Bolivia elects Native American president

[TheSilverKnight]

A few links, first of all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4636190.stm <-- "Bolivia's new leader vows change"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3203752.stm <-- a profile of Evo Morales

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4638030.stm <-- excerpts from his inaugural speech

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10952596/ <-- Also an article from MSNBC about the coca leaf issue (Coca, of course, is used to make cocaine :no:)


Well...I'd like to see what the orgers have to say about this. Personally, I think it's great that the Bolivians, and Latin Americans in general, finally have one of the "first peoples" amongst their leaders. I'm interested to see how his term will come out. He seems to be pretty outspoken against the US, however, about their policy of eradication of the Coca leaf. It is originally not a drug, we must remember, and to be honest, what the Americans are doing in there, in Bolivia, is destroying a way of life that many farmers use to make a living, and thus are pushing Bolivia into a worse slump.

Morales has also said that foreign customers will have to pay more for Bolivian gas, since the 2003 gas protests.

The people seem to be pretty stoked about having an indigenous president, and one who was also a coca grower like they are now.

I'm waiting to see how this plays out for the world economies, and I'd like to see comments from the following --

Americans, both sides. What are the pros and cons to his presidency?

Latin Americans. What does this mean for the future of Latin America's "indigenas"?

Europeans. Just overall comments.

Any other party with comments, feel free to give your input.

Oh my, I'm so civilised when it comes to debating :no: :2thumbsup:

[GoreBag]

I think he must have real support if he's a member of a minority, especially Native American, which means he's probably a sharp guy. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

[TheSilverKnight]

I think he must have real support if he's a member of a minority, especially Native American, which means he's probably a sharp guy. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Aye, it will be. Natives are very oppressed in Latin America from what I can decipher. Perhaps a Latin American can clear this up, or is this correct information?

He seems to be bullied a little bit by the US over his coca policies. Any comment from the Americans on this?

[GoreBag]

Where are the aboriginals not oppressed, and whom doesn't the US bully?

[TheSilverKnight]

Where are the aboriginals not oppressed, and whom doesn't the US bully?

True, I forgot to take those into consideration. But I wouldn't wish to provoke any outright hostility from the American parties. :shame:

There are a fair number of indigenous peoples in Mexico, and I believe they're somehow protected by a government act?

[Proletariat]

Defending the cocoa trade is absurd. Just because it's a tradition means nothing. It's a powerful drug that destroys many lives. The US could say slavery's a tradition. Doesn't make it any less evil.

[GoreBag]

Well, I think the cocoa trade is a good idea. Better to inhale that particular plant than turn to chems. Besides, I like traditions.

[Tribesman]

I think he must have real support if he's a member of a minority
Neon , I think the minority makes up 75% of the population of Bolivia , so the question is , what took so long for them to get a leader elected ?

Morales has also said that foreign customers will have to pay more for Bolivian gas, since the 2003 gas protests
Silver , the price increase was by the previous government , Morales is aiming to nationalise the gas fields and increase exports .

There are a fair number of indigenous peoples in Mexico, and I believe they're somehow protected by a government act?
They had a little bit of a revolution , took control of parts of the country and won concessions from the government , they are now abandoning violent struggle and entering mainstream politics . Though strangely enough their leader is not of native descent .

Defending the cocoa trade is absurd. Just because it's a tradition means nothing. It's a powerful drug that destroys many lives.
Yummm....chocolate , a very powerful drug :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[TheSilverKnight]

Defending the cocoa trade is absurd. Just because it's a tradition means nothing. It's a powerful drug that destroys many lives. The US could say slavery's a tradition. Doesn't make it any less evil.

Cocoa and Coca are two different things...but yet, cocoa can be a powerful drug too. So tasty :laugh4:

But in all seriousness, the Bolivians do not use coca for the same drug uses which us Europeans & Americans mistake it to be for: drug use. The Quechua & Aymara Native Americans cultivate(d) it and have used it for many purposes, such as religious, pharmaceutical, and industrial use...possibly even being transported to Europe & Africa during Pre-Columbian contact.

What the Americans are doing in the War on Drugs in South America, by trying to eradicate the coca leaf, they are destroying a way of life of many people, and they do not realise the environmental, and socioeconomical impact of their actions. If it is continued upon, it is likely that many people will lose their only form of getting money and survival: growing a plant which in it's original form is NOT used for making the drug Cocaine.

[Lazul]

My guess is that the US (CIA) will do their best in destablize the country... since he is probably a Dicator and a Commie in the eyes of the US-gov.
Then they support the guy down there that kisses their asses the best so they can buy their natural resources for insanely low prices and also... ofcourse, make sure that no money goes to the bolivians. Since ofcourse, nationalizing natural resources is COMMUNISM! boo huuu!

... yeah im just being a big pessimist here.

[Redleg]

My guess is that the US (CIA) will do their best in destablize the country... since he is probably a Dicator and a Commie in the eyes of the US-gov.
Then they support the guy down there that kisses their asses the best so they can buy their natural resources for insanely low prices and also... ofcourse, make sure that no money goes to the bolivians. Since ofcourse, nationalizing natural resources is COMMUNISM! boo huuu!

... yeah im just being a big pessimist here.


You ever want to see a big boo huuu let the United States decide to nationalize its natural resources and its debt.

[Byzantine Prince]

Actually Bolivia is the only latin american country that has a PURE native american majority. Other countries like Chile for example have no recognized minorities because they are almost all mixed with europeans, but this is not the case with most Bolivians.

Nice blunder, cocoa *IS* very addictive and needs to be stopped immidiately! :laugh4:

[master of the puppets]

so what about his anti-american policy, it was probly not for this g=he got into office, and anyway if he was at all intelligent he would probly attempt to restabalize the country and its people, not simply bash the americans.

also, war on coca plant and complete eradication...bad.
survailance and monitoring of all major coca crops...good

but even then the coca plantations that are used to sponsor the U.S. drug is probably not small plantations owned by people for religion and ceremony, they are the large secret ones in the jungle who have no "tradition" involved and are all about the blood money collected for some poor dumb crack-head. we won't destroy the drug trade by attacking mom and pop plantation, we will do it with see and destroy missions and the public beheadings of drug dealers.

[Meneldil]

At first I didn't like him, cause he sounded like another Castro wanabe. Yet, I saw his meeting with Chirac and a few interviews of him, and he seemed to be a Chavez rather than a Castro : a pragmatic socialist willing to help his people and not someone who wants to rule his country just for the sack of having some power.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

.... a pragmatic socialist....

Quite an oxymoron.

Probably beats compassionate conservative.

I was unaware that Bolivia did not have the same "mestizo" issues so common across much of Latin America. With those kind of voter numbers, it is clear that he is drawing a lot of electoral support.

As an econ/political approach, however, I have grave doubts about socialism -- especially over the long run.

I agree with Prole as to the morality of the coca issue, but I know that the only real way to curb that scourge is to change the demand side of the equation. As long as so many Yanks have a taste for Cocaine, some budding capitalist will provide the supply -- all herbicide programs can do is push up the price.

[Meneldil]

Well, I think Chavez is pragmatic cause unlike Castro he has a double sided speech. On the first hand, he keeps blaming capitalism, the elites, and so on (the average socialist speech), yet he trades with all his american neighboors, works with many companies leaders, etc.

A better wording might have been 'a not radical socialist' ?

[Soulforged]

I posted a little thread a while ago of the same subject (with another direction), but let's see how this evolves
Well...I'd like to see what the orgers have to say about this. Personally, I think it's great that the Bolivians, and Latin Americans in general, finally have one of the "first peoples" amongst their leaders. I'm interested to see how his term will come out. He seems to be pretty outspoken against the US, however, about their policy of eradication of the Coca leaf. It is originally not a drug, we must remember, and to be honest, what the Americans are doing in there, in Bolivia, is destroying a way of life that many farmers use to make a living, and thus are pushing Bolivia into a worse slump.The problem of drugs (wich shouldn't be an issue at all) has other faces as you say, regarding Bolivia where it involves great part of internal production. And you do well in remembering everyone that the "coca" is not a drug. In the north of Argentina, where it's particulary hot at afternoons, they chew this leaf to relax and be fresh. The cocaine is prepared with coca through a process. Though there would be no problem with allowing drugs, wouldn't it?

Morales has also said that foreign customers will have to pay more for Bolivian gas, since the 2003 gas protests. Yes the gas has always been a problem, and the supply is destributed incorrectly, not only in Bolivia, but in almost every South American country, this causes problems with taxes, so I think it's a fine policy.

The people seem to be pretty stoked about having an indigenous president, and one who was also a coca grower like they are now.You mean the PEOPLE or the people.~;)

Americans, both sides. What are the pros and cons to his presidency?In short: pros- an stable government; socialist policies (a "shattered" country such as Bolivia needs it); for what I can see right now, also, development of internal production. cons- i don't really know how much of any science does this Evo knows; I don't know how much he'll survive in the political summit with all the predators there....I hope he's prepared.

Latin Americans. What does this mean for the future of Latin America's "indigenas"?Nothing really. Outside of Bolivia (where there's actually a massive concentration of prime-natives) the "indigenas" subject has from little to none importance. Most communities are isolated and outside of the control of the state, wich means outlawed if you want.

[TheSilverKnight]

Outside of Bolivia (where there's actually a massive concentration of prime-natives) the "indigenas" subject has from little to none importance. Most communities are isolated and outside of the control of the state, wich means outlawed if you want.

How are they outlawed? Do you mean that they are not treated as regular (if you can call "white" regular) people? Are they not given enough rights? Explain this issue to me, I'm eager to learn about the rights of the native peoples. ~:)

[Soulforged]

How are they outlawed? Do you mean that they are not treated as regular (if you can call "white" regular) people? Are they not given enough rights? Explain this issue to me, I'm eager to learn about the rights of the native peoples. ~:)
No, they're just "not treated" at all, unless there's some issue that exceeds their isolated community. Cases counting back to a few months were only noticed because someone speaked, but the state doesn't has direct influence over them, the law doesn't applies for good or bad. Communities in Argentina, ar more desintegrated than integrated, they're distributed along the territory with no conection and still in a primitive sedentary life, others have been living in civilization since decades to centuries ago, but the great mass of them were masacrated. In Brasil and in Paraguay (also limit zones of the "Triple Alliance" -Argentina, Brasil, Paraguay- like Misiones for example) the "indigenas" are grouped in tribes like in the old times and don't care about civilized worlds. The largest group is still the Guaran&#237;, wich is, even though bigger than the others, partioned in several autonomous tribes and communities wich follow their traditions. Bolivia, however, has a largest part of their native habitants, wich are "political active" if you want. As said in the rest, wich I can breifly comment (and I did) the participation is reduced to limit cases when there's a life involded (rarely) or when there's a forest involved, thanks to the intromission of Green Peace.

EDIT to ADD: I forgot to say. Formally they're treated as every other citizen, but in order to respect their customs, the law of the state rarely enters their matters. They've also the right to conserve the little land that they've left as community's territory. That's all I can say. When they're given the civil status of everybody else is just that, there's no difference on social level and they've the same capacity (again this is all formally).

[Strike For The South]

This isnt relevent. He steps outta line Pat Robertson sends God to kill him. Were Good

[TheSilverKnight]

This isnt relevent. He steps outta line Pat Robertson sends God to kill him. Were Good

Pat Robertson isn't God's messenger. Pat Robertson isn't relevant at all. Pat Robertson is just a fundy bigot who doesn't know his socialists from his right-wingers. Anything he says, to be honest, is pretty much a joke, no matter how extreme it is, yet it is sad people listen to him.

But I digress, this isn't a conversation about Pat Robertson, it is a discussion of a landmark event in Latin American history: the election of a Native American as a President. So please, STFS, keep the discussion on this topic. Thanks. ~:)

[Redleg]

Pat Robertson isn't God's messenger. Pat Robertson isn't relevant at all. Pat Robertson is just a fundy bigot who doesn't know his socialists from his right-wingers. Anything he says, to be honest, is pretty much a joke, no matter how extreme it is, yet it is sad people listen to him.

But I digress, this isn't a conversation about Pat Robertson, it is a discussion of a landmark event in Latin American history: the election of a Native American as a President. So please, STFS, keep the discussion on this topic. Thanks. ~:)

Well it seems he successfully distracted you into going into a rant. :oops: :laugh4:

[GoreBag]

Pat Robertson isn't God's messenger. Pat Robertson isn't relevant at all. Pat Robertson is just a fundy bigot who doesn't know his socialists from his right-wingers. Anything he says, to be honest, is pretty much a joke, no matter how extreme it is, yet it is sad people listen to him.

But I digress, this isn't a conversation about Pat Robertson, it is a discussion of a landmark event in Latin American history: the election of a Native American as a President. So please, STFS, keep the discussion on this topic. Thanks. ~:)

It was a joke, mang.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hmm. A poor county elects a socialist who wants to increase his country's reliance on an illegal drug, destroy foreign investment by nationalising companies, and screw over the economy in general with socialist policies (after twice routing out of office other presidents). I'm betting on the poverty rate going up, just like it has under Chavez in Venezuela.

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

Hmm. A poor county elects a socialist who wants to increase his country's reliance on an illegal drug
No a country that doesn't want to waste money trying to stamp out production and which doesn't want to participate in a foriegn program that is being misused .

I'm betting on the poverty rate going up, just like it has under Chavez in Venezuela.

Interesting Rabbit , can you provide any data showing an increase in poverty levels in Venezuela ? Or for that matter any decline in its economic growth (currently 17%) .
There have been two increases in poverty during Chavez presidency , the first was during the economic sabotage/blockade by the opposition , the second was at the time of the coup by the opposition .
So that means that it is the opposition that you support which has twice temporarily increased poverty levels Rabbit !!!!!
So despite these two blips poverty levels are now lower , and more importantly the levels of extreme poverty have declined by a staggering amount .
So your point was .....ummmmm ....? oh yes , try not to repeat propoganda put out by the people without first checking the accuracy of the propoganda .
Good point Rabbit , lucky you checked first isn't it :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Oh and you can expect an increase again at the moment as once again the opposition is trying to damage the economy , this time by blocking the supply of basic foodstuffs .
Is it any wonder that the opposition cannot get popular support .
Chavez might be a dickhead , but the opposition are complete idiots .

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hmm. A poor county elects a socialist who wants to increase his country's reliance on an illegal drug
No a country that doesn't want to waste money trying to stamp out production and which doesn't want to participate in a foriegn program that is being misused .

I'm betting on the poverty rate going up, just like it has under Chavez in Venezuela.

Interesting Rabbit , can you provide any data showing an increase in poverty levels in Venezuela ? Or for that matter any decline in its economic growth (currently 17%) .
There have been two increases in poverty during Chavez presidency , the first was during the economic sabotage/blockade by the opposition , the second was at the time of the coup by the opposition .
So that means that it is the opposition that you support which has twice temporarily increased poverty levels Rabbit !!!!!
So despite these two blips poverty levels are now lower , and more importantly the levels of extreme poverty have declined by a staggering amount .
So your point was .....ummmmm ....? oh yes , try not to repeat propoganda put out by the people without first checking the accuracy of the propoganda .
Good point Rabbit , lucky you checked first isn't it :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Oh and you can expect an increase again at the moment as once again the opposition is trying to damage the economy , this time by blocking the supply of basic foodstuffs .
Is it any wonder that the opposition cannot get popular support .
Chavez might be a dickhead , but the opposition are complete idiots .

I suppose you'd blame the Allies of WWII for all French casualties whilst liberating France.

And we all know how well socialist country's economys turn out! Just ask the Soviet Union! At least, you could, if they hadn't collapsed economically.

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

So Rabbit you make a post that is contrary to fact and then when your error is pointed out to you you come out with some rubbish like
I suppose you'd blame the Allies of WWII for all French casualties whilst liberating France.

Very clever :no:

[cromwell]

Rabbit, do you know the difference between communism and socialism, cause I don't think you do. Canada has lots of socialism programs and we still manage to be in the G8 list of countries. we trade internationally, we have business ....etc. It just means we don't sell everything out to the Corporations. You can have a healthy balance of capitalism and socialism. People need to quit jumping the gun on socialism thinking it's all bad. Most of Europe has socialism mixed in with their Gov't's, that doesn't make them "commies" their Economy's are surviving. It's time to grow up and not see things in black or white. The world is too complicated for that narrow view.


Cromwell

[Crazed Rabbit]

What? That's your whole post? What's the matter? Cat got your tongue?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Without fact? I seem to recall you saying:

There have been two increases in poverty during Chavez presidency

It would appear that you agree that my facts were correct.:idea2:

No error was pointed out, you agreed with me and then said I was lying. :dizzy2: :inquisitive: :dizzy2: You aren't suffering from a wee bit of logical whiplash, are you? :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Oh, but wait, say you!

So despite these two blips poverty levels are now lower , and more importantly the levels of extreme poverty have declined by a staggering amount .
So your point was .....ummmmm ....? oh yes , try not to repeat propoganda put out by the people without first checking the accuracy of the propoganda .

Funny that you mention the drop in poverty, which occured, according to the official Venzuelan National Statistics Institute, in several months during 2005, after the President scolded them for publishing figures showing a great rise in poverty.

Hmm, coercion, anyone? Why yes! But you got 'my' point right: you shouldn't believe Chavez's propaganda! :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

'Venezuelan statistics are no longer credible,'' says Ana Julia Jatar, an economist with the Institute of Higher Administration Studies (IESA), ``They have become an instrument of government propaganda.''
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/andres_oppenheimer/13007121.htm

I'm ashamed you forgot to remember 'my' point, check the accuracy of your propaganda!! :idea2: :laugh4: As it is, you got it right the first time when you said poverty levels rose!



said poverty had risen from 43 percent to 54 percent of the population during Chávez's first four years in office. The report said that extreme poverty -- the poorest of the poor -- had increased from 17 percent to 25 percent of the population.


I especially like your complete inability to respond when it was pointed out that you were blaming the victims (Venezuelans/French) for the problems caused (Poverty increases/War and destruction) when they (Or their friends, the USA, in the case of the French) fought their oppressers (Chavez/Hitler). :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

And why don't you ask some of the countries that had socialist systems in the past, if they're so great? Huh? Granted, most have collapsed, :laugh4: :laugh4: but people living there still remember them.


Rabbit, do you know the difference between communism and socialism, cause I don't think you do.

You'd be wrong.


Canada has lots of socialism programs and we still manage to be in the G8 list of countries. we trade internationally, we have business ....The world is too complicated for that narrow view.

Not all socialistic countries are the same. I have an inkling Morales' brand of socialism will be much closer to communism, Chavez like, then Canada or Europe. I don't think you (or some European countries) would be on the G8 if more countries got rid of socialistic institutions, which would make their economies better.

Crazed Rabbit

[Sheep]

Let's see if this makes sense:

1) Native South Americans grow coca leaves for millenia with little to no ill effects.

2) Europeans conquer South America.

3) Europeans discover coca leaves can be processed into a very potent drug called cocaine.

4) Millions of Europeans (and Americans) become addicted to cocaine. Oops.

5) European and American governments demand native South Americans stop growing coca leaves to prevent further cocaine addiction in Europe and America.


I understand eradicating the coca plantations that have no cultural benefit and only exist to produce cocaine. But to me it doesn't make much sense that we tell the Aymara and Quechua to stop growing coca leaves because WE made a drug out of it. Seems to me that's our bad.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Rabbit, do you know the difference between communism and socialism, cause I don't think you do. Canada has lots of socialism programs and we still manage to be in the G8 list of countries. we trade internationally, we have business ....etc. It just means we don't sell everything out to the Corporations. You can have a healthy balance of capitalism and socialism. People need to quit jumping the gun on socialism thinking it's all bad. Most of Europe has socialism mixed in with their Gov't's, that doesn't make them "commies" their Economy's are surviving. It's time to grow up and not see things in black or white. The world is too complicated for that narrow view.

Rabbit (and I) would suggest that history demonstrates a greater degree of long-term problems and flaws associated with government direction of large segments of an economy as opposed to free market forces. Some minimal degree of regulation may be necessary to avoid abuse, but controlled economies are rarely efficient, seldom innovative, and prone to long-term stagnation. The communist states with their totally controlled economies are mostly defunct (or transforming), while the socialist states of Europe and the New World are functioning. However, to what extent are the prospering BECAUSE of socialized market segments, or in spite of such segments? That is the question you'll need to answer to argue your case.

Will Chavez' government rake in a lot of money that can be transferred to the poorer elements of Venezuela's society during an era when oil costs $65/barrel and seems likely to push up towards $100? Of course. But can he improve the infrastructure of Venezuela and its capacity to self-generate economic growth using the current socialist model? A LOT less likely.

Will Bolivia's new regime fare any better, especially without a petroleum industry akin to Venezuela's? I have my doubts.

See my earlier post on the Drug issue. The problem is reducing its market. Attacking suppliers is, at best, temporizing.

[GoreBag]

Rabbit (and I) would suggest...

I don't think he would.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ah, but I would.

Unless, of course, you were talking about one of the many other people on this forum known as 'Rabbit'. ~;)

Crazed Rabbit

[GoreBag]

No, I was saying you'd make some silly and far-off allegory to something, say, the USSR's Stalinist regime, and leave it at that, thereby dodging the issue and looking like a jerk in the process.

[Soulforged]

Not all socialistic countries are the same. I have an inkling Morales' brand of socialism will be much closer to communism, Chavez like, then Canada or Europe. I don't think you (or some European countries) would be on the G8 if more countries got rid of socialistic institutions, which would make their economies better.
It might be in fact closer to communism per se, but what would that mean? First of all there has to be a proletariat movement wich is revolutionary and active, wich is not. Second, reactionaries, such as marginals, are out of the movement for technical reasons, wich is not. Third, the companies should be nationalized, wich is not (is not the same to increase national industry and to nationalize all industry by making it stadual). Fourth, there has to be a dictatorship ran by the body of proletariat, wich is not. So Rabbit where's your communism? I know that the government might appear to be communist, but it's not. They're massivelly religious (wich excludes communism) and nationalist (wich might explain their policies). Their policies are better explained in the fact that opening ones economical borders is not a trivial fact, a minimal action, it requires massive treatment and deliberation, it also requires an internal economy in general (principally the industrial area) to be competent, wich in the case of Bolivia is not. You could argue then that socialist policies are good in the short term until the economy becomes competitive, but that's not at all true. You and I need socialism to stop the effects of unchecked capitalism, in short to redistribute the mass of the product more equitably. If you're too liberal you could make the society lose coherence, if you're to socialist you could end destroying the basic freedoms. But speaking of Bolivia, those policies are similar to the ones of Perón (not the same, but similar) here, it's not socialism per se and idealistically speaking, it tends to be nationalistic and that's all. It implies closing, progressing and reopening. But do you still want to argue that this is communism?

[Crazed Rabbit]

I never argued it was communism, I just said it was socialism, and more socialistic than Western European or Canada.

But let us discuss some of your points.
Communism does not of necessity exclude religion. It is true Marx scorned religion, and Lenin and Stalin instituted atheism as a part of communism, but some have found a way to blend Marxism and religion; the I.R.A. in Ireland, for example.

Nor does one need a proletariat revolution for communism. Marx's communism was a vision of the workers rising up and taking control and then being benevolent leaders till the end of time. In reality, this has never happened. All 'communist' revolutions have been lead by a minority, usually well educated, and using the ideals of communism to gain a following. The end result is the same, because they institute the same communistic policies. In this case, Morales is also a nationalist, and uses that to help get followers also.

And Morales has threatened to nationalise some key companies.

I would also say that socialism for a starting economic policy in a nation that has a lot of growth to do is foolish. Socialist economies expand in spite of, not because of socialism. I would also argue that socialism is unnecessary for national coherence. If anything, it decreases national unity by playing off class hatreds. It also slows the economy. And in a higher growth economy, all people, including the poor, win. The average poor person in the US, for instance, has two TVs and is generally better off than the middle class of the 1950s US.

EDIT:
No, I was saying you'd make some silly and far-off allegory to something, say, the USSR's Stalinist regime, and leave it at that, thereby dodging the issue and looking like a jerk in the process.

Well, you'd be wrong, as I wouldn't, and didn't:

Not all socialistic countries are the same. I have an inkling Morales' brand of socialism will be much closer to communism, Chavez like, then Canada or Europe. I don't think you (or some European countries) would be on the G8 if more countries got rid of socialistic institutions, which would make their economies better.

The right honorable Seamus Fermanagh simply put it (much) better, and clearer.

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

Hmm, coercion, anyone? Why yes! But you got 'my' point right: you shouldn't believe Chavez's propaganda!
Oh dear Rabbit , lets start with some basics eh
This article.... http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...r/13007121.htm is not factual , it is repeated in many papers and on many sites , that does not make it true .
The author makes many claims both in that article and others , and offers many so called "facts" , those "facts" are contradicted by numerous reports , studies and analysis conducted by a wide variety of governmental and non governmental groups , including your Government , the OAS , the World bank , the UN , the EU fund for development , OPEC ,....... need I go on ?

It would appear that you agree that my facts were correct
Oh very clever , selective quoting out of context , try the full statement then . But of course that would show that you are incorrect and you wouldn't want to do that would you :no:

Funny that you mention the drop in poverty, which occured, according to the official Venzuelan National Statistics Institute, in several months during 2005, after the President scolded them for publishing figures showing a great rise in poverty.

Don't you find it strange that the author you cite has no problem at all reporting a rise in poverty due to events , but has a really big problem with a corresponding fall after those events .
So perhaps if you or the author do not trust the official Venezuelan statistics then you should not use them , there are plenty of others available from a multitude of sources .
So if you want to try and make a point that you are by some stretch of the imagination actually factually correct with your claims try and find any independant study that agrees with your position .
You may have some difficulty as they all show that poverty was steadily declining , and though events led to two increases they are indeed lower than they were before his rise to power .
You may find some other interesting facts as well , you know little things like health care , education , revenue , life expectancy , clean water and sanitation , welfare programs , infrastructure , security of tenancy , levels of literacy

But of course you don't want to think about facts , you have a crappy article from the Miami Herald to support your position don't you .
Hmmmmm......Miami , that has a big population of people that don't like a government that is friends with Chavez doesn't it .
Still I suppose rubbish like that will sell well down there so its good for business even if it is lacking in facts.:laugh4:

[Soulforged]

I never argued it was communism, I just said it was socialism, and more socialistic than Western European or Canada.I'm really confused with USA anti-communist preachers:And we all know how well socialist country's economys turn out! Just ask the Soviet Union! At least, you could, if they hadn't collapsed economically.What do I've to conclude from that? Or are you saying now that the Soviet-Union wasn't communist (wich I could agree actually).

But let us discuss some of your points.Fair enough.

Communism does not of necessity exclude religion. It is true Marx scorned religion, and Lenin and Stalin instituted atheism as a part of communism, but some have found a way to blend Marxism and religion; the I.R.A. in Ireland, for example.There's a philosophic problem with accepting religion on a communist society, that is, praising to an unic lord that's above it all, above mundane and earthly matters where the materialism is concentrated. It's not actually communism. You'll notice that I only adressed the ideal formation of communism wich is what I want to discuss.


Nor does one need a proletariat revolution for communism. Marx's communism was a vision of the workers rising up and taking control and then being benevolent leaders till the end of time. In reality, this has never happened.Wrong, if you read "Critics to German Ideology" you'll see a few more points of communism wich doesn't include the big state that's in the instruction of the Manifesto. And the poletariat movement is needed, "prole" comes from the latin, term that means "offspring", the workers wich take direct care of their offspring (in the times of Marx, the industrial operative) are the ones called proletariat, if there's no proletariat there's no communist revolution.
All 'communist' revolutions have been lead by a minority, usually well educated, and using the ideals of communism to gain a following.An educated minority? Wich one will that be?
And Morales has threatened to nationalise some key companies.It's interesting that you used the word "threatened" there... What companies would that be? Did you read about the actual projects or only heard about that in the news or read it in the papers? Nationalizing companies might imply many things. In this case, the key companies that you're talking about are the gas and the petro-oil, wich are nationalized in most South American countries wich need of those two materials badly for internal devopment and for taxing and distributing. Here's an article in spanish (i hope you understand spanish):LINK (http://www.lavanguardia.es/web/20060124/51226322687.html)I'l only translate a little excerpt:"Ésta es una de las medidas clave en el proceso de nacionalización. La decisión de registrar como propias las reservas es el primer paso que da el país después de la ley de Hidrocarburos, que declaró que los recursos naturales son propiedad del Estado", dijo el nuevo ministro de Hidrocarburos, Andrés Solís Rada, poco después de jurar su cargo.This will mean: "This is one of the key measures in the nationalization process. The decision to registrate like own the reserves is the first step that the country takes after the law of hidrocarbures (petrol-oil and gas -this last was causing a lot of problems in Bolivia and the argentian northwest), wich declared that those natural resurces were property of the State"- by the minister of Hidrocarbures (Andrés Solís Rada). They're not nationalizing all industry, not even the primary sector, wich is clue to call it a communist measure. I repeat the nationalist measure (if you want) is common in south american policies.

I would also say that socialism for a starting economic policy in a nation that has a lot of growth to do is foolish. Socialist economies expand in spite of, not because of socialism.The key is not forgeting about social cohesion, you also have to understand that the production of money is limited in all South America wich might cause problems in how the treasure is distributed. It's also a problem that most companies don't invest in the same country they're located.
I would also argue that socialism is unnecessary for national coherence.National coherence is to me a kind of oxymoron (from the state point of view), but that's beyond the point, I never argued for national coherence, I talked about social coherence.
If anything, it decreases national unity by playing off class hatreds.Not it actually does the opposite, it tries to decrease the differences between classes and increasing the participation of the excluded classes.
It also slows the economy. That will have to be demonstrated. Here the basic service companies were privatized that not only "slowed" the economy but caused havoc in the national treasure.
And in a higher growth economy, all people, including the poor, win.The problem will start with the very existence of a class, but that isn't important for this discussion, what you've to show me is that socialistic behavior will decrease the economic growth.
The average poor person in the US, for instance, has two TVs and is generally better off than the middle class of the 1950s US.That's certainly true, however you've to consider that in the years of the Great Depression Keynes was in order to your country and with him the Benefactor State (how do you call it? Welfare is it?).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Soul':

Yes, the common phrasing here is "welfare state."


Rabbit and I, at least vis-a-vis this thread, are focusing on the degree of government control of economic sectors in our references to socialism. In that sense, a state-directed economy, the former Soviet Union was a prime example of the shortcomings of that approach.


You are, of course, correct that no true communism has been enacted at higher than a village level. Marxist principles have been the trappings of a number of dictatorships (rule by Politburo), most of which styled themselves as "transitional" government forms until the true classless rule of the proletariat came about.


By the way, I never bought Marx' historicial inevitability and think his theory was extremely poor at predicting the flexibility of the capitalist economic system. Marx viewed it in far too "monolithic" a fashion.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hmm, coercion, anyone? Why yes! But you got 'my' point right: you shouldn't believe Chavez's propaganda!
Oh dear Rabbit , lets start with some basics eh
This article.... http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...r/13007121.htm is not factual , it is repeated in many papers and on many sites , that does not make it true .
The author makes many claims both in that article and others , and offers many so called "facts" , those "facts" are contradicted by numerous reports , studies and analysis conducted by a wide variety of governmental and non governmental groups , including your Government , the OAS , the World bank , the UN , the EU fund for development , OPEC ,....... need I go on ?

Have you got any proof of your claims? :inquisitive: Simply saying everyone who disagrees is lying is rather pathetic.



It would appear that you agree that my facts were correct
Oh very clever , selective quoting out of context , try the full statement then . But of course that would show that you are incorrect and you wouldn't want to do that would you :no:

A gold star for not reading my entire post!:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


Funny that you mention the drop in poverty, which occured, according to the official Venzuelan National Statistics Institute, in several months during 2005, after the President scolded them for publishing figures showing a great rise in poverty.

Don't you find it strange that the author you cite has no problem at all reporting a rise in poverty due to events , but has a really big problem with a corresponding fall after those events .
So perhaps if you or the author do not trust the official Venezuelan statistics then you should not use them , there are plenty of others available from a multitude of sources .
So if you want to try and make a point that you are by some stretch of the imagination actually factually correct with your claims try and blah blah blah blah

Once again, heavy on the rhetoric, low on the facts and proof. And, you commit the logical fallacy of attacking the person who wrote the article and questioning his honesty rather than trying to argue the facts.

And, you also ignore the fact that the huge drop in poverty-according to Venezuela-happened well after the strikes and attempted removing of Chavez from power-from March 2005 to October 2005. You also ignore that such a huge drop in poverty in a few months is nigh on impossible. Thus, the poverty drop is not due to Chavez being back in power, nor its rise to his opponents.

What is comical is that you seek to remove the Venezuelan statistics from the discussion since they so neatly refute your point. I do not trust them, but I use them to show how poverty has risen during Chavez's rule.

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

Have you got any proof of your claims?
Try finding any source that backs up the authors claims Rabbit .I gave you plenty of pointers as to where to look , so either you looked and didn't like what you found or you didn't look at all .

What is comical is that you seek to remove the Venezuelan statistics from the discussion since they so neatly refute your point. I do not trust them, but I use them to show how poverty has risen during Chavez's rule.

Now that really makes me wonder if you have viewed the INES statistics at all . It certainly appears that you have not and are just going on a media article instead .
A good option for you before you say anymore about this would be to compare the World Bank report and the Venezuelan government figures and compare the two .

[Soulforged]

Soul':Yes, the common phrasing here is "welfare state."
Thanks Seamus, as always helping me to improve my english. :bow: