jimmy carter maoist confirmed
Nah. It's no great enlightenment to figure out that lack of social investment in the US is a problem, or that the endless wars have been a huge waste (more like theft) of resources that could have been used better in any number of ways.
But claiming that the US wages war because of "values" is peak liberalism.
I have strong opinions on what they are, but I certainly don't think they are exporting them.
this read fine to me since the phrase "American Values" immediately conjured thoughts of war, mass killings, pollution and exploitation lmao
values? the phrase is "our interests overseas" or something, I thought.
I think one of the many reasons war is so inherent in American foreign policy is because spreading western values is how middle eastern intervention is presented to the public- of which a terrifying amount of them somewhat agree.
Western values isn't why US armed forces have intervened in different non-western countries- but it is sold that way.
nah. it's because when you want a hierarchy, you need thugs to maintain that hierarchy, and without war, allyour thugs are evergreen noobs. without war, there's no 'them' to pit your populace against so they identify with their oppressors. without war, it takes skill and finesse to exploit foreign peoples for resources (as china has shown, with great aptitude, because they're what the competent people in the US government wish they were).
so you need war. it also helps make people stupid and obedient and justifies shit like the NSA. which is nice.
Hence my comment that blaming militarism on spreading western values is peak liberalism...
It's plain imperialism. The romans had the same stupid excuse to paint themselves as the good guys. And probably the rest of empires too.
paint themselves as the good guys. And probably the rest of empires too.
Made me think of The White Man's Burden. "We really, really, honestly don't actually want to empire but it's best for non-white people that we
conquerassimilateliberate them! Wow, would you look at all these natural resources and indigenous populations our owner class can now exploit!? What a coincidence!"No no, when we Brits did it it was the white mans burden to beat some civility in to those damn animals and if we helped ourselves to some of their resources while we were at it well thats just fair payment by jove
Chomsky: "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged."
On Carter:
Carter was the least violent of American presidents but he did things which I think would certainly fall under Nuremberg provisions. As the Indonesian atrocities increased to a level of really near-genocide, the U.S. aid under Carter increased. It reached a peak in 1978 as the atrocities peaked. So we took care of Carter, even forgetting other things.
He got everything right except for the bizarre framing of our imperialism as "a desire to spread American values". We actually just want their shit.
Exactly, these idiots might think that "Democracy" is purely an "American" thing. Like everyone else is dumb enough to try it.
Democracy had no meaning in America, it's just become a nationalist buzzword. "Spreading democracy" is the most obviously bullshit phrase that you hear all the time. We don't even have democracy here! We're a republic with shit levels of popular representation! How are we spreading democracy when everytime we invade a place, we appoint some white shit head or a local warlord as leader? What's democratic about that?
"American values" aka might is right and using the threat of force to ensure economic compliance to keep the dollar the global currency.
I scratched my head when I learned Harry Truman regretted creating the CIA and refused to help Churchill coup Iran. Sometimes US presidents throw us curveballs.
Thank god we got a good man like Eisenhower in there to get the CIA really working.
Kennedy famously said he wanted to shatter the CIA.
Eisenhower was a demon internationally. Domestically he was meh.
yeah ppl forgetting that presidents hating the CIA is a thing is some true end of history stuff
At a certain point they probably wondered if they weren't going to hell, then who would be?
Their self-reflections could only be so biased towards themselves and their own way of thinking.
FWIW he also goes hard against Israel, calling it an apartheid state.
Also, none of it was "wasted." Its not like they took a pile of cash and burned it. They paid private military contractors, weapons manufacturers, construction companies, etc. And now the US has a stronger presence in a strategic region. You can say maybe that some of their labor was wasted but guess what, the psycho working for blackwater wasn't going to work building electric locamotives just by shifting spending elsewhere.
Saying it was "wasted" is a lib economic view
Also, none of it was “wasted.” Its not like they took a pile of cash and burned it. They paid private military contractors, weapons manufacturers, construction companies, etc. And now the US has a stronger presence in a strategic region. You can say maybe that some of their labor was wasted but guess what, the psycho working for blackwater wasn’t going to work building electric locamotives just by shifting spending elsewhere
I strongly disagree with this sentiment. If the money is shifted elsewhere, there is less money to pay private military contractors. If there is less money to pay private military contractors, there will be less jobs available as private military contractors. If there are less jobs available as private military contractors, the psycho working for Blackwater is probably going to do less damage, especially to the developing world, if they're a used car salesman.
Taking a pile of cash and burning it is better than spending it on mercenaries in sovereign nations committing war crimes. "Now the US has a stronger presence in a strategic region." Great, more bombed schools and hospitals and weddings.
No.
I'm not saying its justified. I said that it wasn't wasted. The private military contractor comes back to the US and uses his pay to buys skidoos and put a lift on his Jeep wrangler. Saying that you can just move money around in a budget however you want and it all spends the same is wrong. The PRC doesn't have a bunch of high speed rail just because they set aside money for it in a budget. They also have the industrial capital and technical expertise to build high-speed rail. They have engineers and construction companies with experience, etc. The US would have to develop this capacity and it doesn't happen overnight just because some zeros were added to a budget in congress.
I said that it wasn’t wasted.
Call me crazy but if that money is being spent on sending psychopaths into foreign countries to commit war crimes, it is in fact a waste.
The private military contractor comes back to the US and uses his pay to buys skidoos and put a lift on his Jeep wrangler.
Yeah, and if the American government had spent the money it was going to spend on private military contractors on work projects at home that it is already capable of, which require no research or development, then those people building cheap housing or better subway systems will also use that money to buy skidoos and Jeep Wranglers. But there are less dead people in foreign countries?
The PRC doesn’t have a bunch of high speed rail just because they set aside money for it in a budget.
No, but that is an important step they did take.
They also have the industrial capital and technical expertise to build high-speed rail. The US would have to develop this capacity and it doesn’t happen overnight just because some zeros were added to a budget in congress.
Yeah, if some of the money spent on private military contractors was instead allocated to the development of the industrial sector at home, or in subsidizing education to develop technical expertise, I would say that is also great, let's do that.
The money spent on foreign wars was and is a waste. It could be spent on better projects elsewhere. China spends money on better projects elsewhere. America does not.
He started America's involvement in the jihadist insurgency in Afghanistan - causing the Soviet-Afghan war as a result - and started the mainstreaming of neoliberal policy that Reagan and Clinton would both escalate, in addition to things like greenlighting the massacre of protesters by the South Korean dictatorship.
I don't believe crimes like that can ever really be atoned for, but I will say that unlike just about anyone else in his position he seems like he's spent his life since then trying to.
He'd be doing a lot more for the world if he said 'I was 100% wrong. I started something (Neoliberalism) that has made life worse for 99% of Americans and that project continues to run unchecked'. This fuck drove the final nail into the coffin that was labor, he got all his economics wrong, he lectured Americans on 'sacrifice' while he never went hungry and that lecturing tone has never left libs. He's an evil dude trying to wash away his sins one house at a time. His evils may have come from stupidity and incompetence, but the rationale doesn't change the outcome.
Literally not a single comment says that Carter is good because "he said he liked China", the entire discussion is about him being against the constant wars. There's also a lot of criticism for him here.
I don't think the based part is where he praises China. He does have a point about us needing to invest more in our own Infrastructure and he does call the US the "the most warlike nation in the history of the world" which for a former US President is about as based as you can get. He does claim it's to spread "values" and that's about as lib as you can get, but still.
Kind of off topic, but Jimmy Carter being as active and sharp as he is in his 90s is pretty amazing.
When old Jimmy Carter has better takes then most of the "left" you know you're in trouble
? This just shows the contradictions of being a lib; they could all agree with this, it is within their own limits but none of them care. So when Carter does it, it seems radical.
Yeah, I could have told you this as a deeply entrenched lib.
I'd disagree about China. The existence of China is giant reality threatening contradiction for capitalism. They know it.
China in second place with a socialist market economy that Capitalists can massage into calling capitalist is fine.
China in first and accelerating while exporting revolution in a manner that could actually work sets off alarm bells.
Then again maybe you're right in that the reality hasn't actually set in. Biden still going on about rules sounds more completely out of touch every day.
like carter is not dumb so it is not surprising that he can look at the american trajetory and think "wAIT A SECOND, WE ARE NOT MAKING A PENNY OF THIS SHIT JUST SOME RANDOM DUDES ARE MAKING BANK ON THIS" like bush saying something like this would probably throw me off more than carter
Carter literally said in an interview that if God blessed him enough to be president then he must spread the true message of God and feed the hungry and clothe the naked or something like that.
He created the department of education and tried to cut military spending. He also lives in a fucking normal ass house and he and his wife spend their time trying to help people via habitat for humanity, voter reform in other countries, and special education lobbying. He’s still shit but he’s definitely the LEAST shit modern president.
And the US views him as a weak loser for that.
like as an architecture student that has looked at the abyss that is the housing market i really respect carter post presidency doing housing he is probably the one person that cared about americans that somehow got to be president
