(no subject)
Latin American Revolutions have predominantly reinforced the power of the state. It must be said however that revolutions in Brazil and Cuba at least, left behind far more than “authoritarianism and the slime of the new bureaucracy”. A lack of state control over the economy could in fact be seen as a stumbling block to creating rapid social change. Although both Vargas in Brazil and Castro in Cuba used the state apparatus as a tool to create social change both men should be seen as doing so out of necessity. An example of a revolution where private industry was not abolished and consequently the revolution failed was the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. In Latin America all forms of “democratic” rule have traditionally been dominated by the ruling class which means state dictated social change has been the only option available to leaders such as Vargas and Castro in their attempts to remove the large disparities at play in their respective countries which have in-turn created the ruling class hegemony over state power.
Fidel Castro has been accused of being an authoritarian dictator without a vision of a democratic Cuba.1 There is substance to the claim that Castro is an authoritarian dictator but the benefits Castro and his regime have brought to Cuba far outweigh any so called democratic rights associated with the Western form of Democracy. Cuba is a third-world country with a small population and a small economy2. It would seem logical to compare Cuba to a place like the Dominican Republic3 and if this comparison is taken into consideration the achievements of Fidel Castro and his socialist vanguard in creating the current social conditions within Cuba is nothing short of outstanding. Cubans enjoy near perfect literacy rates4, high quality free healthcare facilities5, free tertiary education6 and first world life expectancies7. If the achievements of the Cubans are compared to third-world countries who have adopted neo-liberal policies and thus maintained free-markets Cuba’s social welfare facilities clearly outweigh those of the neo-liberal countries and as a result perhaps Cubans lead a richer life than other Latin Americans despite lacking material wealth as a result of a communist government.
In arguing that Cuba’s system of governance is more effective than third world countries such as the Dominican Republic and even larger countries such as Mexico because it has managed to eradicate poverty, this essay is arguing that democracy in the western sense of the word, is not as important to Latin Americans as it is to others throughout the world. In arguing this it must be said that the system in Cuba and other socially progressive regimes such as Vargas in Brazil are far from perfect and at times have been prone to oppressive measures and policies such as the anti-immigrant stance of Vargas8 and homophobic policies pursued by Castro9. It is these inhumane and brutal policies, which in fact suggest that democracy is important to many Latin Americans who may not be part of the dominant ideological group in power but perhaps these groups, were likely to suffer with or without democracy due to their marginality within their particular country.
The argument against the importance of democracy is given further support if Vargas and the role he played in Brazil is taken into consideration. Vargas took control of Brazil after a military coup in November 193710 after ruling through election before hand11. Vargas ruled by decree sweeping aside the constitution of 189112, which allowed him to implement radical social change and thus improve conditions for the working class of Brazil without having to take into consideration an outdated constitution13. Vargas’ rule by decree gave the state enormous power. The state seemed to dictate what was taught at schools, controlled industries and played somewhat of a paternal role, which was illustrated by Vargas being known as “the father of the poor”14. The progress that can be made to remove disparities without a democracy is clearly evident when one looks at the case of Vargas. It must be said however that rapid exploitation can also come about under martial rule such was the case in Nicaragua under the Somoza dictatorship15.
In order to understand why those who have effectively created social change in Latin America have shunned private industry and liberal thought in favour of socialist or in the case of Castro, Communist government centred industries; an understanding of the role America has played in Latin America needs to be reached. The problems created by the free-market in Latin America are intrinsically linked to the monopoly that American companies have historically had over Latin American industries when state intervention has not hindered economic liberalism. This monopoly is best illustrated by the power wielded by the United Fruit Company in Guatemala16. A global economy and economic liberalism concentrate economic power in the hands of a few elites most likely those in first-world countries such as America17. The lack of bureaucratic control over the economy therefore leaves those within third-world countries with little control over their own economies and in turn leaves them with smaller economies. The smaller economies of Latin American countries force them to cooperate with organisations such as the United Fruit Company and in turn remove labour laws in order to keep these companies within their countries. The huge economic capabilities of trans-national companies such as United Fruit allows them to hold politicians as lap-dogs and consequently wield the real political power within Latin America.
The problems which economic liberalism has created for Latin America have caused a number of governments to adopt state centred economies with little or no private industry. In addition to this, state control over all schools, creative arts and healthcare has been commonplace amongst both progressive governments and oppressive regressive dictatorships. The obvious problem this has created for Castro and his counterparts has been the loss of diplomatic relations with the most powerful player in the region, the United States of America.18 In addition to this, nationalization of industry has at times resulted in American led coups, as was the case with the overthrow of the progressive government in Guatemala due to the problems nationalization of industry created for the United Fruit Company19. This tension between nationalist movements and the United States is perhaps the most decisive factor behind the constant instability, which has plagued Latin America since the Munroe doctrine was first established.
Latin American revolutions have not all nationalised all industries in order to bring about the social change. In Nicaragua the Sandinistas attempted to create rapid social change and maintain private industry at the same time20. This failure to take control of all industries however was an attempt to maintain relations with the US21 and although not all industries were taken over by the state a large portion were22. The fact that private industry was not abolished was a contributing factor to the revolution failing and the Sandinistas falling out of favour with the people of Nicaragua. The huge economic growth of those within the Sandinista leadership vanguard provides evidence suggesting the Sandinistas did not want to remove class disparities23, which had plagued their country and still do today.
There are revolutionary groups such as the Zapatistas who have attempted to create social change without actually taking control of the state. The Zapatistas therefore are far from a slimy bureaucratic authoritarian group and their actions have done more than simply reinforce the power of the state24. They have through direct action questioned the significance of the state in Mexico. The reign of the Zapatistas is far from over however and whether they will seek to implement social change through the state is still questionable despite the fact they have denied any quest for governance.
Despite the problems with authoritarianism and the reinforcement of the power of the state, Latin American revolutions have to some extent created social change. It is hard to argue however that with the exception of Cuba, this social change has been sustained for a long period of time. Latin American revolutions have created better short term living conditions for those who fought against oppression and poverty. The long-term political instability, which revolutions have brought, however has meant that any short-term social change has not been worth the upheaval that comes about as a result of a revolution. The long-term first-world health and education standards experienced by those in Cuba is perhaps the one exception to this general trend and is perhaps the only instance where a state-centred economy has benefited the majority of a Latin American country’s people for an extended period of time. The problems associated with authoritarian leaders are perhaps insignificant when one considers that so called “democracy” has not brought equality to the people of Latin America and it appears unlikely to bring about rapid social change in the future. Revolutions in most cases have not able to solve the long-term social disparities that have plagued Latin America. This however in most cases is not a result of a slimy bureaucracy but the result of a neo-liberal global economy, which relies on mass production at the expense of the Latin American people.
Fidel Castro has been accused of being an authoritarian dictator without a vision of a democratic Cuba.1 There is substance to the claim that Castro is an authoritarian dictator but the benefits Castro and his regime have brought to Cuba far outweigh any so called democratic rights associated with the Western form of Democracy. Cuba is a third-world country with a small population and a small economy2. It would seem logical to compare Cuba to a place like the Dominican Republic3 and if this comparison is taken into consideration the achievements of Fidel Castro and his socialist vanguard in creating the current social conditions within Cuba is nothing short of outstanding. Cubans enjoy near perfect literacy rates4, high quality free healthcare facilities5, free tertiary education6 and first world life expectancies7. If the achievements of the Cubans are compared to third-world countries who have adopted neo-liberal policies and thus maintained free-markets Cuba’s social welfare facilities clearly outweigh those of the neo-liberal countries and as a result perhaps Cubans lead a richer life than other Latin Americans despite lacking material wealth as a result of a communist government.
In arguing that Cuba’s system of governance is more effective than third world countries such as the Dominican Republic and even larger countries such as Mexico because it has managed to eradicate poverty, this essay is arguing that democracy in the western sense of the word, is not as important to Latin Americans as it is to others throughout the world. In arguing this it must be said that the system in Cuba and other socially progressive regimes such as Vargas in Brazil are far from perfect and at times have been prone to oppressive measures and policies such as the anti-immigrant stance of Vargas8 and homophobic policies pursued by Castro9. It is these inhumane and brutal policies, which in fact suggest that democracy is important to many Latin Americans who may not be part of the dominant ideological group in power but perhaps these groups, were likely to suffer with or without democracy due to their marginality within their particular country.
The argument against the importance of democracy is given further support if Vargas and the role he played in Brazil is taken into consideration. Vargas took control of Brazil after a military coup in November 193710 after ruling through election before hand11. Vargas ruled by decree sweeping aside the constitution of 189112, which allowed him to implement radical social change and thus improve conditions for the working class of Brazil without having to take into consideration an outdated constitution13. Vargas’ rule by decree gave the state enormous power. The state seemed to dictate what was taught at schools, controlled industries and played somewhat of a paternal role, which was illustrated by Vargas being known as “the father of the poor”14. The progress that can be made to remove disparities without a democracy is clearly evident when one looks at the case of Vargas. It must be said however that rapid exploitation can also come about under martial rule such was the case in Nicaragua under the Somoza dictatorship15.
In order to understand why those who have effectively created social change in Latin America have shunned private industry and liberal thought in favour of socialist or in the case of Castro, Communist government centred industries; an understanding of the role America has played in Latin America needs to be reached. The problems created by the free-market in Latin America are intrinsically linked to the monopoly that American companies have historically had over Latin American industries when state intervention has not hindered economic liberalism. This monopoly is best illustrated by the power wielded by the United Fruit Company in Guatemala16. A global economy and economic liberalism concentrate economic power in the hands of a few elites most likely those in first-world countries such as America17. The lack of bureaucratic control over the economy therefore leaves those within third-world countries with little control over their own economies and in turn leaves them with smaller economies. The smaller economies of Latin American countries force them to cooperate with organisations such as the United Fruit Company and in turn remove labour laws in order to keep these companies within their countries. The huge economic capabilities of trans-national companies such as United Fruit allows them to hold politicians as lap-dogs and consequently wield the real political power within Latin America.
The problems which economic liberalism has created for Latin America have caused a number of governments to adopt state centred economies with little or no private industry. In addition to this, state control over all schools, creative arts and healthcare has been commonplace amongst both progressive governments and oppressive regressive dictatorships. The obvious problem this has created for Castro and his counterparts has been the loss of diplomatic relations with the most powerful player in the region, the United States of America.18 In addition to this, nationalization of industry has at times resulted in American led coups, as was the case with the overthrow of the progressive government in Guatemala due to the problems nationalization of industry created for the United Fruit Company19. This tension between nationalist movements and the United States is perhaps the most decisive factor behind the constant instability, which has plagued Latin America since the Munroe doctrine was first established.
Latin American revolutions have not all nationalised all industries in order to bring about the social change. In Nicaragua the Sandinistas attempted to create rapid social change and maintain private industry at the same time20. This failure to take control of all industries however was an attempt to maintain relations with the US21 and although not all industries were taken over by the state a large portion were22. The fact that private industry was not abolished was a contributing factor to the revolution failing and the Sandinistas falling out of favour with the people of Nicaragua. The huge economic growth of those within the Sandinista leadership vanguard provides evidence suggesting the Sandinistas did not want to remove class disparities23, which had plagued their country and still do today.
There are revolutionary groups such as the Zapatistas who have attempted to create social change without actually taking control of the state. The Zapatistas therefore are far from a slimy bureaucratic authoritarian group and their actions have done more than simply reinforce the power of the state24. They have through direct action questioned the significance of the state in Mexico. The reign of the Zapatistas is far from over however and whether they will seek to implement social change through the state is still questionable despite the fact they have denied any quest for governance.
Despite the problems with authoritarianism and the reinforcement of the power of the state, Latin American revolutions have to some extent created social change. It is hard to argue however that with the exception of Cuba, this social change has been sustained for a long period of time. Latin American revolutions have created better short term living conditions for those who fought against oppression and poverty. The long-term political instability, which revolutions have brought, however has meant that any short-term social change has not been worth the upheaval that comes about as a result of a revolution. The long-term first-world health and education standards experienced by those in Cuba is perhaps the one exception to this general trend and is perhaps the only instance where a state-centred economy has benefited the majority of a Latin American country’s people for an extended period of time. The problems associated with authoritarian leaders are perhaps insignificant when one considers that so called “democracy” has not brought equality to the people of Latin America and it appears unlikely to bring about rapid social change in the future. Revolutions in most cases have not able to solve the long-term social disparities that have plagued Latin America. This however in most cases is not a result of a slimy bureaucracy but the result of a neo-liberal global economy, which relies on mass production at the expense of the Latin American people.