[Rugoz]

A constitution should define the political process and guarantee the rights necessary for said process to function. Nothing more.

IMO.

[ckaihatsu]

After five days of massive demonstrations, President Sebastián Piñera returned on the night of 22 October to address the country. During this speech, Piñera asked for forgiveness for not recognizing the issues that troubled society and announced a series of steps called the "New Social Agenda".[92] These measures incorporate a series of small and moderate changes that will address different areas of need:[93]

Pensions: 20% increase in the Basic Solidarity Pension and the Provisional Solidarity Contribution; additional increases in 2021 and 2022 for retirees over the age of 75; fiscal contributions to complement Social Security savings of the middle class and women; contributions of fiscal resources to improve pensions for older adults who are not eligible.

Health: Fix the government's catastrophic disease insurance project; create a project for medication; expand the agreement from Fansa with pharmacies to reduce the price of medication.

Wages: Complement, with fiscal funds, the salary of workers until they reach a minimum guaranteed income of 350,000 Bruto (298,800 pesos) for full-time work; for the workers that receive the minimum salary, this is an increase of 49,000 pesos.[94]

Energy: Creation of a stable mechanism for electric tariffs, that voids the 9.2% rise expected in the coming months.

Taxes: Creation of a new plan in the supplementary global tax of 40% for incomes over eight million pesos per month.

Public administration: Reduction in the allowance of parliament and high salaries of the public administration; reduction of the number of members in the parliament and limits on their re-election.

Even though some politicians value concrete proposals, many critique the proposals as insufficient given the scale of the protests, even from the ruling party.[95] Within the opposition, they critique the fact that some of the proposals subsidize or favor private businesses, being only superficial changes.[96]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%8 ... a%E2%80%9D

[wat0n]

A constitution should define the political process and guarantee the rights necessary for said process to function. Nothing more.

IMO.

Problem is, there can be radically different visions on both and particularly on how detailed the Constitution should be about their content.

@ckaihatsu do you have anything to add? The Chilean left proposed a woke Constitution, they lost.

[Pants-of-dog]

Should the left have used the same method that the right used to impose the last constitution?

[ckaihatsu]

Problem is, there can be radically different visions on both and particularly on how detailed the Constitution should be about their content.

@ckaihatsu do you have anything to add? The Chilean left proposed a woke Constitution, they lost.

You indicated that the referendum / new constitution was about *multiculturalism* -- ?

You *are* in the culture wars.

[wat0n]

Should the left have used the same method that the right used to impose the last constitution?

Oh, I'm sure the left would love to do it. It tried in its own way in 2019.

Let's see if the left will be stupid enough to try to do it after this result.

@ckaihatsu indeed, the Chilean left introduced American-style identity politics into the Chilean public discourse, just as the European left has tried to in Europe and also in other Hispanic countries, and good god it's paid a hefty price for that.

[Pants-of-dog]

Oh, I'm sure the left would love to do it. It tried in its own way in 2019.

Let's see if the left will be stupid enough to try to do it after this result.

The right did do it.

In 1973.

[wat0n]

The right did do it.

In 1973.

Indeed, and the left tried to in 2019. And failed.

Of course, they could try again. It will fail, though, and I doubt there will be any serious attempts.

[ckaihatsu]

Oh, I'm sure the left would love to do it. It tried in its own way in 2019.

Let's see if the left will be stupid enough to try to do it after this result.

@ckaihatsu indeed, the Chilean left introduced American-style identity politics into the Chilean public discourse, just as the European left has tried to in Europe and also in other Hispanic countries, and good god it's paid a hefty price for that.

Okay, hang-on, lemme catch-up.... I'll *translate*....

- The country can have a fascist *past*, but the left shouldn't put the present-day right-wing on the *defensive*, as with street protests for economic demands.

- The Chilean domestic 'problem' with renewed multiculturalist / 'woke' tendencies can be blamed on *external* (U.S.) nationalist-cultural factors, meaning the left-wing in the U.S.

- Multiculturalism *everywhere*, including in Europe and Latin America, is *bad*, and they're *sinners*.


Does *that* about sum-it-up? Are you *religious* -- ?


---

The pink tide (Spanish: marea rosa, Portuguese: onda rosa, French: marée rose), or the turn to the left (Spanish: giro a la izquierda, Portuguese: volta à esquerda, French: tournant à gauche), was a political wave and perception of a turn towards left-wing governments in Latin American democracies moving away from the neoliberal economic model at the start of the 21st century. As a term, both phrases are used in contemporary 21st-century political analysis in the news media and elsewhere to refer to a move toward more economic progressive or social progressive policies in Latin America.[1][2][3] Such governments have been referred to as "left-of-centre", "left-leaning", and "radical social-democratic".[4]

The Latin American countries viewed as part of this ideological trend have been referred to as pink tide nations,[5] with the term post-neoliberalism or socialism of the 21st century being used to describe the movement as well.[6] Some pink tide governments, such as those of Argentina, Brazil, and Venezuela,[7] have been varyingly characterized as being "anti-American",[8][9][10] as well as populist,[11][12][13] for their rejection of the Washington Consensus,[14] and as authoritarian, particularly in the case of Nicaragua and Venezuela by the 2010s.[12][15]

The pink tide was followed by the conservative wave, a political phenomenon that emerged in the early 2010s as a direct reaction to the pink tide. Some authors have proposed that there are multiple distinct pink tides rather than a single one, with the first pink tide happening during the late 1990s and early 2000s,[16][17] and a second pink tide encompassing the elections of the late 2010s to early 2020s.[18][19] A resurgence of the pink tide was kicked off by Mexico in 2018 and Argentina in 2019,[20] and further established by Bolivia in 2020,[21] along with Peru,[22] Honduras,[23] and Chile in 2021,[24] and Colombia in 2022,[25][26] with the first left-wing president-elect in Colombia's history.[27][28]

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

[Pants-of-dog]

Since the left did not impose a military dictatorship with the help of a foreign superpower ever, let alone in 2019, the historical facts show that the current constitution is an imposition from a dictatorship by the right.

[wat0n]

Since the left did not impose a military dictatorship with the help of a foreign superpower ever, let alone in 2019, the historical facts show that the current constitution is an imposition from a dictatorship by the right.

And chances are that it will be replaced. But not by a worse leftist Constitution.

The 2020 vote and the subsequent 2021 for the Convention arising from the 2019 riots were NEVER a blank check handed out to the left, much to your chagrin.

This turned out to be far, far better than I could have ever hoped. My mistake was that I truly underestimated the incompetence and general stupidity of our far left.

@ckaihatsu no, what it means is that appealing to identity politics can backfire badly if you're stupid enough to copypaste from a society with a radically different history, to then use it to excuse all sorts of wanton incompetence and to alienate wide segments of society in the process. At least Americans have a history that justifies it to some extent but, although many Americans have a lot of trouble to understand this, the US is not the world.

[ckaihatsu]

And chances are that it will be replaced. But not by a worse leftist Constitution.

The 2020 vote and the subsequent 2021 for the Convention arising from the 2019 riots were NEVER a blank check handed out to the left, much to your chagrin.

This turned out to be far, far better than I could have ever hoped. My mistake was that I truly underestimated the incompetence and general stupidity of our far left.

@ckaihatsu no, what it means is that appealing to identity politics can backfire badly if you're stupid enough to copypaste from a society with a radically different history, to then use it to excuse all sorts of wanton incompetence and to alienate wide segments of society in the process. At least Americans have a history that justifies it to some extent but, although many Americans have a lot of trouble to understand this, the US is not the world.

For the sake of clarification I don't think that identity-politics qualifies as 'far left' -- the far-left is about *workers power*, either directly or indirectly, while all-else that's *less* than class conscious would be more 'nationalist', or 'civil society' / civil rights / reformist.

Do you want to drill-down on 'civil rights', maybe -- ? It's a nexus along with 'a plurinational state' / 'multiculturalism'.


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show

[wat0n]

@ckaihatsu it is true identity politics isn't exclusive to the far left, at all. I'd even think Marxists would reject much of it, except for that based on class.

But as it is, the far left in the US, Chile and the West at large is using it for its own ends. And here we saw a case where it turned out really badly as a matter of political strategy... Thankfully.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu it is true identity politics isn't exclusive to the far left, at all. I'd even think Marxists would reject much of it, except for that based on class.

You'd be *incorrect*, interestingly -- Marxist-type political particpation (like my own, perhaps) isn't based on one's own 'inherited' class "identity", from one's birth family, but rather *has* to be a self-determining, willful, and *competent* activity, as politics is, anyway.

But as it is, the far left in the US, Chile and the West at large is using it for its own ends. And here we saw a case where it turned out really badly as a matter of political strategy... Thankfully.

Here's from previously:

I also mentioned the largely indigenous municipalities because the proposal wanted to turn Chile into a plurinational state, modeled on Evo Morales' Bolivia and Rafael Correa's Ecuador. The reject option got as high as 94% in one of these.

Is this 'plurinational state' conception a *good* thing, or a *bad* thing?


Also:


50,000 Chilean copper miners launch strike against Boric government

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/0 ... v-j24.html

[wat0n]

You'd be *incorrect*, interestingly -- Marxist-type political particpation (like my own, perhaps) isn't based on one's own 'inherited' class "identity", from one's birth family, but rather *has* to be a self-determining, willful, and *competent* activity, as politics is, anyway.

But why would a Marxist use identity classes for political ends (save for social class) in this case? Do you just mean to use it for purely tactical reasons or it's on principle?

Here's from previously:





Is this 'plurinational state' conception a *good* thing, or a *bad* thing?

It's a bad thing. In practice, the plurinationality in the proposed constitution did away with what the US calls "equal protection under the law".

In fact, some articles explicitly mandated granting special protection to some rights for indigenous peoples. For example, indigenous property was to be specially protected under article 79.

Article 191 granted greater political rights to indigenous peoples in local entities (which in the US would be state and local government). Specifically, any policies affecting their rights - cultural, collective, individual - determined at the local level had to get their previous, informed, free consent. Hence, they'd for example be able to veto zoning laws they did not like, even if a majority of voters in the community supported them. And only they had that type of right.

Also:


50,000 Chilean copper miners launch strike against Boric government

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/0 ... v-j24.html

Completely different matter. This one was environmentalism vs worker interests.

[ckaihatsu]

But why would a Marxist use identity classes for political ends (save for social class) in this case? Do you just mean to use it for purely tactical reasons or it's on principle?

I think this is your facile conflation of 'Marxist', with 'identity classes' / identity-politics -- again, far-leftism is concerned with *workers power*, which itself *transcends* a civil-rights-type championing of one's own 'social identity' through one's own professed politics, identity, and activity for the same.

In other words *workers power* is *already* 'multicultural', and more, because it would remove all social privations that are currently based on class, meaning those of (social-minority) *oppression*, due to bourgeois class rule over the working class.

It's a bad thing. In practice, the plurinationality in the proposed constitution did away with what the US calls "equal protection under the law".

In fact, some articles explicitly mandated granting special protection to some rights for indigenous peoples. For example, indigenous property was to be specially protected under article 79.

Article 191 granted greater political rights to indigenous peoples in local entities (which in the US would be state and local government). Specifically, any policies affecting their rights - cultural, collective, individual - determined at the local level had to get their previous, informed, free consent. Hence, they'd for example be able to veto zoning laws they did not like, even if a majority of voters in the community supported them. And only they had that type of right.

Isn't this just the regular tokenism, like Native American 'nations', and internal sovereignty, within the United States -- ?

Where's the harm? You're sounding arbitrarily *formalistic*.

Completely different matter. This one was environmentalism vs worker interests.

[wat0n]

I think this is your facile conflation of 'Marxist', with 'identity classes' / identity-politics -- again, far-leftism is concerned with *workers power*, which itself *transcends* a civil-rights-type championing of one's own 'social identity' through one's own professed politics, identity, and activity for the same.

In other words *workers power* is *already* 'multicultural', and more, because it would remove all social privations that are currently based on class, meaning those of (social-minority) *oppression*, due to bourgeois class rule over the working class.

Then why would you participate in ethno-nationalist politics like indigenism?

Isn't this just the regular tokenism, like Native American 'nations', and internal sovereignty, within the United States -- ?

Where's the harm? You're sounding arbitrarily *formalistic*.

No it's not the same thing as in the US. In the US, reservations have internal sovereignty but there's equal protection under the law outside them.

Under the Chilean proposal, which also allowed the creation of something similar to reservations (ironically), these provisions apply everywhere as long as it involves the local government and not just in reservations. That's how the article is written, and we know that because it also has a far more "normal" provision mandating some degree of direct democracy at those levels.

[ckaihatsu]

Then why would you participate in ethno-nationalist politics like indigenism?

Anti-oppression struggles, depending on the actual situation.

No it's not the same thing as in the US. In the US, reservations have internal sovereignty but there's equal protection under the law outside them.

Under the Chilean proposal, which also allowed the creation of something similar to reservations (ironically), these provisions apply everywhere as long as it involves the local government and not just in reservations. That's how the article is written, and we know that because it also has a far more "normal" provision mandating some degree of direct democracy at those levels.

Ohhh, it sounds like a regional / continental *confederation* of indigenous-identity-based polities, to somewhat 'devolve' currently-existing Western-type polities -- a 'return' to pre-Western social structures. Got it.

[pugsville]

Oh, I'm sure the left would love to do it. It tried in its own way in 2019.

Let's see if the left will be stupid enough to try to do it after this result.

@ckaihatsu indeed, the Chilean left introduced American-style identity politics into the Chilean public discourse, just as the European left has tried to in Europe and also in other Hispanic countries, and good god it's paid a hefty price for that.

ALL politics *IS* identity politics, always has been. It's nothing new. It's just a label thrown on to deligitimise some politics. The Use of Label is just another example of age old identity politics in action.

[ckaihatsu]

ALL politics *IS* identity politics, always has been. It's nothing new. It's just a label thrown on to deligitimise some politics. The Use of Label is just another example of age old identity politics in action.

Sorry, but this just *isn't* true -- consider the slogan of 'E Pluribus Unum' ('From many, one'), which is nationalist-multiculturalist, it could be argued.

I think the *definition* of identity politics is that one is representing one's *own* chosen social identity, *politically*, and not strictly for one's own *lifestyle* of it.


‭History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show

(Note 'identity politics' on the 'reformist' plank in the following diagram.)


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show