[ckaihatsu]

Soviet foreign trade played only a minor role in the Soviet economy. In 1985, for example, exports and imports each accounted for only 4 percent of the Soviet gross national product. The Soviet Union maintained this low level because it could draw upon a large energy and raw material base, and because it historically had pursued a policy of self-sufficiency. Other foreign economic activity included economic aid programs, which primarily benefited the less developed Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON) countries of Cuba, Mongolia, and Vietnam.[1]

The Soviet Union conducted the bulk of its foreign economic activities with communist countries, particularly those of Eastern Europe. In 1988 Soviet trade with socialist countries amounted to 62 percent of total Soviet foreign trade. Between 1965 and 1988, trade with the Third World made up a steady 10 to 15 percent of the Soviet Union's foreign trade. Trade with the industrialized West, especially the United States, fluctuated, influenced by political relations between East and West, as well as by the Soviet Union's short-term needs. In the 1970s, during the period of détente, trade with the West gained in importance at the expense of trade with socialist countries. In the early and mid-1980s, when relations between the superpowers were poor, however, Soviet trade with the West decreased in favor of increased integration with Eastern Europe.[1]

The manner in which the Soviet Union transacted trade varied from one trade partner to another. Soviet trade with the Western industrialized countries, except Finland, and most Third World countries was conducted with hard currency, that is, currency that was freely convertible. Because the ruble was not freely convertible, the Soviet Union could only acquire hard currency by selling Soviet goods or gold on the world market for hard currency. Therefore, the volume of imports from countries using convertible currency depended on the amount of goods the Soviet Union exported for hard currency. Alternative methods of cooperation, such as barter, counter trade, industrial cooperation, or bilateral clearing agreements were much preferred. These methods were used in transactions with Finland, members of Comecon, the People's Republic of China, Yugoslavia, and a number of Third World countries.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_t ... viet_Union

[Truth To Power]

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

False. I gave the dictionary definition of imperialism, which has nothing to do with financial capital.

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.

You don't agree because you prefer Marxist tripe to historical fact.

But you're *incorrect*

I am of course correct as a matter of objective physical fact.

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

No, your misuse of language to create Marxist distortions in readers' minds and prevent them from knowing facts or thinking accurately is detached from actual historical events and developments.

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

Marxist gibberish.

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

Any good dictionary can tell you that the subject matter is not financial capital.

[QatzelOk]

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.

Anything that "fines" someone - like a 140 dollar parking fine - only punishes the poor, who often have fewer options. So I am more in favor or redesigning streets to make them car-proof than I am in favor of congestion charges. I'm in favor of building massive amounts of mass transit, rather then simply fining people for using too much gasoline or electricity in their cars.

Inequality is a huge problem in many ways, but one way that we don't often talk about is how much this inequality affects our regulatory environment. In an unequal environment, the RICH work tirelessly to regulate the less rich, often pointing them to scapegoats in order to introduce wealth-concentrating austerity.

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

Finance capital isn't the only way that Empires can leverage their way into hegemonic control. They can also use "faith" in something - like Jesus, the Iron Ring, or Soviet Communism. This kind of faith-based Empirical rule can be called "leveraged" when these faiths are enforced upon the vassal nations.

In capitalist countries, the rich use their media control to "leverage" faith in things like recycling, electric cars, and Bernie Sanders. In the meantime, the high priests of capital continue to burn down the earth - guiltlessly.

...

When the American economy collapses, corporate-built suburbia will burn to the ground (figuratively) and not many people will have housing that is useful to them. Detroit is a great model for what comes next in a very-American collapse.

source

[ckaihatsu]

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

False. I gave the dictionary definition of imperialism, which has nothing to do with financial capital.

Yeah, I found a definition of imperialism, too:

American imperialism consists of policies aimed at extending the political, economic and cultural influence of the United States over areas beyond its boundaries. Depending on the commentator, it may include military conquest, gunboat diplomacy, unequal treaties, subsidization of preferred factions, economic penetration through private companies followed by a diplomatic or forceful intervention when those interests are threatened, or regime change.[1][page needed]

The policy of imperialism is usually considered to have begun in the late 19th century,[2] though some consider US territorial expansion at the expense of Native Americans to be similar enough to deserve the same term.[3] The federal government of the United States has never referred to its territories as an empire, but some commentators refer to it as such, including Max Boot, Arthur Schlesinger, and Niall Ferguson.[4] The United States has also been accused of neocolonialism, sometimes defined as a modern form of hegemony, which uses economic rather than military power in an informal empire, and is sometimes used as a synonym for contemporary imperialism.

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

---

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.

You don't agree because you prefer Marxist tripe to historical fact.

There's no 'tripe' -- it was at the Potsdam Conference that the rulers of the great powers carved up the world in their own interests.


---

But you're *incorrect*

I am of course correct as a matter of objective physical fact.

Nope.


---

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

No, your misuse of language to create Marxist distortions in readers' minds and prevent them from knowing facts or thinking accurately is detached from actual historical events and developments.

Well, feel free to address *history* then -- what's *your* version of historical events -- ?


---

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

Marxist gibberish.

To rephrase, I'm saying that you're being practically *postmodern* -- you just want to make assertions of your own that do not even deal with the subject matter of history.


---

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

Any good dictionary can tell you that the subject matter is not financial capital.

It's not a *dictionary* thing -- it's about *how* the U.S. has exercised hegemony, particularly from 1898 onwards.

At a political level, the West still dominates global decision-making through minority control of the central banking system (Bank of International Settlements), IMF, World Bank, Security Council and other institutions of global governance. The G8 (now G7) represent less than 15% of world population, yet have over 60% of its income. 80% of the permanent members of the UN Security Council represent white Western states, 60% from Europe. The West has veto power in the World Bank, IMF and WTO and regulates global monetary policy through the Bank of International Settlements (BIS). By tradition, the head of the World Bank is always a US citizen, nominated by the US president, and the IMF is a European. Although the rest of the world now has a majority in many international institutions, it does not have the political power to reject decisions by the Western minority.[citation needed]

In The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel P. Huntington describes how "the United States together with Britain and France make the crucial decisions on political and security issues; the United States together with Germany and Japan make the crucial decisions on economic issues."[24] Huntington quoted Jeffrey R Bennett to claim that Western nations:[25]

• own and operate the international banking system

• control all hard currencies

• are the world's principal customers

• provide the majority of the world's finished goods

• dominate international capital markets

• exert considerable moral leadership within many societies

• are capable of massive military intervention

• control the sea lanes


Huntington presents a ‘framework, a paradigm, for viewing global politics’ to protect “Western civilization”. He argues that other civilizations threaten the West through immigration, cultural differences, growing economic strength and potential military power. ‘If North America and Europe renew their moral life, build on their cultural commonality, and develop close forms of economic and political integration to supplement their security collaboration in NATO, they could generate a third Euroamerican phase of Western affluence and political influence. Meaningful political integration would in some measure counter the relative decline in the West’s share of the world’s people, economic product, and military capabilities and revive the power of the West in the eyes of the leaders of other civilizations.’ However, this ‘depends overwhelmingly on whether the United States reaffirms its identity as a Western nation and defines its global role as the leader of Western civilization.’ [p308]

Alexander claims there are numerous pillars of global apartheid including:[1]

• veto power by the Western minority in the UN Security Council

• voting powers in the IMF and World Bank

• dominance of the World Trade Organization through effective veto power and ‘weight of trade’ rather than formal voting power

• one-sided rules of trade, which give privileged protection to Western agriculture and other interests while opening markets in the Majority World

• protection of ‘hard currency’ through the central banking system through the Bank of International Settlements

• immigration controls which manage the flow of labour to meet the needs of Western economies

• use of aid and investment to control elites in the Majority World through reward and punishment

• support for coups or military intervention in countries which defy Western dominance


More recently, scholars such as Thanh-Dam Truong and Des Gasper, inTransnational Migration and Human Security[26] and Kyle and Koslowsk in In Global Human Smuggling, analyse the rise of migrant smuggling and human trafficking in terms of the "structural violence generated by the escalation of border interdiction by states as part of the system of global apartheid."[27] Political demands for protectionism and physical barriers between the West and the Majority World, such as President Trump's wall between Mexico and the US as well as barriers round the EU [28][29] follow similar economic pressures to those which entrenched apartheid in South Africa.

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

[Truth To Power]

Yeah, I found a definition of imperialism, too:

No you didn't. You don't seem to have much of an idea what a definition is. Probably because you have been reading too much Marx, who likes to just make up his own definitions when the facts don't obey his commands.

There's no 'tripe' -- it was at the Potsdam Conference that the rulers of the great powers carved up the world in their own interests.

Your Marxist tripe is still Marxist tripe no matter how much you try to evade and change the subject.

Nope.

Yep.

Well, feel free to address *history* then -- what's *your* version of historical events -- ?

I don't agree that history is a matter of alternative "versions."

To rephrase, I'm saying that you're being practically *postmodern* -- you just want to make assertions of your own that do not even deal with the subject matter of history.

More Marxist tripe. I haven't made any assertions of my own, just pointed out that you are trying to redefine terms.

It's not a *dictionary* thing

Yes it is.

-- it's about *how* the U.S. has exercised hegemony, particularly from 1898 onwards.

If you want to discuss how the USA has exercised hegemony, be my guest. But I'm not going to let you get away with pretending that imperialism is defined as export of financial capital. Deal with it.

<Marxist tripe snipped>

[ckaihatsu]

No you didn't. You don't seem to have much of an idea what a definition is. Probably because you have been reading too much Marx, who likes to just make up his own definitions when the facts don't obey his commands.

Your Marxist tripe is still Marxist tripe no matter how much you try to evade and change the subject.

Yep.

I don't agree that history is a matter of alternative "versions."

More Marxist tripe. I haven't made any assertions of my own, just pointed out that you are trying to redefine terms.

Yes it is.

If you want to discuss how the USA has exercised hegemony, be my guest. But I'm not going to let you get away with pretending that imperialism is defined as export of financial capital. Deal with it.

<Marxist tripe snipped>

Okay, so name-calling, basically.

You want to paint a picture of the USSR as being *demonic* in some kind of way, yet it was *Western imperialism* that imposed itself on the undeveloped areas of the world. Let's do some compare-and-contrast:

Soviet aid programs expanded steadily from 1965 to 1985. In 1985 the Soviet Union provided an estimated US$6.9 billion to the Third World in the form of direct cash, credit disbursements, or trade subsidies. The communist Third World, primarily Cuba, Mongolia, and Vietnam, received 85 percent of these funds. In the late 1980s, the Soviet Union reassessed its aid programs. In light of reduced political returns and domestic economic problems, the Soviet Union could ill afford ineffective disbursements of its limited resources. Moreover, dissatisfied with Soviet economic assistance, several Soviet client states opened trade discussions with Western countries.[1]

In the 1980s, the Soviet Union needed considerable sums of hard currency to pay for food and capital goods imports and to support client states. What the country could not earn from exports or gold sales it borrowed through its banks in London, Frankfurt, Vienna, Paris, and Luxembourg. Large grain imports pushed the Soviet debt quite high in 1981. Better harvests and lower import requirements redressed this imbalance in subsequent years. By late 1985, however, a decrease in oil revenues nearly returned the Soviet debt to its 1981 level. At the end of that same year the Soviet Union owed US$31 billion (gross) to Western creditors, mostly commercial banks and other private sources.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_t ... viet_Union

---

Following the Great Depression in the 1930s and the Second World War, the United States and United Kingdom used their political power to create systems of economic management and protection to mitigate the worst effects of free trade and neutralise the competing appeals of communism and national socialism[citation needed].

At a political level, the West still dominates global decision-making through minority control of the central banking system (Bank of International Settlements), IMF, World Bank, Security Council and other institutions of global governance. The G8 (now G7) represent less than 15% of world population, yet have over 60% of its income. 80% of the permanent members of the UN Security Council represent white Western states, 60% from Europe. The West has veto power in the World Bank, IMF and WTO and regulates global monetary policy through the Bank of International Settlements (BIS). By tradition, the head of the World Bank is always a US citizen, nominated by the US president, and the IMF is a European. Although the rest of the world now has a majority in many international institutions, it does not have the political power to reject decisions by the Western minority.[citation needed]

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

[late]

Russia acted like an empire because it was one. They did plenty of nasty things, still do.

They did help people, but then so did we. We also did a lot of bad.

I see this sort of argument as pointless, empires suck. If you want to limit the abuses, give international law teeth, sharp ones.

[ckaihatsu]

Russia acted like an empire because it was one. They did plenty of nasty things, still do.

They did help people, but then so did we. We also did a lot of bad.

I see this sort of argument as pointless, empires suck. If you want to limit the abuses, give international law teeth, sharp ones.

late, do you understand that the USSR was *non-hegemonic* -- ? That the rouble *wasn't* the world's reserve currency? (Etc.) Where's the 'empire', exactly, and why aren't you using the term 'empire' in regards to the *British* Empire, and also in regards to U.S. / NATO -- ?

[late]

late, do you understand that the USSR was *non-hegemonic* -- ?

That the rouble *wasn't* the world's reserve currency? (Etc.) Where's the 'empire', exactly, and why aren't you using the term 'empire' in regards to the *British* Empire, and also in regards to U.S. / NATO -- ?

You're funny. Egypt kicked Russia out for playing dirty tricks. They did less because they had less to work with. Their track record in Eastern Europe makes that painfully clear. Please remember I visited Hungary when they had the Soviet boot on their neck.

The ruble was nonconvertible because if it wasn't, the country would have been financially ravaged.

We've argued about empires at least a couple times before. See if you can't remember.

[ckaihatsu]

You're funny. Egypt kicked Russia out for playing dirty tricks. They did less because they had less to work with. Their track record in Eastern Europe makes that painfully clear. Please remember I visited Hungary when they had the Soviet boot on their neck.

The ruble was nonconvertible because if it wasn't, the country would have been financially ravaged.

We've argued about empires at least a couple times before. See if you can't remember.

Okay, no contentions here, but, real-simple: How was the USSR an empire? (Did it extract financial profits from any colonies?)

[late]

Okay, no contentions here, but, real-simple: How was the USSR an empire? (Did it extract financial profits from any colonies?)

That's a shot straight out of the early 70s, pass the joint, please.

"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.

Although the Soviet Union was not ruled by an emperor, and declared itself anti-imperialist and a people's democracy, it is argued that it exhibited tendencies common to historic empires.[2][3] This argument is traditionally held to have originated in Richard Pipes's book The Formation of the Soviet Union (1954).[4] Several scholars hold that the Soviet Union was a hybrid entity containing elements common to both multinational empires and nation states.[2] It has also been argued that the Soviet Union practiced colonialism similar to conventional imperial powers.[3][5][6][7][8][9][10]

The Soviets pursued internal colonialism in Central Asia. For example, the state's prioritized grain production over livestock in Kyrgyzstan, which favored Slavic settlers over the Kyrgyz natives, thus perpetuating the inequalities of the tsarist colonial era.[8] Maoists argued that the Soviet Union had itself become an imperialist power while maintaining a socialist façade, or social imperialism.[11][12] Another dimension of Soviet imperialism is cultural imperialism, the Sovietization of culture and education at the expense of local traditions.[13]"

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

[ckaihatsu]

It has also been argued that the Soviet Union practiced colonialism similar to conventional imperial powers.[3][5][6][7][8][9][10]

The Soviets pursued internal colonialism in Central Asia. For example, the state's prioritized grain production over livestock in Kyrgyzstan, which favored Slavic settlers over the Kyrgyz natives, thus perpetuating the inequalities of the tsarist colonial era.[8] Maoists argued that the Soviet Union had itself become an imperialist power while maintaining a socialist façade, or social imperialism.[11][12] Another dimension of Soviet imperialism is cultural imperialism, the Sovietization of culture and education at the expense of local traditions.[13]"

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

Again, no contentions on the facts, but would this really be called 'imperialism' -- ?

When put side-by-side with *Western* imperialism, which extracted super-profits out of colonies, there's no comparison.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territori ... _expansion)

[late]

Again, no contentions on the facts, but would this really be called 'imperialism' -- ?

When put side-by-side with *Western* imperialism, which extracted super-profits out of colonies, there's no comparison.

You just compared them, sport.

If you study empires, you will run across Empire Lite, which was a British innovation. They did it to save money, but letting the locals do most of the running of a country saved them a lot of work.

Everyone since has done variations on that theme.

As I've told you before, the more power is concentrated at the top, the worse off it is for everyone else.

[ckaihatsu]

You just compared them, sport.

Okay, 'jocko'. (?)

If you study empires, you will run across Empire Lite, which was a British innovation. They did it to save money, but letting the locals do most of the running of a country saved them a lot of work.

Everyone since has done variations on that theme.

As I've told you before, the more power is concentrated at the top, the worse off it is for everyone else.

What you're not-getting is that the Stalinists weren't *predatory* over the territory that they encompassed. It wasn't imperialism because there was no expropriation of profits as was common practice for the Western imperialist countries, over the peoples that they colonized.

[QatzelOk]

Russia acted like an empire because it was one. They did plenty of nasty things, still do.

They did help people, but then so did we. We also did a lot of bad..

I like how you put all verbs related to the American Empire into the past tense.

The one percent really don't care if America lives or dies - they just want moar and moar for their own gang. If burning down the earth destroys most people's lives, they will be safe on their (electric?) yachts.

[late]

What you're not-getting is that the Stalinists weren't *predatory* over the territory that they encompassed. It wasn't imperialism because there was no expropriation of profits as was common practice for the Western imperialist countries, over the peoples that they colonized.

We'll have to agree to disagree, lots would disagree with you, esp. those that lived with a Soviet boot on their neck.

Simple question: a thought experiment, if you I had you strapped into a time machine set to take you to 1965; would you pick East Germany or West?

There's only one sane response..

[ckaihatsu]

We'll have to agree to disagree, lots would disagree with you, esp. those that lived with a Soviet boot on their neck.

Simple question: a thought experiment, if you I had you strapped into a time machine set to take you to 1965; would you pick East Germany or West?

There's only one sane response..

To be clear, I'm not a Stalinist, so, again, no cheerleading / flag-waving / defending from me.

But since the term 'imperialist' was inaccurately, irresponsibly applied to the USSR, that characterization can be readily refuted, as I've been doing.

The Western imperialist (NATO) countries, vs. the Warsaw Pact -- which was imperialist -- ?

[late]

To be clear, I'm not a Stalinist, so, again, no cheerleading / flag-waving / defending from me.

But since the term 'imperialist' was inaccurately, irresponsibly applied to the USSR, that characterization can be readily refuted, as I've been doing.

The Western imperialist (NATO) countries, vs. the Warsaw Pact -- which was imperialist -- ?

Your avoiding the obvious by dodging the question tells us all we need to know..

[Pants-of-dog]

The information in the OP seems to justify seizing the assets of the 1% and using said funds to deal with climate change.

[ckaihatsu]

Your avoiding the obvious by dodging the question tells us all we need to know..

I'm not 'avoiding the obvious' -- *you're* the one switching fields with your contrived personalized scenario.

You jumped into this topic of 'imperialism' but can't even address the comparison between Western imperialism / NATO, versus the Warsaw Pact.