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.
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.