[THREAD NECRO] Evo Morales has proved that socialism doesn’t damage economies

Galactica

Galactica

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2006
Messages
3,325
Bolivia’s re-elected president has dumbfounded critics in Washington, the World Bank and the IMF. There are lessons for Britain’s left here

The socialist Evo Morales, who yesterday was re-elected to serve a third term as president of Bolivia, has long been cast as a figure of fun by the media in the global north. Much like the now deceased Hugo Chávez, Morales is often depicted as a buffoonish populist whose flamboyant denouncements of the United States belie his incompetence. And so, reports of his landslide win inevitably focused on his announcement that it was “a victory for anti-imperialism”, as though anti-US sentiment is the only thing Morales has given to Bolivia in his eight years in government.

More likely, Morales’s enduring popularity is a result of his extraordinary socio-economic reforms, which – according to the New York Times – have transformed Bolivia from an “economic basket case” into a country that receives praise from such unlikely contenders as the World Bank and the IMF – an irony considering the country’s success is the result of the socialist administration casting off the recommendations of the IMF in the first place.

According to a report by the Centre for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) in Washington, “Bolivia has grown much faster over the last eight years than in any period over the past three and a half decades.” The benefits of such growth have been felt by the Bolivian people: under Morales, poverty has declined by 25% and extreme poverty has declined by 43%; social spending has increased by more than 45%; the real minimum wage has increased by 87.7%; and, perhaps unsurprisingly, the Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean has praised Bolivia for being “one of the few countries that has reduced inequality”. In this respect, the re-election of Morales is really very simple: people like to be economically secure – so if you reduce poverty, they’ll probably vote for you.

It’s true that Morales has made enemies in the White House, but this is probably less to do with rhetoric than the fact that he consistently calls for the international legalisation of the coca leaf, which is chewed as part of Bolivian culture but can also be refined into cocaine (via a truly disgusting chemical process). Before Morales was first elected, the Telegraph reported: “Decriminalisation would probably increase supply of the leaf, which is processed into cocaine, providing drug traffickers with more of the profitable illicit substance.” In fact the opposite has happened – in the past two years, coca cultivation has been falling in Bolivia. This inconvenient fact is a source of great consternation to the US government, which has poured billions of dollars into its totally ineffective and highly militaristic war on drugs in Latin America. Morales has – accurately in my view – previously implied that the war on drugs is used by the US as an excuse to meddle in the region’s politics.

Having said this, it would be dishonest to argue that Morales’s tenure has been perfect. Earlier this year the Bolivian government drew criticism from human rights groups for reducing the legal working age to 10. But what most news outlets neglected to mention is that the government was responding to a campaign from the children’s trade union, Unatsbo, which sees the change in legislation as a first step to protecting Bolivia’s 850,000 working children from the exploitation that comes with clandestine employment. Although Bolivia has made massive strides in reducing poverty, more than a million of its citizens still live on 75p a day – a legacy of the excruciating poverty of Bolivia before Morales took office.

Nevertheless, Morales must make reducing the number of child workers a priority during his third term. Not doing so will be a serious failure of his progressive project. In terms of social reforms, Morales should heed recent calls from the public advocate of Bolivia, Rolando Villena, to legalise same-sex civil unions and pave the way for equal marriage. He should also follow the lead of Uruguay’s president, José Mujica, and completely liberalise abortion, which would be a good first step to tackling the country’s high rates of maternal mortality. And Morales must also address the criticism of indigenous leaders who accuse him of failing to honour his commitments to protect indigenous people and the environment.

But however Morales uses his third term, it’s clear that what he’s done already has been remarkable. He has defied the conventional wisdom that says leftwing policies damage economic growth, that working-class people can’t run successful economies, and that politics can’t be transformative – and he’s done all of this in the face of enormous political pressure from the IMF, the international business community and the US government. In the success of Morales, important political lessons can be found – and perhaps we could all do with learning them.
Click to expand...
Link.
 
P

Paul Hjul

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
14,902
not really proving anything other than that the traditional narrative about "capitalism" vs "socialism" is deeply problematic, oversimplistic and fashioned to support the ideologies of stupid people.

Firstly the article in the OP ignores entirely the ceteris paribus rule which really is an ecos 101 issue. The question of whether Morales is a bafoon with idiotic socialist notions is independent of the question of whether certain conditions (an increase in liberty and with it economic agency) are prevailing in a country: Zuma is a corrupt bafoon but SA still experiences growth - if Zuma was less of a bafoon or was out of the equation cet par the economy would do better
Certain policies or practices will damage an economy all else being held constant.
A society plagued by a culture of impunity and corruption will thrive as that impunity and corruption dwindles even if the process of introducing the Rule of Law has costings to it that are criticized as "damaging" an "economy"

Moreover trying to squeeze out welfare and education make a people poorer and damage if not destroy an economy - the tragedy is that while governments (particularly those seeking to win elections on "socialist" platforms) are remarkably good at getting welfare projects started as a basis for increased power they are equally good at subverting those projects and squandering the looted proceeds done in the name welfare. Welfare spending causes government budgets to increase and when the budget gets cut welfare but not waste is what is cut.

So consider good ol Johnson whose war on poverty not only reversed the previous 5 years progress on normalizing the economy after the war but also set in place many of the current manifest ****ups entrapping the majority of Americans - the war on poverty, which many Republicans wage as a war on poor people and many Democrats wage as a war against those rich people they don't like, unleashed programmes that have created a student loan debt trap, gutted charitable welfare initiatives of a voluntarist nature and unleashed so much corruption that only the new formations of Tammery Hall benefited.
 
Last edited:
H

HideInLight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
4,352
10 000 000 population, low density, optimal size without over population.
In South Africa for example there needs to be around 400 000 extra jobs created each year to adapt to the population growth.

Communism/Nationalism might actually suit lower population countries better.
 
A

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
26,882
Yep, folks. Socialism is all a matter of science. It can be proved empirically that people are better off without liberty. We need more state control of everything and then life will improve for all. More control. More. More rules. More restrictions. More government.
 
grok

grok

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
28,737
more than a million of its citizens still live on 75p a day
Click to expand...

Easy to affect change coming from such a very low base, for example just one less Nkandla might double the GDP.

The bigger lesson here is whether people are able to grasp the correlation between competent/caring leaders interested in the country's health irrespective of their ideological background vs. those intend on raping it like we find in Africa.
 
The_Assimilator

The_Assimilator

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
5,923
As usual, the Guardian's bull**** leftist rhetoric chooses to leave out some important points. Like the fact that Morales nationalised the production of natural gas, the revenues from which contribute around 10% of the national budget.

Every nation should just take a leaf out of Morales's book and nationalize everything. I mean, it worked so well for Venezuela.
 
grok

grok

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
28,737
Maybe it's not socialism that's the problem, but rather that socialism attracts a certain type of personality?

Or, sometimes it takes them a bit longer to run out of other people's money?
 
Gordon_R

Gordon_R

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
20,834
Temujin said:
:giggle:This was like time travel for me... Was reading to article thinking, yeah, this is gonna turn out great in a few years.... saw date, oh, lets see how great its doing now:ROFL::ROFL::ROFL:
Click to expand...

Sometimes its much more fun to do a thread necro, than create a new topic. I did a search (as per forum guidelines), and this one is perfect. Thanks to the moderator for updating the title.

Edit: Things got a bit 'hairy' during the protests:
www.bbc.com

Bolivia mayor has hair forcibly cut by crowd of protesters

Mayor Arce was also marched through the streets barefoot in the latest post-election violence.
www.bbc.com
 
Last edited:
santaman202

santaman202

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
316
Yes, I'll believe this when the anc stops handing out free chicken during elections.
 
A

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
18,140
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate - the problem was his authoritarianism and fraud, not socialism. You get authoritarian left wing governments and authoritarian right wing governments. This just proves that authoritarianism and fraud are not limited to right wing governments.

It sounds like they did get impressive economic growth for a while, even if they are still poor. Likely better than South Africa's economic growth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top