 Rangel seems to suggest that a welfare state is not conducive to

development. Is that justifiable?

 Where does Rangel draw the line between positive and negative
nationalism? These terms remain vaguely defined in his book.

 No other state has tried to stand out from U.S.-friendly politics like
Argentina and make its own fortune. Would the good practices and
capitalist views from North America that Sarmiento applied be enough for
this huge development, or whether Argentina was mostly so successful
due to its advantageous geographical location and capabilities?

 Did the ideas brought  by "developed" European settlers (italians, nazis

etc) and the resulting transformation of society play a role in its further
development?

 The desire for complete independence from the colonizing countries was
deeply rooted in Latin American countries, and perhaps that is why
Lenin's ideas reached the people there. However, didn’t the nationalist
sides see that with the help of the Soviet superpower, only the actors
would be replaced in the play?

 What lines, or attitude, are we to take Mignolo´s idea of Latin America vs.
Rangel’s idea of a Spanish America (Brazil, excluded)?

 Should we consider the capitalism as an enemy, or should we embrace it?