It seems we now live in an age where if you are of a certain political persuasion you are more than entitled to oppose democracy, whilst claiming that you have the moral highground. Also, everyone who has an opinion that differs, not even right out opposes yours, makes them either a) immoral b) misled c) evil.
Someone in this thread said that people get the governments they deserve, that is completely true. I don't like the Brazilian guy, but it is a very different set of circumstances over there.
We should bring back the Empire and impose our righteous views on them in my opinion, that would work wouldn't it @Leuth ?
In the spirit of your post I would suggest a slight broadening of the term 'empire' to multinational commercial interests . I would argue it is already being imposed, especially on places such as Brazil.
Got it. Down with democracy and capitalism. Sign me up comrade. I'm going to start a petition right now to get Coca cola and Nestle to stop arming the drug gangs in Brazil.
The answer my friend has blown out of your previous post..? Or shall we take another look...
It seems we now live in an age where if you are of a certain political persuasion you are more than entitled to oppose democracy, whilst claiming that you have the moral highground. Also, everyone who has an opinion that differs, not even right out opposes yours, makes them either a) immoral b) misled c) evil.
Someone in this thread said that people get the governments they deserve, that is completely true. I don't like the Brazilian guy, but it is a very different set of circumstances over there.
We should bring back the Empire and impose our righteous views on them in my opinion, that would work wouldn't it @Leuth ?
In the spirit of your post I would suggest a slight broadening of the term 'empire' to multinational commercial interests . I would argue it is already being imposed, especially on places such as Brazil.
Got it. Down with democracy and capitalism. Sign me up comrade. I'm going to start a petition right now to get Coca cola and Nestle to stop arming the drug gangs in Brazil.
The answer my friend has blow n out of your previous post..? Or shall we take another look ing in the wind, the answer is blowing to the......wiiiiinnnnd...
Oh, and I wouldn't cheer on a Chavez. I'd cheer on liberal democracy with a strong social program and worker empowerment initiatives. The thing is, Corbyn IS the social-democrat option here (an imperfect one, but the closest we've got). Labour's manifesto is definitively not communist. The Overton window has shifted so far that we think of David Cameron as a liberal, rather than an austerity-wielding prick
It's not really a very surprising result though is it? Violent crime is extremely high in Brazil, and people there can't turn to their government to fix it because they're so corrupt. People are scared and Bolsonaro offers them hope that the things that directly affect them might change. The fact he's a horrible, hateful, dreadful little man is a very unfortunate part of it, and he will almost certainly make Brazil a worse place. The reality with populism is though that people will quite happily turn a blind eye to racism, sexism and homophobia if they're not immediately going to suffer for those views in exchange for a big change in their lives. They won't be so cheerful when Bolsonaro starts putting together his military regime and his views on torture and brutal prisons do become a reality for the voters, but hindsight won't help unelect him.
This is the time of extremes, and the logical people need to come up with a better plan than screeching at the voters that they're stupid for thinking the bad people can help them, because it's clearly not working.
But if you vote for a right wing authoritarian leader you're being stupid however you dress it up. Authoritarian leaders have been a disaster throughout history unless this guy is somehow going to be different?
If in a few years time he's proved us all wrong and has turned Brazil around then I will obviously be witnessing the birth of a new style of politics.
Yes, absolutely agreed, you're wrong if you think electing a nutter like Bolsonaro will help. The thing is though, we really are in a time where discourse is completely toxic and neither side is willing to listen to the other anymore. We've developed this unhelpful 'educated' people approach to delivering opinion, which is generally more common on the left, where people's opinions - and most importantly the people themselves - are dismissed as stupid and ignorant for holding a view. We don't take into account people's level of education or access to the information we have at our fingertips, or even their choice to use it and call them thick or evil or whatever for feeling the way they do. This then gets chucked up on Twitter because now every waking thought apparently has to be broadcast and before you know it there's a divide where people feel personally attacked for having a view that often relates to their economic circumstances and start sticking to their guns regardless of facts. In America they're referred to as 'high emotion, low information' voters. Trump told them he would fix their lives, and instead of rationally explaining why this was wrong and what they could offer, the Democrats called potential Trump voters 'deplorables'. That unsurprisingly didn't change their minds.
That's what I mean when i say there needs to be a new plan. We saw it with Trump and then with Brexit, shouting at voters that they're stupid or racist or whatever just seems to really lock in that voter's decision on what they already thought. There needs to be a better way of communicating the positives of immigration other than 'you're racist if you don't believe me', a better way of communicating the importance of funding for vulnerable parts of society other than 'you're evil if you don't agree' and a better way of discussing how to approach crime and terrorism beyond 'you're racist again'. There's plenty of good arguments for all those things, and at the end of the conversation no-one has to agree, they can hold their own view and you can count up who you've convinced and who you haven't. We seem to have sort of forgotten that, and the populists are saying whatever they think the voters want to hear regardless of if it's true, and sweeping up across the world because the conversation has broken down before the votes are cast.
Agree,
The hard left here call for unity against fascists but screams "Blairite" "Red Tory", "Centralist" at any moderates and social democrats who don't fall in line with their doctrinaire point of view, all while supporting Russia and other objectionable states and groups who they see as "anti-west". So it becomes harder and harder to form any form of broad coalition and oppose the far right.
The opposite of fascism isn't the revolutionary socialism as preached by the Dear Leader but liberal democracy.
And while liberal democracy is having a bit of a rough time of late it is still alive. Trump didn't win the popular vote for example and macron won in France.
Brazil has had military rule in living memory so is not as established a democracy as many other states.
Yes but how will Liberal democracy protect itself from neo feudalism in the form of corporate big business that isn't democratic nor liberal, from circumnavigate humanism by exploiting anything that can be exploited by the system (all very leagal), promote inequality and ferments discontent, which give rise to fuckers from the right or from the left (like me)
Breath....
In other words,in modern times when true participatory democracy doesn't exist, Where ignorance and conflict is good for business, Isn't Liberal Democracy just a fluffy stage (afforded to the comfortables) in between authoritative regimes..?
So forget liberal democracy and all steam ahead for revolutionary socialism under the dear leader anti-Semitic friend of terrorists, Russia and Iran.
Lets use the rise of right to justify a dictatorship of the left because that has worked so well before.
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.
Oh, and I wouldn't cheer on a Chavez. I'd cheer on liberal democracy with a strong social program and worker empowerment initiatives. The thing is, Corbyn IS the social-democrat option here (an imperfect one, but the closest we've got). Labour's manifesto is definitively not communist. The Overton window has shifted so far that we think of David Cameron as a liberal, rather than an austerity-wielding prick
It's not really a very surprising result though is it? Violent crime is extremely high in Brazil, and people there can't turn to their government to fix it because they're so corrupt. People are scared and Bolsonaro offers them hope that the things that directly affect them might change. The fact he's a horrible, hateful, dreadful little man is a very unfortunate part of it, and he will almost certainly make Brazil a worse place. The reality with populism is though that people will quite happily turn a blind eye to racism, sexism and homophobia if they're not immediately going to suffer for those views in exchange for a big change in their lives. They won't be so cheerful when Bolsonaro starts putting together his military regime and his views on torture and brutal prisons do become a reality for the voters, but hindsight won't help unelect him.
This is the time of extremes, and the logical people need to come up with a better plan than screeching at the voters that they're stupid for thinking the bad people can help them, because it's clearly not working.
But if you vote for a right wing authoritarian leader you're being stupid however you dress it up. Authoritarian leaders have been a disaster throughout history unless this guy is somehow going to be different?
If in a few years time he's proved us all wrong and has turned Brazil around then I will obviously be witnessing the birth of a new style of politics.
Yes, absolutely agreed, you're wrong if you think electing a nutter like Bolsonaro will help. The thing is though, we really are in a time where discourse is completely toxic and neither side is willing to listen to the other anymore. We've developed this unhelpful 'educated' people approach to delivering opinion, which is generally more common on the left, where people's opinions - and most importantly the people themselves - are dismissed as stupid and ignorant for holding a view. We don't take into account people's level of education or access to the information we have at our fingertips, or even their choice to use it and call them thick or evil or whatever for feeling the way they do. This then gets chucked up on Twitter because now every waking thought apparently has to be broadcast and before you know it there's a divide where people feel personally attacked for having a view that often relates to their economic circumstances and start sticking to their guns regardless of facts. In America they're referred to as 'high emotion, low information' voters. Trump told them he would fix their lives, and instead of rationally explaining why this was wrong and what they could offer, the Democrats called potential Trump voters 'deplorables'. That unsurprisingly didn't change their minds.
That's what I mean when i say there needs to be a new plan. We saw it with Trump and then with Brexit, shouting at voters that they're stupid or racist or whatever just seems to really lock in that voter's decision on what they already thought. There needs to be a better way of communicating the positives of immigration other than 'you're racist if you don't believe me', a better way of communicating the importance of funding for vulnerable parts of society other than 'you're evil if you don't agree' and a better way of discussing how to approach crime and terrorism beyond 'you're racist again'. There's plenty of good arguments for all those things, and at the end of the conversation no-one has to agree, they can hold their own view and you can count up who you've convinced and who you haven't. We seem to have sort of forgotten that, and the populists are saying whatever they think the voters want to hear regardless of if it's true, and sweeping up across the world because the conversation has broken down before the votes are cast.
Agree,
The hard left here call for unity against fascists but screams "Blairite" "Red Tory", "Centralist" at any moderates and social democrats who don't fall in line with their doctrinaire point of view, all while supporting Russia and other objectionable states and groups who they see as "anti-west". So it becomes harder and harder to form any form of broad coalition and oppose the far right.
The opposite of fascism isn't the revolutionary socialism as preached by the Dear Leader but liberal democracy.
And while liberal democracy is having a bit of a rough time of late it is still alive. Trump didn't win the popular vote for example and macron won in France.
Brazil has had military rule in living memory so is not as established a democracy as many other states.
Yes but how will Liberal democracy protect itself from neo feudalism in the form of corporate big business that isn't democratic nor liberal, from circumnavigate humanism by exploiting anything that can be exploited by the system (all very leagal), promote inequality and ferments discontent, which give rise to fuckers from the right or from the left (like me)
Breath....
In other words,in modern times when true participatory democracy doesn't exist, Where ignorance and conflict is good for business, Isn't Liberal Democracy just a fluffy stage (afforded to the comfortables) in between authoritative regimes..?
So forget liberal democracy and all steam ahead for revolutionary socialism under the dear leader anti-Semitic friend of terrorists, Russia and Iran.
Lets use the rise of right to justify a dictatorship of the left because that has worked so well before.
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.
With this level of analytical thinking and sophistication I'm surprised we're still in league 1...
Oh, and I wouldn't cheer on a Chavez. I'd cheer on liberal democracy with a strong social program and worker empowerment initiatives. The thing is, Corbyn IS the social-democrat option here (an imperfect one, but the closest we've got). Labour's manifesto is definitively not communist. The Overton window has shifted so far that we think of David Cameron as a liberal, rather than an austerity-wielding prick
It's not really a very surprising result though is it? Violent crime is extremely high in Brazil, and people there can't turn to their government to fix it because they're so corrupt. People are scared and Bolsonaro offers them hope that the things that directly affect them might change. The fact he's a horrible, hateful, dreadful little man is a very unfortunate part of it, and he will almost certainly make Brazil a worse place. The reality with populism is though that people will quite happily turn a blind eye to racism, sexism and homophobia if they're not immediately going to suffer for those views in exchange for a big change in their lives. They won't be so cheerful when Bolsonaro starts putting together his military regime and his views on torture and brutal prisons do become a reality for the voters, but hindsight won't help unelect him.
This is the time of extremes, and the logical people need to come up with a better plan than screeching at the voters that they're stupid for thinking the bad people can help them, because it's clearly not working.
But if you vote for a right wing authoritarian leader you're being stupid however you dress it up. Authoritarian leaders have been a disaster throughout history unless this guy is somehow going to be different?
If in a few years time he's proved us all wrong and has turned Brazil around then I will obviously be witnessing the birth of a new style of politics.
Yes, absolutely agreed, you're wrong if you think electing a nutter like Bolsonaro will help. The thing is though, we really are in a time where discourse is completely toxic and neither side is willing to listen to the other anymore. We've developed this unhelpful 'educated' people approach to delivering opinion, which is generally more common on the left, where people's opinions - and most importantly the people themselves - are dismissed as stupid and ignorant for holding a view. We don't take into account people's level of education or access to the information we have at our fingertips, or even their choice to use it and call them thick or evil or whatever for feeling the way they do. This then gets chucked up on Twitter because now every waking thought apparently has to be broadcast and before you know it there's a divide where people feel personally attacked for having a view that often relates to their economic circumstances and start sticking to their guns regardless of facts. In America they're referred to as 'high emotion, low information' voters. Trump told them he would fix their lives, and instead of rationally explaining why this was wrong and what they could offer, the Democrats called potential Trump voters 'deplorables'. That unsurprisingly didn't change their minds.
That's what I mean when i say there needs to be a new plan. We saw it with Trump and then with Brexit, shouting at voters that they're stupid or racist or whatever just seems to really lock in that voter's decision on what they already thought. There needs to be a better way of communicating the positives of immigration other than 'you're racist if you don't believe me', a better way of communicating the importance of funding for vulnerable parts of society other than 'you're evil if you don't agree' and a better way of discussing how to approach crime and terrorism beyond 'you're racist again'. There's plenty of good arguments for all those things, and at the end of the conversation no-one has to agree, they can hold their own view and you can count up who you've convinced and who you haven't. We seem to have sort of forgotten that, and the populists are saying whatever they think the voters want to hear regardless of if it's true, and sweeping up across the world because the conversation has broken down before the votes are cast.
Agree,
The hard left here call for unity against fascists but screams "Blairite" "Red Tory", "Centralist" at any moderates and social democrats who don't fall in line with their doctrinaire point of view, all while supporting Russia and other objectionable states and groups who they see as "anti-west". So it becomes harder and harder to form any form of broad coalition and oppose the far right.
The opposite of fascism isn't the revolutionary socialism as preached by the Dear Leader but liberal democracy.
And while liberal democracy is having a bit of a rough time of late it is still alive. Trump didn't win the popular vote for example and macron won in France.
Brazil has had military rule in living memory so is not as established a democracy as many other states.
Yes but how will Liberal democracy protect itself from neo feudalism in the form of corporate big business that isn't democratic nor liberal, from circumnavigate humanism by exploiting anything that can be exploited by the system (all very leagal), promote inequality and ferments discontent, which give rise to fuckers from the right or from the left (like me)
Breath....
In other words,in modern times when true participatory democracy doesn't exist, Where ignorance and conflict is good for business, Isn't Liberal Democracy just a fluffy stage (afforded to the comfortables) in between authoritative regimes..?
So forget liberal democracy and all steam ahead for revolutionary socialism under the dear leader anti-Semitic friend of terrorists, Russia and Iran.
Lets use the rise of right to justify a dictatorship of the left because that has worked so well before.
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.
With this level of analytical thinking and sophistication I'm surprised we're still in league 1...
No adult response though from you. Just a weak joke to try and deflect.
You dismissed liberal democracy as a " fluffy stage" but criticise others analytical thinking.
I repeat. The opposite of fascism isn't the revolutionary socialism of the dear leader, it's liberal democracy and for all its flaws and weaknesses it has worked pretty well.
Ronald Reagan unequivocally supported Britain during the Falklands War. Does anyone think that we could rely on Donald Trump in similar circumstances? I personally think he would shaft us.
Yeah Donald Trump is known for siding with Latin Americans over white people...
I'm sure the six Hong Nationals and Gurkha soldier who died fighting for Great Britain during the Falklands Conflict will rest easy in their graves knowing this.
Ronald Reagan unequivocally supported Britain during the Falklands War. Does anyone think that we could rely on Donald Trump in similar circumstances? I personally think he would shaft us.
Yeah Donald Trump is known for siding with Latin Americans over white people...
From everything I've seen, Trump sides with "Americans", regardless of colour, and that's why he'll get a 2nd term.
Ronald Reagan unequivocally supported Britain during the Falklands War. Does anyone think that we could rely on Donald Trump in similar circumstances? I personally think he would shaft us.
Yeah Donald Trump is known for siding with Latin Americans over white people...
From everything I've seen, Trump sides with "Americans", regardless of colour, and that's why he'll get a 2nd term.
There's plenty of "Americans" in Puerto Rico who might take a different view on that.
Oh, and I wouldn't cheer on a Chavez. I'd cheer on liberal democracy with a strong social program and worker empowerment initiatives. The thing is, Corbyn IS the social-democrat option here (an imperfect one, but the closest we've got). Labour's manifesto is definitively not communist. The Overton window has shifted so far that we think of David Cameron as a liberal, rather than an austerity-wielding prick
It's not really a very surprising result though is it? Violent crime is extremely high in Brazil, and people there can't turn to their government to fix it because they're so corrupt. People are scared and Bolsonaro offers them hope that the things that directly affect them might change. The fact he's a horrible, hateful, dreadful little man is a very unfortunate part of it, and he will almost certainly make Brazil a worse place. The reality with populism is though that people will quite happily turn a blind eye to racism, sexism and homophobia if they're not immediately going to suffer for those views in exchange for a big change in their lives. They won't be so cheerful when Bolsonaro starts putting together his military regime and his views on torture and brutal prisons do become a reality for the voters, but hindsight won't help unelect him.
This is the time of extremes, and the logical people need to come up with a better plan than screeching at the voters that they're stupid for thinking the bad people can help them, because it's clearly not working.
But if you vote for a right wing authoritarian leader you're being stupid however you dress it up. Authoritarian leaders have been a disaster throughout history unless this guy is somehow going to be different?
If in a few years time he's proved us all wrong and has turned Brazil around then I will obviously be witnessing the birth of a new style of politics.
Yes, absolutely agreed, you're wrong if you think electing a nutter like Bolsonaro will help. The thing is though, we really are in a time where discourse is completely toxic and neither side is willing to listen to the other anymore. We've developed this unhelpful 'educated' people approach to delivering opinion, which is generally more common on the left, where people's opinions - and most importantly the people themselves - are dismissed as stupid and ignorant for holding a view. We don't take into account people's level of education or access to the information we have at our fingertips, or even their choice to use it and call them thick or evil or whatever for feeling the way they do. This then gets chucked up on Twitter because now every waking thought apparently has to be broadcast and before you know it there's a divide where people feel personally attacked for having a view that often relates to their economic circumstances and start sticking to their guns regardless of facts. In America they're referred to as 'high emotion, low information' voters. Trump told them he would fix their lives, and instead of rationally explaining why this was wrong and what they could offer, the Democrats called potential Trump voters 'deplorables'. That unsurprisingly didn't change their minds.
That's what I mean when i say there needs to be a new plan. We saw it with Trump and then with Brexit, shouting at voters that they're stupid or racist or whatever just seems to really lock in that voter's decision on what they already thought. There needs to be a better way of communicating the positives of immigration other than 'you're racist if you don't believe me', a better way of communicating the importance of funding for vulnerable parts of society other than 'you're evil if you don't agree' and a better way of discussing how to approach crime and terrorism beyond 'you're racist again'. There's plenty of good arguments for all those things, and at the end of the conversation no-one has to agree, they can hold their own view and you can count up who you've convinced and who you haven't. We seem to have sort of forgotten that, and the populists are saying whatever they think the voters want to hear regardless of if it's true, and sweeping up across the world because the conversation has broken down before the votes are cast.
Agree,
The hard left here call for unity against fascists but screams "Blairite" "Red Tory", "Centralist" at any moderates and social democrats who don't fall in line with their doctrinaire point of view, all while supporting Russia and other objectionable states and groups who they see as "anti-west". So it becomes harder and harder to form any form of broad coalition and oppose the far right.
The opposite of fascism isn't the revolutionary socialism as preached by the Dear Leader but liberal democracy.
And while liberal democracy is having a bit of a rough time of late it is still alive. Trump didn't win the popular vote for example and macron won in France.
Brazil has had military rule in living memory so is not as established a democracy as many other states.
Yes but how will Liberal democracy protect itself from neo feudalism in the form of corporate big business that isn't democratic nor liberal, from circumnavigate humanism by exploiting anything that can be exploited by the system (all very leagal), promote inequality and ferments discontent, which give rise to fuckers from the right or from the left (like me)
Breath....
In other words,in modern times when true participatory democracy doesn't exist, Where ignorance and conflict is good for business, Isn't Liberal Democracy just a fluffy stage (afforded to the comfortables) in between authoritative regimes..?
So forget liberal democracy and all steam ahead for revolutionary socialism under the dear leader anti-Semitic friend of terrorists, Russia and Iran.
Lets use the rise of right to justify a dictatorship of the left because that has worked so well before.
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.
With this level of analytical thinking and sophistication I'm surprised we're still in league 1...
No adult response though from you. Just a weak joke to try and deflect.
You dismissed liberal democracy as a " fluffy stage" but criticise others analytical thinking.
I repeat. The opposite of fascism isn't the revolutionary socialism of the dear leader, it's liberal democracy and for all its flaws and weaknesses it has worked pretty well.
No joke at all. Mine was questioning of humanity's patterns of behaviour over the generations. The 'Fluffy stage', (question mark) was a lament. My point was that we cannot champion liberal democracy without looking into the stractural failures which(where it's most needed) time and time again cause it to end with authoritative leaders of the right or the left (No Che Guevara or Dolly Parton). Presuming we agree that all humans respond to their environmental pressures in a similar way. (People talk about corruption in the developing world as if its in other people's DNA...) I don't see a reason to make any 'us and them' points. Unfortunately- in my reading, the entities that think of Liberal democracy as 'fluffy' are the ones who sees it as an annoying obstacle that stand in their way of making unchecked material profit.
The only fluff available to me is my little rant (Charlton aside)
Ronald Reagan unequivocally supported Britain during the Falklands War. Does anyone think that we could rely on Donald Trump in similar circumstances? I personally think he would shaft us.
Yeah Donald Trump is known for siding with Latin Americans over white people...
From everything I've seen, Trump sides with "Americans", regardless of colour, and that's why he'll get a 2nd term.
There's plenty of "Americans" in Puerto Rico who might take a different view on that.
But the "majority" of "Americans" , be them black, white, Asian or Hispanic don't, and that's what keeps people in power, the MAJORITY
The big risk with an authoritarian leader is the potential abuse of power and shutting down political opposition and attacking human rights. The military dictatorship in Brazil only ended in the 1980s and it was certainly an abusive regime.
Bolsonaro may do a fantastic job but he's certainly said a lot of shocking things and I imagine he will be very focused on attacking the opposition.
If recent history of authoritarian regimes in South America is anything to go by then those openly opposed to him will have a lot to be fearful of.
It shows the extent of unhappiness within the electorate that he was elected.
Ronald Reagan unequivocally supported Britain during the Falklands War. Does anyone think that we could rely on Donald Trump in similar circumstances? I personally think he would shaft us.
Yeah Donald Trump is known for siding with Latin Americans over white people...
From everything I've seen, Trump sides with "Americans", regardless of colour, and that's why he'll get a 2nd term.
There's plenty of "Americans" in Puerto Rico who might take a different view on that.
But the "majority" of "Americans" , be them black, white, Asian or Hispanic don't, and that's what keeps people in power, the MAJORITY
He lost the popular vote to the MAJORITY, though of course.
The big risk with an authoritarian all political leaders is the potential abuse of power and shutting down political opposition and attacking human rights.
No joke at all. Mine was questioning of humanity's patterns of behaviour over the generations. The 'Fluffy stage', (question mark) was a lament. My point was that we cannot champion liberal democracy without looking into the stractural failures which(where it's most needed) time and time again cause it to end with authoritative leaders of the right or the left (No Che Guevara or Dolly Parton). Presuming we agree that all humans respond to their environmental pressures in a similar way. (People talk about corruption in the developing world as if its in other people's DNA...) I don't see a reason to make any 'us and them' points. Unfortunately- in my reading, the entities that think of Liberal democracy as 'fluffy' are the ones who sees it as an annoying obstacle that stand in their way of making unchecked material profit.
The only fluff available to me is my little rant (Charlton aside)
What structural failures does Liberal Democracy have that are greater/worse than those flaws seen in dictatorships? Dictatorships are inherently flawed as they are undemocratic and rely on oppression to stay in power.
A few democracies have reverted to dictatorships, many dictatorships (Warsaw Pact for example) have become democracies and are better for it albeit far from perfect (back to the Churchill quote again).
Your marxist analysis was old fashioned in the 1970s when I first heard, and rejected, it.
The big risk with an authoritarian all political leaders is the potential abuse of power and shutting down political opposition and attacking human rights.
EFA
Don't they all do that to an extent?
The key word is authoritarian - South America has a history of repressive authoritarian regimes. Torture, censorship, banishment, disappearances etc.
The Brazilian military dictatorship was pretty brutal and as far as I'm aware the new President is a sympathiser. I imagine the military will feature quite heavily in his regime.
You can turn a blind eye to this sort of stuff if it doesn't affect you.
If Bolsonaro cuts down on crime and government corruption and the economy stabilises then other issues won't come to the fore.
It will be interesting to see how successful he is and what role the military plays.
No joke at all. Mine was questioning of humanity's patterns of behaviour over the generations. The 'Fluffy stage', (question mark) was a lament. My point was that we cannot champion liberal democracy without looking into the stractural failures which(where it's most needed) time and time again cause it to end with authoritative leaders of the right or the left (No Che Guevara or Dolly Parton). Presuming we agree that all humans respond to their environmental pressures in a similar way. (People talk about corruption in the developing world as if its in other people's DNA...) I don't see a reason to make any 'us and them' points. Unfortunately- in my reading, the entities that think of Liberal democracy as 'fluffy' are the ones who sees it as an annoying obstacle that stand in their way of making unchecked material profit.
The only fluff available to me is my little rant (Charlton aside)
What structural failures does Liberal Democracy have that are greater/worse than those flaws seen in dictatorships? Dictatorships are inherently flawed as they are undemocratic and rely on oppression to stay in power.
A few democracies have reverted to dictatorships, many dictatorships (Warsaw Pact for example) have become democracies and are better for it albeit far from perfect (back to the Churchill quote again).
Your marxist analysis was old fashioned in the 1970s when I first heard, and rejected, it.
Since when the manipulation of governments by big business is marxist analysis (have a word with your Adam Smith baker). So we doing fashion now are we..? You may allow yourself to be swept by the Kardashians as much as you like but your trickled down solutions to wealth creation wouldn't even make it in to good Samaritan shops !!!! And as for Poland. ... Gee.... Have another look....
No joke at all. Mine was questioning of humanity's patterns of behaviour over the generations. The 'Fluffy stage', (question mark) was a lament. My point was that we cannot champion liberal democracy without looking into the stractural failures which(where it's most needed) time and time again cause it to end with authoritative leaders of the right or the left (No Che Guevara or Dolly Parton). Presuming we agree that all humans respond to their environmental pressures in a similar way. (People talk about corruption in the developing world as if its in other people's DNA...) I don't see a reason to make any 'us and them' points. Unfortunately- in my reading, the entities that think of Liberal democracy as 'fluffy' are the ones who sees it as an annoying obstacle that stand in their way of making unchecked material profit.
The only fluff available to me is my little rant (Charlton aside)
What structural failures does Liberal Democracy have that are greater/worse than those flaws seen in dictatorships? Dictatorships are inherently flawed as they are undemocratic and rely on oppression to stay in power.
A few democracies have reverted to dictatorships, many dictatorships (Warsaw Pact for example) have become democracies and are better for it albeit far from perfect (back to the Churchill quote again).
Your marxist analysis was old fashioned in the 1970s when I first heard, and rejected, it.
Since when the manipulation of governments by big business is marxist analysis (have a word with your Adam Smith baker). So we doing fashion now are we..? You may allow yourself to be swept by the Kardashians as much as you like but your trickled down solutions to wealth creation wouldn't even make it in to good Samaritan shops !!!! And as for Poland. ... Gee.... Have another look....
Maybe try actually constructing an argument rather than making up nonsense about me being "swept by the Kardashians".
You dismiss Liberal Democracy as fluffy and then run away when challenged and hide behind nonsense.
pity that @ElfsborgAddick has hung up his rattle .. his Mrs is Brazilian and he goes there every/most years .. he'd have a good idea of 'public opinion' or at least what his in-laws are thinking
No joke at all. Mine was questioning of humanity's patterns of behaviour over the generations. The 'Fluffy stage', (question mark) was a lament. My point was that we cannot champion liberal democracy without looking into the stractural failures which(where it's most needed) time and time again cause it to end with authoritative leaders of the right or the left (No Che Guevara or Dolly Parton). Presuming we agree that all humans respond to their environmental pressures in a similar way. (People talk about corruption in the developing world as if its in other people's DNA...) I don't see a reason to make any 'us and them' points. Unfortunately- in my reading, the entities that think of Liberal democracy as 'fluffy' are the ones who sees it as an annoying obstacle that stand in their way of making unchecked material profit.
The only fluff available to me is my little rant (Charlton aside)
What structural failures does Liberal Democracy have that are greater/worse than those flaws seen in dictatorships? Dictatorships are inherently flawed as they are undemocratic and rely on oppression to stay in power.
A few democracies have reverted to dictatorships, many dictatorships (Warsaw Pact for example) have become democracies and are better for it albeit far from perfect (back to the Churchill quote again).
Your marxist analysis was old fashioned in the 1970s when I first heard, and rejected, it.
Since when the manipulation of governments by big business is marxist analysis (have a word with your Adam Smith baker). So we doing fashion now are we..? You may allow yourself to be swept by the Kardashians as much as you like but your trickled down solutions to wealth creation wouldn't even make it in to good Samaritan shops !!!! And as for Poland. ... Gee.... Have another look....
Maybe try actually constructing an argument rather than making up nonsense about me being "swept by the Kardashians".
You dismiss Liberal Democracy as fluffy and then run away when challenged and hide behind nonsense.
One simple point before our pint. When judging Liberal democracy, we cannot pick and chose. Liberal democracy isn't judged by life in Switzerland or Sweden or Brazil, or Israel separately. As it is all interconnected It is judged by the over all pictur. Rather like a city not being judged by one suburb. Obvious...? Well, you sort of demanded it... Cheers
No joke at all. Mine was questioning of humanity's patterns of behaviour over the generations. The 'Fluffy stage', (question mark) was a lament. My point was that we cannot champion liberal democracy without looking into the stractural failures which(where it's most needed) time and time again cause it to end with authoritative leaders of the right or the left (No Che Guevara or Dolly Parton). Presuming we agree that all humans respond to their environmental pressures in a similar way. (People talk about corruption in the developing world as if its in other people's DNA...) I don't see a reason to make any 'us and them' points. Unfortunately- in my reading, the entities that think of Liberal democracy as 'fluffy' are the ones who sees it as an annoying obstacle that stand in their way of making unchecked material profit.
The only fluff available to me is my little rant (Charlton aside)
What structural failures does Liberal Democracy have that are greater/worse than those flaws seen in dictatorships? Dictatorships are inherently flawed as they are undemocratic and rely on oppression to stay in power.
A few democracies have reverted to dictatorships, many dictatorships (Warsaw Pact for example) have become democracies and are better for it albeit far from perfect (back to the Churchill quote again).
Your marxist analysis was old fashioned in the 1970s when I first heard, and rejected, it.
Since when the manipulation of governments by big business is marxist analysis (have a word with your Adam Smith baker). So we doing fashion now are we..? You may allow yourself to be swept by the Kardashians as much as you like but your trickled down solutions to wealth creation wouldn't even make it in to good Samaritan shops !!!! And as for Poland. ... Gee.... Have another look....
Maybe try actually constructing an argument rather than making up nonsense about me being "swept by the Kardashians".
You dismiss Liberal Democracy as fluffy and then run away when challenged and hide behind nonsense.
One simple point before our pint. When judging Liberal democracy, we cannot pick and chose. Liberal democracy isn't judged by life in Switzerland or Sweden or Brazil, or Israel separately. As it is all interconnected It is judged by the over all pictur. Rather like a city not being judged by one suburb. Obvious...? Well, you sort of demanded it... Cheers
And you point is?
Another meaningless bit of waffle with no substance.
My judgement of liberal democracy is that is works and often it works well.
It certainly works better in those four countries than other countries that aren't democracies like most of Israel's neighbours or than the dictatorships behind the iron curtain before 1990 or in Brazil in the 1970s.
So the overall picture is that liberal democracies are, while far from perfect, more equal, more tolerant and provide a better life for their citizens than non-democracies of the left or of the right like Cuba or Iran or Syria.
In a perfect world the concept of a dictatorship could work - along the lines of Plato's Philosopher King "a ruler who possesses both a love of knowledge, as well as intelligence, reliability, and a willingness to live a simple life". Self-interest and the corruption of power in the 'real world' makes that a purely utopian ideal.
Democracy allows for a check on that self-interest and corruption - so the best (of a bad bunch) solution for government in the 'real world'.
No joke at all. Mine was questioning of humanity's patterns of behaviour over the generations. The 'Fluffy stage', (question mark) was a lament. My point was that we cannot champion liberal democracy without looking into the stractural failures which(where it's most needed) time and time again cause it to end with authoritative leaders of the right or the left (No Che Guevara or Dolly Parton). Presuming we agree that all humans respond to their environmental pressures in a similar way. (People talk about corruption in the developing world as if its in other people's DNA...) I don't see a reason to make any 'us and them' points. Unfortunately- in my reading, the entities that think of Liberal democracy as 'fluffy' are the ones who sees it as an annoying obstacle that stand in their way of making unchecked material profit.
The only fluff available to me is my little rant (Charlton aside)
What structural failures does Liberal Democracy have that are greater/worse than those flaws seen in dictatorships? Dictatorships are inherently flawed as they are undemocratic and rely on oppression to stay in power.
A few democracies have reverted to dictatorships, many dictatorships (Warsaw Pact for example) have become democracies and are better for it albeit far from perfect (back to the Churchill quote again).
Your marxist analysis was old fashioned in the 1970s when I first heard, and rejected, it.
Since when the manipulation of governments by big business is marxist analysis (have a word with your Adam Smith baker). So we doing fashion now are we..? You may allow yourself to be swept by the Kardashians as much as you like but your trickled down solutions to wealth creation wouldn't even make it in to good Samaritan shops !!!! And as for Poland. ... Gee.... Have another look....
Maybe try actually constructing an argument rather than making up nonsense about me being "swept by the Kardashians".
You dismiss Liberal Democracy as fluffy and then run away when challenged and hide behind nonsense.
One simple point before our pint. When judging Liberal democracy, we cannot pick and chose. Liberal democracy isn't judged by life in Switzerland or Sweden or Brazil, or Israel separately. As it is all interconnected It is judged by the over all pictur. Rather like a city not being judged by one suburb. Obvious...? Well, you sort of demanded it... Cheers
And you point is?
Another meaningless bit of waffle with no substance.
My judgement of liberal democracy is that is works and often it works well.
It certainly works better in those four countries than other countries that aren't democracies like most of Israel's neighbours or than the dictatorships behind the iron curtain before 1990 or in Brazil in the 1970s.
So the overall picture is that liberal democracies are, while far from perfect, more equal, more tolerant and provide a better life for their citizens than non-democracies of the left or of the right like Cuba or Iran or Syria.
You keep asking for the point and fail to grasp it. Liberal democracies don't stand as oppose to dictatorships or other liberal democracies. They cooperate and very often economically benefit from those terrible things naughty dictators do arround the world. (That was the last point in case you're still looking) Going back to the very first point I was making: Structural changes (not Hitler or Polpot) are needed to minimise the inequalities and enviromental degradation that happen when Liberal democracies are hijacked by undemocratic multi national business -thus easing tentions in more volnurable parts of the globe.
No joke at all. Mine was questioning of humanity's patterns of behaviour over the generations. The 'Fluffy stage', (question mark) was a lament. My point was that we cannot champion liberal democracy without looking into the stractural failures which(where it's most needed) time and time again cause it to end with authoritative leaders of the right or the left (No Che Guevara or Dolly Parton). Presuming we agree that all humans respond to their environmental pressures in a similar way. (People talk about corruption in the developing world as if its in other people's DNA...) I don't see a reason to make any 'us and them' points. Unfortunately- in my reading, the entities that think of Liberal democracy as 'fluffy' are the ones who sees it as an annoying obstacle that stand in their way of making unchecked material profit.
The only fluff available to me is my little rant (Charlton aside)
What structural failures does Liberal Democracy have that are greater/worse than those flaws seen in dictatorships? Dictatorships are inherently flawed as they are undemocratic and rely on oppression to stay in power.
A few democracies have reverted to dictatorships, many dictatorships (Warsaw Pact for example) have become democracies and are better for it albeit far from perfect (back to the Churchill quote again).
Your marxist analysis was old fashioned in the 1970s when I first heard, and rejected, it.
Since when the manipulation of governments by big business is marxist analysis (have a word with your Adam Smith baker). So we doing fashion now are we..? You may allow yourself to be swept by the Kardashians as much as you like but your trickled down solutions to wealth creation wouldn't even make it in to good Samaritan shops !!!! And as for Poland. ... Gee.... Have another look....
Maybe try actually constructing an argument rather than making up nonsense about me being "swept by the Kardashians".
You dismiss Liberal Democracy as fluffy and then run away when challenged and hide behind nonsense.
One simple point before our pint. When judging Liberal democracy, we cannot pick and chose. Liberal democracy isn't judged by life in Switzerland or Sweden or Brazil, or Israel separately. As it is all interconnected It is judged by the over all pictur. Rather like a city not being judged by one suburb. Obvious...? Well, you sort of demanded it... Cheers
And you point is?
Another meaningless bit of waffle with no substance.
My judgement of liberal democracy is that is works and often it works well.
It certainly works better in those four countries than other countries that aren't democracies like most of Israel's neighbours or than the dictatorships behind the iron curtain before 1990 or in Brazil in the 1970s.
So the overall picture is that liberal democracies are, while far from perfect, more equal, more tolerant and provide a better life for their citizens than non-democracies of the left or of the right like Cuba or Iran or Syria.
You keep asking for the point and fail to grasp it. Liberal democracies don't stand as oppose to dictatorships or other liberal democracies. They cooperate and very often economically benefit from those terrible things naughty dictators do arround the world. (That was the last point in case you're still looking) Going back to the very first point I was making: Structural changes (not Hitler or Polpot) are needed to minimise the inequalities and enviromental degradation that happen when Liberal democracies are hijacked by undemocratic multi national business -thus easing tentions in more volnurable parts of the globe.
Marx..?
No, more like what the Aussies call: 'Fair go'...
Many thanks for finally saying something coherent.
Nonsense but at least coherent rather than "fashion" or "Kardashians" waffle.
So democracies have to share the planet with the dictators and will sometimes comprise themselves, sometimes for greed and sometimes for need (eg June 1941). Who knew realpolitik was a thing?
That doesn't make them "fluffy" or any less by far the best option.
Ronald Reagan unequivocally supported Britain during the Falklands War. Does anyone think that we could rely on Donald Trump in similar circumstances? I personally think he would shaft us.
Yeah Donald Trump is known for siding with Latin Americans over white people...
Im not long back from China ....... I spent quite a bit of time talking to local people and it was interesting to me than not one person was clamouring for a western style democracy. They were interested in human rights in improved living conditions and prosperity, but for some reason democracy was not high on the list.
I reflected on our own democracy where in the last 30 years we have had more votes than I care to remember but for what some might argue was two parties who broadly speaking stood for the same thing.
pity that @ElfsborgAddick has hung up his rattle .. his Mrs has got a Brazilian and he goes there every/most years .. he'd have a good idea of 'public opinion' or at least what his in-laws are thinking
pity that @ElfsborgAddick has hung up his rattle .. his Mrs has got a Brazilian and he goes there every/most years .. he'd have a good idea of 'public opinion' or at least what his in-laws are thinking
Don't profess to know anything about. Brazilian politics but there are many people from Brazil where I work and to a man and woman they were all ecstatically happy about the result.
Comments
Lets use the rise of right to justify a dictatorship of the left because that has worked so well before.
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.
You dismissed liberal democracy as a " fluffy stage" but criticise others analytical thinking.
I repeat. The opposite of fascism isn't the revolutionary socialism of the dear leader, it's liberal democracy and for all its flaws and weaknesses it has worked pretty well.
Mine was questioning of humanity's patterns of behaviour over the generations. The 'Fluffy stage', (question mark) was a lament.
My point was that we cannot champion liberal democracy without looking into the stractural failures which(where it's most needed) time and time again cause it to end with authoritative leaders of the right or the left (No Che Guevara or Dolly Parton).
Presuming we agree that all humans respond to their environmental pressures in a similar way. (People talk about corruption in the developing world as if its in other people's DNA...) I don't see a reason to make any 'us and them' points.
Unfortunately- in my reading, the entities that think of Liberal democracy as 'fluffy' are the ones who sees it as an annoying obstacle that stand in their way of making unchecked material profit.
The only fluff available to me is my little rant (Charlton aside)
Bolsonaro may do a fantastic job but he's certainly said a lot of shocking things and I imagine he will be very focused on attacking the opposition.
If recent history of authoritarian regimes in South America is anything to go by then those openly opposed to him will have a lot to be fearful of.
It shows the extent of unhappiness within the electorate that he was elected.
Don't they all do that to an extent?
Mine was questioning of humanity's patterns of behaviour over the generations. The 'Fluffy stage', (question mark) was a lament.
My point was that we cannot champion liberal democracy without looking into the stractural failures which(where it's most needed) time and time again cause it to end with authoritative leaders of the right or the left (No Che Guevara or Dolly Parton).
Presuming we agree that all humans respond to their environmental pressures in a similar way. (People talk about corruption in the developing world as if its in other people's DNA...) I don't see a reason to make any 'us and them' points.
Unfortunately- in my reading, the entities that think of Liberal democracy as 'fluffy' are the ones who sees it as an annoying obstacle that stand in their way of making unchecked material profit.
The only fluff available to me is my little rant (Charlton aside)
What structural failures does Liberal Democracy have that are greater/worse than those flaws seen in dictatorships? Dictatorships are inherently flawed as they are undemocratic and rely on oppression to stay in power.
A few democracies have reverted to dictatorships, many dictatorships (Warsaw Pact for example) have become democracies and are better for it albeit far from perfect (back to the Churchill quote again).
Your marxist analysis was old fashioned in the 1970s when I first heard, and rejected, it.
The Brazilian military dictatorship was pretty brutal and as far as I'm aware the new President is a sympathiser. I imagine the military will feature quite heavily in his regime.
You can turn a blind eye to this sort of stuff if it doesn't affect you.
If Bolsonaro cuts down on crime and government corruption and the economy stabilises then other issues won't come to the fore.
It will be interesting to see how successful he is and what role the military plays.
A few democracies have reverted to dictatorships, many dictatorships (Warsaw Pact for example) have become democracies and are better for it albeit far from perfect (back to the Churchill quote again).
Your marxist analysis was old fashioned in the 1970s when I first heard, and rejected, it.
Since when the manipulation of governments by big business is marxist analysis (have a word with your Adam Smith baker).
So we doing fashion now are we..?
You may allow yourself to be swept by the Kardashians as much as you like but your trickled down solutions to wealth creation wouldn't even make it in to good Samaritan shops !!!!
And as for Poland. ...
Gee....
Have another look....
So we doing fashion now are we..?
You may allow yourself to be swept by the Kardashians as much as you like but your trickled down solutions to wealth creation wouldn't even make it in to good Samaritan shops !!!!
And as for Poland. ...
Gee....
Have another look....
Maybe try actually constructing an argument rather than making up nonsense about me being "swept by the Kardashians".
You dismiss Liberal Democracy as fluffy and then run away when challenged and hide behind nonsense.
Maybe try actually constructing an argument rather than making up nonsense about me being "swept by the Kardashians".
You dismiss Liberal Democracy as fluffy and then run away when challenged and hide behind nonsense.
One simple point before our pint.
When judging Liberal democracy, we cannot pick and chose. Liberal democracy isn't judged by life in Switzerland or Sweden or Brazil, or Israel separately. As it is all interconnected It is judged by the over all pictur. Rather like a city not being judged by one suburb.
Obvious...?
Well, you sort of demanded it...
Cheers
When judging Liberal democracy, we cannot pick and chose. Liberal democracy isn't judged by life in Switzerland or Sweden or Brazil, or Israel separately. As it is all interconnected It is judged by the over all pictur. Rather like a city not being judged by one suburb.
Obvious...?
Well, you sort of demanded it...
Cheers
And you point is?
Another meaningless bit of waffle with no substance.
My judgement of liberal democracy is that is works and often it works well.
It certainly works better in those four countries than other countries that aren't democracies like most of Israel's neighbours or than the dictatorships behind the iron curtain before 1990 or in Brazil in the 1970s.
So the overall picture is that liberal democracies are, while far from perfect, more equal, more tolerant and provide a better life for their citizens than non-democracies of the left or of the right like Cuba or Iran or Syria.
Democracy allows for a check on that self-interest and corruption - so the best (of a bad bunch) solution for government in the 'real world'.
Another meaningless bit of waffle with no substance.
My judgement of liberal democracy is that is works and often it works well.
It certainly works better in those four countries than other countries that aren't democracies like most of Israel's neighbours or than the dictatorships behind the iron curtain before 1990 or in Brazil in the 1970s.
So the overall picture is that liberal democracies are, while far from perfect, more equal, more tolerant and provide a better life for their citizens than non-democracies of the left or of the right like Cuba or Iran or Syria.
You keep asking for the point and fail to grasp it.
Liberal democracies don't stand as oppose to dictatorships or other liberal democracies. They cooperate and very often economically benefit from those terrible things naughty dictators do arround the world. (That was the last point in case you're still looking)
Going back to the very first point I was making:
Structural changes (not Hitler or Polpot) are needed to minimise the inequalities and enviromental degradation that happen when Liberal democracies are hijacked by undemocratic multi national business -thus easing tentions in more volnurable parts of the globe.
Marx..?
No, more like what the Aussies call:
'Fair go'...
Liberal democracies don't stand as oppose to dictatorships or other liberal democracies. They cooperate and very often economically benefit from those terrible things naughty dictators do arround the world. (That was the last point in case you're still looking)
Going back to the very first point I was making:
Structural changes (not Hitler or Polpot) are needed to minimise the inequalities and enviromental degradation that happen when Liberal democracies are hijacked by undemocratic multi national business -thus easing tentions in more volnurable parts of the globe.
Marx..?
No, more like what the Aussies call:
'Fair go'...
Many thanks for finally saying something coherent.
Nonsense but at least coherent rather than "fashion" or "Kardashians" waffle.
So democracies have to share the planet with the dictators and will sometimes comprise themselves, sometimes for greed and sometimes for need (eg June 1941). Who knew realpolitik was a thing?
That doesn't make them "fluffy" or any less by far the best option.
Thought it was quite blatent tbh.
I reflected on our own democracy where in the last 30 years we have had more votes than I care to remember but for what some might argue was two parties who broadly speaking stood for the same thing.