U.S. in Latin America ca. 1945-1991

The US had already occupied many Latin American countries prior to the Post-WW2 world.

>the ruling party being openly socialist
>mexico
>socialist

user, you need to check your mexican history

No, those countries were all poor, corrupt and unstable af prior tp anything the US did, they're just really butthurt about the fact that they suck so much that they need someone to blame.

>He doesn't know the PRI was socialist
They literally confiscated land and gave it to the peasants and fucking nationalized mineral and oil rights. You check your history user.

Does anyone know much about the whole Sandinista vs contra thing. From what I have heard the Sandinistas weren't nearly as bad as samoza but I don't know too much about it.

And they they stuffed a bunch of fucking money down the pockets of party members, made the country super fucking corrupt, and allowed the media upper class to brainwash the country user.

Also when oil was nationalized, P.RI. wasn't P.R.I. yet

It's almost as if every socialist/commie country did that. But let me guess, viva la revolution, eh comrade? Never been tried amiright? Mexico actively did what Guatemala tried to do in '54. The party was openly socialist. They had ties with both Cuba and the Soviet union. They don't count because you're a special snowflake. Fuck off.

are you mexican pariente?

Oh I know about and acknowledge terrible things were done by the US in South America but it's really dishonest to act like South America was this bright prospect up until then.

South America was stagnant under Spain. South America was largely stagnant once it was free of Spain. South America is largely stagnant today. It can be partially blamed on the US but don't act like South America wouldn't be pretty shitty even if the US had never put its hands in the pot.

Mexico's fucked because of the war on drugs.

>objectively better
99% of the time they weren't even USSR satellites. They were leftists who happened to be elected but the CIA had to shut it down because reasonable social policies get in the way of bananas.

>he believes Chomsky's lies

>t. Kremlin

Latin America had a legacy of autocratic rule before the U.S. which was made worse by the political uncertainty of the Cold War era. The U.S. was much more concerned with stability at that point where an unstable Latin America would be ripe for Communism to gain a foothold in Americas backyard like it did in Cuba. The U.S. feared that if it didn't react, than there would be dozens of countries just like Cuba throughout the region, which united under the Soviet sphere could pose a serious security risk and tip the balance of power in the Cold War.

Cuba and China weren't Soviet satellite eithers until the Soviets reached out to them.

Yes. South Americans don't have agency. The United States started off in 1776 with a population of 1 billion people and advanced racist/sexist technology. The poor South Americans, who never experienced slavery and only began to enter history in the mid 50's are just victims of the United States' toxic masculinity.

Well, that's part of it, but let's not be racist and deny that those Latinos had agency and contributed to their own sorry state. It isn't just the US, the British, Portuguese, and Spanish deserve some credit for what they did prior to the era in question.

we don't know that

Making an alliance with a country does not make it a Soviet satellite.

>South Americans, who never experienced slavery
user do you even Brazil or Cuba?

Uhh hello. South Americans are not white and therefore never had slaves. As we all know South America history only became a thing when they interacted with racist CIS gendered United States Americans, duh.

Yeah, that's why Russia is totally cool with Finland joining NATO.

>The term satellite state designates a country that is formally independent in the world, but under heavy political, economic and military influence or control from another country.

The USSR had invested heavily into Cuba throughout the 70's and early 80's. They bailed out Cubas economy 3 times.

Trade with the USSR was 70% of Cubas economy in 1985. Castro was for all intents and purposes the Kremlins bitch.

Brazil was literally the last country in the Western hemisphere to outlaw slavery lel

Yes, because they're allying with foreign powers at odds with Russia whilst being right on their border.

If economic investment counts then massive swathes of the planet are US satellites.

user, have you ever been exposed to sarcasm?

Oh, no

Latin America is fucked up because of genetics.

>If economic investment counts then massive swathes of the planet are US satellites.
That can be argued yes.

Can you give me an example of a country that relies on trade with the U.S. for the vast majority (More than 50%) of its economy?

Not him but Cuba isn't South America.

We get it, you're a Maoist and think anything is possible if you use enough Willpower and Hard Work.

>If economic investment counts then massive swathes of the planet are US satellites.

Yes, Do you have a point?

I thought we were talking about latin america user

What do you think Japan, South Korea, and the EU are?

You literally quoted a post saying "South America" and even greentexted it.

Mexico.

Trade with the US makes up 80% of their export market and 48% of their import market.

and the user I was quoting was replying directly to the OP which says Latin America

Yup, pretty much. Mexico economy would crumble to dust without the U.S.

>backpedalling

nigga I'm the OP, in my mind I'm thinking Latin America when replying to that post, just fucking let it go, you know what I meant, and you know what the guy I was replying to meant

And this is why I believe Trump can indeed make Mexico pay for the wall if he's elected. He treatens them with pulling out of NAFTA and enforcing strict tariffs and they're fucked, funding a wall is much cheaper.

Try being correct instead of getting angry ;)

who said I was angry mah nigga, now, lets get back to the subject at hand

>he fell for the mexicans building a wall in the U.S. meme

I'm not your nigga.

Why is it a meme?

Allende was deposed because he disrespected the Constitution by funding paramilitary communist groups, expropriated private property and fucked up the economy big time.

The U.S. helped, but they weren't the main actor. Anyway, I'm glad the U.S. helped us during that time, otherwise the fate of Latin America would be the fate of modern Venezuela.

>He fell for the #NeverTrump meme
>He doesn't understand the power of the nation-state

>And they they stuffed a bunch of fucking money down the pockets of party members, made the country super fucking corrupt, and allowed the media upper class to brainwash the country user.

Yeah, socialist.

Why are you repeating exactly what he said?

but Mexico had capitalist economy user, a couple of socialist like reforms meant to appease the leftist elements in the population do not make the country's whole history after the revolution that of a socialist country.

>implying the nation-state isn't already going out of style

I don't know what you mean, to be honest. Could you explain? From what I've seen nationalism is making a major comeback. Maybe you want to think that borders have already been dissolved by international cabals, but you're wrong to think so, and you're blind if you don't see the backlash.

>major comeback
Yes it seems like that because you get your news from /pol/.

So basically it's socialism when it works (like in Sweden) and capitalism when it doesn't.

I get my news from various sources.
Where do you get yours?

Not him but have you seen the election patterns in the US, Austria, France, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland etc?

Various sources. Al Jazeera is my favourite.

>In tbe US
Trump is not particularly nationalist.
>Austria, France
Neither are these, especially since France is still run by a socialist party and FN aren't that relevant.

In western Europe it's just a repeat of minor white power currents in the 1980s and ultimately will fizzle away like it did before.

> Slovakia, Hungary, Poland
E. Yuros being E. Yuros. This is not surprising.

Eastern Euros haven't been electing nationalist parties in like forever, until recently.

They have however always been nationalist and generally right wing as fuck. It's just until recently there's never been a reason to vote for anything other than normal parties

>i wonder who is behind this post

>that picture

Not even Polish but could it be more obvious than an asspained cosmopolitan communist made that shit?

>Cuba and China weren't Soviet satellite eithers until the Soviets reached out to them.

I am 100% certain that both Castro in Cuba and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua went to the US for support before the USSR. The US of course said no because "muh gommunism" so they both appealed the USSR for support.

I'm not an expert so I don't know about other countries during the time period.

>Al Jazeera

lol

Poles are scum.

Whilst communists wisely realized this, non-communists have recently began to see through their lies as well.

Nazis 2.0 got 49% of the vote in Austria.

You either have to be blind or a complete drooling mongoloid to ignore this shit

They will never get over the fact that Poland stopped their glorious Bolshevism from taking over Western Europe in 1920.

>Right wing populists
>Nazis 2.0
Not to mention they lost to the fucking Greens.

The party was literally founded by a SS officer.

And the fact that they lost doesn't matter, what matters is that nearly half of the population agrees with them

So was basically everyone in the original West German government. Doesn't make Germany the Fourth Reich.

> what matters is that nearly half of the population agrees with them

And evidently a little over half the population agrees with the Greens.

The argument was whether nationalism is rising.

The fact that nearly half of Austria is going very right wing proves that it is

These people are in severe denial, pointless to argue with them.

it didn't work though, the whole of the pessant class is poor as fuck, they travel across the country just so they can get a job for some farm company that will pay them mexican minimum wage which is about 4 bucks a day, if that

Absolutely

Latina America was engaged in constant wars and infighting, and it didn't help that there was a strong history of corruption in the region. The US took advantage of the weakened states of these nations to enforce American hegemony on the continent toppling governments and installing puppets friendly to American interest, and that was all before the Cold War which only increased American activity. In Latin America the acronym CIA is treated with eye-rolls and contempt.

>Is Latin America fucked up today because of the U.S. fighting communism by supporting the juntas and other oppressive regimes of the region?
If you want to start with the conclusion that it's the US is always wrong and work your way backwards, sure.
Or you consider that the marxist regimes in Latin America were largely soviet-supported and just as if not more oppressive than the right-wing regimes propped up against them.

Then your bourgeois dictatorship denied the rights of the working class. Think about that.
Also you murdered, oppressed and destroyed the culture of belarussian and galician peasants.

>rights
I thought Commies didn't acknowledge the concept of rights.
>you murdered, oppressed and destroyed the culture of belarussian and galician peasants.
I've done no such thing.

Mexico was fucked long before the war on drugs.

The US was moving toward Operation SUCCESS well before UFC got involved. They just confirmed what the CIA already knew and wanted. You should read literally any book about it. Inevitable Revolutions by LaFeber is probably the best book on US-Central American relations.

>Allende
Allende was also openly in bed with the Soviets. The US was not going to tolerate another Cuba.

>is commie
>al jazeera is favorite news source

Kill yourself my man.

> funding paramilitary communist groups.

Citation fucking needed. The communist groups in Chile in 1973 where not even close to being paramilitary, the coup had practically no armed opposition, that's why allende shot himself so quickly, he had already lost.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Left_Movement_(Chile)

>At its height in 1973, the MIR numbered some 10,000 members and associates.