AHC: Setup for a Prosperous, Industrialized Latin America

[Jiraiyathegallant]

I’m not expert; I could be very wrong as I paint some broad brushes here.

I think much of their problem is that the ruling elite of Latin America is too divided: Rich vs poor, aristocracy vs industrialists, Catholic Church vs anti-clericalism, Communist vs Capitalist, Nationalist vs Localist vs Internationalist, white vs black vs native, Western vs Native, Traditionalist vs Modernist, Monarchism vs Republicanism, military dictator vs populist elected official, Liberals vs Conservatives vs Socialists, and probably more.

Every country has divides, but most of the the successful (defining that in economic terms as compared to the developed world, Latin America is certainly an interesting place) countries have a stronger consensus implemented and carried out while marginalizing or successfully persecuting dissidents. Whereas these different groups constantly overthrow or subvert governments in Latin America. Revolutionaries are romanticized and the revolutions and coups never seem to end.

Latin America had low literacy, a small population density, a huge disease burden, and often had huge social strife and division compared to the US and Western Europe for most of its history, as 95% of the world did in the 1800s. During the Post WWII Era it has has been dominated by short sighted governments, bad trade policies, bad monetary policies, bad price controls, nationalization’s, corrupt, insurgencies, and broken family structures. A lot of these problems are not unique; most of the world has dealt with these.

But something that stands out to me is how many of the people in the educated class seem more interested in overthrowing things than building things. I see Latin Americans who build successful businesses and families in the US everyday. We have seen countries like Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Mexico go through periods of high growth. It’s not like the potential isn’t there. But I see many historic leaders who will absolutely refuse to compromise with the opposition, who needlessly lead rebellions, start insurgencies, and believe they are the next great revolutionary. This makes it hard for leaders to implement policies, try to build society, inspire confidence in whatever system they are running with, and the division makes it easy for foreign meddling to occur.

Compared to China, Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Korea‘s economic booms, I think Post War Latin America did a poor job retaining stability or allowing governments to pursue long term visions. Even South Korean coups did not attempt to end capitalism or kick the US out.

Maybe I am off base, but I believe that too many Latin American leaders are too ideological and too obsessed with their image. They need more people in government who will focus on building infrastructure, beating back disease, getting universal literacy early, making it a decent place to make and invest money, avoiding racial strife, attracting immigrants early on, and reigning in some of the excesses of the wealthy and capitalism. Have education focus primarily on Engineering, medicine, agricultural science, math, and business. Sideline violent radicals. Make normal families feel safe. Don’t start hanging priests, natives, and immigrants.

Who can help Latin America achieve these things will depend on the country and the era. People who know more than me can help.

 

[EMT]

I'm impressed by the people who instead of working with a flexible PoD 500 years in the past go into the thread either parroting modern-day (racist) stereotypes that Latin Americans are inherently self-destructive or can't govern themselves to success rather than actually tackle the question in the OP

 

[Jürgen]

I think it’s important to remember that countries doesn’t exist in a vacuum. As example people have sometimes compared the political corruption of Argentina and some European countries, but a important difference is if you have a region with well low corruption countries, they tend to pull each other up and also pull any stragglers up. So the important question is how can we produce a economic motor for the region which can pull other countries up with them and have them synergies with their economy, which also pull other countries up with them. I don’t think Brazil would be the good economic motor for South America, simply because it’s so big that it will tend to look inward (like USA which didn’t pull it neighbors up with them).

 

[Sārthākā]

I think Maximilian Mexico would be better for Mexico at least. He was liberal, and the era of turmoil after the end of the French Invasion of Mexico would probably have not happened, and Maximilian's weird mix of liberalism and conservatism would have been pretty good for placating both polarized sides in my opinion.

 

[Belisarius II]

I’m not expert; I could be very wrong as I paint some broad brushes here.

I think much of their problem is that the ruling elite of Latin America is too divided: Rich vs poor, aristocracy vs industrialists, Catholic Church vs anti-clericalism, Communist vs Capitalist, Nationalist vs Localist vs Internationalist, white vs black vs native, Western vs Native, Traditionalist vs Modernist, Monarchism vs Republicanism, military dictator vs populist elected official, Liberals vs Conservatives vs Socialists, and probably more.

Every country has divides, but most of the the successful (defining that in economic terms as compared to the developed world, Latin America is certainly an interesting place) countries have a stronger consensus implemented and carried out while marginalizing or successfully persecuting dissidents. Whereas these different groups constantly overthrow or subvert governments in Latin America. Revolutionaries are romanticized and the revolutions and coups never seem to end.

Latin America had low literacy, a small population density, a huge disease burden, and often had huge social strife and division compared to the US and Western Europe for most of its history, as 95% of the world did in the 1800s. During the Post WWII Era it has has been dominated by short sighted governments, bad trade policies, bad monetary policies, bad price controls, nationalization’s, corrupt, insurgencies, and broken family structures. A lot of these problems are not unique; most of the world has dealt with these.

But something that stands out to me is how many of the people in the educated class seem more interested in overthrowing things than building things. I see Latin Americans who build successful businesses and families in the US everyday. We have seen countries like Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Mexico go through periods of high growth. It’s not like the potential isn’t there. But I see many historic leaders who will absolutely refuse to compromise with the opposition, who needlessly lead rebellions, start insurgencies, and believe they are the next great revolutionary. This makes it hard for leaders to implement policies, try to build society, inspire confidence in whatever system they are running with, and the division makes it easy for foreign meddling to occur.

Compared to China, Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Korea‘s economic booms, I think Post War Latin America did a poor job retaining stability or allowing governments to pursue long term visions. Even South Korean coups did not attempt to end capitalism or kick the US out.

Maybe I am off base, but I believe that too many Latin American leaders are too ideological and too obsessed with their image. They need more people in government who will focus on building infrastructure, beating back disease, getting universal literacy early, making it a decent place to make and invest money, avoiding racial strife, attracting immigrants early on, and reigning in some of the excesses of the wealthy and capitalism. Have education focus primarily on Engineering, medicine, agricultural science, math, and business. Sideline violent radicals. Make normal families feel safe. Don’t start hanging priests, natives, and immigrants.

Who can help Latin America achieve these things will depend on the country and the era. People who know more than me can help.

Thank you for that, you've hit the big ones that plague most of the world, from time to time, and wreck successful societies. One big one I would add is rule of law. You can't attract investment, or make people feel safe without rule of law. No society can be stable for long without it. These are the issues that make the 3rd World the 3rd World. Latin America, particularly Chile, Argentina, and Brazil start climbing up to the edge of 1st World Status, and then they jump off. As you say they turn to some type of revolution of right, or left, terrorize their own people, and start printing money. Even a good education is no guarantee the people won't turn to demagogues, no nation was better educated then Germany, yet Hitler came to power, only rule of law could've stopped him. Only rule of law can protect the rights of the individual, and only when each individual person's right are protected is society safe.

 

[kholieken]

Short of divine intervention there's not much chance. There are too many cultural, and social forces working against it.

Guy Cltural is the easier thing to butterfly, if we got the push to be develop natins and not neo colonies...Colombia, Peru and Argentina have enough coal to push industralization easily, your comment was condescending as fuck

Seconded @Belisarius_II

Cultural Thing is one of most difficult thing to butterfly. It took hundred of years to built a nation.

Latin America had history of elites (Aztec, Inca, Spanish) oppress ordinary people, clash between civilized centre and tribal periphery, large latifundia with helpless tenants, etc.

Radicalism and Revolutionary Desire didn't come without reasons, they exist because Elites refusal to compromise and share the wealth. How many reformist in LA get thrown in jail, couped by military, or simply rendered ineffectual by elites power. Any groups strong enough to overthrow the system become too rigid, hierarchical, and incapable of sharing power themselves.

 

[ByzantineCaesar]

Yeah, this would definitively be better.

In Brazil, the problem is that there's pretty much no coal. Brazilian Coal even today is pathetic. Also, most of our oil reserves are pretty deep. Its not like in the US where there were a lot of places in Texas and California where one could barely stake a flag in without it resulting in a giant petrol geyser.

True. Then again, Brazil does have a lot of lumber. I don’t know how palausible an industrial revolution fueled by firewood is, but if there is one country that could do it, it would be Brazil. Of course this would have made for an even greater deforestation later down the line, but nobody cared about that in the 19th century. The ecological effects of early deforestation could also harm coffee productivity, which means less incentive to invest only in coffee and more investment in alternative sources of revenue for the elites, e.g. industry.

That's definitely nice, but is it plausible? I'm calling in @Lusitania to see.

I’d say so. The plan to move to Brazil was pretty old. IIRC about as old as the Restoration War, when father António Vieira made the first serious proposal. Pombal was also a pupil of Dom Luís da Cunha, who was probably the most influential Portuguese statesman of the first half of the 18th century and a strong advocate of the move to Brazil due to strategic reasons. His early career as a diplomat took place in the context of the War of the Spanish Succession, so you can see where he is coming from. As for Pombal himself, the reconstruction of Lisbon placed him in the unique position of being able to rebuild the Portuguese state into the enlightened absolute monarchy he so desired, crushing all opposition to his enlightened and modernizing rule. If, say, the destruction of Lisbon is even worse, relations with Spain are bad (they had intermarried by Pombal’s time, so they were nominally allies), and the Portuguese aristocracy was stronger than OTL, a move to Brazil could interest Pombal more than it did in OTL. After all, what better place to build his absolute state than literally starting over in Brazil, which he understood as Portugal’s greatest strategic asset and advantage anyway? It could also appeal to the flamboyant Dom José I because a move to Brazil would raise the Portuguese monarchy to imperial status, as the plan was for the Portuguese monarch to take the title of Emperor of the Occident (the idea of the Brazilian Empire didn’t come out of nowhere in 1822, the Portuguese had often viewed Brazil as an empire beforehand).

 

[Thomas1195]

Cultural Thing is one of most difficult thing to butterfly. It took hundred of years to built a nation.

Latin America had history of elites (Aztec, Inca, Spanish) oppress ordinary people, clash between civilized centre and tribal periphery, large latifundia with helpless tenants, etc

However, you can easily make Spanish colonies settler colonies instead of extractive outposts with such an early POD.

 

[Belisarius II]

I think Maximilian Mexico would be better for Mexico at least. He was liberal, and the era of turmoil after the end of the French Invasion of Mexico would probably have not happened, and Maximilian's weird mix of liberalism and conservatism would have been pretty good for placating both polarized sides in my opinion.

Aristocracy imposed on the Peons is what got Mexico into the mess it was in. The blessings of Liberal Government given by one ruler, can be taken back by an Illiberal ruler. Gibbbon shows use in the Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire that the great flaw in the Roman System was that public virtue was dependent on one man. For every Marcus Aurelius there was a Nero. Other national leaders unchecked by limited government, and rule of law have turned their countries into a lunatic asylum. An aristocratic class can only maintain it's power by keeping it from falling into the hands of those below them. In such a system the tendency is for wealth to flow up, not down, and corruption is rampant because the whole system is geared to support an elite. The French Army wasn't doing any favors for the Mexican People.

 

[Thomas1195]

Aristocracy imposed on the Peons is what got Mexico into the mess it was in. The blessings of Liberal Government given by one ruler, can be taken back by an Illiberal ruler. Gibbbon shows use in the Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire that the great flaw in the Roman System was that public virtue was dependent on one man. For every Marcus Aurelius there was a Nero. Other national leaders unchecked by limited government, and rule of law have turned their countries into a lunatic asylum. An aristocratic class can only maintain it's power by keeping it from falling into the hands of those below them. In such a system the tendency is for wealth to flow up, not down, and corruption is rampant because the whole system is geared to support an elite. The French Army wasn't doing any favors for the Mexican People.

I was about to say the same. Maxilian was a puppet imposed on Mexico by French bayonets and Mexican reactionaries who refused to back down after losing the Reform War. If anything, the Mexican reactionaries should have been crushed more decisively - which would mean no French intervention at all.

 

[minifidel]

I think Maximilian Mexico would be better for Mexico at least. He was liberal, and the era of turmoil after the end of the French Invasion of Mexico would probably have not happened, and Maximilian's weird mix of liberalism and conservatism would have been pretty good for placating both polarized sides in my opinion.

The Second Mexican Empire was an imposed monarchy on a country that had already decided it wanted to be a Republic, and done so on the pretext of debt collection.

Thank you for that, you've hit the big ones that plague most of the world, from time to time, and wreck successful societies. One big one I would add is rule of law. You can't attract investment, or make people feel safe without rule of law. No society can be stable for long without it. These are the issues that make the 3rd World the 3rd World. Latin America, particularly Chile, Argentina, and Brazil start climbing up to the edge of 1st World Status, and then they jump off. As you say they turn to some type of revolution of right, or left, terrorize their own people, and start printing money. Even a good education is no guarantee the people won't turn to demagogues, no nation was better educated then Germany, yet Hitler came to power, only rule of law could've stopped him. Only rule of law can protect the rights of the individual, and only when each individual person's right are protected is society safe.

Seconded @Belisarius_II

Cultural Thing is one of most difficult thing to butterfly. It took hundred of years to built a nation.

Latin America had history of elites (Aztec, Inca, Spanish) oppress ordinary people, clash between civilized centre and tribal periphery, large latifundia with helpless tenants, etc.
Radicalism and Revolutionary Desire didn't come without reasons, they exist because Elites refusal to compromise and share the wealth. How many reformist in LA get thrown in jail, couped by military, or simply rendered ineffectual by elites power. Any groups strong enough to overthrow the system become too rigid, hierarchical, and incapable of sharing power themselves.

This laser focus on the seeming "cultural" incapability at guaranteeing rule of law or oppressive elites is flawed, with one glaring problem: an unfounded deterministic interpretation of why Latin America turned out the way it did. Nowhere in these analyses is there any space given to the fact that Latin America was the target of nearly continuous European colonization from the 16th to the mid-19th century (and I'm being generous with the cutoff); Latin America was the target of armed interventions well past independence, and it really shouldn't take much explanation to understand why states under constant threat - to external pressures as much as domestic - would be perpetually weak.

And it also gets to another big problem: a lack of appreciation for the sheer amount of damage the Latin American Wars of Independence caused, with most of the fighting taking place in the wealthiest part of the region pre-independence, the Central Andes. The wars caused early and lasting harm to the successor states - Argentina's entire mule stock for example was slaughtered early into its independence war, and that single incident alone set the country back years at a critical time - and the damage was only exarcebated by internal conflicts as revolutionary fervor receded enough for traditional disputes to appear. Add to that the inherently rapacious nature of the sort of extractive colonization that the Spanish practiced (which viewed wealth creation in the colonies as an existential threat and which depended on the backbreaking exploitation of natives and imported slaves), and you have a recipe for disaster.

Of course, it's also worth noting that oppressive regimes, violent anti-reformism, greedy elites, hierarchical societies, etc. were never exclusive or even primarily Latin American phenomenons; several Latin American states consolidated before Italy or Germany for example. But whereas Italy for example could count on the accumulated wealth, population and experience of centuries of history, all of that was wiped out by colonization in the Americas. The Latin American states were starting more or less from scratch at independence, which is why the best PODs to achieve the thread's goal are either before colonization or shortly after independence.

 

[CalBear]

Short of divine intervention there's not much chance. There are too many cultural, and social forces working against it.

Oh, please DO expand.

 

[Nivek]

This laser focus on the seeming "cultural" incapability at guaranteeing rule of law or oppressive elites is flawed, with two major problems: an unfounded deterministic interpretation of why Latin America turned out the way it did

Reminder this place is condescending as hell at times, the rest is just people ignored how fucking messy our colonial story and independence one was....

 

[Thomas1195]

Add to that the inherently rapacious nature of the sort of extractive colonization that the Spanish practiced (which viewed wealth creation in the colonies as an existential threat and which depended on the backbreaking exploitation of natives and imported slaves), and you have a recipe for disaster.

I think when he talks about social-cultural stuffs, he means this one. Because political and economic institutions shape culture.

Worse, in Spain proper itself, the rentier, agrarian economic structure dominated by rural magnates - especially in Castille - also emerged under the Habsburg.

The same did happen with American South - as slave-based plantations run by a bunch of aristocratic elites became the dominant economic institution there. The US did not become a failed state because it was dominated by the North - whose economic structure was underpinned by trade, manufacturing and free-holding farming.

 

[minifidel]

I think when he talks about social-cultural stuffs, he means this one. Because political and economic institutions shape culture.

The same did happen with American South - as slave-based plantations run by a bunch of aristocratic elites became the dominant economic institution there. The US did not become a failed state because it was dominated by the North - whose economic structure was underpinned by trade, manufacturing and free-holding farming.

But Latin America was very much not the American South: to wit, former slaves made up the backbone of both the Colombian and Argentine revolutionary armies. Spanish colonization heavily determined the economic development of the post-colonial state, but to say that it would inevitably lead to a single sociocultural outcome for the entire continent is absurd; the sociocultural reaction wasn't even uniform within the colonies, with wildly different colonial societies developing in Mexico, Colombia, Perú, Chile, Paraguay, Argentina and the Caribbean, and with considerable variation inside those as well.

Then of course there's the last post I quoted, which goes even further, and seems to ascribe these sociocultural phenomenons to a geographic region even independent of colonization, by essentially claiming that the region is pre-determined to be poor even if ruled by the Aztecs or the Inca.

There are legitimate grounds to question the viability of an industrial state, having to do with a lack of good quality coal (and its unfortunate tendency of being far away from iron ore), but there is nothing cultural about it.

 

[CastIron]

If you want a more recent POD (i.e. 1800s-early 1900s), for Central America and the Caribbean, I'd suggest somehow stopping the Banana Wars from happening. Having your country dominated by one company that:
a) Owns most of your main export and the land it's grown on, the surplus of which could be used to invest in both infrastructure not devoted to resource extraction and developing the economy outside of resource extraction,
b) Has the backing of the USA and the will to coup a president/prime minister who starts making moves towards land reform
is probably a bad thing.
To spit ball, I'd think that would require a counterbalance to Anglo America in Latin America. Maybe Mexico is able to defeat America in the Mexican-American War or at least bring it to a draw, thus wounding America and possibly giving power to more isolationist elements in American politics at the time. Or Gran Colombia survives and is able to compete for influence in Central America with the US, giving the states there a possibility to play the two powers off one another for fun and profit.

 

[Logothétes]

Oh, please DO expand.

The Cold War-era left some pretty deep scars, no?

 

[CalBear]

The Cold War-era left some pretty deep scars, no?

Deeper than in Romania, which was under the thumb of a straight up nut job (Nicolae Ceausescu)?

 

[Dan1988]

The Cold War-era left some pretty deep scars, no?

Not equally in all areas (Costa Rica, for example, and even Uruguay under the dictatorship - although it sounds like a stretch, because the military was acting much like the other regimes, Uruguay was also special as being a refuge of last resort for anyone else who fell afoul of their national government, as long as - much like Mexico under the bad old days - they didn't criticize the Uruguayan government).

 

[Logothétes]

Deeper than in Romania, which was under the thumb of a straight up nut job (Nicolae Ceausescu)?

Well, no sortage of nutjobs in LatAm during the 20st century either. Stroessner, Trujillo, the Somozas... all that jazz.

Though I personally think the damage inflicted goes far beyond just the rulers. Condor, Soviet meddling, military coups, insurgencies, counter-insurgencies (incl. some pretty ghastly ones like FARC, the Contras and Shining Path), violent suppression of leftist political parties and unions, outright genocide (e.g. Guatemala), hideously powerful drug-runners, ineffective economic policies and shady business practices from foreign mega-corps like United Fruit have created a rather toxic atmosphere whose effects can still be felt today. Hell, the election of Bolsonaro in Brazil, as well as that of other populist, though mostly left-wing, demagogues like Chavez and Morales can be argued to be partly the result of lingering Cold War sentiments.

Though, of course, as Dan1988 said, one should be careful not to generalize when talking an entire continet. Places like Uruguay, Costa Rica, the former Guyanas and Ecuador seem to have escaped the worse of all the above.