4 ms·

I won't quibble with your characterization of South America today (even tho i disagree) but I do disagree with your suggestion of its causation. Certainly the l

I won't quibble with your characterization of South America today (even tho i disagree) but I do disagree with your suggestion of its causation. Certainly the lack of beasts of burden were an issue in pre-Spanish times, but the progression of North America and South America are remarkably similar after the British/French and Spanish starting settling. The primary differences really seem to come from a cultural difference between the people of the two continents and the failure of South America to reject communism. George Washington and Simon Bolivar both lived at roughly the same time and fought similar revolutions. South America's woes really began in the early 20th century when, despite avoiding the devestation of the world wars, they succumbed to socialist revolutions which ravaged their economies and destroyed their future prospects.

delecti 2y ago
Or, when they succumbed to socialist revolutions which drew the attention of capitalist interventionists. The devastating impacts we've had can't be downplayed.
- lurk2 2y ago
  It's notable that the worst countries to live in are the ones where the socialists won (e.g. Venezuela). The excuse then becomes that these societies are dysfunctional because they have been impoverished by American embargoes, which is plainly not the case because you don't see these crime rates in countries with even higher rates of poverty like Nepal. It's also just obviously not true if you know anything about how incompetent the Venezuelan regime is and how its pork barrel politics operate. Countries colonized by Iberians are simply mired by the problems introduced by the Iberian attitude to wealth and work (namely that one ought to violently seize the former to avoid the latter). In Colombia alone there are something like 35 murders a day, and quite a few of those are for 3 year old iPhones worth less than the assailant's motorcycle. The preference for seizing wealth translates into the political sphere in these countries and had a lot to do with why the revolutions there took on a distinctly socialist character. On the one hand you had large landowners refusing to make any kind of concessions to the laborers they were exploiting, and this gives you the guerrillas who financed their operations via the drug trade (the right-wing paramilitaries later start doing the same thing as they lose institutional support). Both parties distrust each other. Keep in mind that this isn't like the American culture war. Most of these countries were dealing with full-scale civil wars in the last century. Consider Colombia again: 3 years ago, they elected a former socialist guerrilla as president. One of the first things he did was decriminalize the possession of narcotics. He compared cocaine with whiskey a few weeks ago. This variety of civic incompetence is quite typical in South America, and is the source of most of its problems.
  - beepbooptheory 2y ago
    If the issue at the end of day is "attitude" than why even bring up socialism at all? Wouldn't socialism in this rendering just be an expression of something already there to begin with? Idk, it just sounds like you both want it to about bad guys but also be fatalistic and say there was something inevitable here anyway. I don't really understand logically how you can keep both things true here. Also cocaine is not comparable whiskey? Why is that?
    - lurk2 2y ago
      >If the issue at the end of day is "attitude" than why even bring up socialism at all? It is the result of the Iberian approach to politics which is not cooperative but based on clientelism. They inherited it from the Romans. The general dynamic is that socialist revolutions emerge as a result of landowners seeing other people as peons to be exploited. The socialism itself is downstream from seeing the state as a seat of power to be seized for personal enrichment rather than a public office. >Cocaine is not comparable to whiskey Cocaine is far more addictive than alcohol. Neither substance is socially desirable.
      - beepbooptheory 2y ago
        Got it. So you are just affirming the same kind of exogenous force your socialist interlocutors would, except its the colonial Spanish/Portuguese, not the United States? And when you spoke of attitude and preference above, you meant specifically those of these colonizers? And hopefully not to be pendantic about it but you did in your reply precisely show how and why one might compare cocaine to alcohol. I am still confused about your point there, but it doesn't really seem important to your conceits anyway.
        lurk2 2y ago
        > Got it. So you are just affirming the same kind of exogenous force your socialist interlocutors would, except its the colonial Spanish/Portuguese, not the United States? And when you spoke of attitude and preference above, you meant specifically those of these colonizers? No, you've misunderstood me. There is no exogenous force. South America is itself a product of Iberian colonialism. You could, I suppose, say that South America did not have problems with ineffective governance prior to the arrival of the Iberians. This is somewhat dubious, though, because those governance structures look nothing like our own. The Aztecs were probably effective governors during the time that they ruled, but would anyone really prefer to live in a world where they had won? People who live in impoverished countries create these narratives to avoid acknowledging their collective failures. There are plenty of examples of countries that have been colonized which are today completely peaceable, as well as countries that have never been colonized which are nonetheless comparatively unstable. South Americans are particularly susceptible to these narratives. It is usually associated with leftist ideas surrounding decolonialism, but this is by no means exclusive - plenty of conservatives will blame the gringo for problems that are squarely within the realm of their control (at least insofar as anything can be "within our control," but the premise that such a culpability exists is already accepted by anyone arguing that "It's all the Americans' fault."). > you did in your reply precisely show how and why one might compare cocaine to alcohol. Petro's exact words were: "La cocaína es ilegal porque la hacen en América Latina, no porque sea más mala que el whisky." This is manifestly not the case. The sort of blase attitude he takes towards a substance that has done so much to destroy his country is emblematic of the civic incompetence I alluded to.
adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
pointing to the socialists as the problem rather than the USA backed dictatorships is certainly a choice...
beepbooptheory 2y ago
Just looking at the history of Chile in particular, it's a little hard to make this particular story work! Or just, I would be extremely curious here to hear the precise theory/timeline here for you. Similar theories I have heard always seem to fall back on a kind of kettle logic: communism is cultural invetiability, active external cause, symptom, and then the continual generator of ongoing woes post-mortem; was it the "revolution" itself or the fact they "needed" one? It just usually lacks the kind of rigor and nuance we should expect from historical analysis. But I would hope your idea here isn't so simple?
bongodongobob 2y ago
[flagged]

delecti 2y ago

Or, when they succumbed to socialist revolutions which drew the attention of capitalist interventionists. The devastating impacts we've had can't be downplayed.

lurk2 2y ago
It's notable that the worst countries to live in are the ones where the socialists won (e.g. Venezuela). The excuse then becomes that these societies are dysfunctional because they have been impoverished by American embargoes, which is plainly not the case because you don't see these crime rates in countries with even higher rates of poverty like Nepal. It's also just obviously not true if you know anything about how incompetent the Venezuelan regime is and how its pork barrel politics operate. Countries colonized by Iberians are simply mired by the problems introduced by the Iberian attitude to wealth and work (namely that one ought to violently seize the former to avoid the latter). In Colombia alone there are something like 35 murders a day, and quite a few of those are for 3 year old iPhones worth less than the assailant's motorcycle. The preference for seizing wealth translates into the political sphere in these countries and had a lot to do with why the revolutions there took on a distinctly socialist character. On the one hand you had large landowners refusing to make any kind of concessions to the laborers they were exploiting, and this gives you the guerrillas who financed their operations via the drug trade (the right-wing paramilitaries later start doing the same thing as they lose institutional support). Both parties distrust each other. Keep in mind that this isn't like the American culture war. Most of these countries were dealing with full-scale civil wars in the last century. Consider Colombia again: 3 years ago, they elected a former socialist guerrilla as president. One of the first things he did was decriminalize the possession of narcotics. He compared cocaine with whiskey a few weeks ago. This variety of civic incompetence is quite typical in South America, and is the source of most of its problems.
- beepbooptheory 2y ago
  If the issue at the end of day is "attitude" than why even bring up socialism at all? Wouldn't socialism in this rendering just be an expression of something already there to begin with? Idk, it just sounds like you both want it to about bad guys but also be fatalistic and say there was something inevitable here anyway. I don't really understand logically how you can keep both things true here. Also cocaine is not comparable whiskey? Why is that?
  - lurk2 2y ago
    >If the issue at the end of day is "attitude" than why even bring up socialism at all? It is the result of the Iberian approach to politics which is not cooperative but based on clientelism. They inherited it from the Romans. The general dynamic is that socialist revolutions emerge as a result of landowners seeing other people as peons to be exploited. The socialism itself is downstream from seeing the state as a seat of power to be seized for personal enrichment rather than a public office. >Cocaine is not comparable to whiskey Cocaine is far more addictive than alcohol. Neither substance is socially desirable.
    - beepbooptheory 2y ago
      Got it. So you are just affirming the same kind of exogenous force your socialist interlocutors would, except its the colonial Spanish/Portuguese, not the United States? And when you spoke of attitude and preference above, you meant specifically those of these colonizers? And hopefully not to be pendantic about it but you did in your reply precisely show how and why one might compare cocaine to alcohol. I am still confused about your point there, but it doesn't really seem important to your conceits anyway.
      - lurk2 2y ago
        > Got it. So you are just affirming the same kind of exogenous force your socialist interlocutors would, except its the colonial Spanish/Portuguese, not the United States? And when you spoke of attitude and preference above, you meant specifically those of these colonizers? No, you've misunderstood me. There is no exogenous force. South America is itself a product of Iberian colonialism. You could, I suppose, say that South America did not have problems with ineffective governance prior to the arrival of the Iberians. This is somewhat dubious, though, because those governance structures look nothing like our own. The Aztecs were probably effective governors during the time that they ruled, but would anyone really prefer to live in a world where they had won? People who live in impoverished countries create these narratives to avoid acknowledging their collective failures. There are plenty of examples of countries that have been colonized which are today completely peaceable, as well as countries that have never been colonized which are nonetheless comparatively unstable. South Americans are particularly susceptible to these narratives. It is usually associated with leftist ideas surrounding decolonialism, but this is by no means exclusive - plenty of conservatives will blame the gringo for problems that are squarely within the realm of their control (at least insofar as anything can be "within our control," but the premise that such a culpability exists is already accepted by anyone arguing that "It's all the Americans' fault."). > you did in your reply precisely show how and why one might compare cocaine to alcohol. Petro's exact words were: "La cocaína es ilegal porque la hacen en América Latina, no porque sea más mala que el whisky." This is manifestly not the case. The sort of blase attitude he takes towards a substance that has done so much to destroy his country is emblematic of the civic incompetence I alluded to.

adgjlsfhk1 2y ago

pointing to the socialists as the problem rather than the USA backed dictatorships is certainly a choice...

beepbooptheory 2y ago

Just looking at the history of Chile in particular, it's a little hard to make this particular story work! Or just, I would be extremely curious here to hear the precise theory/timeline here for you. Similar theories I have heard always seem to fall back on a kind of kettle logic: communism is cultural invetiability, active external cause, symptom, and then the continual generator of ongoing woes post-mortem; was it the "revolution" itself or the fact they "needed" one? It just usually lacks the kind of rigor and nuance we should expect from historical analysis. But I would hope your idea here isn't so simple?

bongodongobob 2y ago

[flagged]