Trial of Derek Chauvin, who Killed George Floyd

Post Reply New Topic

Chauvin deserves to spend the rest of his natural life behind bars; I don't support state-sanctioned murder, even of murderers.

Minnesota has no death penalty ... no legal death penalty.

Just stick him in with the general population of any prison cell block and let mob justice take its course.

Warden: "How did he die?"

Inmates (unison): "He fell."

Warden: "He looks too badly beaten up to say he just 'fell'."

Inmate (leader): "He fell ... twice."

I'd be fine with that. Or maybe he can pull a "Harvey Weinstein" and do it himself with the cameras unexpectedly malfunctioning.

A socialist with integrity. That's rarity.

I'd prefer him dead and the mayor and maybe the police chief in jail for neglect and incompetence.

Last edited by Daddy63 on 07 Apr 2021, 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'm a socialist, not a liberal.

If you're Capitalist like me, liberal = Socialist.

But capitalism and socialism aren't exact opposites and every single economy on earth incorporates elements of capitalism, socialism and mercantilism.

Further, liberalism = capitalism. All that's changed in the past 100 years or so is that now most liberals realize laissez-faire doesn't work so now they've started to pilfer Keynesian and social democratic ideas to cover the most obvious flaws in classical liberalism.

For me, Libertarianism = Capitalism.

We are products of our life experiences. I spent much of my youth in Latin America and saw how Socialism destroyed countries like Argentina, Chile, Cuba and Bolivia. I spent most of my adult years working in Chile and China watching those countries become wealthy nations by embracing economic Capitalism.

Chile's not such a great example, there's a great divide between the best and worst off and Pinochet had to dismiss his Chicago school advisors before things actually started to improve. Certainly their ideas continued to have influence but it wasn't unchallenged anymore.

China's an even worse example because they're very much a top-down, centrally planned 'state capitalist' economy that largely rejects liberal ideas unless they're forced to adopt them due to failures of ideas they prefer.

I don't think China is a good case-study for socialists or for capitalists both because of how widespread mercantilist principles are in their general economic planning as well as how appalling the scale of human rights violations were to achieve their growth. They seem more like an example of taking the worst of all three approaches even though it has created a great degree of wealth for party loyalists and a bit of wealth for urban Han Chinese.

China seems like a totalitarian's wet dream, which means it's pretty much a nightmare for anyone who looks towards libertarian socialism more than Leninism. There's not many western socialists who appreciate Lenin or the Soviet model and even fewer who view the current PRC with any fondness or admiration. That's not to suggest those types don't exist, only that they're not very influential on the left overall; they get dismissed as 'red fascism' and treated like an embarrassment.

If I ever manage to get my video series on colonialism started China is a topic I'd like to handle because of how much there is to delve into.

It's a good point that attempts at Socialism often end up as "State Capitalism." Hitler's Nazi Germany, Lenin's Soviet Union and Mao's China are perfect examples of attempted Socialism ending up with political elites controlling the factors of production for the benefit of autocrats.

Don't those who attempt Socialism always need someone to blame for their failures like the Uighurs or the Jews or the Capitalists? Is there any attempt at Socialism in the history of the world that was successful?

In Chile are you saying that Socialism actually improved the country? Was it Socialism that made Chile the richest nation per capita in Latin America? I spent most of the 1990's in Chile working in entrepreneurial ventures and that certainly isn't my recollection.

I don't believe China is blaming the Uighurs even if they are committing genocide against them. The NSDAP and Stalin actually blamed international conspiracies (either Jewish, or all the same with the explicit antisemitism washed off) for problems they faced. China by and large picked internal groups early on but hasn't really used blame in a long time, they mostly use bragging about what they frame as their successes these days. Minorities that get in the way or get left behind get ignored just like they do in America (or Canada), they don't get blamed like they did in the other two examples.

Authoritarianism always needs to blame an enemy, so it's not surprising that authoritarian socialism shares that trait with other authoritarian ideologies. Socialism isn't the common trait though. Every state that has claimed to be socialist so far comes from a fairly limited portion of the socialist family tree. Smaller scale implementations like in kibbutz seem to work but it's also not really intended to be implemented on a large scale.

While I don't consider them socialists I'd say social democrats reforms to liberal economies have largely been successful. While they're sometimes more top-down than I'd consider ideal they have often achieved most of their intended goals and when they haven't there's been lessons learned that can improve future implementations.

The economy there wasn't good before or under Allende, I don't believe he had power long enough to draw conclusions, especially given active interference from the US.

I agree that expansion occurred under Pinochet but that clearly it didn't benefit everyone. If most people didn't enjoy an increase in their standard of living the reforms didn't improve anything for most people.

The Chinese Communist Party has ironically embraced economic Capitalism to create economic growth and have no social welfare programs to speak of for the poor/unemployed. It's "Communist" in name only. If you don't work in China today, you get basically nothing. Though there are many issues with it, their model based on Capitalism has given the developing world a path so that billions of poor people around the world may possibly dramatically improve their situation.

Europe has moved from a "tax the wealthy and companies" social democratic model to a nationalistic "tax the middle class" model to ensure basic benefits for a limited number of poor/unemployed. Capital gains taxes are non-existent and corporate tax rates are single digit levels in many countries while the middle class pays 60-70% of income in taxes. GDP growth is consistently below inflation rates. The continent has become irrelevant globally and innovation is practically non-existent.

In developing countries, Socialism is a total disaster. No growth leaves people stuck in economic disaster simply hoping for a enough food to eat for a next meal. At least Europe and the US have something to redistribute though they can no longer grow significantly faster than inflation.

The Nationalist and liberal-leaning models of the US and America totally neglect the developing world and leave citizens of the developing world yearning for a Socialist model that creates nothing. Without opportunity many of them attempt to immigrate to places like the EU and the US. Without growth in the US and EU, we are simply dividing the same size pie in ever more and smaller pieces in an attempt to feed a continuously growing population.

Growth is the only way out and Capitalism, while not perfect, is the only economic model in the history of the world to generate significant economic growth and move millions out of poverty.

If you went to a poor neighborhood in Chile in 1973 and then revisited the same neighborhood again in 1990, I'd say it's impossible to conclude that the standard of living under Pinochet didn't dramatically improve. It wasn't by a little bit.

For sure Allende wasn't in power long and Chile was already a poor country when he became President. It's also clear that the country dramatically declined in the few years he was President though you could argue that outside factors had some influence.

Socialism or Democratic Socialism have never helped a developing country.

Quit advocating vigilante justice, Fnord.