Marxists have very clear plans depending on which country they organize in. For the US, as an example, the primary tasks are to build up a disciplined worker party that can effectively educate the rest of the working class, struggle alongside them whenever they come into conflict with the capitalist class (such as labor disputes, housing struggles, etc.), and organize them. This is the best way to prepare for the inevitable and regular crises of capitalism, to hopefully take the working class as a whole in a unified direction against the capitalist system itself.

After establishing a socialist state, we can begin addressing societal problems more effectively than ever before. Full right to self-determination for all indigenous peoples, mass expansion of public housing and an elimination of landlordism, full employment via a planned economy, and more. Healthcare and housing can be made free, same as education, which develops a far more productive labor base that will be necessary for the grand projects of infrastructure improvements and addressing historic inequalities for oppressed peoples.

All military bases will be closed down overseas, leaving only a small defense army in case of capitalist invasion. The dominance of the US dollar will be no more, nor will IP be respected, as it is leveraged against the global south. Rather than plundering the world, we can cooperate with countries like China to develop mass transit and a green energy transition, free countries like Cuba and Korea, and more.

The idea that Marxists have no plans is silly. Just talk to one of us.

Corporatism has had a hold on the political and legal system in the US since the beginning, just to varying degrees. Shareholder primacy gained a foothold in the 30s and 40s alongside the decay of antitrust law. Prior to that, the Lochner era of cases defined the era of corporate control. The late 1800s had robber barons and oil and railroad tycoons killing people with private police forces. Slave plantations and the vestiges controlled the South, and with it the rest of the country, since the 3/5ths compromise and before. We are just in a new form today with tech companies controlling everything, including the public forum, while SCOTUS green lights everything in favor of corporations, conservatives, and the wealthy, and Congress is absolutely deadlocked. It is definitely a far side of the pendulum swing, and it might be the one we can't realistically swing back from any time soon, but it is well within the political and legal themes of the US historically.

It is possible to be for example against US influence in Syria and against Assad the same time, you know?

Of course, but pretty much nobody who uses terms like "tankie" acknowledges that in practice.

When I say that I oppose US intervention in, say, North Korea, then I'm immediately hit with all kinds of horror stories about how everyone has to get the same haircut or whatever. If I refute that misinformation and insist that I don't want the US to overthrow their government, then I will inevitably be accused of "defending North Korea," labelled as a "tankie" and then subject to the whole rumor mill about "what tankies believe" that's completely detached from reality or anything I actually say or believe. Next thing you know, I'm being accused of wanting every country in the world to become like North Korea. If I deny that, then it's assumed that I'm just concealing my "real" views.

It's the same way in every conflict in history since the dawn of time. When I was 10 years old asking why we didn't respond to 9/11 by "turning the other cheek" like I'd been taught, people looked at me like I was some kind of "terrorist sympathizer" because "you're either with us or against us." Every single time I have opposed any conflict, I have been accused of "supporting" or "defending" the other side, regardless of what I actually say or what reasons I actually provide.

There's no use trying to fight it. Instead of trying to, and looking like I'm trying to weasel out of the label like I have something to hide, I'd rather just accept it so that I have some ability to speak for what us "tankies" actually believe. Starting with, opposition to building more tanks. Opposition to building tanks is the defining characteristics of a "tankie" because if you don't want to build and deploy tanks then you're assumed to "support" whatever enemy-of-the-week they're to be used against, who is no doubt "authoritarian." Likewise, anti-militarism will cause me to be labelled as a "campist" for "supporting" the target of that militarism. When you're being accused of such things, nobody gives a shit about the nuance between "supporting" or "opposing action against," and even if you insist on it they'll just say you're lying and that you actually do support the "bad guy."

I actually agree with your definition of tankie, tankies are generally those who support socialist states and critically support nationalist states that are under imperialist siege. I disagree that all of these are "horrible dictatorships," or at least for the socialist countries, and see the nationalist dictatorships of capital as generally more progressive in the international context than the imperialist dictatorships of capital, but the through line here is that tankies are defined by the countries we support/critically support above all else.

As for opposing US/Israeli influence in Syria while opposing Assad, who do you support there? I think it's pretty easy to say "the people of Syria," but are they any better off now under the Israeli-backed HTS regime than they were under Assad? What groups actually stand to challenge the existing status quo and implement a more progressive system?

No, we call you tankies because you have a history of supporting dictatorships crushing their opposition with tanks.

Those same dictatorships will, if they are allowed to, continue to crush their opposition with tanks. Sure, you would call NK invading SK "reunification", and youd probably call the Russian invasion of Europe "denazification", and you'd probably call the Chinese extermination of anyone that isn't han Chinese "cultural defense". But in reality what you're supporting is eastern imperialism and genocide.

I don't support any of that. I just don't believe in the US using military force to stop it.

Guess that means I'm not a tankie?

if they are allowed to

Oop, there you go. By not supporting military action by the US, I am "allowing" them to do all that stuff. So I am a tankie on the basis that I'm opposed to using tanks. There you have it.

The US hasn't had to use military force for any of that. The threat was adequate deterrent. Now that the deterrent is breaking down, well...it's time to use military force.

Unfortunately, bullies only speak one language. If you could talk to Kim jong un and be like "hey, let's work together to make the world a better place", NK wouldn't be NK. It would looks more like SK. But he's rather rule ashes than let the country grow outside his control.

well…it’s time to use military force.

Utterly idiotic. The US is weakening and you want to continue expending it's remaining resources on avoidable conflicts halfway around the world instead of actually addressing the reasons it is in a state of decline and confronting the domestic threat of fascism. You are an accelerationist, whether you realize it or not.

Unfortunately, bullies only speak one language. If you could talk to Kim jong un and be like “hey, let’s work together to make the world a better place”, NK wouldn’t be NK.

Lmao. What has Kim Jong Un ever done to "bully" the US? It's the US that performs the largest military exercise in the world, every year, right on his doorstep, where they practice invading his country and bombing everything to smithereens the way they did before.

But he’s rather rule ashes than let the country grow outside his control.

Sounds familiar. Except instead of one country, it's the world. You don't want a single place on earth to be free of the US and you're willing to let the US destroy itself with these conflicts than to show an ounce of caution or restraint. You are the one who would rather rule over ashes.

I find it very hard to believe people would label you a tankie if your position were that of a principled pacifist. Sure, many people also dislike pacifist positions, but it is not possible to mistake the one for the other. Thus I have to assume you are not being genuine here and did in fact give reasons to people to call you a tankie 🤷

Check out the Powel Memorandum. From the 70s moneyed interests started to systematically shift power to the wealthy and large corporations. They created think tanks like the Heritage Foundation to give the project the veneer of scientific legitimation. Reagan was the first to accept a policy blue print from Heritage. Since then they have been working to stack the courts, form government policy and legislate a shift if money and power to the few. Trump is reaping the benefits of what has been prepared since Reagan. Trickle down economy was one of the greatest scams of all time.

It would be nice to spend less time using military force where it is not necessary. Like the Middle East.

Unfortunately, Russia has shown us that having a military force in Europe is necessary. NK has shown that having a military force in SK is necessary, although thankfully military exercises seem to be enough for now.

China is the only country that seems to be able to function in a peaceful way. Ideally, there would be more cooperation between China and the US, and ideally, the other countries would just continue to focus on peaceful cooperation. But instead they start wars.

it is not possible to mistake the one for the other

You say, immediately before accusing me of lying about my positions, and assuming that whoever accused me of being a tankie must have been both correct and acting in good faith.

To be clear, I am not a strict pacifist, although I was at one time. The shift from pacifist to "tankie" is very small, basically just one exception. Before, I believed in "no war" and now I believe in "no war but class war." The vast majority of war and violence is not class war, it's just parts of the ruling class fighting each other over resources. There are only a handful of states that even call themselves socialist and none of them are at war, so that one exception isn't very relevant.

If I actually did "support" Assad, then how would that look different materially from opposing intervention? I'm an American, I have no control over Syrian domestic policy except through my state intervening. Unless I'm going to fly over there myself and pick up a gun on his behalf, or unless I'm going to somehow convince the US government to do a complete 180 and prop him up, then the distinction is merely rhetorical. And a rhetorical distinction, far from being "impossible" to ignore, is in fact very easy to ignore. If I were secretly an Assadist, then wouldn't I be advocating for the US to adopt the exact same policies that I would if I were a pacifist or isolationist? Then, if I advocate for those policies, it is trivially easy to accuse me of secretly "supporting" Assad, which is why people did so, and why they do the same in every other conflict.

This isn't rocket science, it's not some new thing. Accusing anyone who opposes war of supporting the enemy is a tactic as old as history. As Goering said, "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." If you ever have the occasion to oppose a popular war, I can promise that you'll encounter the same accusations.

NK has shown that having a military force in SK is necessary, although thankfully military exercises seem to be enough for now.

And yet you can't answer when I ask for an example of how the tiny, impoverished state of NK has "bullied" the US. In reality, it's not about responding to bullying, it's just about extending the scope and authority of your empire.

China is the only country that seems to be able to function in a peaceful way. Ideally, there would be more cooperation between China and the US, and ideally, the other countries would just continue to focus on peaceful cooperation. But instead they start wars.

Aww, peaceful smol bean America just wants to live in peace and harmony with everyone, but everyone else is just so aggressive.

Meanwhile, back in this reality:

Again, it's just empire building. You think you're somehow different from every other empire because you have all these justifications, but every empire has had similar justifications:

There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive such an interest—why, then it was the national honor that had been insulted. The fight was always invested with an aura of legality. Rome was always being attacked by evil-minded neighbors, always fighting for a breathing space. The whole world was pervaded by a host of enemies, and it was manifestly Rome's duty to guard against their indubitably aggressive designs. They were enemies who only waited to fall on the Roman people.

• Historian Joseph Schumpeter

Likewise, the British empire was said to have been built in "a fit of absentmindedness," as if it kept acquiring territory accidentally through "keeping the peace" around the world.

You are no different, and history will remember your empire no differently than those of the past.

It is very easy to counter such accusations by making clear that it is a pacifist position you take. The arguments then will by around pacifism and the issues with that and not if you secretly support Assad. Try it some time 🤷

But since you avoided that term until I brought it up, I must assume you are indeed not considering yourself a pacifist, and then your rethoric falls flat and becomes a "if for some reason I can frame a conflict as class war then it is ok". And if you in turn apply that to conflicts like the Syrian civil war, then people accusing you of a double standard when it comes to your favourite dictator of the day might have a point.

Try it some time

I did. I did when I was 10 years old and knew nothing but the stories about Jesus my parents told me, well into my 20's, reading Tolstoy, and the rhetoric and accusations were always the same.

Are you an American? Do you understand what the mood was like, trying to oppose war while growing up in a "post-9/11 world?" "It is very easy to counter such accusations by making clear that it is a pacifist position you take," what an utterly ridiculous thing to say. As if all the people whose blood was boiling with bloodlust, thirsting for revenge, fantasizing about torture and mass murder, talking about "turning the sand to glass," will suddenly be cool if you just say, "Um, actually, I'm only against you because I'm a pacifist." Only someone who's never experienced it could think that way. Nobody gives a single shit about your reasons, you will always be the villain and you will always be assigned the most damning motives possible.

You are childishly naive, and I wish that I could live in the world you think we live in.

I must assume you are indeed not considering yourself a pacifist

You don't have to assume, I just told you that I'm not a pacifist.

“if for some reason I can frame a conflict as class war then it is ok”. And if you in turn apply that to conflicts like the Syrian civil war, then people accusing you of a double standard when it comes to your favourite dictator of the day might have a point.

Do you seriously believe that I tried to frame Syria as a class war with Assad as some kind of socialist hero, and I'm now lying about it? And you think that's more plausible than that people simply tried to discredit my opposition to US intervention?

This is an utterly ridiculous conversation. You're claiming "this would never happen" while simultaneously doing the exact thing you claim wouldn't happen! You are ignoring my actual positions and assigning me the most damning positions you can, while simultaneously trying to deny that anyone would ever do such a thing.

Saló shit

I can't eat rice with my fingers in my mouth

I am not American, but old enough to remember the situation around 9/11 well, and sure there was some of what you describe, but the discussion would still be around issue people percieve with pacifism and not accusing someone of actually supporting a dictatorship. No one seriously accused Germany of supporting Saddam Hussain for refusing to join the 2003 Irak war for example.

But if you go "uhm actually I am not a pacifist" and then name a highly selective list of conflicts you oppose like you did here (which included Syria btw), then you can't really complain about people pointing out the hypocricy of that and suspect that you based your opposition purely on a campist mindset (which given the list, is pretty obvious).

the discussion would still be around issue people percieve with pacifism

No it wouldn't. Because they would simply accuse me of not actually being a pacifist, and instead being a "terrorist sympathizer." Just like how you are, currently, accusing me of not actually holding the positions I claim to. How is this difficult to understand when you're literally doing it right now?

No one seriously accused Germany of supporting Saddam Hussain for refusing to join the 2003 Irak war for example.

No one? Did President Bush not say, "You're either with us or with the terrorists?"

But if you go “uhm actually I am not a pacifist” and then name a highly selective list of conflicts you oppose like you did here (which included Syria btw), then you can’t really complain about people pointing out the hypocracy of that and suspect that you based your opposition purely on a campist mindset (which given the list, is pretty obvious).

"Highly selective" and "pretty obviously based on a campist mindset." Or, I'm talking about the US because I live in the US and it's the only country that I have some nominal ability to influence. Why would I focus on condemning Assad, do you think he'd read it and have a change of heart? And it's also literally in a thread about the US.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You expect me to constantly shift the focus to criticizing other countries, and anything short of that means that I'm secretly loyal to them. It's ridiculous. No different than accusing me of being a terrorist sympathizer when I condemned the war in Afghanistan, because, "Why are you talking about that, why aren't you talking about Al Qaida's crimes?"

At the very least you can't have it both ways, you can accuse me of whatever motives you want (believe me, I'm used to it) but you don't get to keep accusing me of having such secret motives while simultaneously trying to claim that no one would ever accuse me of having such secret motives.

You sleep in the bed you make yourself.

The US is involved in way more conflicts around the world than the ones you listed, yet somehow you chose to focus nearly exclusively on the ones where the opposing sides are horrible dictatorships, all the while insisting that you are actually ok with armed conflict if it is against the right enemy. So the logical conclusion is that you consider these horrible dictatorships to be the wrong enemy...

You sleep in the bed you make yourself.

If that were true, you and others would attack me based on my actual positions rather than the ones you make up and assign to me.

The US is involved in way more conflicts around the world than the ones you listed, yet somehow you chose to focus nearly exclusively on the ones where the opposing sides are horrible dictatorships

I'm curious which ones you think I left off.

all the while insisting that you are actually ok with armed conflict if it is against the right enemy. So the logical conclusion is that you consider these horrible dictatorships to be the wrong enemy…

Did I say that? I don't believe I did. The narrow range of conflicts I'm ok with don't really have anything to do with it being "the right enemy."

I am ok with conflict when it is necessary for survival or when there is a significant difference to the average person who wins. For example, WWII was a fight for survival, if one side won, entire races would be exterminated. WWI was not. Therefore, although many of the countries in WWI were despicable, colonial empires, very much "the right enemies," I would not have supported the war because it would just be a question of which colonial power came up on top, while ordinary people would be fed into a pointless meat grinder regardless. Furthermore, the correct position was to push to avoid the war as much as possible, because even though it involved "the right enemies," it was pointlessly destructive and the damage was not worth it.

But if we were having this conversation a hundred years ago (as people were), then if we were British, then when I opposed the war with Germany you would say that I must be secretly loyal to the Kaiser, and if we were German, then when I opposed the war with Russia you would accuse me of being secretly loyal to the Tsar. This is exactly the justification that social democrats across Europe did historically use to support the war. It is, again, a tale as old as time.

The US has had no business going after any enemy, right or wrong, after expending itself on a pointless, decades long occupation in an avoidable war halfway around the globe, with multiple domestic crises happening including the rise of fascism. If we don't refocus and deal with our shit, then we will burn out and be unable to deal with any enemy, right or wrong. If the fascists have their way, we will be the right enemy, that the rest of the world will have to deal with. There is no external threat anywhere in the world that comes remotely close to our internal threats.

Further up you listed seven conflicts and complained about people critizising you for the position you took. Of those seven, all but one or two are clearly horrible dictatorships, and the unclear cases are only marginally better, and one of them is even an imperialistic act of aggression threatening the very existence of the side the US supported. So clearly you are applying very different standards in a hypocritical way to these conflicts.

Pretty sure it's Washington....

Washington told us to avoid partisan politics at all costs. He didn't do everything perfectly, but he was trying to avoid the mess that we've created with the two party system.

Just because a country is a dictatorship, does that mean I should support war against it? Do you want to invade Saudi Arabia? Or do you think Saudi Arabia is not a horrible dictatorship?

There is no "hypocrisy" or "double standard" that I am applying. I am simply applying a different standard than yours.

So long as the US is as burned out as it is, I will oppose involvement in every conflict, unless it presents an imminent, existential threat that is greater than the threat of domestic fascism. And no such greater threat exists, anywhere in the world. If you think there is, then you are underestimating the threat the American right poses. All other priorities are secondary.

Pointing to these conflicts specifically and then complaining about people suspecting ulterior motives, when you could have simply taken a pacifist or even just an isolationist position (which would have been much easier to defend) is usually a sign that you are indeed a campist. If you don't want to be mistaken as one, I recommend you reconsider your arguments and who you associate yourself with (e.g. lemmy.ml).

Bro, like, go easy on yourself. The rest of the world is ready to eat you up. Don't join them in the feasting.

when you could have simply taken a pacifist or even just an isolationist position

What? I'm not a pacifist, or even an isolationist, really. You're saying I should've lied about my positions? That's not something I do.

If I said I was a pacifist, then you could criticize me and say, "Well what about WWII?" And that's a completely valid criticism of pacifism that I agree with. So what would I be supposed to say then? "Well, actually, I was lying and I'm not really a pacifist?"

If I said I was an isolationist, then you could criticize me based on things like tariffs. In reality, I support international trade so long as it is fair and not exploitative. So once again, I would have to say, "Well, actually, I was just lying."

That is nonsense. There's a reason (well, several reasons) I don't lie about my political positions, and it's that there's enough nuance and complexity to my views that if I wasted time and energy lying about them, then how could I expect anyone to arrive at understanding or agreeing with what I really believe? Way too much extra work when I can just be honest and direct.

I recommend you reconsider your arguments and who you associate yourself with (e.g. lemmy.ml).

Now why would I do that? Marxist-Leninists are some of the only people in the world I've ever encountered who actually have their heads screwed on straight and their priorities in order. They are the only ones who actually take the threat of the American right seriously and recognize that going around playing world police is not the correct approach in these conditions.

I can't even discuss things with people like you, because the moment I say I oppose war (or most wars), you start assigning nefarious motives to me, trying to descredit me and painting me as a bad person.

Also, I think you know that what you're telling me is nonsense. If I made an account on .world, and I went around saying that I condemn Russia but I don't support sending weapons to Ukraine, even if I lied and claimed to be a pacifist or isolationist, everyone would still call me a tankie and say that I support Russia, and they'd probably throw in a whole bunch of other stuff too, like that I think Russia is still socialist or whatever. Y'all are constantly making shit up about us like that.

Typical ML response, trying to play the victim when someone points out the obvious contradictions in the campist mindset 🤦

You haven't pointed out any contradictions, nor shown my mindset to be in any way campist, nor am I trying to play the victim. Bullshit as usual.

The only contradiction in this conversation is your implication that wars against dictatorships are automatically justified, while refusing to answer what I asked about Saudi Arabia.

They attacked South Korea. There was a whole war about it. Technically the war still hasn't ended. For some reason, people don't seem to forget when you try to conquer them.

And that's why the US has allies, because they helped prevent the conquest of SK. That's why the US military is still there, to prevent the conquest of SK again.

They attacked South Korea. There was a whole war about it.

Yeah, real imminent threat right there. I mean, what if the Soviets give them aid again? Will President Eisenhower be able to handle it?

Did you just wake up from a 70 year coma? That's the most relevant example you can come up with for the claim that Kim Jong Un, who hadn't even been born, is a "bully" who "can't be reasoned with" and "keeps starting wars?"

For some reason, people don’t seem to forget when you try to conquer them.

Yeah, and they don't forget when you drop chemical weapons and murder 5 million people, primarily civilians, either. You sure that's a talking point you want to use?

And they continue to maintain one of the largest militaries in the world, threaten invasion several times per year, and routinely send commando squads over the border, who often indiscriminately kill people.

Turns out that type of shit, in addition to total invasion in the past, makes your neighbors kind of touchy.

"One of the largest militaries in the world?" Are you actually for real right now?

The US spends more on the military than the next 9 countries combined! Obviously, anyone sane who's in the US's crosshairs is going to desperately try to muster whatever military strength they possibly can, for fear of invasion! Which the US has done, not only generations ago before any of us were born, but with a full scale invasion and decades-long occupation in living memory, ending only a few years ago! Before going straight into attacking Iran, with no provocation!

Jesus Christ, you imperialists are completely nuts! What is it about militaristic, authoritarian empires that makes you completely abandon any sort of reasoning or common sense, and start acting like a tiny hermit country halfway across the world that hasn't been in a conflict for 70 years is somehow a threat to the most powerful and militaristic country on earth? It's completely ridiculous.

Fucking, Rome had more plausible arguments for "defending itself" when they conquered Gaul!

You just keep licking the boot of the US government and accepting every bullshit justification it gives as it expands to every corner of the world, until it collapses on itself from the overextension, until the fascists take advantage of the decline and seize power at home, and when we're both being matched into the gas chambers, I'll ask you again whether fucking North Korea was really the threat we needed to be worrying about.

Hehe no worries. I just enjoy self deprecating humor :D I'm actually pretty happy with myself.

Other than the crippling depression and anxiety issues. (:D)

To be even more succinct, Nazis 2.0.

Well, yeah. In terms of numbers. 30% of the population is military. Of course spending isn't gonna count, North Korea is poor as shit. They don't have the money for nice things, they just have bodies (in various forms of starvation).

And sure, they can justify it with a fear of invasion. SK also has a justified fear of invasion. Looks like it's gonna be a pissing match, we'll see who's got the bigger dick. Militarily speaking.

My money is not on NK.

My money is not on NK.

Yeah, no shit! You realize that's a point against you right? I'm the one arguing that North Korea isn't a real credible threat. That's exactly why they have to try to make up the difference in manpower! Even South Korea, on it's own outspends the north.

Did you get distracted by the blood rushing to your dick, thinking about how your empire has a greater capacity for violence, and you lost track of what the conversation was about?

Meanwhile, as all our money is poured into that idiotic nonsense so that people can get their rocks off and so that billionaires can profit off it, roads, infrastructure, healthcare, education, etc decay more and more each year, causing actually real suffering and danger to people's lives. But who cares? Building hospitals doesn't let you live out a juvenile power fantasy like setting off bombs and rockets does.

Yep.

Now the question becomes: is NK going to continue to play a losing hand, or are they gonna do what China did and figure out what they can do to realistically counter US dominance?

Based on the last 70 years, NK appears to be set on continuing to play a losing hand, hoping that one day the US backs down and they're able to restart the Korean war.

They could pretty easily stop sending 80% of their resources to the military and start improving things for their people. But I don't think Kim Jong Un wants to do that. Nor do I think the current NK government would be able to survive demilitarization. Not from external threats, mind you. I don't think their society is gonna put up with Kim very long when there are ways to feed yourself outside the army.

It's not at all clear that North Korea would be allowed to follow the same path that China did. However, the point is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Again, we are not evaluating the North Korean government or their domestic policy, we are evaluating whether they pose a credible military threat, both in terms of their aims and their capabilities, and the answer to that is a resounding "No," by your own admission.

In any case it's incredibly hypocritical to lecture another country about their military spending while the US is spending more than the next 9 countries combined. You can't pretend that you have some principled commitment towards deescalation if you're just focused on getting weaker countries to put down their arms so that powerful countries can dominate them. That is just imperialism, plain in simple. You might as well be a British colonizer calling for Zulus to not be so militaristic and to put down their bows and arrows, as they slaughtered them with machine guns.

NK doesn't pose a credible military threat to the US. It poses a credible military threat to SK. That's why the US acts as a deterrent.

The difference being: the US can afford to spend that money on the military much easier than NK can. There really isn't shit to dominate in NK, by modern standards.

NK doesn’t pose a credible military threat to the US. It poses a credible military threat to SK. That’s why the US acts as a deterrent.

Of course, if Rome's interests are not threatened, then it's those of Rome's allies. Nevermind that SK outspends NK on the military, or that the north hasn't attacked in 70 years.

The difference being: the US can afford to spend that money on the military much easier than NK can.

First off, so what? This is a talking point I always see that makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever, to look at expenditure as a percent of GDP instead of in absolute terms. As if it's just natural to keep pouring money into the military for no reason, just because you can!

Military expenditure is only justified if it is countering a real, legitimate threat. If a small poor country is threatened by a large rich country, then the small country is of course justified in spending a higher percentage of its GDP on defense, because otherwise it would be completely defenseless. Conversely, to spend not only more than any other country, but more than the next nine countries combined, clearly means that the expenditure has nothing to do with responding to threats. Rather, it is about being a threat, which other countries then have to respond to.

Secondly, I disagree that that the US can more easily spend the money. Because, despite how much richer the US is, it is also trying to hold together a globe-spanning empire through military force. Korea is only one of many theaters that the US is involved in, and what we're seeing now is that the US is being forced to pull military equipment away from Korea to the Middle East, where it's once again gotten over it's head. The money that we spend on trying to dominate Korea also has to be spent on every other imperial project, from Cuba to Iran to Syria and so on.

Because of how massively overextended the US is, it is now $40 trillion in debt, many countries are turning to or at least considering dedollarization, and the US is scrambling to make trade deals more extractive which is causing long-term harm to its alliances. And that's just internationally! Domestically, the situation is even worse. Trump rose to prominence in a large part because he distinguished himself from the political establishment, both sides of which fully supported the disasterous, failed imperial project in Afghanistan. The far-right has jumped on the opportunity to take advantage of people'e frustrations with all these foreign entanglements, and the declining economic conditions such as inflation, while holding and promoting all kinds of extremist ideas (and while continuing to engage in such projects). The only prominent voices in American politics with a platform to present an alternative are useless liberals who refuse to adapt to the situation in any way, stubborning clinging the same kind of imperialist talking points you've said and not addressing people's actual material needs.

The longer this situation is allowed to continue, the more likely it is that the fascists will seize power, permanently. If you think things are bad with Trump now, you have no idea how much worse the right is capable of becoming, and how much worse they will become. The US, at present, cannot afford to be involved in any conflict abroad. Frankly, I'm not even sure that the US could fix itself if it did drop everything and adopt the correct focus. The core of the empire is in a state of decay and crisis. And while that it happening, it absolutely cannot afford to be preoccupied with anywhere like North Korea, which certainly does not present any kind of existential threat.

Every dollar wasted on pointless military exercises on the Korean peninsula is a dollar that isn't being spent revitalizing the domestic economy, and if the economy is not revitalized then it is inevitable that the fascists win. Why should I care about this absurd, exaggerated threat on the other side of the world, when there's an actual, real threat that my next-door neighbors could vote for me to be sent to a camp? It's delusional, it's complete and utter nonsense.

Who cares if the empire is maintained and expanded, if it turns full-on fascist?

NK literally attacked SK last year.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn85pvv13e8o

That money ain't no waste. NK is a problem, and keeping enough guns pointed at them that they stick to probing attacks is a good investment.

You're insane. "Attacked?" A couple scouts wandered across the border. SK fired warning shots and they left. You call that an "attack?"

How many Americans have been killed by police shootings and ICE raids? Those are attacks! When fascists mobs beat trans people to death and the cops look the other way, that is an attack! We are currently under attack, right now. Not an attack 70 years ago, not thousands of miles away, not an "attack" that's a random soldier with a bad map, but intentional, organized acts of violence, with the intent of establishing a new, oppressive order in the United States itself.

It is beyond unreasonable and just full on delusional to think of anything else but complete and total focus on destroying the one, singlural existential threat that actually exists! They're at the fucking gates, my dude! They trying to kill us all! And there's a damn good chance they actually will!

What the fuck is going on in your mind to worry about this non-issue half a world away? A border skirmish? It couldn't even be called that! Warning shots, fired by South Korea? Are you out of your mind? Fucking hell! Look at what our own government is doing to our own people! I can't even go to work without thinking what would happen if a bunch of jackbooted masked thugs showed up and started shoving everyone into a van, to be taken to a secret torture dungeon in El Salvador!

Drop everything else. North Korea could be rolling tanks across the border as we speak, and it would still be less urgent then dealing with the fascists here at home! They want us in the fucking ground! What part of that do you not understand? They are an imminent threat to the entire world! North Korea doesn't give half a shit about us, except to the extent that we fuck with them! How can you have such completely ridiculous, mixed up priorities??

Yep. Armed and uniformed soldiers crossed a border between them and a state they are currently at war with. That is an invasion. A particularly shitty one, but what else do you expect, it's north korea, they've been incompetent since day one. Even during the korean war they needed the Chinese to do the heavy lifting.

If you don't think that is an attack, then the US has never attacked anyone. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Korean, Iraq again, whatever. Those armed and uniformed US soldiers probably just got lost on the way to the bathroom. Ya know, you're at a party at a new house, you've had some drinks, it's two doors over and to the right, but you turn left and accidentally topple a socialist government lol. Just a warning shot. S'all good.

Edit: actually, the sheer incompetence explains why NK thought working with Russia to fight in Ukraine would teach them some good invasion lessons.

happened to fire some warning shots.

Idiot! Read your own fucking article! South Korea was the only one that even fired shots!

You really just compared Vietnam, a full scale, years-long invasion and occupation, complete with a bombing campaign and chemical weapons, to someone walking into the DMZ and then leaving, without harming a single person. That's the single dumbest thing I have ever read in my life.

Calling that an "invasion" somehow manages to be even more delusional than the right calling immigration an "invasion," because at least then there are multiple people, who don't just immediately leave.

Are you trolling? Is this a joke to you? It's not gonna be a joke when the fascists put us both in camps.

No, it is not a joke. Armed, uniformed, active duty military crossing a border is invasion. Even if they "just got lost".

I will admit, though, north korea isn't stupid. When faced with strategic superiority, the tactically correct decision is probing skirmishes (see above) and suicide attacks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Gangneung_submarine_infiltration_incident).

The strategically correct response is containment with overwhelming firepower. That's where NK is now. Sucks for them.

Why do I even bother? This country is doomed by it's own stupidity, it's own chauvanism and arrogance, and you are the perfect example of all of those traits, exactly the reason why we're so fucked. Maybe it's better to do it your way, where the whole fucking thing will collapse, and the world will be thrown into total chaos. Maybe we just deserve this. Humanity has survived the fall of empires in the past, so no matter how destructive you make this one's fall, perhaps we will even survive the complete and utter idiocy of people like you.

I just can't understand why you want to do this the hard way and ensure we live through one of the most chaotic and unstable periods of human history, for no fucking reason, when we could just, not. If people like you would simply pull your heads out of your asses and look around.

You're gonna get us all killed. Idiot.

None of that shit matters at all.

You are right. We could just Not.

NK could just...stop sending raiding parties to SK and focus on resilience. After a decade of no border incidents, SK would probably get sick of the US and kick them out. The US could also stop fucking about in the ME, if only we had solar panels instead of oil derricks. We'll have slar panels soon enough.

But we both know that the above is just dumbass wishful thinking, because the ruling class of every country is psychopathic. Kim doesn't give a fuck, Xi gives few fucks, trump gives no fucks, Putin gives no fucks, that's what leadership and hierarchy is. Identifying the person who truly has the fewest fucks to give when it comes to others.

Matters to statists.