Bolivia, Brazil and the Realignment of Power in Central and South America

[Selene]

Morning folks:

This NY Times article caught my eye this morning for two (2) reasons:

First, I have always followed the politics to our South since I was about ten (10) years old; and

Second, my lady spent about five and a half (5 1/2) years there out in the Chako.

Morales has been a fascinating personality emerging in the heart of the Continent.

Hmmm, do I remember someone named Simon Bolivar?

A Crisis Highlights Divisions in Bolivia

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/world/am...70&emc=eta1

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

This situation highlights a very important issue for Objectivism. What is the basis of property rights? A mandate from a king?

In all South American countries you will often hear the term "land reform." What this means is that in Colonial times, certain families were bequeathed enormous tracts of land. In Brazil these were called Capitancies. These areas were often the size of entire states. Obviously the family owners became very powerful and these properties were handed down over the centuries through inheritance.

The trouble is that often you can find situations where the owners will not allow the land to be cultivated for anything at all, but there are towns nearby of very poor people where most of them are malnourished. This obviously leads to feelings of revulsion. The poor people want a shot at being able to grow at least the bare necessities of existence and they are denied that—they are denied it with guns and many murders occur. So land reform usually means forcing the owners to sell off parts of their uncultivated land on pain of confiscation. You can imagine how that goes down with the owners, who fear the poor to the point of even killing off teachers. (An uneducated mass is easier to control.)

To maintain legalities and property rights, you have to honor the inheritances. But to honor them, you have to support the divine right of stagnation and what amounts to a feudal system while a good part of the population is condemned to dire poverty and ignorance. That's the central conflict.

When something like piped natural gas comes from one of these properties, all hell breaks loose. Pipelines do not grow food, and they don't take up all that much land, but they do result in a humongous amount of wealth. Those in power are content to eat at voluptuous banquets within the sight of people going hungry and still sit on the land and not allow it to be cultivated. Then to further complicate matters, certain organizations (communist groups are the traditional bad guys here, but there are others) infiltrate the poor and get them stirred up and greedy, so they no longer want a fair shot: the want to take over. A holy mess like what Bolivia is now going through is the result.

One shameful part of the USA foreign policy is that the USA government and the old-boy companies usually get into bed with the property owners and help them train secret police in exchange for dirt cheap raw materials and labor.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

I was mainly interested in your insights since I know some Bolivians and you spent so much time in the other key player, Brazil. It is also a place that my lady had a milk farm, was a practicing midwife and taught English to the kids and the home schoolers in the town.

The government is feared by the folks in the Bolivian Chako.

I agree with your supposition that the developments in South America are quite central to Objectivism. I struggle with the issue that of the feudal landed gentry passing the land down and amassing power and then stagnating the entire culture.

However, supporting a revolution is a critical and difficult choice, especially for an Objectivist.

Adam

[algernonsidney]

The trouble is that often you can find situations where the owners will not allow the land to be cultivated for anything at all, but there are towns nearby of very poor people where most of them are malnourished. This obviously leads to feelings of revulsion. The poor people want a shot at being able to grow at least the bare necessities of existence and they are denied that—they are denied it with guns and many murders occur. So land reform usually means forcing the owners to sell off parts of their uncultivated land on pain of confiscation. You can imagine how that goes down with the owners, who fear the poor to the point of even killing off teachers. (An uneducated mass is easier to control.)

The Founding Fathers were very much against primogeniture. I think they even outlawed it. By forcing the estates to be split up among all the children, there was competition. Land was distributed over time. That's why I have often not been all that troubled by inheritance taxes. Dead people do not have rights.

And if these landowners do kill teachers, it is quite obvious that the only way to deal with them is to kill them. That is totally moral. History teaches us that rich people generally have no qualms about initiating violence against poor people. They do it because they think they can get away with it. You can not reason with people who only speak the language of violence.

A holy mess like what Bolivia is now going through is the result.

The other thing here is that the Spaniards stole the land from the people who were living there at the time. Their descendants are still living there. Bolivia has a large indigenous population. A lot of the land is also mountainous.

One shameful part of the USA foreign policy is that the USA government and the old-boy companies usually get into bed with the property owners and help them train secret police in exchange for dirt cheap raw materials and labor.

USA foreign policy does that all over the world, not just in South America. When you understand this, you understand why people in foreign countries cheered when the WTC was attacked. Switzerland does not do this. The result is that nobody attacks them.

Many of these people mistakenly associate corporate welfare with capitalism. It does not help matters when scumbags like American neo-cons claim to be advocates of capitalism. It does not help matters when genocidal maniacs like Yaron Brook claim to be in favor of capitalism.

Edited September 16, 2008 by Chris Baker

[Brant Gaede]

USA foreign policy does that all over the world, not just in South America. When you understand this, you understand why people in foreign countries cheered when the WTC was attacked. Switzerland does not do this. The result is that nobody attacks them.

What people in what countries? You can start with Egypt.

--Brant

[Selene]

Yes of course the whole world hates the United States.

Fine. Let's make a list, checking it twice and through a back channel ask a simple question, non-publicly - If your government cannot publicly endorse thee US then we will begin to remove our offensive, imperialist, racist.....fill in your own particular anti-American slur presence in your country.

Thereafter, we will immediately cease:

a) to force you to accept our money, technology and trade which clearly corrupts your society by your own statements;

b) we will immediately remove all presence of our imperialist troops and overflights of your country;

c) we will immediately sever all economic pacts and agreements which are continuing to corrupt your culture;

d) we will no longer approve any visas, of any type, by any citizen of your country so as not to corrupt them by our free society;

Obviously, you will be celebrating the release from our oppressive bonds and we wish you well standing alone against the cold, cruel winds of actual dictators and imperialists.

Have a wonderful future as long as your government remains in your hands.

In terms of Bolivia, it is getting much worse, much quicker than I expected:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8091502702.html

Adam

[algernonsidney]

I checked out the numbers. Only about 15% of Bolivia's is of full European descent. The rest are mestizos or Amerindian.

The good news is that population increases 1-2% per year. If poor people want to get their revenge on the rich folks, this is one way to do it.

Finally, I can't think of Bolivia without thinking of the "world's most dangerous road." Check out the slideshow. Up until 2006, it was actually used by motor vehicles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yungas_Road

http://www.gravitybolivia.com/gallery/slid...stDangerousRoad

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

One shameful part of the USA foreign policy is that the USA government and the old-boy companies usually get into bed with the property owners and help them train secret police in exchange for dirt cheap raw materials and labor.

USA foreign policy does that all over the world, not just in South America. When you understand this, you understand why people in foreign countries cheered when the WTC was attacked.

Chris,

That's a gross oversimplification and that makes the same mistake that the expansionsts make: attributing world reaction to one cause only (or calling one cause the main cause) while ignoring all the rest.

People who have not been abroad can only speculate about what goes on with people in other countries who hate the USA. I personally have interacted with people like that (like visiting, going to dinner, etc.). Many, many, many times. In 100% of the cases, it was a highly mixed bag. Only the ringleaders were really aware of the USA's monkeyshines. The others were merely mouthing slogans. I have no reason to believe this is any different in Islamic nations. (Going by the Muslims who came to Brazil I met, it isn't.)

All of them wanted USA products, watched USA entertainment, talked USA slang, etc.. They admired the USA, even the ones whose hatred was not the hatred of cattle. No exceptions within my experience.

Here is the rub and the real deal, but it does not fit the normal agendas. Foreigners seek the USA for involvement in their countries. The USA doesn't just go there and impose itself in the culture. It is a two-way street. I used to argue in Brazil that if the multinationals were buying Brazil, someone sure as hell was selling it and that person was not an American.

It is true that the USA does monkeyshines in foreign policy, but so do the locals. They actually want us there. They just want to take what the USA offers, but they want to do their own monkeyshines with it. Even the rabid USA haters.

Nobody I know of has a certificate of sainthood in this issue. Not even the victims.

If you want a main cause (and even this is still an oversimplification), try greed and taking stuff from others by deceit or threat or violence, not production. Universal greed in that sense is one of the main drivers. Greed by the USA. Greed by the locals. Greed by the victims. Greed by everyone.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

Precisely. This self hate has always amazed me.

Your clear and concise description of reality is similar to other places that I have been in where there is a culture of corruption, therefore, why would Brazil, Bolivia be any different.

What did you think of the De Niro film Mission, it is in my top 200 films?

Your prior point about the true "actors" in a society is an argument that I have successfully made with many black revolutionaries that I have worked with in communities [Note to the Chosen One, I can give names and dates to my "community organizing"] and two, one of the people was Malcolm X].

The argument is that the "white" slave traders did not pull up to the Ivory Coast, throw down a plank and "black" folks walked up the plank on to the sailing slave ship. Therefore, one can conclude that their fellow "black" actors, local thugs, oops, I meant tribal chieftains participated actively, in the slave trade.

And in fact, Africa still engages in the active promotion of human slavery, therefore, it is the U.S., that abolished slavery that is at fault? I am so sorry insightful anti-Americans, but I am very, very confused about this argument of yours! :shocked:

Adam

[algernonsidney]

That's a gross oversimplification and that makes the same mistake that the expansionsts make: attributing world reaction to one cause only (or calling one cause the main cause) while ignoring all the rest.

It's one thing that needs to be changed.

The others were merely mouthing slogans.

I'm not surprised that it's that way around the world. That's all most people do here is mouth slogans.

All of them wanted USA products, watched USA entertainment, talked USA slang, etc.. They admired the USA, even the ones whose hatred was not the hatred of cattle.

And blue jeans, Pepsi, and Coke--yes I agree with you.

Foreigners seek the USA for involvement in their countries.

I certainly know that. We have certainly cleaned up enough messes that the British and French helped create. There is also a lobby in Washington called AIPAC.

The involvement does not benefit us. It is not in the rational self-interest of this country to involve itself in this way.

What happens is that we sometimes end up taking sides in Hatfield-McCoy feuds. The Ossetians wanted Russia's help--they got it. The Georgians wanted American help--they got cash. And, of course, Georgia wanted Russia's help back in the 1790's as protection against the Turks and Persians.

The feuds in Africa that gave men to the slavetraders probably weren't much different.

Sometimes it's the "leadership" that wants our help in putting down rebellions or whatever. Saakashvili shuts down opposition TV stations and then takes money from the US. When the Georgians run him out of there, he will have a job waiting for him at the American Enterprise Institute.

[Selene]

Folks:

Clearly Brazilian politicians are comfortable backing a loser! At least he knows where to move to become a God!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/1...zil.barackobama

[Brant Gaede]

I like Chris B. when he goes into detail.

--Brant