Just as Bradford Burns believed that there was more continuity than change between the national period (after independence) and the colonial period in Latin America, Nef believes that there is more continuity than change between the present era and the recent era of repressive military regimes (1964-1985). The same groups that backed military regimes still exercise power but now they have created a democratic facade (through elections) that serves more to mask real democracy and to mask the growing inequality in Latin America's societies.
When Nef uses the terms "conservative triumphalism" he is referring the claims made by Latin American governments, the U.S., and the international institutions where the U.S. exercises great power (the IMF, the World Bank, etc) that "market economies" and democracy are one and the same. Also, these groups claim that prosperity and stability in Latin America can be secured only through agreements by the people at the top (elite pacts) and through a form of "limited democracy" that is based on ending populism (governments that attempt to meet popular needs to stay in power alleged to be responsible for poor economic growth, corruption, and instability). Limited democracy means focusing less on meeting the needs of the poorer groups, concentrating more on promoting investments (domestically and from abroad), and restricting politics only to those groups that agree to play by these rules (this means NO leftist politics). Nef rejects triumphalist conservatism. To understand why, we need to examine his assumptions.
Assumptions: Nef's analysis is based on the idea that the state in Latin America (the government and its suporting classes) has been based on a class alliance between dominant internal groups and foreign capital whose major interests were to maintain an existing social and economic order based on inequality and underdevelopment. When he uses the term "state-metropole division of labor" he is referring to this situation where internal elites in Latin America maintain an economy based on exporting one or two primary commodities (which he calls commodioty states) and import capital and technology thus failing to develop their own economies. Only when the developed world was in crisis (during the depression) could some of the more industrial parts of Latin America (South Am. and Mexico) partially develop an industrial base through import substitution.
Nef sees the "Cold War" in Latin America as the "internationalization of domestic conflicts." By this he means that communism and the Soviet Union were not major factors in Latin America. Instability and conflict reflected class inequalities and when class conflicts threatened established elites, they yelled "communism" so that the U.S. could give them the resources to put down what were, essentially, internal movements that had little or nothing to do with the Soviet Union or communism. Thus the local military and police forces were organized by the United States into a "vertically integrated counterrevolutionary system" that led to the military takeover of most governments in Latin America between 1965 and 1985. He blames the U.S. for the genocidal regimes of the 70's and 80's. As the old elite-based political game was "decomposed" by peasant movements, labor movements, and some guerrilla movements, authoritarian capitalism (based on military rule) became the norm. WHAT NEF IS STATING IS THAT YOU STILL HAVE THE SAME AUTHORITARIAN CAPITALISM BUT NOW WITH ELECTIONS. NOTHING HAS CHANGED FUNDAMENTALLY SINCE THE MILITARY LEFT POWER AND THE SAME GROUPS THAT SUPPORTED THE MILITARY ARE STILL IN CHARGE.
Rejecting nationalist economies, exploiting their environments, and borrowing heavily, these governments failed to meet the needs for jobs, food, land, economic security that the majority in these countries lack. (Even the moderate economist William Glade admits that in ch. 9). Petras et al document the enormous costs of the neoliberal policies imposed by authoritarian governments (chapter 10). But governments in the 1970's and 1980's destroyed the left and opened up their economies to foreign exploitation. Growing debt, unemployment, and growing social inequality threatened to further undermine the legitimacy of the military. So "democratic transition became an alternative to popular revolt." By democratic transition Nef means a limited democracy based on elections (from which the left is excluded as the left was destroyed through exile, torture, and persecution). THE PRESENT LIMITED DEMOCRACIES ARE THUS LINKED TO THE MILITARY PERIOD BECAUSE THEY ARE WAYS OF PREVENTING BASIC CHANGE AND ARE DESIGNED TO KEEP THE SAME GROUPS IN POWER.
The new political formula is labelled by Nef as "the Receiver State." The Receiver State is based on market economics and limited democracy (neoliberalism).The major goal of the state becomes to liquidate debt. The state is penetrated by foreign governments (this is what he means when he uses the terms "transnational state") and is based on alliances with foreiign interests that seek to exclude economic and fiscal policies (spending issues) from the political debate. These issues are "OFF-LIMITS." The Repressive state of the 70's and 80's and the current receiver state are DIFFERENT MANIFESTATIONS OF THE SAME ELITE INTERESTS. How?
There is evidence of resistence to this state of affairs through popular movements, movements of resistence (eg., Chiapas), and through voter absenteeism. Governments do not have the resources to buy off discontent and to shore up their flagging legitimacy. Nef staes flat out that no "reformist project" can last as long as the benefits of "modernization" are not shared.
In short, to Nef, Latin American governments have become plutocracies where governments turn their backs on civil society on behalf of the profit sector. Since popular resistence is likely to grow, the return of weak repressive military governments is a possibility.