The serious CPA thread (no spamming please)

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
But does this country also contain palestinians? Surely, the situation that we see today is the result of nationalism on both sides?

Do you agree to the statement:

"Make this war between Jews and Arabs, which serves the end of imperialism, the common war of both nations against imperialism!

This is the only solution guaranteeing a real peace. This must be our goal which must be achieved without concessions to the chauvinist mood prevailing at present among the masses."

I am actually pro-nationalism

I think that is one of the points where I differ with many communists

there are many reasons I think this, I will go into later (maybe this weekend

Jon Miller

[Zoid]

Comrade Dalgetti is strangely absent in this thread

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I don't really understand what you mean by this. When you say 'degenerate[d] workers state', you mean the Soviet Union and places like that right? Cause the Soviets did not outperform the capitalist nations.

I do mean the USSR and China. The basic problem that confronts people trying to compare the two systems is that they compare unequal situations. They compare the USSR vs the West, when in fact Russia/the USSR/Russia has never been comparable to the West. It wasn't an imperialist nation, it didn't have access to huge reserves of capital, it was a neo-colony before it liberated itself, and is rapidly becoming one again today. It was twice devasted by war, it was blockaded and starved, and it suffered constant terrorism. I think that facing the same conditions, the West would have been at least as messed up, perhaps more. And there are more capitalist nations than simply the West. All of the West's former colonies, Latin America, India, and so on are capitalist nations.

I think it would be better to compare say . . . the USSR vs Brazil. Both were/are neo-colonial states. Both have huge areas of resources they lack the techology to exploit. Both are poor. Brazil has homelessness and starvation and a porrly educated population. It can't even hope to be a world power, hasn't put anyone in space, etc. The USSR managed all these things, with all of the disadvantages it faced. It achieved more with less.

Also consider that what capitalists measure as to the success of an economy, communism isn't necessarily interested in. The degenerated workers states were first interested in taking care of their population: feeding, clothing, housing, and educating everyone. Making sure everyone had access to a job. Foreign trade earnings, etc. aren't the primary focus of these economies. And when the essentials of life are provided at extremely low cost, the amount of money that people make isn't equivalent to the amount that people make in the capitalist world, North and South.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I do mean the USSR and China. The basic problem that confronts people trying to compare the two systems is that they compare unequal situations. They compare the USSR vs the West, when in fact Russia/the USSR/Russia has never been comparable to the West. It wasn't an imperialist nation, it didn't have access to huge reserves of capital, it was a neo-colony before it liberated itself, and is rapidly becoming one again today. It was twice devasted by war, it was blockaded and starved, and it suffered constant terrorism. I think that facing the same conditions, the West would have been at least as messed up, perhaps more. And there are more capitalist nations than simply the West. All of the West's former colonies, Latin America, India, and so on are capitalist nations.

I think it would be better to compare say . . . the USSR vs Brazil. Both were/are neo-colonial states. Both have huge areas of resources they lack the techology to exploit. Both are poor. Brazil has homelessness and starvation and a porrly educated population. It can't even hope to be a world power, hasn't put anyone in space, etc. The USSR managed all these things, with all of the disadvantages it faced. It achieved more with less.

Also consider that what capitalists measure as to the success of an economy, communism isn't necessarily interested in. The degenerated workers states were first interested in taking care of their population: feeding, clothing, housing, and educating everyone. Making sure everyone had access to a job. Foreign trade earnings, etc. aren't the primary focus of these economies. And when the essentials of life are provided at extremely low cost, the amount of money that people make isn't equivalent to the amount that people make in the capitalist world, North and South.

Cuba especially has been screwed over by the West (particulary the US)

of course, Cuba is still far from perfect (in fact I would take western states over it), but it would be doing decent without the screw over

just has some issues because of Castro

Jon Miller

[GeneralTacticus]

when Communism will look on the way of triumph to me , I'd gladly join. Sadly, it's not even near. Since both goals apeal me, I'd rather first secure the one that is , though less apealing to me in the way of world order , Is way more close.

What exactly do you mean by this??

I do mean the USSR and China. The basic problem that confronts people trying to compare the two systems is that they compare unequal situations. They compare the USSR vs the West, when in fact Russia/the USSR/Russia has never been comparable to the West. It wasn't an imperialist nation, it didn't have access to huge reserves of capital, it was a neo-colony before it liberated itself, and is rapidly becoming one again today. It was twice devasted by war, it was blockaded and starved, and it suffered constant terrorism. I think that facing the same conditions, the West would have been at least as messed up, perhaps more. And there are more capitalist nations than simply the West. All of the West's former colonies, Latin America, India, and so on are capitalist nations.

Well a problem with trying to say how capitalism and communism would perform under equal conditions is that it has never happened before. There has never been a communist nation on the same basic fotting as the West, so we can't say how it would have performed.

But does this country also contain palestinians? Surely, the situation that we see today is the result of nationalism on both sides?

Do you agree to the statement:

"Make this war between Jews and Arabs, which serves the end of imperialism, the common war of both nations against imperialism!

This is the only solution guaranteeing a real peace. This must be our goal which must be achieved without concessions to the chauvinist mood prevailing at present among the masses."

I personally feel that different peoples do have the right to their own state, but without harming others to get it. I think an idea that was proposed before partition was that Palestine become a single federal state for both the Jews and the Arabs.

And I personally dilike communist rhetoric about 'imperialism', since I don't think there is some kind of 'imperialist conspiracy'. Calling upon people to 'fight against imperialism' is just another means of unifying them against the non-existent foreign threat.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Kamrat X


You mean the enviromental and gay/lesbian things?

In my interpretation of communism they are key issues, if we are to create the new glorious communist society then it´s important that we don´t make the mistakes that have been made previously (in USSR for instance) Enviromentalism is vital to our survival and gay/lesbian rights is vital to our motto that all men are created equal despite race, creed or sexual preference.

9

[Zoid]

9 what?

And is no one else interested in discussing the zionist vs marxist question? Or was it just Dal? I thought the article I posted (pasted... ) was pretty good and describes a possible solution to the problem. Class war instead of chauvinist killing and abuse...

[Zoid]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus

And I personally dilike communist rhetoric about 'imperialism', since I don't think there is some kind of 'imperialist conspiracy'. Calling upon people to 'fight against imperialism' is just another means of unifying them against the non-existent foreign threat.

Oh, imperialism is real allright... Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism Lenin wrote in 1916. It´s still true...

[Az]

Comrade Dalgetti is strangely absent in this thread

Hello, I am back.

I could , of course , counter your argument , that in order that we and the palestinians would "overthrow our respective capitalist opressors" ( I'll explain why I use " " later ) , we at least would need to have a borgoise capitalist society in the palestinian territories.

but I won't. .

I'd just say that if these people are allowed to win, ( and the issue is their struggle right , is completely irrelevant now ), that would be another chip in the game for minds that is going over the world now. This isn't quite the battle of civilizations, as there are no single ruler over niether european democracies , neither the muslim world . But rather two groups of forces , with each group pushing in a very similar direction , in the way of how should people think. And I am on the side of the evil west. Remember your palestinian/arab friends? I just wonder how many years will it take to , say , be a majority in a european country? And since, as you already told me, they're still muslims , and still adhere to stupid idiotic laws , and governments of countries from which they came from mostly accept these laws as THE laws, I feel it's quite right for me to be concerned? If only oppressed people are having high birth rates , how come it's the same for mid-eastern communities in europe?

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Dalgetti



Hello, I am back.

So, you are

I could , of course , counter your argument , that in order that we and the palestinians would "overthrow our respective capitalist opressors" ( I'll explain why I use " " later ) , we at least would need to have a borgoise capitalist society in the palestinian territories.

but I won't. .

Aww...

I'd just say that if these people are allowed to win, ( and the issue is their struggle right , is completely irrelevant now ), that would be another chip in the game for minds that is going over the world now. This isn't quite the battle of civilizations, as there are no single ruler over niether european democracies , neither the muslim world . But rather two groups of forces , with each group pushing in a very similar direction , in the way of how should people think. And I am on the side of the evil west. Remember your palestinian/arab friends? I just wonder how many years will it take to , say , be a majority in a european country? And since, as you already told me, they're still muslims , and still adhere to stupid idiotic laws , and governments of countries from which they came from mostly accept these laws as THE laws, I feel it's quite right for me to be concerned? If only oppressed people are having high birth rates , how come it's the same for mid-eastern communities in europe?

I´m not quite sure where you´re going with this argumentation, Neither am I sure that there is a battle for world dominance between the muslim world and the christian world (or what you like to call it). It´s just a construction of USA and the other imperialist powers. There must always be an enemy you can scare people with, otherwise your power base will crumble. Remember back in the days of the pre-Gorbatjov Soviet era? Then communism was the greatest threat to human survival and freedom and whatnot. Now that communism is vanquished as a global power the focus is shifted towards islam. Now islam is the greatest threat to human survival and freedom and whatnot. If they vanquish islam another power will take it´s place.

See a pattern developing here?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
And I personally dilike communist rhetoric about 'imperialism', since I don't think there is some kind of 'imperialist conspiracy'. Calling upon people to 'fight against imperialism' is just another means of unifying them against the non-existent foreign threat.

By imperialism, communists mean something different that what most people think of it to mean. The generally accepted definittion is a military empire. But no one really examined capitalist imperialism before the 20th Century to understand it and discern its key features.

A Brit named Hobson first examined imperialism, and came to the conclusion that it was a fools game, because the imperial country always spent far more on the colony than it received from the colony in taxes, tribute, etc. What Hobson failed to look at was both the private exploitation going on in the colonies, as well as the roll that imperialism plays in capitalism.

According to Lenin, unregulated capitalism tends towards monopoly. This has been born out in reality, since it is only through the intervention of the state that monopolies are prevented from forming. In the late 19th Century, however, this was not the case, and monopiles, trusts, and cartels were busily forming (I'll just use monopoly for all three, since they all serve the same function, to abolish competition). By abolishing competition, monopolies could charge higher prices for their goods and services than a competitive market would allow. This allows them to extract a surplus profit (the difference between a competitive price and amonopoly price). (As an aside, the reason why monopolies are regulated is because their surplus profit comes at the expense of profits in other areas, which makes other capitalists mad).

Now, part of the purpose of capitalism is to accumulate capital (hence the name). But to what purpose? Very little capital is used by the capitalist himself, even if he builds Biltmore or Trump's yacht. Capital by itself is worthless unless it's doing something. And the more capital there is, the less it is worth. These surplus profits enabled monopolies to build up a huge amount of surplus capital very quickly, more than could be profitably invested in the home country. So where to invest it? Abroad!

In the Third World, a little bit of capital goes a long way, and investements there tend to be extremely profitable. This was no less true during the period of colonialism than it was today. However, investments abroad are risky, since you never know what those pesky natives will do, and you can't go running to your own state to get something done . . . unless your state owns the foreign country, hence, colonialism.

In Lenin's day, much of the world had been divided up between a handful of European powers. In fact, it was the need for Germany to find a place for it to invest the surplus profits of its capitalists that was the most important reason for turning what should have been a little regional war into The Great War.

But, direct colonialism is, as Hobson noted, expensive. Another way to engage in imperialism was be investing in independent countries. Germany, for example, supplanted Great Britain as the principle foreign investor in Latin America until WWII, when the US became the principle foreign investor in LA. Germany would grant loans to, say, Brazil, would be obligated to use that loan money to buy matierals from Germany, and build railways from Germany resource extraction companies to ports, etc. It would also be required to secure the German investment and put down any potential trouble makers, like union organizers.

The US was also a firm believer in this method of imperialism, but, being in the same hemisphere as Latin America, was able to intervene much more easily should some country default on a loan or seize a businessman's property.

What you should see by now is that an economic connection is tieing the foreign country to the investor country. Rather than a relationship of equals, the Third World countries enters into an unequal relationship that grants substantial control of the economy to foreign countries. In effect, these countries have almost all of the same qualities as colonies, except that they have their own govnerment. Hobson's problem is negated, the local countries police themselves at little cost to the imperialist.

This isn't to damn or blame the capitalist. After all, he's simply being a good business man, looking for someplace to invest his money. However, the relationships that are created as a result of this investment end up enslaving the recipient country.

[GeneralTacticus]

Oh, imperialism is real allright... Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism Lenin wrote in 1916. It´s still true...

AFAIK, his basic theory was that capitalism needed colonies in order to continue growing, and to export capital. He thought that therefore, as the politicans were effectively puppets of the capitalists, they would do what the capitalists wished and aquire colonies.

1) Politicians aren't puppets to capitalism. They are generally in favour of it, but they aren't controlled by it.

2) You'll have to produce something a little more substantial than the writings of a Bolshevik to persuade me of that.

[Moral Hazard]

Will you do my taxes for me?

I'm sure some one has already cracked that lame joke, but the thread made me wish I was scrubbing bathroom floors with a toothbrush.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


AFAIK, his basic theory was that capitalism needed colonies in order to continue growing, and to export capital. He thought that therefore, as the politicans were effectively puppets of the capitalists, they would do what the capitalists wished and aquire colonies.

1) Politicians aren't puppets to capitalism. They are generally in favour of it, but they aren't controlled by it.

Puh-leaze Politicians do precious little else than lick capitalism in the ass...

2) You'll have to produce something a little more substantial than the writings of a Bolshevik to persuade me of that.

I´ll see what I can dig up...

Moral Hazard: When I started the thread I didn´t know that CPA stands for Certified Public Accountant

Maybe that´s why there´s so few comrades discussing here...

[GeneralTacticus]

Puh-leaze Politicians do precious little else than lick capitalism in the ass...

Then explain to me why we have pollution restrictions, labour laws, unions etc. All those things are detrimental to the interests of capitalists. Like I said, politicians are influenced by (and generally in favour of) capitalism, so they do usually do what it wants them to, but they aren't puppets of it.