/latam/ - LATAM

>>1509
>why are corrupt military dictators with aristocratic and organized crime ties so common in LatAm
it is a mystery

>>1509
>are
you think there are warlords floating around in 2024?
easiest rule 14 report of my life

>>1510
Lmao, you do know that USA intervention only happens late XIX, many caudillos existed and acted before USA decided to do something with Latin America, you just biased as fuck against USA to the point of inventing history to suit your worldview

>>1512
Zionist intervention in the Americas has been going on much longer than the American imperial project(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

>Why are caudillos so common in Latin America?

Nobel Price in Economics

>>1510
also brazil military-bourgeois coup from 1964

>>1513
No, schizo, has not, stop creating history out of thin air to suit your schizo worldview

>>1509
Seems like a natural outgrowth of the semi-feudal character of 19th century Latin American economies does it not? When you have a government run by and for big landowners who rule over vast swathes of land and their tenants almost like a medieval lord, it makes sense that the largest ones would become quasi-sovereign powers unto themselves in the same way dukes and barons used to.

>>1516
https://www.reuters.com/science/columbus-was-sephardic-jew-western-europe-study-finds-2024-10-13/
OH NO NO NO AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>1518
>Descended from Jews = Jew
>Jew = Zionist
>400 years before Zionism became a thing
Bruh

i think its the strongly catholic cultural heritage which seeps into mass consciousness. that way, it makes sense to expect a "saviour" to come from the "skies" (upwards, the dominant class) and help the masses
moreso, when analyzing events of class struggle, both the latin american working class and the national bourgeois are frequently tied with each other, making bonapartism rampant

What >>1517 said, Basically when Spain conquered the new world, they operated on a medieval mentality of ruling under a hierarquical landowner-military goverment under the crown, where power was concentrated on a handful of aristocratic families and or military classes, who maintained control over their subjects on the basis of personal loyalty. Much of the independence leaders of latam were members of these aristocratic families or military elites, which meant that once these countries achieved independence, they simply replicated the same system, just with them in charge instead of the spanish crown. Such mentality would continue on through the next 2 centuries, with the caudillo figuras adopting whatever ideology they thought was best, such as liberalism, conservativism, socialism, nationalism, anti-communism, anti-imperialism, and so on, as well as doing populist policies, or forming a personality cult around themselves.

>During the period of military caudillos that followed the War of Independence, a liberal policy on agricultural property obviously could not be developed or even be formulated. The military caudillo was the natural product of a revolutionary period that had not been able to create a new governing class. In this situation, power was taken over by the military leaders of the revolution, who, on the one hand, enjoyed the prestige of their wartime achievements and, on the other, were in a position to keep themselves in the government by means of armed force. Of course, the caudillo could not remain aloof from the influence of class interests or of opposing historical currents. He was supported by the spineless liberalism and rhetoric of the urban demos and by the colonial conservatism of the landowning class. He was sanctioned by the city’s lawmakers and jurists and by the writers and orators of the latifundium aristocracy. In the contest between liberal and conservative interests, there was no direct and active campaign to vindicate the peasant, which would have compelled the liberals to include the redistribution of agricultural property in their program.
– Mariategui on Peru

>During the period of the military caudillo, it was the latifundia and not the urban demos that grew stronger. With business and finance in the hands of foreigners, the emergence of a vigorous urban bourgeoisie was not economically possible. Spanish education was absolutely incompatible with the ends and needs of industrialism and capitalism; instead of technicians, it trained lawyers, writers, priests, et cetera. Unless the latter felt a special vocation for Jacobinism or demagoguery, they joined the clientele of the landowning class. In turn, business capital, almost exclusively foreign, had no choice but to deal and associate with this aristocracy, which, moreover, tacitly or explicitly continued to dominate political life. In this way, the landholding aristocracy and its adherents became the beneficiaries of the fiscal policy and the exploitation of guano and nitrate. In this way, this group was compelled by its economic role to assume the function of the bourgeoisie in Peru, although it did not lose its colonial and aristocratic vices and prejudices. And in this way, the urban bourgeoisie—professionals and businessmen—were finally absorbed by civilismo.
>The power of this class—civilistas or neogodos—was to a large measure derived from ownership of land. In the early years of independence, it was not exactly a class of capitalists, but a class of landowners. As a landowning rather than an educated class, it was able to merge its interests with those of foreign businessmen and creditors and by this token to negotiate with the state and to traffic in the country’s natural resources. Thanks to the properties it had received under the viceroyalty, it possessed business capital under the republic. The privileges of the colony engendered the privileges of the republic.

>>1521
The way Latin American states became independent also played a role I think. Napoleon's armies invaded Spain, and there was a counter-reaction and many new juntas appeared across Spanish America with many supporting them as a way to resist the French and reinstall the king of Spain. It was quite complicated of course but most of the new states were dictatorial and hierarchical, and that set up a new conflict between conservatives and liberals that would last for a long time. To make an alt-history analogy to North America, instead of the liberal patriots revolting in the American war of independence, it was loyalists supporting the British crown revolting in a situation where Napoleon conquered Britain.

>>1509
It's the malign influence of cultural Catholicism
A conversion to Islam would fix this

>>1524
clearly not

>>1518
wow holy shit this is really interesting

>>1509
Spanish colonial policy weighs like a nightmare on the Spanish colonies. There should be a several hours long video history lesson on this shit. Especially the fucking Hacienda System, which entrenched landlords and dynastic politics, even in the Philippines. To this very day. The focus on extraction meant that individual provinces barely had roads between them, which meant any early pan-Latin state would simply fail. Or fracture, like FRCA. Unless the government adopts a federal form as a concession. Otherwise, it's just constant fighting between the military of the former Captaincy Generals and the landlords within.

You got a few based ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Gaspar_Rodríguez_de_Francia

To this day Paraguay has a relatively less liberalized economy compated to the latin american abetage as far as I can tell.

>>1509
>also is there a term equivalent to caudillo in other parts of the world like Middle East and Asia?
Caudillo is part of the "Leadership" ideology, so any other country with an emphasis on the Leader role.
I'd say North Korea is obviously the only other place with a similar culture I could think of immediately.

>>1509
>emphasis on machismo and bravery
Not a bad thing.
>Country is banana economy tier with little modernization
Not every country in the world is 1st world / Western European.
>Still feudal no matter what ideology they pretend to be
The word feudal is overused / abused.
>Very wealthy from various corruption deals and wealth confiscation
If you're going to be a monarch figure, you tend to need wealth and power

>>1530
Neofeudalists aren't monarchists*
There's nothing more a neofeudalist hates than power centralized in one person / absolutism*
(Which they dub as very modern)

What did Marx think of them?

>>1510
>Implying the CIA existed before the revolutions against europeans powers
Fucking retard.

>>1511
For now only because of US dominance in the region, but I suspect Latin America will return to dictatorships when the US loses influence

>>1510
Retard, one predates the other
>>1509
Power comes from the barrel of the gun
Literally
Most goverments mantained a strong caudillo in a class struggle between the workers and the most common oligarchy, this oligarchy being as well split alongside their economical interests a landowning elite attached to their feudal ways inhereted from Europe and a nacent but weak most of the time comercial bourgueoisie. All under the guidance of Great Britain unless the case of the most protectionist leaders.
The first generation where the vultures of the headless spanish empire.
The second where the compradors slapdogs junior officers of the first generation. Veterans of a miriad civil wars.
All of them acting on the guidance of the British empire
All of them except Francia
>>1511
The bolivian right likes to assume that Evo is one centimeter away of being a caudillo.

https://firmas.prensa-latina.cu/2018/03/01/marx-bolivar-y-la-independencia/

And a banger
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/01/bolivar.htm
Marx about Bolivar is an absolute classic :D

>>1529
>Grace anon hasn't read on Leadership by the fourth sword of marxism, guarantee of victory
NGMI

Natural outgrowth of resource extraction economy. When your economy consist of plantation and mines with little urbanization you'd want a dicatorship in place to prevent flight of cheap labour
This isn't limited to LATAM, but also the Middle East and South East Asia. Also explains why these regimes often becomes increasing chaotic as their population urbanizes; see the Arab Spring phenomenon

>>1537
>He thinks the Arab spring was in anyway natural
Explain how nothing resembling the Arab spring has happened again in the last 15 years

>>1535

Based and Elsupremopilled.