Where have America's Defenders Gone?

[Mulletsoldier]

Side note:

I find it amusing how you put Colonialization in quotations as if I had made it up or was misusing the term.

[kwyckemynd00]

So you are justifying what occurred because Western Europeans were simply the most successful? Please. And, can you point out where Kwyck, in any of my previous statements I had stated that Wester Europeans were the SOLE exploiters of the African continent? You cannot, because I didn't. I simply stated, truthfull that contemporary economic crisis on the African continent is by and large a result of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century colonialism.

Nothing was being justified in my response.

Quite simply put, you can't hold the Americans and the West World of today responsible for a world-wide phenomenon where some people came out on top and others just didn't.

The intent of the Western Europeans and Early American's wasn't "oppression" it was simply about trade, nothing more, nothing less. When the US showed up at Japan and asked Japan to trade with them, they were told NO! The US didn't try to colonize them, they simply said, trade with us and be free, or we'll war beat you up until you trade with us. Bullying? Yes...oppression? Hardly. Japan benifited economically, as do many, many, many countries who wouldn't trade with the westerners, originally out of prejudice, and were forced into trading. I'm not justifying their actions, and I know they were bullying other nations, I'm just highlighting the fact that the intent of the these people was not oppression, but trade.

Once again, your history prowess (and arrogance) never ceases to amaze me bro. I was quite aware of that fact, but thanks for the refresher. So once again, I pose the question that somehow these facts justify what occurred in anyway??

Sorry, I believe you that you were aware fo the fact, however, it just didn't appear that way when you bring up racism, and oppression when referencing slavery. It had nothing to do with that. It was about the Africans being the perfect fit for their operation, and nothing more. And, again, these slaves weren't stolen, they were purchased, so they were slaves regardless of their owner and would have still been slaves if the Europeans never existed.

No, you are right. Slavery has a very storied history, going back to Aristotle's notion of the natural slave. HOWEVER, it was never carried out on such an institutionalized and large extent as the Western European slavery and exploitation. Never was the technological and military advantage of the colonizer over the colonized state so prominent as it was in this instance. For you to imply anything other wise is ridiculous

It is obvious that the european countries were much more efficient in almost every way to other countries during that time era, so why would an efficient slave trade be suprising? And, in addition, just because the trade was efficient does not make it any more horrific.

That is utterly wrong, and to use your phrase LAUGHABLE. As I said in the above comment never in history was slavery so institutionalized and systematic as it was in European colonialism

Are you kidding? The slaves were purchased by Europeans from Africans. Tribal war created slaves, not europeans: The African American : A Journey from Slavery to Freedom

Again, please don't put words in my mouth or attribute concepts to me I never claimed. Slavery is of course NOT an isolated problem, but since you just happened on the discourse I will fill you in. We are speaking about the CONTEMPORARY economic crisis of the African continent, which can largely be attributed to the economic underdevelopment that came as a result of late-nineteenth century colonialism.

I'd be very interested to see a case presentation where you can argue for the fact that the underdevelopment in Africa is largely a result of colonialism.

An economy was established by (predominantly) the Brithish. There was NO ECONOMY prior to their ar*****. The british have no power there now, and the Africans were left with an existing economy that was built by their colonizers. If anything, its honestly a great possibility that most semi-industrialized African countries would be living in conditions much more similar to those of the New Guinean tribes if the colonizers never arrived. Whether that is good or bad is definitely debatable, but the fact that their economic prosperity was stunted by the ar***** of the colonizers I cannot agree with. However, this is an area I'm not entirely familiar with, so maybe you can make a case for me and I'll see your point of view a bit better.

Obviously, you saw that I had implicated your country in this process and got your panties all knotted up.

You basically said that we're responsible for the despairity of third world countries, and I totally disagree.

Oh, and just an update on a previous comment I made. I said it was 5% that went to America, I guess its closer to 3%. And this is just during a two hundred year period, not including the thousand prior years where slaves were being sold and exported to arab countries. Slavery in America

[kwyckemynd00]

Side note:

I find it amusing how you put Colonialization in quotations as if I had made it up or was misusing the term.

Okay, okay...I agree...that was a definite misuse quotations

[anabolicrhino]

There is a difference between "free market" capitalism and "supply side" corporatism. Corporatism is the fascist cousin of capitalism.
The word corporatism was used interchangably with fascism in the 1930's specific to Germany's rebound from economic hardships following WW I.

If corporatism had a motto it would be "People selling People to People"

If Africa was left to develop its own natural resources they could feed the world. Instead British exploitation and abandonment has left most of Africa underdeveloped and its people undereducated
with most African states being run by warlords.

[Mulletsoldier]

Nothing was being justified in my response.

Quite simply put, you can't hold the Americans and the West World of today responsible for a world-wide phenomenon where some people came out on top and others just didn't.

The intent of the Western Europeans and Early American's wasn't "oppression" it was simply about trade, nothing more, nothing less. When the US showed up at Japan and asked Japan to trade with them, they were told NO! The US didn't try to colonize them, they simply said, trade with us and be free, or we'll war beat you up until you trade with us. Bullying? Yes...oppression? Hardly. Japan benifited economically, as do many, many, many countries who wouldn't trade with the westerners, originally out of prejudice, and were forced into trading. I'm not justifying their actions, and I know they were bullying other nations, I'm just highlighting the fact that the intent of the these people was not oppression, but trade.

True, outright racial oppression was not the intention in going to the African continent. Simply put, newly self-determined nations felt the need to express their Manifest Destiny and began exploring. The racial distinction did not began until the need for resources to support rapid industrialization became apparent. You are right, it was trade and more aptly put Capitalism which was the bases for slavery and colonialism. However, the bases for enslaving these people was based on the notion they were sub-human, this was its accepted justification

And equating this to a "phenomenon where some people came out on top and others didn't" is ridiculous and makes it appear as if our contemporary socio-economic situation is a result of chance. To an extent, it was because western European cultures were given a horticultural advantage in terms of arable land which allowed them to develop faster, but in direct terms we are responsible for this situation.

Sorry, I believe you that you were aware fo the fact, however, it just didn't appear that way when you bring up racism, and oppression when referencing slavery. It had nothing to do with that. It was about the Africans being the perfect fit for their operation, and nothing more. And, again, these slaves weren't stolen, they were purchased, so they were slaves regardless of their owner and would have still been slaves if the Europeans never existed.

I realize, and acknowledged that, and you are totally right. However, the point that I am making is the systematic way in which the Europeans and Americans carried this out, no other point in history was it so engrained within an economic system.

It is obvious that the european countries were much more efficient in almost every way to other countries during that time era, so why would an efficient slave trade be suprising? And, in addition, just because the trade was efficient does not make it any more horrific.

Comparing which conditions of slavery were more deplorable seems like a fruitless endeavour and a moral territory I do not care to enter. All slavery is horrible.

Are you kidding? The slaves were purchased by Europeans from Africans. Tribal war created slaves, not europeans: The African American : A Journey from Slavery to Freedom

That is not what I was referring to. You were comparing the conditions equitable as it pertains to the scale of European and domestic African slavery. Local populations, not entire nations and cultures were enslaved with domestic slavery.

I'd be very interested to see a case presentation where you can argue for the fact that the underdevelopment in Africa is largely a result of colonialism.

Broadview Press: Culture of Prejudice

Chapters 3, and 7-9. I am not sure if you will be able to view them anywhere, but if you want I can paraphrase.

An economy was established by (predominantly) the Brithish. There was NO ECONOMY prior to their ar*****. The british have no power there now, and the Africans were left with an existing economy that was built by their colonizers. If anything, its honestly a great possibility that most semi-industrialized African countries would be living in conditions much more similar to those of the New Guinean tribes if the colonizers never arrived. Whether that is good or bad is definitely debatable, but the fact that their economic prosperity was stunted by the ar***** of the colonizers I cannot agree with. However, this is an area I'm not entirely familiar with, so maybe you can make a case for me and I'll see your point of view a bit better.

You are presenting your case as Capitalism and economy being mutually inclusive, in fact they are not. Because material goods are not produced for the purpose of capital gain does not negate an economic system from being an economy. The 'economy' the British and other Colonial powers set up were hardly functional, and as I have stated were for the sole purpose of resource extraction to support industrialization. They were in all aspects set up to fail once economic autonomy was given to them.

You basically said that we're responsible for the despairity of third world countries, and I totally disagree.

I said the Western World as a whole partook in such activities. My country was founded upon the genoicide of indigenous populations, we are in no way less responsible for what occurs and what continued to occur. If my verbage made it seem as if I was singling you out, I wasn't.

Oh, and just an update on a previous comment I made. I said it was 5% that went to America, I guess its closer to 3%. And this is just during a two hundred year period, not including the thousand prior years where slaves were being sold and exported to arab countries. Slavery in America

Slavery in that domestic context is not the primary concern. Most workers were kept in plantations on the colonies themselves.

[Mulletsoldier]

There is a difference between "free market" capitalism and "supply side" corporatism. Corporatism is the fascist cousin of capitalism.
The word corporatism was used interchangably with fascism in the 1930's specific to Germany's rebound from economic hardships following WW I.

If corporatism had a motto it would be "People selling People to People"

If Africa was left to develop its own natural resources they could feed the world. Instead British exploitation and abandonment has left most of Africa underdeveloped and its people undereducated
with most African states being run by warlords.

100% exactly Rhino, I completely agree.

[CDB]

Voluntary CDB? Hardly. None of these countries chose to be colonized, did they?

That's kind of my point. Colonization has nothing to do with capitalism... In fact it's the ideological opposite of capitalism. Colonization is an integral part of mercantilism though, which is a completely different economic system and often what people hold up as an example of 'capitalism' because they either have an agenda or simply lack education on the issue.

Nor did they choose to have corrupt domestic leaders installed as a means for indirect control, until basically after World War II did they? And I would expect someone as socially adept as you to know the FUNDAMENTAL base for capitalism is the exploitation of one class over another, in whatever terms you wish to place exploitation in.

No, it isn't. Capitalism is about property rights, voluntary association and little to no government intervention in the market. It is about private ownership of the means of production. Colonization means the violation of property rights, it is not capitalist. Colonization means the enforcement of association, it is not capitalist. Colonization means the militarization of the market, it is not capitalist. Colonization means the appropriation and nationalization of someone else's means of production, it is not capitalist.

Saying you don't understand how exploitation fits with capitalism, especially as it pertains to the Third World is like saying you don't understand how a penis can fit in a vagina, it is pretty elementary

It's elementary to socialists who like to shoot down strawmen.

"Capitalism: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."

"Mercantilism: The theory and system of political economy prevailing in Europe after the decline of feudalism, based on national policies of accumulating bullion, establishing colonies and a merchant marine, and developing industry and mining to attain a favorable balance of trade."

The distinction is even in the common definitions in dictionary.com.

Well, although for the most part I completely and utterly disagree with most of the things you feel on this issue, the fact that they may not be neccessarily agricultural is a fair assertion. But, once again I will state that we cannot prod them into the accepted Western agricultural model, so teaching them how to farm as we would here is not plausible. Arm them? Seriously? So more genocide can occur because now the entirety of the continent is armed?

Generally speaking genocides are only committed against groups who cannot fight back. It is people who have been robbed of the means of self defense that are the most likely victims of genocide. There's a nice DVD called Innocents Betrayed which details the disarmament and subsequent genocides that have occurred throughout the 20th century. It's kind of hard to kill people en masse when they can effectively fight back. If you think an armed citzenry would not be effective against a modern army, I point to Iraq and how much trouble a few thousand arabs with AK 47s and often improvised explosives have been giving our troops.

I hope that was sarcastic. The concept of aid itself has to change and begin to manifest itself in grassroots social programs, fixing the root problems of things like overpopulation, AIDS epidemics, etc.

AIDS is a matter of not ****ing high risk people, plain and simple. That information is out and fairly available. Beyond telling that to someone there's not much else you can do. Areas which are considered "over populated" normally don't have population densities higher than those typically found on the US coast lines, sometimes even those found in the midwestern US. In fact our urban areas massively outstrip these supposedly overpopulated areas, yet somehow people seem to be doing mostly okay despite these high population densities. Worrying about over population is a nice clean PC way of being racist. I believe that people who have kids in these "over populated" areas want them as much as we want our kids, love them as much, etc. And were their governments not completely screwing their economies up, they'd be just as capable of feeding them.

Part of the reason these governments are empowered is the kind of attitude which conventional aid has conveyed "here is some money, we don't give a **** what you do as long as you pay us back"

Then how do you propose to solve the problem? How do we get aid to these people who need it without using their government's infrastructure? The reigning government's permission is a prerequisite for the delivery of aid of any kind, and they aren't going to agree to aid unless it benefits them. Therefore there is no way to deliver aid without subsidizing the very system which makes aid necessary.

[Mulletsoldier]

"Capitalism: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."

True, the capitalist mode of production is characterized by the private ownershipship of assets and generalized commodity production. However, what the definition you chose has left out, and what I am sure you choose to ignore is that it also relies on the transformation of direct-producers to wage-labourers in the interests of realizing a profit. This profit depends on the active living-labour creating more value (with their labour as a commodity,and the capitalist appropriating this) then those who own the means of productions need to assign to them (social phenomenon form of this value is money). I.e., exploitation of living labour is the necessary base for Capitalism

Now, Colonialism operated on this fundamental imperative of worker exploitation in order to realize a capital profit. You are choosing to express the forms of capitalism which best fit your imperative. The process which was applied to the African continent was solely Colonialism yes. However this process was applied in the interests of realizing advantage in a common culture of Capitalism within the European continent. So, I am afraid the two have a more intrinsic connection than you would choose to admit.

And I would assert that my opinions have no more to do with a "lack of education" or an "agenda" than yours do. In fact, I take a bit of offense to that assertion.

Generally speaking genocides are only committed against groups who cannot fight back. It is people who have been robbed of the means of self defense that are the most likely victims of genocide. There's a nice DVD called Innocents Betrayed which details the disarmament and subsequent genocides that have occurred throughout the 20th century. It's kind of hard to kill people en masse when they can effectively fight back. If you think an armed citzenry would not be effective against a modern army, I point to Iraq and how much trouble a few thousand arabs with AK 47s and often improvised explosives have been giving our troops.

True, but you are missing the point that arming the masses would in doubt just perpetuate the cycle they are in now. Arm the oppressed, they rise up to crush the oppressors and in turn reciprocate the action..Good job. So like I said, we should arm the people in order to perpetuate genocide in future generations? I don't think so.

AIDS is a matter of not ****ing high risk people, plain and simple. That information is out and fairly available. Beyond telling that to someone there's not much else you can do. Areas which are considered "over populated" normally don't have population densities higher than those typically found on the US coast lines, sometimes even those found in the midwestern US. In fact our urban areas massively outstrip these supposedly overpopulated areas, yet somehow people seem to be doing mostly okay despite these high population densities. Worrying about over population is a nice clean PC way of being racist. I believe that people who have kids in these "over populated" areas want them as much as we want our kids, love them as much, etc. And were their governments not completely screwing their economies up, they'd be just as capable of feeding them.

The only reason why the density of the African continent is much less than that of the continental United States is the ridiculously high infant mortality rate. The point I was trying to make, and should have made more apparent is the fact that children are a necessary asset for survival in African countries and as a result birth rates are very high. I was asserting that as a root problem for massive birth rates and it came across wrong.

And yeah, you're right CDB, I just spent a whole thread arguing about the institutionalization of racial oppression but I am a flaming Nazi...

Then how do you propose to solve the problem? How do we get aid to these people who need it without using their government's infrastructure? The reigning government's permission is a prerequisite for the delivery of aid of any kind, and they aren't going to agree to aid unless it benefits them. Therefore there is no way to deliver aid without subsidizing the very system which makes aid necessary.

For one, UN and US military intervention when it would actually serve a purpose. For that matter extend the powers of the United Nations, make an ACTUAL IMPACT as opposed to paying lipservice to intervention as we have done and taking your defeatist attitude.

[Mulletsoldier]

I appreciate the very well executed debate and legitimate arguments CDB and kwyck but the gym is calling my name...We shall continue this at a later date?

[kwyckemynd00]

If Africa was left to develop its own natural resources they could feed the world. Instead British exploitation and abandonment has left most of Africa underdeveloped and its people undereducated with most African states being run by Warlords.

That's easy to say, but I don't see anything that indicates this to be true.

Just because a country has the natural resources to do something, doesn't mean that they'll be utilized in that way.

[CDB]

True, the capitalist mode of production is characterized by the private ownershipship of assets and generalized commodity production. However, what the definition you chose has left out, and what I am sure you choose to ignore is that it also relies on the transformation of direct-producers to wage-labourers in the interests of realizing a profit. This profit depends on the active living-labour creating more value (with their labour as a commodity,and the capitalist appropriating this) then those who own the means of productions need to assign to them (social phenomenon form of this value is money). I.e., exploitation of living labour is the necessary base for Capitalism

Incorrect. There is no exploitation as the association is voluntary. If there is any exploitation in the search for profit it is mutual because valuations prior to a trade are reversed; you don't buy a newspaper for a dollar unless you want it more than your dollar, and the seller doesn't sell unless they want the dollar more than the paper. If there's any exploitation it is mutual and more importantly beneficial to both parties. Profit also has nothing to do with money. Money is simply a common denominator, the most sellable commodity, that comes in which makes profit easier to calculate. This ease of calculation is to everyone's advantage. Tranforming a "direct-producer" to a "wage-labourer" is a natural by-product of the division of labor, which is once again to everyone's advantage.

Strictly speaking the only thing a capitalist does in capitalism is advance resources to people so they can engage in productive work. By doing so he allows them to engage in a production process that would normally exhaust the worker's available resources. The end result is increased productivity and increased goods and services which once more benefits everyone. The association is voluntary, no one has appropriated anything. And incidentally no profit is earned from the capitalist function as there's a difference between the natural rate of return earned on a simple advance of resources, essentially a loan, and entrepreneurial profit which is based on uncertainty and assuming risk.

Now, Colonialism operated on this fundamental imperative of worker exploitation in order to realize a capital profit. You are choosing to express the forms of capitalism which best fit your imperative.

Incorrect. Capitalism is by definition based on enforcement of property rights, not violation of them. What you want to call capitalism is nothing of the sort. It is corporatism, industrial or neo mercantalism, etc. You can not say that a system which depends on secure property rights and voluntary association (capitalsim) is the same as one that depends of the violation of property rights and forced association (mercantilism). The two are mutually exclusive and one has nothing to do with the other.

{QUOTE]The process which was applied to the African continent was solely Colonialism yes. However this process was applied in the interests of realizing advantage in a common culture of Capitalism within the European continent. So, I am afraid the two have a more intrinsic connection than you would choose to admit.[/QUOTE]

Seems to me you don't want to admit, or simply can't see, the difference between two completely different economic systems.

And I would assert that my opinions have no more to do with a "lack of education" or an "agenda" than yours do. In fact, I take a bit of offense to that assertion.

In my experience it is true. I've been in many debates, formal and informal, online and in the real world. People often confuse capitalism with mercantilism, and in my experience they do so because they have either been poorly educated in the subject of economics or because they have an agenda which requires they cast capitalism in a bad light. The two are distinct economic systems. If capitalism is based on private ownership of the means of production then a system which relies on government enforced associations and appropriations of property (mercantilism) does not fall under the broader definition of capitalism. If there is a broader economic label mercantilism falls under the assumption of state power over someone else's means of production makes it more appropriately labeled a more viscious form of socialism.

True, but you are missing the point that arming the masses would in doubt just perpetuate the cycle they are in now. Arm the oppressed, they rise up to crush the oppressors and in turn reciprocate the action..Good job. So like I said, we should arm the people in order to perpetuate genocide in future generations? I don't think so.

Seems to me you're assuming a pretty malevolent nature to the people in those areas of the world. I don't doubt some would love to kill their oppressors. In my opinion they have a right to. Tribal wars aside, in general genocides are perpetuated by governments, and governments cannot carry out a genocide upon an armed populace.

The only reason why the density of the African continent is much less than that of the continental United States is the ridiculously high infant mortality rate. The point I was trying to make, and should have made more apparent is the fact that children are a necessary asset for survival in African countries and as a result birth rates are very high. I was asserting that as a root problem for massive birth rates and it came across wrong.

And the point is? Once more how many people there are in a certain area seems to have little to do with anything. The amount of people, birthrate, color, religion or whatever of people in a given area are irrelevant. The political system they live under is relevant.

And yeah, you're right CDB, I just spent a whole thread arguing about the institutionalization of racial oppression but I am a flaming Nazi...

I don't know who you are or what your ideals are. In my experience most Americans when presented with an equal number of their fellow countrymen and the average, every day people that populate most of the rest of the world, tend to think there are way too many of the latter type.

Why isn't New York City sufferring from the problems of over population when its population density is several times that of Bangladesh for example? The number of people in a given area is irrelevant. Plenty of European countries used to have much higher birth rates for similar reasons, that didn't stop their advance into the industrial revolution.

For one, UN and US military intervention when it would actually serve a purpose.

Like in Somalia? We handed out free food, undercut the local farmers and created more refugees. We made the problem worse.

For that matter extend the powers of the United Nations, make an ACTUAL IMPACT as opposed to paying lipservice to intervention as we have done and taking your defeatist attitude.

Well there is the little problem of sovereignty. Defeatist? UN or not I do not think we have the right, nor should we assume the role, of helping the world. The world needs to help itself. Put simply the competent don't need our help, the incompetent become a permanent burden if we offer them perpetual help. And all help in terms of foreign aid will end up being perpetual. We end up becoming Isabel Patterson's "Humanitarian with a Guillotine," or we let the foreign regime operate the guillotine. Either way we make things worse by perpetuating a system that needs to be allowed to collapse. Which it will eventually. I don't view prolonging the sufferring of people under a despotic regime to be a laudable goal. And that is the end result of such interventions.

[CDB]

I appreciate the very well executed debate and legitimate arguments CDB and kwyck but the gym is calling my name...We shall continue this at a later date?

I'm out myself, but to the clubs. Benefits of working out in the morning.

[kwyckemynd00]

True, outright racial oppression was not the intention in going to the African continent. Simply put, newly self-determined nations felt the need to express their Manifest Destiny and began exploring. The racial distinction did not began until the need for resources to support rapid industrialization became apparent. You are right, it was trade and more aptly put Capitalism which was the bases for slavery and colonialism. However, the bases for enslaving these people was based on the notion they were sub-human, this was its accepted justification

True, I'm not going to disagree with any of that with the exception that capitalism didn't lead to slavery. Slavery was just another tool, already in practice, that was used at the time, similar to the wheel. They utilized all tools necessary.

And equating this to a "phenomenon where some people came out on top and others didn't" is ridiculous and makes it appear as if our contemporary socio-economic situation is a result of chance. To an extent, it was because western European cultures were given a horticultural advantage in terms of arable land which allowed them to develop faster, but in direct terms we are responsible for this situation.

There were not given a horticulture advantage, they made a horticulture advantage.

All humans originiated in south africa about 200,000 years ago, and slowly migrated out of Africa for a number of reasons. Considering the ridiculously small population at that time, it was not an overcrowding issue.


*note* the originating arrow is from south Africa. Homo Sapiens originated there 200,000 years ago.

I realize, and acknowledged that, and you are totally right. However, the point that I am making is the systematic way in which the Europeans and Americans carried this out, no other point in history was it so engrained within an economic system.

True, but the purpose for slavey is irrelevant.

Comparing which conditions of slavery were more deplorable seems like a fruitless endeavour and a moral territory I do not care to enter. All slavery is horrible.

Agreed.

That is not what I was referring to. You were comparing the conditions equitable as it pertains to the scale of European and domestic African slavery. Local populations, not entire nations and cultures were enslaved with domestic slavery.

I'm not aware of entire nations or cultures being enslaved by Europeans. Indigenous tribal memebers were sold to European slave traders, and areas with multiple indigenous tribal governments were colonized, but I'm not familiar with entire nations and cultures.

Broadview Press: Culture of Prejudice

Chapters 3, and 7-9. I am not sure if you will be able to view them anywhere, but if you want I can paraphrase.



You are presenting your case as Capitalism and economy being mutually inclusive, in fact they are not. Because material goods are not produced for the purpose of capital gain does not negate an economic system from being an economy.

Well, I guess we'd have to redefine economy. Maybe CDB can help me out here

There were hordiculture/hunter based tribes, and I'm sure there was some trade involved somewhere, but I can't call those functional economies because they have similarities. Ducks and Hawk's have similarities but I can't call a duck a hawk and vice versa.

The 'economy' the British and other Colonial powers set up were hardly functional, and as I have stated were for the sole purpose of resource extraction to support industrialization. They were in all aspects set up to fail once economic autonomy was given to them.

I wouldn't say setup to fail, but they definitely weren't guided to success either. There was probably no thought given to it. However, if the colonists never arrived, its unlikely that they would have magically flourished from tribal governments and tribal kingdoms to economic powerhouses that could "feed the world".

I said the Western World as a whole partook in such activities. My country was founded upon the genoicide of indigenous populations, we are in no way less responsible for what occurs and what continued to occur. If my verbage made it seem as if I was singling you out, I wasn't.[/QUOTE]I understand that, my point is that, although a weaker undeveloped people were exploited, they are not responsible for third world living conditions.

[kwyckemynd00]

Okay, this is my official resignation from politics I've got tons of homework to do, and these forums don't help!!

See ya'll in a few more months

[Mulletsoldier]

Incorrect. There is no exploitation as the association is voluntary. If there is any exploitation in the search for profit it is mutual because valuations prior to a trade are reversed; you don't buy a newspaper for a dollar unless you want it more than your dollar, and the seller doesn't sell unless they want the dollar more than the paper. If there's any exploitation it is mutual and more importantly beneficial to both parties. Profit also has nothing to do with money. Money is simply a common denominator, the most sellable commodity, that comes in which makes profit easier to calculate. This ease of calculation is to everyone's advantage. Tranforming a "direct-producer" to a "wage-labourer" is a natural by-product of the division of labor, which is once again to everyone's advantage.

Wrong. Your scope is extremely limited here and you are only analyzing the situation as it pertains to the North American commodity market. You are giving absolutely no mention, even in the very least, to the modes of production which produce your newspaper, or the computers we are typing on, or your shoelaces, etc., In fact, as I stated before, the continuation of the Capitalist mode of production requires the exploitation of living labour. As well, Money is not the most sellable commodity, living labour (which is also really the only commodity capable of creating new value) is the most sellable commodity. In order for this system to continue a Capitalist most appropriate the surplus value created by living labour. This is in stark contrast to the ultimate imperative of minimizing living labour for capital gain, it is by all means a self-defeating system.

Strictly speaking the only thing a capitalist does in capitalism is advance resources to people so they can engage in productive work. By doing so he allows them to engage in a production process that would normally exhaust the worker's available resources. The end result is increased productivity and increased goods and services which once more benefits everyone. The association is voluntary, no one has appropriated anything. And incidentally no profit is earned from the capitalist function as there's a difference between the natural rate of return earned on a simple advance of resources, essentially a loan, and entrepreneurial profit which is based on uncertainty and assuming risk.

Here is to your egalitarian view of Capitalism, I can only hope at some point you will join me in reality. This 'benefit for everybody' attitude you seem keen on relating is a purely formal lipservice to the all at once exploitave and egalitarian ideals of capitalism. Though Capitalists like yourself like to pay mention to equality in Capitalism, but its inherent imperatives contradict these values. Why else would production be higher today than at any other point in history yet the social standards of the VAST majority of the world are either stagnating or falling? Because of an economic construction based on the appropriation of surplus labour value, that contradicts itself with "labour-saving" technology and therefore lowers the overall social profit over time.

In my experience it is true. I've been in many debates, formal and informal, online and in the real world. People often confuse capitalism with mercantilism, and in my experience they do so because they have either been poorly educated in the subject of economics or because they have an agenda which requires they cast capitalism in a bad light. The two are distinct economic systems. If capitalism is based on private ownership of the means of production then a system which relies on government enforced associations and appropriations of property (mercantilism) does not fall under the broader definition of capitalism. If there is a broader economic label mercantilism falls under the assumption of state power over someone else's means of production makes it more appropriately labeled a more viscious form of socialism.

Well, you are right bro. If you ever decide to come off your pedistol I welcome you to grace me with your enlightening knowledge.

Seems to me you're assuming a pretty malevolent nature to the people in those areas of the world. I don't doubt some would love to kill their oppressors. In my opinion they have a right to. Tribal wars aside, in general genocides are perpetuated by governments, and governments cannot carry out a genocide upon an armed populace.

And you are assuming an overly generous benevolence to them. Until the social conditions they live in are some how improved then the same cycle will undoubtedly perpetuate itself.

I don't know who you are or what your ideals are. In my experience most Americans when presented with an equal number of their fellow countrymen and the average, every day people that populate most of the rest of the world, tend to think there are way too many of the latter type.

Are you that arrogant/ignorant to assume that of me? I will let you continue in this thinking.

Why isn't New York City sufferring from the problems of over population when its population density is several times that of Bangladesh for example? The number of people in a given area is irrelevant. Plenty of European countries used to have much higher birth rates for similar reasons, that didn't stop their advance into the industrial revolution.

There are so many other factors to why Europe was the catalyst to the Industrial Revolution. I suggest you read Guns, Germs, and Steel.

Well there is the little problem of sovereignty. Defeatist? UN or not I do not think we have the right, nor should we assume the role, of helping the world. The world needs to help itself. Put simply the competent don't need our help, the incompetent become a permanent burden if we offer them perpetual help. And all help in terms of foreign aid will end up being perpetual. We end up becoming Isabel Patterson's "Humanitarian with a Guillotine," or we let the foreign regime operate the guillotine. Either way we make things worse by perpetuating a system that needs to be allowed to collapse. Which it will eventually. I don't view prolonging the sufferring of people under a despotic regime to be a laudable goal. And that is the end result of such interventions.

Social Darwinism anybody? As I have come to be taught, such ideals as you aptly put them are "a PC way of being racist". I am sorry but I cannot ignore a situation in which we are a fundamental cause of because you label them to be 'incompetent'. Should you be the one to label who should suffer and who should not CDB? You obviously consider your opinion to be divine in the way you present it.

[Mulletsoldier]

On a last note I find it fascinating CDB how you on all levels ignore the operational basis for the Capitalist mode of production. Equality is a mere formality as it pertains to competition AMONG capitalists, and has absolutely nothing to do with the means in which our consumer goods are created.

[bpmartyr]

Can't find the smiley of the guy chowin popcorn ...

Oh, well.

I am entertained!

[Mulletsoldier]

I am seriously out this time, I should have, and do have better things to do

(I lied, I am just going to be watching Pride: The Real Deal)

hehehehe

Have fun fellas!

[Mulletsoldier]

And, I am not American..You said something about 'most Americans', I am not one.

[kwyckemynd00]

There are so many other factors to why Europe was the catalyst to the Industrial Revolution. I suggest you read Guns, Germs, and Steel

Okay, i said I was done, but I had to but-in here.

I just can't see recommending Guns, Germs & Steel to anyone! The dude starts out his book by bashing "The Bell Curve" and any idea that genetic IQ differences amongs races exist, and then follows up shortly after with a statement claiming that the average Papua New Guinean tribal person is more intelligent than the average Western European (specifically European decendants). It was obvious that the Pulitzer was awarded to him by a bunch who were not composed of anthropologists/biologists/sociologists/historians

On a side note, I love some of the reviews: Amazon.com: Reviews for Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies: Books: Jared M. Diamond