I’m gonna go Obama for my lifetime. He destroyed half of Black wealth. Was an open puppet for banks. He expanded the wars of Bush Jr. Destroyed many governments. Presided over the US being turned into an oil powerhouse. Made excuses for torture.
All while being lauded as a good man and a great president. Much like Lincoln he is the good cop with a smile with more than just blood on his hands. He is responsible for imperial innovation and took advantage of the historical moment to weaponize the evils of America in a way that everyone just accepted new and improved evils.
Imagine weaponizing the racism of your opponents as a way to wash your hands of the blood spilled while advancing a racist empire. This is the refined evil of Obama.
It took a Black POSUS to completely destroy the wealthiest country in Africa. He also officially jumpstarted the wave of sinophobia we have today, even though Trump gets credit for it. Still has deported more immigrants than any other US president. And all while rehabilitating the psychopathic image of the Democratic Party and sucking revolutionary energy away from an entire generation.
Even the problems today in Ukraine are because of him… maidan began on his watch. Things would have been fine with the status quo but amerikkka couldn’t help itself.
He even came clean in an interview that the US was responsible for the coup. He’s responsible for funding all that nazi terrorist incursions into the donbass.
Honestly almost all of them are more evil than most people in human history IMO. But not half as evil as the corporations and ultra elite that own them, that make all the real decisions, the Deep State, whose administration is immortal while America is Empire, and whose policies are always the first and foremost priority regardless of the near-ceremonial figurehead president at the helm.
Net damage is a debate that could last forever and never resolve, but personally the piece of smug shit who never ceases to piss me off would be Ronald Reagan.
I often wonder how much actual power the president even has to obstruct the bloodthirsty machinery of the American state. Like on day 1 do they just get locked in their office and shown the Zapruder film or worse? Or are they all just that devoid of basic humanity?
lol I love the zapruder theory, and is probably true considering how long its lasted.
But really tho, the US is not a monarchy, its a capitalist dictatorship… I don’t think there’s ever been a case where a US president has successfully gone against their capitalist masters and gotten away with it. The only possible time I can think of, was the new deal, where FDR had to campaign to convince capitalists to fund all the new deal programs.
i mean mckinley jackson his grandson ben harrison, monroe, and teddy all got years to do that at the highest command position of the us colonial state
i meant hes best as a us president bc he achieved nothing as a president. if we were talking about US governors, WH Harrison would definitely be one of the worst
I don’t think we should do that though. What leads to his climbing to the office should count. For example, we do count previous career of Xi Jinping into account how based he is.
i was just being silly. i’m not into depressing myself right now over tallying up how many atrocities US authorities committed over their far too generous lifetimes
Given the thoughts and information in my head right now it’s a toss up between Truman and Johnson. From what I’ve been learning, the American industrialists and financiers who had been collaborating with the Nazis may have been treated extremely differently had Wallace been VP when FDR died - up to and including charged with treason. Instead, Truman oversaw the creation of the modern intelligence agencies headed by some of those very same Nazi collaborators, and gave the order to use nuclear weapons. Later on, JFK was resisting the entire intelligence and military complex advice on basically all foreign affairs, to the point where LBJ was getting briefings JFK wasn’t. The warmongers behind the scenes knew who would and wouldn’t listen to them. One of the last things JFK did as president was emphatically state that there would be no military action with regards to Vietnam. Then he got shot, Johnson became president, and all the MIC’s hopes and dreams came true.
Truman was maybe the worst president, unclear to me whether he was the most evil, though. Truman seemed a lot like a useful idiot. A dim bulb sympathetic to anticommunism and also happy to let others make the big decisions. Either as a dope or actually evil, a lot of evil shit was established under his watch.
EDIT: sorry, idk why I thought this thread was evaluating usonian rulers by evilness.
I didn’t realize JFK was actually based. I know some terrible things transpired during his office (like all the rest) but I guess with this new information I wonder if perhaps he just saw through it and was just following what he thought was genuinely the right thing to do.
I think it goes to show that truly some people are good people just trapped in a wholly bad environment that is very good at convincing people on the fence to the work of evil.
Also I can’t imagine anything more terrifying as JFK that realizing they’re essentially grooming your VP to take your position while your body is still warm.
He did okay the Bay of Pigs invasion, though, which is a pretty big mark against him. (It also stands as probably the funniest US military fail up until Trump’s attempt to capture Nicolas Maduro got foiled by a bunch of Venezuelen fishermen just out doing their jobs). But I will agree that, along with FDR, he was lot less bad than many of the rest.
I don’t know if JFK was actually killed by order of the CIA or not – not discounting the possibility, just never really looked into it – but one of the most oddly chilling things I ever saw was footage of him and Johnson joking around at some public event not long before the shooting. To all appearances it looked genuine. If Johnson was really planning to kill him – well, it kind of makes you understand why Dante put “traitors to friends and guests” in the lowest circle of Hell.
Definitely, its been a while since I’ve read the correspondence between the 2, but Marx praised his recognition of the fact that labor created value more than anything else.
From my understanding, this idea is ahistorical and Marx and Lincoln had rather limited correspondence, insofar that Lincoln never responded.
The quote is usually portrayed as…
Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
However, if we continue...
Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class–neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families–wives, sons, and daughters–work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.
Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost. :::
The motherfucker is literally talking about the American dream of laborers becoming petit bourgeois. He declines to admit explicitly that class mobility is a fever dream, but admits that the ideal, incredible life for your average citizen is to aspire to deproletarianize and become a small business owner. And he audaciously claimed it’s a “generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all”. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, penniless beggar. Capitalism is here to stay and it’s utterly perfect the way it is. From my reading, Lincoln utilized an understanding of class politics the same way Bezos does today.
“He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country."
He does then go on to rightfully praise Lincoln for his actions against slavery.
Oliver Stone’s JFK: Through the Looking Glass was pretty informative I thought. Of course you also have people claiming he’s gone full tin-foil hat mode, but Oliver Stone did Ukraine on Fire, so I tend to at least respect his word.
A lot of information seems to point to it being the state department’s doing, including but not limited to Oswald himself likely being a friend-of-the-feds infiltrating communist groups and meetings, as well as spying on the USSR during his visit there. The official investigations behind the assassination were all certified clown fiestas, too, “we investigated ourselves and have found no signs of wrongdoing” lookin asses.
In recent history? Toss-up between Bill Clinton (who, because he was “liberal,” was able to get away with levels of austerity and warmongering that even Reagan couldn’t match) and George W. Bush (one of the worst war criminals in modern history, who somehow gets a free pass from libs because Orange Man Bad).
Going further back, I think the thing to understand is that none of them were particularly good – as Marx said, bourgeois revolutions and revolutionaries are at best ambiguous, and steeped in a whole lot of blood. That ambiguous character is more pronounced before the 1950s and the collapse of the British Empire as a major world power. Everyone knew that the US was comitting genocide within its borders, and that it was brutally exploitative to its own working class, but it was still some sort of counterweight to the hegemony of the British Empire. From Das Kapital, Vol. I Chapter 25:
Like all good things in this bad world, this profitable method has its drawbacks. With the accumulation of rents in Ireland, the accumulation of the Irish in America keeps pace. The Irishman, banished by sheep and ox, re-appears on the other side of the ocean as a Fenian, and face to face with the old queen of the seas rises, threatening and more threatening, the young giant Republic.
From the 50s on, the US stepped into the role of the former British Empire, and any government or president you get from that point on is the unabiguous face of imperialism and global capital. The only adminstration that maybe did some good was Nixon’s – he established relations with China, leading ultimately to the PRC being able to outmaneuver the US – and that only because he blinked, and Mao didn’t.
I agree, Clinton not only destroyed Serbia, opened Mexico and the Balkans up to neoliberalism, destroyed welfare, and gave a boost to the prison industrial complex, but he also was also a “skillful” groomer, using his authority over Monica Lewinsky to pressure her into an affair, and also being besties with Jeffrey Epstein.
Also, I wouldn’t say there’ve been no good presidents, for example, Marx’s penpal Lincoln ended slavery.
The Lincoln-Marx connection is rather overstated. Marx sent letters, Lincoln likely did not. There is often an attempt to rehabilitate Lincoln that I understand from a certain angle, it would be nice if they were not all absolute bastards and it would mean there is a unique, historically progressive force within Amerika somwhere that we can celebrate. Unfortunately, Lincoln is not worth rehabilitating, either. He was notably unkind to natives (as in, perpetuating violence unto them which he would not even grant confederates, because he was a racist settler https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/largest-mass-execution-us-history-150-years-ago-today/). His actions in office while commendable, stemmed only from pragmatism and a desire to maintain national cohesion (“preserve the union” 🤮) and Lincoln personally detested black Amerikans, from a speech given in 1858 for his U.S. Illinois senate bid:
I will say then, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters of the negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, of having them to marry with white people. I will say in addition, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I suppose, will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality, and inasmuch, as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man.
We got no need for this piece of shit. Amerikan revolutionaries are reflected in Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, John Brown, W.E.B. Du Bois, Malcolm X, MLK, Fred Hampton, Goyaałé, Helen Keller, and many more.
George W. Bush’s retirement paintings do make me wonder if deep deep down underneath the surface he is screaming in eternal pain from the weight of his sins…
As I’ve come to understand it, Nixon was more or less forced to establish relations with the PRC due to the “dollar dilemma” and related monetary issues. Of course Kissinger probably thought he could use the Sino-Soviet split as a wedge to get China onto his side as well, but the impetus of the whole thing was balance of payments and the contemporary birth of the treasury bill dollar standard.
True, but the only real reason Nixon established ties with the PRC was to use them to put pressure on the USSR, who back then was leagues ahead of China in industrial capacity and overall ability to challenge US interest.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !genzedong@lemmygrad.ml
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
If you haven’t already found it, this GitHub page is an excellent collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics, made by @dessalines and others.
Wilson sent troops into Siberia to try to quell the bolsheviks, so I’m gonna say that he’s my least favorite. Reagan is a close second
every single one gets the fucking wall, so does it even matter?
Ronald Fucking Reagan. American Fascist but americans thinks hes great
I fucking hate this guy as Margaret Thatcher. Sadly, in my city in Poland, there is a roundabout called his name 🤦🏻♂️
I’m gonna go Obama for my lifetime. He destroyed half of Black wealth. Was an open puppet for banks. He expanded the wars of Bush Jr. Destroyed many governments. Presided over the US being turned into an oil powerhouse. Made excuses for torture.
All while being lauded as a good man and a great president. Much like Lincoln he is the good cop with a smile with more than just blood on his hands. He is responsible for imperial innovation and took advantage of the historical moment to weaponize the evils of America in a way that everyone just accepted new and improved evils.
Imagine weaponizing the racism of your opponents as a way to wash your hands of the blood spilled while advancing a racist empire. This is the refined evil of Obama.
It took a Black POSUS to completely destroy the wealthiest country in Africa. He also officially jumpstarted the wave of sinophobia we have today, even though Trump gets credit for it. Still has deported more immigrants than any other US president. And all while rehabilitating the psychopathic image of the Democratic Party and sucking revolutionary energy away from an entire generation.
Even the problems today in Ukraine are because of him… maidan began on his watch. Things would have been fine with the status quo but amerikkka couldn’t help itself.
He even came clean in an interview that the US was responsible for the coup. He’s responsible for funding all that nazi terrorist incursions into the donbass.
hard choice but I’ll go with jackson
I’ll go with Reagan because he did all the worst shit in recent history and would very likely have owned slaves if he was born a few decades earlier
Jefferson
Honestly almost all of them are more evil than most people in human history IMO. But not half as evil as the corporations and ultra elite that own them, that make all the real decisions, the Deep State, whose administration is immortal while America is Empire, and whose policies are always the first and foremost priority regardless of the near-ceremonial figurehead president at the helm.
Net damage is a debate that could last forever and never resolve, but personally the piece of smug shit who never ceases to piss me off would be Ronald Reagan.
I often wonder how much actual power the president even has to obstruct the bloodthirsty machinery of the American state. Like on day 1 do they just get locked in their office and shown the Zapruder film or worse? Or are they all just that devoid of basic humanity?
lol I love the zapruder theory, and is probably true considering how long its lasted.
But really tho, the US is not a monarchy, its a capitalist dictatorship… I don’t think there’s ever been a case where a US president has successfully gone against their capitalist masters and gotten away with it. The only possible time I can think of, was the new deal, where FDR had to campaign to convince capitalists to fund all the new deal programs.
really hard to say who’s worse. but prob the best president was WH Harrison because he died a month into office
He climbed to that post over the dead bodies of Natives.
i mean mckinley jackson his grandson ben harrison, monroe, and teddy all got years to do that at the highest command position of the us colonial state
i meant hes best as a us president bc he achieved nothing as a president. if we were talking about US governors, WH Harrison would definitely be one of the worst
I don’t think we should do that though. What leads to his climbing to the office should count. For example, we do count previous career of Xi Jinping into account how based he is.
i was just being silly. i’m not into depressing myself right now over tallying up how many atrocities US authorities committed over their far too generous lifetimes
Given the thoughts and information in my head right now it’s a toss up between Truman and Johnson. From what I’ve been learning, the American industrialists and financiers who had been collaborating with the Nazis may have been treated extremely differently had Wallace been VP when FDR died - up to and including charged with treason. Instead, Truman oversaw the creation of the modern intelligence agencies headed by some of those very same Nazi collaborators, and gave the order to use nuclear weapons. Later on, JFK was resisting the entire intelligence and military complex advice on basically all foreign affairs, to the point where LBJ was getting briefings JFK wasn’t. The warmongers behind the scenes knew who would and wouldn’t listen to them. One of the last things JFK did as president was emphatically state that there would be no military action with regards to Vietnam. Then he got shot, Johnson became president, and all the MIC’s hopes and dreams came true.
Truman was maybe the worst president, unclear to me whether he was the most evil, though. Truman seemed a lot like a useful idiot. A dim bulb sympathetic to anticommunism and also happy to let others make the big decisions. Either as a dope or actually evil, a lot of evil shit was established under his watch.
EDIT: sorry, idk why I thought this thread was evaluating usonian rulers by evilness.
I didn’t realize JFK was actually based. I know some terrible things transpired during his office (like all the rest) but I guess with this new information I wonder if perhaps he just saw through it and was just following what he thought was genuinely the right thing to do.
I think it goes to show that truly some people are good people just trapped in a wholly bad environment that is very good at convincing people on the fence to the work of evil.
Also I can’t imagine anything more terrifying as JFK that realizing they’re essentially grooming your VP to take your position while your body is still warm.
He did okay the Bay of Pigs invasion, though, which is a pretty big mark against him. (It also stands as probably the funniest US military fail up until Trump’s attempt to capture Nicolas Maduro got foiled by a bunch of Venezuelen fishermen just out doing their jobs). But I will agree that, along with FDR, he was lot less bad than many of the rest.
I don’t know if JFK was actually killed by order of the CIA or not – not discounting the possibility, just never really looked into it – but one of the most oddly chilling things I ever saw was footage of him and Johnson joking around at some public event not long before the shooting. To all appearances it looked genuine. If Johnson was really planning to kill him – well, it kind of makes you understand why Dante put “traitors to friends and guests” in the lowest circle of Hell.
Also speaking of US Presidents that were better than others, Lincoln used to write letters to and from Karl Marx
Lincoln was arguably the closest thing to a working-class president we USonians have ever had
Definitely, its been a while since I’ve read the correspondence between the 2, but Marx praised his recognition of the fact that labor created value more than anything else.
From my understanding, this idea is ahistorical and Marx and Lincoln had rather limited correspondence, insofar that Lincoln never responded.
The quote is usually portrayed as…
However, if we continue...
The motherfucker is literally talking about the American dream of laborers becoming petit bourgeois. He declines to admit explicitly that class mobility is a fever dream, but admits that the ideal, incredible life for your average citizen is to aspire to deproletarianize and become a small business owner. And he audaciously claimed it’s a “generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all”. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, penniless beggar. Capitalism is here to stay and it’s utterly perfect the way it is. From my reading, Lincoln utilized an understanding of class politics the same way Bezos does today.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/first-annual-message-9
Frederick Douglass had this to say:
He does then go on to rightfully praise Lincoln for his actions against slavery.
Oliver Stone’s JFK: Through the Looking Glass was pretty informative I thought. Of course you also have people claiming he’s gone full tin-foil hat mode, but Oliver Stone did Ukraine on Fire, so I tend to at least respect his word.
A lot of information seems to point to it being the state department’s doing, including but not limited to Oswald himself likely being a friend-of-the-feds infiltrating communist groups and meetings, as well as spying on the USSR during his visit there. The official investigations behind the assassination were all certified clown fiestas, too, “we investigated ourselves and have found no signs of wrongdoing” lookin asses.
Geopolitical Economy Report with Ben Norton, Aaron Good, and Seamus McGuinness, episodes on JFK:
https://youtu.be/5N5bs1IGLQo
https://youtu.be/vkslqu9_q0w
YouTube links were detected in your comment. Here are links to the same videos on Invidious, which is a YouTube frontend that protects your privacy:
Link 1:
Link 2:
Woodrow Wilson
George Washington.
Richest guy in colony who had the most to gain from independence.
He kicked off the whole shitshow
In recent history? Toss-up between Bill Clinton (who, because he was “liberal,” was able to get away with levels of austerity and warmongering that even Reagan couldn’t match) and George W. Bush (one of the worst war criminals in modern history, who somehow gets a free pass from libs because Orange Man Bad).
Going further back, I think the thing to understand is that none of them were particularly good – as Marx said, bourgeois revolutions and revolutionaries are at best ambiguous, and steeped in a whole lot of blood. That ambiguous character is more pronounced before the 1950s and the collapse of the British Empire as a major world power. Everyone knew that the US was comitting genocide within its borders, and that it was brutally exploitative to its own working class, but it was still some sort of counterweight to the hegemony of the British Empire. From Das Kapital, Vol. I Chapter 25:
From the 50s on, the US stepped into the role of the former British Empire, and any government or president you get from that point on is the unabiguous face of imperialism and global capital. The only adminstration that maybe did some good was Nixon’s – he established relations with China, leading ultimately to the PRC being able to outmaneuver the US – and that only because he blinked, and Mao didn’t.
I agree, Clinton not only destroyed Serbia, opened Mexico and the Balkans up to neoliberalism, destroyed welfare, and gave a boost to the prison industrial complex, but he also was also a “skillful” groomer, using his authority over Monica Lewinsky to pressure her into an affair, and also being besties with Jeffrey Epstein. Also, I wouldn’t say there’ve been no good presidents, for example, Marx’s penpal Lincoln ended slavery.
The Lincoln-Marx connection is rather overstated. Marx sent letters, Lincoln likely did not. There is often an attempt to rehabilitate Lincoln that I understand from a certain angle, it would be nice if they were not all absolute bastards and it would mean there is a unique, historically progressive force within Amerika somwhere that we can celebrate. Unfortunately, Lincoln is not worth rehabilitating, either. He was notably unkind to natives (as in, perpetuating violence unto them which he would not even grant confederates, because he was a racist settler https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/largest-mass-execution-us-history-150-years-ago-today/). His actions in office while commendable, stemmed only from pragmatism and a desire to maintain national cohesion (“preserve the union” 🤮) and Lincoln personally detested black Amerikans, from a speech given in 1858 for his U.S. Illinois senate bid:
We got no need for this piece of shit. Amerikan revolutionaries are reflected in Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, John Brown, W.E.B. Du Bois, Malcolm X, MLK, Fred Hampton, Goyaałé, Helen Keller, and many more.
I agree, we shouldn’t whitewash him, but we can also appreciate that he wasn’t the worst by president standards.
Not a single lib uttering the name of George W. Bush since Obama became president really kicked off my disgust of liberals
Literally the OG election rigging Christofascist destroyer of the Middle East (no not him alone of course but he always comes to mind with hate)
“Wow Trump makes me really miss W!”
George W. Bush’s retirement paintings do make me wonder if deep deep down underneath the surface he is screaming in eternal pain from the weight of his sins…
As I’ve come to understand it, Nixon was more or less forced to establish relations with the PRC due to the “dollar dilemma” and related monetary issues. Of course Kissinger probably thought he could use the Sino-Soviet split as a wedge to get China onto his side as well, but the impetus of the whole thing was balance of payments and the contemporary birth of the treasury bill dollar standard.
True, but the only real reason Nixon established ties with the PRC was to use them to put pressure on the USSR, who back then was leagues ahead of China in industrial capacity and overall ability to challenge US interest.
Poetry.
McKinley (1897–1901) made Amerika a global empire when he annexed the Philippines, Cuba, Hawaii, Guam, and Puerto Rico.
Clinton or Obama. Because they had just enough charisma to fool people into thinking they’re different from the rest of the ghouls
Bingo