WSJ: The End of Bolivian Democracy

[mogrovejo]

The voice of reason about Latin America:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5251391637273#

[Winehole23]

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 sop ric obscurantists and students too lazy to master -- and too au courant to be even vaguely interested in -- anything written before 1970.

[mogrovejo]

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 sop ric 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]

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 cons ution 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]

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]

^^^

[Duff McCartney]

^^^

Care to elaborate? Instead of just posting some picture?

[rjv]

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]

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]

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 cons utionalism, 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]

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]

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 su ious 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 each other over. It's always going to be easily exploited by external powers and those with money.

[MB20]

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 su ions that a mayor had given the Kirchners a bargain price for municipal land, but the case has stalled.

Gotta love Latin American "leaders".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...irchner-wealth

[Duff McCartney]

You're not giving anybody any news by proclaiming that Latin American leaders are just elites and basically create oligarchys around them. That has been happening to Latin America since the Spanish era, when the creole elites were doing it.

The arguement is that there's nothing unique about Bolivia anymore than any other Latin American country.

The fact is, the leadership of Latin America, the economic policies of Latin America, and United States intervention have made the situation worse than it could have been.