[late]

[quote="QatzelOk"


What year on this chart do you think the USA is at right now?

[/quote]

You'll have to move the goalposts without my help.

[ckaihatsu]

It's not possible to have a WesternTM standard of living without the evils you mention.

Sorry, but I tend to see the issue as being an *energy* one -- if people want to live their current lifestyles *without* impacting the air and soil, etc., then I personally (and politically) have *zero* issues with that.

That said, of course the present inertia won't *allow* for an overnight ditching of oil, etc., so this is all hypothetical.

The rich have been "buying" back their poor slave classes by offering their hand-me-down consumer advances once they've moved on to the next tech.

So when the rich get a new tech, they use it to dominate everyone - until they have acquired a more advanced tech - ideally, one that can be used to control the other techs. The poors can enjoy the Internet now that a handful of rich people control it.

Tech always works that way. The rich push the latest tech, but only AFTER they control it, and can use it as a control mechanism over their cattle (the 99%).

And this process has also created mega-consumption of useless products like cars - those two tonne machines that get us from bungalow in the middle of nowhere to mall in a huge open field on the edge of nowhere.

It was all built to be car-dependent. The rich did this - created car-dependent cultures.

[img]https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-24a20f79825155c41ab0e582b66ac0bc-pjlq[img]

What year on this chart do you think the USA is at right now?

Sure, and I'm not for any kind of plutocracy.

But how *should* technology, in the broadest terms, be implemented by society -- ?

[ckaihatsu]

So you, SA, and late are all *statists* -- got it.

[QatzelOk]

You'll have to move the goalposts without my help.

The only *goal* this thread has is to understand the relationship between *wealth* and *environmental destruction.*

Your contribution was to mention "what losers those Russians were" in 1992 when their leveraged empire collapsed.

I simply added that the WestTM is also somewhere on that Stages-of-Collapse chart as well, and we will be worse off in a collapse because our corporate governance has been very wasteful with resources. The poor in America need cars and trucks because... they live 30 miles from work or food. In a collapse, this will turn into a disaster, no matter how many Netflix movies you watch to avoid reality.

So you, SA, and late are all *statists* -- got it.

I wouldn't call myself a statist, but i would recommend that we support whatever institution can end the hierarchy of greed that imperils both the planet and the sanity and survival of the animals that live on it.

It looks like *the state* is in the best position to make this change. And by *the state*, I don't mean with its current regulatory capture situation.

[ckaihatsu]

leveraged empire

I gotta point out that the USSR never *exported finance capital*, and so was never imperialist.

I wouldn't call myself a statist, but i would recommend that we support whatever institution can end the hierarchy of greed that imperils both the planet and the sanity and survival of the animals that live on it.

It looks like *the state* is in the best position to make this change. And by *the state*, I don't mean with its current regulatory capture situation.

Okay, then we have to get into whether or not that particular apparatus -- the state -- is *sufficient* to 'end the hierarchy of greed' that 'imperils [...] the planet', etc.

Any comment here?

[Truth To Power]

I gotta point out that the USSR never *exported finance capital*, and so was never imperialist.

I gotta point out that that is either a blatant non sequitur fallacy or a blatant question begging fallacy. By that "definition," Genghis Khan was never imperialist.

[Truth To Power]

So you, SA, and late are all *statists* -- got it.

You misspelled, "realists."

[ckaihatsu]

I gotta point out that the USSR never *exported finance capital*, and so was never imperialist.

I gotta point out that that is either a blatant non sequitur fallacy or a blatant question begging fallacy. By that "definition," Genghis Khan was never imperialist.

---

In the Prefaces to the essay, Lenin said the First World War (1914–1918) was "an annexationist, predatory, plunderous war"[2] among empires, whose historical and economic background must be studied "to understand and appraise modern war and modern politics".[3] That for capitalism to generate greater profits than the home market can yield, the merging of banks and industrial cartels produces finance capitalism, and the exportation and investment of capital to countries with undeveloped and underdeveloped economies. In turn, that financial behaviour divides the world among monopolist business companies. In colonizing undeveloped countries, business and government will engage in geopolitical conflict over the exploitation of labour of most of the population of the world. Therefore, imperialism is the highest (advanced) stage of capitalism, requiring monopolies to exploit labour and natural resources, and the exportation of finance capital, rather than manufactured goods, to sustain colonialism, which is an integral function of imperialism. Moreover, in the capitalist homeland, the super-profits yielded by the colonial exploitation of a people and their economy permit businessmen to bribe native politicians, labour leaders and the labour aristocracy (upper stratum of the working class) to politically thwart worker revolt (labour strike) and placate the working class.[4][5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperiali ... Capitalism

And what's *your* definition? How was the USSR 'imperialist' -- ?

[ckaihatsu]

So you, SA, and late are all *statists* -- got it.

You misspelled, "realists."

Fun. You're having fun with words. That's fun.

So, back to 'Planet A', if the bourgeois financier *private sector* can't pull it off, decade after decade (stagnating GDP growth since the dotcom crash), then we-all should just let the capitalist *bureaucracy* take over. Is that about it -- ?

[Truth To Power]

And what's *your* definition? How was the USSR 'imperialist' -- ?

Seeking rule or dominion over foreign countries -- like, say, Poland, Hungary, etc.

[ckaihatsu]

Seeking rule or dominion over foreign countries -- like, say, Poland, Hungary, etc.

Okay, I took a quick look at the Communist Manifesto and I couldn't find anything about 'seeking rule or dominion over foreign countries', or about Poland or Hungary in particular.

Here's from history, though:

The Percentages Agreement was a secret informal agreement between British prime minister Winston Churchill and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin during the Fourth Moscow Conference in October 1944. It gave the percentage division of control over Eastern European countries, dividing them into spheres of influence. Franklin Roosevelt was consulted tentatively and conceded to the agreement.[2] The content of the agreement was first made public by Churchill in 1953 in the final volume of his memoir. The US ambassador Averell Harriman, who was supposed to represent Roosevelt in these meetings, was excluded from this discussion.[3][4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement

[Truth To Power]

Okay, I took a quick look at the Communist Manifesto and I couldn't find anything about 'seeking rule or dominion over foreign countries', or about Poland or Hungary in particular.

Here's from history, though:

So you agree the USSR was imperialist. Good.

[ckaihatsu]

So you agree the USSR was imperialist. Good.

No, that's just jumping-to-conclusions and wishful thinking on your part.

Again, my initial point stands, that the USSR never exported finance capital, so there's *still* no imperialism on its part.

Maybe you're thinking of the term 'expansionism' -- ?

[ckaihatsu]

Here's from Wikipedia, though I continue to dispute the use of the term 'imperialism', for the economic reason I stated.

Soviet Empire is a political term used in Sovietology (also called "Kremlinology")[1] to describe the actions and power of the Soviet Union before 1989, with an emphasis on its dominant role in other countries.

In the wider sense, the term refers to the country's foreign policy during the Cold War, which has been characterized as imperialist: the nations which were part of the Soviet Empire were nominally independent countries with separate governments that set their own policies, but those policies had to remain within certain limits decided by the Soviet Union. These limits were enforced by the threat of intervention by Soviet forces, and later the Warsaw Pact. Major military interventions took place in East Germany in 1953, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, Poland in 1980 and Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989. Countries in the Eastern Bloc were considered satellite states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Empire

[Truth To Power]

delete

[Truth To Power]

No, that's just jumping-to-conclusions and wishful thinking on your part.

No it's not. You evaded by trying to reference the irrelevant Communist Manifesto. That's when you admitted that you know you are wrong and I am right. You admitted that the USSR was imperialist. I'm not sure there is any way to state that fact so clearly and simply that you would be willing to know it.

Again, my initial point stands, that the USSR never exported finance capital, so there's *still* no imperialism on its part.

Again, I already proved that that is either a question begging fallacy or a non sequitur fallacy.

Maybe you're thinking of the term 'expansionism' -- ?

No, I prefer to use the English language correctly.

[ckaihatsu]

No it's not. You evaded by trying to reference the irrelevant Communist Manifesto. That's when you admitted that you know you are wrong and I am right. You admitted that the USSR was imperialist. I'm not sure there is any way to state that fact so clearly and simply that you would be willing to know it.

Here -- I'll be perfectly clear so that you know exactly what's being presented from my side of things:

I admitted *nothing*.

You're making stuff up if you think that you're correct to conclude that I was wrong.

You're *still* not contending the fact that the USSR never exported finance capital, and therefore was never imperialist, as the Western empires demonstably *were*, since they used world wars to force open *markets* in foreign countries.


---

Again, my initial point stands, that the USSR never exported finance capital, so there's *still* no imperialism on its part.

Again, I already proved that that is either a question begging fallacy or a non sequitur fallacy.

You're fetishizing the *language*, at the expense of (political) *meaning* -- the meaning here *is* that the USSR didn't export finance capital, while the Western imperialists *did*. You can then slap any label or wording on that, that you like, but the underlying meaning, from history, doesn't change.

No, I prefer to use the English language correctly.

Do you really think that *word usage* is what determines world-historical events -- (!)


History, Macro-Micro -- Political (Cognitive) Dissonance

Spoiler: show

[Truth To Power]

You're *still* not contending the fact that the USSR never exported finance capital, and therefore was never imperialist,

No, I identified the fact that that is either a non sequitur fallacy or a question begging fallacy.

as the Western empires demonstably *were*, since they used world wars to force open *markets* in foreign countries.

Irrelevant Marxist tripe.

You're fetishizing the *language*, at the expense of (political) *meaning*

That's just Marxist for, "telling the truth."

-- the meaning here *is* that the USSR didn't export finance capital, while the Western imperialists *did*. You can then slap any label or wording on that, that you like, but the underlying meaning, from history, doesn't change.

Which is worse, exporting vicious, lying murderers and torturers, or finance capital? Decisions, decisions....

Do you really think that *word usage* is what determines world-historical events -- (!)

No, but it does determine who is telling the truth about them and who is just makin' $#!+ up.

[Robert Urbanek]

From the cited article:

This is due, of course, to the quantity of goods and services consumed (clothing, electronic devices, cars, etc.) as well as their nature (housing in the city or second home in the countryside, public transport or car, holidays in the region or air travel abroad, etc.).

American television is chock full of advertising showing affluent people driving huge SUVs and trucks. In addition, U.S. gas mileage standards have a huge loophole that allows poorer gas mileage for “trucks,” a category that includes all the gas guzzling SUVs.

So, aside from a carbon tax, just a much larger tax on rich people and their estates should limit somewhat their ability to engage in excessive consumption. In addition, the only people allowed to drive trucks should be truckers, farmers, and licensed trades people such as carpenters and plumbers.

Any new car or “crossover” that seats five or less and doesn’t get at least 30 mph overall should not have a higher tax; it should be banned entirely, as the rich are often willing to pay a premium to drive a gas guzzler.

[ckaihatsu]

You're *still* not contending the fact that the USSR never exported finance capital, and therefore was never imperialist,

No, I identified the fact that that is either a non sequitur fallacy or a question begging fallacy.

No, you *haven't*, actually -- you're just being flippantly *dismissive* without saying *how* you think that it's a fallacy.


---

as the Western empires demonstably *were*, since they used world wars to force open *markets* in foreign countries.

Irrelevant Marxist tripe.

Again your dismissiveness is too hasty and unfounded. You're not bothering to make arguments, and you're expecting *me* to just agree with your say-so. I don't agree.

Here's from history:

It was not the resistance fighters in Greece, Italy and France who decided Europe’s destiny, but meetings such as this. At conferences in Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam, Stalin agreed with Churchill and Roosevelt to divide Europe into spheres of influence. The US was not happy with this division at first. It hoped to use its massive industrial superiority to transform the whole world into a single US sphere of influence, free trade providing it with open markets everywhere.251

Churchill, committed as ever to maintaining an empire run exclusively from London, would not countenance this, and neither would Stalin, who had the sheer size of Russia’s army to counter US economic power. Between them they persuaded Roosevelt to accept the division they wanted.

Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 536-537

---

You're fetishizing the *language*, at the expense of (political) *meaning*

That's just Marxist for, "telling the truth."

But you're *incorrect* -- your use of language is *detached* from actual historical events and developments, so then what the hell are you even talking about?

Statements that simply reference *other words*, and not actual social phenomena, are meaningless and pointless.

You're too dependent on making flippant *characterizations* that you like to make instead of dealing with any of the subject matter.


Generalizations-Characterizations

Spoiler: show

---

-- the meaning here *is* that the USSR didn't export finance capital, while the Western imperialists *did*. You can then slap any label or wording on that, that you like, but the underlying meaning, from history, doesn't change.

Which is worse, exporting vicious, lying murderers and torturers, or finance capital? Decisions, decisions....

Again, this is more of your own characterizations and implicit accusation-making -- if you have something to say, more than simple name-calling, you should *say* it. You're close to being a mechanistic contrarian.


---

Do you really think that *word usage* is what determines world-historical events -- (!)

No, but it does determine who is telling the truth about them and who is just makin' $#!+ up.