Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

the neoliberal vision of the future

onarchy said:
No, at least 4 million people per year. The vast majority of children and people in the world who are dying of starvation, diseases and natural disasters are from highly anti-capitalistic countries, and many of these are socialists. Also socialists in the West are indirectly contributing to the deaths of millions by actively trying to prevent capitalism from spreading. I know that this is not your intention, but you cannot claim innocence since the effects of socialism are well-known. The end result is always death and destruction.
Click to expand...



Bonkers
 
onarchy said:
No, at least 4 million people per year. The vast majority of children and people in the world who are dying of starvation, diseases and natural disasters are from highly anti-capitalistic countries, and many of these are socialists. Also socialists in the West are indirectly contributing to the deaths of millions by actively trying to prevent capitalism from spreading. I know that this is not your intention, but you cannot claim innocence since the effects of socialism are well-known. The end result is always death and destruction.
Click to expand...

The complete opposite of capitalism.
 
onarchy said:
No, at least 4 million people per year. The vast majority of children and people in the world who are dying of starvation, diseases and natural disasters are from highly anti-capitalistic countries, and many of these are socialists. Also socialists in the West are indirectly contributing to the deaths of millions by actively trying to prevent capitalism from spreading. I know that this is not your intention, but you cannot claim innocence since the effects of socialism are well-known. The end result is always death and destruction.
Click to expand...

Nuts.
 
onarchy said:
Well, of course I, mere humble human, deserve to be scolded and bullied for Being Wrong.
Click to expand...

Why do you give as toss what complete strangers on the Internet call you? If you want praise and acceptance in the Big State Anarchist Lemon Party that is P&P then you can follow the well trodden path of a few thousand initial posts consisting of "This", "FFS" and ":facepalm:".
 
So, let's try something specific based on solid peer-reviewed research. I'm interested to see how onarchy will try to make this one go away. Will it turn out that the IMF are actually communists?

IMF economic reform programs are associated with significantly worsened tuberculosis incidence, prevalence, and mortality rates in post-communist Eastern European and former Soviet countries, independent of other political, socioeconomic, demographic, and health changes in these countries. Future research should attempt to examine how IMF programs may have related to other non-tuberculosis–related health outcomes.
Click to expand...

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050143
 
image13.gif


http://www.yale.edu/gsp/guatemala/charts13.html
 
onarchy said:
Nope, Pinochet was an authoritarian conservative, but even if you did count him as a liberal and even if we accept the Marxist version of the story that Allende did NOT destroy Chile, act criminally and nearly plunge Chile into a civil war, then Pinochet probably killed at most 5000 people. And that's about the worst atrocity you can find among "liberals." Pinochet wouldn't even make a dimple on the heap of people mass murdered by socialists. And again now we are ignoring the tens of thousands of people socialism murder every single day due to structural violence. And we are also just blindly accepting the Marxist version of events where the people killed were completely innocent and in no way constituted a threat to Chile.
Click to expand...

This is absolute nonsense. Where do you get this stuff from?
 
onarchy said:
The United States was a liberal regime up to about the beginning of the 20th century. Since then the US has in practical policies moved ever more towards the fascist welfare state. In modern times Hong Kong and Singapore have been closest to laissez-faire in economic matters, but authoritarian in other matters.
Click to expand...

The US has moved towards a "fascist welfare state"? How so?

Tell me how many Native Americans were killed by this young, liberal United States.
 
DotCommunist said:
when I said you'd pissed your chips, I meant you'd fucked yourself. Because I could see you going this way. Only 5000 eh? you're now defending pinochet or at the least trying to downplay his acts.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of things with the Pinochet regime I cannot defend. His 17 year autocratic rule could not be defended. Here is however what can easily be defended:

1) Pinochet's toppling of the Allende regime was both LEGAL and NECESSARY to save Chile from either a Cuba-like regime or civil war. How was it LEGAL? a) Allende was deemed a criminal by the Supreme Court for violating the constitution. b) the opposition had signed a treaty with Allende before he took office where he accepted that the military should be allowed to remain independent in case Allende violated the constitution. So Pinochet only took action based on the ruling of the Supreme Court and the agreement which Allende himself had signed with the opposition. How was it NECESSARY? Communism had destroyed many countries all over the world, and Allende had already plummeted Chile into hyper-inflation. Had Pinochet not intervened Chile would surely have collapsed, either into a communistic dictatorship or into civil war.

2) Pinochet treated the situation in Chile as that of a war. He regarded communism as a threat that would destroy or enslave the country. The experience with ALL other communist states has WITHOUT EXCEPTION shown that communism is absolutely lethal. Pinochets war against communists was therefore equally necessary and justified as a war against Nazi-Germany.

What part of Pinochet's regime cannot be justified? a) he stayed in power way too long. Destroying the communist threat only took at the very most 5 years, probably much less. He should have returned the power to civil rule much sooner. b) he started out with the traditional corporatist regulation of the economy inspired by Franco in the first 3-5 years of his regime. This meddling in the economy was uncalled for and prolonged the problems of Chile's economy unnecessarily.

Fortunately for Chile a) Pinochet pragmatically tried out the economic liberalism of the Chicago boys and b) when Pinochet finally did return Chile to civil rule, the civil government deepened the reforms started by the Chicago boys under Pinochet, and as a result Chile's economy boomed when civil government returned. Today Chile is, despite its turbulant recent past, the most prosperous nation in South-America and it has the lowest level of poverty in all of South-America.

But still it is very sad to know how much both Allende and partially Pinochet did to destroy Chile's economy. Chile lost at least two decades of economic growth. Imagine where Chile had been today in terms of economic prosperity had Allende's disaster never happened. Imagine if the Chicago boys had been allowed to reform the economy already in 1973, by purely peaceful means. Then Chile would today be among the richest countries in the world with close to zero poverty. THAT's what Allende (and partially Pinochet) robbed from Chile.
 
I'm glad that onarchy is laying bare the way that extreme liberals, despite their talk of peace and love, will happily go along with a fascist dictaror who shoots thousands of civilians in a football stadium.
 
And tbh onarchy, we already knew that you'd support mass killing of civilians. That's why when someone posted up your bio somone else made an ironic comment about killing you. Because we already knew you were an apologist for mass murder.
 
Random said:
I'm glad that onarchy is laying bare the way that extreme liberals, despite their talk of peace and love, will happily go along with a fascist dictaror who shoots thousands of civilians in a football stadium.
Click to expand...

Yep, he's been well and truly smoked out of his lair. :D
 
So, by the same standards, if you think Pinochet was acting legally and morally justified because commies need to be killed, you'd presumably applaud Hitler's treatment of communists too?
 
onarchy said:
There are a lot of things with the Pinochet regime I cannot defend. His 17 year autocratic rule could not be defended. Here is however what can easily be defended:

1) Pinochet's toppling of the Allende regime was both LEGAL and NECESSARY to save Chile from either a Cuba-like regime or civil war. How was it LEGAL? a) Allende was deemed a criminal by the Supreme Court for violating the constitution. b) the opposition had signed a treaty with Allende before he took office where he accepted that the military should be allowed to remain independent in case Allende violated the constitution. So Pinochet only took action based on the ruling of the Supreme Court and the agreement which Allende himself had signed with the opposition. How was it NECESSARY? Communism had destroyed many countries all over the world, and Allende had already plummeted Chile into hyper-inflation. Had Pinochet not intervened Chile would surely have collapsed, either into a communistic dictatorship or into civil war.

2) Pinochet treated the situation in Chile as that of a war. He regarded communism as a threat that would destroy or enslave the country. The experience with ALL other communist states has WITHOUT EXCEPTION shown that communism is absolutely lethal. Pinochets war against communists was therefore equally necessary and justified as a war against Nazi-Germany.

What part of Pinochet's regime cannot be justified? a) he stayed in power way too long. Destroying the communist threat only took at the very most 5 years, probably much less. He should have returned the power to civil rule much sooner. b) he started out with the traditional corporatist regulation of the economy inspired by Franco in the first 3-5 years of his regime. This meddling in the economy was uncalled for and prolonged the problems of Chile's economy unnecessarily.

Fortunately for Chile a) Pinochet pragmatically tried out the economic liberalism of the Chicago boys and b) when Pinochet finally did return Chile to civil rule, the civil government deepened the reforms started by the Chicago boys under Pinochet, and as a result Chile's economy boomed when civil government returned. Today Chile is, despite its turbulant recent past, the most prosperous nation in South-America and it has the lowest level of poverty in all of South-America.

But still it is very sad to know how much both Allende and partially Pinochet did to destroy Chile's economy. Chile lost at least two decades of economic growth. Imagine where Chile had been today in terms of economic prosperity had Allende's disaster never happened. Imagine if the Chicago boys had been allowed to reform the economy already in 1973, by purely peaceful means. Then Chile would today be among the richest countries in the world with close to zero poverty. THAT's what Allende (and partially Pinochet) robbed from Chile.
Click to expand...


The good guys.
 
Fortunately for Chile a) Pinochet pragmatically tried out the economic liberalism of the Chicago boys and b) when Pinochet finally did return Chile to civil rule, the civil government deepened the reforms started by the Chicago boys under Pinochet, and as a result Chile's economy boomed when civil government returned. Today Chile is, despite its turbulant recent past, the most prosperous nation in South-America and it has the lowest level of poverty in all of South-America.

But still it is very sad to know how much both Allende and partially Pinochet did to destroy Chile's economy. Chile lost at least two decades of economic growth. Imagine where Chile had been today in terms of economic prosperity had Allende's disaster never happened. Imagine if the Chicago boys had been allowed to reform the economy already in 1973, by purely peaceful means. Then Chile would today be among the richest countries in the world with close to zero poverty. THAT's what Allende (and partially Pinochet) robbed from Chile.
Click to expand...
I hate to burst your carefully-constructed bubble, but the Chicago Boys are back, onarchy

By the way, your narrative is worthy of a Hollywood screenplay
 
Random said:
Has it never struck you just how often these two things go hand in hand?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's sad. The reason is that the people who introduce the economic reforms are not liberals, but pragmatists and/or conservatives. The People's Action Party who governs Singapore for instance, started out as a labor party, but was ousted from the socialist international in the 1970s. This is one of the reasons I started the Free State Initiative. I want economic liberalism to be implemented in a non-authoritarian state. Also I want to show the contrast between TRUE liberalism and the halfbaked corporatism of today.
 
onarchy said:
Yeah, it's sad. The reason is that the people who introduce the economic reforms are not liberals, but pragmatists and/or conservatives.
Click to expand...
What interest do socialists/conservatives = fascists have in implementing your preferred reforms? If your preferred reforms are the antithesis of fascism?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
'The woke have no vision of the future' and the 'similarities between woke militants and the Bolsheviks who seized power in 1917'
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
3K
Raheem
Raheem
fucthest8
Water; scarcity and the trade in futures
Replies
11
Views
880
two sheds
two sheds
Yuwipi Woman
Farmer Bankruptcies, Trade Wars, Tarriffs, and the Future of Food
2 3
Replies
66
Views
4K
spring-peeper
spring-peeper
editor
Fully Automated Luxury Communism by Aaron Bastani – a manifesto for the future
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
202
Views
12K
petee
petee
alkirby
Ukrainian view of the future of Russia
Replies
5
Views
472
tim
tim
Back
Top Bottom