Bolsonaro takes office :/

[London2Baires]

I think the real issue for many of us with Chomsky, and what makes him less credible in our eyes, almost regardless of the issue, is that he really believes in that type of govt. While he criticizes them for not diversifying the economy and for corruption, he basically thinks they were on the right course otherwise. By that comment you are going to brand me a ultraright winger, but on most issues I am a centrist.

Also, before you get all sanctimonious about the right wing media and their intellectual dishonesty, have you read Página 12 or seen C5N recently?

The thing is, the stats, which he often cited, shows that the left wing government was very beneficial to the poor and society UNTILL the other issues he mentions took hold.

That's why he is totally consistent, and, as far as the actual stats on poverty etc go, correct factually.

Im not being sanctimonious. I was only discussing the previously posted link and giving a more credible one. In that context it's logical to also mention the other issues about right wing propaganda.

Yes there is also propaganda on the left. But Chomsky isn't a propagandist, and so to counter his analysis with clearly partisan drivel can't be left without commenting on imo.

Ps: I don't recall having branded anyone an ultra right winger. But when I see populist right wing propagandist talking points paraded out as fact, I call people on it. That doesn't mean they themselves are ultra right wing by any means.

;-)

 

[London2Baires]

That is the issue. There is no pretending about it. A country is free to use their resources as they see fit.



Maybe or maybe not. As to whether it will benefit the majority or not is something we will have to see. Certainly, the majority benefitted in many countries that exploited their resources. Europe and the US are decent examples. Norway is another. There are many variables that will determine this and it is not a right / left issue. You seem to have some kind of emotional hatred of the right as if you are someone rooting for or against a football team. The actual problems are far more nuanced than my team is better or worse than yours. And, when you dig into it, about any ideology can be corrupted and harm people.

The majority benefited when a right wing corporatist populist leader does a fire sale and privatization of state resources? Examples backed by stats?

You give Norway's wealth fund as an example. Put in place by Gro Harlem Bruntdland in the 1990's. A Labour party, left wing politician.

Lets see an example of a right wing populist corporate backed government like Bolsonaro's who has done something similar?

I have no emotional hatred as you say, i'm sorry if your psychological makeup interprets my words that way. It's easy to misinterpret tone in written exchanges I guess.

You say that whether the firesale will benefit the people is not a right or left issue. When the reality is that the fundamentals of each political philosophy, in their economic dimensions, impact this directly. And moreover are measurable historically. Lets take for example the centerpiece of right wing, libertarian inspired 'economics'. Trickle down, lower taxes, less regulations etc.

Just look at history, the stats don't lie. Neo-liberal economics is a great way of maintaining the hegemonic entrenched power structures, but they certainly arn't progressive in social terms and in terms of their effect on the distribution of wealth.

I will say optimal solution is Brazil's resources are ruthlessly exploited and the profits are put in a fund for the benefit of Brazil similar to what Norway did. Bolsonaro probably will not do that. He has one-half of the equation correct, but misses the other. Hopefully the next leader will get that 2nd half correct. But who knows, maybe Bolsonaro will surprise us.

I am not even sure what you refer to as imperialist economic policies? Can you expound on that? I assume you think this is masterminded by global companies probably US companies who are going to exploit those resources, pay no taxes to Brazil, and leave the country ravaged.

So one half of the equation is right, and others, or if we are lucky Bolsonaro, will put into place the other half. It's far more likely that the same thing will happen that we see when other right wing governments tout neo liberal economics and nationalism as a solution to anything. They get richer, their allies and corporate backers get richer. And the poor get poorer, the gap between rich and poor rises. And all that's left for them is the promise of a trickle down which never comes.

 

[Stantucker]

The thing is, the stats, which he often cited, shows that the left wing government was very beneficial to the poor and society UNTILL the other issues he mentions took hold.

That's why he is totally consistent, and, as far as the actual stats on poverty etc go, correct factually.

Im not being sanctimonious. I was only discussing the previously posted link and giving a more credible one. In that context it's logical to also mention the other issues about right wing propaganda.

Yes there is also propaganda on the left. But Chomsky isn't a propagandist, and so to counter his analysis with clearly partisan drivel can't be left without commenting on imo.

Ps: I don't recall having branded anyone an ultra right winger. But when I see populist right wing propagandist talking points paraded out as fact, I call people on it. That doesn't mean they themselves are ultra right wing by any means.

;-)

The fact that everything was alright and beneficial to the poor before other things took hold proves that the fundamentals of those left-wing, populist govts are wrong and cannot withstand the storms that inevitably come. Has any socialist or communist govt ever been able to weather those storms? No.

When you say to poor soul that with right wing, nationalist govts the poor get poorer and and the rich get richer and the poor are just left waiting for the trickle down that never happens, that sounds exactly what has happened in Venezuela. The poor have just gotten poorer, much poorer, and the rich are still ok, or have benefitted and gotten richer because of their connections.

 

[camberiu]

Lula and the Worker's Party just issued an official note criticizing Bolsonaro for him refusing to recognize the Maduro government.
But according to the media and some folks here, Bolsonaro is the would be tyrant that we all should be worried about....

 

[PoorSoul]

Lets see an example of a right wing populist corporate backed government like Bolsonaro's who has done something similar?

We don't know what he will do or what the next administration will do. Exploiting resources is an obvious no-brainer. There should be a re-distributive aspect tied to it because they are after-all national resource. My guesses is that those companies will not be tax-free. That is the tool governments use to claw back the profits for national needs. Many countries place higher taxes on resource based companies. I do not know if Brazil does or does not do this, but I would not be surprised if it does as it is not uncommon.

Neo-liberal economics is a great way of maintaining the hegemonic entrenched power structures, but they certainly arn't progressive in social terms and in terms of their effect on the distribution of wealth.

Well of course. Neoliberalism is not concerned with distributing wealth. It is concerned with creating wealth. It is a policy that believes that a rising tide lifts all boats. And, it has done an amazing job of creating new wealth that has resulted in billions being uplifted from poverty. When the inequality gets too bad, then I am sure there will be changes within the system that creates new ways to distribute the wealth. Hopefully it does not destroy the production base too much in the process and hopefully it does not come in the form of a population that believes in blind statism that ultimately just leads to mass corruption as too much power goes to the state.

The nordic models are actually fairly good examples of a society that enabled redistribution without creating an overly powerful corrupt state. They are fiercely capitalist, low corporate taxes, but they have a mechanism to redistribute wealth so that it does not stay too concentrated at the top.

You give Norway's wealth fund as an example. Put in place by Gro Harlem Bruntdland in the 1990's. A Labour party, left wing politician.

I am well aware who put in the wealth fund. No one is arguing against redistribution. Once again, I am not a victim to the left/right wing team mentality. I do not believe one spectrum is always good or always bad. However, the first element required is to exploit national resources. Bolsonaro is doing this. That is great. Hopefully it implements a fair tax rate to claw back those profits. If not, then the next government will have a chance.

 

[London2Baires]

We don't know what he will do or what the next administration will do. Exploiting resources is an obvious no-brainer. There should be a re-distributive aspect tied to it because they are after-all national resource. My guesses is that those companies will not be tax-free. That is the tool governments use to claw back the profits for national needs. Many countries place higher taxes on resource based companies. I do not know if Brazil does or does not do this, but I would not be surprised if it does as it is not uncommon.



Well of course. Neoliberalism is not concerned with distributing wealth. It is concerned with creating wealth. It is a policy that believes that a rising tide lifts all boats. And, it has done an amazing job of creating new wealth that has resulted in billions being uplifted from poverty. When the inequality gets too bad, then I am sure there will be changes within the system that creates new ways to distribute the wealth. Hopefully it does not destroy the production base too much in the process and hopefully it does not come in the form of a population that believes in blind statism that ultimately just leads to mass corruption as too much power goes to the state.

The nordic models are actually fairly good examples of a society that enabled redistribution without creating an overly powerful corrupt state. They are fiercely capitalist, low corporate taxes, but they have a mechanism to redistribute wealth so that it does not stay too concentrated at the top.



I am well aware who put in the wealth fund. No one is arguing against redistribution. Once again, I am not a victim to the left/right wing team mentality. I do not believe one spectrum is always good or always bad. However, the first element required is to exploit national resources. Bolsonaro is doing this. That is great. Hopefully it implements a fair tax rate to claw back those profits. If not, then the next government will have a chance.

You are simply wrong on neoliberalism and trickle down. It doesn't do what you say, it results in what I've been explaining. And Bolsonaro is on this course.

You keep repeating the same tired neoliberal talking points, and the facts just don't allign with what you believe.

If you care for actual detailed historical and data based analysis then please have a read of this political sciences academic paper,it's a little dense,but quite short (relatively). If you are genuine and want to look at data and not be a partisan hack, which is what you accuse me of, then you may actually find this of interest and hopefully re-evaluate your position. Good luck!

 

[London2Baires]

Is this normal practice in Brazil, to send in 300 troops to deal with 50 alleged 'rioting criminals' , maybe it was a reasonable response, and Bolsonaro, just days after entering office, has a rare event happen whereby sending in the military to deal with civilian matters is appropriate.

Or maybe this happened under the last regieme frequently also and I am unaware?

Or, more likely, this is more of the same right wing populist neo-fachist style of governance , a la Erdogan, Duterte, Trump et al.

"About 300 troops have been sent to the north-eastern Brazilian city of Fortaleza to tackle a surge in criminal violence, authorities said"



https://www.bbc.com/news/world-lati...7wt/brazil&link_location=live-reporting-story

 

[camberiu]

He did not send the "military". he sent the national Public Security Force, which was created by...Lula. And yes, it has been used like this several times by both the Lula and Dilma's administration. But hey, don't let those facts stop the hysteria.

Operations[edit]
On different occasions, the National Force was called in the state of Espírito Santo as well as in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, primarily to help containing rebellions inside prisons. On another occasion, the federal government offered to send the National Force to assist the state of São Paulo against acts of violence organized there, in 2006, again by prisoners against the state public safety forces, but the federal government offer was refused by the state government, as the state claimed control over the prisoners.

The governor of the state of Rio de Janeiro, Sérgio Cabral Filho asked for support from the National Public Security Force back in 2007 when the state suffered from a wave of attacks by several criminal factions. The Federal Government agreed to send a contingent of about 500 men and 52 vehicles to patrol 19 critical points within the state, mostly the favelas' areas.

The FNSP was called into action in the states of Santa Catarina, Minas Gerais and Bahia in 2013, and in Pernambuco in 2014. In these cases, the force provided stricted security measures in these states. It reinforced local police work in Teresina, Piaui, in 2015. In 2016, aside from security duties in the 2016 Summer Olympic Games in Rio and the city elections there, detachments of the force were deployed to Rio Grande do Sul and Maranhão, and in the fall of 2017 in Espirito Santo.

 

[London2Baires]

He did not send the "military". he sent the national Public Security Force, which was created by...Lula. And yes, it has been used like this several times by both the Lula and Dilma's administration. But hey, don't let those facts stop the hysteria.

Operations[edit]
On different occasions, the National Force was called in the state of Espírito Santo as well as in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, primarily to help containing rebellions inside prisons. On another occasion, the federal government offered to send the National Force to assist the state of São Paulo against acts of violence organized there, in 2006, again by prisoners against the state public safety forces, but the federal government offer was refused by the state government, as the state claimed control over the prisoners.

The governor of the state of Rio de Janeiro, Sérgio Cabral Filho asked for support from the National Public Security Force back in 2007 when the state suffered from a wave of attacks by several criminal factions. The Federal Government agreed to send a contingent of about 500 men and 52 vehicles to patrol 19 critical points within the state, mostly the favelas' areas.

The FNSP was called into action in the states of Santa Catarina, Minas Gerais and Bahia in 2013, and in Pernambuco in 2014. In these cases, the force provided stricted security measures in these states. It reinforced local police work in Teresina, Piaui, in 2015. In 2016, aside from security duties in the 2016 Summer Olympic Games in Rio and the city elections there, detachments of the force were deployed to Rio Grande do Sul and Maranhão, and in the fall of 2017 in Espirito Santo.

I was asking, thanks for the info. Unlike some here I am happy to accept I was wrong on a particular point if shown evidence.

Speaking of which, on the evidence I posted last, on the economic issues. I hear nothing but silence from all those who were asserting mistakenly.

Back to the Public Security Force though;

Let's see if it's used responsibly or as one would expect from this sort of leader, with what propensity, and under which justifications/circumstances .

I maintain my vigilance in this regard , it's only days since he took office. These sorts of para military units are apt for misuse by authoritarian leaders after all.

 

[PoorSoul]

Speaking of which, on the evidence I posted last, on the economic issues. I hear nothing but silence from all those who were asserting mistakenly.

If you are referring to me it is because there was nothing to respond to. What am I supposed to respond to? My assertion that a country needs to exploit it's resources to advance is fact shown by history across about every country. I already stated that there needs to be a mechanism to ensure inequality does not get out of hand and that distributive practices are positives. No one is arguing about enriching the rich to "trickle down". These are all your own strawman points. I even stated a nation needs to have a tax on resource extraction. That is not "trickle down" that is direct confiscation to ensure a portion of gains goes back to the nation. After all, national resources belong to the nation.

So, showcasing examples of countries that were ruled by corrupt politicians does not really provide any insight to the situation. Certainly, if bolsonaro fails to dstribute the gains of resource exploitation, then that is bad. If he proves to be corrupt, that is very bad. As already stated, if bolsonaro fails to eventually tax the profits, then hopefully the next politician will. However, that does not ignore bolsonaros argument that brazil should work better to exploit it's natural resources for the improvement of brazil. We will have to see if he turns out to be corrupt or not and how he plans to ensure the profits go back to brazil which is something we won't see for years as we do not see his strategy (public policy can be different than private policy).

Corruption exists across ideologies and policies. Venezuela and even Lula before Bolsonaro are examples of politicians that have fallen to corruption. Corruption is bad, period. No matter what ideology a politician espouses if they are corrupt it harms society. No one argues against that. Though, I do notice there was no big thread and such impassioned arguments against Lula and his corruption. Corruption needs to be bipartisan. It needs to be stamped out no matter the party and vigilance must be maintained no matter the party.

My overall point is that as long as democracy is functioning in Brazil, then wait and see about Bolsanaro. What he actually is able to do, actually does, and the results of what he does will be seen in the coming 1-2 years. Before we become too anxious and hysterical, let's just wait and see what happens and the actual policies he implements as they can be different than campaign promises. If he starts killing off journalist and arresting political opposition, then of course there is great concern. But as of now, it is a lot of hysteria.