Another South American Nations falls to Socialism

Freakin' south american politics. All anyone seems to care about there is power and what they have do to gain it. That's not always the case like with Brazil or costa rica, but that sort of mind set does hurt the people living in other countries. I wish there wasn't such a large gap between the rich and poor and that they'd just have a large middle class to stabilize things like the way mexico is trying to go.
 
I think the reason why we see this rise of socialism in South America is because the country was literally ruled by power elites. There was an unequal distribution of wealth and a near absense of Government programs that can assist the poor such as Healthcare programs and welfare.

The relationship between the US and South America is deteriorating as long as the South Americans are unsatisfied about the Free trade agreement with America and the ongoing war in Iraq.

Whenever a US Top officials visit any of these South America countries, there are always angry protestors hurling stones, clashing with police, and breaking shops.
 
CABAL said:
I think the reason why we see this rise of socialism in South America is because the country was literally ruled by power elites.

Are you referring to a particular country or the whole continent? It is very unclear from this sentence.
 
I read something about Morales in WORLD Magazine a couple months ago, and I had a feeling he would head down the same alley Venezuela did. Like Chavez before him, Morales is merely copying the stategem of his ally. The man is merely attempting to secure his power.
 
I don't see what's the big problem of Latin America going towards socialism. Socialism is heavy in europe and its trying to be emulated elsewhere because it can work if done efficienty. Sure, you have semi dictators running the show, but any latin american leader is sort of a semi dictator anyway. Better socialists than traditional elitists, I mean if you had a choice of the government that latin america could work progressively with, what else could it be?
 
Ooops I'm afraid you just stepped on someone's toes.... :???:. Vamos a ver que sucede.
Anyways socialcommunist regimes do always become elitist. There is an upper echelon of have's and the rest of the people in poverty and slavery. Isn't that elitism?
(I know what you meant by "elitist" but it was just to say how nothing really changes for the people, except that under socialsommunism it's also next to impossible leaving your country).
 
Well unless something changes in latin america then i'm afraind they'll never achieve the levels of prosperity the rest of the industrialized world has. It's a shame to think that the USA and Canada was colonized just like Mexico and Argentina but for some reason are not on the same level. I think it's the entrepenuerial spirit of the English that spurred development, and latin america just kept what they had and that was good enough for them. Well, now we're seeing the opposite happening in the oldest settled parts of the western hemisphere.
 
Socialism is heavy in Europe? Which countries do you mean exactly? As for "old europe", there's Spain and now Italy that have a socialist government (sort of) and thats it. Though I don't know about scandinavian countries. Anyway the EU itself is rather liberal. UK's labour is not really socialist, french UMP is conservative, Germany has a coalition of conservatives and socialdemocrats (!= socialist), Netherlands has a conservative government. Most european countries have whats called a social market economy.
 
Let me put it this way, European governments are more socialistic than the USA ever was. So i suppose they're the best example of some sort of socialism at work.
 
Yeah thats right there aren't that many examples of pure bred socialist countries or at least I can't think of any. I agree that European countries are more socialist in that people here have more the attitude that government has to look after them and that if they are in misery its someone else's (the government's) fault. People say things like "I'm an art historian, but there's no work for art historians here so I'm on welfare. Its not my fault the labor bureau only offers me jobs that are way below my standard." :-?

Also things tend to be overregulated, but thats more due to the reign of officialism, not socialism. German bureaucracy produces something like 20.000 pages of law texts p.a.
 
bulldogg said:
Are you referring to a particular country or the whole continent? It is very unclear from this sentence.

Apologies. I was refering to the whole continent.
 
Italian Guy said:
Communist has nothing to do with poverty. Seldom have the poor been communist. The poor have always been the main victims of communism and have never seen their standard of life go up.
Overhere 90 % of our intellectuals, actors, directors, comedians and wealthy showbiz people give their votes to Communist Refoundation Party.
Most of the rich people I know (friends with three houses and three cars, friends who go ski in the Alps on luxury week-ends) sympathize for the reds.
The workers and the poor go for Berlusconi. I'm talking mainstream trends.

You might be right in the euro-Socialist model but communism really has deep roots in the mega-poverty of South and central America and South West Asia. The Maoist movement in India/Nepal is being sustained by the poor, not the intelligensia.
 
Back
Top