Guatemalan libertarian activist speech.

[TheGreatA]

Less government works better for countries that have problems with corruption.

Socialism's success is limited to countries with high levels of trust and organization.

 

[Rod1]

Less government works better for countries that have problems with corruption.

Socialism's success is limited to countries with high levels of taxable assets created by an innovative and competitive private sector

FTFY.

 

[DespicablePeep]

Wait. Where on earth did you read "finance import substitution" or heavy tariffs?

Market/financial deregulation, open the floodgates to foreign investment, free trade, privatizations, fiscal discipline (as in no deficit spending, higher taxes to balance the budget)... aside from exchange rate policy, it was textbook IMF recipe.

Mini Brasil has the highest import tarifs on South America and highest taxes.

 

[Seaside]

Yup, and i see Venezuela, Ecuador, Venezuela and a lot of other XXI century socialists out there.

Also where in the video did you see her defending the right wing governments of Latin America? She isnt defending the unequal conditions, she is simply pointing out the truth, that the unequal conditions are created by people who use political power to get rich, and this is the reason why people get tricked by populists.

She even points out that unequal conditions, created by a rigged system is what caused people to go down that route in the first place.



Which is exactly what she said.



Its irresponsible only if you run massive deficits that you cant hope to pay back while you swindle half the budget.

She also advocates for a strong rule of law and strong, independent courts.



I refer to post #6 with the 10 points of the dreaded "Washington Consesus" care to name one latin American regime that has actually followed said points?

The closest example i can think of is Chile and Chile isnt exporting immigrants anywhere, at least not due to poverty.

i think trotsky made good point but possom guy just went off. Also the USSR self destructed on it own because of nationalist sentiements within and crony capitalist thinking you could say. All the stans and caucasus countries wanted to remain in it vast majority of Russians did to only the baltics wanted out but the USSR could survive without them. It was belarus, ukraine that broke off (mostly ukraine) and then Russia joined in. Russia´s president put nail in coffin and his crew of leadership against wishes of most people. So this idea that évil communism´was defeated by wishes of everyone and economic suffering is not so true.

 

[Seaside]

Nobody was doing well in the 30s TBH, thats where a lot of democracies failed.

she is hot as well. a strange one to, ruling class but atheist. An atheist latina in latin america? WTF that is like non existent in 3rd/2nd world many times let alone in guatemala. And a childless 33 year old woman in guatemala?

 

[TheGreatA]

FTFY.

For those taxable assets to remain within that country, and to be put into that country's best use, you need high levels of trust and organization. Corruption is more of an option in lowly taxed countries, where the damage done to a country's economy, is comparatively minimal. When you tax people for half their wage, like here in Finland, there's no room to fuck around. Everything has to be accounted for.

South/Central America would do themselves a massive favour by actually reading Marx's texts. They missed out on the crucial part where it says that a country must under-go a successful, booming period of capitalism and economic growth, before it can ever hope to introduce socialist elements.

Socialism, as a political ideology, was never meant to be anything more than a luxury afforded by countries that are already rich and prosperous. To the poor nations, it is no kind of solution, and was never meant to be. Not by Marx, anyway. He could never envision a poverty-stricken nation, with large numbers of uneducated people and low-skill workers, somehow becoming a successful representative of socialism. His vision of socialism would be achieved in a country that had established itself as a capitalist center of trade, with a large amount of amassed wealth and high productive capabilities.

He also spoke that a high level of trust and common understanding would be required between the people. Distrust of government and corruption would break down any attempts to distribute wealth fairly.

Socialism has cultural and economic requirements, which are unfortunately not fulfilled by most South/Central American countries. It's a dead-end, for them.

 

[Rod1]

For those taxable assets to remain within that country, and to be put into that country's best use, you need high levels of trust and organization. Corruption is more of an option in lowly taxed countries, where the damage done to a country's economy, is comparatively minimal. When you tax people for half their wage, like here in Finland, there's no room to fuck around. Everything has to be accounted for.

South/Central America would do themselves a massive favour by actually reading Marx's texts. They missed out on the crucial part where it says that a country must under-go a successful, booming period of capitalism and economic growth, before it can ever hope to introduce socialist elements.

Socialism, as a political ideology, was never meant to be anything more than a luxury afforded by countries that are already rich and prosperous. To the poor nations, it is no kind of solution, and was never meant to be. Not by Marx, anyway. He could never envision a poverty-stricken nation, with large numbers of uneducated people and low-skill workers, somehow becoming a successful representative of socialism. His vision of socialism would be achieved in a country that had established itself as a capitalist center of trade, with a large amount of amassed wealth and high productive capabilities.

He also spoke that a high level of trust and common understanding would be required between the people. Distrust and corruption would break down any attempts to distribute wealth fairly.

Socialism has cultural and economic requirements, which are unfortunately not fulfilled by most South/Central American countries. It's a dead-end, for them.

If the currency is maintained a stable levels, people arent just going to pack up and leave a large profitable market or production process if you raise taxes to fund things like education and healthcare.

I agree that going from almost nothing to 50% is a no-go, but you can progressively increase taxes if the governmenty has good fiscal policy and something to show up for said taxes.

The whole "only in tight communities" is just American political BS.

 

[Rod1]

she is hot as well. a strange one to, ruling class but atheist. An atheist latina in latin america? WTF that is like non existent in 3rd/2nd world many times let alone in guatemala. And a childless 33 year old woman in guatemala?

Whats wrong with atheism in latin America? most countries have secular governments.

You are going to blow out your cover man, lol.

 

[Rod1]

hey missed out on the crucial part where it says that a country must under-go a successful, booming period of capitalism and economic growth, before it can ever hope to introduce socialist elements.

You talk as if Marx lived in Merkel's Germany and wrote based on his observations there.

 

[Seaside]

Whats wrong with atheism in latin America? most countries have secular governments.

You are going to blow out your cover man, lol.

ahaha lol i know that. i am just saying statistically it is rare and at least publically most people claim to be religious. I just would not have expected her to be childless and atheist at her age. Nothing against atheism. Many countries have official separation but favor one religion over others like argentina and peru. And women praying more than men being more religious is more common in this part of the world to but yeah guatemala is an exception more men than women apparently pray. As guatemalan she is in minority only 10% or less of population is agnostic or not religious.

http://www.pewforum.org/2017/10/03/...pecific-religions-officially-or-unofficially/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...e-more-religious-than-men-but-not-everywhere/

 

[TheGreatA]

If the currency is maintained a stable levels, people arent just going to pack up and leave a large profitable market or production process if you raise taxes to fund things like education and healthcare.

I agree that going from almost nothing to 50% is a no-go, but you can progressively increase taxes if the governmenty has good fiscal policy and something to show up for said taxes.

The whole "only in tight communities" is just American political BS.

There's a difference between socialism, and capitalism with socialist elements, though.

Many of the "left-wing" populists in South America, are total screw-ups. They don't understand anything about economic progression. They want everything, here and now. And that's why they keep bankrupting their countries. Because they simply cannot afford the entire "package", once the time comes for them to cash on their promises.

True socialism will only work in tight communities. It's not American political BS, I have seen it. People who live in low-trust societies, will never get to understand it. If you want to create a nation that truly takes care after everybody, you need to run a tight ship. You need people to believe in common objectives. That's simply never, ever going to be possible in countries like Brazil, or Mexico, not even America. They are built for the modern "capitalist way", which is to let individuals compete amongst themselves, generating enough wealth which can then be passed off to the poor by an effectively ran government.

What they can do, is take care of their people better than what they are doing. But if they think that they can somehow turn into Sweden, or Norway, sorry to say, but that's never going to happen. Never. It's not even worth thinking about. A pipe dream.

A country of hundreds of millions, can't operate on the same principles as a country of a few million. It's hard for people to admit that some things are impossible to achieve, but they are. With our current means, they are.

 

[TheGreatA]

You talk as if Marx lived in Merkel's Germany and wrote based on his observations there.

He oversaw the massive industrial growth in Germany and Britain at the time. Germany became a powerhouse within a couple of decades.

However, he was under no impression that the progression to socialism would happen "here and now". He and Engels were more Nostradamus, than conventional political thinkers.

No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society

This was Engels's prediction in 1887:

The only war left for Prussia-Germany to wage will be a world war, a world war, moreover, of an extent and violence hitherto unimagined. Eight to ten million soldiers will be at each other’s throats and in the process they will strip Europe barer than a swarm of locusts.

The depredations of the Thirty Years’ War compressed into three to four years and extended over the entire continent; famine, disease, the universal lapse into barbarism, both of the armies and the people, in the wake of acute misery; irretrievable dislocation of our artificial system of trade, industry, and credit, ending in universal bankruptcy; collapse of the old states and their conventional political wisdom to the point where crowns will roll into the gutters by the dozen, and no one will be around to pick them up; the absolute impossibility of foreseeing how it will all end and who will emerge as victor from the battle.

Only one consequence is absolutely certain: universal exhaustion and the creation of the conditions for the ultimate victory of the working class.

 

[Rod1]

There's a difference between socialism, and capitalism with socialist elements, though.

Indeed, and what nordic countries have is the latter, socialism by itself was a failure, you talk as if Sweden welfare didnt imploded in the 90s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden#Crisis_of_the_1990s

Many of the "left-wing" populists in South America, are total screw-ups. They don't understand anything about economic progression. They want everything, here and now. And that's why they keep bankrupting their countries. Because they simply cannot afford the entire "package", once the time comes for them to cash on their promises.

A lot of them do, but they DGAF, they just want power.

 

[Trotsky]

For those taxable assets to remain within that country, and to be put into that country's best use, you need high levels of trust and organization. Corruption is more of an option in lowly taxed countries, where the damage done to a country's economy, is comparatively minimal. When you tax people for half their wage, like here in Finland, there's no room to fuck around. Everything has to be accounted for.

South/Central America would do themselves a massive favour by actually reading Marx's texts. They missed out on the crucial part where it says that a country must under-go a successful, booming period of capitalism and economic growth, before it can ever hope to introduce socialist elements.

Socialism, as a political ideology, was never meant to be anything more than a luxury afforded by countries that are already rich and prosperous. To the poor nations, it is no kind of solution, and was never meant to be. Not by Marx, anyway. He could never envision a poverty-stricken nation, with large numbers of uneducated people and low-skill workers, somehow becoming a successful representative of socialism. His vision of socialism would be achieved in a country that had established itself as a capitalist center of trade, with a large amount of amassed wealth and high productive capabilities.

He also spoke that a high level of trust and common understanding would be required between the people. Distrust of government and corruption would break down any attempts to distribute wealth fairly.

Socialism has cultural and economic requirements, which are unfortunately not fulfilled by most South/Central American countries. It's a dead-end, for them.

Once again, your knowledge and impartiality on Marxist theory and socialist policy is impeccable for someone situated to the right. Extremely refreshing.

However, as I think I said in an earlier exchange, there is some evidence for Marx being amenable to a Maoist-type reorganization in rural communities: it was never thoroughly fleshed out, but one could infer that Marx thought that dual spheres of development could be made, by which the rural peasantry collectivized concurrent to the capitalist stage of development in the urban sphere. But, to be clear, when I say "Maoist-type" I'm speaking very loosely with regard to Mao's emphasis on agrarianism. By no means would Marx be daft enough to fuck with fixed wages and fractured government surveillance of peasant communities, let alone the....other stuff that came with it and followed.

 

[TheGreatA]

Indeed, and what nordic countries have is the latter, socialism by itself was a failure, you talk as if Sweden welfare didnt imploded in the 90s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden#Crisis_of_the_1990s

A lot of them do, but they DGAF, they just want power.

I would call Nordic countries socialist, with capitalist elements. With Sweden maybe leaning towards the capitalist side, more than the rest. But I'd point to their multi-cultural policy as a problem in that regard, creating too much inequality between groups. to truly be capable of adopting effective socialist policy. They've cut down on a lot of stuff in recent times. Their integration policies have been pretty crappy, atleast recently. Easier to keep the ship afloat, when the pirates all know each others scams and quirks.

To uphold a proper welfare state takes careful balancing between the two sides. Wealth must be amassed, sometimes by cutting down on some of the socialist elements, so that the "good times" can be had at a later date. It comes quite naturally to a people who have been used to amassing "winter reservations" during the summer, for the long, dark winter.

However, I'd say that a progression towards a more complete socialist state is fully possible, through further automation. I'd say the risk of a collapse before that happens, is pretty significant though, causing a "relapse" to capitalism and crude global competition. Right now I'm particularly worried about the low births, resulting an aging, mostly retired population which may over-load the economy.

 

[TheGreatA]

Once again, your knowledge and impartiality on Marxist theory and socialist policy is impeccable for someone situated to the right. Extremely refreshing.

However, as I think I said in an earlier exchange, there is some evidence for Marx being amenable to a Maoist-type reorganization in rural communities: it was never thoroughly fleshed out, but one could infer that Marx thought that dual spheres of development could be made, by which the rural peasantry collectivized concurrent to the capitalist stage of development in the urban sphere. But, to be clear, when I say "Maoist-type" I'm speaking very loosely with regard to Mao's emphasis on agrarianism. By no means would Marx be daft enough to fuck with fixed wages and fractured government surveillance of peasant communities, let alone the....other stuff that came with it and followed.

Never had a problem with Marx, nor any philosopher/intellectual/political thinker really. Can't really be held responsible for the shit that went down when people tried to apply their own "versions" of those philosophies or political ideologies, into the real-world.

Never considered myself "right-wing" either until I came to this forum. I certainly don't consider myself an apologist for capitalism or outdated ideas. More so a critic.

 

[Rod1]

I would call Nordic countries socialist, with capitalist elements. With Sweden maybe leaning towards the capitalist side, more than the rest. But I'd point to their multi-cultural policy as a problem in that regard, creating too much inequality between groups. to truly be capable of adopting effective socialist policy. They've cut down on a lot of stuff in recent times. Their integration policies have been pretty crappy, atleast recently. Easier to keep the ship afloat, when the pirates all know each others scams and quirks.

To uphold a proper welfare state takes careful balancing between the two sides. Wealth must be amassed, sometimes by cutting down on some of the socialist elements, so that the "good times" can be had at a later date.

However, I'd say that a progression towards a more complete socialist state is fully possible, through further automation. I'd say the risk of a collapse before that happens, is pretty significant though, causing a "relapse" to capitalism and crude global competition. Right now I'm particularly worried about the low births, resulting an aging, mostly retired population which may over-load the economy.

I dont think capitalism vs socialism is really a good dichotomy.

Ill instead would rather use the term economic freedom vs economic authoritarism.

Because both left and right wing governments produce the such, in the end the distinction is more a label than anything else.

A privatized oligopoly unofficially sanctioned by the State like you have in Russia isnt much different in practice than a State monopoly in a socialist country.

 

[Rod1]

I would call Nordic countries socialist, with capitalist elements. With Sweden maybe leaning towards the capitalist side, more than the rest. But I'd point to their multi-cultural policy as a problem in that regard, creating too much inequality between groups. to truly be capable of adopting effective socialist policy. They've cut down on a lot of stuff in recent times. Their integration policies have been pretty crappy, atleast recently. Easier to keep the ship afloat, when the pirates all know each others scams and quirks.

To uphold a proper welfare state takes careful balancing between the two sides. Wealth must be amassed, sometimes by cutting down on some of the socialist elements, so that the "good times" can be had at a later date. It comes quite naturally to a people who have been used to amassing "winter reservations" during the summer, for the long, dark winter.

However, I'd say that a progression towards a more complete socialist state is fully possible, through further automation. I'd say the risk of a collapse before that happens, is pretty significant though, causing a "relapse" to capitalism and crude global competition. Right now I'm particularly worried about the low births, resulting an aging, mostly retired population which may over-load the economy.

I dont think there is a point where you can say "this is socialism" and "this is capitalism" i think every state has a combination of both.

 

[ocfightfan]

People looking for an authority to set things right or at least in their favor is a big part of the problem. Too much power in the hands of the people at the top to get things done.

 

[TheGreatA]

I dont think capitalism vs socialism is really a good dichotomy.

Ill instead would rather use the term economic freedom vs economic authoritarism.

Because both left and right wing governments produce the such, in the end the distinction is more a label than anything else.

A privatized oligopoly unofficially sanctioned by the State like you have in Russia isnt much different in practice than a State monopoly in a socialist country.

Economic freedom vs authoritarianism, is a different conversation, in my mind. Both socialism and capitalism can produce freedom, or slavery, indeed. But they largely go on achieving it in different ways. Socialist model relieves people of responsibilities, while capitalism enables people to take more responsibility.

Giving a person too much responsibility can enslave them, as it may limit the freedom of their action and choice. I consider America to be an offender in this regard. But then, relieving a person of responsibilities can also help enslave them, by rendering them incapable of independently running their own affairs without state intervention into even the smallest details of daily life. China is an obvious example.

My ideal of a society consists more so of independent-minded people, who can make the necessary sacrifices for collective interests. Not a collective herd, nor a completely ego-centric blob of individuals. It would be preferable if this process of "sacrifice" could take place, with as little state intervention as possible, resulting more so from actual acts of "good-will" and good sense, than fear of punishment. But that, again, is a pipe dream in the current state of affairs.