Comments by "John Roberts" (@view1st) on "The Jimmy Dore Show" channel.

@worfsonofmogh1154 You're either lying or misinformed. Being charitable, I'll go for the latter. Saying that Pol Pot and the Kmer Rouge gained power as a direct result of an unprovoked bombing campaign by the USA on Cambodia is not the same as saying he supports genocide, no more than saying that Hitler's rise to power in Germany was due in part to the harsh conditions of the Versaille Treaty and the blockade of Germany to force it to pay reparations.
3
And capitalists like to talk about queuing in the old Soviet Union. The hypocrisy. 😂
2
And didn't it (or the USA) then call a no confidence vote leading to Russia's expulsion from the UNHRC, while other countries with far worse violations (like United Kingdom, USA, France) are still on it?
2
@traviscutler9912 he can't because their isn't one. Apparently, blaming the USA for what is by all accounts something it should be blamed for is redefined as supporting genocide. A bit like saying that anyone who blames the USA for the cold war and the wars in Yugoslavia and Ukraine due to NATO expansionism are communists/Putinists/war crimes apologists.
1
@johnbull1568 Isn't declining and vetoing pretty much the same in this context? What's being claimed is that the UK blocked a legitimate request for an inquiry. Whether it had good reason for doing this; whether they used underhand means to do it or worked within the rules I don't know, but that is what is being claimed,rightly or wrongly, and there's no point in arguing over semantics.
1
@Supernautiloid I beg to differ. Capitalism hasn't been around for all that long, maybe 200-300 years at most starting with the industrial revolution in Britain; so if it's taken this long to become corporatist (starting in the 1920's with Mussolini), I'm assuming that we do not have any precedent and this is the first time it's happened. Saying that capitalism always turns into corporatism implies that we've gone through this at least once before, which I don't believe we have, this being the first. For what it's worth, I'd say all of the major countries of the West became corporatist in the 1940's and '50's and what we mistook for the 'golden age' of capitalism in the immediate post war years up until the 1970's was in fact, merely a period of 'benevolent' corporatism, when corporatism was consolidating. The question of whether corporatism (fascism/neo-fascism?) is good for the majority of people I think revolves around the question of who does the capturing - a strong state capturing and controlling business, or business capturing and controlling the state. In China I think it's the former and that's why it seems to be delivering returns for its people, while in the USA it's the latter and, driven entirely by greed and the profit motive, is actually leading (or will eventually lead) to something akin to feudalism and possibly social collapse.
1
So you think (as you seem to imply) that a dictorship – the opposite of a democracy – would be more preferable being more protective of individual rights? Did individual rights count in Hitler's Germany? Or Mussolini's Italy? Franco's Spain perhaps...? In a capitalist republic private interests trump those of the collective thereby precluding any meaningful protection of individual rights of those who lack the economic power to exercise them.
1