Oh, that explains it. Thanks for elaborating.
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that the US came late in the struggle against communism?
No, we got in on that right at the beginning. Wilson sent troops into Russia in the summer of 1918.
No, the stuff you’re describing was minimal and ineffective. A lot of it was just intended to be symbolic. (And the Arditi del Popolo weren’t even communists.)
If this had been the extent of opposition to fascism then the Nazis would still be in power. The Nazis didn’t face any meaningful opposition until 1939.
As for Spain, a few hundred Soviets showed up, fired a few shots, took all of Spain’s gold, and went back to the Soviet Union. They did nothing to prevent Franco from seizing power. So I’d describe that as minimal opposition.
You’re talking about something meaningful, right - presumably not this debacle:
Well, there was this:
as part of the primarily Anglo-French Northern Russia Campaign.
Jesus wept, an even greater debacle - writing a petition so they could leave? What a disastrous deployment of US army units that describes.
So what is** Little Nemo** so keen to tell us about?
Arditi de Popolo
It grouped revolutionary trade-unionists, socialists, communists, anarchists, republicans, etc., as well as some former military officers, and was co-founded by Mingrino, Argo Secondari, Gino Lucetti – who tried to assassinate Mussolini on 11 September 1926 – the deputy Guido Picelli and others.
Composed of socialists, anarchists and communists, the Arditi del Popolo was not supported by the socialist parties (neither by the Italian Socialist Party, PSI, nor by the Communist Party of Italy, PCI).
The Bordigan tendency was opposed by the Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci, and many communist activists, who supported the Arditi. In October 1921, the Comintern criticized the “sectarian policy” of the PCI, who threatened those of its members who supported the Arditi with disciplinary measures.
There were communists in the Arditi del Popolo.
It appears that you’re conceding that the events I mentioned all took place, and are trying to dismiss them using your own value judgments. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide if the communist fight against fascism was “minimal” or not, as it’s been established that the fight did occur. As I can’t argue against your subjective value judgments, I consider the matter closed.
I don’t think there’s anything meaningful that normal people can do. We’re talking huge systems of power and control extending across continents. The American empire will expand to its furthest reach and then decline and collapse like all great nations before it, from the Soviets to the Romans. I think the best case scenario is that leaders will steer for a soft landing or decoupling from the grand design, instead of stubbornly hurtling into a brick wall. This is anathema in current mainstream discourse, but if things get bad enough opinions may change.
More optimistically, we know the society can be civilized given the right movements. You can see the effects of this over the last fifty years or so. Many people understand the situation and don’t like it, whereas in the past it was just accepted. People protest wars before they even happen. You see all sorts of subversive messages about terrorism, militarism, and corporate control in mainstream entertainment.
Stop doing that. Don’t claim I’m agreeing with you or conceding you are correct when I am not saying anything remotely like that.
More pessimistically those movements from the seventies died a slow death. Anti imperialism did have its effect on society but the establishment fought back. The state now has ful control of the main news outlets. Not only of its own country, I might add. We in Europe get most of the same propaganda during our news broadcasts.
They tested the waters with Grenada and saw that they could rile up the nationalism pretty easily. Gulf war I was the next step up and now we are back to full fledged meddling in and destroying sovereign states.
I would say this has already happened. We withdrew from the Philippines, and our determination to oppose Russian expansion is weaker than it was during the Cold War. Donald Trump can openly discuss failing to live up to our NATO obligations, and hearts in Lithuania tremble.
I think we can maintain our interests world-wide, just as Great Britain does, relying more and more on diplomacy and trade, and less and less on the “big stick.” The nuclear stand-off will last another half-century (at least) but we will see fewer and fewer air-strikes from aircraft carriers in forward positions.
(When was the last carrier-strike launched? Are carriers much-used in the war against ISIS?)
Well you’re not exactly covering yourself in glory with your claims of “we got in their right at the start”.
The USA did nothing meaningful to oppose communism until post WW2 - you still opposing this?
You misunderstand me. You’re saying that the events I have listed were “minimal and ineffective”, and/or “symbolic”. I mean, look at post #236: it’s just a dispute over what’s “minimal” and what’s “substantial”.
That’s quite different from disputing that they occurred. If you say they didn’t occur, I can provide citations that they did (eg, that there were communists in the Arditi de Popolo, a simple matter of the historical record).
If you say they didn’t matter, there’s not much I can do, is there? That’s just a value judgment, and inherently subjective. It’s like debating whether Star Wars is an “important” film, or whether Truman was a “great” president - subjective interpretations based on objective elements.
In short: I’m not claiming you agree with me, I’m claiming that we’ve left the realm of the objective.