What Is Your Political Orientation?

[thorsten]

Even if I'd want to put myself in a box, ask 10 people about the difference between Liberal, Neo-Liberal and Libertarian for example and you'll most likely get 10 different answers...

 

[ajoknoblauch]

I often ask myself why self proclaimed neo-liberals are NOT living in Chile (and bore themselves to death)?
And just FYI North Korea is a Stalinist dictatorship - would not be fair to send Leninists there.

Chile is a great place to live, and has a Socialist president. It has a stable currency, and a public option in its health care system. The Santiago Metro is expanding rapidly, with more than double the coverage of the Subte though it opened six decades later, and the stations and trains are spotless. Valparaiso is one of the continent's most interesting cities.

North Korea, though, thinks Stalinism is for wimps.

 

[EdRooney]

Even if I'd want to put myself in a box, ask 10 people about the difference between Liberal, Neo-Liberal and Libertarian for example and you'll most likely get 10 different answers...

^^^^this
And that's why I have such little patience for arguments that generally go "The problem with you [liberals, conservatives, peronists, libertarians, anarchists...] is that you believe..." (which accounts for about 90% of the arguments I see posted). It's much easier to rail against what I think a group believes than it is to actually take on someone's specific arguments.

If anything this thread should encourage us all to be more careful when throwing around generally nebulous political labels.

 

[Redpossum]

North Korea, though, thinks Stalinism is for wimps.

Yes, true, but they have balls of solid brass the size of Texas grapefruit.

 

[Rich One]

This poll proved me wrong on [at least] one account. I once told a group of students that "the term 'neo-liberalism' is derogatory and you won't really find anyone who identifies himself as a neo-liberal." If the votes here were cast in seriousness (who knows), I'd be curious to see how someone defining herself as neoliberal would define that political system, and then compare that to how the term is used by its detractors.

To a degree the same could also be said of 'neo-conservatism,' as there may have been people that called themselves neo-cons 15 years ago, but since the Iraq invasion, it has taken on such a bad name that I'd be surprised to see anyone claiming the title.

Repeated

 

[Rich One]

^^^^this
And that's why I have such little patience for arguments that generally go "The problem with you [liberals, conservatives, peronists, libertarians, anarchists...] is that you believe..." (which accounts for about 90% of the arguments I see posted). It's much easier to rail against what I think a group believes than it is to actually take on someone's specific arguments.

If anything this thread should encourage us all to be more careful when throwing around generally nebulous political labels.

Neo-Liberals in Argentina ?? The Milton Friendship Society?? Read link below Letter from Milton to CFK? Sure he was wrong?

http://economiaparat...ez-de-kirchner/

 

[Matiasba]

The problem with free market policies is that it does not work. If you put two people, companies, or whatever to compete, there will be one that wins, but what about the other? Thats why today we have concentration of enormous fortunes in few hands, we have a minority very, extremely rich, and 2/3 of humanity under the poverty line. Put people to compete in market job, for instance, and while they all work hard to get the job, making it all look better, theres oly one that wins, and the rest is excluded.
Besides, the competition not always work. I recommend to study planned obsolesence as an example of no-competitios}n, but agrrements between companies that are supposed to compete, but they act together, like we have here with supermarkets (they put prices together, they dont compete) or the prepagas (they rise their prices together, especially the 5 bigger Medicus, Swiss Medical, OSDE, Galeno, Omint) they come to an agreement and act agaisnt the government, they press all together, again, they do not compete!.

But what I was saying, is that when you have free market policies, what happens indeed is concentration, is the one that wins winning more, is lots of money in fewer hands, is the big fish eating the small one, concentrating more and morrre each time. And the counterpart, extreme poverty, people with nothing, without a house, without health and education, without a piece of bread to eat. Thats how capitalism works, thats not bad functioning or a drift or something, thats how it works and how it had worked in the last centuries. Capitalism is a poverty factory, we have billions of people under the poverty line, and a bunch of multimillionare that could not spend like the 1% of their fortunes in all their entire lives (and their grandsons life -and living with opulence).


If we dont have this picture in the US and Europe, thats because they have a very strong states (yes: the opposite they preach abroad). They have both big states, with a huge social coverty, with tons of money spent in social programs, with internal market policies, with a very present state. But outside Europe or the US, what we have is very few people that takes every penny, and as a sociologist, the most important thing its that this minority that rules and exploit and abuse and do whatever they want, they do it with, except some few cases, 100% consent. Nobody questions how their social systems are functioning, people, millions of people, including us westerns, see this naturally, see this, extreme opulence and extreme poverty in the same city, as something natural. Well, what Marxism has teached me is exactly this, that all the wealth of these rich people can only come from one place: from the poor!! Theres nothing more complicated here, it is very simple, this is how the system works!! Thats how these societies work.

 

[Chet]

with no competition there is no incentive.

 

[Joe]

with no competition there is no incentive.

Yeah but if you work hard and come up with a better mouse trap, I'm going to feel bad because you have more money than me! Why can't I just sit at home and smoke dope and have what you have?!?!?!

Seriously folks, socialists always think that the reason socialism has never worked is because their team of socialists isn't in power: "If my team of socialist were in power it would be milk and honey for everyone." And then they fail again.

When China implemented capitalist elements to their still planned economy they increased wealth for everyone. While at the same time making the distribution of wealth more unequal.

If the goal is to make everyone equally poor (except for the politburo) socialism/communism is the ticket.

 

[MDZ]

Chile is a great place to live, and has a Socialist president. It has a stable currency, and a public option in its health care system. The Santiago Metro is expanding rapidly, with more than double the coverage of the Subte though it opened six decades later, and the stations and trains are spotless. Valparaiso is one of the continent's most interesting cities.

So why do you live in the US then?