The Myth of Late Stage Capitalism - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15194289
No @late, you are parroting BS like you always do because you have this annoying habit in trying to join in conversations you know nothing of. Perhaps that is why you are the king of one liners. God forbid you actually give us some context to backup anything you write.

This whole discussion doesn't even involve you anyway, it was something I said to SolarCross like last year sometime and @ckaihatsu brought it up. There is nothing fundamentally different to Mussolini compared to Stalin. I called Stalin a Soviet Fascist which really he basically was. If you think Stalin wasn't, make you fucking case with some facts rather than present conjecture all the time. Don't start talking bollocks about Germans not nationalising when actually, they pretty much did. You think Volkswagen was independent or something?
#15194290
B0ycey wrote:
Sure, Stalin was against the Nazis given they tried to take Stalingrad.



Okay, so 'anti-imperialism' / 'anti-fascism' in the sense of *national self-determination*. The same principle extended throughout the entire subsequent 'Cold War' period.


B0ycey wrote:
But if the criteria for anti imperialism was defeating the Nazis, I wonder what you make of the all the allies?



Sure -- the Warsaw Pact was for defensive national and regional self-determination against the imperialist predations of the Allies, internationally, through NATO.


B0ycey wrote:
Also, the Eastern European land grab must have been a blip.



I'll go by Harman's treatment on this one:



[T]he most sterile form of Stalinist ideology was imposed in Eastern Europe, with prisons and labour camps for anyone who objected.

The two blocs were quickly organised into rival military alliances, NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and to a large extent cut off from one other economically. The US banned a massive range of ‘strategic’ exports to the Eastern bloc, while within it Russia insisted on ‘the unreserved subordination of politics, economics and ideological activity to the needs of the bloc as a whole’.268

Military expenditure on both sides leapt to heights unprecedented in peacetime, reaching about 20 percent of US national output and up to 40 percent of Russia’s smaller output. Russia built secret cities to develop an atom bomb to rival the US, while the US developed the H-bomb—100 times more destructive than the atom bomb—and maintained a fleet of armed nuclear bombers permanently in flight. It was not long before the combined arsenals of the two superpowers were enough to destroy the world many times over. Yet generals on both sides played war games which assumed the use of these weapons.



Harman, _People's History of the World_, p. 546



---


B0ycey wrote:
*Grin*

Nonetheless I never mentioned Imperialism but Fascism. Explain why two leaders that were nationalists, authoritarian, oppressive dictators that are similar in many ways should be separated by a label such as left and right wing when they both match the definition of Fascists in all but name?



Because of respective *ideology* -- meaning political *intention* -- in the context of actual nation-state *power*.

Western imperialism is what *prevented* the October / Russian Revolution from prevailing after the overthrow of the tsar, and it's Western imperialism that prevented Russia from industrializing on-par with the already-industrialized *Western* countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_in ... _Civil_War


Explain why Russia and China were prevented from their own respective *self-determination* (by Western / Japanese imperialism) after each had overthrown their own monarchies, as England, the U.S., and France had done earlier, in past centuries.


---


late wrote:
Politics is the art of give and take, of making deals. First thing a dictator does is kill or imprison his political enemies. That ends politics...



You're confusing means and ends -- politics is about 'ends', or 'interests', while killing or imprisoning, is the *means*, which may or may not be *justified*, depending on the *ends*.


Means and Ends CHART

Spoiler: show
Image



---


late wrote:
If you look at the history, Stalin nationalised industry, Hitler made arrangements with the industries he needed. They were different.

But you have a good point, once they became dictators, they were not doing politics.



Again, I'll uphold the line that Stalin was being *defensive*, geopolitically, versus the Allies' imperialism (in the Russian Revolution), then against Nazi imperialism (World War II), and then against Western / NATO imperialism (Cold War).
#15194292
Rancid wrote:
Fuck Capitalism!

To all the workers out there. EVERY SINGLE COMMODITY YOU HAVE EVER WORKED TO PRODUCE IS A PIECE OF YOUR OWN DEATH!



late wrote:
That seems a bit extreme..



Why is it that only *workers* have to use entire portions of their lives / time, to produce commodities for societal consumption, while *owners* and managerial *executives* *don't* -- ?

Owners and managers -- and government-type administrators -- don't produce any commodities. They 'manage', or 'administrate' over those who *do* produce commodities, through their own labor-power / efforts.


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image
#15194294
ckaihatsu wrote:Sure -- the Warsaw Pact was for defensive national and regional self-determination against the imperialist predations of the Allies, internationally, through NATO.


The problem is, Socialism in one country doesn't work under the Marxism principle of a world without borders. The Warsaw pact was to separate the SU from the rest of the world anyway. It didn't have much to do with preventing imperialism and was in fact an example of imperialism given it was formed to legitimise the SU within the taken Eastern European bloc. But I don't really want to move the goalposts. This started by discussing Fascism and I would like to see some examples of differences between Mussolini and Stalin in terms of how they ran their nations (distinguish a difference between Fascism and Stalinism).
#15194296
ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure -- the Warsaw Pact was for defensive national and regional self-determination against the imperialist predations of the Allies, internationally, through NATO.



B0ycey wrote:
The problem is, Socialism in one country doesn't work under the Marxism principle of a world without borders. The Warsaw pact was to separate the SU from the rest of the world anyway. It didn't have much to do with preventing imperialism and was in fact an example of imperialism given it was formed to legitimise the SU within the taken Eastern European bloc. But I don't really want to move the goalposts.



No, the USSR was *not* imperialist because it was *defensive* in relation to the larger world of *Western imperialism*.



The US government supported right-wing governments and uprisings across the world, while the Soviet government funded communist parties and revolutions around the world. As nearly all the colonial states achieved independence in the period 1945–1960, they became Third World battlefields in the Cold War.



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



---


B0ycey wrote:
This started by discussing Fascism and I would like to see some examples of differences between Mussolini and Stalin in terms of how they ran their nations (distinguish a difference between Fascism and Stalinism).



Go ahead and make whatever arguments you want here -- I already addressed how Stalinism was geopolitically *defensive*, while fascism was *imperialist* and predatory, internationally.
#15194298
ckaihatsu wrote:Go ahead and make whatever arguments you want here -- I already addressed how Stalinism was geopolitically *defensive*, while fascism was *imperialist* and predatory, internationally.


My argument is Stalin was a dictator, authoritarian, ultranationalistic, oppressive leader. Or in laymen a Fascist. It really is that clear. Besides, I haven't said everything he did was bad. But I definitely don't agree the Warsaw pact was solely a defensive act but to consolidate territories in any case (Imperialism). Kind of like the Berlin War. :hmm:
#15194300
B0ycey wrote:
My argument is Stalin was a dictator, authoritarian, ultranationalistic, oppressive leader. Or in laymen's terms, a Fascist.



That's Right wing nonsense, he was a lot of things, but he wasn't a Fascist.

"Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy,[3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. Opposed to anarchism, democracy, liberalism, and Marxism, fascism is placed on the far right-wing within the traditional left–right spectrum.

Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky (national economic self-sufficiency) through protectionist and economic interventionist policies.[12] The extreme authoritarianism and nationalism of fascism often manifests a belief in racial purity or a master race, usually synthesized with some variant of racism or bigotry of a demonized "Other"; the idea of racial purity has motivated fascist regimes to commit massacres, forced sterilizations, genocides, mass killings, or forced deportations against a perceived "Other" "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
#15194301
B0ycey wrote:
My argument is Stalin was a dictator, authoritarian, ultranationalistic, oppressive leader. Or in laymen a Fascist. It really is that clear. Besides, I haven't said everything he did was bad. But I definitely don't agree the Warsaw pact was solely a defensive act but to consolidate territories in any case (Imperialism). Kind of like the Berlin War. :hmm:



The U.S. / NATO *started* it:



The first phase of the Cold War began shortly after the end of the Second World War in 1945. The United States and its allies created the NATO military alliance in 1949 in the apprehension of a Soviet attack and termed their global policy against Soviet influence containment. The Soviet Union formed the Warsaw Pact in 1955 in response to NATO. Major crises of this phase included the 1948–49 Berlin Blockade, the 1927–1949 Chinese Civil War, the 1950–1953 Korean War, the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, the 1956 Suez Crisis, the Berlin Crisis of 1961 and the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. The US and the USSR competed for influence in Latin America, the Middle East, and the decolonizing states of Africa and Asia.



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



That makes Stalin a geopolitically-left-wing nationalist 'strongman', but *not* an imperialist-right-wing-type 'dictator' or 'fascist'.
#15194303
ckaihatsu wrote:The U.S. / NATO *started* it:


Perhaps it was a reaction. It still doesn't explain the land grab.

That makes Stalin a geopolitically-left-wing nationalist 'strongman', but *not* an imperialist-right-wing-type 'dictator' or 'fascist'.


Well he was a dictator given there was no opposition. But really we are getting back to distinguishing ideologies by the term left and right again aren't we. Clearly we have a horseshoe effect going on here. The truth is you identify to a movement (Marxism) and will excuse anything as long as it identifies to the side of the political spectrum you identify with. It doesn't matter whether Stalin ran the country like Mussolini or not.

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, man to pig and pig to man again. But really it was impossible to tell which was which"
#15194304
wat0n wrote:
Why are you ignoring that NATO itself was a response to Soviet actions like the coup in Czechoslovakia and the blockade of Berlin?



No, the anti-USSR Cold War *preceded* those subsequent events:



[T]he US government dropped its atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the last days of the war, despite previous signs that the Japanese government was ready to surrender. This ensured that the surrender took place before Russian troops, advancing rapidly across Japanese-occupied Manchuria, could give Russia any real say in what happened in post-war Japan. Hiroshima and Nagasaki also brought home in the most horrific manner the US’s capacity to exercise global dominance.



Harman, _People's History of the World_, p. 527



---



Its largest military engagement was the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in August 1968



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact
#15194306
B0ycey wrote:
Perhaps it was a reaction. It still doesn't explain the land grab.



'Land grab' -- ?

The U.S. had just dropped *two atomic bombs* -- that's the absolute *height* of military aggression in *all* of human history. Stalin's response was to *consolidate* geopolitically (Warsaw Pact), which is certainly understandable given that historical context.


B0ycey wrote:
Well he was a dictator given there was no opposition. But really we are getting back to distinguishing ideologies by the term left and right again aren't we.



Why *shouldn't* we look at the respective parties' politics, when they each respectively wielded actual *state power* -- ? (NATO vs. Warsaw Pact)

Do you really think that (left-wing, right-wing) political *ideology* and *intention* has no bearing in this kind of (geopolitical) situation -- !


B0ycey wrote:
Clearly we have a horseshoe effect going on here. The truth is you identify to a movement (Marxism) and will excuse anything as long as it identifies to the side of the political spectrum you identify with.



*Bullshit.*

How *dare* you. That's a *false* imputation. I already covered this on this thread, anyway:


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'll go by Harman's treatment on this one:


[T]he most sterile form of Stalinist ideology was imposed in Eastern Europe, with prisons and labour camps for anyone who objected.

The two blocs were quickly organised into rival military alliances, NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and to a large extent cut off from one other economically. The US banned a massive range of ‘strategic’ exports to the Eastern bloc, while within it Russia insisted on ‘the unreserved subordination of politics, economics and ideological activity to the needs of the bloc as a whole’.268

Military expenditure on both sides leapt to heights unprecedented in peacetime, reaching about 20 percent of US national output and up to 40 percent of Russia’s smaller output. Russia built secret cities to develop an atom bomb to rival the US, while the US developed the H-bomb—100 times more destructive than the atom bomb—and maintained a fleet of armed nuclear bombers permanently in flight. It was not long before the combined arsenals of the two superpowers were enough to destroy the world many times over. Yet generals on both sides played war games which assumed the use of these weapons.

Harman, _People's History of the World_, p. 546



---


B0ycey wrote:
It doesn't matter whether Stalin ran the country like Mussolini or not.



You're getting desperate. You just made a spurious comparison without providing any supporting evidence -- a baseless claim. The ball's still in your court on this one.


B0ycey wrote:
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, man to pig and pig to man again. But really it was impossible to tell which was which"



Fun.
#15194308
@ckaihatsu, you are getting desperate by trying to tie two atomic bombs being dropped on Japan as a reason why the Soviet Union wanted to gain territorial advantage in Europe. But this is getting boring now. I could discuss, Holdomor, Gulags, surveillance, control, dictatorship, suppression and all the other things Stalin did that Mussolini did, but why bother. You will just be presented me with freshly edited Wikipedia posts like you always do. I have explained why Stalin was a Soviet Fascist, which you first quoted. Don't agree, don't care. But at least try and find some differences from the usual, "well one was for the people and the other was for imperialism" as if Italy was taking over the world at that point. :roll:
Last edited by B0ycey on 13 Oct 2021 22:06, edited 1 time in total.
#15194311
wat0n wrote:
Lol, so according to you the US attacked the Soviets by bombing Japan? Nonsense.



The Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviets was *already* underway, even *before* the two weapons-of-mass-destruction atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki:



[The] British scientist P. M. S. Blackett suggested (Fear, War, and the Bomb), that the United States was anxious to drop the bomb before the Russians entered the war against Japan?

The Russians had secretly agreed (they were officially not at war with Japan) they would come into the war ninety days after the end of the European war. That turned out to be May 8, and so, on August 8, the Russians were due to declare war on Japan, But by then the big bomb had been dropped, and the next day a second one would be dropped on Nagasaki; the Japanese would surrender to the United States, not the Russians, and the United States would be the occupier of postwar Japan. In other words, Blackett says, the dropping of the bomb was "the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia.. .." Blackett is supported by American historian Gar Alperovitz (Atomic Diplomacy), who notes a diary entry for July 28, 1945, by Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, describing Secretary of State James F. Byrnes as "most anxious to get the Japanese affair over with before the Russians got in."



https://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon ... eswar.html
#15194312
B0ycey wrote:
@ckaihatsu, you are getting desperate by trying to tie two atomic bombs being dropped on Japan as a reason why the Soviet Union wanted to gain territorial advantage in Europe. But this is getting boring now. I could discuss, Holdomor, Gulags, surveillance, control, dictatorship, suppression and all the other things Stalin did that Mussolini did, but why bother. You will just be presented me with freshly edited Wikipedia posts like you always do. I have explained why Stalin was a Soviet Fascist, which you first quoted. Don't agree, don't care. But at least try and find some differenced from the usual, "well one was for the people and the other was for imperialism" as if Italy was taking over the world at that point. :roll:



Again, you're too content to -- ironically -- ignore *politics* here, or the 'motivations' / interests / ideology of each respective party.

I never said that Stalin was 'for the people'.



Italian Ethiopia (in Italian: Etiopia italiana), also known as the Italian Empire of Ethiopia,[1] was the territory of the Ethiopian Empire which was occupied by Italy for approximately five years.[2] Italian Ethiopia was not an administrative entity, but the formal name of the former territory of the Ethiopian Empire which now constituted the Governorates of Amhara, Harar, Galla-Sidamo, and Scioa after the establishment of Italian East Africa (Africa Orientale Italiana, AOI).[3]

After the Second Italo-Ethiopian War, in which Ethiopia was occupied by Fascist Italy, the Ethiopian territories were proclaimed part of Italian East Africa (AOI) in 1936, with the capital of the AOI being established in Addis Ababa[4] and Victor Emmanuel III proclaiming himself Emperor of Ethiopia. Fighting between Ethiopian and Italian regular forces continued until February 1937, and afterward guerrilla fighting persisted until 1939.[5][6]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Ethiopia
#15194314
ckaihatsu wrote:The Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviets was *already* underway, even *before* the two weapons-of-mass-destruction atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki:


Then the Soviets attacked first by invading Berlin before the other allies could. I mean, if you want to stretch the meaning of the term that much...
#15194315
ckaihatsu wrote:
The Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviets was *already* underway, even *before* the two weapons-of-mass-destruction atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki:



wat0n wrote:
Then the Soviets attacked first by invading Berlin before the other allies could. I mean, if you want to stretch the meaning of the term that much...



No, before the Berlin blockade there were the two atomic bombings, to prevent Russia from controlling Japan, post-war:



[A] diary entry for July 28, 1945, by Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, describing Secretary of State James F. Byrnes as "most anxious to get the Japanese affair over with before the Russians got in."



https://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon ... eswar.html
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 12
Tribalism

We would be living in feudal societies/dictatorshi[…]

Prepare for fascism

Let us all remember that the first effective COVID[…]

The Wuhan virus—how are we doing?

That is correct. Most of our politicians are sha[…]

Ten Lies that Humanity is addicted to

Oh yes I did. In fact, I listened to it many time[…]