What you stupid Tankies don't realize is that revolution would mean Americans being harmed!
What you stupid Tankies don't realize is that revolution would mean Americans being harmed!
Harry, you don't need to sell it to me
You're viewing a single thread.
western leftists
who do you think wants the collapse of the great satan the most,
This idea that desiring the downfall of the US is relegated to "Westerners" is so revealing of their Hitlerite chauvinism. They genuinely believe their own bullshit.
The rest of the world wants a strong US state because who else will give us our liberty if it was ever threatened by us fantasising about governing ourselves?
They don't possess the basic empathy skills to a) recognize that the ~7 billion or so people outside of the West are actually people with internal lives, hopes, fears, worries, desires, etc, and b) that the lives of those people would be infinitely improved if the American hegemon collapsed. The "western leftist" position (at least economically) is the position - knowingly or unknowingly - of the vast majority of the world population, but they are also the most powerless people in the face of imperialist plunder and austerity.
To any libs lurking on Hexbear: One of the most highly populated countries on the planet, and the single largest economy and manufacturing power, holds the position that the world can be improved for the poor via massive development projects and facilitating fairer trade. Both things are in fundamental opposition to the position of the United States, which only destroys that development in wars (Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Vietnam, Korea, etc, while China has not militarily attacked a country in decades) and relies on setting up terribly imbalanced deals through either IMF-led austerity or more directly through coups and colour revolutions to install compradors.
I am firmly an internationalist, and while I'm in the UK and not the US, I would still always support a party or initiative that prioritizes substantially alleviating the suffering of those abroad, even if it negatively impacted myself and others through previously easily-accessible commodities no longer becoming accessible (fruits in off-season, etc). Though I don't believe it would even have to require much suffering and sacrifice for the working class, because most wealth and capital in Western countries is obviously stolen from the workers by the 0.1% and we could simply take it and redistribute it.
Though I don't believe it would even have to require much suffering and sacrifice for the working class, because most wealth and capital in Western countries is obviously stolen from the workers by the 0.1% and we could simply take it and redistribute it.
If all the wealth in the world was distributed in equal amounts to every person, then each person would make about $54.000 dollars a year. Every person would own 2.5 acres of land, if it was distributed equally. If we just redistributed the financial assets of the richest 1% in the world, then that would be about $24.000 a year.
If all the money (which I understand is made up) in the world was distributed in equal amounts to every person, then each person would make about $10.500 a year.
The first would put me much better off than I am now. The second, assuming rent and so on is still a thing, would make me slightly worse off. Not even incredibly worse off, just a bit worse off, in exchange for basically ending hunger/houselessness. I'd be fine with that.I know this is a meaningless exercise, what is "wealth"? How would it function? Inflation? But again, the financial system is itself fictitious, we produce 1.21 times the amount of food needed to feed the global population, about 40% is discarded before reaching a supplier. There's so many empty houses. The market for speculating on debt is larger than the amount of debt. If we go into the practicalities of it, we have to acknowledge that "redistributing all wealth" - however irrational - would still be more rational than what is going on now.
everyone else