okay but like (not particularly educated take inbound)
the biggest gripe we have with social democracy is that it's fundamentally just a more equitable distribution of plunder from the global south, but that criticism doesn't really hold up when you ARE the global south and it's your resources getting plundered by imperialists
The criticism of social democracy ultimately boils down to "you're not doing a juche-style degrowth to decouple from imperial satraps". Which is fine and perfectly arguable on its face. But it does lead you to breeze over the policies social democrats are most commonly championing - public sector professional services free at the point of consumption - that would, in fact, get you some of that juche-style degrowth you said you wanted.
I believe he’s saying that, while social democracy in the global south doesn’t directly serve to cut imperialist ties, the policies implemented by social democrats will do some of that cutting in practice.
By Juche-style degrowth, do you mean a command economy? Socialism?
That's more the method than the end goal. Juche is about economic independence. Decoupling yourself from below-cost-of-production imports and waste-exports that an imperial state uses to enrich the core at the expense of the periphery. Command economies and socialist dictatorship of the proletariat can get you there. And one might even argue they're the only economic model that can get you there. But they still need to be pointed in that direction.
A communist economy in South American Country X that harvests lumber from the Amazon in Neighboring Country Y and fills in denuded landscape with landfills of waste generated by the consumption of the lumber isn't self-sufficient, even if its leaders are democratically decided and its capital democratically owned and operated.
degrowth
I don't see how this applies at all
I also don't see how decommodification would result in either a Juche system or degrowth (or Juche style degrowth as you put it)
I don't see how this applies at all
Asset inflation and excess waste production resulting from our Big Number Go Up strategy is undermining our ability to operate self-sufficiently without sacrificing quality of life. Any kind of economic restructuring is going to result in a huge nominal drop in the economic numbers that undergird the economy, and we need to be psychologically prepared for that if we're going to execute on necessary economic changes before they're forced on us by material limitations.
I also don't see how decommodification would result in either a Juche system or degrowth
De-commodification would, first and foremost, decouple the material resources upon which our economic forecasts are based. If you go into the economy and you decommodify energy, you're going to cause the speculative price of for-profit energy companies to crater. That's going to result in a large contraction in credit markets following a wave of defaults on debt. Big Number Would Go Down.
De-commodification and distribution of energy on an as-needed basis rather than a speculative basis would move us towards a system of self-sufficiency rather than one of artificial revaluation. Microsoft no longer having an infinite well of paper currency to buy from a finite well of fossil fuels for the purpose of generating electricity to run their entertainment machines would free up enormous amounts of energy for necessary living conditions.
Another big gripe is that social-democracy is just capitalism, and we are opposed to capitalism.
but that criticism doesn't really hold up when you ARE the global south and it's your resources getting plundered by imperialists
For the same reason, it doesn't work to materially improve conditions for the 3rd world. The only solution is revolutionary socialism.
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.
For the same reason, it doesn't work to materially improve conditions for the 3rd world. The only solution is revolutionary socialism.
Explain the massive gains in living conditions and worker power in Bolivia then
When Bernie starts saying shit like this my opinion of him will change:
"You don't know how happy I am today. For the first time in the history of this country, we've managed to put a communist on the Supreme Court, a comrade of the quality of Flávio Dino"
Those south american socdems hit different.
Under no circumstances would any of our global north socdems say something overtly praising putting communists in positions of power. With perhaps the sole exception of Jeremy Corbyn who was quite obviously only a socdem of necessity, it's clearly not his actual ideology.
To be honest, I was shocked when he said that. Lula, and the Worker's Party as a whole, usually shy away from name-dropping Communism, let alone openly praising it.
Lula is usually worried with having support from the right-leaning Congress, and honestly, he needs that support to be allowed to do anything as president, and openly saying what he said is sure to get him a lot of criticism.
Still, it was a nice surprise to hear that.
When bolsonaro stans attacked the airport, Lula denounced the “Stalinists” alongside the reactionaries but then paused and corrected himself, saying “Wait, no. Not the stalinists” then continued denouncing the reactionaries lol
Name-dropping communism astonishes you? Would Pol Pot astonish you?
Yeah, cause I thought he was dead. He's a pretty astonishing guy in many other ways as well.
this is funny because Pol Pot's group assumed control of the country for two years just calling themselves "The Organization", before 'revealing' themselves as the CPK. it probably was a bit shocking and astonishing considering the lack of socialism and cooperation with other socialists in the area
He also denounced communism and said western capitalism was the correct path to follow. It’s almost as if vaguely liking someone for one thing doesn’t mean you like everyone who shared the same qualities. I know it can be difficult for some people to grasp
You clearly don't know Brazilian politics, but I already explained how unusual that is for a leftist politician like Lula who tries to appear moderate to appease the right. He straight up said he was very happy because for the first time ever, the supreme court will have a communist minister (appointed by him). Dino being a communist was a fact that only the opposition was using, to attack him and his appointment for the supreme court.
"They accuse us of being communists, as if we would be offended by that. We are not offended."
"We would be offended if they called us Nazis, neofascists, terrorists. But never a communist, a socialist. That doesn't offend us. It makes us proud many times."
Not gonna lie, I don't remember that speech, but that was super based too!
My only point is that many people have name-dropped communism in history, and many of these people were counterrevolutionaries, reactionaries, utopians, liberals, social-democrats etc.
I don’t care that Lula thinks a communist is cool. I care whether Lula is communist, whether Lula belongs to a revolutionary communist party, whether the party is firmly linked with the masses and is actively fighting for the concerns of the masses — I could keep going but these things are not true. But yes it is true that Lula praised a communist. So did Pol Pot.
Under no circumstances would any of our global north socdems say something overtly praising putting communists in positions of power.
I think they do pop off, once or twice, before they get piled on by liberals and social fascists. Sanders was openly complimentary of Chavez's Venezuela, Ortega's Nicaragua, and Castro's Cuba a decade ago. Rashida Tlaib has been a vocal advocate for Palestinian resistance in Gaza as recently as a few weeks ago. You can find comparable statements from AOC, Ilhan Omar, and Cori Bush, particularly early on in their first campaigns and terms in office.
With perhaps the sole exception of Jeremy Corbyn who was quite obviously only a socdem of necessity, it's clearly not his actual ideology.
Corbyn is a great case study in how the national far-right media treats anyone even tacitly supportive of left wing governments and organizations. The British Press has made it some kind of contest to see how many times they can demand everyone in the Labour Party condemn Hamas, as a result of his Palestinian advocacy. Every third question in any given interview boils down to "Do you condemn?"
So there's a certain amount of attrition that occurs, as even the tangentially left-wing Congresscritters and Parliamentarians avoid these issues entirely because of the way the press hounds them in the most annoying way possible. Because national right-wing media narratives whip up constituencies into a confused and angry lather, and because left-wing media in this country is heavily curtailed and censored, it is difficult to have a coherent conversation about foreign policy that doesn't end with a bunch of liberals accusing a sitting Congresswoman of being the unibomber.
We're very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba but you know, it's unfair to simply say everything is bad," Sanders said.
“There were a lot of folks in Cuba at that point who were illiterate. He formed the literacy brigade,” Sanders said. “(Castro) went out and they helped people learn to read and write. You know what, I think teaching people to read and write is a good thing.”
He added: “I have been extremely consistent and critical of all authoritarian regimes all over the world including Cuba, including Nicaragua, including Saudi Arabia, including China, including Russia. I happen to believe in democracy, not authoritarianism.”
...
“You may recall way back in, when was it,1961 they invaded Cuba and the, everybody was totally convinced the Castro was the worst guy in the world. All the Cuban people were going to rise up in rebellion against Fidel Castro,” Sanders said, discussing the logic behind the Kennedy administration’s failed Bay of Pigs coup. “They had forgotten that he educated the kids, gave them health care, totally transformed the society.”
“You know, not to say that Fidel Castro or Cuba are perfect, they are certainly not,” he said. “But just because Ronald Reagan dislikes these people does not mean to say that the people in their own nations feel the same way.”
...
“The revolution (in Cuba) is far deeper and more profound than I had understood it to be” and encompassed more than economic policy. “It is a revolution of values in which people, instead of working for their own personal wealth, work for the common good.”
...
“President Kennedy was elected while I was at the University of Chicago, that was 1960. I remember being physically nauseated by his speech and that doesn’t happen often. He debated Nixon on Cuba. And their hatred for the Cuban Revolution, both of them, was so strong,” Sanders said. “Kennedy was young and appealing and ostensibly liberal, but I think at that point, seeing through Kennedy, and what liberalism was, was probably a significant step for me to understand that conventional politics or liberalism was not what was relevant.”
...
Sanders in the 1980s said Ortega had the right, as the leader of his country, to meet with the Soviets and offered a review of the Nicaraguan government under Ortega that echoed his comments on Castro’s Cuba.
“Is it a totalitarian country? No, it is not a totalitarian country. Are there civil liberties. Yeah, there are civil liberties. Is it a perfectly free country? No, it most certainly is not. Is it freer than of the most of the countries in Central America? Yeah, it is,” Sanders said. “Within the context of the misery and the lack of democracy in Central America, it holds up reasonably well. Is the Nicaraguan government always right? The answer is absolutely not. Have they made mistakes? Sure they have.”
...
“What surprised me about the trip to the Soviet Union was the strong degree of friendship and openness that both Soviet officials and ordinary officials have to us both is Yaroslavl and the other cities,” Sanders said. “Both the officials and the people were extremely generous and warm and I was very surprised by the degree in fact they like Americans and admire Americans.”
He attributed the ostensibly open conversation to his own willingness to speak directly about issues facing his own country, with specific mentions of the expensive housing and the outsized cost of medical care in the US.
“The other observation that I would make is that I was surprised to the degree of self-criticism, which Soviet officials were prepared to make about their own society,” Sanders said of the notoriously closed and violent Soviet government. “Frankly, I thought they would be there to tell us that everything is wonderful and that certainly was not the case. For example, they are absolutely open in acknowledging that they are not a democratic society.”
Is the nation imperialist?
If yes, social imperialists.
If no, social democrats.
Pretty damn simple.
Is there a list of the One Piece emojis? They keep surprising me and I love all of them
Nevermind, found the weeb section
All of these show up if you do "one piece" in the emoji search. No idea if there's others that aren't tagged properly.
there was a good reply by some smart lady about him on here, let me just find it....ah! Here we go:
the sole exception of Jeremy Corbyn who was quite obviously only a socdem of necessity, it's clearly not his actual ideology.
See? I said she was smart.
Yeah that was where the real distinction evolved. In Europe and the US opportunists were happy to redistribute the wealth of the global periphery to their nation's proletariat and call it socialism. The global periphery redistributing it's own wealth from its bourgeoisie to its own working classes isn't particularly evil though.
Latin American socdems: “I denounce capitalism and the west’s condescension and imperialism. It is evil, exploitative, and the Marxists are right. The violent revolutionaries of the global south were right. We must engage in capitalism in the current state of the world to survive, but we can and must do better”
European socdems: We are LITERALLY the only real socialists. Every other attempt at socialism is a failure. Who produces our energy? Whose labor allows us our privileges and benefits? Who knows! Magic! The browns are being too uppity which could end our high standard of living, so we need to support the US to secure our existence. What do you mean the collapse of the USSR means we no longer have leverage over capitalists?
This is a simplification of course. But no European socdem has given me the impression he cares about anything except himself these days.
You are being way too kind to European succdems. These slimy bastards doesn't want leverage over capitalists, they want to serve the capitalists.
Which Latin American socdem besides Morales said something like that?
Social democracy in the imperial core, premised on global south super profits, is different from a country historically exploited by the imperial core doing social democracy by taking advantage of its own resources.
Just wanted to chime in and say how proud I am of all my comrades for understanding the essential difference between geopolitical dynamics in the global north and south.
It's more along the lines of how the United States won't even allow social democracy as a release valve
I think South America can have little a social democracy, as a treat
Exactly like look at how Latam social democracies are treated vs the Nordics. Its obvious theres a material difference.
Western leftist:goes on huge rant
Latin American leftist: DBZ is pretty cool
it’s depressing seeing supposed communists supporting the incompetent and corrupt capitalist demsoc governments of the world like the one in my country
You're seeing the opinions of the western left, and in our countries our movements have only just been rebounding after decades of very harsh repression and propaganda, so it'll take more time, struggle, and political development for people to see the difference between social democracy and revolutionary society. It is unfortunate, but for now, many will be captivated by the former.
yours is not the only one captivated. mine and many across latin america are so captivated we actually elect these people to power lol. it’s fine anyway since I selfishly want the government in iran to remain in power long enough to kill israel you can selfishly want the anti-american governments to stay in power to oppose your country. also honduras is a western country too lmao
you can selfishly want the anti-american governments to stay in power to oppose your country. also honduras is a western country too lmao
Yes this is exactly the point being made here. Its not even selfish. Its just how Lenininst antiimperalism works. Wanting American hegenomy to be hurt as an American is actually the opposite of selfish?
Also for the last line, yes its in the western hemisphere but its not part of the imperial core. Which is why we carefully use that language instead. The tem "western" is fairly useless for this reason.
The tem "western" is fairly useless for this reason.
It's "useless" because only people who live in the west know what it actually means: western and white
Or in other words, European (minus Russia)Non-white people who live outside of the US/Northern Europe don't know. They're playing checkers while everyone else is playing chess lol
lesser of the two evilism has NOTHING to do with Lenin keep his name out of your mouth before actually opening a book for once
Sorry im taking my lead here from every ML ive ever encountered's opinion on geopolitics. If its ignorant i apologize.
Eta: honestly based on your post history i dont see you as someone i have to take particularly seriously lol
You are probably thinking about the foundations of leninism by stalin, specifically the chapter on the national question.
Relevant section being:
The same must be said of the revolutionary character of national movements in general. The unquestionably revolutionary character of the vast majority of national movements is as relative and peculiar as is the possible revolutionary character of certain particular national movements. The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions of imperialist oppression does not necessarily presuppose the existence of proletarian elements in the movement, the existence of a revolutionary or a republican programme of the movement, the existence of a democratic basis of the movement. The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such "desperate" democrats and "Socialists," "revolutionaries" and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its results was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism. For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptians merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British "Labour" Government is waging to preserve Egypt's dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are "for" socialism. There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger, colonial and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary step.
Lenin was right in saying that the national movement of the oppressed countries should be appraised not from the point of view of formal democracy, but from the point of view of the actual results, as shown by the general balance sheet of the struggle against imperialism, that is to say, "not in isolation, but on a world scale"
Revolutionary defeatism means opposing your own nation, not “both sidesing”. In effect, that means lesser of two evils thinking is inherent to revolutionary defeatism. I get if you are allergic to moralistic phrasing of the concept, but it does ultimately come down to destroying ones own empire above all else because it's what you have understanding of and any ability to influence. Which, when speaking of global events, de facto forces any Americans or westoids to first and foremost prioritize targeting "the greater evil" of the Anglo-American empire.
Biden is an imperialist. Why would opposing one's own empire lead to supporting one's own imperialists? Do you hear yourself? America is the "greater evil". Any pro-America bourgious politician of any stripe is an enemy and the "greater evil". The "lesser evil" is foreign influence and stuff like Russian money to spread anti-western propaganda (such as Richard Medhurst or Ben Norton do most likely)
you need to reread lenin he never said anything about “imperial core” that’s just stuff made up by wallerstein called world-systems theory and is neither leninist or marxist
Because in their times there were still competing imperial powers. There wasnt unipolarity at the time.
see I’m gonna trust lenin and marx over a yale and colombia professor who only has ties to the british. zero ML countries adhere to world-systems theory and for good reasons
Cuba and the DPRK dont see the United States as an imperial hegemon?
I don’t think either call it hegemonism that’s a chinese thing and even then there’s a big leap going from hegemonism to imperial core
So what is the view of imperialism in ML countries and how does it contradicr?
depends country to country at different points in time. obviously first i’d have to ask who’s side you were on in the sino-soviet split just as a baseline. or to go further, whether or not you support stalin’s decision to recognize and send aid to israel when it declared independence
Im not sure where i stand on those things need to read more. Just want to know where those countries stand today and how it contradicts the concept of an "imperial core"
the countries don’t exactly deliver press releases saying what imperialism is usually they just say “down with yankee imperialism”. do you want something like a curriculum on how the subject is taught in school? how these countries actually act?
Well you said they dont world systems theory so i assumed you had evidence of that. Saying "down with yankee imperialism" is hardly contradictory. They might not literally read Wallerstein but if youre going to deny his development of theory and its applicability to modern conditions (that Marx and Lenin never observed) based on what you think the DPRK and Cuba think about it i would assume youd have something more solid.
Che said that the United States is the belly of the beast. That certainly seems in line.
the onus is not on my proving they don’t follow some esoteric sociological theory of a foreign professor but on you to prove that they do. and no che using poetic license is not proof of a communist country following a hundreds of page long dissertation. next you’ll say iran follows it too since it says israel little satan and america big satan
I literally said that they may not read Wallerstein. The point is that the broad strokes are not contradictory to the concept of an imperial core existing. I was looking for ideas that actually materially contradict here. Honestly, i dont think you need to follow all of Wallerstein to use the term imperial core. If its useful for describing the current geopolitical situation, which i think it is, then its useful.
Honestly this all just seems like a nitpick to throw me off base. None of it contradicts my core points.
marxism isn’t about what feels useful and isn’t about what’s geopolitically common sense from your perspective. if you oppose communists overthrowing the government in my country and support the demsocs who want to continue capitalist relations and exploitation I don’t consider you a comrade in the same struggle, to put it as simply as possible
Literally what the fuck are you talking about, you've gone on for a dozen posts fixated on autism dragon's use of "imperial core" as a shorthand to describe key Western countries
key at what? what are you trying to say with it as a term?
When did i say anything about opposing communists overthrowing them lol? I support them against the west, not against communists. Youre reading things in that arent there, perhaps because of prior experiance?
I don’t think either call it hegemonism that’s a chinese thing
wrong
dprk: http://www.kcna.kp/en/article/q/90dfd7983762c4e09ba086c93f6c58b7.kcmsf
cuba: https://cubaminrex.cu/en/diaz-canel-there-historically-postponed-world-waiting-our-agreement-and-action
there's a ton of material released by the WPK and the PCC that talks about american hegemony
I’m going to trust the DPRK who have never been wrong over leftcom ultras who consistently get it wrong
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but no Latin American nations are included in “the collective west” which is purely white and rich nations. They don’t allow you in the club. Americans and Europeans don’t consider south or Central America white despite how white the local comprador classes consider themselves
you do realize south america is full of white people and is as rich as like croatia or whatever right?
This conversation is obviously a waste of time given people are trying to explain what the West actually constitutes and you're claiming that means those people are racist.
But yes, racism is very much essential to the concept of the West.
croatia is a majority catholic slavic country
You sort of hit the nail on the head there.
This was the portrayal of Germany in WW1, drawing on the 'asiatic hordes' imagery (dating back to and before when Europe was getting wrecked by Eurasian people):
Show
essentialist definitions of the west based on racial categories
Yes this is how the West defines itself.
you can ask anyone in the latin america world, which is hundreds of millions of people, and they'll tell you they're western due to historic and cultural and religious ties.
I agree entirely.
why even bring up the germany ww1 portrayal thing are you trying to argue that germany wasn't western until after ww1?
The point is that "Western" is a changing category (for those outside the five eyes anyway) without any rigorously defined criteria. Russia is a good recent example.
your argument against that is because you can imagine some reactionary in america or europe who would disagree?
I don't need to imagine that, and they do disagree. And the reason why what a reactionary thinks matters is because they are unfortunately have a great deal of power.
The point is that "Western" is a changing category (for those outside the five eyes anyway) without any rigorously defined criteria. Russia is a good recent example.
It's not a changing category. It's just Europe.
Within Europe, those borders can change. But nothing outside of Europeans (including European Americans) will ever be treated as "Western"
you can ask anyone in the latin america world, which is hundreds of millions of people, and they'll tell you they're western due to historic and cultural and religious ties.
lmao
Clemente: "I'm in the club too amigos!!"
Cletus: cocks shotgunthis is pretty much how that goes
No we recognize racism exists and are pointing it out to you. You are in denial
thousands of people who look like you, who were US citizens, were illegally deported to Mexico by US police. This would never happen to an indigenous inhabitant of an actual Western country, even if they were here illegally. Illegal immigrants from Poland don't get questioned on the street, while LEGAL US CITIZENS OF MEXICAN DESCENT get illegally deported: does that sound like people who are part of the same bloc to you?
I personally know light skinned US-born Indians, who would "pass" as any Latino ethnicity, perfect US-American accent, who were killed in broad daylight in the rural areas of Missouri and the police purposely ignored it
You are just not western and you never will be. You seem obsessed with being considered part of the west, but the reality is that you just aren't.
Nobody here is obsessed with race, our enemies are obsessed with race (and they know better than to admit it in public). So we learn quickly
As a European I can tell you that Croatia is not considered part of Europe proper. Its where we go for vacations and cheap booze.
It doesn't matter that they're white and Christian. They're Slavic or Balkan which means they're not "european" in the common conception.
Same goes for Slovenia.
The Czech kind of get an on/off perception of wether or not they're European. The Czechs are mad about this, since they are very obviously "culturally" european, however they're also an old east block country, which makes them slabs, which means they cannot possibly be real europeans.
Why does the US consider everything south of it its “backyard” and not Canada? I promise you the average American doesn’t think of some white German descendent when you talk about South America unless it’s Argentina
the monroe doctrine definitely included canada after it stopped being a UK colony. and what does americans thinking latin america being full of germans have to do with anything?
also if you're looking for "Germanic" looking people in Argentina you'll be pretty disappointed. They're basically 30% Native (Mapuche, Toba, and Guarani) and 70% Southern European (Spanish Italian)
Doesn’t matter, that’s not what people in America or Europe think and they don’t consider them in the club. The “collective west” and the “global north” and the “first world” are racist clubs filled with white people and nobody in those groups consider Latin America part of it
that’s not what people in the US think, perhaps, but you’ll be surprised to learn europe is a fairly diverse place with a range of opinions
I’m talking about the media classes and elite and rulers who use the terms. When they say “first world” they are not talking about a single country south of Texas
uh no? It's entirely the common people in the west too.
the average white westerner uses "North America" as a term that excludes Mexico, for god sake. Yes, whites are literally retconning the geographic term "North America" to constitute an ethnoracial zone which excludes Mexico, in the same way that they retconned the terms "Caucasian" "Indian" "continent" "Aryan" and many more, all of which had actual rigorous definitions but now literally just mean "white people"
any Latino who thinks they're "western" in any sense other than cardinal directions is beyond me, they've literally been doing this shit for 300 years kek
I agree with you. This user was being a pedant so I went with the most airtight argument and just accused western elites of being white supremacists instead of the majority of westerners as it’s easier to prove
media classes and elite in what country and language? different countries and different languages have different media and different terms. also first world is different from western
If it isn’t in English, German or French then it’s not First World it’s just Sparkling Collective West
It doesn't matter, almost everyone in Europe speaks fluent American English, and in 20 years' time you can remove the "almost"
European American culture influences Europeans 100x more than vice versa. Most Americans can't name anything about modern European mindsets or politics. Most Europeans know everything about America's dirty laundry and social culture.
europe is a diverse place with a range of opinions
not really
https://i.postimg.cc/MWGZ93zF/image.png
Almost every European country would not be willing to help Colombia if it had a major crisis.
The only Euro country majorly willing to help was Spain, which makes some sense considering the entire continent is partial descendants of them.But even then, Spain was less willing to help Colombia than it would other Southern European and even Northern European countries which are MUCH richer than Colombia.
Since Colombia is a Latin American country which was recently loosely allied with the West, doesn't have any major geopolitical disputes with them (unlike Cuba Bolivia Venezuela), and also since it's a very solidly "Mestizo" country (unlike Bolivia Peru) it is a very good proxy for basically any Latin American nation. Their opinion on Colombia, basically, is "as good as it gets" for Latin American countries.
You are not white and never will be, and the honest and emotional conception of the term "Western" is entirely based on race and collective racial interests of white people. Russia isn't in it because Russia wants more stuff at the expense of other Whites. Latin American countries aren't in it because they're not white.
I'm not sure why so much of the rest-of-the-world outside the West is delusional about this. Maybe they're projecting their natural goodwill onto white people lmao? Or maybe they're so ridiculously prideful that they're allergic to seeing themselves as an "oppressed group" that they'll deny the most basic evidence of reality in order to boost their ego?
Some of those results are very funny and interesting. Italy having a specific grudge against Germany that isnt even remotely mutual is my favorite. Followed by Spain being willing to help everyone, except the UK
You'll be surprised to know that people in Europe don't even consider most of Europe "western" and most definitely not middle or south America.
It's not about religion or culture really. Sweden and France doesn't have a lot in common, but they're both "the west". Poland isn't though. Spain just barely qualifies.
Are you being some kind of weird nazi pick-me, or are you just severely misinformed?
The average person in Mexico, Central America, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Peru, Chile, Bolivia, and like 75% of Brazil just doesn't pass as a white person here in the US.
that's like 90% of Latin America or 75% of South America. They're not white, they're admixed with Europeans. Just like Black Americans are.
I know a lot of you think you're white because you're lighter skinned than black people. Arabs and lighter skinned Indians also think that a lot of the time. They're not. Almost everyone in Northern Europe and Anglo America can tell the differenceand tbh even Argentinians don't really look that white to me on average.
Also, South America is FAR poorer than Croatia. Latter is $17k GDP per head. Average South American GDP is $10k according to stats, but these don't weight for population so small rich countries like Chile and Uruguay make it falsely larger. South America is dominated by Brazil whose GDP is $7k per head, so yea Latin American avg GDP/capita is something like $9,000 if we're being very optimistic.
And like somebody already said, Croatia itself is the periphery of the west
We're not "obsessed with race", we're just aware that the rightists who invented the social construct that is "the west" and talk about it all the time are. They're white supremacists. And "the west" is a white supremacist construct. Being aware of that is a good thing. I dont understand what your disconnect is.
Youre being so pendantic for no reason. Its widely understood that the modern concept of "the west" is a white supremacist concept. Regardless of origina. Thats how they justify things like America and Canada "belonging to white people". Thats how they justify all sorts of imperialist actions (the west civilizing the barbarians).
I can assure you that the vast majority of people in the world, and probably the united states, are not as clued up about white supremacist phraseology as you and when they hear the term western culture don't immediately start to think of roman salutes and blood quantum
Definitly wrong about the united states i can tell you that much. I mean they might not think of roman salutes but they definitly dont mentally include Latam when they hear the term. And its not how the term is used in our media either.
That’s the point of this convo though, it’s you Latin Americans who think they are white and western that are completely out of the loop. You don’t understand how racist the imperial core that draws the lines and makes the decisions actually is, and how little they give a fuck about you and your country. You are in denial about how racist the West is and want to be included in it for some reason when you should seek to destroy it
You are hating on the messenger (us, leftists) for revealing to you the truth about American white supremacists. Don’t get mad at us, take it up with them.
This is delusional. “The West” in modern sense is white supremacist. If you deny this you have internalized white supremacy
Look, neither you or I get to define what "the West" means. It is a racist concept, but that's the unfortunate reality of the situation. "The West" is not defined by who thinks they should belong to it, it's defined by the material reality of exploitation. It's nearly synonymous with "Imperial Core." If you're in the periphery, you are not part of "The West" no matter how much your society mirrors so-called western culture. Just as a regular worker is not part of the bourgeoisie no matter how much they want to be. There are the exploiters and the exploited. Latam, on the global stage, is exploited by the imperial core and there is no escaping that fact. The exploiters will never see it as part of their club because they're exploiting it! It's not like we (hexbears or leftists in general) see this as a good thing or want to perpetuate it. We want to tear it the fuck down. But we can't deny material reality, and it seems like that's what you're trying to do by insisting that Latam is western and getting mad at us for the fact that it's largely racism that determines who belongs to the in-group "Western" and who doesn't.
it’s a majority protestant country that speaks spanish. you think it has more in common with east asia or muslim countries or something?
you think it has more in common with east asia
Well, the Philippines is a majority Christian country that speaks English.
For another example, Zambia is a majority Christian country that speaks English.
The "West" is an overwhelmingly racist concept that produces bizarre things like the categorisation of countries in South America as not being western despite for example Uruguay or Argentina having a majority of people with predominantly European ancestors
the phillipines speaks over 100 malayo-polynessian languages and zambia speaks a similar number of bantu languages. neither of them speak english as a primary language nor do they have the same connection to the west that latin america does
Nah, they speak lots of English there. Being colonized they do have rather similar relations
they speak lots of english in vietnam doesn’t make vietnam western. and there are different types and styles of colonization and imperialism it’s not just a one mode thing
The "West" is an overwhelmingly racist concept that produces bizarre things like the categorisation of countries in South America as not being western despite for example Uruguay or Argentina having a majority of people with predominantly European ancestors
a ton of Black Americans also have predominantly European ancestors, I guess racism is solved since they're all "western" right?
You can cope or bloviate all you want about this stuff, but real white people know the score and are playing the game. If you're pale with at least brown hair and have an American accent then sure, you pass regardless of what your ancestry is
The "West" is and HAS to be a racial concept, because if it weren't basically half if not the majority of the world could be considered Western and the term would just be meaningless. The racial concept is also in accordance with how westerners (actual ones) act.
Yes, we are agreeing.
You can cope or bloviate all you want about this stuff
I think this is supposed to be directed to the other person who seemingly cannot accept that Honduras is not part of the "West".
I was disagreeing with this part of yours:
The "West" is an overwhelmingly racist concept that produces bizarre things like the categorisation of countries in South America as not being western despite for example Uruguay or Argentina having a majority of people with predominantly European ancestors
This is not bizarre at all.
-
Uruguay and Argentina are exceptions. The average person in most South American countries save Uruguay, Argentina, and southern Brazil have close to 50% Euro admixture. In some countries like Peru, Bolivia, and others, it's lower than 25%. And in some of those countries they still speak Native American languages in significant parts.
-
This Euro admixture comes entirely from southern Europe. Italian Americans were discriminated well into the 1990s (possibly even now), while Irish Americans lost their stigma in the 1930s. Looks matter. And South Americans' European ancestry comes from an already visibly darker population (Spanish rather than Germans/Anglos)
,
Also: Europeans have predominantly Middle Eastern ancestors. They're literally 60% Middle Eastern by blood (on average--it's closer to 80% in Southern Europe). However, they got extra depigmented due to dark climates and mixture with northern aboriginals. Guess what? They look different, so they are able to do racism based on these physical differences. Hence, European and Middle Eastern are different blocs, despite the former being majority derived from the latter.
Guess who also looks different from Europeans? Every single Latino population, yes even the Argentinians. Despite them being derived from Europeans, they are not European. It is visually obvious that they are not European, even if they are majority European DNA. And so racism can be done to them. And so they cannot ever be considered part of the same bloc.
And yes, there are technically "white Argentinians", this is irrelevant. Only 30% of Argentinians (I'm spitballing here) look unnoticable from a US white person to me.
-
I agree with you as a Guatemalan. I've always considered our countries part of the West and think it's a little patronizing how richer Western nations don't consider us Western. The diaspora like to push this idea that we're majority indigenous and that indigenous cultures are more prevalent than they actually are.
We're kind of like the Balkans. They go on and off as to whether or not we're included as Western or not.
I've always considered our countries part of the West and think it's a little patronizing how richer Western nations don't consider us Western
Don't you think that if your people are treated as second-class citizens in core Western countries, that you might actually NOT be Western in the eyes of anyone who actually cares about these terms?
Like, why can't you take the hint? Or have you really not figured it out yet?
How is observing reality patronizing? Why do you be want to considered "Western" so bad? Why can't you just be happy being Latin American?
person a: "you're dumb"
person b: "wow I've always noticed that my friend is so patronizing to me?"
person c: "uh maybe they're not actually your friend then"
person b: "wow your patronization is right on cue"You are person b. I am c.
that latin american people should be taken as having their own thoughts and motivations
You're free to have whatever thoughts you want, just don't expect to be treated like an actual Westerner when you enter an actual Western country
*unless you're really pale and can speak with an American accent. Then you will be!
The shared cultural heritage between latin american and "western in the strictest sense" countries seems to be weaponized by certain groups within latin american societies. Because of this, I don't think we should completely disregard what our comrade from Honduras points out.
So because compradors weaponize those western values instilled via colonialism, they should embrace those values? Define themselves by it? I don't know how you see the relationship of compradors re-inforcing white supremacy and "western values" and don't buck them off and reject them and seek to destroy them. Instead, you argue online with western leftists who want to see the west destroyed? Instead you embrace those colonizer's values as the TRUE IDENTITY of your country? WTF.
You are inverting everything and glorifying colonization. This "honduran comrade" is essentially making the exact same arguments as his comprador masters want him to, fully internalizing the colonizing values and making it part of their identity.
I just think it should not come across as surprising that a Honduran considers Honduras a western country
If they are a communist and understand history of colonialism then they wouldn't see themselves as western nor would they want to see themselves as western. They would see their country as "westernized" by outside, imperialist forces - and they must decolonize and "de-westernize"
That it would be more productive to point out that class relations within Honduras supersede such cultural ties, instead of antagonizing him with how much a northern european would not consider him western.
It's not "antagonizing" someone to just plainly and clearly state the truth of their peripheral status and that the imperial core would eat them alive in a second if they felt like it. Any allegiance or camaraderie they feel with "the west" is entirely one-sided and in their own mind and they must be disabused of this fantasy. Pathetic for any communist to really hold these views, makes it sound like they would be little different from their comprador masters in practice - trying to suck up to the west for membership still, still being good house slaves and running dogs. I only trust people who hate the West, want to distance themselves from it, destroy it, and purge it from their societies. Wanting to be included in "the West" to me is basically class treason, especially to start making white supremacist adjacent argument about how "The West" means Ancient Greece, and there's nothing inherently racist about the Greeks so modern day "West" also isn't racist just another grouping of peoples.
This is chauvinistic delusion that any communist should be ashamed to think. Then to try and shame us for being racist when they have so internalized Western white supremacy is another layer on top.
I've always considered our countries part of the West and think it's a little patronizing how richer Western nations don't consider us Western.
They don’t consider you part of their racist white supremacist club, that’s a fact. Why do you want to be in it so bad and consider it offensive when they don’t include you? It should be an honor to be separate from the West, the West TM is fascist scum
I'm palestinian honduran so I wouldn't even bother trying to argue with the few people I'd run into that seriously consider race what makes someone western. I still don't see why it matters so much to american leftists tho. is bashing on the west too awkward for them if you include poorer countries in the americas and balkans? I don't get the point in bashing anyway I'm not gonna feel guilty for being born in the west
Leftists have already figured out the difference between these regions, if you're curious. The Balkans are peripheral Europe. https://hexbear.net/post/1385667
Western can be a misnomer like global south. Half the time when I say NATO I'm mentally including Japan and Australia and occupied Korea. Japan and occupied Korea are pretty damn Western now depending on how you mean that.
I'm palestinian honduran so I wouldn't even bother trying to argue with the few people I'd run into that seriously consider race what makes someone western.
those "few people", aka the entirety of the population who actually cares about this shit lmao. Including the cunning ones who pretend to consider you guys "western" just for optics, and then support every standard right-wing American position
Nobody considers Christian, Portugese-speaking Angola to be "Western". Race is literally half the criteria.
I still don't see why it matters so much to american leftists tho
uhhh...because it matters to american rightists? If you spent a few months in America in a rural area with an Islamic name I think you'd learn pretty quick
"Western" = politically western European, and white
Russia isn't politically western so they don't fit
Poland used to not be western, but now is
Parts of the Balkans are part of the west (certainly not in the core though)
Japan and Korea are rich and vassal states of NATO, but are not white
America is technically mixed race, but the average white American is 98.5% white (and western european to boot), unlike any "white" person in any Latin country where even the least mixed people are still 20% Native admixedNothing in Latin America is Western in any sense other than cardinal directions. Yes, you're all Christian and part Spanish/Portu, but any "camaraderie" you see there is a completely one-way street--the people in Europe do NOT feel that way mutually about you, even if they don't get as violent about it as in the US. You could MAYBE make an exception for Argentina and Uruguay because it seems a lot of them (still not all) are close enough on racial criteria to "pass" visually. Places like Mexico and Colombia will never be western, because you can't be part of a group if your people get hatecrimed on sight (with no repercussions) in said countries .
i’ve been to rural america with an “islamic name” lol. you people are crazy
apparently not for long enough?
there's some Indian American kid (same skin tone as the average Colombian or Peruvian) who got put in a chokehold at his school in Texas and then suspended for 3 days while his bully got 1 day (no he didn't even fight back)
this happened in suburban Texas btw, I know people whose friends have been killed in rural areas of the plains states.
No, I think Latin America has more in common with itself. Tons of countries in Asia and Africa (basically every country) has significant and sometimes complete fluency in a European language, and are Christian, but not considered Western.
Not to mention that many Latin American countries and subregions have huge cultural influences from regional Native American cultures and enslaved Africans
Latin America has never received economic benefits from the Western umbrella in the way that the EU states have. And they probably never will, and their racial origin is the most major reason for this. They are not Western.
Latin America has been westernized by continuous economical, cultural, and imperialist influence by the United States (and other global north countries), it doesn't make sense to think of our countries as some non-Western society, it's inaccurate and a bad framework to try to change our life. Our religions have been westernized, our mode of production is capitalism, our cultural references are western cultural products, our music is dependent on western notions of what is "good" music. The products that we buy and we sell, that we most value are influenced by westernized perceptions of value.
Yes, there are bubbles, territories, regions, where this is not true, maybe even glimpses in everyday life, but it's not the case for the vast majority of people living in Latin America. We may not be part of the west in a historical sense, but we are westernized countries living in the world that the West has created for us with violence.
Latin America has been westernized by continuous economical, cultural, and imperialist influence by the United States (and other global north countries), it doesn't make sense to think of our countries as some non-Western society, it's inaccurate and a bad framework to try to change our life.
I'm going to paste what I said in another comment replying to another user just because it mostly applies here too.
Look, neither you or I get to define what "the West" means. It is a racist concept, but that's the unfortunate reality of the situation. "The West" is not defined by who thinks they should belong to it, it's defined by the material reality of exploitation. It's nearly synonymous with "Imperial Core." If you're in the periphery, you are not part of "The West" no matter how much your society mirrors so-called western culture. Just as a regular worker is not part of the bourgeoisie no matter how much they want to be. There are the exploiters and the exploited. Latam, on the global stage, is exploited by the imperial core and there is no escaping that fact. The exploiters will never see it as part of their club because they're exploiting it! It's not like we (hexbears or leftists in general) see this as a good thing or want to perpetuate it. We want to tear it the fuck down. But we can't deny material reality, and it seems like that's what you're trying to do by insisting that Latam is western and getting mad at us for the fact that it's largely racism that determines who belongs to the in-group "Western" and who doesn't.
We may not be part of the west in a historical sense, but we are westernized countries living in the world that the West has created for us with violence.
Absolutely. So you do see it is "The West" that unfortunately gets to define who belongs in the club, and it does so via violence. The West has violently created the world you live in, but that does not make the world you live in part of it, no matter how many people around you mistakenly think it does.
If it has been “westernized” then you are basically admitting right there it is not the west.
Yes, much of the world has been colonized and injected with white supremacist ideology, ie “westernized”. That doesn’t make much of the world “The West”
it doesn't make sense to think of our countries as some non-Western society, it's inaccurate and a bad framework to try to change our life.
wrong, it's the UTMOST FUNDAMENTAL basis upon which to change your lives
if Latinos can't even agree that they are their own bloc, then how do you expect change to ever occur? Imagine if China was 20 different countries, with squabbles about the North being "uhhh totally Mongol/Russian acktschyually" do you think they would have ended up better or worse materially? Obviously a lot worse!
why is India doing better than Nepal Pakistan Sri Lanka etc? Why do they have 300 nukes and a space program?
Because it's a union of smaller countries like Punjab Tamil Nadu Kerala and etc. India is still bad, but if there were a communist revolution there, there's nothing the West could do! While in a small country like Niger or Kenya, they can just overthrow it easily!and if the Indian nation-states (meaning Punjab and Kerala and Maharashtra and Assam) can unite, there's no reason that Latin American countries can't do so. The Indian ones have 4-10k years of uninterrupted history and ethnic differentiation, so I think a continent where everybody already speaks Spanish and Portuguese can manage the same thing
This is a conflation of different uses of the term western. There's cultural, economic, and geographic definitions for it, etc.
Also: if an average person from your bloc can get hatecrimed on sight in another country with no repercussions then guess what? that country is not a part of your bloc! Neither geopolitically NOR ethnoculturally! basic logic!
demsoc governments of the world like the one in my country
Sorry but which country? I know of plenty of countries with self proclaimed social democratic governments but not really any "democratic socialist" governments
There is one official Democratic Socialist country; the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
Right constitutionally, same with India. But Sri Lanka literally has it in the name which is funny
I see so you're talking about Honduras, I don't think people here know all that much about your country's government aside from being "leftists" and not explicitly pro-us, I never saw anyone waiting for xiomara castro to develop socialism.
Is there another leftist party challenging libre's hegemony on the left?
socdems in latin america period aren’t gonna develop socialism and there is no left wing opposition here
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
communism is internationalist
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
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)
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
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
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.
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
I'm from Nicaragua (hey neighbor!) and yes, I hate how much the online left loves and defends the "socialist" governments that govern our countries. I try to think it comes from a lack of knowledge, but a lot of the time it's them calling you a "useful idiot" just for daring to ask for a socialist party that doesn't criminalize abortion (after it had been legal for almost a hundred years!) just to ingratiate themselves with the Catholic church. The FSLN has made pacts with far-right parties, made concessions to Canadian companies so they can mine gold (and destroy our forests in the process), has had a great relationship with the old and new bourgeoisie, has implemented every IMF recommendation to continue the neoliberal policies of their predecessors, but Ortega makes his yearly speech calling the US an imperialist shithole, and that's enough for them to support him.
Im not educated on Ortega but it should be noted that MLs living in the imperial core offer critical support to worse things than that (Iran) in order to do revolutionary defeatism and hurt imperial hegenomy Doesnt mean we dont think comminusts living in Nicaragua shouldnt oppose him, they should.
But if hes following what the IMF is telling him it doesnt sound like hes doing all that much to oppose the west.
not knowing spanish definitely plays a large part but I think more importantly they don't have to be bothered to live in and experience these places so they're perfectly fine remaining some idealized mental construct. its easy for them to imagine third world countries being full of rabid america haters and the politicians there being diametrically opposed to all cooperation with america rather than imagine that they're the same kind of self-interested assholes you find across the world. if ortega nationalizes some gas station chain its because he hates the west not because he wants to make himself and his family richer. any action can be construed as "socialistic" if you view it through this anti-america lens
The idea that nationalization is about self enrichment is definitly unusual to me. Regardless of Ortegas motives it seems clearly better for the people of a country to have the resources belong to, yaknow, the country. Actual socialist countries nationalize resources too. Is nationalization really bad to you?
its not being owned by the country its being owned by a corrupt bourgeois family. honestly how naive must you be to trust these people while they pander to anti-americans. Ortega is probably the richest person in nicaragua its hard to say with howmany assets he has hidden but he is probably richer than Pellas
I have no idea what to think about Ortega but if thats true its not even "nationalized". If one family is taking the profits then how can you even call that nationalization?
What benefit do they get by "pandering to antiamericans" tho lol. Western MLs are a very small group of people we cannot provide material support.
Are you going to purity test every Latin American country for us? You could at least finish with Venezuela. 😭😭
I was gonna say I wish we would CW these particularly gnarly wojaks but I'd just click through every time anyhow
Anyhow this did several points of mental damage to my psyche thanks
Well, Lula did end up making Lulgags so maybe he's come around a little.
There's also a difference between social democracy and democratic socialism
Correct. Denying global imperialism another nation to pilfer is good.
Lula isn't doing that great in his 3rd presidency. We are seeing the privatization of prisons, a zero déficit policy and a continuation of a cap on government spending that is fucked up and that he promised to get rid of, but didn't. There's talks of his party, PT, allying with PL (Bolsonaro's party) on some stuff, tho I haven't looked into it to much. And there's a real possibility of the military police becoming basically untouchable and having more power and autonomy than they did during the military dictatorship.
There's other stuff happening that is not related to him, but that is extremely important, like the recent illegal privatization of water in the state of São Paulo by it's facist governor that ended in comrades that were peacefully protesting being beaten and arrested.
Of course there is good too like the economic growth and the recent abolishment (don't know if it is the right word to use) of debt for the people that were housed by the government, but we are seeing the limits of social democracy right now.
This shit is both depressing and enraging. If only the Lula that spoke in the UN was the same Lula that is governing this country.
Don't put too much faith into social democracies just because it's on the global south, comrades.
Thats good info to have, and i already thought putting Lula and Evo in the same meme was silly.
But, big question for me, has he stopped or curbed the burning of the Amazon?
I'm gonna be honest, I don't know enough about the situation in the Amazon forest, I really need to research about this, but doing a quick search it looks like he has done something to at least alleviate the situation, like send money to combat deforestation and fire, but I don't know to what extend it has helped, nor do I know how bad is the situation there.
