I'd like to ask you another question of particular interest to Americans. What do you think is the present influence of Cuba and Fidelismo in Latin America?

I don't think Fidel Castro has any more importance than he had in the beginning. As more clearly he showed that he was serious in his Communist ties, he began to lose importance.

I think there is a fact which is a social fact in Latin America that is far more important than Fidelismo: the growing of discontent, dissent, and nonconformism in each country developing autonomously out of their own aspirations and frustrations.

I think this is basically more important than the influence of Castro. In other words, I think the problem is more serious than as just a by-product of Castro.

Social Unrest

To what do you attribute the growth of social unrest and nonconformism in Latin America?

Basically to a very positive thing. That people are starting to discover that they are entitled to participate in the good things of life, such as consuming goods. It is a revolution of consumers, of newcomers to the consumers' market. And they feel frustrated when they hear that transistor radios do exist and they can not have them. And when they have one they want to buy the things that are advertised through transistor radios.

In other words, the technology of mass communications started this nonconformist movement much more than actually ideologies or clash of class groups. It's rather a popular feeling that they do have an opportunity and they are tired of losing opportunities.

Reform Parties

If you believe that a democratic party has a chance to make major reforms in the social structure, to what do you attribute the high incidence of military takeovers in Latin America?

Up to the last military coup (in Brazil)--about three years ago--the parties that claimed to be reformists were partly, let's say, an oligarchy that was trying to perpetuate its rule by just speaking in terms of fake reformism.

In other words, they used the word "reforms" as an opening key to the public support. But actually they did not make any serious move to make reforms. The oligarchy was in power for about, what, thirty years. They didn't create those reforms they were claiming. They were always postponing the reforms in spite of the fact or because of the fact that they were always using the word "reforms" like a sort of a magic word, a sort of a charisma through myths such as reformism.

So inflation--the discredit in front of the public eyes of those fake reformists--disorder out of demogagery and corruption--made the military intervene to reestablish law and order. But as very often happens, as soon as the military was in power they forgot about their previous commitments and there developed a sort of a lust for power in a minority of the armed forces. But a group that is dominant. And they got together with a few American business groups and they are dominating the country now.

The Military

What do you think the effect the coalition between what you call the "American business" groups and military leaders will be?