No, the US was also progressive from roughly 1930-1945, and not just because of the New Deal. It was also because of genuinely anti-imperialist foreign policy in Latin America.
It certainly is. Even at its most progressive moments, the US never stopped being a racist colonizer run by capitalists for capitalists for a second. But in certain periods, due to a complex set of conditions (especially involving interstate conflict and powerful mass movements), the US was in aggregate a progressive force for the world. Probably totals up to less than 10% of the country’s existence.
If you wanna read more on the Latin America stuff, check out Greg Grandin’s work, like America, América. Under FDR, the Vice President was going to Bolivian indigenous peasant unions and fighting on their behalf against US corporations, the Secretary of State supported and enforced pan-American labor rights and minimum wage, and the Ambassador to Mexico materially defended Mexican land expropriation of American corporate property. Communists across the continent were vocal supporters of the US and thought it was about to make a lasting turn towards anti-imperialism and worker power. Latin American states run by leftists were seeking closer integration so the US could aid them politically suppressing fascists. It was a brief period, but it was legit. I don’t think the US is capable of repeating that, structurally, without a revolution or at least a working class powerful enough to threaten one.
Yeah, they weren’t doing anything to unseat right wing governments. But they were actively strengthening the left wing ones, and at the end of the period, Guatemala was one of the few countries left under a right wing government. At the end of the period, Latin American social democracy broadly was very strong.
No, the US was also progressive from roughly 1930-1945, and not just because of the New Deal. It was also because of genuinely anti-imperialist foreign policy in Latin America.
I can’t claim to know too too much on the subject, but I do know Puerto Rico must be a rather notable exception to this assertion
It certainly is. Even at its most progressive moments, the US never stopped being a racist colonizer run by capitalists for capitalists for a second. But in certain periods, due to a complex set of conditions (especially involving interstate conflict and powerful mass movements), the US was in aggregate a progressive force for the world. Probably totals up to less than 10% of the country’s existence.
If you wanna read more on the Latin America stuff, check out Greg Grandin’s work, like America, América. Under FDR, the Vice President was going to Bolivian indigenous peasant unions and fighting on their behalf against US corporations, the Secretary of State supported and enforced pan-American labor rights and minimum wage, and the Ambassador to Mexico materially defended Mexican land expropriation of American corporate property. Communists across the continent were vocal supporters of the US and thought it was about to make a lasting turn towards anti-imperialism and worker power. Latin American states run by leftists were seeking closer integration so the US could aid them politically suppressing fascists. It was a brief period, but it was legit. I don’t think the US is capable of repeating that, structurally, without a revolution or at least a working class powerful enough to threaten one.
This was unfortunately not the case in Guatemala where they supported anti-communist Jorge Ubico for his support of the United Fruit Company.
Yeah, they weren’t doing anything to unseat right wing governments. But they were actively strengthening the left wing ones, and at the end of the period, Guatemala was one of the few countries left under a right wing government. At the end of the period, Latin American social democracy broadly was very strong.
Added to the ever-expanding reading list. Thank you, comrade!
Great post!