic state is probably the lesser of the two evils for the people of Iraq. Unfortunately, we'll never allow the Kurds self-determination, because that would annoy the Turks and the Iranians who have their own huge Kurdish populations. More trouble thanks to UK insanity after WWII in setting up boundaries bases on resources and geography rather than ethnicity. So much for democracy. We don't intend to allow the Kurds to have democracy, so why all the fuss?

I'm going to wait and see. Iraq is a unique situation- the US has never been in this position before. They absolutely HAVE to rebuild and restructure to preserve their credibility. The UN will be involved. While I agree that an Islamic government will never come into power, I think this will be due to a clause in a US written constitution (similar to the one written for phillipines at the turn of the century) forbidding a merger of Church and State. I protest any merger of church and state, whether Canadian, US, or otherwise.


First, the Cuban missile crisis was a direct result of US missiles in Turkey. That fact tends to be ignored, because it tends to not make the US look as pristine and angelic as the abridged truth does.

I don't think it matters. Clearly during the Cold War, communist countries were dangerous to the US, and vice verse. The US was justified in doing its utmost to prevent these countries from 'going communist' and banding with the Soviets. Lets not forget that the USSR wasn't anymore interested in democracy for the sattelite states than the US was with the nations America involved herself in.
[/quote]



Every capitalist system in the world has elements of socialism in it. No free market, completely capitalist system exists nor does any socialist capitalist-free system. So your argument cuts both ways. Corporations are not thinking entities. They are more like driver ants or army ants. They have one goal, profit (survival). But they are incapable, by themselves, of taking the long view for survival. Left alone, corporations seek to stifle competition not increase it. Left alone, corporations would quite unwittingly strip this world bare and eliminate themselves, choking in their own filth, with no resources left or people to which they can sell "stuff." So socialist practices are necessary to keep the corporate beast from consuming itself. Socialist practices are necessary to make corporate capitalism palatable for the people, to make them sane. I submit that that means that the flaw is in the corporations and capitalism itself, not in socialism.
So, maybe it isn't possible for socialism to flourish. I feel that we have to try.

I agree. I believe that capitalism must be regulated to a certain degree, which it is and continues to be. Even the much maligned WTO is a tool of market regulation. I also agree that socialism is a goal we should work towards- I don't believe it will ever emerge as a regional revolution, and I believe it will evolve naturally, without need to be spurred on.

You're painting it as a stark either/or, black and white situation. Which stands in sharp contrast to other statements you make about realism. The US can support those things I listed without supporting the bad things such as dictators, polution, genocide and the rest. And, yes, we should support even those groups which might be diametrically opposed to the US politically.

Why should a democratic nation be forced to support a movement it does not agree with? Is it morally correct for a leader to go against the will of the people he or she has been elected to represent? Isn't this an abuse of democracy?


A nation develops with aid from the wealthier countries that does not include restrictions and conditions that are intended solely to support American corporate interests - as the World Bank does now.


I agree with you here. The WB restructuring programs have been poorly planned and executed, with disastrous results. I support debt relief, though I think large scale forgiveness is unlikely.


Refuse to support the bad. Complete refusal, even if that means revolution and overthrow of the governments and the rise of even worse goovernments. Cut them off. If, as the capitalists claim, socialism is inherently flawed then capitalist systems will arise in these countries. I think not, though. If corporations aren't allowed to artifically maintain the semblance of economic prosperity in one place at the expense of people in other places then maybe, just maybe we'll get to look under the sheep's clothing at the wolf.

I don't think there is as much demand for socialist governments as you seem to believe, even within developing countries. Consider Mexico- after 70 some odd years of PRI domination, they elected Fox's PAN party- a remarkably conservative neo-liberal government.

How do we determine which governments are "bad"? Those which don't represent the people? Are we justified in forcing our value sets (in terms of governing) on others? If so, why not our economic values as well?

I don't like the way you paint corporations- as long as they in accordance with international and domestic laws, why should their freedom be restricted more than any other organization? I feel that in the spirit of freedom, coorporations should be free to conduct themselves in any legal way, as determined by international agreements and a WTO (not nessecarily the present one, but an international trade organization of some sort).


It will require pain, suffering and misery on a massive scale; but I submit that that is no worse than the pain suffering and misery already exported and maintained around the world to support the comforts of the "West." If the capitalists are right, it will result in world free of socialism and completely capitalist. If they're wrong, then it will result in the opposite. Eventually.


yep. Though I don't think a revolution of any kind is on its way.


The economy in Germany took the will and money and effort of the Marshall plan in order to rise from the ashes of WWII. Does the US have that will now? We've certainly not shown so in Afghanistan. Karzai came to the US to practically beg for more money, and was given a polite cold shoulder by his erstwhile allies.


I agree to a certain point, but lets not draw to many comparisons between Iraq and Afghanistan. In my opinion, an attack on Afghanistan was perfectly justified. Iraq, not at all. It's unfortunate that the US has decided not to restructure Afghanistan, but on the other hand, what are the odds that ANYONE could ever 'fix' that country? Pretty slim.


As for the Phillipines, our governing resulted in the decades long dictatorial rule of Ferdinand Marcos, who we kept in power at the expense of the Phillipine people for many years to ward off the "communist threat."


uhh... no. Marcos was democratically elected by the Phillipinos several decades after the US had withdrawn and repatriated the Phillipines. The US had little, if anything, to do with Marcos' rule. They denied his requests for backing, and he was eventually toppled by his own people in the early 80s (who chose to remain capitalist, by the way ;) Marcos kept himself in power, largely through taking firm control of the Phillipino military.


We don't really support Taiwan at all. We tell the Chinese one thing, and the Taiwanese another and try to keep the ridiculous situation stable. We either need to tell China, once and for all Taiwan is theirs so ok go for it, or tell China that Taiwan is sovereign and really support them. The US refuses to do either.


Tacitly I believe the UN's refusal to recognize Taiwan confirms it as a Chinese teritory. Anyways, why would the US ever want to destablize the situation by drawing a line in the sand?


Korea is a special situation. The war never ended. There is only a cease fire which has been in effect for almost 50 years now. South Korea sees itself as the eventual ruler of the entire peninsula. North Korea thinks differently. That is eventually going to blow up in someone's face. The nukes don't help. You should see the way the media in South Korea do things. They give the weather for the whole peninsula as just "Korea", they refer only to "Korea" not North or South. They talk only about "Korean people" not North or South. And we wonder why the dictators in the North get a little nervous?


Does this change the fact that the US transformed S Korea into a regional economic giant? My point is the US is capable and willing of rebuilding nations.


I don't think the Taliban is done yet. If we fail to support the good things in my list above with healthy doses of financial aid then the Taliban or something like it will eventually arise in Afghanistan again. The trick is aid the people in aiding themselves, not to allow Afghanistan to become just another corporate "banana republic" instead.


In my opinion, Afghanistan is too 'broken' to ever be fixed at this point. The traditions of fundementalism, militia mentality, and violence are far to engrained to be remedied by humanitarian aid. That being said, I also believe the Taliban or a similar group will eventually reemerge in Afghanistan- I just don't think there's too much (outside of martial action) that can be done about it.


The Ba'ath party is forbidden from re-entering power in Iraq. I'll lay odds with you that what the Iraqi's end up with instead is one of two things, a corporate puppet state for American Oil interests or an Islamic fundamentalist state. All things considered, the Islamic state is probably the lesser of the two evils for the people of Iraq. Unfortunately, we'll never allow the Kurds self-determination, because that would annoy the Turks and the Iranians who have their own huge Kurdish populations. More trouble thanks to UK insanity after WWII in setting up boundaries bases on resources and geography rather than ethnicity. So much for democracy. We don't intend to allow the Kurds to have democracy, so why all the fuss?

I'm going to wait and see. Iraq is a unique situation- the US has never been in this position before. They absolutely HAVE to rebuild and restructure to preserve their credibility. The UN will be involved. While I agree that an Islamic government will never come into power, I think this will be due to a clause in a US written constitution (similar to the one written for phillipines at the turn of the century) forbidding a merger of Church and State. I protest any merger of church and state, whether Canadian, US, or otherwise.


First, the Cuban missile crisis was a direct result of US missiles in Turkey. That fact tends to be ignored, because it tends to not make the US look as pristine and angelic as the abridged truth does.

I don't think it matters. Clearly during the Cold War, communist countries were dangerous to the US, and vice verse. The US was justified in doing its utmost to prevent these countries from 'going communist' and banding with the Soviets. Lets not forget that the USSR wasn't anymore interested in democracy for the sattelite states than the US was with the nations America involved herself in.
[/quote]



Every capitalist system in the world has elements of socialism in it. No free market, completely capitalist system exists nor does any socialist capitalist-free system. So your argument cuts both ways. Corporations are not thinking entities. They are more like driver ants or army ants. They have one goal, profit (survival). But they are incapable, by themselves, of taking the long view for survival. Left alone, corporations seek to stifle competition not increase it. Left alone, corporations would quite unwittingly strip this world bare and eliminate themselves, choking in their own filth, with no resources left or people to which they can sell "stuff." So socialist practices are necessary to keep the corporate beast from consuming itself. Socialist practices are necessary to make corporate capitalism palatable for the people, to make them sane. I submit that that means that the flaw is in the corporations and capitalism itself, not in socialism.
So, maybe it isn't possible for socialism to flourish. I feel that we have to try.

I agree. I believe that capitalism must be regulated to a certain degree, which it is and continues to be. Even the much maligned WTO is a tool of market regulation. I also agree that socialism is a goal we should work towards- I don't believe it will ever emerge as a regional revolution, and I believe it will evolve naturally, without need to be spurred on.

Why should a democratic nation be forced to support a movement it does not agree with? Is it morally correct for a leader to go against the will of the people he or she has been elected to represent? Isn't this an abuse of democracy?

I didn't say that we force other people to choose a particular form of government. I said we should support those groups which seek to topple their own dictators, whether those groups are politically aligned with us or not. If the goal is democracy for everyone and not just the prvileged few, then we should do as France did during the American Revolution and provide substantive assistance to that end. But we have no business telling them how to vote once they have the right to do so. As you said below, permanent revolution if necessary. I can see you're a gradualist, and I have certain tendencies along that line myself, but I think we disagree on whether the outcome needs a little push here and there in the name of self-determination.

I don't think there is as much demand for socialist governments as you seem to believe, even within developing countries. Consider Mexico- after 70 some odd years of PRI domination, they elected Fox's PAN party- a remarkably conservative neo-liberal government.

The PRI was hardly a people's party. And the PAN certainly isn't either. Just ask the Zapatistas. It took 70 years for the people of Mexico to finally overthrow the PRI, and the ended up with the PAN instead. Not a huge difference there. PAN is squelching dissent in much the same way as the PRI did.


How do we determine which governments are "bad"? Those which don't represent the people? Are we justified in forcing our value sets (in terms of governing) on others? If so, why not our economic values as well?

We let the people decide. As for economic values, we don't have any. Not really. Not in any cohesive fashion. Other than vague ideas about "capitalism" and "free markets" (which are mutually exclusive when followed to their logical conclusions, BTW). At this time, the economic values of the US government are one and the same as the economic values of the corporations which exert the most influence.

I don't like the way you paint corporations- as long as they in accordance with international and domestic laws, why should their freedom be restricted more than any other organization? I feel that in the spirit of freedom, coorporations should be free to conduct themselves in any legal way, as determined by international agreements and a WTO (not nessecarily the present one, but an international trade organization of some sort).

First. Corporations spend a lot of time and effort getting around the law. Let's take, as an example, US drug companies. When one of their drugs is found to be harmful, they typically just repackage it and ship it off to Central and South America where the restrictions are much laxer. Like chloramphenicol, an anti-infection drug, which is in most countries only allowed for life-threatening diseases like typhoid fever because it can result in a rather high incidence of fatal anemia. Restricted in the US, Parke-Davis sold the drug with no warning at all in Central America for tonsillitis. And McKesson did the same in South America with no warning labels and recommended it for whooping cough! I could go on for days listing corporations with products which were found to be harmful who just sold them elsewhere - knowingly! That is the source of my characterization of corporations. Decisions are made by humans, but in the corporate structure, there are no balances, profit is the only deisirable end and any means will end up being used - detrimental or not. Corporations are like viruses in that way. They survive short term off the host, but are incapable of seeing the long term results - the death of the host and the end of the virus.

As for international agreements to curb the excesses of corporations (all of which would gleefully eliminate their competitors, and operate without restrictions if they could, you must admit), such agreements can work only when the proposed restricted party doesn't have access to influence the decisions. When corporations can buy entire governments, what value are international agreements, which must by necessity be reached by a consensus of all the governments or corporations will simply slip on over to the non-signatories. It is no coincidence that most ships wrecks you hear about seem involve ships with Liberian registry. It's because of the lax registration and corporate restrictions in Liberia. So, as long as corporations can either get around international rules and legality by using non-signatories to treaties and agreements, or control the agreements by controlling the organizations (WTO) or the governments (any of a host of corporate puppet states, like Liberia) the usefulness of such treaties and agreements and organizations is rather limited.


I agree to a certain point, but lets not draw to many comparisons between Iraq and Afghanistan. In my opinion, an attack on Afghanistan was perfectly justified. Iraq, not at all. It's unfortunate that the US has decided not to restructure Afghanistan, but on the other hand, what are the odds that ANYONE could ever 'fix' that country? Pretty slim. [/quote]

I have my doubts as to the real reasons we went into Afghanistan, doubts supported by the US governments current policy of letting things slip back into chaos there. Agreed on the rest.

uhh... no. Marcos was democratically elected by the Phillipinos several decades after the US had withdrawn and repatriated the Phillipines. The US had little, if anything, to do with Marcos' rule. They denied his requests for backing, and he was eventually toppled by his own people in the early 80s (who chose to remain capitalist, by the way ;) Marcos kept himself in power, largely through taking firm control of the Phillipino military.

The 1965 vote that brought Marcos to power was one of the most corrupt in Phillipine history. Marcos declared martial law in 1972 when a burgeoning national movement questioned American military bases remaining there, and Marcos' blatant kleptocracy. The US gave tacit support by continuing to fund Marcos at the expense of his people for 14 more years, all under martial law. Prior to WWII, the Phillipines had one of the strongest economies in Southeast Asia. Today it is one of the poorest. Thanks to draconian IMF rule, the Phillipines had ZERO economic growth from 1983 to 1993. Thanks to Marcos, with the support of US corporations (they just pop up all over, don't they?), most of the Phillipine economy is controlled by foreign capital - and most of that is American.

Tacitly I believe the UN's refusal to recognize Taiwan confirms it as a Chinese teritory. Anyways, why would the US ever want to destablize the situation by drawing a line in the sand?

The US wants to keep it destabilized! As long as we maintain the fiction that China really has control of Taiwan by not recognizing Taiwan officially, but still making it very clear to mainland China that we will not tolerate them actually taking control of the land we agree they control, we can have our cake and eat it too. and then we can point to Taiwan as a successful capitalist system, rail against communist China, and yet not recognize Taiwan. Really beautiful. And wholly immoral. Do one or the other - not both.


Does this change the fact that the US transformed S Korea into a regional economic giant? My point is the US is capable and willing of rebuilding nations.

What will happen to the Korean economy, I wonder, if the South gets its way and is unified with the North? I don't think the US is willing or capable of rebuilding economies anymore. Those days are long gone. We can't even rebuild our own economy. I expect we're about to see the beginnings of deflation here. Now that will be interesting.

In my opinion, Afghanistan is too 'broken' to ever be fixed at this point. The traditions of fundementalism, militia mentality, and violence are far to engrained to be remedied by humanitarian aid. That being said, I also believe the Taliban or a similar group will eventually reemerge in Afghanistan- I just don't think there's too much (outside of martial action) that can be done about it.

We'll intervene again if US business interests are threatened.

I'm going to wait and see. Iraq is a unique situation- the US has never been in this position before. They absolutely HAVE to rebuild and restructure to preserve their credibility. The UN will be involved. While I agree that an Islamic government will never come into power, I think this will be due to a clause in a US written constitution (similar to the one written for phillipines at the turn of the century) forbidding a merger of Church and State. I protest any merger of church and state, whether Canadian, US, or otherwise.

I agree in toto

I don't think it matters. Clearly during the Cold War, communist countries were dangerous to the US, and vice verse. The US was justified in doing its utmost to prevent these countries from 'going communist' and banding with the Soviets. Lets not forget that the USSR wasn't anymore interested in democracy for the sattelite states than the US was with the nations America involved herself in.

I don't think we were justified, but that's because of the marxist origins of my political and economic views. I agree with the rest. A puppet state is a puppet state whether the puppet master is a stalinist state or a capitalist one.


I agree. I believe that capitalism must be regulated to a certain degree, which it is and continues to be. Even the much maligned WTO is a tool of market regulation. I also agree that socialism is a goal we should work towards- I don't believe it will ever emerge as a regional revolution, and I believe it will evolve naturally, without need to be spurred on.

I used to be a gradualist. I eventually ended up as an anarcho-syndicalist or whatever other label comes close to that, be it anarchist, or libertarian socialist or anarcho-communist or just plain anarchist. I don't have any problem with free markets, just with the form of free markets that are really something very sinister - corporate hegemony. Free markets and anarchism actually work rather well together in theory once one gets over the hurdles created by power and wealth accumulations. Entrepreneurship is essentially anarchist in form and function until it evolves into corporations which are antithetical competition, regulation, and freedom if left on their own.

We agree more than we disagree, I think. The devil is in the details. But that is the beauty of syndicalism and dialectics. Consensus and compromise. Might does not make right. It never has, and it never will.

beautiful guys. i mean that. you are both reasonable and educated people and this has been by far one of the most sensible threads I have ever read, and that has little to do with me.

I am going to save this and study it in great detail later. Thanks for making my day.

It's unfortunate that the US has decided not to restructure Afghanistan, but on the other hand, what are the odds that ANYONE could ever 'fix' that country? Pretty slim.

Didn't we fix Germany, England, Holland, Japan, Italy etc.?

The PRI was hardly a people's party. And the PAN certainly isn't either. Just ask the Zapatistas. It took 70 years for the people of Mexico to finally overthrow the PRI, and the ended up with the PAN instead. Not a huge difference there. PAN is squelching dissent in much the same way as the PRI did.

During it's inception, the PRI was in many ways a people's party- it was certainly popular at the time. The PAN was voted in democratically, in one of the first fair elections in decades- a party that is elected democratically is, by definition, a people's party.

While I sympathize with the EZLN desire for land reforms, and find Sub-Commandante Marcos very intriguing, I generally do not see armed revolution as a productive force. The situation in the Chiapas is a difficult one, and the Zapatista's have been largely unwilling to comprimise.


We let the people decide. As for economic values, we don't have any. Not really. Not in any cohesive fashion. Other than vague ideas about "capitalism" and "free markets" (which are mutually exclusive when followed to their logical conclusions, BTW). At this time, the economic values of the US government are one and the same as the economic values of the corporations which exert the most influence.


No economic values? I would disagree. As a society, we may have fairly ambigous economic ideals, but as an international community there is a pervasive belief in deregulation, free market, and privatization. Perhaps the economic policies of neoliberalism do coincide with those of private coorporations, but this isn't nessecarily a bad thing. Trade does historically seem to encourage peace and prosperity- the liberal peace may in fact be possible.

First. Corporations spend a lot of time and effort getting around the law. Let's take, as an example, US drug companies. When one of their drugs is found to be harmful, they typically just repackage it and ship it off to Central and South America where the restrictions are much laxer. Like chloramphenicol, an anti-infection drug, which is in most countries only allowed for life-threatening diseases like typhoid fever because it can result in a rather high incidence of fatal anemia. Restricted in the US, Parke-Davis sold the drug with no warning at all in Central America for tonsillitis. And McKesson did the same in South America with no warning labels and recommended it for whooping cough! I could go on for days listing corporations with products which found to be harmful who just sold them elsewhere - knowingly! That is the source of my characterization of corporations. Decisions are made by humans, but in the corporate structure, there are no balances, profit is the only deisirable end and any means end up being used - detrimental or not. Corporations are like viruses in that way. They survive short term off the host, but are incapable of seeing the long term results - the death of the host and the end of the virus.


I agree. Corporations have a very negative potential. Clearly regulations must be applied, as you discuss below.


As for international agreement to curb the excesses of corporations (all of which would gleefully eliminate their competitors, and operate without restrictions if they could, you must admit), such agreement can work only when the proposed resticted party doesn't have access to influence the decisions. When corporations can buy entire governments, what value are international agreements, which must by necesity be reached by a consensus of all the governments or corporations will simply slip on over to the non-signatories. It is no coincidence that most ships wrecks you hear about seem to have Liberian registry. It's because of the lax registration and corporate restrictions in Liberia. So, as long as corporations can either get around international rules and legality by using non-signatories to treaties and agreements, or control the agreements by controlling the organizations (WTO) or the governments (any of a host of corporate puppet states, like Liberia).

I think you may give corporations too much credit. The WTO does not work specifically for multinationals- it really does benefit member nations more than anyone else. The scores of members show that the benefits are clear and pratical- hell, even China and Cuba want in. The WTO is perhaps the only way to regulate trade on an international scale, and, with reform, will be an excellent mechanism to control trade.


It will require pain, suffering and misery on a massive scale; but I submit that that is no worse than the pain suffering and misery already exported and maintained around the world to support the comforts of the "West." If the capitalists are right, it will result in world free of socialism and completely capitalist. If they're wrong, then it will result in the opposite. Eventually.


yep. Though I don't think a revolution of any kind is on its way.

I agree to a certain point, but lets not draw to many comparisons between Iraq and Afghanistan. In my opinion, an attack on Afghanistan was perfectly justified. Iraq, not at all. It's unfortunate that the US has decided not to restructure Afghanistan, but on the other hand, what are the odds that ANYONE could ever 'fix' that country? Pretty slim.

I have my doubts as to the real reasons we went into Afghanistan, doubts supported by the US governments current policy of letting things slip back into chaos there. Agreed on the rest.


The 1965 vote that brought Marcos to power was one of the most corrupt in Phillipine history. Marcos declared martial law in 1972 when a burgeoning national movement questioned American military bases remaining there, and Marcos' blatant kleptocracy. The US gave tacit support by continuing to fund Marcos at the expense of his people for 14 more years, all under martial law. Prior to WWII, the Phillipines had one of the strongest economies in Southeast Asia. Today it is one of the poorest. Thanks to draconian IMF rule, the Phillipines had ZERO economic growth from 1983 to 1993. Thanks to Marcos, with the support of US corporations (they just pop up all over, don't they?), most of the Phillipine economy is controlled by foreign capital - and most of that is American.

The situation in the Phillipines was (and is) far more complex than this. Prior to Spanish rule, the Phillipines already had a hierarchy of chiefs and subjects. As Western influence grew, these chiefs became wealthy landowners, then ruling elites, then finally Marcos' cronies. Marcos did extract billions from the Phillipino economy- but did so by himself. He did keep himself in power through martial law and military might, but again, did so on his own, without US intervention. Marcos' initial election was, by all accounts, a fair one, and I believe he won his second term fairly as well, though by a slimmer majority. He called martial law for several reasons, primarily falling popularity. How can you blame the US when a Phillipino representative rips of the Phillipines without ANY US involvement? The US also immediately recognized Marcos successor, even when Marcos was still technically in power.


The US wants to keep it destabilized! As long as we maintain the fiction that China really has control of Taiwan by not recognizing Taiwan officially, but still making it very clear to mainland China that we will not tolerate them actually taking control of the land we agree they control, we can have our cake and eat it too. and then we can point to Taiwan as a successful capitalist system, rail against communist China, and yet not recognize Taiwan. Really beautiful. And wholly immoral. Do one or the other - not both.

What's immoral about it? How is this hurting the situation? No one wants Taiwan to become part of China and no one wants China to invade. This "delicate balance" seems to be universally beneficial.

What will happen to the Korean economy, I wonder, if the South gets its way and is unified with the North? I don't think the US is willing or capable of rebuilding economies anymore. Those days are long gone. We can't even rebuild our own economy. I expect we're about to see the beginnings of deflation here. Now that will be interesting.

Thats pretty much a matter of conjecture, though I think there are already signs of deflation in the American dollar- certainly the Canadian dollar is feeling the effects. This doesn't nessecarily mean anything- lets not go looking for bears that might not exist.

We'll intervene again if US business interests are threatened.

Quite possibly- but again, is it fair to expect the US to allow the Taliban or Al-Qeada rebuild? I certainly do see a terrorist threat in Afghanistan.


We agree more than we disagree, I think.

Yep :D


The devil is in the details. But that is the beauty of syndicalism and dialectics. Consensus and compromise. Might does not make right. It never has, and it never will.

Au contraire, historically might has always made right. We can only hope that's begun to change.