The problem in Latin America is, obviously, democracy is better but what if socialism is pitted against what is essentially, a corrupt system, a sort of oligarchy where those on top do not care about those on the bottom? Where there is even little hope of bettering yourself in a lot of cases.
It's interesting, that in one sense, we have the Middle East where a lot of hell has broke loose, I won't say the whole area and then, as a debate that was posted here showed, at the same time, you have great violence in Latin America.
Is this so much better?
1999:
Clinton Offers His Apologies To Guatemala
John M. Broder
President Clinton apologized today for United States support of right-wing governments in Guatemala that killed tens of thousands of rebels and Mayan Indians in a 36-year civil war.
''For the United States,'' Mr. Clinton said, ''it is important that I state clearly that support for military forces and intelligence units which engaged in violence and widespread repression was wrong, and the United States must not repeat that mistake.''
Read more at: https://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/11/world/clinton-offers-his-apologies-to-guatemala.html?mtrref=www.bing.com&gwh=3A966547096803B0FA9F68DE0D936EFD&gwt=pay
And the next occurred well before the 1980s, in the '40s in fact, but I found this pretty negative, sort of like Tuskegee? And again, this stuff is back with government documents.
US apologizes for infecting Guatemalans with STDs in the 1940s
By the CNN Wire Staff
October 1, 2010
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Obama offers "profound apologies"
Guatemala accepts the apology, the presidential spokesman said
The United States is launching an investigation
The research was "reprehensible," the U.S. statement said
Washington (CNN) -- The United States apologized Friday for a 1946-1948 research study in which people in Guatemala were intentionally infected with sexually transmitted diseases.
A statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called the action "reprehensible."
"We deeply regret that it happened, and we apologize to all the individuals who were affected by such abhorrent research practices," the joint statement said. "The conduct exhibited during the study does not represent the values of the United States, or our commitment to human dignity and great respect for the people of Guatemala."
Read more at: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/10/01/us.guatemala.apology/index.html
So, way in Southern Mexico, Chiapas, you have a somewhat autonomous region, they are slanted towards, well, really, I believe it would be the way of Emilio Zapata, you know, Marlon Brando played him in a movie, so it's hard to say they are the Communist Left......
But in the end, who is better off? Those living in the maelstrom of Mexico currently and some other Latin American countries where corruption is rife and organized crime is a part of life? Or somewhere like that area of Chiapas which seems to be a somewhat peaceful area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_LiberationZapatista Army of National Liberation
Area of operations Chiapas, Mexico
Size About 3,000 active participants and militia; tens of thousands of civilian supporters (bases de apoyo)
The Zapatista Army of National Liberation (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional, EZLN), often referred to as the Zapatistas [sapaˈtistas], is a far-left libertarian-socialist political and militant group that controls a large amount of territory in Chiapas, the southernmost state of Mexico.
We see both systems fail, we see the problems of Venezuela but on the other hand, we see these other areas suffering, Honduras and so on.
Those Zapatistas don't seem to be communist at that.