Guatemalan libertarian activist speech.

[Rod1]

What do you think of this speech?



While i disagree with a lot of what she says, she certainly destroys the hypocritical latin american left.

 

[Rod1]

Would certainly want the input of @Trotsky, i was going to dismiss the video until she got to the part of "neoliberalism" i think she nailed it completely there.

 

[Trotsky]

Would certainly want the input of @Trotsky, i was going to dismiss the video until she got to the part of "neoliberalism" i think she nailed it completely there.

Honestly, I thought the video was really fucking stupid. She started out with a hilariously obtuse misstatement of what socialism definitionally is, and then tried to pass off the very ideological core of corruption and of neoliberalism as a cure for them. Oh, and she managed to touch on all the reductive capitalist cliches as well (muh human nature!).

But my favorite part was the "not real libertarianism" type argument re privatization without liberalization. In terms of internally contradictory arguments, that is one of the most hilarious: thinking that ceding economic power to private interests will spontaneously create a self-regulating system of free markets and that promoting the "economic liberties" that necessarily enjoin that nonsensical development is in fact the way to guarantee it. For all the purported ruinous history of Latin American socialism, there are far, far more examples of how unworkable and altogether stupid that expectation is, in Latin American economic history.

In short, I was in no way impressed by this video, and I fail to see how she destroyed the Latin American left. Of all the self-unaware and short-sighted right-libertarian spiels, this is a perfect encapsulation

 

[Limbo Pete]

Honestly, I thought the video was really fucking stupid. She started out with a hilariously obtuse misstatement of what socialism definitionally is, and then tried to pass off the very ideological core of corruption and of neoliberalism as a cure for them. Oh, and she managed to touch on all the reductive capitalist cliches as well (muh human nature!).

But my favorite part was the "not real libertarianism" type argument re privatization without liberalization. In terms of internally contradictory arguments, that is one of the most hilarious: thinking that ceding economic power to private interests will spontaneously create a self-regulating system of free markets and that promoting the "economic liberties" that necessarily enjoin that nonsensical development is in fact the way to guarantee it. For all the purported ruinous history of Latin American socialism, there are far, far more examples of how unworkable and altogether stupid that expectation is, in Latin American economic history.

In short, I was in no way impressed by this video, and I fail to see how she destroyed the Latin American left. Of all the self-unaware and short-sighted right-libertarian spiels, this is a perfect encapsulation

Yeah, that speech was absolute dogshit.

 

[Trotsky]

Yeah, that speech was absolute dogshit.

@Rod1 Can you tell me what parts (using timestamps) that you thought was helpful or on-point? Unless I missed something, this gal is well-beneath your reading level.

 

[Rod1]

Honestly, I thought the video was really fucking stupid. She started out with a hilariously obtuse misstatement of what socialism definitionally is, and then tried to pass off the very ideological core of corruption and of neoliberalism as a cure for them. Oh, and she managed to touch on all the reductive capitalist cliches as well (muh human nature!).

Arent you doing the same? not really establishing what neoliberalism is?

But my favorite part was the "not real libertarianism" type argument re privatization without liberalization. In terms of internally contradictory arguments, that is one of the most hilarious: thinking that ceding economic power to private interests will spontaneously create a self-regulating system of free markets and that promoting the "economic liberties" that necessarily enjoin that nonsensical development is in fact the way to guarantee it. For all the purported ruinous history of Latin American socialism, there are far, far more examples of how unworkable and altogether stupid that expectation is, in Latin American economic history.

Ceding economic power is not the same as ceding political and judicial power, she advocates for a strong rule of law (ergo she isnt a true libertarian) and fiscal discipline as solutions to the problem.

As to the problem with blaming neoliberalism, is simple.

These are the 10 points of the Washington Consensus which is flouted as "neoliberalism imposed on the indebted poor"

1.- Strong fiscal discipline.

2.- Prioritize government spending towards educacion and health.

3.- Fiscal reform towards a larger base with moderate taxes.

4.- Financial deregulation and market based interest rates.

5.- Floating currencies.

6.- Free trade among nations.

7.- Openess to foreign direct investments.

8.- Privatization of public companies.

9.- Market deregulation.

10.- Respect to property rights.

Care to name one latin "neoliberal" country that implemented 6 or more of the above and still went broke?

In short, I was in no way impressed by this video, and I fail to see how she destroyed the Latin American left. Of all the self-unaware and short-sighted right-libertarian spiels, this is a perfect encapsulation

You dont find hypocritical when a nation whose main power supply is hydro goes and financially support an NGO which is opposed to hydro projects on other countries?

Nonetheles i think what im getting at is that latin american leftists complain about bad government but when they get in power they expand the state and political repression to levels that the right rarely gets to match.

 

[Rod1]

I think you asked me the other time what i thought about AMLO, i got to say that while i find the man as detestable as most politicians i do agree with the man he wants as fecretary of finance and public credit.

Economic orthodoxy over all, which makes me thing a lot of leftists radicals will be disillusioned with AMLO.

 

[Rod1]

Basically AMLO the "leftist" candidate is proposing the 10 points of the Washington Consensus, which leads me to believe that most of the "left vs right" non-sense is just posturing.

There are only good and bad governments.

 

[Limbo Pete]

There are only good and bad governments.

^^^
This
And imo that is crystal clear in central/south america generally, all the more so in Guatemala.

We can't let their government become, uh, whatever..... Quick! Let's help kick off decades long civil war!

 

[Rod1]

^^^
This
And imo that is crystal clear in central/south america generally, all the more so in Guatemala.

We can't let their government become, uh, whatever..... Quick! Let's help kick off decades long civil war!

Pretty much, the Cold war certainly threw a wrench into the region, where both right wing and leftists bad government sought backing from a world power in order to legitimize their rule.

I think Costa Rica is proof that a semi-decent government can solve most issues affecting Central American countries. Chile is the proof that market based solutions can at least solve the Latin American countries macroeconomic issues.

Wealth inequality is still a very big problem in the entire region, creating opportunities for populists to rise to power.

 

[Rod1]

I wish a lot of you guys could speak spanish, there are plenty of interesting concepts about populism both in the left and right wing in the hispanic world recent history that isnt plagued by identity politics.

What i find interesting about her, is that she has a deep, true commitment towards her ideology, as opposed to most American "libertarians" i met here that are simply closet statists who are now in the Trump-wagon.

She was invited to talk about her book to a right wing show in Spain and she had a civil, although quite heated disagreement with the guests there for obvious reasons. Seems that they invited her for her attacks against XXI century socialism, and then she starts talking about the flaws of right wing governments.

She also criticizes the right wing latin American governments with the same rule that she criticizes left wing governments and blames the former for the later.



Although at the end of the interview she is asked if she is "ultra liberal" (liberal in the context of classic liberalism) and she says that there is a more extremist version of her views which calls for the abolishment of the State. (sorry @Greoric but your views are fringe everywhere in the world).

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Honestly, I thought the video was really fucking stupid. She started out with a hilariously obtuse misstatement of what socialism definitionally is, and then tried to pass off the very ideological core of corruption and of neoliberalism as a cure for them. Oh, and she managed to touch on all the reductive capitalist cliches as well (muh human nature!).

But my favorite part was the "not real libertarianism" type argument re privatization without liberalization. In terms of internally contradictory arguments, that is one of the most hilarious: thinking that ceding economic power to private interests will spontaneously create a self-regulating system of free markets and that promoting the "economic liberties" that necessarily enjoin that nonsensical development is in fact the way to guarantee it. For all the purported ruinous history of Latin American socialism, there are far, far more examples of how unworkable and altogether stupid that expectation is, in Latin American economic history.

In short, I was in no way impressed by this video, and I fail to see how she destroyed the Latin American left. Of all the self-unaware and short-sighted right-libertarian spiels, this is a perfect encapsulation

Exactly.

It was extremely cliched and gave the same talking points that any average American right-winger gives, just with a Spanish accent.

 

[Son of Jamin]

I wish a lot of you guys could speak spanish, there are plenty of interesting concepts about populism both in the left and right wing in the hispanic world recent history that isnt plagued by identity politics.

What i find interesting about her, is that she has a deep, true commitment towards her ideology, as opposed to most American "libertarians" i met here that are simply closet statists who are now in the Trump-wagon.

She was invited to talk about her book to a right wing show in Spain and she had a civil, although quite heated disagreement with the guests there for obvious reasons. Seems that they invited her for her attacks against XXI century socialism, and then she starts talking about the flaws of right wing governments.

She also criticizes the right wing latin American governments with the same rule that she criticizes left wing governments and blames the former for the later.



Although at the end of the interview she is asked if she is "ultra liberal" (liberal in the context of classic liberalism) and she says that there is a more extremist version of her views which calls for the abolishment of the State. (sorry @Greoric but your views are fringe everywhere in the world).

I’m trying to refresh my high school Spanish as I will travel with my queen to Colombia next year to visit her relatives and I would like to have a real conversation with them and not just nod, smile and look like a buffoon.

As for left- and right regimes, she seems to raise some valid points about how they may differ in language and official policy, but at the end of the day, they don’t benefit the people in the same way as they benefit their stakeholders.

 

[snakedafunky]

hmmm sounds like she gets basic facts wrong. It depends not so much on what political system you have but rather what mentality the people have that live under that.
Prussian socialism worked fine. The new Chinese communist's system works fine. The Japanese monarchy worked fine.
In fact, it was the Non-democratic sort of authoritarian Kaisereich that came up with health insurance, retirement insurance, mandatory and free education and workers right we take for granted today.
Those are not achievements of democracy.

Most countries in South America would fail under any system (maybe not that bad).
While you can apply any system to the Chinese the Northern Europeans or Japanese they will succeed in all of them.
Its just simply the mentality not a race thing before anyone asks.
A South American or African that grows up in Northern Europe will have the same mentality.

 

[Greoric]

(sorry @Greoric but your views are fringe everywhere in the world).

Hah, don't I know it. Fortunately, I'm not interested in an ethical way to organize society to be the winner of the popularity contest.

 

[Rod1]

Exactly.

It was extremely cliched and gave the same talking points that any average American right-winger gives, just with a Spanish accent.

Most American cliches also come with a deep sense of hypocrisy, Trump is the epitome of that.

 

[Quequeg]

Latin American has and had a real problem with decent Governance, left or right, the people get screwed.

 

[sweede]

I wish a lot of you guys could speak spanish, there are plenty of interesting concepts about populism both in the left and right wing in the hispanic world recent history that isnt plagued by identity politics.

.

I´m impressed that she could keep up for over 10 minutes. I was waiting for the moment when the language barrier would crack, and it would all be gibberish. But it never came. I think she is a brave woman speaking up in a mens world.

 

[Rod1]

hmmm sounds like she gets basic facts wrong. It depends not so much on what political system you have but rather what mentality the people have that live under that.
Prussian socialism worked fine. The new Chinese communist's system works fine. The Japanese monarchy worked fine.
In fact, it was the Non-democratic sort of authoritarian Kaisereich that came up with health insurance, retirement insurance, mandatory and free education and workers right we take for granted today.
Those are not achievements of democracy.

Most countries in South America would fail under any system (maybe not that bad).
While you can apply any system to the Chinese the Northern Europeans or Japanese they will succeed in all of them.
Its just simply the mentality not a race thing before anyone asks.
A South American or African that grows up in Northern Europe will have the same mentality.

She gets to that point where she says that these countries where said social programs work is because they have both a strong rule of law and a strong sense of private property.

The Japanese monarchy didnt worked fine, Japan was heavily impoverished for decades until the Shogunate fell. Then you had the nascent Japanese democracy of the Taisho period fall to the populist militaristic wing of the Japanese government which ended up in disaster.

Thats a great example because it shows how weak institutions can lead to democracy falling to populism when there is social discontent.

As to latin America being destined to failure, i disagree, i think the resilience of the zone despite a constant streak of bad left and right wing governments is proof that the people themselves have a strong drive to succeed.

And in places where sound economic policies are adopted they see a surge in general productivity and macroeconomic indicators, the issue is that corruption and weak institutions have made the changes too slow and not generalized.

 

[Rod1]

I´m impressed that she could keep up for over 10 minutes. I was waiting for the moment when the language barrier would crack, and it would all be gibberish. But it never came. I think she is a brave woman speaking up in a mens world.

Language barrier? i think they were all speaking pretty good spanish.