Solo disponible en BuenasTareas Vista previa del texto
Compare and contrast the relationship between neoliberalism and military dictatorships in Brazil, Chile, and Argentina with the relationship between neoliberalism and Mexico's authoritarian state?Implementing the very doctrine of neoliberalism in Brazil, military leaders overthrew the democratic populist government in a coup. These dictator words were law! Because all dictators that ruled inBrazil favored treatment of foreign capital and acceptance of U.S. leadership in foreign affairs, neoliberalism thrived and had a favorable marriage. Like Brazil, Chile and Argentina, had a chaoticcollapse of populism, and produced a military coup that overthrew the democratically elected. These were followed with neoliberal reforms by dictators who favored the U.S. for loans, interventions,and policies. Quite unlike the democratic states overthrown by violent military dictatorships in Brazil, Chile, and Argentina, Mexico boasted a stable one-party authoritarian state that hadconsolidated its authority through the exercise of populist polices and the creation of powerful state institutions. However it did use elements of war, electoral fraud, and political corruption similar toBrazil, Chile, and Argentina. It also had the interventions of the U.S. All of the lands had those who stood up against neoliberalism and as a result brought the masses together in a form of democracy –something that neoliberalism promised to do
directly but never achieved.
Popular mobilization against dictatorship, political corruption, and foreign intervention became the foundation forexpansion of democratic rights and representation. Neoliberalism seemed to thrive under military dictatorships in Brazil, Chile,and Argentina. In Mexico however, its emergence depended on anauthoritarian state that employed corruption and electoral fraud. The democratic social movements forced authoritarian leaders, military dictators and civilian elites to cede their formal authority to elected...
directly but never achieved.
Popular mobilization against dictatorship, political corruption, and foreign intervention became the foundation forexpansion of democratic rights and representation. Neoliberalism seemed to thrive under military dictatorships in Brazil, Chile,and Argentina. In Mexico however, its emergence depended on anauthoritarian state that employed corruption and electoral fraud. The democratic social movements forced authoritarian leaders, military dictators and civilian elites to cede their formal authority to elected...
Leer documento completo
Regístrate para leer el documento completo.
