the remaining differences are mostly about aesthetics and not about the use of violence to maintain hegemony

  • rufuyun@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    2 days ago

    In my opinion liberals who agree fundamentally with deposing Maduro but claim to deeply disagree about the methods are not even temporarily taking the side of anti-imperialism, they’re imperialists who want procedure, “by the book” imperialists.

    At the risk of getting a bit speculative or subjective, I think they are basically bullshitting. They don’t disagree with it enough to do shit, even participate in safe legal dissidence. Seriously, someone who would be okay with this if it wasn’t “illegal”, because the elite of the metropole agreed on devouring a given peripheral country, seems like one of the enemy. As opposed to the antizionist movement where liberal peaceniks can be good allies.

    • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 days ago

      100% agreed. Ruling classes make laws to suit their interests, and law is opposed to morality and compassion in a lot of cases. US slavery was legal. South African and Israeli apartheid were/are legal. US torture camps like Guantanamo bay and Abu Ghraib are legal.

      Even plea-bargaining in the US is a form of medieval-type coercion (confess your sins and we’ll reduce your punishment), and is a pillar of their justice system.