***Official Political Discussion Thread***

4,111
6,565
Joined Jun 28, 2004
This is quite the understatement, and you can't possibly handwaved putting aside the political process because the person you support is in power.




For this statement to be accurate, one would have to completely ignore the tribal dynamics that exist and that play an important role in the politics of many African countries. The civil war in Ivory Coast (2010?) had a xenophobic and tribalist component to it, mostly encompassed in the concept of "ivoirite," or who could be considered a true Ivoirian; in my own country, the political class draws most of its members from the president's ethnic group, which is not even the most populous, and secessionist groups in the North West and South West provinces largely identify with a single linguistic group, which has been largely ignored by the powers that be.
In an environment where most folks are the same skin color, in-groups and out-groups are determined differently; they don't just disappear.

Time to include BBC Africa in your listening regimen.

The machinations you describe in your last paragraph also happen in African economies that rely on extraction of raw materials. In fact, African countries have a history of leftist leaders who ended up overstaying their welcome. Just because one defends socialism doesn't give them carte blanche to usurp power.

Again, I'm comparing Latin America to Africa and I am doing so in the context of former colonies existing in a post colonial but still neocolonial, capitalist, imperialist and white supremacist world.

The elite institutions in Africa are much more likely to be racially representative, in the black and white dichotomy, compared to elite institutions in Latin America. You're right about the ethnic groups and certainly know more than me about that.

The main point is that Latin American countries tend to have a white elite still in charge and that white elite teams up with US power to subvert sustained attempts at economic equality between whites and non whites.

That still doesn't really excuse military intervention in civilian politics anywhere but the legalistic and procedural defenses of a coup are more plausible in Africa than they are in Latin America. In Latin America, every subversion of an elected and/or civilian government is an attempt to restore white power in a nation's politics.
 

RustyShackleford

Supporter
38,910
71,917
Joined Jul 20, 2009
Again, I'm comparing Latin America to Africa and I am doing so in the context of former colonies existing in a post colonial but still neocolonial, capitalist, imperialist and white supremacist world.

The elite institutions in Africa are much more likely to be racially representative, in the black and white dichotomy, compared to elite institutions in Latin America. You're right about the ethnic groups and certainly know more than me about that.

The main point is that Latin American countries tend to have a white elite still in charge and that white elite teams up with US power to subvert sustained attempts at economic equality between whites and non whites.

That still doesn't really excuse military intervention in civilian politics anywhere but the legalistic and procedural defenses of a coup are more plausible in Africa than they are in Latin America. In Latin America, every subversion of an elected and/or civilian government is an attempt to restore white power in a nation's politics.
So stealing elections are cool as long as someone is a socialist?
 
4,760
5,832
Joined Dec 12, 2012
I tried to keep up with what's been going on while on vacation. It seems that Team Trump continues to lie about everything, and the GOP continues to distract and deflect. It's also great to see everyone's favorite narcissist on NT dropping by to defend these deplorables.
 
5,454
2,035
Joined Dec 23, 2003
Nunes remixed his TV ratings lyrics from last week and the Ambassador's calling the Trump/Guiliani scheme a drug deal
 
4,111
6,565
Joined Jun 28, 2004
So stealing elections are cool as long as someone is a socialist?
I know you won’t like this analogy but this discussion has strong vibes of the debate about inner city crime circa 1990. One side sees the whole picture of divestment and police brutality and the other side is just like “so you’re ok with people robbing liquor stores?”

Elections are not unimportant but elections are not the be all end all either. Socialists deserve more leeway because their countries face relentless pressure from Washington and London and Wall Street in a way that liberal, centrists and conservative lead states do not.

The other point is that for leftists control of the economy is more important than elections. For liberals elections are more important than whole controls the economy. Most people have to submit to living in an autocracy for 40-70 hours per week. Voters in most countries spend very little time casting a vote and usually the choice is between various pro capitalism candidates. That is not democracy. Democracy is controlling who polices your, community, democracy is controlling your work place, democracy is deciding how your nation resources will be used.

In Bolivia, what ever emerges from this action will cause the mass of people to have much less control over all those aforementioned things and there is no guarantee that this right wing interim government will even allow for fair elections.

One other thought, why wasn’t Evo’s replacement another left wing politician? Why is his replacement an out spoken white supremacist? If the issue was with Evo, why not replace him with someone with the same policy goals? It is awfully convenient for right wingers in Bolivia and for Industrialists in the global north to have Evo’s replacement being someone who wants to overturn his pro worker and pro indigenous policies.
 

RustyShackleford

Supporter
38,910
71,917
Joined Jul 20, 2009
I know you won’t like this analogy but this discussion has strong vibes of the debate about inner city crime circa 1990. One side sees the whole picture of divestment and police brutality and the other side is just like “so you’re ok with people robbing liquor stores?”

Elections are not unimportant but elections are not the be all end all either. Socialists deserve more leeway because their countries face relentless pressure from Washington and London and Wall Street in a way that liberal, centrists and conservative lead states do not.

The other point is that for leftists control of the economy is more important than elections. For liberals elections are more important than whole controls the economy. Most people have to submit to living in an autocracy for 40-70 hours per week. Voters in most countries spend very little time casting a vote and usually the choice is between various pro capitalism candidates. That is not democracy. Democracy is controlling who polices your, community, democracy is controlling your work place, democracy is deciding how your nation resources will be used.

In Bolivia, what ever emerges from this action will cause the mass of people to have much less control over all those aforementioned things and there is no guarantee that this right wing interim government will even allow for fair elections.

One other thought, why wasn’t Evo’s replacement another left wing politician? Why is his replacement an out spoken white supremacist? If the issue was with Evo, why not replace him with someone with the same policy goals? It is awfully convenient for right wingers in Bolivia and for Industrialists in the global north to have Evo’s replacement being someone who wants to overturn his pro worker and pro indigenous policies.
Dude I respect alot of the thing you have posted in here since socialism saved you from diet white supremacy, but this is **** is wild

I have a feeling you keep wanting to you examples from black Americans because you are talking to black people. You can do better but searching for another example but you want the emotional response, because those comparison dam sure are not illuminating you point. Since you want to invoke the struggles of the communities we come from my I remind you that one person you are talking to comes from a continent ,where for numerous reasons, lack of democracy and peace transitions of power has wreck havoc. I come from a country that before I was born the shadow of Castro loomed and the fear that armed socialist might try to take the government at any time was real after independence from Britain. Black Americans come from communities that historically behind denied free and fair participation in elections.

So maybe some people talking to you in here respect elections so much because they see the damage the lack of them cause, not because they happen to be liberals.

You in a respectful still get frustrated when people brings race into some discussions. However, now it serves your socialist supporting argument, let us compare everything to the plight of black people. But when it comes time to talk Bernie's shortcomings, I am sure you will imply we need to put them on the back burner again.

So yes, I don't like your comparison for many reasons. Besides them being bad and hyperbolic.

All the **** you claim about American leftist/socialist/DSA, this argument you are making undercuts it a ton.

As a thought exercise like us consider this: We know the American socialist coalition is disproportionately white, probably by a decent margin. What happens in America if they ever get power, but black people disagree with some of their moves, and wish to replace them with some not leftist. Would you be find with American Socialist bringing back Jim Crow Era policy to suppress black voters?

Since you want to use the racial dynamics of America so much, since you want to use race as a shield in the argument, what would be more important to you? How far does the devotion for socialism go? Democratic justice for black people, or socialist control of the economy. Because if you want to make the argument that fair elections should be sacrificed for socialism, how does that gel with all your "building a multiracial workers coalition that as more democratic control over their lives" rhetoric.

Where are you getting your info? The military didn't just remove dude and install and racist right winger. The told him to resign because they will not support him and the line of succession fell to someone that it not a left winger.

And from what I have read the same courts that Evo craft said that lady is constitutionally next in line. The military didn't just hand pick her. Evo, his vice president and the Leader of the Senate all resigned, it fell to her. Evo's party still controls the Congress and they are negotiating holding new elections and how to govern in the interim. Hell Evo is giving interviews saying Congress might decline his resignation, giving him a way back.

I don't like how Evo was removed from power but you are not really giving an accurate account of the events

https://qz.com/1748281/experts-are-divided-on-evo-morales-and-bolivias-alleged-coup/

De facto Leader Añez--a virtual unknown until this week--has netted an early win: the same Constitutional Court that abolished term limits for Morales has declared her the legitimate president
So comrade is it Oochie Wally or One Mic? We respecting that courts decision or not?

And may point out if you don't respect the court's decision with Anez, then you would be a hypocrite if you want people to respect the ruling of the court when it favored Evo getting an extra term.

The hill you want to die on is people should accept dictatorship to get socialism. It is so ridiculous to you then want to pivot to lecturing on real democracy when a damn illegitimate dictator will have the power to undermine all the things you listed. Evo has been far from perfect and alienated plenty on the left too. So those people too must be robbed of their right to elections, just for socialism?

Sorry but since that arrangement has not worked out great many times before, all over the world, people have a solid reason not to want to accept that deal.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom