[wat0n]

@ckaihatsu that's pretty much the issue. I recall reading one Chilean constitutional lawyer saying the plurinationality in the proposal was effectively going back to the 17th century colonial times in some ways.

@pugsville I disagree. For example, when a business bribes a politician to get some legal advantage or some form of government funding, it's definitely practicing (dirty) politics and it's most certainly not identity politics.

Likewise, many political debates don't really center on identity.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu that's pretty much the issue. I recall reading one Chilean constitutional lawyer saying the plurinationality in the proposal was effectively going back to the 17th century colonial times in some ways.

And you previously *derided* this plurinational constitutional proposal as some sort of deluded counterproductive far-leftism -- though, from what I'm hearing here, it sounds fairly *innocuous* and anti-oppression, even, at a *regional* scale. (Maybe something akin to ALBA.)

[wat0n]

And you previously *derided* this plurinational constitutional proposal as some sort of deluded counterproductive far-leftism -- though, from what I'm hearing here, it sounds fairly *innocuous* and anti-oppression, even, at a *regional* scale. (Maybe something akin to ALBA.)

Innocuous? So you think that, for example, it would be just fine if one of the 77 community areas here in Chicago were to be able to veto a new city master plan even if the city held a vote and the other 76 community areas voted for it?

Don't you think this is not all that innocuous?

[ckaihatsu]

Innocuous? So you think that, for example, it would be just fine if one of the 77 community areas here in Chicago were to be able to veto a new city master plan even if the city held a vote and the other 76 community areas voted for it?

Don't you think this is not all that innocuous?

Oh, well, requiring *unanimity* is a non-starter, of course.

But that's about the *most* I can say about such matters because I'm entirely *not into* bourgeois-type polities and sub-polities.

The whole *world* can do better than such a patchwork of overlapping, shifting pieces of 'turf', even if re-possessed by original inhabitants.

So -- the 'pink tide' obviously has its *limits*, like taking place in countries that were formerly *colonized* and are still materially *underdeveloped*, due to historical capitalist imperialism in the context of industrialization.

Is the 'plurinational' direction really backward, though, or is it merely 'internal', perhaps -- ?


universal context

Spoiler: show

[wat0n]

Oh, well, requiring *unanimity* is a non-starter, of course.

But that's about the *most* I can say about such matters because I'm entirely *not into* bourgeois-type polities and sub-polities.

The whole *world* can do better than such a patchwork of overlapping, shifting pieces of 'turf', even if re-possessed by original inhabitants.

So -- the 'pink tide' obviously has its *limits*, like taking place in countries that were formerly *colonized* and are still materially *underdeveloped*, due to historical capitalist imperialism in the context of industrialization.

Is the 'plurinational' direction really backward, though, or is it merely 'internal', perhaps -- ?


universal context

Spoiler: show

That's my point.

Under the proposal, that odd community area would have gotten what it wanted. Not because of an unanimity requirement, but because that community area would've been indigenous.

[ckaihatsu]

That's my point.

Under the proposal, that odd community area would have gotten what it wanted. Not because of an unanimity requirement, but because that community area would've been indigenous.

Any links for this?

Again, it's ultimately *internal*, and I can't respond based on this initial hearing of it.

[wat0n]

I ignore if there's an English translation, but here's the official text in Spanish:

https://www.chileconvencion.cl/wp-conte ... -Tapas.pdf

Check article 191, number 2.

[ckaihatsu]

I ignore if there's an English translation, but here's the official text in Spanish:

https://www.chileconvencion.cl/wp-conte ... -Tapas.pdf

Check article 191, number 2.

Okay, thanks.

For the record here's an *organizational* take on it:

For all the revolutionary bravura, the fact is that Rivera, the MIT and rest of the pseudo-left are as terrified as the entire capitalist state is to the uncharted waters they are entering. The call for the release of the prisoners of the social revolt is an attempt to dissipate a volatile situation that can easily erupt and that they may not be able to control.

In opposition to this type of reactionary petty-bourgeois politics, the genuine Trotskyists of the International Committee of the Fourth International fight to forge the political independence of the working class through the fight for a socialist and internationalist program and to make workers conscious of their immense social power and historic mission, which is to overthrow capitalism and the nation-state system.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/0 ... l-a23.html

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

I am mentioning historical facts.

You are simply being insulting to leftists. We are not having a debate.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog it is also a historical fact the left was just handed out its most devastating political defeat in Chilean history.

Worse than proto-leftist Balmaceda losing the 1891 civil war (in retrospect, he was better than the winners so this was a bad thing. And he would foreshadow future Latin American leftists).

Worse than being pushed aside when the 1925 Constitution was being written (but, it wasn't all that bad of a defeat - it ended up being an improvement for its interests than the previous status quo).

Even worse than the 1973 coup (because Sunday's defeat has unquestionable legitimacy).

And what do you have to say? "Oh yeah the current Constitution was written during Pinochet's dictatorship". You do realize that if it's replaced, it won't be one like the one we just rejected. Right?

As I'm sure you can suspect, the election was done on September 4 partly because of the symbolic nature of the date. On September 4, 1952, Chilean women were able to vote for President for the first time. On September 4, 1970, Allende was elected as President. And on September 4, 2022, we didn't give a fuck about this symbolism and told the far-left to fuck off.

[ckaihatsu]

On 25 October 2020, Chileans voted 78.28 per cent in favor of a new constitution, while 21.72 per cent rejected the change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile#21st_century

[wat0n]

I know, right? Makes the defeat more stinging.

[ckaihatsu]

The Chilean and international so-called left, in all its manifestations, is ecstatic. The Guardian captured the mood when it spoke to Luis Maira, 81, a former minister and apparently a mentor for the new president: “This is the best generation of young politicians Chile has had in 50 years… Without a shadow of a doubt, Boric is leading us into a new chapter of Chilean history.”

While a section of the working class was enticed into supporting the parliamentary maneuver, anti-democratic laws that Boric voted for helped criminalize social protest and the struggles of radicalized working class youth. In the two years since the 2019 demonstrations, more than 8,000 mainly young people suffered some form of state violence, including sexual abuse and torture. Over 500 suffered eye injuries, and over 50 died at the hands of Carabineros and the Armed Forces.

While the Communist Party has nowhere near the disastrous political sway it exerted over the Chilean working class 50 years ago, the politics of Apruebo Dignidad are aimed at providing a fresh veneer for Stalinism’s reactionary nationalist theories.

At their center is the theory of the two-stage revolution that posits the subordination of the working class to Stalinism’s alliance with the middle class and the “progressive bourgeoisie” in a bid to democratize the state and the republic through the bourgeois parliamentary process. The popular front politics founded upon this theory tragically guaranteed the paralysis of the insurgent working class during the 1970-1973 period, leading to its ultimate betrayal and bloody defeat.

As Chilean workers enter into a new wave of struggle, the decisive task they confront is forging their political independence in preparation for an inevitable confrontation with the capitalist state led by Apruebo Dignidad. This requires the building of a revolutionary party of the working class based on the principles of socialist internationalism which the International Committee of the Fourth International alone defends.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/0 ... l-m18.html

[ckaihatsu]

I know, right? Makes the defeat more stinging.

Ohhhh, you're crowing for the *private sector*. Got it.

[ckaihatsu]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_B ... mic_policy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_B ... _positions

[ckaihatsu]

F.y.i. / for-contrast, there's important and serious *rank-and-file* activity going on, worldwide:

Build the Railroad Workers Rank-and-File Committee to fight for a national railroad strike!

The Railroad Workers Rank-and-File Committee
10 hours ago

On Thursday afternoon, railroaders from around the United States met online to found the Railroad Workers Rank-and-File Committee. In a wide-ranging discussion, railroaders reviewed the situation following the publication of last month’s Presidential Emergency Board report, which sided with the railroads in a proposed settlement to a nearly three-year national contract dispute. Among workers in general, there is unanimous opposition to the deal from workers and support for a nationwide strike once a legally-mandated “cooling off period” expires September 15. However, the rail unions, who promoted the Biden administration’s PEB, are seeking to ram through contracts modeled after the PEB report.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/0 ... l-s02.html

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog it is also a historical fact the left was just handed out its most devastating political defeat in Chilean history.

Worse than proto-leftist Balmaceda losing the 1891 civil war (in retrospect, he was better than the winners so this was a bad thing. And he would foreshadow future Latin American leftists).

Worse than being pushed aside when the 1925 Constitution was being written (but, it wasn't all that bad of a defeat - it ended up being an improvement for its interests than the previous status quo).

Even worse than the 1973 coup (because Sunday's defeat has unquestionable legitimacy).

And what do you have to say? "Oh yeah the current Constitution was written during Pinochet's dictatorship". You do realize that if it's replaced, it won't be one like the one we just rejected. Right?

As I'm sure you can suspect, the election was done on September 4 partly because of the symbolic nature of the date. On September 4, 1952, Chilean women were able to vote for President for the first time. On September 4, 1970, Allende was elected as President. And on September 4, 2022, we didn't give a fuck about this symbolism and told the far-left to fuck off.

I am not interested in debating your personal opinion about this.

You seem to think that the 1973 coup was an illegitimate transfer of power. If so, why do you think the constitution derived from this illegitimate government is any more legitimate?

Simple status quo?

[wat0n]

Again, we can always vote to replace it again. But we will not replace it for the pile of shit the left offered us.

Or we can keep it, and amend it as we've been doing ever since 1989. In fact, we arguably amend the current Constitution way too often (once or twice a year on average), which suggests there is something that doesn't quite work with it to begin with.

Don't be too salty, @Pants-of-dog

[Deutschmania]

Here are the reports I have heard on the topic of the new proposed constitution and why it might have failed to pass.

Supporters of a proposed new constitution for Chile suffered a big defeat in a plebiscite on Sunday, Sept. 4. The “reject” side captured nearly 8 million votes, or 62% of the total, while 4.86 million—38%—approved the document. Voting in such a plebiscite in Chile is mandatory; participation was 80%.

Chile’s current constitution, produced in 1980 under the Pinochet military dictatorship, and with alterations since, remains in effect. The issue in question, according to Hugo Guzman, editor of the Communist Party’s El Siglo newspaper, was “whether Chileans will continue to live in the midst of a repressive political structure and an exploitative economic model installed by a ruthless dictatorship some four decades ago, or whether they will choose to start a new and egalitarian chapter in the history of Chile.”

The vote marked the end of a process that began with huge youth and labor-led demonstrations throughout Chile in October 2019. They continued for months. Protesters were reacting to inequalities generally and to privatization and austerity initiatives, particularly, that interfere with equitable access to education, health care, and social security.

The pressure led billionaire president Sebastián Piñera to agree to a nationwide vote authorizing an assembly charged with devising a new constitution. On Oct. 25, 2020, 79% of Chileans voted to approve a Constitutional Convention.

An election was held in May 2021 to choose delegates to the Convention, which would be in session from July 4, 2021, until that day a year later. Meanwhile, voters in December 2021 elected Gabriel Boric, center-left in political orientation, to succeed Piñera, in the process rejecting an extreme right-wing candidate. While campaigning, Boric had prioritized carrying on with a new constitution.

The proposed constitution contained meaningful advances, including:

Women would make up at least 50% of the officials and office-holders in all state agencies and institutions.
Chile would take on the character of a “multinational and intercultural state,” where Indigenous peoples would be regarded as nations occupying autonomous regions.
The state, rather than private entities, would assume primary funding responsibility for education, healthcare, low-income housing, and pensions.
The proposed constitution recognized the “free exercise of sexual and reproductive rights.” It limited penalization of abortion.
The document prioritized ecological sustainability and especially water rights.
Formation of a Congress of Deputies for passing laws and a Chamber of the Regions for dealing with legislation agreed upon at the local level. The National Congress, with its Chamber of Deputies and Senate, would disappear.
No longer would there be high quorum requirements for passing legislation.
Commentary following the plebiscite suggests multiple reasons why the “approve” vote failed, among them:

Myths circulated in the media. The new Constitution supposedly would promote late term abortions, dismemberment of the national territory, and empty pension funds. Critics alleged the malign influence of Cuba, Venezuela, and/or Bolivia.
The Constitutional Convention presented the appearance of disorganization and a lack of experienced deputies. Social movements supposedly exerted more influence within the Convention than did political parties.
The Convention failed to provide the public with updates on its deliberations and was unable to overcome propaganda from the corporate-dominated media.
The government’s apparent failure to cope with “galloping inflation”—now 13% annually—and a precipitous fall in copper prices and export income overall cast a pall over the idea of a new constitution, according to one critic.
Another suggests that the winning majority included a “punishment vote” by those Chileans who normally don’t vote in elections—when voting is optional.
The fight against the “approve” campaign, according to Guzman, found support in the “the right-wing and far-right parties, the Catholic church hierarchy, the so-called ‘military family,’ liberal social democratic sectors, financial groups that own the…consortiums that control private pension and health services—and most of the media and business associations.”

Reaction to the defeat of the proposed constitution varied. For commentator Cristóbal León Campos, the “shadow of Pinochet weighs heavily,” with Chile joining Ecuador and Bolivia in sheltering “the most regressive sectors of Latin American conservatism, neofascist in nature.”

An editorial statement from The Citizen (El Ciudadano) news service emphasized the “gigantic sums of money” big corporations paid “to influence the opinions and decisions of millions of people.” It assigned blame to the government for not directing the state media to “confront this tremendous assault.” The editorial pointed to “an intelligence operation aimed at bringing down the most advanced constitutional project in the world.”

The command center of the approve campaign called for “work toward a new social pact, because what was rejected was the text and not the impulse toward a new constitution.” Social movements within the campaign joined in declaring the outcome “to be a matter of an electoral defeat, not defeat of the effort itself.”

Political parties making up the “Approve Dignity” coalition responsible for electing President Boric agreed, and insisted that the project would continue under his leadership. These included the Socialist, Radical, Liberal, Communist, For Democracy, and six other parties.

Boric himself promised “to put everything he had into building a new constituent process, together with the Congress and civil society.” He urged Chileans “to unify and together continue building the future.” https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/voters-in-chile-reject-new-progressive-constitution/

[wat0n]

Here are the reports I have heard on the topic of the new proposed constitution and why it might have failed to pass.

Leftist salt is delicious.

During the campaign, they would label any criticism, good or bad, as fake news. Well, except for article 116 which was clearly and unquestionably poorly written, to the point even the most stubborn supporters of the text had to concede it.