Idk much bout WW2 but something that's always bugged me is this
Why did America support Britain to such an extent that it would enter not one but two world wars and even go so far as to arm the SOVIET UNION, which it was trying to overthrow not too long ago? Mind you this all happened long after the US became the world's biggest economy. What the f*** was that relationship? Help me out yall
Bridges burn tables turn you live and learn
Japan was allied with Germany, Japan attacked the US, US declares war on Japan, Germany declares war on the US, it's over.
But before that there already was some concern about the stoopid euros going to war with eachother, but they liked it when the Germanoids and Soviets did it tho, as Truman said
"If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible"
The US was mostly concerned with stability, and if that means temporarily aiding the USSR then that's a sacrifice that has to be made
America saw euros fighting amongst eachother as silly bullshyt a lot of times
They saw it as EUROPEAN SECTARIANISM
Gotta remember the US was rly the first pan-European project way before the EU
Imagine how they saw euro kingdoms fighting eachother over royal titles and shyt
Bridges burn tables turn you live and learn
Japan was allied with Germany, Japan attacked the US, US declares war on Japan, Germany declares war on the US, it's over.
But before that there already was some concern about the stoopid euros going to war with eachother, but they liked it when the Germanoids and Soviets did it tho, as Truman said
"If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible"
The US was mostly concerned with stability, and if that means temporarily aiding the USSR then that's a sacrifice that has to be made
Yes but they'd already picked a dog in the race and it was the Brits, long before pearl harbor they were sending them weapons. They even thought about ditching the Phillipines cuz they didn't feel like it was worth protecting iirc.
Bro the wildest shyt to me abt these reddit Dengists is they defend everything Stalin ever did and despise Khrushchev for being a revisionist but ride Deng d***
I rly wanna understand their logic
it’s always that Khrushchev negated Stalin completely while Deng did the 70% 30% thing to Mao
Completely different. Kruschev kept the Cold War going full steam ahead . It’s really a false equivocation to put them in the same class of philosophy really.
If kruschev had opened the USSR up to foreign trade and made the GDP rise as much stalin did , then we could say oh he was like Deng in that he established a long term safety net for his country (although with deng he may he also created an unsolvable demographics problem with the one child policy)
Kruschev on the other hand did dumb s*** like put nukes on Cuba and then remove them leaving Cuba to be forever embargoed . He was a very trumpian guy I would say, with a big ego. Talking a big game , and then backing down and failing . But that’s who he was , a raised bourgeoise who got into the party young . He left the USSR much worse than he found it, unlike deng , who advanced the class struggle and brought the problems that come with it .
advanced class struggle to far to the one side, socialism has a lot of class struggle as well
Yes but they'd already picked a dog in the race and it was the Brits, long before pearl harbor they were sending them weapons. They even thought about ditching the Phillipines cuz they didn't feel like it was worth protecting iirc.
Yeah bc the Brits, French etc being in power is a more stable and predictable situation for the US than some mf who makes his aides take pictures of world leaders earlobes before signing treaties to make sure they're not jews
Also Europe being divided is better than having one giant european power under the leadership of a crayz fella like Hitler
advanced class struggle to far to the one side, socialism has a lot of class struggle as well
It's not like we gotta advance class struggle a bit more in the favor to the bourgeoisie after making gains for the proletariat or smth
idek what his point is
i was so confused when everybody suddenly started hating or d***riding chyna for supposedly being communist all of a sudden like mfs werent doing this during the
2010s
Simply the fact China has closed ground on US hegemony
Simply the fact China has closed ground on US hegemony
Yeah that's all it is but it's funny to see both rightoids and dengoids try to make it an ideological struggle again they miss the cold war so much
reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/frueyd/what_do_neoliberals_believe_regarding_us
I think intervention has generally been positive. There has of course been pretty serious missteps like Pinochet or Batista, but there’s also been plenty of success, like Korea, Grenada and the DR. Also with my (admittedly limited) understanding of Panama I think that has also been mostly positive, if more mixed.
Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but I think America should become more interventionist, and more hostile to autocracy, regardless of politics. Make the world safe democracy and all that. If Trump wasn’t such an ineffectual and inconsistent idiot that would be some common ground between us.
https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/frueyd/what_do_neoliberals_believe_regarding_us/
I think intervention has generally been positive. There has of course been pretty serious missteps like Pinochet or Batista, but there’s also been plenty of success, like Korea, Grenada and the DR. Also with my (admittedly limited) understanding of Panama I think that has also been mostly positive, if more mixed.
Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but I think America should become more interventionist, and more hostile to autocracy, regardless of politics. Make the world safe democracy and all that. If Trump wasn’t such an ineffectual and inconsistent idiot that would be some common ground between us.
Grenada and DR
Bro these peoples whole ideology rly revolves around free and fair ™ elections
That shyt funny asf to me ngl
Bro these peoples whole ideology rly revolves around free and fair ™ elections
That shyt funny asf to me ngl
One of my biggest gripes with my progressive, millennial peers is that they view voting as a one-time event. If things don’t work out immediately, they get discouraged and sit out an election or two.
It would be better if they instead saw voting as a habit. Conservative boomers understand this, and that is why they win.
tbh i dont know jack s*** about how voting works in america
whats a good book/article or whatever to start
Democracy for the Few?
One of my biggest gripes with my progressive, millennial peers is that they view voting as a one-time event. If things don’t work out immediately, they get discouraged and sit out an election or two.
It would be better if they instead saw voting as a habit. Conservative boomers understand this, and that is why they win.
I'm more so talking about liberals whole ideology revolving around representative democracy through voting instead of something more substantive
One of my biggest gripes with my progressive, millennial peers is that they view voting as a one-time event. If things don’t work out immediately, they get discouraged and sit out an election or two.
It would be better if they instead saw voting as a habit. Conservative boomers understand this, and that is why they win.
in a wider sense voting doesn't really matter if you think the determinate result of voting differing from the ideal outcome makes it invalid
if that's the case then clearly voting shouldn't exist because the moral path is obvious and doesn't require an electoral process lol
voting only works if the populace participating basically mutually agrees political ethics are fluid based on a majority
I'm more so talking about liberals whole ideology revolving around representative democracy through voting instead of something more substantive
that was a comment from r/neoliberal lol
but yea their whole idealogy is vote. and if that doesnt work just vote again.
i forgot those type of people actually existed, the only internet space i go on is ktt
that was a comment from r/neoliberal lol
but yea their whole idealogy is vote. and if that doesnt work just vote again.
i forgot those type of people actually existed, the only internet space i go on is ktt
Unfortunately that's still very common lol, the essence of democracy in their eyes is to voot for competing parties campaigns only to then effecticely be excluded from what policies the government pursues
Unfortunately that's still very common lol, the essence of democracy in their eyes is to voot for competing parties campaigns only to then effecticely be excluded from what policies the government pursues
a lot of people like this in academia as well
i dont think that voting is entirely useless tho, in that sense that voting can lead to improvements in the material + labour conditions of workers, since different leaders enacting different policies can lead to different outcomes, rather than everything being preordained regardless of which party holds power. but ofc striving for change simply through electoral methods has severe limitations and you're fighting an uphill battle against the hegemony of media meant to protect the status quo
winning elections shouldn't be the primary focus of a "revolutionary" organization or vanguard party that's supposed to represent the working class. organizing in order to take direct action is infinitely more valuable than trying to convince people to vote for your party, which takes a lot of time and resources better spent elsewhere
@Womanpuncher69 maybe you know more about this, but isnt the CPCs entire line just basically running in elections?
i remember i joined one of their meetings (lol) and they were saying how forming an alliance with the NDP was their most important goal atm
tbh i dont know jack s*** about how voting works in america
whats a good book/article or whatever to start
Democracy for the Few?
1984
Animal Farm
Deng Xiaoping: Collected Works
i dont think that voting is entirely useless tho, in that sense that voting can lead to improvements in the material + labour conditions of workers, since different leaders enacting different policies can lead to different outcomes, rather than everything being preordained regardless of which party holds power. but ofc striving for change simply through electoral methods has severe limitations and you're fighting an uphill battle against the hegemony of media meant to protect the status quo
winning elections shouldn't be the primary focus of a "revolutionary" organization or vanguard party that's supposed to represent the working class. organizing in order to take direct action is infinitely more valuable than trying to convince people to vote for your party, which takes a lot of time and resources better spent elsewhere
@Womanpuncher69 maybe you know more about this, but isnt the CPCs entire line just basically running in elections?
i remember i joined one of their meetings (lol) and they were saying how forming an alliance with the NDP was their most important goal atm
yeah CPC doesn’t mention revolution at all or when one of my boys asked one of their upper members about they just refused to talk about it lol
makes sense since they all organize around middle class folks and full of em
1984
Animal Farm
Deng Xiaoping: Collected Works
I was gonna say Harry Potter but this works