Last military leader with military experience and the only one since to earnestly speak out against the military industrial complex.
He's a legitimately interesting dude.
Last military leader with military experience and the only one since to earnestly speak out against the military industrial complex.
He's a legitimately interesting dude.
Perfect example of why the political party system is pointless. I’d argue if anything it’s a tool used to undermine the whole democratic process
I agree; particularly the two party system we have. It effectively splits us into teams fighting each other instead of those in power.
The town of Cheran in Mexico got rid of their corrupt mayor who is in the pocket of cartels. They also got rid of political parties because they believe it only cause divisions. The town then adopted an anarchist system whereby they elect a leader once a year. They set up their own militia patrols. So far, they've been successful.
Haha yeah we should have a single party compose only of workers with representatives paid only as much as their average constituant and subject to instant recall 👀
That would be AuThOrItArIaN!
Anyway, you have to Vote Blue NO MATTER WHO!!!
You believe in an authoritarian state. Yes it would be authoritarian if you install a dictator. It doesn't matter how communist the state is. Like, that's your whole mo.
You trust in the dictatorship of capital, and it has convinced you to worship at its feet.
Riddle me this. When the USSR collapsed and the state assets were sold off to private entities. Who were those entities?
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_therapy_(economics)
In post-Soviet Russia and other post-Communist states, neoliberal reforms based on the Washington Consensus resulted in a surge in excess mortality and decreasing life expectancy, along with rising economic inequality, corruption, and poverty.
You did not answer my question.
The Russian government believed that the open sale of state-owned assets, as opposed to the voucher program, would have likely resulted in the further concentration of ownership among the Russian mafia and the nomenklatura, which they sought to avoid. Nevertheless, contrary to the government's expectations, insiders managed to acquire control over most of the assets, which remained largely dependent on government support for years to come.
Because most people were not well-informed about the nature of the program or were very poor, they were quick to sell their vouchers for money, unprepared or unwilling to invest.[18] Most vouchers—and, hence, most shares—wound up being acquired by the management of the enterprises. Although Russia's initial privatization legislation attracted widespread popular support given its promise to distribute the national wealth among the general public and ordinary employees of the privatized enterprises, eventually the public felt deceived, with most people selling their vouchers to survive the economic collapse following the soviet dissolution.
I don't understand your point. The process of privatization had terrible results. It was managed by pro-capitalists and facilitated the corruption and rise in mafia power.
In the months before the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991, soon-to-be president Boris Yeltsin began assembling a team of economic reformers led by Yegor Gaidar, then a young reformist economist, and including Anatoly Chubais. The reform team initially considered Swedish social democracy as a model for Russia, but Gaidar opted instead to study Hungary as a template and was influenced by Poland's use of shock therapy. Both Gaidar and Chubais were convinced that despite Russia's uniquely non-capitalist economic history, a market economy could successfully take hold in the country. Following the August 1991 coup d'état attempt, the economic situation in the country dramatically worsened and an acute food shortage emerged. In October, Yeltsin delivered a speech in which he declared that price controls would be lifted on January 1, 1992, over Gaidar's recommendation that no specific date for the freeing of prices be given.
My point it was transfered exactly to the people already in positions of power...
That's what happens when you have liberals in charge of reforming the economy. And the results really speak for themselves.
But they were 'elected' by the communist party... how can they be liberals?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Yeltsin
The dissolution of the USSR was led by liberals gaining power.
He later stood as a political independent, during which time he was viewed as being ideologically aligned with liberalism.
The purported goal of perestroika was not to end the planned economy, but rather to make socialism work more efficiently to better meet the needs of Soviet citizens by adopting elements of liberal economics.
Literally liberals doing a transition to liberalism under the guidance of the Washington Consensus, and you think the terrible results are the fault of socialism? Read some history please.
You are blabbering about the 'terrible results' no shit, the government was shattered into choas. No economic ideology going to prevents choatic economics. Its not what i am arguing.
Im litterally saying all the self claimed communists that were in position took advantage of the choas and grasped their own empire. You point to one man. I point to them all.
If you read any of the links to the people responsible for the implementation, you will see they were all liberal reformers, not communists. But you don't care, you just want to blame someone else for the inherent failures of liberalism.
Nah. I blame oligarchs to always be oligarchs.
LMAO, they were created via the liberalization of the USSR economy. You are making my point for me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarchs
The Russian oligarchs first emerged as entrepreneurs under Mikhail Gorbachev (General Secretary, 1985–1991), exploiting various loopholes during the economic liberalisation of his perestroika programme. Boris Berezovsky, a mathematician and former researcher, became the first widely recognised Russian business oligarch.
The oligarchs became increasingly influential in Russian politics during the presidency of Boris Yeltsin (1991–1999), a period often referred to as the wild nineties; they helped finance his re-election in 1996. Well-connected oligarchs such as Roman Abramovich, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Boris Berezovsky and Vladimir Potanin acquired key assets at a fraction of their value at the loans for shares scheme auctions conducted in the run-up to the election. Defenders of the oligarchs who later fell out of favour have argued that the companies they acquired were not highly valued at the time because they continued to operate on Soviet principles, with non-existent stock control, huge payrolls, no financial reporting and scant regard for profit.
Now circle back to the first comment in this chain and tell me. How did that happen.
These Republicans were actually Liberals, this was the "Party of Lincoln". The democrats at the time were conservatives.
The political poles literally flipped around 1965.
The political poles literally flipped around 1965.
How would you reconcile that statement with the Democratic Party under FDR (well before 1965?)
The center used to be way farther to the left. Both parties needed to cater to the working class. Modern conservatism is bullshit.
The conservative Democratic Party base in the south absolutely hated FDR. He won the conservative Dem vote in the north because he promised to bring them out of poverty. But, he was a progressive in conservative clothes when it came to human rights. Conservatives absolutely despised him for being a dedent human, but he did save them (and the rest of the nation) from poverty.
FDR winning as a Dem was the beginning of a 40 year trend of conservative candidates leaving the Dem party in disgust and running as Republicans, especially in the south where a Republican could normally never win (because Republicans were historically the progressives).
Conservatives were stealing the Republican party from the progressives and simultaneously punishing the (normally conservative) Democratic party for not being bigoted enough. These confusing election fights happened throughout the south (and eventually the north) for decades.
By the 60's, conservatives couldn't hide all their deception in elections and just started doing it in the open, calling it their "Southern Strategy" as if they were clever strategists and not lying, racist traitors trying to confuse voters and steal an entire political party.
The party swap was fully complete by the late 60's. Conservatives immediately started taking credit for freeing the slaves, because all conservatives are pathological liars. Always have been and always will be.
For those wondering, it wasn't some quick, clean swap. It lasted from the 30's through the 60's, so when conservatives say "oh yeah, but what about...", their tiny rat brains can't imagine that it took conservatives over 30 years to steal the Republican Party from the progressives. They called their theft The Southern Strategy and made little secret of it.
Conservatives have always been evil and will always be evil. Always.
It’s actually still happening. There are democrats in backwards places in local government that never changed.
Isn't this before the Southern strategy?
Yup, the flip happened around 1965 after the civil rights act.
I mean it's implied so I can see why you might have missed it with out the context but every one of those points in the OP has the * - for white people
The same president who warned of the rise of the military-industrial complex.
Before the Southern Strategy
and you went from. here to electing movie star Republicans and it all went to shit from there
https://aeon.co/essays/why-western-democracy-is-ailing-and-how-to-fix-it
Banana republic man. Love to see some great party switch content.
At some point in time both parties were equally racist, blood-thirsty and anti-communist, then the Republican party went above and beyond for more votes.
During the great depression the US of pedos even toyed with the idea of "technocratism". Alas.
They're so lost the plot.
A wild Richard Nixon carrying a bucket of watergate and liberal elitism appears
Wow. What was DNC promise at time?!
Just shows how ignorant it is to sum up a whole decade as Leave It To Beaver.
The President that literally saved the World, but he's too woke.
He allowed CIA-backed coups in Latin America. Unfortunately, Ike isn't as clean as he's purported to be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback
I like a lot of what Ike did but he's not without fault.
He's responsible for planning and controlling the group that would eventually cause the current GOP to lose their beloved leader.
Interesting. Can you elaborate on that?
Because the greatest generation would have threw out the gov if a partial collective welfare state wasn't installed.
U.S gov have treated vets like garbage ever since.
all 82 comments