SubscribeLong before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle between the classes, as had bourgeois economists their economic anatomy. My own contribution was 1. to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; 2. that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; 3. that this dictatorship itself constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society. Ignorant louts such as Heinzen, who deny not only the struggle but the very existence of classes, only demonstrate that, for all their bloodthirsty, mock-humanist yelping, they regard the social conditions in which the bourgeoisie is dominant as the final product, the non plus ultraof history, and that they themselves are simply the servants of the bourgeoisie, a servitude which is the more revolting, the less capable are the louts of grasping the very greatness and transient necessity of the bourgeois regime itself.Emphasis as source. Of course, so many later soi-disant Marxists understood and practised it in a fashion similar to your characterisation that this objection might seem academic, but as is usual when I end up doing this, having read some of the man's work to criticise it you learn enough not to write off one of the great thinkers of world history on spurious grounds. If I thought you were having a go at the later followers alone, I might not have bothered, but the bit about "Hegelian nutter" suggested you meant the bearded on himself. Not too nice to that clever and learned Mr Smith either, but don't know him well enough to mount a defence.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued an apology on behalf of the Canadian government and its citizens for the resisdential school system.I don't see an American president issuing that sort of apology any time soon.
If the British had not been balked by Polk in 1846, we'd just as likely be talking about Canadian imperialism.You think that if the British had the northwest corner of what is now Washington state, Canada would now be in a position similar to the one that the USA is currently in?
northwest corner of what is now Washington stateUpon looking it up, I guess it's more like the western half, and a little bit of Oregon. But still, the heart of the question stands.
Yeah, fucking anything is going to be pretty cheap in comparison with Iraq. Thanks, Ralph!Seriously?!
We love you America, but get the fuck out.Really?
Signed,
World.
Signed,You know, I wouldn't really be terribly surprised to find out that some of my guesses from my question were wrong. For example, I don't know what the average Greenlander thinks about Thule; I find it kind of hard to believe that it's a huge issue to Joe Sixpack Greenlander, but hey, maybe it is, I don't know. So I'm totally willing to hear evidence otherwise.
World
Why is it necessary, in the new capitalist world order, for the US to account for at least 40 per cent of the world's military spending, particularly when it has so many unfulfilled needs at home - not least, for instance, the need for a decent health care system? Why is there such an unprecedented disparity of power in the world, in which the most significant `asymmetry' is not between the US and `rogue states' or `terrorists' but `between the US and the rest of the powers'?' It has been said that the US now possesses a military force greater than the next eight powers put together (and by some measures, greater than all other countries combined), while its budget is equal to the next twelve to fifteen combined. Some might call this `surplus imperialism', but whatever its name, the reasons for it are not at all obvious.' That is the paradox of the new imperialism. It is the first imperialism in which military power is designed neither to conquer territory nor even to defeat rivals. It is an imperialism that seeks no territorial expansion or physical dominance of trade routes. Yet it has produced this enormous and disproportionate military capability, with an unprecedented global reach. It may be precisely because the new imperialism has no clear and finite objectives that it requires such massive military force. Boundless domination of a global economy, and of the multiple states that administer it, requires military action without end, in purpose or time...(Same chapter seems to be extensively extracted online here which is where I got the c&p from). She then provides a trenchant argument as to how this serves the ends of capital. The terminology will probably not be to the taste of many here, but it makes more sense than pretty much anything else I've seen explaining the incredible military preponderance of the last remaining superpower.
...'the plans argue for open-ended war without constraint either of time or geography....
[T]he Pentagon militants prefer to speak of `revolving alliances', which look like a Venn diagram, with an overlapping centre and only certain countries coming within the US orbit for different sectors and periods of an unending war. The only countries in the middle of the diagrammatic rose, where all the circles overlap, are the US, Britain and Turkey.
Officials say that in a war without precedent, the rules have to be made up as it develops, and that the so-called 'Powell Doctrine' arguing that there should be no military intervention without `clear and achievable' political goals is `irrelevant'..."
The repudiation of the notion that military intervention must have clear and achievable political goals speaks volumes, and it articulates a doctrine that has developed since the Cold War. The US and its allies, notably Britain, have been redefining war and the criteria by which we judge it. The new doctrine of war that seems to be emerging is a necessary corollary to a new form of empire...
Every US war claims a just cause, a proper authority and right intentions, while insisting that there is no other way. Those claims are, of course, more than a little debatable. But at least these justifications of US military campaigns, however contestable they may be, up to this point remain within the limits of just war argumentation. The rupture occurs most clearly in the other two conditions: that there must be a reasonable chance of achieving the goals of any military action, and that the means must be proportionate...
...The present case has to do with the world's most powerful military force, the most powerful the world has ever known, which could confidently expect to achieve any reasonable military goal. So a new principle is being established here: it could simply mean that military action can after all be justified without any hope of achieving its aim, but it would probably be more accurate to say that military action now requires no specific aim at all.
Flunkie: poll finds widespread international opposition to US bases in GulfYes, but the world's opposition to US bases in the Middle East is quite a different issue than the world's wanting the US "the fuck out" of their own countries, which is what I was questioning. With respect to that, I'll (still) give you Cuba, most of the countries in the Middle East that we have troops in, and maybe a couple South American countries.
"Even in Europe views lean negative. US bases are opposed by a majority in Germany (52%) and a plurality in Italy (43% to 31%). Publics are divided on the issue in Britain (43% positive, 39% negative) and France (41% positive, 43% negative)."No. Those numbers are for the question "Are US Naval bases in the Persian Gulf a good idea".
« Older John Kricfalusi pitches a cartoon featuring the ta... | Lock 'n' Roll, a strategic mat... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by you just lost the game at 4:51 AM on August 8