Another idiotic professor opens his mouth. The only reasonable response to such people is obvious: If you don’t like supporting rural people, stop eating farm-raised food. Stop using any resources harvested from rural areas. Stop visiting wilderness parks. All of those things require people living out there to keep those things available. I ran into this with libertarians not wanting to subsidize so much as mail, telephone or Internet for people who made the decision to live out in those rural areas. This is not a question of compassion or fairness, but of sheer self-interest. If you don’t give folks an incentive to stay out in rural areas, you cut yourself off from everything those rural areas supply.
Very soon people like that idiot professor are going to discover very personally just how dependent they are on rural people. Prices will be going through the roof on some agricultural products. It’s not actually socialism to protect the agricultural and resource extraction industries if you really do need those things. Socialism is based on protecting workers and keeping things where the employees are in control. Socialism means keeping high-priced labor on the job, even when nobody wants what they produce. It rests on forcing people to consume things they don’t want at an inflated price, simply because a bunch of hooligans want to keep their cushy jobs without having to work too hard.
On the coup in Bolivia: Morales won the election, and the voting appears genuine enough. The coup was led by US puppets. Morales was very much a socialist, and that’s what the people wanted. He did improve things by some measures, reducing illiteracy and poverty. However, no socialist government in human history as been good in the long run. They have all been harsh and oppressive in other measures. The coup is corporatist; it favors the globalist elite rich, many of whom don’t actually live in the country. The whole thing is a conflict between socialists and corporatists, and there can be no good choice there.
It’s getting harder and harder to come up with labels for doing things the right way. Even the term “nationalism” can be abused to represent imperialism forced down people’s throats. Still, the simple meaning of “nationalism” is the closest term we can find for Biblical Law’s approach to human government. It’s the political “ism” that we can support in a broad sense, in particular against the current ascendant mix of globalism, imperialism and Zionism.
Oddly, there is no commonly used term for nationalist economics. Globalists tend to support Keynesian economics, but so do many so-called “conservatives.” The rise of “democratic socialism” is at least honest, but it’s a dissident part of the left-wing, and the left is ostensibly the face of globalism. The political right holds libertarians in slavery, ensuring the latter can never stand independently. And libertarians are typically self-centered idiots, often leading the calls for refusing to support rural folks.
It’s part of the propaganda game to avoid proper labels for the biblical viewpoint.