To what do you attribute Stalin's militarism then...? No one is saying Stalin or Lenin or Mao read Marx and directly took their despotism from his writings. "Ah, page 214, 'How To Starve 10 Million With a Great Leap Forward'. But it's not inaccurate to refer to Stalin as a Marxist. Just because Marx didn't offer a practical blueprint for forcibly implementing his social utopia doesn't mean the men who murdered millions in his name didn't believe in or understand Marxism. There's nothing mutually exclusive between murdering despotism and "real" Marxism. Marxism is based on a fallacious interpretation of human nature. Forcing man to act against his nature requires a whole lot of murderin'. As Communism in the 20th century proved.
whatever Cohen, read the next post you git! i said something based on BK statement without explanation, once he explained i agreed with him in essence, although i am not completely convinced in war the death on innocent people can completely be blamed on one side. Now as for your BTW (stick it to me), Nice try, try telling some redneck with a biased view of Australian history.... not me. Unlike some i am completely aware of the issues/f*ck-ups Australia has done in the past, not sure on the details about what we did to Japanese prisioners of war but i am sure it was complete inappropriate and should be apologised for and the right people punished. As for Nam we did fight, but doesn't mean me or even all the population agreed with it, if was old enough at the time i wouldn't have gone and would have marched against it as Many australians did. As for the Aborigines, it sickens and saddens me thinking about what white Australia has done to the countries native inhabitants both in the past and event he present and wish the current government apologise for the past and many australians want. Just cause i live somewhere or belong to a certain culture doesn't mean i believe in everything they do and have done is correct and without error..... can you say the same thing.
Azadre, If you REALLY take that email to heart, then why in the hell are you staying in this country?? Why not go to one of the countries "victimized" by the big bad US? What a f*cking joke!! Excuse me, as I go puke...
Yes I can, and I have a number of times. My response to you here was not for your comments in this thread alone. Maybe it's inaccurate, but my impression is that you have a problem with the US. I understand the past errors that we have made, but I don't have a 'problem' with my country. I understand that there is often more to the story than what's on the surface, that hindsight is 20-20, and that this country has done much good also. Am i taking these out of context? Or do you see them all as US screw-ups? If you intended these as criticisms, do you see both sides? If you intended these as criticisms, have you ever pointed out what the US has done for other countries? I can be balanced, can you?
In my opinion, there are enough pro-US posts in the hangout to balance out the few that Azadre or anyone else posts. Just my two cents.
Hayes...here we agree. Oski...if you blame the US for 9/11 then you are just as sick and despicable as thoise who actually flew the planes. Good job trying to excuse their actions. Ummm....rimmy...wasn't it Marx who called for a revolution by the proletariat? That sounds like asking for armed insurrection...NOT political evolution. Good point Cohen. Any other demands OBL has made are done for political expediency amongst his own people. This is as good a time as any to point out that the UN-the same one many posters have been screaming about recently- is the body that mandated that the US maintain a "peacekeeper" presence in Saudi Arabia. So using some of the logic of Oski, et al you could say that the UN caused 9/11. Exactly right BrianKagy. The UN decided that Iraq needed to be defeated. The US led the charge because we are the ones with the military might. So to those who scream about atrocities committed in the Gulf War...blame the UN...they ordered it.
Cohen, Think Htownhero post summed up the context of my post, generally speaking there is usually a very one sided view in the hangout, as a non American i certainly morn any innocent victims as much as any other, no matter the race and the situation they were killed in whether it be war, terrorism, earthquake or tragic accident. and hence don't post much in the hangout, that and the big words It is refreshing to think you have a balanced view of America involvement with other countries, generally speaking the sentiment out of America (certainly in the popular American media which is transferred to Australia) is a very biased view that America has helped a great number countries and conflicts but has never done a damn thing wrong. I apologise for not quoting the too many mention times they given assistance. The list you quoted was certainly a tad tongue in cheek and over the top but does the US havea 100% innocent record in most of those situations. Bias is my beef. I really should use Smilies more, although as they are American based there really isn't one for sarcasm and wit , the reply to Rimmy regarding Bay of Pigs was a complete joke and heckle in reponse to something he said to me in an email. So in short don't have problem with the US, just the biased view their only involvement in international affairs is only positive. Cheer Mate PS btw i think in the thread where you got the quotes if you had read on further you would have also read about my views on Australia terrible humitarian record and hence wouldn't have need to get me offside with your original btw
If that's anywhere close to true, then it seems to me to be another good reason for a change of leadership in Iraq--forced or otherwise.
The UN passed 16 resolutions to effectuate the Gulf War cease fire. Iraq is violating ALL of them. It has seemed to me from the get go that the UN had already made the decision. If they now refuse to make the resolutions stick then the UN really has become inept, impotent and irrelevant.
rimbaud, It's ridiculous to conclude that Marx or 'Marxism' had nothing to do with Stalin or 'Stalinism.' Would Marx have implemented the policies of Stalin? No. Was Marx's philosophy used by Lenin and then Stalin to assure their rise to, and subsequent consolidation of their power? Absolutely. To say otherwise is to deny historical fact. This is similar to our ARand conversation the other day. You cannot say Marx is unconnected with Soviet 'Marxism' anymore than you can say you expect a philosopher to follow their own philosophical writings to the letter. One is abstract and one is reality. I hear this cop out everytime Marxism comes up. "Well, it wasn't 'true Marxism.' I've heard people argue 'Well, it wasn't 'true Maoism.'" As if the perfect abstract form would EVER come into existence. The simple fact is that 'communism' has been a massive failure in all of its incarnations. The only thing Marx got right was his 'kritik' of capitalism vis-a-vis alienation. The rest is crap. That is just plain wrong. Capability - how can you possibly conclude the Soviets were incapable of enforcing their will militarily? I guess the freakin BERLIN WALL didn't exist. I guess those countries in Eastern Europe WANTED to be under the Soviet boot. Talk to a Hungarian from '56 or a Czech from '68. Talk to the Western Europeans who had to be constantly vigilant and lived in fear of a Soviet invasion in conjunction with their stooges in the Warsaw Pact. There was a time not that long ago when the continued existence of the West as we know it was threatened on every corner of the globe by the hostile USSR. Wanting to - where do you get this stuff? The Soviets were the foremost proponents of exporting their 'Marxist' revolution, by force in many cases. Look at statements by the Soviet leadership or by any objective analysis of their intentions. Its crazy to think that was some kind of threat construction by the West. Going to - THEY DID in many places. Period. You are in denial. Couldn't conquer Afghanistan - interesting. I'm sure I'll see you make this argument everytime someone accuses the US of imperialism. 'They couldn't even conquer Vietnam.' The fact that they DID INVADE a neighboring country in an attempt to ANNEX the land disproves your previous assertion that they did not want to or were not going to take over other countries.
OK, a few things in general to BK, Ref, and Hayes: First, I am not a Marxist, nor do I particularly like his writings. I think he made some good points every now and then, and i find his aesthetic theories to be interesting, but I do realize that his theories were terribly flawed and often naive - hell, he thought that, after installing the proper system, the government would just melt away...seems a bit silly. That being said, I do not in the least think that Stalin was a Marxist. He used and corrupted Marxism, sure, but that is completely different. And this, by the way, is not just simple "this is the only way Marxism could be practiced in the real world" either as almost every country (including ours) owes a debt to Marxist theory somewhere in thier laws, implementations, etc. Stalinists communism was just one bastardization of Marxism, just as the KKK is a bastardization of Christianity. Does that "real world" practice of a theory render Christianity bad or irrelevant? Napoleon said he was a Republican...oops, turns out he wasn't, does that make Republicanism bad because he manipulated the people and the ideals? So, Hayes, this is not a copout. I understand that real world implementation can be corrupted. I agree with you - I just found it odd to call it Marxist militarism...when it was all Stalin. Ref - again, Marx was of the opinion that it would happen (the move to socialism) no matter what. He did organize and talk with the proletariat and encourage an educational revolution, but he never really talked about an armed one. in fact, it is for this very reason that the First International split up - because of the conflict on theories and how to enact them between Marx and the more revolutionary Bakunin, Proudhon, etc. BK - that is interesting that you say his concepts go agains human nature. Perhaps you mean modern human social interaction. Many societies throughout history could have been called "communitarian" or socialist in practice - most tribal cultures would fall into this category. So, staunch Marxists will say that actually capitalism goes against human nature, that there needs to be a kind of modern return to our true leanings. Hehe, fun, isn't it? Back to Hayes, in regards to the USSR world domination: OK, most of it was just me messing around, you didn't like the Afghanastan joke (specifically keeoing in mind the US/Vietnam joke)? Anyway, I was also jokingly saying that they couldn't take over the world - since you mentioned rolling over the globe...you know, the whole thing...god, I suck. Yes, I realize that they became expansionist and swallowed up a lot and when they fall suddenly there are all of these now/old countries...I am not an idiot. Anyway, there was a little point behind my dumb jokes and that was that neither the US nor the USSR could have taken over the world, had they wanted to, at the time because there would have always been a give and take. Now, they ould have destroyed the world a few hundred times...and that is why neither the USSR did not want to take over the world.
That presumes that capitalism is a contrivance rather than an evolution of human-driven market forces. I just don't agree with them on that one. I don't think this analogy works, because positive examples of Christianity far outnumber bastardizations like the KKK, while Stalinist communism is fairly par for the course-- communism in practice has been almost universally barbaric in its implementations (and maybe no qualifier is needed before "universally").
Damn you rimbaud. I had the thought that most of your post was a sham constructed around one point you felt was wrong/exaggerated. Hard to key in on that on a bbs though. You b*stard. Thought glynch had put the chicken sleeper mindmeld on you. Well, I look at it this way. You can legitimately say the common thread between Stalin and Castro and Kim Jong and Menguistu and others is their espousing of Marxism as a philosophical justification for their actions. While that would not make Marx responsible, to deny the connection to 'Marxism' is somewhat strange. For instance, most would probably not say the 'crusades' or the 'Spanish Inquisition' is 'true Christianity.' And yet it is hard to deny the connection between those events and Christianity. Agreed. But without that 'give and take' they would have, and its that give and take that the original post and people like glynch NEVER acknowledge. Sorry I overreacted.
No wonder people in other countries hate America. That's like me being selfish and saying I don't care if the rest of the US is blown up as long as Texas is safe. I'm sorry, I am just disgusted by your sentiment Nomar. You have your right to your opinion, and I'll respect that right, but this is the worst type of selfishness. This is the type of mentality leads to mutual destruction in the name of safety. Thank god leaders didn't have this mentality during the cold war, or there wouldn't be much of a US or Russia at this point. Now that I think about it you just are trying to piss people off or annoy them since you seem to love attention. B Note to other posters - I'm going to take the weeekend off to cool down and make sure I don't end up going off anyone else. I don't like to do this but sometimes I just have to let it out.
OK, I can use this for both you, BK, and Hayes. First, Hayes - I was not saying that there was no connection between Marxism and Stalinism (and I do agree with the Christianity linking as well...they are connected, just not the only incarnation), but between the Stalinist militarism and Marxism, that is all. BK - what you fail to realize (in this argument) is that Marxism is not just communism. True, all instances of communism have failed and resulted in tyranny...which is why it is flawed. However, as I said before, just about every country owes some kind of debt to Marxism. Whether it be political policy, labor developments (the fact that people don't work 18 + hours a day and little 5 year olds don't do back breaking labor, etc.), liberation theology in L.A., aesthetic theory (hehe), etc. such that a great deal of good has come out of Marxist thought. Other things have yet to be fully guaged, so they are neutral, and then the major communist movements have now been understood as failures - so there is a range. In other words, this is not a Communism-Stalinism argument, but a Marxism-Stalinism argument. Really the only major Russian guy who I see as having a strong connection to Marxism was Trotsky - and he often disagreed and was basically shunned by Lenin, and strongly disagreed and was murdered by Stalin (indirectly). Don't get me wrong, Trotsky had his flaws, but he was basically a good guy and the most like Marx and that got him killed. Hayes, Lol, you should almost always assume that on everything I post on this BBS. When in doubt, assume sham.
I don't care about the pro/negative-US ratio. What I like to see is some thought about what one is posting, even if you append a disclaimer. I have a very difficult time reconciling what is said to have happened to some unfortunate folks in Panama. I'd like to read more on that subject. Most of these other items listed are arguable, or at least understandable to some extent. Simply posting negative crap w/o thinking is no better than the folks who support everything the US has done.
SmeggySmeg, Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding. I surprised myself at how irritated I still was for your previous, somewhat tongue-in-cheek postings. My apologies. I appreciate constructive criticism of the US here. I think it's important to consider differing views of reality. Its time for a national daily here that includes articles from newspapers around the world..........hmmm.... BTW, regarding US media downunder, isn't Rupert an Aussie by birth?
