I think in general, the term "collectivization" is a lot more useful (and accurate) than "nationalization." The point is to expel the rent seeking monopolies and place infrastructure under democratic control. Nationalization emphasizes putting infrastructure in the hands of the state, and under a dictatorship of capital it is difficult to pitch this as a beneficial thing. NOBODY likes Comcast, but you will have a hard time convincing them that the Great Satan itself would provide a better, more trustworthy Internet service. On the other hand, collectivization emphasizes putting infrastructure in the hands of the people. It implies a transformational process of democratic control while nationalization only implies a shallow change in ownership.

While it doesn't happen frequently in the present era, nationalization is not a distinctly Communist process. Industries have been nationalized under Capitalist governance. We nationalized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2008, but it had nothing to do with placing the financial system under democratic control. More recently, the US government acquired a 10% stake in Intel, but this is done for the purpose of boosting a US-aligned monopoly and supplier of vital components for the military industrial complex, not to impose democratic mandates or regulations on the development of computer chips.

Why would latin american countries ever join up with their gringo oppressors (or former oppressors)?

URSAL o muerte!