Economic Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism or Simply Modus Operandi In the Colonization Of Greece?

Reggie Middleton's picture

Lenine Imperialisme stade supreme du capitalisme

Monday, I posted As Promised, Greece Guts Naive Investors Once Again… (a must read for those who don't know my extensive history on this topic), and received some very interesting if somewhat unbelievable feedback from the muppets among my readers (for those not versed in Muppets and muppetology, seeGoldman Sachs Executive Director Corroborates Reggie Middleton's Stance: Business Model Designed To Rip Off Clients). As hard as it is to believe, there are actually still those who are of the mindset that the events of recent past were somehow solely or at least primarily market driven. Not trying to be facetious, or anything of the sort, but you muppets need to get a grip on reality. I'm going to reintroduce BoomBustBlog research from earlier in the year in three distinct topical sections, all in an attempt to expand the consciousness of the muppets amongst us. Professional and Institutional BoomBustBlog subscribers who don't want the brief in socio-economic theory and history can download ourfile iconGreek debt restructuring & maturity extension model and just get busy. Everyone else should continue on....

New Age Imperialism = Economic Colonization

As far back as 1920, Lenin explained what is happening to Greece (and likely soon Italy, Portgual, Spain and Ireland), and did so in exquisite detail may I add - as I excerpt from from Wikipedia's Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism:

In order for capitalism to generate greater profits than the home market can yield, the merging of banks and industrial cartels produces finance capitalism — the exportation and investment of capital to countries with underdeveloped economies. In turn, such financial behaviour leads to the division of the world among monopolist business companies and the great powers. Moreover, in the course of colonizing undeveloped countries, Business and Government eventually will engage in geopolitical conflict over the economic exploitation of large portions of the geographic world and its populaces. Therefore, imperialism is the highest (advanced) stage of capitalism, requiring monopolies (of labour and natural-resource exploitation) and the exportation of finance capital (rather than goods) to sustain colonialism, which is an integral function of said economic model.[3][4] Furthermore, in the capitalist homeland, the super-profits yielded by the colonial exploitation of a people and their economy, permit businessmen to bribe native politicians — labour leaders and the labour aristocracy (upper stratum of the working class) — to politically thwart worker revolt (labour strike); hence, the new proletariat, the exploited workers in the Third World colonies of the European powers, would become the revolutionary vanguard for deposing the global capitalist system.

Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917), by Lenin, describes the function of financial capital in generating profits from imperial colonialism, as the final stage of capitalist development to ensure greater profits. The essay is a synthesis of Lenin’s modifications and developments of economic theories that Karl Marx formulated in Das Kapital (1867).[1]

Imperialism, as defined by the People of Human Geography, is "the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination." [1] It is often considered in a negative light, as merely the exploitation of native people in order to enrich a small handful.[2] Imperialism always involves the massive export of capital to foreign countries for the purpose of exploiting and dominating both their labor forces and their markets. Imperialism, 

the highest stage of capitalism, represents the stage at which a country's consumers cannot buy all the products that have been produced, and additional markets must be sought after. The dominant feature of imperialism is the repatriation of invested capital.

Cecil Rhodes and the Cape-Cairo railway project. Rhodes founded the De Beers Mining Company, owned the British South Africa Companyand had his name given to what became the state of Rhodesia. He liked to "paint the map British red" and declared: "all of these stars ... these vast worlds that remain out of reach. If I could, I would annex other planets."[4]

For those of you who don't see the connection yet, let's peruse some sample output from file iconGreek debt restructuring & maturity extension model :

So When It Comes To The Indebted, When Does 2 Euro + 24 Euro = Less Than 2 Euro, or You Can't Solve Insolvency By Piling On More Debt!

The first section of the graphic below shows Greece's funding requirement from the open market after it implements 65% haircuts across the board of its debt and reduces coupon rates in half by substituting existing debt with new debt as a Zero Coupon Bond Roll-up with 20 yr amortization. As you can see, such a plan (if it were doable) puts the country on relatively stable footing. Of course, if it were to do so the markets would extract their pound of flesh in terms of markedly higher coupon rates, which Greece presumably would not be able to afford (presumably). So, what do TPTB do? They push/offer 240B euros of bailout aid in the form of debt - debt that has to be serviced at some time in the short to medium term future since it is understood that Greece will not be able to get this funding from the market (is it understood, or presumed?). This debt is a multiple of what Greece can afford to service. It is a multiple of the debt that it has now, and this is not considering its condition after the still ongoing and draconian austerity measures forced upon it - thus cutting its GDP and revenue generating capability nearly in half (or so-ish).

Looking at the graph below, without adjusting for the austerity effect, Greece is considerably worse off after the bailout package, then before.

BoomBustBlog Greek Debt Model sustainabilty

When observed over time, all this bailout and default/haricuts/restructuring buys Greece (in terms of time) is one year. In 2014, it's time to pay the piper and default once again as it begs for more bailouts with the overly stringent austerity price tag...

BoomBustBlog Greek Debt Model sustainabilty alt chart

Now, who is lending this money that can easily be seen with a simple spreadsheet to be IMPOSSIBLE to pay back? It's the Troika, that's who. But these ivory tower beings who reign above us mere bloggers and investors from NYC must have supreme knowledge in the fact that they are assisting the unwashed, profligate masses, right????

Who Are These New Age Imperialists? The New Economic Colonizers Of The Globe???? 

Faithful BoomBustBlog readers should remember the empirical rant, How the US Has Perfected the Use of Economic Imperialism Through the European Union!, wherein the following was preached:

... the Euro members’ loan will be pari passu with existing sovereign debt i.e. it will not be considered senior. Although there is no written, hard evidence to support this claim, it is our view that otherwise there will be no incentive for investors to hold the debt of troubled countries like Greece, which will ultimately defeat the whole purpose of the rescue package. Moreover, there are indications that support this idea. As per Dutch Finance Minister Jan Kees de Jager, “We are not talking about a special preference for the eurogroup loans, that’s not possible because then you would have the situation that already-existing rights of creditors at the moment would be harmed.” (reference Of course, if more investors did their homework and ran the numbers, that same disincentive can be said to exist with the IMF's super senior preference given the event of a default and recoverable collateral after the IMF has fed at the trough.

The ramifications:

IMF’s preferred creditor status coupled with the expensive Euro members’ loans which are part of the rescue package can create a public debt snowball effect that could push the troubled countries towards insolvency when the IMF debt becomes repayable in three years time.

If you look at the output from our BoomBustBlog model, that event is clearly illustrated and articulated using simple (not complex) addition and subtraction (and some minor bond math).

This could be seen particularly in case of Greece (subscribers, please reference Greece Public Finances Projections). Even if all the spending cuts and revenue raising are achieved as planned for Greece, its debt will peak to 149.1% of the GDP in 2013. Please keep in mind that these numbers are based on what we perceived (as does simple math) to be pie in the sky optimism.

Being that this article is well over a year old, that pie in the sky optimism proved to be just that as we now Greek debt to GDP will break 200%!!!

I urge all readers to reference Lies, Damn Lies, and Sovereign Truths: Why the Euro is Destined to Collapse!.


Notice how dramatically off the market the IMF has been, skewered HEAVILY to the optimistic side. Now, notice how aggressively the IMF has downwardly revsied their forecasts to still end up widlly optimistic.


Ever since the beginning of this crisis, IMF estimates of government balance have been just as bad…


Many of my readers have inquired as to why the IMF has been so inaccurate in their estimates throughout the crisis. I doubt very seriously that it is a case of ineptitude. If one were to be a skeptic, and realize that the IMF charges stringent rates and can (and does) usurp the hierarchy of the claims upon assets upon its entrance, then one can clearly see a motivation in undershooting certain estimates. I am not saying that this is the case, but I would be remiss in failing to broach the topic. Remember, this is not your typical mainstream media publication, It's BoomBustBlog, and nothing is off limits.


IMF Economic Forecasts (%) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Economic Growth 04 -2.6 1.1 2.1 2.1
Debt as % of GDP 133.3 145.1 148.6 149.1 144.3
Budget Deficit 8.1 7.6 6.5 4.9 3


The year 2013, with a IMF-proclaimed debt ratio of a tad under 150%, is the time when Greece will have to refinance the debt to pay the IMF (remember the charts above that show how optimistic the IMF has been historically). However, since the current debt raised by Greece is at fairly high rates, new debt will only be available at much higher rates (as markets should price-in the risk of high debt rollover) unless there is some saving grace of a drastic plunge in world wide interest rates and a concomitant plunge in the risk profile of Greece. At a 150% debt ratio, historically low artificially suppressed global interest rates that have nowhere to go but higher and prospective junk ratings from the US rating agencies, we don' t see this happening. Thus, the cost of borrowing for in 2013 is likely to be much higher in the market than the nearly five percent for the existing debt. Greece will either be unable to fund itself in the markets at all, and will have to convince the Euro Members and the IMF to extend the three-year lending facility just announced (reference What We Know About the Pan European Bailout Thus Far) or, it will get the debt refinanced at very high rates. In both cases the total debt as a percentage of GDP will continue to rise, and this is not a sustainable scenario over the longer-term. In addition, if it accepts the EU/IMF package and there is an event of default or restructuring, the IMF will force a haircut upon the private and public debtors beyond what would have normally been the case. This essentially devalues the debt upon the involvement of the IMF, a scenario that we believe many sovereign bondholders (particularly Greek, Spanish and Irish) may not have taken into consideration. This also leaves the possibility of a significant need for many banks to revalue their sovereign debt - particularly Greek sovereign debt - holdings.

As illustrated above, there is a higher probability for a Greek sovereign debt restructuring in 2013, which will definitely not hurt IMF (since it has a preferred right) but the Euro Members and other investors who will be holding the Greek debt.

So, now that we know who loses, who actually benefits?


Members' quotas and voting power, and Board of Governors

Major decisions require an 85% supermajority.[19] The United States has always been the only country able to block a supermajority on its own.[20]

Table showing the top 20 member countries in terms of voting power (2,220,817 votes in total):[21]


IMF member country? Quota: millions of SDRs? Quota: percentage of total? Governor? Alternate Governor? Votes: number? Votes: percentage of total?
United StatesUnited States 37149.3 17.09 Timothy F. Geithner Ben Bernanke 371743 16.74
JapanJapan 13312.8 6.12 Naoto Kan Masaaki Shirakawa 133378 6.01
GermanyGermany 13008.2 5.98 Axel A. Weber Wolfgang Schäuble 130332 5.87
United KingdomUnited Kingdom 10738.5 4.94 Alistair Darling Mervyn King 107635 4.85
FranceFrance 10738.5 4.94 Christine Lagarde Christian Noyer 107635 4.85
People's Republic of ChinaChina 8090.1 3.72 Zhou Xiaochuan Hu Xiaolian 81151 3.66


And there you have it. An encapsulated lesson on global imperialism (or how the US in now colonizing Europe, unlike the first time around during those pre-Boston tea party days). Is this or is this not an interesting way to introduce the concept of Greek bond defaults???

Subscriber downloads (interested partiesmay click here to subscribe):

Click these links to find out more about me:

Social media snaphshot

Visual Biography
Or you can follow me:
  • Follow us on Blogger
  • Follow us on Facebook
  • Follow us on LinkedIn
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • Follow us on Youtube

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Seer's picture

Reggie, you're starting to get the sense of the BIG PICTURE.  While I might not agree with your linkages here, I nonetheless acknowledge that you're on the right track.

Eventually you will connect the dots.  One can do so without labels, without speaking of ideologies.  ALL answers exist in nature (some might say "God," same same).  We just deceive ourselves into thinking that we're above nature, that we're outside of it.

"We must find new lands from which we can easily obtain raw materials and at the same time exploit the cheap slave labor that is available from the natives of the colonies.
The colonies would also provide a dumping ground for the surplus goods produced in our factories."

- Cecil Rhodes, 1853-1902, British imperialist who founded Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe)

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

- Major General Smedley Butler

TheGardener's picture

The book was written in 1916 in Zurich and first published April 1917 in Petrograd .

It`s really worth reading, especially the references to Hobson and the "United States of Europe" as an imperialistic project.


LadyEconomist's picture


When the guy starts to cite Lenin and other Marxists, I stop reading.

This is so funny... If Marxism was opposed to Capitalism, then Communism is highest form of economical and societal organization which is opposed to Imperialism. We shouldn't look further than N. Korea to see where it all leads to.

Another issue is that Greece and countries of European Union ARE NOT capitalist countries. They are STATISTS, the softer form of socialism where governments control and regulate private industries. Statist cronyism is responsible for the current situation in EU and in Greece, not capitalism. Capitalism is used often by Marxists as a pejorative word. Capitalism is nothing more than free market economy where equals compete on the market and prices are set by supply and demand w/o interference of the regulations and governments. All imbalances of the market happens only in one of two situations occur,

1. Government interferes in economical process by excessive regulations and control;

2. Private institutions if allowed gain monopoly status, create cartels, oligopolies, etc.

When you study any economic crisis you would see right away that Government is the major culprit in creating that economical imbalance and when the bubble pops, then the government is the culprit in extending a recessions or prolonging a depression. If market left alone, it would correct itself much faster than w/government interventions.

Private enterprises would always seek expansion to new markets. There is nothing wrong with it. The problem is that statist governments create imperialism and imperialistic tendencies. Marxists create imperialism, not capitalists. The big and strong statist government is prone to corruption and inequalities in economical deals. Statist government kills true competition which assures balance and harmonious economy and trade. Companies 'with friends' in the government get favors and upper hand. This creates bubbles and economical instabilities and imperialism. Government also doesn't allow for true corrections of the market.

Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin and the others were the biggest criminals and charlatans on Earth.

Marxism is truly an evil, twosted ideology because it sounds good to your ears and it appeals to our sense of righteousness.Whoever preaches in marxist language and presents Marxist  rationale oposes Capitalism and true free market economy. Marxism uses the emotions and twists the words and changes their meaning. It was already rebuted and put to shreds by Ludiwig von Misses and Hayek and even Ayn Rand, and the others. It was also experimented in the reality and we know from the history how it turned out to work in the real world. 


Seer's picture

"Marxism is truly an evil, twosted ideology because it sounds good to your ears and it appeals to our sense of righteousness."

Again, I come to the defense not of theoretical ideologies, which can NEVER exist in a pure, functioning form (and that includes Capitalism), but of LOGIC.

I could just as readily say that uttering "Capitalism and true free market economy" does the very same thing of sounding good to the ears.

If Capitalism and "free market economy" is predicated on perpetual growth on a finite planet then it/they can be just as readily dismissed as (ultimately) a failure.

But you're "free" to tilt at windmills.

"Men argue, nature acts." - Voltaire



LadyEconomist's picture

Whould you say this same about Nazism?

Seer's picture

Sorry, I don't DO these "isms."  I don't pretend that the best looking horse at the glue factory is the horse to ride.

LadyEconomist's picture

If Capitalism came to us during EVOLUTION, not REVOLUTION and we know that this is the best currently working system we know then maybe try to improve it, not change it. Let's stick to what works because we know it from our history and human experience. Capitalism doesn't harm us. All this new 'isms' ideas do.

tickhound's picture

Sorry for interrupting the thread... But LadyE, I'm not sure you are picking up what Seer is putting down. 

He doesn't want to debate which shit sandwich tastes better. 

Capitalism isn't a creation upon itself.  It is an ism under monetarism, or monetary-ism.  "ALL THIS NEW ISMS", as you say, fall under monetarism, or monetary-ism... This is the religion you have trouble seeing past.  All require unlimited growth, all require profit often regardless of consequence, all need scarcity, all profit from waste, all are ultimately inefficient.  I don't pretend to have the answers, but I'm not afraid to venture outside my faith. 

That said, some ism's, such as capitalism, are better engines for profit and growth.  But its the religion of monetary-ism, and ALL its tangent isms that we have come to know, to include capitalism, that are buckling under the combined pressures of a finite planet, technology / automation over labor, inflationary monetary policies, etc... and even human awareness.

LadyEconomist's picture

Every type of ideology, everything what everybody believes in you can:

a) describe and systemize, then--> b) label and add '-ism' at the end, then--> c) call it a philosophy then--> d) if you personally prescribe to it, call it a religion/dogma. 

You can go 'beyond' and search new things but eventually they fall under this same process.


In my other post I explain that "capitalism" is better than all these other --isms because it was spontaneously created through the evolution, not the revolution. It is not the product of one human brain but rather the product of all the 'best brains' and constantly improved through the natural mechanisms. 


Seer's picture

"spontaneously created through the evolution"

Maybe it's me, but when I think of "evolution" "spontaneity" isn't a word that seems to leap up.

Also, English isn't your first language, is it? (if not, then kudos for you for being multi-lingual)

LadyEconomist's picture

Yes, I admitted earlier that I'm from the former Eastern Block. 

Sorry for my English. I correct my texts all the time but it is beyond me. 

tickhound's picture

"...but rather the product of all the 'best brains' and constantly improved through the natural mechanisms"

A layman could say, "capitalism constantly improved" is discovering new ways to blow shit up and rebuild them, kill then grow, exploit and then demand further.

But its a subjective argument that I care not to have now. 

Regardless though... Cheers and welcome to zh.

LadyEconomist's picture

If I read your posts long enough I would find out your true "-ism". So far it is "nihilism" ;) Thanks.

Seer's picture

And why do I have the feeling that you believe that anyone who doesn't tattoo "I Heart Capitalism" on their chest is an "Communist" or an "nihilist?"

"Men argue, nature acts." - Voltaire (I'll side up with Voltaire any day of the week.)

LadyEconomist's picture

No, you are wrong. People hardly ever go to these extremes and most of their philosophies are combination of a few, not clean cut. However if you buy a few of Marxists believes you can be easier swayed. Currently, we have enough of it in the United States already.

akak's picture

Why even use the emotionally charged, and all-but-meaningless, word "capitalism" anyway?  I hate that word, as it has come to mean too many different things to too many people.

Just say "free enterprise" --- which of course is manifestly NOT the system under which we are laboring today.

LadyEconomist's picture


We shouldn't be ashamed of the word "Capitalism" if we believe Capitalism is good. It was a regular word for a long time. Marxists made it as something dirty.

Speaking of words, I don't like the word "Class" - it was created by Marx in 19 century just to show and create 'social struggle'. We can argue that back then there were real classes, aristocracy, merchants and working intelligence (bourgeoisie) and the poor. We don't have classes and we shouldn't divide our society as such. 

Also Marxists confuse words 'profit' with 'greed' and implies that 'profit is greed' this way. 

There are other words which were also twisted and they are 'loaded' with negative meaning. 


LadyEconomist's picture

We experimented with Marxism. It was as practical as you can get... Eastern Block lasted 44 years and Soviet Union lasted 75 years. We can say what works and what doesn't. 

Seer's picture

Again, I don't DO isms.

Getting back to what is really germane.. my challenge/question to anyone's pet ism is whether it's predicated on perpetual growth on a finite planet or not, and if it is then I want to see a LOGICAL argument for how it can operate as such (not some "it's a better looking horse at the glue factory than horse "X").

BAD = FAIL (I love to argue with all the frothing anti-communist folks about why they can on one hand believe that it's a BAD system [and I agree] and on the other hand believe that it can take over the world- refer to my simple equation [anything else just allows deception to creep in])

BIG = FAIL (because BIG requires LOTS of power, and power corrupts)

Now then, my challenge continues to stand for anyone who can offer a "system" that can operate given these two simple equations, and do so on a finite planet.

LadyEconomist's picture

Once again, I don't intend to create a new ideology or economical system.

I believe capitalism and personal freedom is the highest evolutionary achivement of humanity and I want to stop there and I don't offer the other system. It was created voluntarily by many generations of high achivers, by natural 'means and ways'. It evolved, it is an organic constructive creation of all humanity.  

Socialism/Marxism/Comunism is anthitesis of capitalism. It is an ideological creation of faulty brains of a couple of maniacs. It was tried and implemented by force. It is unnatural and always destined to fail. 

Seer's picture

"I believe capitalism and personal freedom is the highest evolutionary achivement of humanity and I want to stop there and I don't offer the other system."

TIP: Use spell check.  Misspellings happen, and misspelling "achievement" injects a greater amount of distraction (from credibility).

To believe is to desire something as so.  There's NO fact there.  And I'm not here to question someone's sincerity (as though one could really prove it anyway).  Only facts and logic can be the measures for scoring.

You're demonstrating nothing but pure hurbis to suggest that humans are the epitome of nature, and that it's due to "capitalism" (purely a virtual, human-contrived concept) and "personal freedom."  You can make these sounds as attractive as you wish, but the bottom line is that NO ONE can provide an all-encompassing definition for them; and it's for this reason that you can argue the merits all you want about how wonderful these words/phrases are, but this still doesn't answer my challenge.

This isn't a forum for converting Marxists.  I think that Reggie took a few liberties, but I applaud him for conjuring this up as it CLEARLY allows us to examine why we believe "Capitalism" is the be-all-end-all.

I'll stick to the PRIMARY premise- growth is the desired path.  Does or does not, in YOUR mind (you're the one who seems to have taken up the mantle of defending "Capitalism"), capitalism promote growth as a primary goal/function?

And speaking of precious "personal freedom," from Albert Bartlett's presentation Arithmetic, Population and Energy:

Bill Moyers interviewed Isaac Asimov. He asked Asimov, “What happens to the idea of the dignity of the human species if this population growth continues?” and Asimov says, “It’ll be completely destroyed. I like to use what I call my bathroom metaphor. If two people live in an apartment, and there are two bathrooms, then they both have freedom of the bathroom. You can go to the bathroom anytime you want, stay as long as you want, for whatever you need. And everyone believes in freedom of the bathroom. It should be right there in the constitution. But if you have twenty people in the apartment and two bathrooms, then no matter how much every person believes in freedom of the bathroom, there’s no such thing. You have to set up times for each person, you have to bang on the door, ‘Aren't you through yet?’ and so on.” And Asimov concluded with one of the most profound observations I've seen in years. He said, “In the same way, democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive overpopulation. Convenience and decency cannot survive overpopulation. As you put more and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn’t matter if someone dies, the more people there are, the less one individual matters.”

LadyEconomist's picture

Now about Isaak Asimov explanation. overpopulation was a very nice theory pushed by crazies in the 80-ies. Finally died down and never materialized. They didn't take under consideration that when societies get reacher, they don't produce more children, moreover some societies even experience underpopulation, ex. Japan, Scandinavia.

These crazies couldn't prove their point any longer, so they changed their tune, now they preach global warming. 

Either class struggle/social injustices, overpopulation, or global warming, I think their primary desire is just to control people one way or another. This is the type of mentality and mind set. We need to opose them and fight them any way we know and are able to. They are dangerous to our freedom. 

LadyEconomist's picture


“To believe is to desire something as so.  There's NO fact there.  And I'm not here to question someone's sincerity (as though one could really prove it anyway).  Only facts and logic can be the measures for scoring.

When I insert the word ‘believe’ I state my opinion. This is self-explanatory to me.  If you want me to explain to the audience why I think capitalism is superior then, I think, I need to write an essay about it and there is no room for that in here. For now, I can only give one argument. Every institution known in the capitalist system was developed and improved and mastered over the ages, from private property rights, to contract as a legal instrument, to banking system, to money, to Accounting. Many generations worked on creation and evolution of Capitalism.

Marxism, on the other hand, was an idea floating around and never fully implemented before the USSR but described and written  by Karl Marx, who wrote his famous “Communist Manifesto”. He was able to play on human sentiments at the time when England was quickly developing from agricultural to industrial societies. Marxism quickly took over during the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and wiped out all of that achievement. All private property was either under central government control or completely nationalized. Moreover, communists decided to march ‘Forward’ and they wanted to conquer the world. That was their goal. They fought the United States and they called you Imperialists. It was their propaganda tool.  They installed themselves in China, South-East Asia, Latin America, and Africa. I assume you guys know that history. Now, I see an article of someone who is drooling over Lenin and Karl and is trying to convince readers that current Greek misery is a fault of Capitalism. How more stupid it can get!

First, of all I totally reject the author because he uses Lenin to prove his point. His premises are wrong. That’s why I ask would you use Nazism and Hitler’s “Main Kampf” to prove anything? After all, his model of slave labor was very efficient. We can learn about survival of the fittest, eugenics, and medical experiments. He championed that. It might make sense to some people. Of course you wouldn’t use it! Why you agree on Lenin then. Communism killed 60 million of people. It higher number than Nazism.

Then either you or someone else keeps communism and capitalism on an equal footing with compering to the horse or this same sandwich and so forth. 


falak pema's picture

pax americana ramp up since reaganomics days; win back what Nixon lost when he went post-BW and fed the monetary inflation pump.

Reagan's plan : supply side hegemony to ramp up RISK assets, to complete the avowed massive military hegemony via its extractive empires around the globe and its outsourcing model to sell reserve currency addiction to all and sundry; incurring huge margin spikes for US capitalist oligarchy.

'Our money your problem' reigns as does 'your factories our oligarchy profits'. The mismatch is in debts vs credits, but who cares its denominated in USD and..backed by MIC supremacy and the Oil pump, owned by extractive empire oligarchy; Bush n company. 

But now we are where we are in debt mountain; and everybody else has to contribute to global Oligarchy pump via taxation or expropriation. WMD financial pump in cavitation can bring this whole shooting match down...print, print, print...we weren't supposed to be here!

Now where, nowhere to run except to that unmentionable option :war, regional and controlable asset destruction and impoverishment. But how to keep it contained to those other guys, not to our New England sweet hearts...

Dream on.

AnAnonymous's picture

What is that diversion? Ah, yes, it is another communist attempt to distract from the nature of 'americanism'.

Imperialism is no stage in 'americanism'.

'Americanism' includes imperialism. There is no other way.

The standard bearer for 'americanism', the mecca of 'americanims' on Earth, the US is itself a colonial power.

'Americans' have been from day one imperialists.

But 'americans' are used to working in duos.

So yep, 'american' ideological partners, the communists, say that...

You know the story, the story of 'americanism'.

Seer's picture

I knew it!  Time to invade Brazil!  Damn "Americans!"  Oh, wait!  China has essentially already "invaded" Brazil: making them dependent upon China for its existence; it's trade leverage, which, if one were to UNDERSTAND the REAL mechanisms, everyone attempts to do.

"But 'americans' are used to working in duos."

Huh?  How can one be an imperialist by oneself?  Doesn't it follow that there has to be another "end?"  You're tossing a bunch of shit out there; and I don't think that it's a translation problem, I think that it's a problem of not understanding logic (and that would be kind- the ONLY other reasoning would be that you're a propagandist).