Opinion Do you ever wonder if the Enlightenment was a mistake?

[Rod1]

You are the epitome of the dumb fuck self identified "independent" voter that votes down a party line one side or the other. You're just so enlightened and above it all.

You are the epitome of a champagne socialist, praising a system that has only brought misery to mankind.

Its ridiculous that 13 years of Syrian civil war has managed to produce LESS refugees than Venezuelan socialism during PEACE, but alas here we are

 

[Rod1]

You've never read deeply on fascism, or communism. You've never read any political theory at all, I'm willing to bet. Which is why your political analysis of Latin America amounts to "the bad ideas won out so bad things happened".

See this is the issue, im smart enough to not measure a system based on their so called values but their actions.

Saying you should treat an ideology based on their values then we ought to say Republican party is about "family values" "fiscal responsibility" "individual freedom" and "rule of law", because that's the shit Republicans always preach about but their actions are the direct opposite.

 

[blackheart]

See this is the issue, im smart enough to not measure a system based on their so called values but their actions.

Saying you should treat an ideology based on their values then we ought to say Republican party is about "family values" "fiscal responsibility" "individual freedom" and "rule of law", because that's the shit Republicans always preach about but their actions are the direct opposite.

Here we go again, diving back into your complete lack of political theory.

Socialism has virtually never been allowed to develop organically like capitalism was for hundreds of years. The United States was allowed to freely develop
capitalism, and was allowed to industrialize freely, for hundreds of years. Because of its material circumstances, like serfdom and the enlightenment not taking hold in Russia, Russia started the 20th century as an agrarian backwater. A few decades later, it was the second largest economy on earth and the world's second nuclear power. Then the capitalist nations of the world waged all out economic war and even threatened nuclear war to stop communism from spreading. Virtually every communist project that has ever existed, existed under constant threat of invasion, economic isolation, and annihilation. But yet, you talk like these communist projects were allowed to exist in a petri dish and failed on their own merits.

If capitalism is so great - why have former soviet bloc countries absolutely collapsed under it? After the USSR fell and it's former members adopted capitalism, why did life expectancy and virtually all quality of life indicators absolutely plummet? What happened after Allende in Chile? How come the most extreme capitalist "shock therapy" absolutely destroyed Chile?

I know Ezra Klein hasn't written about this stuff, so it's probably going to be REALLY hard for you to answer.

 

[Spam On Rye]

Capitalism and Communism are two sides of the same coin. It's all just secular humanism in the end. Kant fucked up.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Venezuela didn't happen? what about Nicaragua? the coup by Castillo? the attempts of Evo Morales to stick to power? AMLO militarization of Mexico?

Left wing authoritarianism is a huge threat to Latin America.

But the topic isn't "left-wing authoritarianism," but specifically a Soviet-style political and economic system.

You say they still exist but give examples of countries whose leaders rose to power through democratic elections, not through a "revolutionary movement." And none of those countries has seized the means of production and abolished private property like, you know, the Soviet Union did.

So again, your claim that Marxist-Leninist movements where the vanguard party are the ones calling the shots are still around, is inaccurate.

 

[Rod1]

But the topic isn't "left-wing authoritarianism," but specifically a Soviet-style political and economic system.

The topic is about people who advocate against democracy and establishing a caste type systems and how they are never arguing such because they want to be in the lower castes.

You say they still exist but give examples of countries whose leaders rose to power through democratic elections, not through a "revolutionary movement." And none of those countries has seized the means of production and abolished private property like, you know, the Soviet Union did.

Venezuela did seized the means of production, until shit blew up and they couldn't anymore.

Democratic socialism was created simply because a true revolutionary socialism requires a dictator as foil in order to rile up society and take advantage of it.

This was pretty clear with Sendero Luminoso and the FARC, its easy to justify guerrillas against a dictator like Somoza, not as easy against a democratic government.

So again, your claim that Marxist-Leninist movements where the vanguard party are the ones calling the shots are still around, is inaccurate.

I said "anti-democratic revolutionary" movements.

 

[AWilder]

The actual enlightment actually supported monarchy because the monarch was someone above being corrupted. If they were going to be awful it would be of their own individual volition.

Not that I'm a monarchist I am not I can see why people in a time before socialism saw the existence of an uncorruptable figure as a check on capital.

How was a monarch above being corrupt? History is full of corrupt kings, queens, etc

 

[SammyPops]

did not read the entire OP, but didn't it help drag us out of the power of the church and religion and superstition?