Yeah the US clearly has an open southern border. How could you not see that? /s

Alright so if I understand this well: Haiti under the French colonial rule did not have slavery during the times when the imported slave population exceeded some limit when compared to the French population there.

I will continue with a hypothetical: if for example more French came on a trip there and the not slaves would become a minority, there would all of a sudden be slavery there. And of course when they would depart from their holidays, Haiti would again gracefully abandon that heinous practice.

US did not ever have slavery! Because noone was slave there except black people if they were not free.

Some hard hitting facts right there. I betcha you didnt know this.

I dont think that he is particularly upset.

No see if one was to compare his advice take the one to the us planners that they should provide for example loans to the soviets it was completely rejected, as the us chauvinistically did not want to help.

Quote of whom?

First where does security concern equal “standing up to something”. Secondly what exactly do you mean by the concept of rational bias?

edit: do you know that some bolsheviks pragmatically supported capitalist policies as means to help the national economy and as transitional to communism. Your argument crumbles even in this respect.

Calling something by the wrong “name” is not exactly criticism.

The fact that his ideas were mostly not implemented is a matter of observation.

Quite a stretch of the word quote, is this wikipedia?

Well I would say that its precisely that the campism isnt strong when regardless of the fact that he is a capitalist, we can reject dogmatic criticism and ask for at least some rational basis.

Well yeah hes not a commie. He did not invent shock therapy, he considers this naming actually an insult. The soviet privatization is not representative because his advice was largely ignored both by soviets and amies. From your paste is also Ukraine missing.

But I partially agree that he talks diplomatically, so he wont always say exactly what he thinks.

No he typically tries to stabilize economies, thats his expertise. He tried to argue that the US should have helped russia economically. His advice was mostly ignored by soviets and later by Yelstin during the horrendous privatization.

But he is diplomatic, so yes he filters what he says.

Very good video explaining this german fanaticism. Also talks about their recent crackdown on migrants. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy2ju_qPtuM

Advocating against occupation doesn’t mean that you are against the state. When you criticize US for its war crimes, perhaps you only wish to stop them from committing the war crimes. This is more like the foundation of responsible patriotism. Not being servile anytime the newly elected war criminal wishes to commit more crimes. It just depends what kind of state do you want yours to be. In the case of apartheid, fighting for its abolishment is also fighting for democracy. Although I understand that this nonservility to criminal governments has always been difficult for germans.