The CIA is an independent drug cartel and militia they'll be doing failed and succesful attempts to coup anyone who hinders their buisness. It doesnt matter who the president is, Lenin's reanimated corpse could be elected they would still be doing imperialism.
Hard to do imperialism when the president has you summarily parodied en masse........ahhh, a man can dream
I don’t believe that people protesting in Belarus are part of a manufactured op and do represent some dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. I also believe that neoliberals can and currently are trying to co-opt protests. Mass movements aren’t a uniform entity, anyways, and to think that one can right them all off as pawns of capital is stupid. The US and Imperial Core are the current hegemons of capital, but that doesn’t mean everyone they oppose is our guy. I think what’s often the case is that no one is our guy or that our guy is a group that hasn’t much visibility.
I don't really buy this line. Trump didn't personally coordinate the military in a way that would make his competence relevant, and Biden won't either.
I'm not sure if Biden will be able to be as successful either. Keep in mind, he still wants the same guy in Venezuela.
guaido's grift is so hilarious to me. like, how long will he remain 'president'? will he grow old but still stay president? will he become the longest serving venezuelan president in 30 years?
This is one of the things I do wonder about with electoralism. I have a leftist friend who is an accelerationist and while I disagree with it, I believe that Trump winning would have been worse for America and better for the global proletariat. However, just because they are american, the US proletariat doesn’t deserve to die in the collapse of the US. But neither does the international proletariat. It’s just a trolley problem and I’m not brave enough to pull a lever
Unless this is a bit like the old SNL Reagan sketch where Biden is secretly a crafty mastermind behind the facade of "amiable dunce", this person is utterly reaching.
While I agree Biden is too far gone to be an effective imperialist himself, he might just have an administration filled with competent imperialists handle all of that for him.
But /c/main said that Biden would alleviate me of a few percent of my student debt so imo the libs are ok
You remind me of the libs who got really upset whenever someone posted about Trump's $1,200 stimulus check.
He is technically our Imam now and we await any fatwas he issues
Doesnt matter who the president is. The president doesnt plan that shit
You think biden's going to start calling guaido the beto o rourke of venezuela a few weeks after his coup isn't working? it's not about planning it's about trump having no attention span and also no ideology. you think he gives a shit about vzla one way or another?
Blunf calling Guaido the Beto of Venezuela was pretty satisfying though. Ripping on two pieces of shit with one stone.
Biden is an expert in drones
Yes, the 77-year-old man with grey matter oozing out of his ears is an expert in automated flying robots.
"Trump is actually better on imperialism" has always been a bad take, and it will continue to be one. This is an example of how far one has to reach to make it plausible.
OK, here we go again with western leftists acting like Donald Trump isn't a war criminal and that it's still 2004 with the US war machine.
Trump furthered the drone program and revoked a law where the military had to report civilian causalties. He also bombed Iran back in 2017 and all the leftists were screaming "we're going to war! we're going to war!" then casually forgot about it (as evidence by this site never mentioning it).
You guys need to understand that US imperialism is not a hivemind. It's a handful of capitalists with their own interests across the globe, most of them contradicting one another with their own goals in mind.
US imperialism has been declining for the past 10 years. Trump is not your secret ally that brought the empire down. It was declining all through the Obama era and conservatives were the only ones screaming about it. If any of these armchair leftists actually paid attention to Syria or when Russia took back the Crimea and invaded Ukraine, they would've remembered the conservative media screaming about how "weak" Obama was making the country look and phrases like "boots on the ground" regarding Syria. After Trump came into power, it became the liberal media's turn to point the finger and do the whole "he makes us look weak, our enemies walk all over us" talks.
"third-world" is some lib propoganda and counter revolutionary
I would not consider Alfred Sauvy a "radical." He was a technocratic Liberal who went on to support the Nazis, then NATO.
"Third World" refers to half a million things. Your comments up until now have said the exact opposite.
Wow, comrades were really upset by my comment. It was used in the past so it means it's still relevant?
Fair point, I was being purposefully blunt. Still, feel you're mixing a bunch of things. Don't know if NAM necessarily equates to "third world". Also dunno if "third-worldism" (as you're using it) equates to countries that are currently categorised as"third-world", even more so since the 90s and the decline in the Eastern bloc, pan-africanist, pan-asian, ect. political movements.
And I'm down if we're using Mao's interpretation, but it also contradicts what many people on this site advocate for: that the working class in the "first world" don't actually belong to the proletariat. And if you're saying its appropriation by libs doesn't change its theoretical basis, I'd say that China is no longer part of the "third world" (not trying to be a Hoaxist) according to its own theory (even more so if we're considering post Dengist China and present day China). And if we're being faithful to Mao's thoughts we're also claiming the USSR was part of the "first world" and imperialist, which lots of people seem to be reticent to.
So, to me, it seems it wasn't wrong in reacting like I did, since there was a lack of specifity concerning what you were referring to as "third world". Again, you can argue against me saying we don't have to agree with its contemporary use; but "third world" is generally used differently and doesn't mean the same thing it used to politically. And its wasn't clear what particular theory you were referring to in the first place.
Aight, you got me, i like Fanon too much to disagree
Self crit: I let lib ideology convince me out of the definition rigorous theorists gave of the third world. In doing so I'd lost a useful framework to analyse global capitalism that guides us how to organise a pragmatic anti-imperialist political project. Therefore I will downvote all my previous posts.
