What do you think has prevented southamerican republics from being worldwide relevant throughout their whole existence?
>>513213
bad economic policies
very strict hierarchical social castes based on race (european, mestizo, native...)
And in the case of Brazil: slavery and the fact that they ended up ruled by very unstable governments after they god rid of their emperor, which was actually quite an outstanding individual.
Complete reliance on agriculture and mining as only pillars of the economy.
Having a US backed coup every time you start doing things right
>>513274
*everytime you start doing things left
>>513657
kek
>>513657
Ayy
The glorious US of A
>>513213
Populism.
http://fee.org/freeman/argentinas-way-to-decadence/
>>513988
Not every country had populist experiences, such as Chile or Uruguay.
Latin america is quite diverse despite your televisa ideas and mexican soap operas.
>>514014
They are literally having them right now, and of course that they have had them in the past, Mexico included although I don't know what that has to do with anything.
>>514121
Chilean president has about 20% of popularity.
>>514121
No, they're not having them, and believing what's happening is populism is not understanding what the concept means. I can assure that Chile never had any true populist experiences and with the most certaintly Uruguay neither. Not every country is like Mexico or Argentina.
Nowhere on the planet that the Spanish have governed for long periods of time is well run.
>>514196
>I don't understand what populism is
I'm talking about Chile mane, not Latin America as a whole. And no, the Unidad Popular and Allende weren't populist either.
>>514196
>>514121
Look up on Octavio Ianni. Populism should be understood as the political alliance between an emerging industrial bourgeoisie and a newly organizing urban working class, in which the former accepts social reforming for the latter's sake as long as the working class remains politically subordinated to both a more or less authoritarian State and private enterprise, in a process of controlled inclusion of the "masses" into the political system, accepted by the newly urbanized working class given their lack of a previously developed class consciousness.
In Chile this alliance never occured. Besides the democracy between 1925 and 1973 was quite healthy.
>>514262
One of the articles I referenced states:
"Before beginning to address these questions, we need to make clear what we mean by populism. Our definition is more specific than most others; it involves a set of economic policies designed to achieve specific political goals.
Those political goals are (1) mobilizing support within organized labor and lower-middle-class groups; (2) obtaining complementary backing from domestically oriented business; and (3) politically isolating the rural oligarchy, foreign enterprises, and large-scale domestic industrial elites. The economic policies to attain these goals include, but are not limited to: (1) budget
deficits to stimulate domestic demand; (2) nominal wage increases plus price controls to effect income redistribution; and (3) exchange-rate control or appreciation to cut inflation and to raise wages and profits in nontraded-goods sectors.
I guess there's no point in arguing semantics over what is and isnt populism.
>>514336
Even on your definition, the Chilean case stands. At the very most of some pseudo populist discourses stand the second Ibañez government. And even that is quite far from it.
I can talk about Chile on this. Obviously in the rest of Latin America there's the textbook cases of class alliances and isolation from the rural elites.
>>514262
>Populism should be understood as the political alliance between an emerging industrial bourgeoisie and a newly organizing urban working class
Why? Populism is by definition a form of mismanagement that aims to please the most people, regardless of long term consequences.
It is an inherently negative denomination, except in Argentina. And I guess in Brazil, given this guy you are citing.
>>513213
Argentina was a world power at the turn of the 20th century
>5th largest world exporter
>1st exporter of beef, wheat, maize in the world
>Top 3 in GDP per capita in the world
>Over half of Latin America's gold reserves
>5th country to develop an indigenous jet fighter (after Germany, US, Soviet Union and France)
>4th country to send an animal to space (after USA, Soviet Union and France)
Still, having the population of Canada means it was destined to lose some importance once European immigration stopped... it's not enough people for world power status... and peronism also helped fuck things up
Mexico could arguably be called a world power in the early 19th century, and Brazil too. You being ignorant does not mean these places are or were irrelevant.
Brazil is a world power today due to the sheer number of people it has and its aircraft industry, among others. Mexico and Argentina are regional powers.
>>513213
populism
>>515561
>5th largest world exporter
>1st exporter of beef, wheat, maize in the world
>Top 3 in GDP per capita
>Over half of Latin America's gold reserves
>5th country to develop an indigenous jet fighter (after Germany, US, Soviet Union and France)
>3rd country to send an animal to space (after USA, Soviet Union and France)
you are forgetting our nuclear program. Well, I hope to see a better argentina now that Cristina Kirchner has gone
>>515567
Still... people forget Argentina has the same population as Canada. Population growth was explosive due to Euro emigration but it leveled off in the 1950s.
It's not enough for world power status.
We will never be a world power.
Just for comparison's sake, Mexico has three times our population, Brazil has five times our population, and USA has eight times our population.
I'm fine with just being a regional power with good, defensive armed forces, and a good quality of life. We don't need more than this.
And yes, I'm happy with the result of the latest elections.
it's literally because they have shitty genetics.
If the Spanish and Portuguese hadn't racemixed they would probably be developed countries by now.
>>515618
Define "developed", because I'm pretty sure there are several Latin American countries that fit each definition
>>513213
The USA.
>>515618
>Racemixing is bad for genetics
>"Genetic diversity is bad for biological fitness!"
>Implying
>Implying
>Implying
>Oh lawdy lawds Stormfags are THIS stupid
>>515618
Argentina and Chile are in the UN Human Development Index's highest ranking, "Very High Human Development", ahead of half of Europe even, so they are indeed developed according to the UN.
>>515630
anything scoring above 0.850 on the Human Development Index.
>>515637
>"muh diversity" is intrinsically good
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outbreeding_depression
Not sure why you thought mixing with low-IQ populations would ever be a good thing though desu
>>515646
they also happen to be the whitest countries in south america. Hell, they could probably have done even better if they were 100% white.
>>515735
forgot I was gonna post this image
>>513213
Because they didn't become a commonwealth with spain under Cádiz thanks to the noted retard Fernando VII, instead becoming petty liberal republics (Except perhaps Mexico and the Rio de la Plata region, being world cattle and mining powerhouses) that nevertheless remained under Britains financial control.
>>514147
Nice meme. The spanish empire lasted longer than the british, and the spanish colonization rate, and most importantly, city and infrastructural developement of the americas was unprecedented and would have eclipsed the english colonies if liberal political policies were adopted, instead of the absolutistic state control enforced by the Bourbon's french boner.
>>515735
>Chile
>whitest countries
Are you legit retarded?
>>515735
Ok... leaving Argentina aside which would be white and developed following your arbitrary scale, do you really think South America's problems revolve around ethnicity rather than colonialism, imperialism, the Spanish legacy, etc?
I think real life is much more complex than your racist fantasies. The fact is education is the biggest factor in development, and Europeans and their descendants monopolized that well into the 20th century.
>>515735
Also, looking at US interventions, we did a lot of harm down there particularly in the Central American republics.
>>515535
>I'm 15 years old, the post
You know you should strive more than some tabloid's definition of politics.
>>519072
Why exactly should Argentina's more or less exclusive redefinition of a 2000 year old term be applied elsewhere? Especially when the original anon accusing Latin American governments of being populist probably didn't mean the Peronists' version of the term (since as said before, nobody else really had that sort of government historically)
>>519703
Yet that alliance did happen in Vargas Brazil, Velasco Ibarra Ecuador, Lazaro Cardenas Mexico and several others.
>>513246
Those social castes were never taken seriously.
It was failed British scheme, like the one they (successfully) tried in India.
>>519753
I am Ecuadorian, and when we refer to Velasco Ibarra, or any other politician, as populist, we do in the exclusively negative connotation. Meaning somebody who is taking political decisions based exclusively on an attempt to gain short-term or mid-term popularity among the (presumably ignorant and shortsighted) masses. The definition of
> political alliance between an emerging industrial bourgeoisie and a newly organizing urban working class
also couldn't apply to my country, since he came into power riding on the complete collapse of our shitty attempt at a government-sponsored industry and offering to fix it. up
Velasco Ibarra called himself a populist and he had ties with both Nationalist movements and had some dealings with syndicalists, but he also spent most of his governments siding with the Right, and probably squashed more syndicates to put puppet leaders as heads than actually meaningfully supporting worker's rights (or fixing the local vestigial industry, which completely died in his hands under his last presidency).
I am not sure about Mexico, but I will insist that its usage as a positive term comes almost exclusively from Argentines and Argentine-influenced thinkers of the Peronist or the "Peronist-revival" currents nowadays, and probably not what that anon meant. I don't know of any non-Latin American country where populism is ever used in a positive way.
>>520015
Nobody is talking positively about populism, twat
>>520022
I assumed that is what
>>519072
was angry about.
The definition of populism posted here:
>Populism should be understood as the political alliance between an emerging industrial bourgeoisie and a newly organizing urban working class, in which the former accepts social reforming for the latter's sake as long as the working class remains politically subordinated to both a more or less authoritarian State and private enterprise, in a process of controlled inclusion of the "masses" into the political system, accepted by the newly urbanized working class given their lack of a previously developed class consciousness.
is merely a particular form of government that appeared in Argentina and adopted the name "populism".
While the derogatory usage of the term populism as "appealing to the masses" goes back to Rome.
>>520050
Populism is not seen as a positive term here... I don't know what the fuck you are smoking... but posting the opinion of some washed up Marxist philosopher does not mean populism has a positive connotation among the general public, in Argentina or anywhere else.
Seriously, what a weird fucking thread.
Only Venezuela, Bolivia and perhaps Ecuador could be called "populist" nowadays. The connotation is universally negative, even in those countries.
>>520178
Nope... conservatives use the term in a derogatory fashion and leftists question its usage, but pretty much nobody actually embraces it or takes it as something positive.
As in anywhere else in the world I suppose.
>>520178
Ianni used the term negatively too, dumbfuck.
>>516543
When did we nuke Sudan?
The less civilized populations residing there.
>>516543
>Brazil was couped by the military with American support as soon as a left leaning president got elected
>No mention of it
I am going to believe this map downplays american involvement on other parts of the world as well.
Brazil was on the right track with Vargas, but then the USA forced him to join WW2 and he couldn't keep his quasi fascist regime after sending men to die to overthrow Hitler and Mussolini.
Then Brazil was on the right track again with Kubitschek and Jango, but got couped by the military with support from the USA. Then spent 20 years of just making debt, wasting money on stupid shit and killing/exiling commies.
It was back on track after the FHC and Lula goverments, but things are getting out of control again.
>>519767
Citation?
The caste system in India has existed for millenia. In fact, some of their oldest literature and religious texts refer to it.
>>513274
>>513945
>>515635
>>516543
U.S. control and influence is greatly overestimated here. There were some places that were unquestionably influenced or controlled at some point by the U.S.--Panama, Colombia, and obviously Cuba. But most of Latin America has seen as much Soviet interference as American interference. In Chile, for example, while the coup toppling Allende is often attributed to American support, it really had nothing to do with the U.S. The people and, crucially, the military had become fed up with Allende very quickly. An earlier attempt to depose him, which was in fact supported by the U.S., failed. It was a later effort, which had no U.S. involvement, that was successful.
>>520467
But it wasn't a direct military intervention.
Same thing happened in Argentina with Videla and in Spain with Franco, to name a few more.
It is not that hard to understand, it was mainly by the british influence in South America and the US in Central America. They started buying a lot of raw materials for their industries which gave the landowners in Latin America a lot of money and power, the rich landowners with all this money prevented any other development in the economy, so there was no industrialization. There was an attempt to industrialize with the import substitution model but the rich landowners never got behind it so it failed.
Also after WW2 the US, Europe and Japan began trading more between them and stopped buying raw materials from Latin America, which made the Latin American countries go bankrupt, so they had to start borrowing money from the first world countries which made them more economically dependent and weak.
>>520631
You sure?
Check this map on Operation Condor. It even includes Chile?
>>520634
The Americans had their Navy just outside Brazillian waters, ready to come in to intervene if the coup failed or it turned into some actual conflict.
Lindon also requested logistical support, and the US sent small arms, oil and even planes to help the coup, it just wasn't used because Jango chose not to resist.
Operation Brother Sam.
I can't talk about Argentina though, got to admit I am not too familiar with it.
>>520703
The brazilian military had a lot more to do with the coup against Allende than the US, the US cooperated too, but the brazilian dictatorship was much more invested in the coup.
>>520703
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/chile/1974-01-01/invisible-blockade-and-overthrow-allende
>>520737
> Article from the 70s
> Ignores evidence that surfaced on the 90s
