Latin America: the fires immediately died down, because they needed socialism to burn

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Latin America: the fires immediately died down, because they needed socialism to burn

«‹›283 »

Redrum and Coke: Feb 25, 2006; wAstIng 10 bUcks ON an aVaTar iS StUpid

Squeegy posted:

What if your government is also a terrorist organization?

Mass suicide.

# ? Oct 13, 2016 21:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 11, 2024 20:34

nerdz: Oct 12, 2004; Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature more difficult to explain than simple, statistically probable things.; Grimey Drawer

Non Serviam posted:

I think that a government shouldn't capitulate to terrorist organizations. If there's a group of armed rebels in your country, openly threatening the safety of your citizens, it is that government's obligation to cut them down to size.
When those idiotic Americans took over a federal building a few months back there wasn't a talk of "well, maybe let's give them the ground floor."

What if they took over the entire west coast, had comparable firepower to the US military and also nukes? What would be the talks then? This is the thing about parallel governments, it took lots of time, stupid decisions from both sides and war crimes to get to this point. Deescalating things like this from a completely one sided standpoint is almost impossible. The most you can expect is a pyrrhic victory.

A similar thing is Brazil's drug lords who are basically tolerated and live inside their own safe zones. It's very hard to fight against an enemy when your own troops are going unpaid and being bribed be the opposition.

# ? Oct 13, 2016 21:40

Redrum and Coke: Feb 25, 2006; wAstIng 10 bUcks ON an aVaTar iS StUpid

nerdz posted:

What if they took over the entire west coast, had comparable firepower to the US military and also nukes? What would be the talks then? This is the thing about parallel governments, it took lots of time, stupid decisions from both sides and war crimes to get to this point. Deescalating things like this from a completely one sided standpoint is almost impossible. The most you can expect is a pyrrhic victory.

A similar thing is Brazil's drug lords who are basically tolerated and live inside their own safe zones. It's very hard to fight against an enemy when your own troops are going unpaid and being bribed be the opposition.

You do raise some valid points there, I admit it. Perhaps you're right.

# ? Oct 13, 2016 21:41

Squalid: Nov 4, 2008

Non Serviam posted:

I think that a government shouldn't capitulate to terrorist organizations. If there's a group of armed rebels in your country, openly threatening the safety of your citizens, it is that government's obligation to cut them down to size.
When those idiotic Americans took over a federal building a few months back there wasn't a talk of "well, maybe let's give them the ground floor."

Having said all of that, I can understand why people would support the armistice. I don't agree with the terms, obviously, but I can understand why the people of Colombia would agree to anything to finally have peace. If they democratically decide that these are the terms they want, well, there's nothing to do. It's their country, their choice.

Before I commented here , however, I saw people ITT saying that the people in the No faction were "fascists, basically", as if opposing a lack of accountability, and a way to parliament for terrorist, meant you were just biding your time to start goose stepping around Bogot�. To simplify the discourse like that does nothing to bring peace and just demonstrates the ideological idiocy of some.

Edit. It's not lenient sentences. It's community service for war crimes.

Non Serviam, what's your opinion of the 1989 deal that brought those infamous terrorists, mercenaries and thugs, the Contras, into control of Nicaragua? I mean obviously it was a tragedy of justice, but was it a good decision by the Sandinista government?

# ? Oct 14, 2016 00:22

Redrum and Coke: Feb 25, 2006; wAstIng 10 bUcks ON an aVaTar iS StUpid

Squalid posted:

Non Serviam, what's your opinion of the 1989 deal that brought those infamous terrorists, mercenaries and thugs, the Contras, into control of Nicaragua? I mean obviously it was a tragedy of justice, but was it a good decision by the Sandinista government?

To be honest, I'd have to Google it. I'm not very informed about the Nicaraguan history. The little I know is that there were horrendous crimes committed by the Contras, perhaps even more than by the Sandinistas.
If you can draw a parallel between the two here, it'd be great, to get some context.
I'm not trying to be an rear end, I'm interested.

# ? Oct 14, 2016 03:06

Chewbaccanator: Apr 7, 2010

Reagan lied, Sandinistas died.

# ? Oct 14, 2016 05:57

bagual: Oct 29, 2010; _{_{inconspicuous}}

In BR news, public spending has just been completely frozen for 20 loving years. Also, my generation will only be able to retire when we're at least 65 years old.

unrelated pic, i just guess our culture will always be as awesome as our reality is sad

# ? Oct 15, 2016 03:53

Squalid: Nov 4, 2008

Non Serviam posted:

To be honest, I'd have to Google it. I'm not very informed about the Nicaraguan history. The little I know is that there were horrendous crimes committed by the Contras, perhaps even more than by the Sandinistas.
If you can draw a parallel between the two here, it'd be great, to get some context.
I'm not trying to be an rear end, I'm interested.

In the 1980s the the Sandanista government was in power in Nicaragua. In 1979 they overthrew the much hated dictator President Anastasio Somoza Debayle, brother of President Luis Somoza Debayle, and son of President Anastasio Somoza Garc�a via a general strike and popular insurrection. The remnants of Somoza's enforcers and security establishment fled the country, and were soon recruited into an anti-Sandanista military force known as the Contras supplied and organized by the CIA and operating mostly from bases in neighboring Honduras. Lacking popular support the Contras turned to large scale raids into Nicaragua with the goal of disrupting the functioning of the Nicaraguan state and terrorizing the rural population into cooperation. The Contras soon became infamous for the propensity to burn villages, rape and murder civilians, and involvement in the drug trade.

Despite these well documented circumstances in 1989 the Nicaraguan government joined in the Esquipulas Peace Agreement to end the conflict, which included a provision of Amnesty reading:

quote:

In each Central American country, except those where the International Verification and Follow-up Commission determines this to be unnecessary, amnesty decrees shall be issued which establish all necessary provisions guaranteeing the inviolability of life, freedom in all its forms, property and security of persons of those to whom such decrees are applicable. Simultaneously with the issue of amnesty decrees, the irregular forces of the countries in question shall release anyone that they are holding prisoner.

Note there are no reservations about crimes against humanity, or anything about justice. Rather tragic really. In fact the Contras would continue their campaign until 1990, when the elections that year were swept by the UNO party. That year the Contras actively "campaigned" for UNO on their raids, they'd received $50 million in non-lethal aid that year for the purpose. It's hard to argue the election was fair, after all foreign funding for political campaigns is banned in the US for a reason, and amnesty certainly wasn't just, the Contras were always reviled by average Nicaraguans. Afterwards they mostly returned to Managua where they either still live today or have died of natural causes. Polls conducted after the election suggest voters believed voting for UNO was the only way to end the war and US economic blockade, which was pretty rational since that's exactly what the Bush administration said.

Some governments would have looked at this outcome and said NO, the Contras are monsters, the election was rigged and sabotaged, no amnesty without justice. Certainly modern governments in places like Algeria and Syria have started wars for worse reasons. Yet Ortega and the Sandinistas approved the amnesty, they approved the election results, and they ended the war. In fact many governments have chosen a similar course. The Rhodesian government for example and their deal to allow Robert Mugage's ZANU to compete in free and fair elections that ultimately ended white rule. Latin American history is brimming over with amnesty and deals between caudillos throughout the 19th century.

I'm not sure where you're from, but I think a lot of people in Europe and the United States have an image of war as something that you win or lose absolutely, with little room for anything in between. Germany either wins WWII completely, or it is utterly defeated and carved to pieces. It makes for simple narratives, but the truth is there are many wars that reach points that are truly irresolvable. When you've been fighting 50 years you have to start asking 'to what end?' What are you willing to stake for justice? What's worth another lifetime of conflict?

I'm not going to second guess the Colombian voters. Clearly feelings are split and its got to be emotional for everyone involved. Yet peace has to be the objective, because without it there can't be any justice for anyone. Do you think Nicaragua would be better off had it refused to negotiate, if had had instead kept up the war, swearing to fight until the last killer was brought to justice? FARC and their campaign was already 15 years old when the Contras were first fleeing their posts on Somoza's estates. How many more war criminals would Nicaragua have manufactured in another decade of war? How many villages is a case before the ICJ worth?

# ? Oct 15, 2016 06:00

ronya: Nov 8, 2010; I'm the normal one.

You hate ridden fucks will regret your words when you eventually grow up.

Peace.

in the intervening period between the 1979 coup d'etat and the 1989 peace agreement, the opposition had grown from being rump Somoza loyalists to including moderates and centrists disenchanted with Ortega's hardline policies - ethnic cleansing, purges, conscription, Soviet alignment, etc

(which were probably less murderous than the Contras, but you know, this is not a competition)

in 1989 Ortega's own coalition was rapidly weakening. it was no longer 1984. the promise of Soviet sponsorship to support an anti-American foreign policy was obviously not working out. likewise, following the Iran scandal, the Americans had lost interest; this mutual de-escalation is why the right endorsed a former coup junta as their own candidate in 1990

the mutuality of the de-escalation is reflected in the fact that 1) he would go on to lose at the ballot box in 1990, and 2) having lost, he was not then purged by a victorious right-wing but instead remained in opposition in the legislature, and would indeed be eventually re-elected in 2006 on a platform with much less Marxism and a lot more social conservatism

peace agreements are easier to support when both sides find themselves too exhausted to maintain hardline positions, and both sides know it. this is not similar to how FARC was weakened in Colombia and so the absence of middle-class endorsement should not be surprising. There is the middle-class narrative that the UP was justifiably smashed for refusing to honestly renounce violence, the El Caguan peace process dying under the FARC re-arming, and then FARC itself eventually collapsing under sustained military assault - this is not a narrative that leads to a consensus of peace at any price

# ? Oct 15, 2016 07:24

Chewbaccanator: Apr 7, 2010

ronya posted:

ethnic cleansing

Are you talking about the Miskito?

# ? Oct 15, 2016 21:11

Siselmo: Jun 16, 2013; hey there

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/haitians-mass-us-mexico-border-deportation-policy-42634998

Posting this 'cause I'm from Tijuana and over here this a big deal, reading any opinion on this is headache-inducing. From one side are the racist and/or pro-Trump "let's build a wall/gently caress you Mexicans, now you see what we get", and from the other are Mexicans with lovely and racist opinions "Maybe Trump is right/how DARE those Americans be racist against Mexicans, but seriously gently caress HAITIANS/ Well they are NOT POOR otherwise how did getfrom Haiti to Brazil to over here/I'm not racist but I don't like those Haitians-black people because they bring criiiime". Local media isn't helping ("those drat Haitians, not working and refusing help from locals").

Migrant shelters don't have enough space so many are on the streets. From what I've heard, many get temporary 20-day permits and work temporarily in maquilas (I can atttest to the latter) especially since locals are leaving a lot of maquiladoras.

The whole thing is one big mess.

# ? Oct 16, 2016 08:42

Plutonis: Mar 25, 2011

There's been a lot of Haiting on the Haitians here on Brazil as well. There were several murders and hate crimes a year or so ago but it was barely reported on media.

# ? Oct 16, 2016 15:25

TROIKA CURES GREEK: Jun 30, 2015; by R. Guyovich

bagual posted:

In BR news, public spending has just been completely frozen for 20 loving years. Also, my generation will only be able to retire when we're at least 65 years old.

People live a lot longer now, 65 really isn't that unreasonable.

# ? Oct 16, 2016 17:37

Squalid: Nov 4, 2008

ronya posted:

in the intervening period between the 1979 coup d'etat and the 1989 peace agreement, the opposition had grown from being rump Somoza loyalists to including moderates and centrists disenchanted with Ortega's hardline policies - ethnic cleansing, purges, conscription, Soviet alignment, etc

(which were probably less murderous than the Contras, but you know, this is not a competition)

in 1989 Ortega's own coalition was rapidly weakening. it was no longer 1984. the promise of Soviet sponsorship to support an anti-American foreign policy was obviously not working out. likewise, following the Iran scandal, the Americans had lost interest; this mutual de-escalation is why the right endorsed a former coup junta as their own candidate in 1990

the mutuality of the de-escalation is reflected in the fact that 1) he would go on to lose at the ballot box in 1990, and 2) having lost, he was not then purged by a victorious right-wing but instead remained in opposition in the legislature, and would indeed be eventually re-elected in 2006 on a platform with much less Marxism and a lot more social conservatism

peace agreements are easier to support when both sides find themselves too exhausted to maintain hardline positions, and both sides know it. this is not similar to how FARC was weakened in Colombia and so the absence of middle-class endorsement should not be surprising. There is the middle-class narrative that the UP was justifiably smashed for refusing to honestly renounce violence, the El Caguan peace process dying under the FARC re-arming, and then FARC itself eventually collapsing under sustained military assault - this is not a narrative that leads to a consensus of peace at any price

It's true there was a lot of complexity in Nicaragua I elided... nor do I advocate peace at any price in for every conflict. Clearly Colombians agreed that they didn't need peace at any price, but what price is peace worth? Non Serviam has more or less argued Colombia should offer nothing besides naked force. I think history shows that this is a terrible perspective, and especially Latin American history. It's easy to call for nothing short of justice, but what to do when the judges have blood on their hands too? The argument soon becomes a farc(e). Hopefully Colombia can soon work out a deal that will be workable for everyone.

# ? Oct 17, 2016 02:48

Redrum and Coke: Feb 25, 2006; wAstIng 10 bUcks ON an aVaTar iS StUpid

Squalid posted:

In the 1980s the the Sandanista government was in power in Nicaragua. In 1979 they overthrew the much hated dictator President Anastasio Somoza Debayle, brother of President Luis Somoza Debayle, and son of President Anastasio Somoza García via a general strike and popular insurrection. The remnants of Somoza's enforcers and security establishment fled the country, and were soon recruited into an anti-Sandanista military force known as the Contras supplied and organized by the CIA and operating mostly from bases in neighboring Honduras. Lacking popular support the Contras turned to large scale raids into Nicaragua with the goal of disrupting the functioning of the Nicaraguan state and terrorizing the rural population into cooperation. The Contras soon became infamous for the propensity to burn villages, rape and murder civilians, and involvement in the drug trade.

Despite these well documented circumstances in 1989 the Nicaraguan government joined in the Esquipulas Peace Agreement to end the conflict, which included a provision of Amnesty reading:

Note there are no reservations about crimes against humanity, or anything about justice. Rather tragic really. In fact the Contras would continue their campaign until 1990, when the elections that year were swept by the UNO party. That year the Contras actively "campaigned" for UNO on their raids, they'd received $50 million in non-lethal aid that year for the purpose. It's hard to argue the election was fair, after all foreign funding for political campaigns is banned in the US for a reason, and amnesty certainly wasn't just, the Contras were always reviled by average Nicaraguans. Afterwards they mostly returned to Managua where they either still live today or have died of natural causes. Polls conducted after the election suggest voters believed voting for UNO was the only way to end the war and US economic blockade, which was pretty rational since that's exactly what the Bush administration said.

Some governments would have looked at this outcome and said NO, the Contras are monsters, the election was rigged and sabotaged, no amnesty without justice. Certainly modern governments in places like Algeria and Syria have started wars for worse reasons. Yet Ortega and the Sandinistas approved the amnesty, they approved the election results, and they ended the war. In fact many governments have chosen a similar course. The Rhodesian government for example and their deal to allow Robert Mugage's ZANU to compete in free and fair elections that ultimately ended white rule. Latin American history is brimming over with amnesty and deals between caudillos throughout the 19th century.

I'm not sure where you're from, but I think a lot of people in Europe and the United States have an image of war as something that you win or lose absolutely, with little room for anything in between. Germany either wins WWII completely, or it is utterly defeated and carved to pieces. It makes for simple narratives, but the truth is there are many wars that reach points that are truly irresolvable. When you've been fighting 50 years you have to start asking 'to what end?' What are you willing to stake for justice? What's worth another lifetime of conflict?

I'm not going to second guess the Colombian voters. Clearly feelings are split and its got to be emotional for everyone involved. Yet peace has to be the objective, because without it there can't be any justice for anyone. Do you think Nicaragua would be better off had it refused to negotiate, if had had instead kept up the war, swearing to fight until the last killer was brought to justice? FARC and their campaign was already 15 years old when the Contras were first fleeing their posts on Somoza's estates. How many more war criminals would Nicaragua have manufactured in another decade of war? How many villages is a case before the ICJ worth?

I really appreciate that you took the time to explain this. You raise some very good points.

I think the farc and the paras don't deserve liberty and that this deal is an insult to human rights. . As you say, however, it might be the best we can get.

# ? Oct 17, 2016 13:00

Plutonis: Mar 25, 2011

The recent events here in Brazil have completely discouraged me from believing that socialism will be created from liberal democracy. At this point I agree with Mao that only military power can forcibly bring the changes and overcome the Bourgeoise enslavement of the population. Which is why I disagree with the FARC falling on the trap of peace and laying down their arms.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 17:53

Tacky-Ass Rococco: Sep 7, 2010; by R. Guyovich

TheLovablePlutonis posted:

The recent events here in Brazil have completely discouraged me from believing that socialism will be created from liberal democracy. At this point I agree with Mao that only military power can forcibly bring the changes and overcome the Bourgeoise enslavement of the population. Which is why I disagree with the FARC falling on the trap of peace and laying down their arms.

Go volunteer with them, maybe you can bring them around.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 19:22

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Brazil does need a Robespierre.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 20:33

nerdz: Oct 12, 2004; Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature more difficult to explain than simple, statistically probable things.; Grimey Drawer

TheLovablePlutonis posted:

The recent events here in Brazil have completely discouraged me from believing that socialism will be created from liberal democracy. At this point I agree with Mao that only military power can forcibly bring the changes and overcome the Bourgeoise enslavement of the population. Which is why I disagree with the FARC falling on the trap of peace and laying down their arms.

Who really wants full socialism though? I'm as liberal as they come, worked on progressive activism for the better part of the last decade, but I'm also a pragmatic. Any system that completely suppresses opposing ideas was already created in a very wrong manner. Add in the human factor there and you got a system that's very very easy to abuse if you are in any position of power. It's easy to see that by looking at how the communist governments started and where they are now. We never had full on anarco capitalism but I'm pretty sure it would be just as bad or worse than what we've seen with socialism, mostly due to the suppression of socialism ideas and how they would enforce this. I don't really like capitalism that much but I hate authoritarianism even more.

I believe that the best government we can have is one with a healthy ecosystem of ideologies where each of them keeps the others in check and everyone is free to speak their minds. The best critic of the left is the right and vice versa, and both need to be in a good position to exert power over the other. Right now we seem to have a lack of balance due to all the poo poo that happened in Brazil lately, but we're definitely in a better position to help the left recover (maybe better than it was with PT) than any country in a civil war.

But of course it's easier to fantasize about the revolution than actually doing something. I love the facebook activists that are all "either full armed revolution or I'm not doing it" to justify why they only ever complain on facebook and nothing else.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 20:45

Plutonis: Mar 25, 2011

Crowsbeak posted:

Brazil does need a Robespierre.

*Pol Pot

# ? Oct 18, 2016 20:53

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

TheLovablePlutonis posted:

The recent events here in Brazil have completely discouraged me from believing that socialism will be created from liberal democracy. At this point I agree with Mao that only military power can forcibly bring the changes and overcome the Bourgeoise enslavement of the population. Which is why I disagree with the FARC falling on the trap of peace and laying down their arms.

The recent events in Venezuela should equally discourage you from believing that socialism will be created from anyone advocating or fighting for socialism either.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 21:07

forkboy84: Jun 13, 2012; Corgis love bread. And Puro

nerdz posted:

Who really wants full socialism though? I'm as liberal as they come...

Hmmmm. Gosh, I can't imagine why you don't favour socialism...

# ? Oct 18, 2016 21:11

Plutonis: Mar 25, 2011

GlyphGryph posted:

The recent events in Venezuela should equally discourage you from believing that socialism will be created from anyone advocating or fighting for socialism either.

Socialism my rear end Venezuela is just a state capitalist country with makeup.

nerdz posted:

I'm as liberal as they come,

Just like the good old PFL huh

# ? Oct 18, 2016 21:18

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

TheLovablePlutonis posted:

Socialism my rear end Venezuela is just a state capitalist country with makeup.

Created by people advocating and fighting for socialism. Which is my point. You are literally supporting my point.

What socialists have won their revolution and gone on to create anything that could be considered something other than "state capitalism with makup" (with added bonuses of rampant corruption, mismanagement, mass starvation and oppression)? The FARC would, judging by historical trends, do exactly the same thing.

If "only military power can forcibly bring the changes and overcome the Bourgeoise enslavement of the population", it really sucks, because it always seems the followup is "and replace it with revolutionary/military enslavement of the population".

# ? Oct 18, 2016 21:23

R. Guyovich: Dec 25, 1991

oh, who will save us from the yoke of guaranteed employment, education, health care and housing

# ? Oct 18, 2016 21:55

R. Guyovich: Dec 25, 1991

i don't pay rent anymore! truly this is the modern slavery

# ? Oct 18, 2016 21:55

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

Homework Explainer posted:

oh, who will save us from the yoke of guaranteed employment, education, health care and housing

You seem to be confusing rhetoric with results again.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 22:00

R. Guyovich: Dec 25, 1991

GlyphGryph posted:

You seem to be confusing rhetoric with results again.

those are the results. crack open a political economy some time

# ? Oct 18, 2016 22:00

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

Homework Explainer posted:

oh, who will save us from the yoke of guaranteed employment, education, health care and housing

None of those exist in Venezuela though. Of course the closest Chavez and Maduro came to socialism was just shouting they were socialist. Couldn't even be bothered to nationalize the overall means of production smdh.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 22:18

R. Guyovich: Dec 25, 1991

for sure. i'd argue venezuela's failing was in not being socialist. that guy's general comments were what i was addressing

# ? Oct 18, 2016 22:20

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

TheLovablePlutonis posted:

*Pol Pot

Robespierre appreciated the city.

Homework Explainer posted:

oh, who will save us from the yoke of guaranteed employment, education, health care and housing

What alternative reality does this exist in?

# ? Oct 18, 2016 22:24

nerdz: Oct 12, 2004; Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature more difficult to explain than simple, statistically probable things.; Grimey Drawer

forkboy84 posted:

Hmmmm. Gosh, I can't imagine why you don't favour socialism...

Liberal as in opposite to conservative, not economically liberal

I do favor socialist ideals which is why I have been helping unions worldwide fight for worker rights, but you simply can't transition to a full socialist government without forcibly removing all opposition to that. That's the part I have an issue with. I don't have any problems with the perfect and peaceful socialist nation with zero corruption, but that will simply never happen since not everyone wants to live the same way and leaders always behave badly without opposition and scrutiny (hell, the behave the same way even with those).

The guarantee of housing, education, workers rights, healthcare, welfare, income equality and higher taxes for the upper classes is the best we'll ever get.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 22:40

R. Guyovich: Dec 25, 1991

Crowsbeak posted:

What alternative reality does this exist in?

same one we're all living in, bub

# ? Oct 18, 2016 22:47

MrNemo: Aug 26, 2010; "I just love beeting off"

nerdz posted:

Liberal as in opposite to conservative, not economically liberal

Technically the opposite of a conservative is a progressive.

Those labels tend to refer to one's position within a certain political context while liberal or socialist implies attachment to some basic political values favouring individual rights, collective responsibilities or what have you.

Which was basically the original joke. Of course you're not into socialism, you're a liberal.

# ? Oct 18, 2016 23:27

nerdz: Oct 12, 2004; Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature more difficult to explain than simple, statistically probable things.; Grimey Drawer

and apparently some people's brains will just shut down once they read some keywords like that which kills the entire discussion

# ? Oct 18, 2016 23:39

forkboy84: Jun 13, 2012; Corgis love bread. And Puro

nerdz posted:

Liberal as in opposite to conservative, not economically liberal

I do favor socialist ideals which is why I have been helping unions worldwide fight for worker rights, but you simply can't transition to a full socialist government without forcibly removing all opposition to that. That's the part I have an issue with. I don't have any problems with the perfect and peaceful socialist nation with zero corruption, but that will simply never happen since not everyone wants to live the same way and leaders always behave badly without opposition and scrutiny (hell, the behave the same way even with those).

The guarantee of housing, education, workers rights, healthcare, welfare, income equality and higher taxes for the upper classes is the best we'll ever get.

Why are you holding up socialism to an impossible standard that doesn't apply to liberalism? Which is to say, show me the perfect, peaceful capitalist nation with zero corruption.

Making the existing system better in the short-term is of course good. But at some point when you look around and see that the system is rigged so that you can't improve things for the majority within the rules then it seems only rational to look to alternatives. I'm not sure an armed rebellion lead by people wedded to the mistakes of discredited ideologies like Leninism & Maoism are particularly great ways to go, but I certainly don't completely reject that sometimes political violence is a necessary evil either.

# ? Oct 19, 2016 00:16

Cup Runneth Over: Aug 8, 2009; She said life's
Too short to worry
Life's too long to wait
It's too short
Not to love everybody
Life's too long to hate

nerdz posted:

and apparently some people's brains will just shut down once they read some keywords like that which kills the entire discussion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

# ? Oct 19, 2016 00:20

nerdz: Oct 12, 2004; Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature more difficult to explain than simple, statistically probable things.; Grimey Drawer

forkboy84 posted:

Why are you holding up socialism to an impossible standard that doesn't apply to liberalism? Which is to say, show me the perfect, peaceful capitalist nation with zero corruption.

Making the existing system better in the short-term is of course good. But at some point when you look around and see that the system is rigged so that you can't improve things for the majority within the rules then it seems only rational to look to alternatives. I'm not sure an armed rebellion lead by people wedded to the mistakes of discredited ideologies like Leninism & Maoism are particularly great ways to go, but I certainly don't completely reject that sometimes political violence is a necessary evil either.

Sorry if I worded things in a bad way, but my point was that no single ideology could be implemented in its purest form. I am putting socialism and liberalism in the same standard here. full on liberalism would just be an oppressive corporate dystopia with legal slavery.

What I'm saying is that socialists should keep fighting against libertarian and corporate interests and for the workers and the poor instead of just being power hungry. you can't do much about people that think different but they will always exist. I think armed revolution has a place and can be justified, but that definitely is not the case for Brasil.

# ? Oct 19, 2016 00:47

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

Homework Explainer posted:

for sure. i'd argue venezuela's failing was in not being socialist. that guy's general comments were what i was addressing

Which again was my while point. I was at no point arguing against socialism, I was saying to be careful of people who promise to institute socialism. Because generally speaking, they dont.

I am for socialism, I am against believing people who claim to be socialist but arent. Remember we are talking about the FARC who seem to be a lot more likely to turn out venezuela style than utopia style.

# ? Oct 19, 2016 01:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 11, 2024 20:34

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Homework Explainer posted:

same one we're all living in, bub

I want proof that Venezuela isn't a place that makes Honduras look like paradise and you give me soviet propganda

# ? Oct 19, 2016 01:18

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Latin America: the fires immediately died down, because they needed socialism to burn

«‹›283 »