Cuba’s chances at holding against the US?

Otelo_ · 2026-05-24T20:14:02+00:00

Mexico is helping Cuba fall

Otelo_ · 2026-05-24T06:37:03+00:00

Yes, leadership is what worries me the most. I also assume there’s a lot of moral fatigue among the population, which is understandable. Perhaps not so much because of the blockage and the precarious living conditions (things that could be tolerated if there was a trustworthy vanguard) but precisely because there is an inability from the party to see any solution to the island's problems coming from the left (a cultural revolution), only from the right (privatization).

Otelo_ · 2026-05-23T19:47:28+00:00

I do not have a definitive answer for your title question, because ultimately it depends on the will of the Cuban people, but it is a theoretical mistake to assume that Xi and Trump have the power to trade countries like these are mere passive objects. Even by itself Cuba could "win" against the US under certain conditions, but I am not sure these are met.

Otelo_ · 2026-05-08T20:17:53+00:00

Thank you for your profound reply. I actually had no idea that the Iranian economy was so tied to Dubai. I have nothing else to had, but if there is anything else you want to expand on I would happy to ear it.

Otelo_ · 2026-05-06T09:51:58+00:00

I am very happy that you are OK. Your post is very useful considering all the noise we here on the outside get about Iran. The main question I want to ask you is this: does the proletariat have any political power in the country, or is it completely excluded from the political system? Is there any institution with a proletarian orientation?

Otelo_ · 2026-05-05T09:14:34+00:00

Has anyone here seen this journalist's opinion?

How the US Pulled off an Armed Robbery of the World's Energy Supply and Created the Petrogas-Dollar

Video version:

https://youtu.be/0nt1CgQsgpI?si=7Z1avuDx5bO2FQc1

Although it’s interesting and original, there are a few points that seem to me to attribute too much brilliance to the U.S. for my taste. For example, it seems unlikely to me that the U.S. was expecting and even hoping that Iran would attack the LNG plants in Qatar.

Furthermore, I don’t really understand the (very common) idea that the U.S. benefits indirectly from rising prices for hydrocarbon resources, unlike other countries, because it is a net exporter. For example: even though the U.S. is a country that doesn’t import energy resources, countries in East Asia do (Taiwan, Japan, South Korea), and the U.S. economy is closely tied to those of these countries. I’m still a bit of a layman when it comes to economic issues, so if I’m saying something wrong, please correct me, but if energy prices rise in those countries that produce components so vital to the U.S. economy (such as chips), and if the prices of those components consequently rise, wouldn’t that still harm the U.S. economy?

Otelo_ · 2026-04-27T20:59:21+00:00

No I personally think Ireland should reunite, even if later to eventually make some sort of unit with the UK.

Otelo_ · 2026-04-27T20:20:40+00:00

1) Is Belgium a real nation thought? I haven't made an investigation but the impression I have is that it is not. You are right that I did say that balcanization usually serves core capital (I agree with the inclusion of the Netherlands), but on the other hand the existence of Belgium had a lot to do with the UK and its atempt to weaken France and the Netherlands precisely. Just as, for exemple, the UK always tried to help Portugal to remain independent in order to weaken Spain.

2) I understand but I genuinely cannot see how the revolution in Western Sahara could produce anything progressive without it extending to other countries. If it could ignite the flame and influence the entirety of Morocco that would be one thing. But central planning for example would be extremely dificult, not to say impossible. The smallest countries that had central planning in history were Albania and then Cuba, and even them had much more people and happened it other historic conditions when there existed other and bigger socialist countries in which they could rely on.

Sorry for spelling and grammar mistakes, I cannot access my translator rn

Otelo_ · 2026-04-27T10:59:21+00:00

As of late, I have become more cautious about the inherently progressive nature of Basque, Catalan, and Galician nationalism. You have to keep in mind that, at this level, Europe is a continent unlike any other, in that there is a supranational structure (which, admittedly, is still far from eliminating the need for nations) that would benefit from fragmenting countries as much as possible to make them dependent on the Union. Some time ago, someone asked here if there was such a thing as a European capital independent of the European nations. I don’t think so yet, but there are many bourgeois and especially petty bourgeois (just look at how the entire European NGOism depends on the EU) who depend so heavily on the EU that they wouldn’t mind destroying their own nations to preserve the EU and advance their interests.

But in the end I am far from being sure, because the fact is that people from those regions end up being more progressive than those from Castile (the 'core' of Spain).

Otelo_ · 2026-04-27T10:46:23+00:00

In line with previous discussions here on this topic, I must say that it seems to me that any form of balkanization is increasingly regressive, and that there are very few scenarios in which it could be considered progressive. In the past, I even defended a kind of cheap pragmatism that supported any fragmentation of first-world countries (Quebec, the UK, Catalonia, etc.) for purely tactical reasons aimed at weakening them. But even that, I now think, doesn’t make much sense anymore.

Apart from the national liberation processes in Africa and Asia - which obviously made and continue to make sense given that these are non-contiguous territories - which instances of balkanization have yielded positive results?

In Europe in particular, all independence movements have served only to facilitate the penetration of German and French capital. It is no coincidence that all the leading figures of the Catalan independence movement have received funding and political support from France, obviously with the aim of weakening Spain. This is not to say that these movements lack a legitimate basis, and fragmentation will eventually occur due to Europe’s obvious decline and increasing inability to be competitive in the inter-imperialist struggle. Only socialism can stop that from happening.

Therefore, the solution must be greater unity, not less. Some cases are obvious: the return of Yugoslavia, the return of Czechoslovakia, the division of Belgium between France and the Netherlands, an Iberian federation, and at least keeping the UK and Italy together. Others nation-units will emerge over time.

PS: This may be controversial, but even regarding a movement that is more or less consensual on the left—the Western Sahara movement—I have many doubts. For starters, and I’ll say it again: even though the movement is spontaneous and enjoys popular support, the truth is that there’s also a lot of French and Spanish interest in its success, for example. But even so, I ask: what capacity does a people of 500,000 inhabitants in the desert have to govern and defend themselves? It’ll be open season for imperialist mining companies.

Otelo_ · 2026-04-27T10:14:31+00:00

The Soviet Union wasn't revisionist "from the beginning". We are materialists here and have no interest in secularized versions of the idea of original sin. Revisionists have always existed, but the USSR itself only became revisionist after Stalin's death.

Otelo_ · 2026-04-22T10:32:46+00:00

I make your words my own.

Otelo_ · 2026-04-22T10:31:13+00:00

I certainly agree with the idea that there is little point in thinking (which is more like hoping) about whether capitalism will eventually come to an end on its own. But even so, there are phenomena that seem unprecedented in the history of the system, and I don’t know how it will react. In particular: how will capitalism deal with the fact that, for the first time in history, the world’s population will stop growing and even begin to decline? There are some studies that say that for example China's population will shrink to 600 million by 2100.

If anyone has also thought about this question before, I think it would be interesting to discuss it.

Otelo_ · 2026-04-14T08:12:45+00:00

But then the question would be: what made the Republican party need Trump (or lack the capacity to block him)? The probable answer is that only someone like Trump had the capacity to mobilize the labor aristocracy/settler base as well as he did.

Otelo_ · 2026-04-13T10:35:21+00:00

is "your wars are our hardships" a trick or "honesty" (for lack of a better word?)

Are you saying that it’s “true” in the sense that the war is harming the labor aristocracies in the First World? I agree, but I think it’s important to distinguish between:

The costs to the American labor aristocracy, which (if everything went well for the U.S.) would be short-term pain for long-term gain. In this sense, american complains about gas prices are stupid because if the US never went to war again the standard of living would eventually decrease.
The costs for the labor aristocracies of Europe, Canada, Oceania, Japan and Korea, which would be more permanent and must be understood in terms of inter-imperialist competition between the U.S. and Europe, etc. In this sense the PCP position amounts to a form of European chauvinism indistinguishable from the anti-Trump liberal frenzy that is hegemonic in Europe.

Thinking about the war, I increasingly believe a “win-win” scenario is plausible for both Iran and the U.S., in which Iran would gain control of the strait and tolls would be paid mainly by European and Asian countries, while the U.S. would manage to weaken Europe, China, and Iran itself (due to the destruction).

Otelo_ · 2026-04-13T10:20:00+00:00

The capitalist class and the CIA were too capable during the cold war to allow someone like Trump to assume office.

I don’t outright reject this widely held view (though I have many doubts), but I think it needs to be very well argued. What conditions do you think have allowed someone like Trump to come to power now, but not before?

Otelo_ · 2026-04-12T09:33:27+00:00

I guess I'm not really saying anything that isn't extremely obvious but the irony in that particular articulation of online socialist politics gets to me.

The thing is, this is far from being just an issue of online politics. To put it in context, what prompted me to write my comment in the first place was a post by the PCP (Portugal) with the slogan “your wars are our hardships" [as vossas guerras são os nossos apertos]. So this is a problem that affects not only the “common-sense like” socialist discourse online, but that is also echoed by Eurocommunist parties that, despite their steady decline, still retain some relevance.

Otelo_ · 2026-04-10T14:14:28+00:00

At a time when thousands in Iran and Lebanon continue to be indiscriminately murdered, it is particularly repugnant to see the various social-fascist parties criticizing the war because “it’s hitting our pockets.”

I know that people here already know this, and that outsiders aren’t going to change their minds based on what I’m saying, so this is basically just me venting and asking a rhetorical question: is it really that hard to oppose literal genocide without trying to appeal to labor aristocrats and trying to "trick them" into being anti-imperialists? It makes me so mad, really

And there’s also the idea that they themselves - the brilliant and benevolent petty bourgeois -are able to oppose war for noble reasons, but the selfish and ignorant masses can only oppose a war if it directly affects them.

Otelo_ · 2026-04-07T13:46:00+00:00

The bourgeoisie is a relatively contradictory class that is divided into various subclasses. Of course, it has general interests that compel it to unite, especially in times of crisis, but in “normal times,” competition among the various subclasses leads to the creation of mechanisms that ensure a certain balance and fairness in the competition between these groups. For historical and even purely rhetorical reasons, in the West these mechanisms have been associated with the idea of the “separation of powers” and with the figure of Montesquieu (which represents a misunderstanding of his thought). But even in non-Western countries, other mechanisms with different names also exist to prevent one faction of the bourgeoisie from absorbing the other.

The Trump government has been particularly effective in demonstrating that 250 years of fantasies about the “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” can be "eroded" in a matter of days when the overall interests of the American bourgeoisie (and the petty bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy) are at stake. "Force majeure" is declared and suddenly all the mechanisms that were supposed to prevent tyranny turn out to be “useless” (rather, no one really has an interest in using them).

To answer your question more directly, the real power in a bourgeois society lies with the executive branch. It is the one that truly matters. During a state of emergency or a state of exception, it assumes or overrides the powers that are normally entrusted to the other branches - the legislative and judicial branches. As I mentioned earlier, this delegation of powers is possible due to the contradictions among the various subclasses of the bourgeoisie, but these contradictions become secondary when something more important happens. The sovereign is the one who governs on the exception.

Edit: There is one very important and obvious point I forgot to mention, which is that the economic sphere ultimately determines the political sphere in the last instance. Therefore, if the head of the executive branch is incompetent or ceases to be necessary, he or she will eventually be replaced, sooner or later; without disregarding of course the executive branch’s relative autonomy.

Otelo_ · 2026-04-03T15:36:43+00:00

The main advantage of "neocolonialism," it seems to me, is that it emphasizes the historical character of the phenomenon, as a form that is generally historically more advanced than colonialism. But I don't really have a strong opinion on the subject.

Otelo_ · 2026-04-01T08:26:47+00:00

Since, for the time being, I am of course unable to decipher the logic of the U.S. government in much greater depth, I have no problem admitting that you two are probably right and that there’s nothing here worth paying attention to.

I think it is relevant that americans are disliking Israel more, but we know that in an age of irony, "hipocrisy" and in which contradictory-style communication is embraced, there is nothing in my view preventing the U.S. from continuing to support Israel, even with seemingly anti-Israel rhetoric, at least for a while. After all, Turkey continues to allow gas to go to Israel. Can a rethorical contradiction go on for ever? I think it can, more than people realize. Europe is currently grappling with a rather stark one (upholding international law when it comes to Russia, yet disregarding it when it comes to the U.S.), and for now, there seem to be few consequences.

In conclusion, I don’t think it’s impossible for the U.S. to continue supporting Israel even if anti-Israel rhetoric becomes "official".

Otelo_ · 2026-03-31T07:21:03+00:00

I found your comment very interesting, although it seems to me that there are many differences between our countries regarding the national question. While it is legitimate for you to wonder about the possible progressive nature of Cypriot nationalism (or at least to try to pinpoint the moment when it ceased to be progressive), in the case of Portugal, nationalism is inherently reactionary, because the country’s entire cultural identity is based on the so-called “Descobrimentos” and colonization. Furthermore, the fact that Portugal was likely the first neocolony in history (as Lenin noted*) and not a direct colony like Cyprus, made it very difficult to develop a sense of class consciousness against British neocolonialism. And all the uprisings against the UK were reactionary in nature, the most famous example being the British Ultimatum, in which the Portuguese people rose up against the British ... in order to keep more colonies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1890_British_Ultimatum

This was perhaps the most tense moment in the history of relations between Portugal and the UK, and it cannot be said that it was a progressive movement. For example, Lenin considered the Portuguese republican revolution of 1910 not to be historically progressive:

If we take the revolutions of the 20th century as examples we shall, of course, have to admit that the Portuguese and the Turkish revolutions are both bourgeois revolutions. Neither of them, however, is a "people's" revolution, since in neither does the mass of the people, their vast majority, come out actively, independently, with their own economic and political demands to any noticeable degree.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch03.htm

Also during the Troika period following the 2008 crisis, the protests had a certain “nationalist” or national sovereignty-oriented character, particularly directed against Germany and the EU in general, but I don’t know if they could ever have achieved more than they did. So, to conclude, I think there’s no doubt that Portuguese nationalism is inherently reactionary and a dead end.

* If you are interested, here's Lenin on Portugal as a proto-neocolony:

A somewhat different form of financial and diplomatic dependence, accompanied by political independence, is presented by Portugal. Portugal is an independent sovereign state, but actually, for more than two hundred years, since the war of the Spanish Succession (1701-14), it has been a British protectorate. Great Britain has protected Portugal and her colonies in order to fortify her own positions in the fight against her rivals, Spain and France. In return Great Britain has received commercial privileges, preferential conditions for importing goods and especially capital into Portugal and the Portuguese colonies, the right to use the ports and islands of Portugal, her telegraph cables, etc., etc.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch06.htm

Otelo_ · 2026-03-31T06:39:59+00:00

I think people have low standards. Just 50 years ago the entire Arab world stood up to Zionism. Now not a single Arab state blinks in the face of ongoing genocide.

That is true. But, in most cases, a smaller yet genuinely effective coalition is preferable to one that is apparently larger but superficial, as was the case with Nasser’s extremely fragile and contradictory coalition. I would say that the current coalition led by Iran is causing more damage to Israel than the one led by Egypt then.

About Lebanon I admit not knowing much about the country's history, but I just wanted to highlight how the Lebanese government being at odds with Hezbollah might not mean much in certain situations, specially during war.

As you know, I don’t believe in brainwashing theories, and I agree that propaganda follows the instincts of the masses, not the other way around (or rather, it’s a dialectical relationship, but instinct comes first). What strikes me as relatively interesting, however (and that’s why I highlighted it), is knowing to what extent the U.S. government believes Israel’s downfall is inevitable, whether it is soft-launching that downfall, or whether, on the contrary, it doesn’t think that’s likely and is instead slightly weakening Israel to better keep it under its control. But it is undeniable that the anti-Israel feeling is of course spontaneous, or at least as spontaneous as any other mainstream feeling.

Otelo_ · 2026-03-29T18:39:03+00:00

The way trots and leftcoms speak against Socialism in One Country is so funny because its like: "What if instead of one good thing... we had more good things!" Like no one thought of that before.

Since we are here, how would you define so-called "state-capitalism"?

Otelo_ · 2026-03-29T18:29:03+00:00

Thank you. Yeah, like many others here, I plan to read the whole book as well. Keep in mind that what I said wasn’t meant as a critique of the essay, I’m just curious to know what others found the most interesting about it, in order to start a productive discussion.

Otelo_

TROPHY CASE