[americandream]

The Crusades were precisely about control of resources....between the Holy Roman Empires feudal overlords and the Arab Empires feudal overlords. The fact that the wars were centered in what were effectively the ideological hearts of these feudal empires Jerusalem, says it all.

[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', 'T')he Crusades were precisely about control of resources....between the Holy Roman Empires feudal overlords and the Arab Empires feudal overlords. The fact that the wars were centered in what were effectively the ideological hearts of these feudal empires Jerusalem, says it all.

[sparky]

.
The first and second crusade were mostly a Frank and Flemish , they had no concern with trade routes whatsoever
and their only concern with the Holy roman Empire of the German nation was how to kick it in the teeth
anyway , the holy land had fallen to the Turk Seldjuks and Danishen ,their outlook was conquest and pillage ,
trade and manufacturing , to them were servile occupations just good for peasants
the East particularly Anatolia (modern Turkey) was very much the concern of the Eastern Byzantine empire ,
they never intended to retake Jerusalem , it had been out of their influence for several centuries already
and had pretty good relation with the Fatimids of Egypt who controlled it ,
until the Turkish war-bands threw the whole arrangement into chaos , the center of "Arab" concern was Cairo , Damascus and above all Bagdad .
Jerusalem was an economic dump ,it was as holy as it was a backwater , its only resource was fleecing pilgrims
the terminals of the trade routes from the East on the Mediterranean coast was Antioch by caravans and Cairo by Red sea shipping

the Holy Roman Empire was controlling Austria , didn't cut any ice around the Dalmatian coast and was kept away by the Hungarian Kingdom .

The Crusaders were geographically illiterate , economically barbaric and kept getting lost ,
when they saw Byzantium in its full glory they were flabbergasted , most had only seen pumped up mud villages with a stone church , a few had seen 10.000 people cities if they were well traveled

[americandream]

Listen sparky me ol mate

When you cut out all the old flim flam, that what empires are all about....money, territory and misogyny. Capitalism is no different except that that it is a hybrid of Reason and voodoo.

[americandream]

Ralfy

Good thread. Perhaps we can get to the nuts and bolts of systems, their social relations and of course their tendencies and consequences, in the process making us better participants in capitalism whilst we endeavour to facilitate new more robust arrangements.

The hallmark of a sound dialectician is dispassionate engagement with capitalism whilst advancing evolutions intent for conscientised species.

[ralfy]

Thanks, but I didn't create this thread. I think the messages were moved from the previous one, although I don't know why, as one of the main points of the narrative is that Marxist views are minor or are part of it. My understanding is that they are integral to the former.

Also, I don't understand why Marxist views are seen as the opposite of freedom. From what I know, they attempted to define the idea of genuine freedom in light of what it means to be human in contrast to profit as the bottom line.

One more point to consider is that not just progress but that leading to profit may be the main driver of the narrative. In contrast is sustainability (discussed in the second page) which ironically gels with Marxist views than with opposing ones, e.g., progress and freedom based on profit.

[americandream]

I suspect much of the disregard that surrounds Marxism in general springs from the ideas misapplication, especially by the Chinese and of course, not quite understanding the need for a clean break with capitalist social relations if we are to reinvent our relationship with the planet and with each other.

[americandream]

tanada

I think if you are going to put forward a notion on human systems, you ought to be prepared for criticism from the quintessential theory on the origin and foundation stones of systems, Marxism. Imposing what is in effect a form of censorship as regards this analysis that has been pretty spot on as regards history and its effects, is a pretty poor showing on your part as someone who clearly cannot take disagreement.

I am quite patient and respectful of some quite outrageous behaviour and language on the part of some on here. It would be good if you as moderator could demonstrate an equal balance.

Topically, to suggest that systems are determined by infrastructure is about as absurd as one can get, especially given the historical records which detail otherwise.

[sparky]

.
In the classic Marxism-Leninist view ,
overburdened by its internal contradiction ,Capitalism ,in its final phase will resort to military adventurism
and a state of semi-permanent war
what a lot of rubbish , have you noticed any pointless wars recently ?

[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sparky', '.')
In the classic Marxism-Leninist view ,
overburdened by its internal contradiction ,Capitalism ,in its final phase will resort to military adventurism
and a state of semi-permanent war
what a lot of rubbish , have you noticed any pointless wars recently ?

[sparky]

.
Not endless war , your first proposition , the cycle
from my reading of it it meant that as the working classes are withdrawn their part of economic well being
internal tensions lead to the broad masses questioning an increasingly unfavorable status quo

with the capitalism consensus fraying , the ruling classes would resort to misdirections ,
emphasizing threats internal and external , seeding conflicts within groups on ethnic religious or cultural grounds
this being made easy by the turmoil due to relative impoverishment
that's the old trick " divide and rule "
the ruling classes would get their "government lackey" to take an aggressive stand toward others countries .
some "waving the flag and forget your wallet" gambit .

[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sparky', '.')
Not endless war , your first proposition , the cycle
from my reading of it it meant that as the working classes are withdrawn their part of economic well being
internal tensions lead to the broad masses questioning an increasingly unfavorable status quo

with the capitalism consensus fraying , the ruling classes would resort to misdirections ,
emphasizing threats internal and external , seeding conflicts within groups on ethnic religious or cultural grounds
this being made easy by the turmoil due to relative impoverishment
that's the old trick " divide and rule "
the ruling classes would get their "government lackey" to take an aggressive stand toward others countries .
some "waving the flag and forget your wallet" gambit .

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', 'I') don't understand why Marxist views are seen as the opposite of freedom.

[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', 'I') don't understand why Marxist views are seen as the opposite of freedom.

[ralfy]

I think that has been the case for over a century, e.g., two world wars and a cold war that was not "cold" or did not end, leading to hundreds of millions dead (many of them civilians, especially children), realpolitik driving a multifold global military expansion across the last few decades, the threat of that plus nuclear war, connections between the military-industrial complex and the petrodollar, low intensity conflict, blowback, and more.

In essence, what we are looking at are military powers preying on weaker countries, with citizens saddled with increasing military spending coupled with collateral damage.

Then couple that with the effects of global capitalism, including environmental damage and peak oil.

Are these some more points that should be added to the narrative?

[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', 'I') think that has been the case for over a century, e.g., two world wars and a cold war that was not "cold" or did not end, leading to hundreds of millions dead (many of them civilians, especially children), realpolitik driving a multifold global military expansion across the last few decades, the threat of that plus nuclear war, connections between the military-industrial complex and the petrodollar, low intensity conflict, blowback, and more.

In essence, what we are looking at are military powers preying on weaker countries, with citizens saddled with increasing military spending coupled with collateral damage.

Then couple that with the effects of global capitalism, including environmental damage and peak oil.

Are these some more points that should be added to the narrative?

[sparky]

.
Blaming Marxism for Stalin is like blaming Darwin for the gas chamber or Adam Smith for children working in the mines
there is some difference between the economic theory , which is pretty good ,
and the political reality of Marxism/Leninism which is pretty bad ( unless one want to win a desperate war )

A side of Marxism which is somewhat new is the exporting oversea of the workers exploitation for manufacturing
while importing cheap labor as desperate migrants to crush wages in servile services .
it leave the working class as an easy ( and willing ) prey to extreme nationalism

[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sparky', '.')
Blaming Marxism for Stalin is like blaming Darwin for the gas chamber or Adam Smith for children working in the mines
there is some difference between the economic theory , which is pretty good ,
and the political reality of Marxism/Leninism which is pretty bad ( unless one want to win a desperate war )

A side of Marxism which is somewhat new is the exporting oversea of the workers exploitation for manufacturing
while importing cheap labor as desperate migrants to crush wages in servile services .
it leave the working class as an easy ( and willing ) prey to extreme nationalism

[sparky]

.
@ American dream , yes indeed ,but with abundant oil making intercontinental transport so cheap
the phenomenon is reaching a "peak" .
It duplicate the evolution of capitalism during the first transport revolution
Whole populations found themselves uprooted , instead of migrating to the closest town workers could and did move across oceans
the railways and the steam ships made local based production for local based consumers obsoletes
it transmuted into a national compass , production was for the whole country consumption
Warfare was transformed , before an Army of one hundred thousand was very difficult to move , supply and feed
Railways first introduced during the Crimean war , came of age during the Civil war ,
whole army corps were relocated in a matter of days thousand of miles away ,
such as Longstreet's after Chattanooga and Hookers's a few months before
a million men Army could be raised and used

communication went through the same global process
Britain connection to Europe ...1851
US intercontinental line ..1861
transatlantic line ... 1866
India ....1870
Australia , Singapore , Shanghai , Nagasaki .....1871
the world went on line in 1871 , trading in resources , diplomacy ,warfare , news all facets of life were affected
it was under the control of British multinational and considered to be a supreme national asset
very much the internet of today.
The age of coal culminated in the Great War

transport and communication is power , it need power
now more than even , on an astonishing level
the Pentagon is the single largest consumer of oil in the world ,
http://www.energy.dla.mil/Pages/default.aspx
the US intelligence is very watchful of all communications particularly the internet

nothing is new , just more so ,
peak oil influence on the suburban life style is peanuts
A brand new international relation will emerge , and probably a mean one