If it doesnt materially improve conditions for the third world then why do Latam social democracies get opposed by the imperial core?
Pretty sure things are better in Bolivia under Evo then they would have been under the woman they couped into power there lol.
Obviously we all want revolutionairy socialism. But imperialism is the primary contradiction. So things that oppose that are worth some level of support.
Like ffs i do live in the imperial core and socdem policies materially improve my conditions. But i consider my socdems social imperialists anyway. Without the imperialism contradiction though?
If it doesnt materially improve conditions for the third world then why do Latam social democracies get opposed by the imperial core?
because anglos are mad about it. a global south nation-state could do full capitalism but economically align with china or russia and anglos would mald and do a coup or another libya.
Pretty sure things are better in Bolivia under Evo then they would have been under the woman they couped into power there lol
of course.
at leas MAS is "movement toward socialism". western/global north socdems are just trying to save capitalism and that's why they're moderate fascists.
Right. Doesnt sound likenwe disagre on much here. Whole point of me posting this is that global north socdems are social imperialists but the same cant he said of a social democracy in a country that isnt imperalist.
I do admit though that a latam social democracy isnt inherenrly worthy of support. Only if it resists imperialism.
Pretty sure things are better in Bolivia under Evo then they would have been under the woman they couped into power there lol.
I think an important distinction here is that Evo calls himself a marxist-leninist while socdems in the global north call themselves socdems and denounce communism.
Yeah they might be marxists doing social democracy out of necessity. But are they ideological socdems? Or is social democracy viewed by them as genuine compromise and/or stepping stone?
I don't think their goal is social democracy. Whereas that is the goal of the socdems of the global north, with nothing beyond it.
One group sees social democracy as an end, the other sees it as a means.
If it doesnt materially improve conditions for the third world then why do Latam social democracies get opposed by the imperial core?
Pretty sure things are better in Bolivia under Evo then they would have been under the woman they couped into power there lol.
Obviously we all want revolutionairy socialism. But imperialism is the primary contradiction. So things that oppose that are worth some level of support.
Like ffs i do live in the imperial core and socdem policies materially improve my conditions. But i consider my socdems social imperialists anyway. Without the imperialism contradiction though?
because anglos are mad about it. a global south nation-state could do full capitalism but economically align with china or russia and anglos would mald and do a coup or another libya.
of course.
at leas MAS is "movement toward socialism". western/global north socdems are just trying to save capitalism and that's why they're moderate fascists.
Right. Doesnt sound likenwe disagre on much here. Whole point of me posting this is that global north socdems are social imperialists but the same cant he said of a social democracy in a country that isnt imperalist.
I do admit though that a latam social democracy isnt inherenrly worthy of support. Only if it resists imperialism.
I think an important distinction here is that Evo calls himself a marxist-leninist while socdems in the global north call themselves socdems and denounce communism.
Yeah they might be marxists doing social democracy out of necessity. But are they ideological socdems? Or is social democracy viewed by them as genuine compromise and/or stepping stone?
I don't think their goal is social democracy. Whereas that is the goal of the socdems of the global north, with nothing beyond it.
One group sees social democracy as an end, the other sees it as a means.