Chilean thread y wea

[FlamyobatRudki]

how do these "liberals" differentiate from "actual facsists"?
Even I can't quite unravel the differentiation one means to make since even listening to sources that proport to describe what real facsism is what they are describing is exactly what the liberal governments impose on certain migrant populations aswell as on indigenous people.

Further more if ones not from the same cultural milleau as these liberals their policy on moral matters is emically[and etically] indestinguishable from the arbitrarty types of laws imposed on black people in the united states,
which although it isn't called facsism is actually a demonstration of what facsism is.
unless you are trying to make facsism more appealing trying to argue that that isn't facsism is only an attempt to make facism more appealing to minorities.
[reaction to earlier comments in this thread]

[Raphael]

I don't see myself as a liberal, but I probably count as one by your standards, so, for a start, although you hate my politics, I am not in favour of killing or imprisoning you, which I would be if I was a fascist. As a corollary of this difference in attitudes, under "liberal" regimes, certain types of activism are possible that are simply not possible under actual fascism.

[Ares Land]

how do these "liberals" differentiate from "actual facsists"?
Even I can't quite unravel the differentiation one means to make since even listening to sources that proport to describe what real facsism is what they are describing is exactly what the liberal governments impose on certain migrant populations aswell as on indigenous people.

Further more if ones not from the same cultural milleau as these liberals their policy on moral matters is emically[and etically] indestinguishable from the arbitrarty types of laws imposed on black people in the united states,
which although it isn't called facsism is actually a demonstration of what facsism is.
unless you are trying to make facsism more appealing trying to argue that that isn't facsism is only an attempt to make facism more appealing to minorities.
[reaction to earlier comments in this thread]

I'm not sure I see your point.

There are plenty of definitions of fascism. Umberto Eco's has been doing the rounds lately and I think it's a good one. Figuring out how it differs from liberal democracy isn't a very difficult exercise.

Liberal democracies are certainly capable of appalling actions. Still, while pretending to see no difference between Biden and Bolsonaro is a funny party trick, but not terribly useful.

[zompist]

how do these "liberals" differentiate from "actual facsists"?

It's hard to make sense of any of this, but please note that this thread is a discussion of Chile. Torco talked about neoliberals, not liberals. He also freely used fash (fascist), because the political groups he mentioned took over the country in a military coup and governed as a totalitarian dictatorship for a generation.

[Moose-tache]

hopefully one under the sphere of influence of china, who are already our number one trading partners: say what you want about Beijing but they're not in the habit of staging fascist coups.

I was going to show something about how China pressured Laos or Vietnam into worsening their labour laws but I can't seem to find it. In any case, I think the main reason China hasn't staged fascist coups (or equivalents) is just that they are only coming into superpower territory.

Slightly off topic, but I do think people are a bit naive when they think "this unstoppable authoritarian hegemonic superpower will be the good one!" about China's global influence. Odds are, China will be less awful than the US, but only because a) it's later in time and our global civilization is less enthusiastic about genocide, and b) China is too late to take part in the "brazenly steal land" phase of global domination. Just as the US adapted the British imperial system by focusing less on overt ownership of territory and more on mercantile control and enforcement, China will adapt the American system to the twentyfirst century. But if you think the Chinese aren't coming for your molybdenum, you're an idiot. Chile has more reason than most to say "anyone but America," but that generational trauma is going to be replaced by a new one real fast if they don't keep their eyes open about China.

[MacAnDàil]

hopefully one under the sphere of influence of china, who are already our number one trading partners: say what you want about Beijing but they're not in the habit of staging fascist coups.

I was going to show something about how China pressured Laos or Vietnam into worsening their labour laws but I can't seem to find it. In any case, I think the main reason China hasn't staged fascist coups (or equivalents) is just that they are only coming into superpower territory.

Slightly off topic, but I do think people are a bit naive when they think "this unstoppable authoritarian hegemonic superpower will be the good one!" about China's global influence. Odds are, China will be less awful than the US, but only because a) it's later in time and our global civilization is less enthusiastic about genocide, and b) China is too late to take part in the "brazenly steal land" phase of global domination. Just as the US adapted the British imperial system by focusing less on overt ownership of territory and more on mercantile control and enforcement, China will adapt the American system to the twentyfirst century. But if you think the Chinese aren't coming for your molybdenum, you're an idiot. Chile has more reason than most to say "anyone but America," but that generational trauma is going to be replaced by a new one real fast if they don't keep their eyes open about China.

You are right that China will not be a hypothetical good superpower, and you have identified two possible factors that might make Chinese superpower less bad. However, I think there are at least two factors that would that China could even be worse: 1° the USA has always been democratic, unlike the PCR. 2° as Piketty says (yes, my bedtime reading of the moment), the PCR has actually a more hypercapitalist pro-rich tax system.

[Raphael]

1° the USA has always been democratic, unlike the PCR.

Umm, that statement ignores a lot of stuff.

[Travis B.]

1° the USA has always been democratic, unlike the PCR.

Umm, that statement ignores a lot of stuff.

Let's break it down - the US since its creation has always had elected representative government (there were free and fair elections even during the Civil War!), even if for quite a while only a subset of the adult population could practically vote - whereas mainland China (excluding Hong Kong, but Hong Kong wasn't really democratic under the British either) really only had anything resembling democracy for short periods of time right after the 1911 Revolution and the death of Yuan Shikai, and Taiwan only had martial law lifted in 1987...

[Raphael]

1° the USA has always been democratic, unlike the PCR.

Umm, that statement ignores a lot of stuff.

Let's break it down - the US since its creation has always had elected representative government

Yes. Not the same as full democracy. Then again, depending on how strict your criteria are, well possible that no one ever had that.

[zompist]

1° the USA has always been democratic, unlike the PCR.

This one actually took me a bit— I think you mean PRC. Or RPC if you're reading Piketty in French.

[Travis B.]

Umm, that statement ignores a lot of stuff.

Let's break it down - the US since its creation has always had elected representative government

Yes. Not the same as full democracy. Then again, depending on how strict your criteria are, well possible that no one ever had that.

Just because the US may have not been a perfect democracy throughout its history does not mean that you can by any means make an equivalence as implied by your comment between it and mainland China, which has practically never been democratic at all, a few short-lived episodes in its history aside.

[Moose-tache]

I guess this is my fault for derailing the topic, but I don't see this going anywhere good.

1) The US has a better track record of democratic government than mainland China.
2) That's a low bar to clear and doesn't imply that American democracy is wonderful.
3) It also doesn't tell us anything about the character of Chinese or American people.
4) It may have implications for the conduct of the Chinese government overseas, or it may not.

Settled? Good. Now let's talk about high speed rail. Is the proposal of Santiago to Valparaiso still going forward? I can't find any info about what the post-Covid plans are for this project.

[MacAnDàil]

1° the USA has always been democratic, unlike the PCR.

This one actually took me a bit— I think you mean PRC. Or RPC if you're reading Piketty in French.

Yes, I am reading him in French, but I just got muddled up there.

1° the USA has always been democratic, unlike the PCR.

Umm, that statement ignores a lot of stuff.

I certainly forgot to add a qualifier but at least it has always been somewhat democratic even if blacks and women took a while to get the right to participate, most notably.

[Torco]

for the record, the only reason I kind of use fash and liberal somewhat interchangeably sometimes is that, well, my right wingers call themselves liberal, speak like liberals, but their liberalism is paper-thin: they'll call for a bloody coup and the extermination of communists before you know it.

, China will adapt the American system to the twentyfirst century. But if you think the Chinese aren't coming for your molybdenum, you're an idiot. Chile has more reason than most to say "anyone but America," but that generational trauma is going to be replaced by a new one real fast if they don't keep their eyes open about China.

I don't know... they will engage in their own superpowercraft, which is sure to be, well... in a word, evil: that's what superpowers do. This is not even a chilean thing: a lot of people are quite wary about China, and they should be, but what they're not is wary about the US, and a danger you know is dangerous is, well, kind of safer.

However, I think there are at least two factors that would that China could even be worse: 1° the USA has always been democratic, unlike the PCR. 2° as Piketty says (yes, my bedtime reading of the moment), the PCR has actually a more hypercapitalist pro-rich tax system.

those are excellent reasons why China's going to be an evil superpower: but have you considered, as a contrast, that the us has done -and keeps doing- some mighty evil things itself? to be quite pointed, an example is nuking and firebombing cities full of civilians? I have this strong feeling that for every Wang Quanzhang there's a Julian Assange, or a Condor plan. I don't think there's a very good way to quantifying these things and weighing this. And sure, the US is what we call 'a democracy'... though that's not all that transcendent, it's just free and fair elections that choose representatives nominated by a small and highly corrupt set of political parties, all in the pocket of big business: better than a single party dictatorship in principle, but not by that much. it ensures that they're beholden to some degree to US voters, but I'm not one of those so it's somewhat immaterial to me, and to the rest of the world that isn't western europe or the commonwealth, they do respect those guys somewhat. Also calling the early US 'a democracy' is, while strictly speaking correct in the sense that one of the meanings of democracy is 'a government like that of the US' is in another sense laughable: so much of the population was disenfranchised it wouldn't surprise me that the proportion of the political class was about 5% of everyone: there's no shame in this, Chile was the same early on, but an interesting comparison is that the enfranchised class of the PRC (CPC members) seems to be a lot more of the population.

this all being said, tbh I agree with Moose here, mostly: we don't actually know which will be a better or worse late capitalist neocolonialist overlord.... I have my guesses, tho.

Settled? Good. Now let's talk about high speed rail. Is the proposal of Santiago to Valparaiso still going forward? I can't find any info about what the post-Covid plans are for this project.

Ah, let me tell you the woes of my people and trains.

we're literally the most rail-worthy country in the world, because we look very much like a rail line: long a thin stretch of land, this is. but also we're one of the least railed countries in the world. we used to be pretty good at it! in the 60 and 70ies we had 20, 30 million passengers a year (for a population of maybe 10?). these days rails are dilapidated, almost abandoned, and tbh I don't think I've ever taken one... we have a decent metro in santiago, though. Thing is, truckers were integral allies of the CIA-sponsored coup of 73, and part of the deal was they get preferential treatment, so railways get defunded. There's been some effort after the dictatorship in reviving the train system, with a couple kilometers of track here and there getting fixed and a big broohaha being made in the news, but if you search for passenger trains in the state railway company website you find tourist trains and nostalgia rides departing once a week, and actual passenger services to two or three destinations in the immediate santiago region. It's mostly been corruption and lack of funding, i think. The left has always been for the expansion of the railway system, cause we're clever like that, but it's just never happened: if we believe Boric he's going to make it a priority, but considering where we're at, I don't think it'll be HSR... or, well, I don't know the technical definition of it, but I'd be surprised if they installed anything fancier than a conventional 90kph line with relatively low throughput this decade. Don't get me wrong, that'd be much better than what we have, but I don't think I'll be posting selfies from a Valparaiso-bound shinkansen anytime soon. We're still a country that when the truckers protest and cut down the ONE HIGHWAY THAT CONNECTS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY the cops go and join them in solidarity, as opposed to, you know, repressing them like they do any other protesters. I really think the concertación never tried, since the tracks to valparaíso are actually there still, and from time to time a rickety freight train uses them, but I don't think they're in a very good state.

oh by the way you know who wanted to invest in that line? friends of mr jinping.

[Moose-tache]

I am aware of the China funding. That's why the question came to mind after talking about which superpower Chile would rather be in bed with.

I find it hilarious, in a le big Reddit brain sort of way, to have a long skinny country and build HSR across the narrow bit. But it doesn't seem that stupid if it just acts as a long arm of the Santiago metro. As for trucker protests, you should be thankful that your country is only one road wide. If there was room for those truckers to form a circle, Santiago could end up like Ottawa!

[Torco]

oh fuck! at least ours aren't antivax. then again, your cops *do* repress them, instead of bring them snacks.

of course a line of three or four tracks from north to south would be the most logical investment to make: still, these things are very dangerous, our private businesses are famously corrupt and incompetent, and the guys who are supposed to keep them in check are basically the same five oligarch's nephews that went into politics, so we get things like backwards bridges at valdivia.

[Moose-tache]

On a serious note, having a country that's too long and skinny isn't necessarily the best option. For very short journeys, it's hard to beat the car. And for very long journeys, it's hard to beat the airplane. The sweet spot seems to be around 400km, and once you exceed 900 or so km it's probably difficult to convince people to take the train instead of fly, especially if the train isn't any cheaper (a lot of this is based on limited data, since there aren't that many 900km long HSR lines out there). So for chile, the optimal HSR route is probably Santiago to Concepcion. But Concepcion isn't that huge. It's rare to see HSR lines built to a terminal city of less than a million people. Airplanes are pretty scalable: if demand isn't as high as you thought, the government might have to deal with an overbuilt airport, but it's not like they have to maintain big metal tracks in the sky. Most of the infrastructure belongs to the airlines. But trains? You have to know your route will have sufficient demand before you build it.

That said, some normal slow-speed passenger trains would be nice. IIUC, the farthest south you can get right now on any passenger service is Chillan. I'm guessing there is more than enough bus and car traffic between Chillan and Concepcion to justify a slow train between them, not to mention points further south.

[zompist]

On a serious note, having a country that's too long and skinny isn't necessarily the best option. For very short journeys, it's hard to beat the car. And for very long journeys, it's hard to beat the airplane. The sweet spot seems to be around 400km, and once you exceed 900 or so km it's probably difficult to convince people to take the train instead of fly

Surely a lot of this depends on expectations and logistics? Americans organize their lives, and more importantly their cities, around the car, so of course car journeys are optimized; even in a city with mass transit it's inconvenient.
But people used to routinely take long train journeys.

The obvious HSR route in the US is New York to Washington— 330 km, which fits your criterion. But I think New York to Chicago would work. It's 1150 km, so about 4.5 hours. And the train stations are downtown. And the seats are actually designed for humans.

A flight takes 2 hours... but you're supposed to arrive at the airport 2 hours ahead, plus the airports on either end are an hour away from your actual source/destination. So it ends up being a 6 hour ordeal.

From Torco's account, the problem in Chile is not logistic but political. The decisions about rails are not being made based on time, cost, or ideal mode of transport.

[Raphael]

The obvious HSR route in the US is New York to Washington— 330 km, which fits your criterion.

Isn't the Acela already kind of high speed?

[zompist]

The obvious HSR route in the US is New York to Washington— 330 km, which fits your criterion.

Isn't the Acela already kind of high speed?

Eh. According to Wikipedia, the average speed on NY-Washington is 132 km/h, and on NY-Boston an abysmal 106 km/h. That's not HSR by European standards. In fact it's not much different than average speeds a century ago.