Bulletins and News Discussion from January 27th to February 2nd, 2025 - Tariffs in Trump's Imperium - COTW: Colombia

Image is of Colombian President Gustavo Petro giving a speech at the UN in 2022.

Trump has arrived in office with the force of an avalanche; ~~ending~~ slowing a genocide on the one hand, while simultaneously promising a total nightmare for minorities and the poor throughout and outside the United States on the other hand. [edited for clarity; I do not actually think Trump has ended the Palestinian genocide obviously, I was making a joke - but the ceasefire is a genuine improvement in conditions for millions of people right now who are on the edge of death, so it cannot be dismissed]

It's still far too early to truly compare and contrast his imperial strategy with Biden's, but initial signs show that there does appear to be somewhat of a reorientation. Biden was famous for being two-faced; ostensibly offering aid and stability, while also blowing up your pipeline to ensure you did not actually have an alternative to his idea. Trump, meanwhile, seems only really capable of aggression, threatening several "allied" nations with what may as well be sanctions because of the economic harm they'd do. I suspect we'll be debating for a long time how much of this can be attributed to the specific characteristics of Trump, or whether he merely embodies the zeitgeist of imperial decline - a wounded empire lashing out with extreme violence to try and convince everybody, including themselves, that they can still be the world imperialist hegemon.

I'll admit it: I did not believe that Trump would actually try and go ahead with putting tariffs on basically anybody who annoys him. And while the threat could still be empty in regards to countries like China and Canada, Colombia is the first indication of the potential of his strategy. Despite some fiery words from President Petro, after Trump's administration revealed the punishment if Colombia did not agree, it appears that Colombia will in fact be accepting deported migrants after all. It's funny how that works.

Last week's thread is here. The Imperialism Reading Group is here.

Please check out the HexAtlas!

The bulletins site is here. Currently not used.
The RSS feed is here. Also currently not used.

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

1.1K comments

Not to continue belaboring the point but living in a single place and 'looking around' isn't sufficient to, again, dismiss half of all Latin America. That seems reactionary, to be honest. There are certainly Right-wing movements in Latin America that are still supporting the US but if it was as strong as you say we wouldn't see even the bit of progressive movement we've thus far seen over the last few decades, even evangelicals don't have that strong a hold outside of some Central American countries, although it's growing everywhere.
But I agree with you generally, actually. I just think the conditions you're mentioning with China and Russia are actually good examples. Both started working with the US when the US was at the top economically and not currently militarily aggressive towards them. As the US declines and starts becoming militarily aggressive, I do think countries historically dependent upon the US will begin to risk moving away from that dependency.
- As the US declines and starts becoming militarily aggressive, I do think countries historically dependent upon the US will begin to risk moving away from that dependency.
  Let's say the US declines. Hard. And becomes as much a Great Power as, say, Russia.
  Isn't the Ukraine War a pretty good example of the limits of that risk taking? How about a war over Taiwan? These are disastrous scenarios and we are assuming that the US isn't in charge of the global finance.
  Not to continue belaboring the point but living in a single place and 'looking around' isn't sufficient to, again, dismiss half of all Latin America. That seems reactionary, to be honest.
  I wouldn't be dismissed if I was another american here, claiming that the US has a massive, reactionary right wing constituency that is only (slightly) outnumbered by another massive, liberal and also right wing constituency. And yet because I'm from Latin America and if I make a similar claim I'm a reactionary? Hell, my outlook is that only half of the region is deeply right wing. This means I have a more positive opinion on latin america than any american leftist has on the USA population. And yet that's enough to be outright dismissed. Sorry but if you're Latin American, I'd call you naive. If you're American, I perceive your position as deeply patronizing.
  You can point to México, where a successful developmentist programme bends the opinions of the right wing because it delivers material gains for everyone. Brazil surfed a similar wave not too long ago. These scenarios do not mean that the right wing does not exist. They do not mean that evangelical churches aren't a fulcrum of power. They do not mean that a 500 year old oligarchy does not own these countries. They do not mean that the legacy of US dictatorships and propaganda don't exist. What they mean is that latin americans are as human as everyone else, and as contradictory as everyone else.
  even evangelicals don't have that strong a hold outside of some Central American countries
  That's just not true. Not only is the neopentecostal movement much, much bigger than you think, its propaganda efforts are hegemonic and affect - for better and worse - the conduct of catholic and historical protestant groups as well.
  There are certainly Right-wing movements in Latin America that are still supporting the US but if it was as strong as you say we wouldn't see even the bit of progressive movement we've thus far seen over the last few decades
  I'd be careful about decades, because if your analysis veers towards half a century of history you'll find yourself in the terrain of progressive reforms by latin american general-dictators who were ok with divorce because they were raised Lutheran and hated the catholic church. Latin America as a region is not one where revolution has reigned supreme, but rather where relative progressivism has made waves following the gato pardo principle. 'Let us do the revolution so that adventurers don't take the initiative', or, rather, let us change so that things stay the same.
  The long arc of history bends progressive because, eventually, all these resource economies go through the cycles of boom and bust and in order to avoid collapse end up reforming in a number of ways. A century ago it was the benefit of urban workers to the detriment of the peasant majority. Twenty years ago it was an effort to follow IMF dictats to increase consumption. Either way, the more we discuss the issue the more reasons come up as to why Latin America cannot and is probably better off not being revolutionary in the medium term, much less the short term.
  
  Let's say the US declines. Hard. And becomes as much a Great Power as, say, Russia.
  Isn't the Ukraine War a pretty good example of the limits of that risk you're lobbying for? How about a war over Taiwan?
  Such a disastrous scenario assumes the US isn't in charge of the global finance. At the very least. This by itself should point to what is the reasonable and pragmatic path left.
  I'm not trying to be difficult but I genuinely don't think I understand what you mean by this, or how Ukraine/Taiwan play into it. Are you saying US will treat Latin America like Russia treated/treats Ukraine or how the US treated/treats Ukraine?
  I wouldn't be dismissed if I was another american here, claiming that the US has a massive, reactionary right wing constituency that is only (slightly) outnumbered by another massive, liberal and also right wing constituency. And yet because I'm from Latin America and if I make a similar claim I'm a reactionary? Hell, my outlook is that only half of the region is deeply right wing and that's enough to be outright dismissed. If you're Latin American, I'd call you naive. If you're American, I perceive your position as deeply patronizing.
  The immediate difference is speaking about one country which is the imperial core and speaking about the greater part of an entire continent. I'm not saying you're a reactionary, to be clear, but dismissing an entire continent as compromised or half of it as "US stooges" is reactionary. You don't see how that would lend itself to doomer, counterrevolutionary ideology? Again, living in a specific country and a particular city where you may or may not even be organizing doesn't give you the capacity to make such blanket statements about most of a continent. Clearly you're very knowledgeable about the region, and I respect that, but it still seems like an excessive statement. Can you see what I mean? I don't even fully agree with USians that make kinda similar statements about the US. I was just pushing back on some anti-boomer, generational culture war rhetoric yesterday that helps to erase movements that boomers had in their day, which is reactionary in effect.
  These scenarios do not mean that the right wing does not exist. They do not mean that evangelical churches aren't a fulcrum of power. They do not mean that a 500 year old oligarchy does not own these countries. They do not mean that the legacy of US dictatorships and propaganda don't exist. What they mean is that latin americans are as human as everyone else, and as contradictory as everyone else.
  Yeah, I completely agree. And dismissing such a contradictory and complex continent of peoples and countries as a monolith is probably not capturing that human reality.
  That's just not true. Not only is the neopentecostal movement much, much bigger than you think, its propaganda efforts are hegemonic and affect - for better and worse - the conduct of catholic and historical protestant groups as well.
  Again, I'm not saying they don't exist and not saying the movement is not growing. But saying half of Latin America is evangelical or part of the Pentecostal Church in particular is just hyperbolic at this point outside of some countries.
  I'd be careful about decades, because if your analysis veers towards half a century of history you'll find yourself in the terrain of progressive reforms by latin american general-dictators who were ok with divorce because they were raised Lutheran and hated the catholic church. Latin America as a region is not one where revolution has reigned supreme, but rather where relative progressivism has made waves following the gato pardo principle. 'Let us do the revolution so that adventurers don't take the initiative', or, rather, let us change so that things stay the same.
  The long arc of history bends progressive because, eventually, all these resource economies go through the cycles of boom and bust and in order to avoid collapse end up reforming in a number of ways. A century ago it was the benefit of urban workers to the detriment of the peasant majority. Twenty years ago it was an effort to follow IMF dictats to increase consumption. Either way, the more we discuss the issue the more reasons come up as to why Latin America cannot and is probably better off not being revolutionary in the medium term, much less the short term.
  That's very fair and I don't disagree.
  
  I'm not trying to be difficult but I genuinely don't think I understand what you mean by this, or how Ukraine/Taiwan play into it. Are you saying US will treat Latin America like Russia treated/treats Ukraine or how the US treated/treats Ukraine?
  Great Powers have spheres of influence. No country in Latin America is on the track to become a Great Power on their own, and the closest one is the United States. The US is at most declining at the moment. But it is still a superpower and is still in charge of global finance. Questioning its influence in the western hemisphere is at least as much a risk as Taiwan declaring independence or Ukraine allowing itself to become a battleground. This circles back to my initial point. A grand latin american resistance to Trump is suicide. It is the sort of political failure that Latin American countries are, for the medium term, better off avoiding altogether.
  The immediate difference is speaking about one country which is the imperial core and speaking about the greater part of an entire continent.
  You don't see how that would lend itself to doomer, counterrevolutionary ideology?
  Clearly you're very knowledgeable about the region, and I respect that, but it still seems like an excessive statement. Can you see what I mean?
  Well, which is it?
  Is it a problem because I am generalizing hundreds of millions of people? Is it a problem because I am making myself into a doomer counterrevolutionary? Or is it a problem because I'm actually wrong and hyperbolic? You might see these statements as connected, but I felt the need to break them up because they are not synonymous.
  Yes, I might be generalizing hundreds of millions of people and even dismissing some interesting movements here and there. But that doesn't mean my analysis is good or bad. It could mean that I am motivated by sheer prejudice. With, say, Democrats claiming that Latinos cannot countenance a woman of color POTUS while, that the same year a majority of mexicans living in actual México elected a jewish female president. However it could also mean that I am making a claim to structural analysis. For an example, a notion that the imperial core is veering towards far right politics as material conditions worsen. Assuming such a notion is more than just vibes based on things going down in Europe and the USA then, yeah, one might be overlooking interesting anarchist and other orgs in Europe, or the efforts of local government in the USA. The original analysis, if confirmed, would still stand regardless.
  Am I rendering myself unto a doomer with a very negative relationship with my region of the world? Well, I'm not from the imperial core. The thing about living in a defeated nation in the periphery of capitalism is that you do live with those feelings on a permanent basis. There's no escaping that. There's no escaping it with sheer american optimism. What you have is a choice and I have not chosen to be a doomer. I could talk to you about the contradictions and successes of the landless workers movement in Brazil or about liberation theology. I could also talk to you about the interplay of drug trade, local oligarchy and the massively powerful neopentecostal movements. All in all, I take the good with the bad and I have also chosen to see the silver linings that we are dealt with. Much of what you read before - such as the play of relative progressivism done by reactionary elements - might come across as doomerism to you. To peoples such as ours that sort of pragmatism is more akin to hope.
  Now was I hyperbolic? No, I don't think so. The average Latin American voter is at least as contradictory as any other. Phrasing of questions and aesthetics of political movements tend to align them harder than any one policy issue. And that's fine and good because humans relate to other humans on the basis of passion, not reason. Another way in which Latin America is no different from any other part of the western world is in political polarization. Besides US propaganda, Latin America is seeing the same 'death of the center', 'inability of the center left due to neoliberalism' and 'radicalization of the center right due to becoming economically indistinguishable from the center left' dynamic. You have the total hegemony of US media and social media controlling discourse and pushing it right wing. You have the right wing in the good graces of the estabilished oligarchies, with all the funding that comes with it. You have the rise of prosperity gospel and american libertarian propaganda. You can keep going. These are structural issues and they don't go away. Organizing in Latin America is a play towards people's material conditions and in spite of the cultural hegemony of american capitalism.
  
  Great Powers have spheres of influence. No country in Latin America is on the track to become a Great Power on their own, and the closest one is the United States. The US is at most declining at the moment. But it is still a superpower and is still in charge of global finance. Questioning its influence in the western hemisphere is at least as much a risk as Taiwan declaring independence or Ukraine allowing itself to become a battleground. This circles back to my initial point. A grand latin american resistance to Trump is suicide. It is the sort of political failure that Latin American countries are, for the medium term, better off avoiding altogether.
  Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, that makes total sense.
  Well, which is it?
  Is it a problem because I am generalizing hundreds of millions of people? Is it a problem because I am making myself into a doomer counterrevolutionary? Or is it a problem because I'm actually wrong and hyperbolic? You might see these statements as connected, but I felt the need to break them up because they are not synonymous.
  Look, I'm really not trying to spiral debate-bro'ing each other on this. But do you have any evidence to back up the original claim in question that half of all Latin Americans are "evangelical pro-US stooges" and/or that the entire continent is ideologically "compromised"? The latter you could clearly theoretically argue based off some analysis critiquing the pervasive impact of US propaganda like you did afterwards so it's relatively moot since I don't even expect you to link a survey or some dumb shit like that because it's impossible to prove but also obvious on some level despite you not agreeing with my point about it, but if you can find some kind evidence to support the former statement then I'll retract my comment about it being hyperbolic.
  The other things you said are interesting and I generally agree with you and I think they're good points.
  
  But do you have any evidence to back up the original claim in question that half of all Latin Americans are "evangelical pro-US stooges" and/or that the entire continent is ideologically "compromised"?
  I could spend an hour of googling and coming up with polls, scientific articles and demographic studies that I've already read before and which would just confirm what is evidently true. But I won't. I will just return to my initial point. An american coming here and making much more extreme claims on the right wing nature of the US population would not be questioned in this way. A chinese making much more extreme claims about the liberal capture of their elites would not be questioned in this way. Their perspectives are taken for granted, whereas mine requires evidence.
  So if I can write effort post after effort post with what you generally consider to be good points on sociology, politics and history. Points which you agree with, then you'll have to settle with those. If you cannot see how they substantiate my perspective, then I'll settle for being patronized and move on.
  
  I'm not trying to argue with you, man.

1070 comments