So.....who loves capitalism?

[namiloveyou]

(25-12-2012 02:31 PM)I and I Wrote:  

(24-12-2012 08:00 AM)namiloveyou Wrote:  Yeah.... capitalism is evil. Yet many anti-capitalists in society still use smartphones, the Internet, and numerous other things that wouldn't exist without the profit motive.

So the internet wouldn't have been invented without capitalism? And how the fuck do you know this???




you talk as if the internet is some necessity in life that has made life better for people.

The profit motive made it mainstream. Prior to the 1990s, it was largely in universities only.

Can you cite the contrary?

My point was that many anti-capitalists hate our system, but utilise its fruits. they deserve to be laughed at for this reason.

[Drunkin Druid]

it keeps me fed

[I and I]

(25-12-2012 07:14 PM)namiloveyou Wrote:  

(25-12-2012 02:31 PM)I and I Wrote:  So the internet wouldn't have been invented without capitalism? And how the fuck do you know this???




you talk as if the internet is some necessity in life that has made life better for people.

The profit motive made it mainstream. Prior to the 1990s, it was largely in universities only.

Can you cite the contrary?

My point was that many anti-capitalists hate our system, but utilise its fruits. they deserve to be laughed at for this reason.

How in the fuck do you KNOW FUCKING KNOW, that without capitalism the internet wouldn't have been invented? And what does the internet have to do with the price of tea in china? Economic systems don't invent shit, people do. I know you are dumb as a used thong, but if you didn't know, humans have been inventing shit long before capitalism.

[earmuffs]

Capitalism incentives invention.

[Idlecuriosity]

(05-12-2012 08:10 PM)I and I Wrote:  The only one I can think of was for a good reason, when Communist Vietnam went into Cambodia to overthrow the western backed khmer rouge. That was one of the rare times when a communist country used it's forces to to go into another country (besides ww2 of course).

My apolopies for resurecting this post. I've only just read it and couldn't let it go unchallenged :

The Khmer Rouge were not "western backed", please do some minimal research!
The political thinking of Pol Pot was influenced by western communists, the Khmer Rouge movement grew out of Vietnemese influence and later received backing from the Chinese. The US backed the opposing Lon Nol regime.

The Vietnemese liberation of Cambodia in 1979 was more of a regional power play than well thinking communists going to help their neighbours !

The only westerners supporting the Khmer Rouge were mis-guided intellectuals who tried to excuse the genocide by diverting attention to the utopian ideal that was supposedly being created.

Oh, and as far as other examples of communist countries using force against another, you might want to read up on Budapest 1956, Prague 1968, the Soviet Union and the Eastern Block in general...

[namiloveyou]

(01-01-2013 04:56 PM)I and I Wrote:  

(25-12-2012 07:14 PM)namiloveyou Wrote:  The profit motive made it mainstream. Prior to the 1990s, it was largely in universities only.

Can you cite the contrary?

My point was that many anti-capitalists hate our system, but utilise its fruits. they deserve to be laughed at for this reason.

How in the fuck do you KNOW FUCKING KNOW, that without capitalism the internet wouldn't have been invented? And what does the internet have to do with the price of tea in china? Economic systems don't invent shit, people do. I know you are dumb as a used thong, but if you didn't know, humans have been inventing shit long before capitalism.

lol.. ICT only does exist due to capitalism. And yeah.... HP and Dell produce IBM clones for the betterment of humanity.....

[Raskolnikov]

'Fruits' is an ambiguous term...but the argument is going like "hehe, those Republicans (Like Maximilien and Niccolo!) say Feudalism and Monarchies are terrible, yet not only do they continue to live in it, but also take from the fruits of the leading light of Nobility!" Because, really, they did. They ate the food that was produced by the serf-equivalents/peasants in the villages, which were owned by the vassals of the Kingdom/Dukedom. So they thrived on the system they hated, even though it's frankly quite impossible to not live on the system because the system intertwines itself with how commodities (in this case food, medicine, etc) are made and distributed.

This doesn't disqualify their arguments or negate them, any more than the Republican arguments against Monarchy and Feualism. Why? Because it doesn't go at wat they're saying, why Capitalism is good or bad. We could go on the fact of, what do you mean by 'Capitalism'? Ricardo? Smith? Because those versions of Capitalism are, frankly, dead. They'd be mortified if they lookd at our Capitalism, controlled by major cartels (organizations made up of many industries working for a common self-interest. Also called firms, combines and so forth..) which are aligned with banks who fund them or can destroy them. And you just broke some major rules of Capitalism. The Bank is now not only a intermediary between inactive capital an active/finance capital - but they also act as monoliths that help 'invest' into industries and take stock. So they gain a profit while, really, doing nothing but owning a part of another company by giving them a loan or investing into them. (and thus having thousands upon thousands of branches and owning major values of finance capital)

You also have someone controlling, at large, the means of production. These large cartels, that can not command the market and determine the prices. And so we drift away (partial) from the rule of Magnitude of the Commodity determines the proportion it's sold/given in, but now you can determine the price and proportion if you own the process of making what commodity you're selling. Steel, a major example or old time kerosine.

Quote:The Khmer Rouge were not "western backed", please do some minimal research!

It's ironic you say that, because no one knows as of yet. There is speculation, sure, but the C.I.A has had it's fingers in the world in many-a-places, some obvious and some not so much. Going on it, it doesn't seem like it as Lon Nol was their man. But much like in Central America, they could see him as an Adolfo Diaz and trade him away for another. Another who had a record of having bad relationships with the Vietnamese Communist regime..But for now, it's speculation. But there is historical insight as to, if it occurred, why it'd happen.



..Then again, they /were/ supported after they were overthrown by the Vietnamese. The CIA and USA forced Thailand to grand them access into it.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/pilger4.html

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_Thi...olPot.html

So it is a disputed issue.

Quote:The political thinking of Pol Pot was influenced by western communists,
the Khmer Rouge movement grew out of Vietnemese influence and later
received backing from the Chinese. The US backed the opposing Lon Nol
regime.

Yes from the Chinese..in 1976. Actual chinese help during Mao is little recorded, and he didn't much care for the issue in Cambodia besides Nixon and Ford bombing it into hell and back. And attempting to use it to gain new fronts against the Vietnamese as well as close some they made.

Quote:The Vietnemese liberation of Cambodia in 1979 was more of a regional
power play than well thinking communists going to help their neighbours !

It goes for both sides, the Vietnamese had a likely guess as to the oppression of minorities in Kampuchea/Cambodia under

Quote:The only westerners supporting the Khmer Rouge were mis-guided
intellectuals who tried to excuse the genocide by diverting attention to
the utopian ideal that was supposedly being created.

..Except no one was saying that.

Besides, it's rather unfair to just go on the Khmer Rogue as if this phenomena wasn't aided or wasn't put into a position by other powers. The bombings by the US pretty much ended what was "industrial" in Cambodia, and cities were a lovely target. Before the invasion, around 76 again, they did manage to finally restart some electrical factories.

But, that isn't to say their policies were grand or good or whatever term. You have to look at the material conditions of said situation and how it got there.

Quote:Oh, and as far as other examples of communist countries using force
against another, you might want to read up on Budapest 1956, Prague
1968, the Soviet Union and the Eastern Block in general

Ignoring the situations they were in, as well as the consequences actions that some parties would make.

If to cheat, Yugoslavia went to the West then was destroyed when was no longer needed. No longer a political power viable, and so the powers didn't care they were violating the U.N. Charter by intervening in the affairs of a sovereign nation, and supporting the more radical, and even racist elements of the Yugoslav wars while parading them about as heroes and saviors.

But they went to the US and the west and remained a faithful ally, took loans and was fully apart of the liberalizing system but maintained their own unique socialist-esque experiment. But it failed due to those loans and siding with someone who only needed them to take the other one out. And so Yugoslavia's corpse was used to give meaning to NATO.

[Idlecuriosity]

Quote:

Quote:Quote:The Khmer Rouge were not "western backed", please do some minimal research!

It's ironic you say that, because no one knows as of yet. There is
speculation, sure, but the C.I.A has had it's fingers in the world in
many-a-places, some obvious and some not so much. Going on it, it
doesn't seem like it as Lon Nol was their man. But much like in Central
America, they could see him as an Adolfo Diaz and trade him away for
another. Another who had a record of having bad relationships with the
Vietnamese Communist regime..But for now, it's speculation. But there is
historical insight as to, if it occurred, why it'd happen.



..Then again, they /were/ supported after they were overthrown by the
Vietnamese. The CIA and USA forced Thailand to grand them access into
it.

The US at that time were basically backing anyone who was against the N.Vietnemese. The KR grew out of the Indochina Communist Party (PCI), which was essentially a Vietnemese organisation. They were opposing Lon Nol, therefore the US backed Lon Nol. After the KR regime was pushed back in 1979 by the Vietnemese, the US the backed the KR because they were then fighting the Vietnemese.

Quote: Yes from the Chinese..in 1976. Actual chinese help during Mao is little
recorded, and he didn't much care for the issue in Cambodia besides
Nixon and Ford bombing it into hell and back. And attempting to use it
to gain new fronts against the Vietnamese as well as close some they
made.

The Chinese backing came through their protection and support for Norodom Sihanouk who had been ousted by Lon Nol. Sihanouk was either manipulated, or was stupid enough on his own, into making an alliance with the KR.

Quote:

Quote:Quote:The only westerners supporting the Khmer Rouge were mis-guided

intellectuals who tried to excuse the genocide by diverting attention to

the utopian ideal that was supposedly being created.

..Except no one was saying that.

...er, yes they were. Chomsky for one, as well as numerous French "intellectuals" [http://www.lexpress.fr/culture/livre/l-aveuglement-des-intellectuels-face-au-genocide-khmer-rouge_1069522.html], and other Europeans (Bergstrom etc.)

Quote: Besides, it's rather unfair to just go on the Khmer Rogue as if this
phenomena wasn't aided or wasn't put into a position by other powers.
The bombings by the US pretty much ended what was "industrial" in
Cambodia, and cities were a lovely target. Before the invasion, around
76 again, they did manage to finally restart some electrical factories

Yes the KR was aided by other powers, other Communist powers, not Western powers.
The US bombing was targeted towards Vietnemese camps or supply routes, in the eastern part of the Country, bordering Vietnam. This also killed many Cambodians and detstroyed agricultural land, which made it easier for the KR to recruit these peasant populations to their cause. Phnom Pehn was not bombed.

Quote:

Quote:Quote:The Vietnemese liberation of Cambodia in 1979 was more of a regional

power play than well thinking communists going to help their neighbours !

It goes for both sides, the Vietnamese had a likely guess as to the oppression of minorities in Kampuchea/Cambodia under

The Vietnemese invaison was an occupying force, rather than a libertating force.
It wasn't minorities being oppressed under the KR, it was the whole population.

[Raskolnikov]

Quote:The US at that time were basically backing anyone who was against the
N.Vietnemese. The KR grew out of the Indochina Communist Party (PCI),
which was essentially a Vietnemese organisation. They were opposing Lon
Nol, therefore the US backed Lon Nol. After the KR regime was pushed
back in 1979 by the Vietnemese, the US the backed the KR because they
were then fighting the Vietnemese.

Preferably, right-wing dictatorships Liberal-democracies didn't prove as effective, as we can see in the Dominican Republic and them not caring for Juan Bosch.

And no, The US backed Lon Nol before the entire thing, and backed his coup. Thus the KR was against him, originally they were sorta-against the Prince but then allied with him because the US abandoned the Prince as they did to a many-their allies.

And yes, the US did because then they wanted to curb-stomp the new communist regime. An with the KR being useful tools, they backed them but continued to 'rail' against them.

Quote:Sihanouk was either manipulated, or was stupid enough on his own, into making an alliance with the KR.

He had no literal choice, if you read up on the history at the time.

What, was he really suppose to oppose both Lon Nol and the KR? Not likely, as the US wouldn't support him, and many of the country-side went into the KR' camp. The rest belonged to him..so, it'd be only helpful to both their situations *KR and Shi* if they worked together.

Gotta understand conditions, or you won't get anything and make gross assumptions such as stupidity or manipulation when there was none there to begin with.

Quote:...er, yes they were. Chomsky for one, as well as numerous French "intellectuals"

Oh. When I thought you mean 'Western communists" I thought you'd actually refer to communist parties such as the US CP, FRSO, and so on.

Quote:Yes the KR was aided by other powers, other Communist powers, not Western powers.

Inadvertently, the Western powers got them to be supported by the rural population becomes bombs don't help your image.

This, and not many communist "powers" did. Czechsolvakia sold weapons to anyone, as they did to Guatemala in the 1950s so they could defend themselves. USSR was more so focused with North Vietnam than Cambodia.

And yada yada.

Quote:The US bombing was targeted towards Vietnemese camps or supply routes,
in the eastern part of the Country, bordering Vietnam. This also killed
many Cambodians and detstroyed agricultural land, which made it easier
for the KR to recruit these peasant populations to their cause. Phnom
Pehn was not bombed.

Yes, inadvertently supporting them and giving them a much-needed rally support of going against the US's puppet Lon Nol and to bring back the country to a better time.

" By 1973, the U.S. conducted air raids
close to Phnom Penh and increased the bombing to 3,600 tons per day,
killing roughly 3,000 civilians. Nol had requested the bombings in his
struggle against the Khmer Rouge in the Civil War, and later the CIA
learned that many of the sites Nol requested to be bombed were merely
political sessions in small villages. In total, the American bombing of
Cambodia resulted in the deaths of over 150,000 Cambodian civilians,
most of who lived in the countryside." (https://sites.google.com/site/thesecretb...d-pol-pot)


And then you had this;

"In May 1975, U.S. President Gerald Ford staged the so-called Mayaguez incident, launched new air raids and destroyed Cambodia's only oil refinery.

Under these conditions, any government leading Cambodia would
have had to take emergency measures to ensure survival for the masses of
people. In the process, the Khmer Rouge attempted to replace the old
semifeudal, semicolonial society with their vision of a new independent
Democratic Kampuchea."

Quote:The Vietnemese invaison was an occupying force, rather than a libertating force.

It was, in a sense, both. In that it had to fight off what remained of pol Pot's forces as well as other resistance forces, but also an occupational force in that Cambodia was now a in Vietnam's sphere of influence.

Quote:It wasn't minorities being oppressed under the KR, it was the whole population.

I'm more so implicating the nationalist nature of Pol Pot's Agnkar.

[Idlecuriosity]

Quote: And no, The US backed Lon Nol before the entire thing

Yes, you're right. My bad explanation.
This however only goes to underline the fact that the KR were not Western backed as IandI had stated !

Quote:

Quote:Quote:Sihanouk was either manipulated, or was stupid enough on his own, into making an alliance with the KR.

He had no literal choice, if you read up on the history at the time.



What, was he really suppose to oppose both Lon Nol and the KR? Not
likely, as the US wouldn't support him, and many of the country-side
went into the KR' camp. The rest belonged to him..so, it'd be only
helpful to both their situations *KR and Shi* if they worked together.



Gotta understand conditions, or you won't get anything and make gross
assumptions such as stupidity or manipulation when there was none there
to begin with.

Well he could have decided to remain in exile and not confer legitimacy on the KR through the huge reverence in which his population held him.
I make an assumption (not gross...!) of the possibility of manipulation by the Chinese. If he decided his actions on his own then I personally consider them stupid. Whilst I don't consider "royalty" to be a legitimate mandate to govern, wouldn't the "cleverer" (maybe easier) thing to do have been to position himself as some sort of guardian of the nation through troubled times, basically sitting it out to see how the dust settles.
Of course, that could also be seen as the cowardly option !

Quote:

"In May 1975, U.S. President Gerald Ford staged the so-called Mayaguez
incident, launched new air raids and destroyed Cambodia's only oil refinery.



Under these conditions, any government leading Cambodia would

have had to take emergency measures to ensure survival for the masses of

people. In the process, the Khmer Rouge attempted to replace the old

semifeudal, semicolonial society with their vision of a new independent

Democratic Kampuchea."

Are you suggesting that the loss of the oil refinery was a cause for the implementation of the Year Zero policy ?
Evacuation of the cities and the implementation of an agricultural based society had already begun at this point.