Tainari88 wrote:Where is a socialist government Bloated with MONEY from billionaires? Where? The money and the power plays are from the Capitalist neoliberals Wat0n. Yet you are obsessed with the defects of Nicaragua or Cuba or Venezuela? Those governments are fragile and without MONEY. Sanctioned and embargoed or pressured all damn day to collapse. WHY? Because they don't go for capitalism that is done in every capitalist nation in Latin America. The USA banks and etc spent a lot of money making sure Pinochet's Chilean economy was stable. Why? You figure it out. They wanted zero socialism. For Latin America. You hate it Wat0n. Yes, I am a Puerto Rican socialist. I am. I don't deny it. I think getting rid of some colonial powerless bullshit status is imperative for progress in Puerto Rico.
You think it is about poof a democratic vote and all is solved. It goes to show how naive and uninformed you are about not only PR but the entire history of American aggression all over the world. Not just in the Western hemisphere Waton.
Pinochet's economy, like Allende's, was anything but stable
But tell me, where are the billions in oil windfall profits Venezuela (most egregious example) was able to collect during the oil boom? What happened to those windfall profits? Why is it that a new elite around the PSUV "coincidentally" arose during that time and why does it enjoy higher standards of living than the unconnected Venezuelan?
Tainari88 wrote:Who are you? Do you define yourself politically @wat0n ? Or do you avoid a label because you are un blandito? Whatever Wat0n. I don't like your positions. I have read enough of them to know you have the ones backing some form of American dominance of the world. Why? Because most people from Chile and from the Right love imperial shit and love identifying with powerful pro right pigs most of the time. They want to be powerful and fear the Left.
I don't understand. Why is it bad to be a blandito (softie, for English speakers)? Anyway, I'm a liberal. Which in the current context, means clearly being at least centrist, or (more often) to the right of that.
Tainari88 wrote:You think the Left is corrupt. That is true in many cases. The Right is corrupt. The difference? You either become an anarchist criticizing both sides.
Or you pick the lesser evil.
Tainari88 wrote:If you are a liberal democrat you should be trying to get rid of Pinochet type shit and it rarely works.
Pinochet has been dead for almost 15 years now, and the system he set up has been dead for much longer than that. The thing is, change was gradual and based on pragmatism, not dogma.
Tainari88 wrote:But I am not naive. The reality is you have to have some values in politics about dealing with problems with large masses of people. Who are the majority? Rich or poor? Poor. So deal with them with JUSTICE. That is my philosophy about politics. Punto y se acabo. No te gustan los pobres? Deja la mierda y declarate un comemierda burguesito. Because that is what it is about with class conscious anti Leftism in Chile. Gente con ideas malas y falta de teoria para la gente con pocos recursos.
Very interesting, actually I agree with you that poor people are clearly the priority. But then, why would you support governments with an awful track record in that regard? Where are the permanent social gains from Chavismo? There are none, actually, and the Venezuelans largely live worse than before. The rich from that time? Many did lose their businesses and a good chunk their money, they did indeed - but they still kept enough to be able to emigrate to the US or Spain (mostly). The rest? Either they joined the new elite due to being connected to the PSUV in some capacity or they simply got fucked. Why do you think there have been millions of them desperate to emigrate by foot to other countries, including Chile?
In reality, even Pinochet did better in that regard. And can give you hard evidence of that, if you want.
Tainari88 wrote:You don't see the hypocrisy? You don't? I do.
If socialism doesn't work? Leave the socialist voters and socialist societies ALONE. Don't pressure them with sanctions and embargos. Oh, it is because of human rights. No, it is not. It is about GREED. Greed from capitalist powerful people. Who control everything.
It is either our way of making money and hegemony or the highway.
Actually, I agree with that. As long as they don't become an international problem, as long as they don't engage in adventurism, I don't care. At most do slap sanctions on them, so they don't become an international problem, and by that I don't mean the kind of international problem that bleeds emigrants but the kind of international problem that takes military action against its neighbors. But I don't think the US should step in and save Venezuelans, Nicaraguans or Cubans by the bomb if that's where you believe I stand. No, the former two got into it on their own, while the latter... Well, the
latter will also have to overthrow their regime if they have the guts to. Just like many peoples in Central and Eastern Europe did 30+ years ago. If they don't have the guts to do that, then why would anyone else do it for them save some silly Cuban adventurism of the sort the Cuban government engaged in back in the 1970s and 1980s and for which it paid a heavy price and learned the lesson?
Tainari88 wrote:BTW. where do I praise some killers and violence and injustice? I have been on this forum for 12 years? Where is the praise for killing and me being Machiavellian? NO WHERE will you find a single post of mine praising injustice, violence and death. Or aggressive greed. Not once.
Go and lie on me some more you are the one who is a Machiavellian selfish type. Go and get the quotes. They don't exist!
Well, haven't all the aforementioned regimes (Chavistas in Venezuela, Sandinistas in Nicaragua and of course the Communists in Cuba) done just that, @Tainari88? If you don't praise their repression, well, that's fine. But I don't see @JohnRawls or @Rugoz praising repression in Bolivia either. At most, they seem to believe the lesser evil won in 2019, and that's about it.
And if they don't, well, personally I just think it's sad Evo Morales had to be stopped that way. I don't like him, he's populist, he's also authoritarian (but less than other leftist regimes) and it seems he's corrupt (but also less than other of the leftist populists we get to see in Latin America too, despite all the power he managed to accumulate), but he
did actually accomplish a feat rarely seen in Bolivia: Stability. It may seem like a small thing, after all didn't Chavez, Ortega and of course Castro do the same? They did, but the difference is that Bolivia has a much richer history of instability and internal strife than Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba. So that was actually a major feat in this case.
If, instead of trying to perpetuate himself in power, Evo Morales had just let one of his close associates be President while he'd just be Vice President (like Medvedev and Putin do in Russia), it'd have been fine and most Bolivians would have accepted it. But no, they had to come up with bullshit so he'd run again