True, but I will never stop driving the point home that capitalism is ruled by parasites that will fuck workers not just at every opportunity, but especially in times of crisis when things are especially terrible for everyone. — StreetlightX

As opposed to what? Socialism?

Uh-oh, the algorithm is malfunctioning again. Seems to be repeating itself.

As opposed to a society where capitalist parasites don't fuck workers at every opportunity and especially during crises? Is this so hard to fathom? — StreetlightX

What about a society where socialist parasites don't fuck workers at every opportunity and especially during crises? Because that is the predictable outcome if you hand over the right to make decisions to a group of self-declared leaders of the masses.

If you want to argue over fantasies, be my guest. I'll keep talking about what has and currently is taking place in reality.

If you want to argue over fantasies, be my guest — StreetlightX

Err? I am not arguing over phantasies, you are. My observation about socialism is what has happened in every single case in real life.

No, you're quite literally fantasizing about alternate realities. Try not to hurt yourself in your own head, it's apparently quite dangerous in there.

No, you're quite literally fantasizing about alternate realities. — StreetlightX

No, you are.
But this childish tit-for-tat is pointless.
If you can show a functioning example of socialism, I will respond. Otherwise, bye.

Two ways the current situation could break, politically:

"The difficulties experienced by national populists are unsurprising given they are no friends of the issues at the heart of this crisis: health, welfare and science. On the health front, the crisis reveals the folly of decades of underfunding and privatisation of the health system. Trump, Johnson and Salvini have embarrassing questions to answer in regard to their record as enemies of public healthcare. Furthermore, the crisis calls for a sea change in economic policy that is at odds with the ideological premises of national populism, which combines chauvinism on the cultural front and ultra-neoliberal policies on the economic front.

The glaring need for state protection of strategic national industries, starting with health equipment and pharmaceuticals, is no anathema for national-populists who have already embraced trade protectionism. But the populist right has strongly opposed welfare measures that are becoming a matter of necessity to avoid social catastrophe. Having repeatedly branded these policies as “dangerous” and “anti-patriotic”, these politicians find themselves in the embarrassing situation of having to espouse them.

...If the coronavirus crisis has momentarily disoriented the populist right, this does not mean it is vanquished. It would be misguided for the left to believe that this crisis will work out in its favour. ... The authoritarian measures implemented on Monday by Viktor Orbán in Hungary, with the suspension of parliament and the introduction of government by decree, may be the shape of things to come. In Italy, Salvini had no qualms about applauding Orbán’s move. We are also likely to see an exacerbation of anti-Chinese rhetoric. Trump made no apologies for calling Covid-19 “the Chinese virus”, while Steve Bannon argued that Covid-19 is a “Chinese Communist Party virus”. Salvini has proposed that “if the Chinese government knew [about the virus] and didn’t tell it publicly, it committed a crime against humanity”, and allies in Brazil and Spain are adopting a similar line.

Given the ties among national-populists, including their botched attempt to establish a “nationalist international” under the auspices of Bannon’s Movement, this synchrony should not be taken as accidental. It has all the look of a coordinated strategy to channel the rage and despair caused by the crisis’s brutal human and economic toll towards a racial and ideological enemy conveniently identified in the Chinese government. Along with self-proclaimed socialists, all opponents are likely to be smeared as “Chinese collaborationists”: centrist US presidential candidate Joe Biden has already been termed “China’s choice for president” by the conservative National Review."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/01/populist-right-coronavirus

---

The above has already been disseminating into the public. In the Australian context:

"The “don’t come” signs popping up in regional towns are a sign of it, and this week’s alarmist language from federal agriculture minister David Littleproud, who called caravans the “cruise ships of the outback”, doesn’t help. The crackdown on Bondi backpackers is part of it, too. As is rising racial abuse, which Victorian premier Daniel Andrews today called out, tweeting: “A health crisis is not an excuse to be racist. We’ve seen some disgusting behaviour directed towards Asian-Australians over the past few months. And it’s getting worse.” Rising Sinophobia is also part of it, and the prime minister was on thin ice with 2GB’s Alan Jones this morning, agreeing furiously about the health threat from Chinese wet markets."

https://www.themonthly.com.au/today/paddy-manning/2020/03/2020/1585889237/corona-phobia

--

Precepts for action: continue to embarrass the right (and the centre), and continue to radicalise all those for whom COVID has exposed the utter morbidity of the current system and its (cheer)leaders.

Does the Singapore economy count as capitalist? It's certainly a free-market economy, but I believe the government controls most of it?

Does the Singapore economy count as capitalist? It's certainly a free-market economy, but I believe the government controls most of it? — Michael

Yes, capitalist. Singapore residents can make their own economic decisions. Of course, there is no 100 percent "pure" capitalism anywhere and has never been. However, 100 percent pure socialsm we have seen. In Cambodia, cultural revolution China and North Korea.

Isn't capitalism defined as private ownership of the means of production, and opposed to that is state ownership? If the Singapore government controls most of the market then it's closer to state ownership than private ownership. 90% of the land is owned by the government for example.

It was getting attention well before Trump mentioned it. See: https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/editienl/artikel/5028061/oud-malaria-medicijn-chloroquine-coronavirus

That's 19 of February. They've been giving it since then at least in the Netherlands and it's been given attention in China, Japan and South Korea. Trump may have sped up the process to allow testing in the USA though.

Second, given it's widespread use in other countries and the fact people are still dying en masse, don't confuse this with the miracle cure Trump suggests it is.

It seems to me that the way the virus spreads is through social relations, and the way it can be prevented from spreading is through social isolation.

So one might expect that socialism would make it worse, and individualism would make it better. But the opposite seems to be the case. My suspicion is that individualism and libertarianism are not what it says on the tin, that they are merely anti-socialism which is as social as socialism, but more disorganised and unpleasant - like a Mafia is a disorganised and unpleasant government..

One thing has become apparent; that lack of trust makes it harder to make the social arrangements that are necessary to control things. We know that with proper self-isolation backed up with proper protective equipment and testing, the virus can be stopped completely. But governments are still lying and no one believes what they say, and will therefore not cooperate. And individuals can do nothing...

I beg to differ.
Lock says that the solution to the tragedy of the commons is to allow individuals to take over the property rights of a resource, that is, to privatize it. John Locke, "Sect. 27" and following sections in Second Treatise of Government (1690).

The tragedy of the commons is a theory that originated after Locke's death but nice try.

My suspicion is that individualism and libertarianism are not what it says on the tin, that they are merely anti-socialism which is as social as socialism, but more disorganised and unpleasant - like a Mafia is a disorganised and unpleasant government.. — unenlightened

"The epidemic overturns the cliché that if I love my fellow men or women I should hug them, kiss them or stick to them like sardines … Today I display my love for the other by keeping her or him at a distance. This is the paradox that collapses all the lazy ideological frameworks (ideological not in the Marxist sense) of the left and right, not to mention of the populists.

The edifying propaganda of some politicians and the media appeals to our selfishness as well as to our altruism: “If you avoid others, you are protecting them, but yourself too.” Now, very often this is by no means true. It is now common knowledge that young people can be infected like everyone else but that it’s quite rare for them to fall ill; it’s also common knowledge that this pandemic is a geronticide,that those really at risk are the over 65s.

A young friend of mine keeps me at a distance of at least three meters and smiles. I very much appreciate this non-gesture of his, because I know that it is mainly he who is trying to protect me; because I’m old. It’s true that he’s also protecting the elderly in his own family: his father, his mother… But in any case I’m grateful to him. The more the others keep at a distance from me, the closer I feel to them.

...In recent days I came across several people who did not respect this secure distance and didn’t even wear gloves or face masks; and they expressed their scepticism on the gravity of the disease… I could gather from their arguments that they were basically cynical and ultimately antisocial individuals. Today the sociable avoid society."

Sergio Benvenuto - Forget about Agamben

I think it’s simply untrue that people would have done nothing, as if there was no virus ripping through the population. — NOS4A2

And the response is these kind of things that you feel are authoritarian. Society simply doesn't work the way that somehow without any coordination each individual just comes to the conclusion that voluntarily social distancing is necessary.

It's true though, that among the many lies exposed by CV has been the lie of the island-individual: the island-individual is a construct, a limit-case that can only exist under certain social conditions without which he withers like a dead flower.

Isn't capitalism defined as private ownership of the means of production, and opposed to that is state ownership? If the Singapore government controls most of the market then it's closer to state ownership than private ownership. 90% of the land is owned by the government for example. — Michael

Land is separate issue, especially in a tiny city state like Singapore. Doesnt the US also have huge areas of publicly (i.e. government) owned land?

The glaring need for state protection of strategic national industries, starting with health equipment and pharmaceuticals, is no anathema for national-populists who have already embraced trade protectionism. But the populist right has strongly opposed welfare measures that are becoming a matter of necessity to avoid social catastrophe. Having repeatedly branded these policies as “dangerous” and “anti-patriotic”, these politicians find themselves in the embarrassing situation of having to espouse them. — StreetlightX

You are correct that this isn't an anathema for the right wing and not every right-wing populist party has a problem with this. It's only the populist who read eagerly Ayn Rand and believe in libertarianism that think this way. But even they can change their views.

For example, in my country the populist True Finns-party demanded alongside the conservative party (both parties in the opposition) that the Socialist-Centrist administration would impose a lock down immediately as the pandemic was breaking out. The administration first hesitated, but then agreed with the opposition and implemented this and the lock down came days before the first victim of the pandemic died in the country. Then, to the amazement to our young Prime minister, the opposition was satisfied and started to support the administrations actions. The opposition even withdrew an interpellation they had made earlier as it was deemed to be a distraction in the fight against the pandemic. Very few times in our history the ruling parties and the opposition has found an agreement what to do. This naturally this boosted the popularity of an otherwise wavering administration which was earlier floundering from one political crisis to another, but at least I'm happy that political parties can sometimes put aside the struggle for power and work together. Which isn't the case in all countries.

To prevent a pandemic will be an easy thing to accept as a collective measure. After all, armed defense of the country is widely accepted as a collective measure by otherwise libertarian people, who are against socialism. It's not difficult to reason that actions that prevent death on a large scale

centrist US presidential candidate Joe Biden has already been termed “China’s choice for president” by the conservative National Review." — StreetlightX

Who is going to choose the next US president, China or Russia? Sad, but let those two fight it out amongst themselves.

If it turns out that they were overly cautious, then so be it. At least we survived and we should be happy to pay the insurance premium for that. — Andrew M

The vast majority do survive COVID-19, so that was never the issue. You're kind of talking to yourself here, which is normal. We're all inhabiting and animating myths in the face of the unknown. It's how we deal with the stress of that when sickness and death have been raised up.

In the old days, people would have sacrificed animals or walked through the streets beating themselves with barbed whips trying to control it all. But the trick of mythology is that people don't recognize it as fiction. They think its science, and it is in a way.

And so I talk to myself also, living out my own myth.

Note that pandemics have happened before and they will happen again, even if the timing and severity are unpredictable. That requires vigilance and preparation. I think it's fair to hold our leaders and government bodies accountable to that standard. — Andrew M

And this makes absolutely no sense to me. We're in the middle of a pandemic and we're trying to figure out what works and what doesn't. How on earth could politicians have been ahead of the game without time machines?

No. We prepare for what we know and understand. We leave the unknown alone until we get to it.

True, but I will never stop driving the point home that capitalism is ruled by parasites that will fuck workers not just at every opportunity, but especially in times of crisis when things are especially terrible for everyone.
— StreetlightX

As opposed to what? Socialism? — Nobeernolife

We live in a world where Trump is elected POTUS, and this in the midst of things that Streetlight is pointing out. To me that’s a strong indication that socialism would fail miserably in the US.

It’s a stupid and bad faith argument because it is not about preferring death to recession. That’s a false dilemma. The argument is that we do not need to tank the economy and suppress basic liberties to teach people wash their hands, to sneeze into their sleeves, to self-quarantine, or to physically distance themselves from others. — NOS4A2

Do you honestly think that the economy won’t tank regardless of what the government does? Or that people would adequately social distance themselves without coercion?

Corona has shown what a house of cards the “entirety man made” economy is.

And the response is these kind of things that you feel are authoritarian. Society simply doesn't work the way that somehow without any coordination each individual just comes to the conclusion that voluntarily social distancing is necessary.

They are authoritarian, and no amount of euphemism can disguise that. Ordering people under de facto house arrest, checkpoints, curfews, fining people if they get too close to one another, locking down the people and the economy, is not “coordination”.

Let me ask. Would you physically distance yourself from others if there was no authority to force you to do so?

Do you honestly think that the economy won’t tank regardless of what we do? Or that people would adequately social distance themselves without coercion?

Corona has shown what a house of cards the entirety man made economy is.

Do you need to be coerced to practice physical distancing?

The virus has exposed how inadequate most governments are: their preparedness, their healthcare systems, the ease with which they turn to tyranny.

How on earth could politicians have been ahead of the game without time machines?

No. We prepare for what we know and understand. We leave the unknown alone until we get to it. — frank

Except that anyone who knew anything about disease had been warning that this or something like it would happen. In the US, the government's own reserve stockpile of PPE - which Bush2 had begun to set up in 2005 - was at 1% of what the targets that the government itself had set. This idea that this was some 'unknowable' event that governments needed 'time machines' to predict is reality-unbound trash made to defend the indefensible. Not only did the relevant people know and understand, there were plans in place to react to this. Moreover, anyone with a pulse understood just how shit the US healthcare system is and remains, a topic so prominent that's it's the debate of the democratic primaries, not to mention household knowledge that makes the US a laughing stock of the world. The idea that 'no one could have seen this coming without a time machine' is so stupid and belied by facts at every turn that anyone arguing it has zero credibility.

The kernel of the conversation keeps drifting so that you aren't hitting me with anything I objected to. Always wash your hands before you touch your face (even in your own dwelling if you just touched a delivered package or mail.)

Do you need to be coerced to practice physical distancing? — NOS4A2

Wrong question. Do most Americans need to be coerced? I think they do. In any case, you’re not taking power dynamics into account. For instance, if someone refuses to work in unsafe conditions due to the virus, is it okay to fire them?

I was ‘coerced’ to participate in jury duty this month. What if they didn’t cancel it?

Whatever you say, quarantines are an age old way to prevent epidemic diseases. And it works. Even if used before in Antiquity, the quarantena, 40-days, comes from the lessons learned from the Black Death.

You can whine all you want about how evil governments are and dream about an utopia, but the actions taken now are quite normal when pandemics hit.

(Even they had to be quarantined. Just in case at the first time...)

I’m not doubting the effectiveness—Chinese authorities welding the doors of apartment buildings so residents couldn’t leave was effective; shipping the ill to a coronavirus colony would be effective—what I’m doubting are the ethics and proportionality of such measures.