https://www.liquidpoker.net/


LP international Poland    Contact            Users: 319 Active, 1 Logged in - Time: 01:35

The Coronavirus thread - Page 17

New to LiquidPoker? Register here for free!
Forum Index > General
  First 
  < 
  12 
  13 
  14 
  15 
  16 
 17 
  18 
  19 
  20 
  21 
  > 
  Last 
Baalim   Mexico. Apr 30 2020 23:00. Posts 34246

Of course I'm aware Tesla took government money, why would you get a riskier loan from a private bank when the state is giving you a better deal?, how does that negates that an upcoming modern company was able to defeat humongous auto industries among the ones with the highest barrier of entry in the world? Also Tesla payed its loan unlike the other car manufacturers.

Arguing "but Tesla took gov money" is like arguing "how can you be a socialist if you have a smarthphone!", arguing that the smartphone has tech developed by the state is the same thing, yeah no shit the biggest corporations in the planet that spend the most in R&D produce tech, thanks for the info bro.



You often show your tankie soul, thats why it angered you so much when I called you that, for an "anarchist" you sure lilke the state, and remember that not long ago you said something along the lines of "if push comes to shove, libertarians like baal will side with fascists against leftists", well my friend, if push comes to shove you will side with authoritarians against libertarians.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Baalim   Mexico. May 01 2020 02:34. Posts 34246

Expanding on that though, I think you say that I'd side with fascists because thats what you'd do, you side with ANTIFA because as Chomsky says, It's seductive to side with a group that uses violence to do your ideological bidding, but you are wrong, and whle I recognize the seducitveness of authoritarians stomping leftism to me the Y axis of the political compass is more important, but to you its the other way around, you care more about the X axis, that is why you support leftists authoritarians like Chavez or Maduro, its ironical that you fought so hard to the anarchist tag when liberty is quite down in your value list.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

thewh00sel    United States. May 01 2020 04:41. Posts 2734


  On April 30 2020 22:00 Baalim wrote:
Of course I'm aware Tesla took government money, why would you get a riskier loan from a private bank when the state is giving you a better deal?, how does that negates that an upcoming modern company was able to defeat humongous auto industries among the ones with the highest barrier of entry in the world? Also Tesla payed its loan unlike the other car manufacturers.

Arguing "but Tesla took gov money" is like arguing "how can you be a socialist if you have a smarthphone!", arguing that the smartphone has tech developed by the state is the same thing, yeah no shit the biggest corporations in the planet that spend the most in R&D produce tech, thanks for the info bro.



You often show your tankie soul, thats why it angered you so much when I called you that, for an "anarchist" you sure lilke the state, and remember that not long ago you said something along the lines of "if push comes to shove, libertarians like baal will side with fascists against leftists", well my friend, if push comes to shove you will side with authoritarians against libertarians.



Wait, isn't Tesla a giant fraud? Thought they just cooked the books enough to make the algos confused and then their CEO is like "Yooooo Retail, buy up my stonks!"

A government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims. - Ayn Rand 

Loco   Canada. May 01 2020 05:51. Posts 20963


  On April 30 2020 22:00 Baalim wrote:
Of course I'm aware Tesla took government money, why would you get a riskier loan from a private bank when the state is giving you a better deal?, how does that negates that an upcoming modern company was able to defeat humongous auto industries among the ones with the highest barrier of entry in the world? Also Tesla payed its loan unlike the other car manufacturers.



It doesn't negate that point, but it negates your overall argument for the separation of the free market and the state, and the "lone entrepreneur" myth where you have these men of genius who take change and bear the bulk of the risks. That Tesla paid its loan is irrelevant to the fact that their losses would have been socialized. In the real world, not in your fantasy world, that's how capitalism functions: capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich. You have one of the best examples ever right now occurring under your very eyes with the pandemic but you're still missing the point that the so-called free market is never going to let go of support and competitive advantages offered by the state in numerous ways, in the same way that a tyrant doesn't give up power.


  Arguing "but Tesla took gov money" is like arguing "how can you be a socialist if you have a smarthphone!", arguing that the smartphone has tech developed by the state is the same thing, yeah no shit the biggest corporations in the planet that spend the most in R&D produce tech, thanks for the info bro.



They are not equivalent at all. Most of the funding has come from taxpayers and very little of the profits have went back to the taxpayers. Most people don't realize that. It has nothing to do with an appeal to hypocrisy, it just serves to show the dynamics of neoliberal capitalism in action.




  You often show your tankie soul, thats why it angered you so much when I called you that, for an "anarchist" you sure lilke the state, and remember that not long ago you said something along the lines of "if push comes to shove, libertarians like baal will side with fascists against leftists", well my friend, if push comes to shove you will side with authoritarians against libertarians.



It hasn't angered me, it would be like if you called me a sheep rapist or some other nonsense. It's so disconnected from reality that there is no way I could possibly take offense to it -- it just makes me laugh that you still don't know what a tankie is after all this time lol. I am such a tankie, that's why I retweeted a thread that shits on Lenin/tankies a week or so ago:





Facepalm.gif

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 01/05/2020 05:57

Baalim   Mexico. May 01 2020 09:54. Posts 34246


  On May 01 2020 04:51 Loco wrote:

It doesn't negate that point, but it negates your overall argument for the separation of the free market and the state, and the "lone entrepreneur" myth where you have these men of genius who take change and bear the bulk of the risks. That Tesla paid its loan is irrelevant to the fact that their losses would have been socialized. In the real world, not in your fantasy world, that's how capitalism functions: capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich. You have one of the best examples ever right now occurring under your very eyes with the pandemic but you're still missing the point that the so-called free market is never going to let go of support and competitive advantages offered by the state in numerous ways, in the same way that a tyrant doesn't give up power.



A leftie talking about "in the real world your sistem doesnt work" are you serious? Ok, I'll admit that the free market can't improve and it will always been what it has been but you do the same with socialism deal? (in before. oh but I'm not a socialist, I'm a left-wing paleo libertarian with anarcho syndicalist).

Yes they aren't going to stop using the state, and that is one of the many reasons there shouldn't be a big state for sale.




 
They are not equivalent at all. Most of the funding has come from taxpayers and very little of the profits have went back to the taxpayers. Most people don't realize that. It has nothing to do with an appeal to hypocrisy, it just serves to show the dynamics of neoliberal capitalism in action.



Who is aguing in favour of bailouts and subsidies? I'm the one clamoring for the downfall of these companies.



  It hasn't angered me, it would be like if you called me a sheep rapist or some other nonsense. It's so disconnected from reality that there is no way I could possibly take offense to it -- it just makes me laugh that you still don't know what a tankie is after all this time lol. I am such a tankie, that's why I retweeted a thread that shits on Lenin/tankies a week or so ago:



I use the term tankie to point out your true colors you are an authoritarian at core, you've openly support mounstrous authoritarian socialist leaders, you support political violence and speech police, its obvious to everybody except yourself.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Loco   Canada. May 02 2020 07:34. Posts 20963

that I am a tankie is obvious to everyone except me? the gaslighting is strong with this one.

I think everyone who knows how to use Google to look up the definition of that word and who has paid any attention to my posts knows the opposite to be true.


  Who is aguing in favour of bailouts and subsidies? I'm the one clamoring for the downfall of these companies.



Yes, I know. Because you don't try to understand how capitalism works and don't use reason and evidence to re-evaluate the things you believe, preferring to move backwards from your conclusions and make meaningless condemnations. Point is: you want to have your cake and eat it too. When it suits you, you'll promote companies and suck up to parasitic billionaires and promote them as the answer. When it's pointed out to you that the way they 'collude' with the state is an inherent part of capitalism, and that there is not a shred of evidence that it can function otherwise, all you have to say is "but I condemn it". Meanwhile you use rhetoric that helps those very people remain in power and promote the status quo as being much better than any move towards more democratic involvement, i.e. "the left".

That's the real problem here. When you talk about reducing state intervention, all you're really advocating for -- in the real world -- is more of the same neoliberal programs that further accelerates ecological destruction and social instability. What else do you think this rhetoric could possibly accomplish?

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 02/05/2020 07:50

Baalim   Mexico. May 02 2020 07:42. Posts 34246


  On May 02 2020 06:34 Loco wrote:
that I am a tankie is obvious to everyone except me? the gaslighting is strong with this one.




you fail at reading comprehension, everyone knows you are an authoritarian, for example Drone also leans left but I seriouisly doubt he would support Chavez, but you do.

Perhaps its a languge barrier so I'll speak in wokespeak for you: you are a crypto-leftwing-authoritarian.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Loco   Canada. May 02 2020 08:00. Posts 20963

Saying that I fail at reading comprehension is just doubling down on your attempted gaslighting. It's certainly not my fault that you don't know how to use words accurately and won't accept to correct your misunderstandings when they are pointed out to you.


When I give support to a person, it's highly contextual and always provisional. It's never absolute. My views are constantly changing -- indeed that is the very definition of truly progressive politics. There is much that I supported about the revolution that Chavez was representing, and there was much to condemn about it (and him personally) as well. And although I have stated from the very start that I didn't support "state socialism", and that he didn't have my full support in anyway, knowing what I know now and which I didn't know before, I have even more reasons to criticize Chavez than I used to have.

The difference between me and you is that I make my criticisms as fair as possible, and I do not revert to the belief in promoting corporate tyranny as a result of my anti-state views. I believe in moving towards less chances for tyranny to be possible, not more. The right-wing libertarian worldview and its deformed little brother Neoliberalism is more awful than any "socialist" dictatorship has ever been, and you only work to accelerate it further with the highly ideological/reterritorialized mainstream language that you use.

Ironically, Chomsky was quite fond of Chavez, and yet not only do you not believe him to be an authoritarian, you also use him as a contrasting "good leftist" figure, opposite to me:

" Chomsky is well known in Venezuela
for his critiques of U.S. imperialism and support for the progressive political changes
underway in Venezuela and other Latin American countries in recent years. President
Chavez regularly references Chomsky in speeches and makes widely publicized recommendations
of Chomsky's 2003 book, Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global
Dominance.

"Hegemony or survival; we opt for survival," said Chavez
in a press conference to welcome Chomsky. He compared Chomsky's thesis to that of German
socialist Rosa Luxemburg in the early 1900s, "Socialism or Barbarism," and referred
to Chomsky as "one of the greatest defenders of peace, one of the greatest pioneers
of a better world."

Through an interpreter, Chomsky responded, "I write
about peace and criticize the barriers to peace; that's easy. What's harder is
to create a better world... and what's so exciting about at last visiting Venezuela
is that I can see how a better world is being created."

https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/4748


Seems like you should have known this by now, yet somehow you act like you don't. How strange is that? Knowing how principled you are, I'm sure that I can expect you to also call Chomsky a "core authoritarian" or a tankie now in order to be consistent. The greatest irony of it is that you would use Chomsky, who has been condemned by anarchists for supporting Chavez's Venezuela, as some kind of non-authoritarian opposition to "secretly authoritarian anarchism":

"Contrary to what many think, the ability to believe in fairy tales and to blindly accept a fiction, no matter how fantastic or grotesque, is not the sole attribute of the dumb and ignorant. The famous writer Noam Chomsky has just proved that intelligent and cultivated intellectuals are also capable of believing and adopting conduct and political action totally dogmatic, false and authoritarian. They believe so or at least pretend to." https://libcom.org/library/chomsky-chavez-clown

I wonder if you have the balls to read the above article and to admit that you were completely clueless about what anarcho-communists advocate for. My guess is that you won't even bother reading it, preferring to stick with your comfortable illusions of an homogeneous Left who is intrinsically authoritarian. It has always been useful for your political beliefs to act like anarchism, i.e. anti-authoritarianism on the left, doesn't really exist. It doesn't matter how strong and how influential the strain of anti-authoritarian thinking has been throughout history, you cannot see it with your ideological blinders on. Your very position which pretends to be anti-authoritarian while being authoritarian (as all right-wing politics is) prevents you from even seeking to become aware of that history.


  Perhaps its a languge barrier so I'll speak in wokespeak for you: you are a crypto-leftwing-authoritarian.



It's an educational barrier. I didn't stop learning things other than what might bring me more money or improve my social status some 12 years ago. I have some relatively high standards for myself as a human being that you don't have, and I've made it my main purpose in life to become more knowledgeable, at the expense of increasing my personal wealth, social status, and having more choices of passive/mindless entertainment.

And let us be perfectly candid: this is what debating with anti-capitalists is for you, mindless entertainment, and nothing more. It's a result of the low standards that you have for yourself. It would be understandable if there was a nagging frustration behind all of your half formed arguments, misrepresentations and knee jerk comments, which reflects back to the poor relationship that you have with yourself and your own stagnant self-becoming. For me it's not entertaining; it's just boring and sad.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 02/05/2020 09:44

Loco   Canada. May 02 2020 09:54. Posts 20963


  On May 01 2020 01:34 Baalim wrote:
Expanding on that though, I think you say that I'd side with fascists because thats what you'd do, you side with ANTIFA because as Chomsky says, It's seductive to side with a group that uses violence to do your ideological bidding, but you are wrong, and whle I recognize the seducitveness of authoritarians stomping leftism to me the Y axis of the political compass is more important, but to you its the other way around, you care more about the X axis, that is why you support leftists authoritarians like Chavez or Maduro, its ironical that you fought so hard to the anarchist tag when liberty is quite down in your value list.



There is no 'political advancement' being made by antifa through direct violence. First of all, you do not gain power by using force. The fact that you resort to using force is a testament to the lack of power that you have. Power and force are not the same things. Power exists when there is meditation, force is a result of a lack of mediation. Power is at its strongest when you have control over others while giving them the illusion of self-determination, which is only possible when there is a lot of mediation involved. Force cannot accomplish this. What antifa achieves, if it achieves something, is local repression of fascist organizing, and it makes it harder for fascists to blend within liberal society by doxxing them. Secondly, antifa's violence is purely reactive, i.e. it is negative -- it responds to the positive violence of fascism, which presents itself as active oppression and violence. It doesn't further any political goals that pertain to the ultraleft to repress these forces, since it's only reactionary. The "politics of the streets" that involve direct violence will never have any impact on global politics, they are incapable of building an international communist movement.

The reason you would side with the fascists is because you have the same core belief in social hierarchy, and you want to preserve "what's yours" above everything else. The reason I wouldn't side with authoritarian communists is precisely the opposite reason: I do not believe in their belief in social hierarchy, as presented through their vanguard politics and all of the historical evidence that shows that the state will not "wither away" after having "defeated bourgeois forces in society". You have more in common with them than I do as someone who is a strong believer in capitalism and private property -- which is what this aberration of "liberty" that you speak of seeks to defend -- not actual, positive, freedom to act in a world that promotes one's flourishing.


  Drone also leans left



Here we go again. Who gives a shit? Why do you always revert to these "you're too radical" arguments? The only thing that truly matters is how consistent one's beliefs are with one's purported goals and actions.I would be inconsistent if I supported populist left-wing dictatorships (which I don't). There, end of story. Couldn't you have stuck with that? Everything else is trivial, so why bother mentioning it? If you want to insist on discussing Drone's beliefs: his might be more acceptable to political opponents or "polite society" than mine, but they are not more consistent or mature. We choose the company we keep; I'm not going to fault people for wanting to be appreciated by more people and "create bridges". For me ideological coherence is more important than wider sociability. And don't get me started about what's "realistic" and what isn't from your respective liberal perspectives.

And if you have any doubts about the veracity of above claim, I'd challenge him (and you) to watch "Planet of the Humans" (which was posted by RiKD) and to explain to me what it gets wrong about the failed promise of green capitalism. Just for starters. I can challenge both of your liberal ideologies on various grounds, but we can start with the ecological one.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 02/05/2020 11:00

Liquid`Drone   Norway. May 02 2020 11:18. Posts 3093

tbh my opinion on chavez and venezuela are 1: I'm not really knowledgeable enough on the subject matter to confidently voice my opinion, and 2: I am sympathetic towards the initial goals of focusing efforts towards combating extreme poverty and improving education and health care services, and I'm very fond of nationalizing natural resources. However it looks from my fairly uneducated lens that there was a whole lot of mismanagement coupled with too big oil dependency coupled with nationalization leading to a hostile US which is obviously going to hurt any latin american country even if outright coups aren't executed, and then Maduro has just been a disaster.

But if you take a gapminder look at Venezuela between 1999 and 2013, it's really not so bad. The collapse happens after Chavez is out. (This is indeed a trend with authoritarian regimes and one of the reasons to oppose them, anyway. ) And while I am supportive of some of the policies, increased democracy and inclusiveness of the population is a primary reason why I favor improvement from the bottom rather than from the top, meaning that while improving education and literacy rates is great, it loses part of its function when coupled with increased authoritarianism.

lol POKER 

Stroggoz   New Zealand. May 02 2020 12:11. Posts 5290

Chavez was not authoritarian. He had one of the best electoral systems for democracy. No miscounting, and 97% participation rate. Far superior to america's electoral system imo. So he had a bit of a personality cult around him which i dislike a lot, but that pales in comparison to the PR industry in rich countries.

Planet of the humans seriously misrepresents green technology, otherwise the doco is ok. But the part on green technology is going to be used as ammunition from climate deniers imo

One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beingsLast edit: 02/05/2020 12:13

Loco   Canada. May 03 2020 05:05. Posts 20963

please give specific examples of what they get wrong about green tech/the environmental movement and its co-optation by capital

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

Stroggoz   New Zealand. May 03 2020 08:15. Posts 5290

you can just read the reviews out there from various scientists on it:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/...down-worse-than-netflixs-goop-series/

“You use more fossil fuels to do this [talking about renewable energies] than you’re getting benefit from it. You would have been better off just burning the fossil fuels.”-Ozzie Zehner.

The parts on the energy industry pretending to be clean is all true, and in fact you can see that still happening today. The Davos meeting this year where they pretended to care about the environment by naming it amoung the 5 biggest problems in the world, that's all patting themselves on the back, ofc they arn't going to do anything about it.

Bill Mckibbin has not been co-opted by the energy industry, he has not taken a single cent from them, fossil or green, and he has long been anti-growth. He revised his view on biomass. I'm not sure about the part on him promoting an index fund that was only 1% clean. I thought the parts with him were in seriously bad faith though.

https://grist.org/climate-energy/burning-trees-for-electricity-is-a-bad-idea/

In general i don't think the environmental movement has been co-opted, rather it's just big industry pretending to be environmentalists. Or doing things like pretending to be friends with Greta Thunberg for political capital. There are some environmentalists out there that are dumb enough to fall for that, but not many.

I agree with the film that population growth and consumption has to be curbed. The interview with the scientist who critiques the agricultural system is right..that is absolutely one of the worst and most inefficient systems in capitalism. In fact the film critiquing the cutting down of forrests to put up wind turbines is rare, and its so absurdly insignificant compared to land clearing for agriculture, particularly for animals, its not worth mentioning.



One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beingsLast edit: 03/05/2020 10:00

Loco   Canada. May 03 2020 13:06. Posts 20963

I have read some of them and they are not very good reviews, as one would expect due to the fact that only capitalist realists are going to be selected to write columns for mainstream outlets. Their job, first and foremost, is to uphold our faith in capital saving our lifestyles, not to inform us. For someone who is so critical of the universities and essentially call them one of the biggest oppressive/brainwashing centers in the world, you sure seem to have a blindspot when it comes to ecology. I can say the same about your usual opinion on media conflicting with your telling me to look up just about any review of the film in order to find a lot of valid criticisms.

The article you linked starts with a provoking title that presents itself more as an emotionally loaded attack on the producers and the film than a reasoned critique, and sure enough, most of the critique is vapid or tenuous at best. If you have a look at the comment section and how the top upvoted comments are from people who are furiously asking for the film to be banned from the internet (!) you can guess why the article is written in this way.

I thought Ozzie Zehner said that part about biomass, but I went back and he was talking about the one particular set up with the Koch-industry provided mirrors and solar grid + the natural gas plants having to be turned on for hours to start it up as using more fossil fuels than is worth. I don't know whether that's true or not but it's clear that it is promoted as something that it is not and it is still immensely damaging and it's not going to solve the issues that humanity faces; it doesn't scale with how destructive it is even if it is less destructive as a whole.


You must have been distracted during this part of the film if you don't think he took corporate money, althought the film itself doesn't claim that he did either:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_co...p;v=xPSKOkK4H_A&feature=emb_title

On biomass: I find it odd that other people knew how destructive it was and didn't advocate for it within the environmental movement and it took McKibben--a highly influential person--so much time to figure it out. And that despite having figured it out, he still advocates for leaving the plants open now.

The film-maker responded to McKibben's criticisms of the film here and I'll quote one part of it:

"We were aware of Mr. McKibben’s 2016 op-ed presenting disadvantages of biomass. That op-ed also states that existing biomass plants should nevertheless remain in operation. After writing his 2016 op-ed, Mr. McKibben continued vigorous support for national legislation to fund new biomass infrastructure. In 2017, he endorsed the 100 by ’50 Act, which included grants up to $100 million for “second-generation advanced biofuels,” as well as the extension of biofuel producer credits, which the Koch Brothers had also lobbied for. Bill McKibben is still listed as a fellow at the institute that worked to create and promote the legislation. During this period after his 2016 op-ed, Mr. McKibben also supported a Sierra Club initiative called “Ready for 100,” which contained biomass."

https://planetofthehumans.com/2020/04...ibben-regarding-planet-of-the-humans/

I think the story behind Greta Thunberg and how she is being used is a lot more interesting but the story is more or less the same as far as I can see: she serves as a face for a movement that is effectively controlled opposition -- which is why the movement is failing and will keep failing to change things. Even if big industry was just "pretending" -- they are benefitting from it enormously, and if they are able to become associated with the "face of the revolution", and people think that they can buy/consume their way out of these crises, it guarantees that there won't be a revolution.

Don't just read the criticisms of the movie, read their responses to the criticisms as well. They don't seem to be particularly unfair to McKibben from my perspective. This is someone with a lot of influence who should be doing a lot better than he is.


  I'm not sure about the part on him promoting an index fund that was only 1% clean. I thought the parts with him were in seriously bad faith though.



That part is a big deal and if you're not sure about it then I can't see how you can justify saying they are treating him poorly.

Personally, the part I disagree with the most is the part about population growth, and the way that they nebulously threw it in there, almost so as to give enough room for ecofascists to get the wrong idea. They should have been stressing the fact that it is capitalism that has created these modern industrial lifestyles and that this is what needs to be surmounted, not a reduction in numbers. Also, talking about overconsumption and not talking about the forces that have made it so that we have come to be so atomized, and the way relate to the world/nature as a result is a huge problem. That is the key concern that is left completely unexplored.

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 03/05/2020 13:36

Loco   Canada. May 03 2020 13:50. Posts 20963

In other news....

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount 

blackjacki2   United States. May 03 2020 19:55. Posts 2581


  On May 02 2020 11:11 Stroggoz wrote:
Chavez was not authoritarian. He had one of the best electoral systems for democracy. No miscounting, and 97% participation rate. Far superior to america's electoral system imo. So he had a bit of a personality cult around him which i dislike a lot, but that pales in comparison to the PR industry in rich countries.

Planet of the humans seriously misrepresents green technology, otherwise the doco is ok. But the part on green technology is going to be used as ammunition from climate deniers imo




  After losing the 2004 Venezuelan recall referendum, the opposition became determined to participate in the 2008 elections.[7] Prior to the elections, the General Comptroller, a Chávez ally, banned almost 300 candidates who had been accused of corruption without making formal charges.[7] Leopoldo López, a rising figure within the opposition who raised fears among the Chávez administration, was one of the hundreds of candidates barred from holding office.[7] The Supreme Tribunal later ratified the bans and removed the candidates from the process.[8][9][10]



The elections go great once you ban all the opposition candidates. At least the bans were upheld by the Supreme Court. Of course that's also after Chavez's government added 12 justices to the Supreme Court so they could stuff the court with a bunch of pro-Chavez appointments. This was also the time Chavez was trying desperately to amend the constitution to get rid of term limits so that he could be President for life so having those extra 12 justices might come in handy when the constitutionality of that is questioned.


Spitfiree   Bulgaria. May 04 2020 01:02. Posts 9634

Seem to me that Chavez was as democratic as Putin and Erdogan are nowadays


Loco   Canada. May 04 2020 10:09. Posts 20963


  On May 01 2020 08:54 Baalim wrote:
Show nested quote +



A leftie talking about "in the real world your sistem doesnt work" are you serious? Ok, I'll admit that the free market can't improve and it will always been what it has been but you do the same with socialism deal? (in before. oh but I'm not a socialist, I'm a left-wing paleo libertarian with anarcho syndicalist).

Yes they aren't going to stop using the state, and that is one of the many reasons there shouldn't be a big state for sale.



In the narrow sense that you are using it, no, I am not a socialist. Neither was Marx, unlike the authoritarian left says. There are a number of different meanings and ideologies/tendencies associated with the word socialism, most of which I don't align with (anarcho-syndicalism, for instance, is something that I don't believe in, since you're bringing it up). The one definition you are using since the beginning has always been referring to state capitalist societies with socialist ideologues who had no chances of socializing the means of production since (1) they were strongly hierarchical and (2) they had no significant international movement supporting them.

You have to be a complete ignoramus to think you can use the word socialism as a single definition word, and even more to still believe that I support this type of socialism today. I've said from the start of these discussions that socialism, i.e. having socialized the means of production, i.e. communism, cannot exist in isolation, in one country or nation. It is only an evolution that could happen at a global level.

Your second statement is logically incoherent. There "should" be "smaller" state? Who makes that state smaller, except another social body that performs the exact same functions as a state? Are we just going to abandon the law of gravity because we "should" be able to fly, too?

The reason they aren't going to stop using the state is because of capital, because the state and the markets are two sides of the same coin, they not only share common interests, but reinforce each other. They are both determined by the same constraints imposed on them by the logic of capital, but the state is seemingly more directly responsible for social stability (which, as you might realize, also serves capital). The logic of capital is one where all of the decisions must be aligned with the generation of profit/growth as much as possible, rather than protecting the value of life. This is no more optional to the system as it exists now than it is optional for you to have oxygen to breathe as a biological system now. Except in the former system, the finality doesn't serve life, it is effectively leading to its extinction.

Now, it might be possible in the future that human beings wouldn't need oxygen, or at least would need less of it, if we allude to transhumanism. You can think of the goal of post-capitalist world in the same way, except it happens at a higher level of organization. Instead of transforming individual bodies, it is transforming a society so that it no longer relies as much on a more destructive process. (On an individual level, breathing oxygen is destructive, as it causes oxidation/aging; on a social level, capital is destructive, because the profit motive is "oxidizing", it's too much wear and tear on the planet, and on our psyches.)

You can claim that a post-capitalist world is not a *believable* solution because of how unlikely it is, and make inferences to human nature preventing it, and that's fine, but one thing you cannot conclude, if you are honest enough, is that it isn't logically consistent with the desire for more life, and more freedom, to advocate for it. Ring-wing libertarianism and minarchism are definitely not consistent with those goals.

The failures of those regimes you have in mind when you hear the words socialism and communism are not to be confused with the logical failure of post-capitalist theorizing in general. It might be true that capitalism is where the buck stops, and our species cannot surmount its destructiveness, but this doesn't negate that it is the only possible way forward that is open to us now, evolutionarily speaking.

Also:

fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccountLast edit: 04/05/2020 11:04

Baalim   Mexico. May 05 2020 02:04. Posts 34246



Socialist criticizing capitalism because in the REAL WORLD the system doesnt work.

My endorsements of murderous dictators can change at any time without any notice, can't pin me on them, this is true progressive poltics.

Power cannot be won through violence.

And finally... Chavez was not an authoritarian, also Kimg Jong Un has a perfect 100% approval rate, people love him so much they hung pictures of him in their homes, perfect democracy.



We have reached peak clown world on this forum LOL.

Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online 

Stroggoz   New Zealand. May 05 2020 04:31. Posts 5290


  On May 04 2020 00:02 Spitfiree wrote:
Seem to me that Chavez was as democratic as Putin and Erdogan are nowadays



he was bad but not that bad imo. The world democracy index ranked venezeula under chavez as a hybrid regime, and russia as an authoritarian regime. That's the kind of metric most political scientists use. Whatever one might think of his stacking of supreme court justices, (imo it's completely unjustifiable), its not really enough to make someone a dictator. It's also noteable that many of those people people banned from holding office had took part in the 2002 coup, and wern't prosecuted over it. If anyone wants my source its the latinbarometa which polls venezeulan opinion. (they think democracy increased by a wide margin since pre-chavez until 2013). Im not saying popular support or increased perception of democracy means it's democracy ofc, in the phillipines most people support duturte even though he's carrying out mass extra-judicial murder. So that's something to be considered as a counterexample to any argument that goes off polls. But i don't think it's something to dismiss. (i dont think any countries in the world are really a democracy, but there are different grades of it).

Imo the worst thing he did was his support of FARC near the colombian border, and his militaries involvement with drug trafficers. That is what experts think caused the very high murder rate. That's obviously highly immoral, but why does everyone call him a dictator because of that and not people like nelson mandela that gave arms to worse?

As for economic management his economic policies were just a less harsh version than previous ones which consisted of venezeula taking orders from the IMF. Chavez still let the rich rob the economy under his tenure, but used part of the massive oil boom to fund social policies. He could have gone a lot further. If you look at IMF policies pre-chavez they were a complete disaster, as in most other places in the third world, the 1980's-1990's were some of the worst periods in the third world, venezeula included. There's an economist mark weisbrot who's looked at comparison from then to the chavez era.

A side note on wikipedia sources: They arn't reliable on venezeula. Neither is human rights watch, or freedom house. Or journalists like rory corral. (his book has no sources itself). Venezeulan journalists often arn't reliable either, unfortunately. Wikipedia gets its sources from all of these. Every source i've read on the situation has some sort of bias. But if you want to see how biased international media coverage is, there is a short book that covers 2002 coup and one of the elections, and also talks about how news is covered internally in venezeula. its by alan macleod. its called bad news from venezeula, or something.

edit: updated with a few notes,

interesting update today: https://www.theguardian.com/world/202...olved-in-failed-raid-to-remove-maduro

One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beingsLast edit: 05/05/2020 22:00

 
  First 
  < 
  12 
  13 
  14 
  15 
  16 
 17 
  18 
  19 
  20 
  21 
  > 
  Last 



Poker Streams

















Copyright © 2024. LiquidPoker.net All Rights Reserved
Contact Advertise Sitemap