- cross-posted to:
- chat
You must log in or register to comment.
goddamnit FUCK these people, seriously, jesus fucking CHRIST
also:
handpicked successor
once more, my beautiful boys at Citations Needed absolutely hit the nail on the head
"He voices the legitimate grievances of many poor, and that is why he must be crushed like a bug."
-The USA, probably.
In other news, as of June 2nd 2021 AMLO has dropped his plans to nationalise Lithium mining that have been in the works since March 2020 and has instead drafted a 'business friendly' proposal that 'welcomes private investment'
I wonder if these two things are related in any way :curious-marx:
He's still going to get pushed out.
But there's less of a chance he gets Lula's out
Populism is when you at least pretend to give a damn about the poors. And the more you pretend, the more populister it is.
How does an "anti-populist" government function, democratically?
Yeah but according to centrist Libs that SERVED the right-populist Republican agenda.
populism isn’t an ideology
Libs treat it like it's one.
If we break down the entomology of the world it clearly means political figures who appeal to the wants of the populace, which, is how democracy is supposed to work. The way libs seem to use it is to refer to political figures who claim that they will disregard and/or blow through bureaucratic structures to force through ham fisted polices that appeal to the discontent of the general populace.
As far as I can tell Libs are basically arguing we should have a democracy BUT also have a technocratic elite who can make levies on democratic leader to prevent them from doing dumb shit the commoners want.
Etymology. Entomology is the study of insects.
Okay nerd!
Can't have an authoritarian government in a country with rampant narcotics traffickers
They consistently top themselves in terms of how elitist and psychopathic they are.
Known as AMLO
uhhh, his initials?
fuking POPULIST LEADER JFK MUST BE SNUFFED OUT
o wait
god damn these ghouls, they really know how fool you like they really care. I read the first part of the blurb and thought ok sounds good, but then the second part is so angering when you know the history of US' murderous roles in the Global South.
Why is everyone constantly freaking out about how authoritarian AMLO is or whatever?
Standard rhetoric for any foreign leader to the left of Pinochet.
hasn't mexico been a de facto one-party state until AMLO won the last election
EDIT: yeah, until 2000 when the right-wing conservatives finally won two elections in a row, what a fucking democracy
That's weirdly phrased like a threat... "Hey! Nice socialist uprising. You know, those tend to go... ahem... really badly."
Anyone know a micro version of The Take on amlo? The Mexican Reddit subs seem to fuckin hate him and constantly talk shit. I assume like all place subs theyre probably just reactionaries and I probably shouldn’t take them too seriously but I also don’t know as much as I should about Mexican politics.
Ah Ok thanks for the insight. That was the vibe I got too but that was the only opinion I had been exposed to and I wanted to kinda at least take in locals opinions in good faith but I def kinda figured that was the deal.
Amlo's a succdem.
He's about as good as you can get without significantly challenging the US in any way.
He's trying to incrementally expand the role of PEMEX, the state owned Mexican oil company so these absolute ghouls are gunning for him anyway.
Wait, a state owned oil company in Latin America? How did they manage that?
In very short terms: We forcibly bought a costly operation that was in productive decline, and the US had enough in its hands to make a big fuzz about it. Also, World War 2 was brewing and the US needed Mexico to fly planes to Panama so yeah.
Less short but still very short explanation: The oil worker's union went on strike. The oil companies were making huge bucks in Mexico, more than in the US itself, but their fields here were costly and in productive decline. No resolution between both parties could be reached, so the government had to step in so the country didn't grind to a standstill without oil. When President Cardenas presented the companies with terms, they laughed in his face (according to some, literally), so Cardenas laughed back with a paper that said the oil companies were now ours. The companies started a PR and boycott campaign to manufacture consent and tarnish Mexico's reputation, but the US was still grappling with the aftershocks of the Great Deppression, and FDR had already stated his "Good Neighbor Policy" of non-intervention. Also, Mexico at this time was very left-wing by the US' standards, but nationalistic, wary of foreign intervention, and very stable. There was concern that sanctioning Mexico or destabilizing it could push it towards the USSR. So instead of bringing FREEDOM to Mexico, the US State department mediated between the Mexican government and the companies to agree on compensation for expropriation, for around 200 million USD, which was payed definitely in 1962. You can still meet people from around that time who bought bonds to pay for the expropriation.
Also, thanks to this, Mexico sold oil to both Nazi Germany AND the US during World War 2. Ain't capitalism beautiful?
One day someone need to do an effort post on why reddit place subs are always so full of reactionaries.
It's not that hard to figure out... it's an American-centric English-language website that's easier to astroturf than probably any other website, and its main demographic is "middle-class" white people.
Also (at least in my country) until very recently the only people that knew english were upper class with a privileged education. Cant speak for every non-speaking country in the world but if you are using reddit you probably are part of the wealthier portion of the population and probably will be more reactionary than the average citizen of that country
Yeah I'm gonna guess there are probably close to zero indigenous Bolivians on Reddit, or indigenous anyone anywhere on Reddit.
The thing is, I don't think city subs are uniformly reactionary. Like there are two city subs I participate in (top 30 in terms of size) and they're solidly lib to radlib.
It looks like Biden, one year into his Presidency, is going to be way worse for Mexicans in Mexico.
This is a huge reach at this point. Just look at that second link: "The U.S. will continue to support." "Continuing" is not making the situation way worse, it's maintaining something that's already shitty. The NGO in question was founded in 2016.
The idea that Democrats are actually worse than Republicans on foreign policy is the worst take that consistently gets traction here. It doesn't stand up to even basic scrutiny -- Who started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? What did America's relationships with Cuba and Iran look like under Obama and Trump? -- it's just contrarianism. A big reason people become leftists is that the leftist worldview makes more sense than whatever neoliberal drivel they've been handed before, but takes this bad can get persuadable people to turn around.
The right take here should be familiar: Democrats are awful on foreign policy, but Republicans are obviously much worse.
At best, there is no difference.
The difference between bombing Libya and invading Iraq is somewhere around 2 million dead bodies. There is no comparison, no matter how bad leftists want to own the libs.
Democrats and Republicans have different views on how to maintain American hegemony. Since Vietnam (now old enough that the decisionmakers are not just out of power, but mostly dead), Democrats have shied away from full-scale invasions and occupations, which are more destructive and deadly to the target country. Democrats don't really care that invasions/occupations are more harmful to other countries, of course; what they care about is avoiding getting stuck in a war long term. They'll sanction, they'll bomb, they'll send in special forces, they'll drone strike, but they're not rolling in with the full weight of the U.S. military, taking over all the cities, and setting up an occupation government.
Republicans, on the other hand, are eager to invade and occupy -- as they did with Afghanistan and Iraq, and as they came close to doing with Iran. They did abbreviated versions of this (still more significant than nearly anything Democrats have done) in Grenada, Panama, and the Gulf War, too. You can find no shortage of high-ranking Republicans who openly want even more of this: John McCain called for "100 years in Iraq" and sang "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" in 2008, at maybe the height of opposition to the Iraq War, during his presidential campaign. And of course all the neocon stooges in the Trump administration nearly steered us into an invasion and occupation of Iran that would have killed millions more than the Iraq War.
"They're basically the same" is an awful take. It makes leftists look like we don't know what the hell we're talking about, because even a passing review of the destruction caused by each party shows there's no comparison at all.
Joe Biden’s involvement
Yes, a good chunk of Democrats have blood on their hands for Iraq. But the vast, vast, vast majority of responsibility lies with the Bush administration. That's who fabricated evidence of WMDs, called for an invasion (as opposed to continuing the past decade's approach, or setting up something like the Iran nuclear deal under Obama), and who ultimately pulled the trigger. These things aren't comparable and won't land with anyone who isn't already a leftist.
Has Joe Biden changed undone what Trump undid after Obama?
Again, this is a bad thing Biden continued, not something that makes Biden worse.
Generally speaking yes, though I would argue there is a grain of truth to it in terms of Trump since he was so unbelievably incompetent that he couldn't even get evil things done right (see: attempt to coup Venezuela, attempts to provoke a war in Iran)
The "he's too incompetent to do much harm" theory gets less plausible the closer you look at it, too.
The coup in Bolivia is the big counterpoint to the coup attempt in Venezuela. Clearly, the CIA was not that hobbled by Trump. This makes sense when you think about how closely Trump was involved in the ground-level details of these operations (not very) and how quickly the military/intelligence community figured out they could just do what they want and keep him in the dark:
“We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there,” Jeffrey said in an interview. The actual number of troops in northeast Syria is “a lot more than” the roughly two hundred troops Trump initially agreed to leave there in 2019.
The Iran brinksmanship also shows how dangerous even an incompetent president can be. Trump posted his way from a major diplomatic agreement to a near-miss that -- had it materialized into a war -- would have killed millions. His incompetence got us closer to the neocons' Holy Grail than we've been since probably 1988.
Saw a couple articles about building detention centers in Central America. Seems bad
