I don't think the comparison is valid unless you really examine each of the people working in the world trade center individually. Some people may have been managers, but the kind of work that they did may have not involved any negative or inhumane outcome. Perhaps some were managers that did create a negative outcome in some way they did not know about. And it should go without saying, nobody should be indicted in this way without a trial first.
If all CORP Agenda was DO NO HARM, we wouldn't have sustainable wars 4profit, many diseases would cease 2exist, no grand scale threat by elite White Collar ...6 degree round robins; not stuck in this mundane matrix or the Elite small percentages owning everything. Without approaching, educating, critical thinking on the WE THE PEOPLES part, how can we ever achieve our basic CREATIVE rights, not slaves or fodder to the system.
listen, i think this guy is a complete tool as well... but in the final analysis he's essentially just saying lets stop hurting one another, lets stop worrying about bottom lines and profit margins while million of children in this world go to sleep starving. thats all he's really getting at.
To call out innocent people in the trade center (one of them a friend I lost from school) the way he did was totally wrong ...but i do think he is simply speaking about common greater good.
1) Actually, anybody claiming any analogy between holocaust and capitalism would not be taken seriously in most circles. In case you didn´t notice, youtube community is not exactly representative of whole society.
2) Stupidity (and indecency, in fact) of analogy between holocaust and capitalism sinks below line, under which an opinion doesn´t even deserve serious answer. Even now I am just wasting my time terribly.
First you would have to define what capitalism is exactly.
If your definition is something along the lines of a competitive market where everyone tries to be successful and help out their community, then yeah, I guess it's a stupid analogy.
If you have the slightest sense of reality you would acknowledge the massive economic exploitation that the West imposes on the rest of the world. That exploitation, whether directly or indirectly causes suffering globally.
Furthermore, he never compared anything to the holocaust, he compared it to Adolf Eichmann, who happened to be involved with the holocaust, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that he was able to do something like that in, like Churchill describes, a completely soulless and immoral way.
The exploitation that the West imposes on the world is carried out by individuals who do it with benign intent; however benign intent does not justify malign actions.
"If you have the slightest sense of reality you would acknowledge the massive economic exploitation that the West imposes on the rest of the world. That exploitation, whether directly or indirectly causes suffering globally."
No, I would not. Leftist cliché, which does not become reality just because you guys keep repeating it all the time.
1) Business as usual. 2) I was mainly commenting on Eichmann - WTC employees analogy. Albright - totally taken out of context, I don´t know what that was. Nixon - totally unrelated to nature of capitalism, simply a strategic discussion during a war.
Hundreds of thousands of deaths were taken out of context?
You don't know what that was? Well, first you should go do some research and when you do learn what that proverbial 'what' is, we can have a more enlightened conversation.
Simply a strategic discussion during war? Killing millions can be brushed off, living in Czech Republic you probably know of a fellow named Joseph Stalin and his quote about killing a million people.
It is related when you look at the motivation behind the war.
1) No, the comment about hundreds of deaths was taken out of context.
2) Economic sanctions against Iraq (if that is what "what" was about), had nothing to do with capitalism. In fact, if I agreed to your absurd notion about capitalism causing poverty, ceasing trade with Iraq would be beneficial for Iraq - no more evil western corporations operating in Iraq, only limited trade). (BTW, I agreed with those sanctions, but that is for separate discussion.
There were bureaucrats making sure that those sanctions were properly looked after and implemented.
Those sanctions were predicted, and then amply confirmed, that they would heavily harm the population and make them reliant on a tyrant - which they did. That's where the Eichmann analogy lies, on a grand scale it's an evil act, even if it's carried out with benign intent.
"What is capitalism anyways? How does it function?" - great question. But I would expect YOU to come up with an answer, since you criticize it. Of course, the term is ambiguous. Sanctions - before I continue, I assume that you were against the war in Iraq, right?
I already did define what it is and that it is in fact exploitative of much of the world, but you brushed that aside as a "Leftist cliché", so once again -
Lol, ok, so your definition of capitalism was "the massive economic exploitation that the West imposes on the rest of the world." Sorry, I didn´t get that. Ok, capitalism as you define it does not exist.
My definition (for the purposes of this discussion):
"Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned, and investments, distribution, income, production, pricing and supply of goods, commodities and services are determined by voluntary private decision in a market economy. (wiki)
"So the West doesn't exploit the rest of the world economically?"
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: Problem is, that "the West" is an abstraction, which makes it difficult to answer with intellectual honesty. Of course, certain individuals and corporations from USA and Europe exploit certain other people, who don´t live in USA or Europe. But it is not a main (dominant) feature of economic relations between "the West" and "rest of the world".
Western states - institutions of power. Corporations in the United States and elsewhere in rich European countries are just extensions of the state. They receive massive subsidies, they rely heavily on the state sector for R&D.
"The West" is an abstraction but capitalism is not? Okay so for the third time, what is capitalism?
So how does the West interact economically with the rest of the world?
I gave my definition, maybe placed it wrongly. Sure, capitalism is an abstraction too. Which is one of the reasons why analogy with holocaust is absurd and stupid. "Corporations in the United States and elsewhere in rich European countries are just extensions of the state." Wow, I thought that leftists claimed a government to be an extension of corporations. So which is it?
"how does West..." Trade in broad sense of the term.
Leftist? You're arguing facts as a matter of political ideology? Okay, why don't you scan through Mr1001nights' video library, just as a start, to educate yourself on this and other topics. This has absolutely zero to do with political ideology, this isn't a "claim" or otherwise. It's a well documented fact, a great place to begin is the arms industry in every country and you can go from there and see just how much massive support the corporations receive from the state sector.
You never gave any definition, period. Because it's a buzz word, it means nothing. I was describing the situation as it is and as it has always been between Europe and the rest of the world.
I really cannot argue with you anymore, you just simply discount facts, and I can't provide citations and evidence on youtube. Unfortunately topics such as these require extensive research and knowledge - far beyond what one would get on the two minute sound bites you're working with from either Fox News or other similar sources.
Perhaps you have as many probles with reading as you have with thinking. I repeat:"Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned, and investments, distribution, income, production, pricing and supply of goods, commodities and services are determined by voluntary private decision in a market economy."
To conclude, you presented no evidence for your claims. So I suggest you start with that extensive research, you clearly need it.
There's nothing here to "think" about, this isn't philosophy, it's quite straightforward - either you accept the evidence, which you should search on your own like I suggested starting with the arms industry, agricultural industry, et cetera, or conversely you can just call it all lies. If you choose the latter, fine, I'm not going to argue reality with you.
1) Sorry I didn´t meet your standards of unbiased and deep definitions, lol.
2)"There's nothing here to "think" about." Yes, that is an excellent summary of your worldview. Believe it or not, interpretation of facts matters, and yes, when you bring up moral categories such as "exploitation", it becomes a moral philosophy. I didn´t expect you to pile up factual evidence, but to make at least a decent attempt to describe the mechanism of supposed exploitation. I guess I expected too much.
Calling me childish names really helps change the perceptions around you.
I'm not your secretary, like I said, go look through mr1001nights' video library, his videos are very well done and provide a lot of evidence. Nobody is suggesting you carry out an extensive research project but I'm not here to satisfy your need for a demonstration.
What was a waste of time? You were actually expecting me to provide you with five pages of citations? Think realistically.
I can't make a case if you refuse to acknowledge well known facts. Therefore after you refused to acknowledge them I switched tactics, I said listen, please go research so we can be operating on the same page, but once again you refuse. So I have no recourse. If you would like to believe Fox News that's your prerogative to do so, nobody is stopping you from denying facts or otherwise.
1) Omg, why do you keep repeating this idiotic notion that I, as a european, somehow get my opinions from american cable tv? I guess that is your universal argument against all rightwingers, but here it fails even more than usually.
2) It would take a lot of studying for you to be able to operate on the same page as me.I didn´t expect you to, but I expected some attempt to think and discuss honestly. But you seem to be convinced that your opinion equals fact.That makes any debate pointless.
Well if you want to take the propaganda route, we can. You're living in a fantasy land of the soulful corporation and the benign state where both only act in the best interests of their community and look for the best business deals they can find.
Your observations do not equal fact.
Depends what I would be studying, but you're probably right, it would take a lot for me to be on the same page as you. Judging from your rosy views, you've been amply indoctrinated.
You took a propaganda route long time ago. Otherwise you would never endorse perverted analogy between people working in WTC and nazi criminals. Your strawman doesn´t even require response. But now I´ll just leave you to enjoy the benefits of capitalist society, (such as internet), while deriving a false sense of moral superiority from criticizing it. I just hope that once you get a job, you won´t feel as a little Eichmann.
Propaganda is narrowing the debate. So you're no longer debating on what to make of the facts, you're now debating on whether or not they are facts - you.
Actually it's ironic you took that silly mode of argumentation, you should have taken my advice on watching mr1001nights' videos, he has one that responds to that ridiculous notion.
Actually, before I got into this little silly debate I thought about that myself, and while I have always essentially worked non-managerial jobs I still feel that way. I have worked many factory jobs to pay for my schooling, but once again, I don't necessarily agree with Churchill's analogy. Not based on principled grounds, I agree with that. What I disagree with is the tacit assumption it is a bad thing to involve yourself in the system.
Watch the video and Chomsky's comments at the end.
How is the internet a benefit from capitalism? If I understand the history, it was a government run and funded endeavor that after the social investment for the initial infrastructure, was then given to private ownership.
I think you'll find that more things than you think, are not from capitalistic beginnings.
Yes, that is probably true. My point was more that the huge initial costs of research and development was all absorbed by the society. Then after this, the private sector just 'inherited' this well developed product, and was able to make it what it is today, because of societies ability to have long term funding of projects without immediate pay-offs. The private just piggy-back off of non-capitalist work/resource.
I wasn't joking. Yes, the government does get its resources from taxes, yet it is able to use the money in ways that benefit all, and doesn't need to have some immediate reciprocation of the invested resources.
I meant the private sector more in terms of larger economic entities, and not the general public.
The subsidies to the massive corporations in the United States dwarf any tax imposed on them. High-tech, agriculture, financial, aerospace, automotive, just to name a few - all of these industries receive massive state subsidies.
That's nothing compared to the bare minimum taxation that they have to pay.
Here is essentially the kind of "capitalism" you're working with. I'll link this video because clearly you could not have done basic research on your own.
/watch?v=dRU6e5uBlWI&NR=1
Once again, we don't really have "capitalism" like your rosy definition suggests.
Ok, first, I have to give you some credit for trying to support your position. Second, I don´t see how this video relevant to our discussion - I´ve seen a guy making a lot of claims with which I disagree. Is there any one Chomsky´s claim you want to talk about? As I see it, he first describes capitalism as I don´t thinh it exists and then he desscribes alternatives I find neither plausible nor desirable.
To make myself more clear, I don´t mind if workers buy a mill and work there together. But I think he was speaking about theft, which is a different story.
You don't mind? Sorry, but even if you did mind, nobody really cares. It doesn't matter one bit what you "mind", okay? You completely missed the points. First off, he says how we don't have *capitalism* or at least your rosy definition. Secondly he very clearly mentions how capitalism is exploitative.
That's why he says asking "what's the better capitalism?" is the wrong question. Listen, if you believe it ends here, you're insane. Go out on your own and find the evidence.
He furthermore discusses (obviously sarcastically) that he's not smart enough to discuss utopia. Well what he's basically getting at here, if you didn't already realize, is that it's none of our business to pontificate how others should live. What you and I "believe" about any of this is irrelevant. People -all people, Third world or First - should be allowed to determine their own lives and have control over their own resources instead of being forced to subordinate themselves to corporations.
Therefore, if you believe in even minimalistic democratic principles, and you agree with Chomsky that the state capitalism that we have is hugely exploitative, then it follows naturally that many individuals in high managerial positions can be seen as little Eichmanns.
Once again, I disagree with the conclusion (that this is inherently "bad") but I agree with Churchill's principle. It's not bad for the reason that Chomsky outlines at the end of mr1001nights' video that I originally linked.
Sorry, I had to do a lot of "wage-slaving" last week, didn´t have time to respond. "Third world or First - should be allowed to determine their own lives and have control over their own resources instead of being forced to subordinate themselves to corporations. " I agree, but I don´t think that anybody is being forced. People in the third world woul be much worse off without western corporations.
3) Contemplated use of nuclear weapons - again, unrelated to capitalism. Plus you strawman me, I never said anything about significance of those POTENTIAL deaths. Furthermore, I find it quite ironic that you, who defends a video, which describes actions of communist totalitarian regimes as "pursue of social and economic development" would bring up Stalin.
4) To summarise, neither you nor this video make any reasonable case against capitalism. Just incoherent rambling.
This entire video amounts to one thing: A rehashing of the entirely false, and completely discredited, dichotomy between self-sacrifice to others and other-sacrifice to self presented by the morality of altruism.
If not for the other-sacrifice of public education, Ward Churchill would be working in a gas station. He knows it. That's why he has to spend so much time convincing his victims that somehow their lack of self-sacrifice makes them aggressors.
American Exceptionalism violates Copernicus; thanks Ward for the corrective. US-centric victimhood and agency does not recongize the other billions of people who also inhabit this here planet earth.
Techno-bureaucrats, killing humanity one life at a time.
You know I don't agree with Ward's history regarding Eichmann, but his overall analogy is spot on. I sometimes refer to this method of mass physical and mental genocide as the sterility of modern economic/social warfare.
Ah, and that conversation with Nixon and Kissinger, that was fucking mind blowing!
Wonder what old Kissinger is up to these days? Another Nobel peace prize perhaps?
There are some, but as Hamas has proved, it's politically stupid to do so. It's difficult for a state to use repressive violence when the other side uses peaceful means.
But, yeah, I suppose there can be some situations where it would be warranted.
rule#1 for the "underground" anarchist who wishes to arm themselves: buy your guns through the black market. buying them in the open market gives police forces the stats they use to arms escalate and intrude further.
#2, never brandish your arms, for the same reason.
u've broken these rules and in doing so are counterproductive to your claims of anarchism
you're just a weak yt drama boy, islamophobe when in fashion, now anarchist(you think) when in fashion.
truth is, you're more likely to be the victim of me snatching those arms from you and butt and pistol whippin your ass than being the victim of our govt reimposing apartheid to include the likes of your fashion following punk ass.
The comparison of genocide to commercialism is utterly stupid.
Forgive us for pumping millions of dollars into third world countries. Paying slave wages that rate sweatshop workers among the better off there. Giving meager scraps to those who otherwise have NOTHING!
Piss off dumbass.
And to think Veitnam was on the verg of industrializaton is absurd. Get real, we went to stop communisim. We failed. That is why Veitnam went to shit, because communisim got it.
You don't even have to view Vietnam, then. Look at Latin America. The reason why it's just now, after years of shit, coming to independence (albeit with recent attempted coups and assassinations in Venezuela and Bolivia, respectively) is because the United States, following a long history of imperialism and colonization, plundered access to resources from the indigenous populations. Nothing new for the U.S. It's pretty much genetic now.
Well, for the former, we can take a look at gas and oil resources, or even water as it the case for Bolivia. We can take a look at the banana trade all throughout Latin America. All it takes is reading.
As for when else, you've got to be joking! Look into the colonization of the mainland United States. You can even look at Hawaii itself. It's a major military base for a reason; it's location. You can take a look at Diego Garcia. You can take a look at Iraq now.
Uh, loading up Hawaiians with leprosy to ship them off to Molokai, killing them to steal gold and enslaving them onto plantations doesn't count as "plundering access resources"? You don't know history, then. Sorry.
Apparently, you don't know what the meaning of "exploitation" means on a massive scale. Your lack of education isn't a fault in my (sound) argument.
By the logic of only "ENGLAND'S colonization" we must be still living as a colony of England. Genocide of 15,000,000 never happened.
"loading up Hawaiians with leprosy?" Hahaha! Oh, yah. Capt. Cook had access to biological weapons and transported them on his sailing ship and infected the natives before they ATE him! Hahahaha!!!
And what would you do pre cure (that America provided)?
Hawaiians were never slaves. Period.
You must be one of those sovrinity dumbasses who remember how good it use to be fighting and eating eachother. No rights, no economy, fat ugly inbread islanders.
"By the logic of only "ENGLAND'S colonization" we must be still living as a colony" - Err, no. We became the United States AFTER winning independence, and there were NO more colonies formed... Duh.
Hawaii has protection while being allowed as much as possiable to retain their culture.
I'd love to have seen Japan fight over these islands (be it in the bloody mess of WWII, or any tother ime).
Sure, there has been SOME abuse. But wake up, grass huts and skirts won't cut it in today's world.
The point is that the pattern the US (and other Western nations/corporations) engage in will invite more resistance and opposition. You can ignore that history and continue along with your white supremacist, ignorant mode of thinking just fine. You'll be in good company, I'm sure.
Just don't be surprised if a plane comes through your office window, that's all.
this is great, and yeah i think hes right about 9/11 being less terrible because of all the eichmanns that were prevented from causing more death and destruction.
the nazi government was not weak minded. thyey were disillusioned to say the least, but weak minded i think not. now the fact that they were wrong, horrible, people is obviously a correct statement, however some of the most effective governments in the known history of the world (the romans, the persian empire, sparta, oh and our own land America built great empires and countrys off of the use of weapons.
"Oh I get it, you say the opposite of what's actually true."
Oh, I see. You're being sarcastic. That's very clever of you.
Ward Churchill is another idiot who has latched on to anarchism and has done far more harm to it than good. He's an absolute fucking dick, and by the sounds of it so are you.
No, he's right! He's an asshole! Ad hominems work!
Don't listen to anything Churchill says! He's not only written tons and tons of books with very good arguments, he's an asshole! So just don't listen! Keeps the brain safe!
madeleine albright was speaking in washington dc when i was there. i was tied up, so i didn't get to go. but if i did go, i would have called her an eichmann.
Yes, the use of arms is for the weak and insane, like the apartheid govt and nazi germany. these were mentally and emotionally weak and insane people who participated in it.
don't get me wrong though, i'd probaby use arms if i were a victim of those conditions.
I never really had a problem with Churchill's use of the phrase "little Eichmanns." I do take issue with Churchill's belief that the 9/11 attacks were somehow justified, though. Here's the whole sentence from his essay: "If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing it."
To understand, really, what Churchill is getting at, you have to understand the "banality of evil," as an archetype, crystallized by Arendt in her coverage of the Eichmann trial.
And yet by his own standard, those janitors, and food service people would be Eichmanns, since they knowingly cleaned the facilities and fed the people carrying out policy. If I did agree with the point hes making, which Im not sure I do, the problem isnt with Eichmann, or even with Hitler, but the people as a whole who endorse the system.
I think that, generally speaking, we share responsibility in proportion to the degree we can influence policy. The higher up in the hierarchy, the more responsibility one shares
"Little Eichmanns" - Sort of reminds me of the old Dylan song "Who Killed Davy Moore?" Everybody in the song had some responsibility for the boxer's death, but they all washed their hands of guilt, because they were all just diligently "doing their job". Perhaps a 21st-century version could be titled: "Who Killed Democracy?"
I don't think the comparison is valid unless you really examine each of the people working in the world trade center individually. Some people may have been managers, but the kind of work that they did may have not involved any negative or inhumane outcome. Perhaps some were managers that did create a negative outcome in some way they did not know about. And it should go without saying, nobody should be indicted in this way without a trial first.
athabascka 11 months ago
If all CORP Agenda was DO NO HARM, we wouldn't have sustainable wars 4profit, many diseases would cease 2exist, no grand scale threat by elite White Collar ...6 degree round robins; not stuck in this mundane matrix or the Elite small percentages owning everything. Without approaching, educating, critical thinking on the WE THE PEOPLES part, how can we ever achieve our basic CREATIVE rights, not slaves or fodder to the system.
CORPARANOID 1 year ago
neo-imperialism
MainTightSqueeze 1 year ago
The comparison is presice.
Anapodos1949 2 years ago
Thumbs up for Ward Churchil!!!!
manmachine30 2 years ago 9
look at that vile cunting kike Albright at 5:05: that is the face of an evil cunt witch
russianthor 2 years ago 4
listen, i think this guy is a complete tool as well... but in the final analysis he's essentially just saying lets stop hurting one another, lets stop worrying about bottom lines and profit margins while million of children in this world go to sleep starving. thats all he's really getting at.
To call out innocent people in the trade center (one of them a friend I lost from school) the way he did was totally wrong ...but i do think he is simply speaking about common greater good.
but a tool
joeylodes 2 years ago
Churchill convicted of academic FRAUD today in Denver! He's a liar, asshole & needs one big wad of spit in his face!
CU celebrates today with Colorado that he is a proven in court Academic Fraud!
Get over it libs...He is toast - finally!
My toast to the judge - finally!
captainbob4u 2 years ago
Yeah - heard nothing from the A I M for a long time.
Interesting.
demokratieistunsinn 2 years ago
Ok. This analogy is dumb.
kubiczech25 2 years ago
And after you insult it you generally provide an argument of the crucial *why*. If you say it's just dumb then you're clearly not taken seriously.
Arkinight 2 years ago
1) Actually, anybody claiming any analogy between holocaust and capitalism would not be taken seriously in most circles. In case you didn´t notice, youtube community is not exactly representative of whole society.
2) Stupidity (and indecency, in fact) of analogy between holocaust and capitalism sinks below line, under which an opinion doesn´t even deserve serious answer. Even now I am just wasting my time terribly.
kubiczech25 2 years ago
First you would have to define what capitalism is exactly.
If your definition is something along the lines of a competitive market where everyone tries to be successful and help out their community, then yeah, I guess it's a stupid analogy.
If you have the slightest sense of reality you would acknowledge the massive economic exploitation that the West imposes on the rest of the world. That exploitation, whether directly or indirectly causes suffering globally.
Arkinight 2 years ago
Furthermore, he never compared anything to the holocaust, he compared it to Adolf Eichmann, who happened to be involved with the holocaust, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that he was able to do something like that in, like Churchill describes, a completely soulless and immoral way.
The exploitation that the West imposes on the world is carried out by individuals who do it with benign intent; however benign intent does not justify malign actions.
Arkinight 2 years ago
"If you have the slightest sense of reality you would acknowledge the massive economic exploitation that the West imposes on the rest of the world. That exploitation, whether directly or indirectly causes suffering globally."
No, I would not. Leftist cliché, which does not become reality just because you guys keep repeating it all the time.
kubiczech25 2 years ago
Yeah, reduce factual evidence to an issue of political spectrum.
I'm not going to go through all the evidence here for you, if you choose to ignore facts, okay fine, willful ignorance sounds like your forté then.
Arkinight 2 years ago
Sure, feel free to keep your delusion.
kubiczech25 2 years ago
So do you believe that Western 'capitalism' is exploitative, or simply business as usual and benign?
Arkinight 2 years ago
1) Business as usual. 2) I was mainly commenting on Eichmann - WTC employees analogy. Albright - totally taken out of context, I don´t know what that was. Nixon - totally unrelated to nature of capitalism, simply a strategic discussion during a war.
kubiczech25 2 years ago
Hundreds of thousands of deaths were taken out of context?
You don't know what that was? Well, first you should go do some research and when you do learn what that proverbial 'what' is, we can have a more enlightened conversation.
Simply a strategic discussion during war? Killing millions can be brushed off, living in Czech Republic you probably know of a fellow named Joseph Stalin and his quote about killing a million people.
It is related when you look at the motivation behind the war.
Arkinight 2 years ago
1) No, the comment about hundreds of deaths was taken out of context.
2) Economic sanctions against Iraq (if that is what "what" was about), had nothing to do with capitalism. In fact, if I agreed to your absurd notion about capitalism causing poverty, ceasing trade with Iraq would be beneficial for Iraq - no more evil western corporations operating in Iraq, only limited trade). (BTW, I agreed with those sanctions, but that is for separate discussion.
3)
kubiczech25 2 years ago
Who said it did?
There were bureaucrats making sure that those sanctions were properly looked after and implemented.
Those sanctions were predicted, and then amply confirmed, that they would heavily harm the population and make them reliant on a tyrant - which they did. That's where the Eichmann analogy lies, on a grand scale it's an evil act, even if it's carried out with benign intent.
What is capitalism anyways? How does it function?
Arkinight 2 years ago
"What is capitalism anyways? How does it function?" - great question. But I would expect YOU to come up with an answer, since you criticize it. Of course, the term is ambiguous. Sanctions - before I continue, I assume that you were against the war in Iraq, right?
kubiczech25 2 years ago
I already did define what it is and that it is in fact exploitative of much of the world, but you brushed that aside as a "Leftist cliché", so once again -
What is capitalism?
Arkinight 2 years ago
Lol, ok, so your definition of capitalism was "the massive economic exploitation that the West imposes on the rest of the world." Sorry, I didn´t get that. Ok, capitalism as you define it does not exist.
My definition (for the purposes of this discussion):
kubiczech25 2 years ago
"Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned, and investments, distribution, income, production, pricing and supply of goods, commodities and services are determined by voluntary private decision in a market economy. (wiki)
kubiczech25 2 years ago
So the West doesn't exploit the rest of the world economically?
Arkinight 2 years ago
"So the West doesn't exploit the rest of the world economically?"
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: Problem is, that "the West" is an abstraction, which makes it difficult to answer with intellectual honesty. Of course, certain individuals and corporations from USA and Europe exploit certain other people, who don´t live in USA or Europe. But it is not a main (dominant) feature of economic relations between "the West" and "rest of the world".
kubiczech25 2 years ago
Western states - institutions of power. Corporations in the United States and elsewhere in rich European countries are just extensions of the state. They receive massive subsidies, they rely heavily on the state sector for R&D.
"The West" is an abstraction but capitalism is not? Okay so for the third time, what is capitalism?
So how does the West interact economically with the rest of the world?
Arkinight 2 years ago
I gave my definition, maybe placed it wrongly. Sure, capitalism is an abstraction too. Which is one of the reasons why analogy with holocaust is absurd and stupid. "Corporations in the United States and elsewhere in rich European countries are just extensions of the state." Wow, I thought that leftists claimed a government to be an extension of corporations. So which is it?
"how does West..." Trade in broad sense of the term.
kubiczech25 2 years ago
Leftist? You're arguing facts as a matter of political ideology? Okay, why don't you scan through Mr1001nights' video library, just as a start, to educate yourself on this and other topics. This has absolutely zero to do with political ideology, this isn't a "claim" or otherwise. It's a well documented fact, a great place to begin is the arms industry in every country and you can go from there and see just how much massive support the corporations receive from the state sector.
Arkinight 2 years ago
You never gave any definition, period. Because it's a buzz word, it means nothing. I was describing the situation as it is and as it has always been between Europe and the rest of the world.
Arkinight 2 years ago
I really cannot argue with you anymore, you just simply discount facts, and I can't provide citations and evidence on youtube. Unfortunately topics such as these require extensive research and knowledge - far beyond what one would get on the two minute sound bites you're working with from either Fox News or other similar sources.
Arkinight 2 years ago
Perhaps you have as many probles with reading as you have with thinking. I repeat:"Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned, and investments, distribution, income, production, pricing and supply of goods, commodities and services are determined by voluntary private decision in a market economy."
To conclude, you presented no evidence for your claims. So I suggest you start with that extensive research, you clearly need it.
kubiczech25 2 years ago
I told you why I didn't, it requires extensive research and citations which you cannot do on youtube, just as you have provided zero evidence as well.
Yeah textbook definition, I already knew that one, I assumed you would have more than just empty meaningless rhetoric.
And the definition of communism is worker control of the means of production - exactly the way it was in the Soviet Union.
Calling me a leftist or a liberal is not an argument winner, unless of course you're on Fox.
Arkinight 2 years ago
There's nothing here to "think" about, this isn't philosophy, it's quite straightforward - either you accept the evidence, which you should search on your own like I suggested starting with the arms industry, agricultural industry, et cetera, or conversely you can just call it all lies. If you choose the latter, fine, I'm not going to argue reality with you.
Arkinight 2 years ago
1) Sorry I didn´t meet your standards of unbiased and deep definitions, lol.
2)"There's nothing here to "think" about." Yes, that is an excellent summary of your worldview. Believe it or not, interpretation of facts matters, and yes, when you bring up moral categories such as "exploitation", it becomes a moral philosophy. I didn´t expect you to pile up factual evidence, but to make at least a decent attempt to describe the mechanism of supposed exploitation. I guess I expected too much.
kubiczech25 2 years ago
If you need a definition of what exploitation is you're not even operating in the moral universe.
Arkinight 2 years ago
You don´t even try... No, I "need" a demonstration of why the capitalism is exploitative.
kubiczech25 2 years ago
Well then you better get started with your research into the topic.
Arkinight 2 years ago
Comment removed
kubiczech25 2 years ago
Calling me childish names really helps change the perceptions around you.
I'm not your secretary, like I said, go look through mr1001nights' video library, his videos are very well done and provide a lot of evidence. Nobody is suggesting you carry out an extensive research project but I'm not here to satisfy your need for a demonstration.
What was a waste of time? You were actually expecting me to provide you with five pages of citations? Think realistically.
Arkinight 2 years ago
Ok, I spent a lot of time to see whether you can make an argument for your case. You failed. Stop wasting my time with your shallowness.
kubiczech25 2 years ago
I can't make a case if you refuse to acknowledge well known facts. Therefore after you refused to acknowledge them I switched tactics, I said listen, please go research so we can be operating on the same page, but once again you refuse. So I have no recourse. If you would like to believe Fox News that's your prerogative to do so, nobody is stopping you from denying facts or otherwise.
Arkinight 2 years ago
1) Omg, why do you keep repeating this idiotic notion that I, as a european, somehow get my opinions from american cable tv? I guess that is your universal argument against all rightwingers, but here it fails even more than usually.
2) It would take a lot of studying for you to be able to operate on the same page as me.I didn´t expect you to, but I expected some attempt to think and discuss honestly. But you seem to be convinced that your opinion equals fact.That makes any debate pointless.
kubiczech25 2 years ago
Well if you want to take the propaganda route, we can. You're living in a fantasy land of the soulful corporation and the benign state where both only act in the best interests of their community and look for the best business deals they can find.
Your observations do not equal fact.
Depends what I would be studying, but you're probably right, it would take a lot for me to be on the same page as you. Judging from your rosy views, you've been amply indoctrinated.
Arkinight 2 years ago
You took a propaganda route long time ago. Otherwise you would never endorse perverted analogy between people working in WTC and nazi criminals. Your strawman doesn´t even require response. But now I´ll just leave you to enjoy the benefits of capitalist society, (such as internet), while deriving a false sense of moral superiority from criticizing it. I just hope that once you get a job, you won´t feel as a little Eichmann.
kubiczech25 2 years ago
Propaganda is narrowing the debate. So you're no longer debating on what to make of the facts, you're now debating on whether or not they are facts - you.
Actually it's ironic you took that silly mode of argumentation, you should have taken my advice on watching mr1001nights' videos, he has one that responds to that ridiculous notion.
Arkinight 2 years ago
Here is the comment I intended to link yesterday but it wouldn't go through
/watch?v=k8UEVgH7Jw0&feature=channel_page
Arkinight 2 years ago
Actually, before I got into this little silly debate I thought about that myself, and while I have always essentially worked non-managerial jobs I still feel that way. I have worked many factory jobs to pay for my schooling, but once again, I don't necessarily agree with Churchill's analogy. Not based on principled grounds, I agree with that. What I disagree with is the tacit assumption it is a bad thing to involve yourself in the system.
Watch the video and Chomsky's comments at the end.
Arkinight 2 years ago
How is the internet a benefit from capitalism? If I understand the history, it was a government run and funded endeavor that after the social investment for the initial infrastructure, was then given to private ownership.
I think you'll find that more things than you think, are not from capitalistic beginnings.
BayerLexan 2 years ago 11
You are right about the technology itself, but the growth was clearly commercialy driven.
kubiczech25 2 years ago
Yes, that is probably true. My point was more that the huge initial costs of research and development was all absorbed by the society. Then after this, the private sector just 'inherited' this well developed product, and was able to make it what it is today, because of societies ability to have long term funding of projects without immediate pay-offs. The private just piggy-back off of non-capitalist work/resource.
BayerLexan 2 years ago
Lol, you are kidding, right? "The society" (by which you probably mean the government) takes ALL it´s resources from taxation of "private sector".
kubiczech25 2 years ago
I wasn't joking. Yes, the government does get its resources from taxes, yet it is able to use the money in ways that benefit all, and doesn't need to have some immediate reciprocation of the invested resources.
I meant the private sector more in terms of larger economic entities, and not the general public.
BayerLexan 2 years ago
The subsidies to the massive corporations in the United States dwarf any tax imposed on them. High-tech, agriculture, financial, aerospace, automotive, just to name a few - all of these industries receive massive state subsidies.
That's nothing compared to the bare minimum taxation that they have to pay.
Arkinight 2 years ago 2
That's what Chomsky meant in that video that I linked by "state-corporate-capitalism". The risks are nationalized while the profits are privatized.
Arkinight 2 years ago 2
Here is essentially the kind of "capitalism" you're working with. I'll link this video because clearly you could not have done basic research on your own.
/watch?v=dRU6e5uBlWI&NR=1
Once again, we don't really have "capitalism" like your rosy definition suggests.
Arkinight 2 years ago
Ok, first, I have to give you some credit for trying to support your position. Second, I don´t see how this video relevant to our discussion - I´ve seen a guy making a lot of claims with which I disagree. Is there any one Chomsky´s claim you want to talk about? As I see it, he first describes capitalism as I don´t thinh it exists and then he desscribes alternatives I find neither plausible nor desirable.
kubiczech25 2 years ago
To make myself more clear, I don´t mind if workers buy a mill and work there together. But I think he was speaking about theft, which is a different story.
kubiczech25 2 years ago
You don't mind? Sorry, but even if you did mind, nobody really cares. It doesn't matter one bit what you "mind", okay? You completely missed the points. First off, he says how we don't have *capitalism* or at least your rosy definition. Secondly he very clearly mentions how capitalism is exploitative.
That's why he says asking "what's the better capitalism?" is the wrong question. Listen, if you believe it ends here, you're insane. Go out on your own and find the evidence.
Arkinight 2 years ago
He furthermore discusses (obviously sarcastically) that he's not smart enough to discuss utopia. Well what he's basically getting at here, if you didn't already realize, is that it's none of our business to pontificate how others should live. What you and I "believe" about any of this is irrelevant. People -all people, Third world or First - should be allowed to determine their own lives and have control over their own resources instead of being forced to subordinate themselves to corporations.
Arkinight 2 years ago
Therefore, if you believe in even minimalistic democratic principles, and you agree with Chomsky that the state capitalism that we have is hugely exploitative, then it follows naturally that many individuals in high managerial positions can be seen as little Eichmanns.
Once again, I disagree with the conclusion (that this is inherently "bad") but I agree with Churchill's principle. It's not bad for the reason that Chomsky outlines at the end of mr1001nights' video that I originally linked.
Arkinight 2 years ago
Sorry, I had to do a lot of "wage-slaving" last week, didn´t have time to respond. "Third world or First - should be allowed to determine their own lives and have control over their own resources instead of being forced to subordinate themselves to corporations. " I agree, but I don´t think that anybody is being forced. People in the third world woul be much worse off without western corporations.
kubiczech25 2 years ago
3) Contemplated use of nuclear weapons - again, unrelated to capitalism. Plus you strawman me, I never said anything about significance of those POTENTIAL deaths. Furthermore, I find it quite ironic that you, who defends a video, which describes actions of communist totalitarian regimes as "pursue of social and economic development" would bring up Stalin.
4) To summarise, neither you nor this video make any reasonable case against capitalism. Just incoherent rambling.
kubiczech25 2 years ago
Have you even watched the video you're commenting on, or are you just inventing facts?
It clearly points out Madeleine Albright justifying the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children - one example.
It also shows the White House recordings from the Nixon administration and how Nixon wanted to kill hundreds of thousands of people - another example.
If you want to be a Western commissar and supporter of state power then continue justifying all these deaths.
Arkinight 2 years ago
So many words, yet so little said.
This entire video amounts to one thing: A rehashing of the entirely false, and completely discredited, dichotomy between self-sacrifice to others and other-sacrifice to self presented by the morality of altruism.
If not for the other-sacrifice of public education, Ward Churchill would be working in a gas station. He knows it. That's why he has to spend so much time convincing his victims that somehow their lack of self-sacrifice makes them aggressors.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
the souless functionary: sounds alot like Dick Cheney.
PMishkin 2 years ago
American Exceptionalism violates Copernicus; thanks Ward for the corrective. US-centric victimhood and agency does not recongize the other billions of people who also inhabit this here planet earth.
PMishkin 2 years ago 2
Techno-bureaucrats, killing humanity one life at a time.
You know I don't agree with Ward's history regarding Eichmann, but his overall analogy is spot on. I sometimes refer to this method of mass physical and mental genocide as the sterility of modern economic/social warfare.
Ah, and that conversation with Nixon and Kissinger, that was fucking mind blowing!
Wonder what old Kissinger is up to these days? Another Nobel peace prize perhaps?
Bacchusism 2 years ago
There are some, but as Hamas has proved, it's politically stupid to do so. It's difficult for a state to use repressive violence when the other side uses peaceful means.
But, yeah, I suppose there can be some situations where it would be warranted.
Arkinight 2 years ago
sagan,
rule#1 for the "underground" anarchist who wishes to arm themselves: buy your guns through the black market. buying them in the open market gives police forces the stats they use to arms escalate and intrude further.
#2, never brandish your arms, for the same reason.
u've broken these rules and in doing so are counterproductive to your claims of anarchism
you're just a weak yt drama boy, islamophobe when in fashion, now anarchist(you think) when in fashion.
alovelytime 2 years ago 2
sagan,
truth is, you're more likely to be the victim of me snatching those arms from you and butt and pistol whippin your ass than being the victim of our govt reimposing apartheid to include the likes of your fashion following punk ass.
alovelytime 2 years ago
He's correct.
IrminC 2 years ago
Great editing, near the end there!
Tali999 2 years ago
Good video.
overmind25 2 years ago
Ward Churhill is dick!!!!!!
raultalbot7 2 years ago
But correct in his assessment.
IrminC 2 years ago
The comparison of genocide to commercialism is utterly stupid.
Forgive us for pumping millions of dollars into third world countries. Paying slave wages that rate sweatshop workers among the better off there. Giving meager scraps to those who otherwise have NOTHING!
Piss off dumbass.
And to think Veitnam was on the verg of industrializaton is absurd. Get real, we went to stop communisim. We failed. That is why Veitnam went to shit, because communisim got it.
What a load of shit.
JoeMiozza 2 years ago
You don't even have to view Vietnam, then. Look at Latin America. The reason why it's just now, after years of shit, coming to independence (albeit with recent attempted coups and assassinations in Venezuela and Bolivia, respectively) is because the United States, following a long history of imperialism and colonization, plundered access to resources from the indigenous populations. Nothing new for the U.S. It's pretty much genetic now.
I don't see how you can argue against plain fact.
coffeebeaner 2 years ago
"Plundered access to resources from the indigenous populations. Nothing new for the U.S. It's pretty much genetic now..."
Educate me. Plundered what?
"Nothing new for the U.S."
Educate me. When else?
JoeMiozza 2 years ago
Well, for the former, we can take a look at gas and oil resources, or even water as it the case for Bolivia. We can take a look at the banana trade all throughout Latin America. All it takes is reading.
As for when else, you've got to be joking! Look into the colonization of the mainland United States. You can even look at Hawaii itself. It's a major military base for a reason; it's location. You can take a look at Diego Garcia. You can take a look at Iraq now.
It doesn't take much effort.
coffeebeaner 2 years ago
"Plundered access to resources from the indigenous populations" - Never happened to Hawaii.
Banannas? Your kidding? We stole them? I thought their government exported to our government. Fuck me.
"Look into the colonization of the mainland United States" -You mean ENGLAND'S colonization? Hahaha!
You are stretching thin...
JoeMiozza 2 years ago
Uh, loading up Hawaiians with leprosy to ship them off to Molokai, killing them to steal gold and enslaving them onto plantations doesn't count as "plundering access resources"? You don't know history, then. Sorry.
Apparently, you don't know what the meaning of "exploitation" means on a massive scale. Your lack of education isn't a fault in my (sound) argument.
By the logic of only "ENGLAND'S colonization" we must be still living as a colony of England. Genocide of 15,000,000 never happened.
coffeebeaner 2 years ago
"loading up Hawaiians with leprosy?" Hahaha! Oh, yah. Capt. Cook had access to biological weapons and transported them on his sailing ship and infected the natives before they ATE him! Hahahaha!!!
And what would you do pre cure (that America provided)?
Hawaiians were never slaves. Period.
You must be one of those sovrinity dumbasses who remember how good it use to be fighting and eating eachother. No rights, no economy, fat ugly inbread islanders.
Yah, lets go back to the good ole days!
JoeMiozza 2 years ago
"By the logic of only "ENGLAND'S colonization" we must be still living as a colony" - Err, no. We became the United States AFTER winning independence, and there were NO more colonies formed... Duh.
Hawaii has protection while being allowed as much as possiable to retain their culture.
I'd love to have seen Japan fight over these islands (be it in the bloody mess of WWII, or any tother ime).
Sure, there has been SOME abuse. But wake up, grass huts and skirts won't cut it in today's world.
JoeMiozza 2 years ago
The point is that the pattern the US (and other Western nations/corporations) engage in will invite more resistance and opposition. You can ignore that history and continue along with your white supremacist, ignorant mode of thinking just fine. You'll be in good company, I'm sure.
Just don't be surprised if a plane comes through your office window, that's all.
coffeebeaner 2 years ago
I outmanuver you, so you resort to calling me a 'white supremacist'?
Hahaha! Your what? 12 years od? Hahaha!
Ignorant? Me? I just tore appart your lies.
Oh well. Name calling is good too.
And so what if people resist progression. They always have. And what is the benifit of resisting progress?
Progress has nothing to do with race, but I supose I could see how if YOU were truly the racist, it explains your thought process.
You just want the white-man out.
OOOHHHHHH..... NOW I get it!
JoeMiozza 2 years ago
You did out maneuver me with sheer stupidity. Maybe in a contest to see whose head can float in water could you do just as well.
No one can argue with someone so dense.
coffeebeaner 2 years ago
Um,
I've met all your points with rebuttels which you haven't challanged.
So far, all you have done is to keep jumping from misrepresentation to misrepresentation until you got to name calling.
Was there a valid point you made that I did not address?
What did I deny that actualy happened?
(and were not talking occurance of nature, were talking invasion with rape of resources)
Come on, call me an idiot, but what leg you standing on?
JoeMiozza 2 years ago
this is great, and yeah i think hes right about 9/11 being less terrible because of all the eichmanns that were prevented from causing more death and destruction.
thebalancetheory1212 2 years ago
@"fakesagan" stop trying to be his friend after you started a meaningless argument with over a subject you were completely ignorant of
ATTENTION WHORING MOTHERFUCKER
IThinkRonPaulisDumb 2 years ago
the nazi government was not weak minded. thyey were disillusioned to say the least, but weak minded i think not. now the fact that they were wrong, horrible, people is obviously a correct statement, however some of the most effective governments in the known history of the world (the romans, the persian empire, sparta, oh and our own land America built great empires and countrys off of the use of weapons.
alivsfrazier12 2 years ago
holy shit... nice video... i can see it raising a storm among reactionaries!
Rockerboy2007 2 years ago
Ward Churchill is such a dullard.
MarxBakuninMe 2 years ago
what´s a dullard?
Cefuroxx 2 years ago
MarxBakuninMe is - he was describing himself but accidentally put in Ward's name.
Arkinight 2 years ago
Oh I get it, you say the opposite of what's actually true.
Here, let me try it.
MarxBakuninMe is a very smart individual and makes intelligent statements.
Arkinight 2 years ago
"Oh I get it, you say the opposite of what's actually true."
Oh, I see. You're being sarcastic. That's very clever of you.
Ward Churchill is another idiot who has latched on to anarchism and has done far more harm to it than good. He's an absolute fucking dick, and by the sounds of it so are you.
MarxBakuninMe 2 years ago
Yeah, instead of responding to his argument, just resort to childish name-calling, that'll help change the perception around you.
Arkinight 2 years ago
No, he's right! He's an asshole! Ad hominems work!
Don't listen to anything Churchill says! He's not only written tons and tons of books with very good arguments, he's an asshole! So just don't listen! Keeps the brain safe!
coffeebeaner 2 years ago
"There are many Eichmanns in the United States."
That is so true, so true it's practically an understatement.
colibri1 2 years ago 2
madeleine albright was speaking in washington dc when i was there. i was tied up, so i didn't get to go. but if i did go, i would have called her an eichmann.
mrtyles 2 years ago
She's a Himmler!
coffeebeaner 2 years ago
throw down your arms.
weapons are for the weak and insane.
alovelytime 2 years ago
"weapons are for the weak and insane."
what?
tell that to the south africans that ended apartheid, or european resistance that fought fascism.
pacifism is for the disempowered and enslaved.
mikezephyr 2 years ago 6
Pacifism is for the mighty and free.
Thats a topic for another time though.
Yes, the use of arms is for the weak and insane, like the apartheid govt and nazi germany. these were mentally and emotionally weak and insane people who participated in it.
don't get me wrong though, i'd probaby use arms if i were a victim of those conditions.
but i'm not talkin about those conditions.
i'm talking about fakesagan, himself.
alovelytime 2 years ago
oh wow ward churchill, i read his book
wilburnforce 2 years ago
I never really had a problem with Churchill's use of the phrase "little Eichmanns." I do take issue with Churchill's belief that the 9/11 attacks were somehow justified, though. Here's the whole sentence from his essay: "If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing it."
ZortMuckerman 2 years ago
To understand, really, what Churchill is getting at, you have to understand the "banality of evil," as an archetype, crystallized by Arendt in her coverage of the Eichmann trial.
keytoothed 2 years ago
And yet by his own standard, those janitors, and food service people would be Eichmanns, since they knowingly cleaned the facilities and fed the people carrying out policy. If I did agree with the point hes making, which Im not sure I do, the problem isnt with Eichmann, or even with Hitler, but the people as a whole who endorse the system.
rjbonacolta 2 years ago
I think that, generally speaking, we share responsibility in proportion to the degree we can influence policy. The higher up in the hierarchy, the more responsibility one shares
mr1001nights 2 years ago
"Little Eichmanns" - Sort of reminds me of the old Dylan song "Who Killed Davy Moore?" Everybody in the song had some responsibility for the boxer's death, but they all washed their hands of guilt, because they were all just diligently "doing their job". Perhaps a 21st-century version could be titled: "Who Killed Democracy?"
kzargentina 2 years ago 6