By this argument Cuba also cannot do anything because it was set up as a settler colonial nation, and has that same system baked in. I understand that settler colonialism needs to be addressed, but to imply that because a nation was once settler colonial it must always be bad leads to arguments where no improvement can happen, and a change from an attitude of trying to fix issues to one of we can do nothing because the start was tainted.
There is room for improvement, and Mexico is not once settler-colonial it is still settler colonial just like the US, with the poorest classes being the decendants of slaves and indigenous people who don’t even have the soverignity the US affords. Last will be first and a revolutionary Mexico would be created by these hyper exploited people so the entrapped nations within so called Mexico can be freed.
I am not arguing that it is settler colonial, my argument is that you are behaving as if that means there is no ability to improve and a revolution is impossible, I am saying Cuba is/was just as settler colonial as any nation on the western himisphere, and they were able to pull off a successful revolution. To preclude any progress because it is a nation that is settler colonial means that we can effectivly write off any effort in the western himisphere from ever having a revolution.
Ah sorry I misread. I understand that Mexico, were it to have a revolution similar to Cuba’s, could maintain its borders while flipping its class system on its head leaving it to be in a good position to challenge US imperialism. I don’t think Sheinbaum’s indicative of this kind of change and I think that’s where my confusion came from, there’d need to be a decolonial socialist military movement as was the case in Cuba for this to happen but it could potentially occur.
By this argument Cuba also cannot do anything because it was set up as a settler colonial nation, and has that same system baked in. I understand that settler colonialism needs to be addressed, but to imply that because a nation was once settler colonial it must always be bad leads to arguments where no improvement can happen, and a change from an attitude of trying to fix issues to one of we can do nothing because the start was tainted.
There is room for improvement, and Mexico is not once settler-colonial it is still settler colonial just like the US, with the poorest classes being the decendants of slaves and indigenous people who don’t even have the soverignity the US affords. Last will be first and a revolutionary Mexico would be created by these hyper exploited people so the entrapped nations within so called Mexico can be freed.
I am not arguing that it is settler colonial, my argument is that you are behaving as if that means there is no ability to improve and a revolution is impossible, I am saying Cuba is/was just as settler colonial as any nation on the western himisphere, and they were able to pull off a successful revolution. To preclude any progress because it is a nation that is settler colonial means that we can effectivly write off any effort in the western himisphere from ever having a revolution.
Ah sorry I misread. I understand that Mexico, were it to have a revolution similar to Cuba’s, could maintain its borders while flipping its class system on its head leaving it to be in a good position to challenge US imperialism. I don’t think Sheinbaum’s indicative of this kind of change and I think that’s where my confusion came from, there’d need to be a decolonial socialist military movement as was the case in Cuba for this to happen but it could potentially occur.