NationStates Jolt Archive

The latest Latin American leader to try and fiddle about with the way the country works was Ecuador's Rafael Correa. Much like Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales, he's formed his views on the economy and the world in a period of instability following the financial and economic crises of the 90s. A quick discussion of the changes he pushed through can be found here (http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11848940), but economically it's basically what you'd expect: state-owned companies, keeping foreigners out (or at least reducing their chances of defending themselves in case domestic partners want to take advantage) and more power for the presidential office to do as it pleases. That is then used to introduce social programs financed by a combination of primary exports (mainly oil) and either using state-owned firms or forcing private firms to contribute cheaply.

There have been lots of debates here on the merits of these various policies, particularly in the three countries most concerned: Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. You might even consider Argentina, which under Kirchner II is also taking timid steps in that direction. This will, essentially, be another one of those: What do you think these countries will be like (particularly on the economic front) in 5, 10 and 20 years? Does Economic Bolivarianism have a future, or is it just the same old story tried so many times in South America, right now simply propped up by oil exports?

socialism=dictatorship of the proletariat

socialism=/=welfare social-capitalism

It will all fail until the people of Latin America realize that as long as they are locked into the world bourgeois market that their countries will never 'develop' and will remain forever backward poverty-stricken oil-nations for rich western consumers. They need to rapidly develop heavy-industrial self-sufficiency under a state-directed campaign. Industry was be organized in a military fashion, with set military like objectives, and forever discard the anarchy and unstable decay of unplanned private economy.

Considering the economic history of the area, probably won't help much. They need an educated population, if they're going to achieve anything, and nothing about that was mentioned. It sounds like short-term oil money going to the people, and in the end, won't improve the country's standing in the long term.

Sorry, but communism/socialism is a losing game beyond a village level.

admiral goal, but unachievable.

human nature dictates that what I say is true.

They've plenty of predecessors who show us the path their governments will take.

To be fair, most of these countries NEED a little socializing.

Most of South and Central America are ruled by oligarchies, sets of families that own everything and run the country solely for their own benefit. Presidents and Governments come and go, the Families remain, and nothing really changes.

I supported Chavez's initial actions, his moves to end the power of the Families and build a government of the people. He's now gone way too far, and done stupid things apparently solely to piss off other countries (the US, Colombia, virtually all of his neighbours), and I don't think he'll do much more good with all his bridges burned, but I still applaud an attempt to break his country out of the mesoamerican rut.

Further, despite Andaras' blinkered opinion, socialism is a spectrum, not a point. We've adopted a lot of socialist ideas over the years, and there's no reason the S&C American states shouldn't do likewise.

To be fair, most of these countries NEED a little socializing.

Most of South and Central America are ruled by oligarchies, sets of families that own everything and run the country solely for their own benefit. Presidents and Governments come and go, the Families remain, and nothing really changes.

I supported Chavez's initial actions, his moves to end the power of the Families and build a government of the people. He's now gone way too far, and done stupid things apparently solely to piss off other countries (the US, Colombia, virtually all of his neighbours), and I don't think he'll do much more good with all his bridges burned, but I still applaud an attempt to break his country out of the mesoamerican rut.

Further, despite Andaras' blinkered opinion, socialism is a spectrum, not a point. We've adopted a lot of socialist ideas over the years, and there's no reason the S&C American states shouldn't do likewise.

I generally support this position. I think Chavez may have been playing a South American archetype all along and as such his actions have seemed faily predictable (eg: trying to extend his term as president) as such although it doesn't give me much pleasure to say this i think the consequences of his actions will also be fairly standard in the history of the region... which is to say, not much will change. I also agree with the point about socialism (and any political economy, even fascism) existing along a theoretical spectrum rather than an acute point.

Also: eerie, what's with the spike in the number of people from Perth?!

I was just in Venezuela. It looked like socialism was doing good things for the country.

Also: eerie, what's with the spike in the number of people from Perth?!

What, we aren't supposed to share our superiority with the rest of the world?

What, we aren't supposed to share our superiority with the rest of the world?

oh no not at all, blessed are the Perthmakers. But i can remember the days when the grand total of players from our state was measurable on two hands.

I was just in Venezuela. It looked like socialism was doing good things for the country.

Such as?

Or is it just the aggressive use of oil profits?

Such as?

Or is it just the aggressive use of oil profits?

I like to imagine this means Chavez walks about the slums violently and antagonistically shoving fistfulls of petrodollars into the grubby hands of locals while angrily shouting out directos to the local health clinics...

blessed are the Perthmakers.

blessed are the perthmakers?

blessed are the perthmakers?
... for they share the same time zone as Brutland and Norden. *nods*

You might even consider Argentina, which under Kirchner II is also taking timid steps in that direction.

Considering she seems to have been completely inept at just about everything she's touched since she came to power, I wouldn't be surprised if she just became a populist - flip flopping on ideas just to keep in power.

i remember,when the venezuelan government was riled up about Mercenaries 2.they said that the U.S government was trying to get support for an invasion of venezuela with it.all because the developer,Pandemic Studios made training aids for the U.S army.and they're trying to get Bono to stop it's development,because he's a board member on a capital firm,that's a majority stake holder in the partnership of Bioware and Pandemic Studios.here's the news from Gamespot:http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/mercenaries2worldinflames/news.html?sid=6167814

Considering she seems to have been completely inept at just about everything she's touched since she came to power, I wouldn't be surprised if she just became a populist - flip flopping on ideas just to keep in power.

Only if you can 'become' something you already are.

Damn - must do something about finding an avatar

I think we'll see different things happening in different nations. Bachelet could also be considered socialist, even though she is "farther to the right" than Correa, Morales and Chavez.

I'm not so sure that the protectionist policies are part of a socialist agenda or ideology. The simple fact is that many Latin American economies have been plundered by multinationals and foreign interests, and many countries are simply refusing to allow such actions again by enacting protectionist legislation. The idea is to reverse the trend of having wealth leave the country and try to get wealth flowing into the country. The invisible hand of the market has done a piss-poor job of that over the last half century. It's time for another approach.

GoG, I'd daresay that there is a problem greater than merely a market failure: Latin America has been plagued by massive government failures as well. The solution, though, is not the radical nationalization policies that have been embraced, but responsible government policies that increase stability, improve education, build infrastructure and encourage investment.
That, plus being a covert zone of contention between Cold War opponents hasn't helped. The relatively hands off or cooperative approach that the US has taken in the region since the fall of the USSR has clearly shown to be beneficial to the region.

GoG, I'd daresay that there is a problem greater than merely a market failure: Latin America has been plagued by massive government failures as well. The solution, though, is not the radical nationalization policies that have been embraced, but responsible government policies that increase stability, improve education, build infrastructure and encourage investment.
That, plus being a covert zone of contention between Cold War opponents hasn't helped. The relatively hands off or cooperative approach that the US has taken in the region since the fall of the USSR has clearly shown to be beneficial to the region.

First, let's just get rid of the myth of Soviet intervention in Latin America. The USSR only got involved with Cuba after the US government of the time decided that Cuba was a problem. And that's it. That's the entire extent of Soviet involvement. It was not a front in the Cold War. The US governments of the last half century just used that myth to rationalise the complete lack of respect for Latin American sovereignty.

Of course the problem is not merely limited to market failure. But market failure is definitely part of the problem. There are also issues that arise from the neo-colonialist and colonialist past, such as a lack of government transparency, corruption, oligarchies, etc. And we haven't even begun looking at the role of the Catholic Church.

It will be no surprise to me that Latin American socialism will be highly protectionist, but I think that even more 'right wing' markets will still have many of these policies. The USA is an example of a country that has strong capitalist tendencies, but still manages to protect their economic sovereignty. I'm thinking that Latino leaders are saying that if it's good enough for the exporters of freedom and manifest destiny, then it's also good enough for smaller, more vulnerable markets.

First: Andaluciae, you got lost.
Second:First, let's just get rid of the myth of Soviet intervention in Latin America.
Finally, some sense in all the crap I've read in this thread.

Third:
I'm from Chile, I know how it looks like Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina political behaviour or economical decisions but, as a nation, we do not identify our self as this, even that "latino" word, just don't fit with our culture.

The 'socialism' today is just a word for make poor people to think the government is doing 'things' for them, and that's why government keeps a big layer of voter support.

The Government, as any, works for solving demands of Healthcare, Education, and a Social Agenda. This is not a very clear agenda for the mid class citizen continuosly squeezed with taxes and without social protection.

That is the true about our socialism:

Let the foreign big shot take his profit, slices a nationalized company (copper only since a lot) and nourishes the destitutes masses... and let the midclass man and woman take care for its own -supposed- wealth.

The idea is to reverse the trend of having wealth leave the country and try to get wealth flowing into the country.
Actually, their problem was the big inflows, which then turned into outflows when things started going wrong there. What they really want is lots of foreign money that can't leave, which is a cause few people are willing to donate to, understandably.

At the moment they can compensate for that by selling oil, which brings foreign money in. But they're not spending that money in areas that are going to pay off in the long term, since they're motivated by populist and social agendas that win them elections. Even things that might be a good idea, such as better education for the poor, are hurt by political interference (Venezuela now teaching the Bolivarian version of history and lots of politics in its poor-people schools) and inept management. The story Aelosia told a while ago about people from these new schools wanting to go and do medicine (as so many poor kids do) and then finding out that the standard of learning there just wasn't good enough to allow them to survive a medicine degree comes to mind.

The invisible hand of the market has done a piss-poor job of that over the last half century. It's time for another approach.
Well, money is needed to build up the country. If the market, that is free investment, is not the answer, then there are only two alternatives: do without investment (which they can currently do because of oil revenues) or somehow force foreign investment in which won't leave (and the only way to do that is to get politically motivated foreign governments in, ie Russia and Iran). Of course, any talk about national sovereignty must also go out the window at that point.

Socialism is just part of the South American business cycle. It hits its peak right before the CIA-assisted coup, and its trough is the middle of the dictatorial, slightly insane but very anti-communist junta general's reign.

Socialism is just part of the South American business cycle. It hits its peak right before the CIA-assisted coup, and its trough is the middle of the dictatorial, slightly insane but very anti-communist junta general's reign.
I don't know, I'd like to think that Brazil broke out of that for example. Lula isn't really a socialist or particularly anti-American, and he's not getting bad vibes from Washington either. Maybe there is some maturing process possible, and following the current crop of Chávez and company there could be a prolonged democratic rule by centre-right and centre-left parties.

It doesnt matter...theyre stuck in History's "Great Losers Bracket"

Latin America is so beautiful yet so f**king corrupt! No system ever seems to work for the... pity.

I don't know, I'd like to think that Brazil broke out of that for example. Lula isn't really a socialist or particularly anti-American, and he's not getting bad vibes from Washington either. Maybe there is some maturing process possible, and following the current crop of Chávez and company there could be a prolonged democratic rule by centre-right and centre-left parties.

I was kind of kidding (kind of, mind you), but you have a point. The end of the Cold War may also have something to do with it; leaders don't have to worry about aligning with a bloc and make policies which (*gasp*) help their people.

Such as?

Or is it just the aggressive use of oil profits?

Such as my friend having a deep cut on his hand, being taken to a socialist health clinic and getting 14 stitches. He was in and out in 45 mins, at no cost at all. This is a city of 120,000 people, IIRC. So, the clinics should be busy, and take long like American hospitals,but it didn't. I was thoroughly impressed with that, and also the " People's Train". It was very nice. :)

Actually, their problem was the big inflows, which then turned into utflows when things started going wrong there. What they really want is lots of foreign money that can't leave, which is a cause few people are willing to donate to, understandably.

At the moment they can compensate for that by selling oil, which brings foreign money in. But they're not spending that money in areas that are going to pay off in the long term, since they're motivated by populist and social agendas that win them elections. Even things that might be a good idea, such as better education for the poor, are hurt by political interference (Venezuela now teaching the Bolivarian version of history and lots of politics in its poor-people schools) and inept management. The story Aelosia told a while ago about people from these new schools wanting to go and do medicine (as so many poor kids do) and then finding out that the standard of learning there just wasn't good enough to allow them to survive a medicine degree comes to mind.

The big problem with many Latin American economies is that they were, for a long time, run by people whose main goal was to remove as much wealth from the country and put it in their own pockets. Now that democratic governments are in power, they are putting a stop to that. Obviously, those who were receiving such wealth are now a little pissed off. Too bad.

As for the claim that social spending is useless or even detrimental simply because it appeals to a broad base of people is ridiculous. Free healthcare clinics are useful, even if everyone likes them. Inept management is neither a reason to discard sound policy, nor is it only a function of 'socialism'.

Well, money is needed to build up the country. If the market, that is free investment, is not the answer, then there are only two alternatives: do without investment (which they can currently do because of oil revenues) or somehow force foreign investment in which won't leave (and the only way to do that is to get politically motivated foreign governments in, ie Russia and Iran). Of course, any talk about national sovereignty must also go out the window at that point.

Nice false dichotomy there. Either they use traditional free market approaches that have been shown not to work, or they have to give up their sovereignty. I think we can trust Latin Americans to decide for themselves a new approach that does not give up political or economic power to those who do not form part of the pueblo.



First: Andaluciae, you got lost.
Second:
Finally, some sense in all the crap I've read in this thread....Let the foreign big shot take his profit, slices a nationalized company (copper only since a lot) and nourishes the destitutes masses... and let the midclass man and woman take care for its own -supposed- wealth.

Hola, que tal?

Hay unos cuantos latinos por aqui. Y unos mas que son casi latinos. Esos huevones tambien pueden cachar la onda.

It doesnt matter...theyre stuck in History's "Great Losers Bracket"

Wow. This is really an insightful post. Not a stupid generalisation at all.

Such as my friend having a deep cut on his hand, being taken to a socialist health clinic and getting 14 stitches. He was in and out in 45 mins, at no cost at all. This is a city of 120,000 people, IIRC. So, the clinics should be busy, and take long like American hospitals,but it didn't.

Anecdote. I can easily cite just many more times from my raucous childhood when I wound up at our local medical clinic and got stitches and other care in a timely fashion...although when I got twelve on my arm after the tree-climbing accident, they held me for observation for two hours, to make sure I hadn't lost too much blood.

I was thoroughly impressed with that, and also the " People's Train". It was very nice.

In other words, public transit. What a revolutionary idea, it's not like there isn't any anywhere else in Latin America. Like Buenos Aires, San Juan, Brasilia, (and on, and on, and on) :rolleyes:

As it stands, both of these entities are being funded by oil money, and once oil prices fall, which they inevitably do, these services will find themselves in jeopardy.

As it stands, both of these entities are being funded by oil money, and once oil prices fall, which they inevitably do, these services will find themselves in jeopardy.
Yep. Socialized, free medicine is nice and ideal, but it's too costly. Venezuela can afford it now, when oil prices fall or when oil runs out or when the oil resource is mismanaged.............

I think that with this system now up, they can maintain it by investing/saving the windfall, preventing corruption, etc. As of now I see Chavez using the money to spread his clout.

My point was: latinoamerican socialism it really doesn't exist.
-Isn't really latinoamerican because nations in these continents, are extremely different, the misconception of 'region' (very anglo) is not an accurate vision.
-Isn't really socialism, being it, would keep social guarantees as first persecution, and this is just a slogan of the ruler at turn.
So, back to the topic I have to say, I can't see a future for something isn't there.

My point was: latinoamerican socialism it really doesn't exist.

It would seem that a more useful term to describe what we want to discuss is more the Chavez-style Bolivarianism, and the allies he's gathered around him on this one. as the OP indicated, Ecuador and Bolivia come to mind most readily. Chile and Argentina, both being Southern Cone, and entirely different from these guys, probably shouldn't be included.

-Isn't really latinoamerican because nations in these continents, are extremely different, the misconception of 'region' (very anglo) is not an accurate vision.

Once again, I think the OP's focus on the Northern Three of Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecaudor is more useful.

Beyond that, the Anglo-Latino linguistic division of the Americas is, at best, mildly convenient. Never mind that both parts are shot through with loads of other languages. (French in Quebec, and all sorts of German-ish in Southern Brazil come most rapidly to mind...)

-Isn't really socialism, being it, would keep social guarantees as first persecution, and this is just a slogan of the ruler at turn.
So, back to the topic I have to say, I can't see a future for something isn't there.

A better question is: Is there a future for Bolivarianism?




Oh, and the actions of the USSR and its surrogates in the region, at least what was revealed in the form of the Mitrokhin Archives, is far from insignificant.

A better question is: Is there a future for Bolivarianism?

Oh, and the actions of the USSR and its surrogates in the region, at least what was revealed in the form of the Mitrokhin Archives, is far from insignificant.

I think it would depend on how diversified the economy is by the time the oil runs out. If the fast and easy money can be invested in training, educating and equpping a varied and capable workforce that doesn't require a cash cow industry like oil, then there is a future. But one would also have to look atthe effects of having a large, skilled, educated and empowered society.

In comparison to US involvement over the same period, Soviet involvement was insignificant, even if we assume that the Mitrokhin Archives were only the tip of the iceberg. KGB support for Allende was counted in the tens of thousands of dollars. How much did Nixon spend making Chile's economy scream at the same time? How much did the CIA spend on all the coups that failed before the 1973 coup? How much 'foreign aid' did Pinochet receive directly from the US government? In comparison with that kind of support, Allende's few thousand dollars are incredibly insignificant.

The big problem with many Latin American economies is that they were, for a long time, run by people whose main goal was to remove as much wealth from the country and put it in their own pockets.
Nobody really doubts that. It was a direct result of big land owners taking control after the revolutions.

Now that democratic governments are in power, they are putting a stop to that. Obviously, those who were receiving such wealth are now a little pissed off. Too bad.
It's not about that. Chávez uses the "oligarchs" as a scapegoat for example, but fact of the matter is that I am wondering about the actual substance of what he's doing rather than the motives of some people who also happen to think he's wrong.

As for the claim that social spending is useless or even detrimental simply because it appeals to a broad base of people is ridiculous. Free healthcare clinics are useful, even if everyone likes them. Inept management is neither a reason to discard sound policy, nor is it only a function of 'socialism'.
What I'm saying is that the sort of social spending going on in these countries right now is not going to pay for itself in the long term. Free healthcare is nice and will save lots of lives and livelihoods, and that means it can't be a bad thing - but it's also a giant leak in government budgets. European states can afford it by virtue of having trillion-dollar economies with 40%+ of GDP being government spending. These countries are financing it by spending oil money.

Some countries have done quite well with their oil wealth. But they didn't build hospitals, they built highways, business districts, massive ports for oil tankers and so on. They invested in things that pay back. There is virtually none of that going on in the Bolivarian countries. In Venezuela's case, there is rampant underinvestment in the oil sector too: driving out foreign investors and firing people who disagreed with his policies enough to dare and go on strike, many of whom were capable and vital engineers. Perhaps even worse is the way a lot of Venezuelan oil is sold below price to secure Chávez political influence in the region.

The only thing that could yield really significant benefits is the education mission, and those aren't what they should be. Inept management may not have anything to do with socialism, but it does have to do with these countries and these schools. Rather than using the system to teach people to vote Chávez in the future, they should be working on improving mission schools to the point where they rival the traditional or even private schools that were only available to the wealthy. Being able to read and write is useful, but being able to go on to university is where the really big pay-off lies.

Nice false dichotomy there. Either they use traditional free market approaches that have been shown not to work, or they have to give up their sovereignty. I think we can trust Latin Americans to decide for themselves a new approach that does not give up political or economic power to those who do not form part of the pueblo.
Firstly, it has been shown to work in several countries. It was just that in South America those groups you were talking about above were in charge and quite happy to milk any benefits for all they were worth. Add their incompetence, and you even get the odd BoP and currency crisis thrown in.

I don't think I was setting up a false dichotomy. There are only a limited number of potential sources of money: foreign private investors, foreign government investors or some domestic source (read: oil). The latter is what they're currently going with, but they aren't taking care to make sure that it will last and grow enough to keep pace with their growing needs for investment capital. The former they're actively discouraging, and that really just leaves foreign states to do the investing, about which there happens to be a lot of talk (ie Russian, Chinese, Iranian etc).

So what is this alternative that they're supposed to be finding?

I think it would depend on how diversified the economy is by the time the oil runs out. If the fast and easy money can be invested in training, educating and equpping a varied and capable workforce that doesn't require a cash cow industry like oil, then there is a future.
And that is precisely what I am concerned about. By focusing all these funds on social programs for the poor, you can build a reasonably happy and healthy workforce of quite unskilled labourers, but at the same time a feature of Bolivarianism has been a continuing erosion of the middle class - and those are the ones with the varied capabilities and skills that really add value.

But one would also have to look atthe effects of having a large, skilled, educated and empowered society.
Empowerment does jack all. I actually think it's a pretty good idea to include indigenous languages and peoples into mainstream society as Bolivarians are doing, but we should be careful not to confuse that with an economic policy. And the empowerment of the poor comes at the expense of the empowerment of the middle classes at this point (while a new wealthy class emerges, namely those with good connections to the government), so the net effect isn't gonna be all that impressive.

In comparison with that kind of support, Allende's few thousand dollars are incredibly insignificant.
Of course, who were Allende's friends doesn't really make a difference to the fact that he was just as big a catastrophe for the country as Pinochet was. There really is little point in moaning about leftist or rightist nutcases - if you're gonna moan, moan about both. What South America needs (and has needed for many decades) is a few centrists who effectively govern by means of brains rather than hearts. And it doesn't look to me like Bolivarian socialism is going in that direction.

A small point: while the US spent massive amounts on South America and the Soviets spent little, if you look at the same time across the world in Africa, you'd see almost a mirror image: the USSR being the major meddler, the US expending only enough influence to keep the pot boiling.

Neither side had the money or the power to be big everywhere. South America was the US's playground, Africa was the USSR's. Neither side "owned" Asia, which is one reason for all the actual fighting there.

There have been lots of debates here on the merits of these various policies, particularly in the three countries most concerned: Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. You might even consider Argentina, which under Kirchner II is also taking timid steps in that direction. This will, essentially, be another one of those: What do you think these countries will be like (particularly on the economic front) in 5, 10 and 20 years? Does Economic Bolivarianism have a future, or is it just the same old story tried so many times in South America, right now simply propped up by oil exports?

Same ole story NL.

Well, policies like this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7410058.stm) certainly do not bode well for the sustainability of "Bolivarianism". This policy is virtually a poster-child for what is wrong with how Chavez is handling his economy. He's basically handing out money and services to win temporary electoral support.

And driving away the very investors who could pay for the social changes he claims to be desiring.