"It's like Lenin said, you look for the person who benefits"

Grudge · Post by **Grudge** » 26 Apr 2009, 01:01

"...and uh..."

This is what Lenin actually said. He said this almost a century ago and it is still perfectly relevant today.

--------------------------

Who Stands To Gain?

V.I. Lenin

There is a Latin tag cui prodest? meaning “who stands to gain?” When it is not immediately apparent which political or social groups, forces or alignments advocate certain proposals, measures, etc., one should always ask: “Who stands to gain?”

It is not important who directly advocates a particular policy, since under the present noble system of capitalism any money-bag can always “hire”, buy or enlist any number of lawyers, writers and even parliamentary deputies, professors, parsons and the like to defend any views. We live in an age of commerce, when the bourgeoisie have no scruples about trading in honour or conscience. There are also simpletons who out of stupidity or by force of habit defend views prevalent in certain bourgeois circles.

Yes, indeed! In politics it is not so important who directly advocates particular views. What is important is who stands to gain from these views, proposals, measures.

For instance, “Europe”, the states that call themselves “civilised”, are now engaged in a mad armaments hurdle-race. In thousands of ways, in thousands of newspapers, from thousands of pulpits, they shout and clamour about patriotism, culture, native land, peace, and progress—and all in order to justify new expenditures of tens and hundreds of millions of rubles for all manner of weapons of destruction—for guns, dreadnoughts, etc.

“Ladies and gentlemen,” one feels like saying about all these phrases mouthed by patriots, so-called. “Put no faith in phrase-mongering, it is better to see who stands to gain!”

A short while ago the renowned British firm Armstrong, Whitworth & Co. published its annual balance-sheet. The firm is engaged mainly in the manufacture of armaments of various kinds. A profit was shown of £877,000, about 8 million rubles, and a dividend of 12.5 per cent was declared! About 900,000 rubles were set aside as reserve capital, and so on and so forth.

That’s where the millions and milliards squeezed out of the workers and peasants for armaments go. Dividends of 12.5 per cent mean that capital is doubled in 8 years. And this is in addition to all kinds of fees to directors, etc. Arm strong in Britain, Krupp in Germany, Creusot in France, Cockerill in Belgium—how many of them are there in all the “civilised” countries? And the countless host of contractors?

These are the ones who stand to gain from the whipping up of chauvinism, from the chatter about “patriotism” (cannon patriotism), about the defence of culture (with weapons destructive of culture) and so forth!

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... apr/11.htm

Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm-Flailing Tube Man · 26 Apr 2009, 01:03

and the answer is....

the state

Grudge · Post by **Grudge** » 26 Apr 2009, 01:05

jawn galliano · Post by **jawn galliano** » 26 Apr 2009, 01:07

today is officially 'explain complex social/political/economic phenomena in one line' day on MABB

Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm-Flailing Tube Man · 26 Apr 2009, 01:09

but it's so much easier this way

if it helps, I'll add "and their corporate buddy buddies"

but frankly I'm fed up with worrying myself into a depression over things I can't control, so one-liners it is

jawn galliano · Post by **jawn galliano** » 26 Apr 2009, 01:13

i'm sorry, that has extended your answer to two lines. you are hereby disqualified

Grudge · Post by **Grudge** » 26 Apr 2009, 01:22

Who is benefiting from the Iraq war?

It wouldn't be wrong I think, to say that the various companies that have been awarded exclusive construction contracts, the armaments companies, oil companies such as Exxon (see http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... 2L20090309).... and so on and so forth, are the primary beneficiaries of the Iraq War.

And, I think it does not entirely slip under the radar that the US administration at the time the war began, had many ex CEOs of these various companies in leading roles - Dick Cheney as the primary example.

Therefore, Chahinon, I would take a careful look at the class that benefits from such wars, and critically evaluate the nature of the state as a representative of this very class.

Grudge · Post by **Grudge** » 26 Apr 2009, 01:38

To understand the way this whole thing worked, lets set up a few points

1) Manufacture weapons, bombs etc. Revenues.

2) Use bombs to level cities. You need to destroy the place thoroughly so that you have a reason to begin construction.

3) Now construction companies such as Bechtel can begin construction. Special emphasis is placed on building the infrastructure needed to move Iraq's resources to other countries. Revenues.

4) Oil companies move in for a peace of the pie. Revenues.

Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm-Flailing Tube Man · 26 Apr 2009, 01:47

[quote name="ManOfSteel"]To understand the way this whole thing worked, lets set up a few points

1) Manufacture weapons, bombs etc. Revenues.

2) Use bombs to level cities. You need to destroy the place thoroughly so that you have a reason to begin construction.

3) Now construction companies such as Bechtel can begin construction. Special emphasis is placed on building the infrastructure needed to move Iraq's resources to other countries. Revenues.

4) Oil companies move in for a peace of the pie. Revenues.[/quote]

Grudge · Post by **Grudge** » 26 Apr 2009, 01:52

nice try but unfortunately, going by your first reply, you completely missed the point.

Haunty · Post by **Haunty** » 26 Apr 2009, 02:18

What brought this up? I haven't seen the news today, Imran, so I can't say I'm aware of any particularly obvious reason to bring up an issue that most Americans have agreed with you on since 2006.

Grudge · Post by **Grudge** » 26 Apr 2009, 02:34

[quote name="HbW"]What brought this up? I haven't seen the news today, Imran, so I can't say I'm aware of any particularly obvious reason to bring up an issue that most Americans have agreed with you on since 2006.[/quote]

I see. Do most Americans agree with me since 2006 that:

a) Capitalism is responsible for war against other countries, with an aim to extract resources and gain preferential markets for corporations

b) Capitalism sends the sons of its own country to die so that corporations may make profits

c) Capitalism is responsible for the persisting neo-colonial subjugation of the African continent, and thus, it's underdevelopment

d) Capitalism OF NECESSITY must find new markets lest there be stagnation and worsening crises, even if it has to do so in a manner that we are all too familiar with (i.e. forceful acquisition of new markets, resources, and means of production through war and colonial apparatuses)

e) Capitalism is responsible for millions and millions of deaths caused by wars brought on entirely for the enrichment and consolidation of the ruling capitalist class

?

Haunty · Post by **Haunty** » 26 Apr 2009, 02:57

[quote name="ManOfSteel"]
[quote name="HbW"]What brought this up? I haven't seen the news today, Imran, so I can't say I'm aware of any particularly obvious reason to bring up an issue that most Americans have agreed with you on since 2006.[/quote]

I see. Do most Americans agree with me since 2006 that:

a) Capitalism is responsible for war against other countries, with an aim to extract resources and gain preferential markets for corporations

b) Capitalism sends the sons of its own country to die so that corporations may make profits

c) Capitalism is responsible for the persisting neo-colonial subjugation of the African continent, and thus, it's underdevelopment

d) Capitalism OF NECESSITY must find new markets lest there be stagnation and worsening crises, even if it has to do so in a manner that we are all too familiar with (i.e. forceful acquisition of new markets through war and colonial apparatuses)

e) Capitalism is responsible for millions and millions of deaths caused by wars brought on entirely for the enrichment and consolidation of the ruling capitalist class

?[/quote]

a) Yes, for the most part, especially given the fact that Dick Cheney's "exploits" are still fresh in their minds.

b) Among other factors, yes. Most specifically, people tend to point their fingers at the oil industry.

c) Not entirely. Most Americans' concern tends to revolve around the Iraq conflict. There are many, however, who would agree with that.

d) Within certain bands, yes, there is an awareness of this tendency. Not everyone cares, however.

e) Some might go for that, although I wouldn't say most people would agree with your "millions and millions" figure.

Where did you say you're from?

TamPron · Post by **TamPron** » 26 Apr 2009, 03:15

The Big Lebowski>>>This Thread

Grudge · Post by **Grudge** » 26 Apr 2009, 04:08

[quote name="HbW"]Where did you say you're from?[/quote]

I am from Africa. I am from Asia. I am from the Middle East. I am from Latin America.

I am from all the lands on this Earth which have been raped by capitalism, and I will not rest until this beast is slain and confined to the dustbin of history by the combined might of the downtrodden working classes of the world!

Charles Bronson · Post by **Charles Bronson** » 26 Apr 2009, 05:03

The person who benefits: Lenin.

And then later the horrid Stalin.

Grudge · Post by **Grudge** » 26 Apr 2009, 05:06

Don't be stupid. How did Lenin or Stalin benefit from the Iraq war?

Charles Bronson · Post by **Charles Bronson** » 26 Apr 2009, 05:11

I was replying to the first post, not the Iraq war.

The whole invasion is dumb as shit really. If there were WMD's we should have just bombed them to hell.

We're going to have to go after Iran next.

I HATE the middle east. Can't wait, 50 or so more years when Europe grows its balls back, another Great European War.

Grudge · Post by **Grudge** » 26 Apr 2009, 05:15

[quote name="Uber Grim Kvlt"]I was replying to the first post, not the Iraq war.

The whole invasion is dumb as shit really. If there were WMD's we should have just bombed them to hell.

We're going to have to go after Iran next.

I HATE the middle east. Can't wait, 50 or so more years when Europe grows its balls back, another Great European War.

[/quote]

Wouldn't a Great European War be a war between European nations?

Dipshit.

Redd · Post by **Redd** » 26 Apr 2009, 05:17

[quote name="Uber Grim Kvlt"]I was replying to the first post, not the Iraq war.

The whole invasion is dumb as shit really. If there were WMD's we should have just bombed them to hell.

We're going to have to go after Iran next.

I HATE the middle east. Can't wait, 50 or so more years when Europe grows its balls back, another Great European War.

[/quote]

Or we can stop blowing each other to hell over stupid shit and solve differences peacefully.

Charles Bronson · Post by **Charles Bronson** » 26 Apr 2009, 06:50

[quote name="ManOfSteel"]
[quote name="Uber Grim Kvlt"]I was replying to the first post, not the Iraq war.

The whole invasion is dumb as shit really. If there were WMD's we should have just bombed them to hell.

We're going to have to go after Iran next.

I HATE the middle east. Can't wait, 50 or so more years when Europe grows its balls back, another Great European War.

[/quote]

Wouldn't a Great European War be a war between European nations?

Dipshit.[/quote]World War 1, World War 2....

[quote name="Redd"]

Or we can stop blowing each other to hell over stupid shit and solve differences peacefully.[/quote]

That's unrealistic.

Redd · Post by **Redd** » 26 Apr 2009, 06:51

You're right. It is unrealistic as long as there is something to gain from war, be it money, resources, etc.

Charles Bronson · Post by **Charles Bronson** » 26 Apr 2009, 06:53

[quote name="Redd"]You're right. It is unrealistic as long as there is something to gain from war, be it money, resources, etc.[/quote]

There will always be something to gain.

Redd · Post by **Redd** » 26 Apr 2009, 07:06

End the conditions that create war and wars won't occur anymore.

Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm-Flailing Tube Man · 26 Apr 2009, 07:33

[quote name="ManOfSteel"]
[quote name="HbW"]What brought this up? I haven't seen the news today, Imran, so I can't say I'm aware of any particularly obvious reason to bring up an issue that most Americans have agreed with you on since 2006.[/quote]

I see. Do most Americans agree with me since 2006 that:

a) State Capitalism is responsible for war against other countries, with an aim to extract resources and gain preferential markets for corporations

b) State Capitalism sends the sons of its own country to die so that corporations may make profits

c) State Capitalism is responsible for the persisting neo-colonial subjugation of the African continent, and thus, it's underdevelopment

d) State Capitalism OF NECESSITY must find new markets lest there be stagnation and worsening crises, even if it has to do so in a manner that we are all too familiar with (i.e. forceful acquisition of new markets, resources, and means of production through war and colonial apparatuses)

e) State Capitalism is responsible for millions and millions of deaths caused by wars brought on entirely for the enrichment and consolidation of the parasitical/political class

?[/quote]fixed

without the power of violent coercion, none of this is possible

hit me up on skype if you're interested in discussing this in better detail. libertarians and marxists have 90% of their values in common, with the remaining 10% being largely a matter of semantic bastardization.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 26 Apr 2009, 09:26

I oddly find myself with Redd on this one.

You know what would make wars more interesting and likely deter some of the lesser testicled men from joining up en masse? Old school sword shit. (I am fully aware that I am speaking from pure fantasy because this will never happen.) If all wars consisted of people with swords liked up and ready to crash in to one another until one side falls or submits, things would likely be a bit more peaceful.

Redd · Post by **Redd** » 26 Apr 2009, 20:56

Not really because there were a fuckton of wars back when using swords was the norm.

It'd still be awesome to kick ass with a sword though.

Holocaust · Post by **Holocaust** » 26 Apr 2009, 21:51

I am the walrus?

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 26 Apr 2009, 23:12

[quote name="Redd"]Not really because there were a fuckton of wars back when using swords was the norm.

It'd still be awesome to kick ass with a sword though.[/quote]

I don't think people are as... rugged... as they were back then. There are too many luxuries now.

Charles Bronson · Post by **Charles Bronson** » 27 Apr 2009, 00:56

[quote name="Redd"]End the conditions that create war and wars won't occur anymore.[/quote]

But this is human nature. People want power. Imran should know this, he loves Stalin.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 27 Apr 2009, 02:03

The prime directive of our genetic make up is continuance. Continuance is achieved through self preservation and reproduction (which we accomplish through procreation). As a basic (and oft times, of course, bent and broken) rule, dominance ensures continuance. Possessing wealth and/or land is a basic mark of dominance. Since there are over 14 billion people with this directive encoded into their DNA, that creates conflict. It could conceivably be possible for a world's population to ensure continuance without using dominance, thus eliminating the root cause of conflict; but this is not something that has happened or seems likely to happen.

To eliminate the causes of war, you must create total planetary harmony or eliminate the continuance directive (which will probably lead to global suicide).

baron von blondle · Post by **baron von blondle** » 27 Apr 2009, 04:03

[quote name="ManOfSteel"]
[quote name="HbW"]Where did you say you're from?[/quote]

I am from Africa. I am from Asia. I am from the Middle East. I am from Latin America.

I am from all the lands on this Earth which have been raped by capitalism, and I will not rest until this beast is slain and confined to the dustbin of history by the combined might of the downtrodden working classes of the world![/quote]

war is good business! and besides mankind likes to kill his neighbour.

ain't never gonna stop.

revolution you say?

Haunty · Post by **Haunty** » 27 Apr 2009, 04:28

[quote name="Uber Grim Kvlt"]
[quote name="Redd"]End the conditions that create war and wars won't occur anymore.[/quote]

But this is human nature. People want power.[/quote]

Exactly this.

Redd · Post by **Redd** » 27 Apr 2009, 05:25

Do not mistake human behavior for human nature.

Redd · Post by **Redd** » 27 Apr 2009, 05:28

[quote name="abzu"]The prime directive of our genetic make up is continuance. Continuance is achieved through self preservation and reproduction (which we accomplish through procreation). As a basic (and oft times, of course, bent and broken) rule, dominance ensures continuance. Possessing wealth and/or land is a basic mark of dominance. Since there are over 14 billion people with this directive encoded into their DNA, that creates conflict. It could conceivably be possible for a world's population to ensure continuance without using dominance, thus eliminating the root cause of conflict; but this is not something that has happened or seems likely to happen.

To eliminate the causes of war, you must create total planetary harmony or eliminate the continuance directive (which will probably lead to global suicide).

[/quote]

The only way to gain everlasting peace is to completely re-write our value system. Our currently values only result in destruction, be it of ourselves or the environment.

Charles Bronson · Post by **Charles Bronson** » 27 Apr 2009, 05:48

[quote name="Redd"]Do not mistake human behavior for human nature.[/quote]

The only people that do not want to better their situation are the defeated, the fatalists.

[quote name="Redd"]

The only way to gain everlasting peace is to completely re-write our value system. Our currently values only result in destruction, be it of ourselves or the environment.[/quote]

Nihilism. But this again leads to the want of higher position.

Imran is against capitalism, but capitalism has done much better than communism.

Try to tell communism is the solution to the millions of peasants killed by collectivization.

I am against "Capitalism", ie what we have right now in America.

I support free markets.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... =firefox-a

Redd · Post by **Redd** » 27 Apr 2009, 06:00

Capitalism never solved any problems. Communism never solved any problems. The free market never solved any problems. Technology solves problems, so why not base a society around technology and where concern for humans and the environment is first and money is non-existant? Money is a corruptor, this has been proven time and time again.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 27 Apr 2009, 06:15

Redd, technology isn't an economic system. You need some form of economy, be it capitalist, communist, or fucking trade and barter.

I agree that a society would do well to be based around technology and I go a step further to say evolution as well -- betterment as a whole. Still, within that society, there needs to be an economy and framework.

Even in that society, there will be dominance and submission. There will be differing views and conflicts. Free will is our blessing and curse, so to speak. Diversity is our benefactor and ultimate end.

Charles Bronson · Post by **Charles Bronson** » 27 Apr 2009, 06:15

[quote name="Redd"]Capitalism never solved any problems. Communism never solved any problems. The free market never solved any problems. Technology solves problems, so why not base a society around technology and where concern for humans and the environment is first and money is non-existant? Money is a corruptor, this has been proven time and time again.[/quote]

Capitalism solves a lot of China and Russias problems...

Technology happens because people have the desire to produce new goods to make a profit. Without capitalism, there is no incentive.

Money is a corrupter, but not the only corrupter. Anything can and will be a corrupter. If there is something to gain, there will be corruption.

Redd · Post by **Redd** » 27 Apr 2009, 06:20

[quote name="abzu"]Redd, technology isn't an economic system. You need some form of economy, be it capitalist, communist, or fucking trade and barter.

I agree that a society would do well to be based around technology and I go a step further to say evolution as well -- betterment as a whole. Still, within that society, there needs to be an economy and framework.

Even in that society, there will be dominance and submission. There will be differing views and conflicts. Free will is our blessing and curse, so to speak. Diversity is our benefactor and ultimate end.[/quote]

You're right, technology is not an economic system, but a resource-based economy is and that is what I'm talking about here. in a RB economy people and the environment are the chief concern and betterment of it is achieved through technology, with no regard to the cost because money will eventually be phased out, as well as undesirable behavior. Think about it, who are the majority of people in prisoners? Poor, uneducated people. Why? Because of a lack of education, they cannot better their lives through that route, so they commit crimes to get what they need. Most, if not all crime would be eliminated under a system where everyone has the same quality of life and the same opportunities.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 27 Apr 2009, 06:25

[quote name="Redd"]
[quote name="abzu"]Redd, technology isn't an economic system. You need some form of economy, be it capitalist, communist, or fucking trade and barter.

I agree that a society would do well to be based around technology and I go a step further to say evolution as well -- betterment as a whole. Still, within that society, there needs to be an economy and framework.

Even in that society, there will be dominance and submission. There will be differing views and conflicts. Free will is our blessing and curse, so to speak. Diversity is our benefactor and ultimate end.[/quote]

You're right, technology is not an economic system, but a resource-based economy is and that is what I'm talking about here. in a RB economy people and the environment are the chief concern and betterment of it is achieved through technology, with no regard to the cost because money will eventually be phased out, as well as undesirable behavior. Think about it, who are the majority of people in prisoners? Poor, uneducated people. Why? Because of a lack of education, they cannot better their lives through that route, so they commit crimes to get what they need. Most, if not all crime would be eliminated under a system where everyone has the same quality of life and the same opportunities.[/quote]

You're really showing your age here, but I do not mean that as an insult to your intelligence; rather a nod to your naivete. There are so many other factors behind crimes. There are mental illness driven crimes that opportunity and quality of life have no bearing on. I like the idea of a resource based economy, sure. How would that work though? Why would person A go to work to produce beneficial object B. How does person A eat and sustain his or her family? Is the foods and amenities given to him or her? If so, is it of equal portion or is it based on quantity of production? Even with no money, you get into capitalism and communism. The currency is simply different.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 27 Apr 2009, 06:27

I would like to add that a tangible currency, no matter what system manages it, is far more desirable than this bullshit we have here. The Federal Reserve prints money with nothing backing it. This representative note in my wallet does not have the tangible bullion behind it. That is fucking scary.

Redd · Post by **Redd** » 27 Apr 2009, 06:31

Just because someone has a pre-existing condition doesn't mean he or she will go and commit a crime. Conditioning is the trigger. For example, say someone is genetic predisposed to violence. Doesn't mean the person will go and commit a crime if s/he was raised by a caring family and is conditioned to believe violence is wrong, yet if you abuse a child with that pre-existing condition, s/he may become a serial killer.

In a RBE people would go to work to help each other. The majority of today's jobs are completely obsolete. Machines and take over laborious, monotonous jobs, leaving humans free to help each other and enlighten themselves. Money is a horrible incentive.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/ Explains the RBE better than I can. If you're interested you ought to look into it.

Redd · Post by **Redd** » 27 Apr 2009, 06:34

[quote name="abzu"]I would like to add that a tangible currency, no matter what system manages it, is far more desirable than this bullshit we have here. The Federal Reserve prints money with nothing backing it. This representative note in my wallet does not have the tangible bullion behind it. That is fucking scary.[/quote]

Don't get me wrong, I'm completely against fiat currency, but regardless of whether or not our money is inflated, crime and greed will always exist. I think we need to get back on a free market system while simultaneously working towards a resource-based economy. A RBE seeks to phase money out, so in other words, if you need food, you walk into a distribution center and take what you need. Want a new camera? Off to the distribution center you go!

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 27 Apr 2009, 06:36

[quote name="Redd"]Just because someone has a pre-existing condition doesn't mean he or she will go and commit a crime. Conditioning is the trigger. For example, say someone is genetic predisposed to violence. Doesn't mean the person will go and commit a crime if s/he was raised by a caring family and is conditioned to believe violence is wrong, yet if you abuse a child with that pre-existing condition, s/he may become a serial killer.

In a RBE people would go to work to help each other. The majority of today's jobs are completely obsolete. Machines and take over laborious, monotonous jobs, leaving humans free to help each other and enlighten themselves. Money is a horrible incentive.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/ Explains the RBE better than I can. If you're interested you ought to look into it.[/quote]

I'm not a psychologist, so I'm not going to refute you and say that conditioning will do nothing; but I think it is naive to think a utopian quality of life will eliminate crime altogether. I will read the link before commenting further on the economic system you're referring to.

I like this conversation. I will return to it later tonight and hope you are online to participate. Additionally, I would like to see what Imran thinks about the URL.

Redd · Post by **Redd** » 27 Apr 2009, 06:37

The idea of a utopia is static. A RBE/society changes as humanity changes.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 27 Apr 2009, 10:08

[quote name="Redd"]The idea of a utopia is static. A RBE/society changes as humanity changes.[/quote]

That just makes it an amorphous utopia. Admittedly I didnt read through too deeply tonight because I was wrapped up in the Sox SWEEPING (MOTHERFUCK YOU NEW YORK) the Yanks on the radio. Still, the idea seems nice but it really requires most if not all of mankind being on board. That is not ever likely.

Redd · Post by **Redd** » 27 Apr 2009, 10:25

"Utopia" is different for every single person, hence why perfection can never exist as every human has his or her own idea of what is perfect.

The only people who will really be against this idea are the ones who have money and power. They are a minority and we can move on, with or without them.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 27 Apr 2009, 10:31

[quote name="Redd"]"Utopia" is different for every single person, hence why perfection can never exist as every human has his or her own idea of what is perfect.

The only people who will really be against this idea are the ones who have money and power. They are a minority and we can move on, with or without them.[/quote]

I think there are too many variables to say absolutely who would be for or against it.

Redd · Post by **Redd** » 27 Apr 2009, 10:34

Well, who do you think would be against giving everyone a high quality of life and truly freeing humanity? The groups I mentioned as well as others who don't understand the aims of the Venus Project are the only ones that come to mind for me, but I honestly cannot think of any others who would be against this.