traptunderice wrote:
What about Morales and Chavez? Chavez is singlehandedly getting South America out of the IMF and World Bank's pockets, more so than the West ever attempted to. That's cause the West makes profits off of structural adjustments. At this point, leftism shouldn't even be about positive actions towards our own goals but ending the chaos and poverty created my imperialism and unbridled capitalism. You can agree with that can't you, V?
No leftist government would want people mooching off the system, i.e, others' work. And people can't always rise out of poverty on their own which led the USSR to provide housing for everyone. Now that it's collapsed, housing is non-existent for the lowest working classes, your and my type of people, V. The working classes in autocratic Russia are quickly becoming the homeless. Those sob programs in America have always been neutered and improperly funded, preventing any wastes from being found and eliminated.
Autocratic tyrants are handing their people and their country resources over to MNC who exploit until there is no longer anything left. Dictators in the respectable communist regimes at least gave back to people. Every leftist on here will admit that Stalinism and Maoism were generally failures with little respectable qualities. But once you consider the pressure constantly put on them due to the US and the West's constant antagonism; it is amazing that they were able to do much of what they did, most of which you never hear about. China's rapid growth in literacy, the USSRs rationed but egalitarian provisions, the USSRs ability to compete with the US despite being a feudal society only decades before.
The World Bank has way too much power, definitely, and I'd even go so far as to say it is evil.
Yeah, like I said, the best approach is taking what works from any ideology and applying it systematically.
Look to countries that enjoy the best of both worlds, and incidentally, a very high standard of living.
Scandinavia looks pretty good.
Take the socialism (reigned in by nothing more than what is necessary) and combine it with a free market, add a dash of reasonable workers rights (not the type of stuff where some High School graduate makes $35.00 /hr for pushing a lever when a red button flashes, plus benefits, but fair compensation) and there you go.
Raw, unchecked capitalism is flawed because it is a cut-throat ideology driven by greed and devoid of humanity. Raw communism is flawed because it is the other end of the spectrum in extremity, and is contrary to human nature.
Some kind of middle-of-the-road approach seems to me, at least, the best way.
I don't believe in egalitarianism, per se, because it's just not true. Not everybody is neurosurgeon material; the world needs ditch-diggers, too.
I do believe everybody should be treated with the same respect and dignity, if they have earned that right, though.
I don't hold a child molester to the same esteem as I hold someone that risks their life saving others, for example.
As for the Wests being constantly atagonistic, maybe so, but the USSR had imperialistic designs, as well. The West kept it in check. I suppose that could be flipped over to where the USSR kept the The West's imperialism in check, but the point is, there were no good guys in the Cold War; two predator nations looking to broaden their "sphere of influence" (nice euphemism, that one). Nothing more, nothing less.
Still trying to be all things to all people, then.
