The Tupamaros and the Montoneros were largely exterminated but today a Tupamaro rules Uruguay and aged Montoneros in Argentina's government. The question is: What has changed? What was the revolution about? (Pic.: A Tupamaro wall painting protesting against foreign debt). From the perspective of forty years and five thousand kilometers, I cant see much change. Uruguay is the same nice, liberal, agro-exporting country that was under the military dictators. Argentina is the same cleptocracy as always. What was the great commotion about?
13 comments:
Is about WHO have power and WHO don't have power.
Very flattering article today about the ex-Tupamaro president of Uruguay in the NYTimes. Ex-fascists never get such flattery. He lives an ascetic life in his own very modest house without servants and donates most of his salary to the poor. The old kibbutzniks would identify.
They gloss over the violence of the Tupamaros in a couple of quick dismissive sentences. It was for a good cause.
K
Uruguay pays its foreign debt religiously, while its Argentine homologue, doesnt.
Regarding socialism, there is no more socialism today in Uruguay than under those "fascist" military dictators. My opinion. The same in Argentina.
There appears to be neither socialism nor fascism in Uruguay, but there are former socialists and fascists. K's point is that the liberal media is partial to the former socialists. It may be one way that the liberal media demonstrates its affinity for socialism.
Yes, that is my point. The youthful "excesses" of socialists are easily forgiven because their heart is in the "right" place (Mujica favors marijuana and gay marriage) while the war crimes of a fascist are never forgivable (unless maybe he becomes a leftist (Gunter Grass). Mujica breaks out the rum before noon - this makes him an endearing rogue to the reporter. If a Pinochet type did this, it would be evidence that he is a bitter alcoholic. Leftism is all about "who-whom" so the same exact action or words can be good or bad depending on who says or does them. When Bush kept Guantanomo open it was a war crime. When Obama kept it open, it was a reluctant concession to reality.
K
The Tupamaros were considered communist terrorists or the most dangerous kind and Nixon sent American advisers to teach Uruguayan police how to torture. Yet now you have them in power, and what...? Nothing changes.
What changed?
Uruguay used to be a rich country, and now it's not...that's what socialism did to it.
It was a special kind of socialism, like Peronism, but socialism nevertheless--take from the rich, buy votes from the poor.
Dont blame socialism. There is no much demand for their agricultural exports - frozen beef and so. And they have no access to the best markets because of diseases. There is no role in the global division of work for agricultural countries like Uruguay and Argentina.
J,
Agriculture is the future. Worldwide inventories are very low, and prices of agricultural commodities are rising fast. They will continue to. Big money will be made in agriculture in the coming years. Will Uruguay and Argentina profit? I doubt it. Look at the ridiculous taxes they impose on EXPORTS. Who does that? In the US you can find grapes now in the winter, from Chile and Brazil but not from Argentina. They don't export because of govt. policy; and it's like that for a lot of things. They make great olive oil, clothes, etc., design nice furniture, they don't export.
Maybe if the decline of these countries hadn't happened at the same time socialism arrived, I'd be more inclined to believe you, but it looks like they were wrecked by govt. policy.
There may not be much of a market for exported meat products if the Greens get their way. They want to see livestock cultivation end because it so environmentally unfriendly. Probably they would prefer us all to become vegetarians, but scientists are working on growing meat in the lab, so that might save us.
Although some greens are surely vegans also, in general the green movement favors grass fed cattle (such as are produced by Argentina) to those fed corn in feed lots (American beef). Then again they also favor local products, which require less energy to transport.
There have been some experiments in producing meat in vitro but commercial production many decades away (if ever). So far at best they have been able to get little tissue thin cell colonies to grow. Even if they could get these to grow in commercial quantities, the texture would be nothing like beef. It might be usable in something like a frankfurter where the original texture of the beef is absent anyway.
K
If the scientists can ever get a multi-cell layer muscle to grow, they might need to "exercise" it with electric shocks to improve texture.
The Japs made a steak out of turds: http://www.dailytech.com/Japanese+Make+Delicious+Nourishing+Steaks+From+Human+Feces/article21932.htm
Also, soylent green is people! It's PEOPLE!!!
Post a Comment