|
|
Post by relique on Oct 24, 2020 8:05:51 GMT
Morales weren't "kept in power by racial animus", he was simply a Socialist who tried to implement Socialist policies. Bolivia is a deeply racially polarized society. Any element of social justice in Bolivia means redistributing resources from the "hispanic" population (whites and hispanicized mestizos) to the indigenous population. I think we may have two different definitions of the term, because I believe that this is precisely that. The other problem here ofc is that Socialists simply want to share the cake, on a racial basis in this instance, rather than make it bigger. I don't care who has what slice, just as long as the slices keep getting bigger. 1) No Morales supporter have humiliated, shaven, thrown paint at a senator from the opposition because of her ethnic background; racial animus was what lead the protests last year and was sanctioned by the ballot boxes this year
2) Yes, socialism means that Bill Gates would get less money. Bouhouh. And that would be good to the economy, creating more and more middle-income consumers able to buy more and more high-value items rather than low-value items, and therefore pushing the economy towards innovation, high-value technology, productivity and growth. It's not a question of "if the cake grows we might give a fiew crusts to the poor", it's "if we give more to the poor now, the cake will grow".
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,952
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 24, 2020 9:45:54 GMT
I think we may have two different definitions of the term, because I believe that this is precisely that. The other problem here ofc is that Socialists simply want to share the cake, on a racial basis in this instance, rather than make it bigger. I don't care who has what slice, just as long as the slices keep getting bigger. Today Bolivia is lost to the animalic, indolent, holdless, drug-dealing/-addicted trash - and tomorrow it will be the whole modern world. Who cares?! If you say so  |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Oct 24, 2020 11:03:15 GMT
By provincia.  Official colors. Lolcamacho. Note the dark orange blips in the mountains - Sucre and Potosi, (half) White enclaves in Native territory as well as, obviously, more populated than their surrounds. La Paz, five or six times the size with more recent migrants, stands out far less. MAS gets votes everywhere and turnout was uniformly high. This is in sharp contrast to the 2000s elections when the east's results were far more lopsided but turnout there was lower. Probably legitimate to draw conclusions on who the new voters vote for. |
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Oct 24, 2020 13:21:55 GMT
I think we may have two different definitions of the term, because I believe that this is precisely that. The other problem here ofc is that Socialists simply want to share the cake, on a racial basis in this instance, rather than make it bigger. I don't care who has what slice, just as long as the slices keep getting bigger. 1) No Morales supporter have humiliated, shaven, thrown paint at a senator from the opposition because of her ethnic background; racial animus was what lead the protests last year and was sanctioned by the ballot boxes this year
2) Yes, socialism means that Bill Gates would get less money. Bouhouh. And that would be good to the economy, creating more and more middle-income consumers able to buy more and more high-value items rather than low-value items, and therefore pushing the economy towards innovation, high-value technology, productivity and growth. It's not a question of "if the cake grows we might give a fiew crusts to the poor", it's "if we give more to the poor now, the cake will grow".
It doesn't create more middle income people at all. All socialism would do to Bill Gates is steal some of his money and waste it. I also find the idea that punishing success creates innovation odd. Why would you work long hours innovating new technologies, only for much of the reward to be seized from you? Socialism doesn't help innovation, it stifles it. That's why every socialist society on earth has been backwards. Finally, a rising tide lifts all boats. If the economy is doing well, through the success of private industry, every one does well. People aren't merely allocated crusts, but can have as a large a slice as they want through their own hard work. People on my side of the debate throw the Churchill quote about socialism being the equal sharing of misery around too much. However, it is an accurate statement when it comes to innovation and personal success. |
|
|
|
Post by relique on Oct 24, 2020 14:50:23 GMT
Yeah, because there are no one in the world researching for innovations without a claim of money in it. No researchers who don't profit from vaccines or medication. No researchers who don't profit from increasing the knowledge on lasers ...
That DOESN'T exist researchers paid through taxes and redistribution who create innovation. Just doesn't.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,020
|
Post by Khunanup on Oct 24, 2020 15:07:17 GMT
1) No Morales supporter have humiliated, shaven, thrown paint at a senator from the opposition because of her ethnic background; racial animus was what lead the protests last year and was sanctioned by the ballot boxes this year 2) Yes, socialism means that Bill Gates would get less money. Bouhouh. And that would be good to the economy, creating more and more middle-income consumers able to buy more and more high-value items rather than low-value items, and therefore pushing the economy towards innovation, high-value technology, productivity and growth. It's not a question of "if the cake grows we might give a fiew crusts to the poor", it's "if we give more to the poor now, the cake will grow".
It doesn't create more middle income people at all. All socialism would do to Bill Gates is steal some of his money and waste it. I also find the idea that punishing success creates innovation odd. Why would you work long hours innovating new technologies, only for much of the reward to be seized from you? Socialism doesn't help innovation, it stifles it. That's why every socialist society on earth has been backwards. Finally, a rising tide lifts all boats. If the economy is doing well, through the success of private industry, every one does well. People aren't merely allocated crusts, but can have as a large a slice as they want through their own hard work. People on my side of the debate throw the Churchill quote about socialism being the equal sharing of misery around too much. However, it is an accurate statement when it comes to innovation and personal success. You guys with your money-based political philosophies... 🙄 Get a room! 😛 |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Oct 24, 2020 16:57:55 GMT
1) No Morales supporter have humiliated, shaven, thrown paint at a senator from the opposition because of her ethnic background; racial animus was what lead the protests last year and was sanctioned by the ballot boxes this year 2) Yes, socialism means that Bill Gates would get less money. Bouhouh. And that would be good to the economy, creating more and more middle-income consumers able to buy more and more high-value items rather than low-value items, and therefore pushing the economy towards innovation, high-value technology, productivity and growth. It's not a question of "if the cake grows we might give a fiew crusts to the poor", it's "if we give more to the poor now, the cake will grow".
Bill Gates and his ilk love socialism. People pick on George Soros due to his Open Societies Foundation being the most open and active in promoting socialism globally but he's typical of his class in politics. Big global corporations love big government and internationism, which when you strip away all the rhetorical dressing is what socialism boils down to. Policies which are opposed to big government and internationalism are supported by plenty of wealthy people but the very richest of the rich usually back the left. This is where I think you are totally wrong. Liberal globalised capitalism is not socialism. Not remotely so. |
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Oct 24, 2020 17:23:55 GMT
Yeah, because there are no one in the world researching for innovations without a claim of money in it. No researchers who don't profit from vaccines or medication. No researchers who don't profit from increasing the knowledge on lasers ... That DOESN'T exist researchers paid through taxes and redistribution who create innovation. Just doesn't. If someone wants to do that, then that's fine by me. Salk was a great man, but he is in a minority. As Burke said, people are fundamentally selfish and will do things for personal gain. It's human nature and there's nothing wrong with that, it's how you improve your life chances and those of your family. Negating that success through massive taxes will simply mean there is much less innovation. Hence China nicking the West's tech, the USSR collapsing and countries like Laos and North Korea resembling the nineteenth century, at best. |
|
|
|
Post by relique on Oct 26, 2020 20:22:17 GMT
If I understood correctly a facebook information (so, fake news ?), Evo Morales will be back in Bolivia november 11th, 3 days after Arce is inaugurated as president. The bolivian justice apparently quashed the arrest warrant against him.
Edit: he also announced he wouldn't be part of the next government. He would return to his former activities of trade unionist in Cochabamba.
Like almost every populist dictator imaginable I guess...
|
|
|
|
Post by relique on Oct 27, 2020 20:19:02 GMT
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,729
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Oct 27, 2020 20:42:32 GMT
Bill Gates and his ilk love socialism. People pick on George Soros due to his Open Societies Foundation being the most open and active in promoting socialism globally but he's typical of his class in politics. Big global corporations love big government and internationism, which when you strip away all the rhetorical dressing is what socialism boils down to. Policies which are opposed to big government and internationalism are supported by plenty of wealthy people but the very richest of the rich usually back the left. This is where I think you are totally wrong. Liberal globalised capitalism is not socialism. Not remotely so. Yay. |
|
cj
Socialist
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Posts: 3,285 
|
Post by cj on Nov 9, 2020 18:46:22 GMT
The return of former president Evo Morales to the country following the cancellation of the warrant for his arrest
|
|
