15

Why can't leftists just all get along? We're all on the same side, comrades

Submitted by ________deleted in Socialism (edited )

Leftcoms, anarchists, MLs, MLMs, demsocs, Trotskyists... we're all just communists. There's no reason that we should be at each other's throats over minor ideological differences that won't even be an issue until after the revolution.

Can't we just put our disagreements on pause until we're in the position to restructure society?

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

14

selver wrote

Pleas for left unity are always so creepy and indicitave of the way that left authoritarians/politicians think. All the authoritarianism of the right wingers with none of the honesty.

I'll work with other leftists for single issue problems, but that's it. We don't want the same thing.

13

BlackFlagged wrote (edited )

I see ML/Ms do this a lot, making pleas for left unity. The reason we reject unity with you is because we just don't have the same goals - like at all.

It wouldn't be any different than uniting with liberals - our goals are that far apart. Especially for those of us who don't give a shit about Marx.

14

zombie_berkman wrote

that and every time someone tries they end up getting walled or put in worker camps

16

Defasher wrote (edited )

ANARCHIST! DON'T SUBVERT THE REVOLUTION WITH YOUR DANGEROUS IDEAS!

DISSOLVING THE STATE IS COUNTER REVOLUTIONARY! WE NEED THE STATE TO CONTROL YOU!

10

amongstclouds wrote

Seriously, the only people I see calling for left unity tend to have strong authoritarian tendencies.

7

sudo wrote

They're major ideological differences. The only time I would consider allying with anarchists would be for antifascist groups. If communists and anarchists win a revolution together, we will turn on each other the minute the revolution is over. Communists want a transitional socialist state, which will wither away once it is no longer needed, whereas anarchists want to abolish the state outright. Each group's plan is unacceptable to the other, so once one group tries to implement their plan, the other group will try to stop them. This will end in a Kronstadt, every time. Whether it's the communists or the anarchists who win depends on who has the superior force.

9

BlackFlagged wrote

finally an honest ML.

9

zod wrote (edited )

If they were honest, they wouldn't say "Communists want...", they'd say "I want..." You can be a communist without supporting a transitional state.

3

erin wrote

this is a fantastical situation though, like, a revolution where having a state afterwards is even an option isn't an anarchist revolution, we do popular revolutions not vanguardist revolutions, that means when the revolution is over the people themselves will demand anarchism and not a transitional state (mutualism transitional phase maybe but not a state). so the idea that we will help each other during the revolution and then turn on each other is never going to happen, either the revolution will be vanguardist and any anarchists who help with that are severely misinformed, there is no possibility but the establishment of a new state in that case, or it will be an anarchist popular revolution and in that case anyone suggesting that a new state be set up afterwards will be laughed at. you will know what you're getting afterwards by what kind of revolution it is, so why would an anarchist support a revolution that has been historically proven to result in their death.

3

GrimWillow wrote

Whether it's the communists or the anarchists who win depends on who has the superior force.

And what would those opposing forces appear as? Perhaps a totalitarian system claiming to absolve into a horizontally organized force vs an already horizontally organized force? Either statists turn to finally believe in liberation, or the Anarchists will will be forced to defend themselves against yet another vertically organized force. Statists might as well be fascists at that point...

4

jlwob wrote

Unless you are oppressing people or being an imperialist, leftist anarchists will just leave you alone. The problem with "left unity" is strains of leftism that have authoritarianism at their core. They see the success of any leftist model that isn't theirs as a threat to their legitimacy. Anti-authoritarian models will always be at odds with authoritarian models because authoritarians will move against anti-authoritarians as soon as they have ANY power.

3

Valjan wrote (edited )

Because every single time this is said, it's opportunistic power grabbing from statists. Those who revere authority to dismantle hegemony (only to reinstate hegemony) are saying their way is the only way, there is no possibility for a direct empowerment of the popular force it must go to the party/vanguard/community and not to the individual.

These differences are -not- minor, and to confuse them as such is either to intentionally obfuscate aimed for goals of state hegemony or you truly don't understand that the difference between liberty and authority is a vast stretch. Societies restructuring stems from the individual interacting with others, not from a position of authority to wield the same hegemonic influences of the masters.

Also the assumption that all on the left identify as communists is a bit strange. I prefer Anarchist-Without-Adjectives or Synthesist Anarchist.

2

MrPotatoeHead wrote

Selfishness is a big part of being human. Cooperation between groups that have very little in common, other than what they despise, only happens until an opportunity comes up for one or more groups take charge. There would have to be a terribly charismatic leader pulling them together and setting up a cooperative system that everyone finds acceptable.

2

Enkara wrote

We're in a position to restructure society every fucking day tho.

Also.. I haven't walled any ML/M's lately, not sure why so much fuss needs to be made over disagreements on the Internet.

2

boringskip wrote

hey, that wall won't paint itself

4

Enkara wrote

It's just like.... Is there actually any meaningful conflict between marxists and anarchists in real life today? It seems to all be on the Internet... I know RCP cultists in real life and I think their politics are shit so I don't associate with their shit unless there is a damn-good reason to do so, it's not like we're exchanging gunfire or anything.

All the disagreement over what actions to take during a theoretical revolution just seems so abstract and meaningless to argue about to me.

2

zod wrote (edited )

I have no idea what's happening in this thread. Somehow it turned into a religious debate.

Anarchists / libsocs have no problem with Marxists, leftcoms and demsocs. Just authoritarian leftists that have a history of persecuting other leftists for not falling in line behind them.

2

Defasher wrote (edited )

A good analogy is jews and christians. Jews were the original Abrahamic religion, their beliefs go back centuries. Then Christians came along and crowned one jew their king and insisted that his interpretation of things is the only way.

Anarchism has always existed, Marxism is a perversion of it that attempts to control people in ways that just aren't tantamount to freedom. Why do you think Marx was so down on anarchists? He didn't appreciate anyone second guessing his theory.

Burn your idols and we can talk.

Also, we're not all communists. More European anarchists are individualists.

0

WindTalk wrote (edited )

A good analogy is jews and christians. Jews were the original Abrahamic religion, their beliefs go back centuries. Then Christians came along and crowed one jew their king and insisted that his interpretation of things is the only way.

That's teams and groups. You are describing societies. If you look closer, there were free-thinking individuals who were both Jewish and Christian. They were willing to translate A to B, not be so identified by their team logo that they would declare the "other" as failure.

I mean think about what you said: If a man is 35 years old, Jewish, and he meets Jesus and changes to being a Christian - that right there is an adult change in thinking.

If a man is age 35 and moves from Germany to Spain and leans Spanish, does he have to give up his German translation and language? What if ten years later, age 45, he has to learn a new German word about a smart phone to talk to his nephew back in Germany? This whole attitude of religion "membership" makes little sense in some of the ways we have grown accustomed to using it. Unless your goal is to have an enemy group to fight against.

The Spanish came to Mexico and converted most of their religion and language all in one encounter. So this isn't some nonsensical example, this is what we know from world history and looking at what human minds are capable of doing. It's the forced at a sword point (or starvation, etc.) that's kind of the greater issue - and I think the topic being drawn out here.

2

Defasher wrote (edited )

I think both religions are hierarchy / ruler based and should be rejected, but Christianity is a lot worse in that respect. It teaches its followers to never question the theology and accept it all on blind faith. It's a religion for sheep.

Judaism, on the other hand, has no almighty messiah or pope to rule the people, and its structured in a less rigid manner. Followers are encouraged to dedicate themselves to studying and the pursuit of logic. Jews are encouraged to fight back at their enslavers and kill them.

Christians are told to 'turn the other cheek' and put up with any abuse, because everything will be better in heaven. It's a religion meant to pacify the workers and keep us from revolting.

But my point was, why go from a minor hierarchy (One true God) to a giant hierarchy (one true god, and his son, and his pope and arch bishop and etc and don't fight back at the slavers or you'll go to hell)

It's the same thing with anarchism vs communism. Anarchism is true freedom, no hierarchy, no rulers, no authoritarian bullshit to keep you in a box. Communism promises to give you anarchism but only if you agree to be ruled by some very special communist kings and obey all their important laws and etc until they eventually decide the time is right for anarchism (i.e never).

2

profusion wrote

i heard that the Roman soldiers (as militant occupying force) were legally permitted to reprimand a barbarian worker -for an offense like stepping out of line and whatever threatening or obnoxious behavior the soldier found agreeable- with a single slap in the face by their left hand. of course they were also lashed and crucified and forced to worship their God and King, but to turn the right cheek was perhaps a display of oppositional defiance against The Law to sabotage that idol-authority and agitate for resistance, refusing to bow down or pay dues instead identifying with that most-high power to rise up against the fear

1

profusion wrote

that is to eventually destroy everything … but the people of Society martyr their favorite children instead of turning their worldview in on itself and so Caesar Western Civilisation recuperates the saga for to glorify His kingdom.

defend our nativity ! for the wild! into the streets !

2

WindTalk wrote (edited )

Christianity is a lot worse in that respect. It teaches its followers to never question the theology and accept in all on blind faith. It's a religion for sheep.

I don't agree. That's like saying that a Christian at age 22 would have no knowledge of Protestant vs. Catholic and the reformation of 500 years ago. Of course they would encounter that there are alternate ways to interpret the same book. It's also not hard to find a preacher explaining the meaning, or a book discussing ways to interpret the book.

It teaches its followers to never question the theology and accept in all on blind faith. It's a religion for sheep.

I think you are confusing "teachers" of the Roman Empire, the Roman government, with otherwise. As plenty of Christians throughout the ages have offered alternate interpretations - did not go along with their parents or teachers. It almost sounds to me like you don't believe a person has free will, that they are incapable of breaking away from their teachers and parents?

Christians are encouraged to 'turn the other cheek' and put up with any abuse, because everything will be better in heaven.

You are looking at interpretation as a solid thing. Again, free will. Maybe the issue is that people want to believe that interpretation? Maybe it's just the most popular way to interpret it? Peer pressure, group conformity?

There were always free thinkers who did not view heaven as a place after death. A lot of wealthy people act like they are hoarding billions of dollars of wealth for the purposes of an afterlife. You don't need a religion to do that. Seth MacFarlane is only in the hundreds of millions of dollars, but he's a useful example. He is educating people and raking in money doing so - and he is an atheist. The platforms he uses, film and TV, give him a lot of power that you and I do not - and it seems it's based on his popularity - his style. And I'm sure it took him years and years of work to build up that power to be able to say what he wants to millions on of people on broadcast TV. It isn't like his first day he was suddenly at the top of a hierarchy.

My point is along the lines of: if people aren't willing to freely think, and you imply they are slaves to their Christian teaching - what's to keep them from being slaves to ANY thinking? Such as capitalist dictatorships? People are willing to die in oil wells and coal mines to make money for billionaires. You don't need promises of an afterlife heaven for people to have strong faith in things.

2

Defasher wrote (edited )

Are you saying that hierarchy is justified because Seth MacFarlane (a cishet white bloke in Hollywood) made lots of money? And who is he educating? I don't really follow.

Organised religion isn't very compatible with free-thinking, however you slice it. But the culture and writings of judaism encourages constant analysis of its teachings, while the culture and writings of christianity orders us to not think for ourselves and simply obey. Much like Marxism when implemented by statists.

2

WindTalk wrote (edited )

Are you saying that hierarchy is justified because Seth MacFarlane (a cishet white bloke in Hollywood) made lots of money?

No. I am not saying that. I was giving an example of an atheist. Seth MacFarlane. He has many followers who give him lots of money. His money is not coming from digging gold out of the Earth - he gets his money by people purchasing his content. Those are his audience, his followers. He has power.

And who is he educating?

Anyone who will listen to him. And even if he dies, it's mostly delivered in ways that will survive and can continue to educate.

Seth MacFarlane may only be worth $200 million, but the products he creates - the stories he tells with his teams of artists (apostles) - are into the billions and billions. He probably isn't even getting the largest percentage of it.

Do you think think Jesus was supernatural, or was he just a human man - who had nothing supernatural about him. Just that he was a popular storyteller? Like Seth MacFarlane. And what people are able to do with what is a copyright-free work, The Bible - in telling people what it means 1500 years later.

I don't really follow.

How is that much different from the Bible? if the ideas in the Bible are popular - and people want to believe in heaven in the afterlife - what are you going to do? Force them at sword-point to not believe it? That's why I brought up Mexico and the Spanish - that's how they converted both the language of their culture and their religion. Both are equally replaced.

1

Defasher wrote (edited )

Isn't MacFarlane just teaching white douchebags to keep being douchebags though? He's not really teaching anyone anything.

2

WindTalk wrote (edited )

Isn't MacFarlane just teaching white douchebags to keep being douchebags though? He's not really teaching anyone anything.

Jesus hasn't been alive for nearly 2000 years. He just walked around and told stories. Others put it into a book. He's not really teaching anyone anything. It's the popularity of the story that draws the audience.

1

zod wrote

Didn't he also tell people 'live this way' and 'don't do this' though?

3

WindTalk wrote (edited )

Didn't he also tell people 'live this way' and 'don't do this' though?

How many people alive today, 2017, are saying those two things? And how many in the past 2000 years? 'live this way' and 'don't do this', aren't doctors telling people that today in hospitals all over the world? Seth MacFarlane content can have adverts all around it - telling people how to live, and what to do. That's probably how most of his power and money is accumulated - adverts. Why are wealthy and powerful people paying such big money to put their 'live this way' and 'don't do this' in the middle of fiction stories?

It's the popularity of the story itself that is the point I'm trying to make. Jesus isn't anything without his crowd, his fans, his fan-appreciation clubs. That's what is relevant to Spock posting "Why can't leftists just all get along? We're all on the same side, comrades" as a topic.

Is fighting more popular than getting along? Are hierarchies what people desire, want, and even construct? We don't need Jesus to build towers in our big cities.

0

BlackFlagged wrote

Exactly. We oppose all hierarchy. Marxists embrace it and have a long history of killing anarchists that won't accept their authority. We're diametrically opposed.

0

Defasher wrote (edited )

Marxism on its own is an okay blueprint for how to structure society in the 20th century (not that anyone managed to pull it off). But it'll always be limited by the fact that it's an industrial ideology that tells us we should all be granted the spoils of the exploitation of Earth. When industrialism is killing us and everything on the planet, equality for workers to exploit the planet equally and enjoy all the same comforts just isn't much use. There are more important things to achieve than fully automated luxury space communism.

-2

zod wrote

That isn't really Marxism, it's Marxism-Leninism.

0

BlackFlagged wrote (edited )

As long as Marx advocated for seizing the state and replacing the rulers with a different set of rulers - he supported hierarchy and thus, tyranny.

There are a lot of communist thinkers that didn't advocate taking over the state - including several that predated Marx. But Marxists choose to identify as followers of Marx, and have little interest in non-Marxist communism, even mocking any ideas that don't originate from their idol and his disciples. So I can only assume they embrace hierarchy.

1

SpiritOfTito wrote (edited )

Short story: because anarchists and most socialists would immediately denounce the state(commune if you'd prefer) they'd created as not living up to their romantic, abstracted dreams and turn against it. They'd compare the ideal of socialism abstracted from it's material conditions and compare that against the physical building of communism in the mess that is reality and sure enough reality comes off a pure second.

They have no answer for how they'll protect themselves from the reactionary counter revolution that is absolutely sure to come. They've no answer to dealing with the kind of pervasive CIA subversion the entire globe was subjected to from 45 onward.

Long story: http://www.greanvillepost.com/2015/05/23/left-anticommunism-the-unkindest-cut/

5

[deleted] wrote

0

SpiritOfTito wrote

do you honestly believe those who take power in any communist revolution would one day relinquish that power? show me one example of this in the history of all of humankind.

Name me one anarchist state (commune or collective if you don't like the connotation of state) that has lasted longer than 3 years.

Most ended like the Paris commune - everyone against a wall shortly about to take a bullet in the head 3 months after taking power.

If anarchists can ever square the circle of producing an anarchist state without the Lenins/Castroites/Maoists brought together to last over 70 years then I'm all ears.

If we can simply skip the hard part and be in a land of Worker Owned Enterprises that'd be fantastic.

do you honestly believe those who take power in any communist revolution would one day relinquish that power? show me one example of this in the history of all of humankind.

You measure them against an ideal years and years after those communists attempted to build socialisms not with their dreams but what material reality gave them.

I measure pretty much all of the communist states in the 20th century as massive success.

Cuba: In Killing Hope (William Blum) there's a chapter where the US is trying to create a program to bring up the material conditions of latin american countries to a higher standard than Cuba to deter them from communism (they named it Alliance or something). It measured live expectancy , literacy rates, infant mortality etc. etc.

After 5 years Cuba was the only country in Latin America hitting Alliance programs goals. I call that a success.

65 percent of russians who were alive in the USSR want communism back

A country that suffered horrendous losses in ww2 and was subject to every form of subversion short of outright nuclear attack.

And still, they preferred their economic system

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/701026/russians-life-better-soviet-union-ussr-sixty-four-percent

China the same: prior to communism they were under the boot of the US and UK.

1 million of the 4 million population of Shanghai at the time were drug addicts.

Most people in the GDR preferred life in the GDR

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/homesick-for-a-dictatorship-majority-of-eastern-germans-feel-life-better-under-communism-a-634122-2.html

Romanians preferred their communism .

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/30/struggling-romanians-yearn-for-communism/

Now you can pull out the familiar "that was state capitalism" which I diasgree with. Why? Because the capitalists made such a distinction that it was a big deal and they never tired to point that out. The biggest spread of wealth was more like 4-1

If you compared a billionaire in a capitalist nation to it's more like 100,000-1

A wealth disparity you'd have to go back to ancient egypt to get.

But I think that's how it would go. Capitalist nations falling like dominos and strenghtening as they go. And through cultural hegemony a gradual shift.

4

[deleted] wrote

0

SpiritOfTito wrote

In my first comment I provided a link that explains in detail what I think

2

[deleted] wrote

0

SpiritOfTito wrote (edited )

It's frankly not a yes or no question. It depends would be my answer.

There's a reason why most anarchist societies end up against walls within 3 months of establishing their "horizontal society".

I agree though. That's how socialism would develop if it were ever allowed a normal development.

It never has so far apart from in small towns like Marinaleda.

3

[deleted] wrote

1

SpiritOfTito wrote

the key difference in our solution is that your approach leaves a possibility to be usurped

Your position leaves everyone murdered.

And your country returned to a bannana republic under US control.

Its idealist and has been shown to be absolutely incapable of obtaining and keeping power in a global capitalist ideology.

If you want my eloquent, thorough and thought out opinion of it I would suggest reading the link I posted of Michael Parents article, Left anti communism the unkindest cut.

It deals with pretty much everything in your post.

2

[deleted] wrote

0

SpiritOfTito wrote

A) if you read the article I linked you'd know I view you as nothing else as a left anti communist. Therefore I'm not mad. Youre a dime a dozen.

b) that article succintly says what I think. Theres no need for me to elaborate because the only thing id do is run a hackneyed version of that article. No need to reinvent the wheel.

c) if you're gonna deviate from what was a polite conversation thats on you. But go fuck yourself.

0

DissidentRage wrote (edited )

Personally the way I see things is that it's necessary for communists and anarchists to keep each other honest at different stages of revolution.

Yeah, there is definitely the question of whether or not a communist leader or political body will voluntarily and gracefully relinquish power. I think a strong anarchist movement is necessary to make sure that happens, by whatever means, when it's necessary. But I also think some form of organized coalition is necessary to defend any movement from capitalist aggressors. There has been an unfortunate historical precedent of anarchist suppression by communist regimes, and it's important to be careful not to repeat the same mistakes, but this is not indicative of an inherent "kill anarchists" imperative in communism.

But at the same time, there is also a major problem that comes up here from sectarian anarchists. It's not so much purity, because I think what you are going for is exactly where we need to go, but sectarian anarchists are very quick to throw the baby out with the bath water. SpitOfTito pointed out some major points of improvement, and instead of being addressed, they are discarded as moot because the method to reach those was not the right one.

Nobody seriously says communist experiments have been perfect, but there are important lessons to be learned from them. IMO tossing them aside seems impulsive and reflective of an inability to analyze in good faith. I believe that some form of government (not a state because it's not defending bourgeois interests) is necessary, to both defend the revolution and to migrate existing systems into functional post-revolution equivalents, but it must be organized from the bottom up, and anyone who tries a little too hard to move 'up' needs to be actively swatted down. I think this is where a combination of strategies is necessary.

I see a full anarchist movement as being easily snubbed. There is a unique tactical advantage by not having a system that is centralized, as it is harder to unequivocally stop a movement that is still capable of functioning if one part fails, but there are issues of cohesion that make it difficult to mobilize a large-scale effort with the level of efficiency necessary to defend the revolution long-term. It also seems like there is a very strong drive to make left membership largely exceptional, which is not a helpful mindset when you're an actively disparaged political minority.

2

[deleted] wrote

-1

DissidentRage wrote

but to call us all communists and pretend like we have the same goals is a bit much.

Are you not also aiming for a stateless society where the workers own the means of production, and capital and oppression no longer exist? Perhaps it is a naiveté to think that we're both going for that, or that this is a sufficient goal with implicit effects on other areas of life. If this is not what you're going for, or if this is not substantial enough to describe what you're going for, then I do not understand, and perhaps this is the case with others. My own perception has been that the divide has been a difference in tactics rather than goals.

i'm not sure what you mean by sectarian anarchists though, i've not heard that term. if you mean people who only give the time of day to other anarchists, then i certainly hope i don't appear to be one of those. that's just foolish.

There is the perception that differences between us are exaggerated or emphasized for the sake of making unity impossible (see the dogpiling elsewhere in the thread), while not even attempting to reconcile the differences. There is also the assertion that communists inherently desire rule or be ruled (see other threads in this sub where the question of motive has been posed), based on what has happened historically, regardless of what is actually said by many of its proponents and in spite of the conditions in which those events have occurred.

Personally the resolution of both has been a great area of interest for me, however as someone who is not as well-versed (owing to a lack of any formal political education or time to dedicate to thorough reading of leftist literary works) I'm only going to get so far and I'm sure I will make mistakes. A lot of what I've picked up has been through participation in and observation of discussion.

3

[deleted] wrote

1

DissidentRage wrote

communists don't really have an issue with that.

I think enough look back on the USSR and others as being examples of failures in that regard. At the very least it's accepted as an example of why the strong man theory doesn't work. Personally I think having a figurehead that is purely representative is fine but not locking up all that power in one person.

i think every faction has those kinds, but other than being a minor hinderance to conversation, i don't see them as much of a threat for our advancement.

I think they pose a problem in that they can sabotage a revolution if it doesn't go exactly the way they want it to, whether it's by divisive actions and rhetoric, or actively siding with counter-revolutionaries. A couple here have expressed that they will be content breaking away and committing individual actions that aren't tactically considerate of the larger movement.

but there is something to consider.....perhaps all of our differences cannot be reconciled. that may not be a bad thing. but we do need to be honest about our differences.

People in general are going to have different perceptions of things. There are always going to be differences, and yes, some may not be reconciled, but decisions must be made on what the larger points are, and which minor things can be compromised. I don't see the major points of our political views as necessarily incompatible as I pointed out a couple posts ago, and I think it's important to emphasize our commonalities so that we can be more effective.

3

PainlessEphemera wrote (edited )

The Acorn community has been around for over twenty years, and that’s an anarchist commune. There’s also Freetown Christiania, which has been around for forty years, if the Acorn community is too small for you.

3

GrimWillow wrote

No answer? Are you kidding? Being horizontally organized IS the answer because vertical organizing is the biggest element that is most corruptible by subversion. All you have to do is take control of the "authority" then BAM all the momentum of everyone in that system is now swinging hard for a direction that effectively works against everyone involved. I mean, isn't that the whole reason that communists supposedly desire "communism" for? To have a society that isn't susceptable to such corruption, and sustains an organized system that doesn't allow for "authority". To think that we need the vertical organizing is sure to lead us into the hands of a new sort of bulshevism.

2

Dolly wrote

With bullets, ffs. Don't need a dictator to tell us to shoot back.

0

SpiritOfTito wrote

That'd be an easy answer if subversion and destabilisation came in the form of a uniformed capitalist man coming up and saying "hey this isn't on".

The lengths of subversion and destabilisation they will go to are pretty well outlined in Killing Hope by William Blum. Including sabotaging ships arriving to communist nations to produce food shortages, paying people to protest, assasination attempts, bombing of food production facilities, bombing of farms (to make the "economy scream").

Your commune /state whatever you prefer is going to be under attack from day one and it's not going to be men in capitalist uniforms identifying themselves.

It's going to be your own people demanding you feed them because the americans have sunk your grain shipments in your own docking yards. It's going to be because they bombed your food production facilities and now your commune is starving.

And when people are starving and looking for answers they'll swoop in offering food/money/gifts to reactionaries and fascists and funding and arming their ascent to power.

I like the sentiment: It's simple and easy. But it's abstracted and doesn't make sense given what we know happened to every nation that deviated from Washington in the 20th century (Im not even talking about socialist states. There were plenty the US overthrew simply because they were against US interest).

0

sudo wrote

Exactly. If they fail to plan, their plan will fail.