The decline of U.S. Imperialism.

[Eo Jenkins]

As much as some people like to believe the US is not an imperialist nation. If we were, we would be going out and conquering other nations not liberating them. It is as simple as that. I am not saying our government doesn't stick it's nose where it does not belong but that is far different then being imperialist.

[Beavis]

It was the fault of Stalins policies. But as I said, the material conditions forced him to initiate these policies, which ended in disaster.

Lenin and Trotsky said tax the rich peasants and NEP men etc. Subsidise co-operatives for the poor peasants. And to build industry. When Lenin died Trotsky continued. Stalin did the opposite. He got Bukharin behind him and for a while, Kamenev and Zinoviev. Stalin let the rich get richer and did nothing to get poor peasants into cooperatives. The tax system favoured the rich. By 1928 only about 1% of peasants were in co-operatives. Trotsky warned that the rich would challenge for power if allowed to grow in wealth and number. Stalin kicked Trotsky and his followers out. Zinoviev and Kamenev, who had gone back to Trotsky, capitulated to Stalin - the terror had already begun.

Soon after, all Trotsky's predictions came true, there was a shortage of grain available for the government to buy. Furthermore, there was a shortage of industry generally, and Stalin had cocked up the Chinese revolution. Stalin started to requisition grain and this provoked kulak uprisings as Trotsky expected. Stalin then was forced to collectivise for all these different reasons, to squash the challenge for power from the rich, to give the appearance of doing the thing it was obvious he should have done earlier, to mask the failure of the Chinese revolution and his deepening and extending of the NEP (just a year earlier he had even been talking about denationalising the land!)

He collectivised too late, too quickly, in a horrible way, for the wrong reasons. The result was famines.

I must say, this is a significantly better explanation of the history than I anticipated. I didn't expect to hear anybody on the MMO champ boards mention Zinoviev or Kamanev. But, anyway you don't explain how the material conditions, by which I assume you mean the grain shortages of the late 20s, weren't the fault of policies which demanded more productive farmers give a greater share of their yield. In essence, how could the state prevent kulaks from hoarding grain without turning them into enemies of the state? Or is that the solution? That was clearly the solution the Soviets pursued, anyway.

NEP and collectivization illustrate two interesting challenges to the real world success of communism. Firstly, how does a communist state deal with individuals like Kulaks who control productive assets prior to the change in government? Obviously, the state can simply seize the assets, but that's messy and probably violent. Alternately, the state can simply demand a larger portion of their productive capacity be redirected to the state. But, then the state ends up with the kulak situation, where the asset holders may simply refuse to produce above a certain threshold or refuse to produce at all. Alternately, again like some kulaks, they may simply horde. This leads into the second challenge. How does a communist system incentivize workers to produce beyond whatever arbitrary threshold is required to maximize returns given by the state? You don't need to be a vicious social-darwinist to realize that some individuals simply have more productive capacity than others. Capitalism does a very good job of incentivizing those individuals to produce at a higher than average level. Can a communist system do that? How? Does it even need to?

Anyway. What's taking you so long to reply to my post? I thought everything in the U.S. is supposed to be express delivery, extra-large and extra-crispy. Did your mobility scooter break down while you were buying those delicious cheeses inside Wal-Mart?

No, I don't have a mobility scooter. I get carted around on a litter carried by one oppressed worker from every continent while the virginal slaves I bought in Thailand pop skinned grapes into my mouth.

Truthfully, I wanted to see how you responded to the collectivization question. The post you asked me to respond to was pretty meaty and replying to it is going to take some time. I wanted to see if that time was going to be well spent or just another argument with one of MMO-champ's resident wikipedia quoting polito-trolls. Also, I must admit to a certain reticence to go through the whole capitalism vs. marxism dance for the Nth time. Despite my earlier insult, you're pretty clearly a sharp guy, so I think you've probably got a pretty good idea what my answers are going to be. (Though, I'm guessing you're hoping my responses are dumb enough so that you get to play PhD internet bully. Sadly, I'm pretty personally familiar with that little game.) I like to think that I'm well versed enough in Marxist doctrine to have an inkling of how your rebuttals will go. But, we can rehash it again if you like. But, for now even us capitalist overlords have to actually perform labor occasionally, so I'm off to that now.

[BLCalliente]

As much as some people like to believe the US is not an imperialist nation. If we were, we would be going out and conquering other nations not liberating them. It is as simple as that. I am not saying our government doesn't stick it's nose where it does not belong but that is far different then being imperialist.

There are other ways to conquer nations than the traditional "my troops beat your troops".

[Deicide]

As much as some people like to believe the US is not an imperialist nation. If we were, we would be going out and conquering other nations not liberating them. It is as simple as that. I am not saying our government doesn't stick it's nose where it does not belong but that is far different then being imperialist.

I don't want to sound like a condescending twat, but what I'm about to say will probably come across as such.

Are you yet another person who's unaware of the brutal regimes the U.S. has supported and still supports? The U.S. has toppled legit, democratically elected governments and replaced them with loyal dictators. ''Liberation'' in most instances is just rhetoric previous Empires used similar rhetoric. The U.S. was founded as an imperialist power for god sake. The founding fathers are very explicit about this fact; George Washington dubbed it the ''infant empire'' which needed to be expanded. The original natives were mostly exterminated Washington deemed the natives ''savage wolfs''. Jefferson went further he announced that the ''savages'' required expropriation ''We shall drive them with the beasts of the forests into the stony mountains," so the country can be "free of blot or mixture". You've exemplified the effectiveness of the worlds most potent propaganda system.

Contemporary U.S. domination has took a different form. It functions in a different manner from previous imperialist powers like Britain. The U.S. dominates primarily through financial means rather than through land based army domination, although it engages in that too. The U.S. currently has 700+ military bases placed in strategic locations in order to protect its ''interests'' I:E, the interests of U.S. capitalists and financiers. U.S. imperialism has its own unique American "Style" it pretends it is not an empire and that it is not Imperialist. The British were open about their colonial rule, as were the French. Today, the United States, practices Imperialism while under the guise of ''liberating'' countries to maintain economic domination. Expansionism has always been a dominant U.S. policy.

Imperialism itself is unique to capitalism. There have been forms of colonialism throughout history, however, they differ from contemporary capitalist imperialism.

Definition of ''Imperialism''.

(1) Once the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this "finance capital", of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves; (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.

Here's some scholarship that I recommend you read.

Translating property: the Maxwell Land Grant and the conflict over land in the American West, 1840-1900

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=E...20race&f=false

White Mother to a Dark Race: Settler Colonialism, Maternalism, and the Removal of Indigenous Children in the American West and Australia, 1880-1940

http://books.google.co.uk/books/abou...kC&redir_esc=y

'Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee' is Dee Brown's eloquent, fully documented account of the systematic destruction of the American Indian during the second half of the nineteenth century

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=L...Dg&redir_esc=y

I would also recommend ''The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives'' by Zbigniew Brzezinski.

[Eo Jenkins]

Well I hope everyone has a fun time living in a world ruled by the Russians and Chinese. I bet you will be living free and loving it. {SARCASM} Enough of this nonsense about the decline of the US. Everybody knows that the US, Canada and Europe are going to form together into The Federation and challenge the Klingon's for galactic domination. :P lol

[stabetha]

once again the bias of this websites monitors show through
posts like this-

I don't feel like wading through your ridiculous list but the fact that you put Haile Selassie on it means you're either a communist, a moron, or both. I don't have time to talk to people whose ideas have already been cast on the ash heap of history.

<Infracted> Post respectfully.

get infracted

yet -

Anyway. What's taking you so long to reply to my post? I thought everything in the U.S. is supposed to be express delivery, extra-large and extra-crispy. Did your mobility scooter break down while you were buying those delicious cheeses inside Wal-Mart?

posts like this don't

once again you can be disrespectful as long as it's against the U.S.A.

[Deicide]

once again the bias of this websites monitors show through
posts like this-
get infracted

yet -
posts like this don't

once again you can be disrespectful as long as it's against the U.S.A.

Oh settle down. It was a joke and Beavis took as a joke.

No, I don't have a mobility scooter. I get carted around on a litter carried by one oppressed worker from every continent while the virginal slaves I bought in Thailand pop skinned grapes into my mouth.

[PizzaSHARK]

Oh settle down. It was a joke and Beavis took as a joke.

I agree, but at the same time, he has a point. If your post wasn't read as a joke, it'd come off as being pretty damned offensive.

[cFortyfive]

Deicide, I get where you are coming from, I do. I am also glad you understand that the government is to blame, not he majority of people in the country itself. Every country has its bag egg minority, unfortunately.

If you can't blame the masses wouldn't that mean that there is actually no democracy in place ?

I agree, but at the same time, he has a point. If your post wasn't read as a joke, it'd come off as being pretty damned offensive.

I have to admit at least I had a good laugh.

[PizzaSHARK]

If you can't blame the masses wouldn't that mean that there is actually no democracy in place ?

I have to admit at least I had a good laugh.

Yeah, but they don't sell cheese flavored ice cream at Wal-Mart