Not talking about opposition. Just talking about actual success of these regimes in ability to bring prosperity to their people.
Al Grito de Guerra: the Second Mexican Revolution
- Thread starter Roberto El Rey
- Start date
Not talking about opposition. Just talking about actual success of these regimes in ability to bring prosperity to their people.
Yeah, Peron and his awful wealth distribution in favor of labour, industrialization and absurd labour regulation like *gasp* 8 hour work day! Not even mentioning the crime of paying the external debt! What's argentina gonna do with so much independe and social justice? Fascism I tell ya!
Argentina declined big time, and his economics were a part of that.
Inflation still plagues Argentina to this day.
Inflation was a logical result of the transition from the feudal agro bussiness estancia that the beloved argentina of the oligarchs was, to a cunsume economy centered around the internal market. He has inflation controlled by his second term, and plans to complete argentinian industrialization already drawn, thankfully argentina was saved of such and awful destiny by the coup of '55. And than is back to the domination of foreing capital and the local rentist.
My guess is they'll be supported by the US as the safe-option middle ground between the PRI (who are non-palatable as corrupt tyrants) and the left-wing opposition (who are no goes because of likely far-leftist and communist involvement in their ranks). Maybe a "Rio Grande Republic" consisting of the states on the US Border ruled by the PAN bigwigs as a sort of buffer to keep the border states safe
I think I'd tend to agree there, they're not the PRI, but they're not also FDN which is also a plus in the eyes of those who are repulsed by the PRI's corruption but aren't fully in with the FDN and Cardenas. My issue would be that the are still very much the number three of the national parties, having been consigned to a (nonetheless respectable) third place with Manuel Clouthier. I guess the big thing is if he avoids his (suspicious) car accident death in 1989 ITTL, and if so he can use it to springboard to the governorship in Sinaloa and perhaps the Presidency of what is left of Mexico.
I know a lot of people are wondering what they are doing but I don't really see Zapatistas playing a major role short of US intervention. IOTL they took up arms following NAFTA being implemented. Here NAFTA probably won't become a thing, so I imagine the Zapatistas just hanging out during the civil war. I could be wrong, though.
Bookmark1995
Banned
Well, while we know there is a revolution taking place, it doesn't necessarily mean things will get better.
Cardenas could potentially transform Mexican society, but not in ways that are going to be good.
If the outcome is poor, then the Zapatistas could rise up.
BTW, have the Zapatistas actually done anything of value, or are they just glorified autodefensas?
Explain how, I have refuted everything you said and the only thing you do is keep repeating neoliberal mythology. If you wanna know who actually destroyed the country read about the economic policies of the Junta of '76.
Porfirio Diaz did some great stuff for Mexico, but for some reason everyone wanted to overthrow his regime. I see issues with AMLO that go beyond the polarizing issue of populism in Latin America. I don't trust him and I generally don't trust populist leaders in general. Not every Latin leader who rails against imperialists is a Lazaro Cardenas, and not all Latin Nationalists are Simon Bolivar.
Cause Diaz didn't exactly trust democratic institutions. Really, any nation descended from Spain or Portugal have turbulent histories because of a lack of infrastructure.
Or the opposite, institutions set by an entrenched oligarchy (extractivism is the cross of every iberian ex colony). The american south wasnt that different in that regard, it also had natural conditions that incentivated extractivism and slavery stundded polotical development. The American north was the only different in the continent, lack of easily exportable raw material, no cash crops (and no slavery), and lack of indian population to exploit, also a rural economy dominated by farmers rather than big landowners. The american south was lucky to have the north, the only productive economy in the Americas.
