i’m not saying now, but maybe in the long run. which ones do you think are more likely to be able to produce one?
Haiti. Viv Ansanm is currently at war with the Comprador Government, the USA (through Salvadoran and Dominican mercenaries) and managing to hold their ground in Port-au-Prince.
America should stop installing presidents of Haiti
Would Haiti be considered Latin America? They’re undeniably linked to Latam politics historically and today, so I guess they could be considered Latam.
Technically the term Latin America is French-Colonial in origin, but even beyond that I don’t think there’s much distinction between the Romance Language countries and the other ones (Suriname, Guiana, Bahamas, etc) nowadays. I think calling everything in the Americas other than the US and Canada as geopolitically “Latin” is fair until we get a better name than “Sub-Chihuahuan America” lol.
I was more questioning it for myself honestly. Thank you for the information.
i’d say the only difference is maybe suriname guyana french guayan because they are very few people compared to the rest of the countries so it’s like you never encounter them in the wild. i’ve met people from all over latam either in person or in the internet but maybe never someone from there. also maybe because they’re either still colonies or acquired independence very late compared to the rest of the continent which could have isolated them more. but aside from that which maybe erodes a bit the sentiment of brotherhood i don’t see a real difference.
Haiti? I remember that they’re a in a failed state situation right now with gangs running rampant and now bukele is illegally deploying troops there . Is one of the gangs better than the other?
Viv Ansanm is a coalition of armed neighbourhood self-defence groups and “former gangs” led by Jimmy Chèrizier who styles himself as anti-imperialist and anti-bourgeois [1]. They’re the primary target of the foreign interventionists [2] and seem to be at war with El Salvador now.
As for the institutional crisis, this is usually the period of highest likelihood of revolution, when the popular forces and organisations can kill and supplant the “failed” bourgeois state. The gangs are also a symptom of neoliberalism and imperialism [3], but they’ve only become relevant now after so many years because some of them are a threat to capital. If you want to look into it, there’s this (simultaneously translated) interview with Jimmy Chèrizier on YouTube from a Kenyan channel [4].
[2] https://haitiliberte.com/government-drone-attack-on-delmas-6-neighborhood-kills-two/
[3] https://haitiliberte.com/understanding-gangs-kidnapping-and-class-struggle-in-haiti/
[4] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-scRKs0pj7w&pp=0gcJCXICo7VqN5tD
Everyone else was just saying the same vague thing and labeling them terrorists
That’s normal, it took me many years to fully trust Chèrizier myself. It doesn’t help that the only consistent reporting in Enlgish is Haïti Liberté (which I’m pretty sure is secretly affiliated with Marxist organisations, maybe the PSL), and I can only barely read French and can’t understand Kreyol at all, with most first sources being videos published on tiktok.
i think it definitely looks like the revolutionary force compared to the alternative, but do you not think maybe that’s simply rethoric? i mean a cop who now rules a gang doesn’t sound like a very welcoming revolutionary leader, specially since at least what i’ve read from him seems to attack the “oligarchy” rather than a proper revolutionary discourse. and i say this because that’s something heard in a lot of latam countries from moderate lefts who are a bit anti imperialists. here in argentina the peronists’s rethoric is essentially the same, they denounce the “oligarch” instead of the bourgeois. i’ll watch the interview, though, and he makes me think of ibrahim traore, but unsure if he can sustain a proper state afterwards. anyway, i need to watch that interview, it definitely seems interesting and maybe i’m wrong, so just asking from ignorance.
The oligarchy is how we call the bourgeoisie in many places Latin America. It’s a particularity of the economic development of our region, most of our territories were colonies, with big plantations and a rich landowner class. In most of our countries there was never a bourgeois revolution, which created a big industrial proletariat. What happened is that our landowners became bourgeois after they integrated themselves with the global financial capital. So we have a characteristic of having a small urban proletariat, mostly working in low tech services, rather than having an industrial proletariat. Most of our economies rely on extractive processes, like mining, agricultural exports and oil.
But you are right in your point that being a popular leader doesn’t make one automatically socialist. If there isn’t a strategy of development of productive forces and socialization of means of production, it’s very likely that a revolution, even successful, will simply replace the players of the game with other players. And imperialism will take over in the end.
supongo que estaba pensando mas en el peronismo que otra cosa, porque he discutido mucho con peoronistas y ellos te hablan de oligarca. si les menciones a la burguesia se te cagan de risa como si les estuvieras contando un cuento chino. capaz es una peculiaridad del peronismo y en otros paises si tiene la connotacion que vos describis. puede ser eso porque ademas estos togas te hablan de que ellos no son ni capitalistas ni marxistas, son “tercera posicion” pero de izquierda o una verga asi. que falopeada dios mio.
edit: ah you’re the brazilian comrade. sorry, here’s the translated comment.
I suppose I was thinking more about Peronism than anything else, because I’ve argued with Peronists quite a bit, and they always talk about oligarchs. If you mention the bourgeoisie, they laugh in your face as if you were telling them some far-fetched story. Maybe that’s a peculiarity of Peronism, and in other countries the term does carry the connotation you described. That could be it, because these clowns also go on about how they’re neither capitalist nor Marxist, but rather third position, albeit left-wing or some bullshit like that. What a load of crap, Jesus Christ.
Peronism is a strange political camp, with some weird mix of left wing and right ideas, imbued with some nationalism which can become quite chauvinistic sometimes. We had a political camp like this, Varguismo and Trabalhismo, but it died after the 1964 dictatorship. I hope another actual revolutionary revolutionary camp can dispute the leadership of the working masses.
That said, I think Argentina shares this trait of rich landowner class turned into a bourgeois-oligarchic class. Brazil, Argentina and Mexico are the most industrialized countries of Latin America, even though we are way more underdeveloped than the West and now East Asia.
Obs: Como un buen brasileño, entiendo un poco de Español, pero principalmente para leer y escuchar. Soy péssimo hablando o escrebiendo. ¡Solidaridad, camarada!
Thank you for the information comrade
Maybe it’s hopeful thinking, but I’d bet on Colombia. We put a fascist on power and half of people hate him and voted for him because “He’s not Petro/Cepeda”, so he isn’t a strong candidate with a supported party. And he’s doing stupidly dumb shit every day, so I don’t think his supporters will be pleased for long.
y porque pensas que haber puesto al gil ese va a ayudar en la revolucion? igual puede ser, yo senti que despues de petro se desnarcotizo un poco y eso capaz ayuda. el garron es que todas las guerrillas que habia ahi terminaron siendo oportunistas y las que no eran muy chicas. pero al menos tienen un poco a flor de piel la lucha armada que inevitablemente ayuda en ese proceso.
No es tanto que ponerlo sea bueno, el aceleracionismo no funciona. Es más que su mandato muestra que quizá su movimiento no es visto de una manera tan favorable y la gente se está cansando de él rápido.
Me gustaría poder apoyar a las guerrillas, pero no les doy el beneficio de la duda. Se han vuelto un negocio dedicado al narcotráfico y sus objetivos políticos parecen haber pasado al segundo plano. Espero más del Pacto Histórico y sus partidos aliados que de ellos.
Si tenemos suerte, van a echar a Abelardo antes de que termine su mandato. Pero no creo que esto tampoco sea una maravilla, viendo que el vicepresidente tiene el cerebro igual de podrido y tiene relaciones con el movimiento sionista en Latinoamérica.
Peru?
Bolivia
Second that. I think Bolivia has the more organized working class.
Brazil could be a candidate if the radical left managed to become the leading force in the post-Lula era. But looking at how things are in the current scenario, I don’t think it will be the case.
i think brazil is in a very similar situation than argentina, they have very big revolutionary potential but they’re very alienated. maybe even more so in brazil since the division between classes and race is way stronger. i remember that when bolsonaro won i saw some videos of neo nazi rallies with quite a lot of people doing the nazi salute. or at least that’s more or less what i’ve been told by some brazilian comrades.
The alienation of the people is not the main reason. Alienation is the result of bad or lack of political work (propaganda and agitation) among the working class. Not only this, but the workers’ party has been very bad in mobilizing people to even provide concrete gains for the working class, to a point that in the past they saw any street demonstration as something negative.
The problem is, mobilization is how people learn to struggle, how they get in contact with political ideologies and political orgs. Because of this, the far right captured the streets and were using leftist tactics to grow (the whole package, demonstrations, agitation, cells, study groups, centralized communication and command). The joke is, the far right is more Leninist than our current left (and they learned this with Olavo de Carvalho, which took part in the Communist resistance movements against the dictatorship in his youth).
We seem to be gaining back popularity because of our recent roster of Marxist digital influencers, because of Bolsonaro family blunders, and also because the far right program is always impopular. However the recent electoral win was simply huge, a phenomenon to be studied, and it created an impetus that I haven’t seen ever since the Workers’ party was in the presidencial opposition, before 2003. It has potential for something really big if the cards are played right, but at the same time if the left don’t play its cards right, the momentum will turn upside down, and will result in the Fascists gaining a lot of ground in the next elections. A big thermometer will be the municipal elections of 2028.
However Lula has already returning to his old way of doing bourgeois pleasing politics, and this is really bad. Our best hope is a group of the radical left (which is a bunch of people with different ideologies, some MLs, some Trots, some SocDems), that are working together to pressure the government to the left. If they play their cards right they will be the main political force after Lula retires from politics.
