?

For whom will/would you vote?

Poll closed Nov 4, 2020.
  1. Donald Trump and Mike Pence (Republican Party)

    33.1%
  2. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris (Democratic Party)

    52.6%
  3. Jo Jorgensen and Spike Cohen (Libertarian Party)

    2.5%
  4. Howie Hawkins and Angela Walker (Green Party)

    3.9%
  5. Other

    7.9%
  6. 646 voter(s)
  1. Whole lotta love

    Whole lotta love GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    257
    Country:
    United States
    Where does he describe himself as an anarcho-syndicalist? From what I understand he transitioned from identifying as an anarcho-syndicalist to libertarian socialist, but like I said, the distinction is pretty minor as they are both forms of anti-state socialism that try to redistribute capitalist wealth to the working class. I'm not a very big fan of Chomsky though and haven't read all of his writing.

    I have never argued that socialism or libertarian socialism does not require violence. Please don't strawman me.
    All politics is violent. What happens when you shoplift from a store under capitalism? Representatives from the state come with guns to exert the state's will upon you and will enact violence upon you if you don't comply. By your definition, that makes the US and any other state with a police force "oppressive" and "totalitarian".
     
    Last edited by Whole lotta love, Oct 29, 2020
    IncredulousP likes this.
  2. Foxi4

    Foxi4 Cynical Absurdist
    Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    26,836
    Country:
    Poland
    ...and that's where you lose me, and just about any reasonable reader. The core tenant of capitalisms is free, consensual and voluntary exchange of goods, services and labour. This is precisely why it is incompatible with colonialism, along with a myriad of other things it's consistently blamed for that it has nothing to do with. We can have a more reasonable discussion about crony capitalism, which most reasonable people oppose, but the moment you propose using force to put your lofty ideals into practice is the moment when you cross from a system that is liberal to a system that is totalitarian. Your shoplifting example doesn't work since in that scenario you are the aggressor - you have seized inventory that doesn't belong to you and the state has dispatched enforcers to protect the rights of the injured party - the owner of the property. Good. You're the one who initiated the hostilities, not the state.

    Libertarian socialists and anarcho-syndicalists alike advocate for a peaceful society where the ploretariat chooses to work together voluntarily, both are focusing on individualism. The general idea is that the work one wants to do is rewarding in and out of itself, eliminating the need for the wage system, and by extension, "wage slavery". They hope to achieve those goals through unionisation. This philosophy is incompatible with the use of force, or a centralised aparathus of force, as that removes the element of voluntary consent.

    Utopias are nice thought experiments, but it doesn't take much to make them crumble once you put them into practice. In the absence of incentives you need *someone* to do the jobs nobody else wants to do (or force them onto the "undesirables", which is how it usually works out), you need *someone* to enforce the rules and you need *some* kind of system to deal with dissent - if you don't have a structure like this, you create a power vacuum which is quickly filled by "a man with a plan" and their cohorts. We've seen this happen countless times now.

    Capitalism solves this problem by offering a monetary incentive for labour, it's working and so far it's the best thing we've come up with. We can talk some more about libertarian socialism once we have replicators spitting out an infinite amount of resources all day Star Trek-style - until we get to that stage, it's a complete pipe dream that's not only untenable, it's counterproductive.

    On the bright side I'm happy to hear that you're not an avid Chomsky reader - I had to suffer through his brain farts long enough. He's a brilliant and world-renowned linguist, but his political hot takes aren't always the best. He should probably stick to what he's good at - linguistic theory.

    All that is an aside though, the conversation is getting pretty circular and we're straying further and further away from the 2020 election, which is what this thread is about.
     
  3. wartutor

    wartutor GBAtemp Advanced Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2012
    Messages:
    506
    Country:
    United States
    Your opinion just like its your opinion that masks prevent the spread of the virus. Many people that wear them still catch it and thats not even going into the whole "people dont change them every interaction they have so instead of preventing the spread they actually spread it more by carrying it around on their mask infecting everyone they come into contact with afterwards." Not to mention you touch your mask constantly having to adjust it. Expecially if you wear glasses making it easier for you to catch it. Buy yeah masks save lives...yeah believe what you want. And leave me to mine. Truth be told this virus is just that a fucking virus. Quit living in fear and just get over yourself with a .02% mortality rate your more likely to die in a house explosion in your sleep but whatever. (Btw that was an overexageration no need to try and call me on the explosion percent lol)
     
    Glyptofane likes this.
  4. Whole lotta love

    Whole lotta love GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    257
    Country:
    United States
    If imperialism and coercion are incompatible with capitalism, I can't think of any existing capitalist societies. All of the major powers considered by the vast majority of the world are out of the question.

    Can you cite a source for any of your claims, but particularly this?
    Malatesta wrote often about the need for militias, as did many other anarchist and left-communist thinkers of the 20th century. The CNT-FAI fought the Spanish fascists and then the Soviets. The YPG is currently fighting ISIS and the Turkish fascists. Pacifist anarchism is definitely a thing, but it has held very little influence on libertarian socialism and anarcho-syndicalism. I don't know of any anarcho-syndicalist or libertarian socialist organization that held or holds a pacifist line.

    Capitalists almost always have to be forced to give up their property and resources.

    There are currently existing libertarian socialist societies right now and capitalism is still quite young. In my opinion, capitalism is a foolishly idealistic ideology which has never existed on any sort of scale without state authority.
    We have managed to concoct a system that destroys 30-40% of the food it produces (in the US) while 10.5 million households are food insecure. Marx was right, the issue is artificial scarcity and it is not utopian to push for better redistribution of resources.

    I guess you don't consider the US to be capitalist though because we steal resources from other nations and peoples.

    Could you please answer my question about where Chomsky identifies as an AnSyn?
     
    Last edited by Whole lotta love, Oct 29, 2020
    IncredulousP likes this.
  5. omgcat

    omgcat GBAtemp Advanced Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Messages:
    690
    Country:
    United States
    LumInvader and IncredulousP like this.
  6. Foxi4

    Foxi4 Cynical Absurdist
    Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    26,836
    Country:
    Poland
    Capitalism is strictly an economic system, it concerns voluntary trade between private individuals. Anything short of that is an abberation. Joe & Shmoe Co. are not going to war in Iraq to seize oil, they're just selling gizmos to people who want to buy them at Joe & Shmoe's Wacky Emporium Ltd. - I would be cautious in blaming capitalism for the failures of any given state. Conversely, socialism is *also* an economic system, but in contrast, it requires and consequently creates a state aparathus since, as we've discussed, its implementation necessitates the use of force, at least that's my take on how it usually turns out in practice. You are free to offer your goods and services without charge under capitalism, you are not free to pursue the profit motive under socialism - by definition, the former is inherently more liberal than the latter, in economic terms.
    It's in the name, but I'll elaborate. Libertarian socialists and anarcho-syndicalists are anti-authoritarian and anti-state. If you have no state and no centralised body responsible for military action, going to war in an organised fashion becomes a bit of a pickle. You raise an interesting point regarding militias, I suppose that is a form of occupation that one might willingly choose, however I can also see the potential for those devolving into tribalist factions in the event of internal conflict. They're also probably more interested in external threats rather than keeping the peace internally - the "anarcho" bit isn't there for giggles, they've rejected the state, after all. Putting that aside for a moment, here's a short quote:
    https://libcom.org/library/what-anarcho-syndicalism

    This pretty strictly adheres to Rocker's idea of what it should be.
    https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/rudolf-rocker-anarchosyndicalism

    Considering the fact that Rocker is one of the most prominent anarchist writers associated with the movement I assume he knows what he's talking about. Both quotes have something important in common - voluntary participation. While militias can combat external and internal threats, which is again a good point, they reject coercion as it is incompatible with their idea of unionisation, which is what I meant. They will happily fight against an external threat, like a foreign invasion, or an internal threat, like a fascist dictatorship, however in terms of day-to-day operation they seem to emphasise advocacy rather than use of force. I hope that clarification is satisfactory. I don't consider self-defense (against invasion or persecution) as something the state necessarily needs to be involved in, it's a basic right.
    Capitalists are willingly putting their resources up for sale - they don't want their own products, they made them in the first place with the intention of selling them to you. They want money, and you are welcome to voluntarily engage in commerce with them. That's a consensual exchange, and sort of the whole point of the system. You don't *have* to shop in store X, you can go to store Y, nobody's forcing you to do anything. By seizing property that does not belong to you, you've engaged in an activity that caused harm to the injured party, and under a capitalist economy that damage is measurable - it's equivalent to the cost of the item stolen. Under a system that rejects currency damages would be rather nebulous and hard to assess, but of course, this is a lesson we've learned nearly 5000 years ago as we minted the first coin in Mesopotamia and replaced trading commodities in favour of a uniform currency. It's funny how regressive some of these ideologies are when you say that out loud, it's a bit like rejecting the wheel.
    Existing in name only, but I'll bite. Marx was right to die in poverty and disease, that's about the only worthwhile thing he's done after years of mooching off of his wealthy donors. It's a shame that not all food we produce ends up in the hands of customers - some is discarded due to its low quality, much of it is destroyed once it reaches its Best Before or Use By dates. The inability to redistribute it to food banks is a failure of the state, not of capitalism - I assure you that a capitalist would most certainly dispose of it in a more pragmatic manner since food disposal is rather expensive, but in the absence of an incentive to do so there is no point in undercutting your own market. You raise an interesting point - why is food so expensive that it becomes unaffordable? Could it be that farm subsidies keep farmers who have no business planting certain crops afloat despite lack of demand, thus creating an unnecessary surplus of goods that must be stockpiled by the state or destroyed in an effort to fix prices? Y'know, something that the free market would self-regulate otherwise, forcing those farmers to re-spec and produce something else? Oh my, did socialism just artificially inflate food prices? Maybe we should stop doing that.
    Who's "we"? "We" don't go to war, the state goes to war, "we" go to work.
    I already have, so I disregarded the question. This conclusion can be gathered from a cursory reading of For Reasons of State, which I already quoted, but he's more direct in an interview with Peter Jay titled "The Relevance of Anarcho-syndicalism" where he calls himself a "fellow traveller [of anarcho-syndicalism]". I mean, that's what the interview's about, hard to interpret it in any other way.

    https://chomsky.info/19760725/

    In 2005 he released a book called On Anarchism, a collection of essays and interviews, which is basically him espousing anarcho-syndicalist ideals from front to back. In said book he calls libertarian socialism the "logical conclusion of liberalism" and anarchism an "inherently socialist philosophy" - it's pretty clean-cut.

    https://books.google.com/books/about/On_Anarchism.html?id=sDomngEACAAJ

    This has been a fun distraction, but as I've mentioned earlier, we should probably return to the subject at hand. If you have any further questions you can reach out to me privately, although I think I covered my point of view adequately - I don't have much to add.
     
    Last edited by Foxi4, Oct 29, 2020
  7. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5,333
    Country:
    Laos
    Bwahahaha!

    Here is a list of social democratic countries in the world (all of which redistribute wealth to some extend),
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

    which for some reason doesnt include the following countries in europe.
    [​IMG]

    So more than two thirds of the countries in the world have social democrats in government.

    Yet none of them would call themselves anarcho syndicalist. Or anything with anarchy in the title. ;)

    But thank you for not asking. ;)
     
    Last edited by notimp, Oct 29, 2020
  8. wartutor

    wartutor GBAtemp Advanced Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2012
    Messages:
    506
    Country:
    United States
    What artical did you read as i see nothing stating him "not recalling" and having a shipping company advise you that your envelope was opened and the contents stolen should make you question the other side more unless your one of those people that drink that kool aid ...wait...shit your tongue is dyed red damn it.
     
    Last edited by wartutor, Oct 29, 2020
  9. Whole lotta love

    Whole lotta love GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    257
    Country:
    United States
    Are there any examples of stateless capitalism existing on any sort of scale?

    This is a very niche definition of capitalism that seems to contradict your previous arguments about Chinese state capitalism lifting people out of poverty. I'm having trouble understanding where the capitalism starts and ends in your definition. I don't think I've ever engaged in a transaction in the US without the influence of state authority.

    If the US government develops a technology like internet, then private companies sell that technology is that capitalism? The funding came from coercing individuals to pay taxes with the threat of violence. Further, the state regulates many aspects of the transaction. To me it sounds like that isn't capitalism by your definition.

    Maybe a black market drug deal? But what if the heroin was brought over on a military plane from Afghanistan? Then that can't be capitalism because imperialism is involved. If it's some homegrown stuff, the legal status and weight of law enforcement are defining large parts of the transaction, from where it's taking place to the quality of the drug.

    Yes, I am a libertarian socialist, I understand what voluntary association is. However,
    you argued that anarcho-syndicalists reject violence outright, which Rocker disagrees with in this very quote. What do you think he means when he says "direct action"?
    Again, to circle back to the begining of this, anarcho-syndicalism is about workers seizing the means of production themselves, without the Leninist vanguard party or state apparatus. For example, the Spanish revolution was by no means peaceful and is certainly socialism by any textbook definition of socialism.

    Much of the food waste in the US is from stores that intentionally over stock shelves because it improves conversions in the stores. It often makes more money to waste food than to distribute it efficiently.

    According to your definition, this whole arrangement isn't capitalism though, right? Since state authority is mandating sell by dates?
    thank you. I was not doubting you, I wanted to know where to look. I must have missed where you mentioned this previously.

    Why are you insistent that he's not a socialist when you can pull quotes out of him saying that he is?
    In this last quote he made the same exact argument I did in explaining that he is a socialist and you pushed back on it.

    It feels like you're arguing for the sake of arguing and don't have a consistent position you're arguing from because several of your arguments have contradicted each other.
     
    Last edited by Whole lotta love, Oct 29, 2020
    IncredulousP likes this.
  10. Whole lotta love

    Whole lotta love GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    257
    Country:
    United States
    I'm confused, what's your point?
     
  11. Foxi4

    Foxi4 Cynical Absurdist
    Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    26,836
    Country:
    Poland
    I'm calling him what he calls himself because I like specificity. Calling him a socialist muddles the water - he is, and always has been, in strong opposition to any form of Leninist, Stalinist or Marxist form of governance, or in fact against any kind of governance at all in his early writings. Chomsky's heart is strictly on the side of anarchism with the only organising factor being unionisation. It's a bit like saying that he likes ice cream - I'm sure that he does, but anchovy is probably not his first choice. Not only that, in his imagined state the focus isn't so much on "redistribution of wealth" as it is on communal sharing - that's not what immediately springs to mind when you say "socialism", particularly not in the 20th century context, which is what we were discussing. It's an anarchist ice cream cone with a socialist sprinkle, not the other way around, and I think that distinction is important.

    My definition of capitalism, or in fact the actual definition of capitalism, since that's what it is, is wholly consistent with the China argument. They continue to exist under a communist regime (political establishment), but have implemented capitalist principles into their market (economic model). There are no "capitalist countries" per se because capitalism is not a political system - there are countries that adhere to the economic principles of capitalism to a larger or smaller degree. Capitalism, in a nutshell, is an economic system based on private ownership wherein private enterprises operate for profit via voluntary exchange. The goal is capital accumulation, the establishment of competitive markets, the recognition of private property and property rights, a uniform price system and a wage system. Various countries have different takes and different implementations since the definition is, as you say, pretty broad.

    On peaceful versus violent, I believe that I clarified that sufficiently. "Direct action" can only be directed against various flavours of boogeymen - once you run out of boogeymen to murder or re-educate, the aim is to assemble peacefully. Of course you never really run out of boogeymen, you just designate new ones since they're necessary for the system to operate, but that's practice, we're talking theory. That is what I gather from the writings on the subject, but then again, as a firm opponent of socialism of all flavours I also don't expect internal consistency from an inherently logically inconsistent belief system. You don't have to poke holes in it, it's a sieve in its original form already. On the bright side I'm also of the opinion that the state sucks at everything and anything it touches turns to dust - my flavour of libertarianism just happens to be on the opposite side of the political spectrum, so that's nice, we have one thing in common.

    Now, Biden vs. Trump, if you will. I think we've gone on long enough.
     
    Last edited by Foxi4, Oct 29, 2020
  12. Whole lotta love

    Whole lotta love GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    257
    Country:
    United States
    Your insistence that libertarian socialism has very little to do with socialism is what is muddying the waters. The "socialism" bit isn't just an accident. It's deeply rooted in Marxism, as are most social anarchist and anti-state communist movements. Individualist anarchism, post-left anarchism, and insurrectionary anarchism have a lot less influence from Marx, but I know Chomsky doesn't think highly of those tendencies.

    Social Anarchists in the early 20th century often cited Marx and argued that the goal of communism (a stateless and classless society) could only be realized by prefiguring those societal relations as directly as possible under current conditions. The ABCs of Anarchism does this well, as does Murray Bookchin, who is largely responsible for popularizing the term "libertarian socialism".
    https://social-ecology.org/wp/2016/09/bookchin-marx-r-kotlas/
    You can't have worker control of the means of production without Marx.

    This sounds like a difference without a distinction. I think when most people say "America is a capitalist country" they mean that the United States adheres to capitalist principals.

    Well I'm still very much confused because you have yet to acknowledge that libertarian socialism is a redistributive ideology that does not prohibit direct action as a means of class war after saying it's non-violent.

    To me, it sounds like you think libertarian socialism is much more similar to right libertarianism than it is.

    How do you feel about direct action against socialists and socialist states?

    I'm not very interested in Biden vs Trump. They're both despicable and I disagree with their platforms almost wholesale, which is why I'm not voting for them.
     
    Last edited by Whole lotta love, Oct 29, 2020
  13. Foxi4

    Foxi4 Cynical Absurdist
    Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    26,836
    Country:
    Poland
    Sounds like you ended up in the wrong thread then! :lol: Unless you happened to be here for Sanders back when there were "these 12 ways he can still win the nomination", although I somehow doubt that. We'll have to save our conversation for another time, I have a nasty habit of getting into these long tirades and derailing political threads - a habit that I'm trying to break. :ha:
     
  14. Whole lotta love

    Whole lotta love GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Messages:
    257
    Country:
    United States
    The thread is about who we're voting for. I voted for Howie Hawkins who is running on a socialist platform. I'm throwing my vote away no matter how I swing it so might as well fill in the bubble for the guy who says he wants to defund the military and police :D

    Lol I remember those articles from HA Goodman. I think he's grifting for Trump supporters now.
    Don't think I'd consider Bernie a socialist though. Maybe in his heart of hearts.



    Your conversations might not derail so much if you engaged in discussion in better faith.
     
    Last edited by Whole lotta love, Oct 29, 2020
    IncredulousP likes this.
  15. Foxi4

    Foxi4 Cynical Absurdist
    Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    26,836
    Country:
    Poland
    I'm afraid that I only believe in two things - money and taxes. I only like one of those. :lol:
     
    Whole lotta love likes this.
  16. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5,333
    Country:
    Laos
    You dont know what you are talking about.

    You: "Anarcho syndicalism is the same as libertarian socialism, because both are somehow about distribution of wealth."
    Me: Wtf?
    You: I dont know what you mean.
    Me: You dont know what you are talking about.
     
    Last edited by notimp, Oct 29, 2020
  17. MetoMeto

    MetoMeto GBAtemp Maniac
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2018
    Messages:
    1,018
    Country:
    Australia
    Preferably, please Americans, vote for someone who will not enforce their will on tho the entire
    world in an attempt to exploit and Americanize it...or bomb it if it's possible.

    Other than that...whoever is elected is elected.

    But seriously, Americans should think about other nations when electing, not just their own home, since
    it has influence globally not just in US.
    But no pressure!
    :grog:
     
    Last edited by MetoMeto, Oct 29, 2020
  18. FAST6191

    FAST6191 Techromancer
    Reporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    32,287
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Is there someone that won't do that? Indeed has there been anyone in living memory that won't do that?

    Exploit your geography, exploit your population and their industry, and technologies that stem from it, in an attempt to gain more wealth and more power.

    It has been this way for... all of recorded human history.

    Going full closed doors self sufficient isolationist is probably a reason to not let someone into power. Doing that, especially if you are the US, then means the others that won't be doing that will come knocking on your door in a few decades when they have consolidated power elsewhere and you have not kept up.

    If someone wants to tell them to get lost with the awful IP laws (I mean who really thinks software patents are a good idea, and their approach to copyright... ew), sub par food standards, awful medical setups and the rest then I am OK with that but that is a different matter.
     
    MetoMeto likes this.
  19. Bladexdsl

    Bladexdsl ZOMG my posts...it's over 9000!!!
    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Messages:
    19,285
    Country:
    Australia
    i bet joe doesn't get in because his old. the same way trump got in the first place because murica didn't want a woman president :lol:
     
  20. gregory-samba

    gregory-samba GBAtemp Advanced Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2020
    Messages:
    535
    Country:
    United States
    I don't think Hilliary lost because she was a women. She lost because she's a corrupt Liberal moron.
     
    MetoMeto and shamzie like this.
Draft saved Draft deleted
Loading...

Hide similar threads Similar threads with keywords - Presidential, Election, [POLL]