In Peter Winn’s book, Weavers of revolution, the revolution from below collided with the revolution from above, producing unexpected yet catastrophic effect in Chile. Generally speaking, a revolution is a complete transformation of an established government or a political system and a radical change in people’s views and behaviors. However, a revolution from above refers to major political and social changes that are imposed by the government on the population. In contrast, a revolution from below is when the people of a nation rebel against the hierarchy to gain a revolution. In Chile, the revolution from above was initiated by Salvador Allende’s election in 1970, but it was mistaken as a signal to the workers “to take the revolution into their own hands and fulfill their historic aspirations through direct action from below” (140).
By the early 1960’s widespread concern for social and economic justice and increased levels of political participation had boosted the popularity of parties that advocated radical economic and social change. Thus, in 1964, Eduardo Frei, a Christian Democrat, won an overwhelming mandate to carry out a revolution in liberty. Six years later, in 1970, Salvador Allende, the leader of a coalition of Marxist and Social Democratic parties, was elected President on a platform that promised to bring about a peaceful transition to socialism. The Popular Unity program and the authors of its economic strategy “envisioned a carefully controlled revolution from above” (139), that radical social, political and economic change could be brought about within the framework of the constitution and the laws. According to Allende, “this required a carefully controlled and phased revolutionary process, which was also neces...
... middle of paper ...
...n from below was also responsible for the problems that begun to appear, and the subsequent dramatic downfall of Allende’s government in 1973. Price inflation, government deficits, and consumer shortages, and scarce dollars were among the principal economic problems. By mid—1972, the Allende government “was not only faced with growing economic dislocations, but with rising class conflict and political opposition as well” (230). The middle classes felt threatened by the social revolution from below, as it was the elite they imitate, as the result of the surge in working class power. the revolution from below not only alienated the middle class from the Popular Unity cause, but it also helped push them into the ranks of the Christian Democrats party, undermining the political strategy of social alliance in the process. The democratic road to socialism seemed blocked.
Models for post-revolutionary Latin American government are born of the complex economic and social realities of 17th and 18th century Europe. From the momentum of the Enlightenment came major political rebellions of the elite class against entrenched national monarchies and systems of power. Within this time period of elitist revolt and intensive political restructuring, the fundamental basis for both liberal and conservative ideology was driven deep into Latin American soil. However, as neither ideology sought to fulfill or even recognize the needs or rights of mestizo people under government rule, the initial liberal doctrine pervading Latin American nations perpetuated racism and economic exploitation, and paved the way for all-consuming, cultural wars in the centuries to come.
...he lower class had their agenda on mind, and even disrupted the campaign of Allende in order to do so. Allende was then forced to deal with situations he should never have had to, thus hurting his political status with the working class because he could never deliver the results they wanted all the time.
...r had embraced a counterrevolution of economic and political order. The greatest symbolism of the fall of the government under Salvador Allende was the return of repression on the workers at the mill.
Time and rules have been transforming countries in many ways; especially, in the 1850’s and the 1920’s, when liberals were firmly in control across Latin American region. Liberalism can be defined as a dominant political philosophy in which almost every Latin American country was affected. A sense of progress over tradition, reason over faith, and free market over government control. Although each country was different, all liberals pursued similar policies. They emphasize on legal equality for all citizens, progress, free trade, anti-slavery, and removing power from church. Liberals declared promising changes for Latin American’s future. But Latin America had a stronger hierarchical society with more labor systems, nothing compare to the United States societies. Liberals weren’t good for Latin America. What I mean by “good” is the creation of a turning point or some type of contribution towards success. I define “good” as beneficial or helpful. The Latin American economy was stagnant between 1820 and 1850 because of independence wars, transportation and the recreation of facilities. I describe this era as, “the era when Latin America when off road”.
In the 1960s America, the pope of democratic faith, preached to the world about the evils of communism. When Marxist Salvador Allende lost by three percent in the Chilean election of 1958, the United States decided that the next election of 1964, could not be left in the hands of democracy. The United States began to work to stop Allende from becoming president. They went so far as to create projects to help train and organize so-called anti-communists among the peasants, laborers, students, and the media. Despite their efforts, in 1970 Salvador Allende was elected president through plurality. He became the first Marxist in the world to gain power in a free democratic election. Now you might ask, why would the United States be so interested in the politics of a third world country, furthermore the beliefs of one man. After all a person can only do so much, right?
The Civil War in El Salvador lasted from 1980 to 1992, and the El SAlvadoran government was doing their best to minimize the threat of their opposition. Their main opposition, The Frente Farabundo Marti Para La Liberacion Nacional; otherwise known as the FMLN, was a guerrilla group that was organized to fight the corruption in the country. 175). One of the main goals of the organization was to create a new society that is not degrading its citizens and promotes equality. Throughout El Salvador’s history, one organization to the next would run the country through repressive actions and social injustice. One of the main reasons that the FMLN fought the acting government were due to these social restraints on the lower- class citizens in El Salvador.
...t years of the war started after 1980, and ended in 1992 with the Peace Treaty of Chapultepec, Mexico. This treaty did not bring the desired peace and progress to El Salvador. Instead, the fight continued in a way of political opposition without arms. The revolutionary forces became a political party that represents the rights of the workers. The right wing party, which was originally founded by D’aubuisson, stayed in power until the elections of 2009. The popular sectors of El Salvador still face extreme poverty and oppression caused by large companies. The church continues its work with the poor but in a more limited and conservative way. After 30 years of the death of Romero, the Salvadoran Church remembers him as the hero of the oppressed and the voice of the voiceless and cries on the fact that the church was never the same after the death of its major leader.
By observing the recurring trends throughout history, an individual can conclude that the modern world has evolved through a series of revolutionary eras. Revolutions have occurred since the beginning of mankind and continue to progress into the future. Ranging from a sharp change in political organization or structure, to social divisions within society, all the way to forward-thinking innovations, revolutions have impacted the course of history in numerous ways. Although many revolutions are titled with a specific name to identify the precise location or particular group of people involved, such as the American Revolution or the French Revolution, there are many occurrences in which a revolution is simply identified with a categorization term. However, among all the revolutions that have occurred in known history, there is a specific revolutionary period that has aided in the progress of humanity in addition to establishing the early concepts that shape our modern world. Originating in Great Britain, the Industrial Revolution has transformed the lifestyles of people around the world. However, the progressive transformation introduced a series of outcomes contrary to the prior regime. The Industrial Revolution triggered the growth of Great Britain’s economy, reset the social class divisions, and led to the formation of political reformation.
The historian Ronn Pineo wrote “Beginning in the 1980s nearly all of Latin America began to take part in a great experiment, the adoption of capitalist free market economic policies.” This great experiment began with the promotion of democracy and free market that promised a better future for Latin America. Neoliberalism, the economic ideology that promotes free-market capitalism, laid the foundation for many of the US military interventions and economic policies that caused a dramatic transformation of Latin America. This promise of a “democratic” government came from a policy initiative labeled as polyarchy. Polyarchy is “ a system in which a small group governs and mass participation in decision making is limited to choosing leaders in elections that are carefully managed by competing elites” (Lecture: Polyarchy and Resistance).
The Mexican Revolution began November 20th, 1910. It is disputable that it extended up to two decades and seized more than 900,000 lives. This revolution, however, also ended dictatorship in Mexico and restored the rights of farm workers, or peons, and its citizens. Revolutions are often started because a large group of individuals want to see a change. These beings decided to be the change that they wanted to see and risked many things, including their lives. Francisco “Pancho” Villa and Emiliano Zapata are the main revolutionaries remembered. These figures of the revolution took on the responsibility that came with the title. Their main goal was to regain the rights the people deserved. The peons believed that they deserved the land that they labored on. These workers rose up in a vehement conflict against those opposing and oppressing them. The United States was also significantly affected by this war because anybody who did not want to fight left the country and migrated north. While the end of the revolution may be considered to be in the year of 1917 with the draft of a new constitution, the fighting did not culminate until the 1930’s.
As the Latin American nations set out to construct a new government and society in the 1800´s, two opposing models aroused regarding which one would best benefit the countries. ¨Civilization vs. Barbarism¨ by Domingo Sarmiento, a recognized Argentinean revolutionary, contrasts Jose Marti´s ¨Our America¨ ideology which critiques U.S. capitalism and focuses on developing a good government based on the needs of the nations and each nation´s autochthony. Contrastingly, Sarmiento, guided by his beliefs in democratic principles, declares his preference towards the European urbanized way of life as the key to progress and stability for the nations. Despite the differences in the models proposed by Marti and Sarmiento for the New Nations to follow,
While both the Mexican and Russian revolutions had similar end goals and the process in which they conducted their uprisings which started the peasant revolutions; the major differences lie in who started the revolutions and what political systems they adopted after their revolutions were over.
The conflict that arose in the 1930s and 40s in Spain can be defined as the struggle between the two ideologies of Spanish society; the traditionalists who wanted to hold on to conservative catholic values and the republicans who sought to embrace the wave of progressive modernism that had already swept through most of the western world. Spain was once the world’s most powerful empire, but due to clashing political beliefs, a broken and ever changing political system, and a destroyed economy, by the late 1800s it had fallen apart into a divided country where chaos ruled. Thousands lived in complete poverty and misery, working jobs that could not support their growing families. Infant mortality skyrocketed as the economy plunged. While the economy went from one crisis to another, the people began to protest the draconian censorship of the government, forcing the militaristic dictator Miguel Primo de Rivera to step down. His resignment resulted in the country’s first real step towards democracy, the Second Spanish Republic. During the municipal elections, new radically ideological politocal parties began to emerge, both on the extreme left and right wings. The right wing parties were supported by the monarchists, upperclass, conservatives, and the catholic church. However, among these parties was the small, yet rapidly growing facist falange party created by Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, son of the former dictator and a man who would have astounding influence on the lives of thousand of people, even long after his death. The falange sought to restore Spain to its former glory under the rule of one pow...
Throughout the fourteen years that remained in power Chávez followed strategy of introducing a socialist government in Venezuela in stages. According to Enrique Standish in the article titled “Venezuela Finally Turns Communist” it happened in four stages. The first stage consisted of obtaining t...
The rebellion against Nicaraguan leader Anastasio Somoza Debayle was supported by virtually all sectors of Nicaraguan society. The FSLN (Sandinista National Liberation Front) spearheaded the revolt through the support of the poor, the working class, students, businessmen, professionals, the Roman Catholic Church and various oppositional political parties. Somoza had alienated all of society including, “the upper class with his disastrous economic policies which threatened the economic well-being of the propertied and entrepreneurial class.” (Booth, 125) He also alienated t...