Is Latin America special?

[Karl Renegade]

I've noticed that Latin America seem to be more inclined towards Socialism than the rest with Chavez in Venezuela, Zapatistas in Mexico, the present "Pink Tide" and of course, Cuba. Why is that? How can someone from outside the region support this trend? Are there other regions/countries/movements in the world that are comparable?

[The Douche]

No. This is kind of racist.

[Thirsty Crow]

No. This is kind of racist.
No, it isn't. Unless "kind of" actually means "not racist at all", as OP didn't state that s/he believes that this is due to inherent qualities arising from ethnicity.

[The Douche]

No, it isn't. Unless "kind of" actually means "not racist at all", as OP didn't state that s/he believes that this is due to inherent qualities arising from ethnicity.

Are arabs special?


I've noticed that the middle east seems to be more inclined towards theocracy than the rest with the taliban in afghanistan, al-quaeda in Iraq, the present "arab spring" and of course, Palestine. Why is that? How can someone from outside the region support this trend? Are there other regions/countries/movements in the world that are comparable?

[Thirsty Crow]

Are arabs special?It is evident that the middle east is more "inclined" to theocracy than, let's say, Europe. That's a fact which can be checked by reference to the size and influence of theocratic or quasi-theocratic groups and state structures (Iran as opposed to say Denmark and every other European state).

But this is not the point. The point is how one explains this and what political and theoretical conclusions are drawn from it. By reference to history and the conflict between labour and capital which plays out in different ways in different regions of this earth, or by reference to inherent qualities coming from either culture, race, ethnicity, concluding that proletarian struggle in Iran will have a specific task of fighting against religious ideology to a much greater extent than the European working class, or that Arabs are fundamentalists and should be deported. I think that your approach is deeply mistaken as it can lead to disregard for the concrete conditions on the ground.

And furthermore, OP didn't "essentialize" the South and Central America. The question wasn't framed as "are Latinos special" or "are indigenous Americans special". The framework of OP is geographical and social-historical. In this sense, I can very much claim that Eastern Europe - the post-Stalinist states and societies - are special, meaning, that conditions prevailing here are to an extent different than those previaling in other parts of the capitalist world.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I've noticed that the middle east seems to be more inclined towards theocracy than the rest with the taliban in afghanistan, al-quaeda in Iraq, the present "arab spring" and of course, Palestine. Why is that? How can someone from outside the region support this trend? Are there other regions/countries/movements in the world that are comparable?

This would be true. Radical Islam is very common in the Middle East.


Are arabs special?

The equivalent would be "Is the Middle East special?" not "Are Arabs special?" as OP said "Is Latin America special?" not "Are latinos special?"

[feeLtheLove]

I'm not sure if I get your question. But I think I know what you're asking:

Latin America seems to be an easy target for big Capitalist from the first world. They're people in Latin America who recognize this and create organizations in their countries. However, most are "Marxist-Leninist", due to the high influence the USSR had when it was around. But yes, A lot of inclination in Latin America due to the fact that is is host to many third world countries because of big capitalist from big capitalist nations. Such as the United States.

I think this is what you mean. I don't really know, correct me if I didn't reply correctly.

[barbelo]

I've noticed that Latin America seem to be more inclined towards Socialism

Latin America is more inclined towards populism.
Any analysis of Getulio Vargas and Lula power in Brazil or Kirchner and Peron power in Argentina shows this. It's a continent of banana republics, of post colonial economies, of foreign intervention, of (sadly) slavery until the 19th century, of coronelismo and social-economic contrast.
Mistaking the populism ever present in Latin America for socialism is a dangerous mistake; a mistake that sadly many people still do and brought fascistic and authoritarian governments to power.
The government of the labor party in Brazil (PT) is the time where brazilian private banks had their biggest profit in history and when the economic gap grew to an absurd degree.

[barbelo]

Are arabs special?

Yes, of course. They have oil.

Israel wouldn't last one day if their neighbors didn't have oil, it wouldn't exist any interest in the region.
The interest in South America ended with La Plata river (creation of Uruguay) and the southern passage for Asia (british acquisition of Falklands/Malvinas).

[RedSonRising]

I think it's unique in the sense that an individual's relationship to the system of production is much more stark, and inequality has such a wide gap. There are plenty of equally poor regions in the world, but the processes of capitalism are just so textbook in Latin America. Peasants kicked off their land because of privatized land, many times for the use of US corporations; United States neo-liberal policy very plainly dictating the supply and demand domestically within these countries; countless regimes which allied with the bourgeoisie blatantly enough to orchestrate massacres of subversive workers. Generally, the commodification of land and labor across the continent post WW2 was very rapid, on top of the fact it aggravated post-colonial racial tensions and structures, and simply gave way to the archetypical Marxist prediction; workers got fed up and wanted control over their resources so their people wouldn't starve.

Western Europe and the United States have had their class consciousness distorted by nationalism and a concentration of extracted resources, Russia obviously experimented and retrogressed, the ruling classes of India and China have developed a capacity to compete globally like never before and have become the capitalist quasi-hegemons of their region, and Africa, while also rife with class struggle, is a mixed bag between tribal areas, areas controlled by old Colonial industry, and state's still trying to facilitate the complete construction of a nation-state, which includes a strong national identity and whatnot.

Class struggle has and will always exist in all of these regions as a natural consequence of the capitalist system, but class consciousness seems most accessible in Latin America. Even for the most upper class Mexican or Colombian, symbols of farmers, fruit merchants, indigenous figures, etc. are marketed and celebrated. The problem is balancing actual appropriation of the bourgeoisie with a refrain from becoming ultra-violent and self-serving, and provoking US intervention.

[human strike]

Latin America is more inclined towards populism.
Any analysis of Getulio Vargas and Lula power in Brazil or Kirchner and Peron power in Argentina shows this. It's a continent of banana republics, of post colonial economies, of foreign intervention, of (sadly) slavery until the 19th century, of coronelismo and social-economic contrast.
Mistaking the populism ever present in Latin America for socialism is a dangerous mistake; a mistake that sadly many people still do and brought fascistic and authoritarian governments to power.
The government of the labor party in Brazil (PT) is the time where brazilian private banks had their biggest profit in history and when the economic gap grew to an absurd degree.

Spot on. You can trace this populist, strong-leader tradition back to at least the caudillos of the early 19th century.

[Ocean Seal]

It's not racist, but Latin America is not special. Ten years ago it was in the vicegrip of American capitalism more tightly than any region in the world.

[Ostrinski]

We're all special little snowflakes.

I don't know. It does seem like social-democracy has made a breakthrough in the last decade or two in Latin America. There's probably a number of factors that can be attributed to that, namely the drop in success of American imperialism in the region.

This resulted in the necessity of new social forces to fill the vacuum. Left populism often does the task well in these situations as a valid alternative to American proxies in a more self-reliant system of capitalist management.

[tuwix]

I've noticed that Latin America seem to be more inclined towards Socialism than the rest with Chavez in Venezuela, Zapatistas in Mexico, the present "Pink Tide" and of course, Cuba. Why is that?


Because there is very great social stratification and anti-American sentiment. Besides there is/was lack of social service that in Europe is standard.



How can someone from outside the region support this trend?


It is supported for every country who hate the USA. China and Russia support this trend.



Are there other regions/countries/movements in the world that are comparable?


I don't really think so. The stratification in Africa is similar, but there are tribal variety that block a social struggle in great extent. In post-Soviet countries the stratification is similar but there are social services which are easing it to some extent.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Spot on. You can trace this populist, strong-leader tradition back to at least the caudillos of the early 19th century.

Bolivar thought that only a strong executive could preserve anti-colonial independence. Even this is mixed.

[Rafiq]

Are arabs special?

Just over thirty years ago the middle east was a haven of intensified class struggle and romantic bourgeois-revolutionary action. Latin America isn't special, just about everywhere in the third world; especially afghanistan, all relavent movements were secular and leftist in nature. Even in Iran, had it not been for the strategic blunders of the communists (their alliance with islamists), Iran today would not be a theocracy.

[China studen]

Not particularly.Latin American left-wing repressed many years before the 21st century.So bound to the outbreak.

And in other similar areas. (Left-wing perennial to adhere struggle), such as Southeast Asia, the 1960s and 1970s, the outbreak of a lot of the success of the revolution (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia). Revolutionary aspirations of the people have been released.