Removed by mod
why are american leftists so obsessed with america?
Removed by modAll the time I hear about "the CIA will coup this", "America supported that", "These people opposed US Imperialism". A topic could have absolutely nothing to do with america and involve a place on the exact opposite part of the earth and Americans will find a way to make it about America. For example, people talk about Russian politics and Putin yet seem to support Putin wholeheartedly because his Russia "opposes american imperialism". This framing of the conversation seemingly ignoring how Russian people feel about his reign, how the EU has been having to drag america into the latest sanctions against Russia, and how for the last 4 years America had an ostensibly Pro-Russian president. I swear American Leftists don't care at all about Capitalism or Communism and just want to oppose the United States. Most of the world and people don't care about American influence, let alone to such an obsessive degree.
You must log in or register to comment.
every anti-communist project can be squarely traced back to US dollars
real question should be "why US libs obsessed with russia" and "why US cons obsessed with china"
the china one is easy, wiggas gon wig
so why are the other half obsessed with russia?
well good luck finding the america dollars that crushed the paris commune lololol
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
the largest war in the history of the world had the US handing millions of dollars of stuff to communists so they could fight some anti-communists. During Karl Marx' time communists all thought the greatest country of reactionary thought that was an existential threat to communism was Russia and that is where the first successful communist project happened. I think its an inherently negative mentality to think america is the hopeless backwater that will eternally oppose communism
This comment is exactly why we have no choice but to completely and relentlessly dunk on the USA
Russia had a revolution ergo America will/could have one isnt a materialist view of the situation it’s not logical, their conditions are completely different especially considering America being a bourgeois country founded by a bourgeois revolution and has always throughout its history taken its function to be serving its bourgeois interests over any others.
No one thinks it’s a hopeless backwater country that will eternally oppose communism, it’s the hopeless seat of global capital. All of its material interests are aligned to fight communism in every way. Nothing has ever fought communism as hard as America has and it has funded and has ties to every anti-communist movement precisely bc its material interests lead it to do so.
The history of its (white) populace has strained to find their place in the labor aristocracy and in petit-bourgeois privilege afforded to them by the world wide imperialist theft it has done since it was barely out of its infancy. even its socialists and communists have been guilty of this western/American white chauvinism as recently as the iww in the 20th century and right up to today.
The amount of Americans that have any degree of class consciousness and have a healthy amount of intersectionality and anti-imperialism/chauvinism in their analysis is vanishingly small. The overwhelming majority of Americans, be they liberal, conservatives and a high degree of even leftist (white leftists in America have a history of selling out their poc comrades for petty privileges and even stealing their jobs in the days where that was easier to do without real backlash) do not fit this mold and are unlikely to be able to for a multitude of factors including propaganda, racism, global class interests (i.e. our benefit from the theft of imperialist theft), chauvinism taught to us, and myriad other factors
I suggest settlers for a good history of America’s failing to attain any kind of revolutionary fervor and how it has sacrificed its principles for petit-bourgeois privilege all through its history, it goes from the earliest days of colonization to near present day.
As far as discussion being to centered on it, well we definitely are entirely too Euro/Anglocentric in the west in general but we are unfortunately going to have to talk about the us a lot being as, again, it is the seat of global capital’s imperialist forces, it’s unavoidable for most discussions. They make themselves involved everywhere
the "seat of global capital" whatever that means used to be the united kingdom and it didn't have much issue moving over to the united states and won't have issue moving over to the next country when the time comes. if the United States were "the seat of global capital's imperialist forces" the seat would just move to the next country. But all that is just pseudo-marxist drivel. The American state only protects american capital like any other state protects its own capital.
Famous socialist country the Uk lol.
All other capitalist countries, including the Uk, capitulate to America’s interests bc of America’s status as the prime seat of capital and bc they benefit from it.
None of that is “pseudo-Marxist drivel” it’s just the fact of the world as it is. Everything I said is the result of circumstances in America, you can deny that it exists bc you want to hope real bad for what you want America to be but it doesn’t change the material reality or historical facts.
Your view of it is moralist nonsense based on nothing but gut reactions and tenuous connections you’ve made on surface level pattern recognition.
I’m not saying that because these things are facts it means we shouldn’t personally strive to make our community better in America but understanding them and using them to keep from repeating the mistakes we have throughout history is vital (I proselytize communism to everyone who will listen in the way I think they’ll be receptive, I volunteer and do what else I can in the face of it). And it does mean that America is astronomically unlikely to develop into anything given its history and its status as a country , we’ve fumbled it every time and there’s a reason for it and it isn’t just that you hadn’t come along yet to tell everyone America can have a good revolution finally actually.
Seriously read settlers, at least it’ll help you see some of the history of the country from a non-capitalist apologia POV and fills in a lot of the holes.
"just the fact of the world as it is" is just pseudo-materialism. most of what you say is just left-wing american exceptionalism
yeah but that can describe a lot of countries and there are plenty of countries even more anti-communist that used to be communist countries and had opposite propaganda
I'm not saying the people from murica will never be communists in heart, I say "the US state" (ie US oligarchs) is the major threat to humanity ever, and of course to communism. Are oligarchs from, say, Perú any better? Of course not, but they haven't the biggest fucking army ever at their disposition.
For Russia to become a stable communist country they had to kill or gulag a lot of rich people, and it's hard to do it when they have several layers of armed forces with all the money in the world protecting them/their interests
the army switched sides in Russia and I can't see how you'll have a revolution in america without them doing the same
So you found the one event in the last 150 years that doesn't appear to involve America.
Actually, that's fairly easy. Someone had to fund the operations of the nascent French Third Republic and it certainly wasn't going to be Bismarck.
Isn't America the most influential and powerful anti-communist country that puts huge amounts of resources trying to crush anyone that opposes its imperialism?
my country has an american base. doesn't mean I think about america 24/7 and blame america for the entirety of society and go on about how bad it is. Would be antithetical to making positive change if I wasted my time on that
I don't see why the average american would care too much about bases in other countries. its a very slight cost and has little effect on their daily life or local politics. I bet if the US left every single military base it had abroad you'd still see a very similar if not same political situation of democrats vs republicans there. seems an issue that concerns the local country much more than america if anything
if another country get into a position of having that many bases all over the world and having that degree of influence over the world, then we'll all start talking about them incessantly as well.
and socialists in general should be against imperialism regardless of the effect it has on their day to day life, tho even if we don't think about those bases there part of the structure that maintains the us's dominance and helped it build the wealth it has that american's in general benefit from even if they don't realize it
most of the american socialists I talk to seem to be neutral if not supportive of imperialism by "anti-imperialist forces" so it never seemed like much of a principle as much as an extension of anti-americanism to me.
are you referring to like assad and/or china or something like that here?
I mean those things are relatively contentious amongst the american left but I think anyone who is a leftist should be against america meddling in other countries affairs.
are you making an argument that anti-americanism is bad or are you saying that american leftists are so caught up in being anti-american they forfeit their principles? and what does that have to do with with the fact that what we're point out is america's "importance" in global politics which is an answer to your question, "why do we talk about america so much"?
I mean if you want my real opinion I think american leftists are anti-america first, pro-socialism(defined vaguely) second, and care about actually advancing the cause of proletarians way too far down the list
Weird how people who live in a country that also happens to have been a hegemonic world power for the better part of century would be "obsessed" with it. What could explain this?
probably a holdover from anti-soviet propaganda and a need to scapegoat someone
There is a kernel of something here. It's something I've felt before as an American writing about specifically the history of colonialism and imperialism in other countries. It's like how really well meaning people can define others by their trauma rather than fully realize them as other human beings. I don't make a crass comparison to race but maybe OP is trying to allude to that kind of patronizing "I know your struggles" thing without actually listening to them. The history of these places isn't only the history of their subjugation. There's much that has happened and present despite the bad things.
But then again it's hard to tell if OP just isn't mad someone supported Putin somewhere or something? Like was this just one comment about Russia that spawned this subtweet or are there other examples?
Nobody is going to be able to understand the entire history of every place on earth. What American socialists should understand is the relationship between the country they are in (the US) and the country they are discussing. 99.9% of the time that relationship is defined by American imperialism. I'm not going to be able to keep 196+ relationships to 196+ different countries plus the entire history of that country in my head or even learn about all of those connections, because that graph is exponential in size.
Sure, I don't think everyone has to learn all of the history for every country. And I don't think you're a bad person if you don't.
I usually laugh when american leftists love Putin but there's countless examples one could bring up of this view among the american left. For example, the people who loved Assad and hate Rojava because its "an american puppet". I've developed my views talking to tons of Americans on forums or discord or twitter or wherever else they seem to appear these days.
I know multiple american organizers personally who talk up putin but ok
Oh fuck off sorry we don't take issue with the military intervention for the prevention of mass killings, enslavement, and sexual assault on the non-Sunni populace by Salafist Jihadi militias. Whatever Assad isn't a swell guy, corrupt regime etc. Same for Putin. This understands nothing of the political and historical realities of either of these people nor their 'regimes'. I'll agree the YPG and PKK really showed some promise, communal progress and solidarity in the face of chaos, slaughter, a history of oppression, and so on. However you obviously possess zero understanding of the political and sectarian history of the area beyond the Kurds being oppressed. What about Turkey's role in all this, our NATO ally? Or the coming to fruition of a history of Wahabbism, emanating from the penninsula (also our allies), in the rise of Islamic State? None of this can be separated from the long opposition to Secular Left Nationalism/Socialism, and especially Communism, by Western powers nor from the reaction of the Islamic world to the Shia revolution in Iran nor Israeli reaction to the rise of Hezbollah - we especially cannot ignore the catalyst found in the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, the latter of which saw the Sunni minority lose its position of power over Shia-majority Iraq with the fall of Saddam and the Ba'athists. The harsh reality was that beyond a certain point there were no moderate militias in Syria, radicalism has been brewing for a long time and this has absolutely been a historical material interest for the US and its allies. It's not like Rojava was going to prevent mass sectarian violence throughout non-Kurdish Syria, it was difficult enough maintaining their own territory - it's a fucked situation for the Kurds, it has been for a long time and will continue to be (If you wish for me to write an ode to the awfulness of Erdogan's government I can do that too). However this should be a matter much simpler and more immanent than the staging of some abstract duality of practical Leninist discipline in opposition to utopian Anarchist mutuality over the topic of Rojava - Russian intervention in Syria saved lives and the Assad government is preferable to Salafist rule, plain and simple. Those are the lessons I want to draw from the situation.
Personally, whatever take your moral purity, I could give a shit. I 'support' Putin and Assad insofar as I support taking tough and decisive action in order to protect life in the face of a brutal reality - this seems to me to be the only socially useful way of approaching the concept 'support' with regards to international politics and conflict, a way that may actually inform my approach to future conflict in this quagmire of a hellworld. Or I suppose you can go back being shocked at cold-blooded Nationalists doing shit that cold-blooded Nationalists have done throughout all of history, the libs sure seem to enjoy shaking their fists these boogeymen - seems like a good time.
I really have no clue where you pulled out this rant from out of laughing at americans loving putin and assad or came up with this narrative of me knowing nothing about syria. I don't really care about moral purity I just find americans knowing little about Assad and how he is seen in syria but having extreme opinions on the guy to the point of loving him very funny
I have literally said zero good things about him, he's not a good guy, his regime is corrupt. Of course he's not the most popular he's Alawite in a Sunni-majority country and the Alawites have gotten preferential treatment from his father and himself. This ignores the reality of the alternative and the environment which gave rise to such a situation. From everything I've heard since the winding down and the funneling of the jihadis into Afrin and Idlib, it seems to me that the popular sentiment is a begrudging embrace (even for those less violently sectarian people whom nonetheless possess very little love for the Assad government) of the potential for stability in a region which had been thrown into utter chaos and violence for near a decade.
Nothing in the world has "nothing to do with America", at least when it comes to oppression, fascism, anti-communism, finance, industry, production, wealth, technology, medicine, war, and other unimportant topics.
That dude made a video about "how being against america is not a consistent ideology" or some shit, which had valid points but was blended with China bad/Russia bad. Otherwise he's cool.
Why murican leftist obsses with murica? Cuz they live in that country, and is undoubtly The Great Satan, so it's reasonable to
I dunno I grew up in love with russia and the soviet union and I like china. Americans be wack obsessed with their country. Saying its The Great Satan is just several layers deep into that obsession
You do know calling it The Great Satan does not originate from the US right
Khomeini was obsessed with America, and he was right.
Lenin talked about this sort of anti patriotic sentiment back in 1915 during WWI saying, "During a reactionary war a revolutionary class cannot but desire the defeat of its government."
Of course this doesn't mean leftists should just support all of America's enemies or become posadists, but the general principle of desiring the defeat of your own government is very applicable to genuinely revolutionary leftists within the reactionary war mongering United States of Amerikkka.
The USA is the current world hegemon with military bases in dozens of countries on every continent. Domestically the US is a settler colonial state built off the near extermination of one race and the mass enslavement of another. Someone living in the belly of this beast who's number one goal isn't dismantling the American empire is not a genuine anti-imperialist and frankly not a genuine ally to Indigenous and black people.
Also in practical terms it only makes sense that a revolutionary would want to overthrow their own capitalist government first before overthrowing other ones. Of course having general solidarity for the proletariat in other countries is still good and I think the people who participated in the International brigades or the YPG International are heroes of the revolution but it is more pragmatic for most people to focus primarily on their own local communities. So for leftists living in the US this involve fervent opposition to the American state.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/jul/26.htm
early on their "obsession" with Germany was just expecting the world revolution to happen there and is not at all the same as the American obsession
Because we're well aware that this country has never stayed out of anything in its fucking life
I mean you can say fuck america if you want, I don't think it would amount to much, but do you really think your country would be vastly different if the U.S government forces had little to no effect on politics there?
I mean countries like Germany pressure countries like Greece to deregulate and take on austerity or china has countries give up ports for 99 years or other things like that. seems pretty separable from the corporations of those countries having their business supported or opposed by local government or funding local government to be more pro that business
you're the one who sounds naive if you think china stands to gain nothing from having a port leased to them for 99 years. if it makes no difference china wouldn't ask for it as a term in a loan
for the last 4 years America had an ostensibly Pro-Russian president.
found the ostensible shitlib
guy basically downplayed Russia to all the neocons in america all the time hence ostensibly Pro-Russia
After trump's inaugaration members of the Duma we're drinking champaign. Someone on trump's staff probably had connections with a russian oligarch like, I'm guessing here, Deripaska. It would be crazy to think trump, just by the mere fact he has capital in russia, isn't more pro-russia than prior presidents.
