The Bush Legacy: The Rebirth of Marxism

The results are not yet clear, but it looks like hard left candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador may be the next President of Mexico. Marxism, once routed, is returning from a new Long March to reclaim Latin America. And how was the rotten corpse of Communism revivified? The many missteps of the Shrub Regime have to be counted among the leading causes.

Way to go G Dub!

why does everything have to be connected with america? yet another proof of your egocentrism...have you considered the fact that the rise of the leftist parties in latin america has something to do with the poor economic state of those countries? bush had very little to do with it personally, the desire to reclaim the biggest earners in those countries was not caused by one president, rather by decades of exploitation by various countries....

__________________
http://www.last.fm/user/diezelpower/

You're ignoring the history here. Marxism was routed in Latin America in the mid to late 90's by neoliberal coalitions of the right and middle class centrists (a victory of course greatly eased by the collapse of Soviet Communism and thus outside support for leftist groups in the Americas). Poverty has not substantially increased since that time, so it's not an economic revolt. What has happened in places like Mexico, Bolivia and Venezuela is that the center-right coalitions that had seemingly crushed the hard left in the 90's have fallen apart, in large measure due to the overwhelming unpopularity of the pro-American policies adopted by these parties, a sitution in large measure created by reactions to the Bush administration's policies.

Can you show any direct corrolations or are you just, you know, making crap up again?

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

Of course he can. The rebirth of Marxism (exemplified in the highly contested results of a single election) is the direct result of the socioeconomic ramifications of the neconservative administration's financial darwinism and pervasive cultural hegemony across the geopolitical spectrum. Also, ontological exfoliating metaphysic antidisestabilshmentarianism.

Duh.

Right. Silly me.
I'mna need to stretch a bit before I attempt that leap, myself.
I'm just glad to hear there's exfoliation going on.

I think I used that on my face once.

In the mid to late 1990's, most of Latin America moved away from the old leftist parties and toward centrist and center-right coalitions. Part of this was the failure of the left to deliver on its economic promises (which had left many Central and South American governments in economic shambles), but part was due to other factors, including the increased popularity of the United States under the Clinton administration (and the US was among the chief backers of most of the reform parties). These centrist and center-right coalitions were mostly built on the twin pillars of neoliberal economic reforms at home and pro-American, pro-investment foreign policy abroad.

The only country that really bucked the trend in the late 90s was Venezuela, which elected hardcore Marxist Hugo Chavez in 1998 and re-elected him in 2000. However, Chavez remained largely contained in Venezuela, and his policies remained relatively restrained, in part because he hadn't been antagonized and in part because Venezuela lacked the economic security to thumb its nose at international markets or provide substantial support to leftists elsewhere in Latin America (despite the desire of Chavez to be the new Castro).

What changed? Well, despite generally positive economic growth in Latin America over the last half-decade, the hard left has come roaring back, and the Bush administration has played a major part in that. First, in 2002, Bush's team supported or at least appeared to support the attempted coup against Chavez, which not only antagonized Chavez, but raised his profile and made him a hero in much of Latin America. Other Bush administration policies, as well as Bush's coziness with several corporate conglomerates responsible for some pretty abusive behavior in Latin America helped to undermine support for the US in Central and South America, which in turn weakened the pro-US reform parties. The Iraq war only accelerated this process.

The other major problem has been the rise of Venezuela as the new patron of Latin American leftism, a result which the Bush administration for all its stauch anti-leftist sentiment, paradoxically made possible. As I mentioned earlier, prior to 2002, Chavez really didn't provide much of an obstacle to US foreign policy goals in Latin America. Before the coup, he was a marginal figure, after the coup, he was a hero not only in Venezuela, but all over the region (and a mad hero at that). More significantly, Bush administration policies, particularly in Iraq, had the effect of both undermining support for America and pro-American parties, and strengthening the Venezuelan economy by more than doubling the value of its oil exports (due to the post-Iraq invasion upward spiral). As a result, Chavez has been instrumental in providing funding and spiritual support for the leftist parties that swept to power in both Chile and Bolivia. Venezuela's good economic fortune (brought courtesy of the US invasion of Iraq) has allowed it to become the new economic patron of the Latin left, helping to revivify the Marxist movements that had largely died off when they lost their Soviet funding in the early 90s. It's really very difficult to imagine the current renaissance of the hard left in Latin America absent the Bush administration policies which have strengthened the hand of the left throughout the region.

While I agree with Purandara's arguement, I would like to point out that the seeds of the socialist rebirth in South America were sown long before Bush Junior was elected to the whitehouse.

The IMF and Argentina's subsequent economic collapse are more likely to have influenced South America's movement away from center-right politics than a war in a far-away sandpit.
The IMF has coerced a number of developing nations into extreme economic liberalisation in exchange for financial aid. Usually holding up Argentina (South America largest, most affluent and advanced nation) as an example of what it can achieve. Argentina started crumbling in 1995, when Clinton was president, and finally collapsed under the weight of its debts in 2001. A large number of other countries that followed the same route did to. As a result econmic liberalisation, the IMF that forced it and America, practically synonymous with the WTO/IMF in the minds of most people in the developing world, are treated with skepticism verging on outright anger.

Admittedly, the attempted outsing of Hugo Chavez (particularly Falwell's call for assassination) during Bush's presidency haven't helped, but it's more disllusionment with the post-soviet world that has driven the people to elect left-wing leaders.

(Sorry, it's far too hot for me to flesh this out. I'll expand it when room temeprature drops below human core)

Martin,

Understand that I'm not trying to imply that Bush is solely responsible for the rebirth of the Latin Left, I do think he has played a key role in developing the conditions that allowed it to rebound from the electoral defeats of the 1990s.

You're right, but I fail to fathom how exactly he's managed to irk South America more than Clinton before him or Gore/Kerry would have done in his stead. The companies that have gutted the national infrastructure of a number of South American nations have both major political parties in their pockets, and often have rather senior ex-cabinet members holding executive directorships.

Even with the President's closeness to Ken Lay and Cheny's association with Haliburton I find it hard to believe the majority of South Americans would associate their current economic predicament with a particular branch of American politics. It's more likely they simply see American companies as American.

As for the Iraq war, I doubt that's a significant factor. Bush's misadventure in the middle east may cost him popularity in the west, but that's only because western nations tend to have disproportionately large middle classes who can afford to concern themselves with international affairs. The predominately working class populations of Latin America are much more likely to be concerned with domestic issues. After all, when the Iraq war isn't working in their favour (the aforementioned increase in oil revenue) it doesn't concern them.

While America probably has played a significant role in the return to socialism, I still feel it's not a partisan issue. Maybe I'm missing something, but my impulse here is the South American voters are returning to the devil they know after unfettered market capitalism failed to deliver.

Politics, perhaps especially international politics, is the art of perception, not reality, and the perception, if not the reality, is that Republicans in general and Bush Co. in particular are far more beholden to corporate interests than Democrats.

And, of course, Clinton's multilateralism played fairly well overseas (though Americans grumbled).

I totally disagree. In addition to the economic element (Venezuela's current ability to fund hard left parties throughout the region, which has been key to the recent resurgence of Marxist parties in Latin America, is linked largely the huge jump in oil prices, a jump which is almost entirely due to the destabilization of the Gulf region that resulted from the Iraq War), the Iraq war is the single most internationally visible policy of the Bush administration, and a constant reminder of the sort of interferences in national sovereignty which represent the worst element of America's relationship with Latin America.

The US is always synonymous with big business when it comes to international antipathy. It's the biggest 'given'. I doubt any admin-shifts have had a big impact on that impression.

It definitely seems to have helped sustain the trend. I'd wager they would have emerged anyway tho, due to the IMF/WTO rejectionism which Lock highlighted.

That's another 'given' of US-hate. Iraq probably hasn't changed much on that front. As you say, South America knows better than anyone about the US's long-term love affair with 'pre-emptive' action . Another 'reinforcing' example is unlikely to have been a 'paradigm-shifting' shock to them.

---


Yay, i said paradigm. My uni education was not in vain.

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Cheers. Though happy about this. I don't quite understand why this is considered the rekindled flame of Marxism. It never really died out.

... You're an idiot

__________________
"You need people like me..."

Yes it did. But to be perfectly accurate, it never was.