Communism in Latin America

A Critique of Democracy: the Latin American Left Introduction The Latin American Left was mainly inspired by the idealism of Marx. Marx (1873) believed that “the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind and translated into forms of thought.” For the Left, the main problem has always been rooted in class—as materialism is the basis of their worldview, class and class struggle was the biggest issue, and equality and egalitarian principles enacted and served in society were the goal.

Marx wanted the workers to own the means of production and thus end the rule of the bourgeoisie over the laborers. This was his ideal—and the Latin American leaders on the Left made it their priority to nationalize private industry and for the state to take control of the means of production.

Whether it was Evo Morales in Bolivia, Chavez and Maduro in Venezuela, Castro in Cuba or Lula in Brazil, the Left was of one mind when it came to addressing the social problems of the day: the state would take care of everything. And, indeed, for a period of time it seemed to work. The exports of the Latin American nations were in high demand and prices were good. As Castaneda (2016) points out, “from roughly 2003 through 2012, Latin America enjoyed one of the greatest commodity booms in its modern history.

Exporting everything from oil to soybeans, Latin American governments received windfalls, which they spent on social programs, which were often well designed and affordable.” However, when the boom turned to bust, the Left found itself in dire straits, dependent upon exports to fund its social welfare programs. The ensuing collapse of the Latin American Left has brought about the need for reflection on what went wrong and what led to their rise in the first place.

This paper will use the foundational political thought of the West to explain how the Latin American Left came to be what it is today. How Communism Destroyed International Relations The idea of communism is not that far from Plato and his concept of the Republic. Plato believed that the state should essentially consist of two groups: guardians and craftsmen. Guardians would be responsible for safeguarding the culture and morality of the people in the Republic.

The craftsmen would be responsible for providing the services and goods the people of the state required. Plato advocated a kind of communal style of living in which people recognized that they were essentially all in this life together. But Plato also believed in a higher power that could be relied upon to regulate society and temper its compulsions. Plato believed in the Transcendentals—the one, the good, the beautiful—all attributes of the divine.

In Phaedrus, Plato refers to God as “the true being” from which all knowledge and intelligence comes, and before which all souls pass prior to entering their “human form”—for God is the source of everything, according to Plato’s view, and a “soul which has never seen the truth”—i.e., the divine being—does not take on human form (p. 417). This sense of the divine is missing in Marxism and Communism, which are atheistic and materialistic in nature.

Plato advocated philosophy and movement towards the higher reality. Communism instead focused on centralism and state control over the affairs of man, viewing itself as capable of setting the Ideal and living up to it. For the Marxists of Latin America, they had “dispensed with the idea of God and, accordingly, [were] forced to turn elsewhere to explain the origin and nature of man. Consequently, [they] adopted materialism” (Martin, 2006, p. 156).

The Left of Latin America viewed man as “an evolutionary animal, the highest of the animals, and yet an animal and no more; man is, as it were, matter in motion” (Martin, 2006, p. 156). This materialistic, mechanistic notion of human kind in Latin America is as demoralizing there as it was in Soviet Russia. Even China has had to adopt new approaches to governance to fill the gaps in motivation left by Communism.

Plato offered the Transcendental Ideal—i.e., God—but Communists offer nothing but devotion to one’s neighbor, which is only a motivator for saints, and not all people in Latin America (or anyone) are saints. For that reason, Communism leads to internal problems, especially where selfishness and corruption are concerned.

Corruption has been at the heart of the Brazilian government for years, for example, and has led to the Left’s Lula being barred and a populist winning the election this year, which has caused some commentators to view it as a Trump-like victory in Brazil. Venezuela’s infrastructure has crumbled and hyperinflation has decimated the country as a result of corruption.

As Augustine would say, sin is misplaced love—and the sins of the Latin American Left have been to place all their love in the things of man rather than in the things of God. Plato argued that man alone does not have the capacity to good—but that this knowledge comes from God and therefore man must orient himself towards God.

The Allegory of the Cave explains this best: if man is not oriented towards and drawn to God, who will forever remain in the darkness of the cave thinking flickering shadows the reality. Essentially, that has been the fate of the Latin American Left: having forsaken their Western (and Christian) heritage and adopted secularism and Marxism as their guiding doctrines, they have cut themselves off from the source of knowledge and goodness and dithered away in the caves of their own desires.

This in turn has led them to become alienated from the other nations of the world that at least still respect the principle of private property and acknowledge some kind of divine source for inspiration. By thinking themselves different, somehow, the leaders of the Latin American Left made themselves vulnerable to the same pride and hubris that has always been at the root of all falls.

As Castandeda (2016) puts it, “too many Latin American leftist leaders fell prey to the region’s endemic corruption — and underestimated growing intolerance to it. By the time some governments, like Chile’s and Bolivia’s, started to focus on the issue, it was too late.

They had become as deeply enmeshed in Latin America’s tradition of corrupt practices as their conservative predecessors, civilian or military, elected or imposed.” The Latin American Left failed to realize and address the corruption at the heart of the leftist power structure—and that is what has caused them to be blind to the problems underling their societies. In turn, the international community has found it difficult to embrace any type of policy that views these governments as legitimate. The Attitude of the U.S.

The attitude of the U.S. towards the Latin American Left has been largely antagonistic. Milan (2018) points out that while “forces on the left are mobilizing in Latin America and the Caribbean to confront the right wing offensive which, encouraged and financed by the United States, is underway in the region,” the Latin American Left is still faced with the prospect of severe strife should it be cut out of the international community because of its Leftist politics. The U.S.

is still the strongest economic power in the world, and any country that wants to come sit at the big table must play according to the house’s rules. The global economy operates essentially out of the house of American capitalism—and many on the Left in Latin America are opposed to this house—but at the same time they recognize that in order to provide for their people they must play by the rules or risk being cut off from the global economic system.

North Korea has long been considered a belligerent state on the other side of the world—Leftist and totalitarian and resolved to antagonize the capitalist model. Yet, when Trump expressed interest in meeting with North Korea to iron out their differences, North Korea jumped at the chance because ultimately it realized that by playing by the rules of the house it could provide a better economy for its people. The Left in Latin America has yet to realize this lesson and thus views the West as problematic.

This causes the U.S. and other countries in the West to view the Latin American Left as troublesome, which is why they “use of strategies meant to foment political destabilization and discredit progressive governments in power and former elected leaders” (Milan, 2018). In truth, the U.S. is not about using such strategies to circumvent or destabilize political regimes it views as troublesome.

It used NATO to oust Gaddafi in Libya, a bogus pretext as cause for invasion in Iraq and ultimate overthrow of Hussein, and unsubstantiated claims against Assad in Syria to settle troops in there. In Latin America, it has a long history of intervention and scandal—from the Bay of Pigs incident in which the CIA tried to assassinate Castro to the Iran-Contra affair in which the CIA was running guns to the contras in Latin America to overthrow an elected leader.

It is no surprise that the Latin American Left is suspicious of the U.S. and even outright harboring of animosity towards the U.S. In a sense, the U.S. has adopted a Machiavellian approach to dealing with the Latin American Left.

As Machiavelli explains, governing in regions that have long been administered by corrupt leaders requires a skillful approach: When Cesare occupied the Romagna he found it under the rule of weak masters, who robbed their subjects rather than ruled them, and gave them more cause for rebellion than for union. So the country was full of robbery, quarrels, and every kind of violence. So, wishing to bring back peace and obedience to authority, he considered it necessary to give it a good governor.

Thus he promoted Ramiro d'Orco, an efficient and cruel man, to whom he gave the fullest power. This man in a short time restored peace and unity with great success. Afterwards Cesare considered that it was not a good idea to confer such excessive authority, for he had no doubt that he would become disliked. So he set up a court of judgment in the country, under an excellent president, in which all cities had their advocates (p. 11). The U.S.

has similarly attempted to intervene in the more corrupt corridors of Latin America by installing men it perceived to be good but who the U.S. also knew would rule strictly and severely in order to bring about order. At the same time, the risk of these rulers being hated by the people would grow—as Machiavelli pointed out—and that, if unaddressed, this hatred would invariably lead to blowback and the resistance of people, followed by the establishment of another Leftist government.

Machiavelli advised replacing the stern ruler once order was restored and having a new court installed. The U.S. over the years has been unsuccessful in some parts of Latin America at influencing events in this manner—and so that Latin American Left has lived on to fight another still yet another day. At the same time, the U.S. has tried to manage affairs smoothly by reaching out to friends in Latin America.

Recently, Vice President Pence went on a whirlwind tour of Latin America, praising his host countries while consisting accusing the Venezuelan government of corruption everywhere he went. The aim of his trip was to seize on the fellowship that the U.S. has with Mexico, Brazil, Peru and other nations.

Pence singled out Maduro for his repression of the people and to show that if Venezuela wants to be restored whole as a country it has to accept the help of the U.S.—otherwise it will be blocked out of the global economic system. Other nations in the West have backed the U.S. in its approach to dealing with the Latin American Left.

Venezuela has been trying to repatriate its gold from the Bank of England this year, but the Bank of England has been stalling at the behest of the U.S. because the latter has leveled economic sanctions against any country attempting to do business with Venezuela (Durden, 2018). Because the U.S. dollar still reigns supreme, the other nations look to fall in line.

However, countries like Russia and China, both of which have histories of Communism in their countries, are sympathetic towards Venezuela and both are looking for ways to circumvent the power of the USD—China with its gold-backed petro-yuan and Russia with its new settlement system that will allow nations targeted by the U.S’s economic sanctions to still conduct business globally. Venezuela for its part has established a cryptocurrency backed by oil, which it hopes will help it to get a handle on its inflation problem.

The U.S. does not like this idea—instead it would prefer new leaders who are more committed to using old methods of control to rein its people in. New Changes Brazil has seemingly gotten this message and elected Jair Bolsonaro—the Trump-like leader who was backed by Trump advisor Steve Bannon—to the presidency: Brazilians threw their support behind Bolsonaro in the face of widespread corruption in the Leftist government.

Bolsonaro sides with the military and has promised to crack down on the corruption and restore order—just like Machiavelli advised to do in The Prince. This change towards the Right in Brazil could have profound ramifications for the Left throughout Latin America—especially if it leads to a daisy chain of populist elections that see Right-wing leaders installed at the very top.

This move towards the Right is also in line with the political and moral philosophy of Locke, who wrote in his Second Treatise on Government: “Everyone is obliged to preserve himself and not opt out of life willfully, so for the same reason everyone ought, when his own survival isn’t at stake, to do as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind; and except when it’s a matter of punishing an offender, no-one may take away or damage anything that contributes to the preservation of someone else’s life, liberty, health, limb, or goods” (p.

4). Locke viewed it as the duty of government to do everything in its power to preserve the well-being of the commonweal. This is essentially the view of the U.S. It is also highly Machiavellian. Bolsonaro, for instance, has stated, “I am in favor of torture — you know that. And the people are in favor of it, too” (Simoes, 2018). Machiavelli would have prescribed the same sort of solution for a leader to use trying to restore order in a corrupt country.

Recommendation for How to Create Change However, Machiavellianism leads to its own troubles, as Machiavelli himself pointed out: the people being ruled by a leader with an iron fist will eventually come to resent that leader. Plato, likewise, viewed the Republic as needing to be ruled by Guardians who would be tasked with overseeing the cultural and intellectual life of the Republic and for safeguarding the people. This type of government would resemble ultimately a totalitarian system of government.

Aristotle presents one of the best ways for how to approach the problems of society through governance and politics. Aristotle viewed the City as a group of families and villages who were united under a single, common aim, which was to live well and be self-sufficient. Aristotle defined living well as working towards the common good in accordance with living a life of virtue. Aristotle essentially built upon the notion of the Transcendentals identified by Plato and applied them in a practical aspect towards governance. Then there is Augustine.

In the City of God, Augustine made the case that men should live according to God’s law rather than to the laws of men, which can facilitate evil and be used to allow sin and corruption to proliferate. Latin America has a rich, Catholic heritage that it gained from the West centuries ago. By turning back towards its Christian roots, Latin Americans could implement the teachings of Augustine and use the law of God as a way to restore order.

This would allow them to be accountable to themselves and to one another in a way that is not authoritarian or cruel—i.e., in a way that is not distinctly Machiavellian. Part of the reason, the U.S. has had such trouble appealing to the Latin American Left is that it constantly asserts its own authority and tries to push its weight around. It does not appeal to the sympathy of the people who are, ultimately looking for leaders to care for them and give them support.

Augustine’s idea of support was to support people through prayer and union with God. It was a spiritual kind of support that could be used to help transform a culture. The Latin American Left could.