FYI http://books.google.com/books?id=FT..._JjACA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2 A General Theory of International Relations by Jayantanuja Bandyopadhyaya, Rikhi Jaipal The Devil theory of imperialism focuses attention on the role of private arms manufacturers in promoting imperialism and war. While the capitalist class as a whole is impelled by the profit motive, that segment of it which is engaged in the private manufacture of arms makes quick and large profits from imperialism and warfare, mainly through the sale of arms on government contract. The 'military-industrial complex' of the advanced industrial economies exercises considerable control over the state and are able to bend foreign policy in their favour. The state often becomes a willing tool of the arms manufacturers also because massive doses of arms expenditure help to check the tendency of a capitalist economy to fall into a depression. In one form or another, this theory has been propounded by British socialists such as Philip Noel Baker, Fenner Brockway and Frederick Mullaly, Stalin, Einstein, and many contemporary non-Marxist critics of capitalism.
England is a lot more conservative than I've seen them in the a long time. You should of seen the BNP guys who were running for office--Holy shit they're insane.
Thanks Denny. Only read a cursory explanation prior to responding. Interesting that I had never heard those mechanisms explained with under the rubric "Devil's Theory of Imperialism". Can't say I entirely disagree but I don't entirely agree either. Seems to have some merit. I tend to blame the money men more then arms manufacturers but there is no doubt that capitalist countries (and even pre-capitalist for that matter) tend to resort to warfare when they can't balance the books. There doesn't seem to be anything particularly revelatory in that theory seems more like an accurate grasp of a particular cycle of capitalism. Personally, I tend to think that the blueprint for destruction lies in the ego/mind complex we are saddled with and less so a particular dogma or strain of political ideology. Thanks for the info Denny.
After reading a section of that E-book provided by Denny I would go with the Realist theory of Imperialism myself. It is there in every state and certainly not limited to Capitalist states.
I've actually given this a bit of thought over the years. If a company is going to do business with the government, then they should be restricted from dealing with foreign powers. I don't think there's any particular pressure to go to war that isn't based solely upon spending a tiny fraction of a huge GDP on defense yielding an impressively strong military. The thing about the USA is, at least my hope is, that we have certain values that give us the moral authority to use military force on rare occasions for the general welfare of the entire world. Though that's not our mandate as a nation, it's likely in our own best interest that the world is as free from war and criminal dictators as possible and that we have free nations to trade with. On the other hand, a very rich person can make war on his own. “You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war.” -- William Randolph Hearst
Golden Earring begs to differ! [video=youtube;JeRa3RtBiIU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeRa3RtBiIU[/video]
I studied a different social science in graduate school. That doesn't take away from the fact that your initial post could have been the puerile ramblings of any college freshman. Vaya con Dios.
So again what is your grand theory of how social relations work? I'm feeling like you're good with critique but short on big picture. And your critique's are pretty weak sauce thus far. You are excellent at being insulting in an arrogant tone however! So what pearls of wisdom will you lay before us swine? I see alot of mainstream right wing thinking thus far which is to say lacking in critical thinking.
I think you raise some good points Denny but i think that unfortunately this: is no longer true. I agree that say in the 1940's we were a beacon of moral values in comparison to the rest of the world and certainly the fascist states. Unfortunately, 60 years of increasingly immoral advertising and a decaying public education system have rendered this country as one of the least values driven in the world. Unless, you consider the value of an item at Walmart being something to drive your values. I also can't help but think of the Founding Fathers warning us against seeking dragons to slay abroad and the avoiding of foreign entanglements. Really our power began to wane due to the incredible expense of the Vietnam war and the parallel plunge in trade where we went from a trade surplus to a deficit. Once Nixon cut the Gold Standard and made us DeFacto an Oil backed currency (the only currency that could be used to buy oil) things got really out of hand. Since then the power elite have spent alot of time whipping up frenzy's over gay marriage, the war on drugs, the war on crime, abortion and other civil issues to direct our attention away from the real action in economics. I do however completely agree with this:
Here is my grand theory on social relations: Incentives matter. Why do you care about what I write? All I said was that you went off on a rant that reminded me of a freshman in college getting their first Poly Sci course. I'm not trying to insult you, so get a thicker skin and ease your finger off the trigger. First of all, you're the one who believes people are different. I believe everyone is equal. Why do you have an inferiority complex? I'll have to live with your disappointment.
Feelings of inferiority? Not so much. Comparing someone to a Freshman in Poly-Sci getting their first intro class is insulting and please don't pretend it wasn't intended to be insulting. I asked you what you meant to give you a chance to explain yourself and you said "no you understood me"in response to the "are you trying to say what I'm saying is a basic concept". The insult was crystal clear no sense trying to feign innocence now. "Incentives matter" is not exactly a breakthrough in particle physics my friend. Funnily enough, that is precisely why I think being stoked about one head or other of the beast winning is silly because incentives DO matter. Which is why the incentives offered by the powerful will far exceed whatever incentives you or I could offer (a meaningless vote in a fiction of a democracy). Thinking either wing represents you is naive. Hence, who cares if the Left takes a beating anymore then they cared that the Right took a beating this past fall in the US. It hardly matters. Were McCain president the policies would likely be very similar minus a speech in Cairo and a handful of window dressing. The only difference would be the stupid left wouldn't be so cocky, arrogant and self-righteous. Not to mention blind to the realities of Obama's foolish policies foreign and domestic. Can you explain to me how Obama doing TARP II is substantively different from the Bush admin policy TARP? If anything it is mildly better. Still a disaster in the making. Right Left what a joke!
You stated a basic concept. I told you so. And if you feel insulted, that's your problem, not mine. Like I said before, get a thicker skin. It's not. What's your point? You don't give yourself enough credit. Be a lemming if you wish. If you're outraged, do something about it. No one told you that you were limited to your vote. There are other courses of action. My thinking isn't encapsulated by either wing, so your statement is an assumption on your part. On this matter, we disagree. I think it matters greatly. It would be uncharacteristic of John McCain to allow Nancy Pelosi to write a $787B spending bill which he would sign without reading. TARP was meant to infuse capital into the banking system, which was undergoing a systemic collapse. It was a loan, and with the recent repayment, the taxpayers made a $2B profit on a $68B eight month investment. Not great, but at least it was a positive NPV. TARP II rewards individual homeowners from defaulting on their mortgages. We'll never see a penny of that money; we'll just pay for the bad behavior of others. There's no option to recoup any investment by adjusting these mortgages.
I got an idea how about we exchange ideas without being insulting. Incentives matter is every bit as fresh and complex as my above rant so that was my point about that one. It's not about thicker skins it's about reasonable discourse. TARP I also paid for the bailout of AIG which was a backdoor payment to OTC derivative holders (Goldman Sachs one of the biggest) who then used it to repay the TARP money so as to avoid anyone opening their books. That along with constraints on CEO pay under TARP, is why there is a big rush to repay the TARP money. I am pretty sure when you include the AIG bailout (HUGE amounts of it went to Goldman and other OTC Derivative holders) that the government took a net loss on TARP I. I loathe Pelosi on a level I reserve for the likes of Rumsfeld and Cheney. The part in TARP II that keeps mortgage holder in homes is a big mistake I agree with you on that. I see it as another subsidy to the banks with the illusion of it being for the little guy. In reality it keeps prices inflated beyond where they should be due to propping up the leverage mistakes of the early "Aughts". It's unfortunate that under the Bush Administration the FED pushed interest rates unnaturally low for political purposes of not reaping the dot-com bubble collapse. It was every bit as political to make the ruling party look good (Repubs) as this new TARP II is a populist political move. I agree that I am more powerful then a meaningless vote. I was saying that my ability to offer incentives to major leaders is fairly limited without extreme exertion, luck and an eventual debasement of my values as I succumb to the ends justify the means mentality of politics. I prefer to invest my money in a way that reflects my values and to use my influence to build local community.
It's still true. We use diplomacy where possible, we invent state of the art weapons with pinpoint accuracy to minimize collateral damage, and the generals had to explain to Bush that it wasn't possible to drop food from airplanes in Afghanistan before taking out any anti-aircraft weapons they had. I'm not saying it's our obligation to take out every despot ruler out there, but it is the ones we made or propped up. If we had done so with the Shah back in the 1970s, Iran would be an ally still. It is our moral obligation to send troops to somalia to feed starving people, and we should have sent troops to Rwanda to prevent the genocide, etc. As far as trade goes... It was a big deal that the entire US balance of trade hit (minus) $80B/year under GHW Bush, and Democrats refused to grant China MFN status Bush sought because of human rights violations. Then Clinton got in, asked for MFN and got it. The balance of trade with China hit $80B pretty quick, and $800B overall before 2000.
Great stuff in there Denny. I agree that IF we are going to get involved abroad it should be over things like Rwanda etc. However, the best way to do this is to really help out the local people by empowering them with money and sustainable things such as farming equipment in the case of Somalia. You also have to commit to nation building because simply dropping off of supplies doesn't cut it when Warlords swoop in to take over. If you get into nation building you have a real potential to get bogged down. I'm not saying it's never worth it, I mean clearly the Marshall Plan was a rousing success. I feel that is in part because we were similar enough in culture with the europeans as to support them in a sustainable way. The more different the culture the harder it gets. For example the best success in Afghanistan in regards to women's rights has been to support local women who act within the context of their culture to bring about change. Western feminists caused more problems then they helped according to Afghani women in the struggle for women's rights there. I think it is noble to help when we can and our duty to take out a dictator we propped up, like Saddam for instance. However, the way in which we took out Saddam went catastrophically wrong. I believe this is because of two factors: one a lack of culture understanding among the forces on the ground and two the primary policy makers on the ground in Iraq were interested in consolidating a grip on the local economy and resources and not empowering the local people while gaining a sweet heart deal on resources and a special trade relationship. Of course not working with dictators in the first place (Regan/Rumsfeld empowered Saddam, W. Bush worked with the despot in Uzbekistan) is the best idea. No, I don't think only Republicans make foreign policy blunders Johnson is one of the worst presidents ever for foreign policy mistakes.
Either that, or you have to adapt your foreign policy over time. It's not like Clinton got a lot of that kind of experience as governor of Arkansas, and our policies didn't change much toward Saddam. GHW did put a serious hurt on Saddam, but didn't finish the job. The embargo against Iraq was a farce and a means for the french and germans and russians and the UN to do side deals with Saddam at the expense of the Iraqi people. Saddam had to go. It's a shame it had to be W to make it happen. I don't see that things could have gone much better than they did.
Why did he have to go again? What would have happened had he been left in (limited) power? Who has to go next? Iran? N. Korea? Someone else? Everyone else? When do we stop? barfo
What would have happened is this. France already was normalizing trade with Iraq (resumed civilian air flights to Iraq). Several members of the UN Security Council were pushing to end the sanctions. The no fly zones would have been lifted and Saddam would have resumed murdering and torturing his citizens with impunity. The $billions in oil revenues would have been unsupervised entirely (not that the UN demonstrated anything but corruption in oil for food...). There'd be no UN inspectors hanging around to keep an eye on his WMD programs. With Iran going for nukes, so would Iraq and you have a serious potential they'd be used. When he died, his equally nasty sons would have taken over. What happened while he was in limited power? He gassed his own people, built palaces while the children of Iraq died of easily treated diseases and starvation, cut down the date trees that fed the Shi'ia in the south. His history is a matter of the public record. It's also in the public record that in the 1st gulf war, he bombed Israel with SCUD missiles, his air force pilots flew their MIGs to Iran to avoid being destroyed, the guns used against us were AK 47s, and the gas used on the Kurds had a chemical signature that identified it of Russian origin. It's also in the public record that Saddam had a $9B deal with Russia for oil as soon as the sanctions would be lifted (IMO, we made a huge mistake not offering $9B to Russia at the outset to make up for that). And there's no statute of limitations for crimes against humanity. Unless you're tried by the Hague - then you live in a country club prison until you die of old age.
