OMG Tech Giants so Leftist: Bolivarian news outlet TeleSUR again banned from Facebook without reason

[Possum Jenkins]

Except its not.

Corruption is intrinsecally tied to the rule of law, ideologies that think that the "rule of law" is a tool of the burgoise to oppress the masses by its very definition promotes corruption.

https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/business-law/law-in-the-socialist-society.php

And i never said "The left", for someone who claims to be a liberal you still have the classic Americentrism in which you try to fit the entire world through the lenses of the American political reality.

You are simply too pampered growing up in a country where a strong rule of law is a given to understand what it is to live in a country where it is not.

The leftist view is that the CURRENT law is a tool of the bourgeoisie and needs to be REPLACED by something else. It's not that there should be no law and people should be able to do whatever. Things like abiding by contracts, positions being awarded on merit instead of personal relationships, etc., are all as much of Marxist/communist/Chavista/whatever thing you don't like as it is by centrist/right-wing/neoliberal government.

What's more, the pre-Bolshevik Russian movement, Yugoslavia in the 50s-60s, and anarchist Catalonia, (to give examples of governments that most closely followed a leftist/Marxist model) all had very clearly marked judicial systems. And corruption was punished in all those places. They weren't given a pass on the grounds that laws are a "tool of class oppression" or whatever.

So wrong again, Rod. No ideology looks kindly upon corruption.

 

[DIDM]

@Trotsky

Do you think Communism is a right wing party?

 

[DespicablePeep]

I wonder where these people live to take Marx seriously, I know its not in East Europe or Latin America.

Marx simply thought there was a better system than capitalism and never offered a real solution, just an empty ideology and pure class warfare. Lets end labour exploitation by making everything of the state, later on we will dissolve the state and everyone is "free"

When USRR collapsed at least we were free from these retards for some decades, now they are full in force and most of the time like to point to nordic countries as socialist nations lol

 

[DespicablePeep]

So wrong again, Rod. No ideology looks kindly upon corruption.

They do, means to an end. Class war, death, corruption for the greater goal: communism.

 

[Rod1]

This is an absolutely asinine post. Your argument is that the Marxian theory of withering of the state dictates that Marxist ideology promotes corruption? Lol.

Firstly, you and the author of your link are misstating Marx's concept of the state (and law) as a sociological inevitability, rather than as an historical artifact. Secondly, it mistakes law, rather than property, as the explanatory principle of communistic beginnings of the withering process. Thirdly, it mistakes law's existence as a microcosm of bourgeoisie domination, rather than law being used according to it in order to preserve existing social relations. Fourthly, even if those mistakes weren't made, your conclusion would not logically flow from your premise: if anything, that would dictate that corruption would be less likely under Marxist jurisprudence, as distribution for collective purpose would be seen as a natural necessity rather than as a regulatory one. Fifthly, Marxian thinkers very clearly have established the need for law as an expression of and remedy for existing social relations, both adverse and mutual. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3505&context=ndlr

All I can say is...

​

Thank god.

Ill accept the fact that i know absolutely nothing about Marxian law or theory.

What i am talking about is Latin American socialism in its applied forms.

 

[Trotsky]

Ill accept the fact that i know absolutely nothing about Marxian law or theory.

What i am talking about is Latin American socialism in its applied forms.

But....that's not even Marxist, right? Didn't Hugo Chavez explicitly rebuke Marxism and say it was not his founding ideology?

The only explicit mention of Marxism in Latin America that I can recall was by Fidel Castro....like 10 years after he established his revolutionary government. Hell, probably the most fervent Marxist in Latin American political history was Che Guevara, and even he said that he wasn't a Marxist, but that rather Marx was one of a multitude of influences.

 

[Rod1]

The leftist view is that the CURRENT law is a tool of the bourgeoisie and needs to be REPLACED by something else. It's not that there should be no law and people should be able to do whatever. Things like abiding by contracts, positions being awarded on merit instead of personal relationships, etc., are all as much of Marxist/communist/Chavista/whatever thing you don't like as it is by centrist/right-wing/neoliberal government.

Weird that the replaced part never really comes to fruition. Its all in the name of "social interest" and the "greater good". This isnt a leftist exclusive thing though, plenty of right wing governments around the world use the same modus operandi.

You are right however that its not a "left vs right" issue, just like neoliberalism isnt a "left vs right" issue, its a market economy vs state planned economy issue.

 

[Rod1]

But....that's not even Marxist, right? Didn't Hugo Chavez explicitly rebuke Marxism and say it was not his founding ideology?

As i said i know absolutely nothing about Marxist and i doubt Chavez did either. He did said he was a Marxist. I would suspect the vast majority of self-proclaimed Marxists know absolutely squat about Marxism as a theory.



Marxist, socialist, christian and revolutionary, but then again that was just his oratory skills, he relied a lot on cuban advisors for his economic and security programs.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

You are right however that its not a "left vs right" issue, just like neoliberalism isnt a "left vs right" issue, its a market economy vs state planned economy issue.

The vast, vast majority of economies are mixed and have both market and state planning features. Neoliberalism simply says that private power (aka "the market") should dictate all or most economic activity, while the other side says the state should have a stronger role, whether regulatory or straight up ownership. People on the left are obviously more likely to favor features on the latter while those on the right the former.

 

[Rod1]

The vast, vast majority of economies are mixed and have both market and state planning features. Neoliberalism simply says that private power (aka "the market") should dictate all or most economic activity, while the other side says the state should have a stronger role, whether regulatory or straight up ownership. People on the left are obviously more likely to favor features on the latter while those on the right the former.

This is a complete falsehood and i proved it to you in the other thread.

1. Fiscal policy discipline, with avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
2. Redirection of public spending from subsidies ("especially indiscriminate subsidies") toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
3. Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
4. Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
5. Competitive exchange rates;
6. Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
7. Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
8. Privatization of state enterprises;
9. Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;
10. Legal security for property rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus

Since when is "spend in education, healthcare, infrastructure while maintaining good fiscal discipline" A right wing thing?

 

[Possum Jenkins]

This is a complete falsehood and i proved it to you in the other thread.

1. Fiscal policy discipline, with avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
2. Redirection of public spending from subsidies ("especially indiscriminate subsidies") toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
3. Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
4. Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
5. Competitive exchange rates;
6. Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
7. Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
8. Privatization of state enterprises;
9. Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;
10. Legal security for property rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus

Since when is "spend in education, healthcare, infrastructure while maintaining good fiscal discipline" A right wing thing?

Yes, and in that other thread we settled that spending on education, healthcare, and infrastructure are so common sense that they can't possibly be ideological. No one in their right mind is going to say "Let's not spend on education or health, let's spend it on something else." So those proposals are meaningless in a discussion like this.

But the other stuff IS ideological. Deregulation, foreign investment, privatization, are all extremely contentious. So obviously THIS is what's meant when people say they're for against neoliberalism.

 

[A Very Serious Cat]

So you expect people to be ok with censorship because some other site has been banned too? Not following the logic

 

[Rod1]

Yes, and in that other thread we settled that spending on education, healthcare, and infrastructure are so common sense that they can't possibly be ideological. No one in their right mind is going to say "Let's not spend on education or health, let's spend it on something else." So those proposals are meaningless in a discussion like this.

Except they are.

As i said before and i say again, you are a pampered first world liberal in an ivory tower, these things you take for granted are not so common in the third world as you may think.

Chavez spent billions and billions into expropiating private companies and running them to the ground.

But the other stuff IS ideological. Deregulation, foreign investment, privatization, are all extremely contentious. So obviously THIS is what's meant when people say they're for against neoliberalism.

1.- Deregulation isnt ideological in the global scale (another example of your Americentrism).

2.- Foreign investment is crucial for development.

3.- Privatization is part of fiscal discipline.

And we are in the crux of the issue, you mix ideology with practical matters and dismiss the rest as

"Well its so obvious that it should be dismissed" if it was so fucking obvious then why so many countries fail miserably at it?

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Except they are.

As i said before and i say again, you are a pampered first world liberal in an ivory tower, these things you take for granted are not so common in the third world as you may think.

Link, please.

Keep in mind, these are promises, not deeds. I'd like to see politicians in a developing country explicitly saying that spending on education and healthcare is dumb or not needed.

1.- Deregulation isnt ideological in the global scale (another example of your Americentrism).

2.- Foreign investment is crucial for development.

3.- Privatization is part of fiscal discipline.

And we are in the crux of the issue, you mix ideology with practical matters and dismiss the rest as

"Well its so obvious that it should be dismissed" if it was so fucking obvious then why so many countries fail miserably at it?

1. Again, link, please. Show me a left-wing party that is pushing for banks or oil companies to have more freedom WHILE parties of other

2. Yes, but how this investment is handled is ideological.

3. Debatable. For instance, the US healthcare system is terribly inefficient (not fiscally disciplined) and private.

 

[Rod1]

Link, please.

Keep in mind, these are promises, not deeds. I'd like to see politicians in a developing country explicitly saying that spending on education and healthcare is dumb or not needed.

Um no, the Washington Consensus is not about promises, is about actual policy change. Everyone can promise the moon and the stars, what they actually do is what determines the position in which you stand.

1. Again, link, please. Show me a left-wing party that is pushing for banks or oil companies to have more freedom WHILE parties of other

Again with your Americocentrism, just because in your country deregulation is a dog whistle to allow corporations to fuck everyone, it doesnt means the word carries over.

As i pointed out in the other thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_doing_business_index

Norway, Sweden and Denmark, the golden standard of "socialism" are top 10 countries when it comes to ease of doing business. Thats actual reality, way above "neoliberal" countries like Macri's Argentina (117) or Temer's Brazil (125).

2. Yes, but how this investment is handled is ideological.

It is not, thats why private investment usually produces a profit, while state investment usually produces more sovereign debt.

3. Debatable. For instance, the US healthcare system is terribly inefficient (not fiscally disciplined) and private.

Because healthcare isnt, and should not be a productive industry.

Healthcare is a right, thats why the Washington Consensus is calling for INCREASED government spending in healthcare.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Um no, the Washington Consensus is not about promises, is about actual policy change. Everyone can promise the moon and the stars, what they actually do is what determines the position in which you stand.

So you can't provide an example of a third world politician saying that spending on education, health, and infrastructure is unnecessary. Just as I thought.

It's almost like spending on these things is so basic that it's embraced by all political stripes. So it's fair to call it so common sensical that it's meaningless mentioning them in a discussion on political ideology. Which is exactly what I said.

Again with your Americocentrism, just because in your country deregulation is a dog whistle to allow corporations to fuck everyone, it doesnt means the word carries over.

As i pointed out in the other thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_doing_business_index

Norway, Sweden and Denmark, the golden standard of "socialism" are top 10 countries when it comes to ease of doing business. Thats actual reality, way above "neoliberal" countries like Macri's Argentina (117) or Temer's Brazil (125).

That ranking deals more with bureaucracy and institutional efficiency. Notice how it's called the "Ease of Doing Business Index" and not the "Deregulation Index."

The deregulation that I was talking about deals more with the power that corporations have. Things like limiting where oil companies can drill for oil, requiring mining companies to check in with the communities they mine in, instituting antitrust laws, strict labor standards, etc.

It is unquestionable that in these matters, left-wing parties are more diligent and strict, while right-wing ones aren't. Again, show me an example of leftist party that's against this type of deregulation, while a right-wing one in the same country is for it. I'll wait.

It is not, thats why private investment usually produces a profit, while state investment usually produces more sovereign debt.

Source?

Here's my source for arguing my point: Ha-Joon Chang's book "Bad Samaritans." The whole book works but specifically chapter 5. He gives a plethora of examples of state investment producing profit.

Shit, I'll give one on my own: US state investment in research & development. This is basically where all the high-tech economy originated and I'd say that's been pretty profitable for the US.

Because healthcare isnt, and should not be a productive industry.

Healthcare is a right, thats why the Washington Consensus is calling for INCREASED government spending in healthcare.

Interesting, so some things are better handled the state, huh?

Kinda contradicts the WC's wholesale "privatize state enterprises" recommendation.

 

[Rod1]

So you can't provide an example of a third world politician saying that spending on education, health, and infrastructure is unnecessary. Just as I thought.

Thought what? you are certainly a long lasting troll.

Virtually every human being knows smoking and being obese is bad isnt? just because you know something is bad, doesnt means you actually cut down on your eating.

Do you think Republicans are "fiscally conservative"?

It's almost like spending on these things is so basic that it's embraced by all political stripes. So it's fair to call it so common sensical that it's meaningless mentioning them in a discussion on political ideology. Which is exactly what I said.

Except is not.

That ranking deals more with bureaucracy and institutional efficiency. Notice how it's called the "Ease of Doing Business Index" and not the "Deregulation
Index."

NO SHIT SHERLOCK.

Here in the rest of the world deregulation means cutting down barriers of entry, in America it means giving corporations the green go to dump toxic chemicals in rivers.

Absolutely nobody talks about relaxing financial or enviromental law when talking about overregulation in the rest of the world.

The deregulation that I was talking about deals more with the power that corporations have. Things like limiting where oil companies can drill for oil, requiring mining companies to check in with the communities they mine in, instituting antitrust laws, strict labor standards, etc.

Of course you are because you are an American so far inside your universe that you would most likely not be able to tell where Canada or Mexico is in a world map.

It is unquestionable that in these matters, left-wing parties are more diligent and strict, while right-wing ones aren't. Again, show me an example of leftist party that's against this type of deregulation, while a right-wing one in the same country is for it. I'll wait.

The most economically right wing country in Latin America is Chile, the most left wing is Venezuela. Where are they in the scale?

Chile is 55, Venezuela is 188 just above Eritrea and Somalia.

Source?

Here's my source for arguing my point: Ha-Joon Chang's book "Bad Samaritans." The whole book works but specifically chapter 5. He gives a plethora of examples of state investment producing profit.

There is a difference between state investment and state corporations.

Shit, I'll give one on my own: US state investment in research & development. This is basically where all the high-tech economy originated and I'd say that's been pretty profitable for the US.

See above.

Interesting, so some things are better handled the state, huh?

Kinda contradicts the WC's wholesale "privatize state enterprises" recommendation.

Where does the WC says that healthcare needs to be privatized? There is also minimum pressure to privatize profitable industries.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Thought what? you are certainly a long lasting troll.

Virtually every human being knows smoking and being obese is bad isnt? just because you know something is bad, doesnt means you actually cut down on your eating.

Do you think Republicans are "fiscally conservative"?

Me: Promising to spend on education, healthcare, and infrastructure is so common sense that it's beyond ideological
Rod: No, it's not. Not in 3rd world countries.
Me: Ok, then show me a 3rd world party or candidate that doesn't give it importance.
Rod: Smoking, obesity, Republicans

Classic Rod. When you don't have a point, you start cantinfleando.

Go ahead and go yet another tangent now.

Except is not.

Still waiting for that example

NO SHIT SHERLOCK.

Here in the rest of the world deregulation means cutting down barriers of entry, in America it means giving corporations the green go to dump toxic chemicals in rivers.

Absolutely nobody talks about relaxing financial or enviromental law when talking about overregulation in the rest of the world.

Then perhaps you should look at what the WC consensus means when THEY mention deregulation. Is it to cut down on bureaucracy and paperwork? Or things like lowering taxes and tariffs?

There is a difference between state investment and state corporations.



See above.

Not gonna fall for the Rod classic of switching subjects when backed in a corner.

GIVE ME EXAMPLES OF PRIVATE INVESTMENT USUALLY PRODUCING A PROFIT WHILE STATE INVESTMENT USUALLY PRODUCING SOVEREIGN DEBT.

Where does the WC says that healthcare needs to be privatized? There is also minimum pressure to privatize profitable industries.

Recommendation #8

 

[lifelessheap]

After I posted that, I realized you meant "Socialism in the 21st Century" as in what Chavez called his movement. I forgot about that term of art.

As I said, I make no pretenses about the efficacy of the petro-state model. However, I do maintain that support of the Maduro government is far preferable to support of the Latin American oligarchs funding and exacerbating Venezuelan dissent.

I think the "Venezuelan dissent" you speak of comes from starvation, disease and the military murdering anyone who opposes it. lmao, as if anyone needs to 'fund' dissent there. At least the people have fair elections and choices, right?

Maduro is a murderous cunt who destroyed a once decent nation and being controlled by oligarchs would at least mean the oil would flow and toilette paper could be on shelves. And do you think the oligarchs would give two shits about the thousands of small businesses Maduro wrecked?

 

[Rod1]

Me: Promising to spend on education, healthcare, and infrastructure is so common sense that it's beyond ideological
Rod: No, it's not. Not in 3rd world countries.
Me: Ok, then show me a 3rd world party or candidate that doesn't give it importance.
Rod: Smoking, obesity, Republicans

We are not talking about promises but policy.

Still waiting for that example

Here are two examples.

Then perhaps you should look at what the WC consensus means when THEY mention deregulation. Is it to cut down on bureaucracy and paperwork? Or things like lowering taxes and tariffs?

1. Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;

Its crystal clear for anyone without an ideological bias.

1. Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;

Not gonna fall for the Rod classic of switching subjects when backed in a corner.

GIVE ME EXAMPLES OF PRIVATE INVESTMENT USUALLY PRODUCING A PROFIT WHILE STATE INVESTMENT USUALLY PRODUCING SOVEREIGN DEBT.

Examples?

Venezuela , Turkey, Mexico, most of Latin America in the 80s and 2010s commodity crisis, Greece.

And ill retort with

Give me examples of direct government investment that produces profits without the use of the private market or state enforced monopolies.

Recommendation #8

How many state managed companies in Latin America are not in the red?