[PEN-L:11507] Re: Latin America (was colonialism

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

(I declared in a post off list that I would say no more on the origins and
growth question, but Wojtek has raised a quite different question that
is worthy of separate consideration.)

Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:

> OTOH, we need to explain the differences between latecomers, such as "Asian
> tigers" and most of Latin America, which is often used to support the "work
> ethics" (ie, individual arguments).

You make the central point here as a throwaway in your last paragraph. "So
far from god and so close to the united states." One of the books Lou put
on his reading list, *The Open Veins of Latin America*, is excellent on
this. Also the early works of Gunder Frank. (Their account of Latin
America does not depend on any "World Systems" theory.)

>  One possible explanation is the land
> reform - or more precisely, eliminating the landlords who are the major
> obstacle to capitalist progress.

But the U.S. makes sure the landlords stay in power. That is one of
the pillars of U.S. foreign policy. See Frank on the civil war in
Chile in the 1890s. And on Brazil in the 1930s. (Someone on the
marxism list has been asking about the politics of FARC: but as
long as they are anti-u.s. politics they will be good for Columbia.)

Whatever one thinks of the early history of capitalism, there can be
no doubt of the systematic development of underdevelopment in
Latin America backed by the full imperial power of the U.S.

Carrol

> "Asian tigers" had one, Latin America did
> not (except Mexico).  Another possibility is the geo-political location, or
> "so far from god, so close to the united states" as they say in mexico.
>
> wojtek