Should we apply to the Dominican Republic the US embargo that Cuba suffers in tourism? A critical analysis of the article "The Business of the Embargo"
In this article, we conduct a critical analysis of an article published by Eduardo de la Cruz, a Dominican student of International Relations, Geopolitics and Diplomacy at the University of Navarra, a private entity affiliated with Opus Dei.
1. An article that distorts the reality of the blockade
Eduardo de la Cruz's article "The business of the embargo against Cuba: Economic punishment turned into political capital" constitutes an exercise in historical decontextualization and minimization of the effects of a policy that, far from being a simple "embargo" as he insists on calling it, represents the longest, most diversified, most effective and holistic system of sanctions in the history of modern international relations.
Through an apparent discourse of neutrality, the author constructs a narrative that absolves the United States of its responsibility for the current, extremely serious Cuban economic crisis and places the blame on the island's "internal model." This position not only ignores the overwhelming evidence of the devastating impact of the US economic, financial, and commercial blockade against Cuba, but also disregards the international consensus expressed year after year in the UN General Assembly.
2. The economic war against Cuba: neither an "embargo" nor a "measure"
De la Cruz categorizes the US blockade against Cuba as a "measure" within US foreign policy. The blockade is not a simple "measure," nor a mere trade "embargo," but rather a complex legal framework that includes laws such as the Torricelli Act (1992) and the Helms-Burton Act (1996), specifically designed to close any loophole through which Cuba could obtain revenue or conduct trade.
Its character is demonstrably extraterritorial and has evolved into a total economic war that, after the application of the current "maximum pressure" strategy and the nearly 250 unilateral coercive economic measures approved in the last six years, impacts the impoverishment of the living conditions of millions of innocent people on the Island.
It is part of a structural policy of unconventional warfare , involving the State Department, the Treasury Department, the Intelligence Community and other US government actors, with hundreds of officials working for its implementation.
Let us recall that the full implementation (approved by Trump) of the Helms-Burton Act, in particular, externalized the embargo in a qualitatively more effective way, by allowing lawsuits against companies from third countries that trade with Cuba and prohibiting the entry into the United States of their executives and their families. This constitutes a flagrant violation of international law and the sovereignty of other nations. Furthermore, let us remember that this law codified this policy in 1996 (making the embargo “law”), so that the US president can never repeal it without congressional approval.
3. Are the figures on the impact of the blockade “difficult to verify” accepted by 96% of the international community?
The author questions Cuban statistics, which indicate that, between March 2024 and February 2025, the blockade caused estimated damages of $7,556.1 million , an increase of 49% compared to the previous period; that 16 days of blockade are equivalent to the financing necessary to cover the needs of the Basic List of Medicines of the country; that two months of blockade are equivalent to the cost of the fuel necessary to meet the normal electricity demand in the country; or that two months of blockade are equivalent to the financing necessary to guarantee the regulated family food basket for a year.
However, these figures are part of the report that Havana has just presented to the United Nations General Assembly and which was approved by 165 votes to 7. Is 96% of the international community accepting figures that are “ difficult to verify independently,” that lack “transparency in their construction,” and that are “a political instrument that prioritizes the regime’s rhetoric over technical evidence,” as the author claims?
On the other hand, if we're talking about "independent" sources, why dismiss so many voices that condemn this policy as an economic war that threatens the living conditions (and the very lives) of an innocent people? Gerald Condon, spokesperson for the NGO Veterans for Peace, made up of former US military personnel, stated that "the blockade is an act of terrorism against Cuba." William LeoGrande, a professor at American University in Washington and an expert on US-Cuba relations, stated, regarding the blockade, that "hunger has been a weapon in Washington's arsenal" against Cuba "since Eisenhower occupied the White House . " Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, former independent expert for the United Nations Human Rights Council on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, stated that the blockade against Cuba is part of “hybrid warfare, unconventional warfare” and is “a form of genocide,” which does not aim to “help the people” but rather to achieve “a coup d'état” by creating “such a situation of hunger, anxiety, and confusion” among the population that it leads to a popular insurrection against the government. He added that it “causes direct deaths”: this is the case of people who do not receive certain medications—or receive them late—and die, “just as if they had been shot with a revolver.”
In August 2021, Alena Douhan, Obiora Okafor, Livingstone Sewanyana, and Tlaleng Mofokeng, independent experts appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council, stated in a public note that “the inhabitants of countries subject to sanctions, such as Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, and Iran, are sinking into poverty because they cannot obtain essential services such as electricity, housing, water, gas, and fuel, let alone medicine and food.” Alena Douhan herself, in her capacity as Special Rapporteur for the United Nations Human Rights Council, recently visited the island and called on the United States to “immediately end the web of unilateral coercive measures against Cuba, which violate the human rights of the population.”
In November 2023, the International Tribunal on US sanctions against the Republic of Cuba was held in Brussels, at the headquarters of the European Parliament. This symbolic event , in its verdict, described the blockade as a "crime against humanity ," according to the 1998 Rome Statute, because it constitutes a "widespread or systematic attack against the civilian population" and, "although they call it an embargo or sanctions," "has already caused, directly and indirectly, the loss of numerous human lives . "
4. If the “embargo is a useful political tool for the Havana regime,” why is it mobilizing all its diplomacy to achieve its goal?
The author suggests that the US “embargo” is “a useful political tool” for “the Havana regime” and “serves as a pretext for the (Cuban) government to justify shortages, scarcity, and the lack of reforms.” This argument is particularly cynical when one examines the active diplomacy Cuba employs to lift it. If it were truly “useful” for Havana, why would it dedicate enormous diplomatic resources to achieving its end year after year?
The reality is that Cuba is mobilizing its diplomacy because the blockade violates international law and the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, specifically the sovereign equality of states , non-intervention in internal affairs, and the prohibition of the use of force . The overwhelming majority of the international community recognizes this, as demonstrated by the vote of 165 countries in favor of lifting the blockade in October 2025, compared to only 7 against.
5. The Cuban government must “show reliable signals” to the US in order for it to lift the blockade: a defense of interventionism?
The suggestion that "the lifting of the embargo will depend on the Cuban regime's ability to respond to signals of openness from Washington" is particularly offensive. It adds: "Creating a context favorable to a substantive review of U.S. policy toward Havana requires the Cuban government to demonstrate credible signals through internal political gestures and measures of economic openness."
This language, which reflects the rhetoric of American supremacy , ignores that international relations are based on the principle of sovereign equality .
This proposal to cede sovereignty is especially objectionable when it comes from a person from Latin America and the Caribbean (the author is Dominican), a region with a long history of interventions, coups, and policies of political and economic subjugation by the US.
No country has the right to demand changes to another's internal political system as a condition for ceasing aggression. It would be unthinkable for Cuba to demand that the United States change its capitalist system as a condition for negotiations.
6. If the “centralized internal model” is to blame, why is the economic crisis worse when centralization is lower than ever?
The author attributes the Cuban crisis to "the regime's internal model, a centrally planned system that has proven unworkable," willfully ignoring that Cuba has implemented significant market reforms in the last decade, including the expansion of the private sector and greater openness to foreign investment. All of these measures have been undermined by the US government through targeted sanctions.
The obvious question the author avoids is: how do proponents of this thesis explain that the crisis has worsened precisely when central planning is at its lowest point? The answer is clear: because the 250 measures tightening the blockade, implemented under the two Trump administrations and maintained by Biden, have systematically crippled and destroyed every source of income on the island.
7. Should we apply the US tourism embargo to the country of the article's author?
Strangulation of tourism to Cuba
For example, the tourism sector, vital to the Cuban economy, has been deliberately strangled by:
Strangulation of tourism to Cuba
For example, the tourism sector, vital to the Cuban economy, has been deliberately strangled by:
Travel bans for US citizens who, after certain opening measures by President Barack Obama, had licenses to do so for a few years, even though US "tourism", strictly speaking, has never been allowed by Washington.
Inclusion of Cuba on arbitrary lists of "state sponsors of terrorism", with an impact on tourism from Europe and other parts of the world.
Pressure on shipping and airline companies operating with the island, as well as on investors from third countries in the hotel sector, through the Helms-Burton Act.
As a result, tourism has plummeted from 4.7 million visitors in 2017-2018 to just 2.2 million in 2024 , a 53% reduction. This freefall is not due to a lack of Cuban tourism offerings, but rather to a deliberate strategy of economic strangulation .
Comparative analysis: impact of the blockade on tourism in the Dominican Republic alone
The author, a Dominican national, should consider what would happen if the United States applied the same tourism restrictions to the Dominican Republic that it imposes on Cuba. In 2024, the Dominican Republic received 8.5 million tourists , with Americans accounting for approximately 40% of these visitors.
The ban on US tourism (which Cuba is currently experiencing) would mean the following for the Dominican Republic:
Loss of approximately 3.4 million annual visitors .
Estimated revenue reduction of $4 billion (assuming an average expenditure of $1,200 per tourist).
Destruction of approximately 150,000 direct jobs in the tourism sector.
Multiplier effect on related sectors such as agriculture, transport and construction.
Effect of ESTA denial to visitors from Cuba
If we were to add to this the denial of ESTA authorization to Europeans visiting the Dominican Republic (as is the case with those visiting Cuba), the impact would be even more catastrophic. European tourists represent approximately 30% of all visitors to the Dominican Republic. The combination of both measures would be equivalent to the disappearance of at least 60% of Dominican tourism , with devastating social and economic consequences.
This exercise illustrates why the blockade is not an issue that concerns only Cuba, but a violation of historical proportions that, if applied to any other country, would have even more catastrophic effects.
8. Conclusion: Solidarity in the face of distortion
Eduardo de la Cruz's article suffers from a fundamental flaw : it starts from academic premises that neutralize the human dimension of the suffering imposed on the Cuban people. By treating the blockade as a "political device" or "symbolic capital," it loses sight of the fact that it is a policy of collective punishment affecting eleven million human beings.
The international community, with its overwhelming vote at the UN, has made it clear that the blockade is the main obstacle to Cuba's development. For numerous analysts, it is a policy of " economic siege" that constitutes an "act of genocide" and a "massive violation of human rights."
In the face of analyses like De la Cruz's, which reproduce the interpretive frameworks of the hegemonic power, we must reaffirm international solidarity with Cuba (exemplified by initiatives such as the "Dominican Campaign of Solidarity with Cuba") and the urgent need to immediately lift this cruel and illegal blockade. This is not a matter of ideological sympathies, but of basic justice and respect for international law.
haui - 2w
Reading the analysis is really hard for someone already deeply disturbed by all the current and historical measures of the imperial states to destroy, maim, discredit and hold down other countries, especially socialist ones.
Still, this is brillant analysis. Thanks to op for making it.
One viewpoint that begs me to name it is the huge benefit for the empire to have a "failing" socialist state to point at, in their neighborhood no less.
Its a cruel and obviously antihumanist situation the us is producing here. The deeply flawed mindset from which the analyzed article is written only adds to the cruelty of the situation.
6
rainpizza - 2w
One viewpoint that begs me to name it is the huge benefit for the empire to have a “failing” socialist state to point at, in their neighborhood no less.
The "Communism = poverty" is one of the strongest pillars for the anticommunist narrative in the Latam region. Fortunately, if Cuba or Venezuela succeeds, that success will be enough to destroy that key pillar.
Its a cruel and obviously antihumanist situation the us is producing here. The deeply flawed mindset from which the analyzed article is written only adds to the cruelty of the situation.
Oh yeah, you are right about that and it is sadly what happens when latam rightoids and fascists subscribe to this identity of false superiority given by the US. As an example: when a person sees someone struggling or hurting, the normal reaction should be go to their aid if it is within your reach. However, with this superiority complex financed by the imperialist, the reaction changes to discrimination(classist, racist or xenophobia), ridicule and victim blaming.
This mindset is taken to a whole other level against our cuban and venezuelan comrades. People like the dominican student, that this article references, do exactly that.
Soon, all of this will end when the imperialist is destroyed by its own contradictions and solidarity will flourish to a new level. We have to keep fighting for this.
5
haui - 2w
I deeply enjoy your analysis and obvious skill in formulating it. I very much hope that you are correct and the empire will fall, freeing the world in the process.
Do you by chance have any suggestion for a marxist analysis trying to predict a rough timetable or "breakpoints" to look for? I'm currently in desperate need for "positive" news that help me keep going. Seeing the cracks in the empire gives me hope that we will not be slowly ground to dust under the boot of the oligarchy.
5
rainpizza - 2w
Do you by chance have any suggestion for a marxist analysis trying to predict a rough timetable or “breakpoints” to look for?
Sadly, I don't have articles that could provide a rough timetable but I do have one regarding several breakpoints that I post recently:
Here this nicaraguan author shares some and also ties both the struggle of the imperial core workers and the global south together.
Regarding good news, I usually post plenty of different countries. The progress of the AES, the progress of soon to be AES and the direct action from socialist youth organizations in the global south is one source of hope for me. I will post another good news shortly from Mexico regarding a Canadian mining company that was defeated through years of organization.
rainpizza in cuba
Should we apply to the Dominican Republic the US embargo that Cuba suffers in tourism? A critical analysis of the article "The Business of the Embargo"
https://www.cubainformacion.tv/contra-cuba/20251124/119239/119239-aplicamos-a-la-republica-dominicana-el-bloqueo-de-eeuu-que-padece-cuba-en-el-turismo-un-analisis-critico-del-articulo-el-negocio-del-embargoIn this article, we conduct a critical analysis of an article published by Eduardo de la Cruz, a Dominican student of International Relations, Geopolitics and Diplomacy at the University of Navarra, a private entity affiliated with Opus Dei.
1. An article that distorts the reality of the blockade
Eduardo de la Cruz's article "The business of the embargo against Cuba: Economic punishment turned into political capital" constitutes an exercise in historical decontextualization and minimization of the effects of a policy that, far from being a simple "embargo" as he insists on calling it, represents the longest, most diversified, most effective and holistic system of sanctions in the history of modern international relations.
Through an apparent discourse of neutrality, the author constructs a narrative that absolves the United States of its responsibility for the current, extremely serious Cuban economic crisis and places the blame on the island's "internal model." This position not only ignores the overwhelming evidence of the devastating impact of the US economic, financial, and commercial blockade against Cuba, but also disregards the international consensus expressed year after year in the UN General Assembly.
2. The economic war against Cuba: neither an "embargo" nor a "measure"
De la Cruz categorizes the US blockade against Cuba as a "measure" within US foreign policy. The blockade is not a simple "measure," nor a mere trade "embargo," but rather a complex legal framework that includes laws such as the Torricelli Act (1992) and the Helms-Burton Act (1996), specifically designed to close any loophole through which Cuba could obtain revenue or conduct trade.
Its character is demonstrably extraterritorial and has evolved into a total economic war that, after the application of the current "maximum pressure" strategy and the nearly 250 unilateral coercive economic measures approved in the last six years, impacts the impoverishment of the living conditions of millions of innocent people on the Island.
It is part of a structural policy of unconventional warfare , involving the State Department, the Treasury Department, the Intelligence Community and other US government actors, with hundreds of officials working for its implementation.
Let us recall that the full implementation (approved by Trump) of the Helms-Burton Act, in particular, externalized the embargo in a qualitatively more effective way, by allowing lawsuits against companies from third countries that trade with Cuba and prohibiting the entry into the United States of their executives and their families. This constitutes a flagrant violation of international law and the sovereignty of other nations. Furthermore, let us remember that this law codified this policy in 1996 (making the embargo “law”), so that the US president can never repeal it without congressional approval.
3. Are the figures on the impact of the blockade “difficult to verify” accepted by 96% of the international community?
The author questions Cuban statistics, which indicate that, between March 2024 and February 2025, the blockade caused estimated damages of $7,556.1 million , an increase of 49% compared to the previous period; that 16 days of blockade are equivalent to the financing necessary to cover the needs of the Basic List of Medicines of the country; that two months of blockade are equivalent to the cost of the fuel necessary to meet the normal electricity demand in the country; or that two months of blockade are equivalent to the financing necessary to guarantee the regulated family food basket for a year.
However, these figures are part of the report that Havana has just presented to the United Nations General Assembly and which was approved by 165 votes to 7. Is 96% of the international community accepting figures that are “ difficult to verify independently,” that lack “transparency in their construction,” and that are “a political instrument that prioritizes the regime’s rhetoric over technical evidence,” as the author claims?
On the other hand, if we're talking about "independent" sources, why dismiss so many voices that condemn this policy as an economic war that threatens the living conditions (and the very lives) of an innocent people? Gerald Condon, spokesperson for the NGO Veterans for Peace, made up of former US military personnel, stated that "the blockade is an act of terrorism against Cuba." William LeoGrande, a professor at American University in Washington and an expert on US-Cuba relations, stated, regarding the blockade, that "hunger has been a weapon in Washington's arsenal" against Cuba "since Eisenhower occupied the White House . " Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, former independent expert for the United Nations Human Rights Council on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, stated that the blockade against Cuba is part of “hybrid warfare, unconventional warfare” and is “a form of genocide,” which does not aim to “help the people” but rather to achieve “a coup d'état” by creating “such a situation of hunger, anxiety, and confusion” among the population that it leads to a popular insurrection against the government. He added that it “causes direct deaths”: this is the case of people who do not receive certain medications—or receive them late—and die, “just as if they had been shot with a revolver.”
In August 2021, Alena Douhan, Obiora Okafor, Livingstone Sewanyana, and Tlaleng Mofokeng, independent experts appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council, stated in a public note that “the inhabitants of countries subject to sanctions, such as Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, and Iran, are sinking into poverty because they cannot obtain essential services such as electricity, housing, water, gas, and fuel, let alone medicine and food.” Alena Douhan herself, in her capacity as Special Rapporteur for the United Nations Human Rights Council, recently visited the island and called on the United States to “immediately end the web of unilateral coercive measures against Cuba, which violate the human rights of the population.”
In November 2023, the International Tribunal on US sanctions against the Republic of Cuba was held in Brussels, at the headquarters of the European Parliament. This symbolic event , in its verdict, described the blockade as a "crime against humanity ," according to the 1998 Rome Statute, because it constitutes a "widespread or systematic attack against the civilian population" and, "although they call it an embargo or sanctions," "has already caused, directly and indirectly, the loss of numerous human lives . "
4. If the “embargo is a useful political tool for the Havana regime,” why is it mobilizing all its diplomacy to achieve its goal?
The author suggests that the US “embargo” is “a useful political tool” for “the Havana regime” and “serves as a pretext for the (Cuban) government to justify shortages, scarcity, and the lack of reforms.” This argument is particularly cynical when one examines the active diplomacy Cuba employs to lift it. If it were truly “useful” for Havana, why would it dedicate enormous diplomatic resources to achieving its end year after year?
The reality is that Cuba is mobilizing its diplomacy because the blockade violates international law and the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, specifically the sovereign equality of states , non-intervention in internal affairs, and the prohibition of the use of force . The overwhelming majority of the international community recognizes this, as demonstrated by the vote of 165 countries in favor of lifting the blockade in October 2025, compared to only 7 against.
5. The Cuban government must “show reliable signals” to the US in order for it to lift the blockade: a defense of interventionism?
The suggestion that "the lifting of the embargo will depend on the Cuban regime's ability to respond to signals of openness from Washington" is particularly offensive. It adds: "Creating a context favorable to a substantive review of U.S. policy toward Havana requires the Cuban government to demonstrate credible signals through internal political gestures and measures of economic openness."
This language, which reflects the rhetoric of American supremacy , ignores that international relations are based on the principle of sovereign equality .
This proposal to cede sovereignty is especially objectionable when it comes from a person from Latin America and the Caribbean (the author is Dominican), a region with a long history of interventions, coups, and policies of political and economic subjugation by the US.
No country has the right to demand changes to another's internal political system as a condition for ceasing aggression. It would be unthinkable for Cuba to demand that the United States change its capitalist system as a condition for negotiations.
6. If the “centralized internal model” is to blame, why is the economic crisis worse when centralization is lower than ever?
The author attributes the Cuban crisis to "the regime's internal model, a centrally planned system that has proven unworkable," willfully ignoring that Cuba has implemented significant market reforms in the last decade, including the expansion of the private sector and greater openness to foreign investment. All of these measures have been undermined by the US government through targeted sanctions.
The obvious question the author avoids is: how do proponents of this thesis explain that the crisis has worsened precisely when central planning is at its lowest point? The answer is clear: because the 250 measures tightening the blockade, implemented under the two Trump administrations and maintained by Biden, have systematically crippled and destroyed every source of income on the island.
7. Should we apply the US tourism embargo to the country of the article's author?
Strangulation of tourism to Cuba
For example, the tourism sector, vital to the Cuban economy, has been deliberately strangled by:
Strangulation of tourism to Cuba
For example, the tourism sector, vital to the Cuban economy, has been deliberately strangled by:
As a result, tourism has plummeted from 4.7 million visitors in 2017-2018 to just 2.2 million in 2024 , a 53% reduction. This freefall is not due to a lack of Cuban tourism offerings, but rather to a deliberate strategy of economic strangulation .
Comparative analysis: impact of the blockade on tourism in the Dominican Republic alone
The author, a Dominican national, should consider what would happen if the United States applied the same tourism restrictions to the Dominican Republic that it imposes on Cuba. In 2024, the Dominican Republic received 8.5 million tourists , with Americans accounting for approximately 40% of these visitors.
The ban on US tourism (which Cuba is currently experiencing) would mean the following for the Dominican Republic:
Effect of ESTA denial to visitors from Cuba
If we were to add to this the denial of ESTA authorization to Europeans visiting the Dominican Republic (as is the case with those visiting Cuba), the impact would be even more catastrophic. European tourists represent approximately 30% of all visitors to the Dominican Republic. The combination of both measures would be equivalent to the disappearance of at least 60% of Dominican tourism , with devastating social and economic consequences.
This exercise illustrates why the blockade is not an issue that concerns only Cuba, but a violation of historical proportions that, if applied to any other country, would have even more catastrophic effects.
8. Conclusion: Solidarity in the face of distortion
Eduardo de la Cruz's article suffers from a fundamental flaw : it starts from academic premises that neutralize the human dimension of the suffering imposed on the Cuban people. By treating the blockade as a "political device" or "symbolic capital," it loses sight of the fact that it is a policy of collective punishment affecting eleven million human beings.
The international community, with its overwhelming vote at the UN, has made it clear that the blockade is the main obstacle to Cuba's development. For numerous analysts, it is a policy of " economic siege" that constitutes an "act of genocide" and a "massive violation of human rights."
In the face of analyses like De la Cruz's, which reproduce the interpretive frameworks of the hegemonic power, we must reaffirm international solidarity with Cuba (exemplified by initiatives such as the "Dominican Campaign of Solidarity with Cuba") and the urgent need to immediately lift this cruel and illegal blockade. This is not a matter of ideological sympathies, but of basic justice and respect for international law.
Reading the analysis is really hard for someone already deeply disturbed by all the current and historical measures of the imperial states to destroy, maim, discredit and hold down other countries, especially socialist ones.
Still, this is brillant analysis. Thanks to op for making it.
One viewpoint that begs me to name it is the huge benefit for the empire to have a "failing" socialist state to point at, in their neighborhood no less.
Its a cruel and obviously antihumanist situation the us is producing here. The deeply flawed mindset from which the analyzed article is written only adds to the cruelty of the situation.
The "Communism = poverty" is one of the strongest pillars for the anticommunist narrative in the Latam region. Fortunately, if Cuba or Venezuela succeeds, that success will be enough to destroy that key pillar.
Oh yeah, you are right about that and it is sadly what happens when latam rightoids and fascists subscribe to this identity of false superiority given by the US. As an example: when a person sees someone struggling or hurting, the normal reaction should be go to their aid if it is within your reach. However, with this superiority complex financed by the imperialist, the reaction changes to discrimination(classist, racist or xenophobia), ridicule and victim blaming.
This mindset is taken to a whole other level against our cuban and venezuelan comrades. People like the dominican student, that this article references, do exactly that.
Soon, all of this will end when the imperialist is destroyed by its own contradictions and solidarity will flourish to a new level. We have to keep fighting for this.
I deeply enjoy your analysis and obvious skill in formulating it. I very much hope that you are correct and the empire will fall, freeing the world in the process.
Do you by chance have any suggestion for a marxist analysis trying to predict a rough timetable or "breakpoints" to look for? I'm currently in desperate need for "positive" news that help me keep going. Seeing the cracks in the empire gives me hope that we will not be slowly ground to dust under the boot of the oligarchy.
Sadly, I don't have articles that could provide a rough timetable but I do have one regarding several breakpoints that I post recently:
Here this nicaraguan author shares some and also ties both the struggle of the imperial core workers and the global south together.
Regarding good news, I usually post plenty of different countries. The progress of the AES, the progress of soon to be AES and the direct action from socialist youth organizations in the global south is one source of hope for me. I will post another good news shortly from Mexico regarding a Canadian mining company that was defeated through years of organization.