International events

[Crixus]

On 2/20/2024 at 12:28 AM, kissdbyfire said:

I'm utterly shocked.   /s

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/17/senior-pakistan-official-admits-election-rigging-as-protests-grip-country

 

A senior official in Pakistan has admitted to election rigging amid protests breaking out across the country over claims that its general election results were unfair.

The confessional statement throws further questions over the legitimacy of the 8 February elections, which were marred by controversies and allegations of rigging in Pakistan.

Commissioner Rawalpindi Liaqat Ali Chatta told reporters that authorities in Rawalpindi, Punjab province, changed the results of independent candidates – referring to candidates backed by the former prime minister Imran Khan’s party – who were leading with a margin of more than 70,000 votes.

Chatta said there was so much “pressure” on him that he contemplated suicide, but that he then decided to make a public confession. “I take responsibility for the wrong in Rawalpindi. I should be punished for my crimes and other people involved in this crime should be punished.”

This shitshow is still going on. The deadline to form a government is next week, and now the cunts who basically lost the election are forming a 'coalition'. Which probably won't last a year. Pathetic, really. I was actually impressed with how people came out and voted peacefully on 8 Feb - it's the best way to make a stand and demonstrate what the nation actually wants. Alas, the military has always been in charge and nothing will change this, barring a bloody uprising or mutiny within the ranks. 

You can criticise Imran Khan a lot, fairly, but the fact is he managed to create unprecedented levels of political awareness, and a desire to claim constitutional rights, among the people. I think this won't change, regardless of the next puppet government. 

Partition should never have happened, imo. It's a controversial view in Pakistan but I really think this was destined to be a disaster from day one. People point to the last 10 years of Modi's government as retroactive proof of how partition was a great idea. In fact, all it did was divide Muslims into 3 separate countries (PK, India and Bangladesh in 1971). Imagine one India, with a massive Muslim minority - you cannot sideline 45% (approx if combined) of the population. Perhaps the entire trajectory of communal issues would have been different if the ugliness of partition had been avoided. Perhaps these communities which had already lived together for centuries (my grandparents had so many anecdotes about being neighbours and close-as-family with Hindus and Sikhs) could have continued to co-exist, and a united India would have been a force to reckon with. India still is, of course, but that would have been an entirely different story. 

Maybe I'm being too naive, but what's happening right now isn't exactly amazing - not just for PK which is decaying massively but even India, with all the extremist shit happening thanks to BJP and co. 

 

[Hmmm]

14 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

People assume the right way is the way that won out over all the other possible ways. Just because the current pharma industry model has delivered a great deal of benefit to humanity doesn't mean a different model wouldn't have delivered at least the same benefit without so much of the misery and suffering that the same industry has caused, and some times knowingly so.

I think there is a better way, just like I think there is a better way than this neoliberal capitalist paradigm the world has been suffering under.

Your first point is right in theory. However, there are and have been a lot of countries that do not operate under neoliberal capitalist models, and their pharmaceutical sectors have not been particularly impressive in comparison. 

[Luzifer's right hand]

1 hour ago, Hmmm said:

Yup. The entire big pharma debate is rife with conspiracy theories. There are few other industries that have done more to improve global living standards than the pharmaceutical sectors of capitalist countries like the USA, Germany, Switzerland, and so on.

That there are some bad apples or skewed incentives here and there does not change that. 

Chemical industry in general.

The current world population is probably not sustainable even if we got rid of animal agriculture apart from the small amount that is 100% grazing based. With turning most plants we grow into meat like we do now it is completely inconceivable.

[maarsen]

16 hours ago, Mudguard said:

Big Pharma does a ton of medical research.  Not sure what you are getting at here.

Big Pharma also manufactures the vast majority of vaccines for the world, and is responsible for bringing most new vaccines that have been developed over the past decades to market.  Many of these new vaccines were developed in-house at big pharma.  Some recent high profile Covid vaccines where either developed by a start-up or developed in a partnership with Big Pharma.  Pfizer has shipped out billions of Covid vaccines.  

If you want to see what vaccines and drugs could be look up Connaught Labs. They were owned by the Canadian government and were one reason insulin was cheap and available since it was first discovered. We elected a Conservative government back in the 80s and they sold it off. Stupidity at its best.

[kissdbyfire]

Far be it from me to defend capitalism, or at least this capitalism most of us “enjoy” (heavy sarcasm) now, but the argument can be made that [some form of] capitalism and the common good are not mutually exclusive. Point is, maybe the problem with Big Pharma and others is not so much about capitalism per se but human nature and greed. 

[Conflicting Thought]

2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Far be it from me to defend capitalism, or at least this capitalism most of us “enjoy” (heavy sarcasm) now, but the argument can be made that [some form of] capitalism and the common good are not mutually exclusive. Point is, maybe the problem with Big Pharma and others is not so much about capitalism per se but human nature and greed. 

What is human nature?is it just one thing, has it always being the same? Is human nature just the "bad things" is greed the main component to human nature? 

I think capitalism feeds on greed and it nurtures it and awards greed, but thats the capitalist myth that everyone now belives, and uses as an argument for why you cant have communism or socialism or something other than capitalism.

[polishgenius]

The argument isn't that you can't have anything other than capitalism. It's that sometimes anti-capitalist arguments are presented in a way that makes it seem like eradicating capitalism would eradicate economic and social problems no matter what you replaced it with, which obviously is not true. I don't think anyone here actually thinks that, but posts phrased that way pop up fairly often.


Communism can fuck off though. Communism sucks. I hate it when modern leftists call themselves communists- way to alienate a good portion of the world because they can't bring themselves to drop a name that was used by regimes that oppressed half the world and killed millions. It's infuriating. And I do get the instinct to try to 'reclaim' terms... I just don't think it's useful to 'reclaim' a term that didn't hurt you.

[Conflicting Thought]

49 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Communism can fuck off though. Communism sucks. I hate it when modern leftists call themselves communists- way to alienate a good portion of the world because they can't bring themselves to drop a name that was used by regimes that oppressed half the world and killed millions. It's infuriating. And I do get the instinct to try to 'reclaim' terms... I just don't think it's useful to 'reclaim' a term that didn't hurt you.

meh this is a typical anti communist argument, very lazy, very reductive. though the propaganda against communism is very strong as seen here, and i guess i agree that mentioning communism does garner anthipaty, but less with time, marxism and his work having a resurgence gives me hope.  for the time being im happy with calling it socialism if that makes some liberals more accepting of change.

edited to add a question; what ideas of communism do you think suck?

Edited February 22 by Conflicting Thought

[polishgenius]

13 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

meh this is a typical anti communist argument, very lazy, very reductive.

 

 

It's lazy to say that insisting on a name that, for many, is not associated with positive leftist ideals or even the concept of uniting workers etc but with a repressive and, in many nations, brutal, authoritarian regime, is unhelpful in getting those leftist ideals across? Come on. 

13 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

and i guess i agree that mentioning communism does garner anthipaty, but less with time,

 

In America and Western Europe maybe. In countries that were ruled by communism- not so much, for the most part. 

 

This isn't even about the positions themselves. I don't call myself leftist because I'm no kind of activist but I think if I sat and nailed down my actual beliefs and shit I'd be pretty left-wing by most people's standards. I just get fucking infuriated by the combination of callousness and naivety shown by Western leftists that leads to positions ranging from proudly declaring themselves communist (annoying but not directly offensive) and displaying the hammer and sickle (I know one of our bestest forum users uses it, I've always haaaaaaated it, but meh) through to outright Soviet fanboyism and, in more extreme cases, Holodomor denialism and similar. 

 

(I was in an argument yesterday in which two separate people dismissed the Holodomor to me - one of them outright calling it a lie - so that's fresh on my mind. I'm not accusing anyone here of that, but it's a spectrum of behaviour that commonly comes from one initial instinct- that the American-led capitalist world is bad and therefore opposition to it must be good. Some of it is worse than others but it all annoys me). 

Edited February 22 by polishgenius

[kissdbyfire]

5 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:

What is human nature?is it just one thing, has it always being the same?

Do you think the "7 deadly sins against god" were spelled out by an omniscient & omnipresent entity to someone who passed the info along to mere mortals?

All are undesirable traits that are inherently human. Yes, human beings obviously have positive traits as well, but I was merely linking greed to human beings b/c greed is an exclusively human trait.

 

[Padraig]

Just now, Conflicting Thought said:

meh this is a typical anti communist argument, very lazy, very reductive. though the propaganda against communism is very strong as seen here, and i guess i agree that mentioning communism does garner anthipaty,

It sounds like you know something, the rest of us don't? 

When most people think of communism, they think of the USSR and its vassal states.  Hardly something to aspire to.  But sure, if you think of something more positive (Marxism or socialism?), good for you.  But it is certainly going to mislead people.  I'm not sure why you'd want to purposely mislead people.

I'd say that every country (including the US) has some level of socialism and capitalism.  All people are arguing about is where to balance things.

The problem with Big Pharma is that something like oxycontin should be one big conspiracy theory but its actually depressingly true.  Vaccines read much better.  In the end, while regulations are normally the whipping boy from capitalists, they are more essential than ever.

[Conflicting Thought]

think this video by rebbeca watson is very pertinent

 

I

[Conflicting Thought]

I think this video by rebbeca watson is pertinent to this discussion

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

All are undesirable traits that are inherently human. Yes, human beings obviously have positive traits as well, but I was merely linking greed to human beings b/c greed is an exclusively human trait.

 

It really isn't; fat cats and dogs should be an obvious counterpoint. 

[kissdbyfire]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

It really isn't; fat cats and dogs should be an obvious counterpoint. 

So your diagnosis for fat cats and dogs is that they're greedy? Okay... 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

So your diagnosis for fat cats and dogs is that they're greedy? Okay... 

That's certainly part of it, yes. Especially dogs - dogs definitely show signs of possession over food and will get angry depending on it. You also see greed in primates, especially over scarce resources. It's just an inaccurate statement that it's human-only. 

[kissdbyfire]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That's certainly part of it, yes. Especially dogs - dogs definitely show signs of possession over food and will get angry depending on it. You also see greed in primates, especially over scarce resources. It's just an inaccurate statement that it's human-only. 

And I think it’s an inaccurate statement to claim the issues you describe are due to greed. But hey, to each their own. 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

And I think it’s an inaccurate statement to claim the issues you describe are due to greed. But hey, to each their own. 

Guess I'd need you to define what greed is, then, because consuming more than you need even if other things would suffer seems like a pretty good definition - and you can see it in other animals all the time. Not even mammals. 

As to your previous point about capitalism being okay but the problem being humans I'd say it's almost precisely the opposite. Capitalism is completely inhuman at its core, and in a perfectly capitalist system humanity or any morality other than 'get the most value out of things'. That is innately going to favor greediness and (to a human) profoundly amoral activities. The way that we limit and restrict capitalism is largely to put prices on that amorality to make it either cost too much in litigation or fines to do those things - IE, we induce actual human centric morality on capitalism. 

But if you don't do that - well, we have ample examples of that and how destructive it is to humans. 

[karaddin]

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

It's lazy to say that insisting on a name that, for many, is not associated with positive leftist ideals or even the concept of uniting workers etc but with a repressive and, in many nations, brutal, authoritarian regime, is unhelpful in getting those leftist ideals across? Come on. 

I think this is fair, and I don't think I've ever had someone put it to me with this framing before. I don't know what label I'd normally put on myself, but my ideal world would probably go further than I'd typically associate with "socialist" so I'd be tempted to use communist at times - although a lot of people that do use that label tend to have massive willful blind spots to certain other issues that are pretty important to me. I'm swayed by your point here though and would steer clear of that particular label on those grounds alone. 

Any new attempt at it is going to need plenty of development in the areas of safeguards (to prevent immediately turning into corrupt authoritarian regimes) that would warrant a complete separation from the label communist anyway. Guess someone needs to come up with a catchy and unburdened name for it.

[The Anti-Targ]

10 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Far be it from me to defend capitalism, or at least this capitalism most of us “enjoy” (heavy sarcasm) now, but the argument can be made that [some form of] capitalism and the common good are not mutually exclusive. Point is, maybe the problem with Big Pharma and others is not so much about capitalism per se but human nature and greed. 

I think people tend to conflate capitalism with private ownership and markets. Markets and private ownership existed long before capitalism was conceived let alone became the dominant economic ideology. They can continue to exist and thrive under different paradigms.

2 hours ago, Padraig said:

It sounds like you know something, the rest of us don't? 

When most people think of communism, they think of the USSR and its vassal states.  Hardly something to aspire to.  But sure, if you think of something more positive (Marxism or socialism?), good for you.  But it is certainly going to mislead people.  I'm not sure why you'd want to purposely mislead people.

 

Perhaps it is something most people don't know. The USSR (and China) were never communist countries. They were / are ruled by the communist party but they never implemented communism. In the case of the USSR there's a bit of a clue in the name, but even USSR is mis-named because it was never (or at least not for very long) socialist either. The nutshell description of communism is stateless, classless and moneyless. But these things are all features of both China and USSR. Class doesn't exist in the way we viewed it historically (the nobility and commoners), but it's still there within the structures of those countries. Socialism's core is worker ownership of the means of production. Nationalising everything to be owned by the state is a perversion of that concept. And there is nothing in Socialism or communism that demands the veneration of the mother / fatherland to the point of deification, and that exists, arguably, under capitalism esp in the USA, singing the national anthem at almost every event and reciting the patriotic indoctrination verse in school on a regular (daily?) basis.