US considering Preemptive Strike against North Korea.

BillyBobBS

Zebra3 wrote: »

Sounds all too familiar.

WMDs and Iraq.

Any excuse for the US to launch into another of its blood thirsty wars.

The Iraq war will be small potatoes if the US attacks NK imo. Iv'e read that 500,000 would die within the first hour alone from conventional artillery strikes in the South. If they have access to large scale chemical weapons you could double or triple that number easily.

Oh and it's nothing like WMD's and Iraq. I marched against the iraq war because anyone with an ounce of sense could see it was all spin and hype but this isn't.

ilkhanid

ilkhanid wrote: »

How could there be a bloc of co-operating socialist economies when the leaders of the "socialist" economies started to fall out with each other before a decade had passed? [...]
The impossibility lies in the nature of the people in charge

First things first, I have never disagreed with this, I specifically blamed the egotism of the leaderships in swallowing the novel, almost grotesque (and certainly anti-Marxian) idea of 'socialism in one country'. Of course any such manifestation of socialism, particularly in impoverished countries, was bound to fail eventually, and was bound to manifest international emnity even between socialist states.

SeanW wrote: »

Korea was united. After the North invaded the South - without a declaration of war, the South and their allies in the democratic world pushed the Northern Communist aggressors way back. The American etc. forces had pushed the Commies almost to the Chinese border, where they would have been wiped out. North Korea had been effectively obliterated. Korea was united.

Then China invaded - again without declaring war in a surprise attack. They pushed the US etc back to a middle ground, drew a new border and restarted the North Korean regime. And they've been maintaining it ever since. So yes, China is responsible for North Korea, that is a fact.

It is a fact that you have no real grasp of Korean history, and on your third attempt, you continue to display an astonishing ignorance.

The Chinese did not draw-up the border with South Korea, it was drawn up by the Americans, who later consulted with the Soviets. Soviet relates to what is now Russia. This border was drawn before a single Soviet, American or Chinese boot arrived on the ground in the Korean peninsula, in the context of determining the Korean border.

It was 8 years after the division of Korea that the Chinese first got involved in pushing back the (mainly) American invasion of North. To claim that China drew the border is absolutely preposterous and wilfully ignorant.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Since capitalism generally counts "success" in terms of economic liberty, and by proxy, economic inequality (number of billionaires, market capitalisation, etc.)

Really? "The number of billionaires, market capitalisation" are the only measures of success in a capitalist society?

Er, no. Did you not manage to read what I wrote? I said 'generally' (that means, 'in most cases) capitalist success is measured in terms of economic liberty. I also threw in an 'etc' when I gave examples.

It's bad enough that you aren't even bothered to do inform yourself with an elementary understanding of Korean history, but now it seems you aren't even bothered reading posts before you reply to them.

Of course, many do define success as getting lots of money, but under Capitalism this can usually only be done through forced altruism. I.E. if you want to get rich under capitalism, you have to provide other people with things that they want or add value to their lives.

I was about to stop reading your ridiculous anti-communist rant, when I read this, yet another clanger.

"i.e. if you want to get rich under capitalism, you have to provide other people with things that they want or add value to their lives"

Oh! Like... coal? Greenhouse gases?

As Slavoj Žižek has written (in First As Tragedy), climate change is the single biggest example of market failure of all time.

But citizens in a free "capitalist" society are free to pursue happiness however they please.

This is unwittingly comic; or perhaps, tragicomic.

Are you talking here about the Central African Republic? Or Uganda? Or how about a child growing up in impoverished areas of this country?

The second greatest failure of your argument, after your apparent ignorance of history, is your cultish belief in the liberating nature of capitalism.

In 1936, Stalin gave an interview with Rob Howard in which he said:

It is difficult for me to imagine what "personal liberty" is enjoyed by an unemployed person, who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment.

Real liberty can exist only where exploitation has been abolished, where there is no oppression of some by others, where there is no unemployment and poverty, where a man is not haunted by the fear of being tomorrow deprived of work, of home and of bread. Only in such a society is real, and not paper, personal and every other liberty possible.

Capitalism and Imperialism are dichotomous opposites.

Imperialism is nothing more than one of the (in fact, arguably the final) historical stages of capitalism.

The history of capitalism is, despite many positives, a story of aggression, colonization, genocide, and famine. Capitalism is not the equivalent of imperialism, imperialism is merely a manifestation of late-capitalism.

Imperialism was once undertaken with gunboats and canonfire, but today, is undertaken with what the economists Prabhat Patnaik and Utsa Patnaik describe as the setup that the capitalist system establishes for forcing exploitation and income-deflation on the Third World

gitzy16v

I found this write up from an Aussie's trip to the DMZ from the North Koreans sides....its long but its fascinating...a few other articles like "the concrete wall" he has are very interesting too.

http://www.earthnutshell.com/the-worlds-most-dange...

Just to get away from the bickering and give anyone from any side some light reading....

I enjoyed it anyway.

ilkhanid

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

"i.e. if you want to get rich under capitalism, you have to provide other people with things that they want or add value to their lives"

Oh! Like... coal? Greenhouse gases?

As Slavoj Žižek has written (in First As Tragedy), climate change is the single biggest example of market failure of all time.
This is unwittingly comic; or perhaps, tragicomic.

Are you talking here about the Central African Republic? Or Uganda? Or how about a child growing up in impoverished areas of this country?

The second greatest failure of your argument, after your apparent ignorance of history, is your cultish belief in the liberating nature of capitalism.

In 1936, Stalin gave an interview with Rob Howard in which he said:

It is difficult for me to imagine what "personal liberty" is enjoyed by an unemployed person, who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment.

Real liberty can exist only where exploitation has been abolished, where there is no oppression of some by others, where there is no unemployment and poverty, where a man is not haunted by the fear of being tomorrow deprived of work, of home and of bread. Only in such a society is real, and not paper, personal and every other liberty possible.

One. Capitalism provides need or wants for profit. There is a problem in that greed causes the providers to refuse to factor in costs like pollution and, in fact, to dump those costs onto the Public realm, for Private profit, which is why it has to be controlled by the state. This isn't the economic equivalent of rocket science and if I want to read economics I will go to thinkers versed in economics or politics, and not waste my time going to half-assed Stalinist/Fascist provocateurs like Slavoj Zizek, whose expertise in Hegel and Althusser hardly fits him to deal with events outside his own head.
In any case, it's a fallacy that a primary school level of knowledge could refute to imagine that there is any inevitable connection between Capitalism, on the one hand and pollution and environmental degradation, on the other. Eastern Europe was infested with polluted,industrial blackspots worse than Stoke-on-Trent at it's worst. Mao's indifference to, and deluded interference with the environment has left a catastrophic legacy for China and the pre-Colombian civilisations made disastrous alterations to their environment. A brief search would find more examples.
Two. Oh, OMG. Imagine. It appears that Stalin is an authority on....on.....(what exactly?) Drinking? Terrifying? Signing execution warrants? Conspiring? Well, not on Liberty, not on employment. And certainly not on exploitation, not on hunger, not on oppression, since he didn't have any intrinsic objection to those things. In fact, in the American phrase, he majored in those pastimes. In fact I could find a hundred thousand people more worthy of being quoted.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Imperialism is nothing more than one of the (in fact, arguably the final) historical stages of capitalism.

The history of capitalism is, despite many positives, a story of aggression, colonization, genocide, and famine. Capitalism is not the equivalent of imperialism, imperialism is merely a manifestation of late-capitalism.

Here is where it goes awry. I tend to believe that one should go by the commonly accepted definition of loaded terms, rather than making one's own arcane definitions. So I go by the dictionary, not by Lenin.
Imperialism, the conquering of, imposing of control over outlying areas, the exploitation of those areas, the planting of colonies and so forth, is an ancient phenomenon. It has existed long before the Third World, or capitalism were even thought of, in fact it has existed as long as Empires have existed (psst, the clue is in the name).

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

First things first, I have never disagreed with this, I specifically blamed the egotism of the leaderships in swallowing the novel, almost grotesque (and certainly anti-Marxian) idea of 'socialism in one country'. Of course any such manifestation of socialism, particularly in impoverished countries, was bound to fail eventually, and was bound to manifest international emnity even between socialist states.

The only way that the word socialism should be used in this context is between inverted commas. It wasn't just the fact that the countries were impoverished;some like Czechoslovakia, were not. It was that the whole model of society and economy was grotesquely twisted right from the very start. In his book The Fellow-travellers: a postscript to the enlightenment David Caute made a pertinent point. Speaking about a remark made by Jean-Paul Sartre on Soviet Communism (after the scales had fallen from his eyes) and how he was amazed how "a Socialist society assisted by an army of bureaucrats could have systematically reduced men to slavery". But Caute considered that was missing the point. "At what point" he said "does it become no longer useful to describe a society like that as socialist?" (quoting from memory, not near the book)


About 5 pages back Irish Praetorian made a perfectly valid point.
" Secondly, what the hell kind of ideology wouldn't work with worldwide domination? I imagine German National Socialism would have been eminently peaceful when only ethnic Germans remained alive (excluding us pesky homosexuals mind you), but I don't see people going around in Swastika t-shirts arguing 'Nazism wasn't done properly'. Surely if you have an ideology that is predicated on world domination first, then utopia - it's a pretty crappy ideology?"
An ideology that can only function successfuly if it is triumphant everywhere, simultaneously is not a successful model or-to use a biological comparison, organism. Contrast with capitalism, or other world views like Islam, Buddhism or Christianity that-although often imposed by force-also often managed to percolate into very alien societies and grow on their own merits, because it offered something that has been hitherto missing.

ilkhanid

ilkhanid wrote: »

One. Capitalism provides need or wants for profit. There is a problem in that greed causes the providers to refuse to factor in costs like pollution and, in fact, to dump those costs onto the Public realm, for Private profit, which is why it has to be controlled by the state. This isn't the economic equivalent of rocket science and if I want to read economics I will go to thinkers versed in economics or politics, and not waste my time going to half-assed Stalinist/Fascist provocateurs like Slavoj Zizek.

Slavoj Žižek does make a valid point regardless of what you seem to think of him, which you seem to acknowledge. Capitalism is inherently flawed in that it has a tendency to bring short-term prosperity at a staggering human cost; in general, it seems unable to provide prosperity without creating swathes of deprivation and an attritition of human capital.

Two. Oh, OMG. Imagine. It appears that Stalin is an authority on....on.....(what exactly?) Drinking? Terrifying? Signing execution warrants? Conspiring? Well, not on Liberty, not on employment. And certainly not on exploitation, not on hunger, not on oppression, since he didn't have any intrinsic objection to those things.

This is nonsense. I can hardly be described as an apologist for Stalin, given all that I've said of him; nevertheless he did make an enormous intellectual contribution to Marxist theory, regardless of his flaws; ditto Marx and Lenin. Stalinism was a botched experiment resulting in massive human suffering, which nevertheless instigated enormous industrial and scientific progress in the Soviet Union.

I'm sure you would say similar of Pinochet's or Thatcher's contributions to economic reforms in their respective countries, even though these people were not quite so intellectual (or bloody) as Stalin; the point is their personal flaws are not sufficient to undermine every single thing that they achieved.

Here is where it goes awry. I tend to believe that one should go by the commonly accepted definition of loaded terms, rather than making one's own arcane definitions. So I go by the dictionary, not by Lenin.

OK, this is a pretty elementary point, but when discussing economics or political economy, it's pretty standard to look to the school or context to which meaning a term belongs, as opposed to the literal, dictionary meaning. Hence, Austrian economics does not refer to the economic policy of Austria, and tiger economics is not a study of the market in big-game hunting.

So when Lenin, in writing 'Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism', referred to imperialism, he was referring to the kind of imperialism that has manifested itself from the Age of Imperialism onwards. This imperialism is of an unprecedented character, whereby capital is now intrinsically imperialist (as opposed to say, the period of so-called free capitalism).

Lenin makes a clear argument that imperialism takes on a new stage once the whole world is colonised or dominated by the imperial powers, which is the current political situation. Now, all attempts to gain access to markets, labour, raw material, etc are conflicts between imperial powers.

Imperialism under monopoly capitalism is dominated by finance capital, i.e. colonies, including 'soft' colonies, such as Ireland, Greece, Portugal, are primarily a source of surplus value through the exploitation of labour.

There was perhaps no better illustration of this than the financial crisis in the peripheral Eurozone economies, when national self-determination was abridged in the interests of European finance capital. This is European-capital-imperialism, the final stage of capitalism.

ilkhanid

I somehow missed this edit to your post.

ilkhanid wrote: »

The only way that the word socialism should be used in this context is between inverted commas. It wasn't just the fact that the countries were impoverished;some like Czechoslovakia, were not. It was that the whole model of society and economy was grotesquely twisted right from the very start

I'm not interested in getting into this reductionist sophistry about the 'true' socialism'. I am happy to call Stalin a legitimate Marxist and a socialist, and simultaneously to criticise him, much in the same way I am sure you admit that the government of the Central African Republic is 'capitalist, as is Saudi Arabia, as is the USA.

One doesn't need to endorse the local political manifestations of such a regime to simply accept that they are capitalist, or socialist; those are such broad terms that they are capable of ecompassing a wide variety of good and cruel acts, often at the same time.

About 5 pages back Irish Praetorian made a perfectly valid point.
" Secondly, what the hell kind of ideology wouldn't work with worldwide domination? I imagine German National Socialism would have been eminently peaceful when only ethnic Germans remained alive (excluding us pesky homosexuals mind you), but I don't see people going around in Swastika t-shirts arguing 'Nazism wasn't done properly'. Surely if you have an ideology that is predicated on world domination first, then utopia - it's a pretty crappy ideology?"

I didin't think it was a good point, I thought it was so inherently weak that the intelligent reader would have been capable of discrediting it on sight

Capitalism, as well as one particular cult of 'human rights' that follows it, wouldn't be feasible were they in the minority. What good would the United Nations be if it only had seven signatories off the West Coast of Africa? What use would the EU be if it had only the Benelux members? How effective would capitalism be, if it only existed as an economic system between the Polynesian islands?

Or to take a more practical and contemporary example, just look at the Paris Agreement. It wouldn't have been worth the paper it was written on, unless it inlcluded the buy-in of all, if not most, of the major economies. The United States' vacillation by itself may yet render the agreement dead in the water.

Clearly, any system that requires mass international collaboration must, by default, be dominant, or failing that, reach a substantial, critical mass across a variety of participating economies of various natures, including those that produce energy, agriculture, and other industry. Socialism didn't have that, and the Stalinist thesis of socialism in one country was, if for that simplistic reason alone, always doomed.

None of this should be interpreted as some kind of absurd, theoretical argument that we must 'all go socialist' at midnight on a given date. That is not what I am saying at all. I am rather advocating a version of Trotsky's idea of the permanent revolution, whereby the workers in one (non socialist) state are convinced by the (perhaps gradual) socialist reforms elsewhere.

ilkhanid

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Slavoj Žižek does make a valid point regardless of what you seem to think of him, which you seem to acknowledge. Capitalism is inherently flawed in that it has a tendency to bring short-term prosperity at a staggering human cost; in general, it seems unable to provide prosperity without creating swathes of deprivation and an attritition of human capital.

Yes, it has a tendency, which is why I pointed out that sensible countries institute control over the Captalistic process so that the energies it releases are tempered by laws controlling pollution, the use of labour, trade unions, planning and by redistribution by progressive taxation etc. In a period where these controls work well and hand-in-glove with Captalism itself,Capitalism has lifted large numbers of people out of poverty-as indeed, Marx acknowledged.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

This is nonsense. I can hardly be described as an apologist for Stalin, given all that I've said of him; nevertheless he did make an enormous intellectual contribution to Marxist theory, regardless of his flaws; ditto Marx and Lenin. Stalinism was a botched experiment resulting in massive human suffering, which nevertheless instigated enormous industrial and scientific progress in the Soviet Union..

He made no intellectual contribution. His works are useful....in the fireplace. You see, these euphemisms are what madden people "botched experiment" indeed. Other countries like Japan managed an enormous industrialization without the human cost.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm sure you would say similar of Pinochet's or Thatcher's contributions to economic reforms in their respective countries, even though these people were not quite so intellectual (or bloody) as Stalin; the point is their personal flaws are not sufficient to undermine every single thing that they achieved..

Once again the euphemism "personal flaws".

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

OK, this is a pretty elementary point, but when discussing economics or political economy, it's pretty standard to look to the school or context to which meaning a term belongs, as opposed to the literal, dictionary meaning. Hence, Austrian economics does not refer to the economic policy of Austria, and tiger economics is not a study of the market in big-game hunting.

But the term "Imperialism" doesn't belong to Marxism exclusively and you don't own the word and its use on this forum. It is yourself who wants to use the word in that context to further your arguments. If you want to use it in that sense then you can find fellows in whatever online journal replaced "Marxism Today".

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

So when Lenin, in writing 'Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism', referred to etc etc etc ..

You can stop right there. Unlike yourself and the others still living in the past, I don't see Lenin as an intellectual giant, and your command of archaic Marxist categories and arguments doesn't impress me (or probably many anymore outside of the world of arcane Marxist theory, a world as relevant to us as the Catholic apologetics of the 19th century).

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I somehow missed this edit to your post.

I'm not interested in getting into this reductionist sophistry about the 'true' socialism'. I am happy to call Stalin a legitimate Marxist and a socialist, and simultaneously to criticise him, much in the same way I am sure you admit that the government of the Central African Republic is 'capitalist, as is Saudi Arabia, as is the USA.

One of the definitions of 'socialism' is "Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production as well as the political theories, and movements associated with them"
Since none of the so-called "socialist" states (with the-very-partial exception of Yugoslavia) meet that definition, I'll continue to use the term "command economy". That may be sophistry to you, well I'm happy to disagree.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Capitalism, as well as one particular cult of 'human rights' that follows it, wouldn't be feasible were they in the minority. What good would the United Nations be if it only had seven signatories off the West Coast of Africa? What use would the EU be if it had only the Benelux members? How effective would capitalism be, if it only existed as an economic system between the Polynesian islands? .

The United Nations and the EU are organizations, not models of economic or social organization.
Why give an example like the Polynesian islands? Why not Italy? Or Belgium and the Netherlands? These were actual countries where practises and models that later were foundational in the rise of Capitalism appeared.
Or Britain where Industrialization began? It didn't need other countries to function, they just grew into the system as they copied Britain. In a similar way, before capitalism, the market economy arose all over the world independently and grew into a vast network in short order.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

None of this should be interpreted as some kind of absurd, theoretical argument that we must 'all go socialist' at midnight on a given date. That is not what I am saying at all. I am rather advocating a version of Trotsky's idea of the permanent revolution, whereby the workers in one (non socialist) state are convinced by the (perhaps gradual) socialist reforms elsewhere.

Fair 'nuff.

SeanW

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

First things first, I have never disagreed with this, I specifically blamed the egotism of the leaderships in swallowing the novel, almost grotesque (and certainly anti-Marxian) idea of 'socialism in one country'. Of course any such manifestation of socialism, particularly in impoverished countries, was bound to fail eventually, and was bound to manifest international emnity even between socialist states.

At one time, Socialists enslaved a vast portion of mankind and much of the land on Earth. The former Soviet Union (the largest country on Earth). All of Eastern Europe and part of Germany. China. Vietnam. North Korea. Cuba. And at various places and times during the 20th century, parts of Africa and South America. If that's not enough control by ideology to make it work, then it cannot work.

Democratic capitalist republics on the other hand do not need to enslave entire swathes of the planet in order to work, I can find multiple examples in the present and in history of countries that were/are limited to some extent by individuality and were/are still wealthy and free:

1. Singapore today - it's only a city-state with a few square miles of land, yet it is one of the most prosperous countries on Earth. It doesn't even have any resources, no oil, no gold mines, no land to use for agriculture. It only has one thing, the talents of a free people. Singapore shows us that this is all a country needs.
2. The United States between 1776 and 1941. Throughout the 19th century, the US was primarily concerned (albeit with some exceptions) with its own internal affairs and its limited expansion towards the Pacific Ocean. It became great because it nourished the individual spirit, at a time when European society was dominated by Kings, Emperors, Lords, Counts, Viscounts, Dames, Earls and so on, who call each "Your excellency" the "the honourable" the United States by contrast had no system of nobility and was lead for a general maximum of 8 years by a man who in the fashion of George Washington, only ever was referred to as "Mr. President".
   
   From this environment everything we now take for granted came. Electricity (discovered by Benjamin Franklin). Railways (first used heavily in the US with much research done there). The motor car, which Henry Ford showed us how to make it affordable to the majority of the people (before Ford, cars existed but they were little more than playthings for the rich). The Polio vaccine (and Lord knows how much other medical research). Most of our music and entertainment since 1950, starting with Rock and Roll and the early Hollywood studios in the early-mid 20th century. And that's just what I can think of off the top of my head.
   
   Abraham Lincoln famously started life as a grocery clerk, bought some law books for 50 cents, took the Bar exam, became a damn good lawyer by all accounts (very perceptive) and became a legendary figure in human history. Capitalist republics allow people to do this, to start from nothing and become something great. Meanwhile in Europe one's position in society was determined almost exclusively by what you inherited, what title if any one inherited from their feudal dynasties - Capitalism and Imperialism are different in that someone like Jonas Salk, Henry Ford, Abraham Lincoln etc are unlikely to amount to anything in an Imperialist realm unless they have an inheritance or a title, but achieved great things in a capitalist republic.
   
   As late as 1940 most Americans did not want to get involved in World War II because they rightly saw Europe as an Imperial Feudal hellhole in the West and a Communist hellhole in the East and it could have made sense (given what they knew at the time) to focus on internal matters and maybe bolster the military to deter a Nazi/Japanese invasion of the homeland.

It is a fact that you have no real grasp of Korean history, and on your third attempt, you continue to display an astonishing ignorance.

It's a fact that the Northern Kim regime was almost destroyed during the Korean War. Korea was united. That is a fact. It's also a fact that the Chinese invaded to save the Northern regime. That makes them responsible for anything the Kims do after 1950.

The Chinese did not draw-up the border with South Korea, it was drawn up by the Americans, who later consulted with the Soviets.

That may have been true in the immediate aftermath of World War II, but their invasion of unified Korea during the Korean war redrew the border. I don't know whether the Post 1951 border matched the 1945-1950 border exactly, but the current border is there because of Red China. That is a fact.

Er, no. Did you not manage to read what I wrote? I said 'generally' (that means, 'in most cases) capitalist success is measured in terms of economic liberty. I also threw in an 'etc' when I gave examples.

Actually it's much simpler than that: in judging the success of a capitalist republic, there are two questions that tell you whether it is working or not:

1. How much social and economic freedom do the people have? Is the government a socialist nightmare and a nanny state? Or is it closer to a Night Watchman State?
2. Does a person who has ambition and talent have a reasonable chance at achieving their dreams?

It's bad enough that you aren't even bothered to do inform yourself with an elementary understanding of Korean history, but now it seems you aren't even bothered reading posts before you reply to them.

But for the actions of Red China, Korea would be united today. That is a fact. It is also possible, although this is conjecture, that this unified Korea would become a democracy, as South Korea did in our timeline.

"i.e. if you want to get rich under capitalism, you have to provide other people with things that they want or add value to their lives"

Henry Ford. Got rich by adding value to people's lives. Elvis Presley. Mark Zuckerberg. Bill Gates. Others also achieved their dreams that did not involve getting rich, like Abraham Lincoln and Jonas Salk, because the free society and social mobility nourished their spirits and fired their imaginations.

Greenhouse gases?

That's right. In capitalism people only get rich by selling each other greenhouse gases

As Slavoj Žižek has written (in First As Tragedy), climate change is the single biggest example of market failure of all time.

We already have technologies that can ameliorate climate change - like nuclear power - but the Left does not want to use them. So they push for Global Socialism instead as "the only answer".

Are you talking here about the Central African Republic? Or Uganda? Or how about a child growing up in impoverished areas of this country?

CAR is a war torn hellhole and Uganda is riddled with corruption, although the people who live there are surprisingly resilient. Ireland spends something like 1/3 of its national budget on welfare, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

The second greatest failure of your argument, after your apparent ignorance of history, is your cultish belief in the liberating nature of capitalism.

There is no "cultish belief" only fact. Capitalist democracies not only improve the lives of their own people, they also contribute massively to the quality of life of people across the world, because they unleash the most powerful force on Earth - the talent and creativity of a free people. On the other hand, Socialism, Imperialism and Religious Fundamentalism are 3 sides of the same evil triangle. The evidence of this from history is overwhelming.

It's a fact that none of history's worst mass-killers ran capitalist republics:

1. Mao Zedong. Killed 78 million. Socialist.
2. Josef Stalin. Killed 22 million. Socialist.
3. Adolf Hitler. Killed 17 million in the name of Nazism. Hitler was well known to despise both Communism and Capitalism with equal ferocity, NSDAP set out to destroy both systems in favour of a system dominated by a Master Race and whose people would only be measured by "efficiency".
4. Leopold II of Belgium. Killed 15 million in the name of Imperialism.
5. Hideki Tojo. Killed 5 million. Imperialist.
6. Ismail Enver Pasha (Turkey). Killed 2.5 million. Probably an Imperialist.
7. Pol Pot. Killed 1.7 million. Socialist.
8. Kim Il Sung. Killed 1.6 million. Socialist.
9. Mengitsu Haile Mariam. Killed 1.5 million. Socialist.
10. Yakubu Gowan of Nigeria. Killed 1 million. His ideology is debatable.

In 1936, Stalin gave an interview with Rob Howard in which he said:

You do realise than on the list of the worst mass murders in history, Stalin is second only to Mao Zedong? He should only ever be quoted as a cautionary tale, like Hitler, or Ted Bundy.

Imperialism is nothing more than one of the (in fact, arguably the final) historical stages of capitalism.

A Republic is by definition, not an Empire, so it is difficult for it to be Imperialist. The optimal form of civilisation is a Capitalist Republic, with limited government, similar to that of Singapore today or the US in the 19th and early 20th century. Everything else has caused nothing but misery and suffering. That includes Imperialism, Socialism, Religious extremism and so on.

The history of capitalism is, despite many positives, a story of aggression, colonization, genocide, and famine.

No, that's Socialism. The Soviet Union and Red China did all of those things and in the latter case, they're still doing it.

Capitalism is not the equivalent of imperialism

Correct. It is the diametric opposite.

imperialism is merely a manifestation of late-capitalism.

Capitalist republics focus on nourishing the spirits and fueling the ambition of their people, so that the talents of said people are utilised to the fullest extent. Imperialism is something entirely different.

Imperialism was once undertaken with gunboats and canonfire, but today, is undertaken with what the economists Prabhat Patnaik and Utsa Patnaik describe as the setup that the capitalist system establishes for forcing exploitation and income-deflation on the Third World

I don't know who wants "income-deflation" in the Third World. Maybe the same assholes in the CIA that funded the Bin Ladens, planned "false flag" terrorist attacks and started the heroin epidemic, but no capitalist-republican wants that.

fxotoole

How about getting back on topic lads

Ipso

Well done SeanW. It's amazing that in this day and age you still have to refute that nonsense.

Cheerful Spring

There is lot rumors right now there will be a war within the next 3 months. The Chinese have started to build defenses along their border with the North. There is also signs the North is preparing to launch another missile, could be a sub missile or another more advanced ICBM?

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/25/asia/china-north-korea-border/index.html

Cheerful Spring

General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned that escalating tensions between the two countries would lead to a devastating loss of life in a war he described as “horrific”.

He told the Aspen Security Forum: “Many people have talked about military options (against North Korea) with words like ‘unimaginable.’

I would shift that slightly to ‘horrific’.

“It would be a loss of life unlike any we have experienced in our lifetimes and I mean anyone who’s been alive since World War II has never seen the loss of life that could occur if there’s a conflict on the Korean Peninsula.”
General Dunford added: “It is not unimaginable to have military options to respond to North Korean nuclear capability.


“What’s unimaginable to me is allowing a capability that would allow a nuclear weapon to land in Denver, Colorado."

aloyisious

Cant recall which TV media service it was, one of them reported last night that the US Coast Guard part of US Armed Forces had let it be known to media that there is/was to be a THAAD test at an Alaskan base over the next few days. Now that could be read as coincidental, part of the usual test of a system to ensure its simply in good mechanical order or it could be read as a "worse case scenario" test in relation to recent missile tests elsewhere.

Gatling

aloyisious wrote: »

Cant recall which TV media service it was, one of them reported last night that the US Coast Guard part of US Armed Forces had let it be known to media that there is/was to be a THAAD test at an Alaskan base over the next few days. Now that could be read as coincidental, part of the usual test of a system to ensure its simply in good mechanical order or it could be read as a "worse case scenario" test in relation to recent missile tests elsewhere.

It's been long planned nothing really to do with this ,
The issue which should be looked up is there is only going to be a handful of missles to defend from attacks ,I believe only 44(kinetic) missles in total compared to a slightly paronoid russia which is surrounded with nuclear warheads on air defence missles ,

1874

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There is lot rumors right now there will be a war within the next 3 months. The Chinese have started to build defenses along their border with the North. There is also signs the North is preparing to launch another missile, could be a sub missile or another more advanced ICBM?

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/25/asia/china-north-korea-border/index.html

Even the link you provide, suggests this is to prevent an influx of refugees, something that could occur if NK collapsed, by internal means or from either initiating an attack and then being defeated or where they threaten something that actually crosses a line where its likely they might do something and are defeated.
Not that I think such a military should occur no matter how bad it would be (likely horrific) the potential for it all to go worse so readily exists.
I would think there is no suggestion or concern that any country's military forces would cross or even near Chinas border with NK, but that anything that occured near/around the NK/SK border or inside NK/SK could cause NK to collapse, and who knows what will happen if that occurs, maybe some nut will hit the big red button, regardless of whether NK can hit the US, its possible they can hit Japan, and even excluding artillery its likely they can hit SK with even a poorly guided missle, it doesnt have to be accurate.

Of all the regimes that have been attacked by the west, I think NK is the only one that deserved the title of being an evil country, well, poor unfortunates led by a maniacal despotic family line. If there was something really wrong with Iran or Syria or Iraq, then Saudi and Pakistan and Israel should be labelled and taken down, as by contrast their actions are as bad if not worse, and in many ways, the things those countries perpetrate are worse than what NK does. NK despite some limited attacks on SK and SK/Japanese citizens has primarly been focused on maintaining its own existence, but has not actually been involved in any large scale offensives against SK, compared to Saudi/Pakistan/Israel, which have all been involved in war or formenting unrest not just in neighbouring countries, but on a greater scale.

Either NK is known to have Nuclear ballistic missles and so no attack is possible, until a defense can be created that has a high probability of success
Or it is completely unknown and so no attack/defense can be formulated as the weapons performance is unknown.
I think each side has been playing for time, NK for a long time while it has not been the main protaganist of the day, until it has Nuclear weapons
and
the US/aligned countries until NK collapsed of its own accord/until China stopped supporting it.

seiphil

Another missile launched by North Korea.

Cheerful Spring

seiphil wrote: »

Another missile launched by North Korea.

Was expected. We have to wait and see if it was an ICBM. It flew for 45 minutes, i read. Last missile test, it flew for 35 to 37 minutes, i believe?

Varik

seiphil wrote: »

Another missile launched by North Korea.

This one landing in Japanese water.

Pelvis

The Guardian with their very sensationalist push notification!

Cheerful Spring

NK missiles can hit Japan, its a done deal now. Their missiles are also not failing anymore. This missile flew 3,000km. So any war with the North will involve Japan and South Korea. We just don't how far along they are to hit American cities?

The_Valeyard

Wonder with the Japanese launch a surprise attack, they have experience with this sort of thing.

The_Valeyard

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Wonder with the Japanese launch a surprise attack, they have experience with this sort of thing.

Pearl Harbour!
But that was only because US intelligence wasn't looking the right way.

Cheerful Spring

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Wonder with the Japanese launch a surprise attack, they have experience with this sort of thing.

There is estimates coming in it's an ICBM and it can travel much further than the last missile, early estimates though. This means North Korea has a missile that strike the heart of America potentially? We just don't know if they mastered the reentry process?

Cheerful Spring

Pentagon: US assesses latest North Korean missile test was of an intercontinental ballistic missile

Pentagon: The North Korean missile was launched from Mupyong-ni and traveled about 1000 km before splashing down in the Sea of Japan. Night time launch!

Estimates about the height reached by this missile vary, some people say it reached space and then proceeded to fly to its target, this was 1000 miles away.

archer22

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Wonder with the Japanese launch a surprise attack, they have experience with this sort of thing.

They have experience with getting their asses kicked after doing it as well

suicide_circus

Can we nuke these commies yet?

Gatling

suicide_circus wrote: »

Can we nuke these commies yet?

It's a distinct possibility

archer22

suicide_circus wrote: »

Can we nuke these commies yet?

That what everybody was saying back in the 1950s...the answer then was "No we too scared".

Still the same answer in 2017

Cheerful Spring

Gatling wrote: »

It's a distinct possibility

The only way we stopping NK from firing nukes, is America would have to carry out nuclear strikes on North Korea killing millions of people and America would have to strike before Kim could react.

Gatling

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The only way we stopping NK from firing nukes, it full on strike on North Korea killing millions of people and America would have to strike before Kim could react.

Not necessarily true ,

Several small yield tactical nukes targeting the areas where the majority of his artillery pieces are followed by a serious amount of air and naval strikes maybe enough ,but chances are they will go with conventional weapons and end up in a long term conflict