Time and effort spent attempting non-violent resolution validates violence. And like, they didn't suffer decades. They shut down the roads before Anez could be sworn in.
Bolivia's Jenine Áñez finally allows election effectively at gunpoint, loses and is going to jail
- Thread starter crimson5pheonix
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Since racism, classism, and continued exploitation and authoritarianism are in the realm of politics, such knowledge is hardly arcane.
Because
it was a coup
Man, this has been a trip. I'm not even mad, really, this has just been the most amazing ethical contortionist performance.
I'm gonna let the conversation drop. It speaks for itself.
Do you not think it's more ethical to exhaust peace options before partaking in war?
Do you not think it more ethical to retreat or deescalate rather than go guns blazing and call it self defense?
You're really going to criticize me for distinguishing between people who use violence as a last resort and people who use it as a first resort?
That's what all the pro-BLM users on this forum have been telling me. "we tried peaceful options and they ignored us, so therefore, rioting is justified. This is what happens. There's no other option!"
"Time" might be the keyword here.
One could argue than when facing a military supported coup, fast and direct action is better, because it could spare more victims in the long run.
I might entertain this idea if anyone was the victim of direct violence and/or their protest tactic wasn't a blockade. Any violence from the "coup" government was directed only at those fighting it, and their protest tactic was immediately starting a war of attrition against civilians.
Yes, we get it, you hate it when the workers strike.
Let's go Reagan style. Send them all to jail. It's what they deserve
Hey, they did a strike during a pandemic and made it impossible to do business. That’s violence.
Unlike the coup, the protestors didn't kill anybody. that's not a war. It's a coup
I don't. They aren't remotely winning the argument.
Is a blockade an act of war? Yes, yes it is. Does a blockade kill civilians? Yes, yes it does.
THE COUP WAS LITERALLY AN ACT OF WAR. Do you know what a coup is?
Fuck's sake, you'll side with any military junta out there, huh
I'm not siding with them. You've all taken a side, you've chosen to believe group A is always good and group B is always evil. I'm opposing bad actors who tried to starve a city, and disputing the characterization of killing people taking active part in conflict as "genocide" based only on the vague implication that socialists are uniformly racial minorities for some reason. That doesn't mean shooting people was righteous in any way.
Have any of you thought "hmmm, maybe starving a city isn't a good thing" at any point here?
Gotta fight with what you have. Bolivia has roadblocks. The Áñez government had no problem killing 11 peaceful marchers and wounding 120+, so there's passive non-violence off the table
Are you seriously trying to "both sides" a conflict between a Christo-fascist coup and the people that don't want that and want their elections upheld?
It helps that he deserves it
No, you're trying to black and white a situation into good guys you like and bad buys you hate. The interim government wasn't Christian theocracy. It wasn't fascism. It's arguably a coup, but against a leader that violated his own laws to maintain power and then had his loyalists strangle the country the moment he stepped down. That's not good people doing good things. You should condemn them. You shouldn't be turning a blind eye to crimes against humanity whenever it contradicts the "socialists vs evil" paradigm.
The population stopped working and took over the streets. This is a crime against humanity!
Even more despicably, they did it against the people who deposed a socialist who had convincingly won the latest election. That's not what the CIA wants!
What they should have done is kept obediently feeding the plutocrats while any semblance of democratic order washed away, the coup government made good on its efforts to ban the most popular party, and the country's natural resources were sold to the highest bidder. And maybe after all that, if they asked politely they could have a system in which they're allowed to choose between two candidates selected by the richest members of society and who stand for more or less the same things. That's change you can believe in.
Last edited:
He literally didn't break the law, as the highest legal authority in Bolivia (directly elected) confirmed. That's not disputable.
You can say you disagree with it, you can say it showed disrespect for the population for disregarding the referendum outcome (I'd say so, personally). But it simply did not violate the law. The constitution was changed according to existing legal mechanisms.