America admits suspects died in interrogations

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Quite easy. Mine the border and beef up the border patrol 1,000%

You'd have to build an Israeli-style fence like the one they're putting up seperating the West Bank from Israel - AND reinforce that with about three reinforced Army Corps to patrol it, AND put in minefields.

Considering the second generation illegals assimilate rather well and they provide a needed if under-the-table position in our economy that's scratched out thanks to minimum wage laws in an up-and-up equation, the end result would be negative for the country, at least when you count the cost of maintaining a force like that on the southern border. Not to mention the trade drop-off with Mexico.

It would probably be cheaper to annex Mexico and pour in the funds to reconstruct the country and suppress resistance to the idea of being part of the USA. (Note that I'm not advocating doing that; just that it would in all liklihood cost less money than what you're proposing in the long run.)

[weemadando]

Wow, so you're a Marxist, and your crackpot theories pan out precisely
the same way Marxist theories do.....a flash in the pan...I am sooo glad
that you will never rise to a position of power, now.

Well, now we know Mark hasn't studied Philosophy.

And we know that you haven't studied Politics...

Just why were the Marxists wrong?

[MKSheppard]

Well, now we know Mark hasn't studied Philosophy.

You said it yourself, you're a Hegelian, and that Marx based (nay, stole
lots of his political theory from Hegel) Just a matter of coming to conclusions.

[MKSheppard]

You'd have to build an Israeli-style fence like the one they're putting up seperating the West Bank from Israel - AND reinforce that with about three reinforced Army Corps to patrol it, AND put in minefields.

We ALREADY have a fucking fence, nimrod. It's just poorly maintained,
and the Illegals simply slip through it. Why is it that we're going down like
hardasses on the Canadians at the northern border, but keeping a big
gaping HOLE in our security network down south?

I mean JMFC, a Al-quaida terrorist cell could infiltrate into the US from
Mexico with a dirty bomb!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, now we know Mark hasn't studied Philosophy.

You said it yourself, you're a Hegelian, and that Marx based (nay, stole
lots of his political theory from Hegel) Just a matter of coming to conclusions.

Hegel concluded that the historical dialectic ended at modern democratic capitalism. Marx developed an economic theory that allowed him to contend that it did not, and that it extended to a level of organization called Communism. Once that economic theory was disproven, Marx's extension of the historical dialectic was also disproven.

The basic Hegelian dialectic, though, is really quite nice. There's a reason Marxian theory was so easy to swallow - It was built on something very sensible. The actual communist part was loony-bin, but definitely not the stuff Marx took from Hegel.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

We ALREADY have a fucking fence, nimrod. It's just poorly maintained,
and the Illegals simply slip through it. Why is it that we're going down like
hardasses on the Canadians at the northern border, but keeping a big
gaping HOLE in our security network down south?

I mean JMFC, a Al-quaida terrorist cell could infiltrate into the US from
Mexico with a dirty bomb!

Not the kind of fence the Israelis are putting up - And have you ever been to the US-Mexican border out in the middle of nowhere, anyway? It's not exactly like the Iron Curtain, which is what it would have to be to stop this flow.

The reason we're going down on the Canadian border is because the Canadian border is worse, it's just that Canadians have a high enough standard of living that they don't flood into the USA (contrary to your imagination, living under Chretien and the Queen doesn't cause people to automatically leave a prosperous nation for the USA), so it isn't reported. We're just bringing that border up to Mexican border standards.

P.S. Al-Qaeda couldn't sneak in a dirty bomb anywhere, as it would be detected. It could, however, easily sneak in a conventional explosive at a port, where the traffic flow is much higher in terms of capacity than any location along either border, and much harder to search. Or an abandoned stretch of coastline. Or just train some of their Pakistani followers to run a liquid natural gas tanker; lots of merchant crews are from Muslim countries.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And we know that you haven't studied Politics...

Just why were the Marxists wrong?

Because the economics didn't work out the way they predicted.

[weemadando]

Well, now we know Mark hasn't studied Philosophy.

You said it yourself, you're a Hegelian, and that Marx based (nay, stole
lots of his political theory from Hegel) Just a matter of coming to conclusions.

Hegel concluded that the historical dialectic ended at modern democratic capitalism. Marx developed an economic theory that allowed him to contend that it did not, and that it extended to a level of organization called Communism. Once that economic theory was disproven, Marx's extension of the historical dialectic was also disproven.

The basic Hegelian dialectic, though, is really quite nice. There's a reason Marxian theory was so easy to swallow - It was built on something very sensible. The actual communist part was loony-bin, but definitely not the stuff Marx took from Hegel.

Sigh. A misinterpretation. Marxism is taught for a reason, because it is seen as being the BEST interpretation of political evolution. Just because we haven't seen it yet doesn't mean it isn't going to happen.

Lenin following the Revolution said that it was only the first step, becoming the socialist state and that it would take many years, probably even centuries to reach a communist state. Then you have Stalin coming to power, saying: "Right, this is communism, if you don't like it its off to the gulags with you." The Marxist doctrine states the need for global socialism before any true progress towards communism can be made.

You seem to be easily accepting of Hegel's belief that Democratic-Capitalist society is the be all and end all of politcal evolution, but in my 3 years of study of Political Science at university NOT ONCE has it been mentioned as a seriously considered theory in this day and age. Marx might not have been right with ALL of his theories but that doesn't discredit the rest.

[weemadando]

Oh and on the topic of borders:

The other problem is that by having such a porous border the proliferation of slave - thats right SLAVE - labour in the US is greater than it was even at the height of the confederacy et al.

The amount of slaves in the US, the majority of mexican/latin american origin is astounding. Now, the common perception of "slave" is someone in chains, being whipped by a fat man wearing a funny helmet. In reality a slave is someone who is in bondage to a master/working without the ability or option to leave and the biggie - a "citizen" without legal rights or recourse. In modern terms this is effectively every illegal immigrant, they work for pitiful rates, have no guarantees of safety while working and have minimal legal rights and no ability to go to the authorities about infringements without placing themselves and their livelihood at risk.

Slavery is well and truly alive today, like it or not.

[weemadando]

And we know that you haven't studied Politics...

Just why were the Marxists wrong?

Because the economics didn't work out the way they predicted.

Bzzzzt! Wrong!

The economic model of Marxism assumes global revolution/socialism. Something that wasn't present during the so called "failures" of "communism".

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And we know that you haven't studied Politics...

Just why were the Marxists wrong?

Because the economics didn't work out the way they predicted.

Bzzzzt! Wrong!

The economic model of Marxism assumes global revolution/socialism. Something that wasn't present during the so called "failures" of "communism".

Right - But the first world has already past by the stage at which a Marxian revolution could occur. Think of it like a study done on a segment of the populace. Marx's theory demanded certain conditions in the industrial world, and evidence compiled over the history of the currently industrialized world has proven that those conditions do not and will not exist.

[weemadando]

Right - But the first world has already past by the stage at which a Marxian revolution could occur. Think of it like a study done on a segment of the populace. Marx's theory demanded certain conditions in the industrial world, and evidence compiled over the history of the currently industrialized world has proven that those conditions do not and will not exist.

The FIRST world is CURRENTLY at a state at which a revolution is UNLIKELY.

The third world is ripe for the pickings and to be quite honest the "corporate revolution" that we are undergoing right now in the first world could well provide similar circumstances to the industrial revolution world that spawned Marxism.

You surely can't believe that this iteration of the world -right now- is going to last forever?

[Axis Kast]

The FIRST world is CURRENTLY at a state at which a revolution is UNLIKELY.

This is more or less a “what if?” statement that takes advantage of our inability to determine the future. Suffice to say, the threat of a revolution on any true, Marxian basis has passed. It is unlikely to resurface given the continued success of the capitalist model.

The third world is ripe for the pickings and to be quite honest the "corporate revolution" that we are undergoing right now in the first world could well provide similar circumstances to the industrial revolution world that spawned Marxism.

Marxism in the third world is merely an improper title for “petty dictatorship,” “autocracy,” “oligarchy,” or “plutocracy.” More likely would be revolution in favor of an Islamist government.

We will never again see the “similar circumstances to the industrial revolution” given the advanced state of social services and the success of “trickle down” capitalism. At best one might imagine a Marxian revolution in darkest Africa or most remote Southeast Asia – and then we’re talking about revolution propelled in fact by warlords whose agenda is the furthest thing from Marx entirely.

You surely can't believe that this iteration of the world -right now- is going to last forever?

This “iteration?” I’d need you to define what “this iteration” actually is. Do I believe the world will function always on its current, capitalist model? Technically? Yes. If one draws up a “scale” on which we can map both “command” and “free” economies, then one discovers that if “total command economy” is measured with a 10, the closest nation on Earth – the People’s Republic of China – to a true command economy (on a Marxian level) is at 8 but that its higher-level functions (ie, most business transactions and foreign trade) occur on a level closer to 5 or 6. Even the Soviet Union after 1980 never rose above a 7 so far as its trade with the outside world went. The last system outside capitalism or communism was the semi-fascist model in South Africa that collapsed (though admittedly after a long-successful run) due to war, public unrest, and a series of factors more or less outside the financial sphere. Even this rated only a 5 or 6 as well.

And keep in mind that a “command economy” above is hardly actually Marxist. It’s more or less forced, total captivity of a given market by one supplier. But even in China, this is rapidly becoming blurred.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The FIRST world is CURRENTLY at a state at which a revolution is UNLIKELY.

Why is anybody going to revolt and sacrifice their RV, their rambler, and their steady supply of cable TV and junk food in exchange for a war and then sharing their productions with everyone else in the world? No, there's zero chance of it happening. Communism was only truly viable if the condition of workers got worse relative to the wealthy. Even Trotsky's attempt at saving the theory wasn't truly sufficient - We can safely say that Communism in the First World is dead.

The third world is ripe for the pickings and to be quite honest the "corporate revolution" that we are undergoing right now in the first world could well provide similar circumstances to the industrial revolution world that spawned Marxism.

Okay, so the third world goes through the same development as the first world. That means that we'll see a resurgence of some form of Marxism in the third world once the current fundamentalist backlash is over. But it will ultimately prove unsustainable - just like the Marxism of the First World did - and lead to a general triumph of capitalism in the Third World as well as the First World.

You surely can't believe that this iteration of the world -right now- is going to last forever?

Why not? Civilization has existed, oftentimes, basically unchanged for millenia. The industrial revolution was an anomaly, and we're still going through it (I don't buy the entire information age thing - It's just a gradation inside the industrial revolution. Heck, most of our power still comes from steam turbines. The industrial revolution was really about the concentration of people inside of cities, and that is still going on).

Once we stabilize at the level of a complete industrial society - The third and complete organization of society in social-technological terms in my way of reinterpeting Hegelianism (at the overarching level) - then there's no reason we won't settle down and enjoy tens of millenia of gradual and staid, incremental progress just like agricultural society. I fully expect that to happen. Not quite sure when, but it is inevitable. That's the nice thing about the dialectic, isn't it?

[Sea Skimmer]

You'd have to build an Israeli-style fence like the one they're putting up seperating the West Bank from Israel - AND reinforce that with about three reinforced Army Corps to patrol it, AND put in minefields.

We ALREADY have a fucking fence, nimrod. It's just poorly maintained,
and the Illegals simply slip through it. Why is it that we're going down like
hardasses on the Canadians at the northern border, but keeping a big
gaping HOLE in our security network down south?

I mean JMFC, a Al-quaida terrorist cell could infiltrate into the US from
Mexico with a dirty bomb!

No fence is going to stop anyone. We'd need a patrolled wall, somthing that you cant breach using mere wire cutters in a minute. The cost would be huge and pointless.

The number of mines you'd need would run into the tens of millions minimal, and people could still quite easily clear lanes unless there patroled heavily.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Marxism in the third world is merely an improper title for “petty dictatorship,” “autocracy,” “oligarchy,” or “plutocracy.” More likely would be revolution in favor of an Islamist government.

We will never again see the “similar circumstances to the industrial revolution” given the advanced state of social services and the success of “trickle down” capitalism. At best one might imagine a Marxian revolution in darkest Africa or most remote Southeast Asia – and then we’re talking about revolution propelled in fact by warlords whose agenda is the furthest thing from Marx entirely.

Theoretically we could see an exact repeat of First World events in the Third World, but of course the interaction factors are more complex than that. And it would lead to, what, anyway? Soviet-style governments in the former third world that collapse after a century and lead to genuine democracy there? How would this affect the First World, exactly?

And keep in mind that a “command economy” above is hardly actually Marxist. It’s more or less forced, total captivity of a given market by one supplier. But even in China, this is rapidly becoming blurred.

One should remember also that Marxism actually worked as close to its original design as it possibly could in the real world, every single time it was applied. Marx did not account for Friction (where Friction refers to Human Nature) when designing his ideal society. When his ideal society was applied to the real world Friction acted upon it - And the necessary reaction to the Friction, to make Marxist society continue to function, was a leadership with the power to compel. Ideologically pure of course - But the corruption of individuals with such power and with such trust placed in them sets in quite quickly.

No - the horrors that Marxist countries are didn't result from the improper application of Marxism. They resulted from the exact application of Marxism and the intelligent response of Marxist theoreticians to the weaknesses of Marxist theory as exposed by its application in the Real World.

[Illuminatus Primus]

But Nation-States cannot do this, because their leadership has a duty to maximize the gain of their citizenry, not somebody else's. Okay?

Then explain why bush is currently playing suck-ass with Vincente Fox
and allowing millions of Mexicans to swarm over the border?

Cheap.

West.

Coast.

Labor.

[Nathan F]

OK, now, here is a question for everyone:

Does it really hurt your feelings that these bastards were killed in interrogation?

Not me...

[RadiO]

OK, now, here is a question for everyone:

Does it really hurt your feelings that these bastards were killed in interrogation?

Not me...

Me.
Switch it round some. The LAPD beat two murder suspects to death. Would that be fine? They were probably guilty, after all.
If I'm brutally honest, I don't care about the suspects as much as the breaking of the rules this represents. That and the way people are just shrugging it off, like it's okay because it happened overseas, to people we fucking hate, and the folks doing the beating were wearing BDUs.

[weemadando]

*snip*

Well that was impressive, an entire reply of semantics, red herrings and strawmen.

[Axis Kast]

Well that was impressive, an entire reply of semantics, red herrings and strawmen.

To which post of mine is this a reply?

[weemadando]

Well that was impressive, an entire reply of semantics, red herrings and strawmen.

To which post of mine is this a reply?

The one where you replied to me.

[Trytostaydead]

Come on guys, America's been torturing and executing their POWs for a long long time.

[Axis Kast]

Well that was impressive, an entire reply of semantics, red herrings and strawmen.

And my argument was "an entire reply of semantics, red herrings, and strawmen" on what level, exactly?

Your argument is that the Marxist revolution as envisioned in 1848 is now possible despite the fact that it covers solely industrial societies, all of which are now able - and obliged - to support directly the comfort and health of their citizens? It's wrong.

There will never be a "global socialist revolution" as you put it. Too many worldwide have seen the worthlessness of the Communist model applied.

As for your insistance that the United States is full of "slaves?" It's rather ridiculous given the fact that so many of these laborers earn far more in our country doing the least enviable tasks (I'll admit that much) than they could at home in their own nations. If it's such a horrible life, why do these people sneak across borders at risk to life and limb?

[Joe]

Mexican "slaves" are bound to no one. They're free to leave anytime they wish.