Augusto Pinochet Dead

[el Chi]

Yeah, Chile was a poor country, and under a socialist government it would forever remain so. There is no such thing as a prosperous left-wing country. They do not exist. Your idiotic ideas do nothing but harm the poor in the end.

Interesting. Chile certainly wasn't a prosperous nation, but Allende was doing a damn good job of redistributing wealth to people who most needed it by nationalising the coal industries etc. Ok, this could be seen as morally questionable, but the fact remains that those who were most impoverished had their quality of life raised.
Under Pinochet, things simply got WORSE. The divisions between rich and poor got even worse than they were before Allende.
Pinochet harmed (personally I would say all but destroyed, but I'm using your words here) the poor immeasurably and almost instantly.

I'm astonished how easy people are finding it to say "Well things would've been even worse if it had gone communist" or "Well communists are bastards too"
That's utterly immaterial when discussing Pinochet's dictatorship.
Moreover, it's redundant to even talk of the potential dangers of a communist dictatorship in Chile when:
a) they had a socialist govt, which is different from communist
b) it was democratically elected, which is different from a dictatorship
c) Allende was doing rather well, which is different from dangerous.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that "There is no such thing as a prosperous left-wing country. They do not exist." is utter nonsense.
Left-wing and communist are different things. Hell, left-wing and socialist are different things.

 

[NeptuneUK]

Controlled anarchy is best. There needs to be an element of national unity to have a properly functioning society, but on the other hand free debate must be allowed in order to ensure that everyone gets the best and most just "experience" of life possible.
Here in the UK, thanks to multiculturalism, we lack that element of national unity. In London at least, we don't have a society anymore. We have lots of co-existing societies that tolerate (mostly), but don't really like or interact with each other.
On the other hand, it goes slightly too far the other way in the States, where dissenting viewpoints are often suppressed by cries of "anti-American"...

According to a BBC news article from today, there are more Brits living permanently abroad (5.5 million) than any other nationality except the Chinese or Indians...and this is a very recent trend. Thanks, Blair.

I completely understand. What can we do though? You cant simply deport everyone with dark skin! A complete halt to immigration would solve LOTS of problems including water and housing shortage. We shouldn't have to experience this as a 'developed' nation.....
Britian does not have the capacity to support such a large population as it is, we really cannot allow more people into our island. At least not until the immediate problems are resolved. The british population is slowly been replaced, every day 500 people leave the UK and 1000 people enter.

 

[repiV]

Interesting. Chile certainly wasn't a prosperous nation, but Allende was doing a damn good job of redistributing wealth to people who most needed it by nationalising the coal industries etc. Ok, this could be seen as morally questionable, but the fact remains that those who were most impoverished had their quality of life raised.

It's a short term solution at best. If you want models for how to improve the quality of life for the poor and, for that matter, everyone else, look no further than the USA (from nothing to a world-leading nation in 100 years...impressive, no?), Hong Kong or more recently, China. All due to rampant capitalism.
Capitalism is about increasing the size of the pie, which benefits everybody, whereas socialism is about sharing the small pie and thus misery equally.

Under Pinochet, things simply got WORSE. The divisions between rich and poor got even worse than they were before Allende.
Pinochet harmed (personally I would say all but destroyed, but I'm using your words here) the poor immeasurably and almost instantly.

I'm astonished how easy people are finding it to say "Well things would've been even worse if it had gone communist" or "Well communists are bastards too"

Maybe they did get worse...I don't know, as I've never studied it. Lots of Chileans seem to think otherwise though. The point is, you can't say "Pinochet was evil" and then ignore all the other tyrants in the world. It's just stupid.

That's utterly immaterial when discussing Pinochet's dictatorship.
Moreover, it's redundant to even talk of the potential dangers of a communist dictatorship in Chile when:
a) they had a socialist govt, which is different from communist
b) it was democratically elected, which is different from a dictatorship.

Well, yes, that is self-evident...

EDIT: I forgot to mention that "There is no such thing as a prosperous left-wing country. They do not exist." is utter nonsense.
Left-wing and communist are different things. Hell, left-wing and socialist are different things.

Name me a prosperous left-wing country. Capitalist countries with strong socialist elements such as Sweden are not left-wing countries, by the way. They are only left-wing as measured by the prevailing political mainsteam, but on an objective scale they are most definitely right.

 

[repiV]

I completely understand. What can we do though? You cant simply deport everyone with dark skin! A complete halt to immigration would solve LOTS of problems including water and housing shortage. We shouldn't have to experience this as a 'developed' nation.....
Britian does not have the capacity to support such a large population as it is, we really cannot allow more people into our island. At least not until the immediate problems are resolved. The british population is slowly been replaced, every day 500 people leave the UK and 1000 people enter.

The problem is that not only are people not required to integrate in order to live here, they are encouraged not to by multicultural policies. Honestly, nothing pleases me more than meeting an immigrant who has fully accepted the British way of life and "does it like we do". But they're pretty damn rare.
The problems would be solved if we did it America's way. If you want to be British, you're more than welcome to come to Britain. If you don't, you're not welcome here.
What makes America work so well is that everyone there is an American.

 

[NeptuneUK]

People go to America to become American
People go to Britian to retain their own identity and change ours.

 

[Solaris]

The british population is slowly been replaced, every day 500 people leave the UK and 1000 people enter.

Thats absolute Bullshit.

More people are emigrating than immigrating to Britian actually.

 

[NeptuneUK]

Thats absolute Bullshit.

More people are emigrating than immigrating to Britian actually.

Regardless, my original statement remains correct either way.

If you tell me that we are losing MORE british people then i am even more worried.

 

[repiV]

Thats absolute Bullshit.

More people are emigrating than immigrating to Britian actually.

That's not true. I read a BBC article on that just today, go and find it. Immigration is several times the rate of emigration.
Although if what you said was true, that would be even more alarming. It would just serve to demonstrate how ****ed up this country is nowadays.

 

[el Chi]

It's a short term solution at best. If you want models for how to improve the quality of life for the poor and, for that matter, everyone else, look no further than the USA (from nothing to a world-leading nation in 100 years...impressive, no?), Hong Kong or more recently, China. All due to rampant capitalism.
Capitalism is about increasing the size of the pie, which benefits everybody, whereas socialism is about sharing the small pie and thus misery equally.

Considering Allende's term was forciblycut short, we can only speculate as to whether it would or wouldn't have worked.
It is certainly fair to presume that, with American hostility (even if the CIA HADN'T intervened), it wouldn't have done all that well.

Maybe they did get worse...I don't know, as I've never studied it. Lots of Chileans seem to think otherwise though. The point is, you can't say "Pinochet was evil" and then ignore all the other tyrants in the world. It's just stupid.

I'm not quite sure what Chileans thought Pinochet was good for their country, but I'm willing to bet most of them will be either people who benefited from his regime in some way or other or those who were frighteningly subservient to it, like those who were responsible for the many and regular disappearences and tortures.
Also, I fail see what Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or whomever else you care to mention has in terms of relevence when deciding whether or not Pinochet was "evil" or beneficial for Chile.
The only reason you're bringing them up is as a rebuttal to Solaris and in that respect I can understand where you're going. But it's not "stupid" to not discuss them when they have absolutely no relevance to the history of Chile.

Name me a prosperous left-wing country. Capitalist countries with strong socialist elements such as Sweden are not left-wing countries, by the way.

Sorry - why not?

 

[NeptuneUK]

That's not true. I read a BBC article on that just today, go and find it. Immigration is several times the rate of emigration.
Although if what you said was true, that would be even more alarming. It would just serve to demonstrate how ****ed up this country is nowadays.

Yes Repiv. And some pro multiculturalist from Burnley... Lol!

 

[repiV]

Considering Allende's term was forciblycut short, we can only speculate as to whether it would or wouldn't have worked.
It is certainly fair to presume that, with American hostility (even if the CIA HADN'T intervened), it wouldn't have done all that well.


I'm not quite sure what Chileans thought Pinochet was good for their country, but I'm willing to bet most of them will be either people who benefited from his regime in some way or other or those who were frighteningly subservient to it, like those who were responsible for the many and regular disappearences and tortures.
Also, I fail see what Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or whomever else you care to mention has in terms of relevence when deciding whether or not Pinochet was "evil" or beneficial for Chile.
The only reason you're bringing them up is as a rebuttal to Solaris and in that respect I can understand where you're going. But it's not "stupid" to not discuss them when they have absolutely no relevance to the history of Chile.



Sorry - why not?

Capitalism is a right-wing economic system. Countries like Sweden are defined firstly by their capitalist foundation, and THEN by their added socialist policies.
There's a big, BIG difference between a capitalist country with socialist elements and a socialist country.

I'll address the rest of your post later...I gotta go out. Casino Royale, at last...

 

[zleppelin]

The british population is slowly been replaced, every day 500 people leave the UK and 1000 people enter. .

( - 500 leave + x births - y deaths) + (1000 enter) = England wins.

 

[el Chi]

Capitalism is a right-wing economic system. Countries like Sweden are defined firstly by their capitalist foundation, and THEN by their added socialist policies.
There's a big, BIG difference between a capitalist country with socialist elements and a socialist country.

I disagree. But then you probably saw that coming
Capitalism needn't be, by definition, "right-wing" - aggressive capitalism as seen in current corporate behaviour and ommercialism is definitely right-wing. Although that's due in part to the fact that the right is more than happy to give such corporations tax breaks, etc. but that's another discussion for another day.
My point is that capitalism doesn't need to be as blood-thirsty as you make it out to be.

Fair trade companies ('scuse me whilst I go for a filthy hippie example) do make profit and their prices are usually quite high, but they are ethically respectable, paying the people who work for them an honest wage rather than Nike, as an age-old example, paying their out-sourced workers a pittance in horrendous conditions. But it's okay, because they're foreign, and who gives a f*ck about foreigners? Yes, I am saying that ruthless commercialism like that is racist.

As for Sweden... As I'm reading it, you seem to be confusing "socialist country" with "socialist regime". A country can be "left-wing" without being a socialist regime; it can adopt certain socialist aspects without being completely socialist. Seeing as socialism is typically associated with the left, I'd say this gives a country a pretty strong justification to be labelled "left-wing".

Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that one can adopt certain socialist principles - nationalised industries, free national health, etc. - without actually being a socialist nation. These are simply aspects of governmental policy that look after all stratas of society rather than getting the rich richer and keeping the poor subjugated. Socialist elements in a government do not mean that a nation is, by extension, socialist.

We in the UK have free healthcare, for example, but are we a socialist nation? Nope. Are we a capitalist nation? Yup. are we a left-wing nation? Contentious.
Good lord, Blair really is an embarrasment to the Labour party, isn't he?

 

[15357]

so in other words I was correct in my assessment




yet you feel sympathetic because of ..... ?

No reason except that somebody died.

 

[The Monkey]

Name me a prosperous left-wing country. Capitalist countries with strong socialist elements such as Sweden are not left-wing countries, by the way. They are only left-wing as measured by the prevailing political mainsteam, but on an objective scale they are most definitely right.

If you mean left-wing=planned economy, then yes, you're right, there is none. However, if you compare Sweden to other capitalist countries (which is a vast majority of the wold's countries), then Sweden can be considered left-wing. But it's wrong to call Sweden socialist. A major reason our economy grew so much after WWII was the free market.

 

[repiV]

I disagree. But then you probably saw that coming
Capitalism needn't be, by definition, "right-wing" - aggressive capitalism as seen in current corporate behaviour and ommercialism is definitely right-wing. Although that's due in part to the fact that the right is more than happy to give such corporations tax breaks, etc. but that's another discussion for another day.

It seems like you're just disagreeing with my definition of "right-wing" more than anything. Perhaps I shall rephrase slightly - there isn't a prosperous country in existence that does not utilise the free market economy. There never has been.

My point is that capitalism doesn't need to be as blood-thirsty as you make it out to be.

Well...no. That's capitalism with socialist elements you're talking about. Here in the UK, you'll always be alright, no matter how big a loser you are, how lazy or unskilled or incompetent you are. No matter how badly you **** up, the state will always catch you (although they might deny the elderly who've paid taxes for 50 years critical treatments on the NHS instead...). And the UK is the least socialist country in Western Europe.
Doesn't it strike you as rather repugnant that one is not required to carry their own weight in our society? It's a bad choice to make, but should you choose to make a career out of living off welfare, you can.

Fair trade companies ('scuse me whilst I go for a filthy hippie example) do make profit and their prices are usually quite high, but they are ethically respectable, paying the people who work for them an honest wage rather than Nike, as an age-old example, paying their out-sourced workers a pittance in horrendous conditions. But it's okay, because they're foreign, and who gives a f*ck about foreigners? Yes, I am saying that ruthless commercialism like that is racist.

I think you ought to be careful with the term "racist" there. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with unfavourable economic conditions in the country to which the labour is outsourced.

As for Sweden... As I'm reading it, you seem to be confusing "socialist country" with "socialist regime". A country can be "left-wing" without being a socialist regime; it can adopt certain socialist aspects without being completely socialist. Seeing as socialism is typically associated with the left, I'd say this gives a country a pretty strong justification to be labelled "left-wing".

But it's all relative. There is no particular line you can use to measure whether a country with the free market is left- or right-wing; that you can cross and suddenly it changes from one to the other.
However, there IS an indisputable difference between the free market and the planned economy. Sweden, whilst being left-wing, is only left-wing by Western standards; objectively it sits on the right.

Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that one can adopt certain socialist principles - nationalised industries, free national health, etc. - without actually being a socialist nation. These are simply aspects of governmental policy that look after all stratas of society rather than getting the rich richer and keeping the poor subjugated. Socialist elements in a government do not mean that a nation is, by extension, socialist.

Indeed, that's my point. Not socialist and therefore not left-wing. However, I object to your claim that capitalism is about making the rich richer and subjugating the poor. The system doesn't stop anyone from doing anything. If the poor remain poor it's because they are incompetent, lazy, or for one reason or another, incapable. Not because capitalism is conspiring to keep them poor. The people with talent rise to the top, and the people who don't contribute much of value fall to the bottom. That's the law of nature AND of civilisation, and it's also fair. Why tamper with it?
I support socialist policies insofar as they give people equal opportunities to climb the ladder and makes society more of a meritocracy. State-funded education, for example. I cease to support it when it starts to artificially inflate the quality of life for people who don't have the ability or will to climb that ladder.

We in the UK have free healthcare, for example, but are we a socialist nation? Nope. Are we a capitalist nation? Yup. are we a left-wing nation? Contentious.
Good lord, Blair really is an embarrasment to the Labour party, isn't he?

An embarrassment to the Labour party and to the world.
What perplexes me the most about him is his hypocrisy on Islam. On the one hand, he's out there fighting the "war on terror", and really really ****ing it up bigtime (whilst we sell Eurofighters to the Saudis, some of the most evil and terror-financing bastards on the planet).
Yet, on the home front, he lets segregation, cultural pluralism, resentment and ultimately terrorism flourish. Talk about getting it the wrong way round...

 

[repiV]

If you mean left-wing=planned economy, then yes, you're right, there is none. However, if you compare Sweden to other capitalist countries (which is a vast majority of the wold's countries), then Sweden can be considered left-wing. But it's wrong to call Sweden socialist. A major reason our economy grew so much after WWII was the free market.

That's what I was saying.

 

[Solaris]

One could argue the Soviet Union was economically successful compared to it's post revolution and pre revolution states, I read somewhere that more Russians now live in poverty than they did under the USSR.

While I'm not a supporter of what the USSR was, alternatives to free market economies can work.

 

[repiV]

One could argue the Soviet Union was economically successful compared to it's post revolution and pre revolution states, I read somewhere that more Russians now live in poverty than they did under the USSR.

While I'm not a supporter of what the USSR was, alternatives to free market economies can work.

Get back to me when you find an example that rivals a developed nation for prosperity. "This poor country was less poor under communism than it is under capitalism" is not even remotely an indicator that communism works.

 

[Solaris]

Get back to me when you find an example that rivals a developed nation for prosperity. "This poor country was less poor under communism than it is under capitalism" is not even remotely an indicator that communism works.

Of course it is. It shows that, at the very least, communism can improve conditions in poor countries.

 

[repiV]

Of course it is. It shows that, at the very least, communism can improve conditions in poor countries.

Oh, that's really something for us to aspire to. Can we start the revolution tomorrow? My buddy knows a guy who can smuggle us Kalishnikovs...

Russia is poor largely due to its rampant corruption and I-don't-give-a-**** attitude to work, and probably in no small part due to the fact that all its natural resources are frozen under for eleven months of the year.
It's poor because there are factors prohibiting capitalism from working optimally.

 

[kirovman]

That Putin is a shrewd operator though, posting all those ex-KGB into the highest places in the Russian government.

 

[repiV]

That Putin is a shrewd operator though, posting all those ex-KGB into the highest places in the Russian government.

Or the lowest places in the London morgue.

 

[Beerdude26]

and probably in no small part due to the fact that all its natural resources are frozen under for eleven months of the year.
It's poor because there are factors prohibiting capitalism from working optimally.

Ah and that's where global warming comes in, correct?

 

[repiV]

Ah and that's where global warming comes in, correct?

That's the real reason politicians have been obsessed with cutting emissions lately...



...David Icke said so.