morales' "ten commandments" for a functional democratic socialism

In a recent speech, Bolivian President Evo Morales outlined ten points of debate (or "ten commandments"), which give a nice overview of his vision for a functional social-democratic state in Bolivia, as well as globally. He calls this vision "el Buen Vivir", or "Live Well", in reference to the idea of the egalitarian living conditions he hopes to faciliate with his social reforms. Since he's calling for dialogue, I'll throw my voice in for what it's worth:

1. "..if we want to save the planet earth to save life and humanity, we are obliged to end the capitalist system. The grave effects of climate change, of the energy, food and financial crises, are not a product of human beings in general, but rather of the capitalist system at it is, inhuman, with its idea of unlimited industrial development."

The idea is for the most part correct, but I'd like to know what he will replace the capitalist system with. This is particularly important at the community level; how does he propose to encourage private enterprise and trade, without some limited form of monetarism? He hints later at community-based economic diversity, so I'm curious to know the details of this plan...

2. "..to renounce war, because the people do not win in war, but only the imperial powers; the nations do not win, but rather the transnational corporations. Wars benefit a small group of families and not the people. The trillions of millions used for war should be directed to repair and cure Mother Earth wounded by climate change."

This is in general a good sentiment to convey. The phenomenon of transnationals is relatively new in the history of human civilization, although they have their predecessors in the shipping companies that acted as the growth cone of European colonialism over the past few centuries. Many wars were indeed fought over the resources from whence these companies derived their profits. War is the direct result of aggressive foreign policies; we do not tolerate aggressive behaviour from individuals in a law-based society, so why should we tolerate it on a global scale? This may seem naive and/or simplistic, but it really is that simple. It is a victory for imperialism that people tend to dismiss ideas in the perception that things are more complicated than they actually are. There is a huge PR machine dedicated to maintaining this illusion of complexity.

3. "..a world without imperialism nor colonialism, our relationships should be oriented to the principle of complementarity, and to take into account the profound asymmetries that exist family to family, country to country, and continent to continent."

I take this to mean that it is desirable to have a system that, rather than seeking to exploit the relative strengths and weaknesses between world groups, instead determines how they complement one another and seeks a way for each community to develop its unique set of resources in a way that is beneficial to the global community, in return for which it receives reciprocal benefits from that community. This is similar to the "each according to his abilities" tenet of Marxism, except that it is focused upon communities, where it belongs, instead of impinging upon individual liberties as Marxism does.

4. "..oriented to the issue of water, which ought to be guaranteed as a human right to avoid its privatization into few hands, given that water is life."

Privatization of water has been a huge issue of concern in Bolivia, so it makes sense that Morales is emphasizing this in his ten points. It also has the merit of being completely true. Hording water for profit has to be one of the worst forms of antisocial behaviour.

5. "..I would like to say that we need to end the energy debacle. In 100 years we are using up fossil energies created during millions of years. As some presidents are setting aside lands for luxury automobiles and not for human beings, we need to implement policies to impede the use of agro-fuels and in this way to avoid the hunger and misery for our peoples."

Agro-fuels (aka. biofuels) have been a source of increasing controversy lately. The basic problem is that, despite a world food shortage, we are designating large tracts of agricultural land to the production of crops for use as fuels. There is also a growing corporate lobby for this "emerging market" (see this). Given that there are very viable, ecologically superior alternatives of energy production, I am glad to see Morales acknowledge these alternatives as a very real means of improving the human condition as well as implement a sustainable energy plan.

6. "..in relationship to the Mother Earth. The capitalist system treats the Mother Earth as a raw material, but the earth cannot be understood as a commodity; who could privatize, rent or lease their own mother? I propose that we organize an international movement in defense of Mother Nature, in order to recover the health of Mother Earth and re-establish a harmonious and responsible life with her."

An international movement to ensure enviromentally-responsible global behaviour? Sounds fantastic...

7. "..that basic services, whether they be water, electricity, education, or health, need to be taken into account as human rights."

The same theme as point #4 in my opinion, except expanded to include all basic services. As human rights, these services are captured in Article 25 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights; although many capital-based social systems fall somewhat short of this requirement. I tend to believe that Morales intends to apply these human rights much more universally.

8. "..to consume what is needed, prioritize what we produce and consume locally, end consumerism, decadence and luxury. We need to prioritize local production for local consumption, stimulating self-reliance and the sovereignty of the communities within the limits that the health and remaining resources the planet permits."

This is a pivotal tenet. Consumerism is the engine for both corporate power and manufactured consent; the cases for this have been well made (see Naomi Klein and Noam Chomsky). There is no need, and indeed we can no longer afford, to be wasteful in our production and consumption. This is not to negate freedom of choice (at least in my mind), but simply to allow the community to determine its productivity and consumption habits. This is no easy task, and is of course the very essence of the socialist question. How does a community decide what it wants, without compromising the liberty of the individual to make personal consumption choices? This is the reason I believe some limited form of capitalism and free market must exist in any socialized state. I am greatly interested in Morales' take on this; is he truly Marxist in this respect or does he acknowledge the value of personal liberty as a basic human right?

9. "..to promote the diversity of cultures and economies. To live in unity respecting our differences, no only physical, but also economic, through economies managed by the communities and their associations."

This again raises the notion of community-based economics. Coming from a labour union background, it makes sense that this is a priority for Morales. It is also the right approach, I feel, although again it is not an simple thing to implement in practice. The process has to be completely transparent and democratic in order to have any chance of succeeding, and personal liberty must be a critical factor in the debate.

10. "..we propose to Live Well, not live better at the expense of another, a Live Well based on the lifestyle of our peoples, the riches of our communities, fertile lands, water and clean air. Socialism is talked about a lot, but we need to improve this socialism, improve the proposals for socialism in the XXI century, building a communitarian socialism, or simply a Live Well, in harmony with Mother Earth, respecting the shared life ways of the community."

More of a summary than a distinct point, I think, so I'll let this rhetoric stand alone.

My own summary: the ideas are great, and the leader, with his softspokenness, his humble indiginous roots, and his fearless resolve is highly inspiring. It is easy to get caught up in such optimism, however; so it is important to acknowledge that rhetoric is almost always far removed from action. There are, moreover, some very strong forces opposing Morales' vision, the foremost being a U.S. government hellbent on preventing any form of economic organization outside its sphere of influence (read: exploitation), and which has proven quite ruthless in the past.

Thus I'll be following the action in Bolivia quite closely.

on xenophobia

Okay, so.... feeling philosophical.

One of the most prevailing and least-discussed aspects of human nature is xenophobia, literally translated as "fear of the other". Like many phobias which are trivialized by calling them fear, we tend to sideline xenophobia by labelling it "bad" and pretending it doesn't exist. It does exist, however, and is a huge drive behind every politicoeconomic thing we as a species do. I think this warrants a more candid discourse on the subject.

Two of the more controversial (and thus interesting) political figures I've encountered here in Holland are Ayaan Hersi Ali and Geert Wilders, both commonly described as far-right anti-immigration (i.e., xenophobic) politicians. The story of Ali in particular is fascinating (I cannot do justice to it here, but if you are interested, she has written two autobiographies: The Caged Virgin, and the excellent Infidel); in particular, she herself was an refugee from Somalia who lied to gain entrance into the Netherlands. After learning Dutch and obtaining a degree in political science, she became an increasingly outspoken critic of Islam, particularly its treatment of women, and was elected to the Dutch Parliament.

Among her policy statements, Hirsi Ali has denounced the existence of faith-based (and particularly Muslim) schools, which she blames for the failure of many young immigrant Muslims to integrate into Dutch society and accept Western values, instead encouraging insularism and radical anti-Western sentiment. Along with Wilders, she has also advocated a more restrictive immigration policy than is currently in effect in the Netherlands (and most of Europe), citing her fear that the pace of growth of the Muslim community poses a very real threat of Islamic values (and sharia law) being gradually imposed upon the country through a purely democratic means.

The Dutch are a proudly tolerant society, and these ideas are thankfully approached with much criticism and dubiousness. Hirsi Ali has since left Dutch politics and currently works for the American neocon think-tank the American Enterprise Institute (which features such thinkers as David Frum, Newt Gingrich, and Irving Kristol); and Wilders remains a controversial Member of Parliament with a small but consistent following. The issues that they represent, however, reflect a larger trend in world demographics that is not widely discussed by politicians (who abhor a hot potato like nature abhors a vacuum). As far as I can see, the issue boils down to xenophobia.

In a wholly unsatisfying wiki representation, xenophobia is displayed as a sort of world pathology; the introduction begins with an authoritative psychological assessment:

As with all phobias, a xenophobic person is aware of the fear, and therefore has to genuinely think or believe at some level that the target is in fact a foreigner.

Whether or not this is spoken by an expert (which I doubt), it is an opinion that is out of place in the wiki context. However, I find that it tends to sum up the general conecption of the term. We are xenophobic because we have some unattributable fear that we rationalize by assigning it to some pre-existing notion of group identity (e.g., nationality) as a defense mechanism. I think this tends to miss the point entirely. It ignores (or pretends away) the possibility that some of these fears may be well-founded, and not pathological at all. While selectively documenting incidences of xenopobia in the world (by no means doing justice to the actual state of affairs), its authors do not seem aware that this seemingly universal prevalence may just signify that xenophobia may actually be a fundamental and adaptive characteristic of human beings. Let's explore this possibility.

Although the fear that motivates Wilders' immigration policies is basically unfounded (Muslims constitute approximately 5 percent of the Dutch population, and according to this (well-documented) source, its growth rate has basically stabilized), the issues that have won him support are ones which I think illustrate the basis of xenophobia. The first is population growth rate. Population determines to a large extent a group's edge over another group; this can be counteracted by forcibly controlling resources and the war machine, as per South African apartheid, but over the span of history it is population levels that dictate territorialization and power structure. The second is integration. When two groups refuse to integrate with each other, this results in a natural mistrust and further insularism, and ultimately conflict.

This is arguably the basic drive behind all of human history: insularism and conflict, which acts as a powerful positive feedback loop which resonates, blows up (resulting in either assimilation or annihilation of one group), and starts over. A large portion of the efforts we have put into political and religious institutions have been (implicitly) motivated by the necessity of controlling this feedback cycle.

The biggest challenge this presents to us is as follows. To be honest with ourselves, we must admit that xenophobia is a natural human trait that will not be eradicated by any amount of persuasion or rationalization. We therefore need to address it directly, rather than building walls around it in the vague hope of containing it. Xenophobia is not irrational nor pathological; it is in fact largely adaptive. If another group threatens the prosperity and existence of my own (whether that "group" is defined by value systems, race, gender, circumstance, etc.), it makes perfect sense for me to fear and act against the threat.

For instance: If an immigrant group's population is growing at a rate which is disproportional with that of the native population - e.g., the average immigrant family has 10 children whereas the average native family has 1.5 - then this is a real issue. There is certainly the argument that we have no right to curtail a family's right to produce offspring, but by the same token such irresponsibly high reproduction should have real consequences. The immigrant community cannot maintain this rate while at the same time demanding equal opportunities from the native population; this amounts to an invasion by procreation. In this case, it is no surprise that they will "suffer unemployment, poverty and segregation out of all proportion to their numbers" (see this).


The problem is that we tend to be overly conservative in our risk assessments, such as is the case with Geert Wilders, and this leads to the feedback loop of insularization and conflict. The stats on second-generation Muslim families in the Netherlands, for instance, tell us that their birth rates hardly differ from native Dutch (same ref):

Not surprisingly, older Muslim women -- all first-generation immigrants -- gave birth to far more children than do native Dutch women. Not so second-generation Muslim women. Their fertility rate "hardly differs from that of native Dutch women," notes Statistics Netherlands.

The correct approach, I feel, is to:

(1) Obtain a real risk assessment. Collect statistics on population growth, on cultural intolerance, on changes to value systems. The numbers are usually better than the bleak assessment we instinctively, lacking information, arrive at;

(2) Make this a matter of public discourse. If a real threat exists, then bring it to the public forum and allow all sides to debate it and decide upon an acceptable compromise, rather than pretending it doesn't exist, or treating it as taboo;

(3) Give integration a chance. Expecting immigrant communities to instantly express unconditional love for their new homes, where they live in poverty and lack immediate prospects - in direct contrast to their relatively well-off hosts - is foolish. There needs to be patience and a gradual transition in order to make this work. That being said, insularization should be actively discouraged.

The take-home message then, is that xenophobia is not a horrendous beast that we should condemn without condition. It is a natural human drive that has very rational bases. Intergroup tensions should not be simply chastized and ignored, but they should be the substance of consistent and open public discourse, if we are to have any hope of addressing their root causes. In this respect, I think the Dutch are not doing too bad a job.