You are at the lever of a train junction, there is an oncoming train, you pull the lever and 1 worker dies, you don't pull it and 5 die. What do you do? Bearing in mind that inaction is as much of a choice as pulling the lever. It is a simple calculation of utilitarianism, it is better to pick the lesser of 2 evils and it is in fact narrow minded not to see why this is the right thing to do. Such decisions have to be made, so if neocons are the most evil thing "evar" then it cannot be said they were indecisive.
Compare South Vietnam with South Korea. At one point South Korea was considered as much of a dictatorship as South Vietnam, but during the 50s America was not as fearful in bombing targes in North Korea to cripple the country in defense of this despotism since the red terror would have prevented the despotism from evolving into the democracy it is today.
If the US was really the head of a capitalist imperialist empire then surely every nation which has been opened up for trade, especially those in such a forceful manner as South Korea, would be little more than vassal states pillaged for their resources and slave labour. Instead we see communist states exploiting their own people for their own business interests in the global market. Clearly the regimes you support are not all flowers and candy.
So now I view Afghanistan and Iraq and the emerging economics of China and all it's hanger ons and am proud to see the exact same thing happening again. History is repeating itself and as long as we do not pull out their economic and democratic development can begin a lifetime earlier. Once every square mile on this planet is under the jurisdiction of a liberal democracy, essentially, we will have world peace. Why does that shock you?
You are at the lever of a train junction, there is an oncoming train, you pull the lever and 1 worker dies, you don't pull it and 5 die. What do you do?
Bearing in mind that inaction is as much of a dictatorship as South Vietnam, but during the 50s America was not as fearful in bombing targes in North Korea to cripple the country in defense of this despotism since the red terror would have prevented the despotism from evolving into the democracy it is today.
If the US was really the head of a capitalist imperialist empire then surely every nation which has been opened up for trade, especially those in such a forceful manner as South Korea, would be little more than vassal states pillaged for their resources and slave labour.
Instead we see communist states exploiting their own people for their own business interests in the global market. Clearly the regimes you support are not all flowers and candy.
So now I view Afghanistan and Iraq and the emerging economics of China and all it's hanger ons and am proud to see the exact same thing happening again. History is repeating itself and as long as we do not pull out their economic and democratic development can begin a lifetime earlier.
Once every square mile on this planet is under the jurisdiction of a liberal democracy, essentially, we will have world peace. Why does that shock you?
South Korea became a democracy in 1990, that is to say 20 years after america overthrew the democractically elected government. pinochet had a lot of fun while the us was backing him. Chile is now lead by socialists. I'm reasonably sure very few western socialists support countries like china and north korea, this has been the case since the stalinist-trotskyist break (if not earlier).
Democracies can and do make war. I wouldn't mind your crazy national chauvinism so much if it didn't involve dissidents being tortured; please for everyone's sake keep your white man's burden to yourself TIA.
It is a simple calculation of utilitarianism, it is better to pick the lesser of 2 evils and it is in fact narrow minded not to see why this is the right thing to do. Such decisions have to be made, so if neocons are the most evil thing "evar" then it cannot be said they were indecisive.
>>2
onoz, south korea has long work hours. I guess that's why they are all trying to sneak their way into North Korea and Vietnam.
Chile has one of the the highest economic freedom ratings in the world.
Chile elected a Moscow crony before the government was overthrown and there is no proof anyone from the CIA had a gun to Pinochet's head and forced him to start a coup.
Chile became a democracy in 1990 after 20 years, North Korea still isn't a democracy after well over 50 years. The free market prevented Pinochet from creating a complete totalitarianism.
Do western socialists believe the west exploits poorer nations or that economic interactivity is in fact beneficial to these nations by facilitating the sharing of technology, expertise and investments? If they believe the latter they certainly don't sound like any of the socialists I have come across.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm
"Also, every Finnish soldier fighting the USSR meant that one German soldier could be sent west to fight the Allies. Every Russian soldier killed by the Finns weakened the Allied war effort."
Or maybe the USSR shouldn't have declared war on Finland? Democracies can declare war on each other, but with poor arguments like this it cannot be said the democracies are equally aggressive to the Stalinist dictatorship you have just admitted to supporting.
One of the few things that gives me hope for the future is my observation that, in historical terms, Western-style democracy is becoming more common worldwide. And Western-style democracies rarely go to war with one another. It isn't unheard of--Hitler and Mussolini were elected--but historically it's not the norm.
> onoz, south korea has long work hours. I guess that's why they are all trying to sneak their way into North Korea and Vietnam.
South Korea: Better than North Korea.
sorry if that doesn't really impress me. also please address the other points i raised about south korea.
> Chile has one of the the highest economic freedom ratings in the world.
Yes, Friedman's miracle. Twice the GDP of their neighbors, and it only took 20 years of bloodshed. But I'm sure all the dead folks appreciate that their surviving loved ones can buy several different kinds of breakfast cereal (assuming said loved ones are not tremendously poor).
> Chile elected a Moscow crony before the government was overthrown and there is no proof anyone from the CIA had a gun to Pinochet's head and forced him to start a coup.
i'm not even sure what you're arguing here. the cia didn't force pinochet to coup? how is that a negation of the us's responsibility on the matter?
> Chile became a democracy in 1990 after 20 years, North Korea still isn't a democracy after well over 50 years. The free market prevented Pinochet from creating a complete totalitarianism.
you're going to have to explain this one to me
> Do western socialists believe the west exploits poorer nations or that economic interactivity is in fact beneficial to these nations by facilitating the sharing of technology, expertise and investments?
i don't think anyone argues that the people of poorer nations would be better off if we pretended they didn't exist. but that's a false dillema: we don't have to choose between helping them in some ways and harming them in others or doing nothing.
> Or maybe the USSR shouldn't have declared war on Finland?
okay?
> Democracies can declare war on each other, but with poor arguments like this it cannot be said the democracies are equally aggressive to the Stalinist dictatorship
yeah, but you're arguing the end of history sort of thing where once western democracies take over the world, war is over. as that web sight lists, that doesn't happen. even if they aren't as hostile as dictatorships they still can and do make war.
> the Stalinist dictatorship you have just admitted to supporting.
when did this happen?
>>6
I get the impression you already decided what and how I think but really nothing you have said relates to my previous points.
"South Korea: Better than North Korea."
Exactly, no matter how much you blow South Korea's problems out of proportion (where did I say it was a utopia with no problems?) it will always be preferable to North Korea or some other isolated dictatorship.
"Yes, Friedman's miracle. Twice the GDP of their neighbors, and it only took 20 years of bloodshed."
Pinochet was the fascist dictator, not Milton Friedman.
"the cia didn't force pinochet to coup? how is that a negation of the us's responsibility on the matter?"
They chose the lesser of 2 evils as I explained. It's not a case of doing nothing or doing something bad, it's a choice between 50+ years of bloodshed or 20 years of bloodshed respectively.
"i don't think anyone argues that the people of poorer nations would be better off if we pretended they didn't exist.."
The economy will rapidly become sophisticated and require the services of small cliques of workers whom can more easily unite to increase their negotiating power and earn more hard cash. This is a more effective method of reducing poverty than a pointless bloody revolution that is as likely to result in a super happy worker's paradise as your mom to lose weight.
"if they aren't as hostile as dictatorships they still can and do make war."
SO WHY DID YOU MENTION IT? If you want to reduce the amount of wars you will want every country to be a democracy and then of course you will need to work on the other factors that cause wars, such as unfetterred laissez faire cross border trade to integrate economies.
unfettered*
oops sorry about that
SORRY GUYS
> Exactly, no matter how much you blow South Korea's problems out of proportion (where did I say it was a utopia with no problems?) it will always be preferable to North Korea or some other isolated dictatorship.
Again, you're building a false dichotomy. We don't have to choose between capitalist democracy and juche.
> Pinochet was the fascist dictator, not Milton Friedman.
History 101: "Friedman's miracle" is a p. common epithet for Pinochet's Chile because Friedman sent his Chicago boys out to work on economic planning with them and called it the "Miracle of Chile."
> They chose the lesser of 2 evils as I explained.
Again false dichotomy.
> It's not a case of doing nothing or doing something bad, it's a choice between 50+ years of bloodshed or 20 years of bloodshed respectively.
Where do you even get the idea that Allende would have established a dictatorship and gone about stiffling personal freedoms? His record doesn't show any signs of abandoning the 1925 Constitution.
> The economy will rapidly become sophisticated and require the services of small cliques of workers whom can more easily unite to increase their negotiating power and earn more hard cash.
Again false dichotomy.
> This is a more effective method of reducing poverty than a pointless bloody revolution that is as likely to result in a super happy worker's paradise as your mom to lose weight.
Where did I say I was in favor of violent revolution to establish a classless utopia? Cut this shit out, the world isn't divided between Adam Smith and Karl Marx. You've been doing this in every single one of your posts.
> SO WHY DID YOU MENTION IT? If you want to reduce the amount of wars you will want every country to be a democracy and then of course you will need to work on the other factors that cause wars, such as unfetterred laissez faire cross border trade to integrate economies.
Because in the OP
> essentially, we will have world peace.
A false dichotomy requires that I explicitly stated that there are no other alternatives otherwise it is more likely I was comparing the 2 possible options.
Friedman convinced a fascist dictatorship to maintain some economic freedoms and not eliminate all it's civilian ties to the outside world. Would you prefer Chile to have completed the transition to totalitarianism as North Korea did?
>His record doesn't show any signs of abandoning the 1925 Constitution.
Sorry but this is absolutely wrong. Allende refused to step down after a vote to have him impeached.
http://www.pensionreform.org/icpr/eys/declaration.html
lern2 history
>Where did I say I was in favor of violent revolution to establish a classless utopia?
I was just illustrating a point that evolution is better than revolution. If you want me to tell you what I think about alternatives then go right ahead and suggest some.
Lastly what part of "essentially" don't you understand? Furthmore, take Belgium and Luxembourg, they are both democracies. Can you tell me when they will declare war on each other? As I already mentionned I consider democracy to be but one factor that reduces the likelyhood of war and globalisation and neoconservatism reduce it's possibility to levels similiar to the chance of war between Belgium and Luxembourg.
>world isn't divided between Adam Smith and Karl Marx
Let me translate the jist of my argument into hardcore marxist speak for you.. In total war generates losses for the business community even if a few profiteers enrich themselves, it's peace that us [i]evil capitalist peegs[/i] (enough with the stereotypical communist rhetoric! srsly!) want.
That pretty much sums it up. Globalisation and neoconservat/liberalism are good things, the best policy at the moment. Perhaps your classless utopia will be realised in the distant future, but you're looking 100 years into the future at least so you ought to just be safe in the knowledge that your ideal is in a library somewhere and maybe 100 years from now someone will pick it up and care.
> A false dichotomy requires that I explicitly stated that there are no other alternatives
you do not have to prepend and append your posts with "I AM CONSTURCTING A FALSE DICHOTOMY ITP JUST SO YOU KNOW" in order to construct a false dichotomy, the only thing you need to do is consider only two possibilities to the neglect of any others
& you address all your points to some hypothetical marxist leninist maoist despite being repeatedly assured that you aren't talking to one.
e.g.:
> Clearly the regimes you support are not all flowers and candy.
> the Stalinist dictatorship you have just admitted to supporting.
> This is a more effective method of reducing poverty than a pointless bloody revolution that is as likely to result in a super happy worker's paradise as your mom to lose weight.
> Let me translate the jist of my argument into hardcore marxist speak for you.
>Friedman convinced a fascist dictatorship to maintain some economic freedoms and not eliminate all it's civilian ties to the outside world. Would you prefer Chile to have completed the transition to totalitarianism as North Korea did?
you're still going to have to convince me that the freedom to start businesses was the only thing keeping pinochet from creating the chilean reich.
> Sorry but this is absolutely wrong. Allende refused to step down after a vote to have him impeached.
> http://www.pensionreform.org/icpr/eys/declaration.html
The mechanism for ejecting the President of Chile is listed in Art. 39 & Art. 42 of the 1925 Constitution. You can read it yourself (pdf warning).
http://www.bcn.cl/lc/cpolitica/1925.pdf
That is not it. The CDP appealed directly to the military to overthrow Allende.
As for the accusations, Chile's political climate at the time was pretty crazy, with reactionary and revolutionary elements constantly at each others' throats. To compound it, economy was in the shitter (n.b. not entirely or even mostly Allende's fault, there were some nasty external factors).
> If you want me to tell you what I think about alternatives then go right ahead and suggest some.
what do you think about social market democracy without kissengers
> Lastly what part of "essentially" don't you understand?
okey you're probably right this, i read the first post and immediately took to thinking that you were some sort of fukuyama end of history type who thinks that society will reach some sort of perfected free market democratic paradise and never change again ever. sorry.
> belgium and luxembourgh
but this is still a silly example. i don't think anyone would argue that given two arbitrary countries they will inevitably be at war at some point unless they are neoconservative/neoliberal demoracies.
> As I already mentionned I consider democracy to be but one factor that reduces the likelyhood of war and globalisation and neoconservatism reduce it's possibility to levels similiar to the chance of war between Belgium and Luxembourg.
regarding democracy and war: oh okay.
regarding globalisation and war: now that i think of it i would be very interested to see levels of trade between countries prior to and after war between them
regarding neoconservativsm/neoliberalism and war: this i find pretty specious. i guess they are moderately successful at creating instable democracies, but in each of these little projects the levels of low intesity warfare increased dramatically.
> In total war generates losses for the business community even if a few profiteers enrich themselves
this seems like a pretty naive reading of a complicated system.
> it's peace that us evil capitalist peegs want.
i know
--------------
>>11
haha what.
I dont know any neocons but they seem like good people who hold american values at heart and think of ways to push them in think tanks.
>the only thing you need to do is consider only two possibilities to the neglect of any others
Absurd. If every time someone only mentions 2 possibilities it is a false dichotomy then people would have to start each conversation saying "I am comparing these 2 possibilities not declaring them the be the only possibilities in existence".
>you're still going to have to convince me that the freedom to start businesses was the only thing keeping pinochet from creating the chilean reich.
There was a transition from military dictatorship to plutocracy.
>You can read it yourself
It is legislature, it was voted in by the CDP, they didn't have direct control over the military. Also nowhere did it say "pinochet rule for 20 years". The CDP were suppressed by Pinochet during the 70s and resurfaced later when power had shifted to the plutocrats and they could start limiting Pinochet.
>but this is still a silly example.
It's silly, but it contradicts the idea that you can never have 2 democracies that won't eventually go to war with each other.
>now that i think of it i would be very interested to see levels of trade between countries prior to and after war between them
The modern economy is extremely sophisticated, if 2 economies have had free trade for decades they will integrate and be dependant on the facilities and institutions of the other. Japan is unlikely to coward attack pearl harbour again.
>i guess they are moderately successful at creating instable democracies
That's only due to flaws in method, not principle. After ww2 they worked with the existing power structures and transplant a system of representation into it, during the cold war they'd work to move the country's political system one step towards democracy. These have worked as we can see, but now in Iraq and Afghanistan tribal and theocratic power structures are being ignored.
> Absurd. If every time someone only mentions 2 possibilities it is a false dichotomy then people would have to start each conversation saying "I am comparing these 2 possibilities not declaring them the be the only possibilities in existence".
you're correct. the thing is, though, no one cares if one makes a false dichotomy if they're willing to give it up.
> It is legislature
it is not an impeachment.
> it was voted in by the CDP, they didn't have direct control over the military. Also nowhere did it say "pinochet rule for 20 years".
they directly addressed the military to do something. if you don't see that as an aggressive action i don't know what to say to you.
> The CDP were suppressed by Pinochet during the 70s and resurfaced later when power had shifted to the plutocrats and they could start limiting Pinochet.
i know.
> It's silly, but it contradicts the idea that you can never have 2 democracies that won't eventually go to war with each other.
that's p. much self evident i don't think anyone's arguing it.
> The modern economy is extremely sophisticated, if 2 economies have had free trade for decades they will integrate and be dependant on the facilities and institutions of the other.
i wasn't really looking for a textbook explanation.
i'm trying to find some data, but levels of trade between india and pakistan in the 1970s are sort of difficult to come by. the only interesting thing i found is that in the peace treaty at the end of the 1971 war, one of the stipulations was that trade normalization was to occur immediately.
> Japan is unlikely to coward attack pearl harbour again.
attributing that to economic integration strikes me as terribly reductionist.
> After ww2 they worked with the existing power structures and transplant a system of representation into it
i was under the impression that post ww2 occupations purged the civil and military administration of all ideological opponents.
> during the cold war they'd work to move the country's political system one step towards democracy.
ha.
> These have worked as we can see, but now in Iraq and Afghanistan tribal and theocratic power structures are being ignored.
i think this is a bit simplified. in all the success stories above, it was an occupation at the end of a long tremendously bloody conflict.
oh whoops forgot the most important part
> There was a transition from military dictatorship to plutocracy.
1) the military junta relied on the rich elite throughout the administration, what are you describing?
2) how does the transfer of power from a military administrative group to an elite few banking and mineral deposit groups end tyranny
>no one cares if one makes a false dichotomy if they're willing to give it up.
I could not have given up a false dichotomy since I held none to begin with.
>if you don't see that as an aggressive action
Arresting a criminal is an aggressive action. Allende had ignored something like over 9000 court decisions and legislations so the CDP and national party decided to pass a resolution to bring him to account. It was at this point that Allende started BAAWWing, calling for revolution and repeating marxist rhetoric. Didn't you read it? If you're not some sort of mad communist why are you sticking up for this guy?
>india and pakistan in the 1970s
They both had corrupt authoritarian regimes and socialist modelled economic systems.
>japan
What do you mean reductionist? The fact they are both democracies makes war unlikely, the fact that their economies are interdependant makes it impossible. You probably believe republicans are evil, consider the fact that the evil bush/mccain administration is less likely to convince the public that war with a democracy is ok if that democracy has strong economic ties to the US. Also ww2 occupations worked on the principle that power always surpasses ideology, you have a bunch of people hopeful for a position in the government and say "who is willing to relinquish their ideals for a 6 figure income?", those who care about their ideals will nobly say "NEVAR!!" but then they will be evicted from the government and replaced by someone else so they don't matter.
>it was an occupation at the end of a long tremendously bloody conflict.
War weariness is present in Iraq and Afghanistan also, perhaps not as much as a country that was nuked/firebombed into submission and initially not in Iraq, but certainly now. At the moment I would say Japanese civilians (potential soldiers) in 1946 are better off than Iraqi and Afghan civilians at the moment, German civilians are the worst off, though most of their active soldiers were dead.
>>17
1) Being rich was not enough before the economic miracle, you had to have ties to the dictatorship. If you were plonked in Chile in 1975 with $10000000, chances are one of Pinochet's thugs would see the opportunity, have a talk with your bank manager and a week later they'd make some shit up, close your account and you wouldn't be able to do a thing about it.
2) The transition from autocracy to plutocracy results in the first economic freedoms and the rise of a middle class.
This thread is yet another glorious victory for neoconservatism.