6 ms·

Wow, I've somehow missed this.

by lawn 3y ago

jonhohle 3y ago
I’m not sure if it’s sarcasm or not, but The Devil’s Chessboard lays out a case for the CIA acting as the military arm of the rich and powerful starting basically at its inception. All of the “communist” overthrows in the 50s and 60s happen to coincide with nationalist leaders (often democratically elected) who want to keep some of a country’s resources from falling further into the control of American corps. This typically resulted in actual dictators replacing them that allowed the businesses to continue to exploit while at the same time severely oppressing the locals. Some of the evidence is compelling, others is speculative, but a lot of the same bad actors show up in a lot of very similar global (and local) affairs.
- masfuerte 3y ago
  Not just the CIA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > nationalist leaders (often democratically elected) who want to keep some of a country’s resources from falling further into the control of American corps This is an old geopolitical problem: rich democracies tended to surround themselves with alliances of despots. Athens, Rome and America. The corporate interests hypothesis is interesting. But the resilient one is that dictators reliably deliver foreign policy goals that electeds' voters value.
- petsfed 3y ago
  I'll add that book to my reading list. I think, more broadly, that American, British, and French "anti-communist" foreign policy has consistently been about ensuring that American, British, and French companies continue unfettered access to a colonized nation's resources. Your actual governmental or economic structure is irrelevant, so long as Shell Oil or United Fruit Company are only answerable to their shareholders, and not the people of the country they're exploiting. Anti-communism, colonialism, nation-building, all these justifications eventually become just rationalizations for protecting specifically the colonizer's economic interests. The Great Hunger, the Bengal Famine, the Banana Massacre, the excesses of the regime of Mohammad Reza Shah, the Mandate for Palestine, the Belgian fucking Congo, all of these result from optimizing for foreign economic interests without any regard for local social interests.
  - pastacacioepepe 3y ago
    Loving how very based is this HN thread
    - mjcohen 3y ago
      based or biased?
      - pastacacioepepe 3y ago
        Usually HN is pretty biased but this thread is just based, thanks. Is the truth too "biased" for you?

Wow, I've somehow missed this.

by lawn 3y ago

Wow, I've somehow missed this.

I’m not sure if it’s sarcasm or not, but The Devil’s Chessboard lays out a case for the CIA acting as the military arm of the rich and powerful starting basically at its inception. All of the “communist” overthrows in the 50s and 60s happen to coincide with nationalist leaders (often democratically elected) who want to keep some of a country’s resources from falling further into the control of American corps. This typically resulted in actual dictators replacing them that allowed the businesses to continue to exploit while at the same time severely oppressing the locals. Some of the evidence is compelling, others is speculative, but a lot of the same bad actors show up in a lot of very similar global (and local) affairs.

masfuerte 3y ago
Not just the CIA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> nationalist leaders (often democratically elected) who want to keep some of a country’s resources from falling further into the control of American corps This is an old geopolitical problem: rich democracies tended to surround themselves with alliances of despots. Athens, Rome and America. The corporate interests hypothesis is interesting. But the resilient one is that dictators reliably deliver foreign policy goals that electeds' voters value.
petsfed 3y ago
I'll add that book to my reading list. I think, more broadly, that American, British, and French "anti-communist" foreign policy has consistently been about ensuring that American, British, and French companies continue unfettered access to a colonized nation's resources. Your actual governmental or economic structure is irrelevant, so long as Shell Oil or United Fruit Company are only answerable to their shareholders, and not the people of the country they're exploiting. Anti-communism, colonialism, nation-building, all these justifications eventually become just rationalizations for protecting specifically the colonizer's economic interests. The Great Hunger, the Bengal Famine, the Banana Massacre, the excesses of the regime of Mohammad Reza Shah, the Mandate for Palestine, the Belgian fucking Congo, all of these result from optimizing for foreign economic interests without any regard for local social interests.
- pastacacioepepe 3y ago
  Loving how very based is this HN thread
  - mjcohen 3y ago
    based or biased?
    - pastacacioepepe 3y ago
      Usually HN is pretty biased but this thread is just based, thanks. Is the truth too "biased" for you?