Hey look a libertarian sperging out with a dozen posts of objectively wrong BS and talking points just like every libertarian ever.
It's easier to get a Fundamentalist to find fault with the Bible than it is to get a libertarian to admit any business has ever been at fault for anything ever in the history of the world.
@ShastaOrange Wouldn't that be cool for people learning the meaning of all of these words (libertarian, conversative, liberal, etc) to learn about the underlying meaning and implications of each one rather than referring to everyone as large groups? Like, what is the position of ALL liberals then that make them deny that big business could at fault for stuff?
@Nothiean Well, if we had to take a stab at quantifying what Chomsky knows vs. what you know, I'd say a safe guess would be that he knows around 1,450,983 times more than you. But that's just a guess off the top of my head, you know.
agree or disagree with Marx, but he predicted all of this. I just don't think Marx was expecting the Koch Brothers and the Libertarians preaching that unregulated Capitalism is freedom. I also see in the posts that Libertarians are spewing their BS that Peter Schiff and CATO has taught them. yeah, the people shouldn't have taken the loans, but the banks profited by merging investment banks and commercial banks. LIBERTARIANS are DUMMIES!
@LouieDaProtectionist The banking crisis was a failure of Socialism/Corporatism, not a failure of Capitalism. We don't live in a Capitalist system. The banks had their arms twisted, by government, to lend money to those who couldn't pay it back. The banks were accused of racism because many of the poor were ethnic minorities. When the bubble inevitably burst, they had their arms twisted again to accept TARP funds, including banks who weren't in trouble like Wells Fargo. Continued.
@LouieDaProtectionist Wells Fargo had no sub-prime bad debts, but they were threatened with harsh regulatory treatment if they didn't comply. TARP gave the Federal government a huge amount of power over the banks. It was a form of extortion!
It was an empowered government that caused this crisis, not free-market Capitalism!
Noam Chomsky is correct to say the USSR wasn't a socialist state, at least in the fantasies of socialists. Real Socialism doesn't play out according to fantasies! Continued.
@LouieDaProtectionist The collectivism at the heart of left-wing ideologies works well in a hunter-gatherer setting where everyone knows everyone else, and who is lazy, mean, dishonest etc. It doesn't scale to our large-scale societies where we don't know most other people. This leads to selfish behaviour, and the exploitation of strangers. Empowering the state leads to a feudal society with an elite of politicians and intellectuals, and a vast underclass in the role of serfs. ie the USSR. Cont.
@LouieDaProtectionist In modern societies you need an economic system that harnesses people's selfish interests. That is free-market Capitalism. It's not as emotionally satisfying as Socialism, because it jibes with our innate instincts. But it maximises the benefit to the greatest number of people.
Are there losers in this? Of course, but those who care can get together with those of like mind, to give their time and money to help. There is no need to feed the beast of government! Continued.
@LouieDaProtectionist All left-wing ideologies are the real BS. They are a mark of how maladapted human beings are to the current conditions. I expect the West to spiral down towards social and economic collapse, with our governments becoming more totalitarian as things deteriorate! Have you heard of the NDAA? Another ratcheting up of tyranny!
BTW Your channel says "Unregulated capitalism is corporatism." No it isn't! Corporatism is government and business in an incestuous relationship!
0.39"Missery tyrany", is what has been in charge in Venezuela now for 14 yrs. How can it be, that such an 'enlightened' human being such as Mr Chomsky, be one of the intelectual friends of Mr Chavez? what a paradox!!!
Question; Did the media use the terms Socialism and Communism during the Cold War interchangably? I feel as if I have heard both of these terms in regards to the Soviet Union many times. Secondly, what is the distinction between Socialism and Communism? If anyone has an intelligent way of instructing me on this topic I would be eternally grateful. Direct inbox messages would be fine. Much appreciated!
Corporations call the shots and the (U.S.) govt follows the beat of the drummer? I am simply asserting that this present, rather ambigiously articulated "Anti-Corporatist", occupy Wall Street movement is really an appeal to greater govt. control of the economic sector, by erstwhile entitled ones, plugged into the latest electronics, and embittered by down sizing and "redundancy". Cutting CEO perks (salaries) is no bromide for needful restructurings. Not Orwellian, btw.
You have a keener eye and greater interest in these finer points. However, the fact that Obama appointed Wall Street insiders is not proof in the pudding of his "staying the course". I might submit that such hiring is not altogether inconsistent of the left or right. The source of the meltdown is the state's meddlesomeness. The notion that we need govt. to reign in the crooks, ignores the they are in league togethe. Housing loans? Bail outs? BP crisis, and Obama sidestepping the Courts of law?
@whiff1962 Obama is staying the course of Bush. No significant policy change in any area, any sector, including economic. Obama is simply doing what his corporate masters tell him (actually they probably don't even have to tell him, he already knows what's expected of him). So in that sense I agree with you, business and government are in league together. But then that's always been true. But de-regulation (the source of the meltdown) is the opposite of state meddling.
@sarcee1960 Is that what Obama was doing when he took BP's CEO aside, and told him that BP was to set aside the billions for the victims that would be "managed" by a third party, on top of what BP was already forking out in cleanup? I thought that the Courts of law would have been the source of adjudication. I see that you are of the opinion that the U.S. is a sort of Corporate oligarchy, rather than something closer to State-Capitalism, or, even soft-peddled facism.
@whiff1962 Not sure what your point is, or what BP has to do with the financial meltdown of 2008. I know that weeks before the spill Obama had proposed increased offshore drilling. Are you suggesting BP shouldn't have been made to set aside funds in an escrow account? And is there an important difference between Oligarchy and state capitalism that is salient here? You're all over the map.
@hihellohowareyou1000 Translation: I don't like other people's opinions, so they shouldn't be able to post them. Why don't you, uhm, just not read them?
@nsshero "intellectual terrorist"very interesting, can't you see what you are doing? Suffocating alternative views and opinions, by using a word that basically means"a person who uses physical violence as a mean to achieve a certain political or religious end" to label a critic of the status quo that's incoherent.if you ever did read Chomsky he states that he would never have a violent revolution he sees himself as a conservative in the words original meaning.small steps in the right direction
@hihellohowareyou1000 Wage labor was not viewed by most Americans as "wage slavery"... that's misleading or a distortion of early labor markets. I'm sure there are some who thought that, and you probably come closest when the Progressive movement was at it's height in the early 1900's (when socialism began to really rise), but saying "most Americans viewed it as not much better than slavery" is preposterous. That was never the case, except among specific minority groups in America.
When Autocracies fall its never pretty - look at America's experience in Iraq. History also shows that Britain, France, Italy, Germany all went through similar bouts of bloodletting when they toppled their kings. Rarely, if ever, have we seen a peaceful transistion from Autocracy to democracy - whatever the ideology.
Its hard to quantify how many people the Tsar actually killed - just as today in the third world - where billions of people die needlessly through malnutrition and no access to clean water or medicine. In regards to the crimes of Stalin - have you ever considered they might have been a product of Russia's bloody history rather than being related to communism. After all, we don't equate the crimes of Suharto and Pinochet with free-market capitalism - so why do the same with socialism?
Russia was always backward & behind the west, Since it took until the late 19th century to start moving out of feudalism & the murder of Alexander II stalled its progress towards reform & modernization, In my view Lenin was misguided in trying to skip over the Fourth Stage of capitalism as they had to undertake extreme draconian measures to makeup for it with state coercion, State sponsored persecution of religious institution was totally unnecessary & completely barbarous.
@Obasiliasfilosofos I return to my original point - with the exception of East Germany - can you point to a former communist country were the 'workers' are better off?
Poland, I have never met a pole who had anything good to say about the experience under the soviet union & most especially despise Stalin in particular, Poles the view USSR era as just another period of Russian aggression & domination over their country , The Tsarist regime & its soviet successor both persecuted them for their catholic faith & cut up their country.
Poles today have the option of working abroad & sending money home & the country is prospering thanks to the EU.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Even non-religious people know this.
The homosexual agenda is not good for anyone, including those who consider themselves "gay".
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Socialists have a hard time accepting that socialism requires centralizing of power and Capitalists have a hard time getting that Socialists want pure capitalism.
It's one of the wierdest and most baseless arguments I've seen. Pure Capitalism is anarchism or very small government. Pure socialism (if you get past centralized powers) can be like Noam put it, communities working together.
You sheeple have signed up to the bullshit Alex Jones has been spouting. The Nazi's kept the Frankfurt stock exchange going throughout the war - and many of the war profiteers who owned shares got very rich. You could even buy stock in the consortium that made Zyklon B - the gas used in the concentration camps. This is just historical revisionism - I suggest you stop watching 'Prison Planet' and read a few books.
The truth is in the modern industrialized world the best system is a mix of socialism and capitalism - yin and yang - two opposites complementing each other - total capitalism is a nightmare just as total socialism is a nightmare.
To what degree, in contemporary western terms, does the worker not have control over his labor? In what sense do you define your position. I would think that with the former Soviet Union, as it is with present "Socialist" states, the free market of labor was virtually non existent! The only way that one would come to realize a "workers' paradise" in the U.S. (I am an American), is for the state to prop up such a utopianism. There are worker owned businesses, without central planning.
@whiff1962 Yup, sounds like you've never worked a day in your life if you have to ask such an imbecilic question. Businesses control what time you start, what you can wear, when you can go to the bathroom, what you get paid, what you do, how fast you do it, how long you do it, how you do it, what you can say, whom to obey, and what time you leave the workplace. In many places there is totalitarian surveillance to make sure of all these things. Please tell me where worker control comes into it?
@sarcee1960 You obviously gravitate to a form of anarcho-syndicalism, perhaps similar to the fashion of Barcelona, at the time of the Spanish Civil war? If a business has money to make (and employing people), then yes, there are certain constraining features that are to be expected when one sells his time and labor. However, your argument contra wage labor, no doubt animated by your bad memories of public school controls, is without substance. Are you self-employed?
@whiff1962 Not sure how you came to the conclusion about my philosophy, but I can assure you it's not anarcho-syndicalism. What you call "certain constraining features" (a wonderfully concocted Orwellianism) others call slavery, which is about as far from worker control as you can get, and in contradiction to your initial claim. People don't sell their labour, the rent it, and for a price they usually have no control over either, unless they are a professional athlete or a Fortune 500 CEO.
@sarcee1960 I assume that you view wage labor in terms of a slavery? The Soviet Revolution, in large part, was a promise of a worker's paradise, which, history has show, never materialized. All socialist, western European states have maintained free market enterprise, even with the state heavily invested in these respective economies: we see the result of such welfarist-socialist policies presently, including the U.S, since 2007. The numbers do not lie; Obama's statist inclinations fucked it up.
Not meant to be a contradiction. What I mean is is that Western Europe has, for the most part, left aspects of the economy to free market forces, roughly speaking. There is no denying that the U.S. has shifted to the left, economically; certainly, the legacy of Rooseveltian New Deal economics-Keynes would flip out to see the extent to which his pump prime economic theory was taken. fundamental question might beg one to cosider how much economic freedom individuals will forgo, and for what ends.
@whiff1962 Your qualification makes more sense and now I understand. However, I wouldn't characterize the US as having shifted to the left, economically. Obama appointed his Wall St friends to key positions in his administration and still hasn't fixed the source of the financial meltdown by re-regulating the derivatives market loopholes. Those aren't the signs of leftist polcies. On every major economic policy strategy, Obama has stayed the course of Bush.
I don't understand why Chomsky denigrates the Soviet Union for treating the working class as slaves when it gave them free education, housing and health care and every body knows that the Russian worker was feather bedded - with two men doing the job of one. Which is better than anything his 'anarcho syndcalism' as produced - a hopelessly utopian doctrine that as offered the poor people of this world nothing. Chomsky is a bourgeois anarchist and therefore an enemy of the proletariat.
free education, housing and health care , Is something Nazism also offered to the racially desired German working class, Having perks & welfare does not alter the demonstrably evil aspects of any system.
The USSR was lorded over by a class of party bureaucrats known as the Nomenklatura & they maintained their privileged status thru nepotism ,The USSR had No journalistic freedom and the proletariat was politically dispossessed allowing for a return to capitalism to take place.
@Obasiliasfilosofos I wasn't saying the Soviet Union was a paradise - my point was - were the proletariat better off under communism than they were under the Tsar - additionally were they better off than under Yeltsin and Putin. This is what the bourgeois never get about socialism. And Chomsky - the bourgeois anarchist fails to recognize this fact - instead he bangs on on about the mid 19th Century as if it was some golden age. Yeah right.
Russia would have been better off without the Bolsheviks ceasing power by force and overthrowing Kerensky's provisional gov, The red's coup deta greatly worsened the pre-existing humanitarian crisis & hunger Russia was griped with since it lead to a civil war at a time when unity & stability was desperately needed to tackle the hunger & disease that was growing across the country , Stalin's "classicide " & political purges killed more people then the Tsar.
@sarcee1960 I don't think he mentions capitalism in this video, but in general he always misuses the word. He gives fallacious sophistic "arguments" as to why we should not have economic freedom. Like Michael Moore and others, he continually uses deception to "argue." He rarely if ever makes a distinction between free markets and "capitalism" or even bothers to define it. People like Chomsky, Moore, Naomi Klein, and the like, are interested in pushing socialism, not in logic and reason.
@MillionthUsername Then it sounds like you don't know what capitalism means if you think the people you mentioned are not advocating economic freedom.
@sarcee1960 What are you talking about? All those people call themselves socialists and want to eliminate economic freedom. Socialism is about central planning of economies. You don't know that? What do you think happens to you if you violate one of their rules by trading freely? They put you in a cage.
@MillionthUsername What evidence do you have (e.g. references, quotes, etc.) that the people you mentioned want to eliminate economic freedom, without redefining economic freedom to suit your ideological purposes? Central planning is what corporations do on a quarterly basis.
@sarcee1960 Socialists/commies by definition want to eliminate economic freedom, otherwise their control freak religion wouldn't exist and they would just be normal people.
The term "central planning" refers to a central power running the economy, not individuals or corporations making plans.
@MillionthUsername All the present ideological strategies that are currently dominating the US political scene are, in one form or another, anarchistic. Their lurks a deep-seated hatred of centralized power - weather that be socialist or nationalist -within the Neo Cons, Neo Liberals, Paleo Conservatives, the Tea Party, Zeitgeist, Anonymous and Occupy Wall Street. It seems a libertarian/ anarchist alliance is covering all bases - left and right. The Mask of Anarchy - indeed.
@MillionthUsername I didn't think you could answer my question requesting evidence for your claim, and sure enough, you didn't disappoint.
Oh, and when certain business sectors (e.g. financial) or corporations large enough to have a higher GDP than many countries (e.g. Wal-Mart, ExxonMobil, Apple, GM, etc) make decisions, then whatever they plan affects the whole economy. Financial meltdown of 2008 is exhibit A.
@sarcee1960 "I didn't think you could answer my question requesting evidence for your claim"
I said it's part and parcel of socialism to deny economic freedom. If it were not, they would have absolutely nothing to say and nothing to do. As it is they continually trash free markets and work constantly to inhibit them. Their whole rhetoric is designed around demonizing business. You telling me their all free marketers?
@MillionthUsername Ok, I see I'm dealing with a dimbulb. I'll type really slowly so you can understand my question: What evidence do you have that the people you mentioned and describe as socialists want to eliminate economic freedom, without defining (or redefining) socialism in a way that presupposes your claim?
@MillionthUsername I'm not speaking to you, I'm typing messages to you. When you can back up your claim that the people who you've mentioned want to eliminate economic freedom let me know.
@MillionthUsername Sorry but that really is bullshit - the 2008 meltdown was caused by the deregulation of derivatives and a bubble in the housing market - the obsession with creating the 'ownership society' is all well and good when the economy is doing well - but a small downturn - will mean people are thrown out of work and will foreclose on their mortgages - leaving the banks fatally exposed. Besides capitalism always booms and busts - its integral to the system.
"the 2008 meltdown was caused by the deregulation of derivatives and a bubble in the housing market"
That's like saying that gravity caused your demise after I pushed you over the cliff. The whole financial system is built on a model of central planning through the central banks' control of credit and interest. The phony credit expansion causes the "bubble." Derivatives are just the end stage of the paper game
@MillionthUsername So you're equating deregulation (an intentional conscious act by humans) with gravity (a attracting force generated by matter) ?
I agree with you about central banks and central planning, but if derivatives hadn't been dergulated there would have been no financial collapse. That's a fact.
@sarcee1960 "So you're equating deregulation (an intentional conscious act by humans) with gravity"
Oh, you're a dimbulb. Let me type more slowly so you can understand. Nah. Never mind. "but if derivatives hadn't been dergulated there would have been no financial collapse. That's a fact."
When you can back up this claim with evidence, let me know.
@MillionthUsername So in addition to not knowing what sociialsim is, you don't know what a troll is. And what are you doing poking around my chanel ? What were you looking for?
Let me guess, you're 9 yeras old. Go ask your mom what a troll is, okay kid?
@MillionthUsername Look capitalism caused the crash - period. In the 1908 it was robber barons - in the 30s it was selling on the margin - in the 70s it was the oil crisis - in the 80s it was substandard computers - in 2OOO it was the dot com boom - in 2008 it was the credit crunch - whatever economic frippery you apply it always crashes - that's the nature of the beast. Cleverer men than you or I have wrestled with this problem for centuries with little or no success.
@32peartree "Look capitalism caused the crash - period."
You really don't know what the hell you're talking about. What capitalism? The banking system is a gov't created fascist cartel. The money is fiat, backed by nothing. The credit is created out of thin air. Interest rates are set by the central bank. The gov't also created phony institutions to buy mortgages from banks. Why the HELL do you think real estate prices were so ridiculous and banks were leveraged 30 and 40 times?
@32peartree You might want to start with a little basic economic knowledge of how markets work, and a little history of the US and the west in general before you go blaming "capitalism" for the massive state-sanctioned credit monopoly that rules the world. We do not have capitalism. There is no free market in banking and finance. These are heavily regulated institutions of privilege. It is gigantic looting scheme, a criminal enterprise sanctioned at the top by gov't power.
@MillionthUsername Two words - Nineteenth Century. No fed, no fiat currency - money panics galore. The problem with the banking conspiracy - it believes in some perfect form of capitalism. 'if it just wasn't for all those evil bankers everything would just be fine'. In the past they just blamed the JEWS. And if you're advocate of anarchistic capitalism - I can't analyze the historical record because there isn't one.
@32peartree "Two words - Nineteenth Century. No fed, no fiat currency - money panics galore."
Three words: Fractional Reserve Banking. Money panics galore.
FRB is by definition using fiat currency. They issue more claims to money than they have money, therefore when those claims are brought forward at one time (a run) there isn't enough money to cover the promises.
"I can't analyze the historical record because there isn't one."
Anyone can analyze historically free vs controlled markets.
@MillionthUsername if banks could only lend 9 dollars for every dollar they had in deposit - this might stop a run but only because most people wouldn't get credit in the first place - It would create a massive deflationary spiral - maybe taking us back to the pre-industrial age - perhaps something the libertarian right desires after shipping out all our industry to China.
@MillionthUsername I suppose you'd get rid of taxes and social provisions and have a race to the bottom with China. You still haven't answer'd the question - if you stop FRB how do you stop deflation - we haven't seen a system of usury since the middle ages without some form of FRB - and despite the busts FRB has created the modern world. Moreover, there hasn't been a run on a major bank since the great depression - so FRB didn't cause the collapse - it was deregulation of the markets
@32peartree "Moreover, there hasn't been a run on a major bank since the great depression"
OMG, what do you think the bailouts were???
"if you stop FRB how do you stop deflation"
Why would you want to stop deflation? It is the market correction for inflation. You can't stop deflation when these Fed induced bubbles crash. Asset prices fall because the credit was artificial. There is not enough savings to pay the inflated high prices! Money pumping doesn't change that reality.
@32peartree what I meant to say was before the recent crash - they hadn't been a run on a major bank since the 30s - it was only when the banking sector was allowed to self regulate that these massive abuses took place. A lack of government scrutiny rather than a government inspired bubble. Keynes saved capitalism from its worst excesses - but it seems the bourgeoisie are still determined to dig their own grave. To this effect, the Austrian School will provide an excellent shovel.
I agree with his assessment of how the word "socialism" has lost all meaning, but his representation of wage labor and how it was viewed historically is a complete distortion, or misleading at best.
I apologise to everyone for not getting round to changing the video title. My channel is flooded with comments, messages and other crap so I'm not always fully aware of what's going on as I usually don't have time to read through them all. Again, I apologise.
That has happened to me twice now. Does anyone know the odds of running into someone on youtube comments randomly? Boy do I love coincidences. It adds validity to the idea of synchronicity.
If its happened to you thumb this up, I would love to know how many people this happens to.
Awesome, its such a small world or maybe I am weird for thinking it is so fucking cool.
@heavym3tal I don't know what seig howdy means but rock on anyways. No you are one of the stupidest people I have ever talked to which is weird because you seem so smart, so I am inclined to think you have some psychological issue rather than being just incompetent.
Aside from that it is FUCKING cool as hell I ran into you again. I get so excited about stuff like that and I don't really know why. Later player : _)
"Now as far as Socialism is concerned, that term has been so evacuated of content over the last century that it's hard even to use." I disagree with Professor Chomsky, the term "socialism" isn't hard to use. I hear Right-Wing Tea Party Reactionaries talk about "socialism" all the time. They label even the most basic fair social policy "socialism". What we're really talking about are Social Justice Issues, (Employee Rights) (The Minimum Wage) (Basic Health Care) etc all labeled SOCIALISM, idiots!
Socialism is non ownership,Socialism is by force.Workers have choice,they are not forced to work in a free capital society. Chomsky is dead wrong about workers and Productivity. Look up the definition of Market.Chomsky is clueless, this is so basic,and here he cherry picks historical events, ignoring the Liberating forces of the free market
@9avedon Which liberating forces are you referring to? To even get to where we are today in the US we fought one of the bloodiest labor wars that this world has ever seen. So I would be interested to know what you are talking about. I certainly hope you don't think the people of the US are liberated today...
Makes sense why the us would defame socialism, to get to capitalism wich given our greedy nature(well most of us) will eventually lead to corporatism wich is fascism in disguise.
The problem with Chomsky is that he doesn't fundamentally understand human nature, economics, or the problems with the underlying policies of true socialism. He still believes that people need to be controlled beyond the necessity of maintaining order. Chomsky and his libertarian socialist views are awful.
@heavym3tal you just proved me right.... How is the definition of Socialism you gave the opposite of libertarianism? I don't see any conflicts there. Libertarian Socialism - the freedom of the individual to associate with anyone they want.
@omio1 socialism---> collective comes before individual, no private property Libertarian-----> individual comes before collective, individual property rights
@heavym3tal libertarianism has nothing to do with private property, that is just capitalism. Libertarian Socialism - you are NOT forced into a collective you do what ever you want it is anarchism. Capitalism only exists with a state protecting property by force so you can't be libertarian and have private property. Now go look up the difference between private property and personal possessions. Read "What is property?" by Proudhon
@omio1 Do I need to give you the definition of socialism again? There is no voluntary collectivism in a socialist society, and if you believe that there can be one, you need to wake up. Capitalism is not a form of government, by any means (see anarcho-capitalism), but it is the best economic system for societies that desire personal liberty. Why do you want a society where the government and economic system are conjoined?
@heavym3tal Capitalism is where government an economic system are joined. Socialism is democracy, where people are more important than profits. Haven't you listened to the video? That man is the sharpest most moral intellectual of our time!
@rosiethebear300 You need to look up the definitions of both socialism and capitalism, so that your ignorance isn't so apparent. Besides, Noam Chomsky thinks he knows the perfect society since he has a PhD. in linguistics?
@heavym3tal He has extensive graduate experience in Linguistics, Politics and Philosophy>He is perfectly equipped to understand an ideal society and political matters despite his formal position being that of a linguist.
@Konversekid Ok dude, just because he speaks about politics, doesn't give him extensive graduate experience in politics and philosophy. He is quite a simpleton to expect that a any type of union-based society will result in a utopia. This is what most of you people don't understand. I have been following and speaking about politics for over a year now. So does that give me extensive knowledge of politics?
@heavym3tal He doesn't just speak about it, he has taken many graduate courses on all of those subjects. By graduate experience I mean he has a strong academic background in these fields, he was in political classes for Masters students in the subject. It's just that his formal degree is a PHD in Linguistics, and he only teaches Linguistics and Philosophy courses. In terms of academia absolutely the next best thing to a someone with a PHD in Political Studies or Policy.
@heavym3tal Also, he isn't expecting a utopia, he is simply arguing that people should control the means of production. This is a more natural manner of production and it largely was the norm fornon-slaves up until the industrial revolution. It shows the ultimate understanding for human nature and the desire to be the owner of what one makes, and then sell it. Rather than a person making something without ever having ownership of it in terms of it as property. The alternative is slave labour.
@Konversekid Then why doesn't he argue for Libertarian Capitalism? When a worker assembles a component of a larger system, he obtains a wage for the time that he/she spent working on assembling such a component (thereby selling a final product). The more productive, the more wage he/she obtains. In fact, if he/she so desires, said person can try and create a product or service in the marketplace to then compete against their former employer.
@Konversekid What Chomsky doesn't understand, and most neo-liberals don't either, is that when a person invents something on their own, how do other employees own that idea, if they themselves didn't come up with it? Example: Kashi Cereal. The person who came in as an employee after the company was created did not come up with the recipe for the cereal's ingredients. That was made up by the creator(s) of the company. So why should said employee take credit for something they did not create?
@heavym3tal What you don't understand is that most of the time large companies like that hire professional cooks to come up with their recipes, so the company owners don't always invent the product.
Also, in the case of everyday commodities like clothing, cups, vehicles, the owner is completely removed from the productions process, while everything is essentially made by the employees. It only is natural that a person makes some thing and then sells it themselves
@heavym3tal Lastly, neo liberals are proponents of free market economics, most of whom respect intellectual property rights.
And the reason the employees won't own the idea, owning an idea is absolutely absurd. Sure someone created it, but that does not mean that they own the idea.
@Konversekid Even if a company hires a chef to create a recipe, they must acknowledge credit to the creator, and create some kind of contract for compensation. But, for example Cambell's Soup, an employee that places the cans in to the shipping crate made no contribution to the creation of the recipe. You are arguing that said employee made just as much contribution to the recipe as the chef that came up with it.
@heavym3tal They don't need to create a contract for him, it could simply be his/her job to make different products. They may honestly receive no significant credit for it.
And I am not agreeing that their contribution was equal, but what I am saying is that both of them should have some ownership over the end product, rather than nothing but an undervalued wage compensation. They were both necessary for the creation of a crate of soup, and thus should have some say in what happens to them.
@Konversekid It is pretty clear you, like many who think like you, have no idea on how businesses work. You also can not carry on an intelligent debate, since you decide to respond to some of my comment instead of all of my comments. This will be my last post to you, and I wish you good luck in the future, despite your handicap of being a Canadian Socialist.
@heavym3tal How do I not understand how businesses work? I would like you to try to enlighten me on the issue.
I also personally understand your comment about what I respond to, because I feel the same way about your commenting patterns. However, I do not find myself upset that you find different comments to be significant to you rather than me. I would encourage you to bring up comments that I have missed to your dissatisfaction.
Lastly, thank you for being prejudiced to my ethnicity
@Grandecasla That is a ludicrous statement. If an exchange between 2 parties is voluntary, neither will agree to the terms of the exchange unless both parties believe they benefit. One party (business) offers compensation to the other (worker). If the worker sees this wage as insufficient, then he/she will seek higher compensation until a deal is made or rejected. Such an agreement only succeeds if both parties benefit (win-win), therefore a worker can not be exploited under true capitalism.
@Grandecasla This is different from forced labor which can only occur through government coercion. When government interferes with the market place, all sorts of tyranny occurs (i.e.- monopolies, lower living standards, etc.).
@Grandecasla Don't forget that a worker's wage increases as the worker gains more experience, since the worker is more highly skilled than when said worker was first hired. This is why employer's give raises. In a competitive market, this competition between businesses ensures that a worker will always be able to obtain high wages/compensation.
@Konversekid Classical Liberals (Adam Smith) are proponents of free market economics, neo-liberals are proponents of progressive ideas like progressive income tax, Cradle-to-Grave Welfare, etc.
"And the reason the employees won't own the idea, owning an idea is absolutely absurd. Sure someone created it, but that does not mean that they own the idea."
So Walt Disney didn't come up with Mickey Mouse, Steve Jobs didn't envision the Ipad, and Henry Ford didn't come up with the assembly line?
@Konversekid Very well then. If you want to understand my point of view, I suggest watching the documentaries (on youtube) "Good Intentions" by Walter Williams, and "Free to Choose" by Milton Friedman. In the same, so I can understand your viewpoint, can you point me to any literature or video?
@heavym3tal you're funny. If you or I get to chose between working for slave wages or poverty while the opulent do nothing, where's the choice? There's none. And there are no good intentions in Capitalism. When a car company doesn't recall a dangerous product because it would cost more than paying off victims of that product, that's not good intentions. Your labour is devalued and everything you buy is overpriced. Its simple math that socialism works and capitalism royally screws everyone.
@johnniefive80 Besides the fact that both your arguments are built on economic fallacies, you have no idea what you are talking about. I'll elaborate: (1) Slaves do not get wages, that is why it is called slavery, (2) Where is the proof that said company tried to cover up your statement? If there is none than it is the responsibility of the consumer to decide how much protection such a vehicle is worth. Are motorcycle companies at fault because of the lack of safety features on motorcycles?
@heavym3tal Economic fallacies? really? humans invented Capitalism. Life has been on earth for billions of years before we invented a way of royally fucking humanity for the benefit of the few elitist, aristocratic, false god, parasitic scum or aka the rich. The only fallacy is thinking we must support a system that supports only the rich.
@johnniefive80 Capitalism is not a system that supports the rich. It requires government intervention to accomplish that (i.e.- mixed economy). You are describing a system in which no one can move from one class to the other, which is completely untrue in a true capitalist system. Andrew Carnegie started out as an immigrant with nothing, and ended up as a steel tycoon (who went on to build libraries for free in Ireland).
@heavym3tal The idea of moving between classes is stupidity, the very definition of classism is "prejudice or discrimination based on class." The movement between them, no matter how easy or hard it can be doesn't justify it. Classism and capitalism are so mutually beneficial that neither can work without the other. Zero classism would mean equality and equality would mean no unequal trade or "profit." There's no practical need for unequal trade, the rich and classim. It only strangles humanity.
@johnniefive80 The problem with uniform equality is best illustrated by a poker game. In a regular game, everyone bets that they will come out with a winning hand. Obviously there can only be one winner, and he/she wins money at the end of the round. If we apply the rule of equal outcomes, at the end of the night should all the winners equalize their winnings with all the other players that lost? Would anyone still play poker if this were the case?
@johnniefive80 Would you agree that people are different, or even unique? If so, how do you treat unequal people equally (I mean this outside of "equality before the law"). Would you take part of an intelligent person's brain, and insert it into a less intelligent person? People are not made exactly alike, therefore not everyone is equal, and universal equality is irrational.
@heavym3tal Wow it is a small world. I seen your name and it sounded familiar so I check your channel and you were the denier idiot I was talking to long time ago who was very ignorant of science even though you were studying to be a nuclear engineer or something along those lines. I didn't want insult you but rather to convey my shock that we both ran into each other again. I really don't like you but I am glad I ran into you again, because this is wild. What are the odds?
@heavym3tal Why do you talk out of your ass? Capitalism is what puts them in such luxury while the rest of the world fights over scraps. Government tries in vain to mediate the ugly flaws of Capitalism; Poverty, inequality, greed and cut throat mentality. Its only as mixed as needed to keep Capitalism from reaching its final stage, complete depletion of resources and desolving of any other form of Rule. In that possible future, there would be no gov. to protect you from Money's totalitarian rule
@johnniefive80 Steve Jobs was given up for adoption, adopted by middle class parents, and went on to revolutionize the way people communicate. Sam Walton was born on a farm in Oklahoma, and revolutionized the way people shop for goods. I can list more, but the point is that, in a capitalist system, no one is limited to a class forever. There is no aristocracy, no elite club.
@heavym3tal He revolutionized nothing. He made a better windows mobile device, made things very dumbed down or "user friendly." And any good he actually did went to support the rich. The money apple makes could put an ipod in the hand of every human on earth, or better, push technologies that would lead to a computer with sensors to replace doctors, placed in every home of the world. Renewable energy technologies and to cure all medial problems with things like stem cell technology and genetics.
@johnniefive80 Honestly, who do you think donates so much money to charities that participate in the activities that you described? And, no, I do not "talk out of my ass." I use historical fact. I wish I could say the same for you.
@heavym3tal Capitalism debunked: Indigenous peoples still live without the "incentive" of money, making shelters, providing for themselves. Profit systems under utilize resources. Profit systems cannot exist without poverty, unemployment, inadequate wages. Poverty causes 99% of crime. Profit systems are impractical and unnecessary. Profit systems requires classim, totalitarian systems and always corrupts Governments.
@johnniefive80 And what did we as a society inherent from their hard work (Capitalists and workers)? One of the highest standards of living in the world. Russia had a socialist revolution in the 1920s. What happened there? Germany had a socialist revolution in the 1930s. What happened there? Cuba had a socialist revolution in the 1950s. What happened there? If you want to change the present system, you need to remove unnecessary govt. regulation on a federal level (in the U.S.).
@heavym3tal how can you say Germany had a socialist revolution in the 30s when Hitler murdered millions of trade unionists, communists and jews - this is the right-wing nonsense. And you shouldn't get so smug about your 'highest standards of living in the world' because most of its underpinned by the subjugation of Latin America, East Asia and the Middle East. Capitalism is a global system of exploitation- you just sit at the top of a pile .
@32peartree Nazi = German Socialist workers party. You should also not argue fallacies when discussing capitalism. There is fixed amount of wealth in the world. Therefore I can not "sit" at the top of the pile. All voluntary exchanges between parts will not proceed unless both sides benefit. Therefore no exchange in a free market system involves exploitation. The government is the only entity that can coerce involuntary exchanges. Such an exchange is not voluntary, thus not capitalism.
@heavym3tal Hitler was a capitalist pure and simple - he was just a patriotic capitalist opposed to the liberal variety. Just because he used the term 'socialism' means nothing. Socialism was popular in Germany in the 20s so It was a way of fooling the German people. In reality he was bankrolled by big corporations like Krupp Steal, Volkswagen, IG Farben. They paid for all his rallies, flags and uniforms - why? - because they feared real socialism was about to take over.
@32peartree Dude! Hitler was a facist socialist. He put the government in charge of all industries. What are Marx's demands in the Communist Manifesto (Sec. 2): 4) Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels, 5)Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6) Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State, (cont.)
Hey look a libertarian sperging out with a dozen posts of objectively wrong BS and talking points just like every libertarian ever.
It's easier to get a Fundamentalist to find fault with the Bible than it is to get a libertarian to admit any business has ever been at fault for anything ever in the history of the world.
ShastaOrange 1 month ago
@ShastaOrange Wouldn't that be cool for people learning the meaning of all of these words (libertarian, conversative, liberal, etc) to learn about the underlying meaning and implications of each one rather than referring to everyone as large groups? Like, what is the position of ALL liberals then that make them deny that big business could at fault for stuff?
paulism1984 18 hours ago in playlist Favorite videos
Actually, he does.
SonofCimmeria 2 months ago 4
Like Chomsky knows what socialism is
Nothiean 2 months ago
@Nothiean Well, if we had to take a stab at quantifying what Chomsky knows vs. what you know, I'd say a safe guess would be that he knows around 1,450,983 times more than you. But that's just a guess off the top of my head, you know.
JRCrowley 1 month ago
agree or disagree with Marx, but he predicted all of this. I just don't think Marx was expecting the Koch Brothers and the Libertarians preaching that unregulated Capitalism is freedom. I also see in the posts that Libertarians are spewing their BS that Peter Schiff and CATO has taught them. yeah, the people shouldn't have taken the loans, but the banks profited by merging investment banks and commercial banks. LIBERTARIANS are DUMMIES!
LouieDaProtectionist 2 months ago
@LouieDaProtectionist The banking crisis was a failure of Socialism/Corporatism, not a failure of Capitalism. We don't live in a Capitalist system. The banks had their arms twisted, by government, to lend money to those who couldn't pay it back. The banks were accused of racism because many of the poor were ethnic minorities. When the bubble inevitably burst, they had their arms twisted again to accept TARP funds, including banks who weren't in trouble like Wells Fargo. Continued.
dalriada842 1 month ago
@LouieDaProtectionist Wells Fargo had no sub-prime bad debts, but they were threatened with harsh regulatory treatment if they didn't comply. TARP gave the Federal government a huge amount of power over the banks. It was a form of extortion!
It was an empowered government that caused this crisis, not free-market Capitalism!
Noam Chomsky is correct to say the USSR wasn't a socialist state, at least in the fantasies of socialists. Real Socialism doesn't play out according to fantasies! Continued.
dalriada842 1 month ago
@LouieDaProtectionist The collectivism at the heart of left-wing ideologies works well in a hunter-gatherer setting where everyone knows everyone else, and who is lazy, mean, dishonest etc. It doesn't scale to our large-scale societies where we don't know most other people. This leads to selfish behaviour, and the exploitation of strangers. Empowering the state leads to a feudal society with an elite of politicians and intellectuals, and a vast underclass in the role of serfs. ie the USSR. Cont.
dalriada842 1 month ago
@LouieDaProtectionist In modern societies you need an economic system that harnesses people's selfish interests. That is free-market Capitalism. It's not as emotionally satisfying as Socialism, because it jibes with our innate instincts. But it maximises the benefit to the greatest number of people.
Are there losers in this? Of course, but those who care can get together with those of like mind, to give their time and money to help. There is no need to feed the beast of government! Continued.
dalriada842 1 month ago
@LouieDaProtectionist All left-wing ideologies are the real BS. They are a mark of how maladapted human beings are to the current conditions. I expect the West to spiral down towards social and economic collapse, with our governments becoming more totalitarian as things deteriorate! Have you heard of the NDAA? Another ratcheting up of tyranny!
BTW Your channel says "Unregulated capitalism is corporatism." No it isn't! Corporatism is government and business in an incestuous relationship!
dalriada842 1 month ago
@LouieDaProtectionist Let me guess: You want George W. Bush back? lol
JRCrowley 1 month ago
Politics----"The shadow cast over society by big business." NC and J Dewey done said a mouthful.
Dionysos37 2 months ago
0.39"Missery tyrany", is what has been in charge in Venezuela now for 14 yrs. How can it be, that such an 'enlightened' human being such as Mr Chomsky, be one of the intelectual friends of Mr Chavez? what a paradox!!!
guruartist 2 months ago
Answer: you answered your own question. Secondly, continue watching. Read. Or... look up Zizek.
Jatspage 2 months ago
Question; Did the media use the terms Socialism and Communism during the Cold War interchangably? I feel as if I have heard both of these terms in regards to the Soviet Union many times. Secondly, what is the distinction between Socialism and Communism? If anyone has an intelligent way of instructing me on this topic I would be eternally grateful. Direct inbox messages would be fine. Much appreciated!
Jodaddy2006 2 months ago
Corporations call the shots and the (U.S.) govt follows the beat of the drummer? I am simply asserting that this present, rather ambigiously articulated "Anti-Corporatist", occupy Wall Street movement is really an appeal to greater govt. control of the economic sector, by erstwhile entitled ones, plugged into the latest electronics, and embittered by down sizing and "redundancy". Cutting CEO perks (salaries) is no bromide for needful restructurings. Not Orwellian, btw.
whiff1962 3 months ago
Comment removed
whiff1962 3 months ago
You have a keener eye and greater interest in these finer points. However, the fact that Obama appointed Wall Street insiders is not proof in the pudding of his "staying the course". I might submit that such hiring is not altogether inconsistent of the left or right. The source of the meltdown is the state's meddlesomeness. The notion that we need govt. to reign in the crooks, ignores the they are in league togethe. Housing loans? Bail outs? BP crisis, and Obama sidestepping the Courts of law?
whiff1962 3 months ago
@whiff1962 Obama is staying the course of Bush. No significant policy change in any area, any sector, including economic. Obama is simply doing what his corporate masters tell him (actually they probably don't even have to tell him, he already knows what's expected of him). So in that sense I agree with you, business and government are in league together. But then that's always been true. But de-regulation (the source of the meltdown) is the opposite of state meddling.
sarcee1960 3 months ago
@sarcee1960 Is that what Obama was doing when he took BP's CEO aside, and told him that BP was to set aside the billions for the victims that would be "managed" by a third party, on top of what BP was already forking out in cleanup? I thought that the Courts of law would have been the source of adjudication. I see that you are of the opinion that the U.S. is a sort of Corporate oligarchy, rather than something closer to State-Capitalism, or, even soft-peddled facism.
whiff1962 3 months ago
@whiff1962 Not sure what your point is, or what BP has to do with the financial meltdown of 2008. I know that weeks before the spill Obama had proposed increased offshore drilling. Are you suggesting BP shouldn't have been made to set aside funds in an escrow account? And is there an important difference between Oligarchy and state capitalism that is salient here? You're all over the map.
sarcee1960 3 months ago
chomsky claims eastern europe had it better uunder the soviet bloc, and claims america killed more cambodians than Pol Pot. That is just absurd
nsshero 3 months ago
@nsshero like you he's using a very narrow band of facts because technically he's right if you refer to things like education and housing
irishgodfatherchris 3 months ago
@hihellohowareyou1000 Translation: I don't like other people's opinions, so they shouldn't be able to post them. Why don't you, uhm, just not read them?
saberswordsmen1 3 months ago
intellectual terrorist
nsshero 3 months ago
@nsshero "intellectual terrorist"very interesting, can't you see what you are doing? Suffocating alternative views and opinions, by using a word that basically means"a person who uses physical violence as a mean to achieve a certain political or religious end" to label a critic of the status quo that's incoherent.if you ever did read Chomsky he states that he would never have a violent revolution he sees himself as a conservative in the words original meaning.small steps in the right direction
Dubmmb 3 months ago
@hihellohowareyou1000 Whoa, nice comeback there, professor. :p
saberswordsmen1 3 months ago
At least nobody mentioned Justin Beiber o_O
jimboZS 3 months ago
Remember I said 'working class'. If the Poles you are speaking to can speak English this suggests they are middleclass.
32peartree 3 months ago
@hihellohowareyou1000 Wage labor was not viewed by most Americans as "wage slavery"... that's misleading or a distortion of early labor markets. I'm sure there are some who thought that, and you probably come closest when the Progressive movement was at it's height in the early 1900's (when socialism began to really rise), but saying "most Americans viewed it as not much better than slavery" is preposterous. That was never the case, except among specific minority groups in America.
saberswordsmen1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When Autocracies fall its never pretty - look at America's experience in Iraq. History also shows that Britain, France, Italy, Germany all went through similar bouts of bloodletting when they toppled their kings. Rarely, if ever, have we seen a peaceful transistion from Autocracy to democracy - whatever the ideology.
32peartree 3 months ago
Comment removed
32peartree 3 months ago
Its hard to quantify how many people the Tsar actually killed - just as today in the third world - where billions of people die needlessly through malnutrition and no access to clean water or medicine. In regards to the crimes of Stalin - have you ever considered they might have been a product of Russia's bloody history rather than being related to communism. After all, we don't equate the crimes of Suharto and Pinochet with free-market capitalism - so why do the same with socialism?
32peartree 3 months ago
@32peartree
Russia was always backward & behind the west, Since it took until the late 19th century to start moving out of feudalism & the murder of Alexander II stalled its progress towards reform & modernization, In my view Lenin was misguided in trying to skip over the Fourth Stage of capitalism as they had to undertake extreme draconian measures to makeup for it with state coercion, State sponsored persecution of religious institution was totally unnecessary & completely barbarous.
Obasiliasfilosofos 3 months ago
@Obasiliasfilosofos I return to my original point - with the exception of East Germany - can you point to a former communist country were the 'workers' are better off?
32peartree 3 months ago
@32peartree
Poland, I have never met a pole who had anything good to say about the experience under the soviet union & most especially despise Stalin in particular, Poles the view USSR era as just another period of Russian aggression & domination over their country , The Tsarist regime & its soviet successor both persecuted them for their catholic faith & cut up their country.
Poles today have the option of working abroad & sending money home & the country is prospering thanks to the EU.
Obasiliasfilosofos 3 months ago
Comment removed
32peartree 3 months ago
Comment removed
32peartree 3 months ago
Comment removed
32peartree 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Even non-religious people know this.
The homosexual agenda is not good for anyone, including those who consider themselves "gay".
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
Socialists have a hard time accepting that socialism requires centralizing of power and Capitalists have a hard time getting that Socialists want pure capitalism.
It's one of the wierdest and most baseless arguments I've seen. Pure Capitalism is anarchism or very small government. Pure socialism (if you get past centralized powers) can be like Noam put it, communities working together.
dibaterman 3 months ago
You sheeple have signed up to the bullshit Alex Jones has been spouting. The Nazi's kept the Frankfurt stock exchange going throughout the war - and many of the war profiteers who owned shares got very rich. You could even buy stock in the consortium that made Zyklon B - the gas used in the concentration camps. This is just historical revisionism - I suggest you stop watching 'Prison Planet' and read a few books.
32peartree 3 months ago
The truth is in the modern industrialized world the best system is a mix of socialism and capitalism - yin and yang - two opposites complementing each other - total capitalism is a nightmare just as total socialism is a nightmare.
32peartree 3 months ago
And paraphrasing the late John Dewey, and his position on education, would make him a poor choice in defending his (Chomsky's) position on democracy!
whiff1962 3 months ago
Workers controlling the means of production? This sounds like 19th century Marxist rehash.
whiff1962 3 months ago
@whiff1962 Workers having no control over their working lives? This sounds like early 20th century feudalism.
sarcee1960 3 months ago
To what degree, in contemporary western terms, does the worker not have control over his labor? In what sense do you define your position. I would think that with the former Soviet Union, as it is with present "Socialist" states, the free market of labor was virtually non existent! The only way that one would come to realize a "workers' paradise" in the U.S. (I am an American), is for the state to prop up such a utopianism. There are worker owned businesses, without central planning.
whiff1962 3 months ago
@whiff1962 Yup, sounds like you've never worked a day in your life if you have to ask such an imbecilic question. Businesses control what time you start, what you can wear, when you can go to the bathroom, what you get paid, what you do, how fast you do it, how long you do it, how you do it, what you can say, whom to obey, and what time you leave the workplace. In many places there is totalitarian surveillance to make sure of all these things. Please tell me where worker control comes into it?
sarcee1960 3 months ago
Comment removed
whiff1962 3 months ago
@sarcee1960 You obviously gravitate to a form of anarcho-syndicalism, perhaps similar to the fashion of Barcelona, at the time of the Spanish Civil war? If a business has money to make (and employing people), then yes, there are certain constraining features that are to be expected when one sells his time and labor. However, your argument contra wage labor, no doubt animated by your bad memories of public school controls, is without substance. Are you self-employed?
whiff1962 3 months ago
@whiff1962 Not sure how you came to the conclusion about my philosophy, but I can assure you it's not anarcho-syndicalism. What you call "certain constraining features" (a wonderfully concocted Orwellianism) others call slavery, which is about as far from worker control as you can get, and in contradiction to your initial claim. People don't sell their labour, the rent it, and for a price they usually have no control over either, unless they are a professional athlete or a Fortune 500 CEO.
sarcee1960 3 months ago
@sarcee1960 I assume that you view wage labor in terms of a slavery? The Soviet Revolution, in large part, was a promise of a worker's paradise, which, history has show, never materialized. All socialist, western European states have maintained free market enterprise, even with the state heavily invested in these respective economies: we see the result of such welfarist-socialist policies presently, including the U.S, since 2007. The numbers do not lie; Obama's statist inclinations fucked it up.
whiff1962 3 months ago
@whiff1962 "All socialist, western European states have maintained free market enterprise" is a contradiction in terms. Your post makes no sense.
sarcee1960 3 months ago
Not meant to be a contradiction. What I mean is is that Western Europe has, for the most part, left aspects of the economy to free market forces, roughly speaking. There is no denying that the U.S. has shifted to the left, economically; certainly, the legacy of Rooseveltian New Deal economics-Keynes would flip out to see the extent to which his pump prime economic theory was taken. fundamental question might beg one to cosider how much economic freedom individuals will forgo, and for what ends.
whiff1962 3 months ago
@whiff1962 Your qualification makes more sense and now I understand. However, I wouldn't characterize the US as having shifted to the left, economically. Obama appointed his Wall St friends to key positions in his administration and still hasn't fixed the source of the financial meltdown by re-regulating the derivatives market loopholes. Those aren't the signs of leftist polcies. On every major economic policy strategy, Obama has stayed the course of Bush.
sarcee1960 3 months ago
Comment removed
whiff1962 3 months ago
Comment removed
whiff1962 3 months ago
I don't understand why Chomsky denigrates the Soviet Union for treating the working class as slaves when it gave them free education, housing and health care and every body knows that the Russian worker was feather bedded - with two men doing the job of one. Which is better than anything his 'anarcho syndcalism' as produced - a hopelessly utopian doctrine that as offered the poor people of this world nothing. Chomsky is a bourgeois anarchist and therefore an enemy of the proletariat.
32peartree 3 months ago
@32peartree
free education, housing and health care , Is something Nazism also offered to the racially desired German working class, Having perks & welfare does not alter the demonstrably evil aspects of any system.
The USSR was lorded over by a class of party bureaucrats known as the Nomenklatura & they maintained their privileged status thru nepotism ,The USSR had No journalistic freedom and the proletariat was politically dispossessed allowing for a return to capitalism to take place.
Obasiliasfilosofos 3 months ago
Comment removed
32peartree 3 months ago
@Obasiliasfilosofos I wasn't saying the Soviet Union was a paradise - my point was - were the proletariat better off under communism than they were under the Tsar - additionally were they better off than under Yeltsin and Putin. This is what the bourgeois never get about socialism. And Chomsky - the bourgeois anarchist fails to recognize this fact - instead he bangs on on about the mid 19th Century as if it was some golden age. Yeah right.
32peartree 3 months ago
@32peartree
Russia would have been better off without the Bolsheviks ceasing power by force and overthrowing Kerensky's provisional gov, The red's coup deta greatly worsened the pre-existing humanitarian crisis & hunger Russia was griped with since it lead to a civil war at a time when unity & stability was desperately needed to tackle the hunger & disease that was growing across the country , Stalin's "classicide " & political purges killed more people then the Tsar.
Obasiliasfilosofos 3 months ago
How about the misuse of "capitalism," Noam? You know, that awful system that has made you rich?
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername So where does Noam misuse the word capitalism in this video?
sarcee1960 3 months ago
@sarcee1960 I don't think he mentions capitalism in this video, but in general he always misuses the word. He gives fallacious sophistic "arguments" as to why we should not have economic freedom. Like Michael Moore and others, he continually uses deception to "argue." He rarely if ever makes a distinction between free markets and "capitalism" or even bothers to define it. People like Chomsky, Moore, Naomi Klein, and the like, are interested in pushing socialism, not in logic and reason.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername Then it sounds like you don't know what capitalism means if you think the people you mentioned are not advocating economic freedom.
sarcee1960 3 months ago
@sarcee1960 What are you talking about? All those people call themselves socialists and want to eliminate economic freedom. Socialism is about central planning of economies. You don't know that? What do you think happens to you if you violate one of their rules by trading freely? They put you in a cage.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername What evidence do you have (e.g. references, quotes, etc.) that the people you mentioned want to eliminate economic freedom, without redefining economic freedom to suit your ideological purposes? Central planning is what corporations do on a quarterly basis.
sarcee1960 3 months ago
@sarcee1960 Socialists/commies by definition want to eliminate economic freedom, otherwise their control freak religion wouldn't exist and they would just be normal people.
The term "central planning" refers to a central power running the economy, not individuals or corporations making plans.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername All the present ideological strategies that are currently dominating the US political scene are, in one form or another, anarchistic. Their lurks a deep-seated hatred of centralized power - weather that be socialist or nationalist -within the Neo Cons, Neo Liberals, Paleo Conservatives, the Tea Party, Zeitgeist, Anonymous and Occupy Wall Street. It seems a libertarian/ anarchist alliance is covering all bases - left and right. The Mask of Anarchy - indeed.
32peartree 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername I didn't think you could answer my question requesting evidence for your claim, and sure enough, you didn't disappoint.
Oh, and when certain business sectors (e.g. financial) or corporations large enough to have a higher GDP than many countries (e.g. Wal-Mart, ExxonMobil, Apple, GM, etc) make decisions, then whatever they plan affects the whole economy. Financial meltdown of 2008 is exhibit A.
sarcee1960 3 months ago
@sarcee1960 "I didn't think you could answer my question requesting evidence for your claim"
I said it's part and parcel of socialism to deny economic freedom. If it were not, they would have absolutely nothing to say and nothing to do. As it is they continually trash free markets and work constantly to inhibit them. Their whole rhetoric is designed around demonizing business. You telling me their all free marketers?
"Financial meltdown of 2008 is exhibit A."
Of central planning.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername Ok, I see I'm dealing with a dimbulb. I'll type really slowly so you can understand my question: What evidence do you have that the people you mentioned and describe as socialists want to eliminate economic freedom, without defining (or redefining) socialism in a way that presupposes your claim?
sarcee1960 3 months ago
@sarcee1960 "Ok, I see I'm dealing with a dimbulb"
Total jackass.
"I'll type really slowly so you can understand my question"
Type it again. More slowly.
When you think you can speak to me like a human being, let me know.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername I'm not speaking to you, I'm typing messages to you. When you can back up your claim that the people who you've mentioned want to eliminate economic freedom let me know.
sarcee1960 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername Sorry but that really is bullshit - the 2008 meltdown was caused by the deregulation of derivatives and a bubble in the housing market - the obsession with creating the 'ownership society' is all well and good when the economy is doing well - but a small downturn - will mean people are thrown out of work and will foreclose on their mortgages - leaving the banks fatally exposed. Besides capitalism always booms and busts - its integral to the system.
32peartree 3 months ago
@32peartree "Sorry but that really is bullshit"
Get a clue first before you blow.
"the 2008 meltdown was caused by the deregulation of derivatives and a bubble in the housing market"
That's like saying that gravity caused your demise after I pushed you over the cliff. The whole financial system is built on a model of central planning through the central banks' control of credit and interest. The phony credit expansion causes the "bubble." Derivatives are just the end stage of the paper game
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername So you're equating deregulation (an intentional conscious act by humans) with gravity (a attracting force generated by matter) ?
I agree with you about central banks and central planning, but if derivatives hadn't been dergulated there would have been no financial collapse. That's a fact.
sarcee1960 3 months ago
@sarcee1960 "So you're equating deregulation (an intentional conscious act by humans) with gravity"
Oh, you're a dimbulb. Let me type more slowly so you can understand. Nah. Never mind. "but if derivatives hadn't been dergulated there would have been no financial collapse. That's a fact."
When you can back up this claim with evidence, let me know.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername So now you're just copying whatever I say like a 9 year old. Good to know who I'm dealing with.
You equated gravity with deregualtion, and now you're running from that. Check.
Still can't back up your original claim I see.
sarcee1960 3 months ago
@sarcee1960 Jackass Punk Troll.
I see you have made you channel unavailable like a good troll.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername So in addition to not knowing what sociialsim is, you don't know what a troll is. And what are you doing poking around my chanel ? What were you looking for?
Let me guess, you're 9 yeras old. Go ask your mom what a troll is, okay kid?
sarcee1960 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername Look capitalism caused the crash - period. In the 1908 it was robber barons - in the 30s it was selling on the margin - in the 70s it was the oil crisis - in the 80s it was substandard computers - in 2OOO it was the dot com boom - in 2008 it was the credit crunch - whatever economic frippery you apply it always crashes - that's the nature of the beast. Cleverer men than you or I have wrestled with this problem for centuries with little or no success.
32peartree 3 months ago
@32peartree "Look capitalism caused the crash - period."
You really don't know what the hell you're talking about. What capitalism? The banking system is a gov't created fascist cartel. The money is fiat, backed by nothing. The credit is created out of thin air. Interest rates are set by the central bank. The gov't also created phony institutions to buy mortgages from banks. Why the HELL do you think real estate prices were so ridiculous and banks were leveraged 30 and 40 times?
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@32peartree You might want to start with a little basic economic knowledge of how markets work, and a little history of the US and the west in general before you go blaming "capitalism" for the massive state-sanctioned credit monopoly that rules the world. We do not have capitalism. There is no free market in banking and finance. These are heavily regulated institutions of privilege. It is gigantic looting scheme, a criminal enterprise sanctioned at the top by gov't power.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername Two words - Nineteenth Century. No fed, no fiat currency - money panics galore. The problem with the banking conspiracy - it believes in some perfect form of capitalism. 'if it just wasn't for all those evil bankers everything would just be fine'. In the past they just blamed the JEWS. And if you're advocate of anarchistic capitalism - I can't analyze the historical record because there isn't one.
32peartree 3 months ago
@32peartree "Two words - Nineteenth Century. No fed, no fiat currency - money panics galore."
Three words: Fractional Reserve Banking. Money panics galore.
FRB is by definition using fiat currency. They issue more claims to money than they have money, therefore when those claims are brought forward at one time (a run) there isn't enough money to cover the promises.
"I can't analyze the historical record because there isn't one."
Anyone can analyze historically free vs controlled markets.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername if banks could only lend 9 dollars for every dollar they had in deposit - this might stop a run but only because most people wouldn't get credit in the first place - It would create a massive deflationary spiral - maybe taking us back to the pre-industrial age - perhaps something the libertarian right desires after shipping out all our industry to China.
32peartree 3 months ago
@32peartree How can a bank lend $9 for every $1? You are describing FRB. It is fraud. If you only have $1, you can only $1.
You seem to be claiming that counterfeiting is a good thing. Why is it a good thing? And who gets to counterfeit? Everybody? What would happen then?
"perhaps something the libertarian right desires after shipping out all our industry to China."
Libertarians? You are greatly confused. Congress is not libertarian. Their taxes and regulations "ship jobs" overseas.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername I suppose you'd get rid of taxes and social provisions and have a race to the bottom with China. You still haven't answer'd the question - if you stop FRB how do you stop deflation - we haven't seen a system of usury since the middle ages without some form of FRB - and despite the busts FRB has created the modern world. Moreover, there hasn't been a run on a major bank since the great depression - so FRB didn't cause the collapse - it was deregulation of the markets
32peartree 3 months ago
@32peartree "Moreover, there hasn't been a run on a major bank since the great depression"
OMG, what do you think the bailouts were???
"if you stop FRB how do you stop deflation"
Why would you want to stop deflation? It is the market correction for inflation. You can't stop deflation when these Fed induced bubbles crash. Asset prices fall because the credit was artificial. There is not enough savings to pay the inflated high prices! Money pumping doesn't change that reality.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@32peartree "I suppose you'd get rid of taxes and social provisions and have a race to the bottom with China."
I don't know what you mean.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@32peartree what I meant to say was before the recent crash - they hadn't been a run on a major bank since the 30s - it was only when the banking sector was allowed to self regulate that these massive abuses took place. A lack of government scrutiny rather than a government inspired bubble. Keynes saved capitalism from its worst excesses - but it seems the bourgeoisie are still determined to dig their own grave. To this effect, the Austrian School will provide an excellent shovel.
32peartree 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername lol and that somehow excuses capitalism? Noam making money?
kotkee 3 months ago
@kotkee Noam is a wealthy capitalist. Ask him whether that "excuses capitalism", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
I agree with his assessment of how the word "socialism" has lost all meaning, but his representation of wage labor and how it was viewed historically is a complete distortion, or misleading at best.
saberswordsmen1 3 months ago 2
I apologise to everyone for not getting round to changing the video title. My channel is flooded with comments, messages and other crap so I'm not always fully aware of what's going on as I usually don't have time to read through them all. Again, I apologise.
Peace.
MrSovetski 3 months ago
That has happened to me twice now. Does anyone know the odds of running into someone on youtube comments randomly? Boy do I love coincidences. It adds validity to the idea of synchronicity.
If its happened to you thumb this up, I would love to know how many people this happens to.
Awesome, its such a small world or maybe I am weird for thinking it is so fucking cool.
thesparitan 3 months ago
@thesparitan Seig Howdy! Btw, I doubt man made Climate Change, not Climate Change itself. Later hater ;^)
heavym3tal 3 months ago
@heavym3tal I don't know what seig howdy means but rock on anyways. No you are one of the stupidest people I have ever talked to which is weird because you seem so smart, so I am inclined to think you have some psychological issue rather than being just incompetent.
Aside from that it is FUCKING cool as hell I ran into you again. I get so excited about stuff like that and I don't really know why. Later player : _)
thesparitan 3 months ago
Fix the title, douche
MEpianist 3 months ago
"Now as far as Socialism is concerned, that term has been so evacuated of content over the last century that it's hard even to use." I disagree with Professor Chomsky, the term "socialism" isn't hard to use. I hear Right-Wing Tea Party Reactionaries talk about "socialism" all the time. They label even the most basic fair social policy "socialism". What we're really talking about are Social Justice Issues, (Employee Rights) (The Minimum Wage) (Basic Health Care) etc all labeled SOCIALISM, idiots!
CosmicFork 4 months ago
Yes. As other comments say, he's not debunking it. He's talking about the use/misuse of the word 'socialism'.
munderlarkst 4 months ago 9
Hey look! A nitwit like GiantSandles is loling at Chomsky. The chimp can laugh?
Spahny1 4 months ago
@Spahny1 Because it's not like I was laughing at the misleading title rather than laughing at Chomsky.
You're an idiot.
GiantSandles 4 months ago
Socialism is non ownership,Socialism is by force.Workers have choice,they are not forced to work in a free capital society. Chomsky is dead wrong about workers and Productivity. Look up the definition of Market.Chomsky is clueless, this is so basic,and here he cherry picks historical events, ignoring the Liberating forces of the free market
9avedon 4 months ago
@9avedon Which liberating forces are you referring to? To even get to where we are today in the US we fought one of the bloodiest labor wars that this world has ever seen. So I would be interested to know what you are talking about. I certainly hope you don't think the people of the US are liberated today...
RainCityBlues 4 months ago
Makes sense why the us would defame socialism, to get to capitalism wich given our greedy nature(well most of us) will eventually lead to corporatism wich is fascism in disguise.
We need to get rid of the monetary system...
mihaimoldo 4 months ago
fox news disliked this video
pandasftuw 4 months ago
In think you guys are missing the point a little, who cares for the name you give to your political system.
What professor Chomsky does is provide people with what he calls Intellectual Self Defence.
Don't forget we are livin' in the times when we get rid of the neoliberal tyranny.
In dec of 2001 after 911, the Argentinian people said NO to the corporations and
the IMF. They have now no debt and are rebuilding their great country.
Chile now lends money to the US.
Americans, GET RID OF D FED!
rafnezden1968 4 months ago
The problem with Chomsky is that he doesn't fundamentally understand human nature, economics, or the problems with the underlying policies of true socialism. He still believes that people need to be controlled beyond the necessity of maintaining order. Chomsky and his libertarian socialist views are awful.
heavym3tal 5 months ago
@heavym3tal How does Libertarian Socialism control people? It is by definition the freedom to associate with whomever you want.
omio1 4 months ago
@omio1 Libertarian- political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the basic moral principle of society
Socialism- economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively
How does this fit your definition? Socialism is, by definition, the opposite of Libertarian philosophy. Compare with:
Capitalism- economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit.
heavym3tal 4 months ago
@heavym3tal you just proved me right.... How is the definition of Socialism you gave the opposite of libertarianism? I don't see any conflicts there. Libertarian Socialism - the freedom of the individual to associate with anyone they want.
omio1 4 months ago
@omio1 socialism---> collective comes before individual, no private property Libertarian-----> individual comes before collective, individual property rights
heavym3tal 4 months ago
@heavym3tal libertarianism has nothing to do with private property, that is just capitalism. Libertarian Socialism - you are NOT forced into a collective you do what ever you want it is anarchism. Capitalism only exists with a state protecting property by force so you can't be libertarian and have private property. Now go look up the difference between private property and personal possessions. Read "What is property?" by Proudhon
omio1 4 months ago
@omio1 Do I need to give you the definition of socialism again? There is no voluntary collectivism in a socialist society, and if you believe that there can be one, you need to wake up. Capitalism is not a form of government, by any means (see anarcho-capitalism), but it is the best economic system for societies that desire personal liberty. Why do you want a society where the government and economic system are conjoined?
heavym3tal 4 months ago
@heavym3tal Capitalism is where government an economic system are joined. Socialism is democracy, where people are more important than profits. Haven't you listened to the video? That man is the sharpest most moral intellectual of our time!
rosiethebear300 4 months ago
@rosiethebear300 You need to look up the definitions of both socialism and capitalism, so that your ignorance isn't so apparent. Besides, Noam Chomsky thinks he knows the perfect society since he has a PhD. in linguistics?
heavym3tal 4 months ago
@heavym3tal He has extensive graduate experience in Linguistics, Politics and Philosophy>He is perfectly equipped to understand an ideal society and political matters despite his formal position being that of a linguist.
Konversekid 4 months ago
@Konversekid Ok dude, just because he speaks about politics, doesn't give him extensive graduate experience in politics and philosophy. He is quite a simpleton to expect that a any type of union-based society will result in a utopia. This is what most of you people don't understand. I have been following and speaking about politics for over a year now. So does that give me extensive knowledge of politics?
heavym3tal 4 months ago
@heavym3tal He doesn't just speak about it, he has taken many graduate courses on all of those subjects. By graduate experience I mean he has a strong academic background in these fields, he was in political classes for Masters students in the subject. It's just that his formal degree is a PHD in Linguistics, and he only teaches Linguistics and Philosophy courses. In terms of academia absolutely the next best thing to a someone with a PHD in Political Studies or Policy.
Konversekid 4 months ago
@heavym3tal Also, he isn't expecting a utopia, he is simply arguing that people should control the means of production. This is a more natural manner of production and it largely was the norm fornon-slaves up until the industrial revolution. It shows the ultimate understanding for human nature and the desire to be the owner of what one makes, and then sell it. Rather than a person making something without ever having ownership of it in terms of it as property. The alternative is slave labour.
Konversekid 4 months ago
@Konversekid Then why doesn't he argue for Libertarian Capitalism? When a worker assembles a component of a larger system, he obtains a wage for the time that he/she spent working on assembling such a component (thereby selling a final product). The more productive, the more wage he/she obtains. In fact, if he/she so desires, said person can try and create a product or service in the marketplace to then compete against their former employer.
heavym3tal 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"..if he/she so desires, said person can try and create a product or service in the marketplace to then compete against their former employer."
In theory it sounds nice, but in practice it never happens.
IiiERT 4 months ago
@Konversekid What Chomsky doesn't understand, and most neo-liberals don't either, is that when a person invents something on their own, how do other employees own that idea, if they themselves didn't come up with it? Example: Kashi Cereal. The person who came in as an employee after the company was created did not come up with the recipe for the cereal's ingredients. That was made up by the creator(s) of the company. So why should said employee take credit for something they did not create?
heavym3tal 4 months ago
@heavym3tal What you don't understand is that most of the time large companies like that hire professional cooks to come up with their recipes, so the company owners don't always invent the product.
Also, in the case of everyday commodities like clothing, cups, vehicles, the owner is completely removed from the productions process, while everything is essentially made by the employees. It only is natural that a person makes some thing and then sells it themselves
Konversekid 4 months ago
@heavym3tal Lastly, neo liberals are proponents of free market economics, most of whom respect intellectual property rights.
And the reason the employees won't own the idea, owning an idea is absolutely absurd. Sure someone created it, but that does not mean that they own the idea.
Konversekid 4 months ago
@Konversekid Even if a company hires a chef to create a recipe, they must acknowledge credit to the creator, and create some kind of contract for compensation. But, for example Cambell's Soup, an employee that places the cans in to the shipping crate made no contribution to the creation of the recipe. You are arguing that said employee made just as much contribution to the recipe as the chef that came up with it.
heavym3tal 4 months ago
@heavym3tal They don't need to create a contract for him, it could simply be his/her job to make different products. They may honestly receive no significant credit for it.
And I am not agreeing that their contribution was equal, but what I am saying is that both of them should have some ownership over the end product, rather than nothing but an undervalued wage compensation. They were both necessary for the creation of a crate of soup, and thus should have some say in what happens to them.
Konversekid 4 months ago
@Konversekid It is pretty clear you, like many who think like you, have no idea on how businesses work. You also can not carry on an intelligent debate, since you decide to respond to some of my comment instead of all of my comments. This will be my last post to you, and I wish you good luck in the future, despite your handicap of being a Canadian Socialist.
heavym3tal 4 months ago
@heavym3tal How do I not understand how businesses work? I would like you to try to enlighten me on the issue.
I also personally understand your comment about what I respond to, because I feel the same way about your commenting patterns. However, I do not find myself upset that you find different comments to be significant to you rather than me. I would encourage you to bring up comments that I have missed to your dissatisfaction.
Lastly, thank you for being prejudiced to my ethnicity
Konversekid 4 months ago
@heavym3tal does that make it okay to exploit the worker?
Grandecasla 4 months ago
@Grandecasla That is a ludicrous statement. If an exchange between 2 parties is voluntary, neither will agree to the terms of the exchange unless both parties believe they benefit. One party (business) offers compensation to the other (worker). If the worker sees this wage as insufficient, then he/she will seek higher compensation until a deal is made or rejected. Such an agreement only succeeds if both parties benefit (win-win), therefore a worker can not be exploited under true capitalism.
heavym3tal 4 months ago
@Grandecasla This is different from forced labor which can only occur through government coercion. When government interferes with the market place, all sorts of tyranny occurs (i.e.- monopolies, lower living standards, etc.).
heavym3tal 4 months ago
@heavym3tal Ok, if the premiss is only who deserves more than I agree.
Grandecasla 4 months ago
Comment removed
heavym3tal 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Grandecasla Don't forget that a worker's wage increases as the worker gains more experience, since the worker is more highly skilled than when said worker was first hired. This is why employer's give raises. In a competitive market, this competition between businesses ensures that a worker will always be able to obtain high wages/compensation.
heavym3tal 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Konversekid Classical Liberals (Adam Smith) are proponents of free market economics, neo-liberals are proponents of progressive ideas like progressive income tax, Cradle-to-Grave Welfare, etc.
"And the reason the employees won't own the idea, owning an idea is absolutely absurd. Sure someone created it, but that does not mean that they own the idea."
So Walt Disney didn't come up with Mickey Mouse, Steve Jobs didn't envision the Ipad, and Henry Ford didn't come up with the assembly line?
heavym3tal 4 months ago
@heavym3tal I know you don't' want to reply to me but I strongly encourage you to do so.
Konversekid 4 months ago
@Konversekid Very well then. If you want to understand my point of view, I suggest watching the documentaries (on youtube) "Good Intentions" by Walter Williams, and "Free to Choose" by Milton Friedman. In the same, so I can understand your viewpoint, can you point me to any literature or video?
heavym3tal 4 months ago
@heavym3tal you're funny. If you or I get to chose between working for slave wages or poverty while the opulent do nothing, where's the choice? There's none. And there are no good intentions in Capitalism. When a car company doesn't recall a dangerous product because it would cost more than paying off victims of that product, that's not good intentions. Your labour is devalued and everything you buy is overpriced. Its simple math that socialism works and capitalism royally screws everyone.
johnniefive80 4 months ago
@johnniefive80 Besides the fact that both your arguments are built on economic fallacies, you have no idea what you are talking about. I'll elaborate: (1) Slaves do not get wages, that is why it is called slavery, (2) Where is the proof that said company tried to cover up your statement? If there is none than it is the responsibility of the consumer to decide how much protection such a vehicle is worth. Are motorcycle companies at fault because of the lack of safety features on motorcycles?
heavym3tal 4 months ago
@heavym3tal Economic fallacies? really? humans invented Capitalism. Life has been on earth for billions of years before we invented a way of royally fucking humanity for the benefit of the few elitist, aristocratic, false god, parasitic scum or aka the rich. The only fallacy is thinking we must support a system that supports only the rich.
johnniefive80 4 months ago
@johnniefive80 Capitalism is not a system that supports the rich. It requires government intervention to accomplish that (i.e.- mixed economy). You are describing a system in which no one can move from one class to the other, which is completely untrue in a true capitalist system. Andrew Carnegie started out as an immigrant with nothing, and ended up as a steel tycoon (who went on to build libraries for free in Ireland).
heavym3tal 4 months ago
@heavym3tal The idea of moving between classes is stupidity, the very definition of classism is "prejudice or discrimination based on class." The movement between them, no matter how easy or hard it can be doesn't justify it. Classism and capitalism are so mutually beneficial that neither can work without the other. Zero classism would mean equality and equality would mean no unequal trade or "profit." There's no practical need for unequal trade, the rich and classim. It only strangles humanity.
johnniefive80 4 months ago
@johnniefive80 The problem with uniform equality is best illustrated by a poker game. In a regular game, everyone bets that they will come out with a winning hand. Obviously there can only be one winner, and he/she wins money at the end of the round. If we apply the rule of equal outcomes, at the end of the night should all the winners equalize their winnings with all the other players that lost? Would anyone still play poker if this were the case?
heavym3tal 4 months ago
@johnniefive80 Would you agree that people are different, or even unique? If so, how do you treat unequal people equally (I mean this outside of "equality before the law"). Would you take part of an intelligent person's brain, and insert it into a less intelligent person? People are not made exactly alike, therefore not everyone is equal, and universal equality is irrational.
heavym3tal 4 months ago
@heavym3tal Wow it is a small world. I seen your name and it sounded familiar so I check your channel and you were the denier idiot I was talking to long time ago who was very ignorant of science even though you were studying to be a nuclear engineer or something along those lines. I didn't want insult you but rather to convey my shock that we both ran into each other again. I really don't like you but I am glad I ran into you again, because this is wild. What are the odds?
Fucking cool.
thesparitan 3 months ago
@heavym3tal Why do you talk out of your ass? Capitalism is what puts them in such luxury while the rest of the world fights over scraps. Government tries in vain to mediate the ugly flaws of Capitalism; Poverty, inequality, greed and cut throat mentality. Its only as mixed as needed to keep Capitalism from reaching its final stage, complete depletion of resources and desolving of any other form of Rule. In that possible future, there would be no gov. to protect you from Money's totalitarian rule
johnniefive80 4 months ago
@johnniefive80 Steve Jobs was given up for adoption, adopted by middle class parents, and went on to revolutionize the way people communicate. Sam Walton was born on a farm in Oklahoma, and revolutionized the way people shop for goods. I can list more, but the point is that, in a capitalist system, no one is limited to a class forever. There is no aristocracy, no elite club.
heavym3tal 4 months ago
@heavym3tal He revolutionized nothing. He made a better windows mobile device, made things very dumbed down or "user friendly." And any good he actually did went to support the rich. The money apple makes could put an ipod in the hand of every human on earth, or better, push technologies that would lead to a computer with sensors to replace doctors, placed in every home of the world. Renewable energy technologies and to cure all medial problems with things like stem cell technology and genetics.
johnniefive80 4 months ago
@johnniefive80 Honestly, who do you think donates so much money to charities that participate in the activities that you described? And, no, I do not "talk out of my ass." I use historical fact. I wish I could say the same for you.
heavym3tal 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heavym3tal Capitalism debunked: Indigenous peoples still live without the "incentive" of money, making shelters, providing for themselves. Profit systems under utilize resources. Profit systems cannot exist without poverty, unemployment, inadequate wages. Poverty causes 99% of crime. Profit systems are impractical and unnecessary. Profit systems requires classim, totalitarian systems and always corrupts Governments.
johnniefive80 3 months ago
@johnniefive80 And what did we as a society inherent from their hard work (Capitalists and workers)? One of the highest standards of living in the world. Russia had a socialist revolution in the 1920s. What happened there? Germany had a socialist revolution in the 1930s. What happened there? Cuba had a socialist revolution in the 1950s. What happened there? If you want to change the present system, you need to remove unnecessary govt. regulation on a federal level (in the U.S.).
heavym3tal 4 months ago
@heavym3tal how can you say Germany had a socialist revolution in the 30s when Hitler murdered millions of trade unionists, communists and jews - this is the right-wing nonsense. And you shouldn't get so smug about your 'highest standards of living in the world' because most of its underpinned by the subjugation of Latin America, East Asia and the Middle East. Capitalism is a global system of exploitation- you just sit at the top of a pile .
32peartree 3 months ago
@32peartree Nazi = German Socialist workers party. You should also not argue fallacies when discussing capitalism. There is fixed amount of wealth in the world. Therefore I can not "sit" at the top of the pile. All voluntary exchanges between parts will not proceed unless both sides benefit. Therefore no exchange in a free market system involves exploitation. The government is the only entity that can coerce involuntary exchanges. Such an exchange is not voluntary, thus not capitalism.
heavym3tal 3 months ago
@heavym3tal Hitler was a capitalist pure and simple - he was just a patriotic capitalist opposed to the liberal variety. Just because he used the term 'socialism' means nothing. Socialism was popular in Germany in the 20s so It was a way of fooling the German people. In reality he was bankrolled by big corporations like Krupp Steal, Volkswagen, IG Farben. They paid for all his rallies, flags and uniforms - why? - because they feared real socialism was about to take over.
32peartree 3 months ago
@32peartree Dude! Hitler was a facist socialist. He put the government in charge of all industries. What are Marx's demands in the Communist Manifesto (Sec. 2): 4) Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels, 5)Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6) Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State, (cont.)
heavym3tal 3 months ago