I mean, the fact he wasn't willing to follow laws implemented during HIS rule kinda tells you everything you need to know. "Rules for thee but not for me"

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

the fact he wasn't willing to follow laws implemented during HIS rule kinda tells you everything you need to know.

What if they were from before his time? Would that actually be better, or would you have a new way to characterize that it tells you all you need to know?

[–] Lemvi@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 10 months ago

I'll give you that, it shouldn't matter when or under which president a law was implemented when evaluating its validity. The only thing that matters is whether a law has the backing of the population.

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 1 points 10 months ago

pigpoop

[–] zed_proclaimer@hexbear.net 1 points 10 months ago

him and the bolivian people defeated the reactionary lawfare imposed against them by the ruling class and rich of bolivia, those compradors. Democracy can only be realized when sell outs and imperialists are banished and excised from politics

[–] JoeByeThen@hexbear.net 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

And yet he didn't just not follow it, he took the result to court as he was legally entitled to do. It's very strange how you'll hold to the narrative of an article written in 2017 when you have the benefit of knowing the outcome, of seeing the neo-nazis and other violent reactionaries that opposed him and killed thousands after they ousted him. They didn't just appear over night with a snap of a finger when he didn't "follow the rule", they were an active force in the government and the media that created the very narrative you're now espousing, despite knowing the truth.

[–] Lemvi@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 10 months ago (5 children)

I am merely criticising his (lack of) commitment to democracy. I agree that Bolivia was better off with him than it is now, but that doesn't invalidate my point. The fact that the people who came after him were/are worse does not retroactively turn him into a Saint.

[–] JoeByeThen@hexbear.net 1 points 10 months ago

the people who came after him

THEY. DID. NOT. COME. AFTER. HIM. THEY WERE THE OPPOSITION HE WAS FIGHTING. It is their fascist propaganda that you're now repeating.

I'm done here, dude. If you'd like to educate yourself so you don't come off like a fash apologist in the future check out The Jakarta Method by Vincent Bevins and/or Washington Bullets by Vijay Prishad. Jakarta Method covers a specific group of US backed coups and genocides, but has plenty of notes and citations, While Washington Bullets is more of a polemic that covers American Foreign Policy from a broader perspective and assumes you've got a basic background on CIA activity in the Third World.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You know the justices are also elected there, right? It's not like he packed the court to keep in office.

Beyond that, when the choice is between an elected official and a literal military dictator, which path do you think supports democracy?

[–] Lemvi@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This again. The fact that I am critizising the one does not mean I support the other. On the contrary, if you wanna read my first comment again.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 1 points 10 months ago

The immediate choice was between those two. Picking what he picked is not undermining democracy, it was attempting to save it.

[–] Tachanka@hexbear.net 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I am merely criticising his (lack of) commitment to democracy

Citations Needed Episode 25: The Banality of CIA-Curated Definitions of ‘Democracy’

Few words elicit such warm feelings as the term "Democracy." Wars are supposedly fought for it, foreign policies are built around it, protecting and advancing it is considered the United States' highest moral order.

Democracy's alleged opposite - broadly called "authoritarianism," "autocracy" or "tyranny” - is cast as the ultimate evil. The stifling, oppressive boot of the state that curtails liberties and must be fought at all costs. This is the world in which we operate and the one where the United States and its satellite media and NGO allies fight to preserve and defend democracy.

So how is "democracy" defined and how are those definitions used to justify American exceptionalism? Where do positive and negative rights come into play, and how do societal choices like illiteracy, poverty, and hunger factor into our notions of freedom?

On today's episode, we discuss the limits of democracy rankings, the oft-cited "Polity IV" metric devised by the CIA-funded Center for Systemic Peace, and more with guest George Ciccariello-Maher.

[–] Lemvi@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Interesting. I agree that democracy is hard to define. But I do not agree that this means we should stop striving for it. And there definitely are governments that are more democratic than others.

[–] Orannis62@hexbear.net 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What would you consider the most democratic governments? Give me a couple examples

[–] Lemvi@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think the nordic countries have a pretty good thing going.

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 1 points 10 months ago

nordic countries

Social Imperialist smuglord detected

[–] LesbianLiberty@hexbear.net 1 points 10 months ago

I am merely criticising his (lack of) commitment to democracy.

Projection

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Total LIB bullshit

Fuck all the way off

I'm sure you think its fun playing this rhetorical bullshit about "democracy" but people fucking died because the US backed a coup against him that fucking dipshit libs like you nodded your heads too. The coup government massacred indigenous people as soon as they could. And you were nodding along.

[–] honeynut@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

they comment in the s.j.works "tankie watchers" comm, so they're probably just fishing for content

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 1 points 10 months ago

Makes sense. Libs acting like this about the Bolivian coup just really piss me off.

Hope they enjoy showing off me calling them a dipshit smuglord for trivializing the lives of indigenous people

[–] Lemvi@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don't recall saying I support the coup. See my first comment for my opinion on the state of Bolivia after the coup.

I wasn't 'nodding along'. The situation in Bolivia has gone from bad to worse. Acknowledging the bad does not mean ignoring the worse.

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 1 points 10 months ago

No of course you don't. People like you never commit to anything. You just want to play around as if there aren't real stakes for real people.

Parroting state department propaganda about "democracy eroding" is fun for you, because you don't care about the actually people and what they want, or that to alternative to MAS and Evo's reelection at that time was fascists that were going to massacre thr indigenous base of MAS, the people that you are trying to claim that "democracy eroded" for.

So fuck you dipshit smuglord