Noam Chomsky: Is Capitalism Making Life Better?

[☭proletarian☭]

Which of the nations would do better under communism than capitalism?

That's right, you can't defend capitalism, so instead you change to a totally irrelevant subject

 

[PoliticalChic]

Which of the nations would do better under communism than capitalism?

That's right, you can't defend capitalism, so instead you change to a totally irrelevant subject

Not only did I defend the best economic system yet devised, but have suggested a course of self-education for you.

I have no doubt that you are totally unaware of Kondratiev Wave Theorey, nor even of Kondratiev.

I offered you a clue to aid in your understanding of economics, yet it had no purchase on what passes for your mind. While being ignorant is no sin, refusing to remedy the situation is.

As you have shown an inability to be educated, it is no wonder that you declined the suggestion.

And, as an aside, yet evidenced here, I, being articulate, have no need for emoticons. It is clear why you do.

 

[uscitizen]

The keyword is "theory".

Our economic theories did not work so well for us now did they?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The keyword is "theory".

Our economic theories did not work so well for us now did they?

Please, re-read post #20 for indications that capitalism does, indeed, work.

And I hope that you have not reverted to one sentence posts.

 

[uscitizen]

The keyword is "theory".

Our economic theories did not work so well for us now did they?

Please, re-read post #20 for indications that capitalism does, indeed, work.

And I hope that you have not reverted to one sentence posts.

Can't count count to two?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The keyword is "theory".

Our economic theories did not work so well for us now did they?

Please, re-read post #20 for indications that capitalism does, indeed, work.

And I hope that you have not reverted to one sentence posts.

Can't count count to two?

Can,can,so,so.

I'll assume, then that in actuality you agree that, referring to capitalism, there is no better economic system extant.

And, should you be interested in a discussion of Chomsky, I suggest the book "United in Hate," by Glazov, in which he speaks of Chomsky, observes something along these lines:

"The leftist believer identifies with movements such as communism, or radical Islamism, and spurns democracy, capitalism, individuality and personal freedom, yet his mottos include “peace,” “social justice,” and “equality.” The Left’s supposed love for humanity is obviated by its hatred of individuals. The Left has no criticism for societies that practice racism, sexism, homophobia, as long as they claim enmity with America."

 

[☭proletarian☭]

You want an education regarding economics, PC? Read Engels, Marx, Ludwig von Mises, Thomas, E. Woods, Garrison, Jevons, your choice of material from this list, and that dimwit Keyens. Hell, ifyou really wantsome laughs, read that retard Ricardo or whatever his nam,e was.

It will easily become apparent who knew what they were talking about (mostly the Austrians, although Marx, Engels, and others provide valid warnings about why the capitalist beast must always be muzzled.)

America has succeeded not because of unabashed capitalism, but because the capitalist beast ias kept muzzled and upon a short leash. Left alone, this beast enslaves, oppresses, and exploits the common man to line the pockets of the capitalist and the politician. Neocolonialism and its sister Globalism are the natural spawn of capitalism left to its own devices. To achieve a prosperous and egalitarian civilization, the market must be watched closely, the capitalist must be ever under the threat of having his head removed, the records of the bankers must be forcefully put into the open for all to review, the State and the Union must stand beside the labourer in order to ensure his safety. Those who use cadmium and lead in their products must be forcefully imprisoned or denied any right at all to to enter the market.

Only then can any but the bourgeoisie be safe, secure, and prosperous in what necessarily must become pseudo-capitalist society.

 

[uscitizen]

Well you lost me on quoting a Chomsky opponent there.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Well you lost me on quoting a Chomsky opponent there.

Were you addressing me or PC?

 

[Xenophon]

in fact, capitalism makes for a better life for everyone.

Tell that to India, Viet Nam, the child labourers in China, the child labourers in America before the labour movement gained power, or a mother whose child is now dead from cadmium poisoning because some capitalist wanted a bigger profit margin.

Aww, cry me a river for the poor oppressed prolatariat.

That still live poor and oppressed in India, Viet Nam and China.

 

[uscitizen]

well you lost me on quoting a chomsky opponent there.

were you addressing me or pc?

pc.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You want an education regarding economics, PC? Read Engels, Marx, Ludwig von Mises, Thomas, E. Woods, Garrison, Jevons, your choice of material from this list, and that dimwit Keyens. Hell, ifyou really wantsome laughs, read that retard Ricardo or whatever his nam,e was.

It will easily become apparent who knew what they were talking about (mostly the Austrians, although Marx, Engels, and others provide valid warnings about why the capitalist beast must always be muzzled.)

America has succeeded not because of unabashed capitalism, but because the capitalist beast ias kept muzzled and upon a short leash. Left alone, this beast enslaves, oppresses, and exploits the common man to line the pockets of the capitalist and the politician. Neocolonialism and its sister Globalism are the natural spawn of capitalism left to its own devices. To achieve a prosperous and egalitarian civilization, the market must be watched closely, the capitalist must be ever under the threat of having his head removed, the records of the bankers must be forcefully put into the open for all to review, the State and the Union must stand beside the labourer in order to ensure his safety. Those who use cadmium and lead in their products must be forcefully imprisoned or denied any right at all to to enter the market.

Only then can any but the bourgeoisie be safe, secure, and prosperous in what necessarily must become pseudo-capitalist society.

Nicely written.

I kinda' liked reading that.

But glaring errors in concept.

"...exploits the common man to line the pockets of the capitalist..."

One would have to work long and hard to be even more incorrect.

You see, we, the people of America, are the capitalists of which you speak. 97% of millionaires earned their money. Pension systems are invested in the stock market.

"Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.

These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society.

Most intellectuals today are aware of what communism, socialism, totalitarianism, or any central command-and-control doctrine has done in Russia, under Mao’s reign of terror, or Cuba or other grotesque examples. Yet great numbers of them will use every excuse to avoid attributing the problems to their economic systems. Even a superficial comparison of North and South Korea, East and West Germany before the Berlin Wall fell, Hong Kong and Mainland China before reforms, or Cuba and other countries in Latin America, demonstrate that free economies are superior at promoting the common good. And yet the mystification continues. Socialist true believers have the power to cloud their own minds.

Older socialists dreamed of a world in which all classes would share in the fruits of the world. Yet when a permutation of this emerges, it is resented if it represents capitalism. An institution beyond the imaginings of socialists of old: Wal-Mart. Within Wal-Mart we see a cornucopia of goods designed to improve human well-being, at prices that make them affordable for all. Millions of jobs are created, and prosperity is spread throughout areas where it was sorely needed. An entity owned by share-holders, people of mostly moderate incomes who have invested their savings, worker-capitalists."


https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=05

 

[☭proletarian☭]

ts of the capitalist..."

One would have to work long and hard to be even more incorrect.

Before the labour movement and egalitarian leftists (with roots reaching back to the First International) muzzled the capitalist beast, we saw capitalism in all its raw glory.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Condition-Working-England-Oxford-Classics/dp/0192836889]Amazon.com: The Condition of the Working Class in England (Oxford World's Classics) (9780192836885): Friedrich Engels, David McLellan: Books[/ame]

In much of the third world, where the capitalist can effectively run the nation for a few days' profits, child labour and extremely hazardous working conditions are still prevalent.

When Man becomes yet another resource, more material for the final product, a squishy little cog in the capitalist machine, he soon finds he has just as many rights as any other cog- none at all.

I suggest you ask your local librarian for a history of the labour movement and workers' rights.

"Marxism

I don't careabout Marxism. I am not a Marxist of the true sense and Marx was not a Marxist of the true sort in which you believe.

rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished,

And they did until the progeny of the International rose up as a hydra of labour rights and unions, demanding the capitalist beast be shackled and kept from trampling the lower classes. The rise of the middle class was made possible by the restriction of the market and the 'Divine Right of the Wealthy'.

Most intellectuals today are aware of what communism, socialism, totalitarianism, or any central command-and-control doctrine has done in Russia, under Mao’s reign of terror, or Cuba or other grotesque examples.

Wrong. Idiots like you think that.

Intellectuals know that not one of those you listed were communist in nature. All were totalitarian oligarchies.

Try thinking for yourself for once instead of copy-pasting whatever propaganda you're fed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

ts of the capitalist..."

One would have to work long and hard to be even more incorrect.

Before the labour movement and egalitarian leftists (with roots reaching back to the First International) muzzled the capitalist beast, we saw capitalism in all its raw glory.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Condition-Working-England-Oxford-Classics/dp/0192836889]Amazon.com: The Condition of the Working Class in England (Oxford World's Classics) (9780192836885): Friedrich Engels, David McLellan: Books[/ame]

In much of the third world, where the capitalist can effectively run the nation for a few days' profits, child labour and extremely hazardous working conditions are still prevalent.

When Man becomes yet another resource, more material for the final product, a squishy little cog in the capitalist machine, he soon finds he has just as many rights as any other cog- none at all.

I suggest you ask your local librarian for a history of the labour movement and workers' rights.

"Marxism

I don't careabout Marxism. I am not a Marxist of the true sense and Marx was not a Marxist of the true sort in which you believe.

rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished,

And they did until the progeny of the International rose up as a hydra of labour rights and unions, demanding the capitalist beast be shackled and kept from trampling the lower classes. The rise of the middle class was made possible by the restriction of the market and the 'Divine Right of the Wealthy'.

Most intellectuals today are aware of what communism, socialism, totalitarianism, or any central command-and-control doctrine has done in Russia, under Mao’s reign of terror, or Cuba or other grotesque examples.

Wrong. Idiots like you think that.

Intellectuals know that not one of those you listed were communist in nature. All were totalitarian oligarchies.

Try thinking for yourself for once instead of copy-pasting whatever propaganda you're fed.

Could it be that the old saw " none so blind as he who will not see" was written with you in mind?

From a review of Revel's last book.

You should do a little reading.

I take that back: you'd continue to deny reality.

"Revel hated all utopias, and always put reality first. For him, the plain facts showed that capitalism worked better than socialism. Yet self-proclaimed intellectuals stuck to socialism even after it had clearly failed. Throughout his career, Revel would attack, with vivacity and much humor, the blindness of these leftist thinkers. In Last Exit to Utopia, Revel systematically contrasted the indisputable realities with the stubborn leftist commitment to dubious social experiments.

"He wondered why educated scholars would elevate utopian fantasy above reality? The failures of the Soviet Union, its mass cruelties, had been known in the West since the 1930's: André Gide had denounced them in his book, 'Return from the USSR'. Scholars and journalists in the West did not need to wait for Solzhenitsyn to learn about the existence of the Gulag. Yet these truths had little consequence. Leftist intellectuals rationalized any bad news by explaining that the Soviet Union did not practice “real socialism.”

Revel’s books are thus deeply relevant to the current American debate on the future role of government: should good intentions (like “health care for all”) take precedence over the predictable bad results of such measures? Should political myths (the benevolent state) be fought with facts, or by promoting counter-myths (like the libertarian utopia)?"

Bad Ideas Never Die by Guy Sorman, City Journal 18 December 2009

 

[☭proletarian☭]

"Revel hated all utopias,

And? He would have then laughed at the capitalist Utopia idiots like you believe in.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Revel hated all utopias,

And? He would have then laughed at the capitalist Utopia idiots like you believe in.

This is your second less than civil use of 'idiot,' forcing me to return the favor: Liberal!

 

[☭proletarian☭]

"Revel hated all utopias,

And? He would have then laughed at the capitalist Utopia idiots like you believe in.

This is your second less than civil use of 'idiot,' forcing me to return the favor: Liberal!

Definitions of liberal on the Web:

• broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant ...
• having political or social views favoring reform and progress
• tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
• a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
• a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
• One with liberal views, supporting individual liberty
• liberalness - liberality: an inclination to favor progress and individual freedom
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

How revealing that you consider these to be horrible things and that you accuse someone of believing in liberty as an insult.

 

[Oldandtired]

"Revel hated all utopias,

And? He would have then laughed at the capitalist Utopia idiots like you believe in.

This is your second less than civil use of 'idiot,' forcing me to return the favor: Liberal!

Excellent.

 

[Oldandtired]

And? He would have then laughed at the capitalist Utopia idiots like you believe in.

This is your second less than civil use of 'idiot,' forcing me to return the favor: Liberal!

Definitions of liberal on the Web:

• broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant ...
• having political or social views favoring reform and progress
• tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
• a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
• a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
• One with liberal views, supporting individual liberty
• liberalness - liberality: an inclination to favor progress and individual freedom
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

How revealing that you consider these to be horrible things and that you accuse someone of believing in liberty as an insult.

And you belkieve that such are the layman's definition of liberal?

Then you dont even know what you are.

 

[Oldandtired]

And? He would have then laughed at the capitalist Utopia idiots like you believe in.

This is your second less than civil use of 'idiot,' forcing me to return the favor: Liberal!

Definitions of liberal on the Web:

• broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant ...
• having political or social views favoring reform and progress
• tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
• a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
• a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
• One with liberal views, supporting individual liberty
• liberalness - liberality: an inclination to favor progress and individual freedom
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

How revealing that you consider these to be horrible things and that you accuse someone of believing in liberty as an insult.

So one that believes that the government can bail them out when they need it to is one that favors individual freedom.

One that believes the government should protect them from making poor decisions is one that favors individeual freedom

I may be wrong....but I see that as being dependant...not INdependant.