0
[Video] AOC advocates for reinstating US soft power imperialism agencies to save the US hegemony (files.catbox.moe)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 18 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I was curious about this video after seeing this reply, as Ive always seen humanitarian aid as a good thing, regardless of motive. This appears to be a video mostly mentioning USAID. I looked for references to imperialism and hegemony but mostly found opinion pieces regarding USAID and other similar organizations and they appear to criticize that they don’t work (which is believable and probably true) but don’t offer much in the ways that foreign aid is actually imperialism.

I understand that diplomacy is a thing. I offer you something in hopes of getting something that will benefit me. But what do folks with your viewpoint mean (as best as you can speak for others knowing you are just an individual) when you imply that AOC and others with similar neoliberal ideals are pushing for imperialism?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -6 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    Organisations like USAID demand subservience to the US in exchange for "aid". Countries must do things like open up to foreign investors, privatize industries, and use US educational materials to "educate" their children on how awesome Capitalism is.

    This becomes rather obvious because AOC herself is giving away the game in the video. She directly states that these organisations are tools to keep the US hegemony in power and "prevent authoritarian regimes (the favority DNC buzzword to justify imperialism)" from taking control.

    She does not even mention the pretense of helping people. She only talks about how these organizations serve US global influence over other countries. AOC is indirectly admitting in the video that these organizations are tools to keep countries subservient to the US.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I’m replying to both you and tankie out of laziness, but these are interesting responses.

    I’ve recently been reading about the rise of “neoliberalism” and (I may be wrong on this, as I’ve said it’s been recent learning) how the Clintons propelled its influence into what is now outwardly weakening Democratic positions in terms of their seemingly intentionally weak reactions to right-leaning practices as a means to stay in power as the “lesser evil.”

    You both paint a picture towards this being at least partially true, but what gets me is that the alternative appears to be actual “just stick, no carrot” imperialism.

    In your opinion, what would be the alternative to the fake altruism that leftists seem to stand behind? Some of these folks appear to push for socialist practices but I’m hearing now that my viewpoint may be skewed in favor of a naive outlook on global outreach programs.

    I don’t deny the fact that the programs appear to be predatory in nature by those who run them: I’ve read your article and it definitely makes sense. I’m just looking outward now and seeing what the “other side” of things appears to be, which is quite literally just actual imperialism and fascism. Is there some middle ground I’m not seeing?

    I’ve always heard that folks like Bernie and AOC are the alternatives to current neoliberals, but what I’m hearing is that some folks do not see that as being the case?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    The carrot and stick comparison is apt, however the goal of both is compliancy and subservience to the US. Countries are forced to host US military bases, forced to privatize industries, and serve US interests in exchange for both the carrot or the stick. Countries which refuse the carrot, such as Libya, ultimately still get the stick even by Democrats like AOC.

    It tends to make more sense when you replace the word USA with China. When China builds ports and infrastructure in Africa, we both know they are not expecting it out of the good of their heart. They expect something in return. Same with the US. Nothing is out of the good of their hearts, it is all related to soft power.

    AOC and Bernie are tools to prevent people who are getting more left from leaving the system.They take leftist energy and funnel it back into the DNC. Similar to how Trump or Nick Fuentes catch right-wingers who are dissatisfied with Republicans, and then funnels them back into the RNC and do Republican things.

    They often correctly describe issues such as billionaires hoarding wealth. This makes people think they understand the problem. But then they present the solution to the issue as "vote Democrat", redirecting the actions of the leftist to be the same as a centrist Liberal.

    AOC has also betrayed the left multiple times by siding with Democrats, such as when she voted to send weapons to Israel during the genocide.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    This entire response is well said and I think I understand your viewpoint.

    Some folks, and I share this opinion, view our two party system as too well rooted and a permanent institution in America. For this reason, a “lesser evil” vote is required.

    Personally, I’m nervous that casting a vote for an independent effectively allows more nefarious characters, those who are quite literally outwardly amoral and inspirational to other amoral characters (thus enhancing the influence of those who would actively seek to harm), to take power where voting for the other primary may have a better chance to disallow it.

    Every primary I see the results, and an independent/third party has never come close to winning an election based on what I have seen.

    What would you say, in your opinion, is a better alternative to voting for the “better” candidate in our current climate?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 5 months ago*

    I would say protesting and especially direct action are much more effective in influencing real world politics than voting. The duopoly will do imperialism regardless of Trump or AOC being in power. Unions and other mechanisms of organizing are much more valuable.

    As for the US itself both Trump and AOC have their ups and downs. AOC will be better for those inside the US but worse in the long term for those outside of the US being oppressed by US imperialism. She understands how to hide the imperialism behind a mask of "freedom and democracy".

    Trump is worse for people inside the US but better for those outside of the US in the long term. Because Trump is demolishing all US soft power and other strong tools of US imperialism, thinking that he can rule the entire world with only hard-power.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent