So since I would consider myself a baby ML. I don’t really trust myself in being able to defend the history and the ideology of Marxism Leninism.
after talking with her about the disastrous effects free market policy would have on Cuba . We came to disagree on how much the embargo mattered. she blames that the under productivity and inefficiency of the Cuban economy is due to the restriction of a free market. I tried responding with that the two currency system solves that problem, but now I realize I probably should be knowing more before arguing.
We also discussed the US interest in invading countries that nationalize their oil. She admitted that there was an incentive to invade these countries. then she asked me why Norway with a nationalized oil production hasn’t been invaded. The only answer I came up with was that Norway is part of the US sphere of influence and participates with imperialism alongside the US. but I don’t feel like that’s a good answer.
If anyone could help me with these two topics that would be highly appreciated.
Norwegians didn’t commit 9/11 and they aren’t generally brown, not that ‘brown people are all terrorism’ has any validity to it, but it’s still a convincing casus belli for the US government to invade all of the ‘muslim’ countries (that weren’t of course their primary oil trading partner Saudi Arabia). The reason Norway is not invaded is because there is not a strong enough casus belli to justify invading them.