Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Latin American Revolutions and Marxist Thought. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 6 page paper discusses the typical Marxist model of revolution, and argues that Latin American revolutions do not usually fit into this structure though they are related. Bibliography lists 4 sources.
Page Count:
6 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_HVMrxRev.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
revolutions are based on perceived economic injustices. This paper discusses whether or not Latin American revolutions embody typical Marxist thinking as part of their structure. Discussion Perhaps the pre-eminent Latin
American revolution that was, in fact, strongly influenced by Marxist thought was the Cuban revolution, led by Fidel Castro. The revolution took everyone by surprise; no one was more shocked
than the U.S., which backed Castro only to have him turn around and declare that he was Communist. This gave the revolution its official "Marxist-Leninist" label in 1961 (Townshend, 1996).
The Cuban revolution, Townshend argues, was in fact a Marxist revolution, but its effects led to two different ways of thinking among Socialists, who hoped it would signal the spread
of Socialism throughout Latin America (Townshend, 1996). One school of thought was that Socialism was necessary in Latin America, because capitalism had left the region "systematically under-developed" so that it
could be easily exploited (Townshend, 1996, p. 142). But that had led to an unforeseen development: "Workers in the metropolitan countries, living off the surpluses produced by the peoples of
the periphery, no longer had the desire to overthrow capitalism" (Townshend, 1996, p. 142). These people could only improve their lot if the broke from capitalism (Townshend, 1996). The other
way of thinking was that it would be possible for Socialism to succeed in Latin American "if the guerrilla methods that brought about the successful Cuban revolution were followed" (Townshend,
1996, p. 143). The first view was held by Andre Gundar Frank; the second was espoused by R?gis Debray, and between the two of them, they "challenged the prevailing Communist
strategic orthodoxy," which said that a Marxist revolution had to be a two-step process (Townshend, 1996, p. 143). In the stereotypical Communist thinking, there had to first be a revolution
...