They are already spending more money than they take in now. They spend as much as they want, and borrow or print the difference. What we need is for them to stop the spending NOW. How do we make that happen is the question.
The question that remains: Even if they stopped spending now, is who is responsible for paying for the debt that was created? That is essentially what your taxes are paying now. Anyone who voted for a politician who was in favor of a successful increase in spending?
No. What you're saying is "don't pay taxes cause war is funded by them". Although this is true, there are also other institutions that are funded by taxes. And moreover, those who don't pay taxes are the once that run the system. What's needed is instead of doing the activist, demanding a better future, to actually go and make it a reality for yourself and those around you. As long as money is what you need, no real change will come. Choosing what my taxes will fund, will be something.
Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012
Libertarians, and 'free-marketers' are nothing more than Neo-Cons on steroids. They both want basically the same thing; deregulation, privatization, free trade, the suppression of labor power and all the same economic voodoo that keeps on causing the same sort of crisis that we have today, only even more of it. By removing restraints and weakening the power of gov't in relation to money they bring on a corporate world yet deny it. A new Feudalism.
@Rundstedt1hahaha u dnt understand anything libertarians stand for. libertarians are opposed to any gov that restricts personal freedom ether socially or economically. liberals seek to use the state to enforce their economic/political views, neocons seek to use the state to enforce their moral/religious views. it would be more accurate to say libertarians are paleocons on steroids, but not really. most large corps prefer a powerful state to protect them from competition & doll out easy money.
Libertarian philosophy is simplistic and disingenuous. It is basically: "Everything the market does is good, and anything the gov't does is bad." "If there was a negative outcome to any market action it was because of gov't interference" - no matter how much twisting of history and superficial interpretations there has to be to prove it. They hypocritically separate the actions taken on behalf of those using the market and designing its rules, with those enforcing them.
Libertarians believe that the only rights that really matters are property rights, that inviolate private property is the only true measure of freedom. And so if you don't have any, too bad, let them find somebody else's property to complain on. They require flawlessness as the only valid standard to judge government: libertarianism, being imaginary, cannot be fairly be judged to have flaws. And it has resulted in many a elitist dictatorships like Hayek's wonderland of failure Chile
A 'free-market' 'small gov't' state is a corporate fascist state where the corporations can do what they wish because there is no governmental power to restrain them. Filling the power vacuum left by eviscerated gov't they become the gov't. Libertarianism is fascist Social Darwinist rule of money, those with the most money can do whatever they wish while the working people suffer without assistance victimized by a market they cannot control.
"Under feudalism, the elements of political authority are powers that are held personally by individuals, not by enduring political institutions. These powers are held as a matter of private contractual right. Individuals gradually acquire the power to make, apply, and enforce rules by forging a series of private contracts with particular individuals or families.
Oaths of fealty or service are sworn in exchange for similar or compensating benefits. Those who exercise political power wield it on behalf of others pursuant to their private contractual relation and only so long as their contract is in force. Since different services are provided to people, there is no notion of a uniform public law that is to be impartially applied to all individuals."
"Libertarianism resembles feudalism in that it establishes political power in a web of bilateral individual contracts. Consequently, it has no conception of legitimate public political authority nor any place for political society, a “body politic” that political authority represents in a fiduciary capacity."
-
Samuel Freeman, “Illiberal Libertarians: Why Libertarianism is not a Liberal View”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 30, 2 (Spring 2002), 105-151
@Rundstedt1 (1/7) first off, chile is the most successful nation in south america, it has been steadily improving as it has moved towards a free market economy.major corporations use the states authority to get around the market and take advantage of their customers. i dnt think that any libertarian feels the market is perfect, market failures can always happen, ppl make decision based on where they think the demand will be and many times they are wrong...
You are kidding, Chile took many years to recover from Hayek's 'free-market' crap and in many ways is still not healed.
"After ten years of application of his [Hayek's] economic policies, Chile entered a recession that saw its GDP plummet by 15% in 1982-1983, and unemployment of 30% . Indeed, Chile was only able to become something of an economic success story in the 1990s by breaking cleanly with the approach of the ’Chicago Boys’
"GNP plummeted thirteen percent, industrial production fell 28 percent, and purchasing power collapsed to forty percent of its 1970 level. One national business after another went bankrupt. Unemployment soared. Yet by 1978 the economy rebounded, expanding thirty-two percent between 1978 and 1981.With hindsight, however, it is now clear that the Chicago economists, despite the credit they received for three years of economic growth, had set Chile on the road to near collapse."
"The rebound of the economy was a function of the liberalization of the financial system and massive foreign investment. That investment, it turns out, led to a speculative binge, monopolization of the banking system, and heavy borrowing. The deluge of foreign capital did allow the fixed exchange rate to be maintained for a short period."
"In 1982 things fell apart. Copper prices plummeted, accelerating Chile's balance of trade deficit. GDP plunged fifteen percent, while industrial production rapidly contracted. Bankruptcies tripled and unemployment hit 30 percent. Despite his pledge to hold firm, Pinochet devalued the escudo, devastating poor Chileans who had either availed themselves to liberalized credit to borrow in dollars or who held their savings in escudos.
@thewaterwillcome (5/6) The Central Bank lost forty-five percent of its reserves, while the private banking system collapsed. The crisis forced the state, dusting off laws still on the books from the Allende period, to take over nearly seventy percent of the banking system and reimpose controls on finance, industry, prices and wages. Turning to the IMF for a bailout, Pinochet extended a public guarantee to repay foreign creditors and banks."
So it was not the 'free-market' or Hayek that saved Chile but a heavy dose of market intervention. Hayek and the 'Chicago boys' only brought hardship and dictatorship to Chile, it was nationalization and Keynesian economics that really saved it.
@Rundstedt1 (2/7) the result of that could be a firm going under or a crash. no matter wat the market is these failures will happen, however under a state controlled market these failures are guaranteed to happen frequently. so no, the market is not perfect or utopian.corporations make their profits by selling products to consumers or assisting other corporations that do. if people do not choose to buy a corporations product the corporation makes no profit...
Capitalism itself is replete with boom and bust cycles, they are as old as capitalism itself and in its very nature. It is not the state that creates the crisis but the state that has the power to respond to and ease the crisis. During Lassiez faire times like during the Gilded age there were more crisis, more runs on banks and their failure than once a system of regulation was built up. And it is also during Laissez faire times that we see the great growth of monopolies and trusts.
The people in California who were victims of the electricity deregulation and the move to a free market in that sector, had a choice... Pay what the private manipulators of the market wanted or sit in the dark. It's really not a choice.
@Rundstedt1 3/7) unless it uses a state to force ppl to buy its products or prevent its competitors from entering the market or uses FDA/courts to destroy any company/person that goes against it. the corpofascist state ur referring to is called a corporatocracy, it requires the state to have a lot of power to enforce the will of the corps, other wise it would be of no use to the corps. gov dosnt restrain corps it restrains its citizens at the behest of corporations.
And the corpratocracy results when the market has too much power and can dictate to the public and to the very state itself the conditions it wishes the market to take place in. There is NO such thing as a 'free-market' it never can exist.
All markets are created and will seek out regulation. A black market starts as a "free-market" but it is quickly taken over by the underworld and therefore regulated, or it is legitimized and regulated by the government. So it is not a case of IF the market is regulated, but by and for whom. Deregulation actually just pushes the regulation of the market onto the largest, most powerful of the producers (the corporations) by default.
So it is because of the very same 'free-market' principles that have been pushed on us that it becomes a 'corporate' market. A 'free-market' will naturally become a 'corporate market'. Monopolies are fostered during periods of deregulation, the record of history bears this out. It was during the Gilded Age, a historically recognized period of laissez faire gov't that fostered some of the greatest monopolies until the present great wave of deregulation.
@Rundstedt1 (4/7) u seem to think that if the state had power over the market/corporations it will be able to protect the citizens from corporate greed, wat happens when the state itself becomes corrupted? fascism. ur socialist system can only produce decent results if it can not be corrupted, since human beings are corruptible the socialist system will never produce anything but failure & tyranny. if i dnt buy from a corporation nothing happens, if i dnt buy from the state i go to jail.
Well first of all, fascism is a capitalist ideology, all fascist states have been capitalist. And the state's failure to fully protect its citizens falls from the over powerful market and business power. It is capitalism itself that corrupts the state and takes the power away from the people or one that installs a gov't friendly to it like the large business interests backed Hitler and Mussolini.
And again, you don't have a choice in the real world when the corporation is dictating he terms in the 'free-market' because it has used the lack of regulation to destroy the competition, which is the purpose and aim of large businesses. Your fantasy world doesn't exist, 'free-markets' only means the 'survival of the fittest', and in Libertarianland, that would be the largest and most ruthless corporation.
And the social democratic states in Europe have better outcomes than the US. And even the old communist states had the greatest growth rates of nations. The Soviet Union took the country out of a backward existence and made it a world power, their only major fault was trying to compete militarily with the US which strained their system to much.
@Rundstedt1 (5/7) what i think mr. freeman is talking abt is market anarchy, which does not represent the majority of libertarians. but yes, authority is derived from contracts entered into by willing participants and enforced by some sort of recognized court system, wats so bad abt contracts? feudalism is usually with property, so if someone wants to lend out their property to someone else for some agreed upon fee then its up to the individuals to decide that fee.
If you don't see the problem with feudalism than I don't know what to tell you, but be assured you will be one of the serfs to the Koch brothers dynasty, and not a lord.
"Essentially the feudal system was composed of the whole group of personal ties which between them united the members of the ruling classes of society in a hierarchy. These ties were supported by a material foundation." Jacques Le Goff, "Medieval Civilization" p91
"[Feudalism] meant a type of government in which political power was treated as a private possession and divided among a large number of lords." "A History of Western Society, Third Edition" p248
Feudalism was based entirely on private property and contracts, just like the Libertarians want in their society, a neo-feudalism.
@Rundstedt1 (6/7) landlords abused their position w/ military. w/o the state there is no gun control. its dangerous to take advantage of a population who is heavily armed. we work for our living, the state uses military force against us to make us pay for services we may not want, if we dnt our property is taken from us & we are thrown in jail, all bc the state has decided that it has claim to this land. obviously we are already living under feudalism...
Sigh, if you think that your .45 can protect you against the might of organized private unaccountable wealth you are seriously deluded. The wealthy, just like in feudal times, will be able to build and control large private armies and police forces. Like the robber barons used to hire the Pinkertons to beat heads and shoot the masses who opposed their greed. And that time there was much greater ability for the people to have parity of weapon power.
Now, are you going to buy your own Jet fighter-bomber or missile system or Mini-gun? I don't think so. But the large wealthy interests will be able to. So in essence you just removed the people's gov't and handed it over the wealthy and corporations. Just like the Feudal lords could hire armies of Knights to keep the people in line, the Neo-feudalists will contract with Blackwater to do their bidding.
@Rundstedt1 (7/7) freeman could be using libertarian in the old, international sense of the word, meaning anarchy. im not sure if that would be considered classic liberalism. the modern american libertarianism represents the continuation of classic liberalism, but the word liberal has been highjacked by progressives in the US. if freeman is saying that american libertarianism is not a classic liberal view then he is absolutely wrong.
The actual sense of the system of anarchy is a system of gov't that is bottom up in nature, where all take a responsibility to make and enforce the collective decisions and without a defined leader. 'Market-anarchists' are NOT real anarchists and the anarchy school arose from collective roots. From people like Bakunin who was a contemporary and sometimes friend of Marx
Additionally like most Libertarians you sadly mistake the true nature of classical liberalism. The Classic Liberal economists were not "free-market' as is it is interpreted by the modern libertarian crowd or even most Republicans. Not even Adam Smith himself preached the type of fanatical type of 'free-market' that is put forth by the modern liberation crowd.
The classical liberals were not aghast about using many market interventionist techniques to obtain the wider distribution of wealth they desired. The US had intervened in the economy since its inception. Smith was mainly critiquing Mercantilism and the excess of wealth that it built for the aristocrats, libertarians pervert his message to take it to extreme beyond his intention.
"Adam Smith was not a dogmatic proponent of laissez-faire capitalism. A careful exposition of his work will demonstrate that there were many functions which the government could fulfil in capitalist-organized society. In many (although not quite all) ways, Smith's position on the role of the state in a capitalist society was close to that of a modern twentieth century US liberal democrat" Spencer Pack "Capitalism as a Moral System, Adam Smith's critique of the Free Market Economy" p1
"The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state ....[As Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to] 'remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich.'"
And it is the present day liberals that carry on the mantle of the Classical Liberals in political freedoms with positive policies on civil rights, anti-discrimination legislation and fostering free speech through organizations such as the ACLU for example.
@Rundstedt1 dude enough with these massive, block quote answers. I can see that u are very good at using ur libraries’ reference section but this is the youtube comments section not a term paper. The 'that type of anarchy isnt real anarchy' argument is real fuckin old, there are different anti-state views, deal with it. As for corporations engaging in military action to force a profit, it could happen but think of how expensive that is, its more profitable just to sell a product ppl want to buy.
But private businesses and corportions ARE a form of state and are just as hierarchical, one cannot be a real anarchist and support capitalism. And no sorry, history has shown private capitals propensity to use force and private militias.
@Rundstedt1 they are a hierarchy but not a state. im not against hierarchy that comes from nature not the state. corps have to sell a product to make a profit, ppl choose to buy the product, if they choose not to nothing happens. its voluntary, a state isnt. mercenaries are very expensive and are not willing to give up their lives for a corp. warfare is a very risky, and expensive way to make a profit, its much easier to sell a legit product. today, corps use the state as force and u pay for it!
If you are not against hierarchy you are not an anarchist. And again in a 'free-market' choice quickly disappears as the largest eat the smallest, and quickly the market is controlled by one of a few major players all making collusive deals. Again one need only look to the Enron debacle to see what happens in an unregulated 'free-market'. They used just as much force and coercion as any formal state.
Additionally, states are themselves formed from large collections of capital. It was the wealthiest aristocrats that could make the most advantageous contracts that formed the hereditary monarchies. Capitalism itself would cause a state to be formed. All you do is create a new feudalism as described. And the cost of hiring mercenaries or whatever just becomes a cost of doing business.
Again it has happened before. And even if the product is 'legit' it means of production may be so exploitive that force is necessary to keep the workers in line. That has also happened before, many a times. Then when the workers protest they are attacked or just as forceful, released from their jobs to starve.
The threat of destitution is just another form of force. Only the regulation of working conditions and the economy as a whole can keep the power of capital in check in a capitalist system.
And because it is a democratic republic; if you fear govt, then you must admit that you fear yourself; or admit that capitalism has perverted your gov't and bent it to the will of the corporations and moneyed elites. Weakening gov't only gives more power to those forces that really enslave you. If you want to reign in gov't, then remove capitalism and return the gov't to the people.
@Rundstedt1 my vote means nothing, the state is controlled by corporate &special interests. capitalism did not do this ppl did this, greed comes from humans, not an economic system. would u say that the soviet union was uncorrupted and responsive to the ppl? if the state has authority over the ppl then that authority can be used against the ppl by whom ever controls the state, this could be corporations or communist party members, it doesn't matter. ur a fool to think greed comes from capitalism
The capitalist economic system fosters and rewards the greed. The system capitalists have developed have done this, but it does not need to be. It is only through strengthening of democracy that your vote can count more. And again if the State is controlled though corporate and special for profit interests, that is because of capitalism itself. Again, remove the influence of capitalism and the state becomes more responsive to the people.
@Rundstedt1 no not at all. ppl are greedy bc they want more of something than other ppl have. in our state capitalist system ppl can get that thru money by working or stealing. the only thing that would change if u removed capitalism would be the ability to work for money to buy things of ur choosing. the desire to have more comes from humans, capitalism just provides one simple way to get it; work. under socialism the desire to have more still exists however the only way to get it is to steal.
You just supported me, "if u removed capitalism would be the ability to work for money to buy things of ur choosing." and is what Socialism is, Thank you. It in no way involves 'Theft' that is what capitalism is as it steals a portion of a person's labors and makes it the capitalist's 'profit'
"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations."
And it's too nice out today to be here commenting, I'll see you later.
@Rundstedt1 con't: ur also confusing profit with money,money is just a representation for value. value comes from necessity and personal preference. under socialism their is still profit just not money, and individual profit is some how held down. but if bob grows apples and Steve grows oranges and bob trades half his apples for half of steve's oranges then both parties are profiting by gaining something they didnt have before, and by the personal preference over apples or oranges.
Value comes from Labor, its only source, even Adam Smith will tell you that. And Money is a representation of value through the medium of exchange. And like I haven't seen your silly example many a times. Problem is, that doesn't describe capitalism, but merely simple exchange. capitalism is the production of commodities for the purpose of obtaining more capital, not for simple exchange.
@Rundstedt1 the only value capital has is for use or exchange. that theory of value is absolutely wrong, value comes for necessity & personal preference the amount of labor means nothing. if u have a need for something or a preference then it is more valuable to u. it may have taken the same amount of labor as something else but if u dnt want the something else then it is worthless, to u. a capitalist profit is the payment for the labor of managing or providing the initial resources.
Only Labor can create things of value, period. Use value is not exchange value, things may be useful but be of little of no exchange value, and not all labor is valued at the same rate. A doctors' labor is a higher value than a laborers'.
"Skilled labor counts only as simple labor intensified or rather multiplied simple labor, a given quantity of skilled being considered equal to a greater quantity of simple. A commodity may be the product of the most skilled labor, but its value, by equating it to the product of simple unskilled labor, represents a definite quantity of the later labor alone" Das Kapital
And labor is a cost to the capitalist, to the worker it is a commodity and his only source of value which he has to sell as less than it what it can make, while the capitalist receives the excess, THAT is how surplus value, aka profit is made.
@Rundstedt1 True!The term Libertarian is captured by Koch bros and their corporatist servants.They steel the word from the creator the french anarco-communist Joseph Déjacque.it is "Orvellian Newspek" just like the word
"Statism" that eminate from french "Etatism" that also was first used by french anarco-communist.They deliberatly steel and missuse words and twist it in propaganda perpuse for big buisness.
the big gov RWers ur referring to are neocons, they dnt actually have right wing values, they are for interfering w/ markets, w/ other countries& w/ the lives of individuals. the neo in neocon dosnt mean new as in recent it means new to conservatism. the ideological origin of the neocons is from former progressives who called themselves conservative in a reaction to the soviet union. what ever they were, the fascist were helped into power by progressives, u can read it in their own words.
Oh OK so Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Mike Huckabee and about half the GOP are all left wingers? Is that what you're saying? No sorry the final doctrines of each are Right wing, Just like the final doctrine of Fascism which correctly belongs on the Extreme Right Mussolini announced that fact himself when he declared in 1921 that he spoke from "the benches of the Extreme right, where formerly no-one dared to sit" Quoted in the readers digest, "The World at arms", p13
"Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the "RIGHT [emphasis added]", a Fascist century" - Giovanni Gentile, a Fascist philosopher!
"In terms of economics, we are explicitly anti-socialist. I do not regret having been a socialist. But I have cut my bridges with the past. I have no nostalgia. I don't think about entering socialism but rather about LEAVING IT [emphasis added].
@thewaterwillcome (4) In economic terms we are liberals because we believe that the national economy cannot be entrusted to collective entities or to the bureaucracy. I will give the railways and the telegraphs back to private hands, because the current state of things is outrageous and vulnerable in all its parts.
The ethical State is not the monopolistic State, the bureaucratic State, but the one which reduces its functions to what is strictly necessary. We are against the economic State." - Mussolini, "Discorso all'Augusteo", 7 November 1921. Printed in Mussolini, Scritti e Discorsi II (pp. 199-206), pp. 203-204
@thewaterwillcom(6) And your other premise is wrong. fascists were helped into power by Conservatives! It was in fact Von Papen that argued "No danger at all: we have hired him [Hitler] for our act"
-
"Hitler is reich chancellor! And What a cabinet!!! One such as we did not dare to dream of in July [1932]. Hitler, Hugenburg, seldte, Papen!!! A large part of my German hopes are attached to each.
@theyounghistorian77 the neocons would gladly spend taxpayer dollars on wars, and to enforce their own moral judgmnents. they are a different kind of progressive, they are part of the right wing and are not to be confussed the progressive left, however they do not have any traditional right wing, conservative values. their 'right wing' is their own new (neo) version of right wing. the fascists were not marxists, and campaigned against communists as 'right-wing socialists'. it was still socialism
Fascists are right wing socialists? Sorry NO, There is no such thing as right wing socialism! I've already quoted from Mussolini which demonstrates, he went AWAY from socialism. And Real World historians agree with me here: Hitler has been properly recognised to have never been socialist in the first place
"Hitler was never a socialist" - Ian Kershaw, "Hitler" (abridged), p269.
Now let me ask you a question, Are you a paleocon by any chance? You sound like it to me.
@theyounghistorian77 im not a paleocon, im a libertarian, former socialist. i kno mussolini/hitler were not marxists, they rejected class conflict and internationalism. i didnt say there was such a thing as right wing socialism, fascists used right wing rhetoric to distinguish themselves from communism, which they were violently opposed to. socialism is state control over the market/economy, fascism was top down socialism. marx didnt invent socialism, there are forms other than marxism.
@thewaterwillcome Professor-Greg Grandin CUNY in Counterpunch :"Friedrich von Hayek, the Austrian émigré and University of Chicago professor whose 1944 Road to Serfdom dared to suggest that state planning would produce not "freedom and prosperity" but "bondage and misery," visited Pinochet's Chile a number of times. He was so impressed that he held a meeting of his famed Société Mont Pélérin there. He even recommended Chile to Thatcher as a model to complete her free-market revolution."
@zsylvana what, am i supsd to agree with everything hayek said? he was being nostalgic abt his upbringing in austria-hungry. capitalism at the hand of the arbitrary decisions of a dictator isnt exactly a free market. Chile was a developing nation whose economy was heavily dependent on foreign markets, when they took a tumble so did Chile. but most of the harm that befell the Chilean ppl came at the hands of Pinochet and the IMF, both state institutions.
No, again, the economy crashed because the 'free-market' instituted at Hayek's behest caused a bubble and crash while eviscerating all public safety nets. At that point the IMF had to be brought in by him. And again, in the end, as I have already shown it was only through market intervention by Keynesian policies and the nationalization, that the economy started to recover.
@Rundstedt1 yes but u dnt kno if the economy would have recovered on its own. and the economy of the world was suffering at the time, it hit Chile harder bc it was still developing and it was dependent on the world economy to buy its products. and like i have said before, the free market is not crash proof, shit happens, but it was the state interference to try to fix it that hurt the Chilean ppl the most. countries leaving socialism into capitalism will certainly have troubles for a while.
Ahh no, not like in Chile where the unemployment went above 30% and the people were severely suffering, had lost all their savings to the crash and had no services to fall back on. To say it would 'recover by itself' is naive and hard hearted. And the shift to capitalism is Russia has also seen a dramatic growth in poverty there. For every fabulously rich person there are scores of new destitute and most people struggle more than before. Even their life expectancy has dramatically dropped
@Rundstedt1 they had land to grow food to fall back on, until the IMF decided the land would earn the Chilean gov more by growing eucalyptus for toothpaste, & the Chilean ppl could just import food form other IMF countries, but oh shit! pinochet devalued the currency artificially so the Chilean ppl were fucked when it came to imports. are u saying u would rather live in soviet russia? where the state could 'disappear' u if u talked back and the only way to move up was to join the party line?
Actually they did NOT have the land to fall back on, the land, or at least the majority of productive land, was mainly owned by large capitalist land owners. The subsistence farmers became loaded in debt during the Pinochet years and had nothing to fall back on, but could only lose their land quicker. And it was to those that the IMF was speaking. And that served to only increase the capitalist profits.
If you think for any reason I'm a friend if the IMF you are mistaken, the IMF is a tool of the market forces that you so serve, its members, whether you want to accept it or not, are replete with 'free-market' ideologues, and like Hayek, try to impose the 'free-market' by force.
And Pinochet again HAD to devalue the currency, he was forced to because of the crash caused by Hayek's Ultra free market which caused speculation to run rampant. And foreign debts were guaranteed returns even after the crash. Again it was only by turning away from the so called 'free-market' junk that Chile was saved.
Furthermore, Hayek fully supported the Dictatorship, he saw no contradiction with the oppression as long as it achieved his economic goals.
"Well, I would say that, as long-term institutions, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period. At times it is necessary for a country to have, for a time, some form or other of dictatorial power" Hayek in the newspaper "El Mercurio
-. "My personal preference,"leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism." In London Times he defended the junta, reporting that he had "not been able to find a single person even in much maligned Chile who did not agree that personal freedom was much greater under Pinochet than it had been under Allende." Of course, the thousands executed and tens of thousands tortured by Pinochet's regime weren't talking"
@stoptherot1 Michael Tsarion is the worlds premier conspiracy researcher/lecturer/author. Dr. Bill Deagle, Leo Zagami, Jordan Maxwell and Alexandre Dumas pere are highly informative as well. p.s. melting Euphoria is similar to Ozric Tentacles and Gong
@stoptherot1 Have we succeeded? We think so. Before long we shall have covered with our narratives an enormous period of time; between the "Comtesse de Salisbury' and the "Comte de Monte Christo" five centuries and a half are compresed. Well, we assert that we have taught France as much history about those five centuries and a half as any historian.
National Socialist drive, German national reason, the non-political Stahlhelm, and - not forgotten by us - Papen. It is so unimaginably wonderful ... What an achievement by Hindenburg!" - Louise Solmitz, A Conservative Schoolteacher from Hamburg; reacting to Hitler's appointment to the chancellorship on 30 january 1933. Quoted in Ian Kershaw, "Hitler" (abridged), p260.
@ skunktem .. I don't really care what ppl do. as long as it doesn't involve me.When my tax money goes to fund 2 gay men who want to adopt, that Darwin's law made it/them incapable of producing their own children, (Nature it'self iow when they say nature made me gay) so, my tax money goes to fund the CPS who takes away a kid from his dad for smoking pot, then gives him to the gay men who maybe smoke legal medical weed. also paid by my taxes. Then that's UNFAIR. Not morally, but personally.
FUCKING BITCH! I served in Iraq at the same time, in the same unit with you. You are nothing but a scared bitch, always complaining, always crying about "serving" in the Marine Corps. You were known as the "CAG Shit Bird." You did not defent the Constitution or the Corps. You nasty civilian, Nasty Human piece of shit. Don't ever call yourself a brother in arms. You are the 10% we are warned about in the Corps. Rest in peace knowing that there's Soldiers and Marines keeping you safe.
this guy is amazing! thank you for putting this up! the only problem is that today we have a misconception of what fascism was politically. in reality fascism failed to withstand the pressure and evil of hitler, however if one reads the fascist manifesto they are confused, it doesn't sound so bad, fascism was a leftist progressive youth movement much like the one this vid promotes. the tyranny we face today is not fascism its anarcho-capitalism(corporate government). its much worse
@thewaterwillcome Adam Kokesh a fierce supporter of Capitalism, as am I. I agree with you that it is undeniable that our problem today is corporate government however let's not get bogged down with labels. The bottom line is you either support freedom or you do not. To support freedom inherently means you support private property rights, this is the foundation of Capitalism. Unfortunately as Adam points out in the video below what we have today is NOT Capitalism.
@reefer75 I kno he supports capitalism, unfortunately capitalism+weak gov.=corporate gov. what we have today is capitalism its not smiths utopian kind or a free market but the corporations acting in their own best interest are the cause of corruption and inequality in the markets the invisible hand didn't work. I cannot support private property rights because to many ppl cannot and will not ever be able to afford private property under capitalism
@thewaterwillcome What we have today is capitalism+strong government = fascism. To say the USG is weak is simply false. It has never been more powerful, if by weak you mean corrupt than we agree. However, the invisible hand didn't work because it was repeatedly strong armed by the FED. When the dollar ultimately collapses many lower class people will have the opportunity to own private property. Unfortunately, I can never support STWR because by it is centralized power (i.e. tyranny).
@reefer75 a republic is centralized power to, are you an anarchist? i meant it was corruptible the invisible hand failing long before the fed & other central banks. when the dollar collapses it will ether be replaced by another currency or their will be local currencies ether way there will be poor ppl & those who lack resources to obtain property. there was poor ppl before there was currency. STWR wants things necessary for survival removed from the free market and distributed to those in need.
@thewaterwillcome The original intent of the republic was not centralized power, obviously it did not turn out that way. However, we still have what remains of the Constitution as a way to restore limited government and decentralize power (i.e. States rights). What is stopping the current psychopaths running the US government from controlling STWR? Does STWR give people a choice to opt out of the system? If not it is simple tyranny implemented by force and coercion.
@reefer75 Sharing The Worlds Resources is not some authoritarian system its a world policy org. that sees the US backed WTO, IMF, and world bank as organizations that use public funds to exploit poor nations for the benefit of international banks & seeks to replace it with a nonprofit group that distributes necessary resources according to need. its not a control system, it removes life necessary resources from the profit based free market, the rest of the free market is left alone. compromise
@thewaterwillcome My point in this entire conversation is anytime you consolidate or centralize power it has been proven throughout all of history without fail that it produces authoritarianism and tyranny. I don't doubt for a second that STWR has the best intentions. However, giving that kind of power to one organization to control life support is nothing short of lunacy. No doubt the profit based free market has many flaws however STWR is NOT the solution.
@reefer75 you will never create a stable system w/o central power we walk a razors edge between freedom & tyranny, get used to it. you dnt understand stwr its a replacement for the "unholy trinity" 100,000 ppl starve to death a day because they cant afford food on a free market thereare enough resources to save them but there is no profit in it so they die genocide everyday. capitalism hasn't worked out for most ppl so far. control life support? there is no life support. they die every second.
@thewaterwillcome Progressive youth movement? Nope, not even close. Not even kinda close. It was a right wing nationalist movement that used some left wing rhetoric to win over the working class. Big Business funded Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco into power. And prominent conservatives like Von Hindenburg, Von Papen and Vittorio were the ones who brought Hitler and Mussolini into the fold in coalition governments before they became dictatorships.
@DaHonestAbe it was progressive movement that used right wing rhetoric to gain support over the commies. hitler was a nazi franco was a falangists, they wernt fascists. falangists were national syndicalists so closer to fascsism but wanted to preserve catholic traditions so not fascists, but classicaly right wing in that aspect, also all movements were aristocracies so again classically right wing, but by that standard communism is right wing! fascism isnt right wing in the modern sense at all
@thewaterwillcome Wow, waaaayyy off. All fascist states preserved the catholic church, even if they were anti catholic in the beginning. And Franco went the other way ideologically from falange. The left by and large were surpressed, and the banker as well as the captains of industry were the main backers of the fascist movements (thyssen, stinnes, vanelli, etc.) They were right wing by the period of that time, and today. Seems like you have some reading to do. Be happy to make recommendations.
@DaHonestAbe if being supported by the elite is right wing then every democrat and liberal on the hill are part of the radical right, dnt be a fool. mussolini personally hated catholics, he made treaty with them to consolidate the country and gain power and respect. what ur referring to are lateran Treaties, they were and still are a good thing. the only fascist state was italy. fascism is the polar opposite of limited gov and free markets so name one modern right wing aspect of fascism.
@DaHonestAbe con't: right wing during that period of time was monarchy and perseving traditional social orders. the fascist movment sought to destroy the traditional order and create a united national sydicalist state . if u think national sydicalism is right wing by any standard then ur an idiot. they were very left wing in their time, mussolini called it the "third way" and "right-wing socialism" as a ploitical ploy.
@thewaterwillcome Actually, they weren't left wing, and had minimalist syndical support. The third way was a lie by mussolini and he admitted that in 1921 when he claimed that he wanted to rid the economic state and privatize the state owned industries, lifting the burden on tax payers. There was no creation of a united syndicalist state, no serious text states that at all. It was a big business corporatocracy that was maintained through violent repression of labor. No proof fo your assertions.
@DaHonestAbe I meant minimial syndicalist support. I would suggest reading"Facts and Fascism" by George Seldes. All economic and war history that is accredited doesn't support a word of what you're saying. If it was leftist in practice, then the west never would've supported it. You seem to have a very tough time seperating fascist rhetoric from fascist action. Again I say, you have some reading to do.
@DaHonestAbe I said progressive youth movement, not a progressive youth mussolini. mussolini was a corrupted pig he was the leader of the movement & used it to gain power. the fascists gov didnt do anything the movement had intended. the ideology was supported by leftists in the west. i was referring to the ideas of the movement, so instead trying to be so superior why dnt u do some reading urself & read the fascist manifesto, written by fascists. Then tell me its not progressive.
@DaHonestAbe con't: and there is nothing inherently right wing abt a corporatocracy, that would depend on the ppl running it, and how they ran it. other than the fact the actual fascist state was a aristocracy you have not given any example abt how the movement or the state was right wing in classical or modern terms. it was not a monarchy and sought to radically change the status quo, and it certainly was not a limited free market government, so what specifically is right wing abt it?
@thewaterwillcome Here are some quotes directly from the fascists themselves.
"The State must have a police, a judiciary, an army, and a foreign policy. All other things, and I do not exclude secondary education, must go back to the private activity of individuals. If one wants to save the State, the Collectivist State must be abolished" - Mussolini, "Il Primo Discorso alla Camera", 21 June 1921. Printed in Mussolini, Scritti e Discorsi II (pp. 165-188), p. 187
@thewaterwillcome "Regarding the economy we are explicitly antisocialist... I will give the railways
and the telegraphs back to private hands, because the current state of things is outrageous and vulnerable in all its parts. The ethical State is not the monopolistic State, the bureaucratic State, but the one which reduces its functions to what is strictly necessary. (continued)
@thewaterwillcome We are against the economic State." - Mussolini, "Discorso all'Augusteo", 7 November 1921. Printed in Mussolini, Scritti e Discorsi II (pp. 199-206), pp. 203-204
@thewaterwillcome "Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the "RIGHT", a Fascist century" - Giovanni Gentile (Right from the fascist doctrine)
@thewaterwillcome In Fact, by 1921 Mussolini announced himself that he spoke from "the benches of the Extreme right, where formerly no-one dared to sit" Quoted in the readers digest, "The World at arms", p13
@thewaterwillcome "In terms of economics, we are overtly anti-socialist. I do not regret having been a socialist. But I have cut my bridges with the past. I have no nostalgia. (Continued)
@thewaterwillcome I don't think about entering socialism but rather about leaving it. In economic terms we are liberals [In the Smithian sense] because we believe that the national economy cannot be entrusted to collective entities or to the bureaucracy." Mussolini 1921 Printed in "Mussolini, Scritti e Discorsi II (pp. 199-206), pp. 203-204" I
@thewaterwillcome It didn't have free enterprise, only private enterprise. So though the market wasn't "free" (and it never really has been), profits and capital remained private. And from 1922-25, there was mass privatization in Italy. Economic minister D'Stefani privatized: Steel, Life Insurance, Railways, Tollways, and Banks. Just to name a few. And as far as the people running the corporotacracy, they were all right wing. Leftists were beaten jailed and killed.
@thewaterwillcome I've done my homework on this movement kid. I've read some of the best historical and economic literature. Even the 1934 Fortune Mag article that praised mussolini for building up business and breaking labor along with the Italian Left. All of academia knows the movement was politically right wing, though it stole the left's thunder by deceptive use of working class rhetoric. So there we have it. I recommend Robert Paxton and Sir Allan Bullock to you.
@DaHonestAbe you cant honestly argue that fascism was abt free market & limited government, so u cant really say its rightwing. the fact that the leaders of leftist movements like fascism & communism are usually dicks who end up raping the ppl who put them in power doesn't matter, the fascist movemnt put mussolini into power and if u want to understand the political perspective of the movemnt u can read it in their own words, read the fascist manifesto from 1919 and tell me its right wing.
@thewaterwillcome I have read it. And I've read the Road to Resurgence by Hitler in 1927. The political spectrum takes place in regards to who runs the means of the economy. Fascist nations expanded the private sector. It wasn't free market, but with the type of inflation they had, no laissz faire economist could have a solution. All of academia globally recognize fascism as right wing. You do two things wrong: 1) you never talk abut what they outside of doctrine which was never followed. (cont)
@thewaterwillcome And 2.) you reduce essence to form. Genocide happens at the hands of despots, and their political affiliations have nothing to do with their attrocities. Genocide has happened at the hands of left wing commies (pol pot, mao, stalin, etc.) and right wing fascists (franco, hitler, suharto, etc.) The Doctrine of Fascism was very anti socialist and anti communist. But their economic views were very corporatist. Same as in Germany and Spain. The experts favor me on this one.
@DaHonestAbe You can't say because they've never practiced some utopian form of capitalism that's never been done is anti intellectual and dishonest. Again, never said fascism was free market. Not once did I say it was. But right wing economics is about a private run economy. And state intervention does not make it left wing. Especially when that intervention is done on behalf of the super rich. Sorry man, you still have some homework to do.
@DaHonestAbe i dont think authoritarian dictators belong anywhere on the political spectrum, their political ideology is their own will. regardless of what happened to the private sector under fascist and nazi rule you cannot argue that the movement or the leaders represented a desire for limitations to the size and power of the state. most ppl on the right wing want a reduction in the size and power of the state so what part of the right wing are u talking abt?
@thewaterwillcome Let me make this abundantly clear. Right and Left HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT. They have everything to do how the political and market economy is run. An mainly public sector economy is left wing. A mainly private economy is right wing. The fascist states had economies in where the private sector was broadened. The small gov't argument is a fantasy that's never been tried. Right Wing leaders in this nation have regularly expanded government.
@DaHonestAbe yes right wing leaders have expanded the gov because they just want their own form of big gov. the private sector benefited & grew under fascism bc certain companies/banks would rather have their profits handed to them by the state than actually compete. it cant be considered a truly private sector if its controlled by the state. if u think u can compare the libertarians desire for free markets and privatization with the political goals of fascist leaders then ur out of ur mind!
@thewaterwillcome Again, read what I said. It wasn't a free market. It was a private war economy. Libertarians may desire something else, that's fine. But no progressive, myself included, wants a fascist gov't or economy. Guys like me would've been the first attacked by the fascists in Italy or Germany.
@DaHonestAbe when ppl on the right wing say they want a private economy they mean separate from the state. the economy under fascism was not separate from the state, it was not private. then why do progressives support the new healthcare reform? law abiding citizens are forced to give multi billion dollar insurance and pharma companies millions of dollars bc the state has ordered them to. if they dnt they get an extra tax, if they dnt pay the tax they go to jail. fascism.
@DaHonestAbe con't: progressives argue for more government control over the economy, you may not want imperialism (unless its for humanitarian purposes of course) or to commit genocide but u want a fascist economy. its environmentally friendly and touchy-feely fascism but its still state control over the economy and if the ppl in the state are corrupt the the ppl get fucked over.
@thewaterwillcome Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Its not surprising libertarians talk about economics without knowing history. First of all, there is no "touchy feely fascism." If its not violent and/or nationalist, it isn't fascism. Secondly, you don't get to narrow the definition of right wing to fit your agenda. There are small govt right wingers (libertarians) and big govt RWers (fascists.) Just as we have big govt lefties (commies) and small/no govt lefties (anarchists.)
@thewaterwillcome secondly, the state didn't control the economy, it COLLABORATED with it. The state and the private sector found common ground with imperialist and anti labor/privatization policies. Left and right are not determined by the size of govt or the state. Right wingers throughout the state have had NO problem using the state and growing govt for their own needs. The purpose of the state is to protect wealth from labor demands. Which fascism accomplished. Wrong again, buddy.
@thewaterwillcome and lastly, the left was the primary target of the fascists. It came to power with the collaboration of conservatives and heavy industry. Plus a middle class that worried about a communist take over. Progressivism argues for labor rights, better wages, and safe working conditions. All of which fascism, and modern day rightists, are against. No serious social scientist will believe that fascism is of the left. You seem to not grasp the definition of fascism.
@thewaterwillcome And whether you think authoritarians should belong anywhere in politics is irrelevant. I dont think racism should exist in society, but it does. Don't argue from what you want, argue from what is. The czar in russia and the kaiser in germany right wing and autocratic. And no their political ideology isn't their own will. Their ideology goes in line with the ruling class. Be it Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet, Suharto, etc. Neocons are right wing, even if they dont represent you.
@DaHonestAbe im fine if u want to call neocons fascists but the rest of us dislike neocons more than we dislike progressives. they dnt represent the real right wing.
ADAM KOKESH,great american,true hero,man of integraty this is how every american soldier ought to be,every patriot support you.not like the cattle,the sheeps fighting for corporations these idiots make sick,cowards,you feel important ,badass when you go to poor countries to commit mass killings of innocent civilians ,let the politicians do the wars but no in ur delusional mind u believe u fight to protect our rights & our freedom thanks to u this country has turn into a plice state u brainwashed
Trying to get famous off hating on the US armed forces. This guy has no idea what his higher ranking leaders where planing and implementing.
Counter recruiting hu? This guy is a joke. Military or not, be honest and tell EVERYTHING..not this Micheal Moore BS. How much is this guy making anyway? I'm sure he was paid to speak and get on camera.
You need to stop making speeches and start taking overt action in th estreets. I am with you where and when. The government responds to cries from the people ONLY under the pressure of mass demonstrations AND civil disobedience. This was true of the Civil Rights laws and Vietnam war. The control of the government is in the hands of politicians left and right who along with those politicians who have been appointed federal judges have absolute control over our constitutional rights.
I think a huge problem in dealing with problems like the ones this guy raises is fragmentation of activists groups. There's a tendency for groups to get overly focused on their narrow goals, and by doing so, cut themselves off from others who are focused on similar goals. We need to unite on a realistic, and cooperative level to remove the corporate-state marriage.
Uh Oh. It is going to be sad watching the IRS take Adam apart just as they have every other tax evader. That is, unless he has decided not to make any income.
go Adam!!!
hromi 1 week ago
Adam Kokesh is a really well spoken guy. He is a pleasure to listen to. We needs leaders these days. He is a born leader.
FanofFormerPresident 1 month ago
They are already spending more money than they take in now. They spend as much as they want, and borrow or print the difference. What we need is for them to stop the spending NOW. How do we make that happen is the question.
The question that remains: Even if they stopped spending now, is who is responsible for paying for the debt that was created? That is essentially what your taxes are paying now. Anyone who voted for a politician who was in favor of a successful increase in spending?
DavidCaddock 1 month ago
Ok I could do that, but won't they put me in jail if I do?
boostah27 2 months ago
No. What you're saying is "don't pay taxes cause war is funded by them". Although this is true, there are also other institutions that are funded by taxes. And moreover, those who don't pay taxes are the once that run the system. What's needed is instead of doing the activist, demanding a better future, to actually go and make it a reality for yourself and those around you. As long as money is what you need, no real change will come. Choosing what my taxes will fund, will be something.
Nitrozzy7 2 months ago
I can't access the forum or other tabs at SlaveUprising . com...
magicdarragh 6 months ago
Does anyone know if Kokesh eventually paid his taxes?
swedishvolvo 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I love freedom of speech. LOVE IT I SAY!!
HatrickPenry 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012
nikolayzou 8 months ago
You know how to fight fascism? Smash it with your fists(literally speaking) and with your intellect.
Mabuza14 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL 2012
europa 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
adam kokesh holding it down. fuck the income tax. fuck paying to kill kids. we need to dance dance dance dance dance and take the power back.
thehamblogggerman.blogspot.com
gelberd 8 months ago
Yo. The kids are all right.
tashmoo711 8 months ago
VOTE FOR RON PAUL!!!!
NuCl3aRXAce 8 months ago
Libertarians, and 'free-marketers' are nothing more than Neo-Cons on steroids. They both want basically the same thing; deregulation, privatization, free trade, the suppression of labor power and all the same economic voodoo that keeps on causing the same sort of crisis that we have today, only even more of it. By removing restraints and weakening the power of gov't in relation to money they bring on a corporate world yet deny it. A new Feudalism.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@Rundstedt1hahaha u dnt understand anything libertarians stand for. libertarians are opposed to any gov that restricts personal freedom ether socially or economically. liberals seek to use the state to enforce their economic/political views, neocons seek to use the state to enforce their moral/religious views. it would be more accurate to say libertarians are paleocons on steroids, but not really. most large corps prefer a powerful state to protect them from competition & doll out easy money.
thewaterwillcome 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (1/6)
Libertarian philosophy is simplistic and disingenuous. It is basically: "Everything the market does is good, and anything the gov't does is bad." "If there was a negative outcome to any market action it was because of gov't interference" - no matter how much twisting of history and superficial interpretations there has to be to prove it. They hypocritically separate the actions taken on behalf of those using the market and designing its rules, with those enforcing them.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thew (2/6)
Libertarians believe that the only rights that really matters are property rights, that inviolate private property is the only true measure of freedom. And so if you don't have any, too bad, let them find somebody else's property to complain on. They require flawlessness as the only valid standard to judge government: libertarianism, being imaginary, cannot be fairly be judged to have flaws. And it has resulted in many a elitist dictatorships like Hayek's wonderland of failure Chile
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwill (3/6)
A 'free-market' 'small gov't' state is a corporate fascist state where the corporations can do what they wish because there is no governmental power to restrain them. Filling the power vacuum left by eviscerated gov't they become the gov't. Libertarianism is fascist Social Darwinist rule of money, those with the most money can do whatever they wish while the working people suffer without assistance victimized by a market they cannot control.
Libertarianism = Neo-Feudalism
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (4/6)
"Under feudalism, the elements of political authority are powers that are held personally by individuals, not by enduring political institutions. These powers are held as a matter of private contractual right. Individuals gradually acquire the power to make, apply, and enforce rules by forging a series of private contracts with particular individuals or families.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (5/6)
Oaths of fealty or service are sworn in exchange for similar or compensating benefits. Those who exercise political power wield it on behalf of others pursuant to their private contractual relation and only so long as their contract is in force. Since different services are provided to people, there is no notion of a uniform public law that is to be impartially applied to all individuals."
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (6/6)
In other words:
"Libertarianism resembles feudalism in that it establishes political power in a web of bilateral individual contracts. Consequently, it has no conception of legitimate public political authority nor any place for political society, a “body politic” that political authority represents in a fiduciary capacity."
-
Samuel Freeman, “Illiberal Libertarians: Why Libertarianism is not a Liberal View”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 30, 2 (Spring 2002), 105-151
Rundstedt1 9 months ago 4
@Rundstedt1 (1/7) first off, chile is the most successful nation in south america, it has been steadily improving as it has moved towards a free market economy.major corporations use the states authority to get around the market and take advantage of their customers. i dnt think that any libertarian feels the market is perfect, market failures can always happen, ppl make decision based on where they think the demand will be and many times they are wrong...
thewaterwillcome 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (1/6)
You are kidding, Chile took many years to recover from Hayek's 'free-market' crap and in many ways is still not healed.
"After ten years of application of his [Hayek's] economic policies, Chile entered a recession that saw its GDP plummet by 15% in 1982-1983, and unemployment of 30% . Indeed, Chile was only able to become something of an economic success story in the 1990s by breaking cleanly with the approach of the ’Chicago Boys’
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwi (2/6)
"GNP plummeted thirteen percent, industrial production fell 28 percent, and purchasing power collapsed to forty percent of its 1970 level. One national business after another went bankrupt. Unemployment soared. Yet by 1978 the economy rebounded, expanding thirty-two percent between 1978 and 1981.With hindsight, however, it is now clear that the Chicago economists, despite the credit they received for three years of economic growth, had set Chile on the road to near collapse."
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (3/6)
"The rebound of the economy was a function of the liberalization of the financial system and massive foreign investment. That investment, it turns out, led to a speculative binge, monopolization of the banking system, and heavy borrowing. The deluge of foreign capital did allow the fixed exchange rate to be maintained for a short period."
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (4/6)
"In 1982 things fell apart. Copper prices plummeted, accelerating Chile's balance of trade deficit. GDP plunged fifteen percent, while industrial production rapidly contracted. Bankruptcies tripled and unemployment hit 30 percent. Despite his pledge to hold firm, Pinochet devalued the escudo, devastating poor Chileans who had either availed themselves to liberalized credit to borrow in dollars or who held their savings in escudos.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (5/6) The Central Bank lost forty-five percent of its reserves, while the private banking system collapsed. The crisis forced the state, dusting off laws still on the books from the Allende period, to take over nearly seventy percent of the banking system and reimpose controls on finance, industry, prices and wages. Turning to the IMF for a bailout, Pinochet extended a public guarantee to repay foreign creditors and banks."
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (6/6)
So it was not the 'free-market' or Hayek that saved Chile but a heavy dose of market intervention. Hayek and the 'Chicago boys' only brought hardship and dictatorship to Chile, it was nationalization and Keynesian economics that really saved it.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@Rundstedt1 (2/7) the result of that could be a firm going under or a crash. no matter wat the market is these failures will happen, however under a state controlled market these failures are guaranteed to happen frequently. so no, the market is not perfect or utopian.corporations make their profits by selling products to consumers or assisting other corporations that do. if people do not choose to buy a corporations product the corporation makes no profit...
thewaterwillcome 9 months ago
@thew (1/2)
Capitalism itself is replete with boom and bust cycles, they are as old as capitalism itself and in its very nature. It is not the state that creates the crisis but the state that has the power to respond to and ease the crisis. During Lassiez faire times like during the Gilded age there were more crisis, more runs on banks and their failure than once a system of regulation was built up. And it is also during Laissez faire times that we see the great growth of monopolies and trusts.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (2/2)
The people in California who were victims of the electricity deregulation and the move to a free market in that sector, had a choice... Pay what the private manipulators of the market wanted or sit in the dark. It's really not a choice.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@Rundstedt1 3/7) unless it uses a state to force ppl to buy its products or prevent its competitors from entering the market or uses FDA/courts to destroy any company/person that goes against it. the corpofascist state ur referring to is called a corporatocracy, it requires the state to have a lot of power to enforce the will of the corps, other wise it would be of no use to the corps. gov dosnt restrain corps it restrains its citizens at the behest of corporations.
thewaterwillcome 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (1/3)
And the corpratocracy results when the market has too much power and can dictate to the public and to the very state itself the conditions it wishes the market to take place in. There is NO such thing as a 'free-market' it never can exist.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (2/3)
All markets are created and will seek out regulation. A black market starts as a "free-market" but it is quickly taken over by the underworld and therefore regulated, or it is legitimized and regulated by the government. So it is not a case of IF the market is regulated, but by and for whom. Deregulation actually just pushes the regulation of the market onto the largest, most powerful of the producers (the corporations) by default.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (3/3)
So it is because of the very same 'free-market' principles that have been pushed on us that it becomes a 'corporate' market. A 'free-market' will naturally become a 'corporate market'. Monopolies are fostered during periods of deregulation, the record of history bears this out. It was during the Gilded Age, a historically recognized period of laissez faire gov't that fostered some of the greatest monopolies until the present great wave of deregulation.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@Rundstedt1 (4/7) u seem to think that if the state had power over the market/corporations it will be able to protect the citizens from corporate greed, wat happens when the state itself becomes corrupted? fascism. ur socialist system can only produce decent results if it can not be corrupted, since human beings are corruptible the socialist system will never produce anything but failure & tyranny. if i dnt buy from a corporation nothing happens, if i dnt buy from the state i go to jail.
thewaterwillcome 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (1/3)
Well first of all, fascism is a capitalist ideology, all fascist states have been capitalist. And the state's failure to fully protect its citizens falls from the over powerful market and business power. It is capitalism itself that corrupts the state and takes the power away from the people or one that installs a gov't friendly to it like the large business interests backed Hitler and Mussolini.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (2/3)
And again, you don't have a choice in the real world when the corporation is dictating he terms in the 'free-market' because it has used the lack of regulation to destroy the competition, which is the purpose and aim of large businesses. Your fantasy world doesn't exist, 'free-markets' only means the 'survival of the fittest', and in Libertarianland, that would be the largest and most ruthless corporation.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (3/3)
And the social democratic states in Europe have better outcomes than the US. And even the old communist states had the greatest growth rates of nations. The Soviet Union took the country out of a backward existence and made it a world power, their only major fault was trying to compete militarily with the US which strained their system to much.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@Rundstedt1 (5/7) what i think mr. freeman is talking abt is market anarchy, which does not represent the majority of libertarians. but yes, authority is derived from contracts entered into by willing participants and enforced by some sort of recognized court system, wats so bad abt contracts? feudalism is usually with property, so if someone wants to lend out their property to someone else for some agreed upon fee then its up to the individuals to decide that fee.
thewaterwillcome 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (1/2)
If you don't see the problem with feudalism than I don't know what to tell you, but be assured you will be one of the serfs to the Koch brothers dynasty, and not a lord.
"Essentially the feudal system was composed of the whole group of personal ties which between them united the members of the ruling classes of society in a hierarchy. These ties were supported by a material foundation." Jacques Le Goff, "Medieval Civilization" p91
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (2/2)
"[Feudalism] meant a type of government in which political power was treated as a private possession and divided among a large number of lords." "A History of Western Society, Third Edition" p248
Feudalism was based entirely on private property and contracts, just like the Libertarians want in their society, a neo-feudalism.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@Rundstedt1 (6/7) landlords abused their position w/ military. w/o the state there is no gun control. its dangerous to take advantage of a population who is heavily armed. we work for our living, the state uses military force against us to make us pay for services we may not want, if we dnt our property is taken from us & we are thrown in jail, all bc the state has decided that it has claim to this land. obviously we are already living under feudalism...
thewaterwillcome 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (1/2)
Sigh, if you think that your .45 can protect you against the might of organized private unaccountable wealth you are seriously deluded. The wealthy, just like in feudal times, will be able to build and control large private armies and police forces. Like the robber barons used to hire the Pinkertons to beat heads and shoot the masses who opposed their greed. And that time there was much greater ability for the people to have parity of weapon power.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (2/2)
Now, are you going to buy your own Jet fighter-bomber or missile system or Mini-gun? I don't think so. But the large wealthy interests will be able to. So in essence you just removed the people's gov't and handed it over the wealthy and corporations. Just like the Feudal lords could hire armies of Knights to keep the people in line, the Neo-feudalists will contract with Blackwater to do their bidding.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@Rundstedt1 (7/7) freeman could be using libertarian in the old, international sense of the word, meaning anarchy. im not sure if that would be considered classic liberalism. the modern american libertarianism represents the continuation of classic liberalism, but the word liberal has been highjacked by progressives in the US. if freeman is saying that american libertarianism is not a classic liberal view then he is absolutely wrong.
thewaterwillcome 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (1/6)
The actual sense of the system of anarchy is a system of gov't that is bottom up in nature, where all take a responsibility to make and enforce the collective decisions and without a defined leader. 'Market-anarchists' are NOT real anarchists and the anarchy school arose from collective roots. From people like Bakunin who was a contemporary and sometimes friend of Marx
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (2/6)
Additionally like most Libertarians you sadly mistake the true nature of classical liberalism. The Classic Liberal economists were not "free-market' as is it is interpreted by the modern libertarian crowd or even most Republicans. Not even Adam Smith himself preached the type of fanatical type of 'free-market' that is put forth by the modern liberation crowd.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (3/6)
The classical liberals were not aghast about using many market interventionist techniques to obtain the wider distribution of wealth they desired. The US had intervened in the economy since its inception. Smith was mainly critiquing Mercantilism and the excess of wealth that it built for the aristocrats, libertarians pervert his message to take it to extreme beyond his intention.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@th (4/6)
"Adam Smith was not a dogmatic proponent of laissez-faire capitalism. A careful exposition of his work will demonstrate that there were many functions which the government could fulfil in capitalist-organized society. In many (although not quite all) ways, Smith's position on the role of the state in a capitalist society was close to that of a modern twentieth century US liberal democrat" Spencer Pack "Capitalism as a Moral System, Adam Smith's critique of the Free Market Economy" p1
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (5/6)
"The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state ....[As Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to] 'remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich.'"
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (6/6)
And it is the present day liberals that carry on the mantle of the Classical Liberals in political freedoms with positive policies on civil rights, anti-discrimination legislation and fostering free speech through organizations such as the ACLU for example.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@Rundstedt1 dude enough with these massive, block quote answers. I can see that u are very good at using ur libraries’ reference section but this is the youtube comments section not a term paper. The 'that type of anarchy isnt real anarchy' argument is real fuckin old, there are different anti-state views, deal with it. As for corporations engaging in military action to force a profit, it could happen but think of how expensive that is, its more profitable just to sell a product ppl want to buy.
thewaterwillcome 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome
But private businesses and corportions ARE a form of state and are just as hierarchical, one cannot be a real anarchist and support capitalism. And no sorry, history has shown private capitals propensity to use force and private militias.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@Rundstedt1 they are a hierarchy but not a state. im not against hierarchy that comes from nature not the state. corps have to sell a product to make a profit, ppl choose to buy the product, if they choose not to nothing happens. its voluntary, a state isnt. mercenaries are very expensive and are not willing to give up their lives for a corp. warfare is a very risky, and expensive way to make a profit, its much easier to sell a legit product. today, corps use the state as force and u pay for it!
thewaterwillcome 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (1/5)
If you are not against hierarchy you are not an anarchist. And again in a 'free-market' choice quickly disappears as the largest eat the smallest, and quickly the market is controlled by one of a few major players all making collusive deals. Again one need only look to the Enron debacle to see what happens in an unregulated 'free-market'. They used just as much force and coercion as any formal state.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (2/5)
Additionally, states are themselves formed from large collections of capital. It was the wealthiest aristocrats that could make the most advantageous contracts that formed the hereditary monarchies. Capitalism itself would cause a state to be formed. All you do is create a new feudalism as described. And the cost of hiring mercenaries or whatever just becomes a cost of doing business.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (3/5)
Again it has happened before. And even if the product is 'legit' it means of production may be so exploitive that force is necessary to keep the workers in line. That has also happened before, many a times. Then when the workers protest they are attacked or just as forceful, released from their jobs to starve.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (4/5)
The threat of destitution is just another form of force. Only the regulation of working conditions and the economy as a whole can keep the power of capital in check in a capitalist system.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (5/5)
And because it is a democratic republic; if you fear govt, then you must admit that you fear yourself; or admit that capitalism has perverted your gov't and bent it to the will of the corporations and moneyed elites. Weakening gov't only gives more power to those forces that really enslave you. If you want to reign in gov't, then remove capitalism and return the gov't to the people.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@Rundstedt1 my vote means nothing, the state is controlled by corporate &special interests. capitalism did not do this ppl did this, greed comes from humans, not an economic system. would u say that the soviet union was uncorrupted and responsive to the ppl? if the state has authority over the ppl then that authority can be used against the ppl by whom ever controls the state, this could be corporations or communist party members, it doesn't matter. ur a fool to think greed comes from capitalism
thewaterwillcome 9 months ago
Comment removed
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome
The capitalist economic system fosters and rewards the greed. The system capitalists have developed have done this, but it does not need to be. It is only through strengthening of democracy that your vote can count more. And again if the State is controlled though corporate and special for profit interests, that is because of capitalism itself. Again, remove the influence of capitalism and the state becomes more responsive to the people.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@Rundstedt1 no not at all. ppl are greedy bc they want more of something than other ppl have. in our state capitalist system ppl can get that thru money by working or stealing. the only thing that would change if u removed capitalism would be the ability to work for money to buy things of ur choosing. the desire to have more comes from humans, capitalism just provides one simple way to get it; work. under socialism the desire to have more still exists however the only way to get it is to steal.
thewaterwillcome 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (1/2)
You just supported me, "if u removed capitalism would be the ability to work for money to buy things of ur choosing." and is what Socialism is, Thank you. It in no way involves 'Theft' that is what capitalism is as it steals a portion of a person's labors and makes it the capitalist's 'profit'
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (2/2)
"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations."
And it's too nice out today to be here commenting, I'll see you later.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@Rundstedt1 con't: ur also confusing profit with money,money is just a representation for value. value comes from necessity and personal preference. under socialism their is still profit just not money, and individual profit is some how held down. but if bob grows apples and Steve grows oranges and bob trades half his apples for half of steve's oranges then both parties are profiting by gaining something they didnt have before, and by the personal preference over apples or oranges.
thewaterwillcome 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome
Value comes from Labor, its only source, even Adam Smith will tell you that. And Money is a representation of value through the medium of exchange. And like I haven't seen your silly example many a times. Problem is, that doesn't describe capitalism, but merely simple exchange. capitalism is the production of commodities for the purpose of obtaining more capital, not for simple exchange.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@Rundstedt1 the only value capital has is for use or exchange. that theory of value is absolutely wrong, value comes for necessity & personal preference the amount of labor means nothing. if u have a need for something or a preference then it is more valuable to u. it may have taken the same amount of labor as something else but if u dnt want the something else then it is worthless, to u. a capitalist profit is the payment for the labor of managing or providing the initial resources.
thewaterwillcome 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (1/3)
Only Labor can create things of value, period. Use value is not exchange value, things may be useful but be of little of no exchange value, and not all labor is valued at the same rate. A doctors' labor is a higher value than a laborers'.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (2/3)
"Skilled labor counts only as simple labor intensified or rather multiplied simple labor, a given quantity of skilled being considered equal to a greater quantity of simple. A commodity may be the product of the most skilled labor, but its value, by equating it to the product of simple unskilled labor, represents a definite quantity of the later labor alone" Das Kapital
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (3/3)
And labor is a cost to the capitalist, to the worker it is a commodity and his only source of value which he has to sell as less than it what it can make, while the capitalist receives the excess, THAT is how surplus value, aka profit is made.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@Rundstedt1 It's capital that makes labor valuable. What can your bare hands make with capital machines doing 95% of the actual work?
emp0rizzle 7 months ago
@Rundstedt1 True!The term Libertarian is captured by Koch bros and their corporatist servants.They steel the word from the creator the french anarco-communist Joseph Déjacque.it is "Orvellian Newspek" just like the word
"Statism" that eminate from french "Etatism" that also was first used by french anarco-communist.They deliberatly steel and missuse words and twist it in propaganda perpuse for big buisness.
zsylvana 9 months ago
the big gov RWers ur referring to are neocons, they dnt actually have right wing values, they are for interfering w/ markets, w/ other countries& w/ the lives of individuals. the neo in neocon dosnt mean new as in recent it means new to conservatism. the ideological origin of the neocons is from former progressives who called themselves conservative in a reaction to the soviet union. what ever they were, the fascist were helped into power by progressives, u can read it in their own words.
thewaterwillcome 10 months ago
@thewater (1)
Oh OK so Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Mike Huckabee and about half the GOP are all left wingers? Is that what you're saying? No sorry the final doctrines of each are Right wing, Just like the final doctrine of Fascism which correctly belongs on the Extreme Right Mussolini announced that fact himself when he declared in 1921 that he spoke from "the benches of the Extreme right, where formerly no-one dared to sit" Quoted in the readers digest, "The World at arms", p13
theyounghistorian77 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thewaterwillcome (2)
"Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the "RIGHT [emphasis added]", a Fascist century" - Giovanni Gentile, a Fascist philosopher!
theyounghistorian77 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thewaterwillcome (3)
"In terms of economics, we are explicitly anti-socialist. I do not regret having been a socialist. But I have cut my bridges with the past. I have no nostalgia. I don't think about entering socialism but rather about LEAVING IT [emphasis added].
theyounghistorian77 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (4) In economic terms we are liberals because we believe that the national economy cannot be entrusted to collective entities or to the bureaucracy. I will give the railways and the telegraphs back to private hands, because the current state of things is outrageous and vulnerable in all its parts.
theyounghistorian77 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thewaterwillcome (5)
The ethical State is not the monopolistic State, the bureaucratic State, but the one which reduces its functions to what is strictly necessary. We are against the economic State." - Mussolini, "Discorso all'Augusteo", 7 November 1921. Printed in Mussolini, Scritti e Discorsi II (pp. 199-206), pp. 203-204
theyounghistorian77 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcom(6) And your other premise is wrong. fascists were helped into power by Conservatives! It was in fact Von Papen that argued "No danger at all: we have hired him [Hitler] for our act"
-
"Hitler is reich chancellor! And What a cabinet!!! One such as we did not dare to dream of in July [1932]. Hitler, Hugenburg, seldte, Papen!!! A large part of my German hopes are attached to each.
theyounghistorian77 9 months ago
@theyounghistorian77 the neocons would gladly spend taxpayer dollars on wars, and to enforce their own moral judgmnents. they are a different kind of progressive, they are part of the right wing and are not to be confussed the progressive left, however they do not have any traditional right wing, conservative values. their 'right wing' is their own new (neo) version of right wing. the fascists were not marxists, and campaigned against communists as 'right-wing socialists'. it was still socialism
thewaterwillcome 9 months ago
@the
Fascists are right wing socialists? Sorry NO, There is no such thing as right wing socialism! I've already quoted from Mussolini which demonstrates, he went AWAY from socialism. And Real World historians agree with me here: Hitler has been properly recognised to have never been socialist in the first place
"Hitler was never a socialist" - Ian Kershaw, "Hitler" (abridged), p269.
Now let me ask you a question, Are you a paleocon by any chance? You sound like it to me.
theyounghistorian77 9 months ago 8
@theyounghistorian77 im not a paleocon, im a libertarian, former socialist. i kno mussolini/hitler were not marxists, they rejected class conflict and internationalism. i didnt say there was such a thing as right wing socialism, fascists used right wing rhetoric to distinguish themselves from communism, which they were violently opposed to. socialism is state control over the market/economy, fascism was top down socialism. marx didnt invent socialism, there are forms other than marxism.
thewaterwillcome 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome Professor-Greg Grandin CUNY in Counterpunch :"Friedrich von Hayek, the Austrian émigré and University of Chicago professor whose 1944 Road to Serfdom dared to suggest that state planning would produce not "freedom and prosperity" but "bondage and misery," visited Pinochet's Chile a number of times. He was so impressed that he held a meeting of his famed Société Mont Pélérin there. He even recommended Chile to Thatcher as a model to complete her free-market revolution."
zsylvana 9 months ago
@zsylvana what, am i supsd to agree with everything hayek said? he was being nostalgic abt his upbringing in austria-hungry. capitalism at the hand of the arbitrary decisions of a dictator isnt exactly a free market. Chile was a developing nation whose economy was heavily dependent on foreign markets, when they took a tumble so did Chile. but most of the harm that befell the Chilean ppl came at the hands of Pinochet and the IMF, both state institutions.
thewaterwillcome 9 months ago
Comment removed
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
Comment removed
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (1/2)
No, again, the economy crashed because the 'free-market' instituted at Hayek's behest caused a bubble and crash while eviscerating all public safety nets. At that point the IMF had to be brought in by him. And again, in the end, as I have already shown it was only through market intervention by Keynesian policies and the nationalization, that the economy started to recover.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@Rundstedt1 yes but u dnt kno if the economy would have recovered on its own. and the economy of the world was suffering at the time, it hit Chile harder bc it was still developing and it was dependent on the world economy to buy its products. and like i have said before, the free market is not crash proof, shit happens, but it was the state interference to try to fix it that hurt the Chilean ppl the most. countries leaving socialism into capitalism will certainly have troubles for a while.
thewaterwillcome 9 months ago
@the
Ahh no, not like in Chile where the unemployment went above 30% and the people were severely suffering, had lost all their savings to the crash and had no services to fall back on. To say it would 'recover by itself' is naive and hard hearted. And the shift to capitalism is Russia has also seen a dramatic growth in poverty there. For every fabulously rich person there are scores of new destitute and most people struggle more than before. Even their life expectancy has dramatically dropped
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@Rundstedt1 they had land to grow food to fall back on, until the IMF decided the land would earn the Chilean gov more by growing eucalyptus for toothpaste, & the Chilean ppl could just import food form other IMF countries, but oh shit! pinochet devalued the currency artificially so the Chilean ppl were fucked when it came to imports. are u saying u would rather live in soviet russia? where the state could 'disappear' u if u talked back and the only way to move up was to join the party line?
thewaterwillcome 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (1/3)
Actually they did NOT have the land to fall back on, the land, or at least the majority of productive land, was mainly owned by large capitalist land owners. The subsistence farmers became loaded in debt during the Pinochet years and had nothing to fall back on, but could only lose their land quicker. And it was to those that the IMF was speaking. And that served to only increase the capitalist profits.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@Rundstedt1
(1/3) Ammendum
And it was to those [large capitalist land holders] that the IMF was speaking.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (2/3)
If you think for any reason I'm a friend if the IMF you are mistaken, the IMF is a tool of the market forces that you so serve, its members, whether you want to accept it or not, are replete with 'free-market' ideologues, and like Hayek, try to impose the 'free-market' by force.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (3/3)
And Pinochet again HAD to devalue the currency, he was forced to because of the crash caused by Hayek's Ultra free market which caused speculation to run rampant. And foreign debts were guaranteed returns even after the crash. Again it was only by turning away from the so called 'free-market' junk that Chile was saved.
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
@thewaterwillcome (2/2)
Furthermore, Hayek fully supported the Dictatorship, he saw no contradiction with the oppression as long as it achieved his economic goals.
"Well, I would say that, as long-term institutions, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period. At times it is necessary for a country to have, for a time, some form or other of dictatorial power" Hayek in the newspaper "El Mercurio
Rundstedt1 9 months ago
Prof. Greg Grandin " Hayek said
-. "My personal preference,"leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism." In London Times he defended the junta, reporting that he had "not been able to find a single person even in much maligned Chile who did not agree that personal freedom was much greater under Pinochet than it had been under Allende." Of course, the thousands executed and tens of thousands tortured by Pinochet's regime weren't talking"
zsylvana 9 months ago
@theyounghistorian77
Hitler was funded by The Rothschilds and Standard Oil. War is for profit. WAKE UP
stoptherot1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stoptherot1 Michael Tsarion is the worlds premier conspiracy researcher/lecturer/author. Dr. Bill Deagle, Leo Zagami, Jordan Maxwell and Alexandre Dumas pere are highly informative as well. p.s. melting Euphoria is similar to Ozric Tentacles and Gong
augustmaquet 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stoptherot1 Have we succeeded? We think so. Before long we shall have covered with our narratives an enormous period of time; between the "Comtesse de Salisbury' and the "Comte de Monte Christo" five centuries and a half are compresed. Well, we assert that we have taught France as much history about those five centuries and a half as any historian.
augustmaquet 6 months ago
@stoptherot1 george h.w. bush's father,george PRESSCOTT bush,funded hitler in and the nazis in ww2
1123359 5 months ago
@thewaterwillcom (7)
National Socialist drive, German national reason, the non-political Stahlhelm, and - not forgotten by us - Papen. It is so unimaginably wonderful ... What an achievement by Hindenburg!" - Louise Solmitz, A Conservative Schoolteacher from Hamburg; reacting to Hitler's appointment to the chancellorship on 30 january 1933. Quoted in Ian Kershaw, "Hitler" (abridged), p260.
theyounghistorian77 9 months ago
inb4 partyvan.
pqwilrj 11 months ago
why does he care what they do with tax,he dont pay any
redrose971 11 months ago
@ skunktem .. I don't really care what ppl do. as long as it doesn't involve me.When my tax money goes to fund 2 gay men who want to adopt, that Darwin's law made it/them incapable of producing their own children, (Nature it'self iow when they say nature made me gay) so, my tax money goes to fund the CPS who takes away a kid from his dad for smoking pot, then gives him to the gay men who maybe smoke legal medical weed. also paid by my taxes. Then that's UNFAIR. Not morally, but personally.
snowfallzz 1 year ago
...That camera guy is terrible. Haha
Patapocalypse 1 year ago
The truth will set us free. Wear the white arm band!!! say NO to slavery and control
gringapolska 1 year ago
this guy is a complete moron... is he confusing fascism with nazism?! ...people need to read...
itaman13 1 year ago
@itaman13 Nazism was a form of fascism. What are you talking about?
LTBL88 1 year ago
FUCKING BITCH! I served in Iraq at the same time, in the same unit with you. You are nothing but a scared bitch, always complaining, always crying about "serving" in the Marine Corps. You were known as the "CAG Shit Bird." You did not defent the Constitution or the Corps. You nasty civilian, Nasty Human piece of shit. Don't ever call yourself a brother in arms. You are the 10% we are warned about in the Corps. Rest in peace knowing that there's Soldiers and Marines keeping you safe.
manuelalopez23 1 year ago
@manuelalopez23 warned about?? no you mean brainwashed about,
Nice to know you like being a Marine in the modern day version of the British Empire, you served? big deal, you served for fucking lie.
siggy16 1 year ago
@manuelalopez23 how do you justify protecting civilians from "bad guys" when clearly civilians are beneath you?
cloudnexus 1 year ago
this guy is amazing! thank you for putting this up! the only problem is that today we have a misconception of what fascism was politically. in reality fascism failed to withstand the pressure and evil of hitler, however if one reads the fascist manifesto they are confused, it doesn't sound so bad, fascism was a leftist progressive youth movement much like the one this vid promotes. the tyranny we face today is not fascism its anarcho-capitalism(corporate government). its much worse
thewaterwillcome 1 year ago
@thewaterwillcome Adam Kokesh a fierce supporter of Capitalism, as am I. I agree with you that it is undeniable that our problem today is corporate government however let's not get bogged down with labels. The bottom line is you either support freedom or you do not. To support freedom inherently means you support private property rights, this is the foundation of Capitalism. Unfortunately as Adam points out in the video below what we have today is NOT Capitalism.
/watch?v=E5LhTmOFC-8
reefer75 1 year ago
@reefer75 I kno he supports capitalism, unfortunately capitalism+weak gov.=corporate gov. what we have today is capitalism its not smiths utopian kind or a free market but the corporations acting in their own best interest are the cause of corruption and inequality in the markets the invisible hand didn't work. I cannot support private property rights because to many ppl cannot and will not ever be able to afford private property under capitalism
stwr.org/about/overview.html
thewaterwillcome 1 year ago
@thewaterwillcome What we have today is capitalism+strong government = fascism. To say the USG is weak is simply false. It has never been more powerful, if by weak you mean corrupt than we agree. However, the invisible hand didn't work because it was repeatedly strong armed by the FED. When the dollar ultimately collapses many lower class people will have the opportunity to own private property. Unfortunately, I can never support STWR because by it is centralized power (i.e. tyranny).
reefer75 1 year ago
@reefer75 a republic is centralized power to, are you an anarchist? i meant it was corruptible the invisible hand failing long before the fed & other central banks. when the dollar collapses it will ether be replaced by another currency or their will be local currencies ether way there will be poor ppl & those who lack resources to obtain property. there was poor ppl before there was currency. STWR wants things necessary for survival removed from the free market and distributed to those in need.
thewaterwillcome 1 year ago
@thewaterwillcome The original intent of the republic was not centralized power, obviously it did not turn out that way. However, we still have what remains of the Constitution as a way to restore limited government and decentralize power (i.e. States rights). What is stopping the current psychopaths running the US government from controlling STWR? Does STWR give people a choice to opt out of the system? If not it is simple tyranny implemented by force and coercion.
reefer75 1 year ago
@reefer75 Sharing The Worlds Resources is not some authoritarian system its a world policy org. that sees the US backed WTO, IMF, and world bank as organizations that use public funds to exploit poor nations for the benefit of international banks & seeks to replace it with a nonprofit group that distributes necessary resources according to need. its not a control system, it removes life necessary resources from the profit based free market, the rest of the free market is left alone. compromise
thewaterwillcome 1 year ago
@thewaterwillcome My point in this entire conversation is anytime you consolidate or centralize power it has been proven throughout all of history without fail that it produces authoritarianism and tyranny. I don't doubt for a second that STWR has the best intentions. However, giving that kind of power to one organization to control life support is nothing short of lunacy. No doubt the profit based free market has many flaws however STWR is NOT the solution.
reefer75 1 year ago
@reefer75 you will never create a stable system w/o central power we walk a razors edge between freedom & tyranny, get used to it. you dnt understand stwr its a replacement for the "unholy trinity" 100,000 ppl starve to death a day because they cant afford food on a free market thereare enough resources to save them but there is no profit in it so they die genocide everyday. capitalism hasn't worked out for most ppl so far. control life support? there is no life support. they die every second.
thewaterwillcome 1 year ago
@thewaterwillcome Progressive youth movement? Nope, not even close. Not even kinda close. It was a right wing nationalist movement that used some left wing rhetoric to win over the working class. Big Business funded Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco into power. And prominent conservatives like Von Hindenburg, Von Papen and Vittorio were the ones who brought Hitler and Mussolini into the fold in coalition governments before they became dictatorships.
DaHonestAbe 1 year ago
@DaHonestAbe it was progressive movement that used right wing rhetoric to gain support over the commies. hitler was a nazi franco was a falangists, they wernt fascists. falangists were national syndicalists so closer to fascsism but wanted to preserve catholic traditions so not fascists, but classicaly right wing in that aspect, also all movements were aristocracies so again classically right wing, but by that standard communism is right wing! fascism isnt right wing in the modern sense at all
thewaterwillcome 1 year ago
@thewaterwillcome Wow, waaaayyy off. All fascist states preserved the catholic church, even if they were anti catholic in the beginning. And Franco went the other way ideologically from falange. The left by and large were surpressed, and the banker as well as the captains of industry were the main backers of the fascist movements (thyssen, stinnes, vanelli, etc.) They were right wing by the period of that time, and today. Seems like you have some reading to do. Be happy to make recommendations.
DaHonestAbe 1 year ago
@DaHonestAbe if being supported by the elite is right wing then every democrat and liberal on the hill are part of the radical right, dnt be a fool. mussolini personally hated catholics, he made treaty with them to consolidate the country and gain power and respect. what ur referring to are lateran Treaties, they were and still are a good thing. the only fascist state was italy. fascism is the polar opposite of limited gov and free markets so name one modern right wing aspect of fascism.
thewaterwillcome 1 year ago
@DaHonestAbe con't: right wing during that period of time was monarchy and perseving traditional social orders. the fascist movment sought to destroy the traditional order and create a united national sydicalist state . if u think national sydicalism is right wing by any standard then ur an idiot. they were very left wing in their time, mussolini called it the "third way" and "right-wing socialism" as a ploitical ploy.
thewaterwillcome 1 year ago
@thewaterwillcome Actually, they weren't left wing, and had minimalist syndical support. The third way was a lie by mussolini and he admitted that in 1921 when he claimed that he wanted to rid the economic state and privatize the state owned industries, lifting the burden on tax payers. There was no creation of a united syndicalist state, no serious text states that at all. It was a big business corporatocracy that was maintained through violent repression of labor. No proof fo your assertions.
DaHonestAbe 1 year ago
@DaHonestAbe I meant minimial syndicalist support. I would suggest reading"Facts and Fascism" by George Seldes. All economic and war history that is accredited doesn't support a word of what you're saying. If it was leftist in practice, then the west never would've supported it. You seem to have a very tough time seperating fascist rhetoric from fascist action. Again I say, you have some reading to do.
DaHonestAbe 1 year ago
@DaHonestAbe I said progressive youth movement, not a progressive youth mussolini. mussolini was a corrupted pig he was the leader of the movement & used it to gain power. the fascists gov didnt do anything the movement had intended. the ideology was supported by leftists in the west. i was referring to the ideas of the movement, so instead trying to be so superior why dnt u do some reading urself & read the fascist manifesto, written by fascists. Then tell me its not progressive.
thewaterwillcome 1 year ago
@DaHonestAbe con't: and there is nothing inherently right wing abt a corporatocracy, that would depend on the ppl running it, and how they ran it. other than the fact the actual fascist state was a aristocracy you have not given any example abt how the movement or the state was right wing in classical or modern terms. it was not a monarchy and sought to radically change the status quo, and it certainly was not a limited free market government, so what specifically is right wing abt it?
thewaterwillcome 1 year ago
@thewaterwillcome Here are some quotes directly from the fascists themselves.
"The State must have a police, a judiciary, an army, and a foreign policy. All other things, and I do not exclude secondary education, must go back to the private activity of individuals. If one wants to save the State, the Collectivist State must be abolished" - Mussolini, "Il Primo Discorso alla Camera", 21 June 1921. Printed in Mussolini, Scritti e Discorsi II (pp. 165-188), p. 187
DaHonestAbe 1 year ago
@thewaterwillcome "Regarding the economy we are explicitly antisocialist... I will give the railways
and the telegraphs back to private hands, because the current state of things is outrageous and vulnerable in all its parts. The ethical State is not the monopolistic State, the bureaucratic State, but the one which reduces its functions to what is strictly necessary. (continued)
DaHonestAbe 1 year ago
@thewaterwillcome We are against the economic State." - Mussolini, "Discorso all'Augusteo", 7 November 1921. Printed in Mussolini, Scritti e Discorsi II (pp. 199-206), pp. 203-204
DaHonestAbe 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thewaterwillcome "Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the "RIGHT", a Fascist century" - Giovanni Gentile (Right from the fascist doctrine)
DaHonestAbe 1 year ago
@thewaterwillcome In Fact, by 1921 Mussolini announced himself that he spoke from "the benches of the Extreme right, where formerly no-one dared to sit" Quoted in the readers digest, "The World at arms", p13
DaHonestAbe 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thewaterwillcome "In terms of economics, we are overtly anti-socialist. I do not regret having been a socialist. But I have cut my bridges with the past. I have no nostalgia. (Continued)
DaHonestAbe 1 year ago
@thewaterwillcome I don't think about entering socialism but rather about leaving it. In economic terms we are liberals [In the Smithian sense] because we believe that the national economy cannot be entrusted to collective entities or to the bureaucracy." Mussolini 1921 Printed in "Mussolini, Scritti e Discorsi II (pp. 199-206), pp. 203-204" I
DaHonestAbe 1 year ago
@thewaterwillcome It didn't have free enterprise, only private enterprise. So though the market wasn't "free" (and it never really has been), profits and capital remained private. And from 1922-25, there was mass privatization in Italy. Economic minister D'Stefani privatized: Steel, Life Insurance, Railways, Tollways, and Banks. Just to name a few. And as far as the people running the corporotacracy, they were all right wing. Leftists were beaten jailed and killed.
DaHonestAbe 1 year ago
@thewaterwillcome I've done my homework on this movement kid. I've read some of the best historical and economic literature. Even the 1934 Fortune Mag article that praised mussolini for building up business and breaking labor along with the Italian Left. All of academia knows the movement was politically right wing, though it stole the left's thunder by deceptive use of working class rhetoric. So there we have it. I recommend Robert Paxton and Sir Allan Bullock to you.
DaHonestAbe 1 year ago
@DaHonestAbe you cant honestly argue that fascism was abt free market & limited government, so u cant really say its rightwing. the fact that the leaders of leftist movements like fascism & communism are usually dicks who end up raping the ppl who put them in power doesn't matter, the fascist movemnt put mussolini into power and if u want to understand the political perspective of the movemnt u can read it in their own words, read the fascist manifesto from 1919 and tell me its right wing.
thewaterwillcome 11 months ago
@thewaterwillcome I have read it. And I've read the Road to Resurgence by Hitler in 1927. The political spectrum takes place in regards to who runs the means of the economy. Fascist nations expanded the private sector. It wasn't free market, but with the type of inflation they had, no laissz faire economist could have a solution. All of academia globally recognize fascism as right wing. You do two things wrong: 1) you never talk abut what they outside of doctrine which was never followed. (cont)
DaHonestAbe 11 months ago
@thewaterwillcome And 2.) you reduce essence to form. Genocide happens at the hands of despots, and their political affiliations have nothing to do with their attrocities. Genocide has happened at the hands of left wing commies (pol pot, mao, stalin, etc.) and right wing fascists (franco, hitler, suharto, etc.) The Doctrine of Fascism was very anti socialist and anti communist. But their economic views were very corporatist. Same as in Germany and Spain. The experts favor me on this one.
DaHonestAbe 11 months ago
Comment removed
DaHonestAbe 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DaHonestAbe You can't say because they've never practiced some utopian form of capitalism that's never been done is anti intellectual and dishonest. Again, never said fascism was free market. Not once did I say it was. But right wing economics is about a private run economy. And state intervention does not make it left wing. Especially when that intervention is done on behalf of the super rich. Sorry man, you still have some homework to do.
DaHonestAbe 11 months ago
@DaHonestAbe i dont think authoritarian dictators belong anywhere on the political spectrum, their political ideology is their own will. regardless of what happened to the private sector under fascist and nazi rule you cannot argue that the movement or the leaders represented a desire for limitations to the size and power of the state. most ppl on the right wing want a reduction in the size and power of the state so what part of the right wing are u talking abt?
thewaterwillcome 11 months ago
@thewaterwillcome Let me make this abundantly clear. Right and Left HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT. They have everything to do how the political and market economy is run. An mainly public sector economy is left wing. A mainly private economy is right wing. The fascist states had economies in where the private sector was broadened. The small gov't argument is a fantasy that's never been tried. Right Wing leaders in this nation have regularly expanded government.
DaHonestAbe 11 months ago
@DaHonestAbe yes right wing leaders have expanded the gov because they just want their own form of big gov. the private sector benefited & grew under fascism bc certain companies/banks would rather have their profits handed to them by the state than actually compete. it cant be considered a truly private sector if its controlled by the state. if u think u can compare the libertarians desire for free markets and privatization with the political goals of fascist leaders then ur out of ur mind!
thewaterwillcome 10 months ago
@thewaterwillcome Again, read what I said. It wasn't a free market. It was a private war economy. Libertarians may desire something else, that's fine. But no progressive, myself included, wants a fascist gov't or economy. Guys like me would've been the first attacked by the fascists in Italy or Germany.
DaHonestAbe 10 months ago
@DaHonestAbe when ppl on the right wing say they want a private economy they mean separate from the state. the economy under fascism was not separate from the state, it was not private. then why do progressives support the new healthcare reform? law abiding citizens are forced to give multi billion dollar insurance and pharma companies millions of dollars bc the state has ordered them to. if they dnt they get an extra tax, if they dnt pay the tax they go to jail. fascism.
thewaterwillcome 10 months ago
@DaHonestAbe con't: progressives argue for more government control over the economy, you may not want imperialism (unless its for humanitarian purposes of course) or to commit genocide but u want a fascist economy. its environmentally friendly and touchy-feely fascism but its still state control over the economy and if the ppl in the state are corrupt the the ppl get fucked over.
thewaterwillcome 10 months ago
@thewaterwillcome Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Its not surprising libertarians talk about economics without knowing history. First of all, there is no "touchy feely fascism." If its not violent and/or nationalist, it isn't fascism. Secondly, you don't get to narrow the definition of right wing to fit your agenda. There are small govt right wingers (libertarians) and big govt RWers (fascists.) Just as we have big govt lefties (commies) and small/no govt lefties (anarchists.)
DaHonestAbe 10 months ago
@thewaterwillcome secondly, the state didn't control the economy, it COLLABORATED with it. The state and the private sector found common ground with imperialist and anti labor/privatization policies. Left and right are not determined by the size of govt or the state. Right wingers throughout the state have had NO problem using the state and growing govt for their own needs. The purpose of the state is to protect wealth from labor demands. Which fascism accomplished. Wrong again, buddy.
DaHonestAbe 10 months ago
@thewaterwillcome and lastly, the left was the primary target of the fascists. It came to power with the collaboration of conservatives and heavy industry. Plus a middle class that worried about a communist take over. Progressivism argues for labor rights, better wages, and safe working conditions. All of which fascism, and modern day rightists, are against. No serious social scientist will believe that fascism is of the left. You seem to not grasp the definition of fascism.
DaHonestAbe 10 months ago
@thewaterwillcome And whether you think authoritarians should belong anywhere in politics is irrelevant. I dont think racism should exist in society, but it does. Don't argue from what you want, argue from what is. The czar in russia and the kaiser in germany right wing and autocratic. And no their political ideology isn't their own will. Their ideology goes in line with the ruling class. Be it Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet, Suharto, etc. Neocons are right wing, even if they dont represent you.
DaHonestAbe 11 months ago
@DaHonestAbe im fine if u want to call neocons fascists but the rest of us dislike neocons more than we dislike progressives. they dnt represent the real right wing.
thewaterwillcome 11 months ago
ADAM KOKESH,great american,true hero,man of integraty this is how every american soldier ought to be,every patriot support you.not like the cattle,the sheeps fighting for corporations these idiots make sick,cowards,you feel important ,badass when you go to poor countries to commit mass killings of innocent civilians ,let the politicians do the wars but no in ur delusional mind u believe u fight to protect our rights & our freedom thanks to u this country has turn into a plice state u brainwashed
agenterx7 1 year ago 2
Trying to get famous off hating on the US armed forces. This guy has no idea what his higher ranking leaders where planing and implementing.
Counter recruiting hu? This guy is a joke. Military or not, be honest and tell EVERYTHING..not this Micheal Moore BS. How much is this guy making anyway? I'm sure he was paid to speak and get on camera.
tonywood25 1 year ago
You need to stop making speeches and start taking overt action in th estreets. I am with you where and when. The government responds to cries from the people ONLY under the pressure of mass demonstrations AND civil disobedience. This was true of the Civil Rights laws and Vietnam war. The control of the government is in the hands of politicians left and right who along with those politicians who have been appointed federal judges have absolute control over our constitutional rights.
essex216 1 year ago
I think a huge problem in dealing with problems like the ones this guy raises is fragmentation of activists groups. There's a tendency for groups to get overly focused on their narrow goals, and by doing so, cut themselves off from others who are focused on similar goals. We need to unite on a realistic, and cooperative level to remove the corporate-state marriage.
lupischuckle 1 year ago
Uh Oh. It is going to be sad watching the IRS take Adam apart just as they have every other tax evader. That is, unless he has decided not to make any income.
RobertMOdell 1 year ago
Makes me think:
If americans stopped paying their taxes, wouldn´t they be just sent to jail and wouldn´t they therefore become unable to change anything?
Please explain this to me, I relly don´t get it.
Broemmelkamp69 1 year ago