Imperialism in the 21st Century

[blindpig]

More on Energy Imperialism

Literally days after my last post on the changes in US energy policy and its influence on the trajectory of US imperialism, President Donald Trump and his energy secretary proclaimed those changes in their customary blunt and bombastic way. On June 29, Trump declared a US policy of “energy dominance” at a meeting at the Department of Energy. Reuters‘s headline on their coverage perfectly captured the meaning of this policy: “Trump Seeks to Project Global Power through Energy Exports.” Bloomberg News’s Gennifer Dlouhy quotes Trump: “We are a top producer of petroleum and the No. 1 producer of natural gas. We have so much more than we ever thought possible. We are really in the driver’s seat.”

Clearly, Russia is a target of the emerging policy. The Administration’s Secretary of Energy, Rick Perry said that “... the entirety of the EU totally get it that if we can lay in American LNG [liquefied natural gas] ... we can be able to have an alternative to Russia…” “The US will be able to clearly create a hell of a lot more friends by being able to deliver them energy and not being held hostage by some countries, Russia in particular.” (Reuters)

Lest anyone fail to get the message, Trump told cheering Polish people in Warsaw on July 6: "We are committed to securing your access to alternate sources of energy, so Poland and its neighbors are never again held hostage to a single supplier of energy.” (CNBC) Instead, they will be held hostage to the US.

Bloomberg’s Dlouhy notes that negotiations have begun to sell more LNG to the Republic of Korea. And Reuters’s Timothy Gardner comments that the US exports more petroleum products to Mexico than does any other country. In fact, according to Gardner, the US is already the world’s largest exporter of refined petroleum products.

Despite the near total neglect of the foreign policy implications of this emerging policy by US commentators and, especially, the left, they have not gone unnoticed in important circles internationally. Writing in the largest circulation UK paper, The Sunday Times, Irwin Stelzer stated on July 2: “LNG has created a new Great Game, with America’s ‘yuge’ reserves of natural gas giving Trump a weapon with which to offset Russia’s early lead.” Talk of “Great Games,” of course, invokes memories of the imperialist rivalries and clashes of the late 19th and early 20th century. While the “Russia-gate” controversies uncritically consume many US observers, even conservative Europeans are identifying the material interests, the imperialist interests standing behind the hysterical anti-Russia campaign.

Further, Stelzer sees the recent Gulf States’ aggression against Qatar for what it is: “... the Saudi royal family believe now is the time to wring a total surrender from Qatar… The implication for the global LNG market of a potential isolation of Qatar [the world’s largest exporter] could not be more consequential.” And it could not be more beneficial to the emerging US LNG shippers.

The recent Trump European trip was a sales trip for US LNG as much as it was participation in the G20 summit.

OPEC ‘Monopoly’ versus US Hegemony

It appears more and more likely that the era of OPEC dominance of energy markets is dwindling, broken by US energy production. Saudi Arabia attempted to reverse the expansion of US production by over producing and driving the price of oil below a level that would allow US shale producers to be profitable. Consequently, US operators lost $130 billion since 2015. But Wall Street has subsidized the shale industry by ploughing $57 billion back into the industry over the last 18 months, a move that shows both no fear of a price war and a determination to dominate the markets. The Wall Street Journal (7-8-2017) likened the investments to the tech boom of the past.

At the same time, the US is using political sanctions to hinder competitors. The recent Senate vote on Russian sanctions is one obvious example. But Iran is another competitor that the US hopes to discourage. The European sanctions are now lifted, but EXXON MOBIL and CHEVRON, as US companies, are still deterred from investing in Iran because of remaining US sanctions. BP is afraid of those sanctions and only French TOTAL has dared to invest, along with CHINA NPC. Where Iran is seeking $92 billion in energy investments, it has only secured $1 billion.

Worldwide, most energy investments have channeled to US shale oil.

The monopoly price-manipulation model enforced by OPEC discipline is eroding. Since competition is intensifying, pricing has become extremely volatile. With Chinese imports of crude oil up 13% this year, the Saudis have sharply cut the price of super light crude to Asia to garner a greater share of this burgeoning market.

The Future

Of course, it is impossible to spell out all of the foreign policy implications of the new energy imperialism. But it appears certain that the US drive toward energy dominance will reshape US imperialist designs and generate a strong international response.

The House of Representatives companion bill on sanctions passed 419-3, demonstrating again the ruling-class consensus on punishing oil and gas producers-- Russia and Iran. The European Union wisely interprets this and its Senate companion as a challenge to existing energy relations. As The New York Times reported (July 25) immediately after the vote: “...the new sanctions have important implications for Europe because they target any company that contributes to the development, maintenance or modernization of Russia’s energy export pipelines.” It notes that: “Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission, the bloc’s bureaucratic arm, has called for an urgent review of how the European Union should respond.”

Speaking to the “principles” behind the House bill, Russian “Alexey Pushkov, a legislator and frequent commentator on international relations, wrote on Twitter: ‘The exceptional nation wants to block Russian gas supplies to Europe and to sell expensive shale gas from the U.S. to its European servants. That’s the entire ‘morality’ of Congress,’” as reported by The New York Times (7-25-17)

And the price war between the US and OPEC along with its friends has left OPEC unity in danger and its policies in shambles. At the most recent meeting in St. Petersburg, disputes over production and exports have combined with frustration over the effectiveness of agreements. States are conflicted over protecting prices and earnings or fighting for market share.

Where unbridled competition arises, conflict is soon to follow. With economic interests joining with political maneuvering, as the US-contrived hysteria over Russia and Iran instantiates, the danger of aggression and war grows exponentially.

The new US imperialist “Game” is played to dominate energy markets, an even more perilous project that threatens friend and foe alike.
Zoltan Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com

[blindpig]

Organized penetration plan for European monopolies in Cuba
Sunday 30 July 2017
From a major demonstration on May 1st where the Cuban people advocates defending their conquests
From a major demonstration on May 1st where the Cuban people advocates defending their conquests
At the last plenary session of the European Parliament in July, the "Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and Cuba" was discussed and voted, as well as the relevant resolution of the European Parliament, both of which were voted against by the KKE Euro-Parliamentary Group .
Both the text of the Agreement and the resolution constitute an organized plan for the penetration of EU monopolies in Cuba, the creation of reactionary mechanisms that target the Cuban people and the conquests of the Revolution.
In particular, the Agreement is replacing the so-called "EU Common Position" of 1996, which 20 years later, in December 2016, the European Council decided to abolish it. It should be noted that the EU, with its 'common position', has applied for two decades a series of trade restrictions and prohibitions. The objective of the 'common position' was defined in its first article:
"The EU's objective in its relations with Cuba is to encourage the process of transition to pluralistic democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as the supportive recovery and improvement of Cuban living conditions. The transition is most likely to be peaceful if the current regime were to take the initiative or allow such a process. It is not the EU's policy to try to induce such a change by pressing measures that will result in increased economic distress among Cubans. "
It is even indicative that despite the two decades of these restrictions, mainly through the promotion of bilateral agreements between several of its member states and Cuba, it became the "largest foreign investor in Cuba" and "its second largest trading partner". 1
In early 2014, during the US talks with Cuba on the lifting of the embargo, the EU and Cuba began negotiating an agreement with each other. The Political Dialogue Agreement and the Association Agreement were eventually signed in December 2016 after two years of negotiations.
The rapporteur, in particular, of the resolution and the EU-Cuban Agreement in the European Parliament, the Spanish Social Democrat MEP, Valenciano closed the discussion of the matter to the committee responsible and responded with no hesitation to those who recommended the continuation of the regime of restrictions such as that of the "common position"
"There will be a common dialogue framework that has not existed until now. For the nostalgists of the "common position" I want to say that he's done it finished, he finished by the same ones who had adopted the "common position". We are in new times and in these the EU must have institutional as well as economic relations with Cuba. It reminds us of other periods in other countries, which we helped to open them up. (...) Those who for ideological reasons do not want the agreement, I say do not forget that it happened in other countries, it will be easier to make changes through this agreement. "
The above confession is also confirmed by the very text of the Agreement, which, in addition to its rapporteurs, "speaks" itself. Here are some of the terms of this Agreement:
With specific targeting at the level of the economy
Notwithstanding the wishes of the text initially "Respecting all peoples to freely decide their political system", the Agreement has a particular focus on the determinant level of the economy. In one of its main chapters, entitled "Modernizing the Economic and Social Model", provides: "The Parties (EU and Cuba Signs) agree to develop cooperative actions to support the strengthening and modernization of Cuba's public administration and Cuban economy (...) promoting transparent, responsible, effective, stable and democratic institutions ".
It is also noted that "The Parties agree to cooperate (...)
- create properly functioning, inclusive labor markets,
- provide incentives for job creation and entrepreneurship by strengthening the institutional framework needed to set up businesses and facilitate access to credit,
- the promotion of business development services for cooperatives, small private farms and small-scale fishing communities,
- promoting cooperation and linkages between the public and private sectors,
- promote instruments to support small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular those aimed at improving the competitiveness (...) of access to credit and training. They also agree to promote contacts between companies from both parties to support their entry into international markets, investment and technology transfer,
- supporting the diversification of the Cuban economy and the promotion of an appropriate business climate,
- encouraging greater investment flows by developing an attractive and stable environment for mutual investment (...) with a view to improving understanding and cooperation on investment issues and promoting an inclusive investment regime ... of a transparent business And investment regime on a non-discriminatory basis,
- the integration of Cuba into the world economy,
- strengthening the development and diversification of interregional trade and trade with the European Union,
- their commitment to the Trade Facilitation Agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
The text also calls for "implementation of the Agreement of 15 April 1994 establishing the WTO and the Multilateral Agreements annexed to the WTO Agreement" as well as "the achievement of the objectives of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda".
In order to achieve the objectives of the agreement, the text calls for "dialogue and cooperation with all relevant stakeholders, including representatives of regional and local governments, civil society and the private sector ". It provides for trade "all import procedures to be made free of customs duties and taxes, for goods and inputs related to cooperative activities".
The pretext of "human rights"
With the start of the agreement, EU funds are expected to flow in the name of "promoting Cuba's participation in EU regional cooperation programs in the EU's thematic cooperation programs" and promoting Cuba's involvement as an associated partner in EU framework programs Union ", as stated in the text of the Agreement.
As is true of all the non-proliferation agreements concluded by the EU with third countries and the agreement with Cuba, there are predictions:
- "For the Parties to exchange views on preventing and combating the illicit trafficking of migrants".
Recognizing that "it is their duty to protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms irrespective of their political, economic and cultural systems, the parties agree to cooperate in the field of democracy and human rights".
- Promote transparent, responsible, effective, stable and democratic institutions.
At this point, it must be noted that the unacceptable resolution adopted by the European Parliament is "specialized" in provocative reports on human rights, defending every counter-revolutionary element and activity in Cuba.
While the agreement further provides for: "Improving co-ordination with relevant international organizations and bodies, including in the field of police and judicial cooperation.
- The adoption and effective implementation of appropriate standards to combat money laundering and terrorist financing.
The Parties agree to cooperate in the prevention and suppression of terrorist acts to police and judicial cooperation. "
The European Union and Cuba under the agreement also cooperate:
'- to ensure that any person who participates in the financing, organization, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or supporting terrorist acts are brought to justice (...) and in terms of the International Criminal Court.
- on immigration, illicit trafficking of migrants,
- to identify their alleged nationals and to accept their nationals illegally present on the territory - member of the European Union or Cuba within the deadline and in accordance with the rules and procedures established by the applicable immigration legislation of the Member Members of the European Union and Cuba,
- the specific obligations of the Member States of the European Union and Cuba on immigration issues, including readmission.
- exchanging experiences and best practices for the prevention and settlement of conflicts by mutual arrangement to address the root causes of conflict. "
Reaffirming the whole substance of the agreement, there are chapters in the same reactive direction for Health, Education, 'Social Development and Cohesion', Culture, Youth, the Environment, Racial Discrimination, Drugs, Arms Trade , Corruption, etc.
Switching the "whip" to the "carrot"
All of the above, summarized here, reveals the great dangers that this agreement marks for the people of Cuba and the victories of its rebellion. It underlines the practice of the capitalists, the EU, their bourgeois governments, and the SYRIZA-ANEL government to adapt their tactics, to alternate the "carrot" with the "whip", always having the same counter-revolutionary goals. The replacement of the "common position" by the EU-Cuba agreement marks the even more active and planned penetration of European monopolies in Cuba, exposing the Cuban people to great dangers.
The peoples now have considerable experience, they can make the necessary conclusions, and it is the duty of the Communists to intensify their vigilance and concern, the fellow, documented critical examination of developments. They are also integral elements of the expression of their internationalist solidarity, which for years has consistently demonstrated in the Cuban people and its rebellion against the intensified intervention of the capitalists, their unions and the bourgeois governments.

A. C.
1. Commission Communication on EU - Cuba

http://www.rizospastis.gr/storyAmp.do?id=9454093

Google Translator

Here we see where KKE's stance on imperialism can lead. This verges on idealism, producing bad real world results. I shall be greatly interested to see the Cuban communist party's response. Inter party criticism is of course allowed and necessary but the results of the Cuban democratic process should not be blown off on theoretical basis. Which is not to say that this isn't tricky business, nonetheless.

[blindpig]

Organized penetration plan for European monopolies in Cuba
Sunday 30 July 2017
From a major demonstration on May 1st where the Cuban people advocates defending their conquests
From a major demonstration on May 1st where the Cuban people advocates defending their conquests
At the last plenary session of the European Parliament in July, the "Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and Cuba" was discussed and voted, as well as the relevant resolution of the European Parliament, both of which were voted against by the KKE Euro-Parliamentary Group .
Both the text of the Agreement and the resolution constitute an organized plan for the penetration of EU monopolies in Cuba, the creation of reactionary mechanisms that target the Cuban people and the conquests of the Revolution.
In particular, the Agreement is replacing the so-called "EU Common Position" of 1996, which 20 years later, in December 2016, the European Council decided to abolish it. It should be noted that the EU, with its 'common position', has applied for two decades a series of trade restrictions and prohibitions. The objective of the 'common position' was defined in its first article:
"The EU's objective in its relations with Cuba is to encourage the process of transition to pluralistic democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as the supportive recovery and improvement of Cuban living conditions. The transition is most likely to be peaceful if the current regime were to take the initiative or allow such a process. It is not the EU's policy to try to induce such a change by pressing measures that will result in increased economic distress among Cubans. "
It is even indicative that despite the two decades of these restrictions, mainly through the promotion of bilateral agreements between several of its member states and Cuba, it became the "largest foreign investor in Cuba" and "its second largest trading partner". 1
In early 2014, during the US talks with Cuba on the lifting of the embargo, the EU and Cuba began negotiating an agreement with each other. The Political Dialogue Agreement and the Association Agreement were eventually signed in December 2016 after two years of negotiations.
The rapporteur, in particular, of the resolution and the EU-Cuban Agreement in the European Parliament, the Spanish Social Democrat MEP, Valenciano closed the discussion of the matter to the committee responsible and responded with no hesitation to those who recommended the continuation of the regime of restrictions such as that of the "common position"
"There will be a common dialogue framework that has not existed until now. For the nostalgists of the "common position" I want to say that he's done it finished, he finished by the same ones who had adopted the "common position". We are in new times and in these the EU must have institutional as well as economic relations with Cuba. It reminds us of other periods in other countries, which we helped to open them up. (...) Those who for ideological reasons do not want the agreement, I say do not forget that it happened in other countries, it will be easier to make changes through this agreement. "
The above confession is also confirmed by the very text of the Agreement, which, in addition to its rapporteurs, "speaks" itself. Here are some of the terms of this Agreement:
With specific targeting at the level of the economy
Notwithstanding the wishes of the text initially "Respecting all peoples to freely decide their political system", the Agreement has a particular focus on the determinant level of the economy. In one of its main chapters, entitled "Modernizing the Economic and Social Model", provides: "The Parties (EU and Cuba Signs) agree to develop cooperative actions to support the strengthening and modernization of Cuba's public administration and Cuban economy (...) promoting transparent, responsible, effective, stable and democratic institutions ".
It is also noted that "The Parties agree to cooperate (...)
- create properly functioning, inclusive labor markets,
- provide incentives for job creation and entrepreneurship by strengthening the institutional framework needed to set up businesses and facilitate access to credit,
- the promotion of business development services for cooperatives, small private farms and small-scale fishing communities,
- promoting cooperation and linkages between the public and private sectors,
- promote instruments to support small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular those aimed at improving the competitiveness (...) of access to credit and training. They also agree to promote contacts between companies from both parties to support their entry into international markets, investment and technology transfer,
- supporting the diversification of the Cuban economy and the promotion of an appropriate business climate,
- encouraging greater investment flows by developing an attractive and stable environment for mutual investment (...) with a view to improving understanding and cooperation on investment issues and promoting an inclusive investment regime ... of a transparent business And investment regime on a non-discriminatory basis,
- the integration of Cuba into the world economy,
- strengthening the development and diversification of interregional trade and trade with the European Union,
- their commitment to the Trade Facilitation Agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
The text also calls for "implementation of the Agreement of 15 April 1994 establishing the WTO and the Multilateral Agreements annexed to the WTO Agreement" as well as "the achievement of the objectives of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda".
In order to achieve the objectives of the agreement, the text calls for "dialogue and cooperation with all relevant stakeholders, including representatives of regional and local governments, civil society and the private sector ". It provides for trade "all import procedures to be made free of customs duties and taxes, for goods and inputs related to cooperative activities".
The pretext of "human rights"
With the start of the agreement, EU funds are expected to flow in the name of "promoting Cuba's participation in EU regional cooperation programs in the EU's thematic cooperation programs" and promoting Cuba's involvement as an associated partner in EU framework programs Union ", as stated in the text of the Agreement.
As is true of all the non-proliferation agreements concluded by the EU with third countries and the agreement with Cuba, there are predictions:
- "For the Parties to exchange views on preventing and combating the illicit trafficking of migrants".
Recognizing that "it is their duty to protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms irrespective of their political, economic and cultural systems, the parties agree to cooperate in the field of democracy and human rights".
- Promote transparent, responsible, effective, stable and democratic institutions.
At this point, it must be noted that the unacceptable resolution adopted by the European Parliament is "specialized" in provocative reports on human rights, defending every counter-revolutionary element and activity in Cuba.
While the agreement further provides for: "Improving co-ordination with relevant international organizations and bodies, including in the field of police and judicial cooperation.
- The adoption and effective implementation of appropriate standards to combat money laundering and terrorist financing.
The Parties agree to cooperate in the prevention and suppression of terrorist acts to police and judicial cooperation. "
The European Union and Cuba under the agreement also cooperate:
'- to ensure that any person who participates in the financing, organization, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or supporting terrorist acts are brought to justice (...) and in terms of the International Criminal Court.
- on immigration, illicit trafficking of migrants,
- to identify their alleged nationals and to accept their nationals illegally present on the territory - member of the European Union or Cuba within the deadline and in accordance with the rules and procedures established by the applicable immigration legislation of the Member Members of the European Union and Cuba,
- the specific obligations of the Member States of the European Union and Cuba on immigration issues, including readmission.
- exchanging experiences and best practices for the prevention and settlement of conflicts by mutual arrangement to address the root causes of conflict. "
Reaffirming the whole substance of the agreement, there are chapters in the same reactive direction for Health, Education, 'Social Development and Cohesion', Culture, Youth, the Environment, Racial Discrimination, Drugs, Arms Trade , Corruption, etc.
Switching the "whip" to the "carrot"
All of the above, summarized here, reveals the great dangers that this agreement marks for the people of Cuba and the victories of its rebellion. It underlines the practice of the capitalists, the EU, their bourgeois governments, and the SYRIZA-ANEL government to adapt their tactics, to alternate the "carrot" with the "whip", always having the same counter-revolutionary goals. The replacement of the "common position" by the EU-Cuba agreement marks the even more active and planned penetration of European monopolies in Cuba, exposing the Cuban people to great dangers.
The peoples now have considerable experience, they can make the necessary conclusions, and it is the duty of the Communists to intensify their vigilance and concern, the fellow, documented critical examination of developments. They are also integral elements of the expression of their internationalist solidarity, which for years has consistently demonstrated in the Cuban people and its rebellion against the intensified intervention of the capitalists, their unions and the bourgeois governments.

A. C.
1. Commission Communication on EU - Cuba

http://www.rizospastis.gr/storyAmp.do?id=9454093

Google Translator

Here we see where KKE's stance on imperialism can lead. This verges on idealism, producing bad real world results. I shall be greatly interested to see the Cuban communist party's response. Inter party criticism is of course allowed and necessary but the results of the Cuban democratic process should not be blown off on theoretical basis. Which is not to say that this isn't tricky business, nonetheless.

Cuba pursued relations with the EU ITSELF. It did so to counterbalance the hostile turn in US foreign policy. Opposing it's choice is OBJECTIVELY siding with its US-desired isolation. Enough with mincing words here. @Obscureobjet

(strong stuff)

[Dhalgren]

Pointing out the error of the Cuban government in establishing a "trust" relationship with imperialist powers in order to subvert the aims of another imperialist power is not ""objectively" siding with US-desired isolation". When Marx opposed the South in the US Civil War, it did not mean that he therefore objectively supported the bourgeois North in anything except ending slavery. This idea that there is no "slippery slope" in striking bargains with imperialists is wrong-headed. If this rapprochement between Cuba and the EU works to strengthen Cuban socialism, then KKE will analyze how their criticism went wrong. Cuba is under extreme pressure from US imperialism, seeking aid from EU imperialism may be their only recourse, but the criticism of the move is not wrong.

How could any communist support this:

It should be noted that the EU, with its 'common position', has applied for two decades a series of trade restrictions and prohibitions. The objective of the 'common position' was defined in its first article:
"The EU's objective in its relations with Cuba is to encourage the process of transition to pluralistic democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as the supportive recovery and improvement of Cuban living conditions. The transition is most likely to be peaceful if the current regime were to take the initiative or allow such a process. It is not the EU's policy to try to induce such a change by pressing measures that will result in increased economic distress among Cubans."

[kidoftheblackhole]

All of the above, summarized here, reveals the great dangers that this agreement marks for the people of Cuba and the victories of its rebellion. It underlines the practice of the capitalists, the EU, their bourgeois governments, and the SYRIZA-ANEL government to adapt their tactics, to alternate the "carrot" with the "whip", always having the same counter-revolutionary goals. The replacement of the "common position" by the EU-Cuba agreement marks the even more active and planned penetration of European monopolies in Cuba, exposing the Cuban people to great dangers.

When are the Cuban people not exposed to great dangers?

[kidoftheblackhole]

Cuba is under extreme pressure from US imperialism, seeking aid from EU imperialism may be their only recourse, but the criticism of the move is not wrong.

'

Setting aside my reservations about whether that makes any sense, what is the criticism?

"This isn't going to end well"?
"This is a bad idea"?
"Danger Will Robinson"?

You think they made it this far being deaf, dumb, blind, and stupid?

[Dhalgren]

Cuba is under extreme pressure from US imperialism, seeking aid from EU imperialism may be their only recourse, but the criticism of the move is not wrong.

'

Setting aside my reservations about whether that makes any sense, what is the criticism?

"This isn't going to end well"?
"This is a bad idea"?
"Danger Will Robinson"?

You think they made it this far being deaf, dumb, blind, and stupid?

When, and under what conditions? To say 'the Cuban people have always been right in all they have done', they therefore can't be wrong now.
And "wrong" how? Is the Cuban state in dire economic and social straights? Evidently so. What is the most important issue? Getting onto their feet, while maintaining and advancing the revolution? If a sound and proven communist party gives critiques and analyses of the proposed solutions, why is this cause for hand wringing?
The criticism is that trading the devil for the witch is not the move to make. Now, if there are no other moves then the whole discussion is moot - the Cubans must throw-in with the EUROPEAN imperialists and hope for the best.

[blindpig]

The criticism is that trading the devil for the witch is not the move to make. Now, if there are no other moves then the whole discussion is moot - the Cubans must throw-in with the EUROPEAN imperialists and hope for the best.

That is the crux of the biscuit. These things must be examined on a case by case basis, as local conditions vary.

If we ain't hit bottom we're damn close. Bottom in these days is characterized by unipolar imperialism. Competition takes a backseat to being a lapdog ally like the NATO countries or flat out groveling compradorship. Don't think this is the time to complain that Venezuela is insufficiently socialist. True enough, but what is realistically possible? We must walk a fine line, informed by best information and theory, and if best information consistently contradicts theory then theory must adjust.

Had Russia fully backed Donbass this would be a much more difficult scenario. Likewise with the knife of Russian diplomacy in the back of Syria it is difficult to call that capitalist competition. It seems we are dealing with something different than what Lenin described in that there is a lack of substantial competition.

Perhaps, as has been suggested, KKE and the CP of Mexico are experiencing a breakdown in dialectical analysis?

[Dhalgren]

"Perhaps, as has been suggested, KKE and the CP of Mexico are experiencing a breakdown in dialectical analysis?"

Maybe they are the only ones who are actually utilizing dialectical analysis? I have yet to see an actual refutation of KKE's analysis, only emotional reactions to perceived disloyalty to Cuba. If anyone thinks KKE and the CP of Mexico are anti-Cuban revolution, I would like to see some evidence.

[kidoftheblackhole]

"Perhaps, as has been suggested, KKE and the CP of Mexico are experiencing a breakdown in dialectical analysis?"

Maybe they are the only ones who are actually utilizing dialectical analysis? I have yet to see an actual refutation of KKE's analysis, only emotional reactions to perceived disloyalty to Cuba. If anyone thinks KKE and the CP of Mexico are anti-Cuban revolution, I would like to see some evidence.

Loyalties and/or sentiment are not the issues and the KKE is not providing "actual analysis" here. Analysis -- as opposed to CRITIQUE -- would start with the democratic process inside Cuba. What does Cuba think and why? Are they unaware of the pitfalls (as I tried to say in my last post, it would be a joke to think so, no?)

The real question -- and it must be put to the KKE as much as anyone -- is whether it is a revolutionary situation? Does a Maximum Programme make sense in the current environment? Does it make sense for an island of 11 million people? Is it even TENABLE? If not, why are we even talking about it?

That's kind of the (operational) definition of idealism, isn't it? Retrofitting real conditions to conform to theoretical notions of how things "should" be.