Civil Unrest in Kazakhstan plus Russia sending Troops.

[Gergar12]

2022 Kazakh unrest - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

• Resignation of Prime Minister Askar Mamin
• Resignation of ministers in Mamin Cabinet
• Removal of Nazarbayev as chairman of Security Council
• Restoration of vehicle fuel price caps of 50 tenge per litre for 6 months

 

[Seanchaidh]

If true, it would indicate that there were economic liberals among the protesters.

yeah, that doesn't just happen for no reason

 

[Silvanus]

yeah, that doesn't just happen for no reason

If you think nobody in the world is an economic liberal without the CIA being involved, then that's some cloud cuckooland shite.

But the important part is... it doesn't seem that it happened here, anyway-- the government is the one pursuing economic-liberal free-market approaches, deregulation and aggressive privatisation. And the protesters are the ones who want price controls. Yet you'll still side with the gov. over the protesters, if that gov. happens to also be hostile (sometimes) to the US!

 

[Seanchaidh]

If you think nobody in the world is an economic liberal without the CIA being involved

People in a former Soviet country aren't going to be willing to die in the streets for economic liberalization without some pretty severe foreign meddling.

Here's a question: when was the last mass people's movement for economic liberalism that wasn't fomented by people trying to loot a place?

the government is the one pursuing economic-liberal free-market approaches

Yes, almost everyone else figured that out back on page 1.

 

[Satinavian]

Well, economic liberalism =/= economic freedom.

Which is kind of besides the point, since its the Kazakh government which is the one going full-on for privatisation, and the protesters want the reintroduction of a price cap (EG. regulation). In this equation the government is the one pursuing the free-market, profit-driven, economic-"liberal" approach, and the protesters want the opposite.

To a certain extend, sure.

But protests are also against monopolies and gouvernment cronies controlling huge parts of the industry enriching themself. And apparantly there is an inflation problem that extends way beyond fuel, rising food prices during wage stagnation are another common complaint. The gouvernment is not really interested in privatisation. They already did that long ago (and made sure the right people benefited from it) and growing inequality has been the result, which is obviously fueling unrest as well.

People demanding economic liberalisation now want to get rid of those who have profitted from nepotism and control most of the wealth creation via corruption, special privileges and being deeply entranched

 

[Silvanus]

People in a former Soviet country aren't going to be willing to die in the streets for economic liberalization without some pretty severe foreign meddling.

Appeal to incredulity, then.

Here's a question: when was the last mass people's movement for economic liberalism that wasn't fomented by people trying to loot a place?

The issue is that if I were to dig anything up, you would reflexively accuse the people involved of being foreign plants or fascists, regardless of whether there was any evidence for it. As y'did here, even when the only reason to think they were even asking for economic liberalism was the OP mistakenly saying so in passing.

Yes, almost everyone else figured that out back on page 1.

Uhrm, yeah, everyone except you. If it wasn't for the odd denials etc, this could've been settled back then, too.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Appeal to incredulity, then.

By your own admission I'm correct about Kazakhstan. Because they literally aren't!

 

[Worgen]

 

[Silvanus]

By your own admission I'm correct about Kazakhstan. Because they literally aren't!

LOL what the hell is this absurd logic?

We have two positions here; 1) that the protesters in Kazakhstan are foreign meddlers/fascists, which you implied in the first page, because the OP said they were protesting for economic liberalism;

2) That if protesters in a former Soviet country are protesting for economic liberalism, they must be foreign meddlers/fascists, which you seem to be saying above. Hopefully y'can see that these are distinct positions.

And you seem to be saying now that because I said the Kazakh protesters weren't protesting for economic liberalism, I've... therefore proven that #2 there is correct? Sorry, what? This is moon logic.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Let me get this straight. You insinuated they were foreign meddlers/ fascists, and I was the one who said we had no reason to think that. You then concluded that if they were protesting for economic liberalism, they must be foreign meddlers/ fascists. I said that they weren't protesting for economic liberalism, and that that wouldn't follow anyway.

Oh, the humanity.

The statements {IF A THEN B} and {NOT A} are not contradictory. But you could disingenuously keep referring to {IF A THEN B} as just {B!}

I said that if they were protesting for economic liberalization, that's an indication of backing by foreign looters or their representatives (such as the CIA, NED, and so on).

You said they could have economic liberals among them. This began another argument, which you now are attempting to ignore.

I said not ones willing to die in the streets for economic liberalization in a former Soviet state without some serious foreign meddling.

And lo and behold, they don't have economic liberals among them; they don't have people willing to die for economic liberalization.

Yeah, that means I'm right about them not having people who will die in the streets for economic liberalization, which is utterly consistent with the premise that they wouldn't have such people without intense foreign meddling. Because they literally don't have such people now according to you.

Uhrm, yeah, everyone except you. If it wasn't for the odd denials etc, this could've been settled back then, too.

So you've been (deliberately?) misreading me the entire time? Maybe go and retread what you think this argument was.

I started in this thread with "so which is it?" not "It's definitely this!" as you want to misrepresent me as saying for whatever stupid reason

 

[Silvanus]

Oh, the humanity.

The statements {IF A THEN B} and {NOT A} are not contradictory. But you could disingenuously keep referring to {IF A THEN B} as just {B!}

I said that if they were protesting for economic liberalization, that's an indication of backing by foreign looters or their representatives (such as the CIA, NED, and so on).

You said they could have economic liberals among them. This began another argument, which you now are attempting to ignore.

I said not ones willing to die in the streets for economic liberalization in a former Soviet state without some serious foreign meddling.

And lo and behold, they don't have economic liberals among them; they don't have people willing to die for economic liberalization.

Yeah, that means I'm right about them not having people who will die in the streets for economic liberalization, which is utterly consistent with the premise that they wouldn't have such people without intense foreign meddling. Because they literally don't have such people now according to you.

I said that "If true [that Kazakh protesters were calling for economic liberalism], it would indicate that there were economic liberals among the protesters". Note the "If" there.

This was intended to counter your insistence that protesting for economic liberalism is seemingly only possible to explain through the presence of foreign meddlers & fascists.

It is consistent to say that they don't have foreign meddlers in the Kazakh protest, and that former Soviets wouldn't call for economic liberalism without intense foreign meddling. But the truth of the former does not prove the truth of the latter.

So you've been (deliberately?) misreading me the entire time? Maybe go and retread what you think this argument was.

I started in this thread with "so which is it?" not "It's definitely this!" as you want to misrepresent me as saying for whatever stupid reason

Oh, this old chestnut, back to denying that it was ever your intention to imply the protesters were right-wing plants & fascists.

You threw out accusations because the gov. in question is an enemy of the US, so you're more than happy to reflexively believe the worst of their domestic political opponents. You're just now trying to row it back.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Oh, this old chestnut

I do in fact insist on your interpretation of my statements to conform to my repeated clarifications rather than your vulgar imaginings. Repeated clarifications which are notably more consistent with the plain text, I should add.

I said that "If true [that Kazakh protesters were calling for economic liberalism], it would indicate that there were economic liberals among the protesters". Note the "If" there.

There aren't economic liberals among the protestors because calling for economic liberalization is the sort of thing which is the result of schemes to privatize and loot a country and not just something that happens organically in a country which has had experience with socialism. Also because liberals tend to be cowards rather than people willing to face violence. Which is reasonable, as economic liberalism is not worth suffering for.

 

[tstorm823]

There aren't economic liberals among the protestors because calling for economic liberalization is the sort of thing which is the result of schemes to privatize and loot a country and not just something that happens organically in a country which has had experience with socialism.

Lol. Just... lol.

"No real person who has tasted the sweetness of socialism could possibly ever want to move away from it. That's just literally impossible."

I cannot begin to state how many millions of people exist as counterpoints to your delusions.

 

[Generals]

Lol. Just... lol.

"No real person who has tasted the sweetness of socialism could possibly ever want to move away from it. That's just literally impossible."

I cannot begin to state how many millions of people exist as counterpoints to your delusions.

Now now, we all know that back in the Soviet days oh so many people wanted to flee the evil democratic west to join the great socialist utopia in the east. Never did people in the East desire the economic prosperity and freedom people had in the West. Nah...

 

[Seanchaidh]

Lol. Just... lol.

"No real person who has tasted the sweetness of socialism could possibly ever want to move away from it. That's just literally impossible."

I cannot begin to state how many millions of people exist as counterpoints to your delusions.

There are (or have been) indeed millions of aristocrats, slaveowners, kulaks, small capitalists and so forth around the world. They don't form a mass movement by definition. And they're typically among the ones trying to do the looting.

 

[tstorm823]

There are (or have been) indeed millions of aristocrats, slaveowners, kulaks, small capitalists and so forth around the world. They don't form a mass movement by definition. And they're typically among the ones trying to do the looting.

You understand how many people have literally moved, in mass, to get out of socialism, right?

 

[Seanchaidh]

You understand how many people have literally moved, in mass, to get out of socialism, right?

Do you?

 

[Silvanus]

There aren't economic liberals among the protestors because calling for economic liberalization is the sort of thing which is the result of schemes to privatize and loot a country and not just something that happens organically in a country which has had experience with socialism.

OK, whatever, I don't really have the inclination to argue this point. Partly because I have no wish to defend the honour of economic-liberals, and partly because this discussion feels like drawing blood from a stone.

 

[tstorm823]

Do you?

Refugees fleeing Venezuela rival those fleeing Syria in number.

Edit: inb4 you claim Venezuela is something different and horrible, you have actively defended Maduro in the past.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Refugees fleeing Venezuela rival those fleeing Syria in number.

Edit: inb4 you claim Venezuela is something different and horrible, you have actively defended Maduro in the past.

You believe that refugees from a country that is under sanctions designed to punish the populace and also suffers shortages because capitalist businesses deliberately underproduce is people fleeing 'socialism'? That's weird.