Abstract, Social Movements, Crises, and Mobilizations: A Look at Summer 2019

:::::: Abstract ::::::

Social Movements, Crises, and Mobilizations: A Look at Summer 2019 

by Liliana Cotto Morales 

Beginning in the 1990s and in the first five years of the twenty-first century, we saw a strengthening of social movements that had achieved political space for combating U.S. neoliberal strategies and halting the dangerous influence of big business and capitalist governments. These movements became the protagonists influencing state policies in several Latin American countries and other regions. A systematic study of the knowledge produced by this resistance and insurgency may suggest alternatives that could be transformed into solutions.

CONTINUE READING FULL ARTICLE HERE

SaveSave
SaveSave
SaveSave
SaveSave
SaveSave
SaveSave

Abstract, The Boricua Summer: Keys from a Human Rights Perspective

:::::: Abstract ::::::

The Boricua Summer: Keys from a Human Rights Perspective 

by José Javier Colón Morera
The Boricua summer1 of 2019 (as the series of popular demonstrations against the administration of the then-governor of Puerto Rico, Ricardo Rosselló Nevares, has been termed) was a complex social event with significant potential. Some of its features are specific to the social context of one of the world’s last colonies, a body politic that is still fighting for full decolonization and the expansion of its democracy in the face of an austerity agenda that has intensely affected the vulnerable sectors of the population (Colón Morera, 2016; Negrón-Muntaner, 2019; Rivera Ramos, 2019). In another sense, however, reflect a new anti-neoliberal activism that is common to very diverse contexts and significantly transnational (Bandy and Smith, 2004; Cotto Morales, in this issue; Díaz Lotero, 2019). The Boricua summer became part of an extensive process of citizen empowerment linked to the country’s struggle to escape the colonial entrapment of its current territorial Commonwealth’ arrangement (Colón Ríos, 2016; Fonseca, 2019; Negrón-Muntaner, 2019).2 For this reason, it demands further analysis and presents the enormous challenges of capturing a process in full motion.3

CONTINUE READING FULL ARTICLE HERE

SaveSave
SaveSave
SaveSave
SaveSave
SaveSave
SaveSave

Abstract, Commentary by Luis Suárez Salazar, Latin American and Caribbean Dualities or Complexities?

:::::: Abstract ::::::

Commentary

Latin American and Caribbean Dualities or Complexities? 

by Luis Suárez Salazar

Claudio Katz’s focus on “Latin America” omits consideration of the internal and external processes currently under way in the 12 politically independent states and 14 territories of the Caribbean, which do not share the “Latin” culture but are still subject to various forms of colonial domination by the United States, France, Britain, and the Netherlands. Further, the term “dualities” seems inadequate to characterize the complexities that shape the dynamics between revolution, reform, reformism, counterreform, and counterrevolution currently unfolding in Latin America and the Caribbean. Nevertheless, I agree with many of the perspectives of his essay, especially when he indicates, in conclusion, that the categories “post-liberalism” and “commodities consensus,” while containing parts of “the truth,” do not explain the diversity of the political processes that, from the triumph and consolidation of the Bolivarian Revolution to the present, have been occurring in various Latin American and Caribbean countries. I also concur with his assertions that “the action of a government has limited effects on capitalist accumulation” and that “the modification of an economic model and an international position go far beyond presidents and their economic policies,” since governments “emerge from the history and political tradition of each country in correspondence with the needs of their ruling classes and the outcomes of social struggles.”

Abstract: Commentary by Ronaldo Munck, Whither Latin America?

:::::: Abstract ::::::

Commentary

Whither Latin America? 

by Ronaldo Munck

The time is ripe to (re)consider Latin America from a holistic perspective. Not all would agree with the assumption by Katz, in his broad review of current events and tendencies, that Latin America can be treated a whole, but I think it is at least a good starting point. Katz poses two alternative overarching perspectives against which he advances his own positions. One is the post-neoliberal approach, for which the Washington Consensus is well and truly in the past and a more equitable development perspective beckons. The other, which is shared to some extent by Katz but from which he distances himself in the end, is the commodities consensus view, according to which Latin America is being re-primarized under a new global order that condemns the region to extractivism rather than production. Katz recognizes that in the present global crisis Latin America is not going the way of the 1930s. Much has changed, and, for example, as he argues, Brazil has more in common with Spain than with Ecuador. The “Empire” still rules, however, and Katz mentions the various U.S. bases and involvement in the misnamed “war on drugs.” Coercion is still seen as a major means for maintaining the subjection and dependency of Latin America.

Abstract: Commentary by Michael Löwy, Latin America: A Socialist Alternative to Neoliberalism

:::::: Abstract ::::::

Commentary:

Latin America: A Socialist Alternative to Neoliberalism 

by Michael Löwy


Katz’s brilliant article about the current economic and social situation in Latin America is not an economic study in strict academic terms but an original and broadly documented analysis of the economic, social, and political dynamics of the continent.

Abstract: Commentary by Steve Ellner, Latin America at a Crossroads

:::::: Abstract ::::::

Commentary

Latin America at a Crossroads 

by Steve Ellner

Katz’s analysis of economic and political conditions in Latin America is applicable in fundamental ways to capitalism at the world level in the twenty-first century, specifically the years following the 2008 economic crisis. On the one hand, “Wall Street” has established an international division of labor that guarantees its hegemony and the maximization of profits. On the other hand, “Main Street” has not recovered from the crisis; inequality is greater than ever, while workers are more insecure and the marginalized sectors larger than in the past. Subjective conditions—widespread disillusionment, skepticism, and discontent—are favorable for movements for far-reaching change, although in some nations the trend favors radicals on both ends of the political spectrum.

Abstract: Commentary by David Barkin, Progressive Forces for Change in Latin America: A Missing Element in Katz’s Analysis

:::::: Abstract ::::::

Commentary:

Progressive Forces for Change in Latin America: A Missing Element in Katz’s Analysis 

by David Barkin


Claudio Katz offers an important contribution to the debate regarding the present conjuncture for policy formulation and economic organization in Latin America. His essay presents a clear challenge to thinkers on both the left and the right; this is not a new position for Claudio, but by publishing it in Latin America Perspectives he brings the discussion squarely into the arena of progressive thinkers in the “global North.” His essay clearly describes the profound chasm that characterizes much of the present discussion in academic and policy making circles: between a stormy adaptation to capitalist oppression and an unexplored and renewed process of constructing socialism.

Abstract: Commentary by Alejandro Álvarez, Latin America among the Great Competing Powers

:::::: Abstract ::::::

Commentary:

Latin America among the Great Competing Powers 

by Alejandro Álvarez

Katz reconstructs the interaction between two dominant views about Latin America: the geopolitical view, which emphasizes a post-neoliberal reality and overlooks the continuity of the primary-export model, and another view, which highlights the persistent uniformity of primary-goods export (the “commodities consensus”) but omits the importance of the political changes that have made the region unique in the world. He proposes to combine the two views.