Noam Chomsky - Refutes Claims About People Wanting Wage Slavery

[gen6k]

just drop acid and dmt fuck industry just chill out and shit fuck a bitch ya know fuck ur ipadz useless shit the market is dead.

[flyinggimpproduction]

@gen6k Did you make this statement with your forehead?

[kelly980]

I like every Chomsky video before I even watch it or listen to it

[1971SuperLead]

It's called Sharing. Without sharing there will be endless wars. Now be good little capitalists and share.

[11KmPerSec]

He offers no alternative to slavery in the world outside of the intellect but he can be added to the seemingly infinite list of those who can articulate all that is wrong so well. The "youth movement" is not breaking down "authoritarian patterns" but simply pledging their allegiance to a different group of authoritarians. I don't see them starting their own communities or experimenting in any way. They CREATE nothing but instead want "experts" to plan things out for them and everyone else.

[swag909]

if you think that single payer health care works check out freemarketcure. the vast innovation that we see in the health care industry today is due to competition. but don't get me wrong i think there is big problems with the system we have now i like Singapore's model of health savings. i did some research last night on media subsidies in Europe but could not find a good enough source to post anything on here.

[lol101lol101lol10199]

@swag909 There is a difference between single payer healthcare (like they have in places like Canada) and socialized healthcare, which is what we have here (the hospitals are publicly owned and the "single payer" doesn't pay to any private enterprise). As for the media I'm going to go with Chomsky's view that practically all the media follows a propaganda model and is subservient to power (economic power in free countries without censorship).

[swag909]

@lol101lol101lol10199

your health care is system is useing products that have been a product of competition in the market. and i agree with what chompsky says as well but i feel where he points the finger to big buisness as he rightly should, so to should he point it at governments for their role.

[swag909]

@swag909 also to add on about the media, the most free form of news is the internet in my country it is the democrats that are working behind the scenes to regulate the internet.

[lol101lol101lol10199]

@swag909 Fundamentally big business and most governments have the same problem. They are not as democratic as they would need to be in order to act in the way most beneficial to the people they have the power to affect. Its certain, however that governments in the countries we call democracies have come much further in this, and are more easily affected by public opinion than big businesses and corporations (which are basically private tyrannies as Chomsky put it).

[swag909]

@lol101lol101lol10199

private tyrannies? people make choices on weather or not to buy a product or from who to buy that product from how is that tyrannical? these tyrannies go out of business all the time and you have it backwards its not the business that has power to affect people but people who affect business. there is not one fixed business that everyone must use there is competition any reasonable person could see that this competition for customer satisfaction is empowering to the people.

[lol101lol101lol10199]

@swag909 The term "private tyrannies" refers to them being undemocratic entities where the people who participate and the people who are affected by their decisions don't have democratic control over them but the people who own have all the power. Chomsky uses the term to describe corporations which have the rights of persons, and are unaccountable, because they are protected by first amendment rights, freedom from search and seizure and so on, so you can't figure out what they're doing.

[swag909]

@lol101lol101lol10199

every time you buy a product that is a vote for that business that best serves you so in a way it is just like democracy just not political in nature (which i am fine with).

[Starkstraight]

@swag909

You may want to read a bit of Chomsky to understand this concept.

[swag909]

@Starkstraight

with all due respect you may want to read a little history to understand reality.

[swag909]

if there is any confusion i do not believe we have true capitalism in this country right now. when you buy a product in the capitalist society that is a vote. i would rather have people constantly competing for my vote then me giving one person absolute control for whatever the term length.

[IxAMxERROR]

Furthermore, you seem to think that the most productive members of society are those at the peak of the capitalist system. If you want to be honest, capitalism does not exist ANYWHERE. Nevertheless, these "productive" individuals you speak of are only productive in abstract terms. Again, if you want to be honest, corporate management produces nothing, it is the machines, workers and engineers who truly produce. Management is epiphenomenal.

[lol101lol101lol10199]

Certainly, market economy has shown to be more adaptable and more responsive to what the people demand than plan economy. However, assuming all people should be considered equal, it follows that social and economic equality must be an end in itself. Thus the best system would be one of democratic socialism combined with a somewhat free, yet heavily regulated market economy where important things (health, education, etc) are publicly owned and the gap between rich and poor is actively reduced.

[SIMKINETICS]

@lol101lol101lol10199 Well said!

[Soothfish]

@lol101lol101lol10199 Straight from the communist manifesto. Socialism has been a horrific failure every time it has been tried.

Socialism has nothing to do with the inherent value of human beings. It is about trying to create a perfect utopia by stealing property, punishing the talented and successful, and pitting groups against one another to maintain a totalitarian system. It has FAILED MISERABLY every time it has been tried. Including Europe.

[lol101lol101lol10199]

@Soothfish There is not one sentence in your comment which is not plainly wrong. I have not read the communist manifesto and am not a communist. Democratic socialist/social democrat governments have always been HUGELY SUCCESSFUL compared to market liberalist ones, especially in Europe, but also in places like Latin America (though they also have examples of less democratic socialism). Non-revolutionairy socialism does not aim for perfect Utopia but for steady, realistic progress...

[lol101lol101lol10199]

@Soothfish Furthermore, democratic socialism is by definition never totalitarian, or, for that matter authoritarian in any sense. Socialism has indeed everything to do with the inherent value of human beings as we, unlike non-socialists believe people are entitled to positive rights and freedoms. Pitting groups against each other is more of a capitalist thing than a socialist one. Just look at which end of the political spectrum spoke out most strongly against racism and apartheid.

[Soothfish]

@lol101lol101lol10199 A central government managing significant aspects of people's lives and restricted financial freedom ISN'T TOTALITARIAN?

I give up. Leftists are idiots.

[lol101lol101lol10199]

@Soothfish As you may or may not have noticed I'm arguing for democratic socialism. DEMOCRATIC! Does that mean anything to you? Something that is democratic can, by definition not be totalitarian. On the contrary, privately owned businesses are as a matter of fact totalitarian when they are not democratically controlled and the more control democratic institutions like the government can exercise over the market, the more democracy there is since your vote then holds power over more decisions.

[swag909]

@lol101lol101lol10199

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Thomas Jefferson

[lol101lol101lol10199]

@swag909 Your government is already wasting it under pretense of protecting them from muslim terrorists and the like, so why can't you trust them with providing welfare like you trust them with fighting wars? It's strange how the same people who are the most uncritical to the US government's imperialist warfare are the greatest critiques of that same government when it attempts to provide social welfare for the people and promote social equality.

[swag909]

@lol101lol101lol10199

firstly you assume that i am for interventionist policy. the matter of wars we are in is a totally separate issue. as for social equality i believe in equality of opportunity but not some unrealistic form of equality where the government redistributes wealth. at the end of your statement you said "when it attempts to provide social welfare for the people and promote social equality." thats the problem it never works and usually does the exact opposite. freedom is the key

[lol101lol101lol10199]

@swag909 I wonder what part of it you think is unrealistic or "doesn't work". Is it progressive taxation, which is basically half of the wealth redistribution process and is being used in many european countries without showing any signs of "not working". Or is it the spending of this tax money on social security and an extensive welfare state available to all according to need? If so, I ask again: why is social spending "unrealistic" to trust the government with, when military spending is not?

[swag909]

@lol101lol101lol10199

i need allot of things in my life if the government took from others and gave to me what incentive do i have to go help others aka work? if no one was greedy or corrupt then im sure this Utopian style social structure would work. the more money we put into welfare the more people go on welfare. there are videos you can find right now where welfare recipients say they would be better of with out welfare.

[lol101lol101lol10199]

@swag909 Not a valid argument. I my country, Sweden the social democrats have had full employment as their goal since longer than anyone can remember. While they have not always succeeded completely with reaching this high target, they used to be able to keep it really low (like 2-3% or less) whereas the rightists (the liberal, centre and conservative parties) have always been and are, both less ambitious and less successful when they are in power. (Though this time they blame the global crisis)

[swag909]

@lol101lol101lol10199

i wonder how much your government subsidizes your media? all speculation aside humanity has seen the greatest leaps in the standard of living of the ordinary person under capitalism. do you think that my country (USA) rose up from the ashes of war through a welfare state? 0% unemployment is not obtainable, and employment should not be the soul judge of social structures but a major factor. do you like freedom?

[lol101lol101lol10199]

@swag909 Our media has two public service TV channels and maybe some radio (I'm not sure), all other media is private (smaller papers can get support money though). If you look at the US economy you'll find the sectors that are the most effective in international competition are the ones that are heavily subsidized like agriculture and high-tech, not those left to the free market. And yes, freedom is important but there are other important values too such as democracy.

[swag909]

@lol101lol101lol10199

check out my other post i forgot to make it a reply. as for democracy, pure democracy is oppression because the majority makes the rules and the minority must submit. that is why i advocate a republic with democratically elected officials. do you believe that power corrupts? subsidies are only happening because business is in bed with the government and our monopolistic businesses are afraid of competition. if there where no subsidies they would go outta business.

[swag909]

@swag909

if they go outta business its not a bad thing to the collective country in fact it is good because inflation will theoretically decrease as well as some other beneficial things. the problem is that what ever good comes out of it is so spread out that to each individual the benefit is minimal, whereas the company that goes out of business has a much more direct effect to those working for the business. hence the business lobby. i hate the business lobby that creates fascism.

[lol101lol101lol10199]

@swag909 Obviously, I'm all in favor of minority rights. I just mentioned democracy as one of these other values (besides the freedom of others) that can and should be allowed to put limits to one's own freedom. So you advocate no subsidies for "monopolistic businesses"? That means you want true, pure capitalism. I recall Chomsky arguing that pure capitalism is ineffective and would not survive. Myself I'm against it because it leads to much too much inequality and neglects the "unsuccessful".

[swag909]

@lol101lol101lol10199 if by inequality you mean a massive income gap then yes that would take place but in pure capitalism those who where at the bottom would still benifit from the massive increase in the standard of living. just because im a capitalist does not me i dont know that business would love to get government to do favors for them, there is too often a confusion when the government passes regulation that somehow that helps rein in business when infact it is more often then not

[swag909]

@swag909 pushed forward by big business to eliminate competition and that my friend is facsim. although pure capitalism is not perfect what is? it seems to me capitalism's downfall will be the mixed economy, and if it does fail we will likely fall into a pure democracy with no personal property.

[lol101lol101lol10199]

@swag909 Well a mixed economy is basically what we've been trying in Sweden for quite a long time. Twenty years ago our economy was about 50/50 made up by the private and public sectors respectively. Since then a lot of ideologically driven sellouts of public property has been (and is) taking place, and since the centre-right parties won the election this year they will continue even faster. This is not a good thing and everything just keeps getting worse now.

[swag909]

@lol101lol101lol10199

if your government employs a large percentage of your population then freemarket policy will result in short term rescission due to cuts in government spending but the long term effect is positive. these social welfare measures that you advocate are unsustainable and that is why when they expand taxes must always expand as well soon you will find that those business owners will lose incentive to remain in business or start new businesses.

[lol101lol101lol10199]

@swag909 When at their highest, taxes in Sweden were about 55% on average with a highly progressive scale (as it should be!). Still, the businesses didn't go away, and the economy didn't fall into a recession as a result of this. My guess is that wealth redistribution benefits the economy because the less money you have, the more of it you are likely to spend on things you need, thus putting the money back into the economy. I think the Keynesian theory is similar to this too.

[swag909]

@lol101lol101lol10199

no keys belives in prime pumping the market by dumping money into it (bail outs) and it has not yet been proven to work. are you saying that the less money one has the more they spend? that makes no sense. in our country when clinton lowered the capital gains tax revenues increased. this goes back to the economic graph known as the lasia (sp) curve. just because your businesses are not quitting due to tax rates does not mean that they could not be much more effective

[swag909]

@lol101lol101lol10199

now for the sake of discussion lets assume that some fat CEO decides to save all this money he has made in tax cuts that does not mean it is not in the economy. if banks have more money they will more readily lend money and that creates jobs and stimulates the economy. the only way that savings could be bad for an economy is if some CEO was hoarding cash. but that makes no sense because you can make money off the money you save due to interest in banks.

[lol101lol101lol10199]

@swag909 I do not believe those at the bottom benefit from inequality. Neither do those at the top. My opinions on the matter are closer to the conclusions put forward by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Picket in the book "the spirit level" that social and economic equality benefits all in a society even the ones at the top. Just look at how the rich live in places like South Africa and Latin America. Would you call that freedom? A good society?

[swag909]

@lol101lol101lol10199

south africa and latin america are far from good examples of free market capitalism. i do believe in equality but the only true equality is equality of opportunity. people can and will chose to be unproductive if they are paid to do so. their are people all over my country that want to go get jobs but know that if they get that job they will not qualify for welfare and usually entry level positions pay about the same as welfare, so what message does that tell people?

[lol101lol101lol10199]

@swag909 It tells people entry level wages are way lower than they should be because your country doesn't have a strong union movement? The main point of giving welfare to the unemployed should be to avoid them getting desperate enough for a job that they will take one for lower pay or worse working conditions, thus lowering the standards for all workers through competition. Besides, it doesn't seem like you have a problem of too many vacant entry level jobs and to few wanting to take them.

[swag909]

@lol101lol101lol10199

unions are fine when they are competitive in nature but most now are political in nature they try to push forward legislation that sounds great (ex. minimum wage) in theory but in actuality they are monopolistic in nature unions try to eliminate competition from the free market because they want to give their members unsustainable benefits. look at american cars for example they cant compete with Japanese cars.

[lol101lol101lol10199]

@swag909 I'll be going on vacation, so you'll have to find someone else to criticize your ideology now. At least for a while. Just don't miss me too much, okay?

[swag909]

@lol101lol101lol10199

so you are saying that if you worked for a factory and made 8 dollars an hour you would leave your job to get less? probably not competition does not work in reverse you need to understand that employee satisfaction is also an area of competition example look at google or microsoft just 2 examples their are many more. the only time this may not be true is when the industry is inelastic and in that case unions are necessary but they should use competitive means not policy

[lol101lol101lol10199]

@swag909 Also, tell me: If people don't always keep getting sicker in a country, what then is the point of economic growth in the healthcare and medicine sectors? Shouldn't their purpose simply be to provide service according to need? Wouldn't it be much better if this was done by the government free of charge with no intention of making profit? Why would it be wrong to own this sector of the economy publicly, and pay for tit publicly through taxes? It works nicely over here.

[MillionthUsername]

@lol101lol101lol10199 And you will be the enforcer, won't you? Anyone who doesn't conform to your "system" will be locked in a cage and have their "contribution" to "The People" expropriated by you and your commie-fascist goon squads. Isn't that right?

[punkwasher]

@lol101lol101lol10199 I'd suggest making "luxury" goods the main focus of conventional capitalism. As soon as you add a price tag to necessities, you get into difficult ethical areas, for example, our current health care system quite literally places a price on human's life, which I simply can not rationalize. It's simply wrong.

[swag909]

the root of all power is people, inevitably certain individuals in a society will obtain power through others the question is which system will that power be most responsive to the needs of people. in my opinion that is capitalism.

[sullenboy1o3o]

@swag909

Why do you say capitalism is the best system to represent people?

Second, do we even live in a capitalistic society? Id like to see more of a real capitalism if its even possible.

Third i think direct democracy is most responsive.

[IxAMxERROR]

@sullenboy1o3o The psychology behind the procession of capitalism goes back to the neolithic revolution. research it, it's interesting. Also, i must note that capitalism is a poor system in that for it to exist, there must exist problems. Therefore, there is no incentive to solve problems.

[Soothfish]

@IxAMxERROR Capitalism is the best system that can exist in an evil world. What amazes me is that the leftists will blame everything on the most productive members of society while giving a free pass to the criminals, the corrupt, and the lazy. This is why the evil ones get high paying positions in the labor camps and innocent people starve to death.

This is why any country which pursues socialism the hardest is also the worst place on Earth. Socialism=failure

[IxAMxERROR]

@Soothfish It's really astonishing how ignorant your statemente is. Somehow, you seem to know what "the best system that can exist" is. While youre at it, can you cure cancer? I mean, I emplore you to think; humans are only aware of a mere TWO percent of their own history, and if this small slice is any indication of the mode in which human society conducts itself, I would not hesitate to say that NO system- whether economic or governmental- is in ANY way final, or "the best."

[mrfardy91]

@swag909 possibly in shakesperian philosophy. he discourages institutionalism and the inevitable forms of autocracy because of this. Namely corporate institutions which are contrary to the natural processes of human relations. Power in this sense does not originate in the hands of people but economic interests, which do not account for even the collective of human interests but only a small minority. Besides, such rudimentary understandings of power are only relevant to cave men.

[swag909]

this is the most thought provoking video i have seen yet although i have a totally different view of freedom than compsky. most of his lectures are just rants about the injustices done by governments to people namely the usa government. i just wonder why he is always in favor of subscribing more power to our power inflated government. and i also where he thinks power is derived from? it seems he is saying power is in the hands of governments and business without taking into consideration...

[Darean51]

@swag909

you seem to demonstrate a somewhat oversimplified and under researched view on Chomsky's talks views and realms of discourse, I would suggest you study him more broadly and I think what he is proposing is that we improve the government (an institution the people have control over) before and/or as we develop it into an effective, democratic socially unifying hub and benevolent organiser, if it is at all possible to do such a thing though...

[dankbot420]

when/where was this talk?

[SheikahZeo]

New Yourk Poetry Centre in 1970

The talk was called 'Government in the Future' and you can find the whole thing on Youtube split into parts or on Google Video in one complete video.

Definitely recommend it, one of Chomsky's best.