Edalism

In the west and/or the US, we face such a wide variety of crises that a least require government attention, including but not limited to unaffordable homes, environmental destruction, climate change, biodiversity loss, the fertility rate, AI, debt, a broken judicial system, a broken political system, a broken healthcare system, child interaction with the internet, “doomscrolling”, porn, drug addiction, reckless consumerism, corporate control of institutions, retirement funding, planned obsolecense, performative activism, loneliness increases, overprotective/fear parenting, loss of civic participation, and many more things, even small things like what type of playground kids could have access to (such as adventure playgrounds). I think all of these things could definitely be tackled in a better way than the current political parties and the political system allows for, so this document is an attempt to write down all my ideas on what that better way would be. I don’t expect you to agree with me on every point, but I hope I can spur contemplation that could lead to my mind to change. To start, I will expand on the current political system.  

In regards to the political system, here I am referring to the style of government organization used primarly in the west. These are multiple party systems with rotating parties controlling the government, often requiring coalitions, quick rotations of power, and a slow lawmaking process. Theres a famous quote along the lines of “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other ones” that will sometimes be used to back up western governments. The problem is that this quote acts as if the current form of “democracy” is the only possible form, thus using fear to avoid any talks of changing the status quo. I put democracy in quotes because I do not consider western governments (specifically the US as that is my primary focus) to be working in a true democratic fashion. The US government in particular is acting in a fundamentally broken way, prioritizing the interests of corporations and the wealthy without any long term planning (concerning the debt or climate change for example). No administration wants to deal with any long term problems, pushing these onto the next administration. This next administration, then has a choice. They can either attempt to solve it which will probably require raising taxes, thus facing backlash from the populus or their donors, or they can push it to the next administration, making the long term problems worse (Reaganomics).  

Parties seem unable to even consider actual changes needed to fix our problems, changes that will be large scale. For example, let’s take the American health care system. Nearly every other country in the world has free/universal healthcare, but the US is alone, especially among its peers. In the 50s-70s, every western European country developed a government run healthcare system, systems that were so popular that even when right wing parties come into power they do not touch it. America is alone in its healthcare policy, most due to the fact lobbyists helped convince America that we need a private insurance run system, which then allows these insurance companies to upcharge the consumer, leading to what is the most expensive healthcare system in the world. It is no wonder that there are 3,216 lobbyists for the healthcare industry, spending billions every year to make sure our healthcare system doesn’t change.  

If you hear this and immediately want change, you are not alone, as ~76% of Americans want healthcare reforms. Yet this issue was not mentioned once on the campaign trail for the 2024 election. Neither party remotely cared enough to even bring it up. It is not that these parties themselves are even necessarily the problem, it is simply that the entire system is broken, as I will expand on later, and the American public needs to wake up to the fact that sometimes major changes are ok. Change is hard, but it is also necessary. Big change is what led to the creation of America and with it a new beautiful and flawed form of government, big change is what led to the emancipation proclamation, and the civil rights movement, and big change is what we need today. All these changes were seen as radical at the time, but as time progresses, we are able to see that change is always necessary.  

We must ask, what changes are neccessary in politics, economics, culture, technology, and society at large?

Foundational Piece

The goal of this project is to develop a critique of neoliberalism/current politics, find innovative policy initiatives, and create a widereaching economic/political system, all in as simple wording as possible. I also hope to develop my own views along the way. A good prerequisite is the book Invisible Doctrine: A Secret History of Neoliberalism, which is not required but does provide a lot of useful background in a short time, with straightforward concepts.   

Regarding ideology and identity in the modern world, it is obvious that capitalism (specifically neoliberalism) and consumerism have won. It is not just a win, but a complete domination, to the degree that the quote “it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism” is true. This may sound pessimistic, but humans are quite adaptable, and I believe not all is as bad as it may appear.   

To begin with, on this topic, it is important to have a basic understanding of what capitalism actually is. Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production. To explain this, we must differentiate between means of production and means of subsistence. Means of subsistence are things you require for your day-to-day life, like food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare. You also indirectly require the means of production to make these things, such as land, tools, and factories. Due to the fact that you are not able to generate means of subsistence yourself, you are required to participate in a market that generates a wage for you to do this. Thus, in capitalism, the means of production can be owned by individuals. This is as opposed to ran in other manners, such as a factory collectively by the workers with a council to implement decisions or a company with direct voting for policy implementation. Other economic systems have nothing to do with collective ownership of your private domicile or your toothbrush, as is sometimes stated.   

I believe that, just as we moved from slavery to feudalism to capitalism, we possess the ability to move to a new system. Nevertheless, while I am a critic of many elements of Capitalism, there is a good deal to praise. Advances in technology, life expectancy, standards of living, etc. The list goes on.   

The question then becomes, would any other system find it impossible to develop these innovations? And would a new system not be able to continue these advances? To this, I reject. A scientist or computer engineer or doctor do not require the intrinsic economic system behind Capitalism and could continue their work in other systems. It is only that Capitalism has so dominantly consumed our economic system and even our ways of thinking that it has become hard to imagine life under other systems, not that they cannot exist.   

One aspect of Capitalism that is easy to see an issue with is the surrounding identity and consumerism. Obama’s continuation of neoliberal policies and choice to bail out the banks over actual structural changes led to Occupy 2011, which put pressure on the “elites”. Perhaps both intentionally and unintentionally, two things changed.  

For one, the Democrats/progressives shifted even further away from policy surrounding affordability and helping the common person, instead emphasizing identity politics. It was this shift that alienated many lower-income voters and created Trump. Further, this is also the beginning of slop consumerism. Before, there was no doubt consumerism, but it has led to a new type. Tinder, Fortnite, Twitch, OnlyFans, TikTok/short form content, Shein, Skims, Fenty Beauty, Birria Taco, White Claw, Dubai chocolate, etc. The new consumerism is based on short-term/mindless thinking, with the product often centered on appearance rather than long-term peace of mind. 

They are sensational experiences to distract from the relatively important parts of one’s life: work, family, (obtaining) food, community, spirituality, etc.  

Identity politics can also be distractions, pointless arguing over things that likely don’t matter when the focus should be on improving people’s lives, such as economically, in the workplace, and creating meaningful communities.  This especially means using material power to stop real discrimination.  

The slop consumerism introduces an inability for a social/political movement to edit our world. We are limited in scope by what the populus has already come to accept: We can never go back. By this I mean, once a product is set to mean a certain standard of living, for example, endless pointless products – ornaments or Funko pops or getting a new phone yearly – then it is near impossibleto go back without a broad loss of social support.  

For example, meat is consumed in an unsustainable way, as we use much more water to produce it than we have aquifers to support in the long term. There are also high levels of meat subsidies, allowing more people to eat it. I eat meat, although it is because I am underweight, and I plan on stopping in the future, but I am not hating on people who do. The point is, what will happen in the future when a reasonable government says, “Hmm, we are using a lot of water for meat, maybe we should rethink the way our farms operate so as to have water for the future?” 

This will reduce a standard the populace has come to expect, and thus there would likely be many protests and the like, with that government losing legitimacy. This applies to hundreds of products, but a government cannot say, “Hmm, we have plenty of clothes, in fact, we have enough clothes to last for 7 generations. Maybe we should consider cutting down on clothing production”. Even as I write this, it sounds stupid to me, and I am sure it sounds stupid to you. But that is the point. We are completely limited by what capital wants, and as a people have little agency to change to a new world.    

I would propose shifting production toward “buy it for life” products. This just means products that can be used for as long as possible and repaired, so less work goes into their production, and much less material is used. For example, in the 50s, Timex, a watch company, realized it could just give customers a new watch instead of repairing the one they had. This is a fundamental problem, as it led to planned obsolescence. Companies would rather you buy something that dies after a couple of years than something that lasts a lifetime, because they can keep making a profit from the former.   

Imagine an economy full of products that lasted a lifetime. We would thus require less work to produce the products, and, conversely, have more time and resources to devote to worthwhile projects.   

Yet our political and economic thinking is so deeply ingrained in neoliberal capitalism that changes such as this are not seriously advocated for/considered by major parties. It is clear that the West’s political and economic system is flailing, and it simply continues with more of the same (Trump is a change, but it is effectively more Neoliberal policy with minor twinges to seem different). More of the same works if everything is satisfactory, but it isn’t.  

One problem is that people view our political system as sacred. Society, of course, progresses and changes over time, and so should our political systems. After all, it was only through the American Revolution’s radical ideas at the time that a new system could be born. We cannot expect any system to last forever, so we should at least consider new systems or even simple ideas within those systems.   

That is why in the next piece, I will list some ideas/political philosophies we should at least consider in the modern world. For now, I think the US should adopt basic social democracy for say 5 years, with the goal of implementing Western European/Nordic-style policies. After this, a period of ~10 years of radical social democracy, with the implementation of experimental policies. When this has reached a satisfying point, then a completely new structure should be adopted. That new structure is what I hope to create ideas around.   

To those who call for revolution and see this as reformist, I understand. I remain skeptical of revolutionaries’ ability to implement a satisfactory system in the modern world’s complexity. Take the USSR, for example. Here, the factors of production and consumption were much simpler, so a revolution could reorder them quickly and efficiently. This is at least possible today, but much harder given the complexity of our supply chains.  

Look at the “Gen-Z” revolutions, all of which, to me, seem to be ethically simple but ideologically/strategically hollow. They offer no ideas about the state, how to transition between regimes, or productive forces and capital flight, instead focusing on vibe-based symbolic movements. There is nothing wrong with the protests themselves, but you need to offer a concrete political solution afterward.   

A revolution’s success depends upon the trust of the general population. If the rapid change in production/consumption caused chaos, or worse, if there was no agreed-upon plan after a revolution, then the movement would quickly falter and lose support. Nevertheless, a political movement should be allowed time to implement its changes rather than expect itself to solve everything on day one.   

It is important to note that a continual revolution must be upheld by society. This means that the status quo must always be questioned, as otherwise authoritarian politics/politicians establish themselves. This is another problem with revolution: not clearly defining how the system will run once the revolutionary group has power can lead to strongman rule.   

Regarding social democracy, I want the US to immediately establish a welfare state to best help the many Americans who are struggling. Most European states in the 50s and 60s established welfare systems (such as healthcare) that are so popular that they are, for the most part, preserved by right-wing parties (though they do attempt to cut them). The US, despite, for example, having a 91% tax rate on the highest bracket in 1954 and 77% in 1964, never established a permanent welfare state. 

During this period (pre late 70’s), the dominant economic philosophy was Keynesian, for which intervention in the economy was implied, such as with FDR’s New Deal. Neoliberalism, first tested by Pinochet in Chile and then prominently by Reagan and Thatcher in the US and UK, encouraged free markets and government non-interference in the economy, as well as deregulation and weakening of labor. This is in addition to “trickle-down” economics, the idea that cutting taxes for the rich will lead to poor people’s lives improving. This has proven entirely untrue (Read for more: Link).  

While not all, many of America’s problems can be traced to neoliberalism (which has been the dominant economic philosophy for both Republicans and Democrats since), with the US coasting on its lucrative companies.   

Neoliberalism is a disaster for long-term policy because markets are not self-regulating in all respects. Many things are beneficial to society without the necessary market incentive. This is why a night-watchman state, where the only role of the government is law and defense, would lead to monopolization and a reduction in services that cannot be established profitably in the first place (roads, water management, subways, etc.).   

The neoliberal experiment has led to so many of the US’s modern problems that it is hard to overstate. It has driven housing unaffordability by treating it as an investment rather than a need. Deregulation in finance led to the S&L crisis and the 2008 crash. Austerity and tax cuts slashed public spending, worsening infrastructure, transit, and education. The prioritization of corporate interests stagnated wages, leading to a lack of prosperity for many in the rich, technologically advanced USA (and other countries worldwide).  

If you want to look at what appears to be the most efficient large-scale form of managing production in the world (not necessarily the best in all regards), look at China’s “State Capitalism”. They were able to take one of the world’s poorest per capita countries and create an objective superpower. With some accomplishments, including:  

• lifting 800 million out of extreme poverty (1990 – 2020)  
• More high-speed rail than the rest of the world combined in just 15 years  
• Complete dominance in rare earth mineral production (~90%), which is required in things such as EVs, turbines, and magnets  
• Extreme shipbuilding capacities, building ~50% of the world’s ships each year  
• 30% of global manufacturing, 60% of electronic production, 75% of solar panels, 50% robots, 90% of drones,   
• More EVs per year than the rest of the world combined  
• Their own space station, first backside of the moon landing  
• Automated ports/warehouses, full implementation of robotaxis in certain cities  

It may be easy to say that this is due to their large population, but India has a similar population without the same results. I see it more to do with the fact that the government has long-term planning abilities and the ability to easily regulate or help markets, I.e. state capitalism. For example, one reason China has such dominance in the rare-earth metals market (important for lots of tech nowadays) is that the government has pursued this goal for the last 50 years and has encouraged it through subsidies and by setting national industrial production targets.   

I think China could be seen as a successful MAGA movement – (re-)industrialization, strong national economic policy, patriotism, militarism, and certain immigration restrictions.    

State Capitalism seems to be quite an effective system, as we can observe with the implementation and growth of GDP per capita in countries like Vietnam, Singapore, and Putin’s Russia (pre-Crimean annexation). All of these have massively improved GDP per capita in the 21st century through aggressive markets and strong state intervention.   

As a side note, GDP per capita is the average monetary value of all final goods and services produced in a country. Here is a quick story about GDP:  

‘Two economists are walking down the street and pass by a pile of dog shit. One of them turns to the other and says “I’ll pay you $1000 if you eat that dog shit”.  The other performs an internal utility calculation and eats the dog shit.  

Continuing their walk, the second economist sees another pile of dog shit and makes the same offer to the first. The first economist also agrees, and eats the dog shit. They walk on. After a while the second economist says to the first “it feels like we’re both worse off than we were before this walk”.  

The first economist replies “impossible! We’ve just engaged in 2000 dollars worth of trade!”.’ 

The point is, GDP doesn’t really account for the production of harmful things and can overstate importance. GDP per capita has many problems, but it can nevertheless tell us a good amount about a country, as countries with higher GDP per capita usually have higher life expectancies and rate their lives as better. 

Part of this advantage stems from richer countries using strong currencies and economic leverage to use cheap labor and resources in poorer countries. Thus, the fact that higher GDP per capita indicates higher living standards and so on is closely tied to the dominance of the global market. This effectively requires their economy to participate in a system in which they are at a disadvantage, mainly because richer countries already have established production chains and currency advantages.   

Back to State Capitalism. The problem I have with this system is its very effectiveness. I don’t want to see a world full of these authoritarian capitalist, consumerist countries that first prioritize profits and rely on security cameras/lower levels of political participation. If this is indeed the most viable system for countries in the “third-world” to improve their citizens’ standards of living, that is not necessarily a good thing. It is a proof of the effectiveness of State Capitalisms state/political capacity, but not an endorsement of its political free will.  

As I said just now, it is buying into a system that is completely dominated by the West. If someone can do the same job at McDonald’s in two different countries but receives different wages after currency conversion, this is plainly unjust. The goal for the world is to have no major structural advantage or disadvantage at birth that seriously impacts one’s life. Every single person deserves a chance to prove themselves, to live at a satisfactory standard, and to be treated respectfully. How can we create a state that does this, and combines state utility, legitimacy, and democracy after five decades of neoliberalism? 

To do this, I plan to research and create 4 sections (subject to change).  

Section 1 – General opinions on basic topics, such as AI, the Fertility rate, Politicians, etc. These are mostly ideas that could be implemented through the current American political structure.   

Section 2 – Creating my own political structure for America. While I respect and want to keep many of the ideas set forth by the original revolutionaries, it is true that it was made in 1776. This is what I would make if I had to design a modern-day American political structure, one that could hopefully apply to any country seeking inspiration (a doctrine for Gen-Z protests).   

Section 3 – A financial/economic system that could allow countries autonomy from the manipulations in the world financial system and many of the economic problems of capitalism.   

Section 4 – Random ideas  

Section 1: General Opinions

Interesting Potential Ideologies/Ideas

During Quarantine, I found myself on a side of TikTok called poliTok. Politics here was less confined to binaries or political thinking, with a wide range of ideologies. Minarchists, Mutualists, and Eco-fascists all interacted, and I think it made me open to a wide range of ideas. Humans are often a product of their environment, as seen in how social experiments can yield widely differing results depending on the culture in which they are conducted. There’s no definite correct political solution, so we should be open to new ideas.  

Here, I will simply list ideas that I am at least somewhat open to, all of which could be meaningfully incorporated into policy. It doesn’t mean I agree with everything, just that the more creativity we introduce into the political system, the better we can find solutions to our problems.   

Decision making structures 

Technocracy: The general idea that, in some form, prioritizes technical experience over, for example, charismatic or well-connected people. If you want to partly understand China’s rise, consider that many on the Politburo (the top of the CCP) are engineers.  

Cyberocracy: This is the general idea of a government with “rule by information”. It would likely involve systems of computer networks (or AI) that serve as a fundamental antithesis to traditional, slow bureaucracy.   

Sortition: Positions selected by lottery rather than election, aimed at reducing elite control and increasing representativeness. You could have randomly selected members spectate on local government decisions, similar to jury duty (though you could opt out without consequence).  Or you could have local posts held but random members of the community at different times, as long as there is significant checks and balances.  

Ownership/Production models 

Socialism: This is important to understand (in a basic manner), given its widespread influence and common misunderstanding. You are dependent upon means of subsistence, mainly food, water, medicine, and clothes. These things are made from means of production, such as land, tools, and capital. Under Capitalism, means of production can be privately owned (notably, it has nothing to do with your personal possessions like a toothbrush). Due to the fact that you do not likely own all the means of production required to make all your means of subsistence, you are thus required to participate in the labor market. Furthermore, when you work at a job, the wage does not represent the full value of your labor, due to the fact that your employment means the company has deemed you profitable to them. This generates further wealth for the company’s owner, wealth based purely on your labor.  

This is only an extremely brief overview of Marxism/the labor theory of value, with Socialism as the political philosophy behind it. The problem with defining Socialism is that it is such a widely used term that it’s hard to say it has a specific meaning beyond a form of left-wing politics at least partially inspired by Marxism, focusing on the distribution of the means of production. For those completely skeptical of anything related to socialism, I understand. We have grown up in a culture of Capitalism that only knows Capitalism, and thus it is hard to even conceptualize other systems working. Not only that, but much of our daily lives is based on what those at the top determine (news programs, movies/TV, education systems), and those at the top are often supportive of capitalism, whether liberals or conservatives. 

The thing is, our system is not “true” Capitalism by any sense of the word. There is markets, yes, but these markets are regulated by the state and have fallible human input. Any true Capitalism, especially in the age of automation, would collapse into neofeudal social conditions without the amenities that the private sphere has no profit motive for (public transport, legal systems, park services, etc.). Then we can ask, what do we need markets for? Of course, basically any products we consume are sold through market-style systems. This is not inherently bad, as markets provide indicators for how much people desire different items. 

The problem is that: A. we are only human and thus we can arguably be corrupted by our desires, as they are not always rational (slop/fast fashion/drugs), and B. markets also lead to capital consolidation. Capital consolidation could be traced to the impact it has had on many of our current problems, such as corporate influence in government, general unaffordability, and more. With these obvious problems, we can ask: What if we could use computer-based technology to create smart, people-driven planning, with universal safety nets, workforce democracy, and market elements for coordination and entrepreneurship? Again, you may be skeptical, which is fine, and I am skeptical of elements too. But I think with modern technology, the human species is capable of a lot and potentially more than we can currently imagine possible.  

Distributism: This is a Catholic political philosophy opposed to both socialism and capitalism, instead advocating independent craftsmen, family-owned businesses, worker cooperatives, member-owned mutual associations, and guilds. It advocates vigorous antitrust laws and systems of redistribution and opposes private banking, instead preferring mutual banking, such as credit unions.    

Mutualism/neomutualism: Ownership in community-based and mutual credit systems is often used while retaining many elements of small-market systems. Neo just adds digital platform aspects to it. It wants to eliminate rent, profit, and interest (not as ideas but in how capitalist economies they can function as exploitative income).   

Market socialism: Markets exist, but profits are often distributed directly to workers (there are some companies like this around the world to varying degrees).     

Syndicalism: Worker control of the economy through in-depth trade unions that would replace capitalist firms and government bureaucracy. Lots more on this one, but I ask that you do your own research.   

Georgism: This is a political philosophy based on the principle that the economic value of land/natural resources should belong to society, with the main proposal being a tax on the unimproved value of land. In traditional Georgism, this is the only form of taxation. While there are no doubt problems with this, Georgism definitely contains some smart ideas that should be further analyzed, with policy ideas such as in Sweden/Denmark, where land is taxed differently than improvements, arguably leading to urban renewal.    

Coordination/Planning 

Cybernetic Socialism: The incorporation of AI, big data, and computing systems into a centrally planned market system. Probably required for a modern socialist movement. Project Cybersyn in Chile (1971-73) was a good early example of this before the military coup.   

Parecon: Local councils determine what to produce/consume through community participation. The government then calculates the environmental/social costs and the total supply/demand, and big data could effectively coordinate goods around. Also, people would have a wider variety of tasks than in their current jobs, meaning everyone would be engaged in both planning and repetitive tasks/cleaning.   

Corporatism: This is where groups representing industry (agriculture, science, construction, etc.) negotiate policy within the governmental structure. It is not to be confused with corporatocracy, a political system dominated by business interests. Corporatism has a wide and varied history, including Plato/Aristotle, Christian religious societies, social corporatism, support from Pope Leo XIII (1881), Durkheim’s corporatism (solidarism, which is interesting in its own right), liberal corporatism, fascist corporatism, and neo-corporatism.  

Neo-corporatism: This is an explicitly democratic/modern form favoring Tripartism, with strong labor unions, employers’ associations, and the government all cooperating to create policy. 

“Neosocialism”: Basically, strong social democracy, with markets and capital, but adding social welfare and possibly UBI. Also things like decommodifying essential items and pushing back against capital. (Don’t think of this as Socialism but as its own thing tbh) 

Scale/Structural 

Communalism: Decentralized, direct democracy, eco-communities linked through confederal councils.  

Bioregionalism: Organizes society around the natural environment of one’s place (i.e., local crops) rather than, for example, around relatively artificially drawn national borders.   

Panarchy: When originally proposed, this meant governments would act more like churches that one could join and leave, with multiple governmental systems within a territory. In the modern world, I would propose that we adapt this to just mean more political experimentation and different forms of governments (within reason) within one country. For example, if a part of the US wanted to experiment with and implement, say, a corporatist style of government and another neo socialism, it should be allowed in the name of experimentation. The basic requirements would be A. the free ability reasonably leave the territory, B. certain social laws, for example, a segregationist or legalizing pedophilia government wouldn’t be allowed, and C. making sure there is not an exploitation of the system to get around, say tax laws or something. Obviously, this would be hard to do, but it’s the general principle.  

Value based ideas 

Post scarcity economics: Arguing that technology can/should eliminate material scarcity to allow for human flourishing.   

Degrowth: Reduce production and consumption, especially in wealthy countries, to help the environment and promote social well-being (away from consumerism). Also, it would mean less work in general, so more free time, as a general principle (if reformed correctly).   

Open source government: Makes laws/policy clear to understand. This one is critical.  

Climate federalism: Unite the world so as to fix the climate problems.  

Temporal federalism: Represent future beings in government, or at least seriously take into account the problems our actions have on future humans.   

Arab socialism/pan-Africanism: Movements focused on uniting shared cultural groups that have historically been beset by imperialism with lasting consequences. One could imagine a United States of Africa.   

While there are many ideologies, many more than listed here, and I think if every politician had completely different views that would be too much, we nevertheless should be able to generally incorporate these ideas into common knowledge so as to broaden political debate.   

Additionally, here is an interesting video on online politics that is somewhat along these lines.   

Extremely Online Politics: Joshua Citarella 

US Foreign Policy

Most Americans have a fundamentally distorted view of what the US is in the world and within its own history. I would say that most Americans see the US as a shining experiment and progress-driven country, leading the world by example with a few blights to its name. In some ways, this is true. The American people have indeed driven innovation and social movements that have pushed the world further. The founding principles of America have indeed changed the world, likely in a positive manner. The US has indeed engaged in specific conflicts in a positive manner, such as World War II against fascism. 

The problem is that the American government has a secret, in that it has behaved in ways entirely unacceptable to a modern audience, which that audience unfortunately remains unaware of. What follows are brief but intense records of some of these actions, not to attack the American people, but to highlight what our government has done in our name.  

In the Korean War, the US perpetrated a bombing campaign that destroyed every town (according to Gen. Curtis LeMay, the head of Strategic Air Command) and intentionally targeted food production, such as rice fields and dams, which led to the death of around 3 million North Korean civilians. This has led to the North Korean narrative around the US, as it is basically no wonder they hate us. 

Cumings, The Korean War: A History (2010) 

Associated Press, War’s Hidden Chapter: Ex-GIs Tell of Killing Korean Refugees, (1999) (Pulitzer prize) 

  

In 1953, the CIA and MI6 initiated a coup called Operation Ajax to overthrow Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. This was because, in 1951, Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry, which was previously controlled by the British, who had also received most of the profits. Britain imposed an oil embargo, which put Iran into recession, while the CIA bribed military officers and paid mobs to riot to create chaos, resulting in the toppling of Mossadegh. He was replaced by the pro-Western Shah, who did have some interesting policies but was nevertheless a brutal dictator. In fact, SAVAK, the Shah’s brutal secret police, known for torture and disappearances, was actually trained by the CIA. In the long term, this directly led to the 1979 revolution, and it is no wonder there is tension between the American and Iranian governments. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran

Ervand Abrahamian, The Coup: 1953, the CIA, and the Roots of Modern U.S.-Iranian Relations (2013) 

CIA declassified documents (2013) 

  

Jacobo Árbenz was elected president of Guatemala in 1951, pushing for mild leftist reforms. The main one was Decree 900, which gave unused land on large estates to commoners. The US United Fruit Company (UFCO) lobbied that Árbenz was a communist threat to be feared. The US then started a coup, imposing an arms embargo, painting Árbenz as a Soviet puppet (with no evidence), and spreading made-up propaganda that rebel groups opposed to Árbenz were winning battles. The US conducted bombings on targets across Guatemala, inciting fear in the population. As a result of the pressure, Árbenz was forced to flee into exile. The new CIA-backed leader, Castillo Armas, became dictator. He revoked the land reforms, increased the UFCO’s power, and banned political parties, peasant groups, and unions. Guatemala then fell into an extremely gruesome civil war from 1960 to 1996, with US-backed governments committing massacres and genocide. Around 200,000 Guatemalans were killed or “went missing”, many of them from indigenous communities. 

https://theoldreview.substack.com/p/a-short-history-of-us-intervention

Katherine A. Gaffey, The Lasting Effects of U.S. Intervention in Guatemala, (2020) 

  

In 1960, the Belgian Congo gained independence following decades of what is basically the worst colonialization in history, as King Leopold II (Belgium) led from 1885 to 1908, resulting in an estimated 10 million deaths. The new prime minister became Patrice Lumumba, leader of the Congolese National Movement (MNC). He sought to be politically and economically independent, while also remaining neutral in the Cold War.

Soon after, the Katanga province, known for its rich mineral resources, seceded, backed by Belgian mining interests. Belgian officers remained in the Congolese army, which influenced Lumumba’s ability to respond. Lumumba asked the UN for help, which was rejected. He then asked the Soviet Union for aid, alarming Washington, as it was the height of the Cold War. The US authorized plans to assassinate Lumumba, which Belgium supported. The president of Congo, Joseph Kasavubu, dismissed Lumumba due to Western pressure. Soon after, Army Chief Joseph-Desire Mobutu, with CIA funding, launched a coup that put Lumumba under house arrest.

Lumumba tried to flee to get to his supporters in the east, but he was captured and handed over to Katanga forces. They killed him. Mobutu then took power, with US and Belgian support at that, and ruled brutally and terribly for 32 years. He amassed extreme wealth while the country fell into poverty, despite being rich in mineral resources. Further, Congo was used as a US base of operations against African leftism. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Crisis

https://worldpolicyhub.com/belgian-colonialism-in-africa-causes-and-consequences/

  

In 1961, the US under Kennedy feared Castro, and so they sent 1,400 CIA-trained Cuban exiles to invade Cuba. They hoped the people would back the invasion, but they did not. It thus pushed Cuba further towards the Soviet Union and was an embarrassing failure for the US. 

https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/the-bay-of-pigs

 

In Iraq in 1958, a nationalist coup led by Abd al-Karim Qasim overthrew the Western-backed monarchy. Qasim was not a communist himself, but many of his policies were aligned with leftism, leading to fear in the US. The CIA kept close watch, communicating with the Ba’ath Party (an Arab Nationalist party with both socialist and fascist tendencies). In 1963, the Ba’ath party enacted a violent coup, killing Qasim and carrying out mass executions (about 5,000) of a list of communists reportedly supplied by the CIA. After the coup, the US immediately recognized/supported the new regime. It is only ironic that Saddam Hussein would eventually lead the same Ba’ath party in 1968. The US effectively created the conditions for a brutal dictator that it itself would have problems with. 

https://towardfreedom.org/story/archives/west-asia/a-peoples-history-of-iraq-1950-to-november-1963

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq%E2%80%93United_States_relations

  

Regarding Vietnam, I will try to keep it brief and include underemphasized aspects. In 1945, Ho Chi Minh (a communist) declared Vietnam to be independent. Minh actually had a lot of respect for the US and even quoted from the US Declaration of Independence in this regard. France wanted colonial control back. The US feared communism and thus supplied 78% of France’s costs by 1954 and about a trillion dollars, adjusted for inflation, over the course of the war. France still lost (big L).

Vietnam was divided along the 17th parallel by the Geneva Accords, which scheduled reunification elections for 1956. The South was a US puppet state led by Ngo Dinh Diem. The South also refused to participate in the elections, with Eisenhower later writing that Ho Chi Minh would have won with 80% of the vote. The US supported Diem with supplies and advice. Diem oppressed Buddhists and peasants specifically due to their support for the Viet Minh. Eventually, the Viet Cong, a revolutionary group in the south, decided to launch a rebellion. The US responded with thousands of military troops and forced relocations of peasantry to disconnect them from the Viet Cong (Strategic Hamlet Program). Eventually, after finding Diem unsuccessful against the communists, the US backed an assassination/coup of Diem.

In 1964, the US exaggerated attacks (elements of the reports were later found to be wrong) on US ships to validate the invasion. By 1965, the US was at war with troops on the ground. The US proceeded to engage in completely indefensible war crimes. One such example was chemical warfare, with napalm and Agent Orange leading to millions of disabilities at birth and cancers. The bombing was also relentless, with about 5 million tons of bombs and 400,000 tons of napalm, leading to long-term ecological damage. For comparison, we dropped 2 million tons in all of World War II. Around 2 million Vietnamese civilians died in the war. The US also lost 58,000 soldiers, as well as losing the general war. 

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/History_of_Vietnam

https://www.vassar.edu/the-wars-for-vietnam/vietnam-war-overview

  

In the early 60s, the US supported the conservative and monarchical Royal Lao Army over the communists in Laos. They sent money to right-wing generals and built an army to fight the leftist Lao and North Vietnamese. During the Vietnam War, North Vietnam’s supply route to the south went through Laos. As a result, the US released what is possibly the most intense bombing campaign ever, no exaggeration. The US dropped 2 million tons of bombs on Laos over the course of the Vietnam War, which is a planeload of bombs every 8 minutes for 9 years. Two hundred thousand civilians died, which was out of a population of 3 million people. There are now millions of unexploded bombs that Cambodia has to deal with to this day, with 20,000 related deaths since 1974. Ultimately, the Pathet Lao, a communist organization, seized power and established the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. 

https://www.scribd.com/document/167549193/12-Years-of-US-Imperialist-Intervention-and-Aggression-in-Laos

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB248

https://pure.ulster.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/86007119/2020NugentStephensNPhD.pdf

  

Cambodia is easily one of the worst on this list, and most people have zero idea we were ever involved. Post independence from France in 1954, Cambodia was led by Prince Sihanouk until 1970. Sihanouk attempted to remain neutral in the Cold War and allowed some use of Cambodian routes by the North Vietnamese while also rejecting US military bases. The US and South Vietnam grew contentious with Sihanouk’s neutrality, and thus launched covert operations in Cambodia. In 1965, the US began launching secret airstrikes in Cambodia to target the Viet Cong, under the name Operation Menu. In 1969, Nixon/Kissinger expanded Operation Menu tenfold. This was kept secret from the public and even Congress, with fake coordinates being entered into military logs.

In total, the US dropped 2,756,941 tons of bombs, making Cambodia likely the highest per capita bombed country in history. This killed about 300,000 civilians (if not higher). In 1970, while Prince Sihanouk was abroad, the US encouraged General Lon Nol to stage a coup, which was successful. As a result, Cambodia became pro-US, and Lon Nol had US troops attack communist forces in eastern Cambodia. At the same time, Sihanouk aligned himself with the Khmer Rouge, which became especially popular for common folk angered by the bombings. The US would bomb entire villages, which led to lots of displacement and eventually famine. In 1975, the Khmer Rouge easily took power due to high instability from US bombing and proceeded to launch a genocide that killed about 2 million Cambodians.  

https://gsp.yale.edu/sites/default/files/walrus_cambodiabombing_oct06.pdf (great document) 

https://www.catalystproject.net/world/the-hidden-history-of-the-us-involvement-in-the-cambodian-genocide

  

In 1961, João Goulart became president of Brazil. He was a mild leftist, advocating for land reform, the nationalization of oil and certain utilities, and higher taxes for foreign companies. He was also friendly with labor unions and the Brazilian Communist Party. The US, fearing this, spent millions through USAID and the CIA to support opposition politicians and specific media/student groups. The US  ran disinformation (lying) campaigns that showed Goulart as a communist puppet and corrupt. In 1964, the Brazilian military launched a coup with support from the US, and Goulart fled to Uruguay. This led to 21 years of military rule, with an immediate reversal of Goulart’s policy in favor of neoliberal policy. The dictatorship conducted mass repression, with lots of disappearances, torture, and censorship. 

https://www.cafehistoria.com.br/military-dictatorship-in-brazil-a-history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

  

From 1930 to 1961, the Dominican Republic was ruled by Rafael Trujillo, a dictator with mild economic growth, as well as the murder of tens of thousands. The US supported him, although the relationship became strained over time. When he died in 1961, the transition government allowed free elections. Thus, Juan Bosch was elected in 1962. Bosch was a leftist who believed in social justice and democracy. He wanted land reform and less military/foreign corporate influence. In 1963, he drafted a progressive constitution that included labor rights and civil liberties. In September 1963, the Dominican military, with US backing, staged a successful coup, accusing Bosch of being soft on communism. This created strong tensions between the conservative military and the Bosch supporters.

In 1965, a group of junior military officers and civilians seized control of much of Santo Domingo. They did this to start an insurrection aimed at restoring the 1963 constitution, along with Bosch. The insurrection was quite popular. LBJ and his administration portrayed it as a communist uprising, although they had little evidence to do so. Johnson proceeded to launch Operation Power Pack, with 22,000 Marines and paratroopers invading the Dominican Republic. Through bombing and shooting, the US killed 3,000 civilians in Santo Domingo. The US destroyed the uprising and put power back into the hands of conservative elites. U.S.-backed Dominican forces also tortured people and carried out some executions. In 1966, manipulated elections were held under US supervision, electing Joaquin Balaguer, a former associate of Trujillo. Balaguer was in power for 12 years, with corrupt authoritarian rule. 

https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/military-history-and-science/us-troops-occupy-dominican-republic

  

After their war for independence from the Netherlands, Indonesia was led by Sukarno, who was a left-leaning nationalist. The PKI, Indonesia’s communist party, gained considerable popularity by the mid-1960s, prompting the US to view both Sukarno and the PKI as a threat. On September 30th, 1965, a group called the “September 30th movement” killed 6 top generals. This led the army under Suharto (not to be confused with Sukarno) to use that event to justify a mass purge, killing around a million PKI sympathizers, trade-unionists, and even some unaffiliated ethnic Chinese. The US supported the event and even supplied lists of suspected communists. Suharto would also take power, leading to three decades of authoritarian rule. 

Documentary: The Act of Killing – This is an interesting documentary that follows the former people who did the killing in the purge. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/the-indonesia-documents-and-the-us-agenda/543534

  

For some context, in the Cold War, Pakistan and Bangladesh were a combined state (West and East, respectively) that was very supportive of the US. In 1970, East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) began demanding greater autonomy. In response, in March 1971, the West Pakistan army cracked down on East Pakistan. This crackdown, named Operation Searchlight, was arguably the worst genocide since WW2. Between 200,000 and 500,000 civilians (if not more) were slaughtered, with sexual violence, and millions fled to India. US diplomats sent  “Blood Telegrams” warning of a genocide, but the US ignored them due to support for West Pakistan. The US, under Nixon (and Kissinger), actually illegally sent fighter jets to West Pakistan through Jordan to show support for the government. Even more so, Nixon sent the Seventh Fleet to the Bay of Bengal, claiming to “Evacuate US citizens”, but this was primarily seen as a method for deterring Indian intervention. 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/genocide-us-cant-remember-bangladesh-cant-forget-180961490

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24480586?seq=1

  

In 1970, Chile democratically elected the leftist Salvador Allende as president, who won in a coalition with other parties. He pushed for nationalization of key industries (banking, copper, etc.), agrarian reform, and general support for peasants. He did have some interesting developments in computers and labor, even in the 1970s (check out Project Cybersyn). The US obviously did not like this, so Nixon and Kissinger employed various tactics to counter his government. These included intense economic pressure and CIA funding for opposition business, media (such as the right-wing newspaper El Mercurio), and political groups. The CIA was also heavily involved in the Chilean military, monitoring coup activity and supplying intelligence. In 1970, the CIA even covertly tried to work with military coup plotters in Chile.

On the 11th of September 1973, Chilean armed forces/police overthrew the government, bombing the presidential palace. Allende died, seemingly of suicide. This is when Pinochet took over from 1973 to 1990, banning political parties, suspending congress, and suppressing dissent. He did this by killing (“disappearing”) around 3,200, along with torturing tens of thousands. He famously had a “Caravan of Death” that dropped people out of helicopters. Pinochet was materially supported by the US, despite publicly criticizing human rights abuses. Pinochet was also the first to implement neoliberalism. 

https://en.segundopaso.org/the-chilean-coup-and-the-legacy-of-us-imperialism-in-latin-america

https://dev.nacla.org/remembering-chile-coup-50

  

In the mid-1970s, East Timor experienced a revolution to gain independence from Portugal. Remember that at this time, Indonesia was a key ally of the US, and this new independence scared both the US and Indonesia. Thus, Indonesia intervened, taking control from 1975 to 1999. The Indonesian occupation killed around 200,000 civilians, sometimes through intentional starvation. Keep in mind that the entire population of East Timor at this time was only 800,000, illustrating just how brutal the occupation was. President Gerald Ford (and Kissinger) met with Suharto in 1975. Suharto was on the fence about invading, but they gave the green light and assured Suharto of “understanding” if action was taken in East Timor. The US also provided weapons and training to Indonesia, which was fundamental to the invasion. At UN meetings regarding resolutions that condemned Indonesia’s invasion, the US would abstain. 

https://gsp.yale.edu/sites/default/files/03-263_ch_09.pdf

https://international.ucla.edu/masterpages/cseas/humanrights/Bradley-Simpson-WS1-2005-CWH-Timor.pdf

  

The US had prior knowledge of Argentina’s 1976 military coup, and after they provided money, training, and intelligence in the first few years of the dictatorship. The dictatorship employed state terrorism, with extrajudicial killings, torture, and even the kidnapping of children. Declassified documents reveal that not only did the US know of all this, but they also assisted in some aspects of it. 

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/Voices/2019/05/10/Secret-archives-show-US-helped-Argentine-military-wage-dirty-war-that-killed-30000/1491557491237

https://latinamericasecurityreport.com/polity-governance/2019/05/12/truth-justice-and-declassification-secret-archives-show-us-helped-argentine-military-wage-dirty-war-that-killed-30000

  

In the 70s, the US was afraid of Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist regime getting close to the USSR. In response, the US provided money and weaponry to the Kurdish people to bring Hussein to the table. For context, the Kurds are a nation of people without access to a state of their own, and there are many of them in northern Iraq. The US has had a long history of support for the Kurds since after WW2. Yet here, once Hussein came to the table with the US and the two made a deal, the US effectively abandoned the Kurds. This led to the Anfal Campaign, with over the next 13 years, around 200,000 Kurds killed by Hussein through mass killings and chemical warfare, along with internment camps and forced resettlements.  

https://us.gov.krd/history-of-kurdistan-region

https://kurdistantribune.com/henry-kissinger-realpolitik-genocide

In the 1970s and 80s, the US supported Operation Condor, which officially started in 1975. The operation was a secret coordination of repression and the sharing of intelligence between the military dictatorships in South America. It included intense persecution of leftists and opposition to the governments, with 80,000 murdered (many of them being people simply disappearing) and around 400,000 tortured. Compared to other events, this might seem like a relatively low death count, mainly since it is spread across multiple countries over many years. Yet it’s insidious in its danger, in that if you kill a large group of people at a time, it will create backlash. Yet if you slowly assassinate and torture, this breeds a culture of fear that makes the backlash stop on its own. Which my very own country supported by the creation, as well as providing resources/intelligence.

https://www.cels.org.ar/especiales/plancondor/en/#condor-i-ii-y-iii

https://latinxhistory.com/history/operation-condor

  

El Salvador in the 70s (and before) was characterized by extreme inequality, with a small group of elite landowners controlling the economy/politics. Any attempt at reform was labeled as communist and dismissed. Thus, the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN), a leftist guerrilla group, arose in the early 1980s, declaring war against the Salvadoran state. The US, in reaction, provided over $4 billion over the next 12 years of war, along with tons of weapons, aircraft, and training. The El Salvadorian state during the war engaged in terrible violence. Take the 1981 El Mozote Massacre, where an El Salvadorian battalion backed by the US murdered hundreds of villagers in cold blood. The war ended in 1992 through a peace deal, yet of course (like all of these) has had lasting effects on El Salvador. 

https://stewardshipreport.org/el-salvadors-forgotten-war-and-americas-hidden-role

https://www.nzz.ch/english/us-role-in-el-salvador-war-revealed-by-new-testimony-evidence-ld.1625008

https://www.dwherstories.com/timeline/u-s-intervention-in-el-salvador

  

Nicaragua was ruled by the Somoza family for 44 years, full of corruption, inequality, and suppression of opposition, while also keeping close ties with the US. In 1979, the leftist Sandinistas popularly overthrew the Somoza regime, implementing land reform and improving literacy. The US then supported the Contras, a right-wing paramilitary group, in attempting to overthrow the Sandinistas. The US provided tons of military support and implemented an embargo that devastated the Nicaraguan economy, services, and infrastructure, along with 30,000 deaths. In 1990, an opposition government won the elections, leading to peace talks and the end of the war. Congress actually passed laws during this time (1982-84) to block sending aid to the Contras. To get around this, Reagan and Lt. Col. Oliver North illegally sold weapons to Iran, which was under an arms embargo at the time. They then used the profits to fund the Contras. The revelation of this became a massive scandal known as the Iran-Contra affair. Oliver North now goes on Fox News as a commentator. 

https://www.britannica.com/event/Iran-Contra-Affair

  

In Honduras, the US used the country as a base of operations in the fight against the Contras. It also trained/funded units that then carried out political assassinations/disappearances of leftists/critics. 

https://rightsaction.org/emails/back-to-the-past-in-honduras-us-backed-death-squads-in-honduras

  

Skipping the US Grenada invasion which you can look into if you want, as there was at least a very slight justification although it should still be condemned as it was in the UN (108 – 9). 

  

In Panama, General Manuel Noriega ruled as a dictator from the 1970s with the support of the CIA. In the mid-80s, Washington no longer liked him because he was involved in drug trafficking, corruption, and had relationships with some US enemies (like Cuba). In 1988, he was indicted by two federal grand juries on drug trafficking charges. The US embargoed Panama and froze his assets. Noriega lost the 1989 election but remained in power through the use of the military. After a US Marine was killed at a roadblock in Panama City, the US invaded with heavy attacks in dense areas. This led to around 2,000 civilians deaths, with later declassified documents/journalism finding evidence of hidden mass graves. The US then installed a pro-US president (at a US military base, lol). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama

https://www.jstor.org/stable/45316500?seq=5

  

In 1990, Haiti held its first democratic election after decades of dictatorships backed by the US. Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a left-leaning Catholic priest with 67% (lol) of the vote. Aristide sought military reform, elite corruption reform, and raising the minimum wage. Soon after, in 1991, the military, under General Cedras, overthrew him. The army and a supportive paramilitary death squad FRAPH killed thousands of Aristide supporters. The US publicly condemned the coup secretly cooperated with the military regime. Members of FRAPH were on the CIA payroll.

International pressure due to massacres and refugees forced the US to act. A diplomatic mission got Cedras to step down, and the US sent in troops without engaging in any combat. Aristide was restored, but under strict supervision. Specifically, the US and the IMF protected the military and forced Aristide to implement neoliberal reforms, including wage suppression and privatization. Aristide called it a “financial occupation”. Nevertheless, he remained in power, winning reelection in 2000. Then, in 2004, he was overthrown in a coup by the Haitian military/elites, with cables revealing the CIA was likely involved in supporting the coup. Aristide “resigned” and was flown to South Africa, although Aristide claims that the US essentially kidnapped him. The US, in coalition with other countries, then sent troops in (Operation Secure Tomorrow). In summation, it failed and hurt Haitian democracy while empowering bad actors. 

https://thegrayzone.com/2024/03/01/secret-cable-cia-haiti-coup

https://haitipolicy.org/2004/01/haiti-crushed-by-u-s-power

https://africannugget.com/haitis-historic-debt-crisis-a-legacy-of-coercion-and-control

  

I’m not going to go into Afghanistan in detail, as I suspect you are already aware of it. Nevertheless, the invasion, spurred by post 9/11 fervor, was done extremely poorly and led to around 60,000 civilian deaths, not even including the trillions spent on it, only for it to “fail” in the end with the Taliban’s return in 2021.

  

This summer, I will be traveling to Iraq to conduct in-depth research on the US role in Iraq, and I believe it deserves its own section, so I will skip that for now. 

  

In 2009, the military successfully staged a coup against the mildly leftist democratically elected president of Honduras, leading to abuses like assassinations and suppressions of protestors. It was widely condemned, and although the US publicly condemned it, they continued AID and did not formally call it a military coup. This was likely due to fear of strategic and economic interests, such as business elites opposing the former president’s minimum wage increases. 

https://thegateuchicago.com/2016/05/30/how-to-hide-a-coup-the-us-role-in-the-2009-honduran-coup

  

Here is a list of additional abuses/ failures regarding US foreign policy, which I encourage you to research on your own, but I will omit here for the sake of time. 

  

• Lebanon 1958 set a bad precedent against what the people of Lebanon wanted  
• Supported dictator Said Barre in Somalia despite massacres and torture (1978-1989) 
• Supported UNITA rebels in Angola despite atrocities by their leader, Jonas Savimbi (1970s) 
• When South Koreans protested for democracy in 1980, the US approved of the military using force, which killed hundreds 
• In Liberia, supported Samuel Doe in and after his 1980 coup despite ethnic mass killings AND later did not care about, and likely even helped, Charles Taylor rise to power, who would go on to commit horrific crimes (just read his convictions on Wikipedia). 
• Lebanon 1982-1984 was a failure that radicalized Hezbollah 
• Mistreatment in Iraq in 1991, with targeting civilian infrastructure and sanctions that led to the death of tens (if not hundreds) of thousands 
• Somalia 1992-94 – Just peacekeeping/food was fine but eventually became a terrible mission (Black Hawk Down, US indiscriminately firing on crowds) 
• Colombia in the 1990s – US military support went to right wing militias and destruction of peasant/indigenous crop systems 
• Supported the Algerian military junta in 1992, which led to the military’s current control of Algerian politics 
• Supported Paul Kagame after the Rwandan Genocide despite ethnic massacres in Congo 
• Failed coup of Hugo Chavez (2002) 
• Backing the 2006 Ethiopian invasion of Somalia (which created a radical Islamist group) 
• In Syria, where we had different groups fight each other unironically that were supported by different US branches, as the FSA, backed by the CIA, and the SDF, backed by the Pentagon have fought multiple times (Syria was/is a mess to be fair) 
• Failure in Yemen (2015-present) 

  

And this is all just the obvious stuff. There have been decades of secret deals, economic pressure, and intelligence operations that shaped a world order designed around American dominance. It’s a world where the dollar is the reserve currency, global markets are mandatory, and U.S. interests define what “freedom” and “stability” mean. 

The US military/navy, after World War II, allowed for a system of international trade, as the US essentially became the policeman of the world and reduced piracy. Today, this means that the US has 800 military bases around the world and spends by far the most on its military. This military (usually) does not act in a just way, instead exploiting lower income people to enforce US elites interests (oil/control of financial systems). 

The irony is, when people join the military, they often do so because they want to help others. The military found that when soldiers volunteer to help disadvantaged children where they are stationed, it boosts morale tremendously. These programs were found not to be helpful to the kids, but the military continued to use them anyway because they provided such a significant moral boost. I hope that one day, funding for military control will decrease, and we can instead allocate more resources to actually helping kids.  

In total, the tragedy is not only that the US perpetrated all of these terrible acts, but that it continues to do so, and continues to act as the military and global center of justice for the world, which it is in no position to deserve.  

On Politicians

Regarding American (and western politicians), public distrust in the group is not without reason. It is the result of a political system that rewards politicians alignment to wealth, institutions, and party power over the public.

Examples include:

• Receiving funding from interest specific groups 
• Insider trading, i.e. making stock market decisions based on knowledge only available to those in specific governmental positions 
• A general “out-of-touchness” with the American public due to the priviliges gained from their wealth

To address this, I propose reforms for members of Congress, the President, and senior aides. While in office, political actors should be legally restricted from engaging in behaviors that tie their personal advancement to wealth accumulation or elite social signaling. This includes prohibitions on stock trading (direct or indirect), limits on luxury travel funded by outside actors, and standardized housing arrangements while in Washington. Standardized housing in particular would reduce status competition, limit elite social integration, and reinforce the idea that political office is temporary public service rather than an avenue for upward class mobility. Politicians would still be paid well, so as to avoid corruption via underpayment.

Taking office exposes one to corruption, unaccountable power, and elite pressure. Even well intentioned people can become sucetible to this, so we must actively try to limit it.

Additionally, campaign financing should adopt a system more similar to that used in Japan, where limit on private financing and increased funding transparency reduce wealthy donors influence. Such limits allow political competition to be shaped more by ideas and representation than by access to capital. This produces a more functional democracy, as candidates are chosen for their positions and competence rather than their fundraising ability.

I remember once watching a compilation of Nick Mullen on a Fox News program, and the Fox News host argued that people like the Coke Brothers (oil billionaires) could donate to politicians to get them on their side and pass laws that save them money in the long term. This was treated as a good thing, but I think that if you briefly critized this most Americans would see it as the con it is with no place in our government.

Currently, roughly 90% of House races and 86% of Senate races are won by the candidate who spends more money. This goes against the idea that elections primarily select for merit, intelligence, or moral conviction. If political survival depends on financial backing, then political behavior of politicans will align with financial interests, which ties back to why politicians are so disliked.

Private lobbying should be abolished and replaced with TRANSPARENT, publicly accountable strucures for interest communication. Influence over public policy must go through structured institutions rather than through capital or personal relationships, as it is currently done. This could mean recorded, public meetings done between advocacy groups and politicians, sorition based councils that review legislation publically with town meetings and the politcians, and/or publically funded interest groups (“consumer office, environmental office, industrial office”) that corporate lobbying would be done through. I will make a specific plan later.

Trust in the government has consistently trended lower decade over decade. To fix this, we need to get kind, dedicated, and thoughtful politicians. In addition, the previous jobs of those in power should be diversified to include more engineers, scientists, teachers, farmers, and people from all walks of life, rather than the current overrepresentation of lawyers and businesspeople.   

On AI

Recently, opinions on AI use have become increasingly polarized. Be it AI slop, AI in schools, or AI’s insane energy use, it is not unreasonable to view AI destructive force. This is all despite increased usage among the general population. There’s a common saying I have seen that goes “I thought AI would take all the hard jobs and we could do art all day, instead AI’s doing all the art and we’re doing the hard jobs”. It sucks to watch artists, a group who already struggle in terms of finances, find it harder still to find work. Nevertheless, if we want to examine AI, both the benefits and consequences, first, we must take a step back from the individuals effects AI is having. 

Due to the functioning of our global market economy, one company or country deciding to progress slower with AI only hurts them, as their competitors will simply not slow. That is point one. Unless we are to have a Butlerian jihad (destroy all the AI unanimously which will never happen as we can’t even unite around climate change), our functioning as separate states with independent companies within said states means that AI progress will not stop.   

The second point is that there is a good chance that this progress will likely go beyond anything thought previously possible. Every month or so, a new AI model comes out that beats the benchmarks of the last, and when we compare the models from 2022 to 2025, it’s a completely different ballgame. To think in 2022 that AI would be able to code better than many developers and make entirely realistic looking videos by 2025 would be unbelievable. How will models look in 2030?  

If AI continues to improve, we should thus consider the possibility of widespread structural unemployment. Structural unemployment is when someone loses their jobs due to advances in technology, such as the milkman. If AI reaches the point where work such as accounting, lawyering, and general white collar work can be laid off and replaced by AI (which is probably much cheaper), it is only rational that companies will do this.  

The cons to this are obvious. Large amounts of people will lose stable employment. Firms and investors will control AI driven productivity, further increasing wealth inequality. Income volatility increases, worker protections and bargaining power decrease, and wealth/power are consolidated more.

A short term response would be increasing taxes on firms that benefit more from automation and using that money to create public employment in areas underallocated by the market (infastructure, ecological restoration, care work, etc). Historically think of FDR’s Works Progress Administration. In the long term, AI could reduce working hours and create better living standards, but only when paired with deliberate government intervention. I have heard anecdotally that in China, people are supportive and optimistic regarding AI in work because they see the government as using AI to do the aforementioned things. Compare this to the US where, besides those at the top, people are mostly scared. These reflect the different aproaches taken by the government.

AI can multiply currently existing economic and political incentives. As a tool in of itself, AI is neutral or mildly negative (AI slop). Structurally, AI in profitmaximising systems means increases in power for those already at the top. This is done by eliminating jobs, hollowing out expertise, and increasing capital and state power through data. Restrictions are needed on the systems around AI mainly, as again AI progess is inevitable but must be used in ways that reduce general inequality instead of increasing it.

Regarding AI in politics/government, this may be out there for many of you, but it could be implemented in helpful ways. For example, if AI could analyze bus routes and identify a more productive route, that would be a useful tool. The question is not wether AI can be used in government, but if it can be used to enchance democratic decision making. How far this should go remains an open question, one that should be grounded in governmental design rather than cult-like enthusiasm.

On Work/Bullshit Jobs

One of the most important pieces of political work I have seen in the 21st century is David Graeber’s Bullshit Jobs. While I would encourage you to read the book itself, the premise is that many people (perhaps 30-45%) work in jobs that are not meaningfully productive to society. These include jobs where little or no real work is done or where work is done but could be removed without any loss to society. Examples of the second include telemarketers, doormen, corporate lobbyists, and more. The first is more of general principle, such as an office job that has 2 hours of actual work per day and then the rest of the day has nothing, or worse, purposefully assigned pointless work to keep the workers busy.  

Eliminating or reducing (such as by cutting working hours) for these jobs is not bad AS LONG AS meaningful and fulfilling jobs are reasonably available. Think of jobs such as constructing nature trails, planting trees, working on a farm, teaching, building homes, and near endless socially useful tasks. The point is to use all our available time for practical purposes and to use the rest for leisure, and to find an allocating system that is both efficient and kind to workers. Don’t take this to mean slacking off or skipping would be allowed more than now, there should still be consequences for such actions of course.

There is more to Bullshit Jobs, and despite the somewhat unserious title, it is a highly informative analytical text that should be more talked about, and I highly encourage you to check it out. It’s funny as well.  

We can see the effect policy initiative could easily have with the Netherlands. The Netherlands has the lowest average working hours in the EU at 32 hours, making it effectively a 4-day workweek (which they are now starting to implement in policy). The benefits of this are great, with more energy, more time to be with kids and family, and a better quality of life, which in turn leads to a more productive worker.  

Additionally, as I have said before, AI also has the power to change the workforce incredibly rapidly, so we must use policy actions to both adjust accordingly and not fall behind in terms of work practices as well as protecting workers livelihoods.  

When regarding salaries, a meritocratic system where some people earn more than others is not inherently bad. A hard working corner store owner who earns a decent bit more than their neighbor or a popular book writer with a solid income arises relatively naturally due to differences in work ethic/skill. It is about two groups (which are sometimes the same): upper management and capital entrepreneurs. 

Upper management consists of people who worked their way up (or were handed through “connections”) through a company and now find themselves in a position where they both impact company policy while making 200x that of the lower worker. The amount of money made is unnecessary, and it is definitely not proportionate in the slightest to the amount of work being down. In fact, I would argue that your average worker has a more stressful and intense workday than their upper management and CEOs who reap the benefits of their success.

This is not to say that CEOs, CFOs, COOs, corporate lawyers, and the like have done nothing to deserve their position. Rather the positions themselves are structured to hold too much power. The incentive systems that reward ruthless advancement often elevates the wrong people, as they are the people who are most able to hurt others for their own benefit. It is no wonder that studies have found the rate for psychopathy to be much higher in business leaders (4-12%) than in the general population (1%).  

A healthy alternative structure would be one where workers earn similar salaries with modest differences based on stress, responsibility, and expertise. Bonuses can act as incentives, and workers would keep control of major decisions through democratic structures. Leadership would still exist and could impact decision making, but it would be accountable and genuinely earned. It reminds me of a description by a 17th century Jesuit of Indigenous American societies: “The chiefs command nothing; they have no authority to enforce… The only power of the chief is in his eloquence.” Leaderships power ought to be from trust, persuasion and knowledge, not from coercion or force.

Capital Entrepreneur’s are often smart and innovatively, usually building tech or systems that impact the world around us (positively and negatively). Think Elon, Zuck, Gates, etc. Nothing wrong with entrepreneurialism, as new inventions solve our old problems and improve the quality of life for many. Yet here, the owner has control over a product that can actively harm its users, such as with the negative mental health effects of social media. More importantly, they gain access to wealth they can use to influence elections for their own benefit and political interests, or to simply use their money in wrong ways (wrong up to interpretation). This should not be a feature in a democratic system.  

The problem is that most of their wealth is in stocks, so simple calls to “tax the rich” are basically virtue signaling. It is more ingrained in our current system, and I will work on my solution for this in section 2.

On the Fertility Rate

Here is a map of the worldwide fertility rate, with the current total rate around 2.25. The fertility rate, in its simplest form, is the number of births per woman. 2.1 is the general replacement rate, meaning that for every couple there would be 2 children, with the .1 to account for premature deaths.  

When you actually examine the map, most of the world, excluding Africa and south/eastern Asia, has birth rates below 2.1. There is some general concern about what this will mean for the future, and it’s not hard to see why. Advances in healthcare enabled more births to survive, leading to high birth rates over the last 200-ish years. As women joined the workforce and raising children became more expensive, among many other country-specific and general factors, large families simply became both less attainable and less desirable.  

There are two immediate “solutions” to decades of low birth rates, aside from increasing fertility itself. Raising birth rates is surprisingly hard to achieve (it hasn’t worked in Hungary, Russia, or South Korea, really) and is a much longer-term solution.

Assuming a country that does not pursue these solutions (which will be addressed later), we can first examine the potential problems of continous low fertility rates.  

For one, our economy generally operates under the assumption that firms aim for higher profits each year, and thus a considerable downsizing of the consumer base of a market will may require changes in how markets are structure and how economic success is measured.

It also means much greater spending on the elderly, as the longer lifespans enabled by modern medicine will be unaffordable for many. This is in addition to a higher and higher percentage of the country being elderly, which has negative effects on healthcare systems, pensions, and public finances.

This applies directly to social security around the world, which will require more funding and/or a reworking, as there is a lower percent of workers to support a higher precent of retirees.  

There are basically so many changes that it is hard to predict, with more severe changes for countries with lower birth rates. For example, here is South Koreas population pyramid.