Bolivia Climate Proposal: We want to abolish Capitalism – so Give Us All Your Stuff

….transforming water, earth, the environment, the human genome, ancestral cultures, biodiversity, justice and ethics into goods.

When Adam delved and Eve span, they were common goods (poetically).
Would anyone like to argue in favour of bought ethics or bought justice?
Or bought biodiversity?
Or bought ancestral cultures? (Is that too close to the knuckle in the USA, or just the Southern States?)
The answers may be controversial – debate the proposed policies – but the questions are valid.
Capitalism is not divine.

So, he doesn’t think that people should benefit from the product of their labor. Instead, he proposes a return to feudalism where people serve at the pleasure of their leaders.
Are Bolivians pro-choice? This has the tell-tale signs of that unprincipled cult.

Bolivia is scheduled to have a referendum this February on ‘reforming’ their constitution. Current polls are mixed, but some report a narrow plurality rejecting the change. They currently report economic growth, but if they pursue crony socialism a la Venezuela, they are likely to experience similar outcomes. Venezuela is clearly a basket case whose misery cannot continue much longer.
https://dolartoday.com/fin-de-la-pesadilla-socialista-mayoria-de-bolivianos-rechaza-la-reeleccion-de-morales/

Hey, doesn’t point #5 in the manifesto indicate that everyone needs to turn over their climate models to the public domain?

Is Bolivia going to declare war on the “war-mongers” to get them to comply with their demands?

There is no a priori reason why capitalism is best for the bottom 40% you know. Capitalism is a creed nowadays without concern for the victims of it. Social housing is being abolished, Areas of cities are being ‘socially cleansed’, it being better to sell houses to foreign investors who leave them empty than letting citizens of your own country have a place to live in.
I’m no supporter of the carbon dioxide nonsense, but I do know this: if you want cleaners, nurses, social workers, teachers, bus drivers, refuse collectors, road repairers, child minders, gardeners, retail staff, deliverers of post etc etc, then you have to create communities where those people can afford to live and that life must have sufficient dignity to it to make you worthy of having them contribute to your community life.
If you don’t want the socialism that this site so abhors, then you’d better make damn sure that capitalism is better for the 40% at the bottom than under socialism. And that means under socialism which isn’t threatened with war, sanctions etc etc by warmongering capitalists who have no confidence they can beat socialism through peaceful means.
The 21st century reality is that neither socialism nor capitalism works at their logical endpoints. There ARE things which are best owned communally and there ARE areas of life where capitalism works best.
Our genetic heritage should be communally owned, as no-one alive invented it, created it or husbanded it. All those doing a bit of genetic engineering used pre-existing life to do so. Even those trying to build a new organism from scratch did so using DNA from pre-existing organisms, which they have no right to own. Seed companies creating sterile variants should not be allowed to try and wipe out other fertile crop strains for purposes of seed monopoly. However, if someone creates a genetic variant for a specific purpose not intrinsic to life (like cleaning up oil spills) that is different. The world has a choice whether or not to use it and life will go on, pretty much, whether they do or not. That’s the test for private ownership: can life go on, for better or worse, without it? If the answer is NO, then private ownership is dangerous without stringent regulation.
Choosing whether to buy tomatoes from one of one hundred different growers is precisely what capitalism is for. Humans get to eat tomatoes, for better or worse, whether they buy from supplier A, B or C (assuming they produce reasonably OK tomatoes). The better suppliers start to charge higher prices and prosper. Making movies is something we can benefit from or not, without lose of life, love or health. Who we buy a car from the same.
Then there are areas where the economics predicts that a natural monopoly will occur due to investment costs etc. In such situations, it makes sense for a community, a state, a nation to own it communally, since everyone knows monopolies have no risk so make super-profits through risk-free extortion. It is logical to allow capitalism to produce the best solutions in competition, then the product to be acquired through communal purchase when monopoly starts to appear. The capitalist investors gain a return on their money but are not allowed monopoly super-profits in perpetuity. It’s what America is supposed to agree with. It really doesn’t in reality, does it??
The only things which are really intrinsic to life are:
1. A home, however frugal, heated sufficiently not to endanger health in the winter.
2. Food and water.
3. Clothing.
4. Child-birth – since without this, humanity dies out within 100 years.
5. Nurturing children to independence, since you can give birth to as many children as you like, but 100% of them will die if you don’t nurture them until then can look after themselves……
After that, everything is a choice.
And the reality is that some people prefer to take total responsibility, whereas others prefer to pool it. For those without wealth to hire reams of experts and time to negotiate hard-ball, delegating responsibility for many necessities to communal groups makes sense.
That is what a national health service was about: it emerged from communal schemes of working class families paying weekly from their wages into a pot for insurance – it just made it control supply centrally rather than involve a horse-trade between insurance companies and private healthcare. There’s no ‘good or evil’ there, just two choices. You have to decide which works better for which types of people.
Communal schooling is the same: if parents have to work 8 – 10 hrs a day, they don’t have the time to educate children themselves, although they may help at the margins. If you are a self-sufficient farmer in a self-sufficient community, as say the Amish are, then maybe you don’t need that: you educate your children in how to run the farm as you do your daily chores and gradually they become capable of running their own farm. But you’ve not educated them for anything else, so if you don’t want your children do what you did, communal schooling makes sense, assuming they actually learn something at school that adds to what they get at home.
Building a transport system is the same: everyone knows that some bits are more profitable, some of the time, but if you only build the profitable bits, then over a 50 – 100 year cycle, the economy does worse overall, because you limit the economic possibilities of the majority for the benefit of the tiny minority of investors. You sacrifice strategic flexibility for narrow profit. It’s not always the right call……and when bankers only have a time-to-payback of 15yrs or less, you eliminate all possibilities of repayment over 50 – 200 years, which is what railways will always be.
Capitalism is about selling state assets off at below market prices to your mates so they can take the profits off the back of the investments of the state. When representatives of the public do that, they are not representatives, they are criminal robber barons. The private sector wants the state to take the risks, make the upfront investments, then hand it to the private sector so they can take the risk-free profits.
That’s neither equitable, moral nor American, is it??
Or do you finally want to admit to the world that the American morality is that of the warmongering robber baron??
Why do you think the world would want you to rule over them if that is what you are????