You abandoned the topic in favour of buzzwords first babe.

Lazy buzzword deflection, if you were paying attention to the conversation you should know the context has remained consistent.

If you arent, you’re just responding emotionally for some reason. Seems like a waste of your time.

You’re confusing “countries can hold grudges” with “countries will permanently refuse mutually beneficial trade because of a previous administration.”

Countries don’t need to forgive or forget anything. They just need the trade to be in their interests.

Im British. I can see why you dogged on this for so long but there’s no gain in posturing here.

Realistically, there is no reason Canada wouldnt accept a favourable trade deal from the US if offered. That just isnt how the world works, if you think elsewise you haven’t been paying attention.

Yes with the implication being that you are being silly and im matching your energy while still conveying my general intent.

Keep up.

Because countries dont keep grudges with each other decades after the grudge initiator lost power.

Is that a frustrating attribute of a country with constantly shifting values?

Yes. Absolutely.

Will it stop anyone trading with them when those values are good? Not really, because at the end of the day holding grudges is for children.

That being said, if you slinging absolutes in outrage makes you feel better, I support that, you’ve every right to be outraged, but i’ll cant lie to you and say I believe your angry assertions.

Like I said, absolutes are for idiots.

You’re talking about the current situation, as you say, im talking about how it’ll go down the line.

Only the sith deal in absolutes.

Yeah totally, but it wont stop them from happening, it’ll just reframe the negotiations and the specifics they eventually land on.

And likely heavily in Canadas favour.

Why would they be?

Trump’s deal is bad because he’s economically illiterate and has chosen to follow the advice of a crackpot economist. That doesn’t mean every future US administration will share his priorities or approach to trade.

A subsequent government could quite reasonably decide that rebuilding a stable, mutually beneficial trading relationship with Canada is in the US interest.

Canada would be right to be suspicious and play hard to get at that point, and when that happens they’ll probably do quite well out of it.

And yet, watch what happens.

What you’re saying feels good in the moment, you’re right about that.

I highly doubt that, in a future with a less cunty US government it serves no one to hold a grudge.

Be careful about what’s offered, sure, but grace beats spite every time.

They’ll be crawling back with apologies that Canadians will benefit massively from in a couple of years.

Probably trying to avoid unintended defenestration.

Its a gradual process. Its not due to reach its peak for another few months afaik.

Submit to reality, take no action and apply no pressure.

I dont rate this advice.

Expect nothing, demand it anyway.

Disconnect.

Your detector is very broken, send it in for repair.

Marxism isn’t non-objective by definition. Your interpretation isn’t objective simply because it’s Marxist. You’re applying a particular theoretical framework to determine what these institutions “really” function to do, then treating that conclusion as proof that other frameworks are invalid.

And I’ve never claimed left and right are a simple spectrum. Something can be multidimensional and still permit relative comparisons along particular dimensions

I comprehend your point. I dispute the premise. You’re asserting that the purpose of unions in imperialist countries is to placate workers and maintain imperialism, and therefore their function can’t meaningfully be described as left-wing. That’s your Marxist interpretation of their systemic role, not an objective property that follows from their existence within imperialism.

But that’s the premise I keep asking you to establish. I haven’t analysed anything as though it exists outside the system. You’re defining any analysis of form as necessarily doing that, then using that definition to prove that it does. That’s circular.

The fact you cant explain this must be telling you something about your premise?

That explains why context matters, but it still doesn’t explain why analysing or comparing a part necessarily divorces it from that context. I can consider both the form of a policy and how it functions within the wider system. Where’s the contradiction?