August 2020

Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Bolivia Pablo Solon: Living Well in Nature with Balance

Photo by Michelle Cook, Navajo
Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, Cochabamba, Bolivia, 2010.

Censored News celebrates our most viewed post with this reflection from Bolivia's Pablo Solon
Photo by Brenda Norrell, Censored News
President Evo Morales in center, Pablo Solon on right.
Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of
Mother Earth, Cochabamba, Bolivia, 2010.

'The goal of human beings is not the control of nature, but to take care of nature as when one takes care of the mother who gave him life.' -- Pablo Solon

Bolivia’s legislation recognizing the Rights of Nature, the Rights of Mother Earth, was the most viewed post of Censored News over the past 10 years. Since Censored News just passed the 5 million mark in pageviews, we celebrate with this current article by Bolivia’s Pablo Solon, a key organizer in the Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth. The gathering resulted in legislation in Bolivia and Ecuador to protect the rights of nature. Censored News was there, in Cochabamba, Bolivia, in April of 2010. We appreciate the vision of Bolivia President Evo Morales and Pablo Solon, forerunners of this movement for the Rights of Nature. -- Brenda Norrell, Censored News

Is it possible to live well?
By Pablo Solon

New translation available at:

English translation by Google translate
Espanol at Fundacion Solon:
Live good

Pablo Solón
Is it possible to live well beyond the indigenous community? After a decade of indigenous governments who embraced this vision, we have come to their understanding and implementation? And if we've lost along the way how to return to the path of Living Well?


Living Well and the Good Life is a process that has gone through different stages of enchantment and disenchantment. Living Well is a concept under construction that is in dispute. Today institutions of big capital also speak of living well and does so in a very different sense than its proponents imagined more than a decade in the fight against neoliberalism. Living Well is in a place of debate and controversy, where there is no single absolute truth. There are many truths and many lies that are now canonized on behalf of Living Well.
The concept of Good Living or Living Well has gone through different phases. For three decades, almost nobody talked about this vision in South America ago. What existed at that time was the qamaña sumaq (Aymara) and the sumak kawsay (Quechua) expressing a set of ideas centered on knowledge systems, practice and organization of the native peoples of the Andes in South America.  The qamaña sumaq and sumak kawsay were living realities of the Andean communities that were studied by anthropologists and Aymara and Quechua intellectuals. For most of the twentieth century this vision went unnoticed for large sections of the left and workers' urban organizations in particular.
The qamaña sumaq and sumak kawsay emerged several centuries ago and still remain in Andean communities, but increasingly shrinking under the pressure of modernity and developmentalism. Other indigenous peoples of Latin America also have visions and similar terms as Teko Kavi and Ñandereko of the Guarani, Shiir Waras of the Shuar and Küme Mongen of the Mapuche.
The theorizing and emergence of the concept of Living Well began late last century and early this century. Without the overwhelming development of neo-liberalism and the Washington Consensus perhaps theqamaña sumaq and sumak kawsay would have never given birth to Living Well or Good Living. The failure of Soviet socialism, the absence of alternative paradigms, the progress of privatization and commodification of multiple spheres of nature, prompted a relearning process of indigenous practices and visions that were devalued by capitalist modernity.
This process of revaluation was in theory and in practice. The dismissal of tens of thousands of workers by the application of neo-liberal measures brought about a change in the class structure of the Andean countries of South America. In Bolivia miners for nearly a century were the vanguard of all social sectors. They were relocated and became famous -- on stage Indigenous peoples and peasants.
The indigenous struggle in defense of their territories generated not only solidarity but aroused the interest in understanding this auto-gestionaria vision of their territories. Sectors of the left and progressive intellectuals who had lost their own utopias by the fall of the Berlin Wall began to delve into understanding these indigenous worldviews. Thus it came up with the concept of Living Well and Good Living. In reality both terms are incomplete and inadequate translations of qamaña sumaq or sumak kawsay that have a more complex set of meanings as, "Full life", "sweet life," "harmonious life," "sublime life," "inclusive life" or "savoir vivre."
Living Well and Good Living, as new concepts, had not come of age when these suddenly entered a new phase with the arrival of the governments of Evo Morales in Bolivia (2006) and Rafael Correa in Ecuador (2007). Both terms were institutionalized by the two countries in the new political constitutions of the State and became benchmarks of various policy and institutional reforms. Living Well became a central part of the official discourse and national development plans of both countries.
The triumph of these concepts at the constitutional level prompted the complementarity of alternatives with other visions as the "jurisprudence of the Earth" by Thomas Berry, generated the development of new proposals such as the rights of Mother Earth and the rights of nature, which were not originally present within Living Well. The impact of Living Well was so strong that a number of other alternatives such as systemic decline, common, eco-socialism and other international concepts turned their attention on this vision.
However, this constitutional victory of Living Well was also the beginning of a new phase of disputes where the center became its concrete application in the reality of both countries. This new phase, which initially was accompanied by high hopes, soon became deep disputes, as it was being applied. Are we Living Well really? Are we moving towards this goal, or have we lost the compass? The application of Good Living or Living Well resulted in both governments touting at a national and international level. It led to a redefinition of the concept. What is really Living Well? Is it an alternative to the extractivismo vision or a new form of more humane and friendly desarrollismo with nature?
In both Bolivia and Ecuador today there are different interpretations of what is meant by Living Well and Good Living. Simplistically we can say that today we have an official version and another answer, a rebel, and others taking it in for financial institutions like the World Bank. Over the years the positions and differences have sharpened. Today important exponents of yore of Living Well in both countries say their governments do not practice Good Living and broad sectors of the population believe that these alternatives have been only in talk. Living Well as a paradigm in both countries is in crisis because it has lost credibility in their societies. However, its essence remains and still nourishes national and international processes of reflection.
Is it really possible to live well at the level of a country and a region? What mistakes and what lessons should we collect from the government decade of Living Well? How do we move towards a more condiga practice with the postulates of this vision?
We do not know the future of Living Well. Perhaps distraccionista it ends up as mere rhetoric or as a new way of conceptualizing sustainable development. Today the governments of Ecuador and Bolivia want the concept to fit their practice and not really follow their policies, subversive way of living well. In seeking to canonize this vision of Living Well they have been going for countless media and the complicity of international institutions. They have found that the best strategy is to blur this proposal using appropriate language.
In this context of controversy, relearning and the uncertain future is essential to go to the essence of this proposal to advance actual implementation.

Core elements

No Living Well Decalogue or Good Living. Any attempt to define absolutely smothering this proposal is under construction. What we can do: Approach your essence. Good Living is not a set of cultural, social, environmental and economic recipes, but a complex and dynamic mix ranging from a philosophical conception of time and space to a world view on the relationship between humans and nature.
This text does not intend to cover all its facets, but focus on those that may be central to the theoretical and practical construction of systemic alternatives. In our opinion, the strength of the Living Well in relation to other alternatives such as the common, the decrease, eco-feminism, deglobalización, eco-socialism and others are in the following: 1) your view of all or Pacha 2) live in multipolarity, 3) the search for balance, 4) the complementarity of various and 5) decolonization.
The whole and the Pacha
The starting point of any alternative systemic transformation is your understanding of everything. What is the totality in which the transformation process we wish to undertake works? Can we operate a profound change only at the level of a country? Can we succeed if we focus only on economic, social and institutional aspects? Is the whole world a capitalist system, or it is part of a greater whole?
For Living Well the whole is the Pacha. This Andean concept has often been translated simply as Earth. So we talk about Pachamama as Mother Earth. However Pacha is a much broader concept comprising the indissoluble unity of space and time. Pacha is all in constant motion, is the cosmos in constant evolution. Pacha refers not only to the world of humans, animals and plants but also to the upper world (Hanan Pacha), home to the sun, the moon and the stars and the world below (Ucu Pacha), where the dead and the spirits live. For Living Well everything is interconnected and all form one unit.
In this space they coexist and interact dynamically in the past, present and future. The Andean vision of time does not follow the mechanics of Newton he says that time is an independent coordinate space and is an identical magnitude to any observer. On the contrary, this worldview reminds us Einstein's famous phrase: "The distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion lingering on." Within the Pacha conception of the past it is always present and is recreated for the future.
Living Well for the time and space are not linear, but cyclical. The linear notion of growth and progress are not compatible with this vision. Time advances following the shape of a spiral. The future is connected with the past. In any progress there is a return and any return is progress. Hence the Aymara expression that walking forward, one must always look back.
This time spiral vision questions the very essence of the notion of "development" to always move to a higher point, search room or be always better. This upward evolution is a figment for Living Well. Any progress turns, nothing is eternal, everything changes and is a reunion of past, present and future.
In the Pacha there is no separation between living and inert bodies, all have life. Life can only be explained by the relationship between all parties at all. The dichotomy between being alive and simple objects does not exist. Also, there is no separation between humans and nature. We are all part of nature and Pacha as a whole has life.
According to Josef Esterman, Pacha, "it is not a machine or a giant mechanism that is organized and simply moves by mechanical laws, as said by European modern philosophers, especially Descartes and his followers. Pacha is rather a living organism in which all parts are interrelated, interdependent and constantly exchange. The basic principle of any "development" must be, then, life (kawsay, qamaña, Jakaña) in full, not only of humans or animals and plants, but the entire Pacha "(Estermann, 2012a ).
The goal of human beings is not the control of nature, but to take care of nature as when one takes care of the mother who gave him life. That's where the expression "Mother Earth" makes sense. Society can not be understood only in relation to human beings, but as a community with nature and everything in the middle. We are the community of the Pacha, the community of an indissoluble whole in a permanent process of cyclical change.
The qamaña sum and sumak pachacéntricos kawsay are not anthropocentric. Recognition and membership in the set is the key to living well. The Andean worldview places the principle of "totality" at the core of its existence.
For Living Well you have to focus on all aspects of life. Material life is only one aspect and can not be reduced to the accumulation of things and objects. We must learn to eat well, dance well, sleep well, drink well, to practice one's beliefs, to work for the community, take care of nature, valuing the elderly, respect everything around us and also learn to die, because death is an integral part of the cycle of life. In the Aymara way of thinking, there is no death, as understood in the West, where the body disappears in hell or heaven. Here death is only one component of life, because it lives again in the mountains or in the depths of lakes or rivers (Mamani, 2011).
In this sense, everything has a spiritual dimension, in which the conception of self, community, and nature come together and are linked cyclically in space and time. Living means covering the whole of living with affection, care, self-understanding and empathy toward others.
This worldview has a number of practical implications. Namely, favorable policies are those that take into account the whole and not just parts. To act only in the interests of human, northern countries, elites material accumulation ... inevitably generate imbalances in the whole. Any measure should try to understand the multiple dimensions and interrelationships of all parties.
Living together in multipolarity
For the vision of Living Well in everything there is a duality because everything has contradictory pairs. Pure does not exist, good and evil always coexist. Everything is and is not. The individual and the community are two poles of the same unit. A person is only as people working for the common good of the community to which it belongs. There are no individuals and no community without community. There is no singular being. A person is not really a person without a partner. The election of officers is two: male-female couple. Bipolarity or multipolarity of this pair is present throughout. The individual-community polarity is steeped in humanity and nature polarity. The community is a community not only human but not human.
Living Well is to learn to live in this duality. The challenge is not "being" but "learn to interact" with other contradictory parts of the whole. Existence is not a given but a relational concept.
In the Andean communities you coexist individual private property with communal property. There are differences and tensions between members of a community. To manage these tensions different cultural practices aimed at generating certain levels of redistribution are made. This means for example that the richest pay the party of the whole community or take care of other acts or services that benefit all.
There are also various collaborative practices within the community. In theMink'a all do collective work for the community. In the Ayni some community members support other members and supporting them change these remunerate them during planting, harvesting or otherwise. In Andean communities, the main milestones are not limited only to the individual or his family, but to share with the whole community. When a child is born, the whole community celebrates. Marriage is not only the union of two people, but the union of two families or communities.
Indigenous communities worldwide are very diverse. They vary from region to region and from country to country. But despite their differences, they share a sense of responsibility and belonging to their communities. The worst punishment is expulsion from the community, it is worse than death, because it is losing its membership, its essence, its identity. In contrast to this indigenous practice, Western societies tend to focus on the individual, on the success of the individual, the individual's rights and especially in the protection of their private property through laws and institutions.
Living Well is not egalitarian, that is an illusion because there are always inequalities and differences. The key is to not destroy them but to live with them, avoid inequalities and differences to fester and polarize to destabilize the whole. Part of this vision is to basically learn or relearn to live in community respecting multipolarity at all.
Living Well is a call to redefine what we mean by "welfare." Being rich or poor is a condition, a human being is an essential feature. Living Well is less concerned about the "welfare" (the condition of the person), and the "well-being" (the essence of the person).
The search for balance
For Living Well the goal is finding a balance between the different elements that make up the whole. Harmony is not only among humans, but also between humans and nature, between the material and the spiritual, between knowledge and wisdom, between cultures and between different identities and realities.
Living Well is not a development version, simply more democratic, not anthropocentric, holistic or humanizing. This worldview did not embrace the notion of progress of Western civilization. In opposition to the continued growth, it seeks balance. This balance is not eternal or permanent. All balance engenders new contradictions and conflicts that require new actions to rebalance. That is the main source of the movement, the cyclical change in spacetime. The search for harmony between human beings and Mother Earth is not seeking an idyllic state but the raison d'etre of the whole.
This balance does not resemble the stability that capitalism promises to achieve through continuous growth. Stability as permanent growth are chimeras. Sooner or later all limits generates growth without severe disorders, Pacha as we are currently seeing on the planet. The balance is always dynamic. The goal is not to reach a perfect balance without contradictions, that does not exist. Everything moves in cycles, is a point of arrival and departure for new imbalances, for new and more complex contradictions and complementarities.
Living Well is not to reach a paradise, but to seek the welfare of all, the dynamic and changing the whole balance. Only by understanding the whole in its multiple components and in its development it is possible to contribute to the search for new balances and live according to the Living Well.
Josef Estermann, in the Andean vision, humans are not owners or producers but rather, "caregivers" (Arariwa), "farmers" and "facilitators". The only strictly productive force is Mother Earth, the Pachamama, and its various aspects, such as water, minerals, oil and energy in general. Humans do not "produce" or "create" but grow or raise what is given them from the Pachamama (Estermann, 2012b). Humans are what helps to give birth to Mother Earth (Medina, 2011).The role of humans is to be a bridge (chakana), a mediator contributing to the search for balance cultivating the wisdom that nature gives us. The challenge is not to be more or have more, but always seek the balance between the different parts of the Earth community.
This essential component of Living Well has great implications for it not only questions the dominant paradigm of growth, but promotes a concrete alternative to the search for balance. A society is not vigorous growth but because both contributes to the balance between humans and nature. In this process, it is essential to overcome the concept of human beings as "producers", "conquerors" and "transformers" of nature and replaced by "caregivers", "farmers" and "mediators" of nature.
The complementarity of different
The balance between opposites inhabit a whole and can only be given through complementarity. Not negating the other, but complementing with it. Complementarity means the difference as part of a whole. The goal is as between these different parts, some of which are antagonistic, we can supplement and complete the whole. The difference and uniqueness are part of nature and life. We will never be equal. What we must do is respect diversity and find ways to articulate experiences, knowledge and ecosystems.
Capitalism operates under a very different dynamic. According to the logic, capital is essentially the competition to increase efficiency. All that restrict or limit competition is negative. The competition within each sector or country specialize in what they can earn. In the end everyone will become more efficient at something and encourage innovation and increase productivity.
From the perspective of complementarity, competition it is negative because some mature and others lose unbalance in the whole. Complementarity search optimization by combining forces. The more that is articulated with one another, greater resilience results for each and all. In complementarity there is no neutrality between opposites but the recognition of the possibilities offered, diversity to balance everything.
In concrete terms this means that instead of seeking efficiency through equal rules for groups, sectors or unequal countries, we must promote asymmetric rules that favor the most disadvantaged to all arise. Living Well is the encounter of diversity. "Saber vivir" is to practice multiculturalism, is to recognize and learn from the difference without arrogance or prejudice.
Accepting diversity means that in our world there are other good Vivires, besides the Andean version. These Good Vivires survive in wisdom, knowledge and practices of people seeking their own identity. Living Well is a plural concept, both for the recognition of human multiculturalism and the existence of diverse ecosystems in nature (Gudynas and Acosta, 2014). Living Well proposes an intercultural encounter between different cultures. There is no single alternative. There are many alternatives that are complementary to form systemic alternatives.
Living Well is not a utopian return to the past, but the recognition that have been in the history of mankind, there are and there will be other forms of cultural, economic and social organization that can contribute to overcoming the current systemic crisis insofar that complement.
In the vision of Living Well there is a continuous struggle for decolonization. More than 500 years ago the Spanish conquest began a new cycle. That settlement did not end with the processes of independence and constitution of the republics in the nineteenth century, but continues in new forms and structures of domination.
Decolonized means to dismantle these political, economic, social, cultural and mental systems that still prevail. Decolonization is a long process that is not given once and forever. We can become independent of a foreign power and be more dependent on its economic hegemony. We can gain some economic sovereignty and yet continue to be subjected culturally. We can be fully recognized in our cultural identity by the Constitution of the State and yet continue to be prisoners of a Western consumerist vision. This is perhaps the most difficult part of the decolonization process of freeing our minds and souls captured by false and alien concepts.
To build the Living Well we must decolonize our territory and our being. The decolonization of the territory implies self-management and self-determination at all levels. Decolonization of being is even more complex and has overcome many beliefs and values ​​that impede our encounter with the Pacha.
In this context, the first step to living well is to see with our own eyes, think for ourselves and dream our own dreams. A key starting point is to find our roots, our identity, our history and our dignity. Decolonized is to reclaim our lives, it is to recover the horizon. Decolonized is no return to the past but to provide it with content present to the past, transform memory into a historical subject. Rafael Bautista S. said, "The linear flow of time of modern physics no longer serves us; why we need a revolution in thinking, as part of the change. The past is not what is left behind and the future is not what comes. The higher past becomes aware, more likely to generate future. The real issue of history is not the past as past , but the present because the present is always in need of future and past "(Bautista, 2010). Living Well advocates recovering the past to redeem the future, ignored amplifying the voices of communities and Mother Earth (Rivera, 2010).
Decolonization involves rejecting an unjust status quo and regain our ability to look deeply so as not to get caught by colonial categories that limit our imagination. Decolonized is to respond to the injustices that are committed against other beings (human and nonhuman), tear down the false boundaries between humanity and the natural world, to say what we think aloud, to overcome the fear of being different, and restore our balance dynamic, regardless of the contradiction that it has been broken by a system and dominant way of thinking.

Constitutionalisation and Implementation

Any act of institutionalization and formalization of a worldview always involves a process of dismemberment of that vision. There are some aspects that are highlighted and others who are left out. Some meanings are highlighted and others are lost. At the end is a mutilated body that may have larger audience but it is incomplete.
This happened with the Living Well and Good Living as they climbed the governments of Evo Morales and Rafael Correa. For the first time, after centuries of exclusion, the vision of indigenous peoples was recognized and incorporated as a key element in the political agendas of both countries. Suma qamaña and sumak kawsay became central benchmarks state discourse. Everything began to happen on their behalf.
Living Well and Living Well with different words included in the new constitutions of both countries in 2008 and 2009. In the case of Ecuador, the term "sumak kawsay" appears 5 times and "Good Life" 23 times, giving even birth to a Chapter (Rights of Good Living) and Title (Regime of Good Living) in the new Constitution.
But when we look carefully as it is we developed this concept it has been embodied as:
1) An ideal to achieve: A new form of citizen coexistence in diversity and harmony with nature, to achieve the good life, sumak kawsay (Preamble)
2) A way of life: The State shall promote forms of production to ensure good living of the population ... (Art 319).
3) A set of rights, as are water and food, healthy environment, communication and information, culture and science, education, housing, housing, health, labor and social security (Title II, Chapter 2),
4) A concept which is at the service of development and productivity:
The development system is the socio-cultural environment organized, sustainable and dynamic set of economic systems, political, and ensuring the realization of the good life, sumak kawsay (Art. 275).
National development plan ... to bring good living (Art. 3)
Develop technologies and innovations that promote national production, raise efficiency and productivity, improve quality of life and contribute to the realization of the good life (Art. 385).
In the case of the Plurinational State of Bolivia Constitution "Good Living" is mentioned seven times and "qamaña sum" once. Unlike the Ecuadorian version of rights of Good Living in Bolivia text is presented as a set of ethical-moral principles: "The State assumes and promotes as ethical and moral principles of the plural society: qhilla loves llulla loves, suwa loves (do not be lazy, do not lie or steal), qamaña sum (living well), Ñandereko (harmonious life), teko kavi (good life), ivi maraei (land without evil) and qhapaj ñan (road or life Noble) "(Art. 8).
Also in the new Bolivian constitution it is presented as an ideal to be achieved, a way of life and is also linked to the "productive development industrialization of natural resources" (Art. 313).
In summary, in the premium Ecuadorian version there is a view of Bolivia's rights and plus a more ethical and moral approach. However, in both constitutions these concepts coexist, articulate and are manipulated according to a dominant developmentalist and productivist vision throughout the text.
Without denying the importance and the great difficulties they had in the drafting and adoption of these constitutions, it is clear that joining the Living Well, Living Well and Sumak Qamaña lost much of its substance. They became more symbolic terms of recognition of the Andean indigenous peoples rather than turning points for the capitalist development model that remained in force under the category of "plural economy".
But beyond its formal inclusion in the constitution, laws and development plans are essential to appreciate what happened to this vision over the past decade. How it has been implemented? To what extent has it been concretised (made real) in different aspects of the life of these two countries?
To answer these questions, let's look at what happened at the level of the economy, nature and strengthening communities and social organizations in the end will always be the main protagonists in any process of change.
The governments of both countries are in the path of living well despite the difficulties and problems. The proof of this is in the statistics of GDP growth in reducing poverty, increasing international reserves, increased public investment in expanding road infrastructure, health, education, telephony and many other indicators.
The figures are real and in some very significant cases. GDP has grown at an average of 4.2% to 5.0% in Ecuador and Bolivia; poverty has been reduced by 11% in Ecuador and Bolivia extreme poverty has fallen by 16%. This is mainly due to an increase in public investment, which rose from 4.2% to 15.6% of GDP in Ecuador and from 14.3% to 19.3% of GDP in Bolivia. This increase allowed several social programs, including "Bonds" conditional cash transfers as called the World Bank, and in both countries has decreased the Gini index measuring income inequality.
These achievements of the last decade is due to increased state revenues by the boom in prices of raw materials and in some cases the renegotiation of contractual relations with transnational corporations. In Bolivia's nationalization of hydrocarbons it did not mean the nationalization of foreign companies but a renegotiation of the distribution of profits. In 2005 gains and costs recoverable gas transnational corporations were 43% and in 2013 dropped to only 22%. This meant that the Bolivian State had eight times more revenue rising from 673 million in 2005 to 5,459 million in 2013. This increase in state revenues allowed a leap in public investment, the granting of bonds, development infrastructure, expansion of basic services, the increase in international reserves and other measures.
There is no doubt that for various sectors of these populations there is an improvement in living conditions and this explains the popular support they still enjoy both governments. But are we really on the way to living well?
Today the prices of oil and raw materials have fallen by the slowdown in the Chinese economy and both countries are moving dangerously close to an economic crisis. Export earnings of raw materials have begun to fall, international reserves begin to decline and external debt is rising. Factories were nationalized before they closed such as ENATEX in Bolivia. Free Trade Agreements with the European Union that were previously rejected today are signed by President Correa. Bolivia is now selling 1,000 million in bonds on Wall Street and Evo Morales travels to New York to attract foreign investors.
Why are we in this situation? Simply by external factors or by an inconsistency with the Living Well?
Ecuador and Bolivia as Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina were captivated by the easy money from commodity exports over the past decade. While the official discourse of Bolivia and Ecuador stated that the main objective was to reduce dependence on commodity exports, leaving the status of any country mono-exporters, diversify the economy, promote industrialization, increase productivity and add value to what is produced, the fact is that today these economies are more dependent on exports of raw materials than before.
Diversification of the economy has not occurred because it was more profitable in the short term bet on the extractive and export of raw materials. Progressive governments wanted to show immediate results, with works and bonds, and the fastest way to get resources was to deepen the way that both had been criticized. In a speech at times anticapitalist, progressive and Living Well it was promoting a strengthening of dependence on exports accompanied some income redistribution mechanisms that did not alter the essence of capitalist accumulation.
Despite the speeches, much of transnational and national oligarchies continued enriching and benefiting from this extractive-populist model. In Ecuador "The main economic activities are concentrated in few companies: 81% of the market for soft drinks is in the hands of a company; a company equally controlled 62% of the meat market; five factories (with only three owners) control 91% of the sugar market; two companies 92% of the oil market; two companies control 76% of the market for hygiene products ... Proceeds from the hundred largest groups increased by 12% between 2010 and 2011, and approach the astronomical figure of 36.000 million. In this regard it should be noted that the profits of economic groups in the period 2007-2011 grew by 50% more than in the previous five years, ie during the neoliberal period "(Acosta, 2014).
In Bolivia the situation is similar. The benefits of the banking system in 2006 were 80 million US dollars which became 283 million in 2014. At present, two multinational companies (PETROBRAS and REPSOL) handled 75% of natural gas production. The minister of Finance, in a "call to conscience" to private enterprise to invest in Bolivia, said its profits rose from 900 million dollars in 2005 to 4,000 million in 2014.
In Bolivia the vast majority of landowners before 2006 were not affected. Sanitation and land titling that favored mostly indigenous and peasant but proceeded to dismantle the power of the big landowners was pushed. GM soy export only accounted for 21% of total exports of this product in 2005 came to represent 92% in 2012.
In practice the slogan "we want partners not bosses" served to re-articulate a new alliance of the Plurinational State with the old oligarchies. The strategy was imposed on the government economic pact with opposition representatives as their political leaders were persecuted.   A sort of economic carrot and stick policy led many sectors of the bourgeoisie who initially were in opposition then to go on to support the government.
Now that the time of fat cows has come to an end, the old and new rich allies of these governments begin to distance themselves and build their own political choices. Cake export revenue has shrunk and the most powerful sectors want to preserve as much as possible their profits at the expense of the state and the rest of the population. Hence the return of post-populist neoliberalism. A return that does not come only from outside the "progressive governments" but also from within, as progressive governments themselves are beginning to adopt criteria of efficiency and neoliberal profitability by closing factories and cutting increasing profits rather than affect the sectors that are most powerful in the economy, those that have enriched themselves over the past decade.
The economic crisis erodes the popularity of progressive governments and right that was his ally before the sabotages from outside and from within putschists performing actions such as we see in Brazil. We are witnessing the end of its progressive governments and this extractivismo-populist who applied on behalf of Living Well.
The mistreatment of nature
One of the most widespread assumptions of Living Well is the harmony not only among humans but also with nature. Initially the governments of Bolivia and Ecuador acquired notoriety because they put an emphasis on the speech of Mother Earth. The Ecuadorian Constitution of 2008 recognized the rights of nature. Bolivia in 2009 won approval of the International Day of Mother Earth at the United Nations, and nationally approved in 2010 the law of rights of Mother Earth.
Everything seemed to point to a change in the relationship with nature and even had some concrete proposals such as the Yasuni ITT in Ecuador. This initiative arose maintain a zone of Yasuni National Park away from oil exploitation in exchange for financial compensation from the international community. According to the ITT Yasuni initiative, Ecuador would underground 856 million barrels of oil in exchange for 350 million dollars annually. It was the first time a country posed to break the extractivismo to preserve nature and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
However, Ecuador's proposal did not get the expected economic compensation. In 2013 Rafael Correa ended the Yasuni ITT Initiative and announced the start of oil exploitation in the area, without even allowing a citizens about public consultation.
The situation in Bolivia also began with great omens when in Article 255 of the new constitution the "prohibition of import, production and marketing of genetically modified organisms" was noted. However 2011 No. 144 Law of the Revolution approved productive Community Agropecuaria that Article 15 replaced the ban for registration and labeling of GMOs: "Any product intended for human consumption directly or indirectly, that is, containing or derived from genetically modified organisms, necessarily must be properly identified and indicate this condition. "Five years after the adoption of this law, not even the labeling of genetically modified products is a reality and the production of transgenic soybeans for export has grown exponentially.
Similarly, the protection of national parks and protected areas has been questioned. The government has approved regulations and projects for exploration and oil exploration in these areas, and has tried to build a road through the middle of the national park TIPNIS. This was paralyzed by the rejection of indigenous peoples of the region and opposition from sectors of the population.
As for deforestation that affects every year between 150,000 and 250,000 hectares of native forests to benefit especially agribusiness, livestock and loteadores land, the government has only raised an end to illegal deforestation by 2020 and has not been committed to stopping the native deforestation for that year as indicated by the objective of sustainable development 15.2.
Several mining, hydroelectric, oil and infrastructure projects were approved and implemented without real environmental impact studies. The government has even gone to support nuclear power projects despite any contrary provision of constitution and law of the Rights of Mother Earth.
Between discourse and reality, between law and practice, there is a huge gap in both countries. you can not cite any example in Bolivia where the rights of Mother Earth have prevailed over the interests of extraction, pollution and depletion of natural resources in the last decade. The law has remained on paper and provisions as the Defender of Mother Earth, contained in the Bill of Rights of Mother Earth, are not implemented.
How Rafael Bridge "says Basically it seems that the line was: denounce to the world for the abuse of Mother Earth being done by all developed countries, but we reserve the need to also misstate Mother Earth a while until we achieve a minimum level of development."(Bridge, 2014).
Eduardo Gudynas, progressive governments "are more comfortable with measures such as campaigns to abandon the plastic or replace light bulbs, but resist environmental controls on investors or exporters." He concludes "the leaders feel that environmentalism is a luxury that can only be to the richest, and therefore is not applicable in Latin America while poverty is not exceeded"(Gudinas, 2012).
The weakening of the community 
and social organizations
The essence of living well is to strengthen the community in promoting complementarity as opposed to competition and the search for balance as opposed to uncontrolled growth. How we have made progress in these areas? Are the indigenous communities and social organizations today stronger? Is there a need for more complementary to each other? Have the differences, hierarchies and privileges been reduced? Has the creativity of social movements increased? Has your proactive and recreation alternative imaginary capacity increased?
Consider the Bolivian case where the process of change began, from the outset, with the strong indigenous and social organizations. In general we can say that social movements and indigenous communities have strengthened rather than weakened in the last decade.
What has happened is a kind of paradox. Indigenous communities and social organizations have received a number of material goods, infrastructure, credits, bonuses and services instead of contributing to their empowerment in terms of living organisms. The self-managed are weakened and even fragmented.
Before the electoral triumph of 2005, the social movements in Bolivia had the ability to not only stop certain privatization projects around water and gas, but also managed to bring together much of the population behind the proposed recovery of the territory, hydrocarbon nationalization and redistribution of wealth. In other words, indigenous peoples and social organizations were able to build an alternative society against neoliberalism. Today this dynamism is lost and instead have entered a phase where everyone is involved in reivindicacionismo (making a demand) and makes moves to try and get the Plurinational State to work more in terms of credits, tax allowances, bonuses and others.
The goods delivered by the government leaders of indigenous communities and social organizations have generated a clientele and prebendalista logic. (Prebendalista denfined as in the political sphere, as a false sort of promotion expressing itself in dictatorship, in false leadership, in the domination of the "bosses," in patronage hiring, in obligatory membership in organizations, without any respect for personal choices.) Social movements have ceased to be the protagonists of change and are becoming customers who will ask for things and works of the government. Each seeks to improve their situation through the pressure on the welfare state. It is no longer about changing Bolivia but who can take the biggest slice. The prospect of a draft new society based on indigenous values ​​has been lost in reality.
Indigenous communities for centuries resisted the call to modernity of the Spanish conquistadors and capitalism. Today they have fallen prey to this illusion thanks to the practices and discourse of their indigenous government that tells them that the goal is to grow at all costs to 5 % of GDP per year over the next 15 years. Consumption modernity and efficiency that were previously resisted by the indigenous communities today are beginning to be assumed. Projects that were previously rejected by peasant organizations such as mega dams or would have been unthinkable as a nuclear center today are accepted in the name of modernity. What the conquest, the republic and neoliberalism could not achieve in centuries, the current government has achieved in a decade: to transform the imagination of a majority of indigenous peoples. Perhaps that is why there has been a striking fact in the last census. People who consider themselves indigenous is not increasing, despite all the recognition and legal protection of the Plurinational State. It was reduced from 62% in 1990 to only 41% in 2013.
An example of this expansion of capitalist modernity orada communities and indigenous vision is competition from high-risk Dakar (sports challenge) for the fourth year will pass through Bolivia in 2017. The Dakar -- for every humanist, environmentalist and anti-capitalist activist is an event deplorable. It has arrived in the country by direct administration of President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia. This year the government will pay 4 million dollars to the organizers of this competition for more than half of its tour of the country even to the Lake Titicaca and La Paz.
The Dakar has nothing to do with the Bolivian reality and Living Well. It is a competition where participants are required to pay at least $ 80,000 and where runners promote large transnational corporations. The Dakar is a kind of Roman circus of the decadent era of fossil fuels. In each edition die pilots and spectators -- the archaeological deterioration and environmental impact. They are a real scourge for Mother Earth. The Dakar is a colonizer show about nature and human consciousness. The questions are so large and the cost so high that Chile and Peru no longer participate in this competition. However, the Dakar survives in Latin America with the cooperation and support of indigenous and plurinational government of Bolivia.
The authorities justify and extol the Dakar saying that it is a show that brings us closer to modernity, which generates an "economic movement" of over a hundred million dollars and Bolivia serves to promote it at the tourist level. If the goal were really to know the country very well the government could promote other kinds of events based on our cultural traditions as for example the Chasqui. That is, an event where bushwalk through Bolivia, as did the ancient chasquis, sharing experiences, knowledge of different regions and ecological zones, seeking complementarity between different knowledge, fostering solidarity among participants and promoting the values ​​of Living Well and respect with nature.
However, the incredible thing is that there has been no discussion about this within the government or social organizations. Critical voices are marginal and do not come precisely from indigenous peoples who were always critical of these practices. If any of the neoliberal governments would have thought to bring the Dakar to Bolivia surely social organizations have organized roadblocks in some sections, however now is the Indian government change process that promotes it, and that overturns fully the values ​​and principles defended for centuries.
Social and indigenous organizations have also eroded due to corruption. With more resources available and by engaging leaders in the direct management of some funds, several have become corrupted or have ended up being accomplices by omission.
Indigenous, social and civic organizations have opposed the central government policies have been marginalized, relegated, worn and even divided. The indigenous solidarity was once a natural practice is broken when indigenous sectors have been repressed (TIPNIS and Takovo Mora) and the rest of the peasant and indigenous organizations have remained silent.
In short, the Living Well has been absent and confined only to the speeches.

Living Well is possible

If what we have experienced is the application of an extractive-populist on behalf of Living Well, model what could have been a more practical implementation consistent with the principles and vision of Living Well?   Is it possible to live well in the reality of a country? Where is the problem? Is is inapplicability -- outside the scope of indigenous communities? Is it the incomprehension of this vision? In there an absence of maturation even of this proposal?
The answer to these questions is not easy. Throughout this decade they have made a number of concrete proposals for implementation, but almost all have been partial, sectoral or specific in nature. There has been a coordinated, comprehensive and coherent proposal for measures to advance in the path of living well in both countries. Only very valuable but particular character, without presenting a complex of initiatives that enable us to transform reality in its multiple dimensions approaches. Questioning bad, contradictory or non-implementation of Living Well it has not been accompanied by a holistic set of proposals at different levels. When applying the Living Well we have forgotten one of its most important tenets: the totality and comprehensiveness.
Overcoming statism
A key mistake was believing that living well could be fully developed from state power, when in fact the Living Well is a proposal that is built from the society. The constitutionalization of Living Well and Living Well deepened on this mirage. People were made to think through a national plan of "development," so the state could move towards the Living Well. But in fact the secret of this vision is to strengthen the community, in the enhancement of their capacity of complementarity with other communities and self-management of their territory.
In Bolivia, the Vice President it is the best example of this statist vision applied to the death and represents the antipode of Living Well. In the words of Alvaro Garcia Linera: "The state is the only one which can unite society, it is assumed the synthesis of the general will and that it plans the strategic framework and is the first car of the locomotive. The second is the Bolivian private investment; the third is foreign investment; the room is small business; the fifth, the rural economy and the sixth, the indigenous economy. This is the strategic order in which has to be structured in the economy "(Garcia, 2007). This vision of a powerful state that ensures all contrary to Living Well. It is society that must determine itself to counter the perverse dynamic that all state power entails.
In the case of Bolivia he has always spoken of an internal struggle between the exponents of "development" and "pachamamistas" among the "modernists" and the "Living Well". However Needless to say, the error of the"pachamamistas" and supporters of the Living was good that we were also deeply statist. We believed that as we were opposed to neoliberalism, and that the fact that the state was dismantled, this fundamentally went to further enhance the State,  ignoring the essence of the logic of power.
Among the "pachamamistas" and Developmental there was a difference environment due to the orientation following the enhancement of the state. For the vice president of Bolivia's main objective was to direct our forces "to launch a new economic model that I called, tentatively, 'Andean-Amazonian capitalism. " That is, building a strong state, which regulates the expansion industrial economy, remove surplus and transferred to Community level to promote forms of self-organization and proper commercial development Andean and Amazonian. " The discussion of this proposal focused on the concept of "Andean-Amazonian capitalism," but not in the conception of state involved. Those were the days of the "nationalization of hydrocarbons" and all aimed at strengthening the rule seemed right. The differences were more around what a strong state: Living Well to build or develop a new phase of capitalist construction?
The role of the state can not be the construction of Living Well or the organizer and planner of the whole society. The state should be a factor contributing to the empowerment of communities and social organizations through non clientelism. This means that rather than providing communities and social organizations with material goods such as vehicles, union halls or sports fields, it is necessary to push them to inform themselves, meet, discuss, discuss, question, build public policies and in many cases run without wait for the green light from the State. The qamaña sumaq and sumak kawsay persisted for centuries against the Inca, colonial, republican, nationalist and neoliberal state. They were visions and community practices that occurred even without the recognition of the powers specified in each of those times. To "nationalize" Living Well is to begin to pierce his autogestionario and interpolating power.
Normally for the Marxist left the goal is the seizure of power to change society. It is to capture and transform the state to change society from above. Instead, the experience of the last decade "progressive" governments would show us that for Living Well take power should be to encourage further the process of emancipation and self-determination from below, questioning and subverting all colonial structures that persist even in the new state forms that emerge from the process of change.
Strengthen local and community
Thinking in terms of all requires that the economy not be put at the center of building a new society. What we have seen in recent years is an obsession of so-called governments of Living Well to grow in terms of GDP which measures only part of the economy that is commodified; for example that production of goods and services entering the capitalist market and that destroy nature and human beings.
Instead of the growth of the economy to the capitalist market efforts, they should be aimed at promoting the recovery of balance at all levels. There should be a search for balance between different sectors of the economy and society that can not be given without addressing the structural causes of inequality.
The current lacerating inequality can not be resolved through bonds or money transfers to the poorest sectors. Redistribution can not be limited to the reallocation of the share of income that is not appropriate for the most powerful economic sectors. The pursuit of equality among beings can not be reduced to welfare programs while large landowners, mining companies and big bankers continue to accumulate huge profits.
The experience of the last decade shows that transnational corporations and domestic oligarchies forced by social pressure can accept a redistribution of income to keep all profits. Nevertheless, when the international price boom comes to an end, and affects their pockets, they display all kinds of actions to displace "progressive" government and implement the most savage neoliberal policies.
It is possible to substantially modify the redistribution of wealth without substantially altering the power of the powerful. What was done: He was renegotiating contracts with TNCs, nationalizing  some companies and trying to get along with banking, agribusiness, some business sectors and seek to attract foreign investment to invest in a "fair" way.
This model, where first is the State, second private domestic investment, foreign investment third, fourth micro-enterprise, fifth peasant economy and ultimately the indigenous-economy failed. The so-called "plural economy" was a hoax because it seemed that everyone was going to be recognized and be equal when in fact survived a hierarchical and pyramidal structure in which the State substantially increased public investment while the (national and foreign private sector ) without reinvesting profits reaped only, and business, peasant and indigenous micro industry was relegated to benefit from some welfare programs.
Where had that point? At the center of the new economy is precisely the peasant, indigenous and local economic small economy. A really concentrated wealth is redistributed in the hands of financial, extractive and agribusiness sectors. For it was essential to reverse and redistribute large landed property, regulate more effectively and gradually nationalize private banks, make more efficient use of resources of the extractive sector to promote projects that allow us to leave the extractivismo, and promote the empowerment of local economies, Community, of small and micro entrepreneurs by strengthening their self-management capacity and complementarity.
The true potential of countries like Bolivia is in agroecology, in agroforestry, in strengthening food sovereignty from indigenous and peasant communities. In this perspective the fundamental role of the state should not be to create top EU companies but strengthen production networks, exchange, credit, traditional knowledge and innovation from the local level and with the active participation of locals. What prevailed was not strengthening of the community of social fabric, but to make flashy and showy works to show immediate impact. Organic, GM-free production was for speeches and deeds -- consumption of agro-toxic and glyphosate -- was increasing in the country during the last decade.
The promotion of mega infrastructure projects, mega dams, nuclear research centers is part of an obsolete model of capitalist development of the last century.   Far from seeking transit through that "modernity" that began to be abandoned by the countries of the north, you need to leapfrog and harness the latest advances in science from a community, and not privatizing social perspective. This means betting on solar energy and community, family and municipal wind to transform Bolivians mere consumers of electricity in electricity producers.
The empowerment of communities should be taking advantage of the practices and ancestral knowledge and combining these with the latest technological advances and always when they contribute to restore balance with nature and strengthen human communities. Renewable energy: They are not in themselves a solution to the systemic crisis and can also be used to displace populations, hogging resources and reconfiguring capitalism.
The experience of the last decade shows clearly what can only be achieved if a plural economy domination of capital is exceeded. This happens not by making speeches but when  anticapitalists take effective measures against financial capital that is the backbone of capitalism. If no action is assumed to dismantle big capital always the other components of the plural economy will be marginalized and neglected.
Placing the local and community production in the center does not mean abandoning or neglecting state enterprises and public services whose characteristics can be better managed and provided at the state and national level. This is the case, for example in the banking or essential public services such as education, health and telecommunications, which must have a universal character. However, these state companies and public services must have effective citizen participation mechanisms to prevent bureaucratization, corruption and adapt to the realities experienced by each region.
We have always criticized the phrase "export or die" which the neoliberal governments coined. However the "progressive" governments have fallen into the same dynamic. Production becomes privilege, one that brings foreign exchange. As a result, large agribusiness export transgenic soy, or accept a free trade agreement with the European Union to favor banana exporters.
Under the Living Well, the goal is to generate more resilience of local and national economies from the fluctuations and global economic crisis. This is not to cease exporting, but it means not to turn the economy around the export of a handful of products. Be more sovereign strengthening local human communities and ecosystems on Earth.
Free trade agreements have a different logic. They set to compete as if they were equal to countries, sectors and companies absolutely unequal. Under these conditions the victors will always be the transnational corporations, large agribusiness and the most powerful sections of finance capital. Free trade rules of the World Trade Organization, regional agreements and bilateral free trade undermine the possibility of building the Living Well that favor large corporations at the expense of small producers.
The experience of the last decade shows that it is not enough to reject free trade agreements or even reverse them, it is necessary to advance the implementation of measures to control foreign trade until a monopoly of foreign trade and effective control of smuggling. Without the application of such measures competition from large-scale production and smuggling drilling just local, community and national economies, as such we are seeing in so-called progressive governments.
The full import substitution within a country is not possible in today's global economy. Small economies will always be more dependent on imports. It is therefore very important to regulate imports for currencies not geared to a wasteful consumerism and instead are directed to essential elements for strengthening local economies.
This goal is not attainable only through mechanisms of control of foreign trade but through the effective promotion of cultural patterns of sustainable consumption. During the progressive governments income sectors of the population it was improved but continued the same practices of consumption and waste of capitalist societies.
being nature
The motto of "sowing the oil" (promoting more extractivismo to diversify the economy) coined by President Correa is a mirage. Just as you can not overcome alcoholism ingesting more alcohol, neither can you overcome the extractivismo promoting more extractivismo.
In dependent capitalist countries, such as Bolivia and Ecuador, the fight against extractivism becomes extremely difficult for the articulation of the logic of capital and the logic of power. Extractivism is the fastest way to get dollars and it is essential to stay in power. So Extractivism creates a perverse addiction that undermines the efforts to diversify the economy and construction of Living Well. Bolivia now all are addicted to the income comes from oil: central government, governorates, municipalities, universities, armed forces, indigenous leaderships and population in general.
To break this addiction is first necessary to acknowledge its existence. In Bolivia, if a fraction of the billions of dollars of public funds being invested in oil and gas explorations invest in solar and community wind not only could satisfy all domestic demand but could even think of export clean electricity instead of fossil fuels continue to sell further warming the planet.
The same can be said with regard to deforestation and instead of making reforestation plans that are extremely costly, defaulters and uncertain results ever offset the richness and biodiversity of the destroyed native forests, which would have to do is learn from indigenous communities living in the jungle, and promote agro-forestry initiatives. The argument that no deforestation can not ensure food security of the Bolivian population is false. Since 2001 according to official figures they have been deforested more than 8.6 million hectares and the entire cultivated area has grown only 3.5 million hectares of which 1.9 million hectares are industrial agriculture including mainly soybeans for export (1.2 million hectares).
The reason why the rights of nature have remained on paper so far is because progressive governments do not want there instances that effectively limit their extractive projects. The rights of nature and Mother Earth require autonomous mechanisms and regulations to curb and punish the continuing violations committed against ecosystems and especially to promote the restoration and recovery of those areas that have been affected.
The nationalization of natural resources such as oil does not mean that can be exploited to the last drop.   State property pollutant or consumerist industries does not make them clean and sustainable enterprises. The experience of the last decade shows that it is not enough to nationalize or nationalizing the means of production (mines, oil wells and other) it is necessary to transform and replace them with others that allow the flourishing of eco-societies more just and equitable.
How says the People 's Agreement that was drafted and adopted at the first World People 's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth in 2010, not only is overcome capitalism but also productivism " the Soviet experience showed us that it was possible, with other property relations, as predator productive regime and devastating conditions that make life possible and capitalism. The alternatives have to lead to a deep civilizational transformation without which there would be continuity of life on planet earth. Humanity confronts a great dilemma: continue down the road of capitalism, patriarchy, Progress and death, or the path of harmony with nature and respect for life "(People 's Agreement, 2010) .
Full cultural diversity
One of the greatest strengths of the changes that have occurred during the progressive governments has to do with the recognition of cultural diversity. In Bolivia Plurinational State concept is an achievement that applied to realities of other countries can help the coexistence of different nationalities and nations within the same territory. Likewise, advances are very important recognition of native languages, the requirement that public officials speak two languages ​​(Castilian and native language), recognition of indigenous autonomy and native and peasant indigenous justice.
However, many of these principles have remained only in the constitution and laws and in reality a big problem exists in their implementation. In the Bolivian case of twelve municipalities in 2009 they chose to be indigenous autonomies only one has managed to complete the entire legal process for indigenous autonomy. The law has been characterized as "an obstacle course" for indigenous communities and TCOs. From the Indian central government there has been an effective policy to encourage the establishment of indigenous autonomy, self-governing, community democracy without political parties and the right to be consulted to the exploitation of natural resources in their territories.
Indigenous law has been recognized but relegated and constrained communities, giving supremacy in the facts to ordinary justice, and ignoring the great contribution that could be to establish a more agile, free, respectful of nature and seek conflict resolution through participatory consensus justice.
In constitutional and legal terms they have been significant advances in gender equality and participation of women at governmental and parliamentary level. There are a set of standards that have been approved on land, equal opportunities, violence against women, breastfeeding, health for women, job security mother, retirement and others that are an advance legal level. The number of parliamentary, municipal councilors, ministers and government officials that are Bolivia women is among the highest worldwide.
But Bolivia is far from the patriarchalization and contradictorily have been reinforced a number of practical and imaginary macho from expressions, jokes and ratings that are broadcast from the central core of the government that remains essentially shaped by men.
The patriarchal order settled in family, community and state structures survives and reproduces multiple forms that sometimes go unnoticed. Jokes and sexist comments hierarchical authorities are not answered by ministers and parliamentarians, and on the other hand are sometimes justified. The increased presence of women in political office has not translated into actions related to the breakdown of power relations that reproduce subordination and oppression of women. Discriminatory stereotypes and cultural patterns survive and are fed by the behavior of the most powerful men.
The model of production and redistribution of wealth to the detriment of women, the role of men and women in work from home, the separation between public and private life have not been substantially affected. The exercise of autonomy of women over their own bodies and their right to decide remain constrained, and violence against women and femicide are still an everyday reality.
In its original conception, the Living Well did not emphasize the issue of patriarchalization level of the family, society and the state. However it is clear that this component is essential for progress towards a society of balance between all human beings and nature.
Real democracy
Living Well entails respect, balance and complementarity between the different parts of the whole. But what we have seen in the progressive governments has been an attempt to surround and control the other powers from the executive. The defeat of the most recalcitrant expressions of the neoliberal right has not resulted in the re-launch of a vigorous democracy where parliamentarians proposed, fiscalicen and adopt standards from own criteria or its constituents. What we have seen is the replacement of democracy by neoliberal democracy-up hands just follow the instructions of the central government.
In Bolivia, the Executive has been given ways and wiles to control the main organs of justice making proposals as innovative as the election of judges of the most important organs remain undervalued and discredited. Likewise, participation and social control established in the new Constitution of Bolivia have remained on paper.
Without real and effective democracy it is not possible to advance in self-management, self-determination and the empowerment of communities and social organizations that are essential to living well. The exercise of democracy implies limiting the power of the powerful and the state itself. If the central government instrumentalize popular participation, social organizations Copt and controls the various branches of government, building a real democracy inviabiliza. This democracy is a key element in the construction of Living Well at the level of a country or region because all government and people will make mistakes in the construction of a new eco-society, and the only way to detect, correct and re- imagine new ways is with the help of all.
international complementarity
The experience of this decade shows clearly that living well is not possible at the level of a single country in the framework of a capitalist, productivist, patriarchal, anthropocentric world economy. A key to progress and prosper element this view is articulation and complementarity with other similar processes at the level of other countries. This process can not be limited to the promotion of integration agreements that do not follow the rules of free trade or merely alliance of states or governments. Probably one of the biggest failures of the last decade was the non-development alliances and independent indigenous social movements of progressive governments.Looking back, the anti-globalization movement in Latin America strengthened rather than weakened because it was not able to articulate a vision of their own autonomous change. He confused their utopias with political calculations progressive governments and lost his ability to criticize and dream.
Social transformation processes to flourish need to expand beyond national borders and reach countries today colonize the planet in different ways.Without this radiation to the nerve centers of world power change processes and losing just taking refuge force until end reneging on the principles and values ​​that once gave rise to them.
To this extent the future of Living Well depends largely on reconstruction and recovery enhancement of other visions with different emphasis point to the same object from different continents of the planet. Living Well is only possible on complementarity and feedback with other systemic alternatives.
Acosta, A. (2010). The Good Life in the way of post-development A reading from the Constitution of Montecristi.
Acosta, A. (2014). Ecuador: The 'citizens ' revolution', the extractive model and the left reviews , interview with Blanca Fernandez S. et. to the.
People 's Agreement (2010). Conclusions of group 1 and 2 of the CMPCC and the rights of Mother Earth. Cochabamba, Bolivia.
Albo, X. (2011). Suma qamaña = live well. How do I measure it ? In Living Well: non-capitalist paradigm? La Paz: CIDES-UMSA.
Central Bank of Ecuador (2014). Macroeconomic Statistics Structural Presentation.
Bautista, R. (2010). Towards a significant constitution of 'living well' sense. Rincón editions. 
Blaser, M. (2010). Storytelling Globalization from the Chaco and Beyond . Durham: Duke University Press.
Davalos, P. (2008). Reflections on kawsay sumak (good living) and theories of development. ALAI.
Escobar, A. (1992). 'Imagining a Post-Development Era? Critical Thought, Development and Social Movements. " Social Text.
Estermann, J. (2012a). Cancerous growth versus Living Well .
Estermann, J. (2012b). Civilizational crisis and Living Well. POLIS Revista Latinoamericana.
Garcia, A. (2006). The "Andean-Amazonian capitalism. " Le Monde Diplomatique.
Garcia, A. (2007). It was a mistake not lead the regional order, interview in El Deber, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, January 21 quoted by Eric Toussaint An Andean-Amazonian capitalism? CADTM / Rebellion, 2009.
. Gudynas, E. (2011a) Good Living: Germinando alternatives to development. Latin America on the Move.
Gudynas, E. (2011b). 'Good Life: Today's Tomorrow'. Development.
. Gudynas, E. (2011c) tensions, contradictions and opportunities of the environmental dimension of Good Living ,   in Living Well: non-capitalist paradigm? La Paz: CIDES-UMSA.
Gudynas, E. (2012). The brown left.
Gudynas E. and A. Acosta (2014). Renewing critical to development and good living as an alternative.
Ibanez, A. (2010). An approach to good living.
Latouche, S. (2009). Small treaty serene decline. Barcelona: Icaria.
. Mamani Ramirez, P. (2011) Qamir qamaña: hardness 'being still' and sweetness of 'being still' in Living Well: non-capitalist paradigm? La Paz: CIDES-UMSA.
Martinez-Alier, et al. (2010). 'Sustainable De-growth: Mapping the context, Criticisms and future prospects of an emergent paradigm'. Ecological Economics.
Medina, J. (2011). About Suma Qamaña in Living Well: non-capitalist paradigm?La Paz: CIDES-UMSA.
Ministry of Economy and Public Finance (2014). Bolivia: a look at the most important achievements of the economic model.
Naess, A. (1989). Ecology, Community and Lifestyle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Petras, J. (2012). The extractive capitalism and differences in the progressive Latin American side.
National Development Plan: Bolivia Dignified, Sovereign, Productive and Democratic to Vivir Bien (2007).
Prada, R. (2012). Matricide the patriarchal state. Assessment of the framework law of Mother Earth and integral development for living well.
Bridge, R. (2011). 'Living Well' and decolonization in Living Well: non-capitalist paradigm? La Paz: CIDES-UMSA.
Bridge, R. (2014). The defense of Mother Earth was reduced to mere speech.
Quijano, A. and Ennis, M. (2000). 'Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America' Nepantla: Views from the South. Vol. 1, No. 3.
Ramirez, R. (2010). Socialism sumak kawsay or Republican biosocialism, in The New Challenges in Latin America. Socialism and sumak kawsay. Quito: SENPLADES.
Rivera, S. (1991). Pachakuti: historical horizons of internal colonialism . published by NACLA as "Aymara Past, Aymara Future".
. Saunders, K. (2002) Feminist Post-Development Though. London: Zed Books.
Stefanoni, P. (2009). 'Indianisation' ou du nationalisme permanent refoundation of Bolivie.   Alternatives Sud, Vol. 16.
Villanueva, A. (2012). Quo vadis communitarian socialism to live well?
. Walsh, C. (2010) 'Development as Good Living: Institutional arrangements and (de) colonial entanglements'. Development.
Yampara, S. (2001). 'Jaqi Travel to Qama paign , Man in Living Well' in the indigenous understanding of the Good Life, La Paz: GTZ and Municipal Associations Federation Bolivia.