▲ 86 ▼ liberals try to grasp material analysis challenge: impossible (thelemmy.club) submitted 4 hours ago by sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml to c/slop@hexbear.net 46 comments fedilink hide all child comments https://lemmy.world/post/51521475 Stupidest shit I seen all day lmao
[–] jack@hexbear.net 10 points 3 hours ago (1 child) No, the US was also progressive from roughly 1930-1945, and not just because of the New Deal. It was also because of genuinely anti-imperialist foreign policy in Latin America. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NinjaGinga@hexbear.net 9 points 2 hours ago (1 child) [G]enuinly anti-imperialist foreign policy in Latin America I can't claim to know too too much on the subject, but I do know Puerto Rico must be a rather notable exception to this assertion permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jack@hexbear.net 12 points 2 hours ago (1 child) It certainly is. Even at its most progressive moments, the US never stopped being a racist colonizer run by capitalists for capitalists for a second. But in certain periods, due to a complex set of conditions (especially involving interstate conflict and powerful mass movements), the US was in aggregate a progressive force for the world. Probably totals up to less than 10% of the country's existence. If you wanna read more on the Latin America stuff, check out Greg Grandin's work, like America, América. Under FDR, the Vice President was going to Bolivian indigenous peasant unions and fighting on their behalf against US corporations, the Secretary of State supported and enforced pan-American labor rights and minimum wage, and the Ambassador to Mexico materially defended Mexican land expropriation of American corporate property. Communists across the continent were vocal supporters of the US and thought it was about to make a lasting turn towards anti-imperialism and worker power. Latin American states run by leftists were seeking closer integration so the US could aid them politically suppressing fascists. It was a brief period, but it was legit. I don't think the US is capable of repeating that, structurally, without a revolution or at least a working class powerful enough to threaten one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NinjaGinga@hexbear.net 4 points 49 minutes ago Added to the ever-expanding reading list. Thank you, comrade! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NinjaGinga@hexbear.net 9 points 2 hours ago (1 child) [G]enuinly anti-imperialist foreign policy in Latin America I can't claim to know too too much on the subject, but I do know Puerto Rico must be a rather notable exception to this assertion permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jack@hexbear.net 12 points 2 hours ago (1 child) It certainly is. Even at its most progressive moments, the US never stopped being a racist colonizer run by capitalists for capitalists for a second. But in certain periods, due to a complex set of conditions (especially involving interstate conflict and powerful mass movements), the US was in aggregate a progressive force for the world. Probably totals up to less than 10% of the country's existence. If you wanna read more on the Latin America stuff, check out Greg Grandin's work, like America, América. Under FDR, the Vice President was going to Bolivian indigenous peasant unions and fighting on their behalf against US corporations, the Secretary of State supported and enforced pan-American labor rights and minimum wage, and the Ambassador to Mexico materially defended Mexican land expropriation of American corporate property. Communists across the continent were vocal supporters of the US and thought it was about to make a lasting turn towards anti-imperialism and worker power. Latin American states run by leftists were seeking closer integration so the US could aid them politically suppressing fascists. It was a brief period, but it was legit. I don't think the US is capable of repeating that, structurally, without a revolution or at least a working class powerful enough to threaten one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NinjaGinga@hexbear.net 4 points 49 minutes ago Added to the ever-expanding reading list. Thank you, comrade! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jack@hexbear.net 12 points 2 hours ago (1 child) It certainly is. Even at its most progressive moments, the US never stopped being a racist colonizer run by capitalists for capitalists for a second. But in certain periods, due to a complex set of conditions (especially involving interstate conflict and powerful mass movements), the US was in aggregate a progressive force for the world. Probably totals up to less than 10% of the country's existence. If you wanna read more on the Latin America stuff, check out Greg Grandin's work, like America, América. Under FDR, the Vice President was going to Bolivian indigenous peasant unions and fighting on their behalf against US corporations, the Secretary of State supported and enforced pan-American labor rights and minimum wage, and the Ambassador to Mexico materially defended Mexican land expropriation of American corporate property. Communists across the continent were vocal supporters of the US and thought it was about to make a lasting turn towards anti-imperialism and worker power. Latin American states run by leftists were seeking closer integration so the US could aid them politically suppressing fascists. It was a brief period, but it was legit. I don't think the US is capable of repeating that, structurally, without a revolution or at least a working class powerful enough to threaten one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NinjaGinga@hexbear.net 4 points 49 minutes ago Added to the ever-expanding reading list. Thank you, comrade! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NinjaGinga@hexbear.net 4 points 49 minutes ago Added to the ever-expanding reading list. Thank you, comrade! permalink fedilink source parent