11mo ago

Thai court dissolves reformist party that won election

www.bbc.com Move Forward: Thai court dissolves reformist party that won election

Move Forward won the most seats in last year’s election - but was blocked from forming a government.

A Thai court has ordered the dissolution of the reformist party which won the most seats and votes in last year’s election - but was blocked from forming a government.

The ruling also banned Move Forward's charismatic, young former leader Pita Limjaroenrat and 10 other senior figures from politics for 10 years.

The verdict from the Constitutional Court was expected, after its ruling in January that Move Forward’s campaign promise to change royal defamation laws was unconstitutional.

World News @lemmit.online

Thai court dissolves reformist party that won election

www.bbc.com /news/articles/crkmdd4vevxo

1 0

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

53 comments

Thing is they technically can be, but are they ever? Epstein wasn't a billionaire, he was in the crowd but he was nouveau riche, not truly considered one of them. This kind of gatekeeping shows just how much the wealthy deliberately maintain the class gap.
And he was definitely a limited hangout: "spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting—sometimes even volunteering—some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further."
It's the phrase "while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case" that really describes what's happening here.
That's why he was killed - they couldn't risk a high profile person like him talking. They hung out as much as they could afford, and with someone they didn't really care about. It looked sus, but they really couldn't afford more, so they just killed him.
In fact, he taught the wealthy's children and was seen to flout the boundaries with students and the dress code. He was plucked from there to start rubbing shoulders with the ultra rich and trafficking children for them. I wouldn't be surprised if someone noticed his indiscretions, and decided that they could extract him from that environment, keep their own kids safe, and ply him with wealth to start exploiting children professionally. Then, if the whole scheme ever came down, they had a ready made fall guy.
- Most billionaires are nouveau rich, if you meant that literally rather than figuratively. They tend to come from a kind of upper-middle or lower-upper class background, because families richer than that are rare, and families poorer don't have a shot; it's all a lottery at the end of the day.
  I think you're attributing way too much organisation to them, honestly. Western politics runs on open secrets and raw shitty stupidity. This is as true behind closed doors as well; I don't know any billionaires, but I've rubbed up against politicians and church leaders plenty.
  Somebody paid off a couple prison guards to kill Epstein. I can't prove it, but it just seems logical. I don't know who it was, but there were many candidates. I see no reason it would have been more than one.
  
  Yes, it is a lottery, but within their ranks there are those accepted as "one of them" and those considered "nouveau riche". If you look at that article I linked, he was a teacher at a prep school who lied about his qualifications, drank with the students and walked around the halls with a fur coat and gold chains with his shirts hanging open. Regardless of his family's wealth - it doesn't sound like it was that much - he was being gauche. He was acting like the nouveau riche that the wealthy look down on. Most of the very wealthy are people you never hear of and that's intentional; they stay out of the public eye because they've seen what happens to the rich & powerful when revolutions happen. They can't stay totally hidden, but they prefer privacy.
  And I'm not saying the wealthy acted as a united bloc to hire him and then dump him. I said "someone" might have done that. I'm sure it wasn't all planned out by some shadowy group, but it's pretty straightforward to imagine a strategy of deniability, where he buys his way into the inner circle by taking on all the risk and doing the dirty work of trafficking minors. He might have known that his head would be on the block if the network was ever compromised, but that would be a trade he was willing to make for access to billionaire-adjacent levels of wealth and a steady stream of underage girls.
  And the idea that it was just Epstein and Maxwell doing all the dirty work by themselves is laughable. There was definitely a network in place to enable their work, and powerful people above them providing cover. The entire ruling class who they were buddy-buddy with were complicit to some extent. The idea that that network simply disappeared or dissolved when those two were arrested is also ridiculous. I would bet any amount of money that the network that trafficked those girls barely paused its operation. They hung out Maxwell to dry and buried Epstein, and they carried on doing what they do. Anyone in the network who acts a little too indiscreet can probably be hung out, but anyone being smart about operating a network like that would be recruiting people to act as middle men purely to provide a buffer and ensure they themselves don't end up twisting in the wind. The fact that Epstein was crass and gauche makes him the perfect fall guy, because everyone goes, "Oh yeah, that guy, he was always a creep."
  And yes, somebody did a covert operation to kill Epstein. I can't "prove" it either but there is no way that didn't happen. Someone made the call and a small group would've carried it out. There are any number of people who would do that and ways to get it done. The wealthy have access to private armies who hire ex-intelligence operatives, they would have absolutely no trouble with it. You don't need a huge conspiracy for that to happen, but the entire structure of capitalism relies on diffuse responsibility and layers of deniability. The ruling class don't get their hands dirty as a rule.
  So for instance Intel, Apple, NVidia, AMD and so on are profiting off of coltan mining in Africa, where child labour is rife and the death rate is prodigious. However, if the layers of bureaucracy, corruption, bribery and corporate shell games ever allowed someone to be held accountable for how many kids they fed into a meat grinder to get their precious metals, then the person who would go to prison would be a mine operator in Africa or maybe an executive who interfaced directly with the mines. It wouldn't be the shareholders of the companies who are demanding the coltan.
  That's not a covert conspiracy, but the basic principle of putting middle-men in between you and the awful things you're doing is still there, it's a tried-and-true method.
  Now, trafficking children so the wealthy can personally molest them is something that inherently cannot be diffused. Those individual people are doing the molesting. So that means this particular part of the operation does have to be covert. We know it's covert because we mostly only have speculation about who was actively molesting and who was just given a ride on a private jet. We also know it's covert because Epstein was killed to cover it up. We know for a fact that multiple former US presidents were on the list and they were rapey kinda guys, plus there is direct testimony of Trump forcibly raping a 13-year old if memory serves.
  That's sort of an open secret, but also there's obviously a lot of it being hidden. Of course it's being hidden. The wealthy are terrified of having their heads cut off. The extraordinary thing in this instance would be if there wasn't a covert conspiracy.
  
  then the person who would go to prison would be a mine operator in Africa or maybe an executive who interfaced directly with the mines.
  Honestly even that's ambitious. The really dangerous mines with lots of forced or child labour are artisanal ones run by small-time gangsters. Roughly speaking, they sell to some sort of local fence, who sells to a regional company they're connected with, who sells to a national subsidiary that can maintain a rough appearance of propriety when the guys from Apple Silicon come to visit. Every once in a while a journalist traces the chain from end to end, and the Western company says "that's horrible, we had no idea" with as straight a face as they can muster and cuts out all involved players immediately. It's a big branching network, though, so there's lots of people to pick up the slack. Maybe somebody goes to jail, but the rest will slip away and may well start up a new operation that's the exact same thing.
  The sad thing is, I don't know if it can work any other way. Apple could never openly sign off on the conditions that are just standard in poor countries (actually, wasn't there a scandal exactly like that?), and nobody's about to give distant brown people free ergonomic equipment for their sweatshops. If you want poor countries to get on the development path, this is the deal basically, and slavery and other awful things tend to slip in along with that.
  The wealthy are terrified of having their heads cut off.
  Terrified might be overselling it. That's like saying ordinary Westerners are terrified of nuclear warfare. Sure, it scares them, but do they really viscerally believe it's not just a thing on TV?
  I'm reminded of that article where the author gets called in for a consultation with hedge fund guys about bunker planning, and they're asking if, like, they can force their guards to obey them with shock collars. Hopefully you can tell how dumb that is. They don't know what they don't know, and have had smoke blown up their ass by wannabes for so long they won't until it's too late.
  The extraordinary thing in this instance would be if there wasn’t a covert conspiracy.
  I think it is extraordinary, but I also think I have a pretty good picture of how it works. It's more sad than dramatic.
  
  I think our disagreement here is pretty narrow, about how covert the coverup really is. But when you say you "have a pretty good picture of how it works," I have to ask if you know anything about who is currently supplying children for the ultra-wealthy's sexual entertainment. If you don't know, if it's not generally known, then I think that means there is a covert network that does its best to stay hidden.
  If you think that's somehow no longer happening any more, then I think you really don't understand how the world works. People like that do not give up their indulgences easily.
  You may simply think I'm ascribing more planning and coordination than I really am, and that would just be a miscommunication. However, I do think there are definitely some small number of people who put a lot of thought into how to get away with this, and they've largely succeeded for decades.
  A journalist could get to the bottom of the coltan mining trade and expose one chain there, but how do you think they'd fare exposing the latest Epstein-style network? Do you think they'd live through it?
  Honestly even that’s ambitious.
  Yeah, that's true, but my point was even in the worst-case scenario that consequences really did happen to someone, it would be a middleman, and that's by design. Epstein was no different in that respect.
  Sure, it scares them, but do they really viscerally believe it’s not just a thing on TV?
  There was a guy on some news network around 2020 when people were panicking about Bernie Sanders and his nefarious communist plot to destroy America, and one guy was talking about how there was a time when he was really scared the communists would come in and kill all the rich people and he might've been one of those people strung up in Times Square. He certainly sounded terrified to me. Like I'm sure it was partly crocodile tears, but also you don't pull that story from nowhere. That's obviously something he thinks about.
  I mean, I wouldn't say I'm always actively terrified of being hit by a train, but I take steps to avoid it. That's what I mean - they know it's a threat.
  If you want poor countries to get on the development path, this is the deal basically, and slavery and other awful things tend to slip in along with that.
  This is tangential, but it's my biggest issue with what you've said. Poor countries all over the globe are made and kept poor by colonialism which rolled into modern capitalist imperialism. Africa in particular has been particularly brutally invaded, pillaged and oppressed for centuries. The most recent mechanisms by which this is done have been the World Bank and the IMF sucking them into predatory loans with structural adjustment policies that are calculated to keep them poor and strip them of vital infrastructure.
  The cheap labour isn't some natural transitional state between "undeveloped" and "developed". It is an imposed condition, and the only time such countries "develop" and improve their station is when the working class organises and forces change to happen. It is never handed down from above or a natural outworking of wealth flowing in from the market. The market is structured to ensure that any wealth that flows in from the exploitation of cheap labour is kept in the hands of a few and siphoned back out as quickly as possible.
  This is very similar to the way that the working class is kept in a state of poverty by capitalists within their own countries, and oppressed by the state and the legal system. This is the situation that allows wealthy people to prey upon the children of poorer people with relative immunity. The girls are often plied with money, and if they do go to the police, what do they say? "Trump raped me on Epstein's private jet?" The cops won't touch that, and the wealthy know they won't touch it. We know it because that testimony exists and it hasn't gone anywhere. Even if a detective took the case, he'd wind up at the bottom of a river before too long.
  I'm not saying this is a "conspiracy" in the sense that this entire situation is engineered just to get young girls, it's evolved over centuries to maintain power, and the powerful will take advantage of it every way they can.
  
  I have to ask if you know anything about who is currently supplying children for the ultra-wealthy’s sexual entertainment
  I don't expect there is such an open practice, to be clear. I don't really buy the pizzagate stuff.
  It's not impossible there was a third coconspirator that got away. It's possible Epstein had competition, too, and of course it's possible someone has taken his place. I don't know which drug dealers billionares use, either, although I'm pretty sure they don't sit around discussing how to hide their collective drug use.
  The cheap labour isn’t some natural transitional state between “undeveloped” and “developed”. It is an imposed condition, and the only time such countries “develop” and improve their station is when the working class organises and forces change to happen.
  I basically just disagree. The conventional economic interpretation makes plenty of sense, matches the figures and my anecdotal experiences, and places like South Korea have made this exact trip already.
  There's neoimperialism too, but the difference it makes from our end amounts to pennies. If we can crush the corruption Africa will develop a bit faster, not overnight. When someone over there wants a computer, they go to the West to buy it, not because they're forced to but because they don't have the infrastructure and institutional experience to build such a thing themselves.
  
  It's fascinating to me that your example was South Korea. That's literally the place I had in mind when I talked about the working class organising to better their lives. They have deeply militant unions.
  You know they had an honest to goodness general strike in 1997, right? And that they were specifically striking over laws that would legalise strikebreaking? That's going to have a tectonic effect on the quality of life of workers in general. They fought hard for their pay increases and got them. That's not attributable to market forces. Striking is literally a breakdown in market behaviour, where the bosses have squeezed so hard and so unfairly that the workers have to withdraw their labour in order to get what they need.
  And every single worker's benefit we enjoy today was a function of labour activism. 8 hour days, the weekend, child labour laws, OSHA, I could go on. And all of those benefits are actively fought against by the ruling class because they erode their power over us and raise our wages.
  Also, orthodox economics is basically the managerial class being funded by the owning class to come up with post-hoc justifications for why they should keep their wealth. It's not scientific in the slightest. The Economist is basically neoliberal propaganda.
  Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent goes into this in some detail, about the forces that act to ensure that the dominant media narrative caters to the ruling class on all levels, and he has talked extensively on how this process works in academia as well. I forget if the academic discussion is a large part of the documentary, but it's well worth watching anyway. It's free on youtube: https://youtu.be/BQXsPU25B60
  Also... if you really think the Epstein network was just two or three people... I mean wow. You know authorities seized a bunch of blackmail from his island, video of rich people with kids, and it has never surfaced since? Those same authorities ruled his death a suicide, because they're doing their best, honest, but they just can't seem to find that missing collective brain cell that would let them figure out the blindingly obvious. Was that the one guy arranging that too?
  I'm not saying the ultra wealthy run the network themselves, that's what I've literally been saying they don't do. The difference is if they got caught actually doing the deed, if would be a very different matter, because you physically cannot do that via proxy. That's how the blackmail can exist, and why it was covered up.
  Oh and to answer your question about who their drug dealers are, they have middlemen for that as well. Personal assistants who are on call for anything the client needs, who will readily break the law rather than disappoint a client, and whose instructions are generally vague enough that any legal risk falls on the assistant. Again: diffusion of responsibllity.
  Don't kid yourself, the society of the wealthy and powerful is rotten to the core, just as it was in the days of monarchy. They just have better cover for it nowadays. It's no longer the divine right of kings, but the invisible hand of the market.
  
  It’s fascinating to me that your example was South Korea. That’s literally the place I had in mind when I talked about the working class organising to better their lives. They have deeply militant unions.
  You know they had an honest to goodness general strike in 1997, right? And that they were specifically striking over laws that would legalise strikebreaking? That’s going to have a tectonic effect on the quality of life of workers in general. They fought hard for their pay increases and got them. That’s not attributable to market forces. Striking is literally a breakdown in market behaviour, where the bosses have squeezed so hard and so unfairly that the workers have to withdraw their labour in order to get what they need.
  It was a right-wing dictatorship up until that date, with the main union loyal to them. There was a reason so many sided with the North. Struggle against it later on took that shape of labour activism, which is interesting and new to me, but to say that industrialisation, which happened starting in the 60s, is due to labour organisation can't be and isn't correct. South Korean work hours are still famously insanely long, too.
  Also, orthodox economics is basically the managerial class being funded by the owning class to come up with post-hoc justifications for why they should keep their wealth. It’s not scientific in the slightest. The Economist is basically neoliberal propaganda.
  As someone who actually understands a good chunk of it, no. It's a strong theory with strong predictions. Maybe you should try it before you knock it. That magazine is just magazine, not a journal or anything related to the field.
  Those same authorities ruled his death a suicide, because they’re doing their best, honest, but they just can’t seem to find that missing collective brain cell that would let them figure out the blindingly obvious.
  I'm not familiar with the law of the area, but don't they have to be able to prove it in order to rule it a homicide? I don't believe in conspiracy theories in general, and doubt I'll believe the one you're proposing in specific until that changes.
  
  Which dictator do you mean? The democracy movement and the June struggle was in 1987, 10 years before the general strike.
  Also, neoliberal capitalism is very, very happy with right wing dictators because they love oppressing workers and lowering wages. Just look at Pinochet in Chile.
  And again the June struggle was won by popular struggle, not market forces. The idea that the unions supported the dictator is a weird one too. Like, where are you getting that, and is there any evidence they weren't just yellow unions approved by the dictator?
  Even then I don't know why you brought those things up. You just added a bunch of details and I guess assumed those details - some of which were very wrong - were somehow in support of some point, but you didn't say what that point is.
  And I don't know why you think I'm talking about industrialisation when I talk about workers improving their lives. That is not at all what I'm talking about. And industrialisation isn't a capitalist thing, they just happen to coincide in human history. We don't have alternative Earths to test the idea, so crediting the gains of industrialisation to the market and capitalism is weird. You just put that out there completely unsupported.
  That's another thing neoliberal economists love to do, just blame all the problems of capitalism on unions and regulations, and credit every good thing that happens on the glorious invisible hand.
  And since you understand a good amount of economics, perhaps you can tell me what is the scientific basis of supply & demand for instance? I've looked for this information and had people try to show me, but they've never actually shown it. It's a fundamental part of economics so I'm told. What is the science behind it? The perfectly straight, perpendicular bisecting lines on an unscaled graph do not suggest any scientific basis to me, they suggest the aesthetics of science devoid of its substance. If you could disabuse me of this notion then perhaps I could move on from my current woeful ignorance on the matter.
  And finally, you don't think there's any conspiracy around Epstein, fine. I bet it's easy to maintain that idea when you just ignore all the evidence I gave you.
  
  Which dictator do you mean? The democracy movement and the June struggle was in 1987, 10 years before the general strike.
  My SK history is fuzzy, I'll admit. I knew it was authoritarian up until recently (which is why the North had support), and started developing earlier. I searched the rest. If I misunderstood the exact dates my apologies.
  Also, neoliberal capitalism is very, very happy with right wing dictators because they love oppressing workers and lowering wages. Just look at Pinochet in Chile.
  Yup, no argument. I'm still team eat the rich.
  Like, where are you getting that, and is there any evidence they weren’t just yellow unions approved by the dictator?
  I'm sure that's exactly what they were. No argument.
  but you didn’t say what that point is.
  The point I was defending there is just that tiger economies work based on trade. The early USSR achieved the same thing by importing a bunch of ready-made US factories, and working from there. The West obviously did it very slowly and painfully over a couple centuries, with no outside competition. Japan sounds like it might have been a mix of the former three. That covers every successful example of development I know of.
  And I don’t know why you think I’m talking about industrialisation when I talk about workers improving their lives. That is not at all what I’m talking about.
  I have trouble imagining a pre-industrial society that would beat the one we have for standard of living, so I think it's pretty synonymous with development, which is what this tangent was about.
  And industrialisation isn’t a capitalist thing, they just happen to coincide in human history. We don’t have alternative Earths to test the idea, so crediting the gains of industrialisation to the market and capitalism is weird. You just put that out there completely unsupported.
  You're right, there's no alternative Earth to test. I suspect markets, "capitalist" or not, are the only practical way to do it, but that's just my guess.
  The perfectly straight, perpendicular bisecting lines on an unscaled graph do not suggest any scientific basis to me, they suggest the aesthetics of science devoid of its substance.
  Yeah, it's not supposed to be real, it's the simplified "no friction in a vacuum" case. The theory still roughly works (and seems to hold empirically) as long as the system is convex. If it's not, funny, bad things happen and you get Google, and market failure which roughly corresponds to enshittification. We had a whole historical period about breaking up monopolies, but unfortunately we've backtracked, especially when computers are involved. Politicians are mostly old and afraid of computers.
  Have I linked the yardsale model yet? Hmm, yes, but not to you. Behold, the economics reason for mass inequality. To go back to my recurring theme, it's dumb. The rich would much rather be called evil geniuses - a lot of them think of themselves that way - but they're not even.
  
  Okay, so I think we're largely in agreement except for a little misunderstanding. I'm glad because that means you might be a little more receptive to some of the stuff I might share. I have more links but I'm writing this novella on my phone if you can believe it. I'll share them later.
  My criticism about the professional class being paid by the owning class to justify their wealth was specifically about orthodox economics, like the Chicago School who would literally construct studies to justify whatever you wanted if you paid for it. The yardsale model - that's a great link by the way, the graph that emerges perfectly mirrors our actual economy - is an example of heterodox economics, which largely stands in opposition to orthodox economics. The opener to that page is very well written. It'll do a better job than me.
  Now, for an example of how completely divorced from reality orthodox economics is, the market convexity concept is perfect. The exceptions you mentioned about veblen and giffen goods aren't the main problem with convexity. The simple problem of inelastic demand is a much bigger problem. This is all couched in extremely obfuscating language, those articles are impenetrable to anyone who isn't steeped in economics language.
  I assume you know what inelasticity is, it's something for which demand doesn't change with price, for instance things like shelter or food. So, to demystify the language, another term for "inelastic demand" is "need". Basically, if you read between the lines even slightly, the founding, econ 101, highschool level principle of orthodox economics has been forced to admit that it doesn't work for anything anybody actually needs. And then they go on insisting that this principle should govern our entire society. Got to keep that yardsale going.
  Market convexity is an amalgamation of post-hoc justifications for why supply & demand is so hard to find in the real world. When I mentioned the perfectly straight, bisecting, perpendicular lines graph, you admitted that was just an illustration, and I agree, it is a doodle. I know it's now in vogue to use slightly curved lines, but that's just because economists are aware of how ridiculous the first illustration was and they put in just the slightest amount of extra effort to hide it.
  When I'm asking for the science, let me ask you this: what data constructs the graph? Where did it originate? This is the question I've never had answered. Just literally the graph appearing in real world data, just one time.
  See, when actual sciences want to "illustrate" a concept, sometimes they idealise, but they almost always have real data and real graphs to show. Their idealised lines pass through data points with error bars. Scientists work hard for their data, and they always, always show it off. Stress-strain curves, electron microscope images, star life-cycle data, red-shifting, animal population surveys, and on and on. Real data is complex and interesting and beautiful and scientists will show you their cool slide and say "you can see such-and-such feature here and this indicates...", it's great.
  I have looked for the supply & demand version of this and can find nothing but hand-waving excuses.
  Also, the convexity article talks about the Nobel Prize in Economics, which is wrongly named. It is the Nobel Memorial Prize. It was named after Nobel, because it's not a Nobel prize, because the Nobel prize committee rejected the economics category because it isn't a real science. Some Swiss bank then financed the wish.com version Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics.
  I suspect this isn't so hard for you to accept since you've already come so far in your understanding of heterodox economics. You still seem to have some respect for the orthodox schools, which is strange when you understand so much of where they have led us.
  As for the Epstein thing, I don't have any reason to believe that anything has changed. We know Epstein was part of the trafficking of minors, and absent any evidence about the state of that practice, the idea that removing two people from the network actually fundamentally altered anything seems hopelessly naive. I think the burden of proof lies on anyone who wants to claim the practice has been abolished.

53 comments