American Imperialism and Capitalism, a marriage yet to be undone

[Theodore Kurita]

This is my extended rant on United States Imperialism and it's ties with Gloabalization, Capitalism, and the Neoconservative movements of today.

Here it is:

There are many things that American Imperialism has affected. There is cultural imperialism, and the conquering of nations. Both have lead to a steady, but sure decline in society as a whole. “Imperialism is meant to serve the needs of a ruling class much more than a nation.” (Foster 1) This comes from political analyst John Bellamy Foster. He specializes in the study of modern imperialism, and is an editor for many syndicated socialist magazines. Modern Imperialism, as we know it today, came from neoconservatives that have nothing but their own corporate interests at steak. There are many criticizers of American Imperialism. Imperialism as we know it today started with the Vietnam War, and is still on the rise today. American Imperialism has managed to wreck foreign policy, and the world economy, as well as creating the world’s first superpower.
The question of whether the United States in engaging in imperialist expansion has allowed itself to become open to the particular rants and the sociopolitical helm of America is not new. “Is the [Vietnam] war part of a more general and consistent scheme of United States external policies, or is it an aberration of a particular group of men in power?” (2) The answer is that although there were particular individuals in power who were in charge of this process. This reflected deep tendencies within U.S. foreign policy that had roots in capitalism. In what was to emerge as the most important account of American imperialism in the 1960s, Swomley set about uncovering the underlying economic, political, and military forces governing U.S. foreign policy. The primary excuse the U.S. came up with to explain all of this was the, “containment” of communism (Swomley 131). Swomley is a retired minister who wrote many books on Imperialism and United States policy, he currently teaches Christian Ethics at St. Paul School of Theology in Kansas City, Missouri. The scale and ferocity of the war seemed to eliminate any attempt to explain it in terms of mere containment, since China and the USSR had not shown any imperialistic tendencies. Swomley rejected both the dominant tendency in the United States to see U.S. interventions in the third world as a product of the Cold War, and the liberal liking to see the war as a peculiarity of a Texan president and the advisers surrounding him (Swomley 10). Instead historical analysis was required.
There are major differences between old and new forms of American Imperialism. The imperialism of the late nineteenth century was caused by two factors. One, the breakdown of British Global influence, and two, the growth of monopoly (aristocratic) capitalism, or dominated by large firms who were bent on centralization and concentration of production (Hadar 3). Leon T. Hadar is a Palestinian Political Scientist who is currently working on new initiatives to bring peace between Israel and Palestine. Beyond these features that distinguished what Lenin referred to as the stage of imperialism (which he said could be described in its “smallest possible definition” as “the monopoly stage of capitalism”), there are a number of other elements that have to be considered (Foster 5). Capitalism is of course a system uniquely determined by a drive to accumulate, which accepts no bounds to its expansion. Capitalism is on the one hand an expanding world economy characterized by a process that we now call globalization, while on the other hand it is divided politically into numerous competing nation-states (Foster 3). Further, the system is extremely polarized. Capitalism, from its beginning in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and even more so in the monopoly stage, capital within each nation-state at the center of the system is driven by a need to control access to raw materials and labor in the outlying areas (Foster 3). In the monopoly stage of capitalism, moreover, nation-states and their corporations strive to keep as much of the world economy as possible open to their own investments, though not necessarily to those of their competitors (Thomson 2). This comes from Political Scientist/Analyst James C. Thomson who is still active in the fight against an Authoritarian United States Imperialistic state that exists today. This competition over spheres of accumulation in a capitalistic system creates a jumble for control of various parts of the periphery. The most famous example of this was the scramble for Africa in the late nineteenth century in which all of the Western European powers of the day took part.
Imperialism evolved beyond this stage after World War 2 with significant decolonization of foreign lands by both the United States and Great Britain. The most important of these was the United States replacing British influence over the capitalist world economy. The other was the existence of the Soviet Union, creating space for revolutionary movements in the third world, and helping to bring the leading capitalist powers into a Cold War military alliance reinforcing U.S. influence (8). The United States utilized its influential position to establish the Bretton Woods institutions—the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank—with the intention of consolidating the economic control exercised by the center states, and the United States in particular, over the periphery and hence the entire world market (10).
In Swomley’s conception, the existence of U.S. influence did not bring to an end the competition between capitalist nations throughout the world (Swomley 200). Influence was always understood by realistic analysts as historically fleeting, despite the constant references to the “American century.” (Foster 16) The uneven development of capitalism meant continual interimperialist rivalry, even if somewhat hidden at times, “Antagonism between unevenly developing industrial centers,” he wrote, “is the hub of the imperialist wheel” (16).
U.S. militarism was not simply, even not mainly, a product of the Cold War competition with the Soviet Union (50). Militarism had deeper roots in need of the United States, by keeping the United States influential world capitalist power via keeping doors open for foreign investment by force if necessary. During the same period, the United States was using its power where possible to advance the needs of its own corporations. The best example of this is in Latin America where the United States dominance was unquestioned by other great powers in the world. Not only did the United States exercise this military role on numerous occasions throughout the periphery in the post–Second World War period, but during that period it was also able to justify this as part of the fight against Communism. Militarism, associated with this role as global influence and alliance-leader, came to permeate all aspects of accumulation in the United States (28). All this was introduced so that the term “military-industrial complex,” introduced by Eisenhower in his departing speech as president, was an understatement (29). Already, in his day, there was no major center of accumulation in the United States that was not also a major center of military production. Military production helped prop up the entire economic power in the United States, and was a factor holding off economic stagnation.
Middle East Policy was a result of the Cold War, and U.S. imperialism. Nothing in fact so reveals the new age of imperialism as the expansion of the U.S. Empire in the critical oil regions of the Middle East and the Caspian Sea Basin (35). U.S. power in the Persian Gulf was limited throughout the Cold War years as a result of the Soviet presence. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 was the largest defeat of U.S. imperialism (which had relied on Shah of Iran as a base in the region) since the Vietnam War (40). Prior to 1989 and the breakup of the Soviet Union, a major U.S. war in the region would have been completely unthinkable at the time of the existence of the Soviet Union. This left U.S. dominance in the region largely constrained to countries like Yemen and Kuwait. The 1991 Gulf War, which was carried out by the United States with Soviet agreement, thus marked the beginning of a new age of U.S. imperialism and expansion of U.S. global power (38). It is no mere accident that the weakening of the Soviet Union led almost immediately to a full-scale U.S. military intervention in the region that was the key to controlling world oil. “Oil is the most critical global resource, and thus crucial to any strategy of global domination.” (30)
It is essential to realize that in 1991, when the Gulf War occurred, the Soviet Union was greatly damaged by United States Policy. “But it was not dead (that was to occur later on in the year) and there was still the possibility, although still dim, of a coup in the Soviet Union and a turn around in Soviet affairs that were greatly unfavorable to the United States” (35) During this time though, the United States had lost some economic ground to some of its major competitors and it was concluded that its economic influence has seriously declined. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States and other foreign powers were unsure on how to proceed, in economics, and in policy.
During the first Gulf War, United States interests were split. Some believed that the United States should go on and invade Iraq. Others thought that an invasion and occupation of Iraq was at the time, not feasible (68). Over the next decade, the dominant topic of discussion in U.S. foreign policy was how to exploit the fact that it was the sole superpower. The discussion of unipolarity and unilateralism were soon brought together with open discussions on U.S. influence, empire, and imperialism.
By the end of the 1990s, discussions of U.S. empire and imperialism cropped up not so much on the left as in liberal and neoconservative circles, where imperial ambitions were openly proclaimed.* Following September 2001, the disposition to carry out massive military interventions to promote the expansion of U.S. power, in which the United States would once again put its “boots on the ground,” as neoconservative pundit Max Boot expressed it in his book on The Savage Wars of Peaceon early U.S. imperialist wars, became part of the dominant ruling class consensus. The administration’s National Security Strategy statement, transmitted to Congress in September 2002, promoted the principle of preemptive attacks against potential enemies and declared: “The United States must and will maintain the capability to defeat any attempt by an enemy...to impose its will on the United States, our allies, or our friends....Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in the hope of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.” (Foster 50)
The new age of U.S. imperialism will generate its own contradictions,
among the attempts by other major powers to assert their influence, resorting to similar means, and all sorts of strategies by weaker states and non-state actors to engage in "asymmetric" forms of warfare (Foster 5). Given the unprecedented destructiveness of contemporary weapons, which are diffused ever more widely, the consequences for the population of the world could well be devastating beyond anything ever before witnessed (Hadar 4)
Rather than generating a new “Pax Americana” the United States may be paving the way to new global holocausts (Swomley 201). The greatest hope in these dire circumstances lies in a rising tide. The revolt from below, both in the United States and globally, the growth of the antiglobalization movement was succeeded in February 2003 by the largest global wave of antiwar protests in human history (Foster 10). Never before has the world’s population risen up so quickly and in such massive numbers in the attempt to stop an imperialist war (Swomley 29). The new age of imperialism is also a new age of revolt against the capitalistic and imperialistic war machine that drives our nation. The “Vietnam Syndrome,” which worried the strategic planners of the imperial and capitalistic fray for decades, now only has left a legacy within the United States. “Vietnam Syndrome,” has been coupled this time around with an “Empire Syndrome” on a huge global scale. This, more than anything else, makes it clear that the strategy of the ruling class (neoconservatives) of America to expand the American Empire cannot and will not succeed in the long run. This will prove to be its own undoing.






































Works Cited


Foster, John Bellam, “The New Age of Imperialism.” Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine 55.3 (2003) 1-14. Academic Search Premier. Ebsco. Lee’s Summit North Library Media Center, Lee’s Summit. 04 Dec. 2003. Keyword American Imperialism and Iraq

Hadar, Leon T. “THE NEW AMERICAN IMPERIALISM VS. THE OLD EUROPE.” Journal of Palestine Studies 32.4 (2003) 74. Academic Search Premier. Ebsco. Lee’s Summit North Library Media Center, Lee’s Summit. 04 Dec. 2003. Keyword American Imperialism

Steinmetz, George. “The State of Emergency and the Revival of American Imperialism: Towards an Authoritarian Post-Fordism.” Public Culture. 15.2 (2003) 323. Academic Search Premier. Ebsco. Lee’s Summit North Library Media Center, Lee’s Summit. 04 Dec. 2003. Keyword: American Imperialism

Swomley, John M. American Empire: The Political Ethics of Twentieth-Century
Conquest. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1970.

Thomson, James C. “How Could Vietnam Happen? – An Autopsy” The Atlantic 12 April 1968. 221; 47-53

[American]

Ever wonder what it's like to get a bill in your mailbox, and you HAVE to pay it or else you and your family are in BIG trouble?


I am sure you never will.

[clk]

Originally posted by American
Ever wonder what it's like to get a bill in your mailbox, and you HAVE to pay it or else you and your family are in BIG trouble?


I am sure you never will.

Awww, American is mad because he didn't graduate from high school. Don't worry, American. Keep working hard, and maybe you can finally pass the test that gets you your GED.

[American]

Originally posted by clk

Awww, American is mad because he didn't graduate from high school. Don't worry, American. Keep working hard, and maybe you can finally pass the test that gets you your GED.


Trashing the GED... way to make a thousand poor single mothers cry, d!ckhead.

[clk]

Originally posted by American



Trashing the GED... way to make a thousand poor single mothers cry, d!ckhead.

Oh, you mean that GED. I thought you were referring to the GED that tests your computer skills. You know, skills which would allow you to delete an embarrassing thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=32963)

Originally posted by American
I keep trying to delete this thread. Where's the "lock" button? I can't find it.


Please- STOP writing stuff now. DON'T post here anymore. DON'T.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
This is my extended rant on United States Imperialism and it's ties with Gloabalization, Capitalism, and the Neoconservative movements of today. *snip*

Are your trying to replace Malachi with length and content?

Honestly I have not read your rent yet. However, in order for there to be Imperialism there must be an Empire. That right there is not a good start for you, but I'll keep you posted on your mistakes.

[American]

Originally posted by clk


Oh, you mean that GED. I thought you were referring to the GED that tests your computer skills. You know, skills which would allow you to delete an embarrassing thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=32963)

http://www.gettingit.com/art/whoa/springfield10.gif
"Did you go to the Hollywood Upstairs Medical College, too?"

[clk]

Originally posted by American


http://www.gettingit.com/art/whoa/springfield10.gif
"Did you go to the Hollywood Upstairs Medical College, too?"

Actually, I went to Clown College. See below for more info.

[clk]

Originally posted by American


http://www.gettingit.com/art/whoa/springfield10.gif
"Did you go to the Hollywood Upstairs Medical College, too?"

I went to the Clown College of the Northeast. US News ranks it as the top clown college in the country.

[Suddenly]

Who rants with footnotes?

I've seen rants being passed off as essays, but this is the first time I have seen the converse.

A rant suggests an off the cuff take on something. This doesn't really qualify. I feel mildly cheated.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Who rants with footnotes?

I've seen rants being passed off as essays, but this is the first time I have seen the converse.

A rant suggests an off the cuff take on something. This doesn't really qualify. I feel mildly cheated.

Yeah, that's no rant. Looks like a college poli sci assignment.

[WildCat]

Nice "rant" against globalization Theodore. Also ironic, since I'll bet that the components of the computer you wrote it on were made in Taiwan, Malaysia, China and half a dozen other Asian countries. The vegetables you ate today were grown Mexico, the lumber in your house is from Canada, etc. etc.

All you really have to do to fight globalization is invent a time machine and live in the 1500's or earlier. You know, the good old days.

Or you could destroy every ship, airplane, automobile and the means to produce them. And destroy all communication infrastructure and devices.

Or (most likely option to work) become Amish or join some Luddite cult on an island somewhere.

All the anti-globalization movement is doing is sticking their collective fingers in an ever-crumbling dike. Drowning isn't far away. ;)

[Cain]

As a sympathetic reader, I did not care for that essay/rant. Ranting with footnotes is bad enough; ranting by saying Professor X claims Y is not ranting at all. If ranting only meant poor organization then, yeah, that's a rant.

Can you recommend a good article, essay or book by John Bellamy Foster on imperialism? He's an eco-Marxist, right? I've heard good things, and read a little bit of his stuff on the environment in _The Monthly Review_. It may have been a two part transcript of an address to Leftists in Germany.

_____________________________
Wildcat:

Also ironic, since I'll bet that the components of the computer you wrote it on were made in Taiwan, Malaysia, China and half a dozen other Asian countries. The vegetables you ate today were grown Mexico, the lumber in your house is from Canada, etc. etc.

:rolleyes:

You have a poor understanding of irony. Socialists are not opposed to a global economy. In fact, that was one of the first arguments against the Soviet Union's socialism-in-one-state experiment. Ever hear of the International Workingmen's Association?

It's a matter of how decisions for world economy are made. Do the people (peasants) of Bolivia have a say in managing their own affairs on par with, say, the people in Washington and New York?

Geez, and what's the excuse for why the United States can't join a world court? Why do so many people here despise the U.N.? Because those institutions undermine sovereignty?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Cain
As a sympathetic reader, I did not care for that essay/rant. Ranting with footnotes is bad enough; ranting by saying Professor X claims Y is not ranting at all. If ranting only meant poor organization then, yeah, that's a rant.

Can you recommend a good article, essay or book by John Bellamy Foster on imperialism? He's an eco-Marxist, right? I've heard good things, and read a little bit of his stuff on the environment in _The Monthly Review_. It may have been a two part transcript of an address to Leftists in Germany.

_____________________________
Wildcat:



:rolleyes:

You have a poor understanding of irony. Socialists are not opposed to a global economy. In fact, that was one of the first arguments against the Soviet Union's socialism-in-one-state experiment. Ever hear of the International Workingmen's Association?

It's a matter of how decisions for world economy are made. Do the people (peasants) of Bolivia have a say in managing their own affairs on par with, say, the people in Washington and New York?

Geez, and what's the excuse for why the United States can't join a world court? Why do so many people here despise the U.N.? Because those institutions undermine sovereignty?

I don't care for UN because it doesn't give a crap about individuals. It has utopian ideals at its core and assumes everyone will play nice. UN does a good job of protecting sovereignty of nation but as soon as the talk comes to how to help the people who actually live in those nations, the entire organization becomes useless.

Sure they might help supply some food here and there but they never tackle the problem of why those people are hungry in the first place. It’s not “evil capitalism” that is causing the problem, it’s dictators and monarchs who force their will upon the people through brutal oppression. Until UN finds a way to deal with that it will get no respect from me or those like me.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by Cain
As a sympathetic reader, I did not care for that essay/rant. Ranting with footnotes is bad enough; ranting by saying Professor X claims Y is not ranting at all. If ranting only meant poor organization then, yeah, that's a rant.

Can you recommend a good article, essay or book by John Bellamy Foster on imperialism? He's an eco-Marxist, right? I've heard good things, and read a little bit of his stuff on the environment in _The Monthly Review_. It may have been a two part transcript of an address to Leftists in Germany.

_____________________________
Wildcat:



:rolleyes:

You have a poor understanding of irony. Socialists are not opposed to a global economy. In fact, that was one of the first arguments against the Soviet Union's socialism-in-one-state experiment. Ever hear of the International Workingmen's Association?

It's a matter of how decisions for world economy are made. Do the people (peasants) of Bolivia have a say in managing their own affairs on par with, say, the people in Washington and New York?

Geez, and what's the excuse for why the United States can't join a world court? Why do so many people here despise the U.N.? Because those institutions undermine sovereignty?


I was stuck ranting with footnotes for one reason...

This is for an IB History Essay.

I like putting a Marxist spin on most of my essays, when it comes to history.

The reason I have so many f***ing footnotes is simple.

It has to meet the guidelines of the current "MLM" standards, which are updated every year.

To be honest, it is more of an essay.

The only reason I posted it was, I thought it would be a decent read.

Pointing out any factual errors would be of great help to me.

Thank you.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by American
Ever wonder what it's like to get a bill in your mailbox, and you HAVE to pay it or else you and your family are in BIG trouble?


I am sure you never will.


I hate to make an ad hominem here but...

THAT IS THE BIGGEST F***ING IDIOTIC STATEMENT THAT YOU HAVE MADE TOWARDS ME YOU FOOL!

A capatalistic system in its purest form opresses people.

And if you are suggesting that I am poor.

F*** YOU!

I am a middle upperclass citizen with a conscience when it comes to sociopolitical structures in society.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Cain

Wildcat:



:rolleyes:

You have a poor understanding of irony. Socialists are not opposed to a global economy. In fact, that was one of the first arguments against the Soviet Union's socialism-in-one-state experiment. Ever hear of the International Workingmen's Association?

It's a matter of how decisions for world economy are made. Do the people (peasants) of Bolivia have a say in managing their own affairs on par with, say, the people in Washington and New York?

Geez, and what's the excuse for why the United States can't join a world court? Why do so many people here despise the U.N.? Because those institutions undermine sovereignty?
I understand it quite well, thank you. Marxists are all for globalization, as long as it doesn't involve actual companies. But we can't all be farmers anymore Cain (you know, like in the 1860's, the heyday of your "International Workingmen's Association"). Oh, and it is ironic, since today's Marxist by and large don't work, rather they live off their parents trust fund or suck on the teat of taxpayers and philanthropists at a university somewhere.

Yes, I do have a problem w/ yielding our national sovereignty to a world court, but I have no objections to corporations doing business in other countries. For example, when Daimler-Benz bought Chrysler it made no difference to me. When a world court pushes the agenda of some tin-pot 3rd world dictator to indict US gov't officials I will have a problem.

As for Bolivia, that's what you get after 140 years of a planned, state-owned economy. You know, like Marxists desire. Only in the last few years have they seen the folly of their ways and moved to a market-based economy and privatization of the numerous state-owned industries that failed the peasants miserably. It will take a considerable amount of time to undo the damage, but it is getting better. Maybe you should rush down there and stop it before they actually become prosperous?

[Brian]

Didn't read it very much. We have the bigger stick.
Get yours!

[Cain]

Pointing out any factual errors would be of great help to me

Well, the numbers for the footnotes are confusing.

The first footnote mis-spells the author's last name. Also, I don't think you need to include "An Independent Socialist Magazine". That's the slogan, and it's probably unnecessary "_Reason_: Free Markets for Free Minds. It doesn't fit. I don't think you need to include a period in the titles of your articles either. Finally, of course, you should remember to italicize or underline the titles of all journals and books.

____________________________

Marxists are all for globalization, as long as it doesn't involve actual companies. But we can't all be farmers anymore Cain (you know, like in the 1860's, the heyday of your "International Workingmen's Association"). Oh, and it is ironic, since today's Marxist by and large don't work, rather they live off their parents trust fund or suck on the teat of taxpayers and philanthropists at a university somewhere.

I'm not necessarily talking about Marxists, but if you look historically at the International Workingmen's Association, it was directed, I think, more at manufactured goods rather than agriculture. (Although agrarian socialism was once quite popular here in the US of A).

Not sure what the attack against Marxists living off their parents' trust fund has to do with anything. Oh yes, it doesn't. :rolleyes:

Yes, I do have a problem w/ yielding our national sovereignty to a world court, but I have no objections to corporations doing business in other countries.

I would not be strongly in favor of international accountability if the U.S. wasn't so inclined to intervene in the affairs of others. But that's a different argument.

For example, when Daimler-Benz bought Chrysler it made no difference to me. When a world court pushes the agenda of some tin-pot 3rd world dictator to indict US gov't officials I will have a problem.

Or consider the anti-"globalization" activists motivated to protest by their concern for the environment. Some of them talk about local laws that would be undermined by an undemocratic international institution like the WTO.

As for Bolivia, that's what you get after 140 years of a planned, state-owned economy. You know, like Marxists desire. Only in the last few years have they seen the folly of their ways and moved to a market-based economy and privatization of the numerous state-owned industries that failed the peasants miserably. It will take a considerable amount of time to undo the damage, but it is getting better. Maybe you should rush down there and stop it before they actually become prosperous?

Holy Christ, put the crack-pipe down. For most of the last fifty years Bolivia has been ruled by one military dictator or another. Dictators who violently suppressed labor activists.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Kurita I don't believe you have proven your case for several reasons. Though I do of course respect your opinion on this matter and think you presented yourself pretty well. Especially since you included footnotes (though I honestly don't agree with your sources).

One being that its generally acknowledged that imperialism in anything but the loosest sense of the term.

To quote historian and noted anti-interventionist David Maurer:

Since 1945 about one hundred former colonies have become independent nation-states. Some have done well and prospered. Others are still in the early stages of national development. The problems that they face in the transition from colonial societies to nation-states are very similar to the difficulties already overcome by the Netherlands, Great Britain, the United States, France, Germany, Japan and all other modern nations. In time, all of these countries will overcome their problems, one way or another, and become prosperous nations.

Since World War II, no countries have tried to conquer new empires. The age of imperialism is over.


http://www.historyexplained.com/index.php/ebook/main/13/event=read

America might display traits of what many call "neo-imperialism" but I think there are some important differences.


Not that I think imperialism was all bad, more of a mixed blessing (like many things) in my opinion, to quote the Columbia Encyclopedia:

At its best, European imperialism brought economic expansion and new standards of official administration and public health to subject countries; at its worst, it meant brutal exploitation and dehumanization. In every instance, however, the pressure of an alien culture, with its different values and religious beliefs, and the imposition of new forms of social organization meant the breakdown of traditional forms of life and the disruption of native civilization.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/im/imperial.html


This is not to say imperialism was necessarily, or even mostly a good thing. Just that it had good and bad in it, and imo, could do more good then bad under certain conditions.

Also I would note that it wasn't like Utopia existed before the arrival of Europeans anyways:


http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?ARTICLEID_CHAR=4D0B2DCA-C60D-C797-AE9AFFCD80DB0D11&methodnameCHAR=resource_getgroupbrowse&interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&Price_DEC=7.95&ISSUEID_CHAR=48B78145-03E7-C6AB-2ACA3A9D4EC91406&ArticleTypeSubInclude_BIT=0&sequencenameCHAR=anondownloadfromcart

That's not to say the exploitation, racism or genocidal campaigns launched against these people was any less repugnant. To quote Steven Pinker, genocide isn't just bad against nice guys.


But it is to say in terms of history imperialism may have offered some things to these people, who were under the rule of more culturally complex societies.

Like I said its a mixed blessing, with much of it likely being better or worse depending on specific circumstance.

On the issue of modern day democratic capitalist or social democratic societie's I think things are different though.

First off, due to the nature of such societie's. They are more democratic then autocratic. More open then closed.


Second, because modern day states interact by means of trade, not looting. Looting is more of a zero sum interaction, whereas trade, despite how unequal, is zero sum.

Trade is a non-zero-sum activity because all parties to a voluntary transaction believe that they will be better off after the trade than before, otherwise they would not participate. It is possible that they are mistaken in this belief, but experience suggests that people are more often than not able to judge correctly when a transaction would leave them better off, and thus persist in trading throughout their lives. It is not always the case that every participant will benefit equally. However, a trade is still a non-zero-sum situation whenever the result is a net gain, regardless of how evenly or unevenly that gain is distributed.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-zero-sum

Trade is almost always more voluntary and involves more mutual gain then looting.


In regards to the US being culturally imperialist, I have two criticisms.

1) I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing. All culture is, to my understanding, a collection of habits, beliefs and practices adopted because they lead to happiness and success. Thus in voluntary exchanges by open societies, if some cultures slowly displace others, that's simply progress. Culture is simply becoming better at what it was meant to do.

People that hold to a monolithic view of culture as something that should be preserved are imo, mistaken.


Western culture for example, owes its great success to not taking this viewpoint. Most western inventions and many beliefs come from other cultures. Most of what western culture is didn't originate in the west.

And even among countries in the west, most of that was imported, many times recently, from other countries.

Thus the strength of western culture imo, is due to its constant rate of change, and adoptive attitude.

Culture is thus in flux, and I believe this flux is good. Some cultures and aspects of culture may die out, but new cultures and better cultures will evolve to take their place. This helps increase human success and happiness, which is imo the very measure of culture.

I mean we should ask, why it is in open societie's certain cultures are displacing others. Why McDonald's for example is springing up.

I personally think that its because aspects of some culture appeal to human nature more then others, with western taking the lead via its infusion with technology (covered in my next point) along with its head start in being adoptive, having a larger population (typically) to fine-tune it (the gift of a Eurasian past) , and being in more competition throughout history.

Hence culturally interaction may go both ways, more towards western imo then others, but this imo is generally a good thing.



2) My second objection is somewhat on another point. It's basically that American culture is not necessarily "imperialist" (to me applying the term imperialist to culture is somewhat incoherent) or extremely dominating. It just appears that way in response to certain superficial things. Like McDonald's. A lot of this "dominance" I believe is simply due to technology. CD's are more efficient then attending lengthy rituals, so one just naturally replaces the other. Not because one's cultiures are better due to racial characteristics, but due to the culture's past fusing with technology.

In terms of being most modern though, the leading culture I believe is Sweden's and Northern Europe's (due to rescent research findings): not Americas. They will I believe lead the way more so then the US in everything but the most superficial business ventures.


http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?ARTICLEID_CHAR=B2D88C99-2B35-221B-6EA644F9038D22AD&methodnameCHAR=resource_getgroupbrowse&interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&Price_DEC=7.95&ISSUEID_CHAR=B2CCC382-2B35-221B-6FB9BB706EFFA096&ArticleTypeSubInclude_BIT=0&sequencenameCHAR=anondownloadfromcart


My last point on the topic of culture is slightly off, but I feel it relevant. IMO, there is a difference in culture between what custom and morality.

Morality imo, can involve things like basic human rights and is ok to enforce.

I don't believe its ok to excercise coercion as much on matters of custom.

Morality imo, involves basic norms, usually ones accompanied by whether or not their violation causes harm, things like: rape, slavery, respecting freedom of speech/conscience, etc.


Custom involves issues like a choice between whether one greets another by bowing, or shaking hands.



On the issue of capitalism, I likewise see little wrong. On such issues I believe socialists present false dillemmas: of capitalism vs socialism.

The US system, vs proposed utopia. I think however there are more moderate economies, like the present social democratic kind found in Europe.


History and research imo, shows that capitalism produces much more wealth and happiness then socialist nations.


First off, research form scientific american proves that social democracies are the happiest, followed by more capitalist first world nations:

http://botany1.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/rationallyspeaking/RS03-01-virtue-ethics.html

Socialist nation's rank very low on that scale.

In that light, it seems that market economies seem to do vastly better then socialist.


Second, simple stats show that capitalist nations, even in the third world, are typically much wealthier then socialist nations.

South Korea is 28 times more wealthy then North Korea.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ks.html

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.html


Japan and Taiwan are far wealthier then communist china in terms of GDP per Capita.


http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ja.html

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tw.html

With regards to Taiwan this is amazing. The nation basically had to start from scratch, but already has almost 4 times the GDP per capita despite this.

East and West germany also provide a great test case.

Even within China, despite the ills of becoming capitalist, its wealth greatly increased after opening its markets:

In late 1978 the Chinese leadership began moving the economy from a sluggish, Soviet-style centrally planned economy to a more market-oriented system. Whereas the system operates within a political framework of strict Communist control, the economic influence of non-state organizations and individual citizens has been steadily increasing. The authorities switched to a system of household and village responsibility in agriculture in place of the old collectivization, increased the authority of local officials and plant managers in industry, permitted a wide variety of small-scale enterprises in services and light manufacturing, and opened the economy to increased foreign trade and investment. The result has been a quadrupling of GDP since 1978.

(bold added)


The dictator Pinochet, as ruthless is he is, is credited with saving the Chile economy via his capitalist reforms:

Though condemned for its brutality, his regime is credited with stimulating economic growth.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/pi/Pinochet.html

Given all this capitalism doesn't seem that bad. Even with the unequal trade involved on the issue of globalization.

Recall how isolationist North Korea for example is 28 times poorer then its open-market, southern counter-part.

Hence despite arguments to the contrary, I don't think the US can be called imperialist, and I don't think capitalism has been shown to be an overall bad thing (with regards to a comparitive standard).

Like science, western democracy, interventionism, and market economies might not be perfect, but they are the best things we have.

[plindboe]

Wow! Just wanted to say; nice post DialecticMaterialist. http://images.bravenet.com/common/images/smilies/25_coolguy.gif

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Wildat:
Oh, and it is ironic, since today's Marxist by and large don't work, rather they live off their parents trust fund or suck on the teat of taxpayers and philanthropists at a university somewhere.

So that's why I didn't see any of the "Socialist Workers" I was in college with in the sheet metal factories and construction sites I worked in during summer holidays.

[Supercharts]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1414004672/qid=1074687852/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/002-3279164-3497665?v=glance&s=books

This is a new book. "The American Manifesto", is a much needed work that explains and documents the beauty of the American system, the thought processes of our government leaders and officals in developing, over our history, how we defined and enhanced our sense of government, history and economic policies.

[Look, you may be anti-American but buy the book and read it. Barraford is sane - unlike Chomsky]

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by WildCat
............or suck on the teat of taxpayers and philanthropists at a university somewhere.


Are you suggesting that people who work for universities produce nothing for society and are just a bunch of scroungers?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita



I hate to make an ad hominem here but...

THAT IS THE BIGGEST F***ING IDIOTIC STATEMENT THAT YOU HAVE MADE TOWARDS ME YOU FOOL!

A capatalistic system in its purest form opresses people.

And if you are suggesting that I am poor.

F*** YOU!

I am a middle upperclass citizen with a conscience when it comes to sociopolitical structures in society. Now THAT'S a rant!

[Luke T.]

TK, you first need to run your essay through a spellchecker.
Those parts you didn't lift directly off the web, anyway.

Second, most of your essay has been plagiarized. A casual search of the web can prove this. You either need to learn how to properly footnote and attribute thoughts to the people you took them from, or STOP STEALING!

What am I talking about, some may ask.


Take a gander here, for starters. (http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1132/3_55/105368626/p1/article.jhtml)



The question of whether the United States in engaging in imperialist expansion has allowed itself to become prey to the particular whims of those at society's political helm is not a new one.

Sound familiar?

edited to add: I particularly draw your attention to the error "in engaging"

[Luke T.]

Swomley is quite a guy.

In 1984 I was a senior US lecturer and FOR representative on a Peace Cruise of the Volga River with 214 other Americans and a number of Russian professors, with whom we American lecturers carried on a dialogue during the time on board. I spoke to members of the Soviet Peace Committee and addressed antiwar rallies of as many as 10,000 people in each city en route. These trips (including many organized by the FOR) and rallies took place for years, seldom mentioned in the American press. After one such rally, US young people with guitars sang antiwar songs as people exited the stadium. When we sang "Ain't Gonna Study War No More," over 200 Soviet people surrounded us and joined in singing every verse–in English.



Useful Idiot. (http://www.forusa.org/Fellowship/Jul-Aug_02/Swomley.html)

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Cain

You have a poor understanding of irony. Socialists are not opposed to a global economy. In fact, that was one of the first arguments against the Soviet Union's socialism-in-one-state experiment.

Now that IS a funny concept!

So that's the only reason that the pre-communist/socialist state failed so miserably? If only the entire world had gone communist together we'd have had paradise on earth eh?

:dl:
-z

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

The question of whether the United States in engaging in imperialist expansion has allowed itself to become open to the particular rants and the sociopolitical helm of America is not new.

Saving.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Swomley rejected both the dominant tendency in the United States to see U.S. interventions in the third world as a product of the Cold War, and the liberal liking to see the war as a peculiarity of a Texan president and the advisers surrounding him (Swomley 10). Instead historical analysis was required.

Now read this. (http://www.monthlyreview.org/0703jbf.htm)


Magdoff rejected both the dominant tendency in the United States to see U.S. interventions in the third world as a product of the Cold War, and the liberal penchant to see the war as an aberration of a Texan president and the advisers surrounding him. Instead historical analysis was required.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

There are major differences between old and new forms of American Imperialism. The imperialism of the late nineteenth century was caused by two factors. One, the breakdown of British Global influence, and two, the growth of monopoly (aristocratic) capitalism, or dominated by large firms who were bent on centralization and concentration of production (Hadar 3). Leon T. Hadar is a Palestinian Political Scientist who is currently working on new initiatives to bring peace between Israel and Palestine. Beyond these features that distinguished what Lenin referred to as the stage of imperialism (which he said could be described in its “smallest possible definition” as “the monopoly stage of capitalism”), there are a number of other elements that have to be considered (Foster 5). Capitalism is of course a system uniquely determined by a drive to accumulate, which accepts no bounds to its expansion. Capitalism is on the one hand an expanding world economy characterized by a process that we now call globalization, while on the other hand it is divided politically into numerous competing nation-states (Foster 3). Further, the system is extremely polarized. Capitalism, from its beginning in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and even more so in the monopoly stage, capital within each nation-state at the center of the system is driven by a need to control access to raw materials and labor in the outlying areas (Foster 3). In the monopoly stage of capitalism, moreover, nation-states and their corporations strive to keep as much of the world economy as possible open to their own investments, though not necessarily to those of their competitors (Thomson 2). This comes from Political Scientist/Analyst James C. Thomson who is still active in the fight against an Authoritarian United States Imperialistic state that exists today. This competition over spheres of accumulation in a capitalistic system creates a jumble for control of various parts of the periphery. The most famous example of this was the scramble for Africa in the late nineteenth century in which all of the Western European powers of the day took part.
Imperialism evolved beyond this stage after World War 2 with significant decolonization of foreign lands by both the United States and Great Britain. The most important of these was the United States replacing British influence over the capitalist world economy. The other was the existence of the Soviet Union, creating space for revolutionary movements in the third world, and helping to bring the leading capitalist powers into a Cold War military alliance reinforcing U.S. influence (8). The United States utilized its influential position to establish the Bretton Woods institutions—the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank—with the intention of consolidating the economic control exercised by the center states, and the United States in particular, over the periphery and hence the entire world market (10).
In Swomley’s conception, the existence of U.S. influence did not bring to an end the competition between capitalist nations throughout the world (Swomley 200). Influence was always understood by realistic analysts as historically fleeting, despite the constant references to the “American century.” (Foster 16) The uneven development of capitalism meant continual interimperialist rivalry, even if somewhat hidden at times, “Antagonism between unevenly developing industrial centers,” he wrote, “is the hub of the imperialist wheel” (16).
U.S. militarism was not simply, even not mainly, a product of the Cold War competition with the Soviet Union (50). Militarism had deeper roots in need of the United States, by keeping the United States influential world capitalist power via keeping doors open for foreign investment by force if necessary. During the same period, the United States was using its power where possible to advance the needs of its own corporations. The best example of this is in Latin America where the United States dominance was unquestioned by other great powers in the world. Not only did the United States exercise this military role on numerous occasions throughout the periphery in the post–Second World War period, but during that period it was also able to justify this as part of the fight against Communism. Militarism, associated with this role as global influence and alliance-leader, came to permeate all aspects of accumulation in the United States (28). All this was introduced so that the term “military-industrial complex,” introduced by Eisenhower in his departing speech as president, was an understatement (29). Already, in his day, there was no major center of accumulation in the United States that was not also a major center of military production. Military production helped prop up the entire economic power in the United States, and was a factor holding off economic stagnation.
Middle East Policy was a result of the Cold War, and U.S. imperialism. Nothing in fact so reveals the new age of imperialism as the expansion of the U.S. Empire in the critical oil regions of the Middle East and the Caspian Sea Basin (35). U.S. power in the Persian Gulf was limited throughout the Cold War years as a result of the Soviet presence. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 was the largest defeat of U.S. imperialism (which had relied on Shah of Iran as a base in the region) since the Vietnam War (40). Prior to 1989 and the breakup of the Soviet Union, a major U.S. war in the region would have been completely unthinkable at the time of the existence of the Soviet Union. This left U.S. dominance in the region largely constrained to countries like Yemen and Kuwait. The 1991 Gulf War, which was carried out by the United States with Soviet agreement, thus marked the beginning of a new age of U.S. imperialism and expansion of U.S. global power (38). It is no mere accident that the weakening of the Soviet Union led almost immediately to a full-scale U.S. military intervention in the region that was the key to controlling world oil. “Oil is the most critical global resource, and thus crucial to any strategy of global domination.” (30)
It is essential to realize that in 1991, when the Gulf War occurred, the Soviet Union was greatly damaged by United States Policy. “But it was not dead (that was to occur later on in the year) and there was still the possibility, although still dim, of a coup in the Soviet Union and a turn around in Soviet affairs that were greatly unfavorable to the United States” (35) During this time though, the United States had lost some economic ground to some of its major competitors and it was concluded that its economic influence has seriously declined. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States and other foreign powers were unsure on how to proceed, in economics, and in policy.
During the first Gulf War, United States interests were split. Some believed that the United States should go on and invade Iraq. Others thought that an invasion and occupation of Iraq was at the time, not feasible (68). Over the next decade, the dominant topic of discussion in U.S. foreign policy was how to exploit the fact that it was the sole superpower. The discussion of unipolarity and unilateralism were soon brought together with open discussions on U.S. influence, empire, and imperialism.
By the end of the 1990s, discussions of U.S. empire and imperialism cropped up not so much on the left as in liberal and neoconservative circles, where imperial ambitions were openly proclaimed.* Following September 2001, the disposition to carry out massive military interventions to promote the expansion of U.S. power, in which the United States would once again put its “boots on the ground,” as neoconservative pundit Max Boot expressed it in his book on The Savage Wars of Peaceon early U.S. imperialist wars, became part of the dominant ruling class consensus. The administration’s National Security Strategy statement, transmitted to Congress in September 2002, promoted the principle of preemptive attacks against potential enemies and declared: “The United States must and will maintain the capability to defeat any attempt by an enemy...to impose its will on the United States, our allies, or our friends....Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in the hope of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.” (Foster 50)
The new age of U.S. imperialism will generate its own contradictions,
among the attempts by other major powers to assert their influence, resorting to similar means, and all sorts of strategies by weaker states and non-state actors to engage in "asymmetric" forms of warfare (Foster 5). Given the unprecedented destructiveness of contemporary weapons, which are diffused ever more widely, the consequences for the population of the world could well be devastating beyond anything ever before witnessed (Hadar 4)
Rather than generating a new “Pax Americana” the United States may be paving the way to new global holocausts (Swomley 201). The greatest hope in these dire circumstances lies in a rising tide. The revolt from below, both in the United States and globally, the growth of the antiglobalization movement was succeeded in February 2003 by the largest global wave of antiwar protests in human history (Foster 10). Never before has the world’s population risen up so quickly and in such massive numbers in the attempt to stop an imperialist war (Swomley 29). The new age of imperialism is also a new age of revolt against the capitalistic and imperialistic war machine that drives our nation. The “Vietnam Syndrome,” which worried the strategic planners of the imperial and capitalistic fray for decades, now only has left a legacy within the United States. “Vietnam Syndrome,” has been coupled this time around with an “Empire Syndrome” on a huge global scale. This, more than anything else, makes it clear that the strategy of the ruling class (neoconservatives) of America to expand the American Empire cannot and will not succeed in the long run. This will prove to be its own undoing.

From the same link I just linked in my last post:


The imperialism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was distinguished mainly by two features: (1) the breakdown in British hegemony, and (2) the growth of monopoly capitalism, or a capitalism dominated by large firms, resulting from the concentration and centralization of production. Beyond these features that distinguished what Lenin referred to as the stage of imperialism (which he said could be described in its “briefest possible definition” as “the monopoly stage of capitalism”), there are a number of other elements that have to be considered. Capitalism is of course a system uniquely determined by a drive to accumulate, which accepts no bounds to its expansion. Capitalism is on the one hand an expanding world economy characterized by a process that we now call globalization, while on the other hand it is divided politically into numerous competing nation-states. Further, the system is polarized at every level into center and periphery. From its beginning in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and even more so in the monopoly stage, capital within each nation-state at the center of the system is driven by a need to control access to raw materials and labor in the periphery. In the monopoly stage of capitalism, moreover, nation-states and their corporations strive to keep as much of the world economy as possible open to their own investments, though not necessarily to those of their competitors. This competition over spheres of accumulation creates a scramble for control of various parts of the periphery, the most famous example of which was the scramble for Africa in the late nineteenth century in which all of the Western European powers of the day took part.

Imperialism, however, continued to evolve beyond this classic phase, which ended with the Second World War and subsequent decolonization movement, and in the 1950s and 1960s a later phase presented its own historically specific characteristics. The most important of these was the United States replacing British hegemony over the capitalist world economy. The other was the existence of the Soviet Union, creating space for revolutionary movements in the third world, and helping to bring the leading capitalist powers into a Cold War military alliance reinforcing U.S. hegemony. The United States utilized its hegemonic position to establish the Bretton Woods institutions—the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank—with the intention of consolidating the economic control exercised by the center states, and the United States in particular, over the periphery and hence the entire world market.

In Magdoff’s conception, the existence of U.S. hegemony did not bring to an end the competition between capitalist states. Hegemony was always understood by realistic analysts as historically transitory, despite the constant references to the “American century.” The uneven development of capitalism meant continual interimperialist rivalry, even if somewhat hidden at times. “Antagonism between unevenly developing industrial centers,” he wrote, “is the hub of the imperialist wheel” (p. 16).

U.S. militarism, which in this analysis went hand in hand with its imperial role, was not simply or even mainly a product of the Cold War competition with the Soviet Union, by which it was conditioned. Militarism had deeper roots in the need of the United States, as the hegemonic power of the capitalist world economy, to keep the doors open for foreign investment by resorting to force, if necessary. At the same time, the United States was employing its power where possible to advance the needs of its own corporations—as for example in Latin America where its dominance was unquestioned by other great powers. Not only did the United States exercise this military role on numerous occasions throughout the periphery in the post–Second World War period, but during that period it was also able to justify this as part of the fight against Communism. Militarism, associated with this role as global hegemon and alliance-leader, came to permeate all aspects of accumulation in the United States, so that the term industrial complex,” introduced by Eisenhower in his departing speech as president, was an understatement. Already in his day there was no major center of accumulation in the United States that was not also a major center of military production. Military production helped prop up the entire economic edifice in the United States, and was a factor holding off economic stagnation.

Read the entire link. There is more that was stolen from it.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

This is for an IB History Essay.

I like putting a Marxist spin on most of my essays, when it comes to history.

The reason I have so many f***ing footnotes is simple.

It has to meet the guidelines of the current "MLM" standards, which are updated every year.

To be honest, it is more of an essay.

The only reason I posted it was, I thought it would be a decent read.

Pointing out any factual errors would be of great help to me.

Thank you.

Yeah. "To be honest..."

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Now read this. (http://www.monthlyreview.org/0703jbf.htm)



BUSTED!


Could TK actually be Joseph Biden???

Honestly TK, you should thank Luke and rework all the stolen stuff out of that paper before you even think about turning it in. Your professor will be far less forgiving.

-z

[c0rbin]

As for Bolivia,...

Weren't the indigenous people of "Bolivia" doing fine until the imperialist Europeans came a knocking in search of riches to plunder?

[Luke T.]

I know most people won't read all of the evidence I have provided that TK stole the entire work from the article I linked, but he did worse. If you look carefully, in many places where the original article says "Magdoff", TK has substitued in the name "Swomley." Maybe to throw us off?

I don't know. This is all very sad.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by rikzilla


BUSTED!


Could TK actually be Joseph Biden???

Honestly TK, you should thank Luke and rework all the stolen stuff out of that paper before you even think about turning it in. Your professor will be far less forgiving.

-z

The entire essay is stolen.

[Luke T.]

TK, if you are going to subscribe to a political philosophy and defend it, you have to be able to express it in your own words. Otherwise, you are just a parrot. A useful idiot.

[Cain]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Now that IS a funny concept!


Funny is right.

So that's the only reason that the pre-communist/socialist state failed so miserably?

Where did I say or suggest this?

If only the entire world had gone communist together we'd have had paradise on earth eh?

Ugh. Sometimes, I dunno, it feels like people are actively campaigning to be recognized as the week's Goddamn F*cking Moron. Where did I -- or where have I ever -- defended communism (meaning state-planned economy) as a tolerable solution let alone an ideal one?
____________________________

What's the common understanding of academic dishonesty again? If he only lifted it from a single source, then it's plagiarism. If he took it from many, then it's research. What a way to come off of MLK day.

[Upchurch]

Uh, guys? The article you liked to is the first of the articles he references in his footnotes. Plus, it is not a direct copy-and-paste job. It seems to me that while he did draw from the article, he also drew from other articles as well. I wouldn't call this stealing.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Uh, guys? The article you liked to is the first of the articles he references in his footnotes. Plus, it is not a direct copy-and-paste job. It seems to me that while he did draw from the article, he also drew from other articles as well. I wouldn't call this stealing.

Read the whole article. All he did was reword it slightly. Not one original thought in his essay. That may not fit the exact definition of plagiarism, but it is stealing.

From dictionary.com, under "steal:"
Idiom: steal (someone's)thunder - To use, appropriate, or preempt the use of another's idea, especially to one's own advantage and without consent by the originator.



Also, he attributes ideas to one person that actually belong to another. What's that about? That's lying, is what that is.

[Cain]

Upchurch,

If Luke bothered to make a clear and concise case in a single post, it would be more obvious.

This quote comparison (originally posted by Luke T) removes any doubt:

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Swomley rejected both the dominant tendency in the United States to see U.S. interventions in the third world as a product of the Cold War, and the liberal liking to see the war as a peculiarity of a Texan president and the advisers surrounding him (Swomley 10). Instead historical analysis was required.


Magdoff rejected both the dominant tendency in the United States to see U.S. interventions in the third world as a product of the Cold War, and the liberal penchant to see the war as an aberration of a Texan president and the advisers surrounding him. Instead historical analysis was required.

He changed "penchant" to "liking" and "abberation" to "peculiarity". In my opinion this is worse then a blatant cut/paste job because it transparently shows intent to deceive.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Cain
Upchurch,

If Luke bothered to make a clear and concise case in a single post, it would be more obvious.

This quote comparison (originally posted by Luke T) removes any doubt:






He changed "penchant" to "liking" and "abberation" to "peculiarity". In my opinion this is worse then a blatant cut/paste job because it transparently shows intent to deceive.

He also changed "Magdoff" to "Swomley."

My nine year old step-daughter made a better attempt at this kind of deception many years ago.

[Upchurch]

If you want to report it, that's fine. It'll take someone more familiar with plagerism and copyright laws than me to make the call. My guess is that while it is intellectually dishonest, it probably doesn't fall under any copyright violations. But, again, what do I know?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Upchurch
If you want to report it, that's fine. It'll take someone more familiar with plagerism and copyright laws than me to make the call. My guess is that while it is intellectually dishonest, it probably doesn't fall under any copyright violations. But, again, what do I know?

Nah. My aim wasn't to have some kind of disciplinary action taken. Not at all. It was just to alert anyone taking part in the topic that something fishy was going on. :D

[clk]

How sad.
So this is what happens when you give someone a second chance...they abuse it by testing how far they can push their behavior. I can't say I'm surprised, though. TK, aka chessmanskeptic, has done this in the past. Let's add it to the list of lies:
Claiming to be a world class chess player
Claiming to be a skeptic while promoting woo woo computer programs
Claiming to be a medical school student
Claiming to have a Masters degree in Astronomy
Claiming to be a hacker
Claiming to have a mysterious painting which somehow had blood on it
Claiming to have a legitimate paper on imperialism

There are many, many, many more lies, but these are just the ones I came up with from the top of my head.

I hope it is clear to everyone now that TK will never stop lying...it's a chronic behavior of his.

BTW, great job on researching that, Luke, and finding out about the plaigarism!

[davefoc]

Wow, on several levels

1. Wow to anybody that read through this thing. As a person that has persevered through several Malachigrams I was in no condtion to make the effort on somebody that can out Malachi Malachi.

2. Wow to the guy who proofread the footnotes.

3. Wow to the guy who pointed out the difference between a rant and an essay.

4. Just flat amazing to Luke for determining that it was plagiarized.

5. Wow to the guy who dissected it enough to question Luke's conclusion and wow to the guy who dissected it enough to prove Luke was right.

6. And wow to the guy who put this together with chessmanskeptic.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Nice resource site here:
http://www.lib.iastate.edu/commons/resources/facultyguides/plagiarism/websites.html

Plagiarism seems to be a major problem in the university setting nowdays and polls seem to indicate that the students see nothing wrong with downloading a paper or two and attaching thier name to it as author..

[Skeptoid]

This comes as no surprise. checkersboywoowoo has pulled this stunt before. I believe it was for a term paper last spring. Lifted the whole thing. This kid hasn't matured one whit in the year and a half he's been here. Little liar isn't even worth the insult I planned on hurling his way for old times sake.

[Theodore Kurita]

Dear Luke T.

I submitted my paper to www.turnitin.com not to long ago.

This was my initial draft, and I have changed loads of stuff since then.

It is due next week.

As for the "stealing", Swomley's conception is the same as Magdoff's.

I have read all of my sources, and have CITED every time I paraphrase from a source!

I even ran this by my History teacher.

He likes what I have so far for the essay.

I am not a dishonest person.

I cited using the stupid f***ing modern MLA format.

It would have been nice if you just sent me a PM.

I could have explained all of this to you earlier.

If you want to know how I cite paraphrasing, look at this (and mind you I have not finished all of my citations for all of my sources yet! This is a bloody rought draft, which is why I posted it to the board for review. This Example comes directly from my essay):

Capitalism, from its beginning in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and even more so in the monopoly stage, capital within each nation-state at the center of the system is driven by a need to control access to raw materials and labor in the outlying areas (Foster 3)


The reason that this is properly cited is that I added Foster's name, and the page # to the sentence and put it into quotes.

This by MLA standards is citing a PARAPHRASE!

I know it has been a while since you have been to school Luke.


I CITED all of my sources, and I was very thorough in doing so!


Get a clue.

And yes, my History teacher is a Socialist by default, but a NAZI when it comes to plagiarism.


And Skeptoid, the essay that I wrote on Viktor Frankl was not even close to being plagiarised. Everything cited, paraphrases shown and cited, quotes cited. Just as long as you keep using the citations, and stay in line with citing all of the paraphrased areas, it is accepted by the MLA standard.

IF you don't KNOW what MLA is, just google it and you will see what I am talking about.

Standards are updated every year, and I have always kept with the standards.


And Luke, why did you ambush me when I was away from the forums and could not respond to the comment that you made.


.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by clk
How sad.
So this is what happens when you give someone a second chance...they abuse it by testing how far they can push their behavior. I can't say I'm surprised, though. TK, aka chessmanskeptic, has done this in the past. Let's add it to the list of lies:
Claiming to be a world class chess player
Claiming to be a skeptic while promoting woo woo computer programs
Claiming to be a medical school student
Claiming to have a Masters degree in Astronomy
Claiming to be a hacker
Claiming to have a mysterious painting which somehow had blood on it
Claiming to have a legitimate paper on imperialism

There are many, many, many more lies, but these are just the ones I came up with from the top of my head.

I hope it is clear to everyone now that TK will never stop lying...it's a chronic behavior of his.

BTW, great job on researching that, Luke, and finding out about the plaigarism!


For cripes sake.

That was all last year.

The most recent onee was at the begenning of this year.

I have grown to be more mature over time.

When I PMed you, I am pretty sure that I also mentioned that this is a rough draft.

This is just the basics for my paper, if you want to put it bluntly.


There are some more things I was going to add.

More stuff I was and am going to cite.

Among the stuff I was going to add was and Inverview that I did with John M. Swomley Jr.

He is an old family friend.

My grandfather, when he was still alive, was good friends with him.

We still keep good contact with John.

[clk]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Dear Luke T.

I submitted my paper to www.turnitin.com not to long ago.

This was my initial draft, and I have changed loads of stuff since then.

It is due next week.

As for the "stealing", Swomley's conception is the same as Magdoff's.

I have read all of my sources, and have CITED every time I paraphrase from a source!

I even ran this by my History teacher.

He likes what I have so far for the essay.

I am not a dishonest person.

I cited using the stupid f***ing modern MLA format.

It would have been nice if you just sent me a PM.

I could have explained all of this to you earlier.

If you want to know how I cite paraphrasing, look at this (and mind you I have not finished all of my citations for all of my sources yet! This is a bloody rought draft, which is why I posted it to the board for review. This Example comes directly from my essay):

Capitalism, from its beginning in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and even more so in the monopoly stage, capital within each nation-state at the center of the system is driven by a need to control access to raw materials and labor in the outlying areas (Foster 3)


The reason that this is properly cited is that I added Foster's name, and the page # to the sentence and put it into quotes.

This by MLA standards is citing a PARAPHRASE!

I know it has been a while since you have been to school Luke.


I CITED all of my sources, and I was very thorough in doing so!


Get a clue.

And yes, my History teacher is a Socialist by default, but a NAZI when it comes to plagiarism.


And Skeptoid, the essay that I wrote on Viktor Frankl was not even close to being plagiarised. Everything cited, paraphrases shown and cited, quotes cited. Just as long as you keep using the citations, and stay in line with citing all of the paraphrased areas, it is accepted by the MLA standard.

IF you don't KNOW what MLA is, just google it and you will see what I am talking about.

Standards are updated every year, and I have always kept with the standards.


And Luke, why did you ambush me when I was away from the forums and could not respond to the comment that you made.


.

Hint: Just because you have cited sources doesn't mean that you haven't plaigarized.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by clk


Hint: Just because you have cited sources doesn't mean that you haven't plaigarized.

How so?

Take a look at MLA format.

You'll see that I have followed the modern method in every way possible:

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/research/r_mla.html

oh and BTW, there are some revisions that I have made to the paper since the initial draft.

Parts of the interview I did with Swomley are in it among other things.

THe biggest reason I submitted the initial draft is, the facts that I have in it have not changed, and I wanted a critique of that.

[Skeptoid]

Look, kid, if you're going to write up a paper, you have to come up with some original ideas of your own. Compiling verbaim excerpts from someone else's work doesn't show anyone that you've learned anything. Do you understand that? Calling what you've done "paraphrase" is intellectually dishonest at best. Here's a definition of paraphrase from the Cambridge Dictionary (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=57525&dict=CALD):

paraphrase-- to repeat something written or spoken using different words, often in a humorous form or in a simpler and shorter form that makes the original meaning clearer

I dare you to turn in your paper with a link to this thread. I'd be interested to hear your teacher's take on it.

[Theodore Kurita]

Just noticed something.

The formating on some of my roughdraft is not completely correct.

This is an extended quote directly from John Bellamy's aritcle that should have shown up as being indented 2 times to show that it was a quote ( I did paste this onto the forums directly from my Microsoft Word document mind you):

By the end of the 1990s, discussions of U.S. empire and imperialism cropped up not so much on the left as in liberal and neoconservative circles, where imperial ambitions were openly proclaimed.* Following September 2001, the disposition to carry out massive military interventions to promote the expansion of U.S. power, in which the United States would once again put its “boots on the ground,” as neoconservative pundit Max Boot expressed it in his book on The Savage Wars of Peaceon early U.S. imperialist wars, became part of the dominant ruling class consensus. The administration’s National Security Strategy statement, transmitted to Congress in September 2002, promoted the principle of preemptive attacks against potential enemies and declared: “The United States must and will maintain the capability to defeat any attempt by an enemy...to impose its will on the United States, our allies, or our friends....Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in the hope of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.” (Foster 50)

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by Skeptoid
Look, kid, if you're going to write up a paper, you have to come up with some original ideas of your own. Compiling verbaim excerpts from someone else's work doesn't show anyone that you've learned anything. Do you understand that? Calling what you've done "paraphrase" is intellectually dishonest at best. Here's a definition of paraphrase from the Cambridge Dictionary (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=57525&dict=CALD):

paraphrase-- to repeat something written or spoken using different words, often in a humorous form or in a simpler and shorter form that makes the original meaning clearer

I dare you to turn in your paper with a link to this thread. I'd be interested to hear your teacher's take on it.

The first paragraphy covered most of my original thoughts, that I am going to argue.

And well, to put it bluntly, if we got ANY information from and source besides our heads, we have to call it a paraphrase and cite it.

Like I said my IB Coordinator, and all of my IB teachers are Nazis' about this kind of stuff.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Kurita I don't believe you have proven your case for several reasons. Though I do of course respect your opinion on this matter and think you presented yourself pretty well. Especially since you included footnotes (though I honestly don't agree with your sources).

One being that its generally acknowledged that imperialism in anything but the loosest sense of the term.

To quote historian and noted anti-interventionist David Maurer:



http://www.historyexplained.com/index.php/ebook/main/13/event=read

America might display traits of what many call "neo-imperialism" but I think there are some important differences.


Not that I think imperialism was all bad, more of a mixed blessing (like many things) in my opinion, to quote the Columbia Encyclopedia:



http://www.bartleby.com/65/im/imperial.html


This is not to say imperialism was necessarily, or even mostly a good thing. Just that it had good and bad in it, and imo, could do more good then bad under certain conditions.

Also I would note that it wasn't like Utopia existed before the arrival of Europeans anyways:


http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?ARTICLEID_CHAR=4D0B2DCA-C60D-C797-AE9AFFCD80DB0D11&methodnameCHAR=resource_getgroupbrowse&interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&Price_DEC=7.95&ISSUEID_CHAR=48B78145-03E7-C6AB-2ACA3A9D4EC91406&ArticleTypeSubInclude_BIT=0&sequencenameCHAR=anondownloadfromcart

That's not to say the exploitation, racism or genocidal campaigns launched against these people was any less repugnant. To quote Steven Pinker, genocide isn't just bad against nice guys.


But it is to say in terms of history imperialism may have offered some things to these people, who were under the rule of more culturally complex societies.

Like I said its a mixed blessing, with much of it likely being better or worse depending on specific circumstance.

On the issue of modern day democratic capitalist or social democratic societie's I think things are different though.

First off, due to the nature of such societie's. They are more democratic then autocratic. More open then closed.


Second, because modern day states interact by means of trade, not looting. Looting is more of a zero sum interaction, whereas trade, despite how unequal, is zero sum.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-zero-sum

Trade is almost always more voluntary and involves more mutual gain then looting.


In regards to the US being culturally imperialist, I have two criticisms.

1) I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing. All culture is, to my understanding, a collection of habits, beliefs and practices adopted because they lead to happiness and success. Thus in voluntary exchanges by open societies, if some cultures slowly displace others, that's simply progress. Culture is simply becoming better at what it was meant to do.

People that hold to a monolithic view of culture as something that should be preserved are imo, mistaken.


Western culture for example, owes its great success to not taking this viewpoint. Most western inventions and many beliefs come from other cultures. Most of what western culture is didn't originate in the west.

And even among countries in the west, most of that was imported, many times recently, from other countries.

Thus the strength of western culture imo, is due to its constant rate of change, and adoptive attitude.

Culture is thus in flux, and I believe this flux is good. Some cultures and aspects of culture may die out, but new cultures and better cultures will evolve to take their place. This helps increase human success and happiness, which is imo the very measure of culture.

I mean we should ask, why it is in open societie's certain cultures are displacing others. Why McDonald's for example is springing up.

I personally think that its because aspects of some culture appeal to human nature more then others, with western taking the lead via its infusion with technology (covered in my next point) along with its head start in being adoptive, having a larger population (typically) to fine-tune it (the gift of a Eurasian past) , and being in more competition throughout history.

Hence culturally interaction may go both ways, more towards western imo then others, but this imo is generally a good thing.



2) My second objection is somewhat on another point. It's basically that American culture is not necessarily "imperialist" (to me applying the term imperialist to culture is somewhat incoherent) or extremely dominating. It just appears that way in response to certain superficial things. Like McDonald's. A lot of this "dominance" I believe is simply due to technology. CD's are more efficient then attending lengthy rituals, so one just naturally replaces the other. Not because one's cultiures are better due to racial characteristics, but due to the culture's past fusing with technology.

In terms of being most modern though, the leading culture I believe is Sweden's and Northern Europe's (due to rescent research findings): not Americas. They will I believe lead the way more so then the US in everything but the most superficial business ventures.


http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?ARTICLEID_CHAR=B2D88C99-2B35-221B-6EA644F9038D22AD&methodnameCHAR=resource_getgroupbrowse&interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&Price_DEC=7.95&ISSUEID_CHAR=B2CCC382-2B35-221B-6FB9BB706EFFA096&ArticleTypeSubInclude_BIT=0&sequencenameCHAR=anondownloadfromcart


My last point on the topic of culture is slightly off, but I feel it relevant. IMO, there is a difference in culture between what custom and morality.

Morality imo, can involve things like basic human rights and is ok to enforce.

I don't believe its ok to excercise coercion as much on matters of custom.

Morality imo, involves basic norms, usually ones accompanied by whether or not their violation causes harm, things like: rape, slavery, respecting freedom of speech/conscience, etc.


Custom involves issues like a choice between whether one greets another by bowing, or shaking hands.



On the issue of capitalism, I likewise see little wrong. On such issues I believe socialists present false dillemmas: of capitalism vs socialism.

The US system, vs proposed utopia. I think however there are more moderate economies, like the present social democratic kind found in Europe.


History and research imo, shows that capitalism produces much more wealth and happiness then socialist nations.


First off, research form scientific american proves that social democracies are the happiest, followed by more capitalist first world nations:

http://botany1.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/rationallyspeaking/RS03-01-virtue-ethics.html

Socialist nation's rank very low on that scale.

In that light, it seems that market economies seem to do vastly better then socialist.


Second, simple stats show that capitalist nations, even in the third world, are typically much wealthier then socialist nations.

South Korea is 28 times more wealthy then North Korea.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ks.html

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.html


Japan and Taiwan are far wealthier then communist china in terms of GDP per Capita.


http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ja.html

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tw.html

With regards to Taiwan this is amazing. The nation basically had to start from scratch, but already has almost 4 times the GDP per capita despite this.

East and West germany also provide a great test case.

Even within China, despite the ills of becoming capitalist, its wealth greatly increased after opening its markets:



(bold added)


The dictator Pinochet, as ruthless is he is, is credited with saving the Chile economy via his capitalist reforms:



http://www.bartleby.com/65/pi/Pinochet.html

Given all this capitalism doesn't seem that bad. Even with the unequal trade involved on the issue of globalization.

Recall how isolationist North Korea for example is 28 times poorer then its open-market, southern counter-part.

Hence despite arguments to the contrary, I don't think the US can be called imperialist, and I don't think capitalism has been shown to be an overall bad thing (with regards to a comparitive standard).

Like science, western democracy, interventionism, and market economies might not be perfect, but they are the best things we have.


Wow!

Thank you Dialectic Materialist! :)

This is exactly the factual critique of my essay that I have been looking for.

THANK YOU! :)

[American]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

I am a middle upperclass citizen with a conscience when it comes to sociopolitical structures in society.


When liberals caaaaare... babies die. Put that in your essay.







...

[Skeptic]

I am a middle upperclass citizen

Well, we all could have guessed THAT. After all, only upper-middle class guys in the west--that is, the people who enjoy all the fruits of capitalism and imperialism they claim to abhorr--are still "socialists" nowadays.

This "socialism" has nothing to do with concern for the poor--it does not result in the "SUV socialist" buying one less Gucci bag made by poor kids in India, or drinking one less latte in Starbucks' that's farmed by a Colombian peasant for the socialist's enjoyment. It has everything to do, however, with the "SUV socialist"'s desire to keep enjoying his creature comforts without feeling guilty for being so undeservingly well-off. By saying the "right" things believing the "progressive" views, reading the "correct" papers, etc., the SUV socialist can convince himself--for a little while, at least--that he DOES TOO care about the world's poor.

This way, the next shopping spree for made-in-Indonesia designer clothes doesn't seem so bad. On second thought, we should call our friends on our japanese cell phone as we drive to the mall in our German cars. We might pick up a few Italian shows as well while we're there... after all, we want to look good in the coming anti-globalization protest rally, don't we?

To ask whether the "SUV socialist"'s theories about socialism are true or false is besides the point. They are, of course, usually ludicrous and totaly disproven (as the collpase of the USSR, at the very latest, showed). But so is Freudian psychoanalysis--and it still had its adherents. The reason is that the truth of the belief is simply irrelevant; like going to "therapy" and telling the shrink how you hate your mother, holding "socialist" beliefs and telling you friends how you hate capitalism, is just something that makes the capitalist momma-boy feel good about himself.

[Mona]

Originally posted by Upchurch
If you want to report it, that's fine. It'll take someone more familiar with plagerism and copyright laws than me to make the call. My guess is that while it is intellectually dishonest, it probably doesn't fall under any copyright violations. But, again, what do I know?

I'm familiar with plagiarism and copyright law violations, and what Luke T. documented constitues both. Plagiarism seldom is word for word, and need not involve the entirety of the text plagiarized. Some big heads have been rolling lately for incorporating good chunks of other scholars' work in their own, and offering it as their own.

Just one example: Famous historian Doris Kearns Goodwin admitted plagiarizing passages for her book, "The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys," and then resigned from the Pulitzer Prize Board and the McNeil-Lehrer Newshour. She did not take the plagiarized material verbatim, or in whole. She settled a lawsuit and tried to keep the matter from becoming public.

It is very easy for profs to do as Luke T. did, and students are getting busted left and right, as are scholars like Kearns Goodwin.

{Edited to render first sentence coherent.}

[Skeptic]

This is exactly the factual critique of my essay that I have been looking for.

One would like to think that the need for "factual critique" of Marxism's and socialism's mistakes would be about as needed today as a "factual critique" of geocentrism or the flat-earth idea.

Ah well. Like creationism or psychoanalysis, Marxism dies hard (among those who never experienced it, that is), since its remaining adherents are solely those who hold on to it for purely emotional and psychological reasons.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
This is my extended rant on United States Imperialism and it's ties with Gloabalization, Capitalism, and the Neoconservative movements of today.

Here it is: {snip}<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#333333 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#333333><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>Posted by Upchurch:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=2>This post has been reported. Whether or not the material was plagerized, it was properly cited (if not linked) in the post. Plagerism, while dishonest, is not specifically against forum rules. I'm going to stick to a narrow interpretation of those rules and let the post stand.

Anyone is, as always, welcome to appeal my decision to Hal.
[/i]</font></td></tr></table>

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Dear Luke T.

I submitted my paper to www.turnitin.com not to long ago.

This was my initial draft, and I have changed loads of stuff since then.

So why did you show us your first draft then?

As for the "stealing", Swomley's conception is the same as Magdoff's.

That does not excuse changing "Magdoff rejected both the dominant tendency in the United States to see U.S. interventions in the third world as a product of the Cold War" to "Swomley rejected both the dominant tendency in the United States to see U.S. interventions in the third world as a product of the Cold War."

If you cannot see that is plain old lying and plagiarism, then you are hopeless.

I have read all of my sources, and have CITED every time I paraphrase from a source!

No, you didn't. You attributed one sentence to a source, and then continued plagiarizing from the same source without attributing it. And you did not paraphrase. You did not use one original sentence to explain an idea.

I even ran this by my History teacher.

He likes what I have so far for the essay.

I am not a dishonest person.

I would like to believe that, but I can't believe a word of it.

I cited using the stupid f***ing modern MLA format.

Speaking of reading sources and plagiarism, here is te link to the plagiarism portion of the MLA format style of writing: http://webster.commnet.edu/mla/plagiarism.shtml. Read it.

You fail on all counts.

It would have been nice if you just sent me a PM.

I could have explained all of this to you earlier.

You published this stuff in public and solicited opinions. I gave it.

If you want to know how I cite paraphrasing, look at this (and mind you I have not finished all of my citations for all of my sources yet! This is a bloody rought draft, which is why I posted it to the board for review. This Example comes directly from my essay):

Capitalism, from its beginning in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and even more so in the monopoly stage, capital within each nation-state at the center of the system is driven by a need to control access to raw materials and labor in the outlying areas (Foster 3)


The reason that this is properly cited is that I added Foster's name, and the page # to the sentence and put it into quotes.

This by MLA standards is citing a PARAPHRASE!

Like I said. After your cite, you continued to use material from your source, trying to pass it off as your own. And what you did cite isn't paraphrasing anyway.

I know it has been a while since you have been to school Luke.

But not so long since I was an instructor.

And Luke, why did you ambush me when I was away from the forums and could not respond to the comment that you made.

I should wait to see if you are online to comment? We should all sit around and make sure you are here before we answer the topic? What do you think this is, a chat room????

[clk]

Your link did not work because it had a period at the very end of it, Luke. The link below works :)

http://webster.commnet.edu/mla/plagiarism.shtml

[davefoc]

TK,
I don't know whether you want or need somebody to comment further on your behavior here, but I would like to share some thoughts about lying with you. I would suggest that lies might be divided into two types, Adult and Child.

Adult lies are lies about something significant that one is likely to get away with, Childish lies are lies about insignificant things where one is likely to get caught. Almost all people tell childish lies when they are children and gradually move away from that behavior as they grouw older.

Some people don't. I have observed this behavior as a common trait amongst adults who are struggling with their lives. Somehow they failed to realize that a great deal of their success in this world will come from being trustworthy in their relationships with others and that the behavior of telling lies that are transparently false works to prevent the development of relationships which are necessary for a successful life. Whether those relationships be with friends, lovers or work.

Clinton's lies about Monica were a perfect example of typical adult lies. He had almost no chance of being caught and it was about a significant issue in his life. People who occasionally tell adult lies can still lead very successful lives. I am not sure that people that routinely tell childish lies can.

Your lies seem to fall easily into the childish category. You tell lies that are transparently false and they don't seem to be about anything particularly significant in your life.

You might consider what I have said here and why you seem to continue to engage in that behavior.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
And yes, my History teacher is a Socialist by default, but a NAZI when it comes to plagiarism.

I can't help wondering that if your history teacher was a Nazi by default, but a Socialist when it comes to plagiarism, we would all have been reading an essay by Don Black on the virtues of white nationalism under your name...

[H3LL]

*Cough!*