The fascists and the ‘moderates’ will bridge the gap. Think of the German SDP working with the Freikorps. They come from the same money.

There’s… there’s a freaking , cheeoto. In the White House. It’s orange house now, ch dust

“We need to stop anti white racism” ass statement. Meanwhile every french has a charlie hebdo racial caricature in their back pocket in case the spot an Arab.

Maybe don’t join the Reddit Brigade

Nothing about the HRC having negative juice and being a total neoliberal ghoul

Russia will bomb US military industrial complex donation centers, Foreign Minister says

It’s a free market. People can just not buy the product.

Ukraine is the most Reddit country. Folks, some people are saying it’s the Reddit country.

Not sure I even want to know what that said.

Meaningless liberal definition that can be selectively applied or laughed off depending on context. What relationships does this imply economically, culturally? Is colonialism what the U.S. and Israel are doing in Iran right now? Stupid definition.

Average Lemmy.world poster:

No, let’s contextualize this rather than doing an all sides bad gotcha that ends up feeding those with hegemony.

You seem to accept a hermeneutics of innocence towards the US and its ideology, fundamentally. When the constitution talks about the right to bear arms, in a militia, in the context of slave uprisings and settler-empire conflict, it’s actually a far sighted stroke of genius. The founding fathers knew 250 years later suburban dads would need a gun to protect their McMansion from inner city thugs. No, they weren’t coming up with extra-historical wisdom, they, like the many founding philosophers and practitioners of liberalism, were cruel slavers, atrocious exterminators, and elitists who thought they knew best. History doesn’t go away because you close your eyes and ignore it. The constitution or supposed founding values not being applied on so many occasions from lynchings to foreign occupations isn’t because “America is an ongoing project, a living document,” it’s because countries are what they do and who they represent. As opposed to pieces of paper. I have no sympathy for these viewpoints because you immediately drop the hermeneutics of suspicion on any critics of the American nightmare. If in Cuba the churches are empty, religion is being suppressed. If they’re full, people are rejecting their atheistic ideology. Funny how that turns out. American institutionalists keep crying.

Pivot to Asia is still happening in part despite ongoing MENA events wrt Saudi Israel and Iran. Turn NK and Russia against China, disrupt Belt and Road/BRICS, Sahel, sort of the Cold War strategy done post Sino Soviet split. But I’m not sure they can get the split part here. It just looks embarrassing and weak for Trump, humoring his enemies while they have no interest in breaking ranks.

Imperialism is when a country does something in its interests, which tends to be most things?

If you use out of scientific context psychological terms as a substitute for meaningful political analysis, it’s because you’ve got nothing else. I highly recommend this essay on “psychopolitics”

The USSR quite notably developed from its starting point as the backwater of Europe in 17 to the second place industrial power by the 50s? I guess I would get a bit to charitable for you if I talked about the ways imperial relationships between regions and Russian chauvinism were challenged in the Soviet Union, and I don’t think this is the place for a reasonable discussion of failures like wartime deportations, but I do think relationships changed somewhat.

But the point was the DDR, which was in the context of postwar realpolitik and animosity, simultaneously. I think Japan might be more complex because a cursory examination of the history notes their colonial adventures in Korea and China. Funny how that comes before an industrial base in merchantalist and capitalist regimes.

Yeah it probably sucked to live in the occupation zones/East Germany from 45 to the sixties. And then shit started to decline in the 70s so yeah sucked. Point is you can’t just make economic prosperity and the liberal conception of freedom (being able to say anything and get nothing) happen out of the most adverse of circumstances. The U.S.S.R. hadn’t centuries to plunder colonies and accumulate the requisite wealth to fuel a global economic system for instance. It was always against the grain.

I would reccomend Chapter 8 of Killing Hope by William Blum. It’s all very interesting reading but this ads some complexity to the point you bring up. It’s fair to say the Soviets were harsh on the Germans with their reparations, for good reason and to the detriment of realpolitik. However when we see this as an internal failure brought on by essentially internal fuckups, we miss the external and the fact that there’s no distance between the two when you’ve been under siege since 1917. The other chapters of this book explain what happened to the other underdogs when they couldn’t keep things in perfect order.

On a side note wrt to bibliographies and the Frankfurt school Western Marxism by Gabriel Rockhill is a great book. Essentially an analysis of intellectual commodity production, ‘left wing’ academia, and the lessons of the past available when theory isn’t reified.