Middle Class. The Latin American Dreyfus

Middle class. The Latin American Dreyfus Diego Martin Velázquez Caballero

Responsibility against the middle classes for the failure of government projects is common in Latin America. It is always thought that those responsible for the national unrest are represented by the oligarchies; But sooner or later political groups blame the middle class. Neither the left nor the right create policies for the middle classes because they feel they are far from their fundamental values. In countries where liberal modernization is late and the authoritarian and / or statist path is presented as the only path, this social group is identified as alien and, on many occasions, expelled. Socialists, capitalists and Nazis, they despised the middle class. Populist regimes eventually drive out the middle classes. This has happened in Cuba, Chile, Venezuela, the USSR and Nazi Germany. Precisely the criticisms that the president accused as unfair, racist and classist towards his political model, it seems that he now implements them against the middle classes. From some vantage points, the situation is serious because targeting this social group constitutes significant discrimination and cancels Western-style modernization. The middle class represents a culture, values, ethics and liberal sense different from the marginal and upper classes. During the neoliberal era, it was considered that belonging to the middle class implied receiving a kiss from the devil. Indeed, in countries like Mexico, it is the main unprotected group of modernizing national projects. It only counts on itself. Their lack of spirit, nationalism, defeatism and capacity to drag themselves towards the rest of the population are accused. Nothing is understood about the importance of having a large middle class for stability and democratic consolidation. Democratic nations have focused on consolidating and expanding the middle classes. The middle class is not to blame for anything. They are in a chain of dissatisfaction throughout the country because he has been the main missionary of Western modernization and, perhaps, one of its main victims. The middle classes suffer from the multiple modernizations that Mexico proposes to inhibit westernization and conflict. For several years, the middle classes have been the silent collaborators of the different modernizations and they have all been badly off. When you look at the way the middle class has historically been humiliated throughout history, you find the meaning of populism. Authoritarians have sent them to milk cows, cut sugarcane, get off the production line, teach literacy, delouse, vaccinate, demarcate land, emigrate ... and they always go. Latin American projects oscillate between social extremes, but have never been directed towards the middle classes. AMLO's attack on this social sector is a sign of the capitulation of the 4T against the national oligarchies and the United States. The president's anger with the middle classes is because they do understand that Q4 is gibberish that does not integrate or evolve anything. The president does not choose a liberal or socialist modernizing route, he is opting for the path of informality, corruption, cheerleading, cacicazgo and lax that US imperialism imposes on us. The United States speaks through AMLO: "A country like Mexico does not need professionals or people with graduate degrees. North America, Europe and Asia, yes. We do not want a Japan on the other side of the Rio Grande." In Mexico it is necessary to say, honestly and brutally, if integration with the United States can be formally. That was the route of the Asian Tigers. While Latin American social sciences promote pobretology, in other latitudes the importance of training sectors trained and finding economic gaps for international competition is being analyzed. Asian neoliberalism managed to emancipate itself from the United States thanks to the formation of a working, innovative and skilled middle class. The informality that so much money and wealth generates also develops a number of unquantifiable evils. This gangster capitalism is responsible for America's decline and world Balkanization. The isolationism of the Republicans tried to lessen the situation, the Democrats want to take it to the extreme. The middle class constitutes a positivist righteous desire, perhaps it is the arrival point of the modernizing utopia. In spite of everything, it is the one that represents the evolution and development of a country, it is the one that can take charge of complex modernization processes. The presidential declarations have been unfortunate and painful as they only show the search for scapegoats because the 4T fails to establish itself. There are no political projects for the Latin American middle class, Western modernization fails and everything is conducted as the social extremes and imperialism want it. A Mexico like the one today is only convenient for the United States, the national oligarchy and the usual powers that be, that is the president's pain. But the middle classes are also indispensable in shaping national development. The empire must do the foresight to understand the urgency of consolidating in Mexico a middle power that contains the enormous migratory waves, informal, violent and non-Western that are coming.

A mexican standoff in the anglo saxon spirit

A mexican standoff in the anglo saxon spirit Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Rubén Darío means the United States as Alexander Nabucodonosor. Vladimir Putin updates the poetry of the sublime Nicaraguan by equating Yankee imperialism with the senile insanity of the Babylonian. The US hegemony has entered a labyrinth with no way out where whoever pays no longer commands, now they have to pay so that they do not kill them. When the situation in our country and in North America is analyzed, it seems that we are locked in a labyrinth with no solution. The relationship between Mexico and the United States is a mystery that only the universe solves and of which, surely, no one is fully satisfied. This situation had already occurred in the Mexican past of the Second French Intervention and the Cristero War. Nobody wins. The United States is not going to allow Mexico to consolidate itself as a sovereign and independent state, but neither will it leave the territory up for grabs for some important enemy to take over. That is why it generates division and supports all political forces. The struggle for power in Mexico is a tie with the taste of defeat, where none of the cliques has the option to crush the others completely. But the Mexican dilemma is not typical of Mexico alone, this situation of lock ties is a practice of the United States for many societies and groups, especially in the financing of terrorism. A unique case is represented by the dictatorship of Francisco Franco in Spain, forced to coexist with various opposition forces that, at the same time, were protected by the United States. Franco was supported by the Nazis, English and Americans, so that by establishing himself in power he managed to clean up politics and the economy; and they tried to eliminate him when his hegemony was no longer convenient for them. However, the generalissimo stood up to the end and built a balance that kept Francoism as a family under the new pact that, in any case, placed Spain as subordinate to Western geopolitics. The Anglo-Saxons are experts in speculating and creating these lockdown scenarios so that they are the faithful of the balance and the strict option. The colonies of England always served to destabilize regions and expand Anglo-Saxon rule. Today, that heritage for the United States continues to constitute the fault zones that impede the evolution of human, historical, and cultural geography. Anglo-Saxon culture seems willing to extinguish humanity so that they survive. However, dilemmas such as the Mexican one occur or you lock up where there is no possibility of further speculation. North America knows that if Mexico falls, they fall. And this knowledge serves as an instrumental force for all parties. The chaos of Mexico will always have a limit, the one that the United States supports. England is an island that can afford to allow Russia and Germany to dominate the European continent momentarily, in the future it will antagonize them at all costs, as happened in the First and Second World Wars. The United States is not an island, it cannot be configured as Iceland, Australia or New Zealand; who have the sea to separate the different. The United States has a high probability of experiencing a process like that of the Republic of South Africa that implied integration and sharing of power with different racial populations. As long as the United States does not understand the interaction and continentality that it must necessarily live, it will be condemned to the Mexican dilemma. The United States will harm Mexico as support for the Mexican lumpenproletariat to reach its territory. The current federal administration in Mexico has tried to go the route of the Keynesian measures that surely inspired Brexit. Indeed, neoliberalism has deeply affected society, it has suffered the enormous costs of capitalism and, for that reason, it is just trying to get out of a deep spiral of corruption, violence and poverty. England have questioned Amlo, but there is likely more similarity between López Obrador and Boris Johnson. England has also laid out an anti-globalization path for quite some time. Amlo has been consistent with this perspective that questions the free market. England agrees with this strategy, they have preferred not to cooperate more with the financing of the common Europe and this is proof that the criticisms of neoliberalism are correct. England found itself with an excess of contributions towards the commercial unit with Europe and, wisely, decided to abandon it. It is not a society that suits life and the Anglo-Saxon project. England has also chosen to slow down the capitalism of globalization.