In the wake of WWII, the western world was in a state of perpetual fear. After seeing Marxist influence make a shocking impact wherever it landed, the rise of the Soviet Union, the 26rd of July movement in Cuba, and numerous other revolutions with the goal of radical social and political reforms, the world was divided by two mutually exclusive and hostile ideologies: capitalism and Marxism. The two major superpowers of the time, the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union were at opposite ends of the spectrum. The Marxist revolutions of Europe and Russia gave inspiration to many Latin American revolutionaries. The U.S. wanted to ensure that communism and leftist regimes did not spread, particularly in Latin America, where leftist regimes would especially threaten U.S. business interest. The U.S. for over a century had been imperializing Latin America under a series of façades and in the mid-20th century, McCarthyism became the new catch-all excuse to interfere with the affairs of a sovereign nation. Under the guise of containing the spread of communism, many Latin American governments that tried to deviate from the practice of serving U.S. interest were overthrown with the funding and instruction of the U.S. It was with the watchful and accusing eye of Uncle Sam looming over Latin America that in 1970, that Unidad Popular candidate, Salvador Allende, was democratically elected President of Chile. Even before Allende assumed the presidency, oppositional forces were conspiring to destroy him, everything he was to accomplish, and the pro-working class ideology that he represented. The events that occurred in the three years that his presidency endured and which lead to the coup d’état of Pinochet were the product of U.S. hostility towards any t...
... middle of paper ...
...ows that contrary to the U.S. claim of being defenders of democracy, liberty, and justice, the U.S. has been perfectly willing to squash the attempts of other countries to attain these ideals if doing so would prevent the U.S. from exploiting said country. The concept of the 1st world and the extravagant economic prosperity of 1st world countries has come into existence through the creation of 3rd world countries. Their deficiency produces U.S. opulence, and the U.S. has been very aware of this, which is why the true extent of U.S. intervention in the governments of Latin America has only recently been uncovered. If the American public had been aware of the nature of our actions in any number of sovereign states, it is doubtful the U.S. government would have been able to carry them out without inviting immense criticism and dissent from the American people.
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.
All throughout the 20th century we can observe the marked presence of totalitarian regimes and governments in Latin America. Countries like Cuba, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic all suffered under the merciless rule of dictators and military leaders. Yet the latter country, the Dominican Republic, experienced a unique variation of these popular dictatorships, one that in the eyes of the world of those times was great, but in the eyes of the Dominicans, was nothing short of deadly.
It is somehow strange for today’s reader to find out that the situation with America’s foreign affairs hasn’t changed much. As some clever people have said, “The History book on the shelf is always repeating itself.” Even after nineteen years, Americans think of themselves as citizens of the strongest nation in the world. Even after the September the 11th. Even after Iraq. And Afghanistan.
Section I,2. Analyze the consequences of American rule in Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Philippines. Did the citizens prosper? Enjoy freedom? Accept American rule? Comment on the consequences for the United States with regard to the statement made by Eric Foner in the text, “Thus, two principles central to American freedom since the War of Independence – no taxation without representation and government based on the consent of the governed – were abandoned when it came to the nation’s new possessions.
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...
During the second half of the twentieth century, when the Cold War was on its midst, the United States played an important role in world affairs. The increasing military power that the United States had during the Cold War, allowed it to influence the political decisions that many countries had during this time. The United States directly opposed the idea of communism, which the Soviet Union promoted. This conflict between this two great powers, lasted for five decades, and it tremendously affected the political ideologies of the world. Both countries tried to push their political and economic interest to as many nations as they could, especially those close to their borders. During this time, Guatemala was undergoing a social revolution with communist ideas. The revolution happened as a response to the social injustice committed by the United Fruit Company. The United Fruit Company started to lose land, due to a land reform passed b...
...from the building of skyscrapers to the railroads, and imperialism. We have moved all the way westward and what there is to do is to globalize our nation and continue to help improve the nations that we help guide. We first need to make sure that we are practicing democracy, free trade, our values, freedom, and our beliefs. This is what it means to be an exceptional nation. Other nations look to us, and when we don’t respond accordingly or if we don’t practice what we preach, they will call us hypocrites.
This essay will compare the economic principles of capitalism and communism by giving brief historical background on both and describing the two. I will begin with the father of economy, Adam Smith, and finish with the theories of Karl Marx.
On September 11, 1973, within a matter of hours, the once proud and historic democracy of Chile gave way to a coup d’état orchestrated by the most senior and trusted leaders of the State's military. As explained by Pamela Constable and Arturo Valenzuela in A Nation of Enemies, “The coup shattered … the myth that Chile's 150 year old civilian constitutional government was invincible”(Constable, p.20).
The rise of a new political reform took place before WWII. Corrupt leaders from society turned authoritarian stole all benefits of country. Many countries received independence and then govern their own country. Europe attempted to impose its democratic beliefs on Latin America but the corrupt oligarchies believed in the strict hierarchy. In the hierarchy, the leaders at the top don’t care about social and economic
Every society is structured or designed with the intention to form social classes; classes that will determine the social mobility of each individual living within it. Within the social hierarchy, there is inevitably one class that essentially oppresses the others. The Communist Manifesto features The Bourgeoisie and The Proletarians, and explains that the relationship between the two classes is a common frictional relationship that has occurred countless times throughout history; because history is a never-ending cycle. It explains that the modern Bourgeoisie will eventually fall in result of the proletarians revolting. This revolt will be due to the bourgeoisie 's inability to maintain a lifestyle for the proletarians; which is ultimately
While many of us may point fingers it is indeed our very own United States government which has not respected the political borders present in this part of the world. We have stepped into territory in this area that we have no business being involved with. Under our government’s supervision, the CIA carried out a coup in Guatemala in which it installed a self-perpetuation pro-American gang of military criminals who have held power for almost forty years. Their reproductive mechanism has been murder of hundreds of thousands of Guatemalams. After this unnecessary interaction of the CIA, US national security planners saw "Cuba as a highly inflammable element which unchecked, could spread communism - now interchangeable with revolution" (Landau 30). In response to this President Eisenhower ordered the CIA to repeat its ‘success’ in Guatemala. "Throughout the continent, US police and military advisers worked with torturers, murderers and Fascists to repress not only revolution, but all forms of democracy" (Landau 31). Our government officials have such extreme fears of the uprising of the poor in these nations that it did not care out of place it was to get involved. Their economic investments and trade guided our foreign relations. They would enter and cross the borders of this seemingly innocent third world section of the continent and intervene regardless of the fact that they did not belong there in the sense that it is not thier country and should not be involved.
As the United States began to gain power over Europe, relations with Latin America dwindled. The United States spent a great deal of time, energy, and expenses to prevent the spread of communism. Revolutions were all too familiar to Latin American countries and began to increase with nationalism and Marxist ideals. The spread of revolution amongst Latin America occurred throughout many countries, which led to guerrilla warfare and eventually the Cold War.
While not all South American nations evolved from their colonial roots in the same manner, many shared a common heritage of similar policies and culture that predisposed them to the bureaucratic-authoritarian military interventions of the 20th century. For Chile, Argentina, and Brazil the institutional pillars responsible for the implementation of military regimes were the economy, political system, society, military, and contemporary leadership. Additionally, these military dictatorships arose in no small part to the suspicion of an inevitable communist takeover spurred on by the unanticipated revolution in Cuba. The military interventions in Argentina, Brazil, and Chile during the 1960s and 1970s were caused by fear, a fear (real or not)
Socialism is a synonym for Communism, right? Wrong, although communism and socialism share some ideas they are distinctly different. Historically they are different, economically, they are different. Before we look at the economic differences we must look at the past differences.