Another Socialist Victory in South America

This certainly seems on topic, and an interesting analysis. This is true for all systems, including capitalism. Indeed I am unaware of any system which does not involve a consolidation of power to a new governing body. Bush's white house is a rather extreme example of consolidation of power and it is safe to say he is not a socialist.Morales has said (before he entered office) that he will not be following Castro's form of socialism, and that Bolivia must make its own form. The question is of course what will actually happen. It is possible for socialism (like any other system) to avoid domineering pitfalls if leaders stick to practical solutions rather than theoretical or ideological ones. I don't know if he will continue to outlaw the drug or not, and frankly I don't care. What if he does allow it, including sales outside his country? Sounds like a great way for a nation to make a lot of money for itself. If I remember right Britain and the US have made a lot of money doing the same thing.That said, I have no reason to dispute his assertion. Coca is used by the indigenous bolivians for many daily things. That's the point of part of this shakeup. Evo was indigenous and understood what its majority and indigenous population do with their lives. He doesn't support the eradication of their culture because the US has a drug problem and its easier (for the US) to kick in their doors and burn their fields.Now the military will have heads that understand the majority population (I assume are part of them) and will work within that framework. It will be interesting to see where he moves with this, but again your prediction seems worse that what he has indicated as his intentions. The point is not to remove free enterprise (according to him) but rather to make sure that free enterprise does not end up exploiting the nation and its people. It is very similar to what we championed for Iraq, only the US isn't going to get a very big cut (which I suppose is a problem for us). People generally work because they can take pride in what they create. Most people are not wholly bums by nature. And obviously if it is profit sharing, then the more everyone makes the more everyone enjoys. If no one works then there will be no security if one is ot of work.But I want to turn this around on you. The same exact thing can be said for capitalism, especially for those at the top. Once they have a secure income, what incentive do they have for taking care of those that are working, or to give them a fair share? All they need to do is pit one poor person against another for dwindling pay to get their labor achieved. And what incentive do they have to stick around and help everyone once the resource has been expended?The idea that Bolivians should be caring more about whether some workers may be less efficient for those on top, than whether those on top will be less efficient for the nation, seems a bit counterfactual to recent history of Bolivia. That's why Evo is in power.You are making theoretical arguments regarding a population who need practical solutions to problems caused by earlier institution of your theoretical arguments.{AbE: Cookie's post reminded me that one of your fears seems to be nullified by Evo's recent actions regarding gov't pay. Cutting pay is not going to make it likely that the gov't will suck up money away from the population.}This message has been edited by holmes, 01-30-2006 12:35 PM

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

I believe this is a reply to me. You might want to use the reply button at the bottom of my post rather than the general reply button at the top. I'm in europe and sometimes the number of posts between the last time I post and when I wake up prevents me from reading through posts except ones indicate as being a reply to my own. No jesus complex please. I thought your analysis was interesting and indeed could eventually prove true. My criticisms are aimed at where I think you have overstepped your reasoning and drawn conclusions that are too specific to make at this time, or perhaps ignorant of a few facts regarding Bolivia.I suppose I do detect a bit of anti-socialist ideology, but that doesn't really matter. Well again, it is part of their regular lives so they'll be selling it to each other nonetheless. The stated goal of Evo was to try and restrict growth to legitimate use needs within the nation, rather than total eradication of coca and so their culture as demanded by the US. Is there a reason you believe that could not be done?In any case I also argued that I did not see any necessity in their pursuing the US drug war at all. If that nation can sell coca for that much, perhaps they should legalize it and reap the profits of that industry. It would be no different than all of the things the US makes which other nations do not like, yet will not stop because it is profitable for the US. That is correct, thus attempts to eradicate supply which inherently wipe out cultures is a bit backward. As far as your discussion of how we can eradicate demand, that is OT. Personally I think its a medical issue that does not need any legal tool to deal with.Drug addiction (as opposed to simple usage), particularly the kind which reduces people's lives to nothing, can be treated in the same way as "natural" causes which reduce people's lives to nothing. Yeah, but that makes sense. He is going to have to deal with leaders in that region, particularly likeminded leaders. I grant you that his associations could have bad results, but it is not at all clear that they will, or that it would be any worse than if he was to associate himself with Bush. This brings us back to the points I raised regarding socialism v capitalism. How is the above not true for the US, specifically under Bush. Bush has not only tight control of the military, but also the legislative, legal, education, and emergency services. His administration has been the most crony oriented since perhaps the late 1800s/early 1900s.It seems to me this is what occurs in all gov'ts and can be particularly bad regardless of politico-economic viewpoint.In the case of Morales, this could be seen as a very positive shake-up of the military system so that it is more representative of the will of the majority population and not beholden to US interests. Without that fact, his actions might have stronger implications, but not as it currently stands.Can I ask why we are to worry about Bolivia, rather than the exact same thing happening within our own nation? And as far as I know he has not called for renunciation of civil liberties in order to fight the "capitalist menace", which we are being sold here.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

So why do fundamentalists keep charging evolutionary theory with leading to materialism and lack of social concern?

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)