WSJ: The End of Bolivian Democracy [Archive]

spursncowboys

11-23-2009, 09:46 AM

The End of Bolivian Democracy
Elections scheduled for December 6 will mark the official end of the Bolivian democracy.
By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY

A dictatorship that fosters the production and distribution of cocaine is not apt to enjoy a positive international image. But when that same government cloaks itself in the language of social justice, with a special emphasis on the enfranchisement of indigenous people, it wins world-wide acclaim.

This is Bolivia, which in two weeks will hold elections for president and both houses of congress. The government of President Evo Morales will spin the event as a great moment in South American democracy. In fact, it will mark the official end of what's left of Bolivian liberty after four years of Morales rule.

While the U.S. and the Organization of American States have been obsessing over Honduras's legal removal of an undemocratic president, Mr. Morales has been fortifying his narco-dictatorship. He's also made friends with Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who will make another visit to La Paz tomorrow.

Mr. Morales is expected to win re-election easily, in part because in many areas that he controls voters will be escorted into polling booths to make sure they choose correctly. His party, Movement for Socialism (aka MAS for its Spanish initials), is almost certain to retain control of the lower house of congress and is likely to win the senate, which until now has been controlled by the opposition.

If this happens, Mr. Morales's rule will be almost impossible to challenge. But this should not be interpreted as a national embrace of his politics. He will pull off his power grab thanks to a policy of terror against his adversaries.

Recall that in 2003, Bolivia had an elected president in Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada. Hard-left radicals didn't like it when Mr. Sánchez de Lozada proposed the export of liquefied natural gas via Chile. They launched violent protests and blocked the nation's highways. Their objectives to bring down the government coincided with the goals of the coca growers' movement, which was led by Mr. Morales. It joined in the uprising.

When the president decided to use the army to escort supply trucks, clashes ensued. Mr. Sánchez de Lozada decided to leave the country as a way of defusing the violence, and the U.S. State Department told him that if he did not resign before doing so, it would cut off foreign aid. The president complied, providing, under duress, a legal patina for an illegal coup.

The terrorism had worked and there was nary a peep of protest from the international community. So it was used again to force the resignation of Mr. Sánchez de Lozada's successor and the president of the senate. That meant new elections had to be called. Mr. Morales ran and won.

Upon taking office in 2006, Mr. Morales began using his office to persecute officials of previous governments. Some were jailed, others fled. He made sweeping changes to the judiciary and the electoral council. Any time there was an opposition challenge, his street thugs or his judges put a stop to it.

A constituent assembly was elected to rewrite the constitution, but MAS failed to win two-thirds of the delegate seats. Thus the assembly refused to adopt a text filled with antidemocratic articles and a re-election provision for the president. Again MAS, backed by the government, used force. In November 2007 it called the assembly to a military garrison, locked out opposition members, and won the vote. Three protestors were killed. A second vote required to ratify each article again excluded opposition members.

When it came to getting the document ratified by the senate, Mr. Morales called on the mobs once more. In March they surrounded the parliament building and threatened members. Opposition congressmen eventually gave in but claimed they had managed to salvage a few remnants of democratic capitalism, like property rights and private education. Yet those gains may well be transitory.

Besides the presidential "re-election" provision, the document also contains two other articles that are likely to devastate the democracy. One creates a special class of people deemed to have pure Indian blood, granting them special privileges including designated seats in the legislature. This gives Mr. Morales enormous political control. A second article allows him to call for a new constituent assembly to write a new constitution. And it says that it can be approved by two-thirds of "members present." In other words, if he again fails to get the two-thirds vote he needs to ratify his plan, he will only need to repeat the practice of surrounding the meeting place and blocking his opponents from getting to the vote.

Mr. Morales is South America's latest dictator, but he is not the ideological communist that many fear. He's more akin to a mob boss, having risen to power by promising to protect the coca business. Now he has the capacity to do it.

Under his rule, coca cultivation is legal and he collects a licensing fee from all farmers, whose harvests are sold through a centralized market. MAS officials also regulate cocaine production and trafficking which now reaches down to the household level.

The booming business has made Mr. Morales popular. He may hate the U.S. and freedom but one thing is for sure: He understands markets.

Winehole23

11-23-2009, 12:22 PM

kpJa73_1bPE

rjv

11-23-2009, 01:01 PM

The End of Bolivian Democracy
Elections scheduled for December 6 will mark the official end of the Bolivian democracy.
By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY

argentina, bolivia, brazil, chile, ecuador, paraguay, and venezuela are demonstrating that the days of U.S.-backed coups, gunship diplomacy, and neoliberalism may very well be over for South America. this is not monroe's latin america.

the wording here is clearly biased, implicitly stating that morales has made cocaine legal. what morales did was remove the ban on the the coca leaf as a crop. the article also completely ignores the centuries old use of coca amongst the indigenous population of the region. the plant is used for medicinal purposes as well as a remedy for hunger. also, the DEA was expelled from bolivia for what reason? the author makes no reference to the constant abuses of the DEA in not just ecuador but in bolivia and colombia as well. the US has often backed miltaries which aid and abet military organizations. bush sr.'s andean strategy resulted in abusive uses of herbicide in the region and exponentially greater violence committed by paramilitary organizations which often support drug traffickers. the U.S. State Department estimates that paramilitary forces are responsible for more than 70% of colombia’s human rights abuses.this caused the european parliament to pass a resolution which noted that "stepping up military involvement in the fight against drugs involves the risk of sparking off an escalation of the conflict in the region, and that military solutions cannot bring about lasting peace."

international cases have even been made against the US in several instances. one example is:

Arias, et al. v. DynCorp, et al., Case No. 01-01908(D.D.C. filed Sept. 11, 2001)
Summary: Plaintiffs in this class action claimed that, in connection with a U.S. government contract, DynCorp sprayed toxic herbicides over the area in which plaintiffs live in Ecuador in order to kill cocaine and heroin crops believed to be growing there. The plaintiffs alleged that the spraying caused a variety of medical problems, some resulting in death, as well as lost crops and livestock. Plaintiffs claimed that defendants are directly responsible under the ATP for torture, crimes against humanity, and cultural genocide, and under the TVPA for extrajudicial killing, torture, and various other domestic torts.

morales relationship with ahmadinejad is certainly questionable but not any less so than any number of questionable relationships the US has had any continued to have with rogue states or despotic governments. morales, in his 2005 election, august 2008 recall referendum and recent constitutional vote, received significantly more support from the population than obama did in the 2008

spurms

11-23-2009, 01:21 PM

argentina, bolivia, brazil, chile, ecuador, paraguay, and venezuela are demonstrating that the days of U.S.-backed coups, gunship diplomacy, and neoliberalism may very well be over for South America. this is not monroe's latin america.

the wording here is clearly biased, implicitly stating that morales has made cocaine legal. what morales did was remove the ban on the the coca leaf as a crop. the article also completely ignores the centuries old use of coca amongst the indigenous population of the region. the plant is used for medicinal purposes as well as a remedy for hunger. also, the DEA was expelled from bolivia for what reason? the author makes no reference to the constant abuses of the DEA in not just ecuador but in bolivia and colombia as well. the US has often backed miltaries which aid and abet military organizations. bush sr.'s andean strategy resulted in abusive uses of herbicide in the region and exponentially greater violence committed by paramilitary organizations which often support drug traffickers. the U.S. State Department estimates that paramilitary forces are responsible for more than 70% of colombia’s human rights abuses.this caused the european parliament to pass a resolution which noted that "stepping up military involvement in the fight against drugs involves the risk of sparking off an escalation of the conflict in the region, and that military solutions cannot bring about lasting peace."

international cases have even been made against the US in several instances. one example is:

Arias, et al. v. DynCorp, et al., Case No. 01-01908(D.D.C. filed Sept. 11, 2001)
Summary: Plaintiffs in this class action claimed that, in connection with a U.S. government contract, DynCorp sprayed toxic herbicides over the area in which plaintiffs live in Ecuador in order to kill cocaine and heroin crops believed to be growing there. The plaintiffs alleged that the spraying caused a variety of medical problems, some resulting in death, as well as lost crops and livestock. Plaintiffs claimed that defendants are directly responsible under the ATP for torture, crimes against humanity, and cultural genocide, and under the TVPA for extrajudicial killing, torture, and various other domestic torts.

morales relationship with ahmadinejad is certainly questionable but not any less so than any number of questionable relationships the US has had any continued to have with rogue states or despotic governments. morales, in his 2005 election, august 2008 recall referendum and recent constitutional vote, received significantly more support from the population than obama did in the 2008

excellent summary! Looks like the Neo-Cons policy opened up a larger can of worms then they could chew back up. Oh dear, not in my own backyard, time to moan and bitch about it in the media. On another side note France is negotiating a sale of their latest Naval Technology to Russia, and the clowns in their Green Beret jersey from Georgia is still left out to dry by their backers, the french has been doing some naughty things behind Nato and the American backs recently including a secret negotiation of a new world currency, i guess payback for the time they had their national food made a mockery of by Bush, Dick and his Neo-Cons cronies.

ElNono

11-23-2009, 01:25 PM

Winehole23

11-23-2009, 01:29 PM

i guess payback for the time they had their national food made a mockery of by Bush, Dick and his Neo-Cons cronies.

http://www.heirloomstocherish.com/inge%200/1-002-05%20Freedom%20Fries.jpg

rjv

11-23-2009, 01:31 PM

I agree that the article does show a clear bias.

Nonetheless, Morales is certainly a person more interested in personal power than the well-being of his nation. Not unlike other leaders in the region, including the US backed Colombian government.
Brasil is also host to the Iranian president right now, but I don't see many writeups about it.

which country is expected to have the fastest economic growth in the Americas this year? bolivia.

and that constitutional vote: passed with 61.97% support from some 3.8 million voters. 36.52% of voters voted against the constitution, and 1.51% cast blank and null votes. the departments where the constitution passed included la paz, cochabamba, oruro, potosí, tarija, and pando. it was rejected in santa cruz, beni, and chuquisaca. the constitution grants unprecedented rights to bolivia's indigenous majority, establishes broader access to basic services, education and healthcare and expands the role of the state in the management of natural resources and the economy

Nbadan

11-23-2009, 01:45 PM

,,,Morales didn't put the Corpor-crisy in charge in Bolivia, so he is a socialist and must be destroyed...

ElNono

11-23-2009, 01:55 PM

which country is expected to have the fastest economic growth in the Americas this year? bolivia.

and that constitutional vote: passed with 61.97% support from some 3.8 million voters. 36.52% of voters voted against the constitution, and 1.51% cast blank and null votes. the departments where the constitution passed included la paz, cochabamba, oruro, potosí, tarija, and pando. it was rejected in santa cruz, beni, and chuquisaca. the constitution grants unprecedented rights to bolivia's indigenous majority, establishes broader access to basic services, education and healthcare and expands the role of the state in the management of natural resources and the economy

Evo popularity stems from him being the leader of coca producers. And he looks like a rebel because he gave the middle finger to the international community and went back to producing coca. But if you really think there's a true democracy in the region, you would be sorely mistaken. Electoral fraud is rampant, not just on Bolivia, but also countries like Argentina, Ecuador, Venezuela, etc. All these guys love to cheat to perpetuate themselves in power, which is a direct affront to any kind of democratic system.
What's hypocritical is to single out Bolivia and don't mention US backed presidents like Uribe in Colombia, who spent more time battling to change the constitution to afford himself a 3rd consecutive mandate than actually working towards a better country for their constituents.

rjv

11-23-2009, 02:14 PM

Evo popularity stems from him being the leader of coca producers. And he looks like a rebel because he gave the middle finger to the international community and went back to producing coca. But if you really think there's a true democracy in the region, you would be sorely mistaken. Electoral fraud is rampant, not just on Bolivia, but also countries like Argentina, Ecuador, Venezuela, etc. All these guys love to cheat to perpetuate themselves in power, which is a direct affront to any kind of democratic system.
What's hypocritical is to single out Bolivia and don't mention US backed presidents like Uribe in Colombia, who spent more time battling to change the constitution to afford himself a 3rd consecutive mandate than actually working towards a better country for their constituents.

the key question to ask here is how less bloody are some of these nations as well as how much more better off economically than they were before operating under US appointed despots who bent over to foreign investment and neoliberal policies.

morales is not perfect by any means but he is a vast improvement from the genocidal maniacs that served as mere puppets for corporate interest. when was the last time constitutions implemented agrarian reform for indigenous populations?

the contribution of revenue from coca is exaggerated. bolivia's re-nationalization and increased royalties on hydrocarbons has given the government billions of dollars of additional revenue

spursncowboys

11-23-2009, 02:23 PM

Is there a communist leader you cheerleaders are not willing to defend?

ElNono

11-23-2009, 02:33 PM

the key question to ask here is how less bloody are some of these nations as well as how much more better off economically than they were before operating under US appointed despots who bent over to foreign investment and neoliberal policies.

morales is not perfect by any means but he is a vast improvement from the genocidal maniacs that served as mere puppets for corporate interest. when was the last time constitutions implemented agrarian reform for indigenous populations?

Don't disagree with you on that at all. But a less 'bad' is still a bad.
A lot of these countries did learn how bad military dictatorships are after thousands of deaths, and many of them are not going back to them. But the 'new' dictatorship is to rule using populist mobs, some of them handsomely paid for. A lot of these countries don't even have a true two or more parties system anymore.

the contribution of revenue from coca is exaggerated. bolivia's re-nationalization and increased royalties on hydrocarbons has given the government billions of dollars of additional revenue

Bolivia’s most lucrative agricultural product continues to be coca, of which Bolivia is currently the world’s third largest cultivator (after Colombia and Peru), with an estimated 29,500 hectares under cultivation in 2007, increased slightly when compared to 2006. Bolivia is the third largest producer of cocaine, estimated at 120 metric tons potential pure cocaine in 2007 and a transit country for Peruvian and Colombian cocaine destined for Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, and Europe.

They did make good money exporting natural gas when the price of oil was super high. But not right now.

ElNono

11-23-2009, 02:35 PM

Is there a communist leader you cheerleaders are not willing to defend?

Unlike you, at least rjv seems to be informed about the situation in the region.

Aren't you tired of merely repeating talking points without actually knowing jackshit about the situation?

rjv

11-23-2009, 02:46 PM

Don't disagree with you on that at all. But a less 'bad' is still a bad.
A lot of these countries did learn how bad military dictatorships are after thousands of deaths, and many of them are not going back to them. But the 'new' dictatorship is to rule using populist mobs, some of them handsomely paid for. A lot of these countries don't even have a true two or more parties system anymore.

i think what we will see here is a gradual evolution in latin america towards a more democratic society and a less european or american infatuated one. technocrats can only go so far and are as responsible for the drug trade as any one else. just see mexico as an example of what happens to a "democratic" latin american nation with more than one party when the leaderes continue to bow to the IMF and foreign capital. but one does not repair centuries of regimes overnight.

rjv

11-23-2009, 02:49 PM

Unlike you, at least rjv seems to be informed about the situation in the region.

Aren't you tired of merely repeating talking points without actually knowing jackshit about the situation?

spursncowboys seems to be the product of the century. the google based intellect that knows nothing beyond the art of the copy and paste and rehasing of the favored talking heads' colloquialisms.

spursncowboys

11-23-2009, 02:57 PM

Unlike you, at least rjv seems to be informed about the situation in the region.

Aren't you tired of merely repeating talking points without actually knowing jackshit about the situation?

rjv is repeating the same thing, it's just not on tv. Why does he seem to be informed. He's stated no facts. It is his opinion. Because his opinion sounds closer to your world view, it must be well informed. Or is it because it is not talked about as much that it holds more credibility.

spursncowboys

11-23-2009, 03:01 PM

spursncowboys seems to be the product of the century. the google based intellect that knows nothing beyond the art of the copy and paste and rehasing of the favored talking heads' colloquialisms.

You seem to be the product of ultra leftist professors using Postmodernism to push marxist views.

spursncowboys

11-23-2009, 03:10 PM

MaNuMaNiAc

11-23-2009, 03:11 PM

i think what we will see here is a gradual evolution in latin america towards a more democratic society and a less european or american infatuated one. technocrats can only go so far and are as responsible for the drug trade as any one else. just see mexico as an example of what happens to a "democratic" latin american nation with more than one party when the leaderes continue to bow to the IMF and foreign capital. but one does not repair centuries of regimes overnight.

rjv, where are you from?

Nbadan

11-23-2009, 03:12 PM

Saddam got 100 percent of the vote. Fidel Castro won his free election too.

Didn't you forget Karzai in Afghanistan?

rjv

11-23-2009, 03:13 PM

You seem to be the product of ultra leftist professors using Postmodernism to push marxist views. Just because I don't respond to overtly naive views.

actually a true postmodernist professor would never push any marxist doctine at all since the basic underpinning of postmodernism is that there are no absolutes are certainties.

again, perhaps you should actually read up on some deconstructionalism or postmodernism. i'd love to see your google based takes on derrida or garcia marquez.

rjv

11-23-2009, 03:16 PM

rjv, where are you from?

born in philadelphia and raised in san antonio but my dad was born in querataro and his parents were from colombia and peru.

mia madre e italiana.

ElNono

11-23-2009, 03:19 PM

rjv is repeating the same thing, it's just not on tv. Why does he seem to be informed. He's stated no facts. It is his opinion. Because his opinion sounds closer to your world view, it must be well informed. Or is it because it is not talked about as much that it holds more credibility.

This is a fact, not opinion, that he presented:
passed with 61.97% support from some 3.8 million voters. 36.52% of voters voted against the constitution, and 1.51% cast blank and null votes. the departments where the constitution passed included la paz, cochabamba, oruro, potosí, tarija, and pando. it was rejected in santa cruz, beni, and chuquisaca.

The funny part is that you probably missed completely the fact that I am actually criticizing Morales, and not the other way around.
FWIW, I came back from the region 2 months ago, so while it might not be talked about too much here in the US, doesn't mean it's not talked about in the region itself.

ElNono

11-23-2009, 03:25 PM

mia madre e italiana.

Io sono Italiano, anche no parlo niente! :toast

rjv

11-23-2009, 03:25 PM

This is a fact, not opinion, that he presented:
passed with 61.97% support from some 3.8 million voters. 36.52% of voters voted against the constitution, and 1.51% cast blank and null votes. the departments where the constitution passed included la paz, cochabamba, oruro, potosí, tarija, and pando. it was rejected in santa cruz, beni, and chuquisaca.

The funny part is that you probably missed completely the fact that I am actually criticizing Morales, and not the other way around.
FWIW, I came back from the region 2 months ago, so while it might not be talked about too much here in the US, doesn't mean it's not talked about in the region itself.

perhaps the irony here is that spursncowboys is the postmodernist, regarding fact as a manipulation of language and historical documentation and preferring instead to honor subtexts as the only meaningful elements of discourse.

rjv

11-23-2009, 03:27 PM

Io sono Italiano, anche no parlo niente! :toast

:toast cento anni paesan !

spursncowboys

11-23-2009, 03:33 PM

actually a true postmodernist professor would never push any marxist doctine at all since the basic underpinning of postmodernism is that there are no absolutes are certainties.

again, perhaps you should actually read up on some deconstructionalism or postmodernism. i'd love to see your google based takes on derrida or garcia marquez.

It comes as no surprise to me that you are knowledgable on postmodernism and derrida. Going by all the points you make would have to take out any empirical evidence. Andrew Roberts writing about Postmodernists as "'merely disillusioned ex-Marxists who, despairing at the failure of the socialist experiment, have sought refuge in apathetic solipsism." I will take his take on it over yours. I can only assume that it is like the liberals blindly following communist lies throughout history, even as it goes against their beliefs.

MaNuMaNiAc

11-23-2009, 03:33 PM

spursncowboys

11-23-2009, 03:37 PM

The funny part is that you probably missed completely the fact that I am actually criticizing Morales, and not the other way around.
FWIW, I came back from the region 2 months ago, so while it might not be talked about too much here in the US, doesn't mean it's not talked about in the region itself.

It is worth absolutely nothing. So because you visited there and rjv has family from somewhere else, you two know the economic stability of central america. good job idiots.:lol

MaNuMaNiAc

11-23-2009, 03:40 PM

It is worth absolutely nothing. So because you visited there and rjv has family from somewhere else, you two know the economic stability of central america. good job idiots.:lol

Well they certainly seem to know a whole lot more than you in that regard. What you are definitely missing is you're arguing against two different points of view. They are not of the same mind. Did you even grasp that? or are you too busy spewing your talking points as usual?

Winehole23

11-23-2009, 03:41 PM

It is worth absolutely nothing. So because you visited there and rjv has family from somewhere else, you two know the economic stability of central america. good job idiots.:lolNot sure I'd run them into the same ditch, SnC. I see two distinct viewpoints. Don't you?

Winehole23

11-23-2009, 03:42 PM

MNMNA beat me to it. :lol

ElNono

11-23-2009, 03:44 PM

rjv

11-23-2009, 03:46 PM

It comes as no surprise to me that you are knowledgable on postmodernism and derrida. Going by all the points you make would have to take out any empirical evidence. Andrew Roberts writing about Postmodernists as "'merely disillusioned ex-Marxists who, despairing at the failure of the socialist experiment, have sought refuge in apathetic solipsism." I will take his take on it over yours. I can only assume that it is like the liberals blindly following communist lies throughout history, even as it goes against their beliefs.

i know about derrida because i double majored in math and philosophy and so postmodernism was one of the subjects covered in a contemporary philosophy class. andrew roberts is a historian and not a philosopher and his take on postmodernism is a take on the academic spin-offs that resulted from an adherence to the basic tenant, of the postmodern school, of relative ambiguity in truth. it has nothing to do with the actual philosophy of postmodernism itself.

do not pretend that you are hear to discuss the merits of poststructuralism, relativism, idealism, deconstructionalism and such as they pertain to the overall "postmodernist" school because we both would know you are not capable of that.

MaNuMaNiAc

11-23-2009, 03:47 PM

MNMNA beat me to it. :lol

:lol

rjv

11-23-2009, 03:50 PM

yeah. not even the most committed postmodernist thinker would go so far as to question the geographical certainties of the world, so spursncowboys allocation of bolivia to central america can not even be attributed to a refusal of fact, just an ignorance of it.

rjv

11-23-2009, 03:59 PM

rjv, what is your opinion about what is going on in Venezuela and Argentina? not that they are related mind you, but I want to know how much you know on the subject. Specially considering your opinion that Latin America is evolving towards democracy :lol

truthfully, my knowledge of argentina is limited to the peron era and up until the alfonsin presidency. i know little beyond that and the of course the great contribution to the NBA made by the land of the pampas.

venezuela and chavez? he may be on his way to being the protagonist from the novel "autumn of the patriarch". i am almost always for the nationalization of resources from foreign investement in latin america because of the need for latin america to determine its own economic fate but chazez is on the brink of evolving into castro. of course, the portrayal of chavez here in the states is still very much abbetted by a good dose of hyperbole.

MaNuMaNiAc

11-23-2009, 04:11 PM

truthfully, my knowledge of argentina is limited to the peron era and up until the alfonsin presidency. i know little beyond that and the of course the great contribution to the NBA made by the land of the pampas.

Fair enough. Suffice to say, the people that are leading Argentina today are no Alfonsin. I encourage you to read and inform yourself about the state in which we Argies find ourselves now. That is if it interests you. We certainly are NOT evolving towards a more democratic state. Ours is more a gradual descent towards a socialist dictatorship.

venezuela and chavez? he may be on his way to being the protagonist from the novel "autumn of the patriarch". i am almost always for the nationalization of resources from foreign investement in latin america because of the need for latin america to determine its own economic fate but chazez is on the brink of evolving into castro. of course, the portrayal of chavez here in the states is still very much abbetted by a good dose of hyperbole.

I don't have a problem with nationalization of resources from foreign investment either. That is except for the fact that every time a south american nation does it, everything turns to fucking crap. Venezuela is just the latest example in a long line, and probably the clearest as well. If there is something we should be thanking Chavez for is providing us with a clear example of what the populist left here in Latin America is all about.

The problem with leftist in the US is that they equate their set of values and ideals to that of "leftists" in Latin America. In reality, they are nothing alike. Chavez, Correa, Morales, Zelaya... you think any of them gives a fuck about their people? really? I won't argue the circumstances weren't bad in the past, but damn if we as Latin Americans haven't chosen the wrong fucking solution.

spursncowboys

11-23-2009, 04:29 PM

Not sure I'd run them into the same ditch, SnC. I see two distinct viewpoints. Don't you?

I wouldn't say distinct. One seems to be a Morales follower and thinks he is the economic wizard ( idk where that data about Bolivia is from) of s. america. the other is an apoligists and thinks morales although not his first choice is not as bad as the others and then in turn is ok. I reread their posts, and that is what I got.

spursncowboys

11-23-2009, 04:31 PM

Well they certainly seem to know a whole lot more than you in that regard. What you are definitely missing is you're arguing against two different points of view. They are not of the same mind. Did you even grasp that? or are you too busy spewing your talking points as usual?

I brought this up already. However no matter how coined a phrase is, if it is valid and factual, what is wrong with it. What is so better of an idea if it is heard less?

ElNono

11-23-2009, 04:35 PM

I wouldn't say distinct. One seems to be a Morales follower and thinks he is the economic wizard ( idk where that data about Bolivia is from) of s. america. the other is an apoligists and thinks morales although not his first choice is not as bad as the others and then in turn is ok. I reread their posts, and that is what I got.

What others?

rjv

11-23-2009, 04:42 PM

Fair enough. Suffice to say, the people that are leading Argentina today are no Alfonsin. I encourage you to read and inform yourself about the state in which we Argies find ourselves now. That is if it interests you. We certainly are NOT evolving towards a more democratic state. Ours is more a gradual descent towards a socialist dictatorship.

I don't have a problem with nationalization of resources from foreign investment either. That is except for the fact that every time a south american nation does it, everything turns to fucking crap. Venezuela is just the latest example in a long line, and probably the clearest as well. If there is something we should be thanking Chavez for is providing us with a clear example of what the populist left here in Latin America is all about.

The problem with leftist in the US is that they equate their set of values and ideals to that of "leftists" in Latin America. In reality, they are nothing alike. Chavez, Correa, Morales, Zelaya... you think any of them gives a fuck about their people? really? I won't argue the circumstances weren't bad in the past, but damn if we as Latin Americans haven't chosen the wrong fucking solution.

the first thing that latin america has to do is remove itself from the tempation to lean on the IMF and world bank. they are nothing but loan sharks with no interest in developing struggling nations. the second is to empower the poor and the indigenous, which is especially important in countries with large indigenous populations such as bolivia and ecuador. privatizing is also key in order to facilitate public investment in the GDP of these nations. and it is also key to find a way to stop political discourse in the form of military and left or right wing staged violence. but this is all that latin america has known and, given the history of so many democratically elected presidents being assasinated or overthrown by coups (often supported by the CIA), one can see how it is that leaders become paranoid and begin to lean on the very devices that they once protested against when on the other side of the coin.

Winehole23

11-23-2009, 05:54 PM

I wouldn't say distinct. One seems to be a Morales follower and thinks he is the economic wizard ( idk where that data about Bolivia is from) of s. america.rjv is clearly sympathetic to Evo Morales; and he did cite economic statistics. So far those statistics stand unchallenged by anyone in this thread.

El Nono apparently did not voice a strong enough objection to Morales to suit you. Just saying Morales might be preferable in some ways to his immediate predecessors was enough for you to conflate his views with rjv's -- a striking and unfortunate error IMO. Had you been less hasty and discourteous to him -- or at least, had you the humility to conceal your own rather doctrinaire (i.e., low information) opinion -- you might have found an ally. Might.

Your own dislike of Evo Morales may in your mind disqualify the opinions others may hold of him, or of Bolivia, but rationally speaking your antipathy toward Evo Morales refutes nothing and no one.

At any rate, you did not bother to argue any of the points yourself, but instead rested content with guilt by association, while mocking the views of clearly better informed posters.

(El Nono) is an apoligists and thinks morales although not his first choice is not as bad as the others and then in turn is ok. I reread their posts, and that is what I got.You could do with a little more nuance, SnC. El Nono is not an apologist for Evo Morales simply because he doesn't share your out-and-out antipathy for him.

IMO you ought to read posts more carefully and try to understand what posters are actually saying, instead of substituting your own hasty conclusions about their posts for the posts themselves.

As it is, you drove away two posters who might have been somewhat sympathetic to you, had you bothered to take them a bit more seriously, by paying attention to what they actually said.

MaNuMaNiAc

11-23-2009, 05:56 PM

Your own dislike of Evo Morales may in your mind disqualify the opinions others may hold of him, or of Ecuador, but rationally speaking your antipathy toward Evo Morales refutes nothing and no one.

Bolivia.

Ignignokt

11-23-2009, 06:04 PM

spursncowboys

11-23-2009, 06:15 PM

rjv is clearly sympathetic to Evo Morales; and he did cite economic statistics. So far those statistics stand unchallenged by anyone in this thread.

El Nono apparently did not voice a strong enough objection to Morales to suit you. Just saying Morales might be preferable in some ways to his immediate predecessors was enough for you to conflate his views with rjv's -- a striking and unfortunate error IMO. Had you been less hasty and discourteous to him -- or at least, had you the humility to conceal your own rather doctrinaire (i.e., low information) opinion -- you might have found an ally. Might.

Your own dislike of Evo Morales may in your mind disqualify the opinions others may hold of him, or of Ecuador, but rationally speaking your antipathy toward Evo Morales refutes nothing and no one.

At any rate, you did not bother to argue any of the points yourself, but instead rested content with guilt by association, while mocking the views of clearly better informed posters.

You could do with a little more nuance, SnC. El Nono is not an apologist for Evo Morales simply because he doesn't share your out-and-out antipathy for him.

IMO you ought to read posts more carefully and try to understand what posters are actually saying, instead of substituting your own hasty conclusions about their posts for the posts themselves.

As it is, you drove away two posters who might have been somewhat sympathetic to you, had you bothered to take them a bit more seriously, by paying attention to what they actually said.

Maybe you should recheck who mocked whos views first. Also I really do not go on here to join forces in some kind of pissing contest. I would love to challenge the statistics if I saw them. For all I know it is one person's inaccurate statement. ALot is lost in translation with written text, so maybe I did hastly misunderstand. I don't think I did and reread it just to be sure. It is really getting old your enlightened view about everything. Willing to simplify my beliefs and yet readily able to tell me I about the infathomable variations of a problem that my simple mind cannot understand. Yeah I have not been able to argue valid points, when i have to waste my time becuz a troll is attacking me personally.

spursncowboys

11-23-2009, 06:18 PM

i know about derrida because i double majored in math and philosophy and so postmodernism was one of the subjects covered in a contemporary philosophy class. andrew roberts is a historian and not a philosopher and his take on postmodernism is a take on the academic spin-offs that resulted from an adherence to the basic tenant, of the postmodern school, of relative ambiguity in truth. it has nothing to do with the actual philosophy of postmodernism itself.

do not pretend that you are hear to discuss the merits of poststructuralism, relativism, idealism, deconstructionalism and such as they pertain to the overall "postmodernist" school because we both would know you are not capable of that.

double major. Way to get a degree and get out into the real world. How many years were you in college?

ElNono

11-23-2009, 06:43 PM

double major. Way to get a degree and get out into the real world. How many years were you in college?

LOL, you bitch about personal attacks then dish this shit out?

I was actually arguing your point for you, that Morales is most likely going dictator.

Are you even aware that Morales was democratically elected and is in his first term?

spursncowboys

11-23-2009, 06:46 PM

the first thing that latin america has to do is remove itself from the tempation to lean on the IMF and world bank.
So are you saying welfare doesn't work? I am for fixing the IMF. I don't think getting rid of it will fix anything. I should of started off by asking wtf are you talking about? LATIN america?

the second is to empower the poor and the indigenous, which is especially important in countries with large indigenous populations such as bolivia and ecuador. Why? How will that make the entire continent better?When in history has trying to empower the poor actually improve the poor's quality of life?
privatizing is also key in order to facilitate public investment in the GDP of these nations. and it is also key to find a way to stop political discourse in the form of military and left or right wing staged violence. but this is all that latin america has known and, given the history of so many democratically elected presidents being assasinated or overthrown by coups (often supported by the CIA), really? often? I would love to see your empirical data to discredit a great institution like the CIA. I am not saying they are boyscouts or they haven't done it before(wish they still did do it) but don't think they are in the same ballpark as all the other variables. If we are talking about lowing the price of products and increasing jobs, why not a free trade agreement?

George Gervin's Afro

11-23-2009, 06:49 PM

spursncowboys

11-23-2009, 06:56 PM

LOL, you bitch about personal attacks then dish this shit out?

I was actually arguing your point for you, that Morales is most likely going dictator.

Are you even aware that Morales was democratically elected and is in his first term?

fuck you jackass. Just state your opinion. Stop making teams. That is the problem with our political environment.

ElNono

11-23-2009, 07:32 PM

fuck you jackass. Just state your opinion. Stop making teams. That is the problem with our political environment.

I did state my opinion. Clearly everyone else understood that, except you.
We were actually having a civilized discussion here until you started with your 'communist dictator' hyperbole.

Anybody can copy & paste. How about you stop attacking people and talk a little more about Bolivia, which seems to be the topic of this thread.
Oh, I'm sorry. That was not your talking point? What is your point? What do you REALLY want to talk about? Mass murdering communist dictators?

If you can't stay on topic, the fuck you too and GTFO.

Ignignokt

11-23-2009, 08:31 PM

I did state my opinion. Clearly everyone else understood that, except you.
We were actually having a civilized discussion here until you started with your 'communist dictator' hyperbole.

Anybody can copy & paste. How about you stop attacking people and talk a little more about Bolivia, which seems to be the topic of this thread.
Oh, I'm sorry. That was not your talking point? What is your point? What do you REALLY want to talk about? Mass murdering communist dictators?

If you can't stay on topic, the fuck you too and GTFO.

Bolivia.

Racially segregated.

Moving towards worse govt.

You said less bad, so therefore you're in more agreement with Rjv than SnC.

Ignignokt

11-23-2009, 08:33 PM

Bolivian hats<<<<<<<< Sombreros.

What's remarkably nuanced about Bolivia's govt compared to the other shithole latin american gubmints?

ElNono

11-23-2009, 08:37 PM

You said less bad, so therefore you're in more agreement with Rjv than SnC.

Read again. I did said less bad than another alternative proposed by Rjv, not SnC.

Are you going to add anything substantive to this thread, or you merely came to display your reading comprehension fail?

ElNono

11-23-2009, 08:38 PM

What's remarkably nuanced about Bolivia's govt compared to the other shithole latin american gubmints?

Exactly. Thus the hypocrisy of singling out the Bolivian government by the WSJ.

Ignignokt

11-23-2009, 08:40 PM

Exactly. Thus the hypocrisy of singling out the Bolivian government by the WSJ.

What you can't devote an entire article on a single country because you have to include all others. IF the argument is legit, who cares.

ElNono

11-23-2009, 08:43 PM

What you can't devote an entire article on a single country because you have to include all others. IF the argument is legit, who cares.

It makes it seems like Bolivia is the exception, when it's nothing like that.
Furthermore, the article is entirely speculation. Morales is still in his first term after being elected democratically. Now, I agree that he's trying to perpetuate himself in power. This is what we were arguing with rjv.
But this is far from the end of Bolivian democracy, considering that the military have absolutely nothing to do with this.

Ignignokt

11-23-2009, 08:43 PM

Read again. I did said less bad than another alternative proposed by Rjv, not SnC.

Are you going to add anything substantive to this thread, or you merely came to display your reading comprehension fail?

His alternative was not merely an alternative but a justification.

So in essence you still agreed with him, and SnC doesn't think Morales is anygood or worth justifying like RJV was trying to do.

Glad i could help.

ElNono

11-23-2009, 08:48 PM

His alternative was not merely an alternative but a justification.

So in essence you still agreed with him, and SnC doesn't think Morales is anygood or worth justifying like RJV was trying to do.

Glad i could help.

It's strikingly obvious SnC doesn't know the recent history of Bolivia or how they even arrived to Morales in the first place. That's why he couldn't possibly understand that rjv was not justifying anything, but merely pointing out the reason Evo was elected to begin with.
Unlike his Saddam 100% support cliché, nobody in Latin America has any doubt whatsoever that Evo win his election in 2005 fair and square.

Ignignokt

11-23-2009, 08:48 PM

It makes it seems like Bolivia is the exception, when it's nothing like that.
Furthermore, the article is entirely speculation. Morales is still in his first term after being elected democratically. Now, I agree that he's trying to perpetuate himself in power. This is what we were arguing with rjv.
But this is far from the end of Bolivian democracy, considering that the military have absolutely nothing to do with this.

It doesn't make any conclusion but yours. Do you think the WSJ writes fluff pieces on CHavez?

I think this has less to do with other shady characters and more with your dislike of the US backed Columbian figure.

Ignignokt

11-23-2009, 09:01 PM

Ignignokt

11-23-2009, 09:04 PM

Also, the 59 deaths that occured under Lozado were military confrontations with "armed civilians."

Did they have death squads like RJV was suggesting.

Again. Make yourself clear.

ElNono

11-23-2009, 09:45 PM

Also less bad? How less bad than his predecessor Lozada?

Both have had blood on their hands.

Lozada by trying to remove radicals to keep the natural gas sale going, and Morales killed people who protested lockout of dissidents.

So less bad?

Explain.

Lozada took away the main means of production from the Bolivian population, and did not provide any alternatives when the crops suggested as replacement didn't grow. Instead of protecting the interest of their people he aligned himself with the wishes of external countries/organizations. It was no surprise when he quit.
Morales just came to fill a need of popular representation of the average Bolivian.
He's just doing a disservice to democracy by modifying the constitution to sit his ass in power for as long as possible.

Winehole23

11-23-2009, 10:42 PM

Bolivia.Of course you're correct. Embarrassing, all the more so because I spotted the error, and unbelievably failed to correct it.

I thank the gentleman for his correction. :lol

Winehole23

11-23-2009, 10:53 PM

Maybe you should recheck who mocked whos views first. Why should that matter?

Also I really do not go on here to join forces in some kind of pissing contest.On the contrary, you do practically nothing else.

I would love to challenge the statistics if I saw them. For all I know it is one person's inaccurate statement.Still haven't checked, have you? You act like you're a stickler for verification, but don't bother to check for yourself.

Telling.

ALot is lost in translation with written text, so maybe I did hastly misunderstand. I don't think I did and reread it just to be sure. It didn't work. You need to read better.

Yeah I have not been able to argue valid points, when i have to waste my time becuz a troll is attacking me personally.
Conservatives nowadays are so quick to put on the victim slippers.

Go ahead, blame someone else, tough guy. :lol

spursncowboys

11-23-2009, 11:09 PM

Why should that matter?

On the contrary, you do practically nothing else.

Still haven't checked, have you? You act like you're a stickler for verification, but don't bother to check for yourself.

Telling.

It didn't work. You need to read better.

Conservatives nowadays are so quick to put on the victim slippers.

Go ahead, blame someone else, tough guy. :lol
like always, you are short on substance and long on squabble. About the verification: When someone quotes another, it is expected for him to cite it. so others can verify their source. if i went around and had to reference liberals for facts, I would never find time reading the articles you submit from salon and nyt. I enjoy reading what you more cultured people think of us fly-over country folk. So go drink your fat tire and watch PBS, and I will anxiously await your next insightful and unbiased article.

Winehole23

11-23-2009, 11:18 PM

. About the verification: When someone quotes another, it is expected for him to cite it. so others can verify their source.Indeed. You should hold yourself to this standard. You don't always.

if i went around and had to reference liberals for facts, I would never find time reading the articles you submit from salon and nyt.Selective. I also post regularly from WSJ, Forbes, Bloomberg, FT, Takimag, NR, Reason, Amconmag, RCP, even occasionally from the Weekly Standard and Chronicles.

Do you even know what Chronicles is?

I enjoy reading what you more cultured people think of us fly-over country folk.I live in the flightpath, does that count?

So go drink your fat tire Back when I worked at the package store, we called it Fat Ass. It's ok.

and watch PBS, and I will anxiously await your next insightful and unbiased article.Get off your high horse. Everyone has an axe to grind. Including you. Don't even pretend you don't, SnC.

ElNono

11-24-2009, 07:30 AM

It doesn't make any conclusion but yours. Do you think the WSJ writes fluff pieces on CHavez?

I think this has less to do with other shady characters and more with your dislike of the US backed Columbian figure.

Morales is an easy target. What the article fails to mention, is that what is happening in Bolivia is far from unique. At least half of the countries in the region have gone, or are going in that direction (Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela). I don't think they left out that little tidbit by mere chance. I think it unfairly puts the onus in Bolivia, when this is a bigger, regional problem.

MB20

11-24-2009, 09:32 AM

i think it unfairly puts the onus in bolivia, when this is a bigger, regional problem.

+1

spursncowboys

11-24-2009, 09:43 AM

Bolivian hats<<<<<<<< Sombreros.

What's remarkably nuanced about Bolivia's govt compared to the other shithole latin american gubmints?

The real question is: which would you rather have in front of you in the movie theatre?

rjv

11-24-2009, 09:55 AM

double major. Way to get a degree and get out into the real world. How many years were you in college?

nice try. you clearly know you are out of your league. you tried to flex some muscle regarding postmodernism with some half baked wiiticism and cheap copy and paste from a history professor and when your obvious lack of knowledge of philosophy was exposed you ran off behind your abusive tangents. they are not even fallacies at this point because you have not even been able to muster up anything even resembling a syllogism.

and for the record i spent 4 years in undergrad and another 3 years in graduate school.

rjv

11-24-2009, 10:04 AM

I would love to see your empirical data to discredit a great institution like the CIA. I am not saying they are boyscouts or they haven't done it before(wish they still did do it) but don't think they are in the same ballpark as all the other variables. If we are talking about lowing the price of products and increasing jobs, why not a free trade agreement?

operation ajax-this is the one that sent iran downhill. along with britain, the CIA helps to overthrow the democratically elected mossadeq so as to assuage britain's fears over the nationalization of the anglo-iranian oil company. the murderous shah takes over and the rest is history.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/componen...155/25954.html (http://www.globalpolicy.org/componen...155/25954.html)

guatemala — CIA overthrows the democratically elected jacob arbenz in a military coup. arbenz threatened to nationalize the rockefeller-owned united fruit company (ah yes, those chiquita bananas), in which CIA director allen dulles (was this man the devil himself) also owns stock. arbenz is replaced with a series of right-wing dictators whose bloodthirsty policies will kill over 100,000 guatemalans (mostly of indigenous background) in the next 40 years (plenty of US presidents sat on their asses while this went on).

the CIA carried out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify laos’ democratic elections and the pathet lao, a leftist group with enough popular support to be a member of any coalition government. the CIA even creates an army of asian mercenaries to attack the pathet lao, but the CIA’s army suffers numerous defeats so the U.S. starts bombing, dropping more bombs on laos than all the U.S. bombs dropped in World War II. 25 % of all laotians will eventually become refugees.

in 1959, US military helps "papa doc" duvalier become dictator of haiti. he creates his own police force (tonton macoutes), who terrorize the population with machetes. they kill over 100,000 during the duvalier reign. the US does not protest.

in 1961, the CIA assassinated democratically elected lumumba of zaire. public support for lumumba politics was so high that the CIA could not install his opponents in power. as a result, four more years of political turmoil follow.

in 1963 in ecuador, the CIA-backed military coup overthrew president arosemana, whose independent (not socialist) policies became unacceptable to washington. a military junta assumed command, cancelled the 1964 elections, and began abusing human rights.

in 1964, a CIA-backed military coup overthrew the democratically elected government of joao goulart in brazil. the junta that came into power for the next 2 decades, became one of the most bloodthirsty in history. general branco created latin america’s first death squads, bands of secret police who hunted down "communists" for torture, interrogation and murder. often these "communists" were no more than political opponents. it was later revealed that the CIA trained the death squads.

in 1970, the CIA ousted prince sahounek of cambodia, who was highly regarded among cambodians for keeping them out of the vietnam war. he was replaced by CIA puppet lon nol, who immediately threw cambodian troops into battle. this unpopular move strengthened what had once been minor opposition parties like the khmer rouge, which achieved power in 1975 and went on to slaughter millions of its own people.

in 1973, the CIA assassinated salvador allende, who was latin america’s first democratically elected socialist leader. the problems began when allende privatized american-owned firms. ITT offered the CIA $1 million for a coup. the CIA replaced allende with general augusto pinochet, who went on to torture and murder thousands of his own countrymen in a crackdown on labor leaders and the political left. pinochet's regime was so historically brutal that he had to beg countries to offer him asylum in his dying years.

Seymour Hersh broke the story of CIA's illegal domestic operations with a front page story in the New York Times on December 22, 1974 ("Huge C.I.A. Operation Reported in U.S. Against Antiwar Forces, Other Dissidents in Nixon Years"), writing that "a check of the CIA's domestic files ordered last year… produced evidence of dozens of other illegal activities… beginning in the nineteen fifties, including break-ins, wiretapping, and the surreptitious inspection of mail."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB222/index.htm (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB222/index.htm)

from the book, "inside the company", by former CIA operate philip agee:

Dear Mr Helms,

I respectfully submit my resignation from the Central Intelligence Agency for the following reasons:

I joined the Agency because I thought I would be protecting the security of my country by fighting against communism and Soviet expansion while at the same time helping other countries to preserve their freedom. Six years in Latin America have taught me that the injustices forced by small ruling minorities on the mass of the people cannot be eased sufficiently by reform movements such as the Alliance for Progress. The ruling class will never willingly give up its special privileges and comforts. This is class warfare and is the reason why communism appeals to the masses in the first place. We call this the 'free world'; but the only freedom under these circumstances is the rich people's freedom to exploit the poor.

Economic growth in Latin America might broaden the benefits in some countries but in most places the structural contradictions and population growth preclude meaningful increased income for most of the people. Worse still, the value of private investment and loans and everything else sent by the US into Latin America is far exceeded year after year by what is taken out - profits, interest, royalties, loan repayments - all sent back to the US. The income left over in Latin America is sucked up by the ruling minority who are determined to live by our standards of wealth.

Agency operations cannot be separated from these conditions. Our training and support for police and military forces, particularly the intelligence services, combined with other US support through military assistance missions and Public Safety programmes, give the ruling minorities ever stronger tools to keep themselves in power and to retain their disproportionate share of the national income. Our operations to penetrate and suppress the extreme left also serve to strengthen the ruling minorities by eliminating the main danger to their power.

American business and government are bound up with the ruling minorities in Latin America - with the rural and industrial property holders. Our interests and their interests - stability, return on investment - are the same. Meanwhile the masses of the people keep on suffering because they lack even minimal educational facilities, healthcare, housing, and diet. They could have these benefits of national income were not so unevenly distributed.

To me what is important is to see that what little there is to go around goes around fairly. A communist hospital can cure just like a capitalist hospital and of communism is the likely alternative to what I've seen in Latin America, then it's up to the Latin Americans to decide. Our only alternatives are to continue supporting injustice or to withdraw and let the cards fall by themselves

rjv

11-24-2009, 10:41 AM

So are you saying welfare doesn't work? I am for fixing the IMF. I don't think getting rid of it will fix anything. I should of started off by asking wtf are you talking about? LATIN america?
Why? How will that make the entire continent better?

lfirst of all, latin america is not a continent. secondly, after the first oil price rise of 400% in the 1970s, countries such as brazil and argentina, borrowed heavily to finance needed oil imports, or trade deficits. they borrowed dollars from major international banks operating in the london eurodollar market. london was the center for, in effect, the recycling of the large sums of petrodollars from arab OPEC countries to US and other major banks.

the major banks took the new oil dollars and immediately relent them at a nice profit, to countries like argentina. before the 1970s argentina had been a fast-growing economy developing modern industry, agriculture and a rising standard of living for its people. it had almost no foreign debt. ten years later, the country was under control of the IMF and foreign banks. The US changed the rules, in the process creating the debt crisis. their cheap dollar loans cost them 300% more interest charge. paul volcker of the federal reserve in the US, unilaterally changed US interest policy to force the dollar higher against other currencies. the effect was to raise US interest rates 300% and rates in the london bank market by even more. the bank loans to argentina and other countries had been made in "floating" rate agreements. If the key international rate in the london bank market was low, Argentina would pay a low rate on its dollar loans. but when it suddenly rose 300% in 1979-1980, many countries suddenly faced a payments crisis. then in 1982 the crisis reached default level. at that point, washington demanded the IMF be brought in to police a debt collection process on developing debtor nations. this came to be called the third world debt crisis. the impression was created that countries like Argentina were guilty for mismanagement. in reality, whatever political corruption may have existed in the debtor countries, the corruption of the IMF system and the petrodollar recycling was even greater. the Volcker interest rate shock completed the package of destruction of living standards on behalf of dollar debts.

you may not know what a book is SnC but a nobel prize winning author and former world bank employee and economist has a great chapter in his book "globalization and its discontents". it is chapter 8 in the book and it is entitled "the IMF's other agenda". in that chapter he lists his study that basically illustrates that the IMF had constructed a ponzi debt pyramid, in which the more a country paid, the more it owed.

spursncowboys

11-24-2009, 11:07 AM

nice try. you clearly know you are out of your league. you tried to flex some muscle regarding postmodernism with some half baked wiiticism and cheap copy and paste from a history professor and when your obvious lack of knowledge of philosophy was exposed you ran off behind your abusive tangents. they are not even fallacies at this point because you have not even been able to muster up anything even resembling a syllogism.

and for the record i spent 4 years in undergrad and another 3 years in graduate school.

You just copied and pasted from a website of the top CIA bad points.

spursncowboys

11-24-2009, 11:10 AM

So you get rid of the IMF, then what? What would change? What would be so much better?
What if it went back to what it was originally made for?

rjv

11-24-2009, 11:25 AM

You just copied and pasted from a website of the top CIA bad points.

nice try. the fact that you think bolivia is in central america and that latin america is a continent tells us that you do not know more than a 5th grader.

rjv

11-24-2009, 11:39 AM

So you get rid of the IMF, then what? What would change? What would be so much better?
What if it went back to what it was originally made for?

first of all, the asian economic crisis of the late 90's has crippled the IMF and many middle income countries have piled up reserves so they do not have borrow from the IMF. this is why the IMF paid off its debt. with chavez willing to dole out cash to the bolivians and with china next in line the US and world bank will be handing out interest free loans to bolivia with no problem.

and your comment about the indigenous of bolivia speaks volumes about your ignorance of the region. it is 60% indigenous. if they do not get empowered that whole region will stay at the high poverty rate is has now (which just happens to be at 60%).

spursncowboys

11-24-2009, 11:44 AM

nice try. the fact that you think bolivia is in central america and that latin america is a continent tells us that you do not know more than a 5th grader.
If you want to use my mistype as intelligence level than you need to correct your buddy wine. Thanks for the help though. I guess spending more time in college than working does that to you. If only you were so entrusted with my factual data as you were with your world beliefs, you wouldn't be so naive. Also you are the jackass that used latin america as a measurable location. I can only assume you meant a continent, because that is the closest thing. So what were you talking about when you said latin america?

I have tried now to move this topic away from nonsense and all you want to do is keep it in the troughs.

spursncowboys

11-24-2009, 11:49 AM

and your comment about the indigenous of bolivia speaks volumes about your ignorance of the region. it is 60% indigenous. if they do not get empowered that whole region will stay at the high poverty rate is has now (which just happens to be at 60%).:lol That is your coined phrase huh? So besides getting rid of the IMF, your idea for empowering 60
% of the population is how? Just to empower them? If it has anything to do with centralizing government, then you are the one speaking volumes, not me.

ElNono

11-24-2009, 11:50 AM

The IMF needs to just die... I have less of a problem with the World Bank because they have loaned for infrastructure and education projects, which are more than necessary in this region...

spursncowboys

11-24-2009, 12:00 PM

rjv

11-24-2009, 12:10 PM

If you want to use my mistype as intelligence level than you need to correct your buddy wine. Thanks for the help though. I guess spending more time in college than working does that to you. If only you were so entrusted with my factual data as you were with your world beliefs, you wouldn't be so naive. Also you are the jackass that used latin america as a measurable location. I can only assume you meant a continent, because that is the closest thing. So what were you talking about when you said latin america?

I have tried now to move this topic away from nonsense and all you want to do is keep it in the troughs.

mistype? :lol how do you mistype "south" as "central" or even place the word continent in there at all. a brain fart is not the same thing as a mistype. and if you really have never heard the term latin america used in any political, economic, cultural or even geopgraphical context then perhaps your attempt to move this topic away from nonsense is a futile effort. here's a clue: if you really want to move a topic away from nonsense then stop throwing around questions like how long were you in college and stick to the points at hand. in other words, perhaps something in defense of the CIAs decision to remove allende. something that would tell me that pinochet was somehow the better option. or that the IMF was a necessary evil given the options available to argentina or bolivia at the time. at this point i just have to assume your rather machiavellan ethics would declare the genocide of guatemalan indians an unfortunate consequence of the need for the united fruit company to prosper.

if you want to keep conversations out of the trough do not place them there to begin with.

rjv

11-24-2009, 12:15 PM

:lol That is your coined phrase huh? So besides getting rid of the IMF, your idea for empowering 60
% of the population is how? Just to empower them? If it has anything to do with centralizing government, then you are the one speaking volumes, not me.

well if you went back to the original posts of this thread in which you spent more time deciding to call everyone cheerleaders insead of checking out the points of the debate you would see that the most recently approved constitution are all about this.

spursncowboys

11-24-2009, 12:54 PM

[quote]guatemala — CIA overthrows the democratically elected jacob arbenz in a military coup. arbenz threatened to nationalize the rockefeller-owned united fruit company (ah yes, those chiquita bananas), in which CIA director allen dulles (was this man the devil himself) also owns stock. arbenz is replaced with a series of right-wing dictators whose bloodthirsty policies will kill over 100,000 guatemalans (mostly of indigenous background) in the next 40 years (plenty of US presidents sat on their asses while this went on). M. Moore? So it had nothing to do with nationalizing being communist? With him being a socialist? ALso just because he owned stock doesn't mean he did not do his job. For you to discredit a man who gave his life to his country is despicable.

Like I said the CIA is not the boyscouts. Their stands have all been against resource nationalism and socialism. Presidents know this and either allow it or don't. However lets put up their top 25 "jewels" up against any other country's intelligence agency. We should keep it in perspective. America was at war with an ideology. It was a real war. The Soviets had already shown to be willing to support any Commie country. Finally look at who took over when CIA didn't help. It was always someone worse.

I have to say this was a good job at using facts though. :toast

spursncowboys

11-24-2009, 12:55 PM

well if you went back to the original posts of this thread in which you spent more time deciding to call everyone cheerleaders insead of checking out the points of the debate you would see that the most recently approved constitution are all about this.
I asked a question. You no talent ass clowns could have answered it, instead you made a swipe at me.

rjv

11-24-2009, 01:02 PM

I asked a question. You no talent ass clowns could have answered it, instead you made a swipe at me.

Is there a communist leader you cheerleaders are not willing to defend?

rhetorical questions are not really questions. so no one answered it

rjv

11-24-2009, 01:08 PM

[quote=rjv;3863958]

M. Moore? So it had nothing to do with nationalizing being communist? With him being a socialist? ALso just because he owned stock doesn't mean he did not do his job. For you to discredit a man who gave his life to his country is despicable.

Like I said the CIA is not the boyscouts. Their stands have all been against resource nationalism and socialism. Presidents know this and either allow it or don't. However lets put up their top 25 "jewels" up against any other country's intelligence agency. We should keep it in perspective. America was at war with an ideology. It was a real war. The Soviets had already shown to be willing to support any Commie country. Finally look at who took over when CIA didn't help. It was always someone worse.

I have to say this was a good job at using facts though. :toast

the cia would rank below the more despicable ones no doubt. the KGB and the massod do make the CIA look like a group of boy scouts. but that does not excuse the grossly unethical acts of the agency.

cleary, you subscribe to the "red menace" line that i do not. i believe that the US used the communist threat as an excuse to justify economic and militaristic imperialism throughout latin america.

whottt

11-24-2009, 01:10 PM

I'm mixed on this...

If he legalized the coca he's sort of a hero to me as there are more leaders that need to do that type of shit.

Fuck these motherfuckers that make all these plants illegal and throw people in jail for using that plant that has been here longer than we have.

Fuck
These
Motherfuckers
That do that.

Not only that but they create the black markets, and in doing so they artificially drive up the price for something that should be free, and the only form we can get the plant in is in a highly destructive man-made concentration that really isn't adapted well to human physiology.

Fuck
These
Assholes
That do that shit.

Wise up people...

Why don't Obama do some kind of shit like that libs, come to think of it, why in the fuck aren't you guys doing that?

At least when Bush was President he got us into a ME war like he was supposed to...when do the libs ever do the shit they are supposed to?

They just tell people what they want to hear.

Anyway, back to this dude. seems pretty cool except for whole take all the land and resources bullshit.

I went to Bolivia in 2000...complete and total shithole, I acutally got food poisoning while I was there. The village I stayed in was a complete shithole and a dangerous one at that.

It easy to see why those people hated that Government. It was incompetent. However, this guy just wants to be king and how long he will remain competent remains to be seen.

Oh the problem with Latin America is that all they do is go back and forth between extremes, usually not very peacefully either. They inherited that from Spain who has more or less started to grow out of it.

And it seems like the only time you guys get a stable government, is when it's socialist. Which sucks for ya'll.

If I were you guys, who lived in these countries, I would want the US Government in my country to stabilize it, just like we have been stabilizng Western Europe since WWII.

It's just basically people taking turns fucking each other over instead of actually making any long term progess...

And at heart, both of the sides ultimately boil down to some dude who wants to be king.

And don't blame America because Latin Americans themselves are polarized and elect leaders that alternately, bend over for us, or completely hate us.

We take advantage of that, it's still ultimately the problem of the politicians in power.

Moderation, peaceful transfer of power...you'd be amazed what sort of difference those things can make to any political landscape.

That's what the developed world has that LA and Africa lack more than anything else, the peaceful transfer of power, and they aren't continually jumping back and forth between extremes ultimately getting nowhere.

rjv

11-24-2009, 01:15 PM

And don't blame America because Latin Americans themselves are polarized and elect leaders that alternately, bend over for us, or completely hate us.

Moderation, peaceful transfer of power...you'd be amazed what sort of difference those things can make to any political landscape.

That's what the developed world has that LA and Africa lack more than anything else, the peaceful transfer of power, and they aren't continually jumping back and forth between extremes ultimately getting nowhere.

the problem is that many of the democratically elected leaders have often been assasinated or overthrown by staged coups.

ElNono

11-24-2009, 01:15 PM

Should Chile be the type of government for countries in S. America to emulate? There style economic liberalism? Free trade agreements? Could this type of reform help Bolivia and in the long run fix it?

Chile owes a lot of their economic stability to the military junta that governed from '73 to the '90s... The 3 democratic governments since then have slowed down a bit on the privatization of state-owned companies, but they don't have a lot of the historical baggage that other countries have. Chile also benefits immensely from having unfettered access to the ocean, something that Bolivia does not have.
I think we need to stop telling countries to emulate this or that, and let them figure out who they want to emulate and what fits better for them. I think they figured out for themselves that military juntas only kill innocent people, so I don't think they're going away from democracy. I just wish they stop trying to cheat on it.

whottt

11-24-2009, 01:24 PM

the problem is that many of the democratically elected leaders have often been assasinated or overthrown by staged coups.

Yes because we were in this thing called the Cold War with the Soviet Union and every fucking time they had a free election people would elect some fucking commie that was going to(at least potentially) cozy up to the Soviet Union. Fuck that.

I also hold the people responsible for that as well. You kept electing leaders ideologically symathetic or our enemy, we did what we had to do protect ourselves. Simple as that.

We are no longer in the cold war which is why we no longer really give a shit except as it pertains to our own country...yet you guys are still stuck in the coldwar mindset. And getting totally played by leaders using that card.

I suggest moving on...like both the US and Russia have.

Russia is no longer the Soviet Union and China is more capialistic than we are in many ways...that war is over, you guys can elect all the Socialists you want now and we don't really give a shit except for the fact we know it is a mistake and these guys are little more than tin pot dictators.

spursncowboys

11-24-2009, 01:28 PM

Chile owes a lot of their economic stability to the military junta that governed from '73 to the '90s... The 3 democratic governments since then have slowed down a bit on the privatization of state-owned companies, but they don't have a lot of the historical baggage that other countries have. Chile also benefits immensely from having unfettered access to the ocean, something that Bolivia does not have.
I think we need to stop telling countries to emulate this or that, and let them figure out who they want to emulate and what fits better for them. I think they figured out for themselves that military juntas only kill innocent people, so I don't think they're going away from democracy. I just wish they stop trying to cheat on it.
I agree completely with not telling countries how to operate. Chile did their change on their own though.

ElNono

11-24-2009, 01:30 PM

Wild Cobra

11-24-2009, 02:03 PM

ElNono

11-24-2009, 02:25 PM

History repeats itself again, and again.

You have an ailing country, and some charismatic man comes to power to lead. Get's the people to trust him, and abolish their way of life, and become their permanent leader.

Morales restored their way of life. And he still has to win elections to be a permanent leader.
I just think it's a disservice to democracy to have a 'unlimited' reelection clause.

whottt

11-24-2009, 02:53 PM

I'm just going to reiterate he was smart to legalize the coca plant.

You know what happens when you illegalize a plant that has the spiritual potential of the coca? You turn a lot of people into criminals needlessly.

No Govt has a right to people what they can and cannot do with something that grows freely and has been used by man for centuries, that is opression plain and simple. And it turns very normal human beings into criminals, and even forces them to associate with true criminals for what is essentially a non-criminal pursuit.

Every religion, spirtual movement, pretty much originated out of some kind plant alkaloid ritual...they cut us off from those plants, they cut us off from spirituality. We become more animal like because we are not allowed to use those plants.

It needs to stop...every place in the world it is being done, where it is creating a blackmarket, criminals, for somehting that is in the nature of every human being to want to experience, that they need to experience.

I support any an all leaders who legalize these plants as it is the primary step to getting our shit together as human being if you ask me, regalrdless of the rest of the politics behind it. Taking a little socialism with what Morales has done is no different than taking the Iraq war out of patriotism and a sincere desire to do the right thing, it might even be easier.

But he's going to fuck a lot of people over with his Nationalizing policies, and that is not something that is just going ot end once the stuff is Nationalized..and I also think that blanket statements like, the indigenous and the poor need this...

That is a generalizing mindset and I'd say pretty clearly some of them probably do need it, and some of thm don't. Their class and status does not inherentely make them worthy or divine, or most importantly when you are talking land and mineral resources, competent and good business men.

rjv

11-24-2009, 03:05 PM

Yes because we were in this thing called the Cold War with the Soviet Union and every fucking time they had a free election people would elect some fucking commie that was going to(at least potentially) cozy up to the Soviet Union. Fuck that.

I also hold the people responsible for that as well. You kept electing leaders ideologically symathetic or our enemy, we did what we had to do protect ourselves. Simple as that.

We are no longer in the cold war which is why we no longer really give a shit except as it pertains to our own country...yet you guys are still stuck in the coldwar mindset. And getting totally played by leaders using that card.

I suggest moving on...like both the US and Russia have.

Russia is no longer the Soviet Union and China is more capialistic than we are in many ways...that war is over, you guys can elect all the Socialists you want now and we don't really give a shit except for the fact we know it is a mistake and these guys are little more than tin pot dictators.

the rockefeller report imho supports the perspective that the red menace reasoning for intervention in latin america was mostly a whitewash. that report has some very suspicious and revealing details.

a good read on the actual level of involvement of the USSR in latin america during the "cold war" is The Giant's Rival: The U.S.S.R. in Latin America (1986, Pittsburgh University Press).

rjv

11-24-2009, 03:20 PM

But he's going to fuck a lot of people over with his Nationalizing policies, and that is not something that is just going ot end once the stuff is Nationalized..and I also think that blanket statements like, the indigenous and the poor need this...

That is a generalizing mindset and I'd say pretty clearly some of them probably do need it, and some of thm don't. Their class and status does not inherentely make them worthy or divine, or most importantly when you are talking land and mineral resources, competent and good business men.

one needs only look at NAFTA to see how lack of land possession affects an agrarian community. in mexico alone, the north american free trade agreement drove many mexican farmers out of business and several turned to drug cultivation and another one-sixth of the mexican agricultural work force that has been displaced in the NAFTA years have been compelled into emigration to the united states. being that most of the problems that have historically caused economic issues in many latin american countries is the migration of too large of a population into overcrowded urban areas, it makes all the sense in the world to ensure the survival of the agrarian communities.

this is not an issue of piety and the mere mention of aboriginal origins should not conjure up any inferences that one is placing them on some pedestal.

mogrovejo

11-24-2009, 07:16 PM

the wording here is clearly biased, implicitly stating that morales has made cocaine legal. what morales did was remove the ban on the the coca leaf as a crop. the article also completely ignores the centuries old use of coca amongst the indigenous population of the region. the plant is used for medicinal purposes as well as a remedy for hunger.

morales, in his 2005 election, august 2008 recall referendum and recent constitutional vote, received significantly more support from the population than obama did in the 2008

Oh please. Morales decriminalized coca grow, but even if cocaine wasn't made legal de jure, it was legalized de facto. The price of coca is indexed to the price of cocaine - the idea that Bolivia's production of coca serves to fill the needs of pharmaceutical companies and to be used in the indigenous rituals is nothing more than a fairy-tale. Morales is no more than a tool in the hands of the cocaleros and of the drug mafia. Bolivia is quickly becoming a narco-state, where a few powerful interest groups, sustained by the wealth created by the production and traffic of cocaine, used the political power to take over the natural resources by expropriating and nationalizing the gas and oil fields and now rule at their will with no restraint. His anti-American, anti-capitalist rhetoric earns him the favours of bien pensant minds of the Western World, who mourn for the past times when Moscow was the beacon of human kind and "Hasta Siemper Comandante" was fashionable to sing.

The problem isn't in the end of democracy. As you say, Morales is, from that perspective, a democratic leader. But democracy is frequently overrated. Unlimited democracy is no better than tyranny; liberalism, (or constitutionalism, or whatever you want to call it), in its classic definition of a core of individual liberties that are protected - freedom of press, of reunion, respect for contracts, respect for property, separation of powers, independence of the judiciary, protection of minorities, etc - is what prevents that democracies degenerate in totalitarianism. Democracies like Bolivia's, "winner takes it all" democracies, aren't better than any other authoritarian regime.

actually a true postmodernist professor would never push any marxist doctine at all since the basic underpinning of postmodernism is that there are no absolutes are certainties.

again, perhaps you should actually read up on some deconstructionalism or postmodernism. i'd love to see your google based takes on derrida or garcia marquez.

Huh? Do you even know who Garcia Marquez is? What's the connection between Garcia Marquez and deconstructionalism? I mean, GGM is an extreme-left nutty, so there's something there, but to the point of putting him together with Derrida? Marquez is a writer of fiction (some good, some not so good), a poor man's Mario Vargas Llosa; to point him out as emblematic of post-modernism is nonsensical. Perhaps one try to link the realismo mágico to some retro-nihilist currents of thought, but that's a stretch.

Also, criticising someone for linking post-modernism to marxism is ignorant. Plenty of literature available about that.

mogrovejo

11-24-2009, 07:18 PM

The voice of reason about Latin America:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2793315251391637273#

Winehole23

11-24-2009, 08:22 PM

Also, criticising someone for linking post-modernism to marxism is ignorant. Plenty of literature available about that.Except that postmodernismo, in its dejection about truth as foundation or telos, also leaves behind the trappings of ideology critique, historical materialism and scientific socialism. These are no longer authoritative or de rigeur for the postmodern epigone, but merely narratives among narratives.

What political marxism could not dismantle -- the patriarchal family and traditional cultures -- the cultural one seeks to dissolve in its own epistemological cynicism. It aims at similar targets, true. But to call it Marxism is inaccurate IMO. Postmodernism can be post-Marxist, crypto-Marxist or not Marxist at all. There is an array of *post*structural motifs to choose from.

The historical tie with "negative dialectics" and the Frankfurt School critique of mass culture and the culture industry is palpable -- but reducing postmodernism to its Marxist influences is ultimately unconvincing. Very few doctrinaire or even unconscious Marxists (in my own experience, right?) are to be found among avowed postmodernists in US universities.

Far more common are sophomoric obscurantists and students too lazy to master -- and too au courant to be even vaguely interested in -- anything written before 1970.

mogrovejo

11-24-2009, 09:12 PM

Except that postmodernismo, in its dejection about truth as foundation or telos, also leaves behind the trappings of ideology critique, historical materialism and scientific socialism. These are no longer authoritative or de rigeur for the postmodern epigone, but merely narratives among narratives.

What political marxism could not dismantle -- the patriarchal family and traditional cultures -- the cultural one seeks to dissolve in its own epistemological cynicism. It aims at similar targets, true. But to call it Marxism is inaccurate IMO. Postmodernism can be post-Marxist, crypto-Marxist or not Marxist at all. There is an array of *post*structural motifs to choose from.

The historical tie with "negative dialectics" and the Frankfurt School critique of mass culture and the culture industry is palpable -- but reducing postmodernism to its Marxist influences is ultimately unconvincing. Very few doctrinaire or even unconscious Marxists (in my own experience, right?) are to be found among avowed postmodernists in US universities.

Far more common are sophomoric obscurantists and students too lazy to master -- and too au courant to be even vaguely interested in -- anything written before 1970.

Oh, I agree that formally Marxism and Postmodernism (and I have doubts about putting them in the same class, the later not being more than a half-serious intellectual current without any kind of staying power) are almost paradoxical and I wasn't solely trying to reduce the later to its Marxist influences. I suppose any Marxist who indeed understands Marxism will see postmodernism as nothing more than a temporary cultural expression of specific material conditions.

However, not only was postmodernism a refuge to many compagnons de route (Baudrillard and Foucault, for example), but many of their underlying themes are shared: the critique of the capitalistic dominance, often expressed in practice by a virulent anti-Americanism is an obvious one. I'm very surprised that you didn't find unconscious Marxists among post-modernist academics (heck, wasn't Camille Paglia's experience quite different than yours?); I'd say that most post-modernists were former Marxists that found a new flag to carry. And most former Marxists are "ex-communists", as described by Arendt in her essay.

In any case, the link certainly exists and goes beyond the influences - it's a widely discussed subject (and one that doesn't deserve more than my superficial interest).

Duff McCartney

11-24-2009, 10:30 PM

You simply can not talk about the history and probably the future of Latin America without mentioning the United States. The U.S. policy on Latin America has been one of intervention and borderline criminal acts. The entire foreign policy has been corrupt and hypocritical to say the least.

SnC, Arbenz was no commie. In fact what he did, as far as redistributing the land was perfectly legal. The Guatemalan constitution of 1945, before Arbenz ever got elected, made larg estates illegal and gave the government the power to redistribute the land. Arbenz was elected with 65 percent of the vote and observers even said it was fair and honest.

In fact, the money he offered UFCO for the land was the same that UFCO itself claimed the land was worth. Yet the United States intervented stating that they weren't offering enough compensation for it.

Allen Dulles was President of UFCO, John Foster Dulles' law office wrote the drafts of agreement with Guatemala in 1930 and 1936, and Cabot, then assistant secretary of state, also owned stock in UFCO.

The elites of the country started crying and charging Arbenz with being "communist" and the U.S. intervened. Strangely enough, Arbenz redistributed less land than Mexico did during the same period, yet the United States of course did nothing to Mexico.

Duff McCartney

11-24-2009, 10:34 PM

I personally think the U.S. and especially during the Bush Administration, did a superb job in spouting ad hominem attacks against Chavez in Venezuela, as well as other leaders in South America.

The fact that the former Bush government demonized Chavez like some sort of new Joseph Stalin is laughable. All Chavez does is talk alot...he's a buffoon. He spouts all kinds of socialist rhetoric but he's just like all the other leaders that have come before him, only interested in getting himself and his "Boligarch" cronies rich.

Venezuela exports millions of barrels of crude oil to the United States, and the U.S. in turn processes it and sells it to other countries, even members of his own country have said if he were to stop selling to the U.S. like he so often threatens, he'd be in power for a few weeks at best.

mogrovejo

11-24-2009, 10:37 PM

^^^
http://www.puertolibros.com/pics/508337.jpg

Duff McCartney

11-24-2009, 10:39 PM

^^^
http://www.puertolibros.com/pics/508337.jpg

Care to elaborate? Instead of just posting some picture?

rjv

11-25-2009, 11:41 AM

Huh? Do you even know who Garcia Marquez is? What's the connection between Garcia Marquez and deconstructionalism? I mean, GGM is an extreme-left nutty, so there's something there, but to the point of putting him together with Derrida? Marquez is a writer of fiction (some good, some not so good), a poor man's Mario Vargas Llosa; to point him out as emblematic of post-modernism is nonsensical. Perhaps one try to link the realismo mágico to some retro-nihilist currents of thought, but that's a stretch.

Also, criticising someone for linking post-modernism to marxism is ignorant. Plenty of literature available about that.

wow. how completely off base is this nicely articulated but completely false definition of post-modernism? in all actuality, postmodernism is a quasi-philosophy. it is also a term that has been coined by academics and critics of academic pursuits (such as harold bloom who it sounds like you are parroting here) in courses such as feminism or, if you so want, marxism. but postmodernism as a movement, or a generalized class of "theory", borrows from a wide range of influences varying from relativism and existentialism, or even the linguistic analysis of wittgenstein, to the decontructionalism of derrida or poststructuralist analysis of rorty and then even to a vast group of writers such as robbe-grillet and italo calvino and many of the so called magical realism writers from latin america such as garcia marquez. the common denominator being that they all have an underpinning which essentially questions certainty or truth and considers language as incapable of true and absolute meaning. with marquez, his literature assumes that fiction should have fun with fiction, that there should be subtexts and alternate meanings. there is the written text and an infinite supply of subtexts resulting from that original text. one hundred years of solitude is filled from beginning to end with postmodern influence. but perhaps you're so off on your perfunctory attempt at literary analysis (retro-nihilist?) because you are more concerned with his political leanings, which have nothing to do with the point at hand. the latin american writers such as garcia marquez and cortazar are definitively post-modern writers who are just as concerned with the meaning of truth in language as carnap and derrida, although from different perspectives.

rjv

11-25-2009, 11:55 AM

Oh please. Morales decriminalized coca grow, but even if cocaine wasn't made legal de jure, it was legalized de facto. The price of coca is indexed to the price of cocaine - the idea that Bolivia's production of coca serves to fill the needs of pharmaceutical companies and to be used in the indigenous rituals is nothing more than a fairy-tale. Morales is no more than a tool in the hands of the cocaleros and of the drug mafia. Bolivia is quickly becoming a narco-state, where a few powerful interest groups, sustained by the wealth created by the production and traffic of cocaine, used the political power to take over the natural resources by expropriating and nationalizing the gas and oil fields and now rule at their will with no restraint. His anti-American, anti-capitalist rhetoric earns him the favours of bien pensant minds of the Western World, who mourn for the past times when Moscow was the beacon of human kind and "Hasta Siemper Comandante" was fashionable to sing.

in 2006, interdiction of illicit drugs increased significantly and the bolivian government met its target of eliminating 5,000 hectares of coca, and it was actually the government of president carlos mesa who signed an agreement with chapare coca growers allowing each family to maintain one cato of coca (1,600 square meters); any coca grown beyond that is subject to eradication. morales has continued this policy of permitting limited coca production and utilizing cooperative, instead
of forced, eradication.

over the first few months of 2007, US officials repeatedly warned of soaring coca cultivation in bolivia in 2006. but when the office of national drug control policy released its estimates of coca and cocaine cultivation in bolivia, it showed that coca cultivation in 2006 was “statistically
unchanged as compared to the 2005 estimate” and that “(c)ocaine potential production remained unchanged…from 2005 to 2006.” in contrast, ONDCP later reported a 9 percent increase in coca production in colombia and a 17-25 % increase in peru.

both bolivian and US authorities point to a significant increase in interdiction efforts since the morales government came into office. the bolivian anti-drug police significantly increased counter-drug operations and seized approximately 26 percent more cocaine base and cocaine hydrochloride. marijuana seizures increased by more than 240 percent. the bolivian government has also stepped up activities with neighboring countries to stem the flow of precursor chemicals and limit money laundering. officials in charge of interdiction operations dismiss speculation that the increased seizures are primarily the result of increased drug production in bolivia. rather, they point to steadily improving operational capacity, continued international support, and improved cooperation with local communities, which results in better intelligence. local officials also point to the new coca strategy as key to their efforts, as communities want to distinguish between coca growers and drug traffickers and are more likely to report on drug trafficking activity.

rjv

11-25-2009, 12:02 PM

The problem isn't in the end of democracy. As you say, Morales is, from that perspective, a democratic leader. But democracy is frequently overrated. Unlimited democracy is no better than tyranny; liberalism, (or constitutionalism, or whatever you want to call it), in its classic definition of a core of individual liberties that are protected - freedom of press, of reunion, respect for contracts, respect for property, separation of powers, independence of the judiciary, protection of minorities, etc - is what prevents that democracies degenerate in totalitarianism. Democracies like Bolivia's, "winner takes it all" democracies, aren't better than any other authoritarian regime.

sounds like you could be talking about any number of "democratic" countries, including our own. i mean, if we want to choose using an essay as an indicator of democracy, instead of improved economic opportunity, then submit away voltaire.

rjv

11-25-2009, 12:12 PM

Care to elaborate? Instead of just posting some picture?

he loves the literature ofvargas llosa but is tepid to garcia marquez. llosa is an advocate of neo liberalism in latin america and marquez has been sympathetic to cuba and chavez.

that should shed some light on what direction he is headed.

whottt

11-25-2009, 08:24 PM

the rockefeller report imho supports the perspective that the red menace reasoning for intervention in latin america was mostly a whitewash. that report has some very suspicious and revealing details.

a good read on the actual level of involvement of the USSR in latin america during the "cold war" is The Giant's Rival: The U.S.S.R. in Latin America (1986, Pittsburgh University Press).

While I don't doubt any government report contains a certain amount of whitewashing, it's pretty much ludicrous to make any sort of claims that...

A. The USSR wasn't funding most if not all of the socialist movements in Latin America during the coldwar. That's where the money was coming from.

B. That the avowed Marxists that were going to Nationalize foreign owned companies, in some cases companies owned by Americans, were doing so in the hopes of maintaining friendly relations with America and wouldn't seek out Soviet assistance when the financial relationships deteriorated.

C. And this is the big one, that the coldwar lacked any sort of desire on the part of the Soviet Union to at least be able to match the strategic nuclear missle placement of the US and Europe.

You see, even if America is the only bad guy, guilty of every crime commited in the 20th centurty and entirely the cause of about half the Latin American countries having more leaders in a 180 years than the Roman empire had in like 2000...even if the Soviet Union was the most altrusitic and noble non-expansionist movement in the history of mankind, the simple fact of the matter is we had our nuclear weapons stuck up their ass, and they didn't like it. Nor were they stupid.

Latin Americans, like Spain, love their revolutions, it is the preferred method of governmental change, always has been.

Add that to extremely political polarity and poverty, and you can always buy a revolution in Latin America...anyone, and America knows that as well as anyone.

My advice:

1 Next time you guys see someone saying he's going to Nationalize everything and give the power to the people, try to take a look at, oh, just about every other single time it's been done and see what the result is. And then ask yourself why everyone keeps thinking, this time, it will be different.

2. Most socialist movements in LA are not in fact about giving the poor a better standard of living, they are usually about some poor or rich guy who wants to be King, and the poor wanting to be rich, or at least wanting the rich to become poor. They go with socialism with that intent in mind, and they get sick of it fairly quickly when it fails to make things not suck. Hopefully people will figure out that neither socialism or capitalism are going to make the average person wealthy, but it's capitalism that gives you the better chance, and it's socialism that gives you none.

3. Many of those foreign investors have done more to develop Latin America that Latin American governments themselves have done(even as they became wealthy and exploited the situation). When these investments are unilaterally taken from them as they are told what pigs they are, that creates for a contentious relgionship. As does defaulting on loans.

I can say with all certainty that niether capitalism and democracy or socialism are ever going to be successful as long the political climate is so polarized and there so many people with a willingness to fuck each other over. It's always going to be easily exploited by external powers and those with money.

MB20

11-26-2009, 08:34 AM

Check this out:

Argentina's first couple deliver prosperity – for themselves

They were elected on the promise of delivering prosperity to Argentina, but statistics showing a stunning economic turnaround have come with a catch.

New figures show that since Nestor and Cristina Kirchner came to power in 2003, they have presided over a remarkable sixfold increase in their own wealth.

The couple have racked up a fortune through property speculation and investments that have thrived even as the economy has faltered. Last year alone their wealth jumped 158% to £7.3m.

Opponents have accused the Kirchners of exploiting political connections in their home state of Patagonia to buy municipal land cheaply and sell it at a vast profit. "It's a scandal," said Patricia Bullrich, a member of congress.

The couple, lawyers by training and leftists in the Peronist movement, denied any wrongdoing and through a spokesman said that being in office did not impede business deals: "That is the essence of capitalism."

In an unusual tandem, Nestor served as president until 2007 when he stood aside for his wife, a veteran senator and politician in her own right, who was elected in the first round over a divided opposition.

They were popular for presiding over a speedy recovery after Argentina's econnomic meltdown in 2001-02. But underlying problems became apparent after "Queen Cristina", as she is known to some, took over.

Analysts said inflation was perhaps triple the official rate of 9%, a figure widely viewed as a product of government fiddling, and a bruising battle with farmers over export taxes was compounded by a drought. After six consecutive years of steady growth the IMF expects GDP to shrink by about 1.5% this year. Industrial activity has slumped.

With their own party riven by in-fighting, the Kirchners lost control of congress in mid-term elections last month. In their Patagnonian fiefdom, however, they have notched up property deals that would have made Donald Trump proud.

According to information the couple supplied to the anti-corruption office, they own 28 properties valued at $3.8m, four companies worth $4.8m and bank deposits of $8.4m. Last year they sold 16 properties, almost tripling their bank accounts, and expanded their hotel business in El Calafate, a tourist magnet. Their debts also jumped because of bank loans.

Local authorities have investigated transactions over suspicions that a mayor had given the Kirchners a bargain price for municipal land, but the case has stalled.

Gotta love Latin American "leaders".:rolleyes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/26/argentina-kirchner-wealth