The persistent problem in much of central and South America is what I call “Old Europe disease”. At the time of the conquest, Europe was still in the throes of monarchical feudalism of the kind just emerging from the Middle Ages.
This meant there were only two official classes, nobility and peasantry, under a form of Roman Law, that was dictated by the nobility. Wealth was concentrated with the nobility.
And this was translated to central and South America, and still exists there to this day.
Take Mexico for example. It is ruled by, and owned by, just a dozen wealthy families, who do not believe in sharing the wealth. In fact they oppose the idea of other people getting wealth, and go to lengths to prevent it.
Venezuela was much the same way, but even more extreme, a wealthy few ruling over grinding poverty for the many.
But the reaction to this is socialism, radical egalitarianism. If not to raise the poor, it is to strip the wealthy of wealth and power.
Yet this is its weak point. If they do have a revolution, and former peasants are now the leaders, they are still a part of the nobility and peasantry Old Europe system. They enrich themselves as the “new nobility”, yet still try to keep the poor in poverty.
This sounds quite ridiculous to Americans, whose nation was effectively founded a hundred years later, after the English Civil War and considerably greater democracy, and ability for all to gain wealth. And even that was not enough for the founding fathers, true believers in equality of opportunity, and with a great disdain for nobility.
So Americans have no problem with all, if they are making money, for other Americans to also make money.
But central and South America are caught between being ruled by a greedy wealthy class or out of control socialism tearing everything apart.
It’s quite amazing to Americans because even here in the US people below the “poverty line” have tangible wealth compared to those in the third world.