Washington’s new National Security Strategy ratifies an adversarial relationship.

“Every time Trump or members of his administration have lashed out at Europe, including Ukraine, Europeans have absorbed the blow with a forced smile and bent over backwards to flatter the White House.” (…)

“While a systemic answer to Europe’s security conundrum is not in sight, Europeans do have the levers to prevent Ukraine’s capitulation and create the conditions for a just peace.”

Arch

  • plyth@feddit.orgEnglish
    1·
    3 days ago

    but it’s just kind of common sense that it would be closer.

    Democracy was pushed by the bourgeoisie. Wealth inequality should be the default. A king may care about his subjects, the rich barely care about the poor.

    I would assume that the unprecedented decline in inequality came from the competition with communism.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      2·
      2 days ago

      Democracy was pushed by the bourgeoisie.

      Sure, because it weakened the aristocracy over top of them, not because it was a better way to keep the proles down. Marx, who you probably respect, held that, and it has strong support from modern scholarship as well.

      A king may care about his subjects, the rich barely care about the poor.

      So, again, that’s not real history. Now most people of a given high class start in a slightly lower class and get lucky, while monarchs are raised in a system of open extreme violence and either knew they were an almighty heir from the start, or were willing to kill and betray friends and family to usurp power. A look through history books will confirm they tend to be more brutal than guys like Paul Fireman (who’s boring enough you’ve never heard of him) or Amancio Ortega (who you also probably haven’t despite being number 9), on average.

      I doubt it was driven by competition, since the USSR was never close to lifestyle parity, and the US was never at any real risk of pro-communist unrest. You can’t really make the policies of the period (good or bad) have nothing to do with American voters.

      • plyth@feddit.orgEnglish
        1·
        24 hours ago

        monarchs are raised in a system of open extreme violence and either knew they were an almighty heir from the start, or were willing to kill and betray friends and family to usurp power.

        Good argument

        I doubt it was driven by competition, since the USSR was never close to lifestyle parity

        The promise of socialism is its own value. The USA needed the lifestyle to make people accept capitalism.

        You can’t really make the policies of the period (good or bad) have nothing to do with American voters.

        What gave the voters then the opportunity to make better decisions for themselves?

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
          2·
          19 hours ago

          Good argument

          Thanks!

          What gave the voters then the opportunity to make better decisions for themselves?

          The voting. If it’s anything like Canada, there have been socialist fringe candidates all along, it’s just that there hasn’t been much interest.

          You could say people have been railroaded into not supporting socialism, but they don’t. No amount of extra democracy will change that.

          • plyth@feddit.orgEnglish
            1·
            10 hours ago

            I don’t fully understand your last paragraph. You mean people once improved their conditions but now they don’t, despite having all opportunities?