Bolivian Coup Attempt

[Saint]

Interesting scenes in La Paz over the past day.

Sacked army chief Zuniga launched a coup by instructing soldiers to occupy the Government parts of the capital.

The President (UK educated economist and leftist) Arce called for the people to hit the streets, which they did.

Zuniga now reportedly in custody.

Hope they chop his head off.

Army leaders backed by moneyed interests opposing leftist policies have ruined South America for more than a century.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Backed by moneyed interests and western intelligence/military organisations.

 

[Malifice]

Army leaders backed by moneyed interests opposing leftist policies have ruined South America for more than a century.

Those 'leftists' have ****ed it just as bad.

Name a successful socialist/ communist regime from a country in Latin America and the Caribbean, that didn't turn the entire country into a shithole.

I'll wait.

And the commies/ socialists have their own backers. Primarily the Soviet Union/ Russia.

 

[Saint]

Those 'leftists' have ****ed it just as bad.

Name a successful socialist/ communist regime from a country in Latin America and the Caribbean, that didn't turn the entire country into a shithole.

I'll wait.

And the commies/ socialists have their own backers. Primarily the Soviet Union/ Russia.

Name one which wasn't undercut by the US, the largest economy in the region, the whole time.

Cuban embargo, Contras, invasions, coups, the leftists have never had a clear run at it.

Things like literacy rates, participation and inequality have all risen much faster under socialism than under the military or neo-liberal leaders. Crime always falls.

 

[Malifice]

Name one which wasn't undercut by the US, the largest economy in the region, the whole time.

Cuban embargo, Contras, invasions, coups, the leftists have never had a clear run at it.

Things like literacy rates, participation and inequality have all risen much faster under socialism than under the military or neo-liberal leaders. Crime always falls.

Ah of course.

Its capitalism's fault that socialism always winds up a totalitarian shitfight literally every time it's ever been implemented.

Socialism is a streaming pile of horse shit through noone else's fault but its own.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

Whatabouting the School of Americas horrors is peak shitbaggerry IMO.

 

[spinynorman]

Ah of course.

Its capitalism's fault that socialism always winds up a totalitarian shitfight literally every time it's ever been implemented.

Socialism is a streaming pile of horse shit through noone else's fault but its own.

What developing countries have become developed in the last century?

Of course, the western capitalist nations are wealthier, thanks to a history of colonial theft that they benefited from.

No country in South America has a standard of living equal to their previous colonial overlords, whether they have been generally run by capitalist governments or socialist ones. When Pinochet, the Brazilian military and the Contra are some of the beacons of capitalism in the region I wouldn't exactly be looking down my nose at countries like Bolivia who have sought to (and been successful - Bolivia is a much better country for the average person than it was 20 years ago) bring wealth to their people ahead of multinational corporations.

You can try to compare Cuba and the United States and say "This one's poor, this one's rich, therefore the latter's system is clearly better" but your analysis might want to acknowledge that the world didn't begin yesterday.

 

[Malifice]

What developing countries have become developed in the last century?

The ones that rejected socialism and embraced Capitalism (Vietnam, South Korea etc).

Of course, the western capitalist nations are wealthier, thanks to a history of colonial theft that they benefited from.

Neither of those countries mentioned above benefitted from colonialism. In fact both countries were victims of it.

No country in South America has a standard of living equal to their previous colonial overlords, whether they have been generally run by capitalist governments or socialist ones.

They do better under capitalism than they do under socialism.

Fact.

 

[spinynorman]

The ones that rejected socialism and embraced Capitalism (Vietnam, South Korea etc).


Neither of those countries mentioned above benefitted from colonialism. In fact both countries were victims of it.


They do better under capitalism than they do under socialism.

Fact.

Yes, South Korea is the single example, and they're one who wallowed well behind their northern neighbour for a quarter century before Cold War advantageousness meant that they were given significant assistance in developing.

I don't think anyone defines Vietnam as developed country, but I'm curious as to who your examples of socialist countries are if they meet your criteria for a capitalist one.

The average income for a Bolivian increased extraordinarily under Morales.

You acknowledge countries are victims of colonialism but countries such as Vietnam, Korea, Indonesia and most of South and Central America have had their attempts to choose the terms of their freedom have been handicapped by the Global North who've sought to continue enriching western capital at their expense. Those who've sought their own terms have then been blamed for not being as wealthy as the countries that profited from them for centuries. It's ridiculous.

 

[Saint]

The ones that rejected socialism and embraced Capitalism (Vietnam, South Korea etc).


Neither of those countries mentioned above benefitted from colonialism. In fact both countries were victims of it.


They do better under capitalism than they do under socialism.

Fact.

Vietnam is still a socialist country. The worlds' second largest economy (China) is socialist.

The happiest countries in the world, in northern Europe, are all more socialist (state-run) than places like Bolivia.

 

[Andre]

What developing countries have become developed in the last century?

Of course, the western capitalist nations are wealthier, thanks to a history of colonial theft that they benefited from.

No country in South America has a standard of living equal to their previous colonial overlords, whether they have been generally run by capitalist governments or socialist ones. When Pinochet, the Brazilian military and the Contra are some of the beacons of capitalism in the region I wouldn't exactly be looking down my nose at countries like Bolivia who have sought to (and been successful - Bolivia is a much better country for the average person than it was 20 years ago) bring wealth to their people ahead of multinational corporations.

You can try to compare Cuba and the United States and say "This one's poor, this one's rich, therefore the latter's system is clearly better" but your analysis might want to acknowledge that the world didn't begin yesterday.

Why limit it to South America? Canada and the US were ruled by British colonial overlords, but went Capitalist earlier. For all the issues in the latter, they are certainly wealthier (overall and per capita), then those further South in the America's, late to the capitalism party. Shit, you can include Australia and NZ in the colonial outposts that went Capitalist early and subsequently have never been the basket cases much of South America has been repeatedly.

 

[Malifice]

Vietnam is still a socialist country. The worlds' second largest economy (China) is socialist.

Both countries' economies (and the quality of life for their populations) only started to dramatically increase when they ditched socialism and embraced capitalist economics.

China speaks for itself since ditching strict Communism and allowing for a more liberal capitalist economic model, and here is what the Vietnamese did:

Vietnam has been a development success story. Economic reforms since the launch of Đổi Mới in 1986, coupled with beneficial global trends, have helped propel Vietnam from being one of the world’s poorest nations to a middle-income economy in one generation. GDP per capita increased 6-fold in less than 40 years, from less than $600 per person in 1986 to almost US$3,700 (constant 2015 US$). Poverty rates (US$3.65/day, 2017 PPP) declined from 14 in 2010 to 4.2 percent in 2022.

https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/vietnam/overview

Socialism sucks. Capitalism works.

The happiest countries in the world, in northern Europe, are all more socialist (state-run) than places like Bolivia.

Scandinavian countries are not socialist.

If I can privately own my own home, work in whatever job I want to, for a wage, and own and purchase private property, and incorporate with others to do the same, and create a company where others work for me for profit and capital, I am not living in a Socialist country.

 

[Malifice]

Yes, South Korea is the single example, and they're one who wallowed well behind their northern neighbour for a quarter century before Cold War advantageousness meant that they were given significant assistance in developing.

South Korea vs North Korea. Hong Kong and Taiwan vs China. East Germany vs West Germany.

Same people, same culture. Vastly different standards of living, freedoms, liberty and quality of life.

Why?

Guess what happens when the State control everything and the Free market is abolished? You wind up with a single party tyranny, innovation and progress are stifled, mass famines and deaths occur, freedoms are removed, the press is controlled, and the economy tanks because there is no way for your average person to get ahead in life.

It has happened every single time under Socialism/ Communism.

''But it must be the fault of the liberal/ capitalist/ imperialists.''

Maybe (just maybe) there is an inherent flaw with Socialism and Marx was wrong. Ever stop to think about that?

 

[Saint]

South Korea vs North Korea. Hong Kong and Taiwan vs China. East Germany vs West Germany.

Same people, same culture. Vastly different standards of living, freedoms, liberty and quality of life.

Why?

Guess what happens when the State control everything and the Free market is abolished? You wind up with a single party tyranny, innovation and progress are stifled, mass famines and deaths occur, freedoms are removed, the press is controlled, and the economy tanks because there is no way for your average person to get ahead in life.

It has happened every single time under Socialism/ Communism.

''But it must be the fault of the liberal/ capitalist/ imperialists.''

Maybe (just maybe) there is an inherent flaw with Socialism and Marx was wrong. Ever stop to think about that?

You've got it the wrong way around. It's tyranny which used socialism to worm its way into leadership.

Scandinavian countries are not socialist.

Norway and Sweden are far more socialist economically than Bolivia or Ecuador are.

In Norway, water and power are state provided, always have been, so is education. Tax rates (to GDP) are around 44%.

In Bolivia, Water and energy were privatised (have since been re-nationalised after being complete disasters). Tax rates to GDP are around 24%.

Everything you say you can't do in a socialist country, you can do in Bolivia, Ecuador etc. They all have private home and business ownership and job choice.

I can't find a measure where Bolivia is more socialist than Norway.

Norway taxes mineral extraction profits at 78%. Bolivia are discussing increasing theirs to 50%

So it hasn't happened every single time. You've just adopted a non-existent definition of socialism in your own mind to declare the successful ones "not socialist" but it's not based on anything in the real world.

 

[Malifice]

You've got it the wrong way around. It's tyranny which used socialism to worm its way into leadership.

Mate, when you have a single party State (which Communism and Socialism requires to function), and when the State own and control the means of production, dictate to its people what they can own (no private property) what freedoms they have (no free press, this is owned by the State, no free movement or freedom of association, no other political parties allowed, no opposition to the regime seeking private ownership etc etc) you wind up with a tyranny.

It's literally happened under every single Communist/ Socialist regime that has ever existed.

Liberals (such as myself) are wary about centralizing power in the ruling class. The above phenomena (and what you see on the other side of the political spectrum with Fascism etc) is why.

When the State control everything (which is the literal definition of Socialism) they control everything. Freedom is extinguished. A tyranny forms.

Every. Single. Time.

Let's assume Australia goes full blown Marxist. What happens to me if I want to band together with other people to market an invention of mine that we can sell for profit? Or form an opposition party, dedicated to restoring liberal Capitalism?

Does the State let me do either of those things?

Norway and Sweden are far more socialist economically than Bolivia or Ecuador are.

In Norway, water and power are state provided, always have been. Tax rates (to GDP) are around 44%.

Wut?

The first thing to know about the electricity price in Norway is that it keeps changing, hour by hour. This is possible because Norwegian households have electricity metres that measure consumption continuously and transmit the information wirelessly to the electricity companies.

The price is determined a day in advance, through a process that takes into account the predicted demand, as well as how much electricity power companies think they will be able to generate throughout the day.

Norwegians get two electricity bills​

This one takes some getting used to. You read it right, Norwegians get two different electricity bills.

https://www.lifeinnorway.net/electricity-bills-in-norway/#:~:text=Norwegians get two electricity bills&text=For convenience, several companies combine,goes to two different companies.

Norwegians get two electricity bills. Yay Socialism!

so is education.

Only for Norwegians. International students now have to pay.

Also, this is not socialism. Socialism is control of the means of production by the State. In Norway, the State do not control the means of production. Property is in private hands. Corporations exist that operate for profit.

So it hasn't happened every single time.

Yes it has, because Bolivia and Norway are not Socialist countries.

Socialism is control of the means of production by the State. If you live in a country governed by a State where everyone can work where they want, for profit, own private property and goods, with most goods are manufactured by privately owned companies who sell those goods and services for profit, you are not living in a socialist country.

Free healthcare and education doesnt make a State socialist. Control of the means of production, does.

 

[Fire]

Socialism is control of the means of production by the State. If you live in a country governed by a State where everyone can work where they want, for profit, own private property and goods, with most goods are manufactured by privately owned companies who sell those goods and services for profit, you are not living in a socialist country.

While I'm not a fan of hard, state controls production socialism, and prefer the more colloquial sense where the government simply participates in the economy and does some wealth redistribution for specific purposes;

There is nothing in the hard philosophy which suggests you can't chose where to work. Or own private property or goods (not ever asset is production based)

 

[Malifice]

While I'm not a fan of hard, state controls production socialism, and prefer the more colloquial sense where the government simply participates in the economy and does some wealth redistribution for specific purposes.

We do that here in Australia.

We're not a socialist nation.

 

[Fire]

We do that here in Australia.

We're not a socialist nation.

Congrats for working that out?

Do you even know what point you are trying to make at this point?

 

[nut]

We do that here in Australia.

We're not a socialist nation.

There is a difference between communism and socialism.

Norway is a Democratic Socialist country.
It has a lot of policies that are considered Socialist.
It also has very strong laws for Human rights and property rights etc..
it has close to 50% union membership.
Government controlled capitalism work better than Capitalists owning Government's.

Education is still free for people in the EU..

On the 9th of June 2023, the Norwegian parliament voted to abolish free tuition for international students outside of the European Economic Area and Switzerland

 

[Malifice]

Norway is a Democratic Socialist country.

With a free-market capitalist economy, where private property is in the hands of the people and not the State.

Neither socialist nor communist.

Also:

Nordic countries are often used internationally to prove that socialism works. It’s true that social democratic parties are enjoying success in this part of the world. Yet while Nordic countries are seeing a partial comeback for social democratic parties, their policies aren’t in fact socialist, but centrist.

Nordic nations—and especially Sweden—did embrace socialism between around 1970 and 1990. During the past 30 years, however, both conservative and social democratic-led governments have moved toward the center. Today, the Nordic social democrats have adopted stricter immigration policies, tightened eligibility requirements for welfare benefit systems, taken a tougher stance on crime, and carried out business-friendly policies.

The Nordic welfare system that people like to point to as a flourishing example of socialism was developed around 1970, when there was a policy shift throughout Nordic societies toward higher taxes and generous public benefits. In the century preceding that turn, Nordic countries had combined small public sectors and free markets to achieve strong economic growth. From around 1870 to 1970, for instance, Sweden’s per capita GDP increased around tenfold, the highest growth rate in all of Europe. It was after this period of rapidly growing prosperity that there was a shift to high-tax policies. The public remained skeptical of direct tax raises, and the shift largely occurred through gradual rises in the indirect payroll tax.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/27/nordic-countries-not-socialist-denmark-norway-sweden-centrist/

 

[nut]

With a free-market capitalist economy, where private property is in the hands of the people and not the State.

Neither socialist nor communist.

Also:


https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/27/nordic-countries-not-socialist-denmark-norway-sweden

With a free-market capitalist economy, where private property is in the hands of the people and not the State.

Neither socialist nor communist.

Also:


https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/27/nordic-countries-not-socialist-denmark-norway-sweden-centrist/

-centrist/

Sweden is a lot different to Norway

Per capita GDP isn’t a great indicator of anything …

Having the richest poor people and poorest rich people is IMO.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Labelling what has occurred in South America over the last 200 years as "free market capitalism vs totalitarian socialism" is an extremely myopic way of rewriting history.

 

[Saint]

Labelling what has occurred in South America over the last 200 years as "free market capitalism vs totalitarian socialism" is an extremely myopic way of rewriting history.

It's been totalitarian capitalism vs democratic socialism.

There's been more capitalist totalitarians in Sth America than socialist or communist totalitarians.

Yet those arguing against capitalism usually use traits totalitarianism as the failures.

I'm not sure Pinochet taking everything and giving it to himself and his friends is better than socialists taking everything and giving it to Government (though it rarely stays this way, once certain people figure out how easy it is to make lots of money being corrupt).

 

[spinynorman]

Evo Morales is alleging that Luis Arce faked the coup attempt for positive PR.

 

[Saint]

Because Morales wants Arce's job, they're fighting for the 2025 nomination.

If Arce survived a coup attempt, Morales trying to undermine him will look bad, so he needs people to think the coup was staged.