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.
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.