Invading Mexico to End the Cartels

[Joij21]

Like imo the cartels are largely the consequence of US policy, the most dangerous people in the drug trade were generally either directly armed and trained by the US or armed and trained with money provided by the US for "security cooperation" to fight the drug trade.

But see this is the point, some American imperialist could just work with the cartels to maintain order over there and use their muscle to mercantilistically extract whatever's there of value, then transport it over here (or overseas) and refine/retail it for profit.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

This is about thinking that America's warmongering days are behind it.

Nobody thinks warmongering is in the past.

We're not looking to conquer new territory these days.

 

[Hygro]

LMAO I misread "very good at AP US History" as "not very good", dunno where that superimposition came from, sorry. Threw the convo off course I'll take the L for that.

I was about to be like "how can you write 'skool is in the past' when you brought it up?" and had to go back.

 

[amadeus]

You should have voted "No, never" because you'd be guilty of any warcrimes or humanitarian tragedies that would inevitably result from such an intervention.

My job would be to protect the USA. You wouldn’t?

Plus it's just not revolutionary it's counterrevolutionary since it's violence to help clean up a mess which the capitalists started, and you're gonna be one of their lackeys in helping dispose the bodies for them. Then they can just continue on and start something similar all over again in another place once they lose control over another puppet or extraction/refinement/retail zone.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Hint: commies do drugs too.

 

[Joij21]

Nobody thinks warmongering is in the past.

We're not looking to conquer new territory these days.

But the thing is such warmongering still happens so as to secure resources for capitalists, it's just done via nation building rather than colonies.

Capitalism is a mode of production whereby it creates various perverse incentives that certain individuals in their quest of "trying to catch up" may be tempted to get more money faster through Machiavellian manipulations that inevitably engineer wars (by bribing the political class to be their lackeys) of profit/neocolonialism (and in the past traditional colonialism).

 

[Joij21]

My job would be to protect the USA. You wouldn’t?

Well I'm just saying @Crezth wouldn't, believing the USA to be nothing more than hijacked/puppeteered by capitalist masters and so either must be destroyed (to hurt capitalists worldwide by getting rid of one of their tools of global control) or must instead be counter-hijacked through revolutionary and subversive means by a singular vanguard party of socialists to seize the USA statist apparatus and use it to quash, eliminate private enterprise, and counterrevolutionary modes of thinking among the USA peoples.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Hint: commies do drugs too.

The only reason they don't legalize drugs to end the cartels is because capitalists of the military industrial complex want a black market to exist that gives those groups lots of money so they can sell off their surplus guns in peacetime (when there are no wars and no contracts to sell stuff to the military) to such groups to keep the lights on and maintain their productive capacity without being forced to make the difficult choice of reducing it (which would then piss off the military class which works with them because then if a military crisis begins it would take the gun manufacturers time to increase the production capabilities back to full strength)

So in summary it facilitates an artificial "eternal war" that keeps the gun mills at full wartime capacity even in peacetime which they can just sell the surplus product with high turnover to opportunists at gun shows who then make extra profit trafficking to the cartels. And the American militarists turn a blind eye because it means those mills important to national security will never run the risk of potentially downsizing or going out of business in case things get too peaceful for too long geopolitically.

 

[Hygro]

The truth is there isn’t a “they”. The only reason we don’t legalize drugs to end the cartels is most Americans don’t really want to, to the extent we do, that’s a pretty new sentiment.

People think drugs are terrrrrible. That drug dealers are the worst criminals and users are bad people or at best victims who need help.

People are so threatened by feeling excluded or “not getting it” they attack the psychologically and physically safer drugs. People are so intuitively worried their worldviews and religious teachings won’t survive that level of alternate influence they attack it right at the source.

There are many motives for our collective reality, money and domination through money are just two.

Edit: as a kid the first time I saw someone on CFC say we should legalize all drugs for harm reduction reasons I was sick to my stomach at the idea. It was a super radical position. And I’m from where drugs are tolerated.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Edit: as a kid the first time I saw someone on CFC say we should legalize all drugs for harm reduction reasons I was sick to my stomach at the idea. It was a super radical position. And I’m from where drugs are tolerated.

 

[Joij21]

The truth is there isn’t a “they”. The only reason we don’t legalize drugs to end the cartels is most Americans don’t really want to

Except from a socialist perspective the only reason the people don't want to is because they are fed a program by the current ruling class to believe so.

And that current ruling class are the capitalists.

 

[Hygro]

Except from a socialist perspective the only reason the people don't want to is because they are fed a program by the current ruling class to believe so.

And that current ruling class are the capitalists.

I mean, yeah, but also no. We are our own cultural replicators selling our culture to ourselves. The mode of production is internet-sent schematics for things sold based on targeted advertising and clout-driven affiliations. Business executives are busy with office politics and trying to reduce their work as much as possible while maximizing their paycheck. That doesn't mean Phebe Novakovic isn't one of the world's most powerful people (she is), I agree central to our culture is the profit motive of the arms industry, no matter how actually small it is. It's just that Mark Zuckerberg is more powerful and he doesn't give a sh- about keeping the drug war alive.

 

[Crezth]

It does, but Mexico was undergoing a revolution then, which is emphatically not the case now. Like what we're seeing in the "border crisis" is arguably the medium-term consequences of the US's success in, sometimes literally, exterminating any revolutionary consciousness or revolutionary political formation, not just in Mexico but in the whole of Central America.

Like imo the cartels are largely the consequence of US policy, the most dangerous people in the drug trade were generally either directly armed and trained by the US or armed and trained with money provided by the US for "security cooperation" to fight the drug trade.

I'm not ruling out some kind of intervention with 100% certainty because Trump or another Republican could get desperate if under heavy political pressure, but I don't rate the chances of it happening very highly.

It's completely within the realm of possibility. We already do some pretty brazen stuff, so the military could very conceivably get behind it, and in fact it would solve a lot of problems for them (creating new ones (but who is counting)); but the real thing making it possble is that it can be purely political. Anything that really threatened the highly lucrative flow of imported goods from Mexico could trip some of the industrialist interests who count on the taps staying on. But also, it can be a good "extreme but fair" solution for a political opportunist who participates in a broader fearmongering movement. Now this might be ok if it had to be a Republican, because you can just choose to live in a world where Republicans will never get elected again (no matter how many times they do) - but you must consider it a possibility that a Democrat could do it too, if for no other reason than to take charge on an issue that was putting wind in the GOP's sails (something Democrats do not shy away from doing usually, because it is smart).

 

[Narz]

People think drugs are terrrrrible. That drug dealers are the worst criminals and users are bad people or at best victims who need help.

Old people think that. Increasing people are not thinking that. For instance majority have wanted legality of at least weed for years now

 

[Joij21]

Old people think that. Increasing people are not thinking that. For instance majority have wanted legality of at least weed for years now

He's taking about heavier sh** whereby the jury is still out there among the masses.

I mean, yeah, but also no. We are our own cultural replicators selling our culture to ourselves. The mode of production is internet-sent schematics for things sold based on targeted advertising and clout-driven affiliations. Business executives are busy with office politics and trying to reduce their work as much as possible while maximizing their paycheck. That doesn't mean Phebe Novakovic isn't one of the world's most powerful people (she is), I agree central to our culture is the profit motive of the arms industry, no matter how actually small it is. It's just that Mark Zuckerberg is more powerful and he doesn't give a sh- about keeping the drug war alive.

Oh, how naive of you sweet summer child for believing the tech lords wouldn't have similar perverse interests in keeping the drug war going.

Mainly they collect data on everyone who uses their social media apps on phones. Data which they can sell theoretically to get payed in public money from law enforcement agencies looking for known "drug smugglers" and their whereabouts.

You think that wouldn't lead to a perverse incentive? Whereby they'd lobby for certain substances always being kept illegal so they can get easy bounty money for everyone who tries to make a profit of the illicit in perpetuum demand?

 

[Narz]

He's taking about heavier sh** whereby the jury is still out there among the masses.

The heaviest drugs are already legal. More people die from prescription drugs than all this "cartel" stuff combined.

Mexicans, drugs, violence oh my. Dumbasses should grow up. It's like little kids fearing monsters, the real monster is indoctrination of bs by those with agendas

 

[Joij21]

The heaviest drugs are already legal. More people die from prescription drugs than all this "cartel" stuff combined.

Mexicans, drugs, violence oh my. Dumbasses should grow up. It's like little kids fearing monsters, the real monster is indoctrination of bs by those with agendas

It was an analysis not a synthesis.

 

[Hygro]

He's taking about heavier sh** whereby the jury is still out there among the masses.



Oh, how naive of you sweet summer child for believing the tech lords wouldn't have similar perverse interests in keeping the drug war going.

Mainly they collect data on everyone who uses their social media apps on phones. Data which they can sell theoretically to get payed in public money from law enforcement agencies looking for known "drug smugglers" and their whereabouts.

You think that wouldn't lead to a perverse incentive? Whereby they'd lobby for certain substances always being kept illegal so they can get easy bounty money for everyone who tries to make a profit of the illicit in perpetuum demand?

Oh you sweet summer child for thinking they can make productive use of data.

 

[Narz]

Julian Cesar was a sweet summer child, and Mike Tyson too. Iirc Alan Turning and Gutenberg share my bday.

But judging people by astrology is a bit goofy

 

[Joij21]

Oh you sweet summer child for thinking they can make productive use of data.

AI

 

[Arwon]

Edit: as a kid the first time I saw someone on CFC say we should legalize all drugs for harm reduction reasons I was sick to my stomach at the idea. It was a super radical position. And I’m from where drugs are tolerated.

I mean this varies, the idea made intuitive sense to me immediately in my late teens or so in the early 2000s, and I'm from a reasonably conservative social background. Albeit in a country that never really did mass incarceration over drugs in the first place.

 

[Lexicus]

I mean this varies, the idea made intuitive sense to me immediately in my late teens or so in the early 2000s, and I'm from a reasonably conservative social background. Albeit in a country that never really did mass incarceration over drugs in the first place.

I'm not from a particularly conservative background but I always understood that the police locking people up over drugs caused more damage than the drugs themselves.