• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is There Any Interest In Discussing The US-Backed Coup Which Has Finally Removed Morales?

3leftsdoo

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2019
Messages
18,105
Reaction score
5,175
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Morales made the terrible mistake of relying on the OAS to review the election results, and in the preceding/ensuing lithium-charged US desire for control of Bolivia, he was forced out of office.

Does anyone care?

Liberals?

Conservatives?

Leftists?

More here:

Bolivia Coup Is Latest Blow for Latin American Socialism
 
I definitely care. I understand why people have been suspicious of Morales, but the overthrow of the Bolivian government is insane. I think Canada and the United States have already came out in support of the coup, but hopefully some countries will hesitate to support this. Morales handled the voting issue about as good as he could have. I don't think he even knew how determined some factions within the government were to force him from power.
 
Morales made the terrible mistake of relying on the OAS to review the election results, and in the preceding/ensuing lithium-charged US desire for control of Bolivia, he was forced out of office.

Does anyone care?

Liberals?

Conservatives?

Leftists?

More here:

Bolivia Coup Is Latest Blow for Latin American Socialism


I've been following the whole thing. The interesting aspect of the lithium deal is that it was a bad one for Bolivia given that it didn't provide enough royalties. One of the smart things Morales did when he came to power was negotiate deals which got Bolivia royalties for these types of projects. The counter Morales counter argument, if I remember correctly, was the trade off was the German company would build factories to process the lithium versus taking it as a raw export only. I think his approach made sense in that it helps build the industry in Bolivia and employs people.

As for the Morales situation, I think it's unfortunate because I'm sure we'll see a reversal of all the gains he's made in reducing poverty and in negotiating business deals which extract royalties. I don't think it will be long until the old modus operandi returns and they revert to growing income inequality.
 
Morales made the terrible mistake of relying on the OAS to review the election results, and in the preceding/ensuing lithium-charged US desire for control of Bolivia, he was forced out of office.

Does anyone care?

Liberals?

Conservatives?

Leftists?

More here:

Bolivia Coup Is Latest Blow for Latin American Socialism

Interesting article. As a matter of principle I never support military coups as a solution to political stalemates. I was struck by the weakness and corruption of the Bolivian court system as described in the article, as well as the disregard of the election law limiting the president's terms. Fourteen years ought to be enough for anyone. This whole sad situation demonstrates the fragility of new democracies and how vital it is to have strong democratic institutions and traditions.
 
Great comments all; thank you.

:thumbs:
 
Anybody know what happened to the guy we were backing for Interim President?
 
Morales made the terrible mistake of relying on the OAS to review the election results, and in the preceding/ensuing lithium-charged US desire for control of Bolivia, he was forced out of office.

Does anyone care?

Liberals?

Conservatives?

Leftists?

More here:

Bolivia Coup Is Latest Blow for Latin American Socialism

One thing the article fails to mention is the reason behind Bolivia's sudden new found prosperity. It has always been the goal of socialists to control the means of production, which is precisely what Morales did with the oil industry. Exactly like Venezuela's President Maduro.

Morales' exile is the best thing that has happened to Bolivia in decades. Bolivia's coup may have dodged a bullet, it could have easily become the next Venezuela.
 
One thing the article fails to mention is the reason behind Bolivia's sudden new found prosperity. It has always been the goal of socialists to control the means of production, which is precisely what Morales did with the oil industry. Exactly like Venezuela's President Maduro.

Morales' exile is the best thing that has happened to Bolivia in decades. Bolivia's coup may have dodged a bullet, it could have easily become the next Venezuela.
Lol what a load of neo con bull****.

Sent from my Honor 8X
 
Lol what a load of neo con bull****.

Sent from my Honor 8X

Yet indisputable fact.

Bolivia nationalizes oil and gas industry | Oil & Gas Journal
Bolivia Nationalizes Gas Industry: "The Looting By The Foreign Companies Has Ended" - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Socialist scum are the worst form of humanity, responsible for the deaths of more than 100 million in the last century alone. Just think of the countless lives saved by tossing Morales into the streets where the POS socialist belongs.
 
One thing the article fails to mention is the reason behind Bolivia's sudden new found prosperity. It has always been the goal of socialists to control the means of production, which is precisely what Morales did with the oil industry. Exactly like Venezuela's President Maduro.

Morales' exile is the best thing that has happened to Bolivia in decades. Bolivia's coup may have dodged a bullet, it could have easily become the next Venezuela.

I think where reality clashes with your comment is his goal was not to take over the means of all industries; this was evident with the deal he set up with the Germans for the lithium in Bolivian lands. What often comes to play in nations like Bolivia is the moment someone threatens easily exploited resources by larger industrialized nations, they are typically upended so there's a return to the status quo. Any quick research into the history of this type of intervention in Latin America will show a clear pattern. I find it interesting that you would object to nations taking control of their own resources, since that is essential to their sovereignty. How they choose to manage those industries and what their acceptable socio-economic dynamic is entirely up to them.
 
Yet indisputable fact.

Bolivia nationalizes oil and gas industry | Oil & Gas Journal
Bolivia Nationalizes Gas Industry: "The Looting By The Foreign Companies Has Ended" - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Socialist scum are the worst form of humanity, responsible for the deaths of more than 100 million in the last century alone. Just think of the countless lives saved by tossing Morales into the streets where the POS socialist belongs.

This is a tired argument since it doesn't compare the deaths that result from capitalist economies over the past century. Have you tallied the amount of dead due to wars, coup d'etats, and interventions to maintain western economic hegemony? The bottom line is capitalism needs to keep growing, and for the status quo to remain as it is for industrialized nations, poor nations have to get squeezed harder and harder. What's becoming evident now is people in those regions are pushing back. The narrative is that people who have resources and fight to protect them from powerful nations are "radicals", "communists" or whatever other simplistic label makes it easy to demonize their struggle for the resources in their lands.
 
Last edited:
Yet indisputable fact.

Bolivia nationalizes oil and gas industry | Oil & Gas Journal
Bolivia Nationalizes Gas Industry: "The Looting By The Foreign Companies Has Ended" - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Socialist scum are the worst form of humanity, responsible for the deaths of more than 100 million in the last century alone. Just think of the countless lives saved by tossing Morales into the streets where the POS socialist belongs.

And yet that has helped the economy big time...

How a populist president helped Bolivia's poor – but built himself a palace | World news | The Guardian

4.9% growth a year on average, slashing of poverty rates from 60% to 35% and even impressing the IMF. Going from a country under right wing military dictatorships with massive corruption and bankruptcies and coups to a stable Southern American country all because they dared elect a non white settler as President. Really pissed off the big corporations and they are now getting their revenge with the help of Trump and his gang of thugs. But yes he also made some mistakes.. his palace for one, but overall he was a very good president for one of the poorest countries on the planet.
 
And yet that has helped the economy big time...

How a populist president helped Bolivia's poor – but built himself a palace | World news | The Guardian

4.9% growth a year on average, slashing of poverty rates from 60% to 35% and even impressing the IMF. Going from a country under right wing military dictatorships with massive corruption and bankruptcies and coups to a stable Southern American country all because they dared elect a non white settler as President. Really pissed off the big corporations and they are now getting their revenge with the help of Trump and his gang of thugs. But yes he also made some mistakes.. his palace for one, but overall he was a very good president for one of the poorest countries on the planet.

Didn't take long to invoke the race card....

As to the advances over his term...

David Doyle, an associate professor at the University of Oxford, says the correlation was difficult to explain and cautioned against drawing concrete conclusions. Over the last two decades, poverty and inequality levels have shrunk across almost the whole of Latin America, including several countries that have not had populist presidents.

The exception in the region’s inclusive growth story is Venezuela, a country that has been dominated by populist leftist presidents, but where substantial gains in poverty reduction in the past are now eroding fast due to the current economic meltdown under the embattled incumbent, Nicolás Maduro.
 
It has always been the goal of socialists to control the means of production

Most certainly not through the auspices of the bourgeois State, however.
 
Didn't take long to invoke the race card....

As to the advances over his term...

David Doyle, an associate professor at the University of Oxford, says the correlation was difficult to explain and cautioned against drawing concrete conclusions. Over the last two decades, poverty and inequality levels have shrunk across almost the whole of Latin America, including several countries that have not had populist presidents.

The exception in the region’s inclusive growth story is Venezuela, a country that has been dominated by populist leftist presidents, but where substantial gains in poverty reduction in the past are now eroding fast due to the current economic meltdown under the embattled incumbent, Nicolás Maduro.

Well in this case, his "race" or ethnicity is important. The majority population had for all of Bolivias existence and before under Spain, lived under the white colonists elites foot and with the election of Morales, for the first time they got a voice.
 
I've been following the whole thing. The interesting aspect of the lithium deal is that it was a bad one for Bolivia given that it didn't provide enough royalties. One of the smart things Morales did when he came to power was negotiate deals which got Bolivia royalties for these types of projects. The counter Morales counter argument, if I remember correctly, was the trade off was the German company would build factories to process the lithium versus taking it as a raw export only. I think his approach made sense in that it helps build the industry in Bolivia and employs people.

As for the Morales situation, I think it's unfortunate because I'm sure we'll see a reversal of all the gains he's made in reducing poverty and in negotiating business deals which extract royalties. I don't think it will be long until the old modus operandi returns and they revert to growing income inequality.

So Morales was, in essence, overthrown at least in part, over squabbles over lithium ore, which is to electric transport what oil is to gasoline cars.
Sounds like Morales suffered a similar fate as Mohammad Mossaddegh in 1953.

The British government had grown increasingly distressed over Mosaddegh's policies and were especially bitter over the loss of their control of the Iranian oil industry. Repeated attempts to reach a settlement had failed, and, in October 1952, Mosaddegh declared Britain an enemy and cut all diplomatic relations.

Perhaps negotiating a better deal with Mossaddegh was the better choice, but he had the gall and temerity to suggest that the oil in the ground belonged to the Iranian people, just as Morales suggested that the lithium ore belonged to the people of Bolivia.

We still have not learned our lesson, and this latest action reinforces the notion of "the resource curse".
 
Any capitalist government can nationalize segments of industry. This in no sense counteracts its status as a capitalist government.

What distinguishes capitalism from other modes of production is that it is generalized commodity production for exchange. Whether this is overseen by individual capitalists or a State bureaucracy is irrelevant.

Engels goes into this at great length in Socialism: Utopian & Scientific:

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (Chpt. 3)

This rebellion of the productive forces, as they grow more and more powerful, against their quality as capital, this stronger and stronger command that their social character shall be recognized, forces the capital class itself to treat them more and more as social productive forces, so far as this is possible under capitalist conditions. The period of industrial high pressure, with its unbounded inflation of credit, not less than the crash itself, by the collapse of great capitalist establishments, tends to bring about that form of the socialization of great masses of the means of production which we meet with in the different kinds of joint-stock companies. Many of these means of production and of distribution are, from the outset, so colossal that, like the railways, they exclude all other forms of capitalistic expansion. At a further stage of evolution, this form also becomes insufficient. The producers on a large scale in a particular branch of an industry in a particular country unite in a "Trust", a union for the purpose of regulating production.

...

In any case, with trusts or without, the official representative of capitalist society — the state — will ultimately have to undertake the direction of production. [4] This necessity for conversion into State property is felt first in the great institutions for intercourse and communication — the post office, the telegraphs, the railways.

If the crises demonstrate the incapacity of the bourgeoisie for managing any longer modern productive forces, the transformation of the great establishments for production and distribution into joint-stock companies, trusts, and State property, show how unnecessary the bourgeoisie are for that purpose. All the social functions of the capitalist has no further social function than that of pocketing dividends, tearing off coupons, and gambling on the Stock Exchange, where the different capitalists despoil one another of their capital. At first, the capitalistic mode of production forces out the workers. Now, it forces out the capitalists, and reduces them, just as it reduced the workers, to the ranks of the surplus-population, although not immediately into those of the industrial reserve army.

Quoth Bordiga, himself quoting Capital:

Doctrine of the Body Possessed by the Devil by Amadeo Bordiga 1951

Capital is only concentrated in the state for the convenience of surplus-value and profit manoeuvring. It remains “available to all” or available to the components of the entrepreneurial class — no longer simply production entrepreneurs, but openly business entrepreneurs — they no longer produce commodities, but, Marx has already said, they produce surplus value.

The capitalist as person no longer serves in this — capital lives without him but with its same function multiplied 100 fold. The human subject has become useless. A class without members to compose it? The state not at the service of a social group, but an impalpable force, the work of the Holy Ghost or of the Devil? Here is Sir Charles’s irony. We offer the promised quotation: “By turning his money into commodities which serve as the building materials for a new product, and as factors in the labour process, by incorporating living labour into their lifeless objectivity, the capitalist simultaneously transforms value, i.e. past labour in its objectified and lifeless form, into capital, value which can perform its own valorisation process, an animated monster which begins to ‘work’, ‘as if possessed by the devil’.”
 
Continued from the above:

Precisely this logic led Lenin to pursue what he called State capitalism in agrarian, post-feudal Russia.

The Tax in Kind

While the revolution in Germany is still slow in “coming forth”, our task is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of Western culture by barbarian Russia, without hesitating to use barbarous methods in fighting barbarism. If there are anarchists and Left Soeialist-Revolutionaries (I recall offhand the speeches of Karelin and Ghe at the meeting of the Central Executive Committee) who indulge in Karelin-like reflections and say that it is unbecoming for us revolutionaries to “take lessons” from German imperialism, there is only one thing we can say in reply: the revolution that took these people seriously would perish irrevocably (and deservedly).

This is all quite objectively true. A crisis - a strike - in the steel industry in 1952 compelled President Truman to threaten to nationalize the industry - not to pave the road to socialism but precisely to battle against militant labor.

1952 steel strike - Wikipedia

Nationalization is not at all synonymous with socialism, full stop.
 
This is a tired argument since it doesn't compare the deaths that result from capitalist economies over the past century. Have you tallied the amount of dead due to wars, coup d'etats, and interventions to maintain western economic hegemony? The bottom line is capitalism needs to keep growing, and for the status quo to remain as it is for industrialized nations, poor nations have to get squeezed harder and harder. What's becoming evident now is people in those regions are pushing back. The narrative is that people who have resources and fight to protect them from powerful nations are "radicals", "communists" or whatever other simplistic label makes it easy to demonize their struggle for the resources in their lands.

With a successful coup in Bolivia the Bolivians dodged a socialist bullet. They weren't so fortunate in Venezuela, where they continue to starve to death. Nor were they fortunate during Mao's Great Leap Forward that killed off 45 million Chinese. They didn't fare that well in the USSR under Stalin's imposed famines that killed 20 million Ukrainians and Russians. But then I suppose you support the 85 million that were slaughtered as a result of socialist fascist Italy and Germany.

Those 150 million dead in just the last century alone can be placed entirely at the feet of the socialist left.
 
Most certainly not through the auspices of the bourgeois State, however.

By any means necessary. As FDR did and Truman attempted to do. Socialist fascism dominated the US during the 1930s and 1940s. We even had to amend the US Constitution in order to prevent future attempts by socialist fascists. It still won't be enough.
 
Any capitalist government can nationalize segments of industry. This in no sense counteracts its status as a capitalist government.
Incorrect. When government nationalizes an industry they cease to be capitalist and have become socialist instead. You clearly have no concept of the word capitalist. If the private sector is not investing capital in the industry, then it cannot be a capitalist nation by definition.
 
By any means necessary. As FDR did and Truman attempted to do. Socialist fascism dominated the US during the 1930s and 1940s. We even had to amend the US Constitution in order to prevent future attempts by socialist fascists. It still won't be enough.

In socialism, the workers control the means of production. In fascism, the state controls the means of production.

Let's keep the nazi apologism somewhere near the realm of making just a little bit of sense. Otherwise, people will see what you're doing plainly.
 
This is all quite objectively true. A crisis - a strike - in the steel industry in 1952 compelled President Truman to threaten to nationalize the industry - not to pave the road to socialism but precisely to battle against militant labor.

1952 steel strike - Wikipedia
He didn't threaten to nationalize the steel industry, the socialist fascist did so. It was only the Supreme Court that overturned Truman's illegal actions. Your knowledge of history is on par with your knowledge of capitalism - lacking.
 
In socialism, the workers control the means of production. In fascism, the state controls the means of production.

Let's keep the nazi apologism somewhere near the realm of making just a little bit of sense. Otherwise, people will see what you're doing plainly.

Incorrect. Government controls the means of production. The only difference between socialism and communism is that socialism still allows for the ownership of private property, communism does not. The goal of socialism, however, is to obtain communism eventually.

Fascism is merely a totalitarian means of implementing socialism. What they used in Italy first during the 1920s, then Germany, then the US by the mid-1930s.
 
Yes, this is a terrible destruction of democracy in Bolivia, and the continuation of anti-democracy power grab influence by the US to do so.

Bolivia has a long history of political instability; under 14? years with Morales, there was stability for the first time. Extreme poverty in the country was halved, from 40% to 20%. The indigenous people had more equality for the first time.

But he didn't always screw his country for the benefit of US companies.

The OAS - which the pays 60% of the costs of - showed itself a US puppet again.

No one in the US can really say you are for democracy, if you don't oppose this and other acts - including the US-backed coup in Honduras under Obama and Hillary.
 
Back
Top Bottom