Argentina elects chainsaw-wielding libertarian - Page 5 - 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.
#15297367
Potemkin wrote:I think Argentina is a good example of what can happen when a nation collectively refuses to face reality for several generations. Peronism was based on selling a fantasy, the Communists in the 1960s were indulging in wish-fulfilment fantasies, the brutal right-wing dictatorship was based on fantasy, every government since then has been selling a fantasy, and now Javier Milei is selling a different fantasy. Like all the previous fantasies, it too will fail.

And it’s not just Argentina. Trump won in 2016 because enough voters bought into the MAGA fantasy he was selling, and Brexit happened because enough Brits bought into the fantasy the Brexiteers were selling. In both cases, there was a collective refusal on the part of an entire nation to face reality.


Politicians are indeed keen on selling fantasies. Milei does, too, although he has sold his own as restoring Argentina over the long term - 35 years into the future, if he manages to undo peronism. At least he isn't promising short term solutions.

Then again, Marxism does the same so who knows?
#15297381
Beren wrote:On paper Milei just would be fine. An economics professor discussing economic issues mostly while promising long-term solutions to his country's acute problems.

Image
:lol:

Well, I’m convinced. What could possibly go wrong? :excited:
#15297383
JohnRawls wrote:...Peronism ruined Argentina. Hunta also ruined Argentina. Let the guy cut everything, let him open the country to the world and lets see how it goes. It can't get worse for Argentina honestly.


I have a few latino friends who support various right-wing governments in the region. They often say things like "his government is doing a good job" about governments that have recently killed thousands of their own citizens.

So be careful about "following" the narratives that are being constructed by media-viewers.
#15297394
QatzelOk wrote:I have a few latino friends who support various right-wing governments in the region. They often say things like "his government is doing a good job" about governments that have recently killed thousands of their own citizens.

So be careful about "following" the narratives that are being constructed by media-viewers.


Milei man might be another version of Operation Condor. He keeps saying he is into liberty. But where are the concrete policy directives? He has none really. It is all about the nation is going down the tubes because of the Communists, Socialists and lack of neoliberalism in economics.

That song was sung before: (From Wikipedia) La Guerra Sucia in Argentina:

The Dirty War (Spanish: Guerra sucia) is the name used by the military junta or civic-military dictatorship of Argentina (Spanish: dictadura cívico-militar de Argentina) for the period of state terrorism[12][10][13] in Argentina[14][15] from 1974 to 1983 as a part of Operation Condor, during which military and security forces and death squads in the form of the Argentine Anticommunist Alliance (AAA, or Triple A)[16] hunted down any political dissidents and anyone believed to be associated with socialism, left-wing Peronism, or the Montoneros movement.[17][18][19][20]

It is estimated that between 22,000 and 30,000 people were killed or disappeared, many of whom were impossible to formally document due to the nature of state terrorism;[21][12][10] however, Argentine military intelligence at the time estimated that 22,000 people had been murdered or disappeared by 1978.[22] The primary target, like in many other South American countries participating in Operation Condor, were communist guerrillas and sympathisers, but the target of Operation Condor also included students, militants, trade unionists, writers, journalists, artists and any citizens suspected of being left-wing activists.[23] The disappeared included those thought to be a political or ideological threat to the junta, even vaguely, or those seen as antithetical to the neoliberal economic policies dictated by Operation Condor.[17][18][19] All were killed in an attempt by the junta to silence social and political opposition.[24]

By the 1980s, economic collapse, public discontent, and the disastrous handling of the Falklands War, resulted in the end of the Junta and the restoration of democracy in Argentina, effectively ending the Dirty War. Many members of the junta are currently in prison for crimes against humanity and genocide.[25][26] The Dirty War left a profound impact on Argentine culture, which is still felt to this day.

In other words folks, unless you on board with the neoliberal Kissinger prescriptions for prosperity? You need to die or be jailed and tortured.

This the is the reason for the hesitation in believing in all this shit about Milei solving the problems of the nation of Argentina with rants about hating socialism.

If he really thinks the invisible hand of the free market is going to solve their issues? Then go and do so. He does not present policy. He does not deal with long term plans. Just freedom for everyone. Freedom to pay with inflation crazy nutty shit and no end in sight.

The IMF is charging interest payments. No one talks about that one.

NEOLIBERALISM IN ARGENTINA IT SUCKED:

#15297440
Potemkin wrote:I think Argentina is a good example of what can happen when a nation collectively refuses to face reality for several generations. Peronism was based on selling a fantasy, the Communists in the 1960s were indulging in wish-fulfilment fantasies, the brutal right-wing dictatorship was based on fantasy, every government since then has been selling a fantasy, and now Javier Milei is selling a different fantasy. Like all the previous fantasies, it too will fail.

And it’s not just Argentina. Trump won in 2016 because enough voters bought into the MAGA fantasy he was selling, and Brexit happened because enough Brits bought into the fantasy the Brexiteers were selling. In both cases, there was a collective refusal on the part of an entire nation to face reality.


It is a fantasy until it is not. It will be a fantasy if it won't work out. Basically you might not like the guy but he and his ideology earned a chance due to absence of any real alternatives in Argentina right now. The people seem to agree also.

Can it work though? I mean, on paper it is what Argentina needs. Reality is more crueler though, there are things that we can't forsee nor does an election make the changes possible. Argentina has so many problems that fixing them during one turn is not viably possible. So let him start and see where the wind blows. At the end of the day, Argentina is very rich in both natural resources and people. Argentina should be one of the best economies in the world if you look at starting conditions but so is Russia for example. Neither of them are even close to doing 1/5th of their potential.
#15297448
wat0n wrote:It depends on how you define "work". Milei's plan can certainly stop inflation (after causing a lot of short term pain) but it's not as clear if it would allow Argentina reach the per capita GDP levels of France.


Argentina needs multiple decades of growth to reach France. The problem of Argentina is that its trajectory has been on decline or stalling, stuck in its position for a long time or declining. If Milei opens the market and starts competing globally then sure, the autarchy enterprises will go bust and get bought out but it will bring economic eficency that they will get modernised, will start to compete globally and will not be subsidies while providing export output. Then if he cuts the government big time, it won't resolve the problem of corruption fully but it will make corruption much less of a problem if the government is smaller and there is less to steal.

That is how Argentina was best or one of the best economies in the first place until it started its Peronist/Autarchy/Leftist journey. ARgentina sacrificed economic efficiency and administrative efficiency for stability but that killed the economy. And now they do not have both stability and an economy.
#15297663
Tainari88 wrote:Milei man might be another version of Operation Condor...

In other words folks, unless you on board with the neoliberal Kissinger prescriptions for prosperity? You need to die or be jailed and tortured. ...


Here, you mention a tactic that is common to all political crises. When the going get tough and lots of people oppose your tactics, make other tactics illegal.

It's like saying that you can't be criticized because... it is the criticism that is causing the failure, and NOT your own policy framework.

Every soon-to-be-beheaded dicator in history has resorted to this "clampdown on criticism" as a step along the road to the guillotine. Why does this tactic still "work?"

***

JohnRawls wrote:...Argentina is very rich in both natural resources and people. Argentina should be one of the best economies in the world if you look at starting conditions but so is Russia for example. Neither of them are even close to doing 1/5th of their potential.


You mean they could be exploiting their non-renewable resources at five times the current speed?

Maybe the IMF will force them to do this, and pollute the hell out of their ecosystems. LIkewise, the IMF will probably want to buy off most of their infrastructure.

Why does this give you hope? Is your chainsaw on hair-trigger mode?
#15297666
QatzelOk wrote:Here, you mention a tactic that is common to all political crises. When the going get tough and lots of people oppose your tactics, make other tactics illegal.

It's like saying that you can't be criticized because... it is the criticism that is causing the failure, and NOT your own policy framework.

Every soon-to-be-beheaded dicator in history has resorted to this "clampdown on criticism" as a step along the road to the guillotine. Why does this tactic still "work?"

***



You mean they could be exploiting their non-renewable resources at five times the current speed?

Maybe the IMF will force them to do this, and pollute the hell out of their ecosystems. LIkewise, the IMF will probably want to buy off most of their infrastructure.

Why does this give you hope? Is your chainsaw on hair-trigger mode?


No Qatz, they are not at even 1/5th at using their human potential by educating their people and then creating something out of it. Around 50% of US GDP is related to technical innovation and patents created. The other 50% is everything else like services mostly in many, many categories. And only miniscule part is resources of some sort like oil or gas or land.

You and others are indoctrinated or something on this topic. Nobody cares about pure resources anymore. You just need some but majority of wealth is accumulated by innovation and research by now. Human capital at its finest and implementation of what that human capital creates in to marketable and usable products.

It is like you and mostly commies live in the start of the 20th century or earlier.

Think of things that you actually use:
1) Mobile phone? That is mostly innovation like fully.
2) Computers? That is mostly innovation like fully.
3) Internet? Same thing.

The only 2 things that actually consumes raw resources out of things that you use is perhaps your car (Since it takes a lot of them to make it and use it) and your House.

Even the simplest things like food, furniture all require a lot of innovation to produce them efficiently from genetic seeds, proper equipment to proper processes. TLDR here, the resource share in modern products is miniscule compared to everything else.
#15297668
JohnRawls wrote:No Qatz, they are not at even 1/5th at using their human potential by educating their people and then creating something out of it. Around 50% of US GDP is related to technical innovation and patents created. The other 50% is everything else like services mostly in many, many categories. And only miniscule part is resources of some sort like oil or gas or land.

You and others are indoctrinated or something on this topic. Nobody cares about pure resources anymore. You just need some but majority of wealth is accumulated by innovation and research by now. Human capital at its finest and implementation of what that human capital creates in to marketable and usable products.

It is like you and mostly commies live in the start of the 20th century or earlier.

Think of things that you actually use:
1) Mobile phone? That is mostly innovation like fully.
2) Computers? That is mostly innovation like fully.
3) Internet? Same thing.

The only 2 things that actually consumes raw resources out of things that you use is perhaps your car (Since it takes a lot of them to make it and use it) and your House.

Even the simplest things like food, furniture all require a lot of innovation to produce them efficiently from genetic seeds, proper equipment to proper processes. TLDR here, the resource share in modern products is miniscule compared to everything else.


John Rawls, where is the money for infrastructure going to come from? Massive loans for massive upgrades to electrical grids, and building roads, bridges, airports, cell phone towers, rail systems with fast trains and public transport, and renewable sustainable energy setups...where are you going to get the MONEY for that without an IMF loan if the Right wing asshole in Argentina took the debt free budget that the supposedly dumb Leftists left behind (the Kirschners), and took those enormous loans and did not use it in anything productive because they are opportunistic and corrupt right wing assholes who do not care about fixing problems.

They just make sure they create debt with the IMF people and the neoliberal policies.

Did you see the videos I posted? They did the neoliberal agenda in Argentina. It does not work. Do you need another forty videos of how the neoliberal shit never worked for Latin America because of corruption by mostly RIGHT WING PRO USA governments? And the neoliberals? El PRI and the PAN were neoliberal right center parties in Mexico. They did a terrible job with the money they got. It was horrible for Mexico. How about in El Salvador? Guatemala? Colombia? etc....do we need to go over how many failed neoliberal shit happened in those nations? It does not work.

Who was responsible for neoliberalism being the IMF centerpiece for the developing world? Greenspan in the Clinton administration. Milton Friedman and his University of Chicago school John. For the developing world with Right wing free market invisible hand people it never worked. At all. If it worked everyone would be prosperous in Latin America right now. They are not prospering.

As for Wat0n saying the Chilean miracle happened? Chile had to be stuck with a dictator military general responsible for thousands of tortured people who died and were disappeared. Like in Argentina. A total lockdown on Leftists in those nations. Violence and death. Death squads. To follow a neoliberal model.

Is that success? In the Chilean case Michelle Bachelet had her father killed. She was a socialist democratically elected president of Chile. They tortured and killed thousands of people. She was imprisoned as well. All to keep them from being elected into office. They lost that fight. The socialists are back. Despite the murders, tortures and bullshit. Why? If the neoliberal Chicago Milton Friedman, Kissinger, rabid anti-Communism equals PROSPERITY and good times for all?

It does equal good times for all. It keeps people and nations in perpetual debt servitude and in paying off interest payments in not favorable terms and it creates austerity measures that make life hard on the working class. The vast majority of Latin America is working class.

It fails the vast majority. I am about fixing issues for the vast majority. Not for a wealthy elite used to running things nad stealing from the public coffers. That shit is everywhere and no one likes it.
#15297669
@JohnRawls This is an excerpt from a breakdown of neoliberal economics.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neoliberalism/


It is part of a criticism of neoliberalism. It is true criticism. And the model has been tried in Latin America. It does not work because it is about letting all human relationships break down into commercial transactions without any sense of social obligations and denying workers in having a lot of control over their ourplus value.

This is the issue I have with it. What is your rebuttal of such criticisms?

7. Criticisms of Neoliberalism
This section covers criticisms of neoliberalism, but it leaves out a great many of them. The reason for this is that many of the most well-known criticisms of neoliberalism are simply criticisms of capitalism as such. Accordingly, this section focuses on criticisms aimed directly at neoliberalism.

7.1 Ethos Criticisms
Many criticize neoliberalism for structuring society around the market, commodifying market relations, and in general manipulating people into serving the ends of what is best for commerce or economic production. In this way, neoliberalism builds society around a cash nexus. But unlike full capitalism, neoliberalism does so in a covert way that takes serious scholarly work to demonstrate. Neoliberalism itself is not an ethos, as noted above, but neoliberalism might be seen to give rise to an excessively capitalist/transactional relationship between persons. While she rejects this characterization of neoliberalism, Jessica Whyte argues that it is often characterized as

an amoral economic ideology that subordinates all values to an economic rationality, (2019: 19)

following a number of others, like Wendy Brown (2015). Here the analysis draws heavily on Foucault (2010) where neoliberalism is said to reduce practical rationality to economic considerations, where

there is no difference between the infraction of the highway code and a premeditated murder. (2015: 253–4)

Indeed, one might make the more worrisome argument that neoliberalism leads not so much to selfish attitudes but towards bigoted, hierarchical, and traditional ones (Brown 2019: 7, 37).

7.2 Inequality
One central concern about neoliberalism is that, even if it boosts economic growth, it also increases economic inequality, which is problematic in several ways. Two kinds of inequality criticisms are generally offered. The more well-known are the empirical criticisms that neoliberal regimes lead to dangerous inequalities just from the data, such as Thomas Piketty’s book, Capital (2014), which holds that economic inequality is growing and is a threat to democracy, much as Martin Gilens’s (2014) work on inequality and the responsiveness of democratic policy-making to the richest 10%.

The other kind of critique of inequality under neoliberalism is derived from Rawls’s work. As is well-known, Rawls rejected welfare-state capitalism and a more robust form of capitalism which he called the system of natural liberty on the grounds that they do not satisfy Rawls’s two principles of justice (Rawls 2001; O’Neill and Williamson 2014). Rawls argued that even welfare-state capitalism cannot protect the value of political liberty or realize its priority (Rawls 1993 [2005]) because it allows for the accumulation of capital in too few hands, which leads to economic domination of politics, and shuts many people out of the goods of owning and operating at least some of the capital they need to enjoy the worth of their constitutional liberties.
There you are @JohnRawls your screenname has issues with that horrible neoliberalism as practiced in Latin America. It SUCKS. Defend it John. Go ahead.

Another kind of inequality that has been raised as a concern for neoliberal societies is the imbalance of political power within the firm between bosses and workers. Elizabeth Anderson (2019) has argued, for instance, that this is a form of tyrannical “private government” and that the institutions defended by neoliberals (though she does not use this term) are insufficient to equalize the freedoms of capitalists and workers.

7.3 Undermining Democracy
A very common criticism of neoliberalism is that it undermines democracy. This might be because high economic inequality undermines democracy, as Martin Gilens (2014) argues in Affluence and Influence and defended by Larry Bartels (2008 [2016]). Another way in which neoliberalism could undermine democracy is by prioritizing the protection of classical liberal economic liberties, like the right to private property. These can lead to restrictions on the ability of democratic citizens to choose to redistribute wealth. This problem is especially acute given Hayek’s favorable view of the Pinochet regime in Chile. Hayek hoped that Chile would become a democracy, but he believed that the Pinochet coup had allowed Chile to dodge the bullet of democratic socialism as advocated by Salvador Allende, Pinochet’s predecessor. There is a tension between the liberalism and the democratic commitments within neoliberalism that in practice tends to mean that democracy suffers.

7.4. Economic Irrationality
Neoliberal regimes rely heavily on market mechanisms, and neoliberals claim that markets are efficient or at least highly economically productive (neoliberals disagree about how to characterize and explain market productivity and efficiency). But behavioral economists (Kahneman 2013; Ariely 2010) have identified various biases in human reasoning that undermine the homo economicus model that neoliberals are said to use to model and predict economic development (though as shown above, neoliberals have a subtler relationship with homo economicus). See entry on bounded rationality.

7.5 Keynesian Rebuttals
Neoliberalism, as noted, arose in part in response to the dominance of Keynesian macro-economic policy. But Keynesians, most notably Paul Krugman (2012), have struck back by arguing that neoliberal criticisms of Keynesian policy fail. This is especially true because neoliberals often claimed that fiscal policy is ineffective stimulus vis-à-vis monetary stimulus. During the Great Recession, Krugman argued that the Federal Reserve had lowered interest rates so much that further monetary stimulus would fail, and so fiscal policy had to intervene.

Many of the criticisms of neoliberal regimes engaging in “austerity” during the Great Recession are based in an underlying Keynesian model, as the critics of government spending cuts during the Great Recession were often based on the idea that they hurt the economic prospects of the poor, whereas according to neoliberals, shrinking government spending during a recession is not harmful to the poor for a variety of reasons. See entry on philosophy of economics.

7.6 Trickle-Down Economics
One common charge against neoliberalism is its false promise of “trickle-down” benefits of economic growth to the poor from the rich (Quiggin 2012). Strictly speaking, trickle-down economics is not a genuine school of economic thought, nor would Hayek, Friedman, or Buchanan have accepted that description of their views. They did argue that all would benefit from the prosperity brought about through the free market, but this was not necessarily because the rich would benefit first. Hayek (1960 [2011]) argued that there is a kind of trickle-down effect for the prices of goods and services, where luxuries for the rich become commonalities for the poor because manufacturers figure out how to lower prices to broaden market penetration over time. And indeed, it is standard in mainstream economics to hold that as businesses accumulate capital, they can afford to pay their workers more and so can bid workers away from other companies. That process often involves increasing wages, so more capital in the hands of the rich can lead to higher wages for the poor through fairly ordinary causal channels. All the same, many neoliberal officials promised gains for the poor that did not often materialize.

7.7 Libertarian Criticisms
Neoliberalism and libertarianism are distinct, if related views. And in some respects, the neoliberals were libertarian under some conditions. Indeed, Buchanan thought anarchy was the morally best regime, even if it was infeasible in practice. But it is still common for libertarians to criticize more moderate libertarians for allowing any redistribution of wealth, such as Murray Rothbard (1973, 1982 [2002]), Robert Nozick (1974), or for prioritizing democracy over more epistocratic or elite-leaning forms of political decision-making, such as Jason Brennan (2016).

7.8 Colonialist Criticisms
It is common in some circles to argue that neoliberal regimes are colonialist in character, though in an unusually direct way. The thought is that neoliberalism was adopted by regimes in the Anglophone world and in much of Western Europe, and that this formed an international elite consensus about how economies around the world should be run. This led to a “Washington Consensus” that caused policy interventions that interfered with the democratic governance of developing nations, increased inequality, and made the poor worse off. For comprehensive discussion, see Whyte (2019: chapters 3–5).

7.9 Populist/Nationalist Criticisms
It is increasingly common for right-wing populists to criticize neoliberal policy on the grounds that it emphasizes free trade and free immigration lead to a range of deleterious consequences, from the shrinking of the industrial base of rich democratic countries like the United States, such as that advanced by Patrick Deneen (2019). A stronger form of this concern is that allowing immigrants from different cultures to acquire citizenship within a country will harm or degrade the culture and politics of that country.

7.10 Feminist Criticisms
Some, like Nancy Fraser (2017), worry that neoliberalism has co-opted feminism by making the feminist ideal into one that serves as a kind of false market-based meritocracy, where the aim of feminism is, for instance, that woman who has well-paying career, and at its highest ideal, female entrepreneurship and becoming CEOs of a company. This left feminism unable to attend to the needs and interests of women who neoliberalism has harmed. See entry on feminist perspectives on globalization.

7.11 Remaining Criticisms
Neoliberalism is subject to other objections, but many resemble problems for other liberal democratic theories, such as the conflict between liberal rights (however understood) and democracy—the “procedure-substance” dispute in the deliberative democracy literature, as well as how any sufficiently liberal approach to associational freedom takes the freedom of marginalized groups seriously given the prospect for local oppression. Neoliberals have diverse conceptions of freedom, though typically negative, with all the standard criticisms those views invite. And, then, to the extent that neoliberalism like Hayek and Buchanan adopt a contractarian framework for justifying institutions, their defenses will inherit all the difficulties with contractarianism.

8. Summary
This entry is not meant to determine the one true meaning of “neoliberalism”, but rather to illuminate neoliberalism as a coherent philosophical doctrine embraced by figures commonly called neoliberals. The entry also prioritizes more even-handed and less pejorative uses of the term in recent historical research. This is not to discount more historical and dynamic understandings of neoliberalism. They contain insight. But the goal of this entry has been to characterize neoliberalism as a philosophical position. If we do so, we can understand neoliberalism as a politico-economic doctrine that embraces robust liberal capitalism, constitutional democracy, and a modest welfare state.[11]

Bibliography
Anderson, Elizabeth, 2019, Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don’t Talk about It), Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ariely, Daniel, 2010, Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, New York: Harper Collins.
Bartels, Larry, 2008 [2016] Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; second edition 2016.
Biebricher, Thomas, 2018, The Political Theory of Neoliberalism, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Brennan, Geoffrey and James Buchanan, 1981, “The Normative Purpose of Economic ‘Science’: Rediscovery of an Eighteenth Century Method”, International Review of Law and Economics, 1(2): 155–166. doi:10.1016/0144-8188(81)90013-2
–––, 1985, The Reason of Rules: Constitutional Political Economy, New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511895937
Brennan, Jason, 2016, Against Democracy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Brown, Wendy, 2015, Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution, New York: Zone Books.
–––, 2019, In the Ruins of Neoliberalism: The Rise of Antidemocratic Politics in the West, New York: Columbia University Press.
#15297671
Tainari88 wrote:As for Wat0n saying the Chilean miracle happened? Chile had to be stuck with a dictator military general responsible for thousands of tortured people who died and were disappeared. Like in Argentina. A total lockdown on Leftists in those nations. Violence and death. Death squads. To follow a neoliberal model.

Is that success? In the Chilean case Michelle Bachelet had her father killed. She was a socialist democratically elected president of Chile. They tortured and killed thousands of people. She was imprisoned as well. All to keep them from being elected into office. They lost that fight. The socialists are back. Despite the murders, tortures and bullshit. Why? If the neoliberal Chicago Milton Friedman, Kissinger, rabid anti-Communism equals PROSPERITY and good times for all?

It does equal good times for all. It keeps people and nations in perpetual debt servitude and in paying off interest payments in not favorable terms and it creates austerity measures that make life hard on the working class. The vast majority of Latin America is working class.

It fails the vast majority. I am about fixing issues for the vast majority. Not for a wealthy elite used to running things nad stealing from the public coffers. That shit is everywhere and no one likes it.


So your concern, as a socialist, is human rights now?

Even today, the main human rights violators in Latin America are socialists. This just doesn't compute.

It's hard to know if Milei will be able to deliver on his promises, but he was undoubtedly elected.
#15297674
wat0n wrote:So your concern, as a socialist, is human rights now?

Even today, the main human rights violators in Latin America are socialists. This just doesn't compute.

It's hard to know if Milei will be able to deliver on his promises, but he was undoubtedly elected.


Where does it say that socialism means violating human rights? That does not compute. Socialism is this:





If you want to lie your ass off with bullshit, I will put you back on ignore. I have better things to do with my time than dedicate time to outright lies and smears from you Wat0n. Estoy muy mayorcita para dedicarle tiempo a mentiras crasas tuyas.
#15297678
wat0n wrote:@Tainari88 who says neoliberalism is about violating human rights either?


Neoliberalism in the criticism section is quite specific have you read the issues with that?

If you have no access to a free, publicly funded education and no right to safe shelter, clean water, or safe food because no one has any economically guaranteed rights then how are you protecting human rights? Did you read the United Nations Human Rights charter. It is basically socialism 101.
#15297679
wat0n wrote:So your concern, as a socialist, is human rights now?

Even today, the main human rights violators in Latin America are socialists. This just doesn't compute.

It's hard to know if Milei will be able to deliver on his promises, but he was undoubtedly elected.


That is a lie. The vast majority of human rights violators have been right wing fascists and dictators propped up via Kissinger and the DC crowd. La Guerra Sucia in Argentina was the Right Wing. Fascists. Same with Pinochet, same with Somoza, the Death Squads in Guatemala, the Right Wing fascists in Brazil, the right wing in Peru, the right wing in Colombia, the right wing in many countries. We could be here all day. But the vast majority of nations in Latin America the disappearances and kidnappings, rapes and murders have been the Right. If you deny that? Bring on the evidence. Argentina had La Guerra Sucia. Las madres de la plaza de mayo were the mothers of students, and writers, musicians, trade unionists, and just anyone that was not on board with the fascist agenda then. 30,000 people. How many are dead in Gaza now? Double that number. The socialists in Latin America who were democratically elected have all been pressured hard.

Jose Mujica in Uruguay was he a fascist? No. Does he have a bloody presidency left behind? No. How about Straussner in Paraguay? Fascist of the worst sort that man was.

So where is the supposedly democratically elected socialists the ones doing the 30,000 murders and blood filled numbers in Latin America?

I will highlight this part of the scholarly paper cited from my above post.

7.3 Undermining Democracy
A very common criticism of neoliberalism is that it undermines democracy. This might be because high economic inequality undermines democracy, as Martin Gilens (2014) argues in Affluence and Influence and defended by Larry Bartels (2008 [2016]). Another way in which neoliberalism could undermine democracy is by prioritizing the protection of classical liberal economic liberties, like the right to private property. These can lead to restrictions on the ability of democratic citizens to choose to redistribute wealth. This problem is especially acute given Hayek’s favorable view of the Pinochet regime in Chile.


So, neoliberalism is about individuals becoming very wealthy and accumulating wealth in fewer and fewer hands. Democracy is about one man or one woman and one vote for that adult voter. The majority choose without coercion their leaders. If it is a socialist. Do not interfere. Do not depose, or kill, murder and torture because the rich ones with all the money and the backing of powerful nations want them to do their bidding. It is anti'democratic. The true meaning of a truly democratic nation is one in which the MAJORITY of the socioeconomic population are in charge. If the majority of the people are workers and not rich? The people in the presidency and in the congress and the senate should be majority working class background people. Not people seeking to become millionaires and get rich by having access to publicly run funds and political power. So? How is that a violation of human rights? It is not. Majority of people are from working class backgrounds. They should have access to decent publicly funded educations including kindergarten through doctoral studies in the Universities and they should have all the enjoyment of rights as defined in the UN charter of Human Rights.

Majority of people in charge of their own labor, their own societies, voting for people that represent their interests. They negotiate and compromise. But what should never be tolerated are elitist wealthy oligarchs dictating what the majority of the society are not. It is regressive. Why get out of a monarchy from Europe with nobility and queens and kings to just replace that shit with dictators based on wealth and privilege and using ballot boxes to only put candidates on the ballot that are super uber wealthy plutocrats? It is not progress. it is going to become a blast to a dysfunctional past where only the rich had human rights and everyone else are serfs, slaves and subjects without any real rights but to work without payment or benefits and to be tossed into a pauper's grave?

It is obvious that thinking that going back to tiny minority of privileges set ups in capitalist neoliberal models of shit is what progress is about. It is not. It is regression.

If it is not so? Latin America should be prosperous but it is not. South America has natural resources galore. But the economies are not run to benefit the natives and the locals. If you analyze why that is not so? It is because of who runs the world economic models? And who they benefit.

Thomas Jefferson was right about his comments saying that bankers if not dealt with would make democracy dysfunctional due to them wanting to dictate finances on a society that is supposed to be a republic with the common good.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 12
Biden, 14th, Trump 45th

Yea right. The South was such a racist hell tha[…]

@late , I'm not sure if this related threat ca[…]

Prominent NYT Columnist Tells Biden To Step Aside[…]

In other news, motor vehicles kill more Americans[…]