Eeeeeh, mixing a lot of apples and oranges on that one. At least in a few of those they have problems way beyond US intervention. Others don’t get accused of being wrecked by socialism because that “US backed coup” ended up setting up a fascist government for ages instead, so that kinda muddles the meme as well.
Along with mixing up socialism and socialdemocracy I find sometimes online leftists tend to get overprotective of nominally socialist regimes regardless of what obvious issues they have for unrelated reasons. That seems self-defeating to me, it gives reactionaries fodder to lump all left of centre or progressive governments and only target the worst of them for a cheap rhetorical win.
Direct US intervention is only part of the puzzle. The constant extraction of resources and funding of the people who keep the populace down through less obvious means is the main thing putting down a lot of the nations who are not US and EU, particularly in the global south.
I don’t think it’s unrelated at all to point out that it just so happens that (most of) the rich nations have or had a colonial history, and the poor ones were colonized.
Finally, this is a meme, you’re looking for too much nuance.
In the modern day, it’s usually not that we’re just mad at them for being socialist; the days of pointless bloodshed like Vietnam and Cuba belong to a time several generations ago. Ever since the 1980s, it’s usually been just that they have something we want, and socialism doesn’t enter into that equation as much. We’re just as comfortable coup-ing Honduras as we are invading Afghanistan, but not for reasons of ideology. We just want their stuff.
Check out “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” for an in depth look at exactly how fucked and criminal the entire system is.
Interestingly, that Wikipedia edit is NOT in the localized version of that page in languages from countries where people don’t make that mistake. The disambiguation segment in that page is also inconsistent with the disambiguation in the democratic socialism page, where it says: “This article is about socialism emphasising democracy. For the form of democracy emphasising socialism, see Socialist democracy. For the ideology focusing on the humanisation of capitalism, see Social democracy.”
Gotta love the pros and cons of crowdsourced knowledge.
So anyway, my local socialdemocrat party is very much a liberal center left party. Which you know because they often ally with the socialist and communist left, and things get tense there immediately, given the socialdemocrat party in question rejects Marxism outright since the 70s.
In all seriousness, I’d be willing to accept that in English political traditions they just use the terms differently based on some originalist historical approach as a result of not having an actual major social democrat party to keep up with that sets the commonly understood modern definition. That makes some sense. The problem is that even in English the terms are used inconsistently and mismatched to common understanding of the words worldwide, as helpfully demonstrated by Wikipedia here. As a result, I genuinely don’t know what people from anglo territories in general and Americans specifically even mean when they talk about socialism online and I’m increasingly convinced that they don’t either.
Eeeeeh, mixing a lot of apples and oranges on that one. At least in a few of those they have problems way beyond US intervention. Others don’t get accused of being wrecked by socialism because that “US backed coup” ended up setting up a fascist government for ages instead, so that kinda muddles the meme as well.
Along with mixing up socialism and socialdemocracy I find sometimes online leftists tend to get overprotective of nominally socialist regimes regardless of what obvious issues they have for unrelated reasons. That seems self-defeating to me, it gives reactionaries fodder to lump all left of centre or progressive governments and only target the worst of them for a cheap rhetorical win.
Direct US intervention is only part of the puzzle. The constant extraction of resources and funding of the people who keep the populace down through less obvious means is the main thing putting down a lot of the nations who are not US and EU, particularly in the global south.
I don’t think it’s unrelated at all to point out that it just so happens that (most of) the rich nations have or had a colonial history, and the poor ones were colonized.
Finally, this is a meme, you’re looking for too much nuance.
On that last part we can agree. Although maybe the next good question is whether we should be pushing political ideas via memes.
We’re collectively maybe a quarter of a century late to that conversation, though.
Memes can be imperfect but in the current landscape they’re still very effective in agitation.
You want agitation… without nuance? What use are you? There’s enough shit sticks. Have the backbone to say you didn’t think the meme through.
to grow a tree you must first plant a seed
lemmy commenters when a meme post on a meme channel doesn’t have the rhetorical nuance of a three hour video essay: 😡😡😡
Seems alright to me to discuss the memes in the comments
agree
Unfortunately for you, we’re not here for memes but pointless internet arguments.
PS i am less mad than you
Lololol you use a meme as propaganda and then follow up with it’s just a joke bruh.
Trump 101.
Apples are a fruit with thin edible skin and firm white flesh. Oranges are a fruit with a thick inedible skin and soft pulpy flesh.
Apples can be compared to oranges.
What on earth are you talking about? You can totally eat orange peels. They’re not great, but become very special if cooked properly.
Given enough processing, apples and oranges are practically the same thing.
Now try bananas and naked mole rats!
Given enough processing, bananas and naked mole rats can both be turned into mush.
compared to naked mole rats, i didn’t james bonded a bananana last night
Never again! Not after what happened at the Brandenburger Tor!
Compared to naked mole rats, bananas are more yellow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apples_and_oranges
Colombia wins.
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Apples_vs_Oranges
The apples and oranges is more about someone going and eating an orange and then complaining it doesn’t taste like an apple.
Like yeah it fucking doesn’t it’s a completely different thing.
Yeah, but in this case OP’s griping that US-baked coups are “different” depending on what breed of socialism it was disrupting.
That’s like complaining that braeburn apples and granny smith apples aren’t the same while ignoring the locusts eating both.
It’s a distraction from the actual point.
In the modern day, it’s usually not that we’re just mad at them for being socialist; the days of pointless bloodshed like Vietnam and Cuba belong to a time several generations ago. Ever since the 1980s, it’s usually been just that they have something we want, and socialism doesn’t enter into that equation as much. We’re just as comfortable coup-ing Honduras as we are invading Afghanistan, but not for reasons of ideology. We just want their stuff.
Check out “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” for an in depth look at exactly how fucked and criminal the entire system is.
I think it’s you who has things “mixed up”
#“within socialism”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
Criticises observation for being wrong.
Sends example of observation being right.
Interestingly, that Wikipedia edit is NOT in the localized version of that page in languages from countries where people don’t make that mistake. The disambiguation segment in that page is also inconsistent with the disambiguation in the democratic socialism page, where it says: “This article is about socialism emphasising democracy. For the form of democracy emphasising socialism, see Socialist democracy. For the ideology focusing on the humanisation of capitalism, see Social democracy.”
Gotta love the pros and cons of crowdsourced knowledge.
So anyway, my local socialdemocrat party is very much a liberal center left party. Which you know because they often ally with the socialist and communist left, and things get tense there immediately, given the socialdemocrat party in question rejects Marxism outright since the 70s.
In all seriousness, I’d be willing to accept that in English political traditions they just use the terms differently based on some originalist historical approach as a result of not having an actual major social democrat party to keep up with that sets the commonly understood modern definition. That makes some sense. The problem is that even in English the terms are used inconsistently and mismatched to common understanding of the words worldwide, as helpfully demonstrated by Wikipedia here. As a result, I genuinely don’t know what people from anglo territories in general and Americans specifically even mean when they talk about socialism online and I’m increasingly convinced that they don’t either.
I bet you’re real fun at parties