![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c47230a8-134c-4dc9-89e8-75c6ea875d36.png)
Argentina had a real democracy for a while. The economic problems of Latin American countries like Brazil and Argentina have largely been because of foreign power involvement in both industry and politics. Both of those countries were controlled by the US during Operation Condor iirc, but that doesn’t even begin to take into account the way that these countries were kept from industrialization by the high demand for ore, rubber, and food created by US and European industrialization. Brazil was considered an integral ally during WW2 by both Germany and later the US. It’s not quite so simple as: democracy good… The US overthrew several democratically elected leaders including one in Argentina who was actually trying to reform workers rights and industrialize the country. Actually, that’s what most of the coups America started in Latin America were started over.
Argentina itself is in a uniquely bad position. They have almost all of the population and wealth focused in Buenos Aires, but even then, the wealth disparity is massive between classes. What Argentina could really use is a leveling of the play field and ways to support the education and upbringing of its poorest citizens especially. Besides that, it’s main exports are agricultural and mining products, but many resources go unexploited. It has failed to industrialize not because people can’t invest in themselves but because the government has failed to invest in the people.
What did the US government do that spurred huge amounts of growth? The New Deal and the GI bill, along with the expansion of the interstate system. Investing in the people, many of them poor, just back from the war, and with little to no skill. By uplifting its worse off citizens, the country was able to secure massive economic growth.
Anyway sorry for the rant. I hope it isn’t too jumbled. I just care about this.
A good start. That’s all we need. The guy that invented critical race theory argued against Brown v Board of Education bc he believed that radical change would cause more harm to the black community than actually making sure that separate but equal was upheld and enforced. And seeing as JFK had to send the national guard in to enforce Brown v BOE almost 10 years later, in many respects that was correct. Slow, steady change can accomplish a great deal given time.