• rainpizza
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    I finished reading AntiDrug Capitalism(is from an author that could be considered trotskyist). If I could summarize the book in important points will be like this:

    • Cartel members and criminals served the imperialists to expand in markets that were locked away before.

    • Just in Mexico, cartel members served to purge places out of any resistance such as activists, indigenous people and others. This allowed the state and the imperialists to extract resources while reducing the likelihood of people organizing against it.

    • They also served to curve immigration by kidnapping immigrants and extorting them.

    • Every latin american country that received money from the USA to “fight the drug war” had spikes of violence.

    • Cartel members could be classified as counter insurgency. In other words, they are the capitalists dogs with the only purpose of destroying popular resistance and misleading working class people. They extort middle class people and petty bourgeoisie(small fruit stores, taco stores, convenience store) while benefitting the big capital(Walmart).

    If I could conclude, the USA is directly responsible for creating the ideal conditions to exploit latin america out of its resources and out of its people through cheap labor.

    • SadArtemis [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      They did the same (but to a less extreme extent) in southeast Asia (the “golden triangle”) and of course in Afghanistan. TBH wherever there is organized crime (esp. drugs and human trafficking), terrorism, religious extremism and cults, fascism, or tribalism/separatism, look deeper and you’ll find the CIA amerikkka

    • Lemmygradwontallowme [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I finished reading AntiDrug Capitalism(is from an author that could be considered trotskyist).

      Man, trots can be something…

      They can put succinct analysis like this, or end up being kooky as hell a la Larouche or Living Marxism, anti-Stalin line notwithstanding