Jamers41 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 01, 2020 8:08 pm
I don't think the Communists in Chile are nearly as powerful nor omnipresent as you do. If I did, I would have left Chile by now and I would probably not be the only one to do so. Yes I'm familiar with the gist of their ideology and how they try to take advantage of events such as the civil unrest to further their goals. And I'm aware that such groups of radicals exist here. Apparently you don't believe the multiple surveys here that suggest that even of majority of those who voted for Piñera have been in favor of a pension fund withdrawal because it prevents them from getting into deeper debt......having a better retirement is great but somewhat abstract and far away in the face of the immediate need to maintain your house or car now after being unemployed for several months in a row, losing that can set you back financially for years. I suppose we can agree to disagree.
That is exactly why the 'communist' parties in Chile are so dangerous.
If they don't change the rules, change the party names, swap parties, change the constitution, they can not hang on to their sliver of power.
who brought them back?
Bachelet, when she expanded the size of Congress, added a new region, invited them in to her administration?
when I say "communist", I am not talking about the geriatric bunch of idiots that is the official PC in Chile.
I am talking about all the guys hiding under party names all the way from Chile Vamos, to FA, Socialist party. The parties just keep swapping names, and those politicians shuffle from one brand to the next, as soon as they wear out their welcome with the electorate. but at the core of all of them is a consistent bunch of hard core, true believers, koolaid drinking, bunch of people that if they don't really believe in marxists style socialism, at least believe in its route to power.
supporting them is a massive body of young drones spouting half-digested and regurgitated neo-marxist slogans such as "neo-liberal capitalism", "solidarity", etc, etc.
Try to gently challenge any of them on what they think that means, and it will be followed by more meaningless gibberish because they have no clue about any of the underlying history, political science, economics, philosophy.
In all my years in Chile, I have never, once, been able to get one of them to articulate an even semi-coherent political philosophy to explain what it is they are parroting.
It was not for lack of trying either. I have tried for years to engage friends and acquaintances, young and old, in to debates and conversations about whatever neo-marxist (again trying to be generous here) slogan they are chanting. Describing it as 'socialist' or 'marxist' is not even correct, but as close as I can get, in the sense that even chaos is an ordered system. As flawed as Marxism is, often what they are parroting is so far from Marxism that it is almost not fair to Marxism. perhaps a better way to put it is, they will use the language of Marx without actually understanding the terms or source.
I am fully willing to apply the principle of charity, to hear out their arguments and perspective on why they believe what they believe, because even if I don't believe in it is at least intellectually interesting from an anthropological perspective.
The best I have ever found was few spouting some slogans in some sort of what could generously be called a circular argument. If you scratch that surface, there is very little depth to that paint job.