LogFAQs > #975152578

Prismsblade posted...

I'm not sure frankly, I just believe it's more likely they had a failing system and foundation that sabotaged them more then any foreign interference. Plenty of country's still rose and progressed overtime from Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, china and so on. All thanks to capiltisim BTW.

That's a convenient consequence of couping and sabotaging them, then propagandizing them as pure evil for decades. People don't get a sense of what their merits are, they can by necessity, only make assumptions, and those assumptions can only be based on ideology. An ideology helpfully supplied by the couping society.

All of the Asian Tigers other than China were handpicked for success as a policy to destroy leftist potential in those countries. And none of them succeeded through the neoliberal capitalism of today. They all had heavy state direction of the economy, protectionist policies, authoritarian capitalism, etc. No one is allowed to do what they did today as the US and international institutions force neoliberal capitalism on any developing country that wants money today.

That and other country's had century's still to flourish before any interference at all. And achieved very little compared capitalist ones.

The countries that did flourish did so directly through conquest and subjugation of the very countries you're saying weren't interfered with. When were those centuries where Asia, Africa, and Latin America weren't colonized/exploited, but Europe/the US was already capitalist? Colonialism started as early as the 1490s, Capitalism started in the 1500s. And Capitalist wealth was funded directly by the international exploitation, to the point that such wealth directly sparked the industrial revolution in Britain.

Demand is shaped by the needs and wants of the people. Which are infinite and ever growing. Yet another reason why captilsim is the the most compatible system for humanity.

They are not infinite and ever growing, though they are great. Capitalism generates ever greater demand, to the point of being unsustainable, while not meeting people's actual needs for community, rest, leisure, self determination etc. People had been content with far less than what they feel they constantly need under Capitalism for all of human history, and that's in large part because they had those other, more important things. It's possible to do both, but not under Capitalism.

And I think you're overestimating humanity by a wide margin of you believe they'd be willing to make any comprises for a better world if they knew how much pain and suffering it would cause them.

I think you're underestimating the hell out of humanity, and that's core conservative assumption, that our nature is fixed and that it's awful. If you genuinely think humanity would rather burn for an uneven and temporary period of enhanced wealth, rather than a substantiable system of living, I don't know if we can ever agree.

Those same people aren't interested in paying more taxs, hell it's sort of political suicide for any politician to even entertain the thought.

That aversion to taxes, and the assumption that ordinary people would bear the burden of it has been deliberately generated over the last century by capital and their buddies. It doesn't have to be that way at all.

And without a major overhurl to them and higher taxs its going to reach a breaking point eventually. And the suffering then will be unimaginable.