FARC solution: Plausable or just too E X C I T I N G?!?!

[DuncanK]

I'm an American so I can speak about my country. And this is just more Imperialism.

[JCG]

From the U.S. point of view, probably.

Just as the U.S. acts internationally thinking they know better than all the world combined, so does opposition to the U.S. give too much importance to that country's role in affecting outside situations they know little about....

From the Colombian point of view, you are vastly oversimplifying things.

[DuncanK]

I don't think I'm oversimplifing things. It seems obvious that the government there is not fit to govern or they would not be fighting a civil war for 38 years.

[JCG]

Clearly it is not fit to correctly govern, that much is as you say rather painfully obvious.

But if you want to speak solely on those terms....

Well, then maybe the FARC are not fit to succeed at overthrowing any governments, or they wouldn't have been fighting for over 38 years without accomplishing that task.

That logic can work both ways.

I see no indication that the status quo will change anytime soon, for all the reasons I've mentioned in my replies to the thread.

------

You think differently, and having dissenting opinions is perfectly valid. But IMHO you don't or can't take into full consideration a few crucial internal factors that make the situation much more complex than it seems from the outside to you.

So DuncanK, if it must be so, let's leave it at that and accept that we have very different views on the situation.

Otherwise, I'm getting the feeling this discussion will continue endlessly until one of us gets tired and leaves in a fit of rage or the thread is locked.

[DuncanK]

I'm not ignoring the complexities that you are bringing to the conversation, and yes it is a complex situation. But we both agree on certain things. Like the current government must go and will never be able to govern adequately.

I'm disturbed more than you think that FARC has resorted to terrorism to meet ends. I don't agree with them doing that. However, we can't just say that a new communist government in Columbia would be just as bad. We don't know that. The key here is that the war has gone on for 38 years, and after 38 years wars get particularly bad and both sides have a greater tendancy to do things that they would not have done previously. When the war is over it is likely that much of the terrorism will stop.

[LDiCesare]

When the war is over it is likely that much of the terrorism will stop.

But will it ever end?
I don't know Columbia much, but I used to know a girl from that country so I have tried to get informed. That country history is almost perpetual civil war from the start. They never stopped being at war internally (versus Spain, then the country split in 3, then four, there were liberal/conservatives wars, and endless guerillas).
The situation seems so messed up that it is really hard to think of any kind of solution. The last person I heard of who said she wanted to try to stop that corrupted system ended up kidnapped by the FARC...

[DuncanK]

LDiCesare,

France and the US have a history of domestic terrorism and things have improved in both countries. There is hope for Columbia, but the US has to stay out of things there. The US is too biased to help.

[JCG]

LDiCesare is very right in that violence and disorder dates back a long time ago...federalism didn't work, and since then centralism hasn't worked either.

Unity has never truly had time to consolidate except for very short periods.

DuncanK,

France and the U.S. are very different situations.
Perhaps the U.S. should stay out (in my case, I doubt they make any profound difference), but it won't do so anytime soon.

Btw, do not forget that Cuba and the USSR also gave their fair share of help to the guerrillas during the Cold War, and I don't think they were any less biased in doing so....And now you see IRA/ETA people giving them a hand (and maybe vice versa?).

---------

While I can't say for certain what the FARC would do once they ever reach power, I have read their propaganda, and there are some very probable consequences. In essence FARC "terrorism" will be mostly replaced by FARC regime "repression".

Thus here's some quick speculation (if even half of this becomes true, then almost nothing has changed):

-Creation of a regime whose upper echelons will never change, there being no free elections, meaning that "Mono Jojoy", "Tirofijo", "Raul Reyes" et al would stay in power until they die of old age. And then their friends or family will take over. (there will probably be local "soviets"/councils at the base, but their powers will not affect the highest leadership, in practice)

Cults of personality and educational indoctrination will be obligatory. The "heroes of the revolution" will use the regime to enrich themselves, at the expense of the country, in a larger scale than any capitalist has ever done. All the old corruption and dynastic succession will still be present, if not worse.

-No freedom of speech against the regime would be allowed. At least now people can express opposition through Congress, labor unions, the printed media, etc. even if they are threatened, but forget about seeing even a facade of that in a FARC Colombia. (This IMHO is one of the greatest contradictions of modern Communism wherever it gains power)

-Any opposition forces and "burgueoise" (sp?) (ironic how FARC's foreign supporters are often members of this "class" too) would be purged and expropiated.
The middle class would be heavily attacked and the high classes would be exterminated, literally or otherwise.

-The urban poor won't be extremely better off, since most of the private property will go to the regime, but out of what is left they'd have more glorified community homes. Crime and gangs would still exist in those areas unless they are subverted/eliminated.

-The rural poor will be "granted" (ie:lent) some land by the state through a massive Agrarian Reform.
(Of course, big landowners already "lend" some land right now, though under unfair conditions). Except that much more people will make use of it under the FARC, admittedly.

That's probably the BEST thing a FARC regime will ever do, after all their origins are those of a peasant guerrilla.

-Massive numbers of people that do not agree with the regime will be forced to emigrate, the poorer ones going to the neighbor countries and the richer ones farther, and they will be seen as pariahs or parasites (just like now).

-The paramilitaries will still exist and they will benefit from the repression coming from the regime.

It's not like all the existing soldiers and policemen will fade into darkness or accept their new "bosses" (who will in any case punish them for their past opposition).
They will replace the FARC's terrorism, so violence from their quarter can only increase (as if the AUC weren't horrible enough right now!), undermining the regime's ability to function.

-The U.S. at the very least will embargo the country, cancelling all IMF loans and aid. In short much of the economy will be sent down the drain, like Cuba.
And they would react in even harsher ways if the regime ever legalized drug production and unilaterally stopped the drug war....Not an improvement.

---------

So you see Colombia would roughly have quite a few of the same "problems" as it has right now, and a few new ones.

Some social reforms might help the rural and urban poor to a degree, but violence, corruption, political repression and a broken economy would still haunt any theoretical FARC "administration" for a long time.

Peace talks and reforms through common agreement would still be badly needed in this scenario, just like they are right now.

[DuncanK]

JCB,

First, the peasants will be much better off than you are anticipating. The current government and economy do not work in their interest. I know enough about Latin America to tell you that. Too much land is devoted to coffee plantation. The poor get very little benefit from that. Things are so bad for the peasants right now that I don't see how you can say that things would not improve much.

Second, you are not going to see much dissent in Columbia after the revolution. You even said it yourself, that dissent will be crushed by the new regime. Reeducation is a necessary part of revolution. All revolutions are followed by reeducation. In the end Columbia will look a lot like Cuba. And I laugh when you say that Columbia will be like Cuba after the revolution. Cubans are sooooo much better off than Columbians are right now.

[JCG]

I didn't mean Colombia will be like Cuba in that sense, only in regards to the U.S. embargo that will trash much of the economy.

And Cuba's better off in education and health, yeah, but the government can do that mainly because there's peace there, and 'cause Communism works better in small scale. I'm not that much of an idiot.

I didn't exactly mean that the peasants won't improve....
I know that a serious Agrarian reform is needed and I know that it has been an historic FARC objective, so of course they'll be much better off in that area (just pointing out that it's not like they will "own" the land they will work).

But what do you think about all the other consequences?

[JCG]

Open dissent will be crushed, but the paramilitaries will remain as an opposition force, and many people will still have different opinions, just they will keep them private, just like now, and just like under leftwing/rightwing dictatorships.

Is that any more democratic? Is there any more freedom of speech in there?

[DuncanK]

I think there will only be dissent when the economy fails. If the economy does at least as well as Cuba's does there won't be much dissent.

You do bring up a good point about the drug trade though. There will be a lot of temptation there. I would be willing to bet though that if a communist government were profiting from cocaine that the US would start to do something serious about fighting the war on drugs on the demand side. The government could not get away with engaging in the drug trade itself, and I don't think that a communist government could get away with just claiming that they can't stop their people from growing cocaine the way the current government does, because communism is different from capitalism in that way.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by JCG
Open dissent will be crushed, but the paramilitaries will remain as an opposition force, and many people will still have different opinions, just they will keep them private, just like now, and just like under leftwing/rightwing dictatorships.

Is that any more democratic? Is there any more freedom of speech in there?

It depends on what you consider democracy. You can't have a prefect democracy so you have to choose what aspects of your government will not be democratic. I think land reform is a more important issue for the people of Columbia than freedom of speech so any government that followed through with true land reform would be about as democratic as you could get.

[JCG]

That's a good point, too. True Democracy is probably just as elusive as true Socialism (now let's not get off track here, please).

Now a simple comparison that just came to mind...

Current situation:
No true land reform, Individual Repression, Violence, Imperfect Democracy, Foreign rejection, Corruption.

FARC regime:
Land reform, Systematic Repression, Violence, No Democracy, Foreign rejection, Corruption.

Optimal (impossible) situation:
Land reform, no Repression, no Violence, Much More Democracy, Foreign acceptance, No Corruption.

What I think would be the better (though unfortunately extremely far off into the future) alternatives:

Improved current situation:
Some land reform, Less Repression, no Violence, More Democracy, some Foreign acceptance, Less Corruption.

Improved FARC regime (a regime that eventually negotiates with repressed opposition or changes policies in order to survive economic crisis):
Land reform, Less Repression, no Violence, A bit of Democracy, some Foreign acceptance, Less Corruption.

Obviously the first possible alternative is very far off, but I think that it could happen IF (in 5,10,40, etc. years) the FARC and the Government seriously negotiate an end to the conflict acceptable to both sides.

The second possible alternative is what I think would eventually happen if the FARC were ever to install a regime, but after countless years of internal disorder and/or strong international opposition from the U.S. and others decides to reform itself and/or negotiate with opposition.

IMHO, stability is the key factor. Stability with some Land reform is better than Unstability with total Land reform.

I would guess your beliefs indicate that the FARC regime will eventually defeat/absorb all opposition and later reform itself as it moves towards true Socialism as part of a global process of revolution, or something akin to that?

In the end though, all this guesswork must take into account that death, violence, poverty and disorder will be constant for many years yet, whatever alternative fate decides upon, or even none at all.

Colombia will still be screwed for many years to come, no matter what the U.S. does/doesn't do.

[DuncanK]

JCB,

The situation can't just be solved my one side winning. I think in the long run though a communist state will provide the best atmosphere for significant change to take place. A communist government will provide the state with the control they need to make things better.

Several of the predictions that you made of a future FARC regime did not seem that significant to me. Those predictions were Systematic Repression, No Democracy, Foreign rejection.

I don't think the kind of repression that you are talking about is that bad. That is, I wouldn't really consider it to be repression to not be able to own a coffee plantation. Freedom of speech is another matter, but you have to realize that nations like the US are going to try to do everything they can to bring the new regime down, and they are going to want to spread propaganda. Complete freedom of speech would not be possible.

About democracy, we don't have democracy here in the US either. What do you think would happen if the majority of the citizens in the US wanted to take all the property away from the citizens and make it community property? The government would not follow the wishes of the majority, I can assure you. Likewise, just because a majorty of citizens in a communist country want to start a policy that goes against the fundamentals of communism that policy should not be implemented because it would cause problems with the system. You can't just go back and forth between communism and capitalism. It doesn't work like that. That's why we have a two party system in the US, and it's not possible for other parties to win. In a communist system you just have one party, but there is little real difference.

The last prediction is foreign rejection. The biggest problem in many of the Latin American countries is that they depend on the economies of the developed world. The people with money get to decide what will be produced and consumed in their country. Of course they are going to make choices that will make them the most money. And what they choose is seldom that which will do the most good for the most people. Columbia doesn't need the US and is better off seperating from it as much as possible. I wouldn't say that the US is the cause of all the problems in Latin America, but the US has a policy of doing whatever it can to create an environment of trade that will be advantageous for its corporations, and this policy is never that which is best for Latin America.