rigorousintuition.ca

James Petras usually gives us the goods with a no-compromise approach to alerting, disecting, and exposing hegemonic imperial political economics in the southern hemisphere (inter alia). And he ain't about to spare Evo. <br><br>Petras is warning that Morales is bound encounter more than a bit of trouble with his base...<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Major trade union federations, the biggest neighborhood social movements (in the combative city of El Alto) and rural landless movements are expressing consternation and hostility over several of newly elected President Morales' cabinet appointments and their initial policy priorities, which go counter to the campaign promises of candidate Morales...The transition from mass peasant leader to accommodating statesman for the multi-national corporations will not be easy or a smooth operation: more likely Evo will soon face the challenges and political instability which sent his two predecessors into early retirement.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>A Bizarre Beginning in Bolivia - Inside Evo Morales's Cabinet</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/petras02042006.html">www.counterpunch.org/petras02042006.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>***<br><br>And he is claiming here that Morales will leave in place the systemic, institutional cancers which his people have struggled to remove - not treat, REMOVE. <br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>All the data on Evo Morales' politics, especially since 2002, point to a decided right turn, from mass struggle to electoral politics, a shift toward operating inside Congress and with institutional elites. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>The Bankers Can Rest Easy - Evo Morales: All Growl, No Claws?</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/petras01042006.html">www.counterpunch.org/petras01042006.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Is Petras being unfair, or unrealistic about the delicate position Evo is in? <p></p><i></i>

Looks to me like either a) some Marxist extremists are trying to push Evo as far as possible, right out of the gate, or b) some right-wingers are attempting to delegitimize and raise questions about him among his True Believing supporters. <p></p><i></i>

The reality is, Bolivia (like any other country) is basically owned by multi-nationals; the other elected officials will do whatever they have to in order to maintain (and improve) their positions, and anyone who gets elected at the top will have to "play the game" in order to stay alive, much less to follow through with campaign promises. --MaryK <p></p><i></i>

Such a shame. <br><br>The people of Bolivia effectively shut down that country to gain some control of its governance. With an example just to the south in Argentina of what happens when the world vamps of finance are not doted upon, these Bolivians surely knew what they were fighting for. Morales had/has the mandate to do whatever the mass majority of poor indigenous citizens want him to do. That he does the opposite, I can only surmise that Morales is compromised.<br><br>I fear Morales' election may have been the ebb of the current cycle toward real reform in South America. His storybook rise to power on the shoulders of the oppressed promised a small significant change in the NWO. Alas, like Lula in Brazil, Morales has shown that he too cannot cut his nation away from the shriveled, poisoned teat of the global corporate elite. With Chavez in Venezuela proving to be another breath of hot air, rather than fresh, where in South America can the next significant step away from corporate globalisation and privatization take place?<br><br>We hear little about Argentina these days, perhaps some good news is brewing there. Last I heard they were pursuing a policy of "disindebtment" from the IMF, which Argentine President Kirchner demanded must "change that direction which took it from being a lender for development to a creditor demanding privileges". <p></p><i></i>

Well i can save my pessimism, theres plenty here already. Morales and his party have struggled heroicly for many years, and they've only just achieved government - why the rush to talk down expectations, to prejudge what most of us know not very much about? All this lowering of expectations on 'mainstream left' sites makes me smell a coup in the offing.<br><br>The quick criticism from marxist factions i take as either pure sour grapes (them being incapable of being elected) or as concrete evidence that they're not on my side, nor on not-even-really socialist Bolivia's side. If solidarity is really such a forgotten concept we may as well all give up now. I'm not trying to silence discussion, but please, lets not shoot the horse for being slow before its learnt to stand.<br> <p></p><i></i>

Well, it is always wise to be critical, to gain some perspective and keep our expectations in the temperate zone. Petras points out things we do need to be aware of, but I also think he is unclear about the politics at hand (or maybe I am). On the one hand, he wants to hold Morales accountable to a strict and absolute obeisance to his campaign promises, which is a vote for the democratic process. On the other hand, Petras implies that this process is incompatible with carrying out Morales' promises and serving his peoples' wishes, because there can be no room for compromise (which is in fact essential to democratic governance). I happen to think he ought to keep all his promises. <br><br>Now there is a wide array of South American governments on the left. All shapes, sizes, and degrees. Mexico will also come into the fold (Obrador). It may appear as if some kind of competition is being held to determine which left model will "succeed" (and thus, which will "fail"). The underworld's new kinder, gentler approach to the south? The government surviving with the greatest stability, economy, and mutually-assured existence with the stateless oligarchy is the winner and model to emulate elsewhere. For the less-conspiratorially minded, it is a wait-and-see posture, with results to be exploited. <br><br>Or maybe South America has something up their sleeve this time and are about to put one over on the North. Why not. Recent history may make this assertion difficult to entertain, but should we always automatically default to the superiority of northern corporate-intelligence machinations? I would not rule out the possibility the South has a little surprise in store. <br> <p></p><i></i>

Or maybe Petras is simply trying to keep Morales honest. He has hopes too. <p></p><i></i>

You're right Gouda, i was blinded by my own reactionary bias when i wrote 8feb post. Several of those cabinet appointments are dismaying. <p></p><i></i>

I picked up a recent issue of <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>The Economist</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> (Jan 28 - Feb 3rd 2006) while loitering in the loo, and found an article on Evo's new cabinet titled "Evo Ready or Not" (p. 55). They take an "it's too early to tell" stance, and would agree with Petras that he has been trying to be "all things to all men." But of course, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>The Economist </em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> informs us that his cabinet is dangerously revolutionary, stacked with "activists from the social movements which vaulted him to power..." <br><br>The article ends with a heap of skeptisism on Morales' claim to be leading a "democratic revolution." Their clincher: <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>will the stress turn out to be on democracy - on on revolution?</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Seems they want to keep Evo honest too. <p></p><i></i>