Evo Morales wins landslide victory (63%) in Bolivian presidential elections, bolstering his efforts to empower the country's indigenous majority under a socialist banner
Exit polls and an unofficial count gave the country's first indigenous president an unassailable lead, prompting rival candidates to concede and supporters to celebrate in the capital La Paz.
The Guardian
The rise of the indigenous has to continue. It is apparant, at least to me, that this is a superior culture and must be replicated.
ReplyDeleteAs the first decade of the new century comes to a close, some people are starting to take stock.
ReplyDeleteNot all news are gloom and doom..I live for that!
ReplyDelete"Needless to say, the US is not to be written off. Not only is its 'hard power' unsurpassed, but despite the blows inflicted on the national good name, its soft power – its technology and global commercial presence, its wealth and its cultural appeal – remains enormous. Nobel prizes, global patents and the ranking lists of world universities attest to American pre-eminence in science, innovation, and higher education. No country has a greater knack of re-inventing itself. Seven years after 9/11, less than half a century after the civil rights movement, the US elected a black President who is even more popular abroad than in his own country."
ReplyDeleteThe reports of our decline are greatly exaggerated. Even this guy, after running down the country for paragraph after paragraph, must concede that maybe,..just maybe, he might be wrong after all.
I am curious. Why is it that the cheerleaders for socialism and communism rarely choose to live in socialist or communist countries?
ReplyDeleteBecause one doesn't always CHOSE the place one lives in..It's much more complicated than that.. Besides, socialism and communism are two distinct systems of govt. Finally, where can one find either when the US and it's allies made sure than not a single socialist or communist country has ever survived..
ReplyDelete<span>The answer vza is that you live in limited socialist country, the socialism is limited to the elite and their multinational corporations. Why would you chose to live in such a lopsided country? Where the profit is privatized and the debt is socialised?
ReplyDelete</span>
More importantly what I cheering for is that Morales is an indiginous president. Everything else is the 'cerise sur le gateaux'
ReplyDeletevza,
ReplyDeleteYou are confusing "decline" with "demise." You cannot argue with the fact that we live in a multi-polar world and the US is no longer calling the shots all by itself. GWB's initial "my way or the highway" had to be replaced by "dialogue and consulting our allies" NOT by Obama, but by GWB himself!! Cheny is the one who is living in the past, which is why he split from GWB.
vza,
ReplyDeleteThe terms are a bit fuzzy, don't you think? There are elements of capitalism in socialism (check Cuba's tourism sector); there are elements of socialism in capitalism (social security, medicaid/medicare haven't been abolished in the US). What, in your opinion, is China? Capitalist, Socialist, Maoist?
Perhaps it is time to see all struggles through local lenses. There is a struggle in the United States between those who want market supremacy and others that would like to preserve the few vestiges of socialism that date to the New Deal era. It is a class struggle for the most part. We have it here in Puerto Rico, too. Just witness the turnout for the march in protest against the sacking of government employees.
"Why is it that the cheerleaders for socialism and communism rarely choose to live in socialist or communist countries?"
ReplyDeleteI don't know any socialist countries, vza, but even if I did I would prefer to work towards a socialist society in my own country. I love my country and regret that its run by scum.
You confuse a centralised state with socialism, deliberately of course. No matter how many times people tell you that you are wrong to do so you will continue down your chosen route.
One of the greatest struggles for the socialist is swimming against the tide of crap that issues from the mouths of of fools and knaves, of thugs, thimble-riggers and paranoiacs.
Of course we live in a multi-polar world. The U.S. never called the shots all by itself. That is a myth.
ReplyDelete<span><span>You confuse a centralised state with socialism, deliberately of course. </span>
ReplyDeleteI am not confusing anything. Just about all attempts at socialism have resulted in a centralized state and the loss of liberties. It is well and good to piously state that real or pure socialism is not like that, but until that pure theory becomes incarnate, the failed attempts are all we have as concrete examples. I am not willing to bet my life and the lives of my family on your or any other believer's assurances that real socialism will work and also protect our freedoms.
<span>One of the greatest struggles for the socialist is swimming against the tide of crap that issues from the mouths of of fools and knaves, of thugs, thimble-riggers and paranoiacs. </span>
Oh please.</span>
<span>True, and I know we have elements of socialism within the U.S. that actually work fairly well. And yes, one must look at these issues through local lenses, BUT there are some very basic rights that are universal or should be. Almost all examples of a socialistic state have turned out very bad, indeed. As for the latest attempts to advance socialism, the usual warning signs are already there in Venezuela.</span>
ReplyDeleteWhy choose Venezuela as an example? Socialism is alive and well in Europe where it almost overshadows capitalism.
ReplyDeleteWrong, in my view, on both counts:
ReplyDelete<span><span>I am not confusing anything. Just about all attempts at socialism have resulted in a centralized state and the loss of liberties.</span></span>
Europe's brand of socialism doesn't seem to have failed (and Europe is not a small insignificant part of the world community), notwithstanding the full court press against it by wingnuttia.
<span><span>It is well and good to piously state that real or pure socialism is not like that,</span></span>
European socialism is definitely NOT pure, and it seems to be surviving quite well thank you very much. Judge that by the fact that conservatives even when they come to power are unable to reverse the gains.
Coming to think of it, vza, I may actually concede that point to you:
ReplyDeleteNever, I suspect, has an American president [GWB] lectured more people out there on their responsibilities to us. Looking back, what's surprising is how few paid much attention. The Iraqis didn't listen, nor did the Afghans, nor the Iranians, nor, it seems, the Pakistanis, nor the Russians, nor the Chinese... and so on. It's been a remarkably ignominious lesson in bluster and bust -- and a reasonable measure of the actual power of a country that, not so many years ago, Washington pundits were happily (and favorably) comparing to the Roman and British empires in its reach and ambition.
Socialism in Europe? That's not true socialism!
ReplyDeleteSome aspects of socialism. They would not be able to afford that, if they did not have capitalism!
ReplyDelete<span><span>First of all, Michael Klare posted on Michael Klare? I had to laugh. Secondly, Michael Klare found what Michael Klare wanted to find. That is the problem with these guys...they always over do it. It is amazing to me that the CIA and the NIC become believable only when their reports confirm these characters' views. </span></span>
ReplyDelete<span><span>
One of the examples he gives to prove his point is the rejection of Chicago for the Olympics. HUH? Isn't this the genius who claimed Bush started the war in Iraq to increase his popularity? Too funny.
Seriously, I have no doubt we will lose our position as the sole superpower. In this day and age, because of technology and all, there never will be another Roman Empire or even a British Empire. That's okay with me.</span></span>
<span>Let me play devil's advocate for a while longer. A person might argue (I'm not saying that I would, ...but just for the sake of argument) that Cuba, instead of socialism, practices "caudillismo". And, while some people like to put Daniel Ortega in the "socialist" box, I would like to remind people that Nicaragua has one of the most dynamic assembly industries [sweatshops] of the entire region (up there on par with Honduras). Meanwhile the left decries the 'sweatshops' as the worst example of capitalist exploitation and the right continues to invest in 'socialist countries' like Venezuela and China while criticizing the heck out of them.
ReplyDeleteAnd if that doesn't seem overly contradictory, take the case of communism! Wasn't the end product supposed to be the "withering of the state"? And yet the Soviet Union was actually moving in the opposite direction.</span>