Mexico: Ripe soil for socialism?

[Soviet Aggression]

How many here believe that a revolution in Mexico is not only possible, but would be successful?

When one asks these two questions, I suppose one would have to look at when the Mexican state began its anti-worker reforms between 1982-1994, the time in which state owned corporations were being privatized and the economy, at the hands of the state, orchestrated itself closely with the United States. These reforms root themselves in the Madrid/Salinas regimes all the way to the current Nieto regime. One must also look at the very nature of the Mexican bourgeoisie, which has a horrid track record of being subordinate leeches to US imperialist meddling in the region on a multitude of levels.

Personally, I think a revolution is possible if not long overdue. Whether or not it would be successful is why I created this thread for further discussion. What would constitute failure or success in a Mexican revolution, and what pot holes on the road to success do members here think would be in existence if a proletarian uprising were to occur?

[Guardia Rossa]

There is the Zapatista revolution in the Province of Chiapas. If the Cartels were not so strong I now come to think Mexico could be the perfect place for a modern Communist revolution.

USA however would be a annoyed as hell.

[Soviet Aggression]

There is the Zapatista revolution in the Province of Chiapas. If the Cartels were not so strong I now come to think Mexico could be the perfect place for a modern Communist revolution.

USA however would be a annoyed as hell.

I've kept up with EZLN during the progressive rise of cartel aggression in 08 and onwards. One thing I admire about EZLN is their move to squash the cartel expansionists when they tried for a strategic takeover of EZLN controlled lands bordering Guatemala.

USA would be annoyed, and would pressure the Mexican state to rock the boat on the already uneasy relationship between them and the Zapatista's, which they would be happy to do for their corrupt paymasters. Such a move would be infuriating.

[Bala Perdida]

It's about as likely as Colombia or any other Latin American nation for that sense. The struggles in these countries are a lot more armed and violent than most if not any that you'd find in the first world, but there really is no strong backing. Also with a militarized drug war state it's not an easy fight. Not to mention the cooperation between state, capitalist, and black-market forces. It makes it that much harder for something to happen since there's several people you can snitch to. Also guerrillas don't often offer money wear as others do. So it's a messy situation all around.

In a simpler sense, most of these countries are already under an insurrection but it's not wide or damaging enough to be noticed.

[Soviet Aggression]

It's about as likely as Colombia or any other Latin American nation for that sense. The struggles in these countries are a lot more armed and violent than most if not any that you'd find in the first world, but there really is no strong backing. Also with a militarized drug war state it's not an easy fight. Not to mention the cooperation between state, capitalist, and black-market forces. It makes it that much harder for something to happen since there's several people you can snitch to. Also guerrillas don't often offer money wear as others do. So it's a messy situation all around.

In a simpler sense, most of these countries are already under an insurrection but it's not wide or damaging enough to be noticed.

When I think about the insurrections you mentioned, I think about the Autodefensas in Mexico. I truly thought there was hope for something to sprout from these workers taking up arms against the cartels. However, the leadership was decadent under further review. After the regularization of these organizations on behalf of the state, it only proved to legitimize that decadence. Truly disheartening, really. It's almost as if the state wanted to quell the uprising with the use of bureaucratic pacification.

[Aslan]

After visiting places like Mexico and The Dominican republic I can say that it is possible. Most people in those nations are tired of the corrupt governments that rule them. The problem is the lack of a strong leftist information source. Right now, most of them can't access any communist ideological ''springs'' to radicalize them leaving young men and women to crime as the only way to improve their family's lives.
What is needed for a revolution is a strong ideological basement to build on. We already have potential, we just need to focus.
Also...
Another thing that is a problem is the evangelical missions in these nations! These organizations are the base for imperialism to spread. We need kick out the religious nut-jobs in order to successfully inform the populous!

[Bala Perdida]

After visiting places like Mexico and The Dominican republic I can say that it is possible. Most people in those nations are tired of the corrupt governments that rule them.
They're not tired. They've been incompatible since invasion first took steps onto the Americas. Not that it was great before, but that doesn't have much relevance to the problem now. They've been exploited for over 500 years now by the same phenomena, so to say they're tired implies some sort of recent awakening which there hasn't been. There isn't some special likeliness for it either given the global vacuum for subversive activities to this degree. Not to mention that these nations have governments and poverty that are more impulsively brutal so loosing doesn't promise to be a trip home. Basically, you gotta be saying that these people are ready to die if you can see a nearby revolution.

The problem is the lack of a strong leftist information source. Right now, most of them can't access any communist ideological ''springs'' to radicalize them leaving young men and women to crime as the only way to improve their family's lives.
What is needed for a revolution is a strong ideological basement to build on. We already have potential, we just need to focus.
I don't see how the radical left has any potential anywhere. Especially in Latin American nations were the situation is so dire that if they actually had the potential we wouldn't be talking about what the next step is going to be. They'd already be doing it. Also communism is pretty recognizable in most of these nations given that most of them were cold-war-killing-fields. Where there is a communist party, there is simple access to info. These groups don't hide and stash theory. They make themselves visible. Especially after their repression has recently been publicized.
http://adnsureste.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/fpr2.jpg
What people actually have trouble accessing is a stable source of food and shelter. Clothing is also pretty scarce for a lot of people. All those resources and shit. Income. Most income is pretty unstable so it's hard just to tell people to stop what they're doing in the name of the revolution. A line they've been hearing for the last 2 centuries.

Also...
Another thing that is a problem is the evangelical missions in these nations! These organizations are the base for imperialism to spread. We need kick out the religious nut-jobs in order to successfully inform the populous!
http://cdnmx.20m.es/img2/recortes/2014/10/07/25123-944-621.jpg
Those parents have an alter setup in the Normal de Ayotzinapa. The communist school those disappeared students came from. Most of those parents also attended that school. Separating religion from a place were a large chunk (possibly a majority) of the worlds christians live isn't gonna be a great way to gain popularity of any sort. Mexico's government tried to separate from and repress the church once. That started a civil war. Cuba didn't even go as harsh on religion (especially Catholicism) as others in the red bloc did. Now you have murals of Ernesto and Jesus in Venezuela. So if that's your aim, not to worry the church doesn't make much of a difference. Especially in the region were liberation theology thrived. Hell, in El Salvador the catholic church was closer to the communists than it was to the regime. Not to mention that a lot of the religious practices that actually do get repressed are usually forms of indigenous spiritual belief, which I myself have grown fond of recently.

[John Nada]

Actually knowing people from Latin America, it makes me wonder if third-worldists have actually met anyone from the third-world. Compared to the US, you'd swear there would be more revolutions if poverty+shitty puppet governments=more revolutionary. Nope, with the people I know, they're are about as supportive of a potential revolution as North Americans.

The objective conditions are there in Mexico, but not the subjective, if that makes sense, though I'd say the same about the US. I'd be fucking badass if a fire was lit right under the Empire, but sadly that doesn't seem likely in the near term.

[Soviet Aggression]

I don't see how the radical left has any potential anywhere. Especially in Latin American nations were the situation is so dire that if they actually had the potential we wouldn't be talking about what the next step is going to be. They'd already be doing it. Also communism is pretty recognizable in most of these nations given that most of them were cold-war-killing-fields. Where there is a communist party, there is simple access to info. These groups don't hide and stash theory. They make themselves visible. Especially after their repression has recently been publicized.
spiritual belief, which I myself have grown fond of recently.

What would be such an intense yet common driving force for the proletariat in Latin America that would actually cause sporadic to organized action, rather than complacency, in your opinion? What would need to happen when Latin American countries finally say ¡Ya basta! and act?

[Comrade Jacob]

The conditions in Mexico are very similar to conditions of Cuba in the 50s (pre 1959). So I do think it is indeed ripe soil for a revolution.

[Bala Perdida]

What would be such an intense yet common driving force for the proletariat in Latin America that would actually cause sporadic to organized action, rather than complacency, in your opinion?
Well the action is already happening. What causes it is a loss of sustenance. Be that land, a job, a fruit tree anything that keeps these people from actually starving. I don't see it turning into anything more damaging if it was to be organised being that organization is more restrictive. Then it'd probably lead them back to the same thing.


What would need to happen when Latin American countries finally say ¡Ya basta! and act?
¡Ya basta!
First off, don't say that. As for everything else, what do you mean 'Latin American countries' and how do they act? There's already that boliverian alliance thing and that turned out to be crap. If you mean the people of these countries look at the above.

[Aslan]

point taken.
However, I don't want to destroy religion like some Stalinist dictatorship. Instead I just want to eliminate the evangelical missions and the church hierarchy as they are the axis of reactionaries and conservationism. I tolerate religion, but I will not tolerate it as a force of oppression (like in Africa).
I think it could happen.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

The strength of Liberation theology and the US-backed assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero show that not all religious groups can be painted with the same brush. The Roman Catholic Church and now even some "mainline" Protestants (e.g. Anglicans and Lutherans) have been part of this. For example, it was an Anglican priest who exposed the role of the Pentecostal missionary Scott Lively in Uganda's "kill the gays" law (http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11524). But it is pretty widely accepted that the US pushes Pentecostalism in these regions to pacify religious resistance.


"Pentecostalism has spread in the context of United States political hegemony over the region and US churches have largely bankrolled Pentecostal missionary efforts. Some have seen this bankrolling as tact evidence for US government support for the missionary efforts, presumably funded by the CIA as a counter to Roman Catholic Liberation Theology. Pentecostals historically have avoided political involvement, but it is clear that the tradition is not politically neutral. Pentecostalism has typically discouraged involvement in worldly matters, which may explain why rightist politicians and groups have sometimes favored it. For example, The Haitian government enthusiastically supported Pentecostal missionary work during the Duvalier years as a strategic counterbalance to the power of the Roman Catholic Church. Even if it did not lead to active support for such groups, if the tradition were effective at rendering part of the population completely uninterested in politics, this would no doubt have profound political consequences that would presumably benefit statist or rightist elements." Transience and Reputation in Trinidadian Pentecostalism, p. 13

In fact it's not so much about making people uninterested in politics, but actively engaged in counterrevolution:


"Many Latin Americans, particularly leftists and progressive Catholics, consider the 'invasion of the Protestant sects' as a US-promoted conspiracy against liberation theology, and more generally against all social movements for the emancipation of the poor. In Fact, there are quite a few US evangelical missions whose behaviour largely corresponds with this (...) picture, in so far as they crudely identify their religious intervention in Latin America with the interest of US foreign policy. Considering the USA as a bastion of godliness and a missionary nation, some evangelicals were ready to place themselves at the service of the Reagan administration's geopolitical aims in Central America. The most obvious example is the notorious participation of evangelicals in the efforts of Colonel Oliver North to organize political and military support for the contras in the Nicaraguan civil war." The War of Gods: Religion and Politics in Latin America, p. 113

However, I would say that it's more accurate to describe these groups as Pentecostal or fundamentalist rather than "evangelical", because, for example, you have "evangelicals" in El Salvador who support the FMLN. (Iglesias evangélicas y Luterana reafirman su apoyo a Nayib Bukele (http://www.diariocolatino.com/iglesias-evangelicas-y-luterana-reafirman-su-apoyo-a-nayib-bukele/)). Another contradiction: when the Sandanistas came back to power in Nicaragua they enacted some draconian anti-abortion laws (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/jul/29/abortion-ban-nicaragua-women-democracy), seemingly to appease the religious right.

[Burzhuin]

The conditions in Mexico are very similar to conditions of Cuba in the 50s (pre 1959). So I do think it is indeed ripe soil for a revolution.
There is one "little" difference: NO MEXICAN CASTRO.