Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Buffalo Tom Buffalo Tom is offline
Member
Buffalo Tom's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Map Ref 41N 93W
Buffalo Tom is probably a spambot
Old Jan 26th, 2004, 09:10 PM        Against the New American Century
'If all of us are indeed against imperialism and against the project of neoliberalism, then let's turn our gaze on Iraq. Iraq is the inevitable culmination of both. Plenty of antiwar activists have retreated in confusion since the capture of Saddam Hussein. Isn't the world better off without Saddam Hussein? they ask timidly.

Let's look this thing in the eye once and for all. To applaud the US Army's capture of Saddam Hussein, and therefore in retrospect justify its invasion and occupation of Iraq, is like deifying Jack the Ripper for disemboweling the Boston Strangler. And that after a quarter-century partnership in which the Ripping and Strangling was a joint enterprise. It's an in-house quarrel. They're business partners who fell out over a dirty deal. Jack's the CEO.

So if we are against imperialism, shall we agree that we are against the US occupation and that we believe the United States must withdraw from Iraq and pay reparations to the Iraqi people for the damage that the war has inflicted?

How do we begin to mount our resistance? Let's start with something really small. The issue is not about supporting the resistance in Iraq against the occupation or discussing who exactly constitutes the resistance. (Are they old killer Baathists, are they Islamic fundamentalists?)

We have to become the global resistance to the occupation.'

- Arundhati Roy, 'The New American Century'
__________________
You're cooler than me
Reply With Quote
  #2  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Jan 26th, 2004, 09:18 PM       
That article doesn't even begin to make sense. Neoliberalism is in direct contradiction with pro-war imperialism. The fact that someone could even try to associate neoliberalism with Iraq does not make the least bit of sense.

And some liberals call The Nation centrist. It makes Fox appear left-wing.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Jan 26th, 2004, 09:48 PM       
Let's count the lies in that article, shall we?

Lie 1: "Non-elites seem to mean everything bad that's happened lately."

Really? Why, then, does globalization have any adherants?

Lie 2: "And with 1492 began the slaughter of the First Americans and the plunder of the Western Hemisphere. That act of primitive accumulation, along with the enslavement of Africans and the colonization of Asia, made Europe's takeoff possible."

That's laughable. There is no evidence to support such a statement. Resource gains were not enough to generate the Industrial Revolution. Look at America. This has to do with the rise of IP, capitalism, and *SHOCK* the first globalization era.

Lie 3: "As John Maynard Keynes put it"

Anything said by Keynes should be taken with a shaker of salt. Most of his economic theories, while influential during the time, have been debunked.

Lie 4: "Globalization is thought to be the source of many economic ills."

We're only on page 2, and we have a huge assertion. WHO thinks this, exactly? Not economists. Not theory. Certainly not historical results. Maybe liberals who are uppity about other countries competing with labor...

Lie 5: "initial European rise to wealth depended largely on the colonies"

False. European colonialism was not productive enough to account for the "intial rise to wealth." It had to do with technological innovation and more advanced farming techniques. The question is, what lead to their arrival? Hmm... could it be, capitalism?

Lie 6: "plant relocations to Mexico have put a sharp squeeze on US employment and earnings"

Don't make me laugh. Recent studies have suggested that the only jobs going to poorer nations are ones that don't require a high school education. Besides, the growth of the service industry has prevented the "giant sucking sound (that's Perot, BTW)" from even being audible. Jobs have grown since the sign of NAFTA, and I'm banking that that holds true even in terms of per capita.

Lie 7: "Econometricians say that trade explains about 20-25 percent of the decline in the US real hourly wage during the 1970s and '80s."

First of all, the real wage should have declined during the 1980's - we were rebounding from a stagnated economy, which meant that the minimum wage was excessive and lead to high unemployment. Second, what's with the lack of sources? Third, econometrics is the study of pure statistics and historical quantifications - any sort of deduction which would come of such a large size goes far beyond it's capabilty.

Lie 8: "According to economic historian Angus Maddison's estimates, African and American incomes were roughly equal in 1600 (because the Americans measured were the native population), but with industrialization, they started diverging in earnest. American incomes were three times Africa's in 1820, five times in 1870, ten times in 1913, and twenty times in 1998. When was the moment of 'globalization'?"

WELL NO SHIT!!! PERHAPS THE FACT THAT AFRICA *DIDN'T* INDUSTRIALIZE MIGHT EXPLAIN THAT???

Somehow, I get the impression that this writer is the conservative of the paper, too, since he does treat globalization with mild respect.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Buffalo Tom Buffalo Tom is offline
Member
Buffalo Tom's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Map Ref 41N 93W
Buffalo Tom is probably a spambot
Old Jan 26th, 2004, 10:12 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
Neoliberalism is in direct contradiction with pro-war imperialism.
Neoliberalism, in my mind, seeks to create a system in which the economic concerns dictate the development of societies, not the other way around. Ideologically, neoliberalism and imperialism seem to be at odds. However, neoliberalism is just another ideology by which societies can be organized, and it's the fact that this ideology is being imposed on a global scale by governments with neoliberal agendas, whether through dexterous diplomatic and economic dealing or strength of military arms, that Roy has issue with.
__________________
You're cooler than me
Reply With Quote
  #5  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Jan 26th, 2004, 10:21 PM       
You speak of society as if it were a transcendant entity, beyond the grasp of the individual.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
The_Rorschach The_Rorschach is offline
Mocker
The_Rorschach's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
The_Rorschach is probably a spambot
Old Jan 26th, 2004, 10:27 PM       
Quite simply because it is. Thats why power is only an illusion, in much the same manner as an economic exchange rate.

EDIT:

In order to escape the box one is trapped by, the perimetres of the confines must first be established. Society is that box, but rather than escape, the majority of individuals enlightened enough to understand the nature of their imprisonment instead seek to rationalize their condition and make peace with it. The unenlightened simply conform out of habit.

Much like geological formations -brief tip of my hat to Shawshank Redemption- the elements required are pressure and time, for civilizations and societies rarely change quickly of their own accord. It is beyond the ability of any single individual to drastically alter society, for the majority even small changes are impossible. The centre endures until it is eclipsed.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Jan 26th, 2004, 10:31 PM       
I have a different view of society. It is the illusion - the observable byproduct of all actions taken by individual actors within a closed system. There is nothing transcendant about it.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
The_Rorschach The_Rorschach is offline
Mocker
The_Rorschach's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
The_Rorschach is probably a spambot
Old Jan 26th, 2004, 10:35 PM       
You have a Constitutional right to affirm and speak your opinions, but calling the shit of a bull the plum of a pudding doesn't make it so
Reply With Quote
  #9  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Jan 27th, 2004, 11:24 AM       
Simple Questions for OAO.

1.) Is Slavery bad?

2.) Should societies allow slavery?

3.) Has Slavery ever been beneficial to any societies economy?

4.) Would it be possible to construct a reliable economic model extracting slavery from American history and accurately determin what our country would have been able to achieve and where we would be now without it?

5.)Would it be possible to construct a reliable economic model extracting colonialism from European history and accurately determin what Europe would have been able to achieve and where it would be now without it?

6.) Have rich and powerful cultures ever exploited poor and powerless cultures?


My guess is you think most of these questions are uninteresting and immaterial. I would suggest that you think that because
A.) You are a direct beneficiary of historical inequity
and
B.) You are amoral.

A is an accident of birth. B is arguably of defficiancy and nothing to be proud of.

Accidents of Birth and personality disorders are paltry, unstable things to base a worldview on, especially one so thoroughly without doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
El Blanco El Blanco is offline
Mocker
El Blanco's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
El Blanco is probably a spambot
Old Jan 27th, 2004, 11:45 AM       
Actually, I don't see ammorality as a deficency. It just measnyou don't thinbk things happen for nothing, that everyone has some motivation.
__________________
according to my mongoose, anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
The_Rorschach The_Rorschach is offline
Mocker
The_Rorschach's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
The_Rorschach is probably a spambot
Old Jan 27th, 2004, 11:46 AM       
I would disagree if I had more time to do so, but sadly I have to start justifying my paycheck soon.

But your wrong, I'll prove it later
Reply With Quote
  #12  
El Blanco El Blanco is offline
Mocker
El Blanco's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
El Blanco is probably a spambot
Old Jan 27th, 2004, 11:48 AM       
you capalist corporate slave wage pig.


And you're a heathen.
__________________
according to my mongoose, anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Jan 27th, 2004, 12:10 PM       
Burbank, the Industrial Revolution impacted the North more than the South. You know, the place where slaves generally were not kept.

This also fails to explain Europe's rise, as the gains made by Europe via expantionist policies were not enough to explain Europe's strength. If it were, Rome, the Byzantine, and the Hellenistic eras would have been much more prosperous.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Jan 27th, 2004, 12:46 PM       
So you don't care to adress any of my questions? I mean, as long as they don't mid you using the internet in study hall?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Jan 27th, 2004, 12:55 PM       
You know, Burbank, you'd make a good lawyer. You ask questions that you already know the answers to.

I don't have school today.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Perndog Perndog is offline
Fartin's biggest fan
Perndog's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Snowland
Perndog is probably a spambot
Old Jan 27th, 2004, 03:13 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Bad Burbank
My guess is you think most of these questions are uninteresting and immaterial. I would suggest that you think that because
A.) You are a direct beneficiary of historical inequity
and
B.) You are amoral.

A is an accident of birth. B is arguably of defficiancy and nothing to be proud of.

Accidents of Birth and personality disorders are paltry, unstable things to base a worldview on, especially one so thoroughly without doubt.
Arguably, indeed. "Amoral" in one person's eyes may be perfectly moral in another's, so that is not an easy claim to make. And in any case, I would hardly call amorality a "personality disorder". When I was an attention-starved teenager I might have latched on to that and been proud to say I was truly fucked up, but at this point I am offended at the suggestion.

Yes, this applies to me. I answered no to your first question and I thought the last few were uninteresting and immaterial.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #17  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Jan 27th, 2004, 03:37 PM       
Uh huh. The problem with amorality is it invites other amoral people to kill you and eat you. Oh, wait, they might do that anyway. Well, at least I know I wouldn't do that.


OAO, you should be an economic theorist. You're already good at ignoring questions which don't fit models you're slavishly devoted to.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Perndog Perndog is offline
Fartin's biggest fan
Perndog's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Snowland
Perndog is probably a spambot
Old Jan 27th, 2004, 03:57 PM       
If someone really wanted to kill and eat me I don't think my personal values would have any bearing on that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #19  
derrida derrida is offline
Member
derrida's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2003
derrida is probably a spambot
Old Jan 27th, 2004, 04:17 PM       
I think immorality would apply better to what you're describing, burbank, as it implies that the actor in question morally privleges himself while not according the same to others.

OAO- Are you to argue that industrialization of the Northern states did not similarly involve exploitation of the labor class?

While Rome may have been imperialist, it was not a colonial power.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #20  
El Blanco El Blanco is offline
Mocker
El Blanco's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
El Blanco is probably a spambot
Old Jan 27th, 2004, 04:50 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
Uh huh. The problem with amorality is it invites other amoral people to kill you and eat you. Oh, wait, they might do that anyway. Well, at least I know I wouldn't do that.
Actually, if the person really knew amorality, they would still have to deal with the law as well as the fact that living in a canibalistic society has a negative consequence to them.

I could easily take your statement and replace "amoral" with "atheist", but I think we can both agree that is hardly a fair statement about atheism.
__________________
according to my mongoose, anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Jan 27th, 2004, 05:14 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by derrida
Are you to argue that industrialization of the Northern states did not similarly involve exploitation of the labor class?
Yes, you marxist hosebag. There is no such thing as exploitation within the boundaries of mutual benefit.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Perndog Perndog is offline
Fartin's biggest fan
Perndog's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Snowland
Perndog is probably a spambot
Old Jan 27th, 2004, 06:11 PM       
Sure there is. It's when one party benefits more than the other.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
ItalianStereotype ItalianStereotype is offline
Legislacerator
ItalianStereotype's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: HELL, where all hot things are
ItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty okItalianStereotype is probably pretty ok
Old Jan 27th, 2004, 06:15 PM       
did anyone else notice that this guy has only a tenuous understanding of history?
__________________
I could just scream
Reply With Quote
  #24  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Jan 27th, 2004, 06:17 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perndog
Sure there is. It's when one party benefits more than the other.
That doesn't qualify as exploitation.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Perndog Perndog is offline
Fartin's biggest fan
Perndog's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Snowland
Perndog is probably a spambot
Old Jan 27th, 2004, 06:21 PM       
Okay, then it's when the party with the greater benefit has manipulated the transaction in such a way that he has the advantage and the other party is powerless to change the situation.

Example: I pay you to work. My work gets done and you get money, so we both benefit. Then I lower your wage (because I can), and if you don't have another job available you have to keep working for less. You are still benefitting, because I'm still paying you. But I'm exploiting you because I've got your balls in a vise.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:18 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.