Shit was so bad, that the US didn't need to run any covert operations to subvert, discredit, arrest, jail, or even, allegedly, assassinate the prominent figures and leaders of progressive, socialist, and communist movements -- I mean, if they did, they certainly wouldn't have called it COINTELPRO. It'd be a dumb name anyway.
I left reddit for Lemmy because I was fed up with how auth-left that site was becoming. I thought that Lemmy, being still new would be better balanced and less hostile for a regular pro-market classical liberal like me.
And this is the level of shit I find in here. Fuck ya'll I'm out.
i think the only thing keeping china from taking that top slot is reach and the use of the dollar worldwide. both of those are collapsing. the US might not be the biggest asshole on the planet for much longer
Eh... don't count on it. China has some significant weaknesses. In the short term, economic growth has slowed significantly. Debt in the private and public sector is having consequences, both in the housing market and elsewhere. In the longer term, China is aging at a faster rate than the US, both due to a low birth rate and immigration rates that are virtually nonexistent compared to the US. China's GDP is outpacing the US for now, but it's an open question how long that pace will last.
That America's actually work tip the scales, along with having a military not made of meat grinder slaves and eighty year old Soviet tanks. Plus, you know, a real navy and air force.
And while modern France and peers could indeed no diff the Romans or Victorian Britain, only America and Russia have enough nukes to kill the world (go us!)
Just ignoring the concept of neocolonialism for a second, most American land was stolen through conquest. That the American Empire is not currently aggressively expanding is irrelevant, did Rome not count as an empire when its borders were stable?
That would be interesting, to compare the land mass of the US with the max size of the Roman empire. My guess is that the romans would win by a hair.
But the Brits would definitely win because they have Australia, which is almost as big as the continental US just in itself, let alone all the other countries they conquered.
Rome wasn't the most powerful empire, merely the third longest lasting; the Assyrians and Egyptians had a run that puts Rome to shame, and the Khans wielded far more power than any individual emperor.
The US is just the only world power left in modern time that could deploy anywhere within 24 hrs with more than just a strike force (and they can do so far far harder than any previous "empire"). The US "empire" is based on deployment potential, banking, and diplomacy. Nukes are just the key required to gain entry to the table so you don't get wiped at deployment.
Bricks is literally the alliance trying to match US power and still hasn't. This is mostly a barrier to entry problem rather than personal power, but it does stand that no previous empire could match the modern US in millitary, finance, or diplomacy.
But hey give it 50 years we are doing our best to shit on two of those.
More importantly, did they have the ability to deploy a Taco Bell, McDonald's, and Wendy's anywhere in the world, within 72 hours, just so their troops would have variety of food?
Nope. The Japanese knew they had royally fucked up when they realized that we had ships that were dedicated to ice cream supplies. You have to have everything else needed for war covered, before you start the logistical supply train of ice cream.
You seem to completely misunderstand American diplomacy.
Just because America doesn't have the same style of conquest, doesn't mean they aren't conquerors.
America was the first empire to realize that all empires eventually fall whose agenda is toppling nations and replacing their flags with their own.
The USA invented a unique twist: never replacing the country's flag.
Instead, as evidenced by countless examples such as Iran and Panama, the American agenda has always been installing a new national leader whose interests align with American ideals of democracy and "freedom" (predominantly of the white Christian variety). But they keep their "flag", or in some sense maintain a national identity through the new leader, so it feels a lot less like they were conquered.
Exactly. Wilson fucked up with Wilsonian Doctrine, among a ton of other things. Teddy had it right. Speak softly and carry a big stick. Get in, get out, get done.
Lol That's just a bunch of mental gymnastics to justify why the "mighty" US can't even win a war against an impoverished SE Asian nation with 50 year old Soviet weapons
Wouldn't really call what Putin or Xi has going on communism though, would you? They both operate stock exchanges and broadly private enterprise that systematically subjugates their working class while they constantly feel the need to expand their territory and purview of economic sway abroad. To me that sounds a lot like what we do when we talk about our capitalism.
It's what I expect from these kind of people. Everyone in leadership is there for power, and they are all surrounded by others who benefit from them being in power. Almost all of them are not good people with good hearts.
Humble people with good hearts don't seek these positions in life. So the conclusion must be that humanity will always be under these kind of leaders.
Join us. We have knitting circles and cookies. It's great. You get all the existential dread of knowing what the fuck is wrong with the world, with the added full knowledge that the things that could fix it will likely never happen because we missed our chance at a revolution before the people in power had nukes, and now even if you convince everyone that it would be better that way, those in power will straight up nuke their own people before allowing them to govern themselves, destroying whole swathes of the planet, along with unreplaceable history and culture.
Plus, there's a nifty æsthetic, and a range of really good music from folk to metal.
You've very helpfully put your finger on exactly what holds me back. If I found myself believing in a lost cause, I couldn't bear to go on. I am too close to despair as it is, so I will spare myself the small indulgence of certainty.
The trouble is knowing that it isn't likely doesn't stop it from also being true. I'm also of the opinion that just because full communism isn't likely doesn't mean we shouldn't advocate for it, because any move toward liberty, freedom, equality, and the general principles of anarchism and socialism are good things. You don't come to the table with your compromise, you come to the table with what you know you can't get, and negotiate to something possible.
Do I believe communism is possible within my lifetime? No.
Do I believe it possible at all? Absolutely, not only in the sense that if we did it it would work, but that we can and likely will do it, eventually, if we survive long enough.
Do I believe it's worth fighting for, even if I'll never see it? Yes. Because the work itself is enough to improve lives, and the more people who throw their lot in with the far left the more likely we are to see real, substantive change for the better, even if it is incremental.
There's a sign up link. Just wondered what signing up does. I've bookmarked your blog and shared it with someone who also read at least the first entry. You're really good. I'd encourage you to consider self-publishing a book or ebook, at some juncture
Oh! I thought you meant my comment to the other poster, saying join us, as in the anarchists.
Joining up, I think, just emails you if I ever manage to post anything. When you say you read the first entry, do you mean the runes of flight snippet, or some of the philosophy stuff? Runes of flight is a completed short story I wrote for school, based on a random reddit comment I made once. Haha. I've been meaning to get back to it for a while, and posted it on there to sort of grease the wheels a bit for writing more. Regardless, I'm glad you like what you read. :)
I've not gotten to the Philo yet; I'm intrigued! Completely enjoyed the first bit of the Runes of Flight .. But he's so cute, I need to plant a tree! I have to read the rest and get to the philosophy. I'm thrilled!
Ah, okay. Yeah, Runes is my baby. Agnes has been knocking around in my head for years at this point, and I hope to do her justice one day and write an actual, real novel.
Fair warning on the philosophy stuff, I'm batterscained, and it's a bit rambly. If you like nondualism, Hinduism, Vivekananda, etc, it might be interesting. I need to post more. :/
Yes, I'm a bit scattered, myself. I am not familiar with Vivekananda, but look forward to your introduction at your blog. I'm a bit familiar with Kalima, Shiva and a few others. It's been a long time but I was a bit familiar with Zen, Dzogchen, philosophical taoism , Tiibetan Buddhism... It would take a lifetime of immersion to become intimately familiar, I feel, but I think I get the general gist. I look forward to learning with you! Thanks so much for engaging conversation.
And I'm sure there are much better introductions, but Vivekananda is a downright gas to learn about. Either the first or second (I forget) blog post was an introduction to the Swamiji and his address at the world's parliament of religion. I hope you enjoy. :)
Lemmygrad is tankies, which is exactly the point. You can't tell the difference between anarchists and the people who murdered them. The political compass exists to create that confusion, equating "libertarianism" (by which, they mean right wing "libertarianism") with the original definition of libertarian socialism.
Even the choice of "libertarianism" as a name was intentionally chosen to confuse things, to steal a word and destroy it's meaning. IIRC, Murray Newton Rothbar literally said that he was intentionally stealing the word "libertarian" for the right. The whole thing is about propaganda and confusion, and the political compass is part of that.
Russia always was capitalist, that's kind of the point of Animal Farm. If you look at the company towns of the Kentucky Coal Miners historically, it's the same structure as the Soviet Union: the company (or the state) owns everything and enslaves the workers. One used debt, the other pretended to represent the proletariat, but the ruling class extracted labor from the workers and only supplied them the minimum necessary to survive. Lenin was a reactionary pretending to be a revolutionary.
Ironically the same in left leaning countries just corps banging the workers and blaming someone else using insane propaganda every single fucking where
This post is WAY more insightful than 99% of people realize. I would argue that the only people that fully understand are part of the corporate engine that drives it.
I dunno man, anytime a power-hungry fascist wants power the terms Communist, Socialist and Leftist apply to political opponents, brown people, Jews, intellectuals, gays, athiests, immigrants etc.
They're said to be poisoning the blood of the nation and enemies of god. The fascists call the "right denonination of religion", patriots, and other nationistic jingoistic terms the true and pure blood of the country.
Go back and listen to Hitler's and now Trump's speeches if you want to see for yourself.
The propaganda from the "most powerful empire" didn't start that, it's human trash like Hitler, George Lincoln Rockwell, William Luther Pierce, Father Coughlin, and Joesph McCarthy.
And now we get Chinese and Russian int ops perpetuating shit memes like this when they are more to blame for current shit perceptions than the horseshit blame contained within their memes.
And yea agreed, fuck corporate interests too right along with it.
In advocating for privately owning and operating a business without excessive state interference, you highlight a core tenet of capitalism. This economic system champions individual freedom and autonomy, allowing entrepreneurs in a free-market environment to introduce innovative products, with relative ease and without burdensome regulatory approval.
However, concerns about state intervention under socialism introduce a nuanced perspective. While socialism aims to address issues of inequality and social welfare, it often involves more centralized control over economic activities. This centralized approach could potentially impact the entrepreneurial freedom to choose what products to sell and how to manage a business.
This dichotomy underscores an ongoing debate, weighing the advantages of a free-market capitalist system that fosters entrepreneurial independence against the goals of socialism, which seeks to address social and economic inequalities through collective decision-making and regulation. It prompts consideration of the trade-offs between individual liberty and the pursuit of societal equality and welfare.
Moreover, criticisms of socialism often include the potential for increased economic inequality. Centralized control might lead to bureaucratic inefficiencies and disparities in resource allocation. Additionally, concerns about AI companies taking advantage of stringent regulations add complexity, as the regulatory landscape could inadvertently favor larger corporations, potentially exacerbating economic imbalances and hindering smaller businesses, including startups in emerging fields like AI, from thriving and innovating. The multifaceted nature of these concerns contributes to the ongoing dialogue about the merits and drawbacks of different economic systems.
Your understanding of regulation only considers freedom on the side of business and not the freedoms of everyone those regulations protect from corporate malfeasance. You don't get that "socialism" includes things like worker cooperatives that should be the ideal of market commerce. Your concept of freedom seems to exclude the concept of positive freedoms. Your idea of capitalism ignores the coersive reality that workers without the means of production live under. I could go on but I'm not sure I could ever stop finding new issues, which is quite amazing.
In short, your comment contains nothing that isn't straight up corporate propaganda from someone with not enough curiosity about the world and privileges that have allowed you to remain ignorant.
Nah I wanna keep all the money I make from my private business and I don't want state approval to sell product or following some burdensome bullshit regulation. Socialism is dog shit compared to capitalism, I wouldn't want to give up any of my individual freedoms. If you don't like the system, simply go move to another country that has it. No need to get all upset.
LOL, that's not anger. At best it's exhaustion, which has become my typical reaction to people taking a dump on a thread and demanding answers to tired old bullshit that's been answered a thousand ways before.
Maybe, but they've also been well assisted by those countries which are shining examples of SC&L but have failed to get their messages across the world. Perhaps replies to this comment could indicate which countries those are, for some independent research.
