206
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
206 points (91.2% liked)
politics
19090 readers
4206 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Opposition to NATO is a pretty milquetoast opinion on the socialist left due to its' part in the continued exploitation and neo-imperialism of the global south. I'm also opposed to NATO, but I don't think it should be dismantled. Rather it should be turned into an international climate change relief agency.
I'm just saying most left people I know who want to reign in the excesses of US hegemony care about US military adventures in the Middle East, or interventions in Central America, or immigration policy, or neoliberal trade restrictions against weaker economic powers... it's highly unusual for the second thing on the list to be this particular European military alliance that is highly consensual and pretty productive for everyone who's a part of it, and which is targeted almost entirely (now that it's not the late 1990s anymore) at one particular big geopolitical power that they don't have any particular love for any more than they do for the US. If we were talking about reigning them in back when they were bombing the fuck out of the former Yugoslavia, then yeah I wouldn't bat an eye at it, but... I'm not saying it's impossible that someone from the left managed to authentically arrive at the conclusion that out of all the possible awful things the US does on the world stage, NATO's the urgent problem that needs to be torn down. But I think in comparison to the other obvious explanation, it seems a little implausible, quite honestly.
Only on the accelerationist left. No one is saying NATO is great. That's not an argument that can be made. But it's insane to genuinely believe the world would be better or much different in its absence.
NATO for all it's sins is a tool. That could be just as easily leveraged for good. That is if we stop self sabotaging. Instead showing some solidarity and working towards coalitions that could actually stand and represent the Common Man against the wealthy.
NATO will never exist in that manner until a majority of member nations and the US are socialist. Even though I disagree with it, I understand the desire to want it just dismantled instead because getting to that point is tantamount to moving mountains. It's not just an accelerationist position.
No it's not. By abolishing the mutual defense pact of all those different nations it will simply Empower a different group of people. Who are just as bad actors as NATO has traditionally been. And any claim to the contrary is pants on head crazy.
Are you seriously insisting that Russia who is currently invading ukraine. And China who is poisoning the reefs and fishing spots around their neighbors in order to hurt them while also saber rattling at Taiwan would see the dissolution of NATO and say okay we'll be good people now? Is that seriously what you're implying? I'm not saying they're worse than NATO had traditionally been. They're pretty on par. But let's not act delusionally here.
ah yes, the "we must defend the status quo at ALL COSTS because the unknown is scary" position. Which alliance exists currently that is a rival to NATO? Which existing political alliances are being suppressed that will immediately crop up into a military alliance in it's absence? Since it's purely an accelerationist position, will you point out the other accelerationist positions on Dr. West's Policy Pillars?
I hate NATO. I understand why people want it dismantled. I disagree with that assessment. How much more explicit do I have to be? No, I am not insisting any of that.
Way to prove your disingenuousness. I never argued for the status quo. But I understand that when you don't actually have a response to an argument. At least for disingenuous people. You just make stuff up as you just did. I get that you irrationally hate nato. And you can keep irrationally hating nato. Because you will not ever succeed or convince people of your position when you keep making up stufg like this.
All I said was that there are other Bad actors out there. And leaving ourself defenseless and without allies is a bad idea. I'm all for fixing nato. But you are for Banning hammers because someone was killed by one once. Your for throwing babies out with bath water. Because it was dirty. Mutual defense packs are fine and have a place still today. I would like to see the imperialist nature of it done away with. But no one with any sense would trust anything you have to say. Good day.
What exactly did I make up? You don't have to say that you support the status quo to argue in favor of the status quo. I'm asking basic questions to understand where you're coming from, because I refuse to assume things about your position. China greatly prefers soft power over military power (not that they don't act in a jingoist manner), and will not align themselves with Russia in fear of US secondary sanctions hurting their soft power. India is courting all sides of the geopolitical game in the hopes of gaining power overall, not in any specific direction. North Korea has weapons manufacturing capabilities lacking in Russia, but the DPRK is doing it to hurt the West without incurring worse sanctions. BRICS is an economic alliance comparable to the WTO and it definitely has nowhere near the weight of WTO or the will to become a military alliance. The African Union and ECOWAS are aligned with the imperial core. I'm not denying that there are other bad actors out there, I'm saying that none of the bad actors are anywhere close to organized, so fearmongering about "something worse than NATO" is nothing more than that.
I wouldn't call "hating NATO" irrational. I'd say it's a difference in priorities. I don't believe that the suffering imposed on the global south by NATO is outweighed by the mild stability they're bringing to the global north currently. I hate the pain and suffering that NATO enables in the majority of the world. However out of pragmatism, I see that the lack of NATO in the present would be worse for people overall. The best time to have dismantled NATO would have been at any point from 1992 to 2010. The next best time will come in the near future when NATO is no longer holding the West together against bad actors. However rather than dismantle it, I want to see it transformed into something that helps people in crisis, rather than the purposes of war. To do that, the US (NATO's largest funder) will need to have a socialist economy to prevent them pulling out ASAP, and a majority of other members will need to be socialist as well due to the democratic structure of the organization. It's a Herculean task, but I believe that it can be done. Perhaps you should avoid assuming things about my position as well.
I feel like you're the same type of person that would refuse to help organize a union or even sign a membership card because the organizing committee isn't doing things 'your way'. I know your type, because I organized a union without the help of your type. Running around accusing people disagreeing with you as "disingenuous" doesn't help gain understanding or class solidarity with your fellow workers.
You mean like imperialist Russia, which is the kind of country NATO was specifically designed to protect against?
NATO was specifically designed to protect against the United Soviet Socialist Republic, which was illegally dissolved by the RSFSR. There is no relationship between the USSR and modern Russia.