Anti-populism takes up anti-communism

 

Anti-populism takes up anti-communism

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The removal of the sculptures of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara has renewed the debate surrounding anti-communism in Mexico. The animosity of the radical Morena supporters places President Claudia Sheinbaum facing a significant challenge, given the historical trajectory of anti-communism in Mexico, an issue that requires careful, thoughtful, and critical approach. Anti-communism in Mexico is not new, but it has gained strength in the last decade, especially since 2006, when animosity and anti-populism intensified following post-election conflicts and the wave of the South American left.

This phenomenon transcends mere electoral competition and is an ideological confrontation that seeks to arouse fears of communism. This strategy could have profound consequences for the country's political and social polarization, primarily because it appeals to North American interests. Mexican society is deeply conservative, illiberal, and more nationalist than progressive, which further complicates the situation.

As the ruling party, Morena faces major problems in this context, including a lack of internal cohesion and discipline, as well as an excessive focus on external demands, such as those of Donald Trump. The opposition has found support in external sectors, such as business, civil society, and the Catholic Church, which appear interested in countering López Obrador's influence on Sheinbaum.

Anti-communism in Mexico draws fundamentally from two sources: Catholic nationalism and the influence of the United States.

In the past, the Mexican left has struggled to effectively counter these forces, in part due to the conservative and illiberal nature of Mexican society. Mexico was a hub for the World Anti-Communist League, where the PRI had a permanent membership. To emerge successful this time, it is crucial that Morena and its leaders opt for moderation and pragmatism. Moving away from ideological extremes and the influence of radical actors, as well as controversial actors exposed by media scandals, could be a more effective strategy to regain legitimacy in society. Moderation and constructive dialogue, both nationally and internationally, could be key to navigating these challenges and promoting more inclusive and sustainable development for Mexico.

President Sheinbaum should carefully consider how to address the issue of communism and anti-communism in her administration, prioritizing moderation and pragmatism in her public policies and governance. This could help reduce polarization and promote greater stability and social cohesion in the country. There is no point in burning the country down for lost causes.

In this context, the question is whether Morena will rise to the bait of the anti-communist struggle and what effect this will have on the Mexican social environment. The answer will largely depend on the strategy adopted by President Sheinbaum and her team, and how they balance internal and external pressures with the need to promote more inclusive and sustainable development for Mexico.

History has shown that the Mexican left has lost important battles against anti-communism, and the level of factionalism and incompetence within the Mexican left has also contributed to its historic defeats. Therefore, it is critical that Morena and its leaders learn from these experiences and develop an effective strategy to address the challenges faced in the current context.

NarcoMexico: Today as Always

 NarcoMexico: Today as Always

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

It is carefully observed how certain situations, which at first might seem novel, actually resonate with historical dynamics within the Mexican political sphere. Mexico has been the North American Sicily for many decades, not only during the Morena administration.

A recent example is the case involving the former governor of Tabasco and current senator, Adán Augusto López Hernández.

While his situation has generated worrying conversations, accusations linking the political class to complex relationships rarely lead to decisive consequences. North America has always known that the political class is permeated by drug trafficking, yet it does nothing about it.

A precedent of this nature, which still resonates, is that of former Secretary of Public Security, Genaro García Luna, whose legal process, so far, does not seem to have brought any tangible benefit to the country, but rather the opposite, leaving a taste of uncertainty and frustration. Drug trafficking, corruption, and violence are unstoppable over time.

Since the late 1980s, literary works by authors such as Rafael Loret de Mola and Tom Clancy, through their revealing contexts, have suggested the urgent need for more decisive intervention by the United States to effectively combat drug trafficking.

However, historically, the neighboring nation has maintained a stance of restraint. This dynamic has led some observers to consider the possibility that certain factions within organized crime may be, in some way, linked to the interests of the "Yankee empire," a hypothesis that seems more logical than that of a White House solely concerned with the health of American youth.

However, this perception may be changing, especially in light of statements by former President Donald Trump, whose positions suggest a possible departure from the approaches traditionally adopted by both Democratic and Republican leaders.

In certain strata of society, the link between the political class and drug trafficking has become normalized, paradoxically viewing government actions as extraordinary gestures within this complex network.

For its part, the North American narrative often evokes legal justice regarding the context of drug trafficking in the 1980s; however, time has moved on; we are now in 2025.

Currently, in Morena's second six-year term, both drug production and trafficking have reached unprecedented levels of sophistication, and it seems that the expectation of effective control has vanished.

Unfortunately, beyond the media glare and the news stories that capture public attention, a profound resolution to these problems seems distant.

Even if figures like García Luna are apprehended, the elusive nature of both illicit money and certain political actors suggests that the essence of the situation in Mexico could remain unchanged.

It is a reminder that solutions to these challenges deeply rooted in the Mexican social fabric require a comprehensive and persistent approach, beyond the news cycles.

Not Paper, Just Tomatoes

 Not Paper, Just Tomatoes

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The fact that almost 100% of the production of such a basic agricultural product as tomatoes is destined for export to a single country constitutes absolute proof of the profound asymmetrical and colonial integration that Mexico maintains with the Yankee Empire.

The concern of large landowners about Trump's tariffs is legitimate from their business perspective; however, should they be thinking about domestic consumption? In other words, could the tomato businessmen and landowners in our country be kind enough to ensure people could access this agricultural product without the radical variation it presents in the market? The same is true of products ranging from cilantro to lemons in the variety of our folkloric national cuisine.

The humanism of businessmen and landowners in our country is incredible; they might as well be Japanese to feel proud of the situation! The United States' absorption in Mexican tomatoes is more than paradoxical; Furthermore, there are almost no farmers left in Mexico since everyone is going to plant tomatoes, but in the United States! This highlights how the US economic influence not only attracts our workforce but also disrupts domestic production chains.

Tomato production in Mexico, during the neoliberal era, was designed on a massive scale for export and targeted at specific North American markets, with standards and prices that often don't align with the consumption capacity of the Mexican population in general, or that don't offer the same profits as the external market.

The case of the tomato demonstrates the frustration and sense of hopelessness that the majority of the population feels toward its ruling and economic class. It seems that in Mexico the United States solves everything, starting with tomatoes. Any government project, public policy, or national project is simply useless against the immense power of the American Union.

Has US imperialism fallen? Ask the Mexicans.

Millions of Mexicans, especially those in rural areas with few opportunities, see migration to the United States as the only tangible avenue for socioeconomic advancement.

Remittances become the engine of the local economy, filling the gaps that national public policies fail to address, or simply fail to mitigate.

In this context, school, local commerce, or farm work seem insufficient or downright useless options in the face of the dollar's purchasing power.

This generates a structural dependency that is palpable and understandable at the individual and community levels.

The tomato example is another manifestation of this same dependency.

The actions of the ruling class, neoliberal or whoever, increase frustration.

What would the reality of Zacatecas be like if Andrés Bermúdez Viramontes—the tomato king—had been governor? Who did more good for the state: the tomato king or the Monreals? It seems as if Mexico has been ruled by nothing but Monreal since time immemorial, like in Bruno Traven's novels.

What would the Tomato King think of the landowners who don't want to sell their tomatoes cheaply to Mexicans in Mexico, even though they would also destroy production in volume?

It seems impossible to reduce Mexico's vulnerability to the United States; the Morena left doesn't even understand the country's structural weakness vis-à-vis the BRICS, and they won't listen either.

The Noroñas and Monreales remain the only answer.

Excessive dependence on a single external factor (remittances, a single export market) makes Mexico incredibly vulnerable to economic and political fluctuations in the United States.

If immigration laws are further tightened tomorrow, or if remittances decline drastically, what will happen to the country? The need for effective public policies is more than urgent; but what is essential is to destroy the ruling corruption of the fiefdoms in Mexico.

Elon Musk and the Breakdown of the American Two-Party System

 Elon Musk and the Breakdown of the American Two-Party System

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

It is undeniable that the political history of the United States has been characterized by the two-party hegemony of Republicans and Democrats. However, the possibility of a significant break looms on the horizon, driven by atypical figures such as the techno-feudal entrepreneur Elon Musk. Just as Ross Perot once did, Musk could seriously challenge this established dominance, opening a new chapter in American political dynamics and becoming a third rather than a leading actor in the United States.

The United States political system, although one of the oldest and most democratic in the world, shows growing signs of disenchantment and a progressive loss of its appeal in the evolution of contemporary liberal culture. North America has managed to develop a functional presidential system, perhaps the only one of its kind, despite an electoral model that many consider unfair and plutocratic. For some scholars, this particular characteristic is precisely what has allowed for the complex mechanics of checks and balances, equilibrium, and equilibrium, a uniqueness rarely observed in other forms of presidential government outside of their territory. In contrast, for example, the Latin American reality offers a mirror to the dysfunctionality of presidentialism. In this region, coexistence with multi-party systems often results in authoritarian schemes. Despite various electoral and political reforms, the proliferation of parties generates governmental paralysis that leads to inefficiency and, unfortunately, to recurrent authoritarian attempts. Therefore, the indirect, aristocratic, and savagely liberal system of the United States only allows the survival of two partisan institutions, although there is an enormous associative, philanthropic, participatory, union, and militant tradition in North America.

Therefore, the potential emergence of a third party in the United States takes on particular relevance. A party that seriously competes for power would not only revitalize the political sphere but could also return greater sovereignty to civil society. Ross Perot's precedent was extraordinary, emerging at a time of notable participatory crisis in the country. Today, the relevance of a similar movement is accentuated by the excessive polarization that permeates the political environment, a context that could benefit the "Party of America" ​​initiative that Elon Musk seeks to build.

The visionary owner of Tesla, SpaceX, and other powerful industries possesses not only the financial resources, but also the technological and media resources, to develop substantial competitiveness and reach a broad audience. His vast technological empire has the potential to contribute significantly to the well-being of American society, even to the point of conceiving futuristic projects such as Elyseum, Tecnato, Modelo Downsizing, or Project Venus. Musk, with his disruptive approach, could spell the apocalypse of conventional politics, understood as a purely instinctive activity, by introducing artificial intelligence and post-technocracy as a fundamental pillar of governance and decision-making.

This South African-American entrepreneur will undoubtedly put forward a series of innovative proposals with which a large portion of the American population could identify. The technological populism embodied by Musk represents a considerable challenge for the

Democratic and Republican parties, which seem to have run out of answers in the face of China's rapid evolution and the growing global disenchantment with liberal democracy. Will the traditional American parties be up to the task of this new political era? Musk could be the Robert Redford of the film United States of Amnesia.