Could Chomsky be more wrong about the Nazis? In the 1920s there was chaos and mass poverty. By 1939 Germany achieved full employment, full housing and had the fastest growing economy in the world. Workers were given special 'days-out', this is documented.
Closing the Federal Reserve, and the government printing it's own money is exactly what America (and most of the world) needs right now. No debt, no interest, no bankers sucking up the world's wealth, just money as a means of exchange.
@historypoliticsbb Yeah because of their arms production for the war effort. Not because they had stable economic growth. Same thing could be said for the FDR administration.
@ped200014 The FDR adminstration did not emerge from the depression until they entered the war in 1941. Their great depression continued right through the 1930s, unlike Germany which achieved full employment by 1939.
'Economic growth' is really irrelevant to people, it places profit over people, makes people slaves to the 'Economy'. What matters are homes,access to food and clean water. Bottom line, Germany achieved this thanks to debt free money, they provided everyone with what they needed.
@ped200014 Non sequitor is me pointing out how Germany achieved full employment thanks to complete control of their own country (ridding themselves of the private central bank) and then you talking about Germany invading Poland because you couldn't answer any of my points.
Michael Savage, Limbaugh, etc., are a part of the new conservative juggernaut that is redefining conservatism -- Conservative Constitutionalism -- to mean neoconservatism, or a more statist, militarist version of conservatism, just as Marxism is, without doubt, a more militant and statist version of liberalism (even left-liberalism), I believe.
Basically, like Marxists claim everything is about class oppression, the talk show radio hosts see everything as a matter of liberalism vs. sanity.
Liberalism isn't what you hear in the US -- it's a million miles away from that: actually, you're probably more liberal yourself than the people you call liberal. Liberalism is strictly opposed to socialism... the name says it very simply: in favor of liberty. It is the primacy of liberty over equality, a minimal state proposition where the State should be elected and should see at maintaining social order.
Other thing: Marx was an anarchist... you can't say a Marxist is a Statist: the only reason he'd use a State is to organize the society and then it would be over. A Marxist-Leninist would say the people are too dumb to govern themselves, but don't just associate stuff together without reason.
Last detail: a part of Marx's work was scientific and a part was ideological. If you use a materialist approach to social phenomenon, you're pretty near what he wrote.
All those financial institutions were "required" to make the loans they were making. If you were required to lose a basketball game would you not bet against yourself??
No matter what the cause, Socialism in NOT the solution. Socialism, communism, Marxism....all of them are pure evil. Always have been always will be.
Capitalism's doing great, huh? Destroy the earth? No problem. A tiny number of people steal from the rest of us and drive us all into poverty? No problem.
Socialism is the ONLY solution. If democracy is supposedly good enough for "our"government, why isn't it good enough for our workplaces?
@thenewmiLONNIEum Its idiots like you that make me want to reach into the PC screen and throttle you. If you like socialism, fucking move! Theres lots of places that would love a socialist twit like yourself, Greece, France, just for starters. Planes are leaving for those places all the time, get on one and go away.
Fascism is far right end and socialism is pretty opposed to that; communism broadly speaking never came about, but let's assume for the sake of the argument you labelled marxist-leninists as communists; and, last detail, democracy is a regime whereas the other concepts mentioned are ideologies...
If you want to talk about politics and, especially if you are trying to be critical, try to understand what people think and what those concepts are beforehand.
If you really bother coming up with a sensible answer, then let's see what is socialism. It's not every left wing movement which is socialist and not all to the same extent. Of them, Marxists are the furthest left with anarchism as one of their aspiration, which might echo the libertarians from your home land, except they prone splitting the gains instead of a market economy. So, you can't just come to the table saying they all approve idea A and B, so they're bad...
I am providing you with logical arguments towards structural distribution while you are using labels and words like left and right.
The problem with the Ideas being proposed by socialist philosophers and idealist is the fact that it is not based on mathematical economic models of distribution and resources.
Socialists are materialists... the idea is that material conditions bounds your life and, as such, you are only as free as the economic basis and the social institutions allow. It's unto that basis that the idea of socialism grew: in their minds, it's the only true freedom.
That's as far as being an idealist as it ever gets. My criticism of the actual conditions isn't for socialism, but I take the same approach Marx used: social sciences and materialism.
Materialism as applied to sociology, history and political science is viable and sensible under Marx' framework or similar usage... which is basically what makes it relevant and that's also why I use it -- I never pretended I sustained socialism: that's what Marx did, but I am not Marx.
There is absolutely no model that can predict demand.
The main reason why socialism always fails is because it make assumptions of market demand and then tries to control demand via central mechanism of economics.
It is impossible at present to create an computational system that can provide absolute Precision based market metrics with truly predictive accuracy.
If you believe such a model exist please give me an example of this.
Secondly, socialism fail not because it tries to predict demand, but because the whole system constitutes a discentive to productivity. Why? Very easy to tell: wages hit have a ceiling, so no one will ever work to reach a productivity comparable to it.
Thirdly, we can't use the argument you just made specifically because free markets do not yield optimal results. Of course, predictions are never accurate, but no one ever said they should.
But what I can ensure you is that models can assess for failures and provide us with an idea of what a tendency would like in the real world... we don't have to know how much an orange will be sold in Bombay tomorrow, but we can think in terms of tendencies and incentives. If I can do that, I can ensure you that certain things will probabilistically be better than others and there are without the slightest of doubt regulations which can do that.
This would be like poking at a straw-man. The second issue we have here is that you seem to assume upfront freedom relies on the possibility of decision given the absence of active coercion... well, we're not speaking of the same world then. People are bounded in their lives by material conditions: just pretending that you are free because you can leave the room is a false dichotomy. If I just add to the equation the possibility to negotiate, I would say he'd become less limited.
Of course, I am not defending him because I do think there can be socially viable, ethically sensible and environmentally sustainable ways to live capitalism... but it's certainly not by yelling at one another that people will leave better off than when they entered.
We have to observe facts and the available theories to see what's plausible and what's not. Then, once we have options, it can get back to preferences, but not before that.
However, those heavily influenced by Marxism cannot accept your answer.
"In modern history at least it is, therefore, proved that all political struggles are class struggles, and all class struggles for emancipation, despite their necessarily political form — for every class struggle is a political struggle — turn ultimately on the question of economic emancipation."
@bighands69 [cont.] "Therefore, here at least, the state — the political order — is the subordination, and civil society — the realm of economic relations — the decisive element."
Marxists argue that most every problem in the world is due to capitalism. It doesn't matter if life itself is imperfect and if man is imperfect; for Marxists believe in tabula rasa, meaning every human imperfection is due to capitalism.
Basically, you can't win my using economic rhetoric.
You made quite a few mistakes here. Firstly, Marxism doesn't attribute all issues to capitalism: as I tried to explain above, it's a theory of degrees of freedom with regard to the material conditions wherein one lives.
Marx would tell you capitalism is better than the feudal-market society or the strict feudal ones or slavery. It's even a necessary thing. If you follow their argument to its end, they think everyone would be freer in a communist society.
@KrugmanTheKing This is what I mean by militant: "“A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon... and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists.”
@KrugmanTheKing 1) Also, I'm aware that Marx/Engels claimed that society progresses from feudalism to capitalism to socialism to communism, which can only be achieved once the state has withered away.
2) Despite that, many Marxists I've spoken with and read even claim that Mao's China was capitalism even though they transitioned from feudalism to the Nationalists to Communism.
3) Peter Joseph is an example of someone who blames everything on capitalism.
@KrugmanTheKing 4) I'm aware of what liberalism is: it's been reincarnated as libertarianism in the United States. However, again, you're going to have liberals who believe in a more socialistic society, which is fine. I'm not insulting liberalism.
5) Anarchism could mean no intermediary step between capitalism and communism; but yes, many people probably would be anarchists if they thought it possible.
@amamerc Oops it's not explicitly libertarianism: when you don't make it crystal clear and unambiguous that your philosophy rejects violence, then you can expect violence.
Also, although capitalism is a necessary stage toward socialism, according to Marx, why is it that many countries try to eviscerate capitalism (e.g. China), instead of allowing capitalism to continue unassailed?
Probably because of desperation/thirst for power/misreading of Marx/etc.
@KrugmanTheKing To reiterate one last point: Mao's China is one example. Marxists at university hate capitalism to the point where they yell at you if you try to defend capitalism -- in my experience. They don't care if capitalism is necessary it seems; or they want it to fail, because they think it has gone on for long enough, even though they're not economists, they're not geniuses: some want capitalism to become more and more hampered, while others want it abolished now.
I'd certainly get to say Chomsky is pretty near being a Marxist, Hobsbawm (the famous historian) is self-defined and clearly a Marxist. However, a guy who just call himself Marxist because he disagrees with capitalism isn't really a Marxist: you must agree that to even hold the comparison between your position and that of Marx, you must share at least a few details, even if it's possible to disagree in some regards.
The word must have a meaning and I'd grant someone he's right in calling himself Marxist (in the ideological sense) if he has a materialist explanation and that his justification revolves around saying people would be freer as communists. If you give up this detail, you basically give up Marx altogether since his entire analysis is about men and their relation to work and how it affects their existence in different systems. The rationale for change must be this if you are Marxist.
And I now have some concerns about classical liberalism being compared to libertarianism, even if I did it myself often. I saw a section of Tocqueville's work and hearing of Chomsky about the Republicans under Lincoln, as well as of the actual argument of Adam Smith, it appears disputable and I thought it wasn't.
There is this concern for how equality as a legal right might become the basis for authoritarianism, but not in the way the right depicts it.
I mean, I thought I was correcting to you, but all I was doing is explaining the framework I learnt with the same haste and conviction I reproach to everyone.
And what got my attention was how Tocqueville worded it himself (and he's prominent figure of liberal thought): "[...] we shall now see by what side-road manufacturers may possibly, in their turn, bring men back to aristocracy."
What he argued was for free associations to be instituted: a strong civic society, in other words.
"When a workman is unceasingly and exclusively engaged in the fabrication of one thing, he ultimately does his work with singular dexterity; but at the same time he loses the general faculty of applying his mind to the direction of the work."
"[...]so that it may be said of him that in proportion as the workman improves, the man is degraded."
What do you think? To me, it sounds more like he's judging wage labor as being against freedom, unlike what US Libertarians think.
Do you think it's possible that there is such a substantial distortion in meaning that advocating freedom the way people do in the 21st century would have meant advocating slavery in the 18th and 19th century?
@KrugmanTheKing My careless writing led me to seemingly red-bait those who are left-leaning, which was not my intention. All thinking is gradual, so it's only expected that people misunderstand things, meaning that those people with whom I've spoken may change their minds later on. Maybe Chomsky prefers Engles, and so do I, based on what I've read by Engles. Maoists are opposed to "revisionism," but obviously, revisionism is good, since if Maoism were perfect, it would've shined
@KrugmanTheKing For example, I've little idea what people really think about private property, since the mainline definition of Marxist communism is abolition of PP. When all is said and done, the right fears Marxism, mainly because they fear government, though it goes deeper than that.
Right-libertarianism -- individualism, free market capitalism, limited gov. -- is grounded in the Old Right, who, if I understand correctly, are far more radicalized than classical liberals.
@KrugmanTheKing I can't say anything about Tocqueville, because I haven't read him. If he means that menial labor is degrading, I guess it could be, but Alexander Solzhenitsyn said something during his Harvard speech (or another Ivy League U.) -- that he rejects the Soviet system, but also the American, since he thinks we're too lackadaisical, spoiled, frivolous, basically. So I don't know. But working at McDonald's all your life probably would degrade your potential.
@KrugmanTheKing Do you mean how labor = slavery? I do know that in the 18th century the United States was very undeveloped, which means people would've faced tremendous hardship. Okay . . . but if you mean ideologically . . . do the classical liberals believe more strongly in liberty than liberals today? I think libertarians far more strongly believe in liberty than they did, if only because people today know more than they did b/c of more human history & experience.
The thing very few people know is that, in the first place, socialism was also concerned with an ever growing and centralized state. And those concerns about the government comes from the monarchic systems of Europe: read carefully how the US defined the rights of each institution and you'll realize all they are doing is trying to avoid to leave too much power in the hands of too few people. Too much power in the hands of too few people is what threatens freedom the most.
Wage labor is renting yourself for a purpose you do not necessarily bear control over. If we take what were thought of as being liberal professions (lawyer, professor, scientists), they had a great deal of control over their professional lives: they were not merchandise themselves, even when they had employers.
However, as time goes by, it appears people are ever more subdued to their employers and, as Tocqueville noted, there is a major distinction between this tyranny and others.
This form of industrial aristocracy is insidious, subtle and mild, but far more extended in reach than any other before.
The analogy they make with slavery could be articulated in saying that you rent yourself and bear little to no control over your existence 9 to 5, 5 times a weak and it's certainly not because you have the right to choose your master that you are free.
I heard Chomsky mention that even the Republicans used to support this view under Lincoln.
The distinction Tocqueville makes is very similar to that Chomsky makes in saying that more liberal professions aren't the same, even if you have an employer: it's that you can control at least a part of what you do and make choices will working that you cannot be thought of as a slave. A professor can choose the way he designs his courses to a great degree, a journalist can get involved in this or that new... they have a degree of control over their production.
@KrugmanTheKing Whether liberals do, as in in the mainstream sense, I think maybe, because many liberals reject the 2nd amendment, while I'm guessing liberals back then would've supported the 2nd amendment? This is just one example. But I'd have to read into it.
Many liberals reject the second amendment because it's inefficient in achieve its purpose, it's not on the basis of freedom versus control and, as I might suspect, it is certainly not this kind of utilitarian concerns which struck people in the late 18th century.
I'd tend to say it's historical, probably thinking about a civil militia or something like that. I don't know exactly what were the debates, so I can't speak.
@KrugmanTheKing Well, what I've read from Marx about the family is that the family inevitably disappears once Marxist communism has emerged; but when someone claims that the child is a slave to the parent (or the wife & child to the husband/father), he's criticizing the bourgeois family, organized to deal with capitalistic society. However, notice that children wake up at 7 to 3; and because some parents work till late, the child stays at school even beyond 3.
@KrugmanTheKing In this sense, a child is not only neglected by the parents, but arguably by the public school system, which is faltering. Even Private education, at least the school which I went to, was subpar compared to those abroad, based on the foreigners I know.
Another interesting thing is that children can be molded through a reward system like that of behavioral psychology. But they're not considered wage slaves because parents grant them more freedom.
@KrugmanTheKing Wage slavery aside, production needs to happen, and until machines take over, humans will need to produce.
Republicans are actually anti-capitalistic to some extent, since some believe that protectionism is good, because of their patriotic spirit. Even they believe in government regulation, despite the rhetoric; one example is Mitt Romney.
Regarding the 2nd amendment, it again has to do with fear, and I could find case studies where it works.
@KrugmanTheKing However, the strongest argument in favor of it, is that Hitler disarmed the population, and so did Mao. With the passage of the NDAA, which many people are talking about -- Naomi Wolf even used the Nazis as a point of reference in her essay about it -- so this scares the daylights out of the right.
Either way, if US government is a creature of capitalism, it's increase in size will not check itself.
@KrugmanTheKing Oops, I should clear up a simplistic statement.
"But this order to distribute arms to civilians opened up a can of worms . . . As a result, guns became widely available. Factional fighting escalated into mini–civil wars across China, involving practically all urban areas. The regime began sliding into something close to anarchy for the first time since taking power nearly two decades before."
@KrugmanTheKing "As a result, guns became widely available. Factional fighting escalated into mini–civil wars across China . . . The regime began sliding into something close to anarchy . . . Mao quickly realized that his “storm troopers” notion would not work everywhere. So, while he continued to build up a force of them 1 million strong in Shanghai, where he had particularly strict control, elsewhere he had to rescind his decree to “arm the Left."
What I did point out in your post is how you failed to use a scientific framework: that of political science. That you enjoyed it or not, you've labelled political regimes with ideologies and it's misleading. If it's just out of loose speech to point out a similar application -- namely totalitarianism -- it's one thing, but if not that's a rhetorical device because the association between those two ideas is wrong.
If I believe Marx, coming back to what I just explained to the other one, freedom arises out of an emancipating activity: in short, of our work. It's production which allows for leisure and pleasures, but also security and different researches. Even he understood capitalism was necessary.
The problem I see with a purely planned economy is that putting a finite edge to wages is discentive to production and, if production is freedom, we'd loose as society doing so.
To reconcile the concerns of both systems, you have to introduce rawlsian concerns in policy-making by trying to maximize the utility of the least well-off person. People rarely see what it means... it's hard to understand for many as it's a game of proportions and optimization, but it could be possible to have rich people and make a poor person better off than if everyone had the same salary.
For that to happen, the gains in total output must grow such as to compensate the diminution in the shares the least well-off person holds. Same for political power and everything else.
But for these things to ever occur, people at the right must understand a few things: Fiscal policy works, monetary policy makes crisis a lot less likely and the government isn't always a bad solution. If they learn that, maybe people at the left will learn taxes can be a problem...
Wow, what a liar. And keeps a straight face while doing it....The banks caused the recession??? Bullshiitte!! Barney Frank, Frank Raines and the dems caused it. And it was not and accident.
@mybrittvideo Actually it was both, Goldman sachs betting on derivatives and using AIG as some sort of insurance agency, coupled with Fannie and Freddie taking on huge piles of bad debt. The banks knew what they were doing because they were using AIG to bet against their own loans. It was a ponzi scheme fueled by the FED at the expense of the taxpayer because people like Frank, Bush, Romney, and Obama get huge campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and JP Morgan.
Noam has practical wisdom to address so many of our afflictions in this country. But historically, the intellectuals have been dishonored, martyred, persecuted and robbed of their contribution to establish Utopia. Is it any wonder that we are as far from Utopia as were our forefathers?
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.
@knightschwartz Dude, that was Clinton! Bush may have continued the the policy but the Clinton administration was the first to institute it. Bush was a horrible president, but blaming him for the horrible policies of others who came before him is just not right.
"The Democrats and Republicans are basically the board of Goldmann and Sachs"
Speaking of Goldman Sachs, take a wild guess whod would have run "Carbon Trading" and even have made "Carbon Dirivatives" had Cap and trade brought in massive tax revenues instead of first causing the near world economic meltdown in october 08 from the Nov 07 Cap and trade then causing a world deep recesion causing massive lost of tax revenue and countries on verge of bankrupty from June 09 cap and trade?
@bramletyabercrombie I'm trying to understand the roots of the 08 meltdown diretives probably have to do with it but the story I've laid out which steve sailer has written brillantly about is the only one i understand. Wall street probably made risky bets but my feeling is that without the dems and bush and fanny and freddy pushing this minority homeownership intiative thing that this huge collapse wouldn't have happened that started the bubble that and the FED's low intrest rates.
@knightschwartz If this were true the only people affected would be the banks and the homeowners. The problem was that they took these poor people loans and made it look like they were AAA backed securities and then sold them to pension funds. Getting everyone exposed to the poor people loans. They also knowing that the poor people weren't really AAA rated bet against these pension funds and basically broke America. You have chosen to side with the wolves. I don't think they will share with you.
As someone that was once approached to buy lots of mortages from a little private corporation called "RTC" that bought bad loans from banks back in the 80's with CLinton in office and Chris Dodd and Barney Frank meddleding in there somewhere..I can tell you the "Mortgage dirivates" were always meant to be bailed out should they come worthless as Democrat chroney capitalists Goldman Sachs and Lehman Bro never had the ability to back them...ever (and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd knew that,period)
"I'm trying to understand the roots of the 08 meltdown"
The november 2007 "biofuel initative"(Cap and trade) drove up the price of oil,gas,jet fueel,disel,ship oil,and therefore the price of food,traveling and doing business which first caused layoffs in Travel Industry,then Retail,theen Automotive industry
People out of work cant pay their mortgage thus lots of mortgages defaulted and then the "dirivatives" came worthless
The sad thing is...This world has become so indoctrinated that the Common sense Mr. Chomsky utilizes is idolized as prophecy and genius. Any person with a sound mind and a minimally active ego can easily come to these same conclusions, particularly when talking about things like social issues and laws. This man is brilliant, but not because he sees things like the Tea Party for what they really are...everyone should be able to...just wake up and pay attention...
So the Tea party might go the direction on the Nazi party? I havd never thought of that... Oh yeah because that's crazy. The Tea party has not shown itself to be violent.
This is a great video and he hits it on the spot. Unfortunately a lot that the Tea party has been involved in was the Birther movement and thinking Obama was a muslim(which wouldn't be a big deal anyways)
@hameed What's the "unfortunately" bit? Chomsky is providing one sided, black and white praise or criticism- he's providing an accurate analysis of the Tea Party phenomenon. The rants of birthers and the antisemitism and anti-Islam of many Tea Party followers fit into his analytic framework quite nicely.
our default were all because of the napoleon invasion and lost of brazil as sub. to that event, and then forced loans by brits with high interest to rebuild the country, witch was because of the uk in first place, also we paid the uk in gold the payment brazil give for lost colony half went to the uk and they again back stab us by during first ww wanting to give away to colonys even if we fought in it against the germans, lets just say uk and usa have been fucking world for profit for while now
the other day another brit was lying in uk newspaper saying only southern countrys in europe defaulted on their debt saying portugal defaulted 5 times since 1800 witch is a lie we defaulted 4 times mainly because napoleon invasion and all the brits abuse over our country robbing industry and gold and the funny thing is we would not had been invaded if it wasnt for the fact portugal was the only country that continued to have a trade withuk and break the sea block france wanted
since the imf has left brazil they became olenders not debtors and even though their natural resources were all taken by usa and uk based imf to repay debt they are growing 4 to 10% year now only since 90s they have become 7 richest country on the planet and the one with most natural resources next to russia
also using imf in 3 world while having their dictators there to make sure uk usa companies can suck the wealth all they want and if not they just send the army and cia and do coup detats dividing to conquer and using brutality and loans with high interests after to totally suck these countrys dry, if brazil didnt had asked other latin american countrys to help repay imf debt they would still be paying it with 0% groth year and hiper inflation imf in brazil 1960s-90s...
dot you think its strange the major central banks that exist to avoid the kind of finncial crisis they have been making over past decades, inflation, deflation, massive ammounjt money almost given to the ppl and then rise interest stock bubbles and stock crashes gold bubbles its all a scheme to robb the ppl dont u think its strange the rots firms and banks always get out in time and always buy things and compert. for pennys on dollar like lehman, london stock exchange in 19 century, 1929...
why dont tell me you didnt get its the major scheme in all mankind to suck the wealth from ppl into major elite familys like rotschilds etc, so called bussyness cycls are exacly this expansion of credit and contraction, like putting a net to get the fish and pushing the net with dead fish all suing fiat moneyu that is worthless the fed is major bank in usa with gov to suck ppl money, credit expansion only works in economical expansion colonial one, not in a already dry world of resources goods
well its works like this, central banks loan of force with low interests and giving the illusion good times will last forever into poorest countrys by printing loads money into system it has to go somewhere in usa it went into mortgages they knew would blow in eurozone it went into gov loans with low interests rating agncys knew piigs didnt had a economy with aaa then after the collapse in 08 rating agencys downgrade countrys credit making it impossible to repay its a scheme works on ppl and gov
the fortune of the rotschilds comes from controlling with the queen canada australia new zealand and usa thru debt and central banks, now they control european central bank and are sucking us dry, they just need to print alot money and send it free to the poorest countrys and then explode the system then theres bail outs for all them and pain and debt for all of us, its a racket older then monarchy
on top of the power in the usa is since 1913 the rotschilds and queen england, they never lost the war, since the one who controls the money and debt controls the country, founding fathers knew this and fought the central banks as long as they could, america as been in decadence since 1913, with nixon was the last straw, last american gov that wanted to chage was kennedy and we all know what happens if they want fed out, queen of england will happily pay a hit on them
chomwski is a confused old man who lives inside a bowl, while te world, secretive world where elite have been plotting for world control passed by his side he was always thinking let and right was real and never left that bullshit theory, doset matter if its left or right ppl dont have any power both extremes are the same, america is going on to the fascist one, corps and banks and gov against the ppl using all their wepons to control usa and inslave them as well the world
in the end fascism is the same as communism they make ppl slaves to serve elite on top and their interests, usa is a fascist state were individual pays taxes for the gov to control them an abuse them and to serve the elite, communism just uses the illusion that ppl will live all the same and theres no more elite, its a lie its a dictatorship and the elite and their corps control all while their puppet puts everybody down at same level-slaves
in the end fascism is the same as communism they make ppl slaves to serve elite on top and their interests, usa is a fascist state were individual pays taxes for the gov to control them an abuse them and to serve the elite, communism just uses the illusion that ppl will live all the same and theres no more elite, its a lie its a dictatorship and the elite and their corps control all while their puppet puts everybody down at same level-slaves
Chomsky is a hypocrite. Chomsky refuses to acknowledge that America is divided into social and economic interest groups. As an academic he is part of a privileged caste, his world view is a view that serves to maintain the power status of his caste. The sixties protest culture was the tea party of academic/managerial class, which seized power and control from blue collar America. The tea party is just trying to take some back.
funny the right said nonono to the bailout, yet they held out both hands to receive it. reverse psych at it's strongest, as they knew it would sink obama's approval ratings & as bonus they got a little more money in their pockets. think about it, who stood to gain from the bailout? if we had an intelligent country, we would have a strong green party. from what i have seen of the tea movement, most don't even know how to spell fiscal, let alone debate it.
As he said...Wiemar Germany. That's where we are. Nothing will solve this for the better because most people are less conscious than their own pets. It's a culture cycle that's just going to play itself out.
@pushycatpops Yes. When people get angry they say stupid things, and do stupid things, even when they have good reason to be angry. You been human anytime recently?
@pushycatpops I still have yet to see the Tea Party as a whole, speaking for the whole, say anything outrageous; if they were to, they are booted out.
I think Chomsky is only half right here. There was a progressive protest which took place the day after the first Tea Party protest that drew about 500 people. This protest received little to ZERO coverage by the mainstream media. And the 1st Tea Party protest only had a couple dozen individuals and was covered by all the major networks. The Tea Party is a grass-roots illusion, brought to you by the Koch brothers.
completely agree with Chomsky on the point that the Left are not organizing while the Right are. Maybe the Right is right about the Left. Maybe the Left are just all hippies talking out of their asses.
As a socialist that has no regard for personal property or personal responsibility you are pontificating from a comfy tenured hi ivory tower. I suffered as a student and outlasted you Christ killing America haters by learning to lie for a grade by telling you what you want to hear. I wish you had no soul but the ease with which you condescend and dismiss "the right" leads me to believe suspending disbelief and encouraging others to do the same is your ticket to hell. Karma / judgement ?
Well, my mother died from mercury poisoning which lead to cancer and mental disruption.
The AMA ADA FDA all are very aware that mercury fillings are deadly for people to have. I myself almost died following the ignorant AMA typical SAD (standard american diet) pyramid program. All the doctors wanted to do was drug me and have me spend thousands on tests when all I REALLY needed was healthy diet guidelines, but hey there's no money in that.
Based on deception of that level. The healthcare bill should just be renamed "deathcare" bill cause that is a more accurate description.
Biodynamic, polyface, permacultural farming techniques could rid america's dependence on drugs, radically alter the public health, enrich-protect the environment, and provide economic opportunity all at the same time....this is why farms are the new battleground. Health will not get better through drugs..food is medicine!
it's coherent to kill granny... really please explain? I love how he gives no answers of his own yet berates the answers given by i.e michael savage... which he admits is substantial, thus telling these people to deny the truth and believe in some mystical knowledge that somehow what the left is doing supercedes morals for the sake of knowledge and logic. What a con man!
I have to wonder if Dr. Chomsky isnt suffering from the onset of Dementia. Was Germany of the 1920s height of Western Civ? Were there highly functioning Democratic systems? In its own way, the Weimar Republic was all to similar to the Washington beltway of today because it was not a highly functioning Democratic system.
Well, it is now 8-4-11 and these God fearing patriots are now in congress making laws and their ideas have been put into action. They have won the ideological fight-to-the-right. The stock market closed today at -516 and tomorrow is not looking any better than the last ten days have been. Why don't YOU organize a protest? Get on TV and educate people to the facts!
Chomsky has slid so badly over the years. The teabaggers have nothing to do with "real grievances" they're hard-right nationalist fruit loops and religious fundamentalists. Stupid people should not be heard or dealt with respectfully, they should be ridiculed because they are indeed ridiculous.
"a lot of the protests are pretty sensible"
Chomsky, as a linguist you may have heard the saying "even a broken clock is right twice a day".
You're so, so right. I'm curious though, what do you take of his recent championing of Moore-ish ideas that say Islamic terrorism is the result of American Foreign Policy? I honestly cringe when I watch him discuss Afghanistan..
@BelfastAtheist I think it's a load of bullshit. Certainly US foreign policy has enflamed the issue, but it's certainly not the cause of islamic terrorism, religious fundamentalism is obviously the cause. Blowing up non-combatants intentionally is not excusable in any form or fashion. It's also a very american-centric point of view, as if islamic terrorism is confined between "us" and "them". What about in India or Europe or against other muslims?
@JACKtheRIPP3R189 Yeah,concern over defecit spending 1.65 trillion dollars a year when you are already 15 trillion in debt isn't a "real grievance". The middle class eroding from being over taxed isn't a real grievance either.
@jdowfleetwood "middle class eroding from being over taxed"
That was happening well before these reactionary swine trundled out of their trailer parks, nor is taxation the reason the middle class is sagging. Get your shit together.
Secondly read my point about the broken clock. Here's my legit grievance, clowns roaming the land who can't read and comprehend simple sentences.
I appreciate Noam's sensitivity to the decline in the purchasing power of the dollar & decline in real wages which are fueling the expat retiree movement. Most companies are eliminating pension plans for 401(k)s and the working man asks, "Why did pension plans work before but not now?" Noam knows the answer - unbridled greed in which all decisions are made from a profit perspective and the institutions force these decisions - even CEOs are puppets to shareholders. The system is broke!
Why listen to anyone for that matter tell you who someone else is? We're all tired of the wars, spending, devaluing, job shipping, etc. The media wants to keep us decided so that the satanists can keep conquering. It's really that simple.
hard 2 pay attention to his speeches on youtube. sseen other "philosophers" in person and i must say this guy is probably very interesting to see in person.
@MaxamillianArturo Yea i could see where you could think that, him being professor emeritus from the most prestigious techical college in the world MIT, has written more book than you have probably read (over 150) and the new york times calling him the most important intellectual alive. Thats all just a big smokescreen right? Hes really a dummie huh?
@RPShredow He's a bitter old communist who's just begun the realize he wasted his life in an unwinnable fight against capitalism and the Western world, and is now lashing out against the system, hoping in vain to cause some damage to it before he finally croaks.
@TheGoldenKing20 I'd say he a devout libertarian who has dedicated his life to a seemingly unwinnable fight against capitalism and the western world and is now trying to make as much as a difference as he can against the terrible system, hoping to enlighten and spread the truth about western imperialism before his long and productive life ends.
@RPShredow I'm not sure about the 'few having so much' part, but as far as the 'so many having so little'... I think the system you and this pathetic hipocritical traitor Chomsky support, Communism, still holds that honor.
@RPShredow Typical anti-american commie response. When somebody calls you out on being commies and points out that your system has caused more pain, suffering and misery than any other in the world, you start bitching and whining about how you're being labelled. Whatever, man, so long as you just bitch and whine, you'll never actually do anything, so by all means, go on.
@TheGoldenKing20 Where did you say that I said I liked communism? and Chomsky? Generally when you make assertions you have to have evidence. So where is your evidence that Chomsky or me like communism?
@RPShredow It's obvious in the way you and that worm talk and act, but by all means, deny it. You're not actually fooling anyone, people aren't dumb, you know? They can spot you, and as such, they'll keep you dismissing you as communists. So again, it makes no difference to me whether you admit to being a commie or not.
@TheGoldenKing20 How is it obvious? And how am I denying it or confirming it? I'm I trying to fool anyone? The high and mighty capitalist trying to expose communist hiding under rocks and in dark places, lol your funny dude, the cold war ended decades ago. You can come out of your bomb shelter its safe now.
See till you have evidence its just an assumption, I could say your a three toed tree sloth but until I have evidence it doesn't mean shit. Just like what your saying.
@RPShredow Again, why do I need to prove anything? People already know you are commies just from the way you talk and act, and so they just dismiss you as communists. What benefit does actually proving it has to me? None at all.
@TheGoldenKing20 LOL Yea I'm sure TONS of people are reading this and really give a shit. Whatever I am least I'm not a narcissist like you.
My proof your a narcissist? You think there are people that give a shit what you say on the comments on a random youtube video where from looking not one person said they agree with you and that you don't actually need to prove anything cause your proof is your the one who is saying it.
@TheGoldenKing20 You want my proof that chomsky isn't a communist?
watch?v=bieFwutoqvA at 7:10 "I think states ought to dissolve cause I think they are illegitimate structures." If he thinks that then why would he support a system in which the state controls everything?
watch?v=8aYt_fAEzmo he talks about how these totalitarianism companies we have should be restructured into democracies so that every worker has a equal say in what happened in the company, doesn't sound communist to me.
@TheGoldenKing20 you need to prove what you are saying because almost nobody gives a fuck what you think, the sooner you realize that the better off you'll be. You strike me as a crony capitalist, one of those daft cunts who goes around screaming obama is a socialist and a communist and a marxist but when G. W. Promised the banks 700 billion didnt say a word. You are just as bad as the people you hate you are the opposite side of the same stupid coin.
@RPShredow I agree with you.And that was a disturbing thing to read what sounded like a paranoid raving lunatic shout at you "I know you are but what am I."
Someone who is incapable of using reason can not provide a reasoned argument for why they think the way they do.And when they run out of ways to call you a name they fall silent and probably go hit someone smaller than themselves to blow off steam.I think you handled it well though.It aint easy being patient with the irrational.Well done.
Could Chomsky be more wrong about the Nazis? In the 1920s there was chaos and mass poverty. By 1939 Germany achieved full employment, full housing and had the fastest growing economy in the world. Workers were given special 'days-out', this is documented.
Closing the Federal Reserve, and the government printing it's own money is exactly what America (and most of the world) needs right now. No debt, no interest, no bankers sucking up the world's wealth, just money as a means of exchange.
historypoliticsbb 5 days ago
@historypoliticsbb Yeah because of their arms production for the war effort. Not because they had stable economic growth. Same thing could be said for the FDR administration.
ped200014 3 days ago
@ped200014 The FDR adminstration did not emerge from the depression until they entered the war in 1941. Their great depression continued right through the 1930s, unlike Germany which achieved full employment by 1939.
'Economic growth' is really irrelevant to people, it places profit over people, makes people slaves to the 'Economy'. What matters are homes,access to food and clean water. Bottom line, Germany achieved this thanks to debt free money, they provided everyone with what they needed.
historypoliticsbb 3 days ago
@historypoliticsbb Yeah, when Germany invaded Poland....
ped200014 3 days ago
@ped200014 And when the USSR invaded the other half of Poland. Strange how nobody ever wants to talk about that though...
historypoliticsbb 2 days ago
@historypoliticsbb It's only strange because it's a non sequitor
ped200014 2 days ago
@ped200014 Non sequitor is me pointing out how Germany achieved full employment thanks to complete control of their own country (ridding themselves of the private central bank) and then you talking about Germany invading Poland because you couldn't answer any of my points.
historypoliticsbb 2 days ago
@historypoliticsbb I like turtles
ped200014 2 days ago
Michael Savage, Limbaugh, etc., are a part of the new conservative juggernaut that is redefining conservatism -- Conservative Constitutionalism -- to mean neoconservatism, or a more statist, militarist version of conservatism, just as Marxism is, without doubt, a more militant and statist version of liberalism (even left-liberalism), I believe.
Basically, like Marxists claim everything is about class oppression, the talk show radio hosts see everything as a matter of liberalism vs. sanity.
amamerc 3 weeks ago
@amamerc
Liberalism isn't what you hear in the US -- it's a million miles away from that: actually, you're probably more liberal yourself than the people you call liberal. Liberalism is strictly opposed to socialism... the name says it very simply: in favor of liberty. It is the primacy of liberty over equality, a minimal state proposition where the State should be elected and should see at maintaining social order.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@amamerc
Other thing: Marx was an anarchist... you can't say a Marxist is a Statist: the only reason he'd use a State is to organize the society and then it would be over. A Marxist-Leninist would say the people are too dumb to govern themselves, but don't just associate stuff together without reason.
Last detail: a part of Marx's work was scientific and a part was ideological. If you use a materialist approach to social phenomenon, you're pretty near what he wrote.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
This website should help (it's clearly written by a leftist):
huppi.com/kangaroo/L-socialism.htm
amamerc 3 weeks ago
All those financial institutions were "required" to make the loans they were making. If you were required to lose a basketball game would you not bet against yourself??
No matter what the cause, Socialism in NOT the solution. Socialism, communism, Marxism....all of them are pure evil. Always have been always will be.
mybrittvideo 1 month ago
@mybrittvideo
Capitalism's doing great, huh? Destroy the earth? No problem. A tiny number of people steal from the rest of us and drive us all into poverty? No problem.
Socialism is the ONLY solution. If democracy is supposedly good enough for "our"government, why isn't it good enough for our workplaces?
thenewmiLONNIEum 4 weeks ago
@thenewmiLONNIEum Its idiots like you that make me want to reach into the PC screen and throttle you. If you like socialism, fucking move! Theres lots of places that would love a socialist twit like yourself, Greece, France, just for starters. Planes are leaving for those places all the time, get on one and go away.
mybrittvideo 4 weeks ago
@thenewmiLONNIEum
And look at socialism record.
Fascism, Communism and Maoism have all been responsible for killing hundreds of millions of people.
I know what you are going to say these were not real socialists.
Democracy for workplaces very simple do not work there if you do not want to.
How about democracy for businesses.
bighands69 4 weeks ago
@bighands69
Fascism is far right end and socialism is pretty opposed to that; communism broadly speaking never came about, but let's assume for the sake of the argument you labelled marxist-leninists as communists; and, last detail, democracy is a regime whereas the other concepts mentioned are ideologies...
If you want to talk about politics and, especially if you are trying to be critical, try to understand what people think and what those concepts are beforehand.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing
Labeling something as far right does not provide logical analysis.
The only true method of analysis in regards to socialism and capitalism is economics.
Socialism is a centralized system of distribution and Fascist, communist, Marxist-Leninist all share a national centralized system of economics.
The Nazis created centralized national governance and so did the communists as did Marxist-Leninist philosophical ideology.
You can call labor focused or nationalization.
bighands69 3 weeks ago
@bighands69
You tell me that something is right doesn't provide a logical answer, well I didn't do that. I explained the ideas because you've misused them.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@bighands69
If you really bother coming up with a sensible answer, then let's see what is socialism. It's not every left wing movement which is socialist and not all to the same extent. Of them, Marxists are the furthest left with anarchism as one of their aspiration, which might echo the libertarians from your home land, except they prone splitting the gains instead of a market economy. So, you can't just come to the table saying they all approve idea A and B, so they're bad...
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing
I am providing you with logical arguments towards structural distribution while you are using labels and words like left and right.
The problem with the Ideas being proposed by socialist philosophers and idealist is the fact that it is not based on mathematical economic models of distribution and resources.
bighands69 3 weeks ago
@bighands69
Socialists are materialists... the idea is that material conditions bounds your life and, as such, you are only as free as the economic basis and the social institutions allow. It's unto that basis that the idea of socialism grew: in their minds, it's the only true freedom.
That's as far as being an idealist as it ever gets. My criticism of the actual conditions isn't for socialism, but I take the same approach Marx used: social sciences and materialism.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing
(a) Karl Marx's conceptional materialism does not deal with the true concept of market economic equilibrium.
Marx's assumption that economic labor is class-based is flawed and it does not deal with the capability and demand for individual skills.
This same assumption is present throughout Marxist philosophy in regards to all physical products and services.
It does not on any level take in to account resource capability in relationship to market demands.
bighands69 3 weeks ago
@bighands69
Materialism as applied to sociology, history and political science is viable and sensible under Marx' framework or similar usage... which is basically what makes it relevant and that's also why I use it -- I never pretended I sustained socialism: that's what Marx did, but I am not Marx.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing
(b)
There is absolutely no model that can predict demand.
The main reason why socialism always fails is because it make assumptions of market demand and then tries to control demand via central mechanism of economics.
It is impossible at present to create an computational system that can provide absolute Precision based market metrics with truly predictive accuracy.
If you believe such a model exist please give me an example of this.
bighands69 3 weeks ago
@bighands69
Secondly, socialism fail not because it tries to predict demand, but because the whole system constitutes a discentive to productivity. Why? Very easy to tell: wages hit have a ceiling, so no one will ever work to reach a productivity comparable to it.
Thirdly, we can't use the argument you just made specifically because free markets do not yield optimal results. Of course, predictions are never accurate, but no one ever said they should.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@bighands69
But what I can ensure you is that models can assess for failures and provide us with an idea of what a tendency would like in the real world... we don't have to know how much an orange will be sold in Bombay tomorrow, but we can think in terms of tendencies and incentives. If I can do that, I can ensure you that certain things will probabilistically be better than others and there are without the slightest of doubt regulations which can do that.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@bighands69
This would be like poking at a straw-man. The second issue we have here is that you seem to assume upfront freedom relies on the possibility of decision given the absence of active coercion... well, we're not speaking of the same world then. People are bounded in their lives by material conditions: just pretending that you are free because you can leave the room is a false dichotomy. If I just add to the equation the possibility to negotiate, I would say he'd become less limited.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@bighands69
Of course, I am not defending him because I do think there can be socially viable, ethically sensible and environmentally sustainable ways to live capitalism... but it's certainly not by yelling at one another that people will leave better off than when they entered.
We have to observe facts and the available theories to see what's plausible and what's not. Then, once we have options, it can get back to preferences, but not before that.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing
We can deal with philosophical theories but the reality is that economics is based on market supply and demand.
The capability of resources is the mechanism that market foundation and no amount of rhetoric can change this.
The only true mechanism that will allow socialism is abundance and technology is not at that stage yet.
bighands69 3 weeks ago
@bighands69 I agree.
However, those heavily influenced by Marxism cannot accept your answer.
"In modern history at least it is, therefore, proved that all political struggles are class struggles, and all class struggles for emancipation, despite their necessarily political form — for every class struggle is a political struggle — turn ultimately on the question of economic emancipation."
amamerc 3 weeks ago
@bighands69 [cont.] "Therefore, here at least, the state — the political order — is the subordination, and civil society — the realm of economic relations — the decisive element."
Marxists argue that most every problem in the world is due to capitalism. It doesn't matter if life itself is imperfect and if man is imperfect; for Marxists believe in tabula rasa, meaning every human imperfection is due to capitalism.
Basically, you can't win my using economic rhetoric.
amamerc 3 weeks ago
@amamerc
You made quite a few mistakes here. Firstly, Marxism doesn't attribute all issues to capitalism: as I tried to explain above, it's a theory of degrees of freedom with regard to the material conditions wherein one lives.
Marx would tell you capitalism is better than the feudal-market society or the strict feudal ones or slavery. It's even a necessary thing. If you follow their argument to its end, they think everyone would be freer in a communist society.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing This is what I mean by militant: "“A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon... and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists.”
amamerc 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing 1) Also, I'm aware that Marx/Engels claimed that society progresses from feudalism to capitalism to socialism to communism, which can only be achieved once the state has withered away.
2) Despite that, many Marxists I've spoken with and read even claim that Mao's China was capitalism even though they transitioned from feudalism to the Nationalists to Communism.
3) Peter Joseph is an example of someone who blames everything on capitalism.
amamerc 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing 4) I'm aware of what liberalism is: it's been reincarnated as libertarianism in the United States. However, again, you're going to have liberals who believe in a more socialistic society, which is fine. I'm not insulting liberalism.
5) Anarchism could mean no intermediary step between capitalism and communism; but yes, many people probably would be anarchists if they thought it possible.
amamerc 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing 6) According to this -- archive.org/stream/LongLiveLeninism/LLL#page/n5/mode/2up -- Marxism-Leninism advocates violence.
7) Why did I say Marxism is militant? Well, not necessarily but it's explicitly libertarianism; that is: non-aggression principle at its heart.
Since millions of people owns guns, one can only imagine what would happen during revolutionary class struggle.
8) Marxism-Leninism goes a step further from what I've read, saying violence is necessary.
amamerc 3 weeks ago
@amamerc Oops it's not explicitly libertarianism: when you don't make it crystal clear and unambiguous that your philosophy rejects violence, then you can expect violence.
Also, although capitalism is a necessary stage toward socialism, according to Marx, why is it that many countries try to eviscerate capitalism (e.g. China), instead of allowing capitalism to continue unassailed?
Probably because of desperation/thirst for power/misreading of Marx/etc.
amamerc 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing To reiterate one last point: Mao's China is one example. Marxists at university hate capitalism to the point where they yell at you if you try to defend capitalism -- in my experience. They don't care if capitalism is necessary it seems; or they want it to fail, because they think it has gone on for long enough, even though they're not economists, they're not geniuses: some want capitalism to become more and more hampered, while others want it abolished now.
amamerc 3 weeks ago
@amamerc
I'd certainly get to say Chomsky is pretty near being a Marxist, Hobsbawm (the famous historian) is self-defined and clearly a Marxist. However, a guy who just call himself Marxist because he disagrees with capitalism isn't really a Marxist: you must agree that to even hold the comparison between your position and that of Marx, you must share at least a few details, even if it's possible to disagree in some regards.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@amamerc
The word must have a meaning and I'd grant someone he's right in calling himself Marxist (in the ideological sense) if he has a materialist explanation and that his justification revolves around saying people would be freer as communists. If you give up this detail, you basically give up Marx altogether since his entire analysis is about men and their relation to work and how it affects their existence in different systems. The rationale for change must be this if you are Marxist.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@amamerc
And I now have some concerns about classical liberalism being compared to libertarianism, even if I did it myself often. I saw a section of Tocqueville's work and hearing of Chomsky about the Republicans under Lincoln, as well as of the actual argument of Adam Smith, it appears disputable and I thought it wasn't.
There is this concern for how equality as a legal right might become the basis for authoritarianism, but not in the way the right depicts it.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@amamerc
I mean, I thought I was correcting to you, but all I was doing is explaining the framework I learnt with the same haste and conviction I reproach to everyone.
And what got my attention was how Tocqueville worded it himself (and he's prominent figure of liberal thought): "[...] we shall now see by what side-road manufacturers may possibly, in their turn, bring men back to aristocracy."
What he argued was for free associations to be instituted: a strong civic society, in other words.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@amamerc
"When a workman is unceasingly and exclusively engaged in the fabrication of one thing, he ultimately does his work with singular dexterity; but at the same time he loses the general faculty of applying his mind to the direction of the work."
"[...]so that it may be said of him that in proportion as the workman improves, the man is degraded."
What do you think? To me, it sounds more like he's judging wage labor as being against freedom, unlike what US Libertarians think.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@amamerc
Do you think it's possible that there is such a substantial distortion in meaning that advocating freedom the way people do in the 21st century would have meant advocating slavery in the 18th and 19th century?
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing My careless writing led me to seemingly red-bait those who are left-leaning, which was not my intention. All thinking is gradual, so it's only expected that people misunderstand things, meaning that those people with whom I've spoken may change their minds later on. Maybe Chomsky prefers Engles, and so do I, based on what I've read by Engles. Maoists are opposed to "revisionism," but obviously, revisionism is good, since if Maoism were perfect, it would've shined
amamerc 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing For example, I've little idea what people really think about private property, since the mainline definition of Marxist communism is abolition of PP. When all is said and done, the right fears Marxism, mainly because they fear government, though it goes deeper than that.
Right-libertarianism -- individualism, free market capitalism, limited gov. -- is grounded in the Old Right, who, if I understand correctly, are far more radicalized than classical liberals.
amamerc 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing I can't say anything about Tocqueville, because I haven't read him. If he means that menial labor is degrading, I guess it could be, but Alexander Solzhenitsyn said something during his Harvard speech (or another Ivy League U.) -- that he rejects the Soviet system, but also the American, since he thinks we're too lackadaisical, spoiled, frivolous, basically. So I don't know. But working at McDonald's all your life probably would degrade your potential.
amamerc 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing Do you mean how labor = slavery? I do know that in the 18th century the United States was very undeveloped, which means people would've faced tremendous hardship. Okay . . . but if you mean ideologically . . . do the classical liberals believe more strongly in liberty than liberals today? I think libertarians far more strongly believe in liberty than they did, if only because people today know more than they did b/c of more human history & experience.
amamerc 3 weeks ago
@amamerc
The thing very few people know is that, in the first place, socialism was also concerned with an ever growing and centralized state. And those concerns about the government comes from the monarchic systems of Europe: read carefully how the US defined the rights of each institution and you'll realize all they are doing is trying to avoid to leave too much power in the hands of too few people. Too much power in the hands of too few people is what threatens freedom the most.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@amamerc
Wage labor is renting yourself for a purpose you do not necessarily bear control over. If we take what were thought of as being liberal professions (lawyer, professor, scientists), they had a great deal of control over their professional lives: they were not merchandise themselves, even when they had employers.
However, as time goes by, it appears people are ever more subdued to their employers and, as Tocqueville noted, there is a major distinction between this tyranny and others.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@amamerc
This form of industrial aristocracy is insidious, subtle and mild, but far more extended in reach than any other before.
The analogy they make with slavery could be articulated in saying that you rent yourself and bear little to no control over your existence 9 to 5, 5 times a weak and it's certainly not because you have the right to choose your master that you are free.
I heard Chomsky mention that even the Republicans used to support this view under Lincoln.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@amamerc
The distinction Tocqueville makes is very similar to that Chomsky makes in saying that more liberal professions aren't the same, even if you have an employer: it's that you can control at least a part of what you do and make choices will working that you cannot be thought of as a slave. A professor can choose the way he designs his courses to a great degree, a journalist can get involved in this or that new... they have a degree of control over their production.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing Whether liberals do, as in in the mainstream sense, I think maybe, because many liberals reject the 2nd amendment, while I'm guessing liberals back then would've supported the 2nd amendment? This is just one example. But I'd have to read into it.
amamerc 3 weeks ago
@amamerc
Many liberals reject the second amendment because it's inefficient in achieve its purpose, it's not on the basis of freedom versus control and, as I might suspect, it is certainly not this kind of utilitarian concerns which struck people in the late 18th century.
I'd tend to say it's historical, probably thinking about a civil militia or something like that. I don't know exactly what were the debates, so I can't speak.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing Well, what I've read from Marx about the family is that the family inevitably disappears once Marxist communism has emerged; but when someone claims that the child is a slave to the parent (or the wife & child to the husband/father), he's criticizing the bourgeois family, organized to deal with capitalistic society. However, notice that children wake up at 7 to 3; and because some parents work till late, the child stays at school even beyond 3.
amamerc 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing In this sense, a child is not only neglected by the parents, but arguably by the public school system, which is faltering. Even Private education, at least the school which I went to, was subpar compared to those abroad, based on the foreigners I know.
Another interesting thing is that children can be molded through a reward system like that of behavioral psychology. But they're not considered wage slaves because parents grant them more freedom.
amamerc 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing Wage slavery aside, production needs to happen, and until machines take over, humans will need to produce.
Republicans are actually anti-capitalistic to some extent, since some believe that protectionism is good, because of their patriotic spirit. Even they believe in government regulation, despite the rhetoric; one example is Mitt Romney.
Regarding the 2nd amendment, it again has to do with fear, and I could find case studies where it works.
amamerc 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing However, the strongest argument in favor of it, is that Hitler disarmed the population, and so did Mao. With the passage of the NDAA, which many people are talking about -- Naomi Wolf even used the Nazis as a point of reference in her essay about it -- so this scares the daylights out of the right.
Either way, if US government is a creature of capitalism, it's increase in size will not check itself.
amamerc 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing Oops, I should clear up a simplistic statement.
"But this order to distribute arms to civilians opened up a can of worms . . . As a result, guns became widely available. Factional fighting escalated into mini–civil wars across China, involving practically all urban areas. The regime began sliding into something close to anarchy for the first time since taking power nearly two decades before."
amamerc 3 weeks ago
@KrugmanTheKing "As a result, guns became widely available. Factional fighting escalated into mini–civil wars across China . . . The regime began sliding into something close to anarchy . . . Mao quickly realized that his “storm troopers” notion would not work everywhere. So, while he continued to build up a force of them 1 million strong in Shanghai, where he had particularly strict control, elsewhere he had to rescind his decree to “arm the Left."
It's a double-edged sword.
amamerc 3 weeks ago
@bighands69
What I did point out in your post is how you failed to use a scientific framework: that of political science. That you enjoyed it or not, you've labelled political regimes with ideologies and it's misleading. If it's just out of loose speech to point out a similar application -- namely totalitarianism -- it's one thing, but if not that's a rhetorical device because the association between those two ideas is wrong.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@thenewmiLONNIEum
If I believe Marx, coming back to what I just explained to the other one, freedom arises out of an emancipating activity: in short, of our work. It's production which allows for leisure and pleasures, but also security and different researches. Even he understood capitalism was necessary.
The problem I see with a purely planned economy is that putting a finite edge to wages is discentive to production and, if production is freedom, we'd loose as society doing so.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@thenewmiLONNIEum
To reconcile the concerns of both systems, you have to introduce rawlsian concerns in policy-making by trying to maximize the utility of the least well-off person. People rarely see what it means... it's hard to understand for many as it's a game of proportions and optimization, but it could be possible to have rich people and make a poor person better off than if everyone had the same salary.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@thenewmiLONNIEum
For that to happen, the gains in total output must grow such as to compensate the diminution in the shares the least well-off person holds. Same for political power and everything else.
But for these things to ever occur, people at the right must understand a few things: Fiscal policy works, monetary policy makes crisis a lot less likely and the government isn't always a bad solution. If they learn that, maybe people at the left will learn taxes can be a problem...
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@thenewmiLONNIEum
... and that in times of stable economic growth, you cannot run budget deficits.
Once we'd be on that factual and well established ground of possibilities, we could make start making choices that exists and that can work.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
Wow, what a liar. And keeps a straight face while doing it....The banks caused the recession??? Bullshiitte!! Barney Frank, Frank Raines and the dems caused it. And it was not and accident.
mybrittvideo 1 month ago
@mybrittvideo Actually it was both, Goldman sachs betting on derivatives and using AIG as some sort of insurance agency, coupled with Fannie and Freddie taking on huge piles of bad debt. The banks knew what they were doing because they were using AIG to bet against their own loans. It was a ponzi scheme fueled by the FED at the expense of the taxpayer because people like Frank, Bush, Romney, and Obama get huge campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and JP Morgan.
clintcastle 1 month ago
Noam has practical wisdom to address so many of our afflictions in this country. But historically, the intellectuals have been dishonored, martyred, persecuted and robbed of their contribution to establish Utopia. Is it any wonder that we are as far from Utopia as were our forefathers?
utopiandesign 1 month 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
end the federal reserve and lets grow hemp america
crazysillybaby1 3 months ago
Bush and te democrats doomed the economy not wall street. DC made banks give out loans to blacks and latinos with bad credit who defualted on mass.
knightschwartz 3 months ago
@knightschwartz Dude, that was Clinton! Bush may have continued the the policy but the Clinton administration was the first to institute it. Bush was a horrible president, but blaming him for the horrible policies of others who came before him is just not right.
1Pantikian 2 months ago
@knightschwartz
You are a fucking idiot. The Democrats and Republicans are basically the board of Goldmann and Sachs.
Also, wtf does migration have to do with any of this.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 2 months ago
"The Democrats and Republicans are basically the board of Goldmann and Sachs"
Speaking of Goldman Sachs, take a wild guess whod would have run "Carbon Trading" and even have made "Carbon Dirivatives" had Cap and trade brought in massive tax revenues instead of first causing the near world economic meltdown in october 08 from the Nov 07 Cap and trade then causing a world deep recesion causing massive lost of tax revenue and countries on verge of bankrupty from June 09 cap and trade?
TheRealArchAngel 2 months ago
@knightschwartz Did they make them bundle the bad loans up, sell them to innocent people, and then bet on their collapse?
bramletyabercrombie 2 months ago
@bramletyabercrombie I'm trying to understand the roots of the 08 meltdown diretives probably have to do with it but the story I've laid out which steve sailer has written brillantly about is the only one i understand. Wall street probably made risky bets but my feeling is that without the dems and bush and fanny and freddy pushing this minority homeownership intiative thing that this huge collapse wouldn't have happened that started the bubble that and the FED's low intrest rates.
knightschwartz 2 months ago
@knightschwartz If this were true the only people affected would be the banks and the homeowners. The problem was that they took these poor people loans and made it look like they were AAA backed securities and then sold them to pension funds. Getting everyone exposed to the poor people loans. They also knowing that the poor people weren't really AAA rated bet against these pension funds and basically broke America. You have chosen to side with the wolves. I don't think they will share with you.
bramletyabercrombie 2 months ago
As someone that was once approached to buy lots of mortages from a little private corporation called "RTC" that bought bad loans from banks back in the 80's with CLinton in office and Chris Dodd and Barney Frank meddleding in there somewhere..I can tell you the "Mortgage dirivates" were always meant to be bailed out should they come worthless as Democrat chroney capitalists Goldman Sachs and Lehman Bro never had the ability to back them...ever (and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd knew that,period)
TheRealArchAngel 2 months ago
"I'm trying to understand the roots of the 08 meltdown"
The november 2007 "biofuel initative"(Cap and trade) drove up the price of oil,gas,jet fueel,disel,ship oil,and therefore the price of food,traveling and doing business which first caused layoffs in Travel Industry,then Retail,theen Automotive industry
People out of work cant pay their mortgage thus lots of mortgages defaulted and then the "dirivatives" came worthless
" diretives probably have to do with it "
result of meltdown not casue
TheRealArchAngel 2 months ago
Mass immigration is destroying the west. The third world invasion must be stopped.
knightschwartz 3 months ago
The sad thing is...This world has become so indoctrinated that the Common sense Mr. Chomsky utilizes is idolized as prophecy and genius. Any person with a sound mind and a minimally active ego can easily come to these same conclusions, particularly when talking about things like social issues and laws. This man is brilliant, but not because he sees things like the Tea Party for what they really are...everyone should be able to...just wake up and pay attention...
R1D3TH3SP1RAL 3 months ago
@R1D3TH3SP1RAL I agree with what you just said.
thesparitan 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TEAPARTYS ARE THE PEOPLE VOICES OF THE PEOPLE
HELLO! HELLO!
missbethymarx 3 months ago
TEAPARTYS ARE THE PEOPLE VOICES OF THE PEOPLE
missbethymarx 3 months ago
@missbethymarx no those are the 99ers, tea tards are foolish pawns of big business
erik4727 3 months ago in playlist More videos from pegelatrin
So the Tea party might go the direction on the Nazi party? I havd never thought of that... Oh yeah because that's crazy. The Tea party has not shown itself to be violent.
e93gsx 3 months ago
@e93gsx Tke a look:
'14 signs of fascism-The USA turning into a fascist country?' on youtube
Now IN ALL HONESTY how many of those traits are rejected by the teabaggers?
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
great video! Noam Chomsky is a modern day prophet.
johnnybrannan 4 months ago
@johnnybrannan No, he's not- he's something much better than a prophet.
ideologger 4 months ago
This is a great video and he hits it on the spot. Unfortunately a lot that the Tea party has been involved in was the Birther movement and thinking Obama was a muslim(which wouldn't be a big deal anyways)
hameed 4 months ago 2
@hameed What's the "unfortunately" bit? Chomsky is providing one sided, black and white praise or criticism- he's providing an accurate analysis of the Tea Party phenomenon. The rants of birthers and the antisemitism and anti-Islam of many Tea Party followers fit into his analytic framework quite nicely.
ideologger 4 months ago
our default were all because of the napoleon invasion and lost of brazil as sub. to that event, and then forced loans by brits with high interest to rebuild the country, witch was because of the uk in first place, also we paid the uk in gold the payment brazil give for lost colony half went to the uk and they again back stab us by during first ww wanting to give away to colonys even if we fought in it against the germans, lets just say uk and usa have been fucking world for profit for while now
ukusapillage 4 months ago
the other day another brit was lying in uk newspaper saying only southern countrys in europe defaulted on their debt saying portugal defaulted 5 times since 1800 witch is a lie we defaulted 4 times mainly because napoleon invasion and all the brits abuse over our country robbing industry and gold and the funny thing is we would not had been invaded if it wasnt for the fact portugal was the only country that continued to have a trade withuk and break the sea block france wanted
ukusapillage 4 months ago
since the imf has left brazil they became olenders not debtors and even though their natural resources were all taken by usa and uk based imf to repay debt they are growing 4 to 10% year now only since 90s they have become 7 richest country on the planet and the one with most natural resources next to russia
ukusapillage 4 months ago
also using imf in 3 world while having their dictators there to make sure uk usa companies can suck the wealth all they want and if not they just send the army and cia and do coup detats dividing to conquer and using brutality and loans with high interests after to totally suck these countrys dry, if brazil didnt had asked other latin american countrys to help repay imf debt they would still be paying it with 0% groth year and hiper inflation imf in brazil 1960s-90s...
ukusapillage 4 months ago
dot you think its strange the major central banks that exist to avoid the kind of finncial crisis they have been making over past decades, inflation, deflation, massive ammounjt money almost given to the ppl and then rise interest stock bubbles and stock crashes gold bubbles its all a scheme to robb the ppl dont u think its strange the rots firms and banks always get out in time and always buy things and compert. for pennys on dollar like lehman, london stock exchange in 19 century, 1929...
ukusapillage 4 months ago
@ukusapillage Jesus, I can't read your wall of text. You need punctuation all over that piece.
Antiks72 4 months ago
why dont tell me you didnt get its the major scheme in all mankind to suck the wealth from ppl into major elite familys like rotschilds etc, so called bussyness cycls are exacly this expansion of credit and contraction, like putting a net to get the fish and pushing the net with dead fish all suing fiat moneyu that is worthless the fed is major bank in usa with gov to suck ppl money, credit expansion only works in economical expansion colonial one, not in a already dry world of resources goods
ukusapillage 4 months ago
well its works like this, central banks loan of force with low interests and giving the illusion good times will last forever into poorest countrys by printing loads money into system it has to go somewhere in usa it went into mortgages they knew would blow in eurozone it went into gov loans with low interests rating agncys knew piigs didnt had a economy with aaa then after the collapse in 08 rating agencys downgrade countrys credit making it impossible to repay its a scheme works on ppl and gov
ukusapillage 4 months ago
the fortune of the rotschilds comes from controlling with the queen canada australia new zealand and usa thru debt and central banks, now they control european central bank and are sucking us dry, they just need to print alot money and send it free to the poorest countrys and then explode the system then theres bail outs for all them and pain and debt for all of us, its a racket older then monarchy
ukusapillage 4 months ago
@ukusapillage ' print money and send it free to the poorest countrys and then explode the system' - what does that mean exactly? how does that work?
TheStfu1000 4 months ago
on top of the power in the usa is since 1913 the rotschilds and queen england, they never lost the war, since the one who controls the money and debt controls the country, founding fathers knew this and fought the central banks as long as they could, america as been in decadence since 1913, with nixon was the last straw, last american gov that wanted to chage was kennedy and we all know what happens if they want fed out, queen of england will happily pay a hit on them
ukusapillage 4 months ago
chomwski is a confused old man who lives inside a bowl, while te world, secretive world where elite have been plotting for world control passed by his side he was always thinking let and right was real and never left that bullshit theory, doset matter if its left or right ppl dont have any power both extremes are the same, america is going on to the fascist one, corps and banks and gov against the ppl using all their wepons to control usa and inslave them as well the world
ukusapillage 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
in the end fascism is the same as communism they make ppl slaves to serve elite on top and their interests, usa is a fascist state were individual pays taxes for the gov to control them an abuse them and to serve the elite, communism just uses the illusion that ppl will live all the same and theres no more elite, its a lie its a dictatorship and the elite and their corps control all while their puppet puts everybody down at same level-slaves
ukusapillage 4 months ago
in the end fascism is the same as communism they make ppl slaves to serve elite on top and their interests, usa is a fascist state were individual pays taxes for the gov to control them an abuse them and to serve the elite, communism just uses the illusion that ppl will live all the same and theres no more elite, its a lie its a dictatorship and the elite and their corps control all while their puppet puts everybody down at same level-slaves
ukusapillage 4 months ago
Chomsky is a hypocrite. Chomsky refuses to acknowledge that America is divided into social and economic interest groups. As an academic he is part of a privileged caste, his world view is a view that serves to maintain the power status of his caste. The sixties protest culture was the tea party of academic/managerial class, which seized power and control from blue collar America. The tea party is just trying to take some back.
Vot63 4 months ago
funny the right said nonono to the bailout, yet they held out both hands to receive it. reverse psych at it's strongest, as they knew it would sink obama's approval ratings & as bonus they got a little more money in their pockets. think about it, who stood to gain from the bailout? if we had an intelligent country, we would have a strong green party. from what i have seen of the tea movement, most don't even know how to spell fiscal, let alone debate it.
naervana 4 months ago
Folk don't listen. He says "crazy ideas", and "crazy content", because he isn't an idiot, but he's honest, so says "real grievances".
And because he's honest?
Some folk will attack him ... and yet others will say he's "in favor" of TP.
It's a sad time.
tremben 4 months ago
@tremben
As he said...Wiemar Germany. That's where we are. Nothing will solve this for the better because most people are less conscious than their own pets. It's a culture cycle that's just going to play itself out.
Di0genesus 4 months ago
The Tea Party makes silly, outrageous, stupid, statements, but its valid? hahah
pushycatpops 4 months ago
@pushycatpops Yes. When people get angry they say stupid things, and do stupid things, even when they have good reason to be angry. You been human anytime recently?
tremben 4 months ago
@pushycatpops I still have yet to see the Tea Party as a whole, speaking for the whole, say anything outrageous; if they were to, they are booted out.
WingThaiJ 4 months ago
I think Chomsky is only half right here. There was a progressive protest which took place the day after the first Tea Party protest that drew about 500 people. This protest received little to ZERO coverage by the mainstream media. And the 1st Tea Party protest only had a couple dozen individuals and was covered by all the major networks. The Tea Party is a grass-roots illusion, brought to you by the Koch brothers.
Vote3rdParty 4 months ago
They may try to put fascist laces on my boots but I will fight them to the death. Fascism over my dead body.
waterspindle 4 months ago
Woah. Chomsky, eye opening, as ever.
Biverix 4 months ago
Woah.
Biverix 4 months ago
completely agree with Chomsky on the point that the Left are not organizing while the Right are. Maybe the Right is right about the Left. Maybe the Left are just all hippies talking out of their asses.
m1kxilef 4 months ago
As a socialist that has no regard for personal property or personal responsibility you are pontificating from a comfy tenured hi ivory tower. I suffered as a student and outlasted you Christ killing America haters by learning to lie for a grade by telling you what you want to hear. I wish you had no soul but the ease with which you condescend and dismiss "the right" leads me to believe suspending disbelief and encouraging others to do the same is your ticket to hell. Karma / judgement ?
halcyon1030 4 months ago
The guy asking questions is too long winded.
pencert 5 months ago
Well, my mother died from mercury poisoning which lead to cancer and mental disruption.
The AMA ADA FDA all are very aware that mercury fillings are deadly for people to have. I myself almost died following the ignorant AMA typical SAD (standard american diet) pyramid program. All the doctors wanted to do was drug me and have me spend thousands on tests when all I REALLY needed was healthy diet guidelines, but hey there's no money in that.
So it isn't too hard to imagine health bill is
gladiator1010 5 months ago
@gladiator1010
Based on deception of that level. The healthcare bill should just be renamed "deathcare" bill cause that is a more accurate description.
Biodynamic, polyface, permacultural farming techniques could rid america's dependence on drugs, radically alter the public health, enrich-protect the environment, and provide economic opportunity all at the same time....this is why farms are the new battleground. Health will not get better through drugs..food is medicine!
gladiator1010 5 months ago
I'm not sure what Tea Party Noam Chomsky is talking about here, I've been following a different one.
spw317 5 months ago
republicans work round the clock trying to preserve tax cuts that benefit the "rich liberals"
metalreign81 5 months ago
it's coherent to kill granny... really please explain? I love how he gives no answers of his own yet berates the answers given by i.e michael savage... which he admits is substantial, thus telling these people to deny the truth and believe in some mystical knowledge that somehow what the left is doing supercedes morals for the sake of knowledge and logic. What a con man!
cowleshome 5 months ago
I have to wonder if Dr. Chomsky isnt suffering from the onset of Dementia. Was Germany of the 1920s height of Western Civ? Were there highly functioning Democratic systems? In its own way, the Weimar Republic was all to similar to the Washington beltway of today because it was not a highly functioning Democratic system.
Colfax11000 5 months ago
That's a terrible analogy, Chomsky. You're right. It's not even close so quick trying to draw similarities.
BenTheThird 5 months ago
What has happened to our Great Country check out THE PARTY OF SLEAZE by TOKYO ROSE
Tokyorosebiz 5 months ago
Well, it is now 8-4-11 and these God fearing patriots are now in congress making laws and their ideas have been put into action. They have won the ideological fight-to-the-right. The stock market closed today at -516 and tomorrow is not looking any better than the last ten days have been. Why don't YOU organize a protest? Get on TV and educate people to the facts!
kimp401 5 months ago
LIBERTARIANMONARCHY . COM
ecnerwal999 5 months ago
Chomsky has slid so badly over the years. The teabaggers have nothing to do with "real grievances" they're hard-right nationalist fruit loops and religious fundamentalists. Stupid people should not be heard or dealt with respectfully, they should be ridiculed because they are indeed ridiculous.
"a lot of the protests are pretty sensible"
Chomsky, as a linguist you may have heard the saying "even a broken clock is right twice a day".
JACKtheRIPP3R189 6 months ago
@JACKtheRIPP3R189
You're so, so right. I'm curious though, what do you take of his recent championing of Moore-ish ideas that say Islamic terrorism is the result of American Foreign Policy? I honestly cringe when I watch him discuss Afghanistan..
BelfastAtheist 5 months ago
@BelfastAtheist I think it's a load of bullshit. Certainly US foreign policy has enflamed the issue, but it's certainly not the cause of islamic terrorism, religious fundamentalism is obviously the cause. Blowing up non-combatants intentionally is not excusable in any form or fashion. It's also a very american-centric point of view, as if islamic terrorism is confined between "us" and "them". What about in India or Europe or against other muslims?
JACKtheRIPP3R189 5 months ago
@JACKtheRIPP3R189 Yeah,concern over defecit spending 1.65 trillion dollars a year when you are already 15 trillion in debt isn't a "real grievance". The middle class eroding from being over taxed isn't a real grievance either.
jdowfleetwood 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jdowfleetwood "middle class eroding from being over taxed"
That was happening well before these reactionary swine trundled out of their trailer parks, nor is taxation the reason the middle class is sagging. Get your shit together.
Secondly read my point about the broken clock. Here's my legit grievance, clowns roaming the land who can't read and comprehend simple sentences.
JACKtheRIPP3R189 5 months ago
@jdowfleetwood Being taxed into poverty isn't a grievance? Are you Belgian?
Higgs666 5 months ago
@Higgs666 I was being sarcastic, look at the post I was responding to.
jdowfleetwood 5 months ago
@jdowfleetwood Sorry :)
Higgs666 5 months ago
Brilliant.
Mclovin171 6 months ago
I appreciate Noam's sensitivity to the decline in the purchasing power of the dollar & decline in real wages which are fueling the expat retiree movement. Most companies are eliminating pension plans for 401(k)s and the working man asks, "Why did pension plans work before but not now?" Noam knows the answer - unbridled greed in which all decisions are made from a profit perspective and the institutions force these decisions - even CEOs are puppets to shareholders. The system is broke!
IClausius 6 months ago
It's democracy when progressive get people together to protest.
When the right protests it's a mob of 'nuts'.
Are there anyone more stupid than an academics?
Oh, I forgot, bankers!
fntime 6 months ago
This is such a well thought and reasoned response. Remember nobody is wrong 100% of the time.
utuber2 6 months ago
Why listen to anyone for that matter tell you who someone else is? We're all tired of the wars, spending, devaluing, job shipping, etc. The media wants to keep us decided so that the satanists can keep conquering. It's really that simple.
Standonarock 6 months ago
hard 2 pay attention to his speeches on youtube. sseen other "philosophers" in person and i must say this guy is probably very interesting to see in person.
westpointer2014 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This guy is probably the dumbest person alive right now.
MaxamillianArturo 6 months ago
@MaxamillianArturo Yea i could see where you could think that, him being professor emeritus from the most prestigious techical college in the world MIT, has written more book than you have probably read (over 150) and the new york times calling him the most important intellectual alive. Thats all just a big smokescreen right? Hes really a dummie huh?
RPShredow 6 months ago
@RPShredow In essence yes.
MaxamillianArturo 6 months ago
@MaxamillianArturo your retarded, have fun mouthbreathing.
RPShredow 6 months ago
@RPShredow Oki dokie.
MaxamillianArturo 6 months ago
@RPShredow He's a bitter old communist who's just begun the realize he wasted his life in an unwinnable fight against capitalism and the Western world, and is now lashing out against the system, hoping in vain to cause some damage to it before he finally croaks.
TheGoldenKing20 6 months ago
@TheGoldenKing20 I'd say he a devout libertarian who has dedicated his life to a seemingly unwinnable fight against capitalism and the western world and is now trying to make as much as a difference as he can against the terrible system, hoping to enlighten and spread the truth about western imperialism before his long and productive life ends.
But to each their own huh?
RPShredow 6 months ago
@RPShredow Indeed, pinko.
TheGoldenKing20 6 months ago
@TheGoldenKing20 Yea cause the current system is awesome, never have so few had so much and so many had so little.
RPShredow 6 months ago
@RPShredow I'm not sure about the 'few having so much' part, but as far as the 'so many having so little'... I think the system you and this pathetic hipocritical traitor Chomsky support, Communism, still holds that honor.
TheGoldenKing20 6 months ago
@TheGoldenKing20 did I ever say I was a communist, did Chomsky ever say it? If so, show me where.
RPShredow 6 months ago
@TheGoldenKing20 Guess your too busy labeling people, calling them names and making assumptions.
RPShredow 6 months ago
@RPShredow Typical anti-american commie response. When somebody calls you out on being commies and points out that your system has caused more pain, suffering and misery than any other in the world, you start bitching and whining about how you're being labelled. Whatever, man, so long as you just bitch and whine, you'll never actually do anything, so by all means, go on.
TheGoldenKing20 6 months ago
@TheGoldenKing20 Where did you say that I said I liked communism? and Chomsky? Generally when you make assertions you have to have evidence. So where is your evidence that Chomsky or me like communism?
RPShredow 6 months ago
@RPShredow It's obvious in the way you and that worm talk and act, but by all means, deny it. You're not actually fooling anyone, people aren't dumb, you know? They can spot you, and as such, they'll keep you dismissing you as communists. So again, it makes no difference to me whether you admit to being a commie or not.
TheGoldenKing20 6 months ago
@TheGoldenKing20 How is it obvious? And how am I denying it or confirming it? I'm I trying to fool anyone? The high and mighty capitalist trying to expose communist hiding under rocks and in dark places, lol your funny dude, the cold war ended decades ago. You can come out of your bomb shelter its safe now.
See till you have evidence its just an assumption, I could say your a three toed tree sloth but until I have evidence it doesn't mean shit. Just like what your saying.
RPShredow 6 months ago
@RPShredow Again, why do I need to prove anything? People already know you are commies just from the way you talk and act, and so they just dismiss you as communists. What benefit does actually proving it has to me? None at all.
TheGoldenKing20 6 months ago
@TheGoldenKing20 LOL Yea I'm sure TONS of people are reading this and really give a shit. Whatever I am least I'm not a narcissist like you.
My proof your a narcissist? You think there are people that give a shit what you say on the comments on a random youtube video where from looking not one person said they agree with you and that you don't actually need to prove anything cause your proof is your the one who is saying it.
RPShredow 6 months ago
@TheGoldenKing20 You want my proof that chomsky isn't a communist?
watch?v=bieFwutoqvA at 7:10 "I think states ought to dissolve cause I think they are illegitimate structures." If he thinks that then why would he support a system in which the state controls everything?
watch?v=8aYt_fAEzmo he talks about how these totalitarianism companies we have should be restructured into democracies so that every worker has a equal say in what happened in the company, doesn't sound communist to me.
RPShredow 6 months ago
@TheGoldenKing20 you need to prove what you are saying because almost nobody gives a fuck what you think, the sooner you realize that the better off you'll be. You strike me as a crony capitalist, one of those daft cunts who goes around screaming obama is a socialist and a communist and a marxist but when G. W. Promised the banks 700 billion didnt say a word. You are just as bad as the people you hate you are the opposite side of the same stupid coin.
something86783 6 months ago
@TheGoldenKing20 Also you're wrong.
something86783 6 months ago
@TheGoldenKing20 Well how about that. Someone agrees with me instead of you.
RPShredow 6 months ago
@RPShredow I agree with you.And that was a disturbing thing to read what sounded like a paranoid raving lunatic shout at you "I know you are but what am I."
Someone who is incapable of using reason can not provide a reasoned argument for why they think the way they do.And when they run out of ways to call you a name they fall silent and probably go hit someone smaller than themselves to blow off steam.I think you handled it well though.It aint easy being patient with the irrational.Well done.
AL13NM 5 months ago