There kinda isn't. While I have previously made the point that Trump is the only president in my lifetime that hasn't started a war as far as I know, he has also stepped up bombing, and has only been stopped from causing more destruction by a combination of incompetence and his complete lack of an attention span.
But that's exactly the point! Trump's incompetence and complete lack of an attention span is the reason why he's better on foreign policy than somebody like Hillary or Biden, who would absolutely pursue those plots to their conclusions. I don't think Trump is like ideologically better, but if we're serious about Marxism it doesn't matter whether he's ideologically better, it's all about material outcomes. And the material outcomes of a bumbling idiot as the head of the American imperial apparatus are very good comparatively speaking.
If we're Marxists we should understand that the enormous blood machine of US imperialism will not be, and has not been, held back in any way by the figurehead's mental decline.
Agreed, this is only a stop gap measure. But if "harm reduction" is really the name of the game here, materially Trump causes less "harm" abroad than a standard President.
Yo, your argument makes some sense and I can’t say I really know which presidency might be marginally preferable to the other, but for the love of god, stop pretending that using the word “materially” transforms your argument into Marxist analysis.
You’re just doing a sort of rough cost/benefit analysis based on observation of the personalities involved, you’re not applying any sort of dialectical logic and you’re not grounding your analysis in the class forces at play or the material conditions in the Marxist sense of the term.
But are they? Have more or less bombs been dropped under Trump? I believe the answer is that Trump has stepped up bombing campaigns in multiple countries, and that happens regardless of his ability to focus.
Trump has definitely stepped up drone strikes, but a lot of that is because of the war in Yemen, which the Americans would have supported regardless of who was President. The drone strikes started by Bush and expanded by Obama will expand forever, unless we get an actual anti-imperialist President (lol). That said, Trump hasn't bombed a country back to the Stone Age like Obama did, nor has he entangled the United States in more wars and coup attempts.
I mean, the Bolivian coup was "successful" in that they took over the government and carried out massacres for around a year or so before getting smoked by MAS in the elections. Operation Gideon was a hilarious failure though, and perhaps the most emblematic event of Trump's foreign policy - he's not any more peaceful on the world stage, but he and his administration really suck at regime change.
"Number of bombs dropped" isn't the definitive way of measuring US Imperial power projection lol. Biden would've dropped all of those same bombs, but also wouldn't have flinched on major operations in Venezuela. Yes, Trump's goons went through with the coup in Bolivia, but the stakes were lower there. The left in Bolivia is mostly unarmed and the police/military are right wing. Yes, there were massacres in the bolivian coup, but nothing like a full scale civil war. In Venezuela, the military and police support Maduro and there are left wing paramilitaries all over the country. Trump going through with the less destructive coup but not the devastating one is likely a product of his disinterest in expanding US Empire abroad.
Under Trump US Empire has mainly pursued failed strategies like unarmed color revolutions, which haven't really been successful lately. It worked in Ukraine and other countries before it but the governments of the world have studied these cases and adjusted accordingly. Competent and dedicated Imperialists would realize that a more "muscular" approach is needed. I think Biden would put people in charge that would make those changes, while Trump gets annoyed by them for trying to push for war and fires them.
Biden would’ve dropped all of those same bombs, but also wouldn’t have flinched on major operations in Venezuela.
Obama didn't take military action against Venezuela; Trump tried a Bay of Pigs-style coup.
It's absurd to portray Obama's VP as someone who would absolutely put boots on the ground while arguing that Trump isn't really that bad. If this sort of logic came from a chud we'd have a dozen threads dunking on it in an hour.
Obama didn’t take military action against Venezuela; Trump tried a Bay of Pigs-style coup.
Trump allowed some fawning chud to attempt a right wing version of the Cuban Revolution that was immediately thwarted by fishermen with machetes. Biden isn't the same as Obama. Obama was coming in after years of widespread antiwar sentiment. That has died out and Democrats had gotten a lot more "muscular" on foreign policy by the end of Obama's presidency. Politicians respond to changing conditions, and I have no doubt Hillary would've been worse than Trump abroad. Biden apparently wants to focus on Latin America, btw.
It’s absurd to portray Obama’s VP as someone who would absolutely put boots on the ground while arguing that Trump isn’t really that bad. If this sort of logic came from a chud we’d have a dozen threads dunking on it in an hour.
I mean I'm pretty sure we would be divided on that post if it was made, just like we are on this one. If you think Biden has done sort of ideological commitment to keeping troops home idk what to tell you. The Biden administration isn't going to be Obama admin 2.0 because conditions are different and they're not idiots.
Idk what to tell you homie, you have a very naive understanding of how political power works if you think the Biden administration will look exactly like an Obama administration despite different conditions and demands from the Bourgeois faction the Democrats represent. Biden is very obviously nothing but an empty vessel for the interests of the Haute Bourgeoisie.
Different conditions like a Republican Party that will reflexively criticize everything Biden does, or different conditions like a growing anti-imperialist left that's far more organized now than from 2008-2016?
Do you think either of those things matter to US foreign policy? Also, what anti-imperialist left in America? The only major anti-imperialist demonstration I've seen lately was the occupation of the Venezuelan embassy which was a couple dozen hardcore activists.
The conditions I'm talking about are the political and economic conditions around the globe. Their strategy of unarmed color revolutions have been failing left and right and left wing/anti-imperialist sentiment is on the rise in many places in the global south, especially in LATAM.
It is clear that imperial projects need to be more bloody in order to succeed and the cosmopolitan bourgeoisie wants someone in power who is willing to do the dirty work. Trump is less beholden to this faction of Capital, as his nationalist diet isolationist movement is backed by the provincial/national bourgeoisie who mostly extracts their profits domestically and is more concerned with domestic issues.
Putting all our eggs in the basket of hoping that Trump keeps getting bored before his aides finishes setting up the nuclear football is not viable.
I'm not endorsing Biden for foreign policy here mind, but the idea that we can consistently rely on Trump going off to watch TV for 4 more years is optimistic to the point of nearly being delusional.
whereas in the biden admin, we're looking at either a jill biden or kamala harris controlled white house and neither will balk at managing the empire the way trump has.
Trump is the only president in my lifetime that hasn’t started a war
It's difficult to imagine what definition of"war" would make this true. It also glosses over the vast difference (in destruction and lives lost) between invading Iraq and something like bombing Libya, and seemingly assumes the U.S. is the only aggressor in any given situation.
The keyword here is started. He has continued prosecuting existing aggressions yes (and any President would), but to my knowledge he hasn't started anything new.
That's not accurate at all. We bombed Libya and imposed a no-fly zone, but we (officially) didn't put anyone on the ground. At most we might have put a few special forces teams in, but that's reasonable speculation without any real evidence to support it. We certainly didn't come anywhere close to a "full-scale invasion."
There kinda isn't. While I have previously made the point that Trump is the only president in my lifetime that hasn't started a war as far as I know, he has also stepped up bombing, and has only been stopped from causing more destruction by a combination of incompetence and his complete lack of an attention span.
But that's exactly the point! Trump's incompetence and complete lack of an attention span is the reason why he's better on foreign policy than somebody like Hillary or Biden, who would absolutely pursue those plots to their conclusions. I don't think Trump is like ideologically better, but if we're serious about Marxism it doesn't matter whether he's ideologically better, it's all about material outcomes. And the material outcomes of a bumbling idiot as the head of the American imperial apparatus are very good comparatively speaking.
If we're Marxists we should understand that the enormous blood machine of US imperialism will not be, and has not been, held back in any way by the figurehead's mental decline.
Agreed, this is only a stop gap measure. But if "harm reduction" is really the name of the game here, materially Trump causes less "harm" abroad than a standard President.
Yo, your argument makes some sense and I can’t say I really know which presidency might be marginally preferable to the other, but for the love of god, stop pretending that using the word “materially” transforms your argument into Marxist analysis.
You’re just doing a sort of rough cost/benefit analysis based on observation of the personalities involved, you’re not applying any sort of dialectical logic and you’re not grounding your analysis in the class forces at play or the material conditions in the Marxist sense of the term.
I'm not trying to do a Marxist analysis in the sense of dialectical analysis or anything like that, but Marx takes particular care to specify that we have to look at real world conditions, not ideology to analyze events. Marx states himself, "As in private life one differentiates between what a man thinks and says of himself and what he really is and does, so in historical struggles one must distinguish still more the phrases and fancies of parties from their real organism and their real interests, their conception of themselves from their reality." Ideology can be distracting, especially in this sense, for we can't look at what Trump or Biden say but what they do. The real interests of the Biden camp are different than the Trump camp, as they represent different wings of the bourgeoisie (something I have elaborated on previously). That's the point I'm trying to make here, and that's why I say "material" to clue folks in that this is indeed a materialist way to look at the world.
Amazing how it gives their game away. The other is "blame capitalism for everything."
But are they? Have more or less bombs been dropped under Trump? I believe the answer is that Trump has stepped up bombing campaigns in multiple countries, and that happens regardless of his ability to focus.
Trump has definitely stepped up drone strikes, but a lot of that is because of the war in Yemen, which the Americans would have supported regardless of who was President. The drone strikes started by Bush and expanded by Obama will expand forever, unless we get an actual anti-imperialist President (lol). That said, Trump hasn't bombed a country back to the Stone Age like Obama did, nor has he entangled the United States in more wars and coup attempts.
deleted by creator
I mean, the Bolivian coup was "successful" in that they took over the government and carried out massacres for around a year or so before getting smoked by MAS in the elections. Operation Gideon was a hilarious failure though, and perhaps the most emblematic event of Trump's foreign policy - he's not any more peaceful on the world stage, but he and his administration really suck at regime change.
deleted by creator
"Number of bombs dropped" isn't the definitive way of measuring US Imperial power projection lol. Biden would've dropped all of those same bombs, but also wouldn't have flinched on major operations in Venezuela. Yes, Trump's goons went through with the coup in Bolivia, but the stakes were lower there. The left in Bolivia is mostly unarmed and the police/military are right wing. Yes, there were massacres in the bolivian coup, but nothing like a full scale civil war. In Venezuela, the military and police support Maduro and there are left wing paramilitaries all over the country. Trump going through with the less destructive coup but not the devastating one is likely a product of his disinterest in expanding US Empire abroad.
Under Trump US Empire has mainly pursued failed strategies like unarmed color revolutions, which haven't really been successful lately. It worked in Ukraine and other countries before it but the governments of the world have studied these cases and adjusted accordingly. Competent and dedicated Imperialists would realize that a more "muscular" approach is needed. I think Biden would put people in charge that would make those changes, while Trump gets annoyed by them for trying to push for war and fires them.
Obama didn't take military action against Venezuela; Trump tried a Bay of Pigs-style coup.
It's absurd to portray Obama's VP as someone who would absolutely put boots on the ground while arguing that Trump isn't really that bad. If this sort of logic came from a chud we'd have a dozen threads dunking on it in an hour.
Trump allowed some fawning chud to attempt a right wing version of the Cuban Revolution that was immediately thwarted by fishermen with machetes. Biden isn't the same as Obama. Obama was coming in after years of widespread antiwar sentiment. That has died out and Democrats had gotten a lot more "muscular" on foreign policy by the end of Obama's presidency. Politicians respond to changing conditions, and I have no doubt Hillary would've been worse than Trump abroad. Biden apparently wants to focus on Latin America, btw.
I mean I'm pretty sure we would be divided on that post if it was made, just like we are on this one. If you think Biden has done sort of ideological commitment to keeping troops home idk what to tell you. The Biden administration isn't going to be Obama admin 2.0 because conditions are different and they're not idiots.
That's all he's ever ran on, and that's all Hillary ever ran on.
Do you think it really matters what politicians say they're going to do when campaigning for the votes of us rubes?
I think Biden is proud of what he did with Obama and wants to broadly continue it.
Idk what to tell you homie, you have a very naive understanding of how political power works if you think the Biden administration will look exactly like an Obama administration despite different conditions and demands from the Bourgeois faction the Democrats represent. Biden is very obviously nothing but an empty vessel for the interests of the Haute Bourgeoisie.
Different conditions like a Republican Party that will reflexively criticize everything Biden does, or different conditions like a growing anti-imperialist left that's far more organized now than from 2008-2016?
Do you think either of those things matter to US foreign policy? Also, what anti-imperialist left in America? The only major anti-imperialist demonstration I've seen lately was the occupation of the Venezuelan embassy which was a couple dozen hardcore activists.
The conditions I'm talking about are the political and economic conditions around the globe. Their strategy of unarmed color revolutions have been failing left and right and left wing/anti-imperialist sentiment is on the rise in many places in the global south, especially in LATAM.
It is clear that imperial projects need to be more bloody in order to succeed and the cosmopolitan bourgeoisie wants someone in power who is willing to do the dirty work. Trump is less beholden to this faction of Capital, as his nationalist diet isolationist movement is backed by the provincial/national bourgeoisie who mostly extracts their profits domestically and is more concerned with domestic issues.
deleted by creator
Putting all our eggs in the basket of hoping that Trump keeps getting bored before his aides finishes setting up the nuclear football is not viable. I'm not endorsing Biden for foreign policy here mind, but the idea that we can consistently rely on Trump going off to watch TV for 4 more years is optimistic to the point of nearly being delusional.
deleted by creator
But Trump ALSO signed off on such appointments. Elliot Abrams is officially "United States Special Representative for Venezuela" (And also for Iran)
deleted by creator
whereas in the biden admin, we're looking at either a jill biden or kamala harris controlled white house and neither will balk at managing the empire the way trump has.
deleted by creator
Taking Bolton at face value, idk about that one.
deleted by creator
Who is "relying" on that though? It's just an observation.
The people who would otherwise be invaded are reliant on Trump not getting his shit together.
It's difficult to imagine what definition of"war" would make this true. It also glosses over the vast difference (in destruction and lives lost) between invading Iraq and something like bombing Libya, and seemingly assumes the U.S. is the only aggressor in any given situation.
The keyword here is started. He has continued prosecuting existing aggressions yes (and any President would), but to my knowledge he hasn't started anything new.
deleted by creator
That's not accurate at all. We bombed Libya and imposed a no-fly zone, but we (officially) didn't put anyone on the ground. At most we might have put a few special forces teams in, but that's reasonable speculation without any real evidence to support it. We certainly didn't come anywhere close to a "full-scale invasion."