World News

They've failed to attack the financial mechanisms of organized crime presumably bc pulling on that thread could expose a bunch of embezzlement and corruption by officials who have been absolved of their sins for jumping like rats from the sinking ship that is PRI and PAN and onto morena. Not that the US wouldn't have balked at it, since it's their bankers raking it in.

you should give Mexican leadership a chance Unless you are yourself living in Mexico

That's just not what I said though. The way you splice it gives it a different meaning than what I said. This is the reason I'm denying the framing that you're using. Here is the exact phrasing I used:

I think you should give Mexican leadership a chance to react before you start flinging “I know better” insults. Unless you are yourself living in Mexico and believe you have a thorough enough understanding of its context to be weighing in, in this way.

I generally try to choose my words carefully (sometimes to an absurd degree, to be honest) and I won't pretend I never mistakes in points of view or wording, but I couched it as I did for a reason.

The other parts of the sentences matter:

"I think you should give Mexican leadership a chance to react" (another way of saying this is, unless you are in a position to do organizational actions that can react to an anticipated full capitulation and try to head them off, what is to be gained from jumping to conclusions while events are in the middle of transpiring? what is lost from having some patience in observing before reacting if you don't have the means to take advantage of a prediction?)

Then there is another component to it: "before you start flinging “I know better” insults." (e.g. criticism based on what has occurred rather than what is anticipated to occur - how can you criticize a person or organization only for something they are predicted to do? again, what is to be gained from doing this?)

"Unless you are yourself living in Mexico and believe you have a thorough enough understanding of its context to be weighing in, in this way." <- Again, this is the full sentence. For example, what if it's the case that someone has seen Claudia Sheinbaum's policies affect their life firsthand and part of where it's coming from is anger from the impact of that? I don't know this at the offset and as a westerner, I don't want to be in the habit of jumping to conclusions about where people are from and why they are saying what they're saying. It is an active effort to unlearn western chauvinist tendencies.

I'll agree I could have worded it better (though I'm honestly not sure how at the moment), but your framing of it is also misleading in the way it chops it up into a meaning that it doesn't otherwise represent. "You should give Mexican leadership a chance unless you are yourself living in Mexico" is a brand new sentence. And I don't agree that saying "unless you have better information" would be an improvement because it doesn't acknowledge bias to do with geography and lived experience. I was explicitly trying to acknowledge bias.

And no, acknowledging lived experience is not somehow anti-dialectical. It's a part of material reality and a part of narrative, the same as many other things. Many things in life that we take for granted as true are derived in part from primary sources (people describing one thing or another happening). Science in general tries to get around the bias of this by cross-referencing sources, looking for commonalities and contradictions, where descriptions sync up with other information and where they don't, etc.

But it is a major component of information gathering. It's just not something to take for granted uncritically.

In a different setting I think it is fine to give critical support to Sheinbaum because she is much better than the alternatives. But this is Lemmygrad we don’t need to indulge in false hope that a bourgeoisie party will do anything other than capitulate to international capitalist interests.

I don't see how waiting to see what happens before jumping to conclusions is false hope. I did not say "she's going to save Mexico."

Sheinbaum and her party are demsoc. Giving them a chance is giving demsocs a chance. She has been attempting to appease trump and expecting that to change is wishful thinking.

Russia is capitalist and yet is also anti-imperialist due to circumstances. We need to be looking at the contradictions, not single variables in isolation. But again, I did not say I "expect her to change". What I do expect is that just because capitalists can be capitalists within one country does not always mean they will want to be subservient to capitalists from another country who want to take over and subjugate everybody there.

Maybe you will turn out to be right, but I will still maintain that it's unwise to treat the future as already determined. There are situations (such as with weather predictions) where individuals and societies react to what is expected to occur, but this is in order to be able handle possible outcomes more effectively. It is not beneficial to go "I'm so mad that it snowed 12 inches" because there is a prediction a week from now for snow. However, being ready for the fact that it may snow is helpful.

I hope this clarifies sufficiently.

That's assuming the narcos are independent from the USA. In reality, they are literally the imperialist hunting dogs that eliminate anything that hinder capitalist exploitation.

A good book to understand my point is