Capitalism: The modern day mode of conquest?

If money is king, as it obviously is, what stop a foreign power from simply "buying" their way to conquest? Even with checks in place on foreign donations, how hard is it to mark that kind of activity in an international economy? What if, say, Saudi Arabia used a Bitcoin, or cybercrime to "launder" money?

Maybe make a donation or two in a US Citizens (Either recruited, or a sleeper agent) offshore account?

I mean, non citizens can't directly donate, but that doesn't stop Starbucks guy from donating whatever he wants from foreign investments, does it?

Despite my criticisms of lobbying (and as a stoner I have many), I don't think it's quite as pernicious a problem as some would say it is. I think the presence of money leads people to assume the incorrect direction in a cause effect relationship.

For all the talk about the NRA "buying politicians," if it were that easy why hasn't the NRA bought the democrats? Are we to assume that the democrats have just this grand level of moral purity? I'll admit that it might add more incentive for the position, but I think it's more the case that the NRA and other such lobbying groups seek out candidates who already support their interests and donate to them because they'd like to see them win as they are rather than having expectation of a quid-pro-quo that didn't previously exist. Same goes for the abortion lobby despite how much I find that position morally reprehensible. I don't think democratic politicians are bought by planned parenthood, I think planned parenthood donates to them because they are already in ideological alignment.

The most effective solution is the responsibility and vigilance of the voters. They should keep an eye on their elected representatives to determine whether or not they represent their interests and for the most part I think that's what the public does.

The part where this is most troubling is in high stakes elections like the Presidency because of how binary the option is. Someone like Hillary Clinton for example, despite all her corporatism, despite her corruption and her cheating Bernie Sanders out of the primary via her influence in the DNC, people knew that and were still willing to vote for her.

I'm not holding that against the moral character of Hillary voters, in fact voter turnout in 2016 and her general lack of cult of personality when compared with people like Trump, or Sanders, or Cortez shows that people weren't particularly enthusiastic about her. They just felt that despite all of her problems she represented their policy interests better than Trump did.

So I think maybe it's also worthwhile in regards to this issue to keep a closer eye on and have more transparency from the DNC and RNC to make sure they aren't playing the role of the oligarchs skewing things heavily towards a preferred candidate that once selected people of that party have no other option but someone they inevitably disagree with more.

I'll also add that at least for America this is where the Judiciary comes into play. The Founding Fathers designed the Judiciary unlike the Legislature or Executive to be appointed rather than elected, in a position of Judicial oversight rather than the creation of new policy.

For the president and congress you need them to be elected so that they attain their positions based on the support of the people because policy creation is supposed to be responsive to the needs of the people. With the Judiciary the goal was to make it as uncorrupt as possible.

By having them appointed rather than elected, you avoid the temptation of money through campaign contributions, and put them in a position to vote their conscience without making them beholden to the trends of the populace or donations of campaign contributions.

I think cdtm meant on the international scale, in the sense of neo-imperialism. To which I say, well, yeah, that is already how it works. Poor nations get bullied by rich nations.

Real talk? Your time might be better spent building up fast food empires and pop music icons than making bombs. As a nation, probably easier to buy a seat at the table than it is to bomb your way there. Policies and policymakers can be bought. We live in a world where economic embargoes hurt more than leveling a capital city.

If there was a big economic difference between the buyer and the seller, this could work. For instance, a third world country, that probably has some form of governmental corruption, can be bought. If it was lateral purchasing, like the US buying into France; or China buying into Russia; I wouldn't put my money on it having much effect.

I think at this point it can be proven mathmatically that Socialism has done far more damage to the world then anything else...

So THANKS YOU DIRTY SOCIS!!!!