The second left-wing wave in Latin America has reached four major countries, Mexico, Colombia, Peru and Chile, which are the center of the backyard of the United States. Moreover, since the first left wave and the liberating Latin American movements of the twentieth century did not, it has built a more integral discourse of social justice.

Previous left-wing experiences were aimed at promoting welfare policies to lift the masses out of poverty. From a simple logic, being represented among the poorest women, minorities and racist people, it was interpreted that reducing poverty, providing education and providing public health was automatically to improve their situation. The truth is that it is not enough to put an end to the situation of dependence experienced by these genders, classes and racists. Machismo, classism and racism do not disappear only by improving the economic situation of those affected, to end addictions and achieve social justice feminist, decolonial, environmentalist and anti-classism policies are necessary, but in a stronger way than the previous ones.

The new wave refers to the multiple dimensions of the struggle for social justice, the problems, but they are the problems it has to carry out the project, because of its internal weaknesses, sometimes by the cosmetic use of discourse and by the force of the radical right. The right gives soft or hard coups and even if it does not execute them, after receiving Congress as in Brazil, it imposes symbolic and material limits on the left just coming to power. The last coup in Peru was against Pedro Castillo. This is not the first time that Parliament has dismissed the president in Peru with a transconstitutional interpretation. However, the case of Castillo is extraordinary, because since he became president he has tried without success.

The peasant and indigenous origin of Castillo altered the white elite of the capital, not its policies. Just as Gabriel Boric's policies do not alter it, but the most important element for the failure of the constituent process in Chile has been the recognition and autonomy given to the peoples of origin. Meanwhile, beyond the symbolic, Borice has not been able to substantially improve the living conditions of its poorest citizens. This also explains why the discharge is 23% and the dismissal is 61% (Centre for Public Studies).

Boric is far from expectations, from the neoliberal anchors of Chile and from the cultural hegemony of the United States, also to the left. There is nothing more to do with how Borice has shown no gesture of solidarity with former President Castillo of Peru, the white perfectly aligned with the positions of the whites. For his part, Gustavo Petro has shown his solidarity with Castillo, as has the other Latin American authorities on the left. Petro has the support of 48% of Colombians versus 44% against (Invamer). Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is protected by 69% and only 23% reject it (Morning Zabaleta). Both are meeting and improving expectations, and Bolivia is among the exceptions. The rest of the left are limited by EE.UU. or in cosmetic discord. Therefore, Lula’s role may be important, although the forces on the right are majority in the Brazilian parliament. If Lula manages to develop a sovereign geopolitical agenda, he can open new structures of political opportunity for Latin American countries on the road to sovereignty and social justice. So be it.