>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
"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.
>>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
>>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.
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 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.
>>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)
>>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.
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.
>>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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.