Alex spends 90% of their time talking about Medicare for All and 10% talking about foreign policy. When they talk about foreign policy, they'll criticize U.S. actions a bit, but they aren't calling for anything close to a comprehensive end to imperialism.
Blake spends 90% of their time talking about foreign policy and 10% talking about Medicare for All. When they talk about foreign policy, they call for an end to the Cuban embargo and say China's response to fundamentalist terrorism -- while imperfect -- is a better approach than the War on Terror was.
Who has a chance of getting elected and who doesn't? We can't get disconnected from how little most people know/care about foreign policy and how ubiquitous anti-communist propaganda is. Climbing that mountain is far more difficult than getting people on board with "you shouldn't go bankrupt from common medical issues," and it's far less immediately useful. We're not getting any sort of meaningful power (at least nowhere near soon enough) unless we focus on domestic policies.
If anti-imperialism isn’t a part of the political education, or the program, or a basic part about how a socialist organisation functions (i.e. keeping close contact with fraternal organisations abroad and co-ordinating), then who is to say that it will be able to actually understand and help combat imperialism when it does come to power?
There's enough socialist literature on the relationship between capitalism and imperialism that if you can get someone to oppose the former, there's a good bet you can get them to oppose the latter. Consider the tension between thinking the intelligence state mostly does decent thinks abroad and recognizing all the horrible shit the intelligence state has done right here at home. Think about how naturally a conversation about how stuff like NAFTA hollowed out the American working class leads to talking about how companies exploit workers in the global south.
It's easier to get most people on board with socialism and then get them on board with anti-imperialism than it is to push both at once to a skeptical audience.
Compare two hypothetical candidates:
Who has a chance of getting elected and who doesn't? We can't get disconnected from how little most people know/care about foreign policy and how ubiquitous anti-communist propaganda is. Climbing that mountain is far more difficult than getting people on board with "you shouldn't go bankrupt from common medical issues," and it's far less immediately useful. We're not getting any sort of meaningful power (at least nowhere near soon enough) unless we focus on domestic policies.
There's enough socialist literature on the relationship between capitalism and imperialism that if you can get someone to oppose the former, there's a good bet you can get them to oppose the latter. Consider the tension between thinking the intelligence state mostly does decent thinks abroad and recognizing all the horrible shit the intelligence state has done right here at home. Think about how naturally a conversation about how stuff like NAFTA hollowed out the American working class leads to talking about how companies exploit workers in the global south.
It's easier to get most people on board with socialism and then get them on board with anti-imperialism than it is to push both at once to a skeptical audience.