We should analyze liberalism from a materialist standpoint and not treat the ideology of it as the primary factor. On the surface level, Lula and a lot of American/European soc-dem liberals will theoretically have the same philosophy, stated values and preferred policies. But the labor movement will be stronger and more principled wherever the concentration of industry and the proletariat is the highest. The semi-bougiefied imperial core proles have much more trouble staying principled or properly understanding the course of politics. The labor movement in the imperial core is coasting by on pure inertia from previous decades. Their gains are eroded by ever increasing rounds of austerity.
Technically yes, but he talks about building wealth evenly through social programs in his own country, which improves people’s lives and goes against historical austerity imposed on the global south, which could facilitate decoupling from western hegemony. This makes him theoretically better than a socdem in the west, who is limited to making wealth more evenly distributed, but ultimately still derives that power from plundering the global south. Being better just because of your geopolitical conditions is not guaranteed, however, as we have seen in recent years in Chile and Peru.
Yeah, there are global South allies who are technically libs (eg. Ta Nehisi Coates)
and
libs who definitely know they depend on the hegemonic western capitalist base, with its unequal 'exchange' and imposed IMF austerity, dollar rule, and interest rates....
Question: since Lula is a Global South socdem, is he a lib?
We should analyze liberalism from a materialist standpoint and not treat the ideology of it as the primary factor. On the surface level, Lula and a lot of American/European soc-dem liberals will theoretically have the same philosophy, stated values and preferred policies. But the labor movement will be stronger and more principled wherever the concentration of industry and the proletariat is the highest. The semi-bougiefied imperial core proles have much more trouble staying principled or properly understanding the course of politics. The labor movement in the imperial core is coasting by on pure inertia from previous decades. Their gains are eroded by ever increasing rounds of austerity.
Thanks for reminding me to
Yeah that's just pure idealism on my part, the economic base determines and constantly moves the superstructure
Technically yes, but he talks about building wealth evenly through social programs in his own country, which improves people’s lives and goes against historical austerity imposed on the global south, which could facilitate decoupling from western hegemony. This makes him theoretically better than a socdem in the west, who is limited to making wealth more evenly distributed, but ultimately still derives that power from plundering the global south. Being better just because of your geopolitical conditions is not guaranteed, however, as we have seen in recent years in Chile and Peru.
Yeah, there are global South allies who are technically libs (eg. Ta Nehisi Coates)
and
libs who definitely know they depend on the hegemonic western capitalist base, with its unequal 'exchange' and imposed IMF austerity, dollar rule, and interest rates....
Yes. He's a Lib with a neoliberal government, barely even socdem
There is a difference between liberals and fascists. Its slight and the liberals do tend towards fascism but they aren't there yet.