Welcome to Gaia! ::

" First decade of the 21th Century. Outlook: A red Latin America.

Latin America resulted of strategic importance for the United States of America during the days of the cold war. The repeated declarations of presidents of said nations exposed to the world their negative to accept "another Communist regimen in the hemisphere." I dare to say that, paranoids, they did not want that the countries of Latin America spoke by themselves: They did not want more people who would think different from them.

The tyrannical and inhuman impositions of dictatorships by the governments of the USA, were corresponded to this rejection to accept more social and humanitarian visions in the other countries of Latin America. Even the deposition of presidentes elected through the democratic vote, just as was the Dominican Juan Bosch in 1963, was in the line with this imperialist and heterophobic vision of the USA.

The end of the cold war provoked other changes of great importance. While the Unitedstatesian empire made great pressures for the liberalization of the markets in the ex-Communist countries, everything seemed to be "just matter of time" before all the other nations that favored Socialist systems changed their ways. But it was not so.

With the emphasis of the United States set on other things, their relationship with the Latin American countries was damaged. It is how, one by one, an awakening of the people is provoked against the imperialist policies and the double standards sustained by the USA.

After the attack to the World Trade Center in 2001, there was indeed a profoundization of the war against terrorism. Nevertheless, an increasing portion of the inhabitants of the planet just commented, maybe in a harsh way: "They sought it." By "hard" and "inhuman" that those comments might sound, they were right.

The imposition of Capitalism in East Europe and Russia, mainly, has brought heavy poverty. When the unemplyment in Russia was around the 0% during the days of the Soviet Union, according to world-wide recognized Economists, such as Nobel prize Joseph E. Stiglitz, there are indeed proofs that unemployment now has two digits in those ex-Communist countries.

The negative of China to give up to the pressures of imperialist institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Money Found (main propiciators of rampant globalization without previous preparation), has made of this nation an example to the whole world. While it is true that there are a lot of violations to the civil rights there, this country is now considered the third biggest economy in the world, just behind United States and Germany.

Capitalism as it is planned (privatization and capitalization of State-runned enterprises), has only brought unequality, and widened the gap between the rich and the poor. In opposition, governments with focus on the people create a more just environment, providing what is needed at the time (food, jobs, health, and education).

While Capitism has just brought consumerism and has closed the minds of the more rich towards the reality that millions and millions of people are dying in poverty, political and economical systems of the social order, focused on the real needs of the people instead of on their selfish desires, is basically what has made this change in Latin America possible.

Every studious of Politics and Economy has the benefit of doubt regarding the duration of this change to the left of the Latin American countries. Nevertheless, now it's evident that Latin America is red, except for some countries that are still under the heavy influence of the United States of America and their propaganda.

As for the Dominican Republic, going under the same kind of Capitalist tyranny by actual president Leonel Fernández, it needs a change. It needs a social-oriented economy, social-oriented politics, and social-oriented education. That was the desire of the founding fathers, of ex-president Juan Bosch (deposed by the government of the United States for said reasons), and of the brave combatants against the imperial invasion of the USA in 1965. That is why I, and others with me, propose the planning of a Social Republic."

J. Grullón

The first four paragraphs are fairly accurate, but after that it loses credibility. This is due mainly to it's open bias against capitalism throughout the article without ever actually explaining why. The end result is that it reads like a propaganda piece. I think the author should study the Cold War social conditions of both East Europe/Russia and look further into how life for the peasant in China is really carried out. Looking only at the end result robs you of any lessons you could have learned from studying how they got to it.

Calling the American government tyrannical is quite fair (I'm a Native American, so I'm biased too), but China's government is downright vile and is a poor example of Socialism to boot.

Summary: The author needs to justify his disdain for America and justify his pro-Socialist stance; otherwise this simply reads as propaganda.

As for Socialism in general, I like the concept (albeit only in the Marxist context), but I don't think it works well on a large scale. Unless everyone is willing to undertake it as a whole you are left with two problems: abuse and resistance. Abuse (unequal distribution of wealth) is hard to combat because it tends to happen at the top of the chain (China and the former USSR are good examples), and resistance can grind things to a halt. The former USSR was infamous for it's barbaric dealings with any protestors, and China is still known to use brutal tactics as well (Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 for example).

I'd love to see a socialist government that did a good job, was non-abusive, and actually benefited the common man (instead of the militant upper class that isn't even supposed to exist). I just don't think humankind will ever attain it...