the neoliberal vision of the future

[Jeff Robinson]

Another Free State paradise:

 

[LLETSA]

There's no such thing as freedom anyway; only varying degrees of unfreedom. And it can never be any other way, no matter what.

People who go on about freedom in the abstract are usually charlatans or idiots.

 

[nino_savatte]

None of us should ever forget the original Free State
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State

What is it with this word "free" anyway?

 

[camouflage]

Ah, I see what you've done now. You define 'fascist' to mean 'collective'. Certain decisions are taken at the collective rather than the individual level. Twas always thus in human societies. That's what a society is. We are highly social animals that cannot survive without the help of others – so we have to negotiate a deal with them: put in language you might understand, rights come with obligations. You cannot have any meaningful rights unless you are prepared to give something back to the collective. And no, you can't just opt out, but that doesn't mean that you are being forced in a 'fascist' way. It merely means that you are but one of many in the decision-making process.

You need to grow up, basically. Your argument is at the level of a six-year-old having a tantrum because they have to go to bed.

To me Libertards do come other as spoilt only-children. Don't want share toys, why should I!

 

[DotCommunist]

By viewing fascism in terms of individual laws it makes it far more easier to compartmentalize and isolate fascist components of someone's policy

By viewing individual things out of context I too can use them to redefine words. See: 'Jesus Was A Protestant', my scholarly definition of how Jesus was a protestant.

 

[nino_savatte]

Santa is a communist because he distributes toys to children

 

[littlebabyjesus]

To me Libertards do come other as spoilt only-children. Don't want share toys, why should I!

My opinion of him has changed since I posted that.

He's actually a hateful, ignorant cunt.

 

[LLETSA]

Santa is a communist because he distributes toys to children

And therefore a fascist, sending his trusted emissary Rudolph (Hess) the Red Nosed Reindeer all over the world every year, to spread evil collectivist notions among the young and impressionable.

 

[DotCommunist]

notorious keeper of Lists as well, is Comrade Kringle

 

[rekil]

He rocks a big beard just like many a notorious lefty before him.

 

[camouflage]

No, I've read it. I just don't acknowledge it. I'll respond when people start behaving as what you could expect from a decent human being.

I'm asking very little of you. I'm only asking that you don't behave like an asshole. Is that really too much to ask? Am I intellectually dishonest because I want to be treated with an inch of respect? I'm learning more and more interesting things about socialism for every word you guys utter on this forum! Keep it coming. I'm inviting over an audience to watch socialism in practice.

onarchy,

I am actually enjoying your posts and respect that you have your opinions, I have so far enjoyed watching your opinions and beliefs being challenged and admire your ability to persistantly try to justify your position instead of just folding or storming off in a huff. I won't insult you, and think you deserve not to just be hate-swarmed for saying the things you say. Telling you why you are wrong is good sport, both directly and to observe. You've maintained the interest of a few posters for several pages now, you should regard it as a complement. Many would merely have roll-eyed you or put youon ignore by now.

Also I don't think calling you 'onan' is intended as an insult, it's just a shortening of your name.

 

[LLETSA]

onarchy,

I am actually enjoying your posts and respect that you have your opinions, I have so far enjoyed watching your opinions and beliefs being challenged and admire your ability to persistantly try to justify your position instead of just folding or storming off in a huff. I won't insult you, and think you deserve not to just be hate-swarmed for saying the things you say. Telling you why you are wrong is good sport, both directly and to observe. You've maintained the interest of a few posters for several pages now, you should regard it as a complement. Many would merely have roll-eyed you or put youon ignore by now.

Also I don't think calling you 'onan' is intended as an insult, it's just a shortening of your name.

And I'm only grateful to Onarchy for being astute and subtle enough to recognise that this thread is, as he says, socialism in practice. For decades people the world over have been shitting blue lights trying to figure out how to put socialism into practice and we've been doing it all along on here.

Spread the good news.

 

[camouflage]

If the US Constitution isn't a textbook example of the basis for a liberal regime then no liberal regime exists or has ever exists. Which is probably what onan will reveal shortly. Rather like the way some communists disappointingly try to pretend that there's never been a communist regime.

I don't beleive there ever has been a true communist regime, and I'm not a communist.

 

[camouflage]

But let's face it, it's better than just arguing with the same old u75 faces.

 

[Random]

I don't beleive there ever has been a true communist regime, and I'm not a communist.

Ideology is not the same as reality, so there'll never be a 'true' representative of any kind of political theory. But if you're a Leninist then you should take, at least some, responsibility for what regimes based on Lenin's ideas do. If you're a liberal, then you should take some responsibility for what regimes based on liberal ideas do. Is that too much to ask?

 

[nino_savatte]

And therefore a fascist, sending his trusted emissary Rudolph (Hess) the Red Nosed Reindeer all over the world every year, to spread evil collectivist notions among the young and impressionable.

Quite right, Mr Christmas is an evil, no good authoritarian. Ban him!

 

[onarchy]

Can't argue with that.


What's your take on Chile's neighbour, Argentina?

I am not as intimately familiar with Argentina today, but from what I have seen it is absolutely horrible. Also, notice that Peron was the quintessential Fascist, in the classical sense. His politics closely mirrored Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and FDR.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You profanity and rudeness neither scares nor shocks me.

It's not meant to, it's supposed to convey a degree of cynicism at your rhetoric.

Bullying is after all the very essence of fascism...

Does bullying come before or after corporatism and manipulation of the social as the "essence of socialism"?

....and in my experience the vast majority of socialists are fascists, i.e. people who want to use force against peaceful individuals to make people march in unity.

A comment which means one of two things: Either your experience of socialists is narrow, or it's value-laden.

Deviants are not accepted.

A comment which indicates that your experience of socialists is indeed narrow.

Neither does it surprise me that the socialists on this list reacts with horror that a peace lover enters their "domain" without their approval, and at the same time profanity, rudeness and death threats are considered perfectly legitimate behavior.

Did you bother to read the forum rules before posting? "Robust language" is permissible.

So, why not stop whining, stifle the temptation to condescend, and engage? If you're such a fine example of the superiority of your own particular politics over what you term "socialism", then prove it in words rather than puling.

Now, how about we start a civil conversation? Or is that a bit too much to ask from a socialist? Guns and brute force are preferred?

Interesting, a final sentence that is positively schizophrenic!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I am not as intimately familiar with Argentina today, but from what I have seen it is absolutely horrible. Also, notice that Peron was the quintessential Fascist, in the classical sense. His politics closely mirrored Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and FDR.

It is very fair to characterise Peron as a fascist. Your last sentence is stupid though. Was FDR a fascist? Hmmm.

Setting that to one side, I'm not interested in your opinion of Peron. I'm more interested in your opinion of Argentina's economic performance in the last 20 years or so. And please remember that 'Peronist' does not necessarily mean Peron-like policies. Don't hide behind the fact that one party still calls itself Peronist please in your analysis.

 

[nino_savatte]

I am not as intimately familiar with Argentina today, but from what I have seen it is absolutely horrible. Also, notice that Peron was the quintessential Fascist, in the classical sense. His politics closely mirrored Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and FDR.

FDR? You've finally shown your true, quasi-Misean colours.

 

[camouflage]

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.

 

[camouflage]

Ideology is not the same as reality, so there'll never be a 'true' representative of any kind of political theory. But if you're a Leninist then you should take, at least some, responsibility for what regimes based on Lenin's ideas do. If you're a liberal, then you should take some responsibility for what regimes based on liberal ideas do. Is that too much to ask?

I don't think Leninism is the same as Communism either. I'm no expert mind.

True communism is a fom of anarchy isn't it? It's all faerie-law to me anyway. Niether anarchy nor true communism seem like the kind of thing human beings do in populations of millions.

 

[Random]

And what do you think of my point in the post you quoted?

 

[TruXta]

onarchy,

I am actually enjoying your posts and respect that you have your opinions, I have so far enjoyed watching your opinions and beliefs being challenged and admire your ability to persistantly try to justify your position instead of just folding or storming off in a huff. I won't insult you, and think you deserve not to just be hate-swarmed for saying the things you say. Telling you why you are wrong is good sport, both directly and to observe. You've maintained the interest of a few posters for several pages now, you should regard it as a complement. Many would merely have roll-eyed you or put youon ignore by now.

Also I don't think calling you 'onan' is intended as an insult, it's just a shortening of your name.

Oi! I most certainly mean it as an insult.

 

[ViolentPanda]

When you strip away all the intellectual fluff of fascism, force lies at its center. The most cogent definition of fascism I've seen is FORCED UNITY. I.e. deviants are not tolerated, everyone has to march to the same beat (whatever that beat may be). Socialists do not tolerate social deviants. Socialists come in two variations 1) leftwing socialists who believe that everyone are born the same way and that any unequality in society must therefore be the result of oppression. 2) rightwing socialists who accept that some are born smarter and some are born less smart, which results in social inequality. They accept this as true, but just don't like it and want to rid society of the deviants.

A fine piece of interpretational sophistry, with just that strain of pomposity that the political right are so fond of, but which fails to acknowledge that all government (in both senses of the word) but self-government is force, not merely those political "brands" that are "isms".

In practice both leftwing and rightwing socialists end up with the same politics aimed at reducing social inequality.

As a tolerant person I accept that people are born different and that they choose to be different. So I am tolerant to all forms of peaceful deviants: gays, different races, smart people, less smart people, rich people, poor people. Fascists generally speaking refuse to tolerate some kind of group of deviants. Socialists refuse to accept material deviants. Not all socialists are as extreme though. Stalin and Hitler through the deviants into concentration camps...

Oh dear. You're retailing the tired old canard that Hitler was a socialist? The canard that even the great scholars haven't been able to substantiate?

....whereas moderate socialists are satisfied with a mild form of concentration camp for the able in the form of high taxes and strict regulations.

Fatuous, ignorant and insulting, to compare the fact that you're subjected to tax and regulation with being the inmate of even a "mild" concentration camp.
Of course, wholly typical of the martyr complex those on the political right are prone to.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I understand why you think like you do. It is because you are stupid and ignorant.

So, not because his name makes you think "onanism"?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Fascism is the same as socialism because Hitler said it was.

Even more importantly, pbman said it was so!

 

[camouflage]

The Chilean economy was absolutely destroyed under Allende. He did more damage to the economy percentagewise than the tsunami did to Japan's economy recently. That's the scale of the destruction of socialism that we're talking about here.

"Make the Economy Scream"

-Nixon.

 

[onarchy]

Another Free State paradise:

Needless to say I think it is horrible that Honduran women and girls live under such conditions, but is this due to the fact that Honduras is economically free? Let's examine that, by looking at a metric that tries to quantify economic freedom, developed by Heritage:

http://heritage.org/index/Ranking

Honduras is ranked at #99 as "mostly unfree"

http://heritage.org/index/Country/Honduras


If Honduras were a Free State all those numbers would be at or close to 100. Now, even if you know ZERO about Honduras you can as an international investor tell a lot from those numbers alone, and the most important thing of all: Honduras is a hostile place for doing business due to corruption, badly protected property rights and really bad laws and bureaucratic hurdles. However, what these number don't show that the Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto has shown is that 70-80% of all property and business is not formally protected by legal papers in most of South-America, including Honduras. In essence, the little that exists of economic freedom and market economy exists for the small elite in the country that can afford to handle the legal hurdles in acquiring formal property rights. For the vast majority of the people there is close to ZERO economic freedom.

So while this video identifies a horrible problem it radically fails to identify the CAUSE of that problem, namely bad governance, corruption and hurdles to economic activity. The way these women are treated by the factory owner shows that it is a buyers market for labor, i.e. jobs are in severely short supply. But why is that? In a healthy economy with lots of economic freedom there should be an abundance of businesses competing for workers. Obviously when the ratio of (potential) employees to employers is so high it can only mean one thing: becoming an employer is too hard, too risky and too little rewarding.

 

[nino_savatte]

Ah, the Heritage Foundation. Whatever next?