There's a problem with that idea: who, then, was sponsoring the USSR?
Assad relied on Russia for military goods. North Korea depends on China for what little trade they have. When it comes to domestic support, though, "managing" that is a dictatorship's whole job; nobody can do it for them.
In a completely different way, but yes.
If your point is that China is awesome, why?
Really? If so, that's great news. It just doesn't seem true.
As far as I can tell, my support and effort for one, in it's struggle with the other, might not shift the balance much at all. Like, you try, but it just doesn't add up to much in the grand scheme of things. In that case, completely changing them both is out of the question.
Puerto Rico is complicated, since a lot of people there are pretty glad to be able to move to America whenever. Cuba is a straight example, but one exception just proves the rule.
It's true.
The version that's going around right now is more like that, though. Reagan is very dead. Free markets are out, blood and soil is in.
Man, I really hope people read this and take it to heart. Comfortable middle class Westerner who wants “OMG THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF THIS” is the average Lemmy user.
(That's me too, but only half way, and I don't want the complete opposite of anything)
It varies.
If it's someone who is, themselves, very well-off, it goes one of two ways. Either a deontological "property is inviolable and so it doesn't matter", or "this money is fair compensation for just how awesome I am". The latter of which implies they've already done enough for their lessers, so shut up.
"Only Americans are human, so yes, I guess we should help the American poor" is basically the MAGA answer. That also used to be the German answer. Some grifters also use the same logic, but with an even smaller group of people they care about, like just their own family.
Somebody else mentioned "it's the way it's always been/inevitable", but if you're educated at all, you'll know better, because nothing is like it was in 1700. So, that's not an answer to your question.
(You'll notice a common strain, that people tend to pick a worldview that's convenient for them, personally. That actually goes for the left wing, as well)
Well-intended, sure. Everyone is the protagonist of their own story.
Intelligent, maybe, although that's always going to push a person towards something a bit more nuanced. Other personality defects have to pick up the slack.
Educated, well, that depends on what they studied. Engineers and doctors don't really learn much that prevents you from being a bad person. It's hard to imagine a (modern) anthropologist buying into whatever fascist nonsense, though.
Do you have some examples of sheep dogs? The movement, as I've seen it, seems like a pretty straight continuum from sheep to shepherd. Either you're successfully grifting, a sucker, or both.
Yes, this is a real thing. The "right wing" right now covers both free market ideas, and the nationalist mercantalism thing that's actually succeeding in the polls. There's not much shared between them.
The correlation is there. It's there more generally for education level - more educated people are usually more left wing. (And richer, which is a bit of a funny situation if you're doing class war)
Obviously, there's exceptions. Somebody mentioned techbros, and economists can fall anywhere. Probably there's shitty nationalist historians still kicking around, as well.
This isn't exactly a new phenomenon, although as more people achieve greater education, it looks a bit different. You'll remember most of the Reich's great scientists ended up working on the Manhattan project.
In the US, you're probably not wrong. That ship has sailed, at least in the near term.
Reason number 1 for people in general is that it either costs more than zero or requires more than zero effort. Or, people who lean that way, anyway.