Bolivia on the verge of revolution?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
For some reason, I'm reminded of the American who asked a Spanish friend of mine if Spain was located next to Bolivia.

No, in Spain they speak Spanish. Bolivia is in LATIN America. They speak Latin there. Quod est demonstradum.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
You don't see a difference 'tween American-style capitalism and Zaire-style kleptocracy?

The fact that there is a difference between Swedish capitalism and U.S. capitalism doesn't mean that Sweden isn't capitalist. Kleptocracy is capitalism, just in it's most ruthless, essential form. It is the capitalism that would result from the distopia that libertyrants want to create.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Wrong. The capitalist doesn't like a kleptocratic government any more then anyone else because a lawless government which steals everything also steals from the capitalist. Capitalists prefer nice stable governments which protect property rights.

A kleptocracy doesn't mean the government is doing the stealing. It means the theives control the government. And since the theives are also the largest capitalists in the country, the capitalists very much like being kleptocrats.

[Velociryx]

A kleptocracy doesn't mean the government is doing the stealing. It means the theives control the government. And since the theives are also the largest capitalists in the country, the capitalists very much like being kleptocrats.

Exactly. In which case, it's still not a "failure of the market" that has led to scant improvements for the rank and file in Bolivia, but rather, the political system itself that is the problem.

Of course, given that the article points to the indians wanting more power in government (and being some 50% of the population), leads one to a rather logical conclusion that, whatever form of government they've got up and running there, it's not terribly democratic to begin with. Not that democratic leanings are absolutely required for a market economy to thrive, but there's only one exception to that rule of thumb that springs to mind, and they're still in the formative stages.

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Thailand . . . oh you mean China.

[Velociryx]

Interesting that all the examples you cite are listed as republics, in one form or fashion (tho admittedly, so is Bolivia), with the distinction being that the ones you listed draw on the roots of english common law, while bolivia does not....

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Interesting that all the examples you cite are listed as republics, in one form or fashion (tho admittedly, so is Bolivia), with the distinction being that the ones you listed draw on the roots of english common law, while bolivia does not....

-=Vel=-

I don't think South Korea, Taiwan, or Thailand do, but I'm willing to be wrong. Also, Thailand ain't a republic, it's a monarchy. Anyway, Taiwan and SK are democratic today, as recently as ten years ago, they weren't or were just barely. The Asian tigers prove that neither democracy nor the free market are necessary to develop a country.

In fact, in the modern era, the free market does more to harm 3rd World countries, since their economy is not developed for their own needs but for the needs of international capitalism. Any country that wants to develop should tell Oerdin, Vel, the IMF, Maggie Thatcher, etc. to shove it, and adopt the Asian method.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The fact that there is a difference between Swedish capitalism and U.S. capitalism doesn't mean that Sweden isn't capitalist.

I love this. According to you, we're capitalist. According to most of the American right, we're socialist. Do you get paid for dissing our economic system or something?

Kleptocracy is capitalism, just in it's most ruthless, essential form. It is the capitalism that would result from the distopia that libertyrants want to create.

So, according to you, Zaire was capitalism. Yeah, right.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The fact that there is a difference between Swedish capitalism and U.S. capitalism doesn't mean that Sweden isn't capitalist.

I love this. According to you, we're capitalist. According to most of the American right, we're socialist. Do you get paid for dissing our economic system or something?

Exactly how often do you put stock in what the American right says?

Kleptocracy is capitalism, just in it's most ruthless, essential form. It is the capitalism that would result from the distopia that libertyrants want to create.

So, according to you, Zaire was capitalism. Yeah, right.

The hallmarks of capitalism are private property and the expropriation of surplus value for profit. Zaire, in as much as it had an economy at all, was capitalist. I'm not saying it worked, since the kleptocrats were so greedy that they even looted the funds for the military, but being smart isn't essential for capitalism to exist, merely for it to succeed. There are plenty of instances of failed capitalist policies as well as kleptocracies that didn't collapse (or at least not yet). Russia is, currently, a functioning kleptocracy. Nicaragua manged to exist as a kleptocracy for many decades until Somoza got too greedy and stole the relief funds for the victims of the '74 Managua earthquake.

[Ted Striker]

While Condi goes around the world bad mouthing other governments, and just making more people mad at us, there is something else quietly going on. The US is losing friendly. governments all over the place in Central and South America. "Friendly" means, they let us bully them around. Considering the amount of stuff we've pulled there, this is only normal. The socialists seem to be coming to power like crazy, and this time, they are doing it through elections, and not through armed resistance. (Though I don't know the specific situation in Bolivia).

Chavez is bent on forming an anti-US coalition, not only in South America, but all over the world.

[Kidlicious]

On what basis do you guys define capitalism as a system where no one steals from each other?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Chavez is bent on forming an anti-US coalition, not only in South America, but all over the world.

I like this guy more and more.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The fact that there is a difference between Swedish capitalism and U.S. capitalism doesn't mean that Sweden isn't capitalist.

I love this. According to you, we're capitalist. According to most of the American right, we're socialist. Do you get paid for dissing our economic system or something?

Exactly how often do you put stock in what the American right says?

About as often as I put stock in what Floridan commies say.

Kleptocracy is capitalism, just in it's most ruthless, essential form. It is the capitalism that would result from the distopia that libertyrants want to create.

So, according to you, Zaire was capitalism. Yeah, right.

The hallmarks of capitalism are private property and the expropriation of surplus value for profit. Zaire, in as much as it had an economy at all, was capitalist.

Expecting me to accept a Marxist definition of capitalism?

This is, anyway, becoming an increasinly stupid war of definitions. The point, I believe, is that the system that Bolivia used to have isn't the one pchang advocates.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
While Condi goes around the world bad mouthing other governments, and just making more people mad at us, there is something else quietly going on. The US is losing friendly. governments all over the place in Central and South America. "Friendly" means, they let us bully them around. Considering the amount of stuff we've pulled there, this is only normal. The socialists seem to be coming to power like crazy, and this time, they are doing it through elections, and not through armed resistance. (Though I don't know the specific situation in Bolivia).

Chavez is bent on forming an anti-US coalition, not only in South America, but all over the world.

Bolivia is different. What's happening there is that the popular forces are becoming increasingly radicalized. The Bolivian socialist party is actually at odds with the protesters, since they have pegged themselves to a version of the status quo (they think they can get more political mileage by compromising). Like most people on the radical left, I don't support this because it usually ends up in superficial changes that are gradually rolled back by the elites.

A few years back some Bolivians managed to boot out Bechtel's water privatization scheme. At the time many on the radical left hailed it as a precursor of bigger things. The makers of the documentary The Corporation used it as the one decent example of anticorporate policies winning. I did not believe this as I thought it was a minor victory and, while good for Bolivians, unlikely to lead to anything. Well, it now looks like I was completely wrong on that account. That victory seems to have been the biggest consciousness raising episode in Bolivian history.

I don't think the elites know quite what to do. They are used to the compromise strategy working, but their attempts to do it this time have created a negative feedback loop as the population has (finally it seems) gotten wise to this strategy. That's why there is a decent prospect for revolutionary change. The elites may pull out of this, but they will have to either engage in horrible suppression (and I think that it's probably gone too far for that already) or make major concessions, hoping to reel them back in later. But they've already tried this twice and it has failed.

If they don't manage this, then Bolivia's political apparatus will collapse. The problem is that while the popular forces will not allow themselves to be co-opted by the existing political system, they don't yet have the organizational coherence to replace it. But, the harder they push the existing power elites, the more likely it is that faith in the existing political system will collapse. There's nothing I'd like to see better than the political classes (white) in Latin American countries lose all power to the native population – that would be undoable. They can't claim that it will make the common people worse off, because in these countries it is hard for most poor people to see how they could be worse off. They get jack **** from the government, so it won't make much difference to their lives if they overthrow it and replace it with some sort of Bolivarian organization.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ted Striker

Chavez is bent on forming an anti-US coalition, not only in South America, but all over the world.

It's not just anti-US. It is anti-imperialist. Most people in the third world don't see why their countries should be run for the benefit of people living Europe and North America. I think their case is unanswerable in that regard.

And it seems that it has much better prospects than people think. This is what Guevara wanted to do, but the politics of the Cold War hampered his efforts. It is fitting that the latest push to realize his dream should take place in the country of his martyrdom.

Up until recently, only Cuba provided any sort of resistance. Now there is Chavez, and Mexico looks like it may start drifting the same way.

edit: note that Chavez has been quite scrupulous about playing by the rules in Venezuela. When push comes to shove he has done so, although reluctantly, when this hasn't suited him. The Bolivians, in contrast, are looking to eat the whole Taco.