more populism = more poverty
Posted by Tex at August 12, 2008 01:04 PMI was going to say, cue the wingnuts and their anti-socialist rants in 3 . . 2 . . 1 . .
. .but Tex apparently beat me to it.
Posted by idiosynchronic at August 12, 2008 02:07 PMGood post yet again, Jeff!
Posted by iamcoyote at August 12, 2008 02:09 PMtex eh? are you sure you aren't the chimp in drag?
Posted by headxray at August 12, 2008 03:48 PMmore populism = more poverty
You bet. Look how that populist Jorge Buscha increased poverty in Los Unitados Americanos by giving the Patrons huge tax breaks and forcing the Peons to work in conditionales mierda. Bastards!
Posted by phidipides at August 12, 2008 07:27 PMI said populism not socialism. Big difference. This isn't Fabian socialism down there. Much less educated.
phidipides, why are 1) South American Populism and 2) Robber Barron Capitalism the only possibilities one can choose from in your worldview?
Posted by Tex at August 13, 2008 08:58 AM.... Robber Barron Capitalism the only possibilities one can choose from in your worldview? Tex 08:58 AMThe U.S. has a long history of supporting oligarches in South America to the detriment of the people and have fought to overthrow every populist , socialist, or communist government. Your remark that more populism = more poverty is silly and shows a complete lack of historical knowledge and understanding of the goals of political movements. The right wing 'populism' expressed by the Republican Party in the U.S. is generally proto-fascist.
...Populism has been fiscally supported in Latin America during periods of growth such as the 1950s and 1960's and during commodity price booms such as in oil and precious metals. Political leaders could gather followers among the popular classes with broad redistributative programs during these boom times. Populism in Latin America has been sometimes criticized for the fiscal policies of many of its leaders, but has also been defended for having allowed historically weak states to buy off disorder and achieve a tolerable degree of stability while initiating large-scale industrialization. Thus though specific populist fiscal and monetary policies may be criticized by economic historians, populism has also allowed leaders and parties to co-opt the radical ideas of the masses so as to redirect them in a non revolutionary direction.
Often adapting a nationalist vocabulary and rhetorically convincing, populism was used to appeal to broad masses while remaining ideologically ambivalent. Notwithstanding, there have been notable exceptions. 21st Century Latin-American populist leaders have had a decidedly socialist bent.
When populists do take strong positions on economic philosophies such as capitalism versus socialism, the position sparks strong emotional responses regarding how best to manage the nation's current and future social and economic position. Mexico's 2006 Presidential election was hotly debated within Mexicans who supported and opposed populist candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador.
Inequality
Thus populism in Latin American countries has both an economic and an ideological edge. The situation is similar in many countries with the legacies of poor and low-growth economies: highly unequal societies in which people are divided between a relative few wealthy families and masses of poor (with some exceptions such as Argentina, where strong and educated middle classes are a significant segment of the population).
Other perspectives trace inequality to the formation of Latin America's governments and institutions, which were shaped by the Spanish crown upon the conquest of the Americas by the Spaniards. Latin America was not meant to be a colony for the settlers to live in and develop, like the United States, but a source of resources for the Spanish crown. After the nations obtained their independence, many colonial legacies survived.
Populists can be very successful political candidates in such countries. In appealing to the masses of poor people prior to gaining power, populists may promise widely-demanded food, housing, employment, basic social services, and income-redistribution. Once in political power, they may not always be financially or politically able to fulfill all these broad promises. However, they are very often successful in stretching to provide many broad and basic services....
Mike,
I still stand by my comment despite having to risk going against the all knowing wisdom of wikipedia. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the benefits of populism.
Posted by Tex at August 14, 2008 01:14 PM