• albigu@lemmygrad.ml
    351·
    1 year ago

    It might be a good time to also change to a better projection than the “Huge Greenland” one. That one makes it seem as if Europe even has any landmass to boast. For reference, Venezuela has roughly double the area of France. And look at that tiny India!

  • SpaceDogs@lemmygrad.ml
    27·
    1 year ago

    I was gonna ask about Cuba and Venezuela since it seemed like a no-brainer, so I’m glad they’ve formally applied.

      • Trudge [Comrade]@lemmygrad.ml
        27·
        1 year ago

        Goldman Sachs named BRICS. It was originally meant to be a “hottest place to invest” thing for investors. That’s why South Africa is in the original group, when it honestly doesn’t match the other 4 in size or influence.

        They were probably going to come together anyways, but South Africa being part of the original 5 is due to Goldman Sachs imo.

  • soumerd_retardataire@lemmygrad.ml
    13·
    1 year ago

    Always the same map.

    And also, apart from multilateralism/anti-imperialism, there’s a (new) rise of left-wing politicians in South America :

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlOP
      162·
      1 year ago

      Latin America going left is a very exciting development. It was much easier for US to stomp out socialist governments when they popped up individually, but when you have a whole bunch of countries going left then they can support and reinforce each other. Now they also have support from BRICS so US is no longer to do effective economic warfare against them.

      • soumerd_retardataire@lemmygrad.ml
        4·
        1 year ago

        That’d be great, but even if Pedro Castillo wasn’t arrested, or “Correists” gain back Ecuador, it doesn’t seem like Cuba’s or Venezuela’s struggles for their right to freely choose socialism would be resolved either way(, for their own good, of course)(, i would not deny some improvements though, even if their power is limited).
        Capitalists-owned countries would perhaps accept to be united with socialists, but also atheists with theocrats, republicans with royalists, socialists with so-called “anarcho”-capitalists, so-called “liberals” with so-called “illiberals”, or anti-populists with direct democracies, if they didn’t fear in each case some kind of contamination inside their borders, it may be the number one reason for all these wars waged against leftist ideals and “othernesses” in general.
        If that’s indeed the main reason preventing a union throughout the world, then finding a solution to this problem may be important.

        You didn’t asked, but i can see two categories for this problem :

        • Western governments and others could perhaps accept to unite with other ideologies if everyone agrees upon a status quo ensuring that no “contamination” will ever occur, the problem being that it’s unrealistic&undesirable to ask for all evolutions to cease, populations should be able to switch sides or create new ones if they want to. Such refusal will imply more wars of influence to spread our own ideology over a uniform world ;
        • Western governments and others trust their ability to keep control by force, and/or to convince their population that their ideology is better than the foreign propaganda they’ll inevitably be exposed to, especially in the case of a united world in which every country is helping each other. The problem being that capitalists are aware that a lot of people are stolen from in order for a few to be wealthy, but they consider that it’s the best system, and that you unfortunately can’t trust the exploited to see things their way, so they will never agree to this solution, unable to win the debate ;
        • In between these two options, there’s the possibility for countries to be promised the first option of a status quo, in order to trap them in a world union, but throughout the century progressively switch to the second one of a possible “contamination”, as progressively/insidiously/legally as possible. That’s dishonest and a reason why even this first option of allowing a country to leave in a bubble wouldn’t be trusted by them, but the only one i would bet on based on my current humble understanding.
          The best option would ideally be that westerners were convinced their propaganda will forever be more powerful than the socialist one, that they have nothing to fear, but that doesn’t seem realistic either.
          It truly seems to me for the past few days that this question is an important obstacle towards understanding how we could accept being united with our declared enemies.

        I’m not expecting an answer from you or any reader, just thinking out loud, but it seems important to bring such questions because a world peace is desirable&feasible, and despite all our flaws even capitalists are rational beings, there may be a way to concile everyone’s interests and avoid what the future may hold for us, still not sure how but there’s certainly ways.

    • albigu@lemmygrad.ml
      10·
      1 year ago

      “Left” might be too strong a word for some of those, but in general the trend is not bad considering how bad it all got after they tried to replicate Arab Spring over here in the late 2010s. Covid was also a huge wake up call to how liberals don’t really value human life, to those who were not in the know yet. Besides BRICS, I also hope for more cultural and economic integration and cooperation within the CELAC. Hopefully with none of the EU neoliberal enforcement crap.

      For example, Brazil is incredibly insular culturally, and it would help a lot to understand our own history and material conditions if our people also looked at the incredibly similar experiences of other Latin American countries. Spanish is not even that hard, when compared to English or Frankish.