Neoliberalism is bad

...

Than what?

...

The Republicans.

Ultimately, it's based on the ever-more-outdated belief that the Left can't win on its own and has to rely on the moderate conservative party (the Democrats) to ensure that the far-right reactionary and crypto-fascist party (the Republicans) don't get into power.

The Republicans are basically a dead party at this point. All the modern porkies support the Democrats now especially the silicon valley stemfags and media tycoons. The Democrats are hardly the lesser evil at this point anyway.

Well the US Democrats are worse than the Republicans. Noam says that although they're hardly different, when talking about huge power, little differences mean a lot. We would all prefer a social democracy than some neoliberal society, but voting Democrat really doesn't do anything. I'd rather vote Green.

but muh glowball worming tho

Oops I mean to say that the Republicans are worse than the Democrats. Sorry.

That's why I said it was outdated, but there's this lingering feeling that the Republicans are some sort of looming threat and supporting alternative politics will end up getting them elected. Chomsky obviously still has that mindset.

Did he really? I like chomsky but he seems to do really stupid things that even he's pointed out are stupid at times.

Trump actually claims he wants the US to stop leading NATO and make diplomatic improvements with Russia against ISIS.
Hillary is basically Obama which is basically Bush.

He also said that he outright wants to bomb foreign countries for their oil.

I'm going to e-mail Chomsky.

I think I'm going to do that too and ask him to play runescape with me

Here it is:
[email protected]/* */

Politeness, please.

Fuck Chomsky on this subject tbh. He's being a pussy.

Which is basically Clinton, which is basically Bush the Elder, which is basically Reagan.

I thought Bush Jr represented a new low in US politics?

chomsky is an idiot, in his most recent article about voting muh dems he's even said that he doesn't want people to write answers to his article kek

im 1000% sure chomsky would obliterate you in any kind of debate

wew
how does this even relate to my post?

tbh i would probably prefer a neoliberal nightmare to a neocon nightmare.

he should read Wilde tbh

Which is how chomsky, a cynical old (ancient) dude feels. Cut him some slack. He can't afford to be young and optimistic about humanity like some of us here.

What's so special about that? If you are in a swing state in a first-past-the-post system you vote against the fascist's party.

I kind of agree, but the word "fascist" needs to stop being abused.

Where do you people get this stuff? If anything, Democrats are further to the right than Republicans right now. At this point the Republican party is nothing more than hodge podge of people ranging from "I just want to be left alone" to "we need to close the borders" and "let's repeal three or four things the democrats did" while not actually standing for anything at all. The Democrats, on the other hand, are racing towards a fascist one party state as quickly as possible and high-fiving each other about it the whole way.

If you support either major political party you probably don't deserve to voice your political opinions here or anywhere.

Correct

...

Were I a burger, I'd probably not vote. But while I can't say with confidence that one party is a lesser evil than the other, Hillary does seem rather like "the devil I know". So, out of fear of the unknown, I hesitantly hope that Trump doesn't get in, simply because I know, more or less, how shit Hillary will be.

I'm actually the opposite. Trump is such an opportunist that he's basically a wild card. Given that we know just how shit clinton will be i'm willing to take my chances. That being said i'm voting green.

Neocons and neoliberals are both globalists.

That's quite ammusing. I was going to say that there have to be a few people who've made the same observation as I, but come to the opposite conclusion.

They control the house and senate. And hold more offices on the local and state level than democrats. For example, there are currently 31 republican governors and 18 democrats. What are you talking about? In what way are the republicans a dead party?

And Chomsky isn't voting democrat. He's voting for the Green Party unless the election seems close. He says that if you live in a swing state, where your vote does actually matter you should vote for them because there are some obvious differences between how the two parties operate.

Chomsky's ideas are no longer relevant TBH. He was upstaged by Graeber during Occupy.

I basically agree with this. I'm not voting for either and I would never even consider it; but I'd also take my chances with Trump as president.

Yeah. A movement as successful as that surely should be the judge of how relevant someone's ideas are. Bonus points for including Graeber, who still is less significant than Chomsky as a guy who upstaged him.

I emailed Noam today asking him whether he'll admit if he had ever been wrong. It was silly, but I wanted to see what he would say. He replied within an hour and told me that if I read his material I would see that he corrects the errors in his earlier works. Haha I thought it was basically his polite version of, "go read a fucking book."

woah it's super cool that he emails people back, though I wouldn't email him. I don't want to be bothersome.

Haha yeah. Would you like to see the exchange? Honestly, I did feel kind of bad which is why I apologized.

I want to see it

Haha here

Chomsky comes off as a total prick until you get to know his background. Few people have the tolerance for bullshit he does, being a long-time critic of imperialism that no one curr about.

I honestly didn't mind it at all. It seemed so typical of him as if I was watch his interview. He is right though. I think he's just so cranky and fed up. I respected him a lot when he accepted an interview with ali g. hahaha

whats the difference?

Neocons are just hawkish neolibs.

Neoconservatives are Americans that went from the anti-Stalinist left to the traditionalist right after surmounting disillusionment. They're basically post-Marxists that think liberal "democracy" is the forseeable endpoint of humanity, not communism.

Holy shit, did you learn English from a robot or something? It's a testament to Chomsky that he understood you.

hahahaha I see what you're saying. It just comes out like that when I'm trying not to be lazy.

Were you unable to understand it?

Have socially clumsy person A with good ideas represent ideas P, have charismatic person B represent bad ideas Q. Allow A and B to engage in public debate.

Besides, Chomsky does not take into account the fact that calls for reform legitimizes the state. It could very well be that the time to call for revolution/insurrection is before a totalitarian state has been cemented, not when it is like 1984. I fear the "reform then revolution" recipe could be catastrophic.

Chomsky is the least charismatic person. He bores every average person.

Guess he would win the debate by making his opponent fall asleep with his voice.

I think this is where Chomsky's "abolishing the state isn't a strategy" is actually meaningful. Look at where the left actually is right now and the political situation in the US. People here seem totally unaware with actual politics , with someone actually claiming the republicans are "a dead" party despite by most metrics being much more successful than the more left-leaning party.

Mmkay.

Not an argument

Chomsky is right. So we abolish the state and then what? Replace it with what? Have you seen the state of the left today? It's completely crushed and its been like this for a while. There's no serious grass roots movement or anything. What we need to do is educate and get the masses interested and the start pushing for change. Chomsky isn't wrong here as you say.

Not an argument.

Are you saying there are either facts or arguments present in ?

I think he's saying that saying something isn't an argument isn't an argument either. Which is true. This post also isn't an argument.

His post or yours? Both aren't arguments.

both and neither is yours.

points out the fact that is an argument, thus is a statement of fact but not an argument.

Meant

You know what? I think that nothing in this thread is an argument. Now I'm high as fuck and I'm ready to be really obnoxious and say "not an argument" all the fucking time.

Is there any hope at all? I mean any? Because I don't think a revolution is ever going to fucking happen.

...