Capitalism's unspoken holocaust

by confuzzled dude Sat Apr 26, 2014 9:53 am

"Wherever one stands ideologically on the benefits or pitfalls of modern capitalism, the expansion of global capital since 1945 was not a wondrous process of economic inevitability. It was tied directly to military interventions in over 70 developing nations designed to create the political conditions conducive to markets that would be 'open' to western capital penetration, and thus domination of local resources and labour."

In his landmark book, Intervention and Revolution: The United States in the Third World (1968), the late former State Department official Richard J Barnet observed:

"Even the word 'communist' has been applied so liberally and so loosely to revolutionary or radical regimes that any government risks being so characterised if it adopts one or more of the following policies which the State Department finds distasteful: nationalisation of private industry, particularly foreign-owned corporations, radical land reform, autarchic trade policies, acceptance of Soviet or Chinese aid, insistence upon following an anti-American or non-aligned foreign policy, among others."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/apr/24/tony-blair-islamism-smokescreen-blood-oil-empire

-> Author argues that "that the expansion of global capitalism was and remains a deeply violent process.", which might be debatable but the crux of his point cannot be overruled completely.

by truthbetold Sat Apr 26, 2014 10:11 am

Cd

What does your title mean? Holocaust means something. How is that term relevant in this context?

by confuzzled dude Sat Apr 26, 2014 10:46 am

truthbetold wrote:Cd

What does your title mean? Holocaust means something. How is that term relevant in this context?

It's not my title. It is subtitle of the section, from that article that I chose to highlight.

by truthbetold Sat Apr 26, 2014 10:51 am

There is not much in that article to make sense. Since you posted would agree that it is an accurate title? If yes, please read my question? If you disagree with the title, will you state the same?

by confuzzled dude Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:04 am

truthbetold wrote:There is not much in that article to make sense. Since you posted would agree that it is an accurate title? If yes, please read my question? If you disagree with the title, will you state the same?

I think that is an apt title, operation Iraqi freedom is a fine example of author's point about creating political conditions conducive to their markets via military interventions and tagging everyone communist (I guess terrorist is the latest trend/buzz word) that disagree with their notion.

by truthbetold Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:08 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
truthbetold wrote:There is not much in that article to make sense. Since you posted would agree that it is an accurate title? If yes, please read my question? If you disagree with the title, will you state the same?
I think that is an apt title, operation Iraqi freedom is a fine example of author's point about creating political conditions conducive to their markets via military interventions and tagging everyone communist (I guess terrorist is the latest trend/buzz word) that disagree with their notion.

What exactly was the capitalist principle involved in Iraq invasion?

by confuzzled dude Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:17 am

truthbetold wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
truthbetold wrote:There is not much in that article to make sense. Since you posted would agree that it is an accurate title? If yes, please read my question? If you disagree with the title, will you state the same?
I think that is an apt title, operation Iraqi freedom is a fine example of author's point about creating political conditions conducive to their markets via military interventions and tagging everyone communist (I guess terrorist is the latest trend/buzz word) that disagree with their notion.
What exactly was the capitalist principle involved in Iraq invasion?

What you think Dubya & his cronies had in their minds when they said "Installing Democracy"? They may have failed on that front, of expanding capitalism to Iraq but they did successfully export it by helping Haliburtons of the world.

by truthbetold Sat Apr 26, 2014 12:55 pm

Do not confuse stupid politics and crony corruption with capitalism.

Since you are beating around the bush, let me ask this question.

Holocaust is an example where a section of people were identified to be persecuted and violence took place in a narrow period of time.

Wars were fought for very long time and caused immense loss of life. But no body in their right mind would compare war to holocaust. It is a particular type of brutality different from war and is likely conducted within normal borders of a nation. Some proper examples are Pakistan sunni attempts to wipe away Bohra muslims, Hindus and even shia muslims. The current turmoil in Sudan in which both sides engage in wiping out other belief. Nigerian chirstian /muslim conflict is a religious war because of limited govt involvement.

by confuzzled dude Sat Apr 26, 2014 1:15 pm

truthbetold wrote:Do not confuse stupid politics and crony corruption with capitalism.

Since you are beating around the bush, let me ask this question.

Holocaust is an example where a section of people were identified to be persecuted and violence took place in a narrow period of time.

Wars were fought for very long time and caused immense loss of life. But no body in their right mind would compare war to holocaust. It is a particular type of brutality different from war and is likely conducted within normal borders of a nation. Some proper examples are Pakistan sunni attempts to wipe away Bohra muslims, Hindus and even shia muslims. The current turmoil in Sudan in which both sides engage in wiping out other belief. Nigerian chirstian /muslim conflict is a religious war because of limited govt involvement.

I don't think author was comparing holocaust with every war rather he provided a crystal clear argument about his theory i.e. anybody that is not in agreement with America's capitalistic bent is persecuted as communist and the expansion of capitalism has been a violent process, for the most part. Look at all the wars fought in the last century, and how the capitalism has been expanded to far east.

by truthbetold Sat Apr 26, 2014 1:28 pm

Wars are fought between nations. During war people get killed. Neither side has any obligation to the other side not to kill people. The purpose of war is to kill , to subjugate.

Holocaust was a phenomena within a nation. Nation with laws that are supposed to protect its people. It is directed at a group of unarmed people. So to compare a war to a holocaust is meaningless and nonsensical.

Wars and holocaust are two completely different ways of causing misery.

by confuzzled dude Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:04 pm

truthbetold wrote:Wars are fought between nations. During war people get killed. Neither side has any obligation to the other side not to kill people. The purpose of war is to kill , to subjugate.

Holocaust was a phenomena within a nation. Nation with laws that are supposed to protect its people. It is directed at a group of unarmed people. So to compare a war to a holocaust is meaningless and nonsensical.

Wars and holocaust are two completely different ways of causing misery.

Once again, nobody is comparing wars with holocaust; wars were the means to spread capitalism (the very trait that commie Russia is blamed for), and the behavior encompassing this grand expansion process of global capital is what the author chose to term as "Capitalism's unspoken holocaust"

by truthbetold Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:07 pm

Once again wars cause mass loss of life. What is the point of qualifyingit with holocaust which is a much slower process of killing.

by Kris Sat Apr 26, 2014 5:32 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Wars are fought between nations. During war people get killed. Neither side has any obligation to the other side not to kill people. The purpose of war is to kill , to subjugate.

Holocaust was a phenomena within a nation. Nation with laws that are supposed to protect its people. It is directed at a group of unarmed people. So to compare a war to a holocaust is meaningless and nonsensical.

Wars and holocaust are two completely different ways of causing misery.
Once again, nobody is comparing wars with holocaust; wars were the means to spread capitalism (the very trait that commie Russia is blamed for), and the behavior encompassing this grand expansion process of global capital is what the author chose to term as "Capitalism's unspoken holocaust"

>>>This is a strange thesis. If capitalism unleashes energy and wealth, why is it seen as something that has to be imposed on a people by the power of the gun?

by confuzzled dude Sat Apr 26, 2014 6:37 pm

Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Wars are fought between nations. During war people get killed. Neither side has any obligation to the other side not to kill people. The purpose of war is to kill , to subjugate.

Holocaust was a phenomena within a nation. Nation with laws that are supposed to protect its people. It is directed at a group of unarmed people. So to compare a war to a holocaust is meaningless and nonsensical.

Wars and holocaust are two completely different ways of causing misery.
Once again, nobody is comparing wars with holocaust; wars were the means to spread capitalism (the very trait that commie Russia is blamed for), and the behavior encompassing this grand expansion process of global capital is what the author chose to term as "Capitalism's unspoken holocaust"
>>>This is a strange thesis. If capitalism unleashes energy and wealth, why is it seen as something that has to be imposed on a people by the power of the gun?

-> perhaps businesses cannot penetrate into those countries that are not open to capitalism by themselves; remember America has been practicing crony capitalism for a while now.

The US is an oligarchy, study concludes:
"A new study by researchers from Princeton and Northwestern Universities finds that America's government policies reflect the wishes of the rich and of powerful interest groups, rather than the wishes of the majority of citizens.

After sifting through nearly 1,800 US policies enacted in that period and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile) and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the United States is dominated by its economic elite

The peer-reviewed study, which will be taught at these universities in September, says: "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

Researchers concluded that US government policies rarely align with the the preferences of the majority of Americans, but do favour special interests and lobbying organisations: "When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10769041/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.html

by truthbetold Sat Apr 26, 2014 7:01 pm

Cd

American capitalism is not perfect or its completely free market. No capitalist society is ever going to be a real free market. The power of lies with people who essentially seek some advantage in the market to make more profits for their capital.

But among all isms and variations of capitalism, the most successful one is in USA.

I do not know if you have heard it or not, the coutry that United states wanted to stop from going communist and went to war but turned red anyway is now seeking ways to create a small spark of capitalist enterprise within its confines. Did you know of any war that caused Vietnam to cozy upto USA? So does Cambodia.

by confuzzled dude Sat Apr 26, 2014 7:37 pm

truthbetold wrote:Cd

American capitalism is not perfect or its completely free market. No capitalist society is ever going to be a real free market. The power of lies with people who essentially seek some advantage in the market to make more profits for their capital.

But among all isms and variations of capitalism, the most successful one is in USA.

I do not know if you have heard it or not, the coutry that United states wanted to stop from going communist and went to war but turned red anyway is now seeking ways to create a small spark of capitalist enterprise within its confines. Did you know of any war that caused Vietnam to cozy upto USA? So does Cambodia.

I think your narrative of communism fits very much into the definition provided by Richard Barnet (which was in the original post).

by truthbetold Sat Apr 26, 2014 8:01 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Cd

American capitalism is not perfect or its completely free market. No capitalist society is ever going to be a real free market. The power of lies with people who essentially seek some advantage in the market to make more profits for their capital.

But among all isms and variations of capitalism, the most successful one is in USA.

I do not know if you have heard it or not, the coutry that United states wanted to stop from going communist and went to war but turned red anyway is now seeking ways to create a small spark of capitalist enterprise within its confines. Did you know of any war that caused Vietnam to cozy upto USA? So does Cambodia.
I think your narrative of communism fits very much into the definition provided by Richard Barnet (which was in the original post).

Cd,

I need little more help in understanding what am I saying? Did I characterize vietnam incorrectly as a communist country? or did I characterize vietnam's current activities incorrectly as capitalist?

by confuzzled dude Sat Apr 26, 2014 8:05 pm

truthbetold wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Cd

American capitalism is not perfect or its completely free market. No capitalist society is ever going to be a real free market. The power of lies with people who essentially seek some advantage in the market to make more profits for their capital.

But among all isms and variations of capitalism, the most successful one is in USA.

I do not know if you have heard it or not, the coutry that United states wanted to stop from going communist and went to war but turned red anyway is now seeking ways to create a small spark of capitalist enterprise within its confines. Did you know of any war that caused Vietnam to cozy upto USA? So does Cambodia.
I think your narrative of communism fits very much into the definition provided by Richard Barnet (which was in the original post).
Cd,

I need little more help in understanding what am I saying? Did I characterize vietnam incorrectly as a communist country? or did I characterize vietnam's current activities incorrectly as capitalist?

Was India a communist country before liberalization?

by Merlot Daruwala Sat Apr 26, 2014 8:14 pm

truthbetold wrote:Wars are fought between nations. During war people get killed. Neither side has any obligation to the other side not to kill people. The purpose of war is to kill , to subjugate.

Holocaust was a phenomena within a nation. Nation with laws that are supposed to protect its people. It is directed at a group of unarmed people. So to compare a war to a holocaust is meaningless and nonsensical.

Wars and holocaust are two completely different ways of causing misery.

TBT, holocaust doesn't just refer to the genocide of Jews. Any state-sponsored mass murder qualifies. The killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq, for example. The US is notorious for this. Whether it is the atomic bombing of Japan or the unilateral invasions in Latin America, Iraq etc for commercial purposes, in each instance, it was (a) unilateral, and hence, not a "war" and (b) resulted in mass murders of civilians. So the title is quite apt.

by truthbetold Sat Apr 26, 2014 8:35 pm

Merlot,

I am aware of the origin of the word holocaust. But the author is using to incite the image of jewish extermination in this context. The other point I am making is author is already accusing capitalism of wars to advance its philosophy. Jewish holocaust is considered more barbaric because it happened within the confines of a nation to a group of people that were supposed to be protected by law of the state.

In actual capitalist invasions they were going to foreign lands and loss of life is expected. Iraq war is a war and it will result in loss of life. Hence the question on the usage of word "holocaust".

by Merlot Daruwala Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:29 am

truthbetold wrote:Merlot,

I am aware of the origin of the word holocaust. But the author is using to incite the image of jewish extermination in this context. The other point I am making is author is already accusing capitalism of wars to advance its philosophy. Jewish holocaust is considered more barbaric because it happened within the confines of a nation to a group of people that were supposed to be protected by law of the state. .

Your earlier posts were about how the word holocaust was being incorrectly used here. If you are now aware of the broader meaning, that's good for you.

truthbetold wrote:In actual capitalist invasions they were going to foreign lands and loss of life is expected. Iraq war is a war and it will result in loss of life. Hence the question on the usage of word "holocaust".

It takes two to make war. Unilateral invasions are not war, any more than Saddam's annexation of Kuwait could be called a "war". It ill-becomes you to say glib things like "loss of life is to be expected". Why should a Iraqi person minding his own business in his country expect to lose his life for no fault of his? And when hundreds of thousands of them do lose their lives due to the actions of the US military, it *is* a holocaust. The Jews don't have any special claim on the word, no matter how inhuman the treatment meted out to them.

by nevada Sun Apr 27, 2014 11:44 am

And here is another byproduct of capitalistic wars of choice - soldiers turned deadbeat dads turned guilt ridden old men.

Thousands of children were fathered by American servicemen during the Vietnam war. Now in their 60s and 70s, some veterans are desperate to find the sons and daughters they have never known.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:41 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:"Wherever one stands ideologically on the benefits or pitfalls of modern capitalism, the expansion of global capital since 1945 was not a wondrous process of economic inevitability. It was tied directly to military interventions in over 70 developing nations designed to create the political conditions conducive to markets that would be 'open' to western capital penetration, and thus domination of local resources and labour."

-> Author argues that "that the expansion of global capitalism was and remains a deeply violent process.", which might be debatable but the crux of his point cannot be overruled completely.

And you think the Ruskies were playing all objectively ?

Their support of Sadat, Palestinians and Arabs and protecting them with their veto whenever their atrocities were discussed anywhere, supplying the tyrants with their weapons...

Russians were more ruthless - just that their style was different.

by confuzzled dude Sun Apr 27, 2014 6:11 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:"Wherever one stands ideologically on the benefits or pitfalls of modern capitalism, the expansion of global capital since 1945 was not a wondrous process of economic inevitability. It was tied directly to military interventions in over 70 developing nations designed to create the political conditions conducive to markets that would be 'open' to western capital penetration, and thus domination of local resources and labour."

-> Author argues that "that the expansion of global capitalism was and remains a deeply violent process.", which might be debatable but the crux of his point cannot be overruled completely.

And you think the Ruskies were playing all objectively ?

Their support of Sadat, Palestinians and Arabs and protecting them with their veto whenever their atrocities were discussed anywhere, supplying the tyrants with their weapons...

Russians were more ruthless - just that their style was different.

https://such.forumotion.com/t22669-capitalism-s-unspoken-holocaust#152974

by Sponsored content

Hitskin.com

Capitalism's unspoken holocaust

Capitalism's unspoken holocaust

Re: Capitalism's unspoken holocaust

Re: Capitalism's unspoken holocaust

Re: Capitalism's unspoken holocaust

Re: Capitalism's unspoken holocaust

Re: Capitalism's unspoken holocaust

Re: Capitalism's unspoken holocaust

Re: Capitalism's unspoken holocaust

Re: Capitalism's unspoken holocaust

Re: Capitalism's unspoken holocaust

Re: Capitalism's unspoken holocaust

Re: Capitalism's unspoken holocaust

Re: Capitalism's unspoken holocaust

Re: Capitalism's unspoken holocaust

Re: Capitalism's unspoken holocaust

Re: Capitalism's unspoken holocaust

Re: Capitalism's unspoken holocaust

Re: Capitalism's unspoken holocaust

Re: Capitalism's unspoken holocaust

Re: Capitalism's unspoken holocaust

Re: Capitalism's unspoken holocaust

Re: Capitalism's unspoken holocaust

Re: Capitalism's unspoken holocaust

Re: Capitalism's unspoken holocaust

Re: Capitalism's unspoken holocaust