Introduction

We could point to numerous examples across the continent that reveal the existence of an economic model which, even in the 21st century, could be described as semi-colonial. This is due to the absence of sovereign industrial development and a delayed industrial revolution, which has allowed an extractivist system to endure—one that exports essential raw materials for global industries, all in the name of “outward growth.”

A practical example is Chile, the world’s leading exporter of copper, a material essential for the manufacturing of electrical wires, pipes, roofing, coins, engine components, radiators, cooling systems, among others.

Nevertheless, most of these products are not manufactured in Chile and must later be imported (a paradoxical inconsistency). Similar situations can be observed in countries that export barrels of oil, coal, gold, hydrocarbons, and various food resources not for domestic consumption or manufacturing.

Background and Need for Transformation

These exports are often destined for major powers like the United States, a country that since the 19th century has used the Monroe Doctrine and other strategies to sabotage attempts to develop robust economies in emerging nations, thereby preventing them from gaining the ability to compete internationally.

The continent’s old oligarchies—aging mercantile and landowning bourgeoisies—have always seen the rise of genuine nationalist production models not focused solely on importation, but on futuristic development and the common welfare of the people, as a threat to their monopolistic interests.

These liberal-conservative oligarchies have always equated the homeland with their own patrimony, and there is ample evidence of their treacherous nature in favor of global interests, including their role in conspiring to topple patriotic governments.

In addition to the above, it is important to note that national, and especially international, privatizations (in the Latin American context), along with weak state protectionist policies, have led to energy resources not even being public property of political systems. Instead, they end up in the hands of large international commercial corporations whose efficiency is also debatable.

Returning to the case of Chile, let us recall that when the country nationalized copper under the presidency of Salvador Allende, the United States launched an open boycott, supporting an oligarchic coup by financing media outlets and terrorist organizations to overthrow the elected government—in other words, a case of radical interventionism.

Conclusions

The United States desires that Latin American states adhere to a model of minarchism in which the state is minimal and subsidiary, intervening as little as possible in the economy, using tricks such as the classic “invisible hand” and market prosperity rhetoric. A discourse is promoted in our countries that favors globalization, open borders, and a lack of political-economic sovereignty.

Concession systems are implemented to seize control of energy resources and strategic areas essential for national functioning, often for decades. A programmatic agenda is imposed through international treaties that often clash with popular will—whose directions are increasingly radical against conventional political parties and historic plutocracies.

Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen popular, patriotic, and anti-oligarchic organizations so they can take political control of the states, implement industrial development strategies, and reinforce ties with other countries in the region and with emerging powers competing globally against U.S.-Western hegemony.

Bibliography

• BONNEFOY MIRALLES PASCALE, “Chiquicamata 1970-1973: La Nacionalización del Cobre”, Santiago de Chile. Editorial Debate. (2024)
• FURTADO CELSO, “La economía latinoamericana desde la conquista ibérica hasta la revolución cubana”. México, Siglo XXI Editores (1969).
• SALAZAR GABRIEL, “Mercaderes, empresarios y capitalistas (Chile, Siglo XIX)”, Santiago de Chile. Editorial Sudamericana. (2009)