And with that, the Right Wing ideology has captured the government of everything single South America country, ironically, on the leftern side of the continent.
The only technical standout is Fujimori in Peru, granted she is 40k votes ahead and mathematically locked in, unless the recount reshapes the race entire in the direction of the left, which is mathematically unlikely.
194 posts and 19 image replies omitted.>cause problem
>beg the us to solve it
>they half fix the problem
LION
>>2848559>US Democrats aren’t remotely comparable to the Latin American left. they are basically the same thing lol
>>2848027>there’s no reason why Spanish can’t be gender neutral unless you really, really hate enbies and trans people.wrong. you're taking a key feature of the language, and saying it doesn't matter. the gender binary is a key feature of romantic languages.
also, "they" refers to more than one person. always. no amount of grammatical fandangling can change that.
Also reaction to the Cuban revolution. "If it can happen there…"
>>2848848>we're kind of like a Latin American state that happens to speak Englishit became beyond obvious when the MAGA arc started 10 years ago
>>2848848You get that impression because you live in the Southwest which is the border and funny enough used to be Mexican anyway. The US should be different countries but was able to be maintained as a political entity. Balkanization is more likely than an overthrow similar to what happened to Spanish America upon independence.
>>2848717>>2848801is argentina truly better off nowadays?
anecdotal bs but the only argentinean person I know does art for 1-view vtubers online because the meager USD he gets from them outpaces any entry level or even middle level wage he can get as a college educated person
sounds way more fucked than what I used to know about argentina back in the late 2000s and early 10s but I recognize I may be very uneducated on the matter since I don't live there
>>2848948yeah but im from the northeast and this is my impression as well. the US and Brazil are like alternate history versions of eachother. very different paths of independence, different forms of federalization, etc., but the foundation is very similar.
to varying extents i think this is true of much of the americas. in fact im surprised its not something more readily acknowledged. the "founding fathers" of the US have plenty of counterparts among the 19th century liberal revolutionaries of latin america. bolivar himself has a legacy and cultural import comparable to if george washington and abraham lincoln were the same person. countries of the americas are almost all colonies in which primarily european descended settlers fought wars of independence against their ancestral country, and usually accepted some form of liberalism and republicanism at a time when those ideas were still the cutting edge of radicalism in europe. almost all of these countries struggled long and hard over tensions between a ruling class made up of rural oligarchs of raw material/cash crops and oligarchs of industrial capital and finance in a way that more directly shaped the countries' basic institutions since those institutions were still very young and malleable as compared to the "old world." almost all of them have definitive periods of settling a frontier, characterized by varying extents of genocide and subjugation of native populations. almost all of them were forced to reckon with an agricultural dependence and social cancer of slavery and/or encomienda serfdom. Many saw later influxes of immigration from Europe & Asia. Etc etc, and even where these arent unique to the americas, they all happened rapidly in the hemispheric material-historic ecosystem of 15th to the 20th century.
whatever is especially distinct about the US position in the world now has less to do with fundamentally distinct origins but with the contingencies of its later development that left it poised to become first a world power and then the hegemon. if the articles of confederation had remained in place, if the struggle over slavery kicked off much earlier or later, if the US had never acceeded to the calls for a permanent standing army, if the Louisiana Purchase hadnt been negotiated and westward expansion was slower and more contested, if the US hadnt annexed so much of the mexican frontier, if the US & British Empires relations had never warmed in the 19th century, all of these could have at the very least led to a weaker, more regionally constrained US, if not a Gran Colombia style partition and political stagnation. anything that would have seberely damaged the US historical continuity, economic dynamism, and place within the British Empire commanded global market of the 19th century, could have very plausibly led to a US that was mainly novel in its english language and culture.
the actual odd ones out are much of the carribean, largely remaining under european control for much longer, and somewhere like Canada that just slowly transitioned to a more and more autonomous part of the British empire at more or less the same rate in which British influence slipped.
>>2846738Uruguay has the Communist Party being part of the government. That's why they are not a shithole like the others.
>>2849463brazil was fucked from the start because of the monarchy
>>2849478maybe, but im not so sure. brazil had very little political or economic unity besides being within the portuguese empire. it was very much an archipelago of city-states with their own oligarch elites and extractive periphery. this was also the situation in Gran Colombia and the United States of Central America, where shortly after independence they fractured into smaller countries around those centers of power. one of the first acts of the independent Empire of Brazil was enforcing the unity of the territories under a single brazilian government and would continue to do so throughout his reign, while retaining constitutional government and liberal rights.
he opposed the liberal parties that were advocating for more of what look on paper to be more historically progressive policies, but the expansion of federalism and the priority placed on the rights of landowners resembles the anti-federalists and the jeffersonian democrats in the US (with important difference that the brazilian liberals were anti-slavery), in that they may have been more ideologically consistent liberals, but the full extent of their policies would have likely stalled political unity and economic development.
at the very least i dont think pedro 1 & 2 were reactionary and i think theres a case to be made for the monarchist period being relatively historically progressive
Even a superficial knowledge of the history of Latin America shows that their revolutions were carried out by land owners that served the whole continent to England and later USA on a silver plate. This doomed it to be economically backwards forever. It was a fucked up region from the very beginning.
>>2848717If milei can erase the fucking succdem peronist from the political map it will do argentina a very good service. This fucking crap of a party is no longer good even for the most basic succdem task of achieving some sort of development in the productive forces by rallying the national bourgeoise. They are a dead horse of a party, like this whole pink way god damn circus, mere damage control from what the CIA, IMF & co. has been doing from the 70s onwards, or rather, its weak and controlled mechanical, pendular response to such great misery
>>2849478Bonafacio could have ended slavery within 2 years of independence like he had planned. What stopped him was that brazil adopted a constitutional monarchy instead of continuing absolutism.
>>2849497>monarchism>being historically progressive everleftypol moment
>>2849544Monarchism is just a system of government. Multiple monarchies played a progressive role. You can admit that rather than just having an ideological knee jerk reaction
>>2849546monarchism is a feudal remnant of the previous mode of production. it is by definition regressive compared to all forms of democracy. its fine if you want to be sympathetic to monarchism but don't try to justify it through marxist terminology you clearly dont understand slimebag
>>2849551Napoleon was a monarch but it is agreed that he was historically progressive.
>>2848820Brazil has the Landless Workers’ Movement which is a Marxist mass movement that seizes unproductive land from farmers to give it to the poor. What is the US equivalent?
It’s laughable you think having some succdems winning local elections in New York means the US has an actual left-wing movement.
>>2849553notice how I said 'monarchism' and not 'monarchists'. name a single time the monarchy as an institution played a progressive role, you can't. napoleon ended like six monarchies, in times of revolution even a monarch can play a progressive role, that's the difference. the brazillian monarchy was not that. it was a lead weight on the nation since the beginning
>>2849566>at the very least i dont think pedro 1 & 2 were reactionary and i think theres a case to be made for the monarchist period being relatively historically progressiveWhy are you lashing out about this? It is like saying that the Meiji Restoration wasn't historically progressive. This was the entire point that some monarchies were historically progressive including the monarchial period in Brazil.
>>2849566I can only think of going far back to the so called glorious revolution. Other than that, Napoleon and July monarchy comes to mind.
>>2849568>It is like saying that the Meiji Restoration wasn't historically progressiveit wasn't, unless you consider the Tsarist monarchy industrializing in the middle of and before world war 1 to be historically progressive, in both cases the nations were capitalist with centralized monarchist rulers that held back the further development of capitalism, i.e historically regressive
>>2849577LATAM is a magical place where anything can happen
>>2849577Tsarist Russia was still semi-feudal backwards meanwhile the Meiji Restoration industrialized Japan and transformed into a capitalist empire and defeated Tsarist Russia due to this.
>>2848948>You get that impression because you live in the Southwest which is the border and funny enough used to be Mexican anyway.Yeah and the cultural influence from Mexico. But I think it's deeper than that and also has to do with underling political economy and the social structure. A fairly large chunk of the southeastern part of the state is one giant privately-owned ranch (pic on the right is the main building) owned by what's probably the wealthiest cattle family in history, and they still exist. A friend of mine from the Panhandle (big center for cattle) traveled around South America once and spent a week living on some Argentinian farm and the guys who lived there called him gringo gaucho because he knew how to slit a goat's throat. He was very proud of that.
>Balkanization is more likely than an overthrow similar to what happened to Spanish America upon independence.Eh, maybe historically, but I don't think Balkanization is remotely a possibility anymore but mainly because of economic development and melting down of state / regional cultural differences into tourist attractions.
>>2849618>argies calling someone a gringomust've been somewhere else probably because argies say yankee instead
the argies I know made fucking sure I knew that, otherwise I'd be mixing them up with their "latino brothers" (allegedly derogatory)
>>2848589Thank you for your input, I do not think that "some people have a lot of treats so theyre spoiled and bad, some people have very few treats so theyre humble and good," I am well aware that Treatlerites in the United States are also suffering but they think that they can endure because they still have 36 different flavors of double stiffed Oreos at Trader Joe's which isn't really a thing in Latin America or any of the Global South so I was wondering how Rightwing sentiment still as popular support there since they dont benefit from Unequal exchange the way that American Rightoids do when they eat Chocolate bars harvested by Slave children in the Ivory Coast.
>>2849623Maybe it's a rural thing there.
>>2848481Looking at the state of Venezuela do you believe we will end up with the opposite end of Colombia and Venezuela? By that I mean a revolutionary socialist Colombia vs a stauch pro-US Venezuela
>>2849597>Tsarist Russia was still semi-feudal backwards Lol no, Russia became capitalist the moment France started investing there in the 1860's, Lenin points this out in his first published work 'New Economic Developments in Peasant Life'
>the Meiji Restoration industrialized Japan while keeping it under a feudal monarch, just like the Tsar
>>2849820I don't think france started investing in Russia back then, or not in major ways, they were at war for a large part of the war.
France only started to back Russia as a counter to Germany, in the 1880s
>>2848589>
>second, "some people have a lot of treats so theyre spoiled and bad, some people have very few treats so theyre humble and good" is not marxism, it is reflexive populist resentment on a global scale. Yes. There is no room for authenticity in Marxism.
>>2848948the great thing about capitalism is that it grinds down national distinctions within its own borders. anyone in america can tell you that over the last couple decades each city has lost its individual identity, like with southern accents dying out. it's all the same now because cultural trends hit every city at once, there's really no difference in living between people from san antonio and philly nowadays. this is why i see balkanization unlikely because there's no cultural differences to exploit
>>2849561>Brazil has the Landless Workers’ Movement call me when they coup lula
>>2849964They arent even marxist either lmao. They are also against nationalizing land. They want to break up latifundia to produce a large class small family farms.
They'd go further politically if they went for the nationalization angle. It would also benefit the urban proles.
Another huge problem in LATAM is social movements are led by middle class intelligentsia/PMC or last remenants of peasantry in the hinterland.
>>2849970>They want to break up latifundia to produce a large class small family farms. so they want to create more petite porky like all socdems do? when will leftards learn?
>>2849618The USA south had a very different economic and social structure, much more similar to the LATAM one (plantation and mining economy), than the north USA
>>2848848>and personally think the U.S. left should try to learn more from Latin America if by learning you mean not wasting time with pink-wave-socdem-electoral-jewishuyghury-nonsense as it has been proven to lead nowhere I agree
if its unavoidable at least try to speedrun it
Hot takes:
Inb4 “Reddit LOL”: I’ll take opinions from more worldly redditors that are Latinos over the basement-dwelling dweebs at Leftypol who only ever met “Latinos” online in this niche shithole.
- “Latinx” was a Latino thing, that’s it, those are the facts. Anything else pretending that Soros made it up is just being a seething Latino conspiratard or insufferable “post-leftist” chud who doesn’t want to acknowledge that proud pinko raza-type Latinos can be cringe too, and they don’t need American intervention for that.
- Argentina under Milei, for all of its issues, has done well with curbing inflation and poverty such that now only a third of Argentines are in the poverty line, as opposed to being the majority. Argentina’s problems are many and will take years to solve so Milei can’t handwave everything at once in a second. But no honest man can deny that he is doing a better job with cutting down inflation compared to the Peronistas that have run their country to the ground for centuries and whose biggest accomplishment is legalising abortion and not LARPing as whites. (There’s your answer >>2848978). Argentina is struggling ofc, but it’s better than before. I should also note that Peronistas were also eating up IMF loans too, so what does it say about their quality of policies when Milei is doing better despite keeping up the status quo? I mean, Argentina’s biggest problem is its high wealth inequality, spending that no one in the mainstream will tackle as that would require an actual revolution.
Does anyone know why the average Latino user on X’itter posts like a nastier version of a sharty user, and why do Argentines LARP as Nordics even doe the average Argentino is as white as the average Brazilian and Mexican (i.e., look like a mestizo or castizo, with even the “white” ones being hardly distinguishable from the average Sicilian or Arab)?
>>2850023we like shitposting
>>2850037Yes, because LatAm is a low-autism score post-literate shithole with third-world cultures, which is why all they’ve got are soyjaks.
>>2849970Wouldn't they just end up being like kulaks?
Unique IPs: 25