Red = left wing government

The main reason the right is getting strong here is immigration desu

Why are you posting this?

Grey means colonies that are not self-governing, so their government isn't voted-in or aligned to a particular political framework

>the right is getting strong here
Is not

Left boot
right boot
left boot
right boot
left boot
right boot

>Machir
>right wing
Wrong. He's "good manners kirchnerism"

A fucking kike

>Kirchnerismo
>left wing
lmao

Kast literally appeared from nothing and got 7% of the votes last elections. That same election Piñera won the first round with more than 12% over Guillier. In the second round piñera won with roughly 9% more

Good. Its not too late for Chile.. But Canada... We can only serve as a warning to others

>Juden
>right wing

Attached: 1543874914652.jpg (645x729, 56K)

Must must any country that is not a complete shithole be turned inside out by liberal insanity? What the fuck is going on seriously

I think I heard his father and some other family member got bribes? Am I wrong? The whole cuadernos thing

>2018
>Still believing in the right x left dichotomy.
The war of the century is globalism x nationalism.

Can't be any worse than Bolivia

I wouldn't call it a war, but an issue

Not really.
See g1.globo.com/politica/eleicoes/2018/eleicao-em-numeros/noticia/2018/10/03/pesquisa-datafolha-veja-perfil-dos-eleitores-de-cada-candidato-a-presidente-por-sexo-idade-escolaridade-renda-e-regiao.ghtml
As you can see, old people are more inclined to vote in PT than in Bolsonaro

We also use the dollar as the main currency and our government is openly Chavista-Castrista supporter.

I thought El Salvador was right-wing. Aren't they creating a special economic exclusive zone somewhere in the country?

You're thinking of Honduras

Thats Honduras, and they aren't even authoritarian, El Salvador has been left-wing for nearly a decade

>they aren't even authoritarian
pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-this-is-what-happens-when-you-take-ayn-rand-seriously

In 2009, Honduras experienced a coup d’état when the Honduran Army ousted President Manuel Zelaya on orders from the Honduran Supreme Court. What followed was succinctly summarized by Honduran attorney Oscar Cruz:

The coup in 2009 unleashed the voracity of the groups with real power in this country. It gave them free reins to take over everything. They started to reform the Constitution and many laws — the ZEDE comes in this context — and they made the Constitution into a tool for them to get rich.

As part of this process, the Honduran government passed a law in 2013 that created autonomous free-trade zones that are governed by corporations instead of the countries in which they exist. So what was the outcome? Writer Edwin Lyngar described vacationing in Honduras in 2015, an experience that turned him from Ayn Rand supporter to Ayn Rand debunker. In his words:

The greatest examples of libertarianism in action are the hundreds of men, women and children standing alongside the roads all over Honduras. The government won’t fix the roads, so these desperate entrepreneurs fill in potholes with shovels of dirt or debris. They then stand next to the filled-in pothole soliciting tips from grateful motorists. That is the wet dream of libertarian private sector innovation.

He described the living conditions this way:

On the mainland, there are two kinds of neighborhoods, slums that seem to go on forever and middle-class neighborhoods where every house is its own citadel. In San Pedro Sula, most houses are surrounded by high stone walls topped with either concertina wire or electric fence at the top. As I strolled past these castle-like fortifications, all I could think about was how great this city would be during a zombie apocalypse.

Not him but every single politician comes from muddy waters. Macri is not the exception ofc. His family is literally Italian mafia.

we all know the reason

Attached: 1535676720009.jpg (1000x922, 103K)

>all shitholes try different wing
>still going to be a shithole

I lived in Honduras for two years, and no one is being "oppresed" bu the government, there were only some France type protests and everything turned to normal in a few days, they are still a shithole but thats for other issues.

jews are dividing people again

Attached: CiXXcxtW0AA6y5.jpg (1297x730, 152K)

you can thank us for trump after 8 years . all these countries will improve drastically now

Attached: 1543877391831.jpg (613x322, 26K)

Kill yourself

>This is clearly not a CIA shill to turn latam into neoliberalist shitholes where big corporations can literally exploit those countries once again

Not Iberoamerican

The difference is very small though. I don't think it is correct to say age played any role in the second turn of the election.

t. Danish piglet

his father is italian. what can you expect?

Why is Mexico so contrarian?

>once again
when did they stop?

it's not, I don't know why it's red.

Uninformed opinion, we have been socialist-leaning ever since Lazaro Cardenas. Only very recently did neoliberalist figures gain power, and after a decade and change we've gone right back to socialist-leaning.

what's socialism?

Sad desu.

N.Americans need to fuck off from latin america already.

Basedzil
Chadnama

Europe edition

Attached: leftright-956x1024.png&w=1484.jpg (1484x1589, 178K)

is this updated? I had the impression than MOST of Europe, with the exception of Italy, Hungary and Poland was Leftist as hell. Was I memed?

the sad thing is that the left in europe, which is already dying, isn't even really the left anymore. it's just less severe neoliberalism with less xenophobia.
you've witnessed the conservative persecution complex
by god knows what method (immigrants, i suppose), they've turned themselves into the """""underdog"""""

Yes, you were. This picture is a meme as well btw, anyone that isn't left wing is right wing for its author

Socialism in broad terms means the government has many public institutions that manage things for the people rather than having them be operated by private bodies like corporations. In Mexico, the IMSS for example is tax-funded and not corporate-run, universal healthcare is a socialist policy as it's something managed by the state for its society through taxes. State-run schools are also socialist, Mexico's Secretaria de Educacion Publica is a public institution also run by taxes.

all of Europe is leftist, their "right-wing" parties are leftist

“Rightist” in this context just means neoliberal

Workers Party era in Brazil should be soft red, not hard red

and my opinion was Uninformed?
jesus christ.
none of those things is socialism, there's no collective ownership, what you mention is state ownership of some companies under capitalism, that's called a mixed economy.
it's not mixed because it's both capitalist and socialist, it's mixed because there's both private property and state owned property, but it's all capitalism.
people working for a state owned company still work under wage labour and get surplus value extracted from their labour, since the company is not collectively owned, and therefore, literally not socialism.

your concept of socialism is so unbelievably retarded that every single country on earth would fall under the """definition""" of "socialism".
what you describe is a social democratic government, which is still capitalism, literally not socialism.

The whole point of modern right wing parties is backlash against left parties having the ball too long. The pink tide predicted in the 2000s is why things are going blue. You can only take so many Kirtchners mismanaging your country before you vote for their critics.

Again, that's what current Mexico is, I was merely pointing out vestiges left from the past century. Back in the 20th century before the oil crash everything was nationalized from bycicles to juices. Ever seen JUMEX? That used to be a nationalized industry, same with COMEX, for paints, PEMEX, for petrol, etc etc. Education was literally straight out of the commie school of thought with everything being run by the public institution. Unions proliferated, and everything was banked on public spending money. How was that not socialist? Just because it wasn't full blown communism doesn't mean it wasnt socialism.

Bolivia is based

Left wing, right wing, who cares, it's all the same government, at least in the West.

Attached: slaughterhouse.jpg (257x196, 7K)

yes you were memed by Jow Forums, the leftists are roughly half or less
theres also the tik-tok thing were if the right wing wins one time, the next elections the left wing gets more votes due to the right wing fuck ups

How about you just call yourself a communist and let people who advocate for social policies call themselves socialists? Saint-Simon defined "socialism" as opposed to "individualism", not as opposed to "capitalism". So please don't hijack the word. Call yourselves "communists" or "bolsheviks" and all will be fine, people will tell us apart.

This is true, but chicago boys came here in the 80s, with Miguel de la Madrid. Well over a decade. Although to be fair, Mexico is still behind in some countries in economic freedom indexes.

El Salvador's gonna be blue in February very likely. Or whatever the color Nayib Bukele is, if he was to win, Idk if that party of his is left or right leaning at this point.

Attached: frogface.png (625x773, 143K)

He rights though, Le Pen is a marxist, that's why I will never vote for her.

>Just because it wasn't full blown communism doesn't mean it wasnt socialism.
fulll blown communism? what's that now?

I'll explain this to you one more time, even though I don't know why I have to since I already did: socialism isn't "when the state does stuff", it's when there's collective ownership, this means that the worker does not get surplus value extracted from their labour, which happens in a social democracy, since it's literally capitalism, and that's what you're describing.

>How about you just call yourself a communist and let people who advocate for social policies call themselves socialists?
because they're not socialists, since they don't advocate for collective ownership.
>Saint-Simon defined "socialism" as opposed to "individualism", not as opposed to "capitalism". So please don't hijack the word.
individualism as in liberalism, that's literally capitalism.
not to mention that what he thought it opposed does not define it.
Socialism is collective ownership, it's literally the opposite of Capitalism.
if you don't like it you can create your own words, or provide source for a definition of "socialism" that reads "when the government does stuff".
>Call yourselves "communists" or "bolsheviks" and all will be fine, people will tell us apart.
you're the one using the word wrong, not me.

>individualism as in liberalism, that's literally capitalism.
No

Reforms have done more for the workers than any revolution.

>non answer
good job.

Well, you are wrong, there's nothing else to say.

like what?

you addressed literally nothing, you ignored everything except for one sentence, that's actually correct and called it wrong, without explaining anything.
and you've replied twice now with non answers.
stay retarded.

Verbal diarrhoea doesn't equal an argument.

>no argument
>now he deflects
you're legitimately too retarded.
kys.

they are all liberal democracies, please tell me stupid americano how is that not leftist?

Around the rose hold your nose.

Attached: 8kic2pru0x4x.jpg (869x1500, 118K)

Please stop

Attached: brqkrikdj2m11.jpg (640x827, 120K)

Kill all boomers now.

depends on what you mean by leftism.
usually it's capitalism on the right, socialism on the left, if you go by that then the only leftist countries in the world today are Cuba and North Korea.
but in many countries it has a different definition, I don't know what it means in yours, but in mine liberalism is very right wing,

>don't do what I don't like
you people always with the empty statements and non arguments, you're all the same.

I'm not here to have an argument with you, you are too far gone and it would be pointless. While you cry about revolution, ownership of the means of production etc. the results are there for all to see. And I gave you a clear definition from Saint-Simon from which you twisted its meaning out of your ass to fit your agenda, and it's just wrong. No. But sure, whatevs, you believe in Marx. Do yourself a favour and read Bertrand Russel. Here, let me help you:

>gutenberg.org/files/17350/17350-h/17350-h.htm

Be happy, you have nothing new to offer me and a debate is pointless, everyone can see you are unreachable in your dogma.

This was a suggestion since you derail every single thread you partake in. Take it or leave it.

key word is democracy not liberalism

>I'm not here to have an argument with you, you are too far gone and it would be pointless.
then why are you arguing? and you're not "too far gone"?
>While you cry about revolution, ownership of the means of production etc. the results are there for all to see
I agree, what's your point?
>And I gave you a clear definition from Saint-Simon from which you twisted its meaning out of your ass to fit your agenda
you gave no definition whatsoever.
and Saint Simon talked about individualism as in liberalism.
>This was a suggestion since you derail every single thread you partake in. Take it or leave it.
I'm sorry for correcting ignorant fucks like you who use the word Socialism however they want, I'm not gonna stop correcting you mongoloids.
if you didn't want to argue with me then why did you even engage?

>then why are you arguing?
I'm not. You are even complaining about it, remember?

I don't get it, what are you saying?

just kill yourself.

>Literally too retarded to defend his outlandish statements that were rationally explained to be wrong
>Still have the audacity to pretend like anything you wrote was of any value compared to the Argentinian's factual definitions

Childish meme pictures used in mature political discussions by literal manchildren are worthless and cringeworthy. If you have nothing to contribute just stop posting.

Socialism is when guvment does shit

>inb4 they are "muh mixed economies"
kek, lefto*ds coming up with shitty buzzwords as usual

>socialism = collective ownership

maybe in marxists definition which wasn't correct
socialism existed long before marx

Sorry to disappoint. How about you do it first and then I follow? Trust me :)

Democracy is leftist, liberal democracies are leftist. I agree with you liberalism is right, but Europe is not liberalism.

@98787067
this is weak bait, not even getting a (You)

and what did it mean before Marx?

Only sane comment on this thread

You're literally using the most retarded understanding of politics developed by the most retarded of retards of the filthiest intellectual shithole communities of America to try to make a point on a topic you are absolutely ignorant about.

Do you dumb Latinos think you'll be accepted by Americans for pretending to be like them by talking as if you were one of them?

inb4 you're Canadian, don't be a hypocrite
I'm not proud of my country's kissass politicians but I see a pitiful Latin American trying to win goodboy points from arrogant Americans over the internet and I feel disgusted.

>Democracy is leftist
see, it all comes down to definitions, by democracy do you mean representative republics?
that's hardly leftism since it's not really a policy more than it is a way of organization.

Brazil will become a superpower by 2022