Citation: “The Path to Democratic Socialism Lessons from Latin America”, Patrick Iber, April 1, 2016, Dissent Magazine (00123846), https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/path-democratic-socialism-lessons-latin-america.

Summary: The author Patrick Iber is an assistant professor of history at the University of Texas at El Paso. He wrote this article for the magazine the Dissent. The Dissent magazine is an independent magazine of political and cultural criticism. In this article he uses the relative recent events concerning socialism in Latin America, as a predictor of a socialism transformation in America. He describes what is has taken to achieve that transformation and the similarities. The events compared to here with what is occurring is startling. The ideas of socialism and communism have their differences but still originate from core principals. Of most important being a clear class distinction. This distinction is the development of a radical group of people seeking a dramatic change, a revolution. Mr. Iber interprets the “radical” the socialists, as being more of a populist movement. Easily compared to what we are seeing today as what can be considered “far” left. Those who do not agree with the social policies they put forward are not with the “people”. And this opens the door to what would be clear censorship. This type of censorship has been evident in his comparison to events in Latin America. He makes reference to a “pink tide”. Not full communism but a mixture of ideas from the same. A desire for more public control of the means of production or in the case of United States, capital. Capital, because the United States has moved from being centered upon extraction and refinement of resources as its economic base. The country has become more of a money manager as in most developed countries. To be more specific the country is wealthy. He considers the socialization of allowing local councils to be in control of capital as becoming problematic having a reverse effect on liberties. The schism that is occurring as he describes, is attempting to define who are the “people”. The social polarization cannot be any clearer. He believes the political and governmental revolution of a far left will not be able to reach its desired destination with all of its values intact. It will also not be able to proceed with a form of transformation that will change modify or eliminate many of the “old” beliefs and institutions that have developed within this country since its inception.

Reflection: In reading this article I could not help but feel that this opinion is accurate. The structure of socialism is not a cure all that can fit for every type of location. The selling points are strong and very appealing. It is definitely not a one size fits all scenario. As I noted in other readings the societal and economic breakdown here are not the same as other european countries who have been relatively successful with this form of government. I think the author is correct in drawing upon the Latin American experience, for a more accurate comparison. I also find his populist construction as dead on. Indeed, it is displayed over and over again that a disagreement is not tolerated. The opposing view is immediately silenced by name calling and labeling. There is actually talk of eliminating the electoral college. This is surely a populist view and as many that might argue that this would seem fair it disenfranchises more rural areas and silences their voice, and will only lead to a theoretically a one-party system (Perhaps that is the ultimate objective). As the cities whose populations are quite large will have sway in all affairs. It appears those who wish to share more are so eager to take away in one form or another. I cannot help but feel there is enough to go around but is that sustainable. You cannot possibly receive so much for free without having to pay that bill at some point. I can only hope further exploration and analysis will answer those questions.

Quotation: “Significant change to our political economy will require significant change to our structure of government. It is hard to see how to get there without some kind of “populist” moment, fraught with danger to other values we believe to be essential.”