Overview on Latin America, dependency theory and post-colonial development

                           
                                                        Anti-imperialist graffiti in Venezuela. https://popularresistance.org/latin-american-resistance-and-us-imperialism/

Imperialism is widely regarded, particularly by the western world and amongst more nationalist people, as being a means of beginning civilisation, exploration of unknown lands, establishing vital trade relationships, and gaining greater land and resources to use and exploit. It has paved the way for the present and future neo-colonialism and cultural homogenisation (two non-colonial means of further increasing the influence of powerful superpower nations). Yet a stark contrast in attitudes is observed when looking at the perspectives of the global south nations regarding this, with anti-colonial sentiments, nationalism, and rejection of westernised customs and ideals being clearly evident. Looking at the South American Journal's huge estimates for the total investment by imperial UK into the nations within the South American continent (£1,127,904,305 into government bonds, £324,189,858 into economic enterprises, £804,753,447 with £477,705,391 of the last sum into railways, £12,753,348 into shipping, £8,997,630 into banks, and £304,258,078 into miscellaneous investments), despite perhaps signifying intentions on establishing improved international relations and communication between the Western World and South America, it begs questions as to how much of this directly benefits them and how much is purely so as to to support Western vested interests. With reference to the case studies of various Latin American nations, this article will observe the historical influence of imperialism on development and the theories behind this, as well as analyse the extent of the influence of superpower influence on the identity of the population of these nations in the present day.

The anti-imperialist and anti-Americanist sentiments in question for much of Latin America have been considered as being related to the criticism of hard power and imperial power in general, as well as being from the anger as to the disregard of the imperial superpower nations for the cultural, environmental and political interests of the colonised Latin American population. While this has not been completely rejected and the legacy of Western intervention for these nations can be reflected through the adoption of more western ideals, culture, values and lifestyle, it could be argued that the use of soft power by Europe and the US has been the primary reason for this. This is likely due to its improved accessibility and reduced likelihood of rejection of this. Changes in patterns of migration to "el norte" and the conformity to US media and popular culture are two very clear examples of this. Moreover, this also appears to effectively reflect the position of the US as an "industrial juggernaut, military overlord and cultural omnivore", thus presenting its means of gaining international influence as being highly diverse, yet non-imperial forms of exercising power may perhaps have had greater success in their achievement of this.

Furthermore, another important factor to take note of its the clear contrasts in levels of development across the continent, as well as the political and economic consequences that some nations would experience based on competitivity of markets, contesting of borders, and geographical situation. For instance, the Southern Cone nations of Chile and Argentina are put at greater advantage due to their coastal situations and proximity to various overseas trade routes. This would make them more favourable trading partners internationally as a result. The opposite is true for other Latin American nations that are landlocked, have comparatively smaller populations (much of which being concentrated around urban areas so a lack of appeal for employment in the primary sector-which appeals to investors in the developed world- would be observed) such as Bolivia and Paraguay. This can prove to increase tensions and cause conflicts regarding ownership of resources and the competition with other trading partners within the continent. This would, therefore, prove to explain the uneven development of these nations, as well as the reasons why some of them remain comparatively more underdeveloped than others.

However, once the politics behind this was greater understood by the Latin American population, this foreshadowed the rise in the anti-Americanist movement, and its beginnings by targeting US media. This can be observed with the response to corruption and abuse of power by the US media through Latin American journalists, writers and artists creating a variety of images depicting the US as nationalist, racist and exploitative. This, as is to be expected, is considered as untrue and  dissociated from the reality of imperialism in Latin America by the US and Europe. This sentiment has even gone so far to be dismissed by the US as "just an emotion" or a relatively insignificant movement that primarily consisted of misinformed students and revolutionaries. As might be expected, greater coverage on the attacks to specific innocent US citizens or even Latin American establishments that looked similar to those in the US (i.e. the Panamanian owned bar "The Good Neighbour") was evident in US media.

As has proven to be highlighted through Frank's Dependency theory in which many of the Latin American nations are observed as being somewhat underdeveloped and positioned as making up the global periphery, the interactions of these nations with the global north through the development of industry, mercantilism and the establishment of partnerships in international trade after the colonial era, it appears that the only real gains from this imperialism have been for the already globally powerful capitalist superpower nations that have exerted colonial influence across the Latin American continent. This can also be reflected in present day conflict of interests and corruption of spending of development aid provided by the ex-coloniser donor nations in the western world. These have largely been dictated by the vested interests of these nations and as a means of supporting their own capitalist intentions, these perhaps relating more to the establishment of increased international relations that are of direct benefit to them, the provision of military assistance, or through the further expansion of the specific sectors of these nations' economies that provide the products and services which are of the greatest economic interest to these donor nations specifically. This can, therefore, prove to further increase anti-colonial and anti-western sentiments amongst these nations, and, ultimately, prove to exacerbate the current state of underdevelopment which they are in. While this relative underdevelopment, lack of competitivity and increased ease of exploitation of land, resources and workforce for these Latin American nations, would appear to be somewhat economically and politically appealing for the post-colonial western superpower nations, it is a problematic and unnatural position for the nations that had been colonised to have to succumb to. 

From a more westernised and capitalist perspective, underdevelopment, as it has been described by Hansen and Schulz, refers to the "stagnation, poverty, unemployment" that has influenced the economic situation of affected nations, and that this was the state that many global south nations were in prior to the colonisation and imperial rule by the western world which could be effectively rectified through their transition to a capitalist society. This, however is a very narrow minded view on the matter, and one which, when being applied to the the development (or lack thereof) for Latin America, has proven to have had very limited success. An alternative and more socialist perspective on the what constitutes underdevelopment, as pioneered by Frank, would be that underdevelopment is not a static process, but one which is ongoing and that had taken place over centuries evidenced through the experienced unexpected and inconsistent peaks and troughs in the global economy over this long period. Equally, another significant flaw posed by the former more capitalist representation of underdevelopment is that an assumption has been made that developing nations have always had the same status and role in the global economy as developed nations, as opposed to them having their own individual part in this as has been made sure of through the prevalence of capitalism globally. It could be argued Frank's dependency may perhaps appear to be somewhat limited in that purely presents for the core and periphery to be two distinct unchanging components to the global economy. This can be observed through this theory perhaps not focussing in depth on the capitalist values which have influenced the way some of the patterns in global economic. These are reasons why Wallerstein's World Systems theory may appear to be a more accurate model in explaining Latin America's development after the colonial era. However, it is clear to see that this theory has proven to have had a significant role in developing perspectives on the exploitation of colonised land by the western world as a result of a variety of social, economic, environmental and geopolitical factors.

Overall, it appears that there is clear conflict of interest and direction of economic intervention in regard to relations between Latin America and the Western World both in the past and present, as well as clear evidence that the historic imperialism in this continent has, to a large extent, been only truly a success for the already wealthy capitalist developed world. The clear rejection of this western intervention and anger at the lack of regard for the interests, culture and environment of the native population has thus proven to explain the clear anti-imperialist and anti-American sentiments having experienced an increase in prevalence during this era and in the present day. These are not purely about fear and anger at changes in culture and dislike for the US, but as a movement against capitalist greed and exploitation of their population, as well as being indicative of the view that soft power (which was much better accepted in Latin American society, hence development through westernisation) is a preferable method of exercising global superpower influences.

References:

Child, J (1979). Geopolitical Thinking in Latin America. Published in Latin American Research Review. 14(2). pp. 89-111. The Latin American Studies Association. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2502880

Hansen, W and Schulz, B (1981). Imperialism, Dependency and Social Class. Published in Africa Today 3rd Qtr. 28(3). pp. 5-36. Indiana University Press. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4186016

Portes, A (1985). Latin American Class Structures: Their Composition and Change During the Last Decades. Published in Latin American Research Review. 20(3). pp. 7-39. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2503468

Pregger-Roman, C.G (1983). Dependence, Underdevelopment, and Imperialism in Latin America: A Reappraisal. Published in Science & Society , Winter, 1983/1984. 47(4). pp. 406-426. Guilford Press. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40402520

Rippy, J.F (1948). British Investments in Latin America, 1939. Published in Journal of Political Economy, February 1948. 56(1). pp. 63-68. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1825031

Religion and politics: Analysis on the role of theology in developing past and present society

It is widely regarded that a society governed by communitarian, and socially libertarian values is perhaps more inclined to accept progressive ideas and function with the general public as its main interest. This would thus explain the prevalence of an increasingly secular or non-religious population in such societies, as well as also the generally anti-colonial and indigenous inclusive values defining their policies. In this post, further observation as to the role (or lack thereof) of theology in politics will be made. With reference to Proudhon's philosophy, the trends in types and distribution of religious societies, the historic and present day factors influencing this will be analysed.

                                                                            Proudhon

Through the observation of economic structures and human behaviour, Proudhon views authoritarian societies as being very much led by political thought and philosophy. In spite of the principle of absolute economic liberty and sovereignty in decision making by governments having had a major role in the oppression evident under authoritarian regimes, he considers more social and religious philosophy to have been the main factor contributing to the development of these regimes. This is evidenced through his analysis of the clear correlation between authority and liberty of which the power of God and the influence of religion on society are used as a hypotheses. This can be observed with the ever dominant colonial and neo-colonial superpowers of the West having used religion (or lack of religion for that matter) to develop their cultural power, establish constraints between the different ethnic groups on colonised territory. This was so as to exploit them and their land for their own gains and exert greater authority and control with the State being viewed as a "principle of organization that transcends society". Furthermore, this also allowed them to preserve and increase the profile of their own ancestry proving to be instrumental in assisting the development of an established caste system. The intended result of this would have been a more centralised and unitarian State in which power was concentrated and greater authority was evident.

Religion, in spite of its intentions to unify people and further emphasise humanitarian values and regard for the wellbeing of others, has appeared to be a significant direct force of compliance under colonial rule paving the way for authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Political theology, therefore, appeared to be something of a means of promoting this, at the same time as opposing liberalism and rejecting social progress. It is thus considered to perhaps have come about due to issues in political theory (Taubes, 1955), and the first documented use of the term to have come about through a discussion on the place of literature and poetry within the functioning of the State between Plato and Adeimantus, in which Plato critiqued Greek mythology and its portrayal of various Greek gods, and their societal influence. This led to it becoming a mainstream term regarding the connection and influence of God with the people and their way of living. The expansion and interpretation of this philosophy is evident when one looks in depth at Victorianism and attitudes of the general public towards religion in the Victorian era. This being an era in which rapid economic growth, social and cultural change was observed as well as much change having arisen as a result of colonial and imperial influence, the structure of society and the prevalence of religion within it had changed. This was evidenced through greater understanding of other religions and native customs in a predominantly Christian society through the growth of the UK's Muslim population. This had come about as a result of this imperialism having caused for the UK to become a key destination for many Muslim immigrants to migrate to. Furthermore, this also led to the increasing conversion of British people to Islam at this time (for instance, Lord Stanley of Alderley who was the first Muslim to become a member of the House of Lords). This did, however, become the subject of much disapproval by other British people in that the newly converted Muslim population became subject to much rejection and lacked acceptance in society. This was likely the result of thoughts that this might lead to the influence of the British Empire to wane and the views of the ever present conservative and Catholic society wanting to preserve British values and customs.

When observing the role of religion in today's society and in the light of present day conflict globally, religion, along with colonialism and imperialism continues to remain the main reason for the establishment of conflict over territory and the marginalisation of specific ethnic groups. This can be observed with the current Israel Gaza conflict, which was deeply rooted in nationalist principles, fear of persecution, and the desire to exploit land and people so as to allow Jews to have a specific homeland. What is ironic is that, the Zionist Jews as a heavily marginalised group with desire to escape conflict and persecution were directly using persecution and committing genocide, as well as, arguably, as nationalists and colonialists, very much antisemitic in nature associating Jews with genocide and complicity in war crimes. This begs questions as to the true values of religion as well as the way religion is used in present day rhetoric, both political and in more quotidian terms. The main key issues relate to the use of religion as an instrument of mass compliance under the law, in causing division between key ethnic groups, and in advocating for or responding to past colonial and imperial history. This leads us to question: what truly constitutes being religious and in what society will this function, as well as the possibility of rejection of Proudhon's values regarding the use of religion to run society.

Fine, K (2011). In Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics (2011). pp. 8-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511732256.003

Kenny, C.G (2018).  Speaking Truth to Power. An Irish Quarterly Review, 107(428), 1918: Irish Endings and Beginnings – From John Redmond to Sinn Féin (2018/19), pp. 453-460. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26606938

Levine, D.H, (1979). Religion and Politics, Politics and Religion: An Introduction. In Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 21(1), Special Issue: The Church and Politics in Latin America (Feb., 1979), pp. 5-29. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/165688

Montebello, N.M, (2019). How to be freer? Politics, economy, and the genealogy of the idea of God in Proudhon. In The Public and the Private 34(1). DOI: https://core.ac.uk/display/287241254?utm_source=pdf&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=pdf-decoration-v1

Proudhon, P.J (1853). Published in Proudhon Library: Working Translations. Wilbur, S (2012). DOI: https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/working-translations/the-philosophy-of-progress-revised-translation/

Ritter, A, (1967). Proudhon and the Problem of Community. In The Review of Politics , Oct., 1967, 29(4) (Oct., 1967), pp. 457-477. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1405721

Sandal, N.A, (2012). The Clash of Public Theologies? Rethinking the Concept of Religion in Global Politics. 37(1). DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23210903

Taubes, J (1955). Theology and Political Theory. In Social Research , SPRING 1955, 22(1), pp. 57-68. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40969525

Wheeler-Barclay, M (2016). Victorian Studies 59(1). Reviewing Empire of Religion: Imperialism and Comparative Religion by David Chidester: Loyal Enemies: British Converts to Islam, 1850–1950 by Jamie Gilham. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/victorianstudies.59.1.33

Kurt von Meier: publications, politics and profanity

In what world is the injustice globally not frowned upon but saying the word "fuck" is? is a question that the conservative snowflake brigade (who shrink back in fright at any radical proposals or hints at social progress yet remain emotionless in discussing the problems with the world's inequality, corruption and violence) struggle to find an answer to. The underrepresentation of Kurt von Meier when discussing modern art and the last century's political movements proves to highlight exactly this.

                                                                        Von Meier in 1966

Kurt von Meier was a Californian professor lecturing in art history at a variety of universities within the US, Australia and New Zealand. He is also the author of several critical and historical publications on art covering a variety of periods ranging from the medieval era to the 20th century. His work and teaching career is not without its controversy regarding their depiction of progressive and anti-establishment sentiment, notably in some of his unconventional methods of teaching. 

These are described here by John Perry, one of his students:

“he really blew the place apart, with a whole raft of new ideas and teaching methodologies”[1]. As a newbie art historian myself in the early ‘70s I recall tales of von Meier’s ‘methodologies’. One involved getting the students to stand on chairs and shout ‘Fuck!’. A far cry from the more conventional approaches of subsequent lecturers. Sadly?! But he was informed, lively and up-to-date and his influence clearly crucial. The early 1960s sees these young artists making dramatic shifts from the more conventional, largely landscape-related work which dominated local art practice"

These, while developing his reputation as the "rock star professor", inspiring and motivating many students, and advocating for needed educational reform, were not in agreement with social norms and faced backlash from the general public. This was evident with his 1968 piece "Earth Rose", a magazine publication (shown below) simply featuring the words "FUCK HATE" in large capitals with the phrase "whereby on this day, we able minded creators do hereby tell you, The Establishment: FUCK YOU IN THE MOUTH. WE'VE HEARD ENOUGH OF YOUR BULLSHIT" underneath, along with poems by Charles Bukowski, John Buckner and Steve Richmond on the other side of the page. While this sounds like harmless activism and a protest for much needed reforms in the way the state operates (I as a student myself would personally love to have someone as passionate, outspoken and able to relate to our issues as him as my lecturer), Meier was charged with violation of California Code, PEN 311.2. However, he was not convicted.

                                                             Von Meier's "Earth Rose" publication

In this hearing, Meier was quoted to notably say 

"it would be "Hate" that is obscene" "And not "Fuck." I think there is a lot of hate and I am speaking very personally here. I am not for a minute suggesting that this was the intent of the poet, but if something morally offends me, it is to see human suffering that is permitted to continue knowingly, and I think that is working definition of hate...I am saying that here our problem is when women and children are shown dying and somebody opens another can of beer, that gets much closer to the sense of what is obscene in the world."

This would thus bring to light the importance of free speech and political representation within the media, as well as, ultimately, the pettiness and the major flaws in the US legal system at the time, and even somewhat in the present. For this, I will in the style of Meier, end this post with this I have made:

https://www.kurtvonmeier.com/earth-rose-vs-the-people-of-the-state-of-california

https://eyecontactmagazine.com/2023/06/kurt-von-meier-collection

https://www.kurtvonmeier.com/kurts-testimony-at-the-earth-rose-obscenity-trial-in-1968

https://www.csus.edu/indiv/v/vonmeierk/0-about.html

The physiognomy of an idealist society: An analysis of Hegelian and Marxist views on dialectical materialism

Hegel (left) and Marx (Right)

Dialectical materialism is a philosophical and naturalistic view on the distribution of material wealth amongst the people and the physiognomy of the idealised society in which the cultural and economic capital for society is distributed with egalitarian and equitable principles directly in mind so as to allow for economic productivity, capitalist gains and personal wellbeing to all function mutually exclusively and in direct support of each other (something that is rarely observed in many other economic theories. This post sets out to observe this theory in greater depth and compare and contrast the naturalist and idealistic perspective of Hegel on this matter with Marx's more dogmatic approach to the conflicting and yet effective coexistence of the major components of this theory in facilitating social and economic growth and development within a society which has in both past and present times been ruled by capitalist principles.

Hegel, according to his own reflection of himself appears to be very much an idealist as opposed to a realist in his view of the relative merits of a society in which dialectical materialist principles are adopted considering his position as a prominent figure in the "German idealist" and described himself as an "absolute idealist" (Ameriks, K, 1991). However, according to Ameriks' interpretation based on other recent interpretations on the subject on which he based his research, the opposite appears to be the case in that Hegel's brand of idealism appears to be perhaps more generalised and somewhat assisted by the observation and taking into account of more realist ideas. This is reflected in his three claims on the subject shown below:

 (1) An "idealist" is one who holds that "the finite" is ideal. 

 (2) To hold this is to hold that the finite "has no veritable being." 

 (3) All significant philosophy holds and has held this, even if it has not developed the claim adequately and hence there is no genuine conflict of "idealistic" and "realistic" philosophy.

His view that the idealistic philosophy is not in any genuine conflict with realistic philosophy and has been set about to support economic gains for the future and beyond what is considered as "the finite" clearly explains this more objective and generalised way of thinking, especially considering that he disproves the alternative and less realist form of idealism that is Kantianism (the theory in which all members of society are considered to be of equal worth and so worthy of the same treatment and level of respect in spite of their differing social standing and economic positions, as well as presenting materialism to not be such a natural way of society functioning as Hegel presents it to be). Equally, Hegel views materialism as being very much a natural state of consciousness as opposed to something which the population have been conditioned to support through their lived experiences and the influence of governance by a plutocratic society led by the bourgeois to which monetarist and capitalist ideas are central. The principle of distributive justice is hugely important in assisting this equitable and idealist society stabilised by appropriate use and access of material wealth. This is the criterion by which wealth, resources and opportunities are fairly and equitably spread out amongst the population with no central group of greater power being present to influence and control this resource distribution to support their own needs. Entitlement to resources is perhaps somewhat determined by meritocracy and hard work, as well as the individuals' needs reflected by personal situations and experiences to be effectively understood and assessed on a case by case basis in a just manner. However, as clearly put by Robert Nozick, "the fact that a thief's victims voluntarily could have presented him with gifts, does not entitle the thief to his ill-gotten gains. Justice in holdings is historical; it depends upon what actually has happened". This means that the fact that a situation of wealth distribution cannot be considered as just purely because it had been acted on using systems intent on preserving justice on this respect, as well as that many situations are very much dealt with in a corrupt manner not using this system, and this can prove to be potentially difficult to police (Nozick, R, 1973).

Kant (above) and Bacon (below)

Marx and Engels, however, have a very different take on the dialectical materialist theory and how materialism came to be ingrained within culture and society. The Marxist perspective does not consider materialism to be down to human nature and the model in which humans always considered to develop society from, with this perspective perhaps appearing to be closer to the Kantian view of idealism and how materialism came about to be as a result of this. It is widely considered that capitalist needs and the ideas of the elite overrule all others and have been the reasons for the preservation of a materialist society, perhaps that has come to light within the rest of the world through Westernisation and globalisation. Engels' ideas on the subject very much support and have a lot in common with Bacon's economic principles. These are that naturalism appears to be the main and only means for true philosophy to be developed (this clearly linking back to Hegel's points) and that ideas developed by observing human behaviour and conditioning heavily detract from this. Capitalism would not be natural or a philosophy but a product of the experiences that one has gained in this case. Materialism would be a product of capitalism and is less about one's development as a person and sense of achievement, but mainly just shows the physical and material rewards of their labour. This leads to the increased prevalence of misanthropic ideas and lack of personal fulfilment in society.

This is reflected through Jacob Bohme's analysis of this perspective and the common view in Bacon's materialist theory which Engels references:

"In its further evolution, materialism becomes one-sided. Hobbes is the man who systemises Baconian materialism. Knowledge based upon the senses loses its poetic blossom, it passes into the abstract experience of the mathematician; geometry is proclaimed as the queen of sciences. Materialism takes to misanthropy."

While both outlooks on the rise of the materialist society globally appear to recognise the means in which this functioning effectively and supporting both socialist values and economic gains prove to be very much idealised and theoretical, it is clear that the more philosophical and naturalistic Hegelian view considers materialism to be human nature and naturally considered favourable by individuals in a society thriving economically. This starkly contrasts with the Marxist perspective on this in that, despite linking back to naturalist ideas having some role and acknowledgement of the presence of material driven workers in a society experiencing rapid economic development, considers this to not be the main reason that people are increasingly adopting these values and relate more to its detrimental impact on the functioning of society and its means in reducing the success of the forms of idealism which are more socially driven and receive greater support by Marx and Engels compared to Hegel's form of idealism.

Ameriks, K (1991). Hegel and Idealism; published in The Monist , JULY 1991, Vol. 74, No. 3, Hegel Today (JULY 1991), pp. 386-402 Published by: Oxford University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27903249

Engels, F (1940). On Historical Materialism; published in PRISM: Political & Rights Issues & Social Movements. 546(1) https://stars.library.ucf.edu/prism/546?utm_source=stars.library.ucf.edu%2Fprism%2F546&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

Nozick, R (1973). Distributive Justice; published in Philosophy & Public Affairs , Autumn, 1973, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Autumn, 1973), pp. 45-126. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2264891

Stalin, J (1938). Dialectical and Historical Materialism. 1(1) C21 - Dialectical and Historical Materialism & Questions of Leninism - 1st Printing.indd