Bolivia on the verge of revolution?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Of course, many red revolutions have been based around the notion that might makes right, and if that occurs, this one will get off to a similar start, but we shall see.

All governments are based on the theory that might makes right. Don't single us out for a universal characteristic of the state.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Other then Castro Chavez is not widely admired in Latin America.

Which is why a gathering of South American governments told the U.S. to back the **** off and stop trying to destabilize Venezuela. Chavez is actually quite the hero, for standing up to el Norte. Of course, the comprador bourgeoisie despises him, but they make up a tiny sliver of the population.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The NYT:

In Bolivia's Elitist Corner, There's Talk of Cutting Loose
By JUAN FORERO

Yada, yada, yada. No. 1 thing to know about Forero is he's considered something of a joke by those studying Latin America.

#2, the wishes of a racist, classist, elite really shouldn't concern us, anymore than the wishes of the Afrikaaners should have.

[Velociryx]

What I can't quite figure is this:

KNOWING that Bolivia is not a well-advanced and matured capitalist society, thus KNOWING that it does not meet the classic Marxist pre-requisite for a successful forray into Communism (bites tongue here to refrain form saying more), is pretty much stating before the revolution even begins that, even if they succeed in taking control, their efforts are ultimately just as doomed to failure as all the ones that came before it.

Thus, instead of finally getting a feather in your collective caps (meant in more than one way, btw) and scoring a point in the win column, by egging this doomed revolution on from your armchairs, are you not simply providing the cheering section for yet another red disaster-in-the-making? And if so, how can this POSSIBLY do anything but harm to your cause? So I guess the question is....knowing all this upfront, why are you not CRINGING at the idea?

Forgive the question, but this seems to run counter to every bit of common sense one can muster on the matter, or is there a part of the picture I'm not seeing?

-=Vel=-

[ravagon]

Bolivia has had, iirc, about 200 revolutions since its independence a hundred and sixty-odd years ago.
It has the world record of 3 revolutions (or different governments anyway) in a single day.
Stating that Bolivia's on the verge of revolution is a bit like stating that it's nearly Friday (or Thursday for you folks on the wrong side of the dateline. )

[Velociryx]

And there you have it!

I think that summary was as close to perfect as we can possibly come!

-=Vel=-

(and good to see you, Master Rav!)

[Lancer]

A trivia question is born.

What country has had more revolutions that the earth on which surface it is revolving?

Bolivia; "about 200 revolutions since its independence a hundred and sixty-odd years ago."

[Agathon]

I'm still waiting to see how the white English speaking business elite minority has suddenly become a majority.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Velociryx

Of course, many red revolutions have been based around the notion that might makes right, and if that occurs, this one will get off to a similar start, but we shall see.

-=Vel=-

During the late ninteenth century and early twentieth century and then during the Cold War, United States had its own "might makes right" policy in Latin American, Carribean, African, and Asian countries.

So does this mean that United States was once a communist nation?

[Lancer]

Yes MrFun, that's right. You remember Jimmy Carter?

[MrFun]

Did I say that all presidents during the Cold War followed the "might makes right" policy?

I'm sorry if you misunderstood it that way.

[Lancer]

Did I say Jimmy Carter was a 'might makes right' president? I'm sorry if you misunderstood it that way.

No, Jimmy was a communist

[MrFun]

GASP!!

[Velociryx]

During the late ninteenth century and early twentieth century and then during the Cold War, United States had its own "might makes right" policy in Latin American, Carribean, African, and Asian countries.

So does this mean that United States was once a communist nation?

Nope, and I didn't say a thing about other revolutions. Was sticking to the topic at hand (the red tide), and didn't mention any others because that's not what is expected in Bolivia.

The point was that on the one hand, the reds love to talk about this society where everyone is "free," but what they don't like to mention (and get right offended if anyone dares to bring it up) is the fact that, in societies where private ownership is firmly established and fully appreciated (read: most every well-advanced nation on the planet (also known as the places where communism is most likely to succeed, per Marx), and several not so advanced nor well-off), those WITH a stake (even if it is a relatively small stake) in property will be unlikely in the extreme to vote to give up their holdings to the state (or to some smaller collectivist grouping), the only other option left open to the reds is to take said property by force (in Bolivia, for example, the people who live ON the land where the gas is, are now being threatened by the folks who live elsewhere).

Even more amusing is the offense the reds take at the thought that the glories of their revolution will not be recognized and appreciated by everyone, and thus, there will be resistance.

I'm still waiting to see how the white English speaking business elite minority has suddenly become a majority.

Who said that? And where?

-=Vel=-

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Agathon
I'm still waiting to see how the white English speaking business elite minority has suddenly become a majority.

You appear to think said business elite constitutes the entire non-Indian population in Santa Cruz. Possibly so, but I've as yet seen no reason whatsoever to believe that to be the case.