Sorry God, Sanity Won

[Eligor]

Wtf is this supposed to mean? How do people "only feel" less poor if they have more to eat, more accessible education, more conditions to start small businesses? If this isn't being less poor, what the hell does "less poor" means? Giving more profit to American investors?

BTW: 'Marxism' was couped in the 60's by the military because president João Goulart wanted to promote a land reform. Much of things that are symbolical of Brazilian poverty wouldn't exist today if he had succeded. Jango may had ruined the economy? Maybe, but countries need structural reforms. Specially third world countries. Those reforms are sometimes made at the cost of the economy. Oh Tychus, Tychus.

Marxism would only work if all people were saints. It fails to take human greed and human lust for power into the account. It doesn't make people feel more or less poor, just adds another veil of hypocrisy for those in the position of power who justify their cruel and selfish actions as being for "the Greater Good". There will be always someone in a position of Authority and he will always be capable of abusing his power, that's how human society works no matter what economic system you choose to adopt.

[TcheQuevara]

Marxism would only work if all people were saints. It fails to take human greed and human lust for power into the account. It doesn't make people feel more or less poor, just adds another veil of hypocrisy for those in the position of power who justify their cruel and selfish actions as being for "the Greater Good". There will be always someone in a position of Authority and he will always be capable of abusing his power, that's how human society works no matter what economic system you choose to adopt.

Hermano, with all due respect, I'm not talking about utopian socialism. I'm not even talking about social democracy or communism ("scientific socialism"). I'm talking about the pseudo-Marxism of current Latin American leaders. Their left leaning policies had been improving people's lives, even if they're not actually confronting the very causes of poverty.

[TheEconomist]

Except its not.

[Rake]

The problem with talking about these issues in very general terms is that the specifics of what is involved are very important. It isn't possible to say 'government spending = good' or 'government spending = bad'.

For example, providing quality, free education can be a tremendous benefit to society because, among other reasons, it improves the economic potential of a society.

On the other hand, large-scale government run food growing, processing, and distribution systems have universally been a disaster.

Important differences can also arise between different versions of the same basic system. For instance, a public transport system run by an efficient and upstanding government bureaucracy is a very different thing to a public transport system run by a corrupt bureaucracy that skims money off the top and gives contracts to its incompetent friends.

[TcheQuevara]

Rake, the thing is, in Brazil, at least, Marxist parties are more progressive with fighting corruption and economical power. Theorically all parties, even right wing parties, should go like that but that's not how it happens in practice.

It's not just a matter of economical ideology. It is a matter of how politics is done. In Brazil, I'd simplitically summarize that right wing politics are made with power, money and drawing support from people to politicians. Left wing politics are made with democratical construction and discussion of candidates and policies. The problem of an old, bureaucratic and elitist Iberian country like mine is that corruption is everywhere in thje political systen. If you want to fight corruption, you have to start a political movement from outside the politics...

And who the hell does that? Marxist intelectuals, trade unionists and Liberation catholics.

Even if "Marxism" was bad to economy, which I don't think it is, it is still the best thing for my country politically.

So back to you public transport comparison: in my city, it is the right who supports the corrupt bureaucracy. Is that because neoliberalism and conservatism are corrupt ideologies? No, but you can't do right-wing politics in Brazil without support from corrupt people. So non-ideological stuff like fighting corruption is always better done by the left anyway.