12 ms·
I'm not sure how this even follows from the previous comment, nor does it even make sense to me as a statement about 20th-century US imperialism. As far as I kn
by digging 3y ago
I'm not sure how this even follows from the previous comment, nor does it even make sense to me as a statement about 20th-century US imperialism. As far as I know, overthrowing Latin American governments during the 20th century was for explicitly economic purposes, by way of installing Friedmanite governments sympathetic to selling off all their nationalized resources and to letting foreign companies run amok with no oversight, murdering their employees to prevent unionization, etc.
- nickpp 3y agoNope. It was rather to prevent them falling into the hands of the Russian Empire (aka USSR) who was already shipping arms, financing leftist parties and infiltrating universities. You know, the classic KGB playbook.
- digging 3y agoThe Russian Empire didn't exist in the 1960s, so I really don't see any credibility in your comment.
- FredPret 3y agoIf you call the US and it’s global influence an empire, then in the 60’s Russia also had an empire. A far more direct one, in fact, as they were occupying Eastern European countries like Ukraine, Estonia, and so many others.
- digging 3y agoI do call the US "an empire", but I don't refer to "The American Empire" in a discussion of geopolitics. It reeks of bias. The GP wrote "Russian Empire", capitalized, which is the name of a polity that didn't exist in the late 20th century. (And then they later edited their comment to say "(aka the USSR)" to make me look overly pedantic.)
- FredPret 3y agoBut you are being overly pedantic. “USSR” is simply the name Russia gave to its empire.