Argentina elects chainsaw-wielding libertarian - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties from Mexico to Argentina.

Moderator: PoFo Latin America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15296680
Truth To Power wrote:Lots of countries don't follow the lead of Uncle Sam, but only a socialist handful are blockaded.


...but only a "resource-strategic" handful are blockaded.
(more accurate)

The West has only one policy: MOAR!
#15296681
QatzelOk wrote:But what about countries like France and Canada, where the "left" has just become a bunch or rich people who support identity politics causes that are trending and don't seem to care about income equality at all anymore?

Doesn't this demonstrate that the word "socialist" has become a floating signifier that today mostly means "promotes social policies that make the wealthy feel less guilty for their economic predation on the rest of society?"

If this is what Argentina's electable "left" has become, then it makes sense that many Argentinians might have given up at this point, and said "fuck it" and voted for social suicide.

Like Americans did when they voted Trump. "We can't mold our own society to stop from getting ripped off, so we will destroy our society by placing an X next to a crazy person's name."


All this gets solved by getting some gangster leftists to go and start killing industrialists and powerful bankers and so on.

Colombia had a problem with drug dealers taking over neighborhoods in Colombian cities and small rural towns too. The people in those places that had to live with the killings and mafia and shit got fed up with it. They put on some hoods and hid behind masks the same as the drug dealers and mafiosos did, and waited for them to sleep. Then went and started executing them. They killed a good amount and then Colombia calmed down drastically with the killing the average Colombian on the street.

If they did that to the ones with the wealth and not doing shit for anyone else? All that lack of action would change drastically probably. Suddenly long vacations and higher wages and standards for working people would suddenly be approved. It is terrible that violence is very effective with the intransigent and the uncaring.

Why have to wait for some crazy shit to come down on you? Act when you do not have crazy shit being done.
#15296686
@Truth To Power wrote:

Lots of countries don't follow the lead of Uncle Sam, but only a socialist handful are blockaded.


No, the countries that do not fall into line with the USA government agenda do get tremendous pressure, if they depend on trade or loans to get ahead. Many examples of that all over the world.

The USA sets up smokescreens of they are not following human rights. But Saudi Arabia violates human rights all the time. But they never get blockaded. No, it has to be that they do not fall into line with the agenda.

The Economic Hitman J. Perkins said it best:





if they can't control you? I have to punish you with economics severely. Make these nations with notions of self-determination and independence scream in pain. They have to give us what we want or we will punish them. It is really about the dictatorship of US rule. All over the world.

Most small nations like Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Chile, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic and even much larger nations Mexico has to COMPLY. If they do not? They will be punished economically and maybe even have civil wars stoked with money for war for the side the US government wants to be in power.

It is highly unethical and nasty. But it is commonplace.
#15296751
Truth To Power wrote:Please explain what makes it "corporatist." They nationalized the oil industry, which at that time was the lion's share of the economy (it has since collapsed).

Lots of countries don't follow the lead of Uncle Sam, but only a socialist handful are blockaded.


@Truth To Power :

Venezuela has a mixed economy, explicitly so. Neither fish nor foul, it finds itself having the downsides of both without the upsides of either.

Socialist countries are blockaded because they not only oppose Uncle Sam, they would provide an alternative if allowed to freely operate.

Oh, and the joke about " we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us" is unknown in its origin. Human nature being what it is, even under a better system than Capitalism people will still grumble and grouse.
#15296752
QatzelOk wrote:But what about countries like France and Canada, where the "left" has just become a bunch or rich people who support identity politics causes that are trending and don't seem to care about income equality at all anymore?

Doesn't this demonstrate that the word "socialist" has become a floating signifier that today mostly means "promotes social policies that make the wealthy feel less guilty for their economic predation on the rest of society?"

If this is what Argentina's electable "left" has become, then it makes sense that many Argentinians might have given up at this point, and said "fuck it" and voted for social suicide.

Like Americans did when they voted Trump. "We can't mold our own society to stop from getting ripped off, so we will destroy our society by placing an X next to a crazy person's name."


@QatzelOk :

You are entirely correct in this. They're pretty worthless and that is a feature not a bug.
#15296795
Truth To Power wrote:How is Cuba "resource strategic"?


If Cuba's independence from American predation "inspires" the rest of Latin America (and beyond), a lot of resource-rich countries could be "inspired" to attempt the same type of revolution.

And that would mean the end of a lot of important mineral contracts for multinationals, which is all that our post-genocidal "countries" care about - enriching the multinationals.
#15296815
annatar1914 wrote:Venezuela has a mixed economy, explicitly so. Neither fish nor foul, it finds itself having the downsides of both without the upsides of either.

Well, it's true that they have done the opposite of China -- nationalized producer goods but left land in private ownership -- and gone through the predictable economic collapse. But that still doesn't explain why you think they are "corporatist."
Socialist countries are blockaded because they not only oppose Uncle Sam, they would provide an alternative if allowed to freely operate.

Then you agree Venezuela is socialist.
Oh, and the joke about " we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us" is unknown in its origin.

I remember when it first appeared, and it was from the Soviet Union.
Human nature being what it is, even under a better system than Capitalism people will still grumble and grouse.

And socialism is an even worse system than capitalism.
#15296816
QatzelOk wrote:If Cuba's independence from American predation "inspires" the rest of Latin America (and beyond), a lot of resource-rich countries could be "inspired" to attempt the same type of revolution.

So it's not resource strategic.
And that would mean the end of a lot of important mineral contracts for multinationals, which is all that our post-genocidal "countries" care about - enriching the multinationals.

Then why isn't Norway or Saudi Arabia blockaded?
#15296822
Truth To Power wrote:So it's not resource strategic.

Then why isn't Norway or Saudi Arabia blockaded?


because Saudi Arabia does the US government's bidding and Norway is a part of the EU and has more influence as part of a greater whole. If the USA could force the issue with Norway or get some needed shit out of it? It would.

Lol.

This is the reasoning behind not blockading Saudi Arabia. It is not its human rights record.

The core logic underpinning the relationship is that the United States of America (U.S.) provides military protection of the Kingdom in exchange for a reliable oil supply from the Saudis, pricing of oil in U.S. dollars, and Saudi support for American foreign policy operations across the world.


Why not blockade Norway?

This is a good read for that answer TTP:

https://cimsec.org/why-the-us-is-losing ... -about-it/

No, the US only loves fucking over nations that they need to control or dominate or have it a bad example of standing up to their hegemony like John Perkins discussed in the above post. That is what the policy is about. They control Latin America. The day they stop controlling Latin America and Mexico does not have a signed agreement with Russia stating that it will never allow missiles or nukes of Russian origin on Mexican soil and instead does allow Russian and Chinese missiles and isolates the USA? That is when they will find an excuse to pressure Mexico and go for a bloody war.

They are bullies in the extreme (the USA government). Imperialistic, bullies and assholes. Sorry, but that is who they are in international politics. They only love fucking around with small nations too. Not the ones with a lot of land, resources, and nukes. They love fucking over the ones with the least ability to fight back economically or strategically. The sign of a bully boy.
#15296897
Truth To Power wrote:Well, it's true that they have done the opposite of China -- nationalized producer goods but left land in private ownership -- and gone through the predictable economic collapse. But that still doesn't explain why you think they are "corporatist."

Then you agree Venezuela is socialist.

I remember when it first appeared, and it was from the Soviet Union.

And socialism is an even worse system than capitalism.


@Truth To Power :

1. Corporatism, as in " Third Way" politics and economics.

2. Venezuela is not totally blockaded, restrictions on her economy keep the price of oil down and persons dislocated by economic problems can enter the cheap labor pool elsewhere. That's the way some reason.

3. The old phrase appeared and was attributed to Soviet workers by people in the West. As was around then too.

4. Socialism doesn't fix human nature, but is more just and equitable. It requires a heavier level of popular engagement and of vigilance in citizenship than under other systems.
#15296905
annatar1914 wrote:4. Socialism doesn't fix human nature, but is more just and equitable. It requires a heavier level of popular engagement and of vigilance in citizenship than under other systems.


No system ought to even try to "fix" human nature. A system that works need to take real human and other nature... into account. Otherwise, it won't last more than the time it takes to destroy its life-support systems.

Likewise, people who point to countries that are suffering, and scream "socialism" or "capitalism," need to take a step back and realize that other factors are also strongly at play, including the internal battles between socialists and capitalists.

Societies are more complex than simply "innees and outees."
#15296939
annatar1914 wrote:1. Corporatism, as in " Third Way" politics and economics.

Sorry, that's completely uninformative. Anything that isn't capitalism or socialism is a "third way."
2. Venezuela is not totally blockaded, restrictions on her economy keep the price of oil down and persons dislocated by economic problems can enter the cheap labor pool elsewhere. That's the way some reason.

No idea what you are trying to say, here.
3. The old phrase appeared and was attributed to Soviet workers by people in the West. As was around then too.

No, it first appeared in the USSR and was reported to the West by people who lived and worked there.
4. Socialism doesn't fix human nature, but is more just and equitable.

It's directly contrary to human nature, and is even less just and equitable than capitalism. I believe it was Aristotle who said, "The worst form of inequality is trying to make unequals equal."
It requires a heavier level of popular engagement and of vigilance in citizenship than under other systems.

No, it makes popular engagement and vigilance futile by putting everything under the political control of those who are most astute at controlling others -- as has happened in every socialist society in history.
#15296941
Image

A recent polar bear election in Greenland has pushed global warming off the agenda, as heatlamp-wielding Murray Oursington has become the king of that country's polar bears.

He promises to melt all the ice and kill all the fish and seals. He says his platform is "pro-human."

Is this similar to the recent election in Argentina?
#15296953
QatzelOk wrote:No system ought to even try to "fix" human nature. A system that works need to take real human and other nature... into account. Otherwise, it won't last more than the time it takes to destroy its life-support systems.

Likewise, people who point to countries that are suffering, and scream "socialism" or "capitalism," need to take a step back and realize that other factors are also strongly at play, including the internal battles between socialists and capitalists.

Societies are more complex than simply "innees and outees."


This is a very vital point you have brought home. Many simplistic thinkers think that nations in Latin America, Africa, Asia, etc in different continents are all in perfect agreement with everything going on in those nations. They are not. They are often in internal wars for power. The issue becomes who the outside influence imperialists decide to back because they have promised them power.

Then it is not about that nation's ability to work on their society. It becomes the plaything of outside interests. The US government hates the idea of being manipulated by Russian troll farms or Chinese government data manipulations. But the US government through the CIA and other agencies does that shit all the time with nations with limited resources and inability to invest heavily in combating false propaganda.

No one questions the version of events presented in the USA. It is interesting but often even the most conserevative Mexican journalistic outlets often have totally different perspectives on international news than there exists within the USA. It is so incredibly biased in the US version of events simply because the corporations control media so thoroughly. Most commercial media is controlled by wealthy elites but many of the wealthy elites in other nations do not have the same commercial and political interests as the ones in the USA do, and as such their media has no stake in the game to play that the US media does.

I think Hillary Clinton complained a lot about having media from other nations find an audience in the USA. She disapproved because she felt the right to control information in the US domestic market was key to manufacturing consent for many of the Washington DC establishment's foreign policy goals.
#15297142
Truth To Power wrote:Sorry, that's completely uninformative. Anything that isn't capitalism or socialism is a "third way."

No idea what you are trying to say, here.

No, it first appeared in the USSR and was reported to the West by people who lived and worked there.

It's directly contrary to human nature, and is even less just and equitable than capitalism. I believe it was Aristotle who said, "The worst form of inequality is trying to make unequals equal."

No, it makes popular engagement and vigilance futile by putting everything under the political control of those who are most astute at controlling others -- as has happened in every socialist society in history.


@Truth To Power

Gazing on what you are writing I find myself emersed in all the tired old anti left tropes of the cold war era. You folks won. Now look around you: like what you see?
#15297159
annatar1914 wrote:@Truth To Power

Gazing on what you are writing I find myself emersed in all the tired old anti left tropes of the cold war era.

No you don't. The Cold War trope was, "Capitalism good, communism bad." My position is that socialism -- which is what the USSR, Maoist China, Cuba, etc. actually had -- is even worse than capitalism. You are merely unable to conceive the possibility that capitalism and socialism are not the only alternatives.
You folks won. Now look around you: like what you see?

I don't like what I see because "my folks" certainly did not win -- although we had a small victory when China used the geoist Hong Kong model to achieve the greatest economic miracle in the history of the world in a single generation, despite its legacy of socialist incompetence and corruption and the malign influence of Western finance capitalism.
#15297161
Truth To Power wrote:No you don't. The Cold War trope was, "Capitalism good, communism bad." My position is that socialism -- which is what the USSR, Maoist China, Cuba, etc. actually had -- is even worse than capitalism. You are merely unable to conceive the possibility that capitalism and socialism are not the only alternatives.

I don't like what I see because "my folks" certainly did not win -- although we had a small victory when China used the geoist Hong Kong model to achieve the greatest economic miracle in the history of the world in a single generation, despite its legacy of socialist incompetence and corruption and the malign influence of Western finance capitalism.


So, you don't include in the Chinese "legacy" the country's tyranny and suppression of dissent?
#15297182
Robert Urbanek wrote:So, you don't include in the Chinese "legacy" the country's tyranny and suppression of dissent?

I do, but it's not clear how they impacted its economic achievements. Being able to suppress dissent could increase investor confidence. Western corporations have enjoyed very profitable arrangements in China in part because they don't have to worry about unions, environmentalists, etc. Just sayin'.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 12

The United Nations have had the Decolonization Co[…]

https://twitter.com/tracker_deep/status/1749364479[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://twitter.com/Tinta19689015/status/176034198[…]

Are blacks who violently attack whites racist? […]