WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

looking forward to him coming down to DC this weekend

tekz posted:

i hope he beats you with a baseball bat

GalacticAcid posted:

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://twitter.com/ciccmaher/status/975745163577516032

rudatron posted:

you may think i'm a creep threatening people on the internet, but have no fear - i've always been a creep

rudatron posted:

you may think i'm a creep threatening people on the internet, but have no fear - i've always been a creep

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

https://twitter.com/NyxAsheriit/status/975773412013592576

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

AnEdgelord posted:

Where does Liberation Theology go?

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

GalacticAcid posted:

https://twitter.com/Bitter_Pat/status/976441201330147330

Sheng-Ji Yang posted:

Is this not supposed to be dumb

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

Julia Lovell's review in the Guardian posted:

In the early 60s, Khrushchev – pushing his post-Stalin doctrine of “peaceful coexistence” – emphasised economic, material aid to these new countries: more butter, fewer guns. Mao-era China banged a more militant drum, arguing for anti-imperialist revolution and denouncing the Soviet Union for selling out developing nations. The Chinese launched a charm offensive through the 60s: they welcomed a stream of visitors from Asia, Africa and Latin America, and produced broadcast and print propaganda in local languages; they pledged generous aid packages even at the peak of a government-manufactured famine. In so doing, they successfully presented themselves as the champion of small nations. “You are still white,” Africans told the Soviets, “but [the Chinese] are yellow, closer to us.”

Soviet policy in the developing world responded with a shift towards militant, anti-imperialist struggle. The USSR stepped up aid to Algeria and Egypt; it dispatched weapons to Congo and to Palestine. By 1976, the Soviet Union had established itself as the sponsor-in-chief, pledging to liquidate “all remnants of the system of colonial oppression”. It bombarded North Vietnam with rhetorical and material support, to woo it away from its Chinese neighbour. Between the 60s and 70s, therefore, conflicts in Vietnam, Africa and the Middle East were driven not only by tension between the Soviets and the Americans, but also by Sino-Soviet competition for influence.

*********************************

Friedman makes an impassioned case for the idealism of the Soviet Union’s motives in intervening in the developing world. Since the collapse of Soviet and European communism, this has become an unfashionable argument to make: the system’s economic and political crash has seemingly robbed it of any historical validity. Moreover, the more we have learned from archives and memoirs about the personal behaviour of cold war leaders (Khrushchev’s table-dancing, Mao’s womanising), the more cynical we have become about the politics of the era. But Friedman asserts that the cold war fight for the developing world was about more than empire-building by the USSR, US and China.

Something important is lost, he writes, “if we do not see the second half of the 20th century for what it was: an attempt by many around the world to catch up to the most developed countries and achieve a more just and egalitarian division of wealth on both a domestic and an international scale. The cold war may be over … but the fundamental problem of inequality still remains.”

Ruzihm posted:

social democracy can be pretty good as long as capital abides

BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

totally bought jason unruhe's book about the economics of the fallout universe

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

Karl Barks posted:

capital, is a god head, you see