Authoritarianism and The Southern Cone
Naturally, one would assume with capitalistic expansion classical liberal values would accompany, especially after the model set forth by western nations like England and the United States. Industrialism and Bureaucratic Authoritarianism aren’t inherently synonymous or related frankly. That is what leaves these economically prosperous yet authoritarian nations of Latin America in such a strange predicament. However, Collier’s reference to O’Donnell in his The New Authoritarianism in Latin America shines a light on what possibly took place to lead these Latin American Nations to this situation. He describes a massive expansion of an industrialized economy with the development of a mega elite class and a defeated working class (Pg. 25). Interestingly, at the turn of the century, the United States mirrored this exact scenario. As the economy exploded, robber barons became fiscal giants and manufacturing workers were underpaid, overworked, and politically disenfranchised. The stratification between classes was enormous and left the political system lopsided. This is where politically the U.S. and Latin America diverged. Although the time period these changes took place were not the same, the U.S. was able to implement policy changes that protected the American worker and limited the severe stratification between classes. This took place amidst reforms like President Teddy Roosevelt’s Square Deal and and FDR’s New Deal. Through the establishment of these progressive ideals the U.S. was able to avoid an undeniable economic ruling class that Latin America experiences. As the working class issues were left to fester in these Latin American nations the economy itself became effectively authoritarian under these fiscal powerhouses. The political system followed. When one analyzes a bureaucratic authoritarianism, especially in Latin America, its similarity to a huge private sector conglomerate is easily definable.
The rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is not a new thing but often we look at the problems at hand and believe we are the first to experience them. The giant rift between the upper and lower class in South America was not something the world has never seen but the ramifications were certainly unique. So far I am just agreeing with you. can you say more on the ways in which the two roosevelts deals helped keep the United States from falling into the pits the Latin American region experienced? Also you’re claim the economy became authoritarian and so the politics followed is an interesting one. I’d love for you to flesh that out a bit more!
Even if I agree with some of the points made, I believe that your claim “The stratification between classes was enormous and left the political system lopsided. This is where politically the U.S. and Latin America diverged” might be conflicting with the general idea of Authoritarian regimes in Latin America. If well there are class struggles that led to “golpes de Estado” and Military coups, by claiming that the reason why the U.S never had authoritarian regimes whilst Latin America did was solely on worker protections is inaccurate. First of, you acknowledge that the U.S industrialized prior to Latin America, and by the same token, developed worker protection policies. The problem in Latin America was not the overruling class that emerges from a minor-scale industrialization, but with the U.S, and British companies demanding, appropriating, and exploitation that marginalized sector.
Take for example the Banana Massacre in Colombia. http://www.historychannel.com.au/this-day-in-history/banana-massacre/
The overall interventions, both politically and economically in Latin America have more incidences on the rise of Authoritarianism than just the class struggles that you mention. O’Donnell talks about class struggles that pertain further than the early-stages of industrialization as they had been present since the independence era. Take the creoles for example.