• @PugJesusOP
          link
          English
          207 months ago

          Even in the Cold War, it was horrifically uneven. We were cozy with Yugoslavia and intermittently cooperative with the Arab socialist states (and Israel, which was dominated by the at-the-time-actually-left Labour coalitions), but couped the democratic governments of Mossadegh in Iran (who wasn’t even a socialist) and Allende in Chile for seeming a little too ‘red’.

          Diving into Cold War history, you realize how much of the lines sold about realpolitik, liberal internationalism, and material conditions are all less important than their defenders present them as.

          No one has a plan. There’s no rationality or structure to it. Personal quirks of low-ranking bureaucrats and cultural perceptions of political decorum are often as important as national-scale economic concerns.

          It’s why democratic participation and awareness of foreign affairs is so goddamn important. Because otherwise, Mr. Empty Suit in a sinecure position during an unforeseen crisis who had a fucking cold the day a meeting was supposed to happen determines the fate of hundreds of thousands.

          Shit’s almost never inevitable.

            • @PugJesusOP
              link
              English
              67 months ago

              Oh, certainly. But an active and involved population can help steer the ship back on course by democratic means when any given foreign policy bureaucrat fucks up.

        • @Bernie_Sandals
          link
          57 months ago

          Yeah, it’s odd honestly, only after effectively defeating marxism-leninism globally has the U.S. started to accept socialism.

          Though it probably could’ve been predicted, the Socialist and, to a varying degree, the Communist Parties (France and Italy), had a large amount of influence in the European democracies of the Cold War, and the U.S tolerated it, mostly because those parties upheld democracy. It makes sense that this attitude towards foreign policy would spread to how the U.S. treats any nation globally, not just Europe.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin
        link
        fedilink
        167 months ago

        It’s really weird how narratives alone can change the direction of nations,

        We used to say we are the arsenal of democracy to justify all the right wing coups we sponsored against socialist leaders, even if they were democratically elected, and now a major US party’s establishment has zero qualms helping socialists if the socialists are the ones who are going to the defense of the global democratic society, because “we’re the defenders of democracy.”

        The joking innuendo became a legitimate foreign policy planck!

        I think this is part of an overall tone shift in the US’ culture, a rise of Radical Sincerity. Everyone is so burnt out of wink and nod cynicism after decades of it being the norm in one iteration or another, that the punkish backlash to the status quo cynicism and fake smiles is to play what was once made fun of as childish delusion completely straight.

        Sincere fantasy stories, abandonment of lampshading tropes, exhaustion with wink and nod fourth wall breaks, shift to a sincere insistence on following through on the values we were told to aspire to, through religious upbringing or through the narrative of national history we were taught.

    • @PugJesusOP
      link
      English
      107 months ago

      No, but it’s a convenient drum to beat for the right-wing.

    • @masquenox
      link
      87 months ago

      Absolutely not. If you look hard at the colonialist shitfuckery the US perpetrated during the (so-called) “Cold War”, “socialism” was only the enemy as far as the propaganda and pretexts were concerned - in reality, the insurgencies the US tried to repress and the governments the US undermined were all nationalist in nature.

      The US isn’t threatened by socialism because the US defeated any internal socialist threat with Roosevelt’s New Deal - whether they will do that again is anyone’s guess.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      37 months ago

      It’s an incorrectly framed question, I think. China doesn’t have real, by definition, socialism. If they did then maybe the “US establishment” would come out against it. They’re definitely against the Chinese brand of authoritarian socialism, though, but in that example the term socialism and China mean the same thing so you can’t be wary of the thing because it’s the thing, thats circular logic.