• Lemvi@lemmy.sdf.org
    ·
    10 months ago

    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 [he/him, they/them]
      ·
      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 [he/him]
      ·
      10 months ago

      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
        ·
        10 months ago

        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 [he/him]
          ·
          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 [comrade/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      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.

      Show
      Show
      Show

      • Lemvi@lemmy.sdf.org
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

    • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      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.

      • LiberalSoCalist@lemm.ee
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

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

        • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]
          ·
          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
        ·
        10 months ago

        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 [he/him, comrade/them]
          ·
          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