Bolivia on the verge of revolution?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
* The less-developed a nation is, the less likely a communist revolution is to succeed (on the thinking that, per Marx, only mature capitalist nations with vast infrastructure capable of providing for everyone's wants and needs meets the criterion)

This is true, but when opportunity presents itself, you don't turn it down. As a budding capitalist, you should know that.

* Capitalism is hugely good at building the aforementioned infrastructure (implication: better than a communist-state-before-it's-ready-for-prime-time....I think this has been demonstrated adequately, historically).

In the metropoles (the imperial cores), yes, but in the periphery (colonial world), this has not necessarily been the case. Only a handful of 3rd world countries have made the transition to 1st world nations.

According to the theory of underdevelopment (developed by 3rd world theorists in the lates 60s and early 70s), it isn't that the colonies or neo-colonies aren't developed, but that they are developed for the markets of the metropoles. Most of the development, then, is not for the purpose of building wealth, but for extracting wealth. Thus, as long as the economy of the periphery remains tied to that of the metropole, it will be unable to provide for its own people or develop an economy.

The question, then, is which way forward. Clearly the IMF/World Bank method of "development" has been an unmitigated disaster for those counties that have tried it. The only successful model in the 20th Century has been that of the Asian tigers, and that requires considerable government interference as well as an authoritarian state, and certain cultural factors which I'd say are lacking in Latin America and Africa.

Now, with abundent hydorcarbons, it might be possible for Bolivia to make a successful socialist economy if it can avoid corruption, authoritarianism, and uses its mineral wealth to build its national infrastructure and educate its people. I don't know if they can do it, but it's far less certain that the Bolivian elite can or even would.

[Velociryx]

I don't think I agree, but would not go so far as to say that what you describe is patently impossible....I would say "exceedingly unlikely" but....I suspect we'll get to find out in the months and years ahead.

Also, I think the theory you mentioned was dreamed up by a dunderhead, but that's just me...

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Let me develop that a little further. Marx developed his theories when capitalism was still not fully established even in Europe. Capitalism could only really be considered an economic force in a handful of countries: England & Scotland, France, low countries, the northern United States, certin German states, etc. Marx could only draw upon the information and experience then existing, and so it seemed natural that capitalism might / would develop along identical pathes in every country, such that Marx could state that fully developed capitalism was a necessary precondition to socialism.

The problem that Marx, and for that matter, almost everyone else, fell into is in identifying an imperialist country with fully developed capitalism. Bolivia is every bit as capitalist as the United States, but it's economy is oriented outwards rather than inwards.

In these cases, waiting for full industrialization is essentially putting off the revolution for ever. Bolivia will never industrialize because the Bolivian elite doesn't have enough capital to make it happen, and international capital sees no profit in industrializing Bolivia.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Also, I think the theory you mentioned was dreamed up by a dunderhead, but that's just me...

It's Lenin's theory, not Marx, in case you didn't know that.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Agathon
And it's so arrogant to claim that the US is responsible for the Bolivian military's actions in this case.

Get it through your head: the US is not needed for this stuff, and its record shows that its interference has been massively counterproductive.

Get it through your head. These guys have around 150 years of experience shooting anti government protesters and/or revolutionaries. They didn't just spontaniously change their mind out of the goodness of their heart. It was work between the SotA and OAS which turned cases like this around due to the last 20 years of pushing democracy, respect for legal process, and subservience of the military to elected officials. Without the outside help most of Latin America would still be experiencing military coupes and juntas.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Also, I think the theory you mentioned was dreamed up by a dunderhead, but that's just me...

-=Vel=-

The theory of underdevelopment certainly has its critiques, and not just from those who are proponents of capitalism. Some of the proofs aren't necessarily proofs. For example, for every dollar invested in Latin America, a dollar and seventy six cents was extracted in profit (this study was presented to me in the late 80s, and that data may be from the 70s, it's been a while).

My commentary at the time was, that dollar seventy-six didn't exist before, so it's not exactly as if Latin America is losing wealth. If the dollar hadn't been invested, the $1.76 wouldn't have been created. After all, the point of investing capital in the first place is to create/extract newly created wealth. Nor did the study tell us how much wealth was created for the Latin Americans that wasn't expatriated.

On the other hand, consider a Brazilian example. Brazil produces aluminum ore. American corporations built a mining operation, a railway, and a port, all for the extraction of aluminum ore to the U.S. So Brazil export ore to the U.S. In the U.S., that ore is smelted, refined, and turned in to aluminum products which are then shipped back to Brazil.

Brazil would do much better to make its own aluminum products and not only sell to its own market, but to the American one as well. Instead, American corporations get the wealth, and Brazil gains no captal for investment.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
It's Lenin's theory, not Marx, in case you didn't know that.

It's not Lenin's theory, either. Andre Gunder Frank, F.H. Cardoso, Anibal Quijano, Rui Mario Marini, Samir Amin, and others developed the theory. It is focused on the effects of imperialism in the 3rd world, while Lenin's theory of imperialism was on the effects of imperialism in the 1st world, and the causes of capitalist imperialism.

To me the theories seem like two sides of the same coin but some argue (and I didn't follow) that there are significant differences. Unfortunately, therefore, I can't elaborate.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Get it through your head. These guys have around 150 years of experience shooting anti government protesters and/or revolutionaries. They didn't just spontaniously change their mind out of the goodness of their heart. It was work between the SotA and OAS which turned cases like this around due to the last 20 years of pushing democracy, respect for legal process, and subservience of the military to elected officials. Without the outside help most of Latin America would still be experiencing military coupes and juntas.

I do have to laugh at this.

Of course, the SofA has a lot to make up for its previous teachings on how to torture people, leading to thousands of deaths.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
According to the theory of underdevelopment (developed by 3rd world theorists in the lates 60s and early 70s), it isn't that the colonies or neo-colonies aren't developed, but that they are developed for the markets of the metropoles. Most of the development, then, is not for the purpose of building wealth, but for extracting wealth.

Ahh, yes. Classic 1960's & 1970's statist nonsense. Most of the 3rd world tried this approach where they put up sky high tarrifs on outside goods then attempted to manufacture everything domestically. Sounds good doesn't it? There are major problems though.

First off all trading partners retaliate and the poor 3rd world country almost always loses out. Then there is the problem of massive inflation destroying the people's standard of living since they can't buy foreign made goods yet their domestic market is to small to support independent manufacturers. Thirdly in the few cases the domestic market is large enough there is a problem with a lack of skilled professionals who know how to do it. Finally there is the problem with lack of capital due to the inabilty to export (remember how everyone retaliated against those protective tarrifs?) yet the country is poor so it doesn't have the capital domestically.

There is the added problem that giving the state so much power in a immiture democracy almost always leads to a dictatorship. These policies have been tried in numerous countries and found to be a recipe for low growth, high inflation, and political cronyism. They just don't work well.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Ahh, yes. Classic 1960's & 1970's statist nonsense. Most of the 3rd world tried this approach where they put up sky high tarrifs on outside goods then attempted to manufacture everything domestically. Sounds good doesn't it? There are major problems though.

But that's how Europe and the U.S. developed, didn't it? Hell, we even fought a civil war partly over the question of tarrifs (and the pro-tarrif side won).

Ultiamtely, the problem wasn't that their neighbors raised similar tarrifs, but that OPEC brought the party to an end. They sucked the wind out of everyone's sails, including the 1st worlds'. Eventually they realized that by killing the world economy, they were shooting themselves in the foot, but by then the blow was pretty much fatal for Latin America.

I agree, however, that the tiny market was a serious problem. This, I think, was the leg up that the Asian tigers had over Latin America, huge markets. If Latin America could have created a single market for capital investment, it would have been more likely to succeed.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In these cases, waiting for full industrialization is essentially putting off the revolution for ever. Bolivia will never industrialize because the Bolivian elite doesn't have enough capital to make it happen, and international capital sees no profit in industrializing Bolivia.

They were certainly willing to help Bolivia develop and industrial natural gas industry. I suspect that if the Bolivian state & people were a bit more open to the the idea they'd likely find other profitable ventures. By your theory Malaysia should still be the backwards grower of rubber and palm oil it was in the 1960's, Korea should be filled with peasant rice farmers, Taiwan & Hong Kong should be amoung the most exploited and repressed people on Earth, while Mexico (or Costa Rica or Chile or Uruguay) should not be experiencing the strong growth they have for the last decade or so.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Ahh, yes. Classic 1960's & 1970's statist nonsense. Most of the 3rd world tried this approach where they put up sky high tarrifs on outside goods then attempted to manufacture everything domestically. Sounds good doesn't it? There are major problems though.

First off all trading partners retaliate and the poor 3rd world country almost always loses out. Then there is the problem of massive inflation destroying the people's standard of living since they can't buy foreign made goods yet their domestic market is to small to support independent manufacturers. Thirdly in the few cases the domestic market is large enough there is a problem with a lack of skilled professionals who know how to do it. Finally there is the problem with lack of capital due to the inabilty to export (remember how everyone retaliated against those protective tarrifs?) yet the country is poor so it doesn't have the capital domestically.

There is the added problem that giving the state so much power in a immiture democracy almost always leads to a dictatorship. These policies have been tried in numerous countries and found to be a recipe for low growth, high inflation, and political cronyism. They just don't work well.

Actually Oerdin, every single development country got that way by raising tariffs and developing domestic industry. None of them did so by simply allowing the 1st world to develop and extract raw materials.

[chequita guevara]

As I noted previously, the Asian tigers had a very statist approach to developing their economies. They are the only underdeveloped countries to transition. The monetarist model you advocate has been an unmitigated disaster. Even the "showcase" model of monetarism, Chile, had to renationalize significant portions of its economy in the early 80s, despite following Freedmans recipe to the letter. Just like everyone else, their economy had the rug pulled out from under it by OPEC.

As for how well Chile, Mexico, etc. are doing, I'll reserve my judgement. Mexico still has yet to fully recover from its currency collapse, and Chile can only be considered a success when you ignore how bad off one third of its population is.

[Last Conformist]

This map from 1830 seems to show the modern Peru-Bolivia border.



(Interestingly, it also shows the Tarija region as belong to Argentina. Another map I saw showed a bit of modern Argentina NW of Salta as Bolivian territory. South American borders have sure been stable.)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
This map from 1830 seems to show the modern Peru-Bolivia border.

It's possible I was wrong about border changes, but the point remains that Peru and Bolivia fought two wars.