The rise of plant growing and the subsequent appearance of permanent human settlements allowed for the multiple and overlapping beginnings of civilizations in South America. One of the earliest known South American civilizations was at Norte Chicoon the central Peruvian coast. Though a pre-ceramic culture, the monumental architecture of Norte Chico is contemporaneous with the pyramids of Ancient Egypt. Around the 7th century, both Tiahuanaco and Wari or Huari Empire —, Central and northern Peru expanded its influence to all the Andean region, imposing the Huari urbanism and Tiahuanaco religious iconography.
Social democratic movements worldwide grouped in the Socialist International were the foremost advocates of socialism by pacific means throughout the second half of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, while the three Latin American nations have been subject to intense political conflict and class and political polarization, the social democrats favored moderate policies designed to avoid discord and achieve broad consensuses.
In this sense, the three leftist regimes in Latin America resemble Communist experiences in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China and Cuba characterized by head-on confrontations with the opponents of far-reaching change as well as with institutions representing the old order.
In contrast to Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, however, the official discourse of the Communist Parties in power discarded the possibility of the peaceful democratic transition to socialism in accordance with orthodox Marxist thinking on the inevitability of class warfare Regalado, In addition, they took advantage of their advent to power and subsequent political victories by moving quickly against adversaries and deepening the process of change.
Along similar lines, the TFCLARL, unlike the moderate left, has been reluctant to negotiate and reach agreements with, or grant significant concessions to, their adversaries.
In the first place, all three presidents won elections, referendums and recall elections with sizeable majorities, sometimes exceeding 60 percent of the vote. These triumphs provided them with mandates and greater maneuverability than was the case with moderate leftist presidents who received lower voting percentages.
Finally, The three presidents headed relatively weak political parties, which, unlike in the case of Brazil and elsewhere, failed to establish solid links with the popular sectors outside of the electoral arena Ellner, b.
Not surprisingly, this radicalization met with hardened resistance on the part of defenders of the status quo and set off an intense polarization, which was another distinguishing feature of the TFCLARL in power.
Moderate leftist presidents in Brazil, Argentina and elsewhere have acted in a similar fashion. Nevertheless, there were exceptions to this principled behavior among moderate leftists. Radicalization was not a linear process, notwithstanding the commitment of TFCLARL movements to far-reaching change and their marked differences with moderate leftist ones.
Having reached power with only 38 percent of the vote, the Sandinistas were intent on neutralizing and reining in diverse sectors. In his chapter, Marc Becker describes how Rafael Correa appeared to turn his back on the principles of participatory democracy and ecological prioritization, which are embodied in the constitution ofwhen he clashed with indigenous activists belonging to social movements that had been instrumental in his rise to power.
The TFCLARL experiences in office also contrast with those of democratic leftists such as the Allende government and the Sandinistas in the s, who reached power in Latin America in the heat of the Cold War and were similarly committed to a radical break with the past.
While less secure in power than Communists in the Soviet Union and China, the TFCLARL in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador exercises greater control of different state sphere, including the legislative and judiciary branches and the armed forces, than was the case of radical democratic leftists in the previous century.
Consequently, the TFCLARL has been forced to grapple with thorny issues related to consolidation in the context of an extended transition to socialism. During these periods of relative stability, the burden of demonstrating the viability of the new model they advocated was clearly placed on TFCLARL leaders.
In contrast, the less secure grip on power of twentieth-century radical left governments due to ongoing disruptions including violence and sabotage and the wider support for U.
Allende, for instance, reached power with only 36 percent of the vote and was overthrown after just three years, while the Sandinistas in the s focused much of their attention and resources on the U. The TFCLARL faces complex theoretical and practical challenges that are in fundamental ways distinct from those confronting social democratic and orthodox Marxist movements of the twentieth century.
Most important, the electoral and gradual path to far-reaching change in the absence of a policy of compromise and concessions to the enemy involves an array of variables that complicates the process.
The strategy opens space and provides opportunities for adversaries who in the context of sharp polarization are able to employ legal and extra-legal tactics to undermine government authority and impede the implementation of its economic policies.
This type of face-off presents the left with the ongoing dilemma of whether to move forward with further radicalization or emphasize consolidation. At the same time, the gradual, peaceful road to socialism creates spaces for those on the left end of the political spectrum, some outside of the ruling coalition particularly in the case of Bolivia and Ecuador and others within it as in Venezuela who clamor for a more accelerated pace of change.
These challenges are of a different nature and in some cases greater complexity than those confronting social democratic and Communist movements in power in the past. Social democratic thinking as defended by the Socialist International was underpinned by positivist assumptions regarding the inevitability of change in the absence of struggle a fundamental theoretical difference between the father of positivism, Auguste Comte, and Marx.
The social democratic strategy that attempts to minimize confrontation and achieve harmonious changecontrasts with the complex dynamic of radical policies followed by resistance from hegemonic forces and sharp political polarization within a democratic setting that characterizes the TFCLARL in power.
The case of Communists who seized power in the twentieth century was also distinct in that all forms of opposition to the government were repressed and socialism was imposed without a long drawn-out struggle.
This process was antithetical to the war of position of the TFCLARL in power in which hegemonic traditional forces have retained the upper hand in institutions such as the church, the media and even parts of the state sphere. Furthermore, in contrast to the rigid Marxist doctrine and formulas of Communist rule, the TFCLARL is admittedly eclectic and embraces and even celebrates a trial-and-error approach to socialism lacking in ideological clarity, which it views as a corrective to dogmatism Acosta, It thus lacks the ideological common denominators that characterized the Marxism underpinning twentieth-century leftist governments.
The post-Cold War setting contributes to the complexity of the phenomenon of the twenty-first century left. The Cold War was conducive to simplistic conceptualization and strategies in that it pitted the pro-U.
Pressure from both poles limited options and discouraged originality as occurred in the case of Cuba in the course of the s. By the turn of the first century, the widespread protests against neoliberalism in Latin America encouraged greater political diversity including nationalist leftist movements which firmly opposed U.
The emerging anti-neoliberal model associated with the TFCLARL combines representative democracy and radical democracy based on the Rousseaunian tradition of direct input in decision making. The two are not entirely compatible and have created internal strains due to paradigmatic differences, thus adding to the complexity of the challenges facing twenty-first century leftist movements Smilde, On the one hand, pragmatic policies that promoted institutionalization were designed to foster efficiency at the same time that they prioritized economic over social objectives.
The two sets of objectives were equally compelling. Dogmatic or simplistic formulas and ideological formulations favoring one and ruling out the other were unlikely to be successful Ellner, b: The resultant path designed to achieve a synthesis — as opposed to more dogmatic recipes — was fraught with complexity.
The same contradictions also manifested themselves within and among the different sectors that support the revolutionary movement, as well as within the socialist state.Hispanic USA. Ilan Stavans. Fall Of course, Baldwin was talking about America the nation; but America is also a vast continent.
From Alaska to Argentina, from Rio de Janeiro to East Los Angeles, the geography Christopher Columbus mistakenly encountered in and Amerigo Vespucci baptized a few years later is also a linguistic and. Latin America is a region of the Americas where Romance languages, those derived from Latin particularly Spanish, Portuguese, and variably F.
South America is a geographical division, a part of the American continent. Latin America is a cultural division. The definitions that constitute Latin America are varied. From a cultural point of view, Latin America includes those parts of the American continent in which the Spanish, French or.
The scholarly debate over whether or not to include indigenous thought in the history of Latin American philosophy reveals that the question of what constitutes Latin American philosophy hinges upon both our understanding of what constitutes Latin America and our understanding of what constitutes philosophy.
History of Latin America Essay. This concept raises a lot of question as to whether it is adequate for a continent that is holds both non-Spanish and non-Portuguese natives.
What makes Latin America a concept in the history of Latin American are the occurrences that took place after the wars of independence. With the political independence. REVIEW ESSAY Beyond Benedict Anderson: Nation-Building and Popular Democracy in Latin America Forment,Carlos A.
Democracy in Latin America, – Volume I, Civic Selfhood and Public Life in Mexico and Peru. [Morality and structures had already inscribed national identities on the Latin American continent. According to Guerra.