Construction of Democracy and Inequality In Latin America

[odnetnin]

Political instability and inequality are defining traits of Latin America. In the 20th Century, the entire region was marked by revolutionary movements, counter-insurgent reactions that resulted in authoritarian regimes and in aggravated political, social and economic exclusion of extensive sectors of the population. More recently, yet another change, in the direction of strengthening democratic values and practices has come about in the region.

How are political instability and inequality are related in Latin America? What were the motivations of revolutionary movements in Central America and the Caribbean? What were these movements fighting against? What was the influence of the United States in contributing to an exclusionary model of development in Latin America as a whole? What is an exclusionary model of development? How did the United States economic presence in Latin America aggravate inequalities and increase the likelihood of political instability? How did the United States military presence increase the likelihood of military and authoritarian regimes? How did the construction of democracy in the 1980 come about in Latin America? What was the role of civil society organizations in fighting Military Regimes? QUESTIONQUESTIONQUESTION

[billysdog69]

outa curosity why do u care about aouth america so much???

[billysdog69]

south*

[odnetnin]

Homework assignment

[odnetnin]

Pretty much free trade, imo.

There is actually a lot to be talked about here. Why are there so many revolutionary groups? Look at the nature of revolutionaries: all of them want some type of change. It's no different in Latin America. A certain set of circumstances were created by an outside economic and political presence that caused different groups to react violently.

For instance, the 'construction of democracy' during the 80s was created partly by the Reagan administration, which was seeking more profitable ventures in foreign countries. This included setting up puppet governments to play more according to the will of the outside force. Of course, when a repressive military government is set up, the people it controls won't act favourably. Then you have Contras, Sandinistas, FARC, Zapatistas, and other rebel groups fighting against them.

There's a book called The Dispossessed by Alfredo Molano about the situation in Colombia, regarding the Uribe government and the FARC. It's a really sad book, but it covers a lot of your questions a lot more in depth than I could. Colombia is a good model, too, since it has felt the most in regards to outside involvement.

A lot of it is simple. Latin America is a continent full of natural resources, and that makes the idea of trade much more appealing to other countries. That desire, though, can lead to selfishness and ruthless ambition, as we've seen with foreign occupation in the Philippines, Cuba (Guantanamo), Haiti, Guam, Grenada, et cetera.

Basically, when you're looking at this type of thing, you have to first understand the situation surrounding the events. Because of the 'spheres of influence' various countries had in Latin America, unstable and unequal societies were created, held together by a puppet dictator who bent to the wish of his masters. What would best benefit the outside force? Cheap labour, exploitation, and mass amounts of products to be used for export.

In an area rich in natural resources, it's insane to think that there could be such poverty. But this poverty was created by outside forces: everyone who trades with Latin America benefits quite well. In this light, then, it is no wonder to think that opposition arose, much less that it was and is violent.

Still a lot to figure out though.

[Cal Smith]

When the communist started putting more influence in Latin America the US started out using a "carrot" approach. Meaning they funded democratic groups amongst other things. This didnt work out well so they turned to a stick approach

[YouMadeTheScene]

There are a whole lot of travesties in South America. But we also have a lot of our bigger companies in South America. Kind of like when things leaked out that Coca Cola may have assisanted some of their workers, but SHHHHH...the government says no no we can't know this stuff.

Me and Cal had a whollleee discussion on Hugo Chavez. Depending on how you see it there are some good things going on with the government in South America in terms of helping the poor.

[odnetnin]

I would argue that the few revolutionary countries in Latin America aren't communist. They're far from it. I do believe, though, that Venezuela is coming right along, especially since Chavez is expropriating factories and giving them to workers.

In Argentina, as well, more steps are being taken to achieve a better society. The workers in hundreds of factories broke in, locked out the managers, and continued working without pay, each cooperating with the other to produce what was needed. That's pretty fucking revolutionary.

Or Bolivia, for instance. The government tried to privatise water (water, of all things) and the people removed the president and elected a new one. This new one tried to do the same thing. So they removed him as well, and got a new one. Keep in mind, that by remove, I don't mean by a vote of no confidence. I'm talking about an all out march on the capital with millions upon millions of people and scaring the shit out of the president until he resigns. After putting in this third president, they declared that if the government tries to privatise the water again, there won't be another president.

I think that looking at the president of a country in no way defines the mindset of that country's people. It is the people who lay out the path of the country, and Latin America is going to explode.

[Cal Smith]

I would argue that the few revolutionary countries in Latin America aren't communist. They're far from it. I do believe, though, that Venezuela is coming right along, especially since Chavez is expropriating factories and giving them to workers.

In Argentina, as well, more steps are being taken to achieve a better society. The workers in hundreds of factories broke in, locked out the managers, and continued working without pay, each cooperating with the other to produce what was needed. That's pretty fucking revolutionary.

Or Bolivia, for instance. The government tried to privatise water (water, of all things) and the people removed the president and elected a new one. This new one tried to do the same thing. So they removed him as well, and got a new one. Keep in mind, that by remove, I don't mean by a vote of no confidence. I'm talking about an all out march on the capital with millions upon millions of people and scaring the shit out of the president until he resigns. After putting in this third president, they declared that if the government tries to privatise the water again, there won't be another president.

I think that looking at the president of a country in no way defines the mindset of that country's people. It is the people who lay out the path of the country, and Latin America is going to explode.

bolivia for the most part has always been against socialist ideas which is what helped lead to Che's big failure there, capture, and execution

[odnetnin]

Is Bolivia on the Edge of Revolution?... (http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-1/547/547_06_Bolivia.shtml)

Victory In Bolivia... (http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-2/548/548_05_Bolivia.shtml)

Marxism in Bolivia... (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=52&ItemID=7728)

And more... (http://www.marxist.com/Latinam/bolivia-revolutionary-wave250505.htm)

And even more... (http://www.socialistworker.org/cgi-bin/htsearch)

Bolivia will explode someday.

[Cal Smith]

Is Bolivia on the Edge of Revolution?... (http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-1/547/547_06_Bolivia.shtml)

Victory In Bolivia... (http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-2/548/548_05_Bolivia.shtml)

Marxism in Bolivia... (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=52&ItemID=7728)

And more... (http://www.marxist.com/Latinam/bolivia-revolutionary-wave250505.htm)

And even more... (http://www.socialistworker.org/cgi-bin/htsearch)

Bolivia will explode someday.

perhaps in the future it will but history has shown it hasnt and has shyed away from communism. Also let me edit what i said above. I said steered clear of socialism but I mean communism. the US actually aided the socialist government in bolivia. Che wanted revolution and the Bolivians didnt bite

i have know doubt the socialist websites you're sourceing wouldnt think otherwise though.