Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
These are the same people that praised Pinochet's illegal capture of power in Chile and Bolsonaro's presidency as having good economic plans.
They are the standard bearers of mainstream liberal democracy, and many 'educated elites' enjoy reading their stuff.
Liberals (democrats) and conservatives have fallen for the idea of centrist capitalist democracy being the only moral system of governance and anyone who opposes it being a corrupt authoritarian.
Many democrats hear their favorite voices tell them to trust in the international order and despise the populist wave.
What is especially delusional and pretentious about this idea is that liberal democrats like Merkel and Obama are the way forward for society.
Actually all these people do is support corporate capitalism and how free trade and development can empower creditors and market value; any poor country that closes their markets to corporate investment must be enlightened about 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Morales had signed off Bolivia's lithium deposit to the Chinese because western corporations wanted control of the profits/ownership of the commodities. Now he is gone.
Americans should wake up and realize their 'noble' political establishment aren't 'patriots' but thugs and right wing extremists. Corruption in the form of Trump get's in their way, so they convince people like you he is the bad guy with all the power, and we are the good guys.
1. While his methods were reprehensible and indefensible, Pinochet was the best thing to happen to Chile. It's unfortunate that their country got so infested with communists that extreme measures were required in the first place.
2. Having a would be communist dictator removed from power in Bolivia is objectively a good thing for their country.
1. While his methods were reprehensible and indefensible, Pinochet was the best thing to happen to Chile. It's unfortunate that their country got so infested with communists that extreme measures were required in the first place.
2. Having a would be communist dictator removed from power in Bolivia is objectively a good thing for their country.
Pinochet destroyed the economy and executed political opponents, not communists. Chile only stabilized after they nationalized their cooper industry.
And the system that is so 'great' is prompting riots today.
Pinochet destroyed the economy and executed political opponents, not communists. Chile only stabilized after they nationalized their cooper industry.
And the system that is so 'great' is prompting riots today.
He saved his country from a Venezuelan future and instead made them once of the top economies in South America by the time he voluntarily gave up power. It obviously wasn't perfect, but had the communists been allowed to remain in power, the country would be significantly worse off.
Having communists take over a country is no different than having literal nazi's take over a country and it requires drastic measures to prevent catastrophe.
Pinochet destroyed the economy and executed political opponents, not communists. Chile only stabilized after they nationalized their cooper industry.
.
He saved his country from a Venezuelan future and instead made them once of the top economies in South America by the time he voluntarily gave up power. It obviously wasn't perfect, but had the communists been allowed to remain in power, the country would be significantly worse off.
Having communists take over a country is no different than having literal nazi's take over a country and it requires drastic measures to prevent catastrophe.
Allende wasn't a communist, he wasn't even a socialist.
But here lies the problem. All that matters to you is economic wealth, not democracy or liberalism.
Same with the 'liberal' international order. If they were as upfront as you are in saying free market corporate trade can benefit consumers and supersedes social institutions, that would be fine.
But instead they take the moral high ground saying the fight for wealth and democracy are one in the same and the elite only want to make everyone prosper in a free and open way. Their lies are psychotic.
Allende wasn't a communist, he wasn't even a socialist.
But here lies the problem. All that matters to you is economic wealth, not democracy or liberalism.
Same with the 'liberal' international order. If they were as upfront as you are in saying free market corporate trade can benefit consumers and supersedes social institutions, that would be fine.
But instead they take the moral high ground saying the fight for wealth and democracy are one in the same and the elite only want to make everyone prosper in a free and open way. Their lies are psychotic.
Allende was a Marxist.... so yeah he really was a communist.
When you are fighting against Marxists, the fight for wealth, democracy, and liberalism is the same fight. Communism is fundamentally incompatible with wealth, democracy, and liberalism.
Arguing for Marxism is morally the rough equivalent of arguing for Nazism.... so let's not do that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
