Natalia Rojas Forero

Answer 1 question in each section (2.5 each)

Section 1

1. It is hard to find successful cases of working-class movements in Latin

America, especially because of the governments and the elites violently
repressed these groups

2. It's possible to say that the repression was the most defining element for the
failure of the working class in Latin America?

In most of the cases, the working-class movements in Latin America were

brutally repressed through different massacres and because of that they were
unsuccessful in achieving rights and in political terms, it means that the
repression was the most defining element for the failure of these working
unions. However, there are other elements that must also be considered for this
analysis and also there are some countries like Argentina or Chile that despite
the repression in some parts they were successful cases.

Therefore, repression is a key element that explains the failure of the working-
class movements, but it is also important to consider the discipline of the
working-class movement in order to unify the unions and help each other in
order to achieve things and be successful.

For example, in the case of Argentina, the movements were divided, and it
represented a huge problem, but the role of Peron was particularly important,
because in that period of time he was the secretary or minister labor during the
dictatorship, and he was very close to the workers and also, he did a lot of things
for the rights of the workers. For that reason, he was put in jail and that
generated a huge march, and they forced the president to call for elections and
returned to democracy.

Because of that, Peron became a presidential candidate, and he won that

election in 1946 and he became a president. there were many different
ideologies, groups that divided the unions or the working-class movement in
Argentina, but Peron was able to unify all of them and he became a president
because of the support of the workers. This shows the importance of unifying
the movements.
In the political scenery, they were very successful, because they were able to
elect a president (Peron) and the working class movement was able to unify
thanks to Peron, also they were able to work together and elect a president, in
that sense they were very successful, even though they achieved a lot of things,
the are some massacres of workers such as the tragic week in 1919 and the
shootings of Patagonia in 1922, it means that in achieving rights that success
were not absolute. For that reason, repression was always a defining element
even in successful cases.

On the other hand, the working-class movement in Ecuador in political terms,

they were not able to elect a president, but they created groups that led the
creation of socialist party and the communist party, also they did some strikes in
order to improve workers conditions and they achieved some things. However,
the focus of analyzing the movements of Ecuador are the massacres such as the
Haymarket massacre and the massacre of workers in Guayaquil.

There were bloody massacres and a lot of people died, it means that in this case
the movement was unsuccessful because of the repression and in the political
sense even though they were able to create some parties, these parties never
had an important role in the politics of Ecuador, and also as I said they were
never able to elect a president.

According to the above, the repression was the most defining element for the
failure of the working class in the majority of the cases in Latin America, even the
repression affected in the cases that were successful, but there are also other
elements that define the success of the movements such as the discipline of
these ones, the landmark in achieving rights, if it's too late in comparison to the
landmark of the world (1917) its unsuccessful and its capacity of union.

Section 2
1. Was the influence of the US important in the stabilization of the Latin
American countries during the cold war?

2. Why some countries “needed” dictatorships and others didn’t to avoid the
“communist threat” in Latin America?

During the cold war, a lot of dictatorships in Latin America were financed and
supported by the United States in order to avoid the communist threat.
However, some countries like Colombia did not need a dictatorship because first
the influence of the USA was always very strong with the doctrine of the Respice
pillow and that was the case of Argentina and other countries too, it means that
the countries that did not need a dictatorship were very always alienated with
the USA.

Also, in the case of Colombia the political parties (Conservative and Liberal)
shared and alternated in power and avoided the possibility of other parties to
participate in politics. For example, when Rojas Pinilla, who was a military
dictatorship, but this dictatorship was different from the rest of Latin America,
he tried to soften the conflicts with the peace process, he was getting a lot of
power and the traditional parties created the National front in order to stop him.

It means that the traditional political parties were very strong to stay in power
and also represent the United States interests, it was not necessary to have a
dictatorship because the different organizations, the communist ideas and the
Soviet Union did not have a chance.

In the case of Argentina, communism was never welcomed by the political and
military elites. However, during the cold war period, several guerillas with
communist, Marxist and Leninist ideologies arose and after the presidency of
Peron in 1955, some dictatorships started. If we analyze the history of Argentina,
it was always the economy that made the changes between democracy and
dictatorship, through the history there are a lot of dictatorships with the excuse
of saving the economy, it means that the military regimes made the population
believe that it was necessary to save the economy, but in fact, they were not able
to control the economy crisis and later they decided to return democracy.

It means that Argentina had several dictatorships with the excuse of saving the
economy, but this country was always closer to the USA and the dictatorships
were supported by them, but Argentina was never close to having a communist
government. Therefore, the USSR did not have a chance in that sense, but they
had commercial relationships as in the case of Brazil.

On the other hand, in Nicaragua during the great part of the cold war, the
relations were closer to the United Stated and to the capitalist side, especially
during Somoza’s dictatorships. But the internal war was really strong with the
Sandinista revolution and in the 80's they had to agree with the government to
include these revolutionary groups led by Daniel Ortega, but these happened in
the 80´s.
paramilitaries were clearly financed by the USA government and they also tried
to influence because of the geopolitical interests in Nicaragua, but at the end
this revolutionary group was able to win, get in power and they ruled the
country for some years. In that sense, it was necessary to put a dictatorship that
will be finance by the USA in order to avoid the communist threat.

However, it is worth mentioning that the USA lost a little bit the interest in Latin
America because of the situation with the USSR and the problems with
Afghanistan and maybe that can explain the victory of the revolution and the
difficulties to the contras to control the situation.

Finally, some countries need a dictatorship because the influence of the USSR
was growing up and the communist guerrillas and the other left ideas
represented a threat to the United States that was the case of Nicaragua and
Cuba, when was necessary in order to repress that ideas and protect the United
Stats’s interests in the region. However, in some cases that was not necessary
because the political parties or the elites were very alienated all the time with
the United States and the guerrillas and communist ideas did not have a real
chance, but the USSR despite that in some countries they did not have
opportunity, they maintained commercial relationships with that countries.

Use at least 2 countries different to the ones you presented and Colombia (but
you may also use them).