there can be no living wage as long as it is an employer market. how much does the market pay? a penny maybe less. hers another way to fuck yourself. get a job!
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.
Capitalism was always an imperialist fraud, but violence is not the only option. See this proposal for a worldwide walk out on Profit at Jackdempseywriter.wordpress dot c-o-m
Capitalism was always an imperialist fraud, but violence is not the only option. See this proposal for a worldwide walk out on Profit at Jackdempseywriter.wordpress dot c-o-m
I don't understand exactly what Chomsky is trying to say here. Do all workplaces have to be democratic in order to be good? How will this help anyone?
Anyone who uses the term "wage slave" to describe an employee is simply appealing to greed and envy. That's all it is. All of the communist blather is nothing but an appeal to the immoral desire to take from another what one hasn't earned for oneself.
Chomsky says that all institutions will be democratically controlled, but many people don't want to be democratically controlled since they don't want to surrender their lives and property to the majority in any given situation. Rather, they seek a free society where each individual's rights are respected and they can choose to interact with others on a voluntary basis when it is mutually beneficial. What happens to those people in Chomsky's world?
@MillionthUsername Good point, I guess its democratic that the minority should accept the will of the majority. In any case, i don´t think chomsky advocates a loss of freedom, rather his model gives people local control, or bottom up power, which is far more free than the up down model of todays democracies in which centralised government and oligarchs set the parameters for freedom without input from the majority.
@MillionthUsername I think thats the magic, locals control local affairs with minimum interference from centralised government. If you like political democracy you get economic democracy too, how much more freedom can you get!
@MillionthUsername Perhaps, but he does not advocate big government as most people equate socialist ideas with (huge misconception that russia used to be a socialist state, it was a totalitarian state nothing to do with socialism)
@sid8980 I disagree that "he does not advocate big government." There are clips of him advocating gov't run "healthcare," actually claiming that it's "more efficient," and telling people to vote for Obama. He is for everything that is "socialist," i.e., whatever takes property from individuals and puts it into the hands of some monopolistic bureaucracy. He mocks people who want to cut the gov't, yet he's for small gov't? Don't think so.
@MillionthUsername no my friend that is not correct that is not the definition of socialism, socialism has nothing to do with putting everything in the hands of the government, thats a misconception, the foundation is putting ownership in the hands of workers, eg farmers own what they produce instead of the owner of the goods being the landlord, who after all does not till the land himself yet reaps all the benefit. Its about a democratic economy
@sid8980 You can slap any name on it you want to make it sound more palatable, but it just means taking private property. That's why none of you will ever answer the question of what happens to the people who refuse to give up their property to whatever entity claims to be "the people." The answer, of course, is that brute force will be used against that person since all communists believe that the mob owns everything and everyone. But people like Chomsky like to pretend they aren't soviets.
@MillionthUsername Listen I dont think any government really cares about stealing a persons house or car or anything like that, it would be completely ridiculous. So unless youre extremely well off and own banks, walmart, coca cola or something like that, which I doubt, your worries are a little out of place. But if youre an employee and cant swallow the fact that your ceo is getting millions in bonuses while your coworkers are being dismissed by the thousands, alternatives should be reviewed.
@MrBandholm Is that supposed to be one of those "communism doesn't exist" arguments? Fine. Communism doesn't exist. Therefore, Chomsky can't be a communist because there are no communists. Happy? ; )
@MillionthUsername ha ha no ... Since you now have started, no communism is really true, but if you studied what communism is you would know that Chomsky is an anarchist and not a Communist ... a minor detail which is very essential to understand what he stands for:)
@MrBandholm I'm quite well aware that he calls himself an anarchist. So what? All he does is spew communist rhetoric. If he did not support the communist ideal of taking over private property, then why does he talk about control through "democracy" and laud commie dictators who "nationalize" industry? Is his "democracy" political or not? If it is, then he's no anarchist. If it isn't, then why does he oppose libertarianism? It's impossible to figure out what he means since he never distinguishes
@MillionthUsername "I'm quite well aware that he calls himself an anarchist. So what? All he does is spew communist rhetoric." Ok, lets apply your logic on you. You may think of yourself as 'reasonable'. However, after reading what you have wrote, I can conclude that you are an idiot. Why? You spew idiotic rhetoric......
@drizztf88 I'm sorry, what argument did I make about communism? I think you misread me. I was asking someone if they denied that communism is an existing ideology. Some people will attempt to "argue" by always disclaiming adherence to an ideology even when they accept the greater part of it. Being a set of ideas, any ideology is recognizable as such even when people accept less than 100% of those ideas. In this way, many will try to deny they are communists even as they hold to most all of it.
@drizztf88 The problem with understanding Chomsky comes from Chomsky. I have found that he likes to have it both ways. When it comes to political philosophy, it is not at all clear what he advocates since he seems to use language to obscure meaning, not to clarify. He uses the word "libertarian" to mean socialist, but libertarianism is not socialism. I am not a socialist. Billions of people are not socialists. Where do we fit in Chomsky's world? No one has ever answered this question.
What do you mean with that? Billions of people are not capitalists-"free maket advocates". where do they fit in today's world or a hypothetical, free-market society?
He does not obscure things. Libertarianism was a term created as a synonym to anarchism, has been used like that for a long time, and is used as a synonym to anarchism in most of the world outside USA.
He doesn't obscure things, he chooses to identify himself as a libertarian(libertarian socialist) as I do.
@drizztf88 I'm not going to get into a fruitless terminology battle. You can use whatever terms you want. I only care about what you think you are morally allowed to do to other people. Chomsky will not go near that question with a ten foot pole. Will you? I doubt it, since the whole point of socialism is to make a universal claim to ownership of the planet and everyone on it by the majority mob wherever it is located regardless of what it calls itself.
"what you think you are morally allowed to do to other people" This is obviously a very general question, that can't be answered with a sentence.
Since you asked for an answer, however, I will say that, for me, it is not morally accepted to gain profit and amass wealth through the coercion of wage slavery.
@drizztf88 I mean, what happens to people who are not socialists in Chomsky's world? He is hopelessly caught in contradiction because if he thinks we should be free to own property and to trade freely, then he is the same as us and should not disown us. If he thinks we are criminals that he will punish by approving theft of our property and livelihood, then he is just another thug state-communist. There's no in between. If "socialism" is not voluntary, then don't distinguish it from soviet.
I agree. Adam Smith's (main influence of Chomsky) idea has never been realzed, he said.
The rich, he claims, echoing Adam Smith, are too keen to preach the benefits of market discipline to the poor while they reserve for themselves the right to be bailed out by the state whenever the going gets rough. As he puts it : “The free market is socialism for the rich. Markets for the poor and state protection for the rich.”
"He doesn't obscure things, he chooses to identify himself as a libertarian(libertarian socialist) as I do."
No one can ever explain in plain language what this means. Qadaffi calls himself a freedom fighter and a revolutionary and a democrat. Whatever. Who cares? Bush was "spreading democracy" and Obomba is killing people in at least 5 different countries because he's the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate! Who gives a crap what people call themselves? What claims do you make on others' lives?
@drizztf88 I argue for people to make distinctions because most do not, and so most of the time people are arguing with phantoms. There are precious few chances to even have a real (rational) argument since most people cannot or will not distinguish.
What you people seem to do, however, is then obliterate the usefulness of distinction by taking it all the way in the other direction. You end up denying you are communists even as you accept its major points. That is obscuring, not clarifying.
Again WHAT is the distinction you want me to make, I will try to make it.
What is that thing you have about the term "communist"? Why do you desperately want me to admit that I am a communist? Is it that, because of the effect that term has in the world you live, once someone admits to being a communist, you can just call them "commie scum" and end the conversation?
I guess with the definition of communism being:sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and-(CON)
@drizztf88 The only "thing" I have with the term "communism" is people who are communist denying that they are. People have jumped on me left and right for saying Chomsky is communist. Now you just simply admitted it, and you say, like him, that you prefer another term. That's not the same as, "Oh, he's not a communist," or Chomsky coyly saying, "What is a communist?" like he has no clue. It's the same ideology. The "commie scum" are those who use/advocate violence to bring about their ideals.
@drizztf88 No, the American "revolutionaries" were not communists. Are you having trouble distinguishing between people who use violence and people who are communists? A communist can be someone who either advocates violence or not. Likewise, someone who advocates violence may be a communist or not. Being a communist and advocating violence are two different things. That is what we call a distinction.
Where do you and Chomsky stand? Is it all a big secret or what?
I thought you made a point against violence in general. If you accept that violence can be used in certain circumstances, then for a communist too, violence can be used in certain circumstances
@drizztf88 My comment was in reply to you asking me about who "commie scum" were. I would never call voluntary communists "scum." Ever. So I said they are those (communists) who would use violence to bring about their ideals. Proportionate violence can only be used in self-defense to repel a violator of person and property. There's the rub, however, since communism essentially claims to own everyone/everything prior to individual property rights. So I guess they want perpetual war? I'm asking.
@drizztf88 The NAP (non-aggression principle) is a universal ethic which can be theoretically applied equally to every individual. It bans the initiation of force. That's what libertarians (whom you call something else, I imagine?) say. This is the basis of a free society, the respecting of individual rights. We would only punish those who violate rights.
But since communism turns the world upside down, I guess you will punish us all since we are all criminals in your eyes? IDK, you tell me.
This is not as simple as you lay it out to be. Of course I am against the creation of an authoritarian state that silences every different voice. I don't know the way that an anarchist/ communist/socialist society will be created. Let me use examples:
The Zapatistas in Mexico have chosen a voluntary libertarian socialist way of governing themselves, but they have to face goverment violence with violence.
The way I woud want it would be to convince workers to top working for
@drizztf88 Why not just stop working for stupid capitalist that actually hurt you? Capitalists will always exist in some form or another. That is, the decision of what to do with a particular capital good will always in some way lay in some individuals hands. It might be in the hands of those who make the most economic decisions, or in someone else's hands.
Exactly when does the product of my labor become means of production and subject to this common ownership?
@mortalisk You can't just stop working. How will you pay for your expenses. What if you're not really qualified and therefore depended on your job? And yes, there will always be someone making decisions, but since his decisions affect so many lives why would we tolerate his authority without democratic legitimization?
@Rubashow Hopefully the property a capitalist is in control of, is the fruits of his labor, and what he could voluntarily trade it for. Since he is able to turn a profit, it means he is making the most economic desicions. If someone else gets to make the desicions, there will be waste of resources. Most of human history is a tale of having to struggle each day for survival. Respect for personal property is what turned the tables and meant property was now used to satisfy the masses.
@Rubashow Why is violence the only option? I am a voluntarist, and explicitly against aggression as a solution to anything. Property in the fruit of ones labor is there to have clear boundaries of what is to be considered aggression or defense. Without property there is no freedom.
Democracy is at best the majority using the guns against the rest, and more often against themselves as they have no clue about how wealth is created. Democracy incentivizes ganging up to loot from others.
and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production" I am close to that, but I prefer the term libertarian socialist for myself, cause I think it's more suitable
@MillionthUsername Pirate property was aquired in a society that used force against the under class. The people who own it, can't complain when it is used on them!
SAY CUMHOLES..........CHUMPSKY ISN'T SQUAT....THE TURKEY ENDORSED KASINISH FOR GODS SAKES.....WHEN YOU ADD IT ALL UP, CHUMPSKY ISN'T ANYTHING MORE THAN YOUR DIMEADOZEN LIBERAL SACK OF SHIT TEACHER WHO'S BEEN SUCKING OFF THE SYSTEM AND NAIVE MORONS LIKE THE GULLIBLE IDIOTS POSTING ON THIS PAGE
@GreggTheEgg NO SCUMBAG YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND A WORD I SAID, AND YOU'RE TYPICAL FODDER FOR A CLOWN LIKE CHUMPSKY.......HE NEEDS IGNORANT DUMBASSES LIKE YOU TO SELL HIS DUMBASS BOOKS TO.
It's a safe bet , that anyone ranting like that in CAPITALS..putting forth no specifics or refutations...isn't likely to begin to even grasp a syllable of of what Chomsky's said
@hexcane (cont.) ...When in the hands of the intelligent minority, however, societies are built and mankind elevates. In the modern capitalist world, this is very often not the case. The capitalists themselves lack the broad insight that men of power should wield.
I too at one time held your view of kindness, but looking at the average man, who's breath is slow, who's mind is dull, I came to the conclusion that he must be commanded by his betters; that he is not the best judge of his interests.
@FaaarLeft Yes but thats a bit arrogant, I can see where you´re coming from and its easy to agree but maybe we need to cultivate self development of the sheeple, so they can lead themselves and achieve equality to their betters. More free time for the betters then.
@hexcane Acknowledging the natural strata society takes between those that plan and those that work does not involve racial bigotry. My argument, however, for the absolute necessity of labor exploitation goes as follows: When any economic program is set, dead capital is created; this dead capital can be either accumulated by the worker or the owner. In the hands of the worker, who's eye is not set on grand things, but rather his own limited aims, uses it, societal progress is not made. (cont.)
@hexcane This question concerning normative morality, of which I confess to be ill-equipped, shouldn't be the issue here. My view is that advanced societies could not thrive and elevate to a certain level without some form of coercion and exploitation: One type of man (the superior man) exploiting another (the inferior man). A 'nice' alternative to this would castrate the superior man, making him unable to build and plan society. The golden rule flattens the plain and devours progress.
I would love to hear Chomsky give a response to the various arguments in favor of exploitation, without his usual moral prejudice. One would respect him more if he could reject the childish "nice makes right" political theory.
gee, if the government was giving out oil money I think Americans would be alot better off. And although they may have socialized education, they still have voucher systems which allow for competition. Even soo it is costing them dearly. Once oil is no longer in high demand and 3rd world countrys catch up in technology and productivity, you can say goodbye to both those countries. Its either sink or swim.
Chomsky is the greatest American ever. The only one I'd ever tout as a Top 20 men of all time candidate. He can maintain equanimity without subscribing to apathy. That is a victory of victories for a man born and raised in the Western world.
We need to close the reserve banks, insist on interest free issuing of currency again. Also we need to eliminate phoney finance like Dirivitives. If we did that, things would fine and capitalism would be OK but it isn't and many of you don't get that. I bet the people who scoff at the Idea are wealthy so they don't give a shit. The vast majority is barely living and working themselves to death. It's not right.
The tiny fraction of one percent of cranks who think that drivers licenses, license plates, zip codes, or involuntary payment into public funds for food stamps or Coast Guard Search and Rescue is tyranny will just have to go on thinking so. Im sorry they feel that way. I really am. But like those who think society should be a theocracy, I have to ask them to accept that everyone else doesnt see this as they do.
What we are concerned with is concentrations of wealth, power, opportunity and decision making in too few hands. Generally, the more diffuse and widely enjoyed these are, the better, and the more densely concentrated, the worse it is.
Thats an orientation, but it doesnt involve us in daydreaming about statelessness.
The state is not going to be abolished so we dont have to spend too much time on the issue.
We arent comparing a society of state and taxation to a mythical, purely imaginary society of zero coercion. But state and taxation vs the chaos of warlordism and the rule of strong over the weak. Youd still have coercion without the state. Murder, tyranny, theft, exploitation would still exist. These are human problems, not problems of the state.
No moral outcome can proceed from coercion, whether it be against rich or poor. Taxation is coercive; we cannot be forced to act morally. And if you think taxation IS voluntary, then try not paying taxes as a way of testing that theory. Abolition of the state is the most pressing concern for those interested in maximising liberty. Happily, it is also the most pressing concern for those interested in maximising human welfare, however they wish to construe it.
start building towards a society wherein free-market industries and companies approximate to Chomsky's syndicalist ideal of democratic organisation. I have no doubt that it is possible for such arrangements to arise on an absolutely free-market where the state no longer parasitically feeds off the productivity of the economy and retards economic growth. The point is that it needs to emerge on the basis of free association and voluntary exchange, and the recognition of private property rights.
voluntary exchanges. If there is a history of theft or fraud, then perhaps a case can be made for turning management over to workers who had no involvement in the illicit acts). The first step ought to be to rid society of the most prevalent and egregious forms of coercion, namely, state monopolies of certain industries and services, and taxation, which is nothing else than involuntary expropration from the productive sector of society. Having redressed this most flagrant injustice, maybe we can
on an institutional homogeneity which will necessitate that every worker have an equal say in management issues. No doubt there are times in everyone's working life when the person would like to have some influence on company policy. But if such internal structural change comes, it must come on a voluntarily, through free associatation. It cannot be based on coercive expropriation from the existing owners of industry (assuming all the owners' market operations themselves have been based on
relatively mindless labour through more technical roles to economic management of company policy) in exchange for a set wage. If Chomsky truly advocates freedom, then it should be up to the individual what level of input in management/policy issues he or she wishes to have. Certainly some people, for various reasons, will want to have no say in such matters, and will prefer simply to work without much thought or effort for a relatively minor wage. The point is that Chomsky seems to be insisting
Chomsky sets up a false dichotomy. In a free market situation, it's not simply a choice between what he calls freedom (which in his lexicon curiously includes the precondition that everyone must have an equal stake in the management of their respective workplace, regardless of ability, interest, motivation etc) and being "ruled by a benevolent master". On a free market, one can voluntarily enter into a contract with an employer whereby they offer certain services (which can range from
Does anybody know where i could find similar speeches, preferrably by chomsky? this seems to be one of the few political speeches of his available on youtube as far as i can find.
@Xerotaerg Sweden is not the rape capitol of the world...they have the widest legal definition of rape of any company in the world, which makes conviction easier and more common than anywhere else in the world. If it were thanks to third world immigration, wouldn't the respective third world countries be more so full of rapists than the country to which some of them choose to immigrate?
Also, Sweden has a much better functioning democracy than the US has (which is of the very reason for why Sweden is much further to the left). In the 70s, 95% of the Swedes voted, as compared to only 50% in the US. After that the number of voters in Sweden has declined to about 80% as a result of privatizations, but it's still quite high.
Capitalism is the wage slavery of immense humanity in a politically manipulated MARKET SYSTEM of artificial scarcity and distortions to perpetuate the conditions of servitude and compliance INDEFINITLY in the interest of Ruling/Owning class. Capitalist society has made plenty possible,we have all the means and potentially so much more for communities of humanity in cooperation for our common needs and well being in harmony , wisdom and creative expressions . Capitalist society is outdated
If we all become radicals, and use our one and only vote, which is the dollar and pour this "dollar/power/vote" into local unsupported industries,people next door within our countries, and spread the wealth surely this mindset will change things and increases and more "democratic" way of life.I feel like people have forgotten that capitalism is a game and you must wield the bat to play ball."If you can't beat em ,join em" and manipulate them by uniting for a common good against tyranny.
'Production itself becomes more and more social—hundreds of thousands and millions of workers become bound together in a regular economic organism—but the product of this collective labour is appropriated by a handful of capitalists. Anarchy of production, crises, the furious chase after markets and the insecurity of existence of the mass of the population are intensified.'
V. Lenin, "The Three Sources and Three Components of Marxism" (1913)
The only thing Chomsky gets right here is that you can't make interpersonal comparisons of utility and that value is not objective (you can't assume for someone else that freedom is worthless to them).
Unfortunately, some people do prefer rulership to freedom. That's like the majority(at least in the US). Most people will say the state is necessary. I think they're wrong, but that's what they believe.
That being said, the concept of wage slavery is nonsense.
Capitalism , the wage slavery of immense humanity in a politically manipulated.corrupt and a tyrannical ,destructive MARKET SYSTEM OF ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY and distortions, to perpetuate poverty and exploitation in the interest of the ruling class. We need to create a democratic majority movement for a world of cooperation for our common needs and well being, A moneyless,classless,stateless communities of humanity managing our lives in harmony within and without
chumpsky is a dime a dozen liberal douce bag who endorsed kerry and kusinich...what an ffing joke....all of this garbage is just a means of implementing force and the dummies on this page aren't bright enough to understand it...what a joke....
@whothehellgivesadamn Thought I forgot about you fuckhead? I will haunt you for the rest of your life! And you still haven't learned your lesson you cum gargler, get your gay ass shit out of here and help your mother sell herself for pennies! Do you want me to make another video about your gay ass?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
this mars moron and these other idiots think that socialism is so brilliant, while they type on computers invented....where.........duh...the usa........with software invented where......duh the usa..........on youtube which is from where..........duh the usa........owned by who.........duh.......the usa......specifically california....which is where i was born you super stupid pieces of shit.....only its getting more infected by scum like you guys and chumpsky every minute of the day.........
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
this chompsky clown endorsed kerry in 04 and said he would endorse kusinash in 08...what a pathetic joke...chumpsky is just another milktoast braindead liberal hiding in school marms clothing, what a turkey
Noam is a great teacher and activist for the cause of true human emancipiation from tyranny of class rule, from serfdom of wage salvery from this insane perpetuations of war,poverty,exploitation and so forth, may i drink to your health and your human courage in the face of the darke ages in USA.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
oh my god...imagine rock and roll or the pc industry in its inception...where you don't even know where its going youre just winging it day by day as you are innovating and some lame pieces of crap like chumpsky and buddies are going to park their lame asses right in the middle of your developing industry and form some kind of super wierd presiding wierd organization....one word..............puke..........
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
by the way this chumpsky clown speaks very much like a poor drunken slobering idiot talking to himself on the streets of some urban nightmare....chumpsky is like a washed up bum put into professors clothes who drones on to then hypnotize the utterly unintelligent and uneducated, this is a whole lot of sick dronning...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
this idiot speaks in dronespeak to drones...he just drones on hypnotizing drones....he floats stupid ideas which are not substantiated, nor does he attempt to substantiate......he just drones.........and drones........and drones........the idea here is that you should approach these matters like scientists........not like global warming drones....where you just make drone assumptions and then carry on as those assumptions are facts......
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
which means in plain english dog the conversation is way over your head....and you couldn't answer the questions if you tried because that would take a dummy like you decades and decades of study and thought...so why not try to save a few electrons and calories spent on key strokes and save your energy when you just don't even know what youre talking about....mr chumpskyite...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
please joe youre just a little boy trying to pretend he knows something, since you pretend think you do let's see if you can tackle this question. Explain the evolution of objectivism as it correlates to scientific methodology and patanjali's aphorisms. Please don't bore me any further on this kind of adolescent sthick, it wasn't even where it was at in the sixties, let alone now...good luck reading kid, thats what you should do before you start teaching..
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
yea joe thanks for the compliment, i looked at your stars and stripes song...you don't have it exactly right there kid...but i will say you're group is a whole lot cuter than chumpsky...at least when you make bad points you can make it entertaining....with chumpsky its all about a lot of miserable droning that tricks and anethesises the uninformed...
You prefer my entertaining comments? Sounds like you prefer infotainment! I suggest Fox News or the Enquirer. Sorry, most information tends to be dry. If you really want to learn, you need to stop looking for sparklers and epic music to accompany information. Did you ever see the study that showed FNC had the most misinformed viewers?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
the word chompsky is a derivation of the word chimp....anybody that goes along with this dronning crap is a chump....and the proper pronunciation of this moron's name is chumpsky
If you can move beyond petty personal attacks you may grow up to learn something about intelligent discourse and possibly the meaning of the word intelligence.
silly noam, why can't he realize that all human interactions are arbitrary; societal conscience determines society, if we all decided to stop being wasteful consumers and voluntarily share our wealth with our neighbors that would be our society, nothing is stopping us from doing that except ourselves.
"Many politicians are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom.
The maxim is worthy of the old fool in the proverb who resolved not to enter the water till he had learned to swim."
Yeah, people don't want to work. Do you think Hunter-Gatherers want to spend all day making spear points? If we were living under this utopia of "Libertarian Socialism" would work all of a sudden become fun? All societies require labor, I'm not exactly sure what the point is here.
noones saying we wanna stop working, just like the capitalists, i dont want lazy fucks around.
i need a full time job right now, but if society handed me a job, id go right for it. I would never support a system that gives free handouts for those unwilling to do labor like today, i am a libertarian socialist as well
We have the technology right now to mechanize almost all menial labor to the point where only 5% of the work force would be required to work at any one time. What needs to happen is for the labor process to become the goal of the labor itself. An example would be how scientists go through more schooling than most financial traders do, yet they reap much more profit from what they do. The scientist has an intrinsic motivation for doing the work in forwarding the process of human progression.
He's speaking of wage slavery. Big distinction. Most people would love to be paid for the thing they do well -directly- contracting on their own terms... I'm guessing, but It sounds as if you are speaking from the perspective of one who doesn't like their work? Isn't that slavery? Especially with forced taxation?
That's the dream isn't it? Unfortunately it can't be true for everyone, because in order to be self employed, you still must find someone who will give you something in return for your skill (thus still a slave!). If I were a Hunter-Gatherer, I would still hate my work (I hate hunting), but I wouldn't techincally be working for someone else, but does that really matter? As long as you HAVE to do something you hate in order to survive, am I not a slave?
I'm just trying to refute this concept of, "Wage Slavery." People use that term do not know the definition of slavery. If there is no external coercive force making you work, then you are not a slave. If needing to "sell your labor" in order to survive makes you a slave, then we are all slaves, and thus the word slavery has no meaning. So when Chomsky argues, "no one wants 'wage slavery" I say, of course, not having to work would be great!
I still agree with Chomsky that 'wage slavery' is equivalent to 'slavery' on this basis: Workers are not working as common owners/profiteers of their labor in a majority of work situations. Their labor is profited from by either shareholders (who don't work at all) or company heads at the top who make large salaries. Wage slaves are generally not 'invested' in the quality of their work - or the success/failure of the company, and owners are removed from the process of production. cont's...
this differential, if you really look at it, is arguably the basis for most of the discontent on the planet (if you add religion to keep the wage slaves fighting each other - those in power have lots of leverage over the wage class). The truth is, we must question the old models. We know what doesn't work - communism is no different than capitalism, when applied to the same hierarchy. What's next? Probably a movement toward open source technology and profit-sharing... both are good ideas.
Even under his system, workers would still be subordinate to others (more senior members of the Commune for iinstance). How does a differential in wealth cause conflict? If two people are poor, but one becomes rich, is the person who is still poor somehow worse off because someone else is rich? No, so the problem is not inequality in itself. Nothing wrong with questioning the old system, but we have no right to forcivly confiscate the property of others. This is the problem I have with it.
i never said anything about forcible confiscation. No way. Not ever, under any circumstance. I'm not even in favor of wage taxation. As Bastiat puts it, that's plunder.
this is just simply about fair business practices that give proper value on labor that helps to create products, and therefore, profits. Workers need not be 'subordinates'... workers should be shareholders, ideally.
...and in this little bubble of two people - one rich and one poor - of course the poor person is not any worse off. but take of the blinders and broaden the scope of your view. follow the trail of money into the rich one's pocket. how was it accumulated? did someone have to sell their labor for less than they were able to live on? it doesn't have to be that way.
The only way to put these so called, "Libertarian Socialist" ideas into practice would be through some sort of violent means because few people give up their property voluntarily (would you?) As for the bubble of two people, I would say that the poor person is better off with some job than no job at all. The Capitalist isn't "opressing" him by giving him a job. If you have no respect for the property of another, why should anyone have respect for yours?
Not sure why you're reading that into what I'm saying. You should do some research on Open Source. Purely and simply competitive on the market with monopolistic capitalism. Look at Linux - you don't have to buy the Linux Ubuntu operating system. It's free, user-friendly, community oriented. I have quite a few friends who are making a good living designing custom networks for business using Linux - and contributing to the evolution of the OS at the same time.
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete" - Buckminster Fuller (Bucky)
Open Source is having a HUGE impact on economics... it's Decentralized Production:
/watch?v=NgYE75gkzkM
Now Google the P2P Foundation and follow some links.
"few people give up their property voluntarily (would you?)"
wage (income) taxation is this.
do you pay income tax? if labor is property, and it certainly is, among free people... then, logically income taxation is forcible (and it certainly is forcible) removal of a substantial portion of one's property - by a corporation, no less. it's slavery.
History taught us that "violent" means don't help at all... Instead of trying to violently change society, why dont' we try to change ourselves first ? If people change, society changes too.
True that, but our system is a Corporatist society, in which Big Business protect themselves from the market with the use of the state. Technical advancement is therefore limited to this hierarchy's interest. Thus, it is imperative to limit Government's power.
As for the two-poor-people senario, the poor person is worse off, not because the other is rich, but because capital has outskirted labor.
@RadioFreeWisconsin it's not that it's the system working for a boss for the corporate rulers that is the problem. This has nothing to do with unequal distribution of wealth not the way you are thinking. You should keep 100% of the fruits of your labor this is mine and many others position.
Here is a loose example of what could could work today:
Say I have 10 acres and 10 million dollars to invest. I want to build a multi-use condominium/community (energy and agriculture independent) with say, 50 $200K living units, etc. I hire 50 laborer/investors at $10/hr plus options (to use either to buy into a unit, or sell the live-option back to me at completion - about $20k) They could enjoy a dividend on excess power, or form smaller agri-tech enterprise groups. Sustainable profit.
Have you heard of benchmarking? It's a hallmark of capitalist business where companies study the best of other companies. Currently, more socialist nations such as Denmark, Holland, etc. blow the United States away in perhaps the most important variable, Life Satisfaction (see field of Positive Psychology). Perhaps we can apply the best of capitalist business practice (benchmarking) to strive for actual quality of life rather than highest GDP.
the fact that things are underfunded doesn't mean that it is because they are inherently inclined to fail. in fact, the benefit of a public institution over a private institution is the fact that it can run up debt in the short-term to further long-term goals.
So those programs are failures because they don't make money? Public services, unlike private businesses, don't need to make money, but rather benefit citizens paying for them, which those did. But since it's $ you're talking, you're equally upset about...
IMPERIALIST FAILURES IN AMERICA:
The Korean War - cost $
The Vietnam War - cost more $
The Iraq War - hundreds of billions of $ of our money is confiscated each year and spent on killing and racketeering; it hasn't worked.
Sweden and Norway have the highest taxes in the world.
As a result they have the most equal populations in the world.
They also have the wealthiest populations, healthiest, best educated, lowest crime, regarded as much freer than the USA, which has the highest per capita prison population, as many serving terms of 'hard labour' as the Gulag system had.
Northern Europe is not perfect, but it makes the far right in the USA look like the boss stooges they are.
@marsCubed Europe got the message, we didn't. The only thing America is #1 at is prisons and military. Just the other day we had another super secret satellite launch.
@marsCubed "As a result they have the most equal populations in the world."
Native Scandinavians aren't reproducing, though their Mohammedans guest workers are. The cradle-to-grave welfare state has infantilized and emasculated Swedes and Norwegians. The rest of your "argument" could easily be viewed as thinly veiled white supremacy.You want socialism, and you want whites of N european extraction in power.
Northern Europe has the same rates of immigration as everywhere else.
If you get your statistics from racist sources like 'Muslim demographics' and other far right trash then you are an idiot.
Germany has the highest rate for non white immigration in Europe, only 4.3% are Muslim, mostly from Turkey, many on non permanent visas. The rest of Europe has similar levels of immigration. it is of no importance.
This has been flagged as spam show
opportunity and freedom require a strong public apparatus, a democratic socialist government; mature anarchists are socialists
pastafarianprophet 3 weeks ago
some form of aristocracy is ultimately the only alternative
pastafarianprophet 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
pastafarianprophet 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
pastafarianprophet 3 weeks ago
there can be no living wage as long as it is an employer market. how much does the market pay? a penny maybe less. hers another way to fuck yourself. get a job!
bryncomeaux 2 months ago
and now for something we hope youll really like
bryncomeaux 2 months ago
fuck yourself with a dido every day and have a few hundred orgasms then tell me gay is an agenda.
bryncomeaux 2 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 2 months ago
The lecture ends quite abruptly - is the end of it missing and where could it be found? I can't see a "part 2"...
VieuxMalcommode 3 months ago
@VieuxMalcommode this is an excerpt from 'government in the future' 1970
autoarbitaster 3 months ago
@autoarbitaster Thanks for the tip!!!
VieuxMalcommode 3 months ago
In what way is this a refutation of people wanting 'wage slavery' (one of the most stupid phrases that exist)?
All he did was advocate the setting of wages democratically, as opposed to letting market forces set wages. Either way you're still a 'wage slave'
UtubeMyAccountName 3 months ago
non c'è una traduzione in Italiano please?
miliziametallica 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Capitalism was always an imperialist fraud, but violence is not the only option. See this proposal for a worldwide walk out on Profit at Jackdempseywriter.wordpress dot c-o-m
37Dionysos 4 months ago
Capitalism was always an imperialist fraud, but violence is not the only option. See this proposal for a worldwide walk out on Profit at Jackdempseywriter.wordpress dot c-o-m
37Dionysos 4 months ago
Noam for president
esesnoddy1115 5 months ago
@esesnoddy1115 "Noam for president"
If there was any sense or justice in the world he would be president of the USA. But your proly gonna end up with Ron Paul.
Good luck...
DrSpooglemon 2 weeks ago
I don't understand exactly what Chomsky is trying to say here. Do all workplaces have to be democratic in order to be good? How will this help anyone?
mortalisk 5 months ago
More Marxist nonsense from Chomsky.
qwertypoiu4321 7 months ago
Anyone who uses the term "wage slave" to describe an employee is simply appealing to greed and envy. That's all it is. All of the communist blather is nothing but an appeal to the immoral desire to take from another what one hasn't earned for oneself.
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
Chomsky says that all institutions will be democratically controlled, but many people don't want to be democratically controlled since they don't want to surrender their lives and property to the majority in any given situation. Rather, they seek a free society where each individual's rights are respected and they can choose to interact with others on a voluntary basis when it is mutually beneficial. What happens to those people in Chomsky's world?
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
@MillionthUsername Good point, I guess its democratic that the minority should accept the will of the majority. In any case, i don´t think chomsky advocates a loss of freedom, rather his model gives people local control, or bottom up power, which is far more free than the up down model of todays democracies in which centralised government and oligarchs set the parameters for freedom without input from the majority.
sid8980 7 months ago
@sid8980 So what happens to people "locally" when they don't want to be controlled by Chomsky's system?
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
@MillionthUsername I think thats the magic, locals control local affairs with minimum interference from centralised government. If you like political democracy you get economic democracy too, how much more freedom can you get!
sid8980 7 months ago
@sid8980 I think you missed the point. What he advocates is communism, not freedom. A confederation of communists is still communism.
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
@MillionthUsername Perhaps, but he does not advocate big government as most people equate socialist ideas with (huge misconception that russia used to be a socialist state, it was a totalitarian state nothing to do with socialism)
sid8980 7 months ago
@sid8980 I disagree that "he does not advocate big government." There are clips of him advocating gov't run "healthcare," actually claiming that it's "more efficient," and telling people to vote for Obama. He is for everything that is "socialist," i.e., whatever takes property from individuals and puts it into the hands of some monopolistic bureaucracy. He mocks people who want to cut the gov't, yet he's for small gov't? Don't think so.
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
@MillionthUsername no my friend that is not correct that is not the definition of socialism, socialism has nothing to do with putting everything in the hands of the government, thats a misconception, the foundation is putting ownership in the hands of workers, eg farmers own what they produce instead of the owner of the goods being the landlord, who after all does not till the land himself yet reaps all the benefit. Its about a democratic economy
sid8980 7 months ago
@sid8980 You can slap any name on it you want to make it sound more palatable, but it just means taking private property. That's why none of you will ever answer the question of what happens to the people who refuse to give up their property to whatever entity claims to be "the people." The answer, of course, is that brute force will be used against that person since all communists believe that the mob owns everything and everyone. But people like Chomsky like to pretend they aren't soviets.
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
@MillionthUsername Listen I dont think any government really cares about stealing a persons house or car or anything like that, it would be completely ridiculous. So unless youre extremely well off and own banks, walmart, coca cola or something like that, which I doubt, your worries are a little out of place. But if youre an employee and cant swallow the fact that your ceo is getting millions in bonuses while your coworkers are being dismissed by the thousands, alternatives should be reviewed.
sid8980 7 months ago
@MillionthUsername most of all because Chomsky is not Communist ;)
MrBandholm 7 months ago
@MrBandholm Is that supposed to be one of those "communism doesn't exist" arguments? Fine. Communism doesn't exist. Therefore, Chomsky can't be a communist because there are no communists. Happy? ; )
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
@MillionthUsername ha ha no ... Since you now have started, no communism is really true, but if you studied what communism is you would know that Chomsky is an anarchist and not a Communist ... a minor detail which is very essential to understand what he stands for:)
MrBandholm 7 months ago
@MrBandholm I'm quite well aware that he calls himself an anarchist. So what? All he does is spew communist rhetoric. If he did not support the communist ideal of taking over private property, then why does he talk about control through "democracy" and laud commie dictators who "nationalize" industry? Is his "democracy" political or not? If it is, then he's no anarchist. If it isn't, then why does he oppose libertarianism? It's impossible to figure out what he means since he never distinguishes
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MillionthUsername "I'm quite well aware that he calls himself an anarchist. So what? All he does is spew communist rhetoric." Ok, lets apply your logic on you. You may think of yourself as 'reasonable'. However, after reading what you have wrote, I can conclude that you are an idiot. Why? You spew idiotic rhetoric......
WhyMeMoFo 7 months ago in playlist Chomsky
@MillionthUsername
If you are confused by the terms he is using, watch this video: "Noam Chomsky on Libertarian Socialism"
Also the argument you made about communism can be said about "free-markets".
You "libertarians" claim "free-markets have never existed".
Therefore you can't be a free-market advocate because they don't exist. Does that sound right to you?I didn't think so.
drizztf88 7 months ago
@drizztf88 I'm sorry, what argument did I make about communism? I think you misread me. I was asking someone if they denied that communism is an existing ideology. Some people will attempt to "argue" by always disclaiming adherence to an ideology even when they accept the greater part of it. Being a set of ideas, any ideology is recognizable as such even when people accept less than 100% of those ideas. In this way, many will try to deny they are communists even as they hold to most all of it.
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
@drizztf88 The problem with understanding Chomsky comes from Chomsky. I have found that he likes to have it both ways. When it comes to political philosophy, it is not at all clear what he advocates since he seems to use language to obscure meaning, not to clarify. He uses the word "libertarian" to mean socialist, but libertarianism is not socialism. I am not a socialist. Billions of people are not socialists. Where do we fit in Chomsky's world? No one has ever answered this question.
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
@MillionthUsername
What do you mean with that? Billions of people are not capitalists-"free maket advocates". where do they fit in today's world or a hypothetical, free-market society?
He does not obscure things. Libertarianism was a term created as a synonym to anarchism, has been used like that for a long time, and is used as a synonym to anarchism in most of the world outside USA.
He doesn't obscure things, he chooses to identify himself as a libertarian(libertarian socialist) as I do.
drizztf88 7 months ago
@drizztf88 I'm not going to get into a fruitless terminology battle. You can use whatever terms you want. I only care about what you think you are morally allowed to do to other people. Chomsky will not go near that question with a ten foot pole. Will you? I doubt it, since the whole point of socialism is to make a universal claim to ownership of the planet and everyone on it by the majority mob wherever it is located regardless of what it calls itself.
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MillionthUsername
@MillionthUsername
"what you think you are morally allowed to do to other people" This is obviously a very general question, that can't be answered with a sentence.
Since you asked for an answer, however, I will say that, for me, it is not morally accepted to gain profit and amass wealth through the coercion of wage slavery.
drizztf88 7 months ago
@drizztf88 I mean, what happens to people who are not socialists in Chomsky's world? He is hopelessly caught in contradiction because if he thinks we should be free to own property and to trade freely, then he is the same as us and should not disown us. If he thinks we are criminals that he will punish by approving theft of our property and livelihood, then he is just another thug state-communist. There's no in between. If "socialism" is not voluntary, then don't distinguish it from soviet.
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
@drizztf88
I agree. Adam Smith's (main influence of Chomsky) idea has never been realzed, he said.
The rich, he claims, echoing Adam Smith, are too keen to preach the benefits of market discipline to the poor while they reserve for themselves the right to be bailed out by the state whenever the going gets rough. As he puts it : “The free market is socialism for the rich. Markets for the poor and state protection for the rich.”
e-rooster.()gr/11/2005/194
On Wall Street Journal
dihydrohydroxycodein 7 months ago
@dihydrohydroxycodein “The free market is socialism for the rich. "
By definition, that is the OPPOSITE of what "free market" means.
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
@dihydrohydroxycodein
True.
That article from e-rooster though is garbage.
drizztf88 7 months ago
@drizztf88
Yes, I agree.
dihydrohydroxycodein 7 months ago
"He doesn't obscure things, he chooses to identify himself as a libertarian(libertarian socialist) as I do."
No one can ever explain in plain language what this means. Qadaffi calls himself a freedom fighter and a revolutionary and a democrat. Whatever. Who cares? Bush was "spreading democracy" and Obomba is killing people in at least 5 different countries because he's the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate! Who gives a crap what people call themselves? What claims do you make on others' lives?
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
@MillionthUsername
Also about your constant complains on him beeing a communist, this video has the best answer: "Unlike capitalists, "communists" have no distinctions"
drizztf88 7 months ago
@drizztf88 I argue for people to make distinctions because most do not, and so most of the time people are arguing with phantoms. There are precious few chances to even have a real (rational) argument since most people cannot or will not distinguish.
What you people seem to do, however, is then obliterate the usefulness of distinction by taking it all the way in the other direction. You end up denying you are communists even as you accept its major points. That is obscuring, not clarifying.
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
@MillionthUsername
Again WHAT is the distinction you want me to make, I will try to make it.
What is that thing you have about the term "communist"? Why do you desperately want me to admit that I am a communist? Is it that, because of the effect that term has in the world you live, once someone admits to being a communist, you can just call them "commie scum" and end the conversation?
I guess with the definition of communism being:sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and-(CON)
drizztf88 7 months ago
@drizztf88 The only "thing" I have with the term "communism" is people who are communist denying that they are. People have jumped on me left and right for saying Chomsky is communist. Now you just simply admitted it, and you say, like him, that you prefer another term. That's not the same as, "Oh, he's not a communist," or Chomsky coyly saying, "What is a communist?" like he has no clue. It's the same ideology. The "commie scum" are those who use/advocate violence to bring about their ideals.
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
@MillionthUsername
"The "commie scum" are those who use/advocate violence to bring about their ideals"
I see, ike the American Revolution for example, right?
drizztf88 7 months ago
@drizztf88 No, the American "revolutionaries" were not communists. Are you having trouble distinguishing between people who use violence and people who are communists? A communist can be someone who either advocates violence or not. Likewise, someone who advocates violence may be a communist or not. Being a communist and advocating violence are two different things. That is what we call a distinction.
Where do you and Chomsky stand? Is it all a big secret or what?
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
@MillionthUsername
I thought you made a point against violence in general. If you accept that violence can be used in certain circumstances, then for a communist too, violence can be used in certain circumstances
drizztf88 7 months ago
@drizztf88 My comment was in reply to you asking me about who "commie scum" were. I would never call voluntary communists "scum." Ever. So I said they are those (communists) who would use violence to bring about their ideals. Proportionate violence can only be used in self-defense to repel a violator of person and property. There's the rub, however, since communism essentially claims to own everyone/everything prior to individual property rights. So I guess they want perpetual war? I'm asking.
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
@MillionthUsername
You will ask me "what are these certain circumstances?"
I will ask you the same thing :"what are the certain circumstances that capitalists can use violence?"
drizztf88 7 months ago
@drizztf88 The NAP (non-aggression principle) is a universal ethic which can be theoretically applied equally to every individual. It bans the initiation of force. That's what libertarians (whom you call something else, I imagine?) say. This is the basis of a free society, the respecting of individual rights. We would only punish those who violate rights.
But since communism turns the world upside down, I guess you will punish us all since we are all criminals in your eyes? IDK, you tell me.
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
@MillionthUsername
This is not as simple as you lay it out to be. Of course I am against the creation of an authoritarian state that silences every different voice. I don't know the way that an anarchist/ communist/socialist society will be created. Let me use examples:
The Zapatistas in Mexico have chosen a voluntary libertarian socialist way of governing themselves, but they have to face goverment violence with violence.
The way I woud want it would be to convince workers to top working for
drizztf88 7 months ago
--->the capitalists and organize on their own on a society where the means of productions will be owned by all.
drizztf88 7 months ago
@drizztf88 Why not just stop working for stupid capitalist that actually hurt you? Capitalists will always exist in some form or another. That is, the decision of what to do with a particular capital good will always in some way lay in some individuals hands. It might be in the hands of those who make the most economic decisions, or in someone else's hands.
Exactly when does the product of my labor become means of production and subject to this common ownership?
mortalisk 5 months ago
@mortalisk You can't just stop working. How will you pay for your expenses. What if you're not really qualified and therefore depended on your job? And yes, there will always be someone making decisions, but since his decisions affect so many lives why would we tolerate his authority without democratic legitimization?
Rubashow 5 months ago
@Rubashow Hopefully the property a capitalist is in control of, is the fruits of his labor, and what he could voluntarily trade it for. Since he is able to turn a profit, it means he is making the most economic desicions. If someone else gets to make the desicions, there will be waste of resources. Most of human history is a tale of having to struggle each day for survival. Respect for personal property is what turned the tables and meant property was now used to satisfy the masses.
mortalisk 5 months ago
@Rubashow Democracy is not good. Democracy is having your neighbour choose what to use your salary on. Naturally he will waste it as quick as he can.
mortalisk 5 months ago
@mortalisk Yes, having a dictator, your employer or anyone with a gun telling you what to do seems like a much better possibility...
Rubashow 5 months ago 4
@Rubashow Why is violence the only option? I am a voluntarist, and explicitly against aggression as a solution to anything. Property in the fruit of ones labor is there to have clear boundaries of what is to be considered aggression or defense. Without property there is no freedom.
Democracy is at best the majority using the guns against the rest, and more often against themselves as they have no clue about how wealth is created. Democracy incentivizes ganging up to loot from others.
mortalisk 5 months ago
Oh and I call you neoliberals;)
drizztf88 7 months ago 4
@MillionthUsername
and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production" I am close to that, but I prefer the term libertarian socialist for myself, cause I think it's more suitable
drizztf88 7 months ago
@MillionthUsername Pirate property was aquired in a society that used force against the under class. The people who own it, can't complain when it is used on them!
brownie1982ad 3 months ago
@brownie1982ad Yes, that's the commie nutbag line. Thanks for sharing.
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
Can anyone give the name of this lecture, pls? Thanx
mySterYaura 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nobody wants to work period.
fringeelements 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SAY CUMHOLES..........CHUMPSKY ISN'T SQUAT....THE TURKEY ENDORSED KASINISH FOR GODS SAKES.....WHEN YOU ADD IT ALL UP, CHUMPSKY ISN'T ANYTHING MORE THAN YOUR DIMEADOZEN LIBERAL SACK OF SHIT TEACHER WHO'S BEEN SUCKING OFF THE SYSTEM AND NAIVE MORONS LIKE THE GULLIBLE IDIOTS POSTING ON THIS PAGE
whothehellgivesadamn 10 months ago
@whothehellgivesadamn Nice caps.. Keep beating that Crazy Tree!
TooBoCu2008 10 months ago
@whothehellgivesadamn In other words, you didn't understand a word he said. My condolences.
GreggTheEgg 9 months ago 9
@GreggTheEgg NO SCUMBAG YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND A WORD I SAID, AND YOU'RE TYPICAL FODDER FOR A CLOWN LIKE CHUMPSKY.......HE NEEDS IGNORANT DUMBASSES LIKE YOU TO SELL HIS DUMBASS BOOKS TO.
whothehellgivesadamn 9 months ago
@GreggTheEgg Spot on!
It's a safe bet , that anyone ranting like that in CAPITALS..putting forth no specifics or refutations...isn't likely to begin to even grasp a syllable of of what Chomsky's said
comanchio1976 9 months ago
@hexcane (cont.) ...When in the hands of the intelligent minority, however, societies are built and mankind elevates. In the modern capitalist world, this is very often not the case. The capitalists themselves lack the broad insight that men of power should wield.
I too at one time held your view of kindness, but looking at the average man, who's breath is slow, who's mind is dull, I came to the conclusion that he must be commanded by his betters; that he is not the best judge of his interests.
FaaarLeft 10 months ago
@FaaarLeft Yes but thats a bit arrogant, I can see where you´re coming from and its easy to agree but maybe we need to cultivate self development of the sheeple, so they can lead themselves and achieve equality to their betters. More free time for the betters then.
sid8980 7 months ago
@hexcane Acknowledging the natural strata society takes between those that plan and those that work does not involve racial bigotry. My argument, however, for the absolute necessity of labor exploitation goes as follows: When any economic program is set, dead capital is created; this dead capital can be either accumulated by the worker or the owner. In the hands of the worker, who's eye is not set on grand things, but rather his own limited aims, uses it, societal progress is not made. (cont.)
FaaarLeft 10 months ago
@hexcane This question concerning normative morality, of which I confess to be ill-equipped, shouldn't be the issue here. My view is that advanced societies could not thrive and elevate to a certain level without some form of coercion and exploitation: One type of man (the superior man) exploiting another (the inferior man). A 'nice' alternative to this would castrate the superior man, making him unable to build and plan society. The golden rule flattens the plain and devours progress.
FaaarLeft 10 months ago
It doesn't take professorial speech to adumbrate the problem, and if it does, people will never hear it, so why bother.
ion010101 11 months ago
Comment removed
MMORPguy 11 months ago
I would love to hear Chomsky give a response to the various arguments in favor of exploitation, without his usual moral prejudice. One would respect him more if he could reject the childish "nice makes right" political theory.
FaaarLeft 11 months ago
gee, if the government was giving out oil money I think Americans would be alot better off. And although they may have socialized education, they still have voucher systems which allow for competition. Even soo it is costing them dearly. Once oil is no longer in high demand and 3rd world countrys catch up in technology and productivity, you can say goodbye to both those countries. Its either sink or swim.
Volomonoh 1 year ago
@Xerotaerg Well, perhaps the second half. The fact that they have the widest definition of rape of any country in the world is irrefutable fact.
andlostillgiven 1 year ago
Chomsky is the greatest American ever. The only one I'd ever tout as a Top 20 men of all time candidate. He can maintain equanimity without subscribing to apathy. That is a victory of victories for a man born and raised in the Western world.
owenhunt 1 year ago
We need to close the reserve banks, insist on interest free issuing of currency again. Also we need to eliminate phoney finance like Dirivitives. If we did that, things would fine and capitalism would be OK but it isn't and many of you don't get that. I bet the people who scoff at the Idea are wealthy so they don't give a shit. The vast majority is barely living and working themselves to death. It's not right.
MrROTD 1 year ago
The tiny fraction of one percent of cranks who think that drivers licenses, license plates, zip codes, or involuntary payment into public funds for food stamps or Coast Guard Search and Rescue is tyranny will just have to go on thinking so. Im sorry they feel that way. I really am. But like those who think society should be a theocracy, I have to ask them to accept that everyone else doesnt see this as they do.
SocialDemocrats 1 year ago
What we are concerned with is concentrations of wealth, power, opportunity and decision making in too few hands. Generally, the more diffuse and widely enjoyed these are, the better, and the more densely concentrated, the worse it is.
Thats an orientation, but it doesnt involve us in daydreaming about statelessness.
SocialDemocrats 1 year ago
@SocialDemocrats Don't forget information, the media is in a very few hands.
MrROTD 1 year ago
The state is not going to be abolished so we dont have to spend too much time on the issue.
We arent comparing a society of state and taxation to a mythical, purely imaginary society of zero coercion. But state and taxation vs the chaos of warlordism and the rule of strong over the weak. Youd still have coercion without the state. Murder, tyranny, theft, exploitation would still exist. These are human problems, not problems of the state.
SocialDemocrats 1 year ago 2
No moral outcome can proceed from coercion, whether it be against rich or poor. Taxation is coercive; we cannot be forced to act morally. And if you think taxation IS voluntary, then try not paying taxes as a way of testing that theory. Abolition of the state is the most pressing concern for those interested in maximising liberty. Happily, it is also the most pressing concern for those interested in maximising human welfare, however they wish to construe it.
HugoNewman 1 year ago
start building towards a society wherein free-market industries and companies approximate to Chomsky's syndicalist ideal of democratic organisation. I have no doubt that it is possible for such arrangements to arise on an absolutely free-market where the state no longer parasitically feeds off the productivity of the economy and retards economic growth. The point is that it needs to emerge on the basis of free association and voluntary exchange, and the recognition of private property rights.
HugoNewman 1 year ago
voluntary exchanges. If there is a history of theft or fraud, then perhaps a case can be made for turning management over to workers who had no involvement in the illicit acts). The first step ought to be to rid society of the most prevalent and egregious forms of coercion, namely, state monopolies of certain industries and services, and taxation, which is nothing else than involuntary expropration from the productive sector of society. Having redressed this most flagrant injustice, maybe we can
HugoNewman 1 year ago
on an institutional homogeneity which will necessitate that every worker have an equal say in management issues. No doubt there are times in everyone's working life when the person would like to have some influence on company policy. But if such internal structural change comes, it must come on a voluntarily, through free associatation. It cannot be based on coercive expropriation from the existing owners of industry (assuming all the owners' market operations themselves have been based on
HugoNewman 1 year ago
relatively mindless labour through more technical roles to economic management of company policy) in exchange for a set wage. If Chomsky truly advocates freedom, then it should be up to the individual what level of input in management/policy issues he or she wishes to have. Certainly some people, for various reasons, will want to have no say in such matters, and will prefer simply to work without much thought or effort for a relatively minor wage. The point is that Chomsky seems to be insisting
HugoNewman 1 year ago
Chomsky sets up a false dichotomy. In a free market situation, it's not simply a choice between what he calls freedom (which in his lexicon curiously includes the precondition that everyone must have an equal stake in the management of their respective workplace, regardless of ability, interest, motivation etc) and being "ruled by a benevolent master". On a free market, one can voluntarily enter into a contract with an employer whereby they offer certain services (which can range from
HugoNewman 1 year ago
Does anybody know where i could find similar speeches, preferrably by chomsky? this seems to be one of the few political speeches of his available on youtube as far as i can find.
Keinlicht 1 year ago
@Xerotaerg Sweden is not the rape capitol of the world...they have the widest legal definition of rape of any company in the world, which makes conviction easier and more common than anywhere else in the world. If it were thanks to third world immigration, wouldn't the respective third world countries be more so full of rapists than the country to which some of them choose to immigrate?
andlostillgiven 1 year ago
His voice sounds weird in this clip
majordbag2 1 year ago
@majordbag2
He sounds like Tom Lehrer
Di0genesus 1 year ago
can anyone tell me which talk this is and direct me to the rest of it?
xbyiu97 1 year ago
Chomsky is so badass... x peace
MetaCraken 1 year ago
Also, Sweden has a much better functioning democracy than the US has (which is of the very reason for why Sweden is much further to the left). In the 70s, 95% of the Swedes voted, as compared to only 50% in the US. After that the number of voters in Sweden has declined to about 80% as a result of privatizations, but it's still quite high.
Jockas4 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Capitalism is the wage slavery of immense humanity in a politically manipulated MARKET SYSTEM of artificial scarcity and distortions to perpetuate the conditions of servitude and compliance INDEFINITLY in the interest of Ruling/Owning class. Capitalist society has made plenty possible,we have all the means and potentially so much more for communities of humanity in cooperation for our common needs and well being in harmony , wisdom and creative expressions . Capitalist society is outdated
arzoyan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If we all become radicals, and use our one and only vote, which is the dollar and pour this "dollar/power/vote" into local unsupported industries,people next door within our countries, and spread the wealth surely this mindset will change things and increases and more "democratic" way of life.I feel like people have forgotten that capitalism is a game and you must wield the bat to play ball."If you can't beat em ,join em" and manipulate them by uniting for a common good against tyranny.
thedirtydeltas 1 year ago
'Production itself becomes more and more social—hundreds of thousands and millions of workers become bound together in a regular economic organism—but the product of this collective labour is appropriated by a handful of capitalists. Anarchy of production, crises, the furious chase after markets and the insecurity of existence of the mass of the population are intensified.'
V. Lenin, "The Three Sources and Three Components of Marxism" (1913)
Guevaristas 1 year ago
The only thing Chomsky gets right here is that you can't make interpersonal comparisons of utility and that value is not objective (you can't assume for someone else that freedom is worthless to them).
Unfortunately, some people do prefer rulership to freedom. That's like the majority(at least in the US). Most people will say the state is necessary. I think they're wrong, but that's what they believe.
That being said, the concept of wage slavery is nonsense.
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
Capitalism , the wage slavery of immense humanity in a politically manipulated.corrupt and a tyrannical ,destructive MARKET SYSTEM OF ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY and distortions, to perpetuate poverty and exploitation in the interest of the ruling class. We need to create a democratic majority movement for a world of cooperation for our common needs and well being, A moneyless,classless,stateless communities of humanity managing our lives in harmony within and without
arzoyan 1 year ago
chumpsky is a dime a dozen liberal douce bag who endorsed kerry and kusinich...what an ffing joke....all of this garbage is just a means of implementing force and the dummies on this page aren't bright enough to understand it...what a joke....
whothehellgivesadamn 1 year ago
@whothehellgivesadamn Thought I forgot about you fuckhead? I will haunt you for the rest of your life! And you still haven't learned your lesson you cum gargler, get your gay ass shit out of here and help your mother sell herself for pennies! Do you want me to make another video about your gay ass?
killaman50001 1 year ago
@whothehellgivesadamn "a dime a dozen liberal douce bag" man this is all your gay ass shit can say you're pathetic!
killaman50001 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this mars moron and these other idiots think that socialism is so brilliant, while they type on computers invented....where.........duh...the usa........with software invented where......duh the usa..........on youtube which is from where..........duh the usa........owned by who.........duh.......the usa......specifically california....which is where i was born you super stupid pieces of shit.....only its getting more infected by scum like you guys and chumpsky every minute of the day.........
whothehellgivesadamn 1 year ago
@whothehellgivesadamn Are you what happens when abortions go wrong??
TooBoCu2008 10 months ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this chompsky clown endorsed kerry in 04 and said he would endorse kusinash in 08...what a pathetic joke...chumpsky is just another milktoast braindead liberal hiding in school marms clothing, what a turkey
whothehellgivesadamn 1 year ago
@whothehellgivesadamn
Every time you talk, you poop.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago 3
@pulsatingremedy a brilliant comment from a guy with shit for brains..........duh....
whothehellgivesadamn 1 year ago
@whothehellgivesadamn ....why...do...you.....use...so many...periods?
modustheoperandi 1 year ago 2
@whothehellgivesadamn who's paying u to smear chomsky?
dizzyboy352 1 year ago 6
yea and thats comming from arz, and we know what a genius arzoyn or whatever his crappy name is
whothehellgivesadamn 1 year ago
Noam is a great teacher and activist for the cause of true human emancipiation from tyranny of class rule, from serfdom of wage salvery from this insane perpetuations of war,poverty,exploitation and so forth, may i drink to your health and your human courage in the face of the darke ages in USA.
arzoyan 1 year ago 17
This comment has received too many negative votes show
oh my god...imagine rock and roll or the pc industry in its inception...where you don't even know where its going youre just winging it day by day as you are innovating and some lame pieces of crap like chumpsky and buddies are going to park their lame asses right in the middle of your developing industry and form some kind of super wierd presiding wierd organization....one word..............puke..........
whothehellgivesadamn 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
by the way this chumpsky clown speaks very much like a poor drunken slobering idiot talking to himself on the streets of some urban nightmare....chumpsky is like a washed up bum put into professors clothes who drones on to then hypnotize the utterly unintelligent and uneducated, this is a whole lot of sick dronning...
whothehellgivesadamn 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this idiot speaks in dronespeak to drones...he just drones on hypnotizing drones....he floats stupid ideas which are not substantiated, nor does he attempt to substantiate......he just drones.........and drones........and drones........the idea here is that you should approach these matters like scientists........not like global warming drones....where you just make drone assumptions and then carry on as those assumptions are facts......
whothehellgivesadamn 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
which means in plain english dog the conversation is way over your head....and you couldn't answer the questions if you tried because that would take a dummy like you decades and decades of study and thought...so why not try to save a few electrons and calories spent on key strokes and save your energy when you just don't even know what youre talking about....mr chumpskyite...
whothehellgivesadamn 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
please joe youre just a little boy trying to pretend he knows something, since you pretend think you do let's see if you can tackle this question. Explain the evolution of objectivism as it correlates to scientific methodology and patanjali's aphorisms. Please don't bore me any further on this kind of adolescent sthick, it wasn't even where it was at in the sixties, let alone now...good luck reading kid, thats what you should do before you start teaching..
whothehellgivesadamn 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
yea joe thanks for the compliment, i looked at your stars and stripes song...you don't have it exactly right there kid...but i will say you're group is a whole lot cuter than chumpsky...at least when you make bad points you can make it entertaining....with chumpsky its all about a lot of miserable droning that tricks and anethesises the uninformed...
whothehellgivesadamn 1 year ago
@whothehellgivesadamn
You prefer my entertaining comments? Sounds like you prefer infotainment! I suggest Fox News or the Enquirer. Sorry, most information tends to be dry. If you really want to learn, you need to stop looking for sparklers and epic music to accompany information. Did you ever see the study that showed FNC had the most misinformed viewers?
JoebooSauce 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the word chompsky is a derivation of the word chimp....anybody that goes along with this dronning crap is a chump....and the proper pronunciation of this moron's name is chumpsky
whothehellgivesadamn 2 years ago
@whothehellgivesadamn
BRILLIANT reBUTTal!
JoebooSauce 1 year ago
If you can move beyond petty personal attacks you may grow up to learn something about intelligent discourse and possibly the meaning of the word intelligence.
D0g63rt 1 year ago 2
Chomsky who are you to claim for all people what they want? If you are a REAL anarchist you will leave those choices up to individuals themself.
Justbeatit999 2 years ago
silly noam, why can't he realize that all human interactions are arbitrary; societal conscience determines society, if we all decided to stop being wasteful consumers and voluntarily share our wealth with our neighbors that would be our society, nothing is stopping us from doing that except ourselves.
321lawc 2 years ago
"Many politicians are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom.
The maxim is worthy of the old fool in the proverb who resolved not to enter the water till he had learned to swim."
-Thomas B Macaulay
polymath7 2 years ago
Yeah, people don't want to work. Do you think Hunter-Gatherers want to spend all day making spear points? If we were living under this utopia of "Libertarian Socialism" would work all of a sudden become fun? All societies require labor, I'm not exactly sure what the point is here.
RadioFreeWisconsin 2 years ago 2
noones saying we wanna stop working, just like the capitalists, i dont want lazy fucks around.
i need a full time job right now, but if society handed me a job, id go right for it. I would never support a system that gives free handouts for those unwilling to do labor like today, i am a libertarian socialist as well
chorizo1337 2 years ago
We have the technology right now to mechanize almost all menial labor to the point where only 5% of the work force would be required to work at any one time. What needs to happen is for the labor process to become the goal of the labor itself. An example would be how scientists go through more schooling than most financial traders do, yet they reap much more profit from what they do. The scientist has an intrinsic motivation for doing the work in forwarding the process of human progression.
ipwnorcs 2 years ago
That's not true - I love my work.
I'm self-employed. I contract (and own) my labor.
He's speaking of wage slavery. Big distinction. Most people would love to be paid for the thing they do well -directly- contracting on their own terms... I'm guessing, but It sounds as if you are speaking from the perspective of one who doesn't like their work? Isn't that slavery? Especially with forced taxation?
immayhem 2 years ago
That's the dream isn't it? Unfortunately it can't be true for everyone, because in order to be self employed, you still must find someone who will give you something in return for your skill (thus still a slave!). If I were a Hunter-Gatherer, I would still hate my work (I hate hunting), but I wouldn't techincally be working for someone else, but does that really matter? As long as you HAVE to do something you hate in order to survive, am I not a slave?
RadioFreeWisconsin 2 years ago
I'm trying to figure out what you're saying. Are you saying that you'd rather be given everything freely? That to be alive is slavery?
To be given everything freely - would you not still be a slave - albeit a well-kept one? a pet. you'd still depend on a benevolent hand to feed you.
You're giving a strange existential argument, using your own personal displeasure with expending effort in order to survive...
I'm not a Buddhist, but the Buddha did say that life is suffering. Oh well.
immayhem 2 years ago
I'm just trying to refute this concept of, "Wage Slavery." People use that term do not know the definition of slavery. If there is no external coercive force making you work, then you are not a slave. If needing to "sell your labor" in order to survive makes you a slave, then we are all slaves, and thus the word slavery has no meaning. So when Chomsky argues, "no one wants 'wage slavery" I say, of course, not having to work would be great!
RadioFreeWisconsin 2 years ago
I still agree with Chomsky that 'wage slavery' is equivalent to 'slavery' on this basis: Workers are not working as common owners/profiteers of their labor in a majority of work situations. Their labor is profited from by either shareholders (who don't work at all) or company heads at the top who make large salaries. Wage slaves are generally not 'invested' in the quality of their work - or the success/failure of the company, and owners are removed from the process of production. cont's...
immayhem 2 years ago
this differential, if you really look at it, is arguably the basis for most of the discontent on the planet (if you add religion to keep the wage slaves fighting each other - those in power have lots of leverage over the wage class). The truth is, we must question the old models. We know what doesn't work - communism is no different than capitalism, when applied to the same hierarchy. What's next? Probably a movement toward open source technology and profit-sharing... both are good ideas.
immayhem 2 years ago
Even under his system, workers would still be subordinate to others (more senior members of the Commune for iinstance). How does a differential in wealth cause conflict? If two people are poor, but one becomes rich, is the person who is still poor somehow worse off because someone else is rich? No, so the problem is not inequality in itself. Nothing wrong with questioning the old system, but we have no right to forcivly confiscate the property of others. This is the problem I have with it.
RadioFreeWisconsin 2 years ago
i never said anything about forcible confiscation. No way. Not ever, under any circumstance. I'm not even in favor of wage taxation. As Bastiat puts it, that's plunder.
this is just simply about fair business practices that give proper value on labor that helps to create products, and therefore, profits. Workers need not be 'subordinates'... workers should be shareholders, ideally.
immayhem 2 years ago
...and in this little bubble of two people - one rich and one poor - of course the poor person is not any worse off. but take of the blinders and broaden the scope of your view. follow the trail of money into the rich one's pocket. how was it accumulated? did someone have to sell their labor for less than they were able to live on? it doesn't have to be that way.
immayhem 2 years ago
The only way to put these so called, "Libertarian Socialist" ideas into practice would be through some sort of violent means because few people give up their property voluntarily (would you?) As for the bubble of two people, I would say that the poor person is better off with some job than no job at all. The Capitalist isn't "opressing" him by giving him a job. If you have no respect for the property of another, why should anyone have respect for yours?
RadioFreeWisconsin 2 years ago
Violent means? Confiscation?! Bah.
Not sure why you're reading that into what I'm saying. You should do some research on Open Source. Purely and simply competitive on the market with monopolistic capitalism. Look at Linux - you don't have to buy the Linux Ubuntu operating system. It's free, user-friendly, community oriented. I have quite a few friends who are making a good living designing custom networks for business using Linux - and contributing to the evolution of the OS at the same time.
immayhem 2 years ago
Life, Liberty and Property are sacred.
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete" - Buckminster Fuller (Bucky)
Open Source is having a HUGE impact on economics... it's Decentralized Production:
/watch?v=NgYE75gkzkM
Now Google the P2P Foundation and follow some links.
immayhem 2 years ago
"few people give up their property voluntarily (would you?)"
wage (income) taxation is this.
do you pay income tax? if labor is property, and it certainly is, among free people... then, logically income taxation is forcible (and it certainly is forcible) removal of a substantial portion of one's property - by a corporation, no less. it's slavery.
immayhem 2 years ago
History taught us that "violent" means don't help at all... Instead of trying to violently change society, why dont' we try to change ourselves first ? If people change, society changes too.
LVader20 2 years ago 2
True that, but our system is a Corporatist society, in which Big Business protect themselves from the market with the use of the state. Technical advancement is therefore limited to this hierarchy's interest. Thus, it is imperative to limit Government's power.
As for the two-poor-people senario, the poor person is worse off, not because the other is rich, but because capital has outskirted labor.
okayillgonow 2 years ago
"but we have no right to forcivly confiscate the property of others." LOL
mjalloxxxx 2 years ago
@RadioFreeWisconsin it's not that it's the system working for a boss for the corporate rulers that is the problem. This has nothing to do with unequal distribution of wealth not the way you are thinking. You should keep 100% of the fruits of your labor this is mine and many others position.
Luigi84289 2 years ago
Here is a loose example of what could could work today:
Say I have 10 acres and 10 million dollars to invest. I want to build a multi-use condominium/community (energy and agriculture independent) with say, 50 $200K living units, etc. I hire 50 laborer/investors at $10/hr plus options (to use either to buy into a unit, or sell the live-option back to me at completion - about $20k) They could enjoy a dividend on excess power, or form smaller agri-tech enterprise groups. Sustainable profit.
immayhem 2 years ago
Have you heard of benchmarking? It's a hallmark of capitalist business where companies study the best of other companies. Currently, more socialist nations such as Denmark, Holland, etc. blow the United States away in perhaps the most important variable, Life Satisfaction (see field of Positive Psychology). Perhaps we can apply the best of capitalist business practice (benchmarking) to strive for actual quality of life rather than highest GDP.
slybeelius 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
SOCIALIST FAILURES IN AMERICA:
The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775 - it is broke.
Social Security was established in 1935 - it is broke
Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - it is broke.
War on Poverty started in 1964 - $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor"; it hasn't worked.
Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - they're broke
Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - it is broke
TIME TO FACE REALITY!
iNsyNR8R 2 years ago
/watch?v=iVDPxVy7h38
Arkinight 2 years ago
the fact that things are underfunded doesn't mean that it is because they are inherently inclined to fail. in fact, the benefit of a public institution over a private institution is the fact that it can run up debt in the short-term to further long-term goals.
Tuppington 2 years ago
So those programs are failures because they don't make money? Public services, unlike private businesses, don't need to make money, but rather benefit citizens paying for them, which those did. But since it's $ you're talking, you're equally upset about...
IMPERIALIST FAILURES IN AMERICA:
The Korean War - cost $
The Vietnam War - cost more $
The Iraq War - hundreds of billions of $ of our money is confiscated each year and spent on killing and racketeering; it hasn't worked.
ShaneSaw83 2 years ago 3
Dont' forget about the fraudulent war in Afghanistan.
haytubenon 2 years ago
MORE COSTLY FAILURES IN AMERICA:
Corporate subsidies/welfare - costs $
War on drugs - lasted decades, cost hundreds of billions, hasn't worked
Bailing out Wall St. - cost mega $ and it won't be the last time we do it
Bloated military budget - much larger than the military budget of EVERY other nation COMBINED
U.S. dependence on foreign oil - costs trillions of $, results in U.S. funding both sides of the war on terror
TIME TO FACE REALITY!
ShaneSaw83 2 years ago
Nice pwnage :-)
ChunderChunk 2 years ago
Sweden and Norway have the highest taxes in the world.
As a result they have the most equal populations in the world.
They also have the wealthiest populations, healthiest, best educated, lowest crime, regarded as much freer than the USA, which has the highest per capita prison population, as many serving terms of 'hard labour' as the Gulag system had.
Northern Europe is not perfect, but it makes the far right in the USA look like the boss stooges they are.
morons backing the nastiest corps.
marsCubed 2 years ago 67
@marsCubed Europe got the message, we didn't. The only thing America is #1 at is prisons and military. Just the other day we had another super secret satellite launch.
Antiks72 1 year ago 3
@marsCubed "As a result they have the most equal populations in the world."
Native Scandinavians aren't reproducing, though their Mohammedans guest workers are. The cradle-to-grave welfare state has infantilized and emasculated Swedes and Norwegians. The rest of your "argument" could easily be viewed as thinly veiled white supremacy.You want socialism, and you want whites of N european extraction in power.
alphecca2539 1 year ago
@alphecca2539 That is Bull shit.
Northern Europe has the same rates of immigration as everywhere else.
If you get your statistics from racist sources like 'Muslim demographics' and other far right trash then you are an idiot.
Germany has the highest rate for non white immigration in Europe, only 4.3% are Muslim, mostly from Turkey, many on non permanent visas. The rest of Europe has similar levels of immigration. it is of no importance.
Tax the top hard and pick people up, invest.
marsCubed 1 year ago