AfricaBoard

Uisalb wrote:

Não concordo com tudo, mas é interessante essa visão acerca da disputa entre os três eixos pontuados pelo Andrey Korybko para entender a geopolítica internacional. De fato, parece-me que estes três pólos estão colocados nas discussões domésticas dos países:

1) liberais x conservadores, que basicamente é a guerra cultura importada dos EUA;
2) líderes multipolares x unipolares, podendo isto ser interpretado como a disputa entre países que buscam mais espaço (sendo o brics a maior expressão) x países que se conformam na ordem existente (cuja maior expressão é o g7), seja defendendo uma ordem unipolar americana (neoconservadores americanos), seja defendendo os multilateralista a necessidade de convidar aliados regionais para compartilhar o peso da liderança global;
3) globalistas x soberanistas, que nos resgata ao trilema de Rodrik a respeito da integração da economia global.

De qualquer forma, vale a pena acompanhar os artigos do Korybko.

Also, yeah we're Marxist but don't wear the rhetorical tropes out, heaven forbid you run out. Also ONCE AGAIN, SOUTHERN RHODESIA NO LONGER EXISTS. literally even most former "Rhodesians" came to identify as Zimbabweans after 1980. You're just salty about majority rule and lack the dialectical means to critically examine the present nature of conditions in Zimbabwe as created by a bourgeois national revolution which in and of itself was a creation of conditions rooted in the majorities lack of political representation compounded by limited socio-economic mobility and justified anti colonialist sentiments from nationalist political movements whose resort to armed struggle was the end of the road in a series of entryist attempts to slowly pave the way for majority rule in a climate that was either at face value hostile or apathetic about it. Mind you, there's a difference between the two and alot of it comes down to education which was poor outside of Urban Areas (TTLs) due to limited funding not to mention the mountains of relatively effective propaganda. Also your lack of knowledge on the subject and your incessant use of colonial designations out of their original context is vulgar and thus insulting. Lemme know if you can still read the language of Milton and Austen, Sassanach. By the way....A Happy Burn's Night!

Also, yeah we're Marxist but don't wear the rhetorical tropes out, heaven forbid you run out. Also ONCE AGAIN, SOUTHERN RHODESIA NO LONGER EXISTS. literally even most former "Rhodesians" came to identify as Zimbabweans after 1980. You're just salty about majority rule and lack the dialectical means to critically examine the present nature of conditions in Zimbabwe as created by a bourgeois national revolution which in and of itself was a creation of conditions rooted in the majorities lack of political representation compounded by limited socio-economic mobility and justified anti colonialist sentiments from nationalist political movements whose resort to armed struggle was the end of the road in a series of entryist attempts to slowly pave the way for majority rule in a climate that was either at face value hostile or apathetic about it. Mind you, there's a difference between the two and alot of it comes down to education which was poor outside of Urban Areas (TTLs) due to limited funding not to mention the mountains of relatively effective propaganda. Also your lack of knowledge on the subject and your incessant use of colonial designations out of their original context is vulgar and thus insulting. Lemme know if you can still read the language of Milton and Austen, Sassanach. By the way....A Happy Burn's Night!