[Julian658]

:lol: [usermention=39424]

Socialism means everyone WINS.

Only those that live in the gutter benefit.

[Pants-of-dog]

if we want to look at who benefits from socialist policies, we should look at one or two and see.

So, universal healthcare:

1. Obviously, people who are too poor to otherwise afford treatment.
2, Businesses, because they no longer have to pay for private insurance.
3. Everyone benefits from herd immunity to infectious diseases.

What about the lack of economic exploitation I discussed earlier?

Well, everyone who was formerly exploited benefits. And the only ones who do not, or lose out, are those exploiting others.

[Julian658]

if we want to look at who benefits from socialist policies, we should look at one or two and see.

So, universal healthcare:

1. Obviously, people who are too poor to otherwise afford treatment.

Agreed. I am for national health care.

2, Businesses, because they no longer have to pay for private insurance.

Government will have to pay for it by taking money away from citizens that are productive. For the unproductive citizens this is a winner.

What about the lack of economic exploitation I discussed earlier?

Someone has to go to work POD. The only way to avoid exploitation is not going to work. A worker has to generate a profit. If the worker does not generate a profit there is no sense in hiring the worker.

[Pants-of-dog]

Anyway, all that to say that socialism benefits the entire community.

Expect for those who, for example, pay less than a subsistence wage, sexually harass employees, and otherwise exploit others.

[Julian658]

Anyway, all that to say that socialism benefits the entire community.

Expect for those who, for example, pay less than a subsistence wage, sexually harass employees, and otherwise exploit others.

Yes, you are an SJW!
Carry on POD.

[wat0n]

@wat0n wrote:


Well @wat0n I got several things to cover with you here. The problem I see is that you are making comparisons that have to do with nations who are in different positions of power over many aspects of their own societies. You got ex-colonies from the European powers. In the case of the USA of England, and in the case of Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Colombia, Venezuela, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, Chile, Rep. Dominicana, Cuba, Puerto Rico and any others I don't have time to write in right now who were colonized by Spain. You got French colonies in the Americas starting with the Caribbean islands like Martinique, Haiti, Guadeloupe, French Guyana, you got parts of Nicaragua that speak English because the British colonized that side of Nicaragua and you got the Dutch (Netherland colonies), etc. What does this mean? That the Europeans used the American colonies from Canada to Tierra del Fuego, Patagonia, etc, and everything in-between as 'extraction states'. They meant always to extract resources, labor and goods, and services from the colonies and then build their own wealth on the backs of those places they dominated. Like all Empires do. The African continent also, and Asia as evidenced by the Opium Wars with the British and colonization of Asian places like the Philippines and Kowloon and Hong Kong, and Vietnam and the list is long. Europe was busy dominating the world for its gain (mostly the elite in Europe).

This was done for centuries. What does this do to these societies? It is interesting. It creates a vacuum. Of structure. When societies are not free to create their own governments that respond to their own needs FIRST and must always serve an external master it creates a regressive and insular problem. Let me be more succinct Waton, it is basically about trying to make a functional model that is based on concepts that don't exist in that society. They don't exist. They are false models because each nation and reality has to cope with its own conditions. Not the conditions that the other society who did have the resources invested in it all along and had the possibilities of controlling its own responses. The problem is FEAR Waton. Fear of reprisals, of repression of force and coercion being used. If fear is the way an entire society must live for years because the fear of being occupied, going to war against a very mighty nation with enormous resources, etc. You compromise. Period. And it means that potential again is STUNTED. It has to be. For survival. It is the same issue with slavery Waton. People ask dumb naive questions when I taught history long ago...."Why didn't they just run away? Why stay?" The short answer is FEAR. Fear of dying and being killed, suffering and beating and reprisals. People choose loss of freedom over death. Prisoners have to do it. Individuals have to do it. And nations have to do it if they are dominated by the imperially minded nations. In capitalism people who depend strictly on their labor to negotiate a wage with? If they lose that ability to sell their labor and have no property to speak of? They own nothing, have no access to credit and have no access to education for being able to sell a skill set they possess to get better wages what happens? You fear losing your livelihood. You accept bad conditions. It is about fear Wat0n. When you are coping about changing for the better all structures in society? It is fear. You can explain to people that this or that alternative or structure is better till you are blue in the face. You can say to slaves....there is something better out there. But if they know that if they bust a move for it? DEATH and harm await them? They won't. You see it in the pandemic. People living in fear give up a lot of freedoms and a lot of rights. They have to.....because? Do they know that the structure of power is such that if you don't? You will be punished or have consequences.



All the ex-colonies have had to make compromises in order to get their own resources. Some of it are bloody fights to the death really. Over oil or natural gas, or sugar, coffee, or just about every resource. Diamonds, gold, silver, nickel, copper, minerals.

Be back later.

OK, but why were Canada and the US still able to industrialize (in Canada's case, by building an European-like social safety net that is still broadly active, the US doesn't, not because of coercion but because of a lack of a consensus to that effect since the 1980s - a consensus that was destroyed by the developments of the '70s)?

One could claim it was because they are Anglo, but so is Guyana and it did not. I think a key factor has to do with how the State is organized in Canada and the US, and the natural resource curse I mentioned earlier (even within the US you can see some of its long-term effects comparing cotton-producing slave states, that had slavery but in many ways their elites in the 19th century were similar to Latin American ones otherwise, vs the free ones). Also, when I speak of "natural resources" I mean the term in a broad sense and not just raw exports - for instance, enjoying a mild climate is also a "natural resource".

An interesting fact: During the colonial era, what would become Canada and the US were the poorest regions in the whole continent. The richest ones were Mexico, Cuba, the Hispaniola and Peru while under Spaniard sovereignty IIRC.

[Tainari88]

OK, but why were Canada and the US still able to industrialize (in Canada's case, by building an European-like social safety net that is still broadly active, the US doesn't, not because of coercion but because of a lack of a consensus to that effect since the 1980s - a consensus that was destroyed by the developments of the '70s)?

One could claim it was because they are Anglo, but so is Guyana and it did not. I think a key factor has to do with how the State is organized in Canada and the US, and the natural resource curse I mentioned earlier (even within the US you can see some of its long-term effects comparing cotton-producing slave states, that had slavery but in many ways their elites in the 19th century were similar to Latin American ones otherwise, vs the free ones). Also, when I speak of "natural resources" I mean the term in a broad sense and not just raw exports - for instance, enjoying a mild climate is also a "natural resource".

An interesting fact: During the colonial era, what would become Canada and the US were the poorest regions in the whole continent. The richest ones were Mexico, Cuba, the Hispaniola and Peru while under Spaniard sovereignty IIRC.

That is why when analyzing the causes of economic failures or lack of general middle-class growth and consumption? One must analyze carefully what are the circumstances involved. Studying it deeply is a great education in pinpointing what makes a society grow prosperous and what stagnates the economic growth.

It is in the best interest of capitalism as an economic system to link itself with freedom, democracy, and lack of racism or discrimination. It paints itself as socially responsible. For example? Let us take Coca-Cola. It is a product that causes (scientifically proven to cause or help along with the development of diabetes in people and children specifically), it raises blood sugar levels, it is made with artificial flavors and sugar that is abnormal for a drink. Most normal people if they want to sweeten something they put in maybe one, two, or three teaspoons of sugar in an 8-ounce glass or cup of the beverage they are about to drink. Coca-Cola has 11 ounces in a can and it has about 16 teaspoons of sugar in it. Does anyone really think 16 teaspoons is something a normal person would put in a cup of water or tea or coffee? No. they don't tell the person drinking it that is what it has. Some of the new soda pop Coca-Cola now has 90 calories per 11 oz. It has gone down to about six or seven teaspoons per beverage. That is a big reduction but it is still a lot more than what a person would put in a drink. It has the effect of elevating the blood sugar fast. Liquid sugar is the fastest at elevating blood sugar levels. And it causes the pancreas to produce insulin quickly and flood the cells with it to open the cells and it absorbs it quickly. If you drink it consistently? Say three pops a day? For years or months? The pancreas gets bombarded. The reaction than of the cells to protect themselves from the bombardment? This is because of insulin resistance. This means that cells that are sensitive to sugar in the blood no longer are. Inured to it to protect the flooding effect. Everything is done naturally and with a whole-food approach in nature never shocks the cells in the living organism it enters. That is done by refining a plant or food. Much like refined drugs do in the body. Heroine, cocaine, etc all are refined forms of natural things. Coca-cola is similar.

So? If they know that the product they are producing is not healthy? Will they stop producing it? No, they won't. Because under capitalism it is profitable. They spend a lot of money on ads saying that isn't it wonderful to eat your empanadas, hotdogs, tacos, pizza and etc with a COKE? Smiling people, singing, happy children, personal names printed on the cans, pretty red and white signs, benevolent polar bears, and Santa Claus all utilized to make the product social, warm, and acceptable. Because its content is poisonous.

For me? Capitalism is similar. It is marketed to appear as the best system. It does it for survival purposes. It has to be the system that is touted as the most efficient and the best and the most humane, free and good. But is it? If you break it down? It is about that reality of the client states. extraction states. Over governments and countries that hold all the wealth and live off of the many many people who work a lot and receive very little in exchange. They consume the coca-cola and believe in the system and invest their time, energy, and efforts into retaining it and being a part of it. But they rarely question what it actually is set up to do and how dedicated it is to lying and to unhealthy patterns of behavior.

it is obvious people need to live first before going to work. That is obvious with this pandemic. You got to shut down the world that does business if you have a virus that kills people and hard to contain. Life before profit. And now the capitalist banks, businesses and etc know that people have to consume and work for them to actually justify their existences. People are the essence of wealth. People working, consuming and buying and saving and investing. It can be done much better without all of the surplus going to people like Bezos or others like Sam Walton. It can be done in cooperative units where the workers are democratically in charge of their own work and their own labor value. They are really their own bosses but in a group for SAFETY and security instead of isolation and alienation.

Humans need that. They need that balance Wat0n. They can't live with the boom or bust insecurities of capitalist greed full of messages that fail to provide much-needed safety, security, and emotional and mental health for human beings. We are not robots and we are not automatons at all. We never will be. Technology and advancement should be about humanism and how to free all humans to their maximum potential. Not lie to them and treat them like expendable replacement parts. Because many of these hierarchical companies and industries all treat the lower workers like cogs in a machine or just a number. None of us are numbers. Never will be.

I think eventually the entire thing is bound to collapse. Not because of the sentimentality of worrying about worker's conditions and circumstances? But because of the waste in resources capitalist industries require in the natural world. They don't care about waste really. You can see Seaspiracy that documentary on Netflix on how many wasteful things exist with capitalist extraction, Chinese demands for bullshit shark fins, and other natural resources. They (rich and powerful nations) deprive the livelihoods of the many with fewer resources and mundane power...and it is a narrative that is shocking in its implications over time for the human race.

We got to change Wat0n. And keep making excuses for capitalist nations that refuse to change or do the hard work of acknowledging that the American worker is tired, burned out, obese, unhealthy, not connected to their personal relationships, have weak community ties, have weak marital bonds, move a lot from state to state looking for job stability in an unstable job market. Intolerance, for immigrants, for people who they are taught to dislike because they are taking something from them by being present in their nation....so many negatives.

The way out is international cooperation and investment in all aspects of maximizing human potential. Not in exploiting and ignoring needs. They need to stop lying about the purpose of the value system promoted in capitalist-dominated countries.

Once you do that you can examine the checks and balances, etc, judges and law and order wat0n. The problem the USA has now is Citizens United where very wealthy corporations are telling the politicians in DC to ignore the voters and to ignore reforms and changes. To ignore everything but the need for greater control and profit from their interests. Once people cave to that? You got the FEAR factor. The same one that keeps everyone stagnant not only in the Third World extraction countries....but in the First World nations too.

It never has been about democracy Wat0n. It has always been about POWER and PROFIT.

If it had been about balance and human needs coming first and the need to keep people healthy, productive and secure, and safe? The capitalist model would not have such deeply disturbing patterns that are contradicting it so much now. Short-term thinking and greed as the foundation never create healthy, productive and secure and safe places to work. Only unhappy and unhealthy ones. And unhappy and unhealthy people.

[wat0n]

@Tainari88 I don't think you really addressed the point. What's so different about the US and Canada?

[Tainari88]

@Tainari88 I don't think you really addressed the point. What's so different about the US and Canada?

Well, both Canada and the USA basically took over pristine lands and exploited them. Both have enormous territories. Both Canada and the USA have also used military might and genocidal tactics in dealing with Indian people and their claims to the land. The source of their initial wealth.

Both had to be independent of the European powers that colonized them Wat0n. Canada defended its borders from the USA and actually sacked Washington DC. The USA, instead of sticking to its roots there of saying they wanted and believed in self-determination pursued a course for invading and colonizing other nations. Primarily for feeding their Robber Barons in the Eastern Seaboard Wat0n.

They created an efficient system of banking and made sure the courts protected the rights of the wealthiest landowners and investors. When the American Civil War ended the newly terrorized freed sharecroppers and slaves moved to the industrializing quickly northern states. The CHinese built the railroads connecting West and East and being efficient distributors of internal products and trade for domestic and international export.

They had periods of immigration like 1880-1912 where there were enormous influx of new immigrants that lowered wages. And the battle for eight hour work days and rights was on.

If you want details of how the prosperity was done during that time period? Read Howard Zinn's book, "The People's History of the United States". It was a series of hard hitting socialists and so on who fought for unions, and progressive rights for banning child labor in factories and etc. You could also study the case of Robert Owens in Scotland who wanted to build a compassionate capitalism. It worked well up until he wanted to take the next step and make the workers the owners. That challenged the foundational principal of capitalism. Who has or retans control of the surplus and resources? Workers or wealthy bankers, investors, elites? Then the problem for Owens was grave and instant.

It has always been that problem with capitalism Wat0n. It puts power over the labor of workers as the priority in wealth distribution. Thus the issue with income inequality that has been allowed to expand exponentially in the USA as it has in Latin American countries like Mexico and others. The worker never got justice basically.

The socialists from WWII were stomped hard out of power. They were prominent in rebuilding after WWII and threatened the capitalism thing and thus the need for the Cold War. The SU did not emphasize worker ownership and consumption of goods and growth that was not authoritarian. It was fake socialism.

The capitalists had the Roosevelt leftist safety nets to protect the boom and bust vagaries of the market. Till they were removed with a series of Reaganomics and Clinton bullshit removal of Wall Street regulations.

The reality is that both societies did not do their job. To make the worker the ultimate authority and be the one in charge of everything. Not the elite.

Allende wanted to imitate or emulate some mixed economic things allowing some capitalism with worker protections and ownership. He was actually following a Scandinavian model there but the Kissinger/Nixon combo was all about Vietnam and killing off Commies. No matter what. Fear of the Red Scare.

Purging.

In the end? You will be thinking that the USA has a winning formula because you think it is about what Wat0n? Better administrators? DC in the USA framework is rife with corrupt payoffs and bribes, cronyism and relatives who are unqualified getting jobs, nepotism. casino capitalism, assassinations of presidents (see Kennedy, Lincoln, Harrison I think?), and racist presidents, see Woodrow Wilson playing the racist film depicting Blacks as rapists and killers. It is an old narrative. the birth of a Nation. You will think it has the answers. I don't. I think it going to do what all imperial nations who now control ZERO former colonies in the world. How did they lose control? Instead of learning from the mistakes of England, France, Spain, Netherlands, Portugal's vast holdings and losing them over time? The USA emulated the violence and threats and takeovers and sanctions but never got to the democracy and freedom respective parts where all grow in prosperity( in mutually beneficially relationships it is about cutting off heads and sacking purses and resources that don't belong to your nation or group). In my opinion, it is highly unproductive and has led us to this point in history. Why? You don't get any results from fear and exploitation. You never do. They got to learn the hard way Wat0n.

I think people outside the USA need to start looking for a better system than this USA one. Because they betrayed their own principles a very long time ago. Bu the socialist reforms were keeping them floating till the Far-Right Brigade showed up thinking socialism is the problem. When it was greed as a founding principle and politicians selling out their own government authority to outsiders and highest bidders.

That fault is theirs and no one else's. They never had to be the one with little to work with and no power in a globe full of extraction states. Living in fear of bombs from the USA. Hay que ser sinceros.

[Unthinking Majority]

You are mistaken. I believe this is because you equate market activity as capitalism. This is not so. There are many socialist countries such as Spain where I live and which has a socialist government which permits a thriving free market but this has nothing to do with capitalism which is a doctrine that says there is no place for the state in the functioning of an economy. You think that a so-called mixed ecomony of socialism with market activity is mixing socialism with capitalism. This is nonsense and also insulting to European socialist countries.

Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. Socialism is public ownership of the means of production.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Your definition of capitalism is wrong. You're equating capitalism with 100% laissez-faire free-market capitalism. Such a country doesn't exist on the planet and really never has. In Spain are 100% of the businesses owned by the public? If not, that's not a "socialist" state, it's a mixed economy. There haven't been any "socialist" European countries since the fall of the USSR. 100% capitalism or 100% socialism has never worked. Every western country is a mixed economy, the difference is in how much of each economy is privately vs publicly owned and regulated.

"Spain has a capitalist mixed economy.": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Spain

I did all of your homework for you. Come back when you read up and know your terms.

[wat0n]

Well, both Canada and the USA basically took over pristine lands and exploited them. Both have enormous territories. Both Canada and the USA have also used military might and genocidal tactics in dealing with Indian people and their claims to the land. The source of their initial wealth.

So did Latin American countries. Chile for instance even exterminated some indigenous peoples at the end of the 19th century (e.g. the Selk'nam), before that the largest one of them (the Mapuche) was eventually conquered and expelled to unproductive lands. It should be noted that the Mapuche had also fought the state and even intervened in its internal affairs before they were eventually subdued, so it's not like this had happened overnight or anything - it had been in the making ever since Chile had become independent from Spain and the Mapuche generally sided with the latter.

Both had to be independent of the European powers that colonized them Wat0n. Canada defended its borders from the USA and actually sacked Washington DC. The USA, instead of sticking to its roots there of saying they wanted and believed in self-determination pursued a course for invading and colonizing other nations. Primarily for feeding their Robber Barons in the Eastern Seaboard Wat0n.

Well, for starters, Canada didn't do that. It only gained a measure of independence in 1867, by 1812 it was under British control. But also, plenty of Latin American countries - particularly in South America - managed to devise independent policies from the Europeans and (indeed) Chile and Peru fought a naval war against Spain during the American Civil War, Mexico was occupied by France, later Venezuela tried to get too smart for its own good with the British and the Germans, etc. Interestingly many of those wars were the direct result of the US being unable to enforce the Monroe Doctrine during the Civil War, leaving the European powers plenty of room to try to advance their interests militarily in the region.

They created an efficient system of banking and made sure the courts protected the rights of the wealthiest landowners and investors. When the American Civil War ended the newly terrorized freed sharecroppers and slaves moved to the industrializing quickly northern states. The CHinese built the railroads connecting West and East and being efficient distributors of internal products and trade for domestic and international export.

They had periods of immigration like 1880-1912 where there were enormous influx of new immigrants that lowered wages. And the battle for eight hour work days and rights was on.

If you want details of how the prosperity was done during that time period? Read Howard Zinn's book, "The People's History of the United States". It was a series of hard hitting socialists and so on who fought for unions, and progressive rights for banning child labor in factories and etc. You could also study the case of Robert Owens in Scotland who wanted to build a compassionate capitalism. It worked well up until he wanted to take the next step and make the workers the owners. That challenged the foundational principal of capitalism. Who has or retans control of the surplus and resources? Workers or wealthy bankers, investors, elites? Then the problem for Owens was grave and instant.

It has always been that problem with capitalism Wat0n. It puts power over the labor of workers as the priority in wealth distribution. Thus the issue with income inequality that has been allowed to expand exponentially in the USA as it has in Latin American countries like Mexico and others. The worker never got justice basically.

How is that any different from what happened in Latin America under this simplistic narrative? Each and every point you mention here also took place in Latin America in some way. Even the European immigration also reached the countries south of the USA.

The socialists from WWII were stomped hard out of power. They were prominent in rebuilding after WWII and threatened the capitalism thing and thus the need for the Cold War. The SU did not emphasize worker ownership and consumption of goods and growth that was not authoritarian. It was fake socialism.

Yeah, the no true scotsman.

The capitalists had the Roosevelt leftist safety nets to protect the boom and bust vagaries of the market. Till they were removed with a series of Reaganomics and Clinton bullshit removal of Wall Street regulations.

Why were they removed?

The reality is that both societies did not do their job. To make the worker the ultimate authority and be the one in charge of everything. Not the elite.

Allende wanted to imitate or emulate some mixed economic things allowing some capitalism with worker protections and ownership. He was actually following a Scandinavian model there but the Kissinger/Nixon combo was all about Vietnam and killing off Commies. No matter what. Fear of the Red Scare.

Purging.

Before Allende, the Chilean economy already had those "mixed economic things" you mention. The Government owned and exercised a monopoly over wide sectors of the economy and particularly in some heavy industries (this was set up in the 1940s), healthcare was largely managed by the government, private education was fairly limited (only religious schools with some government subsidies and fully private schools) and the economy was largely closed (tariffs were very large). Copper was indeed not wholly owned by the government, but that's because there was little domestic ability to manage the industry.

In practice, what actually happened is that the Chilean elite would set up monopolies over the sectors that were not owned by the government (because they didn't have to compete with foreigners, it was relatively easy to do so - all under government protection). Unionized workers of those sectors would also benefit from this arrangement. This is something that, interestingly, both the Communists and the Chicago Boys would agree on, they just took radically opposed solutions - more government ownership and intervention over the whole economy, versus economic liberalization and openness to foreign competition.

Public sector unions would also do their thing, taking advantage of the monopoly they exercised over public sector labor, and would of course try to get paid as much as possible while working as little as possible. Their reasoning would be exactly the same as that of the elites, with the added advantages of claiming they were not part of them.

At last, the middle classes that were not part of both groups above could be bought off through the provision of several free social services, while the poor would be more than open to play that game and hence would vote for candidates that would deliver just that (hence why some populists were elected at the time, e.g. Carlos Ibáñez del Campo - a former military dictator from the second half of the '20s who was democratically elected as President in 1952 and ended his administration in 1958 as determined by the Constitution at the time). They are also also the kind of people the socialists were appealing to when Allende was elected in 1970, along with those in the public sector unions - all of them who were useful until their promises were impossible to deliver, leading to protests and the corresponding repression. The usual stuff in the other side of the Iron Curtain.

In the end? You will be thinking that the USA has a winning formula because you think it is about what Wat0n? Better administrators?

Actually, now that you mention it, yes I've noticed American managers seem to be more pragmatic and generally better in managing day to day operations than Chileans managers are. But that might just be my experience.

DC in the USA framework is rife with corrupt payoffs and bribes, cronyism and relatives who are unqualified getting jobs, nepotism. casino capitalism, assassinations of presidents (see Kennedy, Lincoln, Harrison I think?), and racist presidents, see Woodrow Wilson playing the racist film depicting Blacks as rapists and killers. It is an old narrative. the birth of a Nation. You will think it has the answers. I don't. I think it going to do what all imperial nations who now control ZERO former colonies in the world. How did they lose control? Instead of learning from the mistakes of England, France, Spain, Netherlands, Portugal's vast holdings and losing them over time? The USA emulated the violence and threats and takeovers and sanctions but never got to the democracy and freedom respective parts where all grow in prosperity( in mutually beneficially relationships it is about cutting off heads and sacking purses and resources that don't belong to your nation or group). In my opinion, it is highly unproductive and has led us to this point in history. Why? You don't get any results from fear and exploitation. You never do. They got to learn the hard way Wat0n.

I think people outside the USA need to start looking for a better system than this USA one. Because they betrayed their own principles a very long time ago. Bu the socialist reforms were keeping them floating till the Far-Right Brigade showed up thinking socialism is the problem. When it was greed as a founding principle and politicians selling out their own government authority to outsiders and highest bidders.

That fault is theirs and no one else's. They never had to be the one with little to work with and no power in a globe full of extraction states. Living in fear of bombs from the USA. Hay que ser sinceros.

Am I supposed to believe the same kind of stuff doesn't happen in Latin America? Nepotism is not a thing in Mexico? Racism and more general discrimination don't exist south of the USA?

I think nepotism is less extended here than in Chile as well. For instance, in Chile it's common to put your high school in your resume and I have personally been asked stuff like "Are your parents married?" and "What high school did you attend?" in job interviews in Chile, but never something even remotely like that here. And of course no one lists the high school they went to in their resumes here. This doesn't mean there is no nepotism in the USA, it probably exists in every society, just that it isn't as bad as in Chile.

At last, I doubt you want to compare how poverty in a city like Chicago looks like with how it looks like in a city like Santiago. I'd very much rather be poor here than in Santiago, all in all.

[Tainari88]

So did Latin American countries. Chile for instance even exterminated some indigenous peoples at the end of the 19th century (e.g. the Selk'nam), before that the largest one of them (the Mapuche) was eventually conquered and expelled to unproductive lands. It should be noted that the Mapuche had also fought the state and even intervened in its internal affairs before they were eventually subdued, so it's not like this had happened overnight or anything - it had been in the making ever since Chile had become independent from Spain and the Mapuche generally sided with the latter.

The big difference is a this Wat0n. The USA has the corporations get interested in a nation's resources. The case of Chile and Allende's government was mining. Copper mines. The Kennicott corporation. So Allende had a showdown with these multinational corporations. One of them was the Kennicott copper mine that has 25% of all copper on planet Earth. Copper is critical to USA infrastructure and need for military grade equipment. The USA spends a lot of money on arms and all that entails. So he (Allende accused the USA of trying to intervene and prevent his election. He was correct on that Wat0n. And the very wealthy corporations stood to lose a lot of money. But he was voted in. So they had to retaliate and have control of the resource there. Chile had something they wanted. Make it an extraction state. They needed a puppet. The USA would send in someone like John Perkins the economic hitman in, and then they get angry when they don't get a yes man puppet person dictator or elected if the man ain't a yes man he needs to be removed via violence.

The very intelligent and decorated USMC Major General Smedley Butler not only was approached a long time ago to do coups against his own presidential elections in the USA if it did not go the way of the corporations back then....but he says first it is the flag and then the military. Occupation. War. The USA spends a lot of money on militarism because it is the force for the for profit corporations to STAY in POWER and dictate for the resources of nations they don't directly control. Like Chile. Can you think of a connection that makes sense here? I can. Here:

https://www.nytimes.com/1973/04/11/arch ... alf-a.html

USMC Smedley said this:

https://fas.org/man/smedley.htm#:~:text ... e%20masses.

Can you find the reason for doing what they did? Again, resource domination. The Chileans can't control 25% of the copper mines in their own nation. The outside multinationals want to keep the profits and if the president wants to make it work for Chileans and not for them? He needs to die. Period. That is why the USA needs to spend on arms, guns, missiles and bombs galore to make sure they enforce the backing for dominance. Why else spend obscene amounts on something that doesn't benefit the average working stiff in the USA? That is the dedication required to be a superpower. Gastando mucho dinero en lo military.

Well, for starters, Canada didn't do that. It only gained a measure of independence in 1867, by 1812 it was under British control. But also, plenty of Latin American countries - particularly in South America - managed to devise independent policies from the Europeans and (indeed) Chile and Peru fought a naval war against Spain during the American Civil War, Mexico was occupied by France, later Venezuela tried to get too smart for its own good with the British and the Germans, etc. Interestingly many of those wars were the direct result of the US being unable to enforce the Monroe Doctrine during the Civil War, leaving the European powers plenty of room to try to advance their interests militarily in the region.

The British and the Canadians with them did strike back. They tried their best to retake Washington DC. The USA should have learned to respect other nations' independence movements. And independent decisions. Negotiate as equals. Don't do the world cop thing. They do the world cop thing and it is bad. But that is what Empires do.

Here:

How is that any different from what happened in Latin America under this simplistic narrative? Each and every point you mention here also took place in Latin America in some way. Even the European immigration also reached the countries south of the USA.

There is a difference Wat0n. The USA invested huge amounts in acquiring both the Panama Canal (they considered Nicaragua first but A. Sandino caused trouble and the American dictator Walker did not retain the position). They had to create strife within Colombia to help the Panamanians go along with their plots to dominate the canal for the benefit of the Empire. How do you build Empire. Violence, fear, and military. Is your excuse that what? The USA is innocent in all this shitty stuff? Latin America did not go invading North America in order to take over the land and resources, put in a Chilean puppet and take over from afar. Go to another one and do the same thing. Nope. Chile did not have the population and the landmass or the military budgets for it. Is it moral? What they do in the world? No. So don't play the game of morality if you are about mafia-style invasions and muscling people for profits. Smedley Butler wasn't fooled. He knew what that kind of move is about Wat0n.

Democratic principles? How can you claim to have democratic principles if you actively seek to undermine and interfere in other nations' elections because Kennicott or United Fruit or x or y corporations and banks need that land or resource? They can't Wat0n. Your argument is that the Latin Americans would have done the same. The truth is that no one will know because South American nations never became imperialist empires taking over the world with fear and invasions. So why assume that the USA is in the right? It has no real benefit over the long term. They promised democracy and they brought a lot of lies and underhanded crap. That is reality.

Yeah, the no true scotsman.

No, he realized the conditions improved and that workers were capable of being great workers and motivated ones if given power. But? Again that pesky thing. Can't give up power over the critical thing. Non working ultimate ownership. Must be people who don't work in that industry and sweat in there. It has to be the ones who don't really work but extract all the surplus. It is deeply problematic. But for people who think it is 'natural'. it is not a problem. It is a serious problem.

Why were they removed?

Study the period right in the middle of the Great Depression and the next decade following the end of WWII. Why would that be problematic? You should know this Wat0n. Why would that be a problem? You tell me. Why would Cornelius Rhodes be such a monster and get away with it for so long eh? A cancer hero. Why?

How to hide an Empire. They hide it from you very well. Not so well from me? I wonder why? You fell for the shit and I did not. No Disneyland for me. But it is for you. That is the difference wat0n. Listen to the professor.

Before Allende, the Chilean economy already had those "mixed economic things" you mention. The Government owned and exercised a monopoly over wide sectors of the economy and particularly in some heavy industries (this was set up in the 1940s), healthcare was largely managed by the government, private education was fairly limited (only religious schools with some government subsidies and fully private schools) and the economy was largely closed (tariffs were very large). Copper was indeed not wholly owned by the government, but that's because there was little domestic ability to manage the industry.

There is never any real domestic ability to manage something so profitable. Sort of like the Buchtel corporation and Bolivian water fights. It is all excuses Waton to just have control over other markets that those foreign investors and companies don't really have an 'in' for by being citizens and nationals of that nation. Capitalism looks for worldwide resources in order to fold it into the capitalist machine of profits and capital building. It is an anti worker. They paint private corporations as the answer to government inefficiency and corruption. It could be. But in the end, it is really about expanding control over resources. It is more convenient to have rampant corruption in many nations that are not as wealthy because it weakens its international and legal protections and makes worker pools much easier to exploit.

In practice, what actually happened is that the Chilean elite would set up monopolies over the sectors that were not owned by the government (because they didn't have to compete with foreigners, it was relatively easy to do so - all under government protection). Unionized workers of those sectors would also benefit from this arrangement. This is something that, interestingly, both the Communists and the Chicago Boys would agree on, they just took radically opposed solutions - more government ownership and intervention over the whole economy, versus economic liberalization and openness to foreign competition.

Look, Wat0n, you will continue to believe in some capitalist shit and I won't. What needs to happen is allow each nation to have the freedom to remove and put in the leadership they see fit without the fear of having a very aggressive and wealthy nation and its intelligence community (CIA and Black Ops) skewing it for themselves only. That doesn't work and destabilizes nations. Hopefully you don't think some bullshit about some Latin American inferiority gene like some do in these fora. But you are kind of a believer of the USA pristine crap. I don't go for it.

Public sector unions would also do their thing, taking advantage of the monopoly they exercised over public sector labor, and would of course try to get paid as much as possible while working as little as possible. Their reasoning would be exactly the same as that of the elites, with the added advantages of claiming they were not part of them.

And of course there is corruption in unions. But in the USA the union busting is fairly deep. It used to be a large percentage of workers. Now it is a small percentage. Why? Because places like Amazon.com and Walmart, and others are a threat to profit. The big corporations in retail among others buy off the DC crowd and make sure they make it harder to unionize workers. But Amazon workers aren't convinced the union free stuff works for their rights. It is not going well.....here you go. Your simplistic view is that all unions are not effective or necessary. They are nowadays. Big time. What do you propose? Take the abuse without complaint? Answer that wat0n? When faced with the worker complaints in this video how to fix it. Just let Amazon squeeze them dry. Don't complain? How much of a lefty are you? No me convinces:

At last, the middle classes that were not part of both groups above could be bought off through the provision of several free social services, while the poor would be more than open to play that game and hence would vote for candidates that would deliver just that (hence why some populists were elected at the time, e.g. Carlos Ibáñez del Campo - a former military dictator from the second half of the '20s who was democratically elected as President in 1952 and ended his administration in 1958 as determined by the Constitution at the time). They are also the kind of people the socialists were appealing to when Allende was elected in 1970, along with those in the public sector unions - all of them who were useful until their promises were impossible to deliver, leading to protests and the corresponding repression. The usual stuff in the other side of the Iron Curtain.

And what do people who believe like you do deliver for working people in Chile or in other nations and even workers in Amazon.com in the USA fulfillment centers? Exploitation and you don't care because it is ain't you? What do you deliver Wat0n. I had to deal with community members and others I know got to cope with problems with labor. Do you think this kind of problematic stuff is sustainable? Robots should be about liberating humans from monotonous work and letting people be trained and educated into something that pays a living wage, brings satisfaction and a job/leisure balance. Not the kind of stuff offered now. How to solve it? Socialists who are sincere can deliver. Security, decent living standards and benefits. Capitalism Bezos style doesn't deliver anything but revolving doors. Not safe. Not well paid. Not satisfying.

Actually, now that you mention it, yes I've noticed American managers seem to be more pragmatic and generally better in managing day to day operations than Chileans managers are. But that might just be my experience.

Did you work in the industries stated above in Amazon with Frontline? There are a lot of jobs in these industries. Are they well paid? No. They also cut the legs off of mom and pop hardware stores, grocery stores and so on...those sources of income are being gobbled into a big huge, corporate model. Pragmatic? Or inhumane conditions in many nations and grinding people through at home. Whatever.

Am I supposed to believe the same kind of stuff doesn't happen in Latin America? Nepotism is not a thing in Mexico? Racism and more general discrimination don't exist south of the USA?

Who claims they are the world's leader in rights and perfect economic management and civil rights and bullshit? The USA. Do you see the Mexicans saying they are number one in the world? They don't lie. They are seen as a drug dealing. narco, dumb ass incompetent Indian nation that is having people flee its borders and people are scared to live there because they are INFERIOR. The Mexicans are not drug dealers and killers on every corner. But if you believe the BULLSHIT. You believe. Lol.

I think nepotism is less extended here than in Chile as well. For instance, in Chile it's common to put your high school in your resume and I have personally been asked stuff like "Are your parents married?" and "What high school did you attend?" in job interviews in Chile, but never something even remotely like that here. And of course no one lists the high school they went to in their resumes here. This doesn't mean there is no nepotism in the USA, it probably exists in every society, just that it isn't as bad as in Chile.

How about this problem in the USA?

Fighting age discrimination, racial and sex and national origin discrimination in job hiring? LEFT people. That is reality. The Right wants to discriminate. They suck. But hey....love that Right mentality. I think Latin America needs to stop the discrimination in every nation of Latin America. But it means the Leftists getting busy and effective. Do you back that? Yes or no? Or is your argument? America is better shit? It doesn't convince. Next...

At last, I doubt you want to compare how poverty in a city like Chicago looks like with how it looks like in a city like Santiago. I'd very much rather be poor here than in Santiago, all in all.

Sure, you get food stamps in Chicago, you get unemployment insurance and government housing. Also guns and drugs and getting gang shot with the problems that comes from being surrounded by people who don't see the American dream happening and the drugs happening. I am sure getting shot with better sneakers on and some greasy chicken bucket in your hand is better than being in some poverty stricken ghetto in Santiago.

No, I think the solution is not to think about MONEY and bullshit. But justice and getting people to not have to immigrate from their nations in the first place because they see a future in their own society. Deliver the standard of living that is decent, a good education and a healthy life. That way the Chilean dream is enough for young people and don't wind up with defending the greatness of a nation they think got the truth when what it got is a nepotist, pathological liar who is a fraud king as president. But the nation doesn't have racists. While almost half of the voters did vote for a racist. Lol. Whatever Wat0n.

You still have the falsehood in there Wat0n. Poor-inferior and rich-superior. I don't agree at all.

[wat0n]

The big difference is a this Wat0n. The USA has the corporations get interested in a nation's resources. The case of Chile and Allende's government was mining. Copper mines. The Kennicott corporation. So Allende had a showdown with these multinational corporations. One of them was the Kennicott copper mine that has 25% of all copper on planet Earth. Copper is critical to USA infrastructure and need for military grade equipment. The USA spends a lot of money on arms and all that entails. So he (Allende accused the USA of trying to intervene and prevent his election. He was correct on that Wat0n. And the very wealthy corporations stood to lose a lot of money. But he was voted in. So they had to retaliate and have control of the resource there. Chile had something they wanted. Make it an extraction state. They needed a puppet. The USA would send in someone like John Perkins the economic hitman in, and then they get angry when they don't get a yes man puppet person dictator or elected if the man ain't a yes man he needs to be removed via violence.

The very intelligent and decorated USMC Major General Smedley Butler not only was approached a long time ago to do coups against his own presidential elections in the USA if it did not go the way of the corporations back then....but he says first it is the flag and then the military. Occupation. War. The USA spends a lot of money on militarism because it is the force for the for profit corporations to STAY in POWER and dictate for the resources of nations they don't directly control. Like Chile. Can you think of a connection that makes sense here? I can. Here:

https://www.nytimes.com/1973/04/11/arch ... alf-a.html

USMC Smedley said this:

https://fas.org/man/smedley.htm#:~:text ... e%20masses.

Can you find the reason for doing what they did? Again, resource domination. The Chileans can't control 25% of the copper mines in their own nation. The outside multinationals want to keep the profits and if the president wants to make it work for Chileans and not for them? He needs to die. Period. That is why the USA needs to spend on arms, guns, missiles and bombs galore to make sure they enforce the backing for dominance. Why else spend obscene amounts on something that doesn't benefit the average working stiff in the USA? That is the dedication required to be a superpower. Gastando mucho dinero en lo military.

None of this explains why is that the US was in the dominant position by 1970 while Chile was a developing country.

Also, the US government under Nixon brokered a deal where the Chilean government bought 51% of Kennecott and 25% of all the other American mines in 1969, and would buy the remaining shares in 1972. That is, the US itself had set up an agreement where Chile would be nationalizing its copper mining industry within 5 years.

The British and the Canadians with them did strike back. They tried their best to retake Washington DC. The USA should have learned to respect other nations' independence movements. And independent decisions. Negotiate as equals. Don't do the world cop thing. They do the world cop thing and it is bad. But that is what Empires do.

Here:

Chile and Peru eventually managed to resist and Spain had to desist in its attempts to reconquer part of South America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chincha_Islands_War

How is that all that different from the War of 1812?

There is a difference Wat0n. The USA invested huge amounts in acquiring both the Panama Canal (they considered Nicaragua first but A. Sandino caused trouble and the American dictator Walker did not retain the position). They had to create strife within Colombia to help the Panamanians go along with their plots to dominate the canal for the benefit of the Empire. How do you build Empire. Violence, fear, and military. Is your excuse that what? The USA is innocent in all this shitty stuff? Latin America did not go invading North America in order to take over the land and resources, put in a Chilean puppet and take over from afar. Go to another one and do the same thing. Nope. Chile did not have the population and the landmass or the military budgets for it. Is it moral? What they do in the world? No. So don't play the game of morality if you are about mafia-style invasions and muscling people for profits. Smedley Butler wasn't fooled. He knew what that kind of move is about Wat0n.

It's funny that you mention it, Chile actually intervened in Panama against US interests in 1885 (I think that's what you are talking about) as it was the largest American naval power in the Pacific at the time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_crisis_of_1885

Likewise, Argentina, Chile and Brazil were very influential in the American continent as a whole in the early 20th century, and would advance their interests as a bloc at the time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_countries

Why didn't the ABC countries manage to remain as influential geopolitically as it was at the time and was replaced by the US?

Democratic principles? How can you claim to have democratic principles if you actively seek to undermine and interfere in other nations' elections because Kennicott or United Fruit or x or y corporations and banks need that land or resource? They can't Wat0n. Your argument is that the Latin Americans would have done the same. The truth is that no one will know because South American nations never became imperialist empires taking over the world with fear and invasions. So why assume that the USA is in the right? It has no real benefit over the long term. They promised democracy and they brought a lot of lies and underhanded crap. That is reality.

How can you claim to have democratic principles when you side with socialist dictatorships each and every time?

The US at least practices democracy at home, however flawed it may be. I don't judge it for behaving abroad how all powers do, including (yes) Latin American ones when they have the opportunity.

No, he realized the conditions improved and that workers were capable of being great workers and motivated ones if given power. But? Again that pesky thing. Can't give up power over the critical thing. Non working ultimate ownership. Must be people who don't work in that industry and sweat in there. It has to be the ones who don't really work but extract all the surplus. It is deeply problematic. But for people who think it is 'natural'. it is not a problem. It is a serious problem.

What does this have to do with the fact that, in practice, socialism ends up in dictatorships?

Study the period right in the middle of the Great Depression and the next decade following the end of WWII. Why would that be problematic? You should know this Wat0n. Why would that be a problem? You tell me. Why would Cornelius Rhodes be such a monster and get away with it for so long eh? A cancer hero. Why?

How to hide an Empire. They hide it from you very well. Not so well from me? I wonder why? You fell for the shit and I did not. No Disneyland for me. But it is for you. That is the difference wat0n. Listen to the professor.

You still didn't answer the question. Why were those policies done away with?

There is never any real domestic ability to manage something so profitable. Sort of like the Buchtel corporation and Bolivian water fights. It is all excuses Waton to just have control over other markets that those foreign investors and companies don't really have an 'in' for by being citizens and nationals of that nation. Capitalism looks for worldwide resources in order to fold it into the capitalist machine of profits and capital building. It is an anti worker. They paint private corporations as the answer to government inefficiency and corruption. It could be. But in the end, it is really about expanding control over resources. It is more convenient to have rampant corruption in many nations that are not as wealthy because it weakens its international and legal protections and makes worker pools much easier to exploit.

No, there were simply very, very few engineers with expertise in mining in the 1940s (as with other professions too). That expertise would only become more extended in the 1960s (which is why the idea of nationalization began to be taken seriously even by the elites at the time).

It's interesting to see you have nothing to say about all the rest the government would directly control. I guess you are conceding Chile had a mixed economy at the time?

Look, Wat0n, you will continue to believe in some capitalist shit and I won't. What needs to happen is allow each nation to have the freedom to remove and put in the leadership they see fit without the fear of having a very aggressive and wealthy nation and its intelligence community (CIA and Black Ops) skewing it for themselves only. That doesn't work and destabilizes nations. Hopefully you don't think some bullshit about some Latin American inferiority gene like some do in these fora. But you are kind of a believer of the USA pristine crap. I don't go for it.

It's interesting you prefer to label history as "bullshit" when even the Marxists at the time broadly agreed with what I wrote there. In reality, Latin American nations already have the possibility to govern themselves as they wish - but somehow socialism ends up badly. It is particularly notable that all the current Latin American dictatorships - and I mean all of them - are socialist or claim to be.

And of course there is corruption in unions. But in the USA the union busting is fairly deep. It used to be a large percentage of workers. Now it is a small percentage. Why? Because places like Amazon.com and Walmart, and others are a threat to profit. The big corporations in retail among others buy off the DC crowd and make sure they make it harder to unionize workers. But Amazon workers aren't convinced the union free stuff works for their rights. It is not going well.....here you go. Your simplistic view is that all unions are not effective or necessary. They are nowadays. Big time. What do you propose? Take the abuse without complaint? Answer that wat0n? When faced with the worker complaints in this video how to fix it. Just let Amazon squeeze them dry. Don't complain? How much of a lefty are you? No me convinces:

The process of de-unionization began long before Amazon was ever founded. It predates the internet as well.

Unions can be useful when they don't become corrupt and when they are facing up against a single large employer. But when they become corrupt or abusive they can also be damaging, there are plenty of examples of this - and they lose their legitimacy.

And what do people who believe like you do deliver for working people in Chile or in other nations and even workers in Amazon.com in the USA fulfillment centers? Exploitation and you don't care because it is ain't you? What do you deliver Wat0n. I had to deal with community members and others I know got to cope with problems with labor. Do you think this kind of problematic stuff is sustainable? Robots should be about liberating humans from monotonous work and letting people be trained and educated into something that pays a living wage, brings satisfaction and a job/leisure balance. Not the kind of stuff offered now. How to solve it? Socialists who are sincere can deliver. Security, decent living standards and benefits. Capitalism Bezos style doesn't deliver anything but revolving doors. Not safe. Not well paid. Not satisfying.

Historically, that sort of people who think like I do have delivered stable growth and low inflation. Doesn't sound too shabby to me.

Those who think like you do deliver stagnation, inflation, populism and - eventually - totalitarianism.

Did you work in the industries stated above in Amazon with Frontline? There are a lot of jobs in these industries. Are they well paid? No. They also cut the legs off of mom and pop hardware stores, grocery stores and so on...those sources of income are being gobbled into a big huge, corporate model. Pragmatic? Or inhumane conditions in many nations and grinding people through at home. Whatever.

They are better paid than equivalent jobs in Latin America. A lot better, actually.

Why do you think this is the case?

Who claims they are the world's leader in rights and perfect economic management and civil rights and bullshit? The USA. Do you see the Mexicans saying they are number one in the world? They don't lie. They are seen as a drug dealing. narco, dumb ass incompetent Indian nation that is having people flee its borders and people are scared to live there because they are INFERIOR. The Mexicans are not drug dealers and killers on every corner. But if you believe the BULLSHIT. You believe. Lol.

Who cares about each country's global marketing efforts? I care about reality here.

I can also think of a few Latin American countries who try to sell themselves as leaders in human rights and social justice. Plenty of countries in Europe do the same. They are not behaving differently from the US in this regard.

How about this problem in the USA?

Pretty bad, but not nearly as bad as Latin American nepotism. At last that racism is illegal and fought as much as possible, the nepotism is usually condemned but then everyone plays that game.

Fighting age discrimination, racial and sex and national origin discrimination in job hiring? LEFT people. That is reality. The Right wants to discriminate. They suck. But hey....love that Right mentality. I think Latin America needs to stop the discrimination in every nation of Latin America. But it means the Leftists getting busy and effective. Do you back that? Yes or no? Or is your argument? America is better shit? It doesn't convince. Next...

The left is actually more successful in doing that in the USA as well, ironically.

Latin American leftists practice nepotism just like everyone else.

Sure, you get food stamps in Chicago, you get unemployment insurance and government housing. Also guns and drugs and getting gang shot with the problems that comes from being surrounded by people who don't see the American dream happening and the drugs happening. I am sure getting shot with better sneakers on and some greasy chicken bucket in your hand is better than being in some poverty stricken ghetto in Santiago.

Do you really want to discuss the state of murders in Latin America?

But yes, poor people can also get shot by gangs in Santiago. It happens less often than in Chicago, for sure, but it still happens. I would still pick Chicago, because I'd still have more means to get out of gang infested neighborhoods.

Do you also want to compare how government housing looks like in Chicago vs Santiago or some other large Latin American city?

No, I think the solution is not to think about MONEY and bullshit. But justice and getting people to not have to immigrate from their nations in the first place because they see a future in their own society. Deliver the standard of living that is decent, a good education and a healthy life. That way the Chilean dream is enough for young people and don't wind up with defending the greatness of a nation they think got the truth when what it got is a nepotist, pathological liar who is a fraud king as president. But the nation doesn't have racists. While almost half of the voters did vote for a racist. Lol. Whatever Wat0n.

You still have the falsehood in there Wat0n. Poor-inferior and rich-superior. I don't agree at all.

I'd take Trump's antics over a dictator's like Maduro any day. At least Trump is gone, while Maduro is in his same position, alive and kicking.

Also, voters elect all kinds of presidents: Brazilians voted for their own Trump (Bolsonaro), Mexicans voted for AMLO (who got surprisingly well with Trump and even refused to recognize Biden's election until Trump was gone), Venezuelans voted for Chavez and Maduro (and also for basically undoing their own democracy) and Nicaraguans voted for Ortega. These are just those that are still in office or who eventually became dictators, it gets worse if we begin looking back in time.

[Tainari88]

@wat0n you don't care about anything that is about getting involved to improve the conditions of poor people in many nations. I do care about that deeply. i care and I work on it as best I can every day. Years of work, years of thought.

If your dream is making money and you don't give a shit? There is nothing left to discuss. .You are just a sellout. That is very common. Asi es.

None of this explains why is that the US was in the dominant position by 1970 while Chile was a developing country.

Because Chileans are a very skinny long strip of a coast of a nation and the USA did a Manifest Destiny Indian war thing and enslaved a lot of Africans, killed off some Indians and gave them small pox infested blankets, opened up land that was either free or cheap for European settlement, and secured productive land from a nation that had vast natural resources. They then proceeded to plunder it and then put in place some laws favoring the white men with money. Lol. Do you like that summary? Lol. I prefer something a bit more interesting like this:

Your points are about what? ABC are powerful nations? They are not? Then if you are a critical thinker? You ask why they are not? Did they get that extraction problem happening from Spain, Portugal, etc? How much wealth did that take out of the lowest classes over centuries. A mathematician calculated how much wealth was extracted from slaves in the Southern USA for the length of the slavery statutes in the law....he came up with this?

Modern capitalism and slavery. A whole lot of money going on. Economic efficiency always the excuse. I say break the cycle--what do you say as an answer to not dealing with where the profit pours from? Got to deal with why people wind up not being rich? Can you answer why people are not rich in many nations? because the rich and the poor are both human beings. That is a fact. So why aren't they more equal in terms of economic might and power relationships? Is it because poor-inferior and rich-superior? No @wat0n? Then why is there inequality? Explain it. I invite you. Go ahead....

No, Wat0n I don't think people just fall into poverty by their own will only. There is a systemic thing going on.

Do you also want to compare how government housing looks like in Chicago vs Santiago or some other large Latin American city?

@wat0n you are either not making connections or don't care. I would say it is the latter.

Santiago is worse. People are poorer. Gangs in Santiago, gangs in Chicago. Did you grow up in a ghetto in Santiago or in Chicago? Probably not. Lol. But? You think you did the socioeconomic success story on your own efforts only? I really don't know your story. You sound like a person who has never really respected any kind of situation of difficulty within capitalism and think the wealthy nations got that way HOW? By being honest?

Anyone can be powerful pointing guns and doing immorality and exploitation. But it is not going to make things better at all. It is not humanist. And it is not what I am interested in.

If you want to go and keep thinking the Left does nothing and the Right has the answers or the liberals got the lead and the best thing and you just go along with it to benefit? You choose your values. They are not mine.

But the young people are becoming socialists. Why? It is like the video said. The good ole days of prosperity never came. Why?

You think your day might come. And that is all you care about Wat0n?

History is not kind....to you know what I would say eh? And you are what I thought you were.

[wat0n]

@wat0n you don't care about anything that is about getting involved to improve the conditions of poor people in many nations. I do care about that deeply. i care and I work on it as best I can every day. Years of work, years of thought.

If your dream is making money and you don't give a shit? There is nothing left to discuss. .You are just a sellout. That is very common. Asi es.

No, Wat0n I don't think people just fall into poverty by their own will only. There is a systemic thing going on.

I also care about getting people out of poverty. That's why I don't follow recipes that have already failed, like yours.

@wat0n you are either not making connections or don't care. I would say it is the latter.

Santiago is worse. People are poorer. Gangs in Santiago, gangs in Chicago. Did you grow up in a ghetto in Santiago or in Chicago? Probably not. Lol. But? You think you did the socioeconomic success story on your own efforts only? I really don't know your story. You sound like a person who has never really respected any kind of situation of difficulty within capitalism and think the wealthy nations got that way HOW? By being honest?

Anyone can be powerful pointing guns and doing immorality and exploitation. But it is not going to make things better at all. It is not humanist. And it is not what I am interested in.

If you want to go and keep thinking the Left does nothing and the Right has the answers or the liberals got the lead and the best thing and you just go along with it to benefit? You choose your values. They are not mine.

But the young people are becoming socialists. Why? It is like the video said. The good ole days of prosperity never came. Why?

You think your day might come. And that is all you care about Wat0n?

History is not kind....to you know what I would say eh? And you are what I thought you were.

Actually I spent most of my childhood on the countryside in the outskirts of Santiago, which is worse than most low income neighborhoods in the city (those at least had sewage at the time, we did not) and (ironically) we weren't poor by income, but shit happens. We moved to the city when I was 11. You know nothing about me, so don't make assumptions.

In reality, Chileans (and I'd say Latin Americans in general) who are new arrivals to Chicago and the US have trouble telling when they are getting into a sketchy neighborhood. That makes the city even more dangerous for them, and happens for a reason.

And yes, history isn't kind to failures. I agree with that, which is why it hasn't been kind to Marxism.

[Tainari88]

You are worried about failing. I get it. Failing what?

Worry about being a decent human being and a good person. Lol.

Me voy a acostar.

Tomorrow I might wake up and have to cope with your failures about being in love with a system that is all about the worst of production in terms of inhumane stuff...severe problems with failing capitalism.

Personhood or Profit. What would you say to the professor. Money making. The Moral Thing.

Buenas noches chamaco. Estoy cansada. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[Unthinking Majority]

@wat0n you don't care about anything that is about getting involved to improve the conditions of poor people in many nations. I do care about that deeply. i care and I work on it as best I can every day. Years of work, years of thought.

I'm glad you care. I think most people care. If you do care, and if anyone else here cares, then go with the data. Data never lies. The data points to Scandinavia and similar. Everything else is just bullshit in a book or on a message board. As I've said, good intentions aren't good enough. Results matter

The problem in a country like the USA is that most care, but most are also stupid, and stupid people don't go with the data because they're dumb. Theories not driven by data/evidence is just crappy social science, and crappy social science often leads to bad policies. Science works. They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, so most Americans aren't just dumb they're insane lol. The rich aren't dumb, they know what makes them money.

Economists can't predict the future and can't create something as complex as an economic system with millions of actors and millions of variables. Marx/Lenin and Milton Freidman knew a lot less than they thought they knew, had theories not backed by proper data, & used entire countries as their social experiments that often failed. Oops! Everyone wants to change the world, but progress is usually made through a series of steps building on top of another, not grand experiments made of trial and error.

So in other words, yours or anyone's good intentions are meaningless. All that matters is what you're trying to achieve and what has shown to work to achieve it.

[wat0n]

You are worried about failing. I get it. Failing what?

Worry about being a decent human being and a good person. Lol.

Me voy a acostar.

Tomorrow I might wake up and have to cope with your failures about being in love with a system that is all about the worst of production in terms of inhumane stuff...severe problems with failing capitalism.

Personhood or Profit. What would you say to the professor. Money making. The Moral Thing.

Buenas noches chamaco. Estoy cansada. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

What makes you believe one cannot reject socialism's empty promises and be a decent person?

There are plenty of hardcore capitalists who donate to charity. Are they evil in your view or what?

And yes, I worry about being a good person too. Do you?

[Rancid]

Government will have to pay for it by taking money away from citizens that are productive. For the unproductive citizens this is a winner.

It's not that simple. Taking care of the poor guy that lives down the street will mean he's less likely to rob you. I think that would be a win for the productive citizen no?

[Godstud]

@Rancid Most conservative idiots don't realize that the root cause of crime is poverty.