well my country is currently ran by the wife of a former president in a sort of bill clinton- hillary clinton political dynasty situation. her supporters are basically pampered college grad white collar people, amerisceptic national bourgeois, anti-corruption people, college progressives, and I guess now anti-crime hardliners. notably she has stopped paying large amounts of people in the public sector and I don’t want to say hires scabs against all the people protesting this because they’re not paid either they just want the possibility of being paid in the future
Well without even touching any of that you gotta remember can strongly support a politician's geopolitical moves without even having formed an opinion on how capable they are at home, that's how I feel. I was expecting Brazil, I have some criticism of Lula loaded up now darn.
communism is internationalist. it’s about supporting the proletarians of the world not supporting some in some countries and supporting capitalists in others. this is the basic amount of solidarity to be expected from comrades
the united states arrested our former president letting the democratic socialist take power lmao. you’re naive if you think demsocs actually oppose this “hegemony of the imperial core” whatever that would look like in practice
Hondorus sounds like an usual situation. Everywhere else in Latam demsocs like Evo get opposition because they take resources away from the imperial core by nationalizing them.
the resources are taken away from the individual owners ownership wise which sucks for those individual capitalists but aren’t taken away from the world market. the commodity relationship remains intact making it not against the west
I don’t have access to their correspondence but I’m gonna assume Áñez wanted power and opposed Evos reforms, the OAS didn’t want to see reduced exports and political power entrenchment, and Exxon probably donated a fair amount of money to allow economic liberalization to take place. I hope you realize people in our own countries have their own thoughts and motivations and aren’t just automatons that do what the CIA says. the coup in my own country was done by military generals upset over having their airbases turned over to civilian use as an example
How about Pedro Castillo? Does it upset you that online leftists reacted negatively to the lawfare coup against him, despite having already marked him as a kind of centrist milquetoast?
Nobody I can recall framed his actions as based anticolonialism, besides the fact he didn't really get to do anything, they just observed the financial, legal, and military pressures the core places on the periphery.
I’m not upset seeing people opposed to america meddling in other countries affairs. I think america meddling in other countries affairs is both bad for other countries short term and bad for america long term. I’m opposed to assuming that because a country appears to have a government nominally opposed to the united states it’s for the working class movement. this ideology has its roots in american trotskyist parties in the 60s like the worker’s world party and it’s global class war line. I consider my own government or the pedro castillo government to be better than the opposition by a large margin but I don’t consider either to be good
I don't think there are any "reverse nationalists" or "marcyists" or "campists" or whatever you may call them around here. I've checked. Quite the opposite. Every time SCMP or Jacobin says jump we ask how high before we double back.
That's not what an anti-war, anti-imperialist, anti-colonial perspective implies when it results in viewing geopolitical moves taken by far right anticommunists who have been cornered in a situation where it's in their best interests as overall good because it limits the exploitation of natural resources & labor power.
Most people have pointed to the supply shock caused by COVID and the inter-imperialist squabble that played out between Europe and the US fought through the Ukraine proxy war as being the straw that broke the camel's back & forced these moves which are pro-3rd world sovereignty.
I don't think people should jump to conclusions about this though like they have with Gabon recently. Not even an anti-French coup! Silly!
I don't find the refrain of "calling it a CIA coup denies the agency of people in the periphery" too convincing. Find me a person who won't point to elements which the CIA allies with domestically when there's been a coup. I don't think it's ever happened Ex Nihilo. Holding up a bible sends a pretty clear message about the alliance to be formed with Christian nationalism in North America.
you may consider marcyism to be non existent but marcy’s theories, in modified forms at least, maintains a high level of belief in the western or more specifically english cultural hegemony and in the united states specifically the PSL is a former marcyist organization and it’s the largest marxist leninist org in the country. and your explanation is falling on deaf ears when all I’m hearing is “don’t organize against your demsoc government because it’s fighting for national sovereignty against the united states” (sovereignty for national bourgeois who oppress all the same)
Man I'm just 360° noscoping these. Yeah you would have scolded Iraq War protestors.
all I’m hearing is “don’t organize against your demsoc government because it’s fighting for national sovereignty against the united states” (sovereignty for national bourgeois who oppress all the same)
The protest movement against Iraq II, meek as it was, resulted in the word Marcyite being thrown around quite a bit. And one of Slavoj Zizek's stinkiest papers ever
You just keep insisting there is a connection between basic anti-imperialist postions and dabbing on the global poor.
Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you but nothing I said should be heard as telling you not to organize for a better world, I wish you the best with that.
just because the word marcyite has been used as an unfair polemic doesn’t mean that marcyism hasn’t had much control over the literal successor organizations like the PSL or organizations filled with a lot of their members like the ANSWER coalition. and I can organize for a better world tomorrow today I complain about americans
Why complain about the sliver of Americans who take anti-imperialist positions because you view it as... a slippery slope into unconditional support of reactionary governments? You've got plenty of Americans who are more concerned with your country as a source of Poison Blood.
Our creditors, international electoral & financial organizations the EU+US+Japan+SK has dominance over, & our military training, aid, & intervention are what have amplified reactionary currents in Latin America. Not the PSL. You're tilting at windmills.
Feel free to be more specific with your actual grievances against these organizations.
I don’t have issues with americans usually mexicans are much worse and all the organizations you list and actions done are your government not you. why would I blame americans for actions done at the behest of capitalists? I blame the capitalists not the workers
even if every single american leftist has never said “don’t organize against socdems” and I can assure you there are people probably within this very post who think criticizing let alone organizing against someone like say maduro is western imperialism waiting to end venezuelan sovereignty I think the standard should be higher towards more solidarity and support within the international movement for each other
Sounds like you made some assumptions about my positions that dont actually apply then. Ive never even brought up Maduro. I am aware though that the ML party there opposes him and the Guyana situation. I dont want to jump to the conclusion that they are right just because they label themselves ML but i am inclined to lend them faith
Again i cant stress enough how unusual the situation in your country is versus the historical trends in the region...
The idea that the coup in Bolivia didnt have a strong imperial influence behind it is definitly heterodox. Obviously people there had their own motivations, but when i ask "why was Evo couped" i mean "why was it backed by imperial powers"
Also you understand that the CIA and state department serve the needs of those "individual capitalists" that stand to lose right?
This makes me wonder your thoughts on things like Hong Kong and the color revolutions.
assuming the CIA played a role in the bolivia coup which it might have it doesn’t say much at all. the CIA has supported people are far left as pol pot to as far right as the mujahideen, neither of which liberalized their respective countries. with the same logic the kaiser sending lenin to russia makes lenin an agent of german authoritarianism. these “historical trends” of my region only make sense from an outsiders perspective trying to come up with a simplified narrative
Pol Pot wasnt a genuine communist so idk why that example. Surely you dont deny that the imperial hegemon has motives in their imperial actions and things can be read from that?
Reading a bit about your situation in Hondorus, i have my doubts a socdem takeover was even the intention of what the US did. I also have no idea how US friendly Xiomara even is. Is she nationalizing resources? Is she doing anything to upset the US or the capitalists thereof at all?
what does pol pot being a genuine or not communist have to do with anything? it’s pretty obvious he was supported by the united states because he opposed vietnam and vietnam was allied to the soviet union and expanding the Soviet bloc. not everything the US does is about stopping countries from nationalizing resources or to open up markets
yeah and the united states supported mexico when it nationalized its oil and gas in 1938 under the PRI and the saudis when it granted an oil concession in 1933 giving themselves majority share. sometimes the us is more interested in stability than higher profits
We didn't support Mexico when it did that. We pulled our equipment out and made them start the industry more or less from scratch. It was only WW2 that made the US make concessions. How do you look at the Cardenas presidency and get THAT conclusion?
obviously the US didn’t support mexico in doing the nationalization but it supported Cardenas as leader rather than doing something like a coup. you’re pushing way harder in the other direction of making it seem like america oppposed this more than it did and all this belies my point that the US isn’t single-mindedly opposed to nationalization
The US had lost its boy Calles in Mexico, it couldnt do a coup. You are acting like the US not doing the worst possible thing means they didn't oppose it. Having written about this specific matter pretty recently, yeah the US hated Cardenas, but didn't invade or anything because Roosevelt was isolationist and it would be the biggest possible violation of the Good Neighbor policy. We are singlemindedly against nationalization, certainly in Mexico, obviously in Mexico. We just didn't have the means to stop it in that case, though we did try.
The US was blindsided by Cardenas, that was the biggest factor there.
america entirely had the means but choose not to and was obviously internally divided on the matter. you can’t claim america is single handled opposed to something but then they had another mind to not oppose that same thing
Overthrowing a government is not like flipping a switch. America was opposed but took the L. In the same way the US was completely opposed to various achievements in the USSR, but didnt move to stop them. The US is not able to exact its perfect will in every case, and under Roosevelt it played statecraft smarter not harder. That meant doing some realpolitik.
In the interests of a section of that state, though not others. Even in American politics there are competing interests. It wasn't in America's interest to let them nationalized, by ANY measure. Again we took all the equipment out, we took our ball and went home. However it was in the interests of FDR not to invade or coup Mexico, either because it would be too damaging to his pitch to the American people who had grown sick of interventions, or because they didn't have the means to do so. Or both, again Calles had become a US asset and him losing all his influence meant they lost all their influence. It had to be rebuilt.
Ugh I was gonna send you a link to a fantastic book on archive.org that I found super useful on the topic, but it is currently not borrowable anymore
https://archive.org/details/empirerevolution0000hart
The book on the construction of the CIA and those links in Mexico post WW2 is still available, It is not Cardenas focused obviously, but paints a picture of what had to be grown in Mexico for the influence the US would have starting in the 1960s.
https://archive.org/details/ourmaninmexicowi0000morl
The empire is not all powerful and at times it must tactically retreat
Ok so latam social democracies arent inherently worthy of support just because they call themselves that. But id say they are when they materially oppose American control of their countries or when America opposes them or tries to interfere.
No global south socdem has ever opposed American control is questionable, but no global south socdem has ever been opposed or interfered with by America is just historically illiterate.
It sounds like you just think your country is every country.
Are you concerned Maduro's destroying the legacy of the Bolivarian revolution, or do you expect me to believe that Exxon's deal with the Guyanese govt is something which benefits the working class there? I'm interested where you're going with this, since you brought it up.
I’m not south american and can’t speak to how good an ideology bolívarianism is. I only know a war over some empty jungles to support some nationalist claim to land doesn’t help the workers in either country. and that the communist party in venezuela doesn’t back maduro and considers him a rentier capitalist sitting on oil while the workers can barely afford bread
What do you mean by "some nationalist claim to land"?
Do you mean the claim that was ruled in the UK's favor with the US representing Vz bc of the Monroe doctrine? Which Vz has opposed for over a century? Which we are now enforcing again with the Monroe doctrine explicitly?
You believe all the Venezuelans who participated in the referendum are mistaken about their interests?
you’re using the term monroe doctrine pretty willy-nilly. it was a doctrine opposing imperial powers that weren’t america influencing latin america not to assist other imperial powers to divide up latin america. even still what does a treaty written up by the spanish empire have to do with whether or not venezuela is justified in starting a war. that’s like definitionally an imperialist war between venezuela and guyana. if americans had a referendum to annex canada to oppose british imperialism i’d also question the socialistic nature of that too
only time can tell but I’m gonna take the possibility as seriously as lula does and he sent troops to the border over the referendum. my own country has fought a war over stupider reasons 50 years ago so I’m not gonna count out venezuela
"Only time can tell" is a sweet way of saying you don't take what the people of Venezuela or Guyana have been posting about this seriously.
It's the US pushing their claim with the Monroe Doctrine literally the White House referenced it in the statement (we can debate whether they are double dipping on the Monroe Doctrine later) for Exxon Mobil to keep their deal where they get to
DRINK THEIR MILKSHAKE
with wild abandon that is pushing for a war. I don't think making some cynical "don't rock the boat" argument in light of that makes sense
This can all coexist with criticism of Maduro's policies, which I have seen welcomed by the Venezuelan government from a grassroots level. Not to gush.
How closely have you been following the recent events around this? How did you already take a position if you haven't read about the Exxon agreement the US wants to enforce? Sorry for being unclear before with "drink their milkshake" but it's a really juicy deal for the US with practically nothing for Guyana.
That's why SOUTHCOM is doing exercises around there. To threaten to attack Venezuela if their Guyana-Essequibo claim is enforced.
The US is acting as the enforcer of this claim by Guyana because it helps Exxon continue to steal from them. They're the ones pushing for war by making overtures like they're going to Gaddafi Maduro, which you'd have to be a defeatist or not very up to date on the US military adventures to believe.
you say “To threaten to attack Venezuela if their Guyana-Essequibo claim is enforced” which is just a euphemistic way to say if venezuela invaded guyana
I'm not being euphemistic when I say they have S-300s those things are specifically designed to destroy F-16s, but your framing of Venezuela as warmongering is totally baseless. Take notice of what's happening in Brazil other than troop movements.
how does brazil negotiating both sides to agree to no war not make venezuela aggressive? brazil still clearly believed tensions could escalate due to venezuela’s actions
Why are you implicitly accepting the authority of the US to build up military forces with Guyana to ensure Exxon can enforce their oil claim, knowing the International Court System is in our pocket? How is Venezuela being pushed away from that system so they can't reverse an illegitimate colonial legal ruling "aggression"?
maybe because venezuela did the referendum first and started building infrastructure with the military first? not to mention that venezuela’s claims are from a colonial legal ruling under the spanish lol. I don’t take sides between english and spanish colonial claims
That's not what you're taking a side on and you know it.
Even setting aside the necessity of breaking up the petrodollar (the diplomatic & financial power of which is directly implicated in the Gaza genocide) by securing more resource nationalism, the Guyana government has clearly not set out to negotiate a deal on behalf of the people, but in service of setting up a long-term deal with Exxon that is illegal for future governments to alter, that's how much they know they're about to head out the door with cash falling out of their briefcases. It is safe to say the oil is better off in the Venezuelan territory.
The weird logic here is you trying to dismiss the US role in this while also trying to uphold international lawfare against Venezuela and the Monroe doctrine. My argument wasn't the legalistic one, just getting into the origins of yours.
all i’ve understood is you hate america and see guyana as an america puppet so you support venezuela doing whatever and them happening to have a claim to the region going back to the spanish empire is just a convenient excuse
You're trying to use the same strategy people did last February, it's not going to work because only Fox News grandpas and weirdos who watch Jack Ryan hate Venezuela, whereas libs at large think Russians are animals.
Venezuela has asserted the claim over the Essequibo region since independence. The US interest is since oil was discovered in 2015. The US has no business in those waters.
Well I'm making you the epistemological black hole through which I perceive your country, congratulations.
well my country is currently ran by the wife of a former president in a sort of bill clinton- hillary clinton political dynasty situation. her supporters are basically pampered college grad white collar people, amerisceptic national bourgeois, anti-corruption people, college progressives, and I guess now anti-crime hardliners. notably she has stopped paying large amounts of people in the public sector and I don’t want to say hires scabs against all the people protesting this because they’re not paid either they just want the possibility of being paid in the future
Well without even touching any of that you gotta remember can strongly support a politician's geopolitical moves without even having formed an opinion on how capable they are at home, that's how I feel. I was expecting Brazil, I have some criticism of Lula loaded up now darn.
communism is internationalist. it’s about supporting the proletarians of the world not supporting some in some countries and supporting capitalists in others. this is the basic amount of solidarity to be expected from comrades
Which is exactly why we critically support things that work against the hegenomy of the imperial core?
the united states arrested our former president letting the democratic socialist take power lmao. you’re naive if you think demsocs actually oppose this “hegemony of the imperial core” whatever that would look like in practice
Hondorus sounds like an usual situation. Everywhere else in Latam demsocs like Evo get opposition because they take resources away from the imperial core by nationalizing them.
the resources are taken away from the individual owners ownership wise which sucks for those individual capitalists but aren’t taken away from the world market. the commodity relationship remains intact making it not against the west
So why was Evo couped?
I don’t have access to their correspondence but I’m gonna assume Áñez wanted power and opposed Evos reforms, the OAS didn’t want to see reduced exports and political power entrenchment, and Exxon probably donated a fair amount of money to allow economic liberalization to take place. I hope you realize people in our own countries have their own thoughts and motivations and aren’t just automatons that do what the CIA says. the coup in my own country was done by military generals upset over having their airbases turned over to civilian use as an example
How about Pedro Castillo? Does it upset you that online leftists reacted negatively to the lawfare coup against him, despite having already marked him as a kind of centrist milquetoast?
Nobody I can recall framed his actions as based anticolonialism, besides the fact he didn't really get to do anything, they just observed the financial, legal, and military pressures the core places on the periphery.
I’m not upset seeing people opposed to america meddling in other countries affairs. I think america meddling in other countries affairs is both bad for other countries short term and bad for america long term. I’m opposed to assuming that because a country appears to have a government nominally opposed to the united states it’s for the working class movement. this ideology has its roots in american trotskyist parties in the 60s like the worker’s world party and it’s global class war line. I consider my own government or the pedro castillo government to be better than the opposition by a large margin but I don’t consider either to be good
I don't think there are any "reverse nationalists" or "marcyists" or "campists" or whatever you may call them around here. I've checked. Quite the opposite. Every time SCMP or Jacobin says jump we ask how high before we double back.
That's not what an anti-war, anti-imperialist, anti-colonial perspective implies when it results in viewing geopolitical moves taken by far right anticommunists who have been cornered in a situation where it's in their best interests as overall good because it limits the exploitation of natural resources & labor power.
Most people have pointed to the supply shock caused by COVID and the inter-imperialist squabble that played out between Europe and the US fought through the Ukraine proxy war as being the straw that broke the camel's back & forced these moves which are pro-3rd world sovereignty.
I don't think people should jump to conclusions about this though like they have with Gabon recently. Not even an anti-French coup! Silly!
I don't find the refrain of "calling it a CIA coup denies the agency of people in the periphery" too convincing. Find me a person who won't point to elements which the CIA allies with domestically when there's been a coup. I don't think it's ever happened Ex Nihilo. Holding up a bible sends a pretty clear message about the alliance to be formed with Christian nationalism in North America.
you may consider marcyism to be non existent but marcy’s theories, in modified forms at least, maintains a high level of belief in the western or more specifically english cultural hegemony and in the united states specifically the PSL is a former marcyist organization and it’s the largest marxist leninist org in the country. and your explanation is falling on deaf ears when all I’m hearing is “don’t organize against your demsoc government because it’s fighting for national sovereignty against the united states” (sovereignty for national bourgeois who oppress all the same)
Man I'm just 360° noscoping these. Yeah you would have scolded Iraq War protestors.
Are the Marcyists in the room with us right now?
the iraq war where the united states invaded iraq or do you mean the gulf war where iraq invaded kuwait because I think you’re conflating them
seems like there are marcyites since it sounds like i’ve found their strongest defender
The protest movement against Iraq II, meek as it was, resulted in the word Marcyite being thrown around quite a bit. And one of Slavoj Zizek's stinkiest papers ever
You just keep insisting there is a connection between basic anti-imperialist postions and dabbing on the global poor.
Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you but nothing I said should be heard as telling you not to organize for a better world, I wish you the best with that.
just because the word marcyite has been used as an unfair polemic doesn’t mean that marcyism hasn’t had much control over the literal successor organizations like the PSL or organizations filled with a lot of their members like the ANSWER coalition. and I can organize for a better world tomorrow today I complain about americans
Why complain about the sliver of Americans who take anti-imperialist positions because you view it as... a slippery slope into unconditional support of reactionary governments? You've got plenty of Americans who are more concerned with your country as a source of Poison Blood.
Our creditors, international electoral & financial organizations the EU+US+Japan+SK has dominance over, & our military training, aid, & intervention are what have amplified reactionary currents in Latin America. Not the PSL. You're tilting at windmills.
Feel free to be more specific with your actual grievances against these organizations.
I don’t have issues with americans usually mexicans are much worse and all the organizations you list and actions done are your government not you. why would I blame americans for actions done at the behest of capitalists? I blame the capitalists not the workers
Im sorry but where are you getting the dont organize against them thing i still dont get that. I havent seen anyone say that.
even if every single american leftist has never said “don’t organize against socdems” and I can assure you there are people probably within this very post who think criticizing let alone organizing against someone like say maduro is western imperialism waiting to end venezuelan sovereignty I think the standard should be higher towards more solidarity and support within the international movement for each other
Sounds like you made some assumptions about my positions that dont actually apply then. Ive never even brought up Maduro. I am aware though that the ML party there opposes him and the Guyana situation. I dont want to jump to the conclusion that they are right just because they label themselves ML but i am inclined to lend them faith
Who said anything about you being a CIA mouthpiece? (I mean this facetiously.)
Again i cant stress enough how unusual the situation in your country is versus the historical trends in the region...
The idea that the coup in Bolivia didnt have a strong imperial influence behind it is definitly heterodox. Obviously people there had their own motivations, but when i ask "why was Evo couped" i mean "why was it backed by imperial powers"
Also you understand that the CIA and state department serve the needs of those "individual capitalists" that stand to lose right?
This makes me wonder your thoughts on things like Hong Kong and the color revolutions.
assuming the CIA played a role in the bolivia coup which it might have it doesn’t say much at all. the CIA has supported people are far left as pol pot to as far right as the mujahideen, neither of which liberalized their respective countries. with the same logic the kaiser sending lenin to russia makes lenin an agent of german authoritarianism. these “historical trends” of my region only make sense from an outsiders perspective trying to come up with a simplified narrative
Pol Pot wasnt a genuine communist so idk why that example. Surely you dont deny that the imperial hegemon has motives in their imperial actions and things can be read from that?
Reading a bit about your situation in Hondorus, i have my doubts a socdem takeover was even the intention of what the US did. I also have no idea how US friendly Xiomara even is. Is she nationalizing resources? Is she doing anything to upset the US or the capitalists thereof at all?
what does pol pot being a genuine or not communist have to do with anything? it’s pretty obvious he was supported by the united states because he opposed vietnam and vietnam was allied to the soviet union and expanding the Soviet bloc. not everything the US does is about stopping countries from nationalizing resources or to open up markets
Obviously not. But opposing latam social democracies is often about that.
yeah and the united states supported mexico when it nationalized its oil and gas in 1938 under the PRI and the saudis when it granted an oil concession in 1933 giving themselves majority share. sometimes the us is more interested in stability than higher profits
We didn't support Mexico when it did that. We pulled our equipment out and made them start the industry more or less from scratch. It was only WW2 that made the US make concessions. How do you look at the Cardenas presidency and get THAT conclusion?
obviously the US didn’t support mexico in doing the nationalization but it supported Cardenas as leader rather than doing something like a coup. you’re pushing way harder in the other direction of making it seem like america oppposed this more than it did and all this belies my point that the US isn’t single-mindedly opposed to nationalization
The US had lost its boy Calles in Mexico, it couldnt do a coup. You are acting like the US not doing the worst possible thing means they didn't oppose it. Having written about this specific matter pretty recently, yeah the US hated Cardenas, but didn't invade or anything because Roosevelt was isolationist and it would be the biggest possible violation of the Good Neighbor policy. We are singlemindedly against nationalization, certainly in Mexico, obviously in Mexico. We just didn't have the means to stop it in that case, though we did try.
The US was blindsided by Cardenas, that was the biggest factor there.
america entirely had the means but choose not to and was obviously internally divided on the matter. you can’t claim america is single handled opposed to something but then they had another mind to not oppose that same thing
Overthrowing a government is not like flipping a switch. America was opposed but took the L. In the same way the US was completely opposed to various achievements in the USSR, but didnt move to stop them. The US is not able to exact its perfect will in every case, and under Roosevelt it played statecraft smarter not harder. That meant doing some realpolitik.
do you mean to say it was in america’s interest to not coup mexican and to let them nationalize because I would agree
In the interests of a section of that state, though not others. Even in American politics there are competing interests. It wasn't in America's interest to let them nationalized, by ANY measure. Again we took all the equipment out, we took our ball and went home. However it was in the interests of FDR not to invade or coup Mexico, either because it would be too damaging to his pitch to the American people who had grown sick of interventions, or because they didn't have the means to do so. Or both, again Calles had become a US asset and him losing all his influence meant they lost all their influence. It had to be rebuilt.
Ugh I was gonna send you a link to a fantastic book on archive.org that I found super useful on the topic, but it is currently not borrowable anymore https://archive.org/details/empirerevolution0000hart
The book on the construction of the CIA and those links in Mexico post WW2 is still available, It is not Cardenas focused obviously, but paints a picture of what had to be grown in Mexico for the influence the US would have starting in the 1960s. https://archive.org/details/ourmaninmexicowi0000morl The empire is not all powerful and at times it must tactically retreat
Ok so latam social democracies arent inherently worthy of support just because they call themselves that. But id say they are when they materially oppose American control of their countries or when America opposes them or tries to interfere.
Doesnt sound like thats the case in Hondorus.
it’s not the case for any social democrats, they’re social democrats
No global south socdem has ever opposed American control is questionable, but no global south socdem has ever been opposed or interfered with by America is just historically illiterate.
It sounds like you just think your country is every country.
"Communism is internationalist which is why you need to stop caring about international geopolitcs and only care about Honduras!"
We're not dumb enough to fall for this thinly veiled national chauvinism
:think-mark: Honduras
You may notice that that person is not in the meme?
neither is maduro are you gonna say maduro isn’t beloved as a “resister against the imperial core”
Are you concerned Maduro's destroying the legacy of the Bolivarian revolution, or do you expect me to believe that Exxon's deal with the Guyanese govt is something which benefits the working class there? I'm interested where you're going with this, since you brought it up.
I’m not south american and can’t speak to how good an ideology bolívarianism is. I only know a war over some empty jungles to support some nationalist claim to land doesn’t help the workers in either country. and that the communist party in venezuela doesn’t back maduro and considers him a rentier capitalist sitting on oil while the workers can barely afford bread
What do you mean by "some nationalist claim to land"?
Do you mean the claim that was ruled in the UK's favor with the US representing Vz bc of the Monroe doctrine? Which Vz has opposed for over a century? Which we are now enforcing again with the Monroe doctrine explicitly?
You believe all the Venezuelans who participated in the referendum are mistaken about their interests?
you’re using the term monroe doctrine pretty willy-nilly. it was a doctrine opposing imperial powers that weren’t america influencing latin america not to assist other imperial powers to divide up latin america. even still what does a treaty written up by the spanish empire have to do with whether or not venezuela is justified in starting a war. that’s like definitionally an imperialist war between venezuela and guyana. if americans had a referendum to annex canada to oppose british imperialism i’d also question the socialistic nature of that too
Venezuela isn’t starting a war, so you can start by not making up nonsense like that to slander them?
only time can tell but I’m gonna take the possibility as seriously as lula does and he sent troops to the border over the referendum. my own country has fought a war over stupider reasons 50 years ago so I’m not gonna count out venezuela
"Only time can tell" is a sweet way of saying you don't take what the people of Venezuela or Guyana have been posting about this seriously.
It's the US pushing their claim with the Monroe Doctrine literally the White House referenced it in the statement (we can debate whether they are double dipping on the Monroe Doctrine later) for Exxon Mobil to keep their deal where they get to
DRINK THEIR MILKSHAKE
with wild abandon that is pushing for a war. I don't think making some cynical "don't rock the boat" argument in light of that makes sense
This can all coexist with criticism of Maduro's policies, which I have seen welcomed by the Venezuelan government from a grassroots level. Not to gush.
so you’re saying that exxon mobile existing in guyana is a threat of war to venezuela?
How closely have you been following the recent events around this? How did you already take a position if you haven't read about the Exxon agreement the US wants to enforce? Sorry for being unclear before with "drink their milkshake" but it's a really juicy deal for the US with practically nothing for Guyana.
That's why SOUTHCOM is doing exercises around there. To threaten to attack Venezuela if their Guyana-Essequibo claim is enforced.
The US is acting as the enforcer of this claim by Guyana because it helps Exxon continue to steal from them. They're the ones pushing for war by making overtures like they're going to Gaddafi Maduro, which you'd have to be a defeatist or not very up to date on the US military adventures to believe.
you say “To threaten to attack Venezuela if their Guyana-Essequibo claim is enforced” which is just a euphemistic way to say if venezuela invaded guyana
I'm not being euphemistic when I say they have S-300s those things are specifically designed to destroy F-16s, but your framing of Venezuela as warmongering is totally baseless. Take notice of what's happening in Brazil other than troop movements.
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuela-guyana-presidents-meet-amid-territorial-dispute-2023-12-14/
how does brazil negotiating both sides to agree to no war not make venezuela aggressive? brazil still clearly believed tensions could escalate due to venezuela’s actions
Why are you implicitly accepting the authority of the US to build up military forces with Guyana to ensure Exxon can enforce their oil claim, knowing the International Court System is in our pocket? How is Venezuela being pushed away from that system so they can't reverse an illegitimate colonial legal ruling "aggression"?
maybe because venezuela did the referendum first and started building infrastructure with the military first? not to mention that venezuela’s claims are from a colonial legal ruling under the spanish lol. I don’t take sides between english and spanish colonial claims
That's not what you're taking a side on and you know it.
Even setting aside the necessity of breaking up the petrodollar (the diplomatic & financial power of which is directly implicated in the Gaza genocide) by securing more resource nationalism, the Guyana government has clearly not set out to negotiate a deal on behalf of the people, but in service of setting up a long-term deal with Exxon that is illegal for future governments to alter, that's how much they know they're about to head out the door with cash falling out of their briefcases. It is safe to say the oil is better off in the Venezuelan territory.
Removed by mod
The weird logic here is you trying to dismiss the US role in this while also trying to uphold international lawfare against Venezuela and the Monroe doctrine. My argument wasn't the legalistic one, just getting into the origins of yours.
all i’ve understood is you hate america and see guyana as an america puppet so you support venezuela doing whatever and them happening to have a claim to the region going back to the spanish empire is just a convenient excuse
You're trying to use the same strategy people did last February, it's not going to work because only Fox News grandpas and weirdos who watch Jack Ryan hate Venezuela, whereas libs at large think Russians are animals.
Venezuela has asserted the claim over the Essequibo region since independence. The US interest is since oil was discovered in 2015. The US has no business in those waters.
deleted by creator