Born in Blood and Fire: A Concise History of Latin America

As a direct consequence of the fall of the Soviet Union, communism as a viable alternative to capitalism lost strength in Latin America. US economic supremacy and the flailing economies of communist nations convinced many that there was no alternative to capitalism. Thus, governments and people embraced capitalism and applied it as best as possible. Neoliberals began gaining influence in an effort to model their economies on the US example. Neoliberalism was not relegated to only foreign nations playing catch-up, however. Neoliberalism also gained influence in the US. Neoliberalism simply means new liberalism, though it differs very little from liberal ideas of the 19th century and even less so with those of the 1930s. Then as now, a central argument of liberalism is the establishment of a free world market with little governmental regulation, privatization, and a reduction in government spending. Since the new millennium, however, the promises and goals of neoliberalism emerged just as problematic and difficult to obtain as they were nearly a century ago. Too few benefited and too many suffered. An example are the maquiladoras in Mexico.

A maquiladora is most often a duty-free and tariff-free factory that assembles parts to form finished products ready for the market. It employs cheap labor, many of whom are women, and offers little to no benefits. Many liken them to sweatshops and wage slavery. Maquiladoras are not new to the post-Cold War economy, as they began in 1964. However, the fall of communism and the rise of globalization (and therefore NAFTA) increased the demand for cheaply made goods. Thus, the number of maquiladoras in Mexico rose dramatically to the point that in 2006 they were responsible to 45% of Mexico’s exports.

The dreams of neoliberals in the 1990s began faltering in the early 2000s. In 2001, Argentina, which had followed the economic guidelines recommended by the International Monetary Fund and was one of the more robust economies in Latin America, imploded. The result was widespread riots in Buenos Aires, Rosario, and other large cities. The government collapsed. The president resigned, and political and economic chaos ensued. Recovery was slow. Neoliberalism was on the decline, and governments began shifting toward the left. Capitalism was viewed as something powerful and dangerous that needed tempering. In 2002, Brazil elected Luiz Inácio da Silva. Da Silva was a former metalworker and union leader. His government was nationalistic in identity and sought to improve conditions for the most indigent citizens. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela had won the presidency in 1999. His form of nationalist government was even more social in practice that da Silva’s. He called himself a Bolivarian, styling his political ideology after that of Simón Bolívar’s.

However, he also styled himself as a Marxist, and Marx was critical of Bolívar. Regardless, Chavez’s political goals were expansion of educational opportunities in Venezuela, civilian-military unity, Latin American integration (he had introduced the idea of re-creating Gran Columbia), and national sovereignty, which meant in essence not allowing the US to dictate policy in Latin America. Chile elected a socialist president, Michelle Bachelet in 2006. Her platform focused on education and tax reform. Under her leadership, the Chilean economy grew slowly, but steadily.

Most guerilla warfare activities that were so rampant in Latin America during the Cold War ceased. Columbia’s struggles, however, continued. The FARC continued to define itself as a Marxist revolutionary group; however, in 2000 it added Bolivarian rhetoric and imagery in an attempt to garner more support. In 2002, Columbia elected Álvaro Uribe, a hardline politician bent on defeating the FARC once and for all. Any semblance of peace talks broke down during his presidency. Though he did not annihilate the FARC, the military did retake a lot of territory controlled by the revolutionaries. In 2012 there was a new president and the FARC softened. They announced they would no longer use kidnappings for ransom and released 10 soldiers and police officers held captive. Furthermore, the Columbian government and FARC leaders resumed peace talks. The Zapatistas in Mexico that arose in 1994 consisted predominantly of Indigenous people seeking land reform and a general reformation of Mexican democracy.

Large numbers of Latin American immigrants have entered the US legally and illegally. Immigration has become a key issue in US politics in the new millennium. The cause is violence and instability in many Latin America nations, especially those in Central America like Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. In 2014 and 2015, large numbers of unescorted adolescents entered the US across the Mexican border. They were fleeing wide scale violence perpetrated by gangs from their areas. The largest group of immigrants are Mexicans seeking economic opportunities denied them in Mexico. The reasons are myriad, but the trend is increasing. In 2016, 1.18 million Latin Americans legally immigrated to the US. The number of illegal immigrants is not known, but the population of Hispanic immigrants living in the US in 2016 was over 57 million: “In a conflictive world of large uncertainties, the transformations created by rapid immigration produce fearful reactions; and political opportunists of various stripes exploit those fears” (350).