LWDT IX: Discussing the Left From All Engels

[Genivaria]

Exactly why is conscription not acceptable to you?

Because it is unacceptable to demand people fight, injure, kill, traumatize, destroy, and risk all the above happening to themselves as well, all for the sake of the state. It is unacceptable to pit the working class (or really any members of humanity) in one area of the world against themselves in another area of the world.

So then you're specifically talking about wars of aggression.

[Duvniask]

Oh I don't think you understand how this works. You're making the positive case for its continued existence, so you go ahead and give your reasons.

What exactly is your argument for forcing people to perform military training if the nation is not at risk of war? If you cannot show that it is necessary, then you have nothing to argue with.

Cute. The fact is the only thing you were responding to was the 'cohesion' argument which I didn't really make, at least not here.
Thus why I asked.

You didn't make any argument whatsoever beyond vague platitudes that we have a responsibility to pay back into society in some way (it tells us not why that should be in the form of the draft). Novus America made the actual argument that the draft bolsters social cohesion as seen in the Nordics (false), and you just replied to that same chain of discussion. So, snidely asking if that's my "only argument" against the draft is rich, considering it's the only argument that has been actually made in its favor up to the present post right here.

1. The military would have no problem at all meeting their quotas for jobs they need. If anything they could afford to greatly raise their standards now that they have such a wide net to choose from.

The US military is already bloated. Is there any evidence it lacks for manpower and material?

2. If coupled with requiring a national referendum to declare war (which I think is absolutely necessary) then you'll start to see more Americans actually be invested into their nations foriegn policy and American war ventures will drastically go down.

I don't really care to address the referendum part (it does seem like it would be slow and take up precious time in a war-time scenario), but how is merely being in the military going to make you more interested in foreign affairs? I mean, you sure as hell won't care that much about foreign affairs when the drill instructor is in your face for the umpteenth time. Maybe you'd be interested if stationed overseas, but given the size of the US Army, with or without the draft, they're not all going to be stationed overseas.

And another question is how said interest is going to manifest. I would not be surprised to find the military having an institutional culture supporting hard power and escalation, so that by drafting more people, you'll only expose them to an institutional culture where they are, to put it a bit hyperbolically, taught to be killers.

3. It would heavily reduce unemployment and create a large manpower pool to help tackle our nations abysmal infrastructure.

You certainly don't need military service for that.

[Cisairse]

Hot take: Nationalize life-needs industries and conscript the unemployed (optionally).

[Genivaria]

Cute. The fact is the only thing you were responding to was the 'cohesion' argument which I didn't really make, at least not here.
Thus why I asked.

You didn't make any argument whatsoever beyond vague platitudes that we have a responsibility to pay back into society in some way (it tells us not why that should be in the form of the draft). Novus America made the actual argument that the draft bolsters social cohesion as seen in the Nordics (false), and you just replied to that same chain of discussion. So, snidely asking if that's my "only argument" against the draft is rich, considering it's the only argument that has been actually made in its favor up to the present post right here.

1. The military would have no problem at all meeting their quotas for jobs they need. If anything they could afford to greatly raise their standards now that they have such a wide net to choose from.

The US military is already bloated. Is there any evidence it lacks for manpower and material?

2. If coupled with requiring a national referendum to declare war (which I think is absolutely necessary) then you'll start to see more Americans actually be invested into their nations foriegn policy and American war ventures will drastically go down.

I don't really care to address the referendum part (it does seem like it would be slow and take up precious time in a war-time scenario), but how is merely being in the military going to make you more interested in foreign affairs? I mean, you sure as hell won't care that much about foreign affairs when the drill instructor is in your face for the umpteenth time. Maybe you'd be interested if stationed overseas, but given the size of the US Army, with or without the draft, they're not all going to be stationed overseas.

And another question is how said interest is going to manifest. I would not be surprised to find the military having an institutional culture supporting hard power and escalation, so that by drafting more people, you'll only expose them to an institutional culture where they are, to put it a bit hyperbolically, taught to be killers.

3. It would heavily reduce unemployment and create a large manpower pool to help tackle our nations abysmal infrastructure.

You certainly don't need military service for that.

The US military is already bloated. Is there any evidence it lacks for manpower and material?

Our military SPENDING is certainly bloated, because we're more concerned with fulfilling defense contracts and building more tanks and jets that the military says they don't actually need.
Whereas I'm talking about shifting our priorities to be a very large national guard and civilian work force.

[Mirjt]

I agree that people misunderstand socialism and think that social Democracy is socialism due to Bernie Sander's campaign, however I still value the DSA. I believe the DSA when they say they are a multi-tendency big tent organization, they have social democrats, democratic socialists, religious socialists, libertarian socialists, marxists, etc... They support a number of leftist causes, in 2019 they formally announced support for police abolition, prison abolition, open borders, the full decriminalization of sex work, reparations for descendants of slaves and victims of Jim Crow, the BDS movement against Israel, and decolonization. I do admit that they are gradualist however as they believe completely abolishing capitalism is a Long-Term goal and for now they need to take step towards that goal, however they do describe the type of socialism they hoping to enact is a mixed market socialism with democratic and decentralized planning and the use of cooperatives, I am fine with that - is there an argument that we should abolish markets, yes, however I willing to give a mixed market socialism a shot (and so does it seem is economist professor Richard Wolff, who despite support for cooperative enterprise has been critical of market economies). I do find the lack of noticeable ground-work from the DSA concerning, but for now I give them the benefit of the doubt that they were expending most of their resources on trying to elect Bernie Sanders and reorganize itself after its surge in membership after 2015. After Bernie lost in the most recent primary, they have actually started do more kinds of direct action, including mutual aid, which has grown their numbers even more during the pandemic. They have been a small organization for a long time (and yes I am aware of some of their less flattering aspects before being reorganized, such as their former support for Israel and Zionism, the fact that some of their leadership supported police unions until the new membership removed them from their leadership roles, and the harassment of new members by the older membership) and even with their surge in membership still has less than 100,000 active members (though they do have well over 1,000,000 non-member supporters), and I am just not sure they know how to effectively organize their current resources to accomplish their goals of doing both electoral work and direct action.

I am not sure if the DSA will be really successful, and there is an argument that they are likely to be coopted as a kind of arm of the Democratic Party, but I want to give the DSA a shot and see what happens.

[Mirjt]

Exactly why is conscription not acceptable to you?

As Cisairse says: conscription is antithetical to personal liberty.

It is also pointless. The social cohesion you guys expect from welfare states doesn't derive from the fucking draft. Jesus.

YES! THANK YOU

[Mirjt]

I am generally pacifistic. I do understand that communities need to defend themselves if an aggressor attacks them, however I think that overt acts of aggression are gradually becoming less common, and may even disappear by the end of this century (assuming the World does not go completely insane and is willing to work together to help those suffering water and other resource shortages as a result of climate change). Given the way modern warfare works anyway, I am not convinced you even need a large military/militia for self-defense. I am in favor of abolishing the standing military (we have no need of a standing military in peacetime, all it does is give us a tool to unfairly impose our interests on the rest of the world, primes us to see everyone has a threat, primes us to attack first and use diplomacy later, and antagonizes the rest of the World leading to others building their militaries in fear of us), instead I favor a volunteer and purely reserve military.

Note: For anyone who finds the thoughts of these dead people relevant, many of the founding fathers were also against the existence of a standing military concerned it would be used to oppress just like the King of England's forces were, and were in favor of local militias (which are very similar to the idea of a reserve military) instead. The standing military only come to be in the U.S. due to various circumstances that just lead to it becoming more entrenched and powerful over the centuries.

---

For those unfamiliar with the terms I used:

A regular military is a military that is formally established and a regular feature, such as:

Standing Militaries: a military that is always active and conducting operations

Reserve Militaries: a military made up of people living civilian lives, who are only called into active duty during emergencies or times of war, and who receive regular training (such as having training one weekend each month, and possibly doing some kind of service, such as watching radar for incoming threats)

A irregular military is a military that is not formally established till there is need of them, such as:

Mercenary Militaries: as the name implies, it is when you outright hire a military to fight for you and your soldiers are hired mercenaries

Temporary Militaries: which is when you have no military, and the people are not trained, but when it comes time to need a military, civilians are recruited (either by volunteer or conscription) to form a military

[Cisairse]

They support a number of leftist causes, in 2019 they formally announced support for [...] open borders

Yikes.

Time to drop the DSA.

[Proctopeo]

I agree that people misunderstand socialism and think that social Democracy is socialism due to Bernie Sander's campaign, however I still value the DSA. I believe the DSA when they say they are a multi-tendency big tent organization, they have social democrats, democratic socialists, religious socialists, libertarian socialists, marxists, etc... They support a number of leftist causes, in 2019 they formally announced support for police abolition, prison abolition, open borders, the full decriminalization of sex work, reparations for descendants of slaves and victims of Jim Crow, the BDS movement against Israel, and decolonization.

Hm.

police abolition, prison abolition,

While there definitely need to be a lot of changes to both institutions, do they have an actual plan for not only doing these things, but for what to do after we cease to have police or prisons? There definitely needs to be a plan for when people like serial killers and child molesters are put back on the streets, at the very least. I'm less worried about what might happen to them, but what they might do to others.

open borders,

Under what type of context do they want this? "You're from a good country, just don't cause trouble" types of open borders, like the Europeans have, or "literally anyone from anywhere can come and go as they please" types of open borders? The difference is important.

reparations for descendants of slaves and victims of Jim Crow,

That's a pretty shit idea.

the BDS movement against Israel,

As long as they're not actively supporting terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, there's not a real problem here, I just find it a bit silly.

and decolonization.

What's there for us to decolonize? Hell, what's there for almost anyone to realistically decolonize? Pretty much the only thing left is getting the PRC to stop meddling in Africa, but I suspect that the DSA might not care about that.

[Ostroeuropa]

What's there for us to decolonize? Hell, what's there for almost anyone to realistically decolonize? Pretty much the only thing left is getting the PRC to stop meddling in Africa, but I suspect that the DSA might not care about that.

Arguably areas like Puerto Rico and a few British overseas territories. The solution there isn't "Let's GTFO" but "Okay these places need representation in the government."

[Duvniask]

It's called neo-colonialism, guys.

Just because there aren't guys with pith helmets, doesn't mean the Third World is not being kept in subservience and exploited.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's called neo-colonialism, guys.

Just because there aren't guys with pith helmets, doesn't mean the Third World is not being kept in subservience and exploited.

There's no particular reason for a socialist party to make a distinction between neo-colonialism and capitalism given that they are basically the same thing. Neo-colonialism is something crypto-communists and crypto-socailists came up with to criticize capitalism without openly doing so because if you say "Neo-colonialism" you get anti-racist liberals to pay attention to you, whereas they'd ignore you if you said "capitalism". Sort of like the alt-right calls it "The great replacment" or "White genocide" instead of "The Jews Trying To Wipe Us Out".

If you're an openly socialist party, just say capitalism. Is the left really this far gone that we can't even recognize our own dogwhistles anymore?

[Cisairse]

It's called neo-colonialism, guys.

Just because there aren't guys with pith helmets, doesn't mean the Third World is not being kept in subservience and exploited.

There's no particular reason for a socialist party to make a distinction between neo-colonialism and capitalism given that they are basically the same thing.

Lots of the DSA isn't anti-capitalism though.

succdems gunna succdem

[Ostroeuropa]

There's no particular reason for a socialist party to make a distinction between neo-colonialism and capitalism given that they are basically the same thing.

Lots of the DSA isn't anti-capitalism though.

succdems gunna succdem

Maybe it is a dogwhistle then. A way of duping soc dems into internalizing criticism of capitalism without triggering crybaby tantrums about how socialism doesn't work and we need capitalism because reasons.

[Mirjt]

There's no particular reason for a socialist party to make a distinction between neo-colonialism and capitalism given that they are basically the same thing.

Lots of the DSA isn't anti-capitalism though.

succdems gunna succdem

That is true, there are lots of social democrats in the DSA, but there is genuine anti-capitalism in the DSA too, and anti-capitalism is expressed in its mission statement (though it proposes market socialism with cooperatives combined with democratic and decentralized planning).

[Duvniask]

It's called neo-colonialism, guys.

Just because there aren't guys with pith helmets, doesn't mean the Third World is not being kept in subservience and exploited.

There's no particular reason for a socialist party to make a distinction between neo-colonialism and capitalism given that they are basically the same thing.

There is. It emphasizes the continued exploitation of the poorest nations by the richest, even after de-jure independence. It highlights global disparity; capitalism is the cause, but neo-colonialism as a term is useful to describe the outcomes of global capitalism.

[Mirjt]

There are many policies regarding decolonization.

One that I often bring up is that we need to completely cancel/forgive the debt of developing economies (a Jubilee), and dismantle global neoliberal financial institutions like the World Bank (WB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF).

[Ostroeuropa]

There's no particular reason for a socialist party to make a distinction between neo-colonialism and capitalism given that they are basically the same thing.

There is. It emphasizes the continued exploitation of the poorest nations by the richest, even after de-jure independence. It highlights global disparity; capitalism is the cause, but neo-colonialism as a term is useful to describe the outcomes of global capitalism.

Exploitation of the poor by the rich is just capitalism. If you're going to point out the poorest nations had that happen due to violent seizure of their property and exclusion from institutions of power, well, I mean.

That's capitalism. (See land enclosure etc).

They're the same. They're both the same picture.

I don't see a particular reason to demarcate the exploitation of foreigners by the global wealthy and locals, unless it's specifically to dogwhistle anti-capitalism and dupe people who get triggered by criticism of capitalism but are bleeding hearts about foreigners. It seems to me to pander specifically to the type of people I despise about the left wing, who turn a blind eye to white poverty but act concerned about foreign poverty.

Do we need a special word for how my neighbor is exploited by capitalism? For every neighbor?

[Cisairse]

Lots of the DSA isn't anti-capitalism though.

succdems gunna succdem

That is true, there are lots of social democrats in the DSA, but there is genuine anti-capitalism in the DSA too, and anti-capitalism is expressed in its mission statement (though it proposes market socialism with cooperatives combined with democratic and decentralized planning).

Just seems dumb to me for an organization known as the Democratic Socialists of America to consist largely of non-democratic socialists.

[Imperium Romanum Sanctis]

There's no particular reason for a socialist party to make a distinction between neo-colonialism and capitalism given that they are basically the same thing.

There is. It emphasizes the continued exploitation of the poorest nations by the richest, even after de-jure independence. It highlights global disparity; capitalism is the cause, but neo-colonialism as a term is useful to describe the outcomes of global capitalism.

At least in terms of Africa, the biggest victim of neo-colonialism; capitalism isn't the cause of its woes so much as it is a symptom.

The much bigger problem is corruption, with African leaders embezzling funds and sucking their countries dry. They tend to play off of popular discontent with the West and blame foreign powers for their continent's woes; and while their grievances are true to some extent, the bulk of the blame lies with them. They are the ones who accept the bribes, turn a blind eye to multinational corporations abusing their people as cheap pools of labour and crack down violently on attempts at reform. Most Third World countries are raped and pillaged with the full consent of their leaders. The problem starts and ends with them.

[Duvniask]

There is. It emphasizes the continued exploitation of the poorest nations by the richest, even after de-jure independence. It highlights global disparity; capitalism is the cause, but neo-colonialism as a term is useful to describe the outcomes of global capitalism.

Exploitation of the poor by the rich is just capitalism. If you're going to point out the poorest nations had that happen due to violent seizure of their property and exclusion from institutions of power, well, I mean.

That's capitalism.

They're the same. They're both the same picture.

I don't see a particular reason to demarcate the exploitation of foreigners by the global wealthy and locals, unless it's specifically to dogwhistle anti-capitalism and dupe people who get triggered by criticism of capitalism but are bleeding hearts about foreigners. It seems to me to pander specifically to the type of people I despise about the left wing, who turn a blind eye to white poverty but act concerned about foreign policy.

Do we need a special word for how my neighbor is exploited by capitalism? For every neighbor?

It's not dog whistling, Jesus Christ. Does it trigger you that much to point out that the West, specifically where we live, has it very good in part because of dirt poor countries elsewhere? You would reduce everything to "capitalism" without words to describe what it actually does. You want to limit the vocabulary of theory for no reason.

Exploitation of people in very poor countries by people in very rich countries is a thing. Deal with it. Deal with there being a word for it, because it's important that our system basically condemns a large chunk of the world populace to poverty, starvation and (often deadly) wage slavery, if not direct chattel slavery.

You're really begging to make me hate you here.

[Duvniask]

There is. It emphasizes the continued exploitation of the poorest nations by the richest, even after de-jure independence. It highlights global disparity; capitalism is the cause, but neo-colonialism as a term is useful to describe the outcomes of global capitalism.

At least in terms of Africa, the biggest victim of neo-colonialism; capitalism isn't the cause of its woes so much as it is a symptom.

The much bigger problem is corruption, with African leaders embezzling funds and sucking their countries dry. They tend to play off of popular discontent with the West and blame foreign powers for their continent's woes; and while their grievances are true to some extent, the bulk of the blame lies with them. They are the ones who accept the bribes, turn a blind eye to multinational corporations abusing their people as cheap pools of labour and crack down violently on attempts at reform. Most Third World countries are raped and pillaged with the full consent of their leaders. The problem starts and ends with them.

If you let a gang of thugs into your dorm to go wild on your mates, does the problem start and end with you? Of course not.

Surely you'd see there's also a problem with, you know, the guys you let in who're going to be the ones actually doing the horrible shit you let them do?

African leaders are compliant. That does not make them the cause.

[Imperium Romanum Sanctis]

At least in terms of Africa, the biggest victim of neo-colonialism; capitalism isn't the cause of its woes so much as it is a symptom.

The much bigger problem is corruption, with African leaders embezzling funds and sucking their countries dry. They tend to play off of popular discontent with the West and blame foreign powers for their continent's woes; and while their grievances are true to some extent, the bulk of the blame lies with them. They are the ones who accept the bribes, turn a blind eye to multinational corporations abusing their people as cheap pools of labour and crack down violently on attempts at reform. Most Third World countries are raped and pillaged with the full consent of their leaders. The problem starts and ends with them.

If you let a gang of thugs into your dorm to go wild on your mates, does the problem start and end with you? Of course not.

Surely you'd see there's also a problem with, you know, the guy you let in who's going to be the one actually doing the horrible shit you let him do?

You might have a point, but in this case the guy who opened the door is also passing out AK-47's to the thugs and joining in on the fun.

It's all well and good to blame the grunts and petty criminals, but at the end of the day if you want to actually solve the problem you should probably focus your attention on the mafia boss and his network of associates.

[Ostroeuropa]

Exploitation of the poor by the rich is just capitalism. If you're going to point out the poorest nations had that happen due to violent seizure of their property and exclusion from institutions of power, well, I mean.

That's capitalism.

They're the same. They're both the same picture.

I don't see a particular reason to demarcate the exploitation of foreigners by the global wealthy and locals, unless it's specifically to dogwhistle anti-capitalism and dupe people who get triggered by criticism of capitalism but are bleeding hearts about foreigners. It seems to me to pander specifically to the type of people I despise about the left wing, who turn a blind eye to white poverty but act concerned about foreign policy.

Do we need a special word for how my neighbor is exploited by capitalism? For every neighbor?

It's not dog whistling, Jesus Christ. Does it trigger you that much to point out that the West, specifically where we live, has it very good in part because of dirt poor countries elsewhere? You would reduce everything to "capitalism" without words to describe what it actually does. You want to limit the vocabulary of theory for no reason.

Exploitation of people in very poor countries by people in very rich countries is a thing. Deal with it. Deal with there being a word for it, because it's important that our system basically condemns a large chunk of the world populace to poverty, starvation and (often deadly) wage slavery, if not direct chattel slavery.

You're really begging to make me hate you here.

We occupy a particular rung on the ladder of capitalism much like people in richer towns occupy one in regards to me. I honestly don't see the purpose in the distinction. I think folding the criticism of neo-colonialism more explicitly into criticism of capitalism and noting that the same dynamics that makes people in our nation poor due to exploitation is being imposed on foreigners to a greater degree can bring it into focus. Pointing out that the distinction between domestic policy grievances against the status quo and foreign policy is not one that actually exists (With regards to poverty at least.).

[Mirjt]

Can we just all agree that capitalism, imperialism, colonialism, neocolonialism, neoliberalism all exist, all are interconnected (and may be described as forms of each other), and should all be explicitly opposed in all their forms?