Right-wing coup in Bolivia

[Silvanus]

Nationalization takes industries responsible for the well-being of people and gives control of them to the government. People associate a government with the figurehead of the government. People are unlikely to remove someone from office that they're crediting with providing them healthcare. If a leader presides over a period of good fortunes in a socialist system, and asks the people if they can stay in charge forever, they can probably gets the votes to do so.

Right. So, in countries with socialised healthcare-- like my country, the UK-- you'd say we would be inclined to gift our leaders with indefinite rule?

...Have you ever been to the UK?

It's not a tendency in the leaders. It's a tendency is people everywhere, and it's a weakness of the system. I'm not saying that anyone who tries to lead as a democratic-socialist is in any way more dictatorial that other people in power. I'm saying that if a person with dictatorial persuasions gains power in a democratic-socialist system, there's a good chance they can take more power for themselves.

Do you honestly believe that the capitalist system acts as a barrier to authoritarianism? There's a huge number of authoritarian regimes in the world, and most of them are quite clearly capitalist or oligarchic.

 

[Saelune]

So Trump thinks coups are ok and you need to have the most votes to lead the country? Oh right, he is a hypocrite on literally everything.

 

[tstorm823]

Right. So, in countries with socialised healthcare-- like my country, the UK-- you'd say we would be inclined to gift our leaders with indefinite rule?

...Have you ever been to the UK?

I have not. But the UK already has a Queen. When my theory is "a democracy with no ruler is inclined to elect one", the UK just is not the best counter-example.

Do you honestly believe that the capitalist system acts as a barrier to authoritarianism? There's a huge number of authoritarian regimes in the world, and most of them are quite clearly capitalist or oligarchic.

No, I think that limits on the scope of government act as a barrier to authoritarianism. And that's not an easy feat with socialism.

Yes, but isn't this like saying anyone with dictatorial persuasions gains power in a democratic system, they will take more power for themselves? "Socialist" is just an unnecessary qualifier.

Eh, perhaps. But it's topically relevant, because the topic is coming from a communist who says that term limits are undemocratic anyway, so they shouldn't exist.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Yes, imagine if the Supreme Court of the United States ever had to interpret law regarding who would be President.

Come now, you can't seriously be comparing Bush v. Gore to a court ruling that part of a constitution did not apply. There's a difference between the highest court coming in and determining who won based on procedural rules and a court ruling that term limits in the constitution were unconstitutional.

Arguably, Bush v. Gore is quite a bit worse even than your characterization of the Bolivian ruling, since it transparently gifted the presidency to another party rather than merely allowed a sitting President to run for reelection.

Also, Bolivia, differently from the United States, doesn't have their judges selected by the President, but rather elected democratically, so the idea that these are 'merely Evo Morales cronies' is a stretch.

If SCOTUS ever decides to interpret the 22nd Amendment in a way you don't like, are you going to call for the military to oust the President of the United States?

Depends. If a president has been lawfully removed from office but refuses to leave, then yes.

EDIT: You may be operating under the assumption that I approve of this decision by the military. I do not. I don't like it whenever a military exercises power over a civilian government. To me, it's a worrying decision. That said, I also don't think Evo should have been allowed to run in the first place.

You can say that, but there's the rest of this term, too; even if he hadn't run, he should still be in office.

What is so special about term limits, anyway? Just because Republicans filled their diapers over the enduring popularity of the furthest left President we've ever had doesn't make term limits a great principle. If the people want to elect someone again but are disallowed because of term limits, then term limits are actually anti-democratic.

"Anti-democratic" doesn't mean bad. There are plenty of rules we have that are/were anti-democratic that I don't think either of us would like to get rid of. Hell, the role of the courts is often times to be anti-democratic, throwing out popular legislation that none the less runs afoul of the constitution. See, for example, their limiting of capital punishment from a variety of felonies to only three [murder, treason, drug kingpin activity*]. This done despite the fact that capital punishment for a variety of felonies is still popular in much of the USA.

*This is from dicta in one semi-recent case. I cannot find any cases where a prosecutor has sought capital punishment for drug kingpin activity. Also, the federal government hasn't executed anyone in a decade and a half. From wikipedia, the last people executed for a non-murder crime (rape, in their case) at the federal level were George and Michael Krull in 1957.

Should the German military depose Angela Merkel? There are higher values than democracy, OK, but that doesn't actually say anything about what is so special about term limits. Which higher values than democracy are term limits supposed to promote? And do they actually?

The result of this coup is that Bolivia is going to return to slavery and poverty and its resources will be carved up between foreign corporations. That includes the largest lithium deposits in the world, lithium notable for its use in hybrid and electric vehicle batteries. Imperialism can be green.

Not that it matters, but I was under the impression that Chile and Argentina had more lithium.

And as for the results: I think it's a little soon to be stating that this is what's going to happen. According to a little quick googling, Jeanine A?ez, an opposition lawmaker, is the one who will take over next. She claims she will call new elections. There remains a chance, then, for Evo's party to remain in power.

The stock market suggests that the money is betting otherwise. [tweet t="https://twitter.com/andraydomise/status/1194025206060343297"]

It seems like a good bet, considering how violent the opposition protests have been. They clearly aren't after new elections as they didn't accept Evo's proposed compromise of having new elections. But they do have the backing of the United States. There is hope that we see a repeat of the US-backed coup against Chavez.

edit:
Jesus Christ. Literally. [https://thegrayzone.com/2019/11/11/bolivia-coup-fascist-foreign-support-fernando-camacho/]

With a Bible in one hand and a national flag in the other, Camacho bowed his head in prayer above the presidential seal, fulfilling his vow to purge his country's Native heritage from government and "return God to the burned palace."

"Pachamama will never return to the palace," he said, referring to the Andean Mother Earth spirit. "Bolivia belongs to Christ."

edit2:

So this is weird: [tweet t="https://twitter.com/repeatedmistake/status/1194079489547878400"]

Thing is, apparently many of those tweets were since deleted as that same search only returns about 5 hits now, excluding the ones that are about the many tweets with that phrase. I won't claim to know what exactly is going on with that, but it's interesting.

edit3:

Apparently I was using twitter search wrong, and the many legions of tweets with the exact same phrase and capitalization are still there, but in the 'latest' tab.

 

[Trunkage]

So Trump thinks coups are ok and you need to have the most votes to lead the country? Oh right, he is a hypocrite on literally everything.

To be fair, Trump isn't the first US dictator president to think that votes mean diddly squat. You can track similar ideas almost all the way back to Washington. Which is funny, because the US pretend that political representation is a necessary thing for democracy... for US citizens only. Not for everyone else. If you and your populace remove a dictator in country other than the US, its highly likely that the US will take you over and install a similar dictator. Because, the US cant have populace not being repressed by authoritarians. That would be uncivilised.

 

[Agema]

Not that it matters, but I was under the impression that Chile and Argentina had more lithium.

Apparently not: Bolivia has ~40% of currently known global reserves, slightly more than Chile. It's reckoned Brazil has huge amounts of lithium - if anyone decides to go check properly and then develop it.

 

[Silvanus]

I have not. But the UK already has a Queen. When my theory is "a democracy with no ruler is inclined to elect one", the UK just is not the best counter-example.

A figurehead with no political power. Those wielding actual political power-- the Ministers and Prime Ministers, and Parliament-- have not gifted themselves an endless stay.

Neither have the governments of most countries with socialised healthcare, in fact.

No, I think that limits on the scope of government act as a barrier to authoritarianism. And that's not an easy feat with socialism.

It's a much easier feat to exert some control over your utilities in a democratic-socialist system than it is with purely capitalist systems. If your utilities are administered by private companies, you have zero power over who runs them or what they do.

For instance, they can turn a consistent profit, and simply refuse to invest that money back into the service they're supposed to be offering. That's the case with our privately-owned railways, for instance. We can't vote on it if they act abysmally, when they're in private hands. Hell, we can't even "vote" with our wallets-- the railway franchises have single control over their areas and lines, so if you need to get somewhere, you have no choice but to go with them and suck up whatever they do.

 

[Seanchaidh]

So now that its clear that the coup leader ia a fascist/nazi, I wonder how much support he'll still get?



Who I'm I kidding, the mass media will still refuse to even call it a coup.

 

[Seanchaidh]

A Bolivian Senator and far-right Christian supremacist has declared herself interim President after their Congress failed to reach a quorum.

The scene: [tweet t="https://twitter.com/brunosgarzini/status/1194401059143335936"]

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Indigenous Bolivians take to the streets in reaction to the coup: [tweet t="https://twitter.com/nwbtcw/status/1193991046956568576"]

Yes, as in Venezuela, race plays a big role in these power games.

In some reporting I saw, you had cops altering the flags on their uniforms to remove the segment of Bolivia's flag that's tied with the Inkas (native population basically). Not sure how someone can think of desecrating their own flag as being patriotic but these people somehow seemed convinced of that fact.


This feels less like a coup and more like a military junta or a civil war to me.

 

[Agema]

So now that its clear that the coup leader ia a fascist/nazi, I wonder how much support he'll still get?

From the Bolivian economic elites, probably loads. And given the Bolivian economic elites will be the ones with best links with the international economic elites who have the most influence over the media, probably it'll be glossed over across much of the rest of the world.

 

[Seanchaidh]

In some reporting I saw, you had cops altering the flags on their uniforms to remove the segment of Bolivia's flag that's tied with the Inkas (native population basically). Not sure how someone can think of desecrating their own flag as being patriotic but these people somehow seemed convinced of that fact.

This feels less like a coup and more like a military junta or a civil war to me.

I guess it's like US police using the blue line flag, more or less? But more racist?

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

In some reporting I saw, you had cops altering the flags on their uniforms to remove the segment of Bolivia's flag that's tied with the Inkas (native population basically). Not sure how someone can think of desecrating their own flag as being patriotic but these people somehow seemed convinced of that fact.

This feels less like a coup and more like a military junta or a civil war to me.

I guess it's like US police using the blue line flag, more or less? But more racist?

The US parallel that came to mind was the confederate flag which is why it felt more like a civil war at this point.

But yeah, I was watching this documentary not like a week ago randomly and it was about the religion of the Inkas and how it had actual astronomic basis going back over a thousand years ago but then the Christians came during a time where astronomy was seen as satanic and the spanish inquisition was adamant about the sun rotating around the earth and so on. I guess the friction between the two groups just...never went away.

 

[Seanchaidh]

The United States connection, which one might surmise is there independent of any direct evidence because it's just the kind of thing the United States does, especially in but not limited to Latin America, is examined in this article: https://thegrayzone.com/2019/11/13/bolivian-coup-plotters-school-of-the-americas-fbi-police-programs/

... The School of the Americas is a notorious site of education for Latin American coup plotters dating back to the height of the Cold War. Brutal regime change and reprisal operations from Haiti to Honduras have been carried out by SOA graduates, and some of the most bloodstained juntas in the region's history have been run by the school's alumni...

 

[Seanchaidh]

So far as I can tell, the Plurinational Legislative Assembly (the national legislature of Bolivia) was able to convene a quorum (which one might imagine should be important to all the sticklers for Constitutional order) and condemn the coup, clearly articulating that Evo Morales both won the election and remains the President.

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/RalitoDigital/status/1194837545852571648"]

An indigenous perspective: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/14/what-the-coup-against-evo-morales-means-to-indigenous-people-like-me

Evo Morales is more than Bolivia's first indigenous president-- he is our president, too. The rise of a humble Aymara coca farmer to the nation?s highest office in 2006 marked the arrival of indigenous people as vanguards of history. Within the social movements that brought him to power emerged indigenous visions of socialism and the values of Pachamama (the Andean Earth Mother). Evo represents five centuries of indigenous deprivation and struggle in the hemisphere.

A coup against Evo, therefore, is a coup against indigenous people.

Evo's critics, from the anti-state left and right, are quick to point out his failures. But it was his victories that fomented this most recent violent backlash...

 

[Agema]

So far as I can tell, the Plurinational Legislative Assembly (the national legislature of Bolivia) was able to convene a quorum (which one might imagine should be important to all the sticklers for Constitutional order) and condemn the coup, clearly articulating that Evo Morales both won the election and remains the President.

Good luck to them. I don't think the coup leaders, with the backing of police and military, will be paying much attention. Those who believe they were born with a God-given right to rule the riff-raff and stuff their pockets in the process play hard and for keeps.

The United States connection, which one might surmise is there independent of any direct evidence because it's just the kind of thing the United States does,

They obviously had US assent at minimum, because almost no-one in a country like Bolivia would dare try that sort of shit without American assent. The White House's logic-mangling statement (an elected head of state replaced by the minority opposition under pressure from the military as a victory for democracy) is all that we need to know on that score.

I don't entirely know that the USA was that bothered about Morales per se - he seems to have run his country pretty effectively with solid economic growth, improving human development and kept production and exports going fine. I suspect a bigger motivation may have been removing potential allies of Maduro.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I don't entirely know that the USA was that bothered about Morales per se - he seems to have run his country pretty effectively with solid economic growth, improving human development and kept production and exports going fine. I suspect a bigger motivation may have been removing potential allies of Maduro.

Evo's resource nationalism undoubtedly offends both the USA and Europe, and it's predictable that the coup would privatize what are currently national resources.

 

[Agema]

Evo's resource nationalism undoubtedly offends both the USA and Europe, and it's predictable that the coup would privatize what are currently national resources.

I'm not sure that US and European governments are so bothered by resource nationalism as long as the resources keep flowing. In many cases they'd favour stability.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Evo's resource nationalism undoubtedly offends both the USA and Europe, and it's predictable that the coup would privatize what are currently national resources.

I'm not sure that US and European governments are so bothered by resource nationalism as long as the resources keep flowing. In many cases they'd favour stability.

Nationalizing it means they can't explioted for cheap prices. That is the whole reason the US is backing this coup. Its all about the cheap lithium.

 

[Agema]

Nationalizing it means they can't explioted for cheap prices. That is the whole reason the US is backing this coup. Its all about the cheap lithium.

Mmm. Not sure about that.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-metals-lmeweek-lithium/stung-by-sliding-prices-lithium-industry-pares-back-expansions-idUSKBN1X71DG