If your framework for justification is "harm reduction," he is better, through sheer incompetence. Oftentimes, "anarcho-bidenist" libs acknowledge that there would be very little difference in domestic policy, but a slightly improved one under Biden. And this is, yes, true. Yet when you stop looking through an America-centric viewpoint, you realize that Biden's renewed fervor for imperial actions has a far greater cost in life than the domestic delta. A renewed coup in Venezuela, or continued support for Bolivian fash, or renewed Middle Eastern crisis, or, worst of all, conflict with China, all would have greater human impact than the difference between the two domestically.
I'm not saying vote for Trump, because voting isn't "harm reduction" whatsoever. Voting for Hawkins // PSL will get more done in the long run, and it won't erase the voices of the oppressed people of the world. However, when you take your philosophy to its logical conclusion, Trump ends up ahead of Biden.
My philosophy is that voting largely doesn't matter in the US. I don't care what lefties do, they're not wrong for not voting. I'm personally attached to the idea that four more years of Trump will not be good for my friends and family. So I'm just going to go back to my original stance, voting doesn't matter, do what you want. I can't blame you guys for having very justifiable opinions and feelings towards the whole thing.
True voting does not matter at the moment. The US needs a party and organizations which would be able to mobilize people for that happen. If anti-imperialism has to succeed then US leftists need to build organizational capacity to mount a challenge to the established powers here. The start might just be organizing your work place, tenant organizing, mutual aid,etc but building on that people can seize control or demolish the apparatuses which stall progress. Ofc you will have to focus on direct benefits (healthcare, housing, jobs, etc) first when it comes to a mass movement in the US.
With regards to the US empire maybe explaining Bolivia is harder because a lot of the mechanisms and financial relationships are indirect. But something like Afghanistan might be easier. We need to convince people that these countries are no threat to the US. US intervention has made lives worse for every individual there (Taliban was very successful in destroying the heroine trade in Afghanistan until the US entered the place now it accounts for 90% of the illegal heroine trade). Not spending money there leaves money for spending on US citizens. You could try to make some education on this a part of any organization you try to participate in (not saying it is always appropriate or possible but it is definitely something to consider).
Sorry if I come of as condescending but I just wanted to say that we are not stuck in some inevitable humanity misery machine and there are things we can do (even if the results may not completely materialize in our lifetime).
A renewed coup in Venezuela, or continued support for Bolivian fash, or renewed Middle Eastern crisis, or, worst of all, conflict with China, all would have greater human impact than the difference between the two domestically.
Trump's gonna lose the election but he never had a chance anyway huh. The deep state really is in the tank for Biden aren't they? Oh well. Get wrekt fascists!
I think it's a mistake to think Trump's incompetence has meaningfully abated imperialism. Bolivia did have a coup, even if they caved now. Venezuela got attempted, and god knows what else the CIA has been up to. Trump nearly started a war with Iran, directly struck Assad, held up the campaigns throughout Africa, supports the Saudis in Yemen....
I think it’s a mistake to think Trump’s incompetence has meaningfully abated imperialism. Bolivia did have a coup, even if they caved now. Venezuela got attempted, and god knows what else the CIA has been up to. Trump nearly started a war with Iran, directly struck Assad, held up the campaigns throughout Africa, supports the Saudis in Yemen…
Those things would've happened regardless of president. Venezuela got attempted, but we have sitting officials complaining that Trump 'dropped the ball' on that. Bolivia's coup, too, was a failure in that the US did not somewhat mobilize to shut things down. I am not saying he's an anti-imperialist--he's still an imperialist, 100%--but in a number of cases, his failures have inadvertently saved lives.
if these things would've happened regardless of president, Trump did not meaningfully impact it.
Venezuela was such a dumb plan the most competent and sinister US admin couldn't have saved it. But say it was, Trump's incompetence made Venezuela and Bolivia not work. His incompetence also made the close call with Iran happen. The military claims they didn't want him to kill Soleimani, but he did and massively escalated tensions. Was that inadvertently saving lives?
To me it seems he has done less "harm" than Obama in terms of foreign policy. Having said that I suppose we are both in agreement that the US empire needs to be dismantled so the only point of contention is strategy.
FWIW I don't think campaigning for Trump is the right strategy. Building organizational capacity to challenge/destroy/take-over the Democratic party is. I just think that "the scenario where Trump wins" is probably better for other countries than the "scenario where Biden wins". But this opinion in and of itself is highly inconsequential and I would be glad if all of these people face even 1% of the misery that they have spread in the world.
I just have to say I totally disagree with the idea that there will be a bigger conflict with China under Biden than there will be under Trump. The Republican's view being hawkish towards China as a meaningfully successful political tactic in the way democrats don't, Trump doesn't give a fuck about Latin America.
Biden is also much more likely than Trump to end US support for the war in Yemen. On these issues the whole thing is mostly net neutral.
Each party has their own geopolitical priorities, that doesn't make any one of them better than another.
I just have to say I totally disagree with the idea that there will be a bigger conflict with China under Biden than there will be under Trump. The Republican’s view being hawkish towards China as a meaningfully successful political tactic in the way democrats don’t, Trump doesn’t give a fuck about Latin America.
Being hawkish towards China is a necessity for the US empire not a choice. This empire will always need enemies to justify their policies. Both of these people are tripping over themselves to frame the other guy as "soft on China".
Biden is also much more likely than Trump to end US support for the war in Yemen. On these issues the whole thing is mostly net neutral.
Biden has even refused to reverse the move of the US embassy to Jerusalem so I am not sure where you are getting this fever dream from. Also the war on Yemen started under Obama. Here is a right wing website talking about it:
Every democrat in the Senate voted to end the war in Yemen alongside a bunch of Republicans. Biden would end support for that.
There are a huge number of wealthier Americans that have supported democrats that want to maintain the long standing status quo re trade with China. Biden will be much more dovish on China and won't be starting any trade wars.
Except the bill passed, it's just that Trump vetoed it.
I don't know why it's hard for you to believe that the two political parties have oppositional views on foreign policy, in particular oppositional views that are both still relevant to broader empire building (where the difference is whose empire is being built).
There is a relevant geopolitical case to make about not wanting Saudi to be a complete hegemon within the middle east as it relates to the further entranchment of pax americana. The same applies with China and broader global liberalization efforts.
Except the bill passed, it’s just that Trump vetoed it.
this is precisely my point. bills make it out of congress for political theater reasons all the time in order for the president to veto it. look at all the times republicans put ACA repeal in front of Obama, then virtually collapsed trying to do the same after Trump took office.
don't confuse theater for actual commitment. Yemen started under Obama.
The house successful overrided the veto and the Senate missed it by fairly small margin of votes. There's substantial bipartisan support for ending this shit, and the killing of Jamaal Kashogi does play a meaningful role in why democrats have flipped their position on Saudi Arabia expanding their power.
Interesting, I see Biden has explicitly stated that he wants to end US support. I am not sure how they will balance this with the US-Saudi relationship. Thanks for the info. In any case, there are many ways to support wars without officially selling arms to countries. US explicitly may not have done anything in Bolivia but that does not mean that they did not have a hand in the events there.
There are a huge number of wealthier Americans that have supported democrats that want to maintain the long standing status quo re trade with China. Biden will be much more dovish on China and won’t be starting any trade wars.
Sure but there are already moves to shift manufacturing to other countries like India and Vietnam. There are already hundreds of military bases around China whose explicit purpose is to be able to counter China and even block import of oil and other essentials to China if need be. The belt and road initiative is in many ways just to circumvent this. Sure Biden is not gonna start a trade war but he definitely is going to set the stage for the new cold war against China. That is non-negotiable and that will not depend on who the president is. Also a trade war is exactly the kind of stupid move which is not effective but just gums up the works in the system.
Nah a trade war is exactly the sort of thing that's effective, it's just a negative incentive for companies to move from China to Vietnam and the like rather than a positive incentive like the TPP and other free trade deals enable.
The US under Biden will absolutely engage in geopolitical containment strategies around China, but I highly doubt that will actually manifest in any relevant way because Biden doesn't want to hurt US business interests in their country.
The US under Biden will absolutely engage in geopolitical containment strategies around China, but I highly doubt that will actually manifest in any relevant way because Biden doesn’t want to hurt US business interests in their country.
I don't know what you mean by "will not manifest in any relevant way" because a string of military bases in south east Asia sounds relevant. You can already see the pieces moving in Philippines (not saying this particular thing is unequivocally good or bad just that these forces are already in action):
If your framework for justification is "harm reduction," he is better, through sheer incompetence. Oftentimes, "anarcho-bidenist" libs acknowledge that there would be very little difference in domestic policy, but a slightly improved one under Biden. And this is, yes, true. Yet when you stop looking through an America-centric viewpoint, you realize that Biden's renewed fervor for imperial actions has a far greater cost in life than the domestic delta. A renewed coup in Venezuela, or continued support for Bolivian fash, or renewed Middle Eastern crisis, or, worst of all, conflict with China, all would have greater human impact than the difference between the two domestically.
I'm not saying vote for Trump, because voting isn't "harm reduction" whatsoever. Voting for Hawkins // PSL will get more done in the long run, and it won't erase the voices of the oppressed people of the world. However, when you take your philosophy to its logical conclusion, Trump ends up ahead of Biden.
My philosophy is that voting largely doesn't matter in the US. I don't care what lefties do, they're not wrong for not voting. I'm personally attached to the idea that four more years of Trump will not be good for my friends and family. So I'm just going to go back to my original stance, voting doesn't matter, do what you want. I can't blame you guys for having very justifiable opinions and feelings towards the whole thing.
True voting does not matter at the moment. The US needs a party and organizations which would be able to mobilize people for that happen. If anti-imperialism has to succeed then US leftists need to build organizational capacity to mount a challenge to the established powers here. The start might just be organizing your work place, tenant organizing, mutual aid,etc but building on that people can seize control or demolish the apparatuses which stall progress. Ofc you will have to focus on direct benefits (healthcare, housing, jobs, etc) first when it comes to a mass movement in the US.
With regards to the US empire maybe explaining Bolivia is harder because a lot of the mechanisms and financial relationships are indirect. But something like Afghanistan might be easier. We need to convince people that these countries are no threat to the US. US intervention has made lives worse for every individual there (Taliban was very successful in destroying the heroine trade in Afghanistan until the US entered the place now it accounts for 90% of the illegal heroine trade). Not spending money there leaves money for spending on US citizens. You could try to make some education on this a part of any organization you try to participate in (not saying it is always appropriate or possible but it is definitely something to consider).
Sorry if I come of as condescending but I just wanted to say that we are not stuck in some inevitable humanity misery machine and there are things we can do (even if the results may not completely materialize in our lifetime).
Trump's gonna lose the election but he never had a chance anyway huh. The deep state really is in the tank for Biden aren't they? Oh well. Get wrekt fascists!
Biden has vowed to pretty much make the CIA Great Again! which will turn out very well.
I think it's a mistake to think Trump's incompetence has meaningfully abated imperialism. Bolivia did have a coup, even if they caved now. Venezuela got attempted, and god knows what else the CIA has been up to. Trump nearly started a war with Iran, directly struck Assad, held up the campaigns throughout Africa, supports the Saudis in Yemen....
Those things would've happened regardless of president. Venezuela got attempted, but we have sitting officials complaining that Trump 'dropped the ball' on that. Bolivia's coup, too, was a failure in that the US did not somewhat mobilize to shut things down. I am not saying he's an anti-imperialist--he's still an imperialist, 100%--but in a number of cases, his failures have inadvertently saved lives.
if these things would've happened regardless of president, Trump did not meaningfully impact it.
Venezuela was such a dumb plan the most competent and sinister US admin couldn't have saved it. But say it was, Trump's incompetence made Venezuela and Bolivia not work. His incompetence also made the close call with Iran happen. The military claims they didn't want him to kill Soleimani, but he did and massively escalated tensions. Was that inadvertently saving lives?
Isn't the fact that Trump wants to do things that the military doesn't want him to mean that he is incompetent when it comes to imperialism?
maybe incompetent, but 100% not mortality-reducing incompetence, no?
To me it seems he has done less "harm" than Obama in terms of foreign policy. Having said that I suppose we are both in agreement that the US empire needs to be dismantled so the only point of contention is strategy.
FWIW I don't think campaigning for Trump is the right strategy. Building organizational capacity to challenge/destroy/take-over the Democratic party is. I just think that "the scenario where Trump wins" is probably better for other countries than the "scenario where Biden wins". But this opinion in and of itself is highly inconsequential and I would be glad if all of these people face even 1% of the misery that they have spread in the world.
I just have to say I totally disagree with the idea that there will be a bigger conflict with China under Biden than there will be under Trump. The Republican's view being hawkish towards China as a meaningfully successful political tactic in the way democrats don't, Trump doesn't give a fuck about Latin America.
Biden is also much more likely than Trump to end US support for the war in Yemen. On these issues the whole thing is mostly net neutral.
Each party has their own geopolitical priorities, that doesn't make any one of them better than another.
Being hawkish towards China is a necessity for the US empire not a choice. This empire will always need enemies to justify their policies. Both of these people are tripping over themselves to frame the other guy as "soft on China".
Biden has even refused to reverse the move of the US embassy to Jerusalem so I am not sure where you are getting this fever dream from. Also the war on Yemen started under Obama. Here is a right wing website talking about it:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/obama-and-the-war-on-yemen/
Every democrat in the Senate voted to end the war in Yemen alongside a bunch of Republicans. Biden would end support for that.
There are a huge number of wealthier Americans that have supported democrats that want to maintain the long standing status quo re trade with China. Biden will be much more dovish on China and won't be starting any trade wars.
what politicians do when a bill has no hope of passing and what they do when it has a real chance of becoming law are two very different things
Except the bill passed, it's just that Trump vetoed it.
I don't know why it's hard for you to believe that the two political parties have oppositional views on foreign policy, in particular oppositional views that are both still relevant to broader empire building (where the difference is whose empire is being built).
There is a relevant geopolitical case to make about not wanting Saudi to be a complete hegemon within the middle east as it relates to the further entranchment of pax americana. The same applies with China and broader global liberalization efforts.
this is precisely my point. bills make it out of congress for political theater reasons all the time in order for the president to veto it. look at all the times republicans put ACA repeal in front of Obama, then virtually collapsed trying to do the same after Trump took office.
don't confuse theater for actual commitment. Yemen started under Obama.
The house successful overrided the veto and the Senate missed it by fairly small margin of votes. There's substantial bipartisan support for ending this shit, and the killing of Jamaal Kashogi does play a meaningful role in why democrats have flipped their position on Saudi Arabia expanding their power.
Interesting, I see Biden has explicitly stated that he wants to end US support. I am not sure how they will balance this with the US-Saudi relationship. Thanks for the info. In any case, there are many ways to support wars without officially selling arms to countries. US explicitly may not have done anything in Bolivia but that does not mean that they did not have a hand in the events there.
Sure but there are already moves to shift manufacturing to other countries like India and Vietnam. There are already hundreds of military bases around China whose explicit purpose is to be able to counter China and even block import of oil and other essentials to China if need be. The belt and road initiative is in many ways just to circumvent this. Sure Biden is not gonna start a trade war but he definitely is going to set the stage for the new cold war against China. That is non-negotiable and that will not depend on who the president is. Also a trade war is exactly the kind of stupid move which is not effective but just gums up the works in the system.
Nah a trade war is exactly the sort of thing that's effective, it's just a negative incentive for companies to move from China to Vietnam and the like rather than a positive incentive like the TPP and other free trade deals enable.
The US under Biden will absolutely engage in geopolitical containment strategies around China, but I highly doubt that will actually manifest in any relevant way because Biden doesn't want to hurt US business interests in their country.
I don't know what you mean by "will not manifest in any relevant way" because a string of military bases in south east Asia sounds relevant. You can already see the pieces moving in Philippines (not saying this particular thing is unequivocally good or bad just that these forces are already in action):
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/10/19/phil-o19.html
As in it won't hurt chinese economic growth, at most it will delay their attempts to take over Taiwan or something.