To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Noam Chomsky's Blog » Market Principles?

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

9

Noam Chomsky's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky
Bio: (More)

All Chomsky Blogs

Recent Chomsky Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books
Zvideo_icon ZStores

Market Principles?

By Noam Chomsky at Sep 19, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
Take the US. In 1750… it was one of the richest societies on earth, but it was, of course, pre-industrial. If it had pursued its comparative advantage in accordance with market principles, it would now be exporting fish, fur, agricultural products, etc. Instead, it industrialized, but not by adherence to market principles. Rather, by radical violation of these principles consciously undertaken to change its comparative advantage (otherwise known as development). Did it participate in "globalization"? Sure. Cotton in the early period of industrialization was rather like oil today, and the US was the major cotton exporter, thanks to extermination or expulsion of the native population and slavery -- not exactly in accord with market principles, but perhaps the world's leading illustration of "globalization." Part of the motive for annexing Texas and conquering about half of Mexico was to try to gain a monopoly over cotton, to bring the major rival, England, to our feet, as the Jacksonian Democrats proclaimed -- rather like the charges against Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait, though in this case much more realistic. Not market economies, but certainly export orientation, hence "globalization." These are standard features of economic history. They include the current poster children, China and India. China is among the most extreme violators of market principles, and one of the leading exporters (though a good deal of the export, particularly towards the higher technology end, is foreign owned). So it illustrates "globalization," but not market principles. India is similar…the inequalities are extraordinary. The same neoliberal principles that lead commentators to swoon over the marvelous high tech centers in Hyderabad and Bangalore are a primary cause of the rise of peasant suicides right nearby, as the rural economy is devastated by withdrawal of state support for credit, irrigation, etc., and pressures on poor farmers to undertake very hazardous production of export crops. The results are a horror for the majority of the population. China appears to be similar, but in its much more closed society inquiry is more constrained. In brief, these formulas don't mean much. What does mean a lot, however, are some of the phenomena reviewed in the UN development report …which, incidentally, is a scathing indictment of US government policies, facts not mentioned in the news reports I saw. Take child poverty in England. It increased sharply during the neoliberal Thatcher years, pursuing the principles of "market economies," and declined sharply when the government began carrying out fiscal and other policies to support poor families, violating market principles but acting more humanely. Choice of policies depends on what goals one wants to achieve.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (183)

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Antiamerican800, Bernardo at Oct 29, 2005 04:55 AM
Well anyman who quotes the likes of Don Dellilo will get no support from me. And I doubt the Cree people regard themselves as the wimps that Demers displaced leftwing Canadian racism would have us believe they are. North American Indians were warlike, largely patriarchal (chiefs), and religious. Not an ideal culture for urban liberal/leftists to use as a proxy for their own need to manage and control others. But they probably got their stereotype ideas about Indians from wishy-washy, genteel, feminist, half-breeds like Louise Erdich. Why do so many leftists admire the Manhattan socialite Don Dellilo? This is typical of the adolescent rummies who go to private liberal arts colleges around Cape Cod.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Oct 19, 2005 18:42 PM
I never said I was opposed to change because of its risk of complacency, I said it was because the outcome produced complacency. Take the Keynsian discussion, I was not against the actual advances, only the way the advances haulted further advances by assuageing the momoentum of labors emacipation from domination. As here with the Bono case, I am not opposed to debt reduction, I am opposed to the idea that debt reduction will do anything (something you have not proven to me) Moreover, it is truly debilitating to movements against global capitalism to have people accepting these ideas, to accept that the problem lies in the indebtedness itself and not the system that perpetuates this indebtedness. "To discuss that risk loudly is, of course, vital, but that only discusses attitudes, not intrinsic possibilities." This statement I don't get. Are you implying that there is an intrinsic possibility that debt reduction will eleviate the problem of poverty? I agree with you bwong that we should not push people away from the issue of debt forgiveness, but, I am still struggling with it as a bandaid. I am also struggling with the whole notion of bandaid politics. I understand the desire to reform to satisfy immediate concerns, but am complexed by the notion of the immediate satisfication as preventing or slowing future postitive change. There must be a logical solution, I will have to think about it further.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Soldier, Union at Oct 19, 2005 05:03 AM
The debate ends when action and compromise begin.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Oct 18, 2005 23:40 PM
I don't want to second guess the sincerity of Bono. I'm not going to throw stone at an individual who I think does want to use his influence to do some good. But I am afraid he is a bit naive. Sadly his bargain with power hasn't really achieve anything other than being exploited by the powerful for PR sake. Nevermind the sematics of "debt forgiveness". The whole thing is a scam. There was no "debt forgiveness",--or whatever euphemism one uses,-- peroid. The countries they have "forgiven" happen to be those who are going to default anyway.These countries have not been making any payment for a while even without being "forgiven". On the other hand, poor countries that continue to meet their payments at a cost of a big chunk of their GDPs and hungry children got no relief.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Oct 18, 2005 18:58 PM
"your position reminds me of the almost universally unsuccessful Marxist attitude that we should just wait for the system to collapse" Not at all, what I was attepting to elucidate was that it is detrimental to build false perceptions about 1) the charitable nature of our society and 2) that the solution is simple and not requireing personal sacrifices. "we're back to the question: Should we feed the poor?" This is of course a rediculous attept to draw an ethical line between us. We all want the poor to be fed, the question is how do we accomplish this. The recent cancellation of debt which was reversed by decreases in aid shows that Bono has not accomplish anything except to convince the public, and Frederic, that we are solving the problem. "..since it wouldn't complete the revolution, it would implicitly say that the system is okay." My response to this and the general point I am attempting to make is that we should never think the system is okay or that it should not be criticized, every reform should be questioned and pushed further. The problem, IMO, arises when people become complacent and think we have come far enough and our job is to continue to push the thinking of the public to seek more. That is why an overstatement of Bono's work, having so far not accomplishing anything, is very dangerous and counter productive. We need to elicite a response from common people, sure stars can help but, they cannot do it for us.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Soldier, Union at Oct 18, 2005 08:38 AM
I have a question for Noam Chomsky, if he would be so humble to answer a peon. Are you a part of a community block watch that is in a bad neighborhood? (Answer: yes I am a citizen of the USA) Please submit a comment in your own language.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Oct 18, 2005 06:32 AM
I completely disagree with you on Bono Frederick. He only helps to perpetuate (along with A. jolene (sp?) and b. Pitt) the notion that as a society we can be completely over the top in our devotion and completely wasteful in our spending money on "artists" and still change the world. He perpetuates the notion that the world is going to be ok, that the system is fine. It is like the stories about food shelters and salvo bell ringers, they reinforce the notion that we are a charitable society. When infact we are not. The best thing artists can do is to sing,or paint or write about these issues they care about. To pretend that a few meetings with the pope and attending the world econ forum proves that everything will be just fine. As for the GOP running up the debt, this is reagonomics. You ruin the economy by giving all of the budget to the wealth through tax cuts and run up a huge debt. Then the workers can pay the debt back because the dollar is weaker, so essentally we pay back less. They do it every ten years or so, its how this lazy class of elites keeps thier wealth without actually producing anything.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Soldier, Union at Oct 18, 2005 05:30 AM
I juat gotta say, Chomsky is right. After analyzing countless moral discussions of immortal men, I see why Dr. Chomsky is the most cited living being on the planet. This is a good reason to have faith. This is why I say start the draft, and tax the sinners. You can all sit around debating until the end of time. Chomsky never loses a debate in person, and that is why he's not mainstream, he's like Ross Perot in a way, he tells it like it is. The problem in this land of compromise, is that no one is willing to compromise unless someone else is paying for it. Our economy is fueled by debt, and the right wing is trying to declare bankruptcy and tell all the lenders that they are SOL. This is bad for the future of America, it's like renegging on a bet, rightwingers are bluffers. Start the draft, let the chickenhawks run to the Caymans, thank the gods for global warming.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Antiamerican800, Bernardo at Oct 17, 2005 23:56 PM
Gore Vidal and Harold Pinter are spiritless automatons and their writings have already become the literary equivalent of lava lamps. It's because of party-hacks like these that accounts for The National Endowment for the Arts "Reading at Risk" statistics. They perfectly embody the sniffing egocentric complacency that has given the humanities the intellectual slum status it well deserves. And nobody reads their atheistic unimaginative junk except neurotic ivy leaguers in Reeboks. PS I guess Pinter has no scruples in sharing a trophy with Henry Kissenger, but it's nice getting away to the South of France. Even the likes of Jean Paul Sartre had stronger convictions.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Bewarefalseprophets, Bewarefalseprophets at Oct 16, 2005 17:20 PM
I don't know what you Chomsky supporters are up to. Do you really think ramming Chomsky down everyone's throat until they choke will win you support for your cause. Except, of course, you don't have a cause. You have a cult! This all seems to be a childish game to my eyes, a boxing match using minds instead of fists. Who's Chomsky's opponent this time? Will Chomsky score a knockout in the second round. Ding, ding. The bout begins! Yes, and a very well paid boxer Chomsky is, too. But then, the entertainment business is known to pay well.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Bewarefalseprophets, Bewarefalseprophets at Oct 16, 2005 16:41 PM
As for calling the-abyss “envious” and “inadequate” – that's the same tactic the right and Wal-Mart use to justify low wages and eradicating unions. In a recent issue of BusinessWeek, the CEO of Wal-Mart, Lee Scott Jr, responded to accusations of paying low wages by saying (I'm paraphrasing): at Wal-Mart we do pay low wages; however, there are few corporations where you can work your way up from trolley-cart collector to vice president. You have to look at the whole picture. For those who are prepared to work hard, who want to lift themselves out of poverty, we offer them the opportunity to do so. In other words, workers who remain at the bottom are "inadequate" and "envious", just like the-abyss. How many vice president positions does Lee Scott think there are? To have winners, you have to have losers. And get this: being a loser doesn't necessarily mean being third-rate. Athletes are extremely fit, far fitter than the rest of us. But the system is searching for a single winner, and that's usually how it turns out. So, even if everyone runs a fast race, the loser, the person at the bottom, might be the person who was 0.4 seconds slower than everyone else. Hardly a loser! But as far as the system is concerned, they are - they're an abject failure! All sorts of misfortune and bad luck can hold someone back in life. Will the posters on this board start living in the real world.

Reply this comment

Person

By Bewarefalseprophets, Bewarefalseprophets at Oct 16, 2005 15:57 PM
The message Chomsky is sending people is this: if you can't turn dissent into a profitable second job, don't bother dissenting.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Soldier, Union at Oct 16, 2005 05:59 AM
I say we start the draft, because, most of us are good people. Starting the draft takes the power from the hands of organized criminals and places it in the hands of the folks who want to fight for what is right, or rebuild the infrastructure of our faltering nation. I say start the draft, and win the war for energy independence. I say start a national and state sin tax to apease the religious extremists.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Bewarefalseprophets, Bewarefalseprophets at Oct 15, 2005 22:30 PM
Part 4 This creates an unfair system, certainly, as not everyone is able to take what they "need", and many will be left with nothing, save a mountain of debt. But it has to be this way to reward those at the top, the members of the elite, such as Chomsky, for their oh-so-precious time. So, will someone please tell Chomsky to stop carping on about income disparities and the growing gap between the rich and the poor, and the exploitation of Second and Third World countries. For Chomsky, himself, is a firm believer in income inequality and arbitrary wage levels. In fact, a CEO is far more entitled to his huge sums than Chomsky is, because a CEO has to run a company, whereas Chomsky's utterances contribute nothing to the economy. If Chomsky wants to be a "capitalist" - he should be one! Chomsky isn't even influential. If he were, it would justify a fraction of the money he receives. He said Kerry was preferable to Bush - then the American public voted/allowed Bush back into office. Evidently, the lives of foreigners are irrelevant to Americans. After forty long years, Chomsky still can't proffer a solution as to how to go about changing the system. That would not be too objectionable if WE weren't paying him over $10 million a year PRO RATA to moonlight - or should that be, to masquerade! - as an "activist". The guy simply moans about the government and the media, makes people even more despondent, and then grabs a check and leaves. A real man of the people!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Bewarefalseprophets, Bewarefalseprophets at Oct 15, 2005 21:45 PM
Part 3 What gives Chomsky the right to condemn the greed of corporations, CEOs, investors, currency traders, or, indeed, anyone, when he has admitted, quite clearly, by word and by deed, that without greed he could not continue his "activism"? Chomsky talks about people in Third World countries overcoming tremendous odds to win great victories. Why is it, then, that Chomsky himself is incapable of making the material sacrifices necessary to fight for a cause he claims is worth fighting for? Has everyone forgotten that a person is meant to put their money where their mouth is? And I'm not talking about making charitable donations. I'm talking about changing how we live in order to change how the system works. Greed is not a word that exists in Chomsky's vocabulary. Chomsky charges $12,000 because that is the amount he "needs" to keep going. Some "need" more; others "need" less. If the rest of us were allowed to follow Chomsky's example (remember, he effectively sets his own wage as regards his activist "work"), we would be able to take from the system whatever amount we said we required. This is effectively what the elite do, which is why they are so privileged. In Chomsky's case, it's $12,000 for an hour or two of speaking. For a CEO, it's in the order of $10 million a year (per hour, that's actually less than Chomsky).

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Bewarefalseprophets, Bewarefalseprophets at Oct 15, 2005 21:21 PM
Part 2 The lead singer of U2, Bono, dubbed Chomsky "a rebel without pause". Real rebels, real revolutionaries, do not ask the system they despise to provide them with a luxury lifestyle for attempting to overthrow it. To accuse the-abyss of being obsessed with money, as one poster did, is absurd. First, if you're "poor", you are, by necessity, obsessed with money. You have just enough to buy the weekly groceries and pay the rent, and that's all. You don't have enough to go out and have a good time, to mix with others. You merely live from week to week in semi isolation. If a person wasn't obsessed with money in such a situation, they'd quickly end up on the streets. The system forces people in such a position to constantly think about money - don't blame them for that! True obsession with money is a wealthy man, flush with cash, demanding $12,000 an hour to speak, and then asking for another $12,000 to give the same speech someplace else. Why does a man need so much wealth? To ensure that his family is well taken care of when he dies, most likely. There's Chomsky whining on about the unfairness of eliminating estate taxes, which allows the rich to pass on more of their wealth to their offspring, when Chomsky is perpetrating a similar scam: imposing a tax on the rest of us by charging universities astronomically high prices to have him as a guest speaker – and all in the name of securing financial security for his family when he dies.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Bewarefalseprophets, Bewarefalseprophets at Oct 15, 2005 20:56 PM
Part 1 "For generations we have been told as Americans that the reason behind the success of the American economy is 'hard work'. I hate to say this, but that is a lie; out and out, it's a lie. "The truth is that the ECONOMIC FREEDOMS that we enjoy here in America, and the LIFESTYLES that we all live, are a product of years of American global oppression. That's why there are terrorists in the world that hate America, and whether or not American citizens know it, the rest of the world knows it." http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/understanding_the_real_factors_b.htm "Care to hear Noam Chomsky skewer America's soulless, capitalist wealth and privilege? It will set you back $12,000..." http://washtimes.com/culture/20040607-011222-2830r.htm http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13616 Despite Chomsky's fine words, he's happy to enjoy AN ALL AMERICAN LIFESTYLE that's founded upon oppression. If Chomsky is not prepared to make any material sacrifices, to forgo some material wealth, why should anyone else? What the-abyss failed to make explicit was, by charging $12,000 to speak, Chomsky is saying to people: if you don't pay me this arbitrary sum of money, I'm not going to speak. Doesn't sound much like a man motivated by conviction, does it? "Here's your check, Mr. Chomsky, and thanks so much for playing the role of a rebel for the day. The students were impressed."

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Otto, Steve at Oct 15, 2005 06:59 AM
Maybe they'll just use worker owned trucks and planes. I'm not terribly worried about it.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Soldier, Union at Oct 15, 2005 05:46 AM
I say we start the draft.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Oct 12, 2005 20:59 PM
In meant "the micro origin of time's arrow"

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Oct 12, 2005 20:38 PM
In an elastic collision KINETIC energy conserves. In an inelastic one it doesn't but the TOTAL energy(+ mass) still conserve. If there is no loss to heat(in micro situation) the "lost" kinetic energy can be recovered as work. In an inelastic collision between free particles,--not attached to a macro specimen,--the "lost" kinetic energy becomes mass and potential energy(in rearranging the parts of the particles)It is completely recoverable. Elasticity is unrelated to entropy per se. Entropy is a "macro" concept.It has no meaning when there are only a handful of simple, subatomic particles. This is related to one of the most fascinating question in physics. Where does the direction of time come from? If you look at the "history" of a few subatomic particles you can't tell the past from the future. They bounce off each other in exactly the same way. Dynamics is timeless. You run the equations backward and they are exactly the same. Now if a film shows pieces of a broken glass gather themselves together to form a whole glass you know the film is run backward. There is a difference between past and future in the macro world. Entropy is unidirectional. It only increases in time. The glass exists in a lower entropy form as a whole glass than as broken pieces. Since the film shows a decrease in entropy it must be run backward. How to reconcile this two pictures and locate the micro origin of time is a deep question.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Allen, Robert at Oct 12, 2005 02:37 AM
"I think that institutionalizing trade unions into the social structure would helpful, national health care that also acts to educate, free higher education and national wage standards based on a living wage would go a long way in creating a more civil society. I think that poverty could be eradicated by reforming social security into two separate line items." MARK fULLER I agree with these ideas, Mark, but such reforms could not be achieved without workers achieving control of the MOP. The "thugs," being thugs, will not grant these things while they can still exploit the rest of us.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Oct 12, 2005 00:36 AM
"Of course matter does equate to energy, but that doesn't make all matter/energy literally equivalent - if it did, we wouldn't have an energy problem, as any tiny bit of matter could be turned into an equivalent bit of energy multipled by 186,000 mps or so^2" This is nuclear energy. But the use of nuclear power raises other issues which are outside physics perse. Actually we don't have an "energy problem" Energy conserves. But what we needs are USEFUL energy. That is, energy is "organized" form,--or low entropy form. When you push a cart, some energy you expend converts into work. But your input is ALWAYS MORE than the work output because INEVITABLY some of your energy is "wasted" in the form of heat, or molecular chaos is microscopic term. "Heat" is an unorganised,--high entropy,--form of energy and is therefore useless. The second law says no matter how you draw your balance sheet you always get less work than the energy you put in. Some energy is wasted irrecoverably as "heat"(or to use an analogy, you can't avoid "externalities" in any economy). Thus a *closed system* inevitably winds down. To keep a system running some *external* "order" must be injected. I'm not being deliberately technical here. Entropy and energy are related but very different concepts. In a close system energy conserves but entropy(disorderliness) always increases.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Oct 12, 2005 00:05 AM
The atmosphere is only a "filter". We're not sealed in a vault. It is a very fine tuned filtering system with just the right amount and right kind of porousness. According to most scientists,--except those Bush listens to,--through excessive industrial activities and questionable practises we may be in the process of resetting the swicthes of this filter without knowing the effects.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Oct 11, 2005 23:42 PM
"Bwong: Anthropocentrism isn't even a scientific principle, but a philosophical/ethical one." I know. But tell that to Bernardo. "Could we get away from the intellectual pissing match and "more scientific than thou" crap? ..the Earth is closed: its atmosphere serves as a buffer. Energetically, the Earth accepts energy but does not spit any (or much of note) back out." I know it's childish. But what galls me is that he sounds so damn confident even while he's telling you the physics equivalent of 1+1=11.Obviously he has read a few popular books on science and didn't even undertsand much of what he reads. BTW a closed system does not exchange energy or matter with the surrounding. Nothing goes in, nothing comes out. The earth actually spits back most incoming solar radiation(otherwise the temperature would keep on rising)There is an equilibrium as far as energy is concerned. But this exchange allows the earth to obtain "anti-entropy". The incoming radiation is in a low entropy form while the outgoing radiation is in a state of high entropy. This process is vital for evolution towards higher complexity on earth. The second law of thermodynamics says that a *close system* can only become less orderly as time progresses. A well known Creationist argument is that evolution is impossible because of the second law. They make the same mistake as Bernardo: the earth is not a closed system.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Oct 11, 2005 19:53 PM
Anthropocentrism is garbage,--at least the strong form or it, there are different versions. It is teleological and circular. It "explains" nothing and cannot be tested. It's not a useful "principle" in understanding the universe. "5. Neither scientists nor artists "need" patrons. Michael Faraday was poor and his accomplishments in science are inestimable, he gave free science lectures to working class audiences." Fine. But then you just shot yourself on the foot. You're the one who argued that science is intrinsically linked to corporate/state power.I was arguing that the connection is circumstantial.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Oct 11, 2005 19:26 PM
"1. If the Earth were not a closed system we would all be dead from lack of an atmosphere. What the he?? ??!!This guy is obviously just ranting. I doubt that this even makes sense to himself. "2. About 99% of all solar energy is simply lost to space only a tiny fraction of it is converted into useable energy by the Earth's biomass." It doesn't matter how much is lost. It matters how much we do get from the sun. If we get 100% of solar energy we would be cooked. "I'm not aware of anyone changing say carbon dioxide into a lump of coal. Thus bwong demonstrates his ignorance of fundamental physics." Where do you think coal comes from? Where do you think fossil fuel comes from? "6. As I said pure research is not implicated in corporate/state applications but bwong doesn't realize that most scientists today are careerists and are mostly employed in large institutions like say the Pentagon or indeed MIT." Pure researches happen in universities(or your basement if you're Faraday, but not likely) They are publicly funded. i.e by the state. There is a difference between corporate science(a lot of it is junk science) and "state funded" science. In the later case at least it is possible to incorporate democratic oversight and armslength funding regime. MIT does a lot of pure research too. E.g. Chomsky's stuff.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Fuller, Mark at Oct 11, 2005 17:16 PM
I think the phrase is, "the cream always rises to the top". In most societies, especially Western, it seems as if thugs always rise to the top.I think that the current economic and government structures are unsustainable and revolution is in order. A society envisioned by Chomsky is I think not only unattainable but ultimately unsustainable because the thugs will always be in the mix preying on us during recess in the schoolyard. I think that institutionalizing trade unions into the social structure would helpful, national health care that also acts to educate, free higher education and national wage standards based on a living wage would go a long way in creating a more civil society. I think that poverty could be eradicated by reforming social security into two separate line items. The first is social security functions (insurance and disability functions) other than the pension like functions be separated out and paid into in a flat percentage all of the way up the pay scale; none of this non-contribution past the 90K thing. The pension piece would also go all of the way up the pay scale as well and be managed the same way it is now and benefits would capped but it would function more like a private account whose balance could be passed onto other family members social security accounts upon death. All of this combined I would believe eradicate poverty as we know it.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Antiamerican800, Bernardo at Oct 11, 2005 06:22 AM
6. As I said pure research is not implicated in corporate/state applications but bwong doesn't realize that most scientists today are careerists and are mostly employed in large institutions like say the Pentagon or indeed MIT. 7. Bwong demonstrates his science illiteracy again by referring to Rare Earth theory as "rubbish". Here's an educative link http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0387987010/theplanetarysoci/103-3381361-6996658 8. It is anti-Copernican because it is anthropocentric. I think it's safe to say that extraterrestrial life would not be Christian or Buddhist, etc. Or even necessarily religious. The more abundant such life exists any religious belief would seem increasingly false. A mere idiosyncrasy of a particular short-lived vertebrate. Most scientists regard the origin of life as being do to "chance' anyway. So that's a non sequitur from Frederic. If the universe is empty of life EXCEPT on Earth it begins to look like more then chance is at work. 9. It's a fact that most scientists today work in large bureaucratized industries and institutions thus bwong's contention that the "typical" scientist despises authority is foolish nonsense. 10. Highly intelligent technologically advanced civilizations is what I said. Not mere "life.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Antiamerican800, Bernardo at Oct 11, 2005 05:52 AM
1. If the Earth were not a closed system we would all be dead from lack of an atmosphere. I'm not aware of anyone changing say carbon dioxide into a lump of coal. Thus bwong demonstrates his ignorance of fundamental physics. 2. About 99% of all solar energy is simply lost to space only a tiny fraction of it is converted into useable energy by the Earth's biomass. 3. Sunlight is diffuse and must be concentrated in order to extract useable work, through photosynthesis say. But a plant cannot grow in a total desert it need concentrated minerals extracted from the soil. The earth is a closed system because it's stock of minerals, soil, etc has been fixed since congealing out of a nebula billions of years ago. If not where is the "new" soil coming from? 4. Art does not "always' become propaganda. 5. Neither scientists nor artists "need" patrons. Michael Faraday was poor and his accomplishments in science are inestimable, he gave free science lectures to working class audiences. Most fiction writers since the 19th century anyway have come predominantly from the middle class thus are not overtly beholden to corporate edicts.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Oct 11, 2005 03:37 AM
I meant "(s)he tend to be informal and has low tolerance for bs". "Though it is an interesting question as to whether life of some kind (whether carbon-based or not) is rare or frequent in our universe.." Federic One has to first define what "life" is, let alone sentient life. It turns out defining "life" is not so easy. James Lovelock got a big grant from NASA to study the possibility of life on the moon. After spending all his grant on booze he realized he didn't know what the question means. He decided that the question was meaningless unless he has a satisfactory definition of life. Contemplating on this matter eventually led him to the notion of Gaia (and a place on the blacklist for NASA funding) Speaking of reincarnation you said you're a buddhist on your blog. I find it difficult to believe given your politics. The Buddhists believe that one reaps whatever one sow in his/her past life.If you're in a bad situation that is because you have done something nasty in your previous lives(the karma goes back three incarnations). This sound like blaming the victims.It seems there is no such thing as "injustice" within this framework. Victims of oppressions are merely paying for their past sins. If we keep coming back (before we reach "enlightenment" anyway) why even bother about the problems in "this life"? One lifetime is just a second out of a long day. This is not a challenge to you. I am just curious.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Oct 11, 2005 03:04 AM
"But I do think that the trend towards science is often associated with libertarianism. The Eastern libertarian tradition, the Taoists, were masterful endocrinologists and chemists. The Western libertarians like Locke, Hume, etc. were all involved in science philosophy and work." Federic Interesting point. There was a psychological study a few years ago. It compared the psychological profiles of different professions. It found that the scientist and the businessman(and the politician) were at two opposite poles of the personality spectrum. The "typical" scientist dispise authority and rules. (s)he tend to be informal and has tolerance for bs. The "typical" businessman or politician is the exact opposite. The article concluded that these conflicts in personality often put scientists in a bad position because they constantly have to negotiate fundings from people whom they dispise such as state bureaucrates and coroprate managers.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Oct 11, 2005 02:34 AM
"Between science and art I would choose art because scientists almost invariably become slaves of the state." But then art almost always becomes the tool of propaganda or commercialism.At least for artists who're not starving. Science (and art) needs patrons because scientists (and artists) need to eat and research is expensive. The patrons are necessarily people or entities who have money. This is unremarkable. Before the rise of capitalism artists and scientists sought patronage from the aristocracy and the Church(at least for the artists). Now it's the coporations and governments who hold the purse string. It's almost tautological that most science(and most art)is sponsored by corporations and/or the state. But there is no necessary connection between science and corporate-state structure anymore than there is any intrinsic link between music and the Church. Also, one should distinguish "science" from technology even though the demarcation is not always well defined. Science is actually a very sublime art form. I think the "rare earth" post is pure gibberish.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Oct 11, 2005 01:58 AM
"A planet proper in orbit around a sun is indeed a closed system once it has finished condensing out of the nebula from which it formed. It exchanges solar energy but no significant amounts of matter." If it exchanges energy with the surronding then it's not a "closed system". BTW, energy and "matter" are convertible. Remember E=mc^2? But more importantly the earth recieves anti -entropy from the sun. "Entropy" means basically "dis-orderliness" Solar radiation arrives in a low entropy form,- "organized energy". It is reemitted from earth in a form with high entropy,--"disorganized, "degraded" enegrgy. Low entropy is necessary(though of course not sufficient) for the formation of complex structures such as plants and animals on earth. "Energy shortage" is a misnomer because energy conserves therefore it will not "run out". The problem is not all energy sources are usuable for doing work. Otherwise you would be able to propel a steam ship by extracting the vast energy stored in the ocean. "Useful" energy sources (fuels) are those with low entropy. If the earth were a closed system it wouldn't be able to constantly discard entropy and "renew" itself. It would have "winded down" long ago because of the second law of thermodynamics.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Antiamerican800, Bernardo at Oct 11, 2005 01:12 AM
My last post should read "without *proving* it."

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Antiamerican800, Bernardo at Oct 11, 2005 00:27 AM
If the so called Rare Earth arguments of certain physicists are correct arguments that are fundamentally anti-Copernican then it would suggest that those with a psychological need to be atheists and/or materialists have their beliefs undermined to a certain degree. If life on Earth is such an anomalous event particularly the apparent unique intelligence of the human species then there is no reason why personal immortality after physical dissolution should be statistically impossible. A universe teeming with highly intelligent technologically advanced civilizations would argue more strongly for personal mortality at death without disproving it.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Antiamerican800, Bernardo at Oct 10, 2005 09:05 AM
I need to qualify that, or eh qualify Russell...Pure research is not implicated in state/corporate complicity in my opinion. Einstein in his pre-Princeton days for example which is when he made all of his important discoveries and contributions to knowledge. Pat Tillman is just another belligerent ignoramus. The fact that he was ultimately victimized by the forces he chose to serve doesn't change those personality defects.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Antiamerican800, Bernardo at Oct 10, 2005 07:35 AM
Between science and art I would choose art because scientists almost invariably become slaves of the state. I disagree with Chomsky that there's more intellectual freedom at a place like MIT just because science is being done there. That's absurd. Bertrand Russell once said that science only gives power to dominant groups and all existing dominant groups were evil.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Antiamerican800, Bernardo at Oct 10, 2005 07:12 AM
A planet proper in orbit around a sun is indeed a closed system once it has finished condensing out of the nebula from which it formed. It exchanges solar energy but no significant amounts of matter. Thus if you let sunshine fall into an empty glass container nothing will happen. Solar energy must "combust" so to speak with the necessary materials which are strictly limited and non-renewable. Hydro-power can use the nearly limitless resources of sea water but also requires rare metals that once depleted will render the converters obsolete. The same is true for any other alternative energy scheme. Remedies for ailments would need to be extracted from traditional cultures and their ecologies if it to benefit anyone beyond the village, it's hard to imagine how this can be done without some kind of industrial system. But I was mostly critiquing Davis's whole postmodernist outlook, such "criticism" from sociologists and literary critics like Terry Eagleton or Stanley Fish do absolutely nothing to alleviate the very real sufferings, large and small, caused by illegitimate power systems everyday. They must also be quite wealthy and privileged within their ivy league fiefdoms.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Oct 08, 2005 23:43 PM
"..The US government needed to smear him to cover up our own crimes. Nixon killed as many people as Pol Pot, so he is at least an accomplice in the “killing fields...” Yes, I know the drill. I agree with you that U.S crimes in Cambodia was comparable to Pol Pot. It's not black or white. The enemy of the bad guy doesn't have to be a good guy. There was no good guy among the players in Cambodia as far as I can tell(as are often the cases)One need not be apologetic for Pol Pot in order to condemn Nixon. Your previous post sounds like a defense for Pol Pot. Perhaps I misunderstood(and sure I hope I did)I apologize for that. ----------------------- Yeh, I think I have misunderstood r4d20's point about mathematics and availibility of computers too. But still I don't agree. Soviet mathematics,--as far as I know,--has nothing to do with ways to perform computations "by hand". I'm sure their scientists had regular access to computers if they were able to make Spunik. Also, computer were not that common in the West either prior to the late 1980's or early 1990's. By then the U.S.S.R was busted.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Otto, Steve at Oct 08, 2005 19:13 PM
To bwong , October 07 said “-Maybe I misunderstand but I get the impression that you try to argue Pol Pot was the victim of smearing. Sorry, dude, Pol Pot was a butcher. The fact that the U.S hated him didn't make him less of a monster.” First of all I agree that Pol Pot was a butcher and a monster. The US government needed to smear him to cover up our own crimes. Nixon killed as many people as Pol Pot, so he is at least an accomplice in the “killing fields.” The Republican Party needed to keep the press focused on Pol Pot's crimes in order to divert attention from our own part in the Killing fields. By focusing only on the four years of Pol Pot and his brutal policies it was possible to get the rest of the world to ignore the destruction, caused by Nixon's war. For example: Nixon's meddling in Cambodia contributed to a bloody civil war. Nixon secretly sent to Cambodia 30,000 US troops, and US planes dropped a quarter-of-a-million tons of bombs in the eastern part of the country in 140 days. That not only killed a lot of people, but left much of the farmland useless. The CIA, under Nixon, overthrew the nationalistic Norodom Sihanouk regime and replaced it with the corrupt and incompetent right-wing-military leader Lon Nol. By 1974 most of Cambodia's countryside was under the control of the National United Front of Kampuchea, a coalition that was mostly Pol Pot's Communist Party of Kampuchea and Norodom Sihanouk, a figure head, used for recruitment.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Oct 08, 2005 02:53 AM
"Soviet mathematicians were far from computer illiterate and they contribute a lot to computation science too" Obviously. You're missing my point. They had many fewer computers and more competition for their use. Consequently, they developeed sophisticated methods for doing jobs by hand when Americans would just use a computer and - therefore, did not have to develop these same techniques. How does this get interpreted as "Russians were computer illiterate?"

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Oct 07, 2005 09:32 AM
(contiued) I can't say if Soviet math is "better". It just has a very different flavour which happens to appeal to my asethetic. It is vibrant and full of vitality and treats math as a whole rather a collection of subdisciplnes like in the West. Russell's description of math as possessing a "cold" beauty like classical sculptures probably is more appropiate for the kind of hyper abstract, rigid and delicate math of say, the French school. With "market reform" apparantly the Russian school is nomore. Young, talented, mathematicans (and other scientists) are scattered around the world because researchers cannot make a living in Russia. It's sad. But then also because of this I have the priviledge to work with one of them. ------------------------------------------ Don't know what bernardo was ranting about on his thermodynamics post. But anyone who says a planet is a closed system has no business discussing science. His rants on "entropy law" and "energy conservation" are also gibberish(and wrong)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Oct 07, 2005 09:03 AM
"When you say 2 million, are you using Vietnam's numbers..or some other group's estimates?..There have been many groups of people with ample reasons to exaggerate them." hellbender So is one million ok? How about half a million? Cambodia is a small country, you know. Big numbers no doubt are often bandied about but they become meaningless after a point. Deaths becomes "just" statistics as Stalin put it; most of us cannot conceptualize such numbers. Statistics has a way to conceal horror. With bar graphs and pie charts everything becomes so clinical and remote. Unless you're a demographer I don't know what is the point to quibble about the exact number. It was bad enough even if the deaths had been inflated by 100%. Maybe I misunderstand but I get the impression that you try to argue Pol Pot was the victim of smearing. Sorry, dude, Pol Pot was a butcher. The fact that the U.S hated him didn't make him less of a monster. "Soviet math was..better because they did not have as many computers and had to develop state-of-the-art techniques for doing, by hand, things that we just had computers do." r4d20 Soviet physics was top notched too. Don't know how much you can attribute that to lack of computers. "Western math" is also done by hand(in the traditional areas) Soviet mathematicians were far from computer illiterate and they contribute a lot to computation science too(e.g Kolmogorov on complexity, Kitaav on quantum computing)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Oct 07, 2005 05:45 AM
"Yes, and yet, they had published work about this earlier, accepting HIGHER, not LOWER, statistics." Ok, then give me a article name so I can find it and read it myself. Give me a concrete reference to something, published before 1979, in which Chomsky seriously acknowledges that the Genocide may be being committed in the DRK.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Oct 07, 2005 05:13 AM
"no, not a fact of the SU's inferior science thanks to their non-capitalist economy, as the Soviet's scientists were as good or better than US scientists" Thats an incredibily sweeping statement. Soviet science was better in some areas nad worse in others. Soviet math was, in many ways, better because they did not have as many computers and had to develop state-of-the-art techniques for doing, by hand, things that we just had computers do. Soviet biology and especially genetics, however, was abysmally worse than ours because of Lysenkoism and political interferences in general.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Otto, Steve at Oct 07, 2005 04:57 AM
To Frederic Christie: When you say 2 million, are you using Vietnam's numbers, the Heritage Foundation's, Readers Digest's or some other group's estimates? I (and I believe Chomsky)have every reason to question those numbers. There have been many groups of people with ample reasons to exaggerate them. Lately some right-wingers have tried to compare Zimbabwe's president Robert Mugabe to Pol Pot because he took wealthy white people's land. The comparison is ridiculous.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Otto, Steve at Oct 06, 2005 21:00 PM
As for Frederic Christie poste on ThursOctober 06, “No, it actually matters, for so many reasons, one of which is that people don't listen to Prof. Chomsky because they think he apologized for Pol Pot.” How many people really care? There were a lot of atrocities by leftist governments and an even greater number by rightwing governments supported by the US. Life just doesn't follow a script that any liberal will approve of. Castro and Stalin didn't have great human rights records, yet some people support the good they've done. The real third world just doesn't follow a script and I'm sure Chomsky has known that. Those who expect utopia are always disappointed. But I don't see any point in blaming that on Chomsky.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Antiamerican800, Bernardo at Oct 06, 2005 08:41 AM
Mike Davis is not a scientist. The only way knowledge can be accrued on the effects of anthropogenic alterations in the climate is through the scientific method which largely was facilitated by what Davis calls "industrial capitalism" and "extractive imperialism". Not really "extractive" as clear-cutting forests for pasture is not extracting anything. Just the opposite. So Davis's screed is a hokey error laden ideological tract with no basis in fact or reason. Davis as a communist doesn't mention what the Soviet Union's toxic environmental record is. His is an ideological pathetic fallacy imputing non-existent "revolutionary" aspirations into nature. This is the official Lysenko conception of pseudo-science under the Supreme Soviet. Davis is ignorant of the Conservation Law and the Entropy Law, empirical observations that demonstrate all Change (revolution?) as being quantitatively inimical to any notion of progress. The physical basis of evolution is thermodynamics, that is the expenditure of finite energy within a closed system (a planet for example). As energy resources grow increasingly and irreversibly scarce the closed system will grow increasingly and irreversibly degraded. Bacteria and viruses evolve as well, it's not some magic placebo for progressive ideologues. As for his children that's his problem.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Soldier, Union at Oct 06, 2005 08:21 AM
I just must say, all of your arguments are frivolous at this point in time.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Oct 06, 2005 05:10 AM
"To quote the conclusion of Manufacturing Consent" Manufacturing Consent was written in 1988 - well after Genocide had been proven. Obviously he accepted the evidence of genocide once it was undeniable. My claim was that he did not believe is was happening BEFORE 1979.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Playboydojo, Pbd at Oct 05, 2005 00:35 AM
haha, I was in Davis just last year! But I'm homeless now, so I don't think I'm leaving the Bay Area anytime soon. But I'm still rather new to activism and political theory, so if you know some sights I can check out?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Playboydojo, Pbd at Oct 04, 2005 23:47 PM
"Comment by damphouse posted on Thursday, September 29 at 01:02 AM thanks for all the input. just curious if anyone knows if chomsky discusses any of these issues discussed above in detail. I can only find writings where he glosses over things like the Bolshevik revolution as if it was clear what happened and why. I am currently a member of the ISO in SF and have been over the past year. I have some political differences with the orginization, but they seem to be the most active leftist group in SF. I'm still hashing out my own politics but I think I lean more towards certain anarchist tendencies over leninist ones. thanks again. " Really? And what is the ISO and what to they do? I'm in Oakland, but my situation sounds pretty similar. I'm in an activist organization that I don't quite agree with, but I don't see anything that's operating on any practical lines of fighting for both a long and short term movement. If you find find an active anarchist group, could you do me the favor of announcing it on this blog?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Brianthehungry, Brianthehungry at Oct 04, 2005 06:48 AM
The-abyss is right. You people are nothing but armchair intellectuals discussing pipe dreams.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Otto, Steve at Oct 03, 2005 22:36 PM
I find it strange that a discussion of US economics turns to Pol Pot. But since it did, I would also like to say that Pol Pot's government was at odds with two superpowers that used so many distortions, (such as counting mass graves from the civil war as pol pot's executions) that the real atrocities can only be guessed at. If Pol Pot had killed no one, the reports would have been the same in the beginning. It is just the luck of the Western powers that Pol Pot actually did kill many innocent people. Otherwise the pro-Nixon crowd could never justify their carpet bombings, invation and outright destruction of much of Kampuchea's farm land, which they are responsible for. For many of us, these people (Nixon, Kissinger, ETC,) are just as guilty as Pol Pot. If that is what Chompsky said, he was right.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Moxy, Proleuk at Oct 03, 2005 16:22 PM
Shakespeare was only in it for the money...

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Oct 03, 2005 10:03 AM
To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep; No more; and by a sleep to say we end The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep; To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub; For in that sleep of death what dreams may come When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, Must give us pause...

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Oct 03, 2005 04:24 AM
If abysis is still lurking, I am going to see Chomsky on thus night in Cambridge. The whole event is a fundraiser for a local peace group here in Lexington. How much money have you raised for the anti war movement? I personally don't give a rats ass if he has two houses (his house here in Lexington is not that big), I am more concerned with what he has done for the local and national movements for justice.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Oct 03, 2005 04:08 AM
I don't think Chomsky's point was so much about KR's atrocities. It was about how they were reported and utilized by the media to serve some idealogical purposes. He pointed out the selective nature of the media narrative(the context and background of the rise of KR was completely ignored) and its often reliance on dubious sources and even outright forgery in at least one instance. He does express some skepticism concerning specific figures and incidents reported in the media but I don't get the impression that he was apologizing for Pol Pot or arguing that the killing field was a hoax. I don't think he was primarily writing about Pol Pot. While I am not an avid Chomsky reader(must be a shocking admission here:)), I notice that he is not as interested in what goes on in some foreign land as how these events are connected to U.S policies and how they are represented in America. In other words Chomsky's focus has always been the U.S. even though he cites events around the world to make his points.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Oct 03, 2005 03:30 AM
" This is a silly argument. He in fact defended an account that put the Pol Pot atrocities at much HIGHER than they were" He said that large numbers of people "may" have died, but that it was caused by US bombs and their effects - like starvation. He never expressed beliefs in the allegations of intentional murder by the KR until AFTER the Vietnamese invasion and he was consistently critical of reports of organized mass murder by the communists. HE was smart enough to always provide a "well, I could be wrong, but..." in front of his stuff, but no unbiased person, who never knew of Chomsky before, would read DAFH and not see it as an attempted "debunking" of the reports of Genocide.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Oct 02, 2005 04:25 AM
The comment "We dont know where the truth lies..." is, I'm sure, literally true. No one accuses him of having any solid "knowledge" that he hid or lied about. However, to say "I dont know.." is not to disavow having an opinion, or belief, on the matter. Sometimes we use the term "dont know" to mean "I dont have a strong opinion", but it techinically means "I do not have certain knowledge". Considering the tone and nature of criticism directed at sources of the reports of genocide, I do not see how a reasonable person can read DAFH and not come away with the impression that he did not believe the reports of Genocide were credible and that he believed it was NOT happening. By itself that can be ok - I really thought Saddam had WMDs but I was wrong. However, the subsequent denials that he even had a strong opinion, and the insistence that he really "did not know", does not look good to me.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Oct 02, 2005 03:35 AM
Fred, "Distortions at Fourth Hand" is a buge red flag to me and a perfect example of what I am saying. http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19770625.htm While chomsky says, ONCE, that "We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments", he goes on to cast dispertions on the believability and reputations of ALL sources of the information on the Genocide. You cannot reasonably expect me to believe that he would go out of his way to question their motives, veracity, and even character, if he was honeslty conflicted about where the truth lay - he believed Pol Pot was innocent. "The chain of transmission runs from refugees (or Thai or U.S. officials), to Ponchaud, to the New York Review, to the press, where a mass audience is reached and "facts" are established that enter the approved version of history." I am smart enough to know when a man is implying that I am being lied to - and Noam is clearly implying that the reports of Genocide by the Khemer Rouge are media-created lies. Too bad he was wrong - dead wrong - 2 million dead wrong. .

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Soldier, Union at Oct 01, 2005 05:15 AM
Indeed, the great debate of Dr. Chomsky's blatant exploitation of the poorest of the poor rages on. Once, I saw him singlehandedly slaughter 25 million farmers and steal their land. Attacking Noam Chomsky is like attacking education itself. If you are anti-intelligence, attack away. I chose to learn from all good ideas left and right. If there is one guy who tells it like it is, it's Dr. Chomsky. He doesn't claim to know god or beg for cash. People pay good money because it's worth it, just as any solid education of the facts is. People that whine and complain about Dr. Chomsky's paycheck should try and make money off of their own opinions and see how much they make. I never paid a dime to hear anyone's opinion, but if I did it would be to hear Noam Chomsky personally anihilate any of his detractors.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Oct 01, 2005 04:24 AM
There is one thing I wish the more strident "fans" would stop to consider. Chomsky has studied language for most of his life - I think its safe to assume that he is quite skilled in picking his terms and phrasing in order to convey a message beyond the strict literal word-by-word definition of the words themselves. I have always found "defending" a writer by focusing on the strictly literal interpretation of his words, while ignoring the information conveyed in the tone, choice of words, and choice of examples, to be a sign of a weak defense. It is easy to cherry pick facts, each of which withstands scrutiny, in order to make ANY case whatsoever.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Antiamerican800, Bernardo at Oct 01, 2005 01:49 AM
I think the Russian Tsars were indifferent to the serfs rather then malicious. I don't think the last Tsar Nicholas II deserved to have his young children shot to death. They should have been allowed to leave the country. American corporate suits on the other hand are openly malicious and exercise power out of sheer sadism. Beverley Hills California mansion owner Dinesh D'Souza is more appropriately a neo-liberal as is David Horowitz. Chomsky says the U.S. doesn't have a conservative tradition, I agree, others to point this out are the Canadian literary critic Northrop Frye. So the U.S. is just following it's original revolutionary logic, including the sadistic corporate suits.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Wshirley, Willied at Sep 30, 2005 18:39 PM
"Frankly, though, after being taken for a ride by Chomsky - and after the way I've been treated by Chomsky's followers - I no longer care where the world is heading. It's every man for himself. Better grab from the pot before you get left with nothing, and then left to die. Dear abyss, seriously, you need to see your doctor and try to get your meds changed for your depression. You're obsessed with Prof. Chomsky's finances because you are yourself rather poor. You are projecting onto Prof. Chomsky the blame for your life not going well when he has nothing to do with it. Granted some of the people answering your posts have been hard on you, but you invite that attitude with your agressive and insulting attitude. They are simply responding in kind. I really think that you will fel better about life and Prof. Chomsky if you switch your meds and have the doctor get you some counseling as well. On your own you are simply slipping into a psychotic train of thought and that is no good for anybody, especially you. Please think about this.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 30, 2005 18:25 PM
We are approaching (or have past) peak oil, an important watershed for the world, but all Chomsky's doing is preaching about the same stuff he's preached about for the past 40 years, and getting paid ludicrous sums for doing so. Julian Darley is a British environmental philosopher living in Canada (www.juliandarley.com). He has many interesting things to say: http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/344 "Global Public Media" is run by Julian Darley. Visit the home page, and notice how Julian doesn't brazenly promote himself in the same way Chomsky does. Julian's other site is: http://www.postcarbon.org/ "Beyond Oil" by Kenneth S. Deffeyes: http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/128 Read the reviews on Amazon. Frankly, though, after being taken for a ride by Chomsky - and after the way I've been treated by Chomsky's followers - I no longer care where the world is heading. It's every man for himself. Better grab from the pot before you get left with nothing, and then left to die.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 30, 2005 17:33 PM
A WOMAN: Colleagues at work think I'm stupid spending my weekends reading up on politics and world affairs. CHOMSKY: Yeah, it's because you're meant to be out there making money, it's stupid! They're not the exact words, but they're close enough to what Chomsky said in reply to one person. At the end of this talk session, Chomsky went off to collect his check for $12,000. Well, he does waive his fee occasionally, but, then, he can afford to - and PR is never a bad thing. http://washtimes.com/culture/20040607-011222-2830r.htm "Care to hear Noam Chomsky skewer America's soulless, capitalist wealth and privilege? It will set you back $12,000. ... And Chomsky's leftist academics-in-arms have similarly immodest asking prices. Read the full article here: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13616 Chomsky, after getting all this money, then proceeds to screw people some more, getting his agent to sell recordings of Chomsky for a profit, not at cost. And selling transcripts of Chomsky chatting away to his agent about the world and his wife, marketing them as books, which I wasted my money on. Chomsky is no different to those evangelical Christians you see in America. Preaching about love and universal friendship, caring for others, and then asking you to hand over your money. I'm posting this so other people don't get taken for a ride. I thought Chomsky was a decent man - he's not! Even his blog is fake.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 30, 2005 11:20 AM
You want an example of how thoroughly evil corporate executives are, then read this story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4221538.stm Excerpts: "Internet giant Yahoo has been accused of supplying information to China which led to the jailing of a journalist... "The media watchdog accused Yahoo of becoming a 'police informant' in order to further its business ambitions. "Shi Tao, 37, worked for the Contemporary Business News in Hunan province, before he was arrested and sentenced in April to 10 years in prison. "...he was found guilty of sending foreign-based websites the text of an internal Communist Party message. "...the message warned journalists of the dangers of social unrest resulting from the return of dissidents on the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, in June 2004." - Corporations will work with any regime, any government, any tyrant, however oppressive and restrictive, so long as it benefits the bottom line. How many people will now boycott Yahoo!? It's in your power to damage the profits of that corporation for what it did, and send a clear message to other U.S. businesses. Or are you all going to keep on blaming the government and licking Chomsky's boots?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 30, 2005 10:39 AM
The Communist credo: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Chomsky's credo (remember, Chomsky is to the left of Lenin): "From each according to his ability, to each according to how much they want, or can thieve off others." - Notice how Frederick doesn't consider Chomsky defecting to a government job as something desirable, because, as we all know, the people running government are nothing but a bunch of criminals whose hands are stained with blood. However, becoming a CEO is a perfectly respectable career move, despite the fact that top management lies to the public and colludes and pressures the government into implementing policies that are detrimental to society. Another indication of how Chomsky has instilled in his followers a deep hatred of the institution of government. "Government is the root of all evil. Government must be destroyed. That is what Chomsky has programmed us to do. That is our mission, and our only goal."

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 30, 2005 10:09 AM
A WOMAN: Colleagues at work think I'm stupid spending my weekends reading up on politics and world affairs. CHOMSKY: Yeah, it's because you're meant to be out there making money, it's stupid! They're not the exact words, but they're close enough to what Chomsky said in reply to one person. At the end of this talk session, Chomsky went off to collect his check for $12,000. Well, he does waive his fees occasionally, but, then, he can afford to - and PR is never a bad thing. Another poster, Frederick, claimed, rather arrogantly, that Chomsky deserves to be paid these huge sums, because, in the business world, Chomsky could make one hundred times as much - that's debatable! But what a thing to say: Chomsky must be well rewarded because, possibly, maybe, perhaps, he could earn more working for a corporation, so we should be ever so grateful he doesn't run off and become a CEO. I'm sorry, Frederick, Chomsky has done me NO favors. I didn't need him to tell me governments and corporations are corrupt. I know Americans are ignorant - I didn't know they were THAT ignorant! Chomsky's so-called "activism" had nothing to do with his choice of job when he was young. He decided to become a professor of linguistics, not a hard-nosed businessman.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 30, 2005 07:41 AM
I'm coming to the conclusion that Chomsky is nothing but a trouble maker. His real agenda is to get people to hate the government; not the people in government, but the government itself, AS AN INSTITUTION. That's why Chomsky targets students, the most impressionable people in society. His goal is to inculcate into their minds the notion that government is evil, the root of all problems, and only by destroying government can the nation be saved. That would explain why Chomsky never fails to trot out a list of crimes committed by past U.S. governments and presidents. Chomsky wants to be another Lenin, someone who brings about a revolution, an upheaval in society. Chomsky's dream is to dismantle all structures of authority - except, of course, himself, as an authority on what's good for people. Chomsky could use his "fame" to give other people a plug, such as Julian Darley ( http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/344 ), but that poses a risk - namely, that people might become less desirous to tear down government. Government is not going away. Corporations are not going to change their nature. So, the onus is on individuals to change their lifestyles, their expectations, to try to undermine the system at its foundations - by creating a disconnect between what corporations want us to do, and what we actually do. But most people are too selfish to change. It's far easier to blame the government, enjoy the rich pickings the system offers you, and wait.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Soldier, Union at Sep 30, 2005 05:26 AM
Start the Draft. These guys are mobsters. We have wars to win, here and abroad. "God" ain't helpin much, Churches don't own giant water pumps. "God" is whipping the national heiny. Bin Laden is emboldened by the lack of fortitude on the behalf of American culture. Science is real, Bombs don't make friends, soldiers do. Bombs don't build countries, soldiers do. Professor Chomsky is right, I'd fight for his rights anyday. Religious extremists everywhere are useful idiots.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Sep 30, 2005 04:48 AM
" Reforms to reduce the power of the elites" I am not sure how reforms reduce the power of the elites. It seems to legitimate the capitalist system. "See all you need to do is tweek it and everybody has an equal chance." Creating a culture of exceptance of the inequality of a system based on greedy competion, furthering the alienation of people from each other into idividualistic hedonism. "Because his personal decision has been to reject not just crude Marxist economism and disrespect for gender/race." I am not sure if this is a fair statement of marxism. Rosa Luxenburg and others were far out front of the gender issues for their day. Marx discussed the racial issues of the US in great length and Lenin exposed the racist colonialist drive underlining capitalism. Sure there was no individual or psychological Marxist outlooks, but, this was years before Freud and others. Basically Marx was very progressive racially and gender wise for his time. Sexuality issues, not so much. I am not sure how much Bukunin discussed race and gender issues, but I doubt it is satisfactory in todays standards. Many have used Marxism to analyse race and gender issues over the years and this is not a history I am willing to abandon. I do not see it as weak to hold up the best of Marxism and socialism and to attempt to regain these from the few who discredit them.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Sep 29, 2005 05:54 AM
"Insofar as one has ever been drawn out, it has always been conceived as simply taking away the control of productive capital, not as altering managerial control in ways such as Albert identifies." This is one of many problems I have with Albert, why did he not simple call his theories an extesion of marxism, as it is. Instead he had to produce his own dictum and reject the very good statigies of marx. Chavez is finally taking back the term socialism from the Mao/stalins of the world.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Sep 29, 2005 05:37 AM
I meant Yugoslav Marxist Milovan Dilas, not yogoslave. shit.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Sep 29, 2005 05:32 AM
Not to go back to an old argument with ya comrades(bwong and Frederic), but, I believe Lenin's greatests accomplishment was to show how left light leads to the right or how concessions to the middle undermine the revolution (ie. Kenyes). The current debates around trying to move the dems to the left or forming a new party are the corrallary. What is to be done indeed.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Sep 29, 2005 05:13 AM
"His points about Marx aren't really minute: his isolation of the coordinator class as an independent ruling class is a massive flaw of the whole of Marxist revolutionary strategy and understanding of the economy." I am not sure if there was any Marxist revolution strategy. The only "successful", albeit mutated from of Marxist revolution was the Bosheviks(The Chinese version might not even be "Marxist" in the broadest sense) I don't know how original Albert is pointing out the coordinator class, The Yogoslave Marxist Milovan Dilas wrote an important book called "The new class" saying more or less that. Before him there are variations of the theme by the anarchists. Even Mao has a version and he used this as the theoretical basis of launching the Cultural Revolution. It is easy to criticise Lenin in hind sight. But I am not sure what critics would suggest under the circumstance. It might be true that Lenin exploited the crisis of imperial attack to consolidate the power of the party, but there was nevertheless an objective crisis that demanded a strategy regardless of Lenin's subjective motives. BTW The Spanish civil war is not a good model for an option. Those guys were crushed.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Justinthered, Charliedontsurf at Sep 29, 2005 04:56 AM
cont'd) There were other objective factors that could account for the move towards one-man management before the civil war/western-intervention. One was Russian illiteracy and general backwardness which prevented the creation of a truly participatory workers' state. If you can't read, how the hell can you run a factory, but to use that as a pretense to undermine the very ideals socialism is founded on i.e. WORKER'S control of industry is inexcusable. I think the Bolsheviks' attempt to force socialism in Russia when it was clear that it wasn't going to succeed in the rest of the developed world was an example of the kind voluntarism that Leninists supposedly deplore.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Sep 29, 2005 04:33 AM
I would not look to Albert to discribe any marxism, his history with marx is very wierd. He started out a big fan and then did as most do, abandon the revolution as they become older and more conservative and ingraved in the system. He tends to take minute points out of marx and makes them into underlining marxists positions to tear apart, very strange. Lenin did add much to revolutionary theory, but in the end was a fascist bastard. He of course never lived in a democratic socity and was faced with the brutality of the Russian czars. Jeffersonian democracy is also flawed, capitalist producers will infiltrate your life no matter what you do or where you live. It is the nature of the beast.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Antiamerican800, Bernardo at Sep 29, 2005 04:33 AM
Generally I agree with Mr. Tim Wise's purpose of scrutinizing "white privilege" as I think it's a good idea to make the country club, tennis whites, sail-boat, self admiring Cape Cod denizens aware of their disgusting malfeasances. Such is "white priviledge" constituted in America. Although a good place to begin would be Smith college, where Mr. Wise teaches. But It's not altogether clear what he means by "white priviledge" or even what the word "white" means. He is probably incapable of appreciating English literature as a good deal of it (by no means all) could be said to be based on the "white priviledge" of a more intellectually sophisticated time/place. I can imagine the fit a film like The Birth of a Nation would give him, as even those Neo-Conservative sourpus nannies at www.newcriterion.com refer to sophomoric leftwing student websites to condemn the cinematic masterwork.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Justinthered, Charliedontsurf at Sep 29, 2005 04:24 AM
I think it would be more accurate to say that Lenin created the kind of organization he did("democratic" centralist) as a response to the repression socialists experienced under the Tsar, but it was that very same hierarchical form of organization that made the seeds of the new bureaucracy/ruling class. As an ex-leninist and former member of the ISO, I have seen the kind of processes that were at work in Russia, but they took place on a much smaller scale. In my branch we had purges, denunciations, etc. but they weren't nearly as violent obviously, only because the stakes weren't as high. That being said, Lenin did have some important contributions to Marxist theory(see State and Revolution and Imperialism:The highest stage of capitalism) but what he was most remembered for was his answer to the organizational question.(which marx was vague on).

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Otto, Steve at Sep 29, 2005 04:01 AM
Thomas Jefferson suggested a more agricultural base to our economy. The big question is, “would it prevent the need for a massive war machine to protect our capitalists investments 200 years later? Would a peasant revolution be less violent?” What we have sure doesn't work. I'm just not sure it would make a difference if we had taken a different path.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Jasons888, Shmity72 at Sep 28, 2005 22:06 PM
I woke up the other day to the radio...Homeless man dies in dumpster while they took out the trash in Bellevue...Bill Gates back yard... true story Now tell me there aint something a trifle wrong with 'short'-term capitalizm.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Jplascyk, Baldrick at Sep 28, 2005 20:27 PM
I didn't say anything about racial differences causing my family suffering. I'm not a racial supremacist. The billionaire and millionaire legal hindu immigrants living in the US are racial supremacists. Large parts of LA and all of Miami are spanish speaking and foreign. It is not unreasonable to be upset by this. There are also Chinese speaking towns in California and Korean speaking towns in NJ. If the political and corporate elites in the US can't delivery the goods to a critical number of Whites in the US, the shit will hit the fan. The way things look now, they very likely won't be able to deliver the goods to a critical number of Whites in America. I would love to see the public execution of corporate CEO's such as Carly Fiorina, Bill Gates, Steve Balmer and others. I would bring the popcorn. Noam can you bring the beer?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 28, 2005 19:44 PM
As for the criticism Chomsky gets, pay me $12,000 for waffling on for an hour or two, and I'd happily take the "abuse". It certainly beats living in a neighbourhood I once lived in, with potential killers and people who would knife you if you challenged them, and youths that stoned people. Woe is Chomsky! And how generous of Chomsky, as Frederick, another poster, pointed out, to put his book "Deterring Democracy" online. A wealthy man puts an old book, published in 1992 (or thereabouts), online, knowing that anyone who reads it and wants it, is likely to buy it. Just how will my life be enhanced by reading this book? Just what will change as a result of me giving my money to Chomsky? I bought that book, and I've now binned it. Chomsky is like a black hole, trying to suck all your money away from you. He gets a second home and a boat; you get stress and insults from his fans. And get this Chomsky fanatics: if I buy something, and I'm unhappy with it, I have every right to criticise my purchase AND whoever made it. Chomsky is not doing me any favours. He is selling as much as he can to make as much money as he can. I don't call transcripts of conversations with his agent, a worthwhile purchase. I call it a swindle!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 28, 2005 18:58 PM
The left screws people worse than the right. This "board" is for old men who can no longer get it up. You get your excitement now by treating others like dirt. I love the way Chomsky defends the right of a man who denies the Holocaust (Robert Faurisson), a man who's very likely a neo-Nazi, but attacks the media for not giving the truth. Chomsky also attacked France, saying he would never choose to live there, since he has no right to say the Holocaust never happened. But, back to the media. It's a free country, and there are plenty of rich "liberals". If the left wants "honest" broadcasting, let them set up their own newspapers and media outlets, and compete in the market place with the conservatives. Or are you all too envious and inadequate to bother? Perhaps you're all too busy giving Chomsky your money.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Sep 28, 2005 18:51 PM
"If I am making an argument it is this:it is not in my interest, my family's interests and the intersts of millions Amerians...to support high levels of legal and illegal immigration." And my argument is that it is not in your interest to be sidetracked and mislead into believeing that the plight of you and of working americans is the fault of anybody but the elite upperclass. The consentration of wealth has increased drematically recently. This is the cause of your suffering, not racial differences, but greed. I completely disagree that imigration will be stopped in this country. Because, many gain from it and it is the founding priciple of this country. You know, bring us the meek the tired the huddled masses (or something like that), is right on the statue of liberty. Are you going to tear down the statue of liberty, Baldrick, or simply change the monogram to " sorry, all full." You are playing the pawn they want you to, attacking your own class instead of the parasitic elite class.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 28, 2005 18:13 PM
For daring to criticise Chomsky for charging $12,000 to speak (http://washtimes.com/culture/20040607-011222-2830r.htm), I was called "envious" and "inadequate". A rough analogy: I walk into a shop. The price of the CD I want is $10. I visit my friend in a nearby town. We go to the shopping centre. There, the price of the same CD is $1,000. I ask to see the manager. I tell him the price is exorbitant, a rip-off! The manager is called Bwong, who tells me I'm "envious" and "inadequate", and then goes back into his office and slams the door. A couple of security men escort me out of the building. That just about sums up Chomsky and his followers, and how I've been treated. They don't give a damn about ANYONE; except, of course, Chomsky, the Queen bee. Chomsky, in a transcript masquerading as a book, spoke to a woman who said her colleagues at work think she's mad spending the weekends reading up on politics & world affairs. Chomsky responds by saying (I'm paraphrasing), yeah, you're meant to be out there making money, it's stupid. Chomsky encourages people, like me, to spend my weekends reading up on world affairs, that somehow this is going to make a difference. What I don't know is, while I'm throwing half my life away, and messing up my mind, Chomsky is charging $12,000 and raking in enormous sums from his books, articles, CDs, DVDs, interviews, etc. And after discovering this scam, I'm not meant to be angry?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Jplascyk, Baldrick at Sep 28, 2005 17:31 PM
MTBrad, not an American Indian. It's an open question as to which deographic group came to North America thousands of years ago. Immigrants use there wealth to buy politicians. Immigrants are organized politically around their demographic interests. There is a group of US congressman who belong to a group called the India policy goup. There are well over a hundred member of the US congress who belong to this group. These congressman represent the intersts of Hindu immigrants in America. If I am making an argument it is this:it is not in my interest, my family's interests and the intersts of millions Amerians who oppose high levels-most of them are White-to support high levels of legal and illegal immigration. You don't like my preference. but your not going to change my preferences. I'm not going to change yours. There will be a day in the future when legal and illegal will be shut down. This should be obvious. Bwong claims not to have a demographic preference(maybe we should start referring to him as Saint Wong). Then we can we infer from this that if Vancover,which now has a Chinese and East Asian national identity-if this hasn't happened yet, it will happen soon- had remained largely White, Saint Wong would have no problem with a largely White Vancover that retained it's Canadian national identiy.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Sep 28, 2005 16:31 PM
"Immigrants are a major player in shaping and perpetuating US immigration policy. They are responsible for this policy." If you mean everyone making legislation comes from an immigrant background you are correct. Are you native american? Or is your argument that we should shut the door behind us? What if it would have been shut before your ancestors were allowed in? Are you infact a scab on Native American soil? I understand and grant you the point Bwong and Frederick, having class conscious racists will not do anybody any good. But, conversley having race conscious people that do not blame class is what we see prevelent today. IMO any discussion of race,gender, sexuality,immigration should seek to draw the connections between class and race, gender,sexuality,imigration. Otherwise we will continue to repeat the same processes over and over. Abyiss, you fail to grasp that Chomsky has done and continues to do more good than you ever will. I judge him on this, not on how many homes he has. Capitalism is very simplistic and easily mastered, Chomsky's moderate sucess at it in no way invalidates his arguments against it, it validates them. Chomsky continues to not focus on a single person or issue, unlike you who seems to focus on a single person, as if he is the reason for the sorry state of affairs. And please don't bother to respond to this, I am sick of you deriding good discusions with your individual obsesion with one mans actions.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 28, 2005 10:07 AM
Chomsky has the nerve to call Microsoft parasitic, when Chomsky is nothing but a parasite himself. And then there's Jesse Jackson, another "progressive", who charges $10-20,000 per speech. Jesse Jackson apparently said people come before profits. Doesn't it make you laugh! If you don't believe this is how much he charges, visit: http://goodworksfirst.org/careerfair/career19.html America is never going to change, not while Americans are so obsessed with money. They need to rape and pillage other nations, other workers, to feed the neverending orgy of excess. Chomsky, himself, knows nothing is going to change - that's what makes it so criminal for him to charge such a high fee. It's all a charade. It's a ruthless world, full of hypocrites, full of greed, and you have to fight for your own turf, for enough money to protect yourself from the lies and deceit of others. If you have to tread on other people's toes - or even other people's heads - to get somewhere in life, then so be it. That's better than being told you're "envious" of others and "inadequate". No one has any sympathy for those at the bottom. You'll just get kicked from pillar to post to the day you die. Chomsky is trying to impoverish others, possibly drive them to suicide after they've thrown their life away chasing their own tail, while he enriches himself and his family at other people's expense. Now I know why "liberal" is a word that is so disdained in the U.S.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 28, 2005 09:08 AM
>Meanwhile you told us you could have done >the same work and lamented that you don't >get to charge a dime. >Yeh, that does sound like envy. You really are fucking stupid, aren't you? Do you work at it, or does it come naturally? I did not lament the fact; I stated a fact! - namely, that no one would pay me. The implication was: as the facts are public domain, as so little effort is required to obtain them, they're not worth much. Chomsky's speeches are daylight robbery. The implication about what I have done is: I do things out of conviction, because the unfairness makes me angry, because the suffering makes me angry, not out of a sense of "personal responsibility" (a nice Conservative phrase, that - Chomsky should join the Republican Party!), or for money. If Chomsky openly admitted that he was selling information for a fee, that he's doing it for the money, not because he gives a damn, I wouldn't say a word. But Chomsky is pretending to be a man of conviction, when he's no such thing. That's what I find so repulsive. That's why I'm so critical. Chomsky is telling others that they are going to have to make some sacrifices, take some risks, if things are to change. What he doesn't tell people is he's not willing to make any sacrifices himself, charging $12,000 each time he recites the same speech. Chomsky should have been a politician.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Sep 28, 2005 08:56 AM
"Bwong, is your demographic preference for Vancover Chinese, Hindu and Sihk??" I have no preference. Unlike you I don't judge people by skin colour. There are white people who are progressive and intelligent like Federic and there are white morons like you. Same with other ethnic groups. We are a mutli-enthnic, multi-racial country. No one, other than some in the loonie right like neo nazis who insist Canada's "demographic destiny" must remain "white Christian". "Vancover will be a Canadian city in name only. For most White Canadians, this would be bad enough. Indian politicians are already campaigning in Vancover for Indian votes in Indian national elections..." Why is that only "White Canadians" are "real" Canadians and that Vancouver would cease to be a "real Canadian" city if it cease being "white"? Actually most "White Canadians" don't really care if Indian politicians are running for office except for the few racist fools. British Columbia's former premier is an Indian Canadian. He's the current health minister for the federal government. "At some future date, China and India laying claim to the Canadian Northwest is defiinitely within the realm of possibility." Would they do that before or after France claim Quebec? Our governor general(also commander in Chief of the Canadian army) for the last six years has been Chinese. Too bad China missed its chance. She just stepped down yesterday.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 28, 2005 08:40 AM
There seems to be three kinds of people visiting this board: 1. Malcontents. They aren't happy with their lives, the system isn't giving them what they want, so they support anyone who criticises the current arrangement. If they were rich, they'd be quiet. These people can be bought. 2. Fairly well-off individuals, doing OK, who like to ponder alternatives to "capitalism". They come here for a good chin wag. They are no threat to the system. 3. Sad fools, who've been misled by Chomsky, believing he's a man of conviction, when he's really only interested in money. >It's you who makes a big point about your >poverty and use that in a bizzare way to >launch more attacks at Chomsky for his >supposed wealth. Wrong again! It started by someone calling me a "little person". I realised then what a pile of garbage you Chomsky fanatics are.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Sep 28, 2005 08:19 AM
Baldrick, No, no one go to jail for talking like an idiot. Even our main right wing party would expell anyone for making such idiotic statements,--but no, he/she won't be jailed. Even our "dinosaurs" are more evloved than you and know that most Canadians have no taste for such blatant racism. Not too many people share your paranoia even in Alberta, our most conservative province. Christian heritage? Unlike the U.S we don't live in a theocracy. "Christian heritage" is eroding steadily anyway. We just legalize same sex marriage here. Polls showed roughly 50% supported the idea. But even among those who opposed the they overwhelmingly supported "civil union". This include our right wing party. In the U.S "civil union' is a radical position. Recently some Muslims tried to lobby the Ontario government to allow a Sharia option in family arbitration. There was a huge compaign against it. The government finally outlawed ALL religious arbitrations. Remarkably it was Muslim women themselves who spearheaded the no to Sharia compaign. They argued passionately that the Charter of rights and freedon should apply to all. Dispite our differences in heritage Canadians share a lot of common value. In the words of late prime minister Trudeau we are a nation forged by common values and vision rather than one bound by past history. Population explosion? You must be joking. Canada is the most sparsely populated country in the world. Get a map for crying out loud.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 28, 2005 08:14 AM
I wrote: >I have never been obsessed with money Bwong writes: >Yeh? >Look who has been >constantly, "obsessively", whining about >how much Chomsky makes by selling books, >giving speeches and how many houses he owns >as if it has anything to do with the topic >at hand. Fuck the topic at hand. I said ages ago that if Chomsky weren't such a con artist, he'd provide a board that would allow people to discuss the various issues he raises - in his books, articles, and elsewhere - when THEY want to, not when HE wants them to. We would be allowed to start our own topics, and not have to suffer the vagaries of Chomsky's mind. Chomsky just doesn't give a damn. If there's no money in it for him, he's not interested. As for my obsessing over Chomsky's wealth, Graeme, another poster, attacked me, claiming I was a liar, so I had to defend myself. I didn't know these facts until I made a search in order to counter Graeme's accusations. Bwong, before you stick your big nose into other people's arguments, make an effort to find out what the argument is about first. I feel like I'm being gang raped on this fake blog. >No one knows or cares about whether you're >rich or poor...we are just "cyber entities" >here. Bullshit! If no one cares, why say I'm envious? Why call me inadequate? You can only be envious of the wealthy, if you're not wealthy yourself. You and others used that fact in such a way that I discovered what sort of people you are.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Jplascyk, Baldrick at Sep 28, 2005 08:14 AM
FredChristie, Why would it be so bad if Whites remanied the majority in Vancover and ran the place instead of Chinese and Indian Nationals? Another question for Bwong, is your demographic preference for Vancover Chinese, Hindu and Sihk? If yes, why? frdchristie, I don't think your joking about anything. You are obviously not much of an environmentalist. The Scotts, are not at all enthusaistic about the hindu and Sihk legal immigrants who now are entering Scotland in large numbers. I saw a picture of Chomsky in a book hanging out in a bar in Scotland with members of the Scottish nationalist movement. Chomsky is very supportive of Scottish self determination. Does this suport extend to the Scotts right to determine their demographic destiny?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Jplascyk, Baldrick at Sep 28, 2005 07:22 AM
The Chinese,Hindu and Sihk conquest of Vancover is well underway. When it happens, the national identity of Vancover will have changed radically. Vancover will be a Canadian city in name only. For most White Canadians, this would be bad enough. Indian politicians are already campaigning in Vancover for Indian votes in Indian national elections. At some future date, China and India laying claim to the Canadian Northwest is defiinitely within the realm of possibility. The truth about immigrants can't be told in Canada. Telling the truth will result in jail time. The Canadian elites are afraid of free speech in Canada because they fear it would lead to a strong political movement to shut legal and illegal immigration down. I'm just curious bwong, do you think it should be illegal in Canada to say: Immigrants steal jobs from Canadians Immigrants are a major source of population growth in Canada and therfore are a threat to Canada's endangered species. Immigrants bring diseases to Canada Canada should have a national origins immgration policy that favoros Europeans The spread of Islam and Hinduism in Canada is a threat to the Christian heritage of Canada

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 28, 2005 07:21 AM
Then a new section begins, nothing about 60,000 East Timorese being killed. Moynihan merely states that his job was to ensure China did not gain any control or influence over East Timor - that this is what the United States wanted, and that he carried out his job "with no inconsiderable success". Now, I'm not agreeing with Moynihan, but Chomsky quoted in such a way as to play on people's emotions, giving his readers a false impression of what someone actually said. A very poor effort for someone who's meant to be a top-notch academic. I don't have the time, or the energy, to fact-check everything Chomsky has written. Nor do I have the money to buy all his books, articles, speeches, etc. If he can't be bothered to be more considerate to his readers (who, after all, PAY good money for his scribblings), to write more clearly, to explain things accurately and in an easy to digest way, and to be less prolific and more careful, then Chomsky can go hang. It's a disgrace that he can get away with being so sloppy. Pay for his books, and what do you get in return? Stress, abuse from his fans, and a huge headache. A real con merchant!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Sep 28, 2005 06:58 AM
"Envy? I have never been obsessed with money, and I have no desire to be rich." Yeh? Look who has been constantly, "obsessively", whining about how much Chomsky makes by selling books, giving speeches and how many houses he owns as if it has anything to do with the topic at hand. No one knows or cares about whether you're rich or poor. As Paul Street puts it, we are just "cyber entities" here. It's you who makes a big point about your poverty and use that in a bizzare way to launch more attacks at Chomsky for his supposed wealth. Meanwhile you told us you could have done the same work and lamented that you don't get to charge a dime. Yeh, that does sound like envy.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 28, 2005 06:56 AM
This is the quote, in context, from page 247: "The two events spoke to the nature of the new world system. It was not so different from the old. It was for the moment more stable, but a reasonable forecast would be that Africa in particular had a century of border wars ahead of it. On the other hand, such was the power of the anticolonial idea that great powers from outside a region had relatively little influence unless they were prepared to use force. CHINA ALTOGETHER BACKED FRETILIN IN TIMOR, AND LOST. In Spanish Sahara, Russia just as completely backed Algeria, and its front, known as Polisario, and lost. IN BOTH INSTANCES THE UNITED STATES WISHED THINGS TO TURN OUT AS THEY DID, AND WORKED TO BRING THIS ABOUT. THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE DESIRED THAT THE UNITED NATIONS PROVE UTTERLY INEFFECTIVE IN WHATEVER MEASURES IT UNDERTOOK. THIS TASK WAS GIVEN TO ME, AND I CARRIED IT FORWARD WITH NO INCONSIDERABLE SUCCESS.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 28, 2005 06:32 AM
The majority of readers will come away with the impression that Moynihan openly admits to being responsible for ensuring 60,000 people were slaughtered, "a foretaste of still greater successes soon to come". Rather horrific. I bought Moynihan's memoirs to fact-check this. It is NOT what Moynihan says, even though it may be what Moynihan effectively did. The part where Moynihan asserts that 60,000 East Timorese were killed is in a separate section on page 245, describing ONLY the invasion of East Timor, nothing about Moynihan's alleged “role” in it. However, the way Chomsky presents this information, it's as if Moynihan states, first, that he was responsible for paralyzing the U.N., and, second, that this ensured 60,000 people could be killed, which was considered a success – hopefully, more soon to come. Moynihan is apparently very proud of this "achievement".

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Sep 28, 2005 06:13 AM
"This board is like a lunatic asylum. You're not allowed to say one word against Chomsky. Nothing is allowed to slip through the net. A real fanatics haven." The abyss The only lunatic seems to be you here. Not allowed to say "one word" against Chomsky? Pages and pages of off topic ad hom attacks are not "one word" or you must have a really long word. That is called spamming in case you don't know. -------------------------------------------- "Bwong, your response is of exceptionally low quality. Can't you do better."Baldrick That depends on the quality of the posts I respond to. "In Canada, it is a crime to tell the truth about immigrants. Tell the truth about immigrants and you will go to jail." What may that be? Like inciting violence against identifiable groups? "China and India may very well claim the Canadian northwest as Chinese and Indian territory. If and when they do, one of the first things to be flushed down the toilet bowl will be Canada's liberal immigration policy..." What high quality response do you expect from such idiocy? BTW The greatest threat to Canadian economical and political soverignty is the U.S.A rather than immigrants. Give your head a shake.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 28, 2005 06:08 AM
"Chomsky plays on emotions? He's regularly described as NON-charismatic."(Frederick) This is what Chomsky has done to his supporters: ATTACK! ATTACK! EVERYONE IS LYING. ATTACK! ATTACK! This board is like a lunatic asylum. You're not allowed to say one word against Chomsky. Nothing is allowed to slip through the net. A real fanatics haven. I'm not talking about charisma. Chomsky plays on people's emotions by making everything sound as horrific as possible. He moralizes too much, when he ought to take a neutral tone and let the facts speak for themselves. If you want a good example of how it ought to be done, see P.M.S. Blackett's “Fear, War, and the Bomb”. I've now binned all of Chomsky's books, so this is from the introduction to "East Timor: Genocide in Paradise": "Another lesson in realism was given by UN Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan, celebrated for his courageous defense of international law and human rights. 'The United States wished things to turn out as they did,' he writes in his memoirs, 'and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success.' Moynihan cites figures of 60,000 killed in the first few months, 'almost the proportion of casualties experiences by the Soviet Union during the Second World War,' a foretaste of still greater successes soon to come."

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Sep 28, 2005 05:40 AM
"Actually Bwong this kind of proves cryofans point. Identity politics, in this case immigrants v. natives, cause the trubled to look down for the anwsers instead of seeing the true nature of their oppressors as the captialist class..." No, MT Brad. With due respect you've got it wrong. Cryofan's definition of "identity politics" goes only one way. Baldrick's vicious attack of immigrants doesn't qualify as "identity politics" in Cryo's sense because he's "white working class". But I am a "meat puppet" guilty of playing the game of "the elites" if I dare talking back. Cryofan expects me to shut up in the interest of "solidarity" with the "white working class" even when I am pissed on because I am an non white immigrant. Sorry, I can't obliged.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Jplascyk, Baldrick at Sep 28, 2005 04:59 AM
MTBrad, I deal with the world the way it is. Immigrants are a major player in shaping and perpetuating US immigration policy. They are responsible for this policy. We now have the spectacle of billionaire Hindu facists such as Vishod Kalslah-legal immigrant-(think I got his last name wrong, but it's in the ball park) lecturing White and Black American workers about the natural intellectual superiority of the legal Hindu immigrant. Fred Christie, I agree with Chomsky that structures have to be changed. However, I do believe that socio-pathic corporate CEO's who aspire to be demi-gods on this planet and others should be punished.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Jplascyk, Baldrick at Sep 28, 2005 04:39 AM
Bwong, your response is of exceptionally low quality. Can't you do better. There is an immigration reform movement in Canada. It is a lot more dificult to be an immigration reformer in Canada than it is in the US. In Canada, it is a crime to tell the truth about immigrants. Tell the truth about immigrants and you will go to jail. China and India may very well claim the Canadian northwest as Chinese and Indian territory. If and when they do, one of the first things to be flushed down the toilet bowl will be Canada's liberal immigration policy(It's more accurate to say the immigration policy of the rootless cosmopolitans who own 90 percent of Canadian newspaers). If and when this happens, the current natioanl origins policy that completely favors Chinese, Indians and Sihks will be permanently entrenched.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 28, 2005 03:29 AM
THE SAME PEOPLE ARE ON THIS BOARD FOR MONTHS ON END. RARELY ANYONE NEW. YOU LOT BORE EVERYONE STIFF. YOU TALK AND TALK, PAT YOURSELVES ON THE BACK, LICK CHOMSKY'S BOOTS, AND DO FUCK ALL. - For those, like me, who've had enough of this crap, visit the following links: http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/344 http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/469 Scroll down and download, or listen, to the radio interviews with Julian Darley (you can find more interviews by using the search box on the home page or clicking the link at the bottom of the page and then "Interviews"). Julian Darley (http://www.juliandarley.com) is a British environmental philosopher, and unlike Chomsky, discusses the money system and what we must do to change things. It means making sacrifices in our lives, weaning ourselves off oil, consuming less, re-localising the global economy, and to stop pretending, like the Americans, that worshipping money is a harmless pastime. Darley, unlike Chomsky, does not believe the government, as an institution, should be dismantled. But, then, all Chomsky cares about is his ideology, not actually helping people. If everyone continues to play Chomsky's blame game, hell will freeze over before anything changes. Here's Julian Darley's other Web site: http://www.postcarbon.org/ "Chomsky is right". Good for Chomsky! But that's not going to help the rest of us.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 28, 2005 02:36 AM
Envy? I have never been obsessed with money, and I have no desire to be rich. However, those who want money, and more money - like Chomsky - are ruining the world for everyone else. You think money grows on trees? The system works by encouraging people to get into debt. The bigger the debt burden, the harder and longer people have to work. The money system enslaves you, ensures you are an exploitable resource, which is exactly what corporations need to keep up their relentless growth. However, relentless growth is not possible in a world with finite resources. So America must rape and pillage other nations to keep growing. This causes enormous suffering. Chomsky, Michael Moore, and all the rest who are fond of money, spend a lifetime encouraging the public to buy tickets to attend their talks, to buy their books and other merchandise. To do that costs money. Unless you have plenty of spare cash, the cost goes on your credit card, one way or another, increasing your debt. You're merely buying yourself into a life of slavery. Chomsky offers no solutions, merely blaming the government for everything. Governments are not going away. Corporations won't be dismantled, as Chomsky wants. So it's time to get real, to stop playing silly fucking games, AND DO SOMETHING, not hand more money to Chomsky, which enslaves us still further, strengthening the system of exploitation.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Sep 28, 2005 02:21 AM
"Baldrick is a living proof the limitation of Cryofan's pure "economical leftism"." Actually Bwong this kind of proves cryofans point. Identity politics, in this case immigrants v. natives, cause the trubled to look down for the anwsers instead of seeing the true nature of their oppressors as the captialist class. Baldrick needs to focus on the elite class that is using loopholes in labor standards to take advantage of fellow workers. Baldrick, I am not against outsourcing or immigration, both are missguided isolationist dilusions and obstractions from the true problem. Namely, the abuse of workers by corporations through weak labor and envrionmental laws in other countries and the lack of a global political force to control global capitalists. You need to look upward for the causes of labor surpluses, not downwards.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Sep 28, 2005 02:04 AM
"Asian immigrants are comming into the US yo steal jobs from American workers. Were your parents part of an earlier generation of legal asian immigrants who came into the US to steal jobs from American workers?" I am not an American, I don't intend to even visit the U.S while Bush is in office. I am Canadian thank you very much. You don't own this country. Humans has been migrating around the globe since we walked on two feet. Who in the U.S.A is not an immigrant except for the First Nations, whom your founding fathers had killed, robbed and decimated? The white men didn't even bother applying for visas. As for "stealing American jobs", what do you call an American who work for entreprises opened by immigrants or work in sectors who clients are immigrants? The "bossman" have been undermining worker rights with or without immigrants. There are many ways to do it: union busting, automation, outsourcing, globalization;just to name a few options. The problem is workers in America have no control over the deployment of capital. As long as that persists you'll be screwed. Immigrant bashing is a nice diversion from the real issue.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 28, 2005 01:52 AM
Bwong writes: >I think WillieD was right on. The Abyss's >strange fixation on Chomsky is motivated by >envy and inferority complex. It's motivated by you chomsky fanatics attacking me for any reason you can find. I came to this board supporting Chomsky, and even then I was attacked. I was told, either you are with Chomsky, or you are against the whole of humanity. Given that choice, I am against Chomsky. I don't like being bullied, or being told I must revere someone as a saint. Envy? A cheap attack by another cheap Chomsky fanatic. You prove my point, Bwong, about the ugliness of human nature: don't mention to anyone you're poor, because it's used against you at every turn. The rich are the decent, hard-working folk; the poor, the envious, inadequate, lying scum. You people know nothing about my life, but that doesn't stop you from carrying out a personality assassination. It's simple: for as long as you people attack me, I'll attack Chomsky.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 28, 2005 01:26 AM
Chomsky is right ABOUT SOME THINGS. So what! So are many other people right, people whose voices never get heard because Chomsky - and others like him! - are hogging the limelight. And, as one person said to me, "If I read all this, will it change anything?" I had to admit it wouldn't. Most sensible people know governments and corporations are corrupt. There's no need for Chomsky, or others, to analyze the system to the nth degree (however well or badly it is done) - it just overwhelms people! But, unlike the rest of us, Chomsky is on the gravy train, so he's got an incentive to talk and talk, and talk. And talk. What sacrifices has Chomsky really made? As far as I'm aware, he has three grown children, none of which were adopted. So, on an overpopulated planet, Chomsky brings three more people into the world, into a country that consumes and pollutes more per capita than any other nation on Earth. When Chomsky talks about "personal responsibility", he just sounds like a raving Conservative.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Jplascyk, Baldrick at Sep 28, 2005 01:11 AM
Bwong, the facts won't go away because you don't like them. The H1-B visa program is alive and well. Asian immigrants are comming into the US yo steal jobs from American workers. Were your parents part of an earlier generation of legal asian immigrants who came into the US to steal jobs from American workers? If one opposses outsourcing, one should also oppose high levels of legal immigration of skilled asian immigrants. Very logical.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Jplascyk, Baldrick at Sep 28, 2005 00:50 AM
He is certainly right about the fact that corporate CEO's's don't take the idea of free markets very seriously. The free market only apllies to the rest of us. Just take a look at what is going on with stem cells. The corporate CEOs rushed down to DC last year back to demand that the taxpayers pick up the RD cost for embryonic stem cell research. There is a very long list of technologies that came into existence through the violaton of free market pinciples. Some of these meglamaniacs now want to privately own asteroids and planets even though the decades of space research that would make this conquest possible was paid for by US taxpayers. I'm not making this up. Are corporate CEO's really human or are they alien creatures with no souls?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Sep 28, 2005 00:49 AM
"Depriving the bossman and the greedy cheating class of immigrant scab workers would create a severe labor scarcity. A severe labor scarcity would give American workers the power to say fuck off to the bossman if the terms of employment are not favorable." Baldrick Really? Have you heard of outsourcing? "The bossman" now move his factory to China and India instead of bringing in Indians and Chinese immigrants. By picking on immigrants instead of addressing capitalism you're missing the point. Baldrick is a living proof the limitation of Cryofan's pure "economical leftism". ----------------------------------------- Take a pill or talk to a therapist, the Abyss. No one is interested in your rants. I think WillieD was right on. The Abyss's strange fixation on Chomsky is motivated by envy and inferority complex.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 28, 2005 00:10 AM
Frederick claimed Chomsky is right. Right about what exactly? Chomsky covers a broad range of issues, and only on a few of those can you say, with absolute certainty, that he's right. He's been wrong on a number of occasions, and he plays on people's emotions, just like a tabloid journalist, trying to get you really worked up, sometimes twisting the context to do so (I might give an example of that later). But what exactly is Chomsky right about? About the indiscriminate slaughter of 100,000 innocent Iraqis? First, that figure includes Iraqis who may have chosen to fight. The vast majority of people, when they hear that figure banded about, assume you are talking about Iraqis who were minding their own business, doing their best to keep out of harm's way, not walking headlong into a conflict. Second, Les Roberts and his team came up with that figure, so that makes Les Roberts right, NOT Chomsky. Chomsky's speeches are filled with facts that are in the public domain. That's because Chomsky is not an investigative journalist, so there's nothing really new he can bring to his talks. I could cobble together a similar set of facts, but no one would pay me $12,000 to recite them. Chomsky is trading off his name to make excess profits. Just as companies use branding to distinguish one product from another very similar one, so Chomsky uses his reputation as a renowned professor of linguistics to elbow aside others in the marketplace for students' ears.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Sep 27, 2005 19:18 PM
"I don't think so. The experiences of American workers with immigrants in the labor market and free trade are the final word." Yeah, because we all know that things are always exactly as they appear to be.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Jplascyk, Baldrick at Sep 27, 2005 18:06 PM
Well that settles it. Always defer to the neo-classical economists. They are the final word on the labor market impact of immigrtation and "free" trade. I don't think so. The experiences of American workers with immigrants in the labor market and free trade are the final word. I know the econometric litertature on immigratiion and economic growth quite well.I can cite research showing that the opposite is true. But what would be the point of doing this? Who made the economists God? Do you want to waste time debating the finer points of econometrics. There are much more interesting and important things to think about. American workers will have the final word on immigrant scab workers not Bradford Delong, Paul Krugman or multimillionaire Noam Chomsky.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Sep 27, 2005 16:50 PM
"American workers know from first hand experience that legal immigrants are stealing their jobs." You need to check your facts on this one. Every study done shows how immigration increases the size of the economy which then helps non immigrants. This has been the case throughout the history of this country, every great immigration wave has been followed by increases in the size of the overall economy. With the aging population and overall lack of wage laboriers in this country, immigration is the best option. The real push by US workers should be to nationalize the undocumented immigrants to remove their advantage by creating an equal wage scale. This would push all wages upward and increase the prosperity of all wage labor.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Jplascyk, Baldrick at Sep 27, 2005 06:09 AM
"A fiscal net bennefit" You got that cliche from the same corporate whore economists who claim that their econometric equations show that "free" trade is a net economic bennefit. It is really disgusting to see lefties justifying wage slavery. Have you no shame? Hey Noam, nice second home on Cape Code.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Jplascyk, Baldrick at Sep 27, 2005 05:47 AM
It's all about labor supply. Leftist have this infantile fantasy that high paying jobs can be created for anyone who wants to migrate to the US with a magic wand. The control over the suply of labor is an old battle that has been fought several times in US history. I didn't steal their wealth and money. Immigrants are scab workers used by the greedy cheating class in America to attack American workers. Your the one falling into the trap. You and multimillionaire Noam Chomsky-nice home on Cape Code Noam-are very eager to provide the greedy cheating class with immigrant scab labor. You are free to deny that immigrants are stealing jobs from American workers. American workers know from first hand experience that legal immigrants are stealing their jobs. This is happening in real time.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Sep 27, 2005 05:20 AM
"US can easily support immigrants and natives... The reason many immigrate here is because we stole their land and their money for centuries." 1) Obviously there is a limit to the number of immigrants we can support. But I agree that it is probably quite high. The fact is that we could double our population in probably less than 20 years if we wanted to pull all restrictions on immmigration, but it would be bad for everyone - including the immigrants. 2) Our policies should be based on whats best for the nation, not on any sence of lingering guilt over the Mexican-American war (or anything else). Besides, this argument sounds a lot like a guilt-trip, which will turn off many people. We dont need a guilt-trip because healthy immigration is good for the nation One day it hit me that the stereotype of the "lazy illegal immigrant welfare cheat" was total bullshit. I'm an American and I know lazy Americans. They sit on their couches all day and don't like getting up to go to the store, let alone another country. Lazy Mecians sit on their asses in Mexico. It takes a certain amount of guts to hoof it 1000 miles to a new country - but I'm supposed to believe that as soon as they cross the border they get lazy and go on welfare? No. These dudes bring a certain amount of drive and ambition to the country. As long as they are willing to assimilate to a basic degree I say "keep em coming".

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Jplascyk, Baldrick at Sep 27, 2005 05:15 AM
Sorry, made a mistake. It should read:To increase economic equality in America a policy of zero legal and illegal immigration should be implemented as soon as possible.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Jplascyk, Baldrick at Sep 27, 2005 04:42 AM
Depriving the bossman and the greedy cheating class of immigrant scab workers would create a severe labor scarcity. A severe labor scarcity would give American workers the power to say fuck off to the bossman if the terms of employment are not favorable.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Jplascyk, Baldrick at Sep 27, 2005 04:06 AM
There have been several comments in this thread about redistributing wealth and econimc equality. I think these are good ideas. I propose a policy that would move America back in the direction of increasing inequality. This policy has been implemeted in the past and was the single most important factor in reducing the economic gap between the cheating wealthy class and American workers. To increase economic inequality in America a policy of zero legal and illegal immigration must be implemented as soon as possible.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Ragu6, Ragu at Sep 27, 2005 03:05 AM
Can't you all see this guy (abysmal) is a troll? His duty is to disrupt not to contribute to any meaningful dialogue. This is a key arsenal among the rightwing: divert attention from important matters, insult and make as much noise as humanly possible and hope someone pays attention. I mean its either this or the guy is obviously in need of some counseling

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Allen, Robert at Sep 27, 2005 01:32 AM
"Philosphies which teach that any one is more important than all others is bound to produce harmful zealots who are ruthless in their pursuit of that one goal." rdasshole This shallow minded piece of shit is running from the real argument against capitalism: it entails slavery, which simply should not exist. His talk of value conflicts is merely a red herring.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Wshirley, Willied at Sep 26, 2005 21:20 PM
I think Abyss is simply neurotic, not insane. He's depressed, poor and feels put upon. Prof. Chomsky is brilliant, wealthy(by some standards), and popular. So instead of debating key points in Prof. Chomsky's writings he attacks him personally. So long as he is simply neurotic and not psychotic there is no real harm done except to distract from the thread. He's got people listening to him, even if they don't offer solutions to his real-life problems, but then neither does Prof. Chomsky. I've been looking over his comments(Abyss) and there is no real point being made except he's pissed off and he doesn't like Prof. Chomsky being paid to express his views. The fact that a great deal of what Prof. Chomsky says is distributed for free over the radio and the web has escaped him. He isn't interested in that part of his anger. His real thrust is that he wants people to respond to HIM in the same way they respond to Prof. Chomsky. Maybe they should. Maybe he should write coherent essays and post them on his own blog or publish them in print. I bet if his income exceeded that of Prof. Chomsky he would stop being mad, at least insofar as berating Prof. Chomsky for making money doing what he was educated and hired to do.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Sep 26, 2005 18:57 PM
The abyss is obviously insane and has a big chip on his shoulder. IGNORE him!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 26, 2005 17:05 PM
At that time, I hadn't read any Chomsky. I was finding things out for myself - the hard way! Frederic continues: >Blood money, indeed. Wiki up "ad hominem" >for a second. You Chomsky fans are VERY arrogant and VERY conceited. I know what "ad hominem" means. I suggest you Wiki up "being a decent human being", and try to absorb what that term means. - An exercise: Chomsky says the mainstream media doesn't review a lot of books that the public ought to be reading. Now find where Chomsky has posted up a list of recommended books to read - ones that aren't written by him! You won't find the list on his so-called official Web site, which is the most logical place it'd be. Seems Chomsky is too busy doing paid speeches and interviews to bother. Or, more likely, he'd prefer it if you only bought his books.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 26, 2005 16:17 PM
>This, of course, isn't to ask the obvious >question: Oh, holy abyss "Oh, holy abyss"? You Chomsky fans like to patronise others, don't you? But fans like you seem to hint at what Chomsky is really about: love of his own intelligence, turning what are serious issues to others into an intellectual game of chess and a profitable business for himself. >where do you make YOUR money? Read my post above. I don't feed off other people's misery and suffering like Chomsky does. If I were paid at Chomsky's going rate, then for the hours I have spent discussing these issues in real life, and online, on boards, posting information, giving links, recommending books, writing articles, and yes, even supporting Chomsky at one point, I now would be able to buy a 3/4 bedroom house outright. As it is, I live in a flat/apartment next to a noisy road, and get government assistance with the rent. I suffer from depression. I have NO savings whatsoever, and NO assets to speak of. I put in a hell of a lot of effort reading up on British and U.S. crimes. When I used to be on AOL, I had posts removed as they were deemed "anti-American". My stress levels went through the roof, so I cancelled my account and switched to another ISP, one that wasn't American. However, one person thanked me for bringing up the issue of the U.S. bombing water treatment plants in Iraq in 1991. He said he had worked for either Halliburton or Bechtel and had been to Iraq, and seen the destruction for himself.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 26, 2005 14:58 PM
Here's a positive review of Hatfield's book, "Fortunate Son": http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/hand01312003/ I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on it. Amazon gives it a scathing review - not so the readers!: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1887128840/104-7544136-2655925?v=glance

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 26, 2005 14:31 PM
For the benefit of those who missed it, a Washington Times article: http://washtimes.com/culture/20040607-011222-2830r.htm Extract: "With college commencement season in full swing, leftist propagandists are making the rounds of our nation's universities — as they do all year 'round. "Care to hear Noam Chomsky skewer America's soulless, capitalist wealth and privilege? It will set you back $12,000. ... And Chomsky's leftist academics-in-arms have similarly immodest asking prices." - Anyone who has evidence that "The Washington Times" is lying, please e-mail me and let me know. No one has yet. So I'm taking it as fact that Chomsky charges, minimum, $12,000 per speech. Fine words butter no parsnips, as the saying goes. Just because Chomsky says all the right things, don't think that means anything. Anyone who bothered to read Robert Parry's article about J.H.(R?) Hatfield (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/011705.html - scroll down to "Burned Books") will have discovered that although Hatfield wrote a book that was critical of Bush, and, as a result, had his career destroyed by the right-wing, which eventually led to his suicide, he had also served time in prison for hiring a hit man to kill his former boss. The point is: just because someone says or does something that we regard as right or moral, doesn't necessarily mean they are a lovely person.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 26, 2005 09:52 AM
Don't you just love the obscenity of the Americans. First, America robs other nations of resources, impoverishing the people, murdering millions, then a man called Chomsky comes along saying, "If you give me some of that there blood money, I'll tell you exactly what's wrong with the system, why everyone is suffering so much." It would be hilarious, if it weren't so tragic.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 26, 2005 09:27 AM
Frederic Christie writes: "Chomsky has never denied his affluence. Indeed, if you'd ever read him, you'd see him discuss his affluence precisely in the context of personal responsibility." Frederic, before you attack someone, before you butt into an argument that another poster began, a poster called Graeme, make an effort to check your facts. I have said before that Chomsky admits he's well off, doesn't deny it; however, Graeme, another Chomsky fanatic, would not have it, claiming Chomsky was a struggling author. Graeme is not the only one. Check out other blogs, other boards. There are other Chomsky fans out there who believe Chomsky is hard up. It's time this myth was crushed! If Chomsky is being paid lucratively for what he writes and says, he deserves no praise. He's merely a businessman, an entrepreneur, exploiting other people's misery and suffering for his own gain - not to mention people's gullibility, those who think Chomsky is somehow changing the world for the better, and who pin their hopes on mere hot air. Chomsky's philosophy is: "I do nothing if there's not something in it for me." Frederick adds: "And Chomsky is among the most generous individuals regarding not just his donations..." This makes me laugh! And some of the money Chomsky has donated came from my pocket, from the money I gave to him. How kind of Chomsky to redistribute my income for me, taking a cut for himself, as the middleman.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 26, 2005 08:06 AM
Graeme, a Chomsky fanatic, who considers everyone's life - other than Chomsky's! - as expendable, claimed Chomsky is a struggling author who needs people to buy his books to make ends meet. Do struggling authors have second homes and yachts? And before Graeme calls me a liar again, here's an article in "The Guardian" newspaper, a British publication (which Chomsky writes for) that mentions Chomsky's second home: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4120040,00.html Enter "cottage" as the search term, and you'll be presented with this sentence: "But on Cape Cod they have a summer cottage and a sailing boat. 'It's the only way I can survive the rest of the year.' [Chomsky Says]" Just what exactly is a "summer cottage"? Who knows! Could be anything from a $50,000 one-bedroom affair to a four-bedroom house costing well over a million dollars. Here is an article on WSJ about Cape Cod, and the soaring prices of "cottages": http://www.realestatejournal.com/secondhomes/20040317-bennett.html?refresh=on Excerpt: "If you're so fond of sailing and salty air that you dream of retiring on Cape Cod, you'd better act fast, because prices on cottages there are going right through their quaint little roofs." If you want to get an idea of how much "cottages" cost in Cape Cod, visit this site: http://martinsurette.mlsstudio.com/MLSSearch.asp

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Sep 26, 2005 06:53 AM
"that equity shouldn't even be a value because attempting to reach it can (or must) be dangerous." Frederick, I wasn't clear. Equality is a value, and it is worth striving for. But it is only one value of many that are all worth striving for. In the real world we often (usually) in situations that involve a conflict of values. One obvious example is the conflict between the values of Honesty and of Kindness - we have all been in positions where we had to choose between telling the truth and hurting a persons feelings or lying and sparing them. What I object to is putting any single value as the uber-value that is more important than all others or even all others combined. If "equality" is the most important think than I can easily justify killing, raping, stealing, lying, etc. to get it. MANY old Socialists used to pride themselves on their view that values like Respect for Life, Honesty, respect for tradition, etc., were just "bourgeois sentamentalism" and that advacing socialism justified any temporary violation of those morals. Many non-Bolshevik Socialists around the world applauded the mass executions of "White Guards" and "reactionary elements" as a necessary measure to prevent reaction. They weren't "evil" people, but they let their sigular focus on one ideal lead them to support evil acts. I'm not picking on Socialism - its common of many other (especially the ultra Pro-Conversion Monotheistic religions: Christianity and Islam)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Sep 26, 2005 05:40 AM
Bwong, You hit the nail on the head. I have been influenced by Hayek - or, rather, he expresses notions I had already come to believe. However, Hayek did NOT say that ALL regulation was bad. In "The Road to Serfdom" he explicitly agrees that regulations will be a part of life and are not automatically incompatible with a good system. On the other hand, Fred, its true that he does not address decentralized planning. When he wrote, central planning was the ONLY viable form of socialism that had any chance of taking power. However, I have seen few true "decentralised" planning ideas - most would either operate like central planning or having gapping holes that they dont address. For instance, Parecon talks about "levels" of planning (from community on up) but never details the authority arrangements between the various levels. Fine, but its easy to see that there are arrangements that would make a 'Parecon' function like a centrally planned economy. To blatantly say "this is decentralized planning" when, in fact, the skeleton could be used for BOTH (simply by tweaking the relationships between the parties) is somewhat dodgy.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Sep 26, 2005 05:14 AM
"Capitalism doesn't mean just having a market, but that market considerations should trump all other concerns." Now that I see how you are using/viewing the term it is easier to respond. I dislike all 'uber-value" theories, including market based ones. I ALSO dislike those which claim higher values like "equality", "social justice" or "worshiping the right God". The argument that "at least ours aims for a good value and not profit" does mean anything to me. There are many, often conflicting, values in life. Everyday we face choices that involve weighing competing values and choosing the best option available. Philosphies which teach that any one is more important than all others is bound to produce harmful zealots who are ruthless in their pursuit of that one goal.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Sep 26, 2005 04:43 AM
"In fact, folks like rd4 claim that equity shouldn't even be a value because attempting to reach it can (or must) be dangerous" If I understand him correctly, he argues from Von Hayek's view that ANY macro tempering with the market in the interest of justice and fairness "may" have unforseen side effects and therefore should be avoided. I don't agree with that because 1)Real, large scale markets are "designed" to begin with. Their very existence is the result of "tempering with nature". 2)When Hayek was seriously ill I doubt that he would just sit and wait for nature to take its course even though medicine may have side effects and doctors often misdiagonose. Hayek exaggerated our ignorance and impotence. While we don't know everything we also know quite a bit. Hayek equated all forms of tempering with *reckless* tempering.This is a ridiculous caricature (ironically the capitalist logic is behind all large scale, irresponsible and reckless alterings of nature) It is reasonable to advise caution and consult diverse opinions in the face of uncertainty ans incomplete knowledgebut it is riduculous to argue we should do nothing.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Poemworld33, Bruce33 at Sep 26, 2005 01:33 AM
Wow, it's been months since I last posted here and so many of the same folks are still around. That said, this discussion, like so many before it, seems so dispiriting and often beside the point. The main point I think Noam was making in his entry is that there is an abyss (heh) between what the owners and managers SAY and what they DO. My observations and questions come from the same methodological naturalism that Chomsky's linguistics and politics share. Questions like: Is the master-servant relationship EVER legitimate, ethical or necessary? Are property rights a justification for domination of those without property? FWIW, here are a couple of links about power in our society. One is from Znet: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/; the other I learned about over at Eschaton: http://www.theyrule.net/. Both are interesting analyses of power and provide creative approaches for examining it. What we do about power, though, is up to us. Humanity has a very simple choice IMO: freedom, and possibly survival, or domination and the murder-suicide of our species.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Mjc7373, Mcorbin at Sep 25, 2005 22:34 PM
"A realistic critique of capitalism.... should also remember that other organizational schemes have failed to achieve paradise." The problem with the economic system we call capitalism today is that it dosen't even aspire to create equity. It by design is a system that guarantees accelerating concentrations of wealth. We should at least have a system that ATTEMPTS fairness. At least then if we still have massive wealth alongside desperate poverty we can honestly say we have tried our best.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Sep 25, 2005 20:05 PM
"But damn near every anti-capitalist philosophy explicitly forbids even WILLING capitalist-type dealings in it's populace. The aim is explicitly to destroy all markets, big and small - not simply provide an alternative." Actually that is not true. I don't mind having a market as long as it is regulated and alternative modes of allocations are availiable. Capitalism doesn't mean just having a market, but that market considerations should trump all other concerns. That is when a useful tool(at least IMO) becomes the master. There are differences between my view and Pareconers such as Federic on the market and other points regarding how society should be organized, even though I respect where their concerns. But then dwelling on these points are purly academic as I don't see any chance that a parecon like system will become the dominant model any time soon. I am all for experimenting with alternatives in small scale and diversities.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Sep 25, 2005 04:21 AM
bad hair cut? The mind is a whacky thing. These forums are too small to speak fully. Obviously there are plenty of Idealogical "Capitalists" who want to spread their gospel. I dont like them either. Ask most "capitalists" if people should be prevented from dropping out of the system and forming a commune somewhere and they will say "No. Go ahead and let them. Why would I care what they do?". But damn near every anti-capitalist philosophy explicitly forbids even WILLING capitalist-type dealings in it's populace. The aim is explicitly to destroy all markets, big and small - not simply provide an alternative. As for the argument that Zeal is good in the cause of justice .... GWB completely agrees with you and aren't you just so pleased with the results. We all know what the road to hell is paved with.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Sep 24, 2005 22:33 PM
I meant "like observing a chain gang at work and conclude that the absence of the profit motive is the source of their low enthusiasm". Don't know how bad hair cut got in. Maybe because I just had one.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Sep 24, 2005 22:03 PM
“Among the consequences of socialist equalization of incomes were poor discipline and low initiative among workers, poor quality and limited selection of goods and services, slow technical progress, and eventually, slower economic growth leading to more poverty.” It was true that poor discipline and low initiative are common in the former "socialist" states. But was it the result too much "equalization" or lack or meaningful participation? The rigidity of a top down Soviet style system understandably generates low morale among workers. I am insterested how your source is able to single out "equalization of income" as the main culprit.Sounds like self serving rhetorics. It is quite counter intuitive if you think about it. Anyone who actually has experience with real people as oppose to just reading economics text books know good workers are usually motivated not just by the paid cheque. Conversly,People who are motivated by pure economics tend to cut corners whenever they can get away.This may range from slacking off to selling sub standard products that may endanger public safety. Your argument is a bit like observing a chain gang at work and conclude that bad hair cut is the source of their lack of enthusiasm ------------------------------------------- The abyss is insane.Just ignore him.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Casten, J.d. at Sep 24, 2005 20:44 PM
A realistic critique of capitalism (and I'm not a pure-capitalist) should also remember that other organizational schemes have failed to achieve paradise. http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/beyond/global/chapter5.html (some of you must just love the source) says: “Among the consequences of socialist equalization of incomes were poor discipline and low initiative among workers, poor quality and limited selection of goods and services, slow technical progress, and eventually, slower economic growth leading to more poverty.” But, “On the other hand, excessive inequality adversely affects people's quality of life, leading to a higher incidence of poverty, impeding progress in health and education, and contributing to crime.” Both Extremes have been historically proven to increase poverty. For those who compare the U.S. to Sweden or Canada; think what U.S. social services would be if 1/3 of U.S. budget was redirected from the military to such.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By The-abyss, The-abyss at Sep 24, 2005 17:10 PM
September 24th, the day of the march, but I didn't go. Not after I found out Chomsky charges $12,000 - minimum! - per speech (no one e-mailed me with evidence to the contrary), and then has the audacity to tell people to "GO AWAY!" in an interview at the end of "Manufacturing Consent". After being insulted and abused by Chomsky supporters for daring to call Chomsky and his agent A PAIR OF SWINDLERS, selling recordings of Chomsky musing about the world and his wife for a profit, and marketing books that are mere transcripts of Chomsky chatting away to his agent, I realized the left-wing is as corrupt and as greedy as the right-wing. Anyway, no one came forward offering to pay my travelling expenses to the march. Evidently, only Chomsky deserves to be reimbursed - we can't expect wealthy Capitalists to pay their own way, now can we? Why should I march when all I'm doing is giving Chomsky and his kind more fodder for their speeches? I was called a "little person" by one Chomsky supporter. A tip: don't ever hint to anyone that you're poor. Clearly, Chomsky supporters are as elitist as those they attack. Chomsky has done nothing. His supporters do nothing. So now I'm doing nothing.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Mjc7373, Mcorbin at Sep 24, 2005 15:56 PM
"IF basic needs are being met for all, and people are paid non-exploitative wages; why care if some are wealthy? " Very big "IF" JD. Bear in mind that our objections to capitalism are based on life experiences and reality. Your idealogical view of capitalism is not based on reality, but is theoredical. Is the current economic system in the US capitalism as you have described it? If so why has it not produced the positive outcome you talk about?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Jamessp, Shade at Sep 24, 2005 13:55 PM
@J.D. Casten I think greed is the wrong word here, but 'competition' is probably apt, and there quite probably deep biological roots that make us 'competitive' with each other. The problem isn't the 'competition', so much as: 1) Capitalism's tendency to exploit this 'competitive' drive is such a way as to 'maximize the exploitation' of all those who can be exploited. 2) Fostering individual competition in such a way that it values the individual's ability 'to accumulate and consume' over the survival of the species. 3) Different competitors within the system, everything else being equal, can be exponentially more 'successful' depending on their good fortune in choosing their parents. 4) The tendency for the super 'competitors', their agents and proxies, to slowly subvert their local (and not so local) political systems to further their 'competitive' advantages. Over time some combination a wealth stratification, regressive taxation, environmental destruction, and oppressive policing may well lead to the sorts social upheavals that destroy the very system that engendered it (While taking everything in the vicinity with it. If you're the USA that could very well mean the rest of the planet).

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Casten, J.d. at Sep 24, 2005 13:09 PM
I think a problem occurs when thinking at the extremes: with the efficiency equality tradeoff, for example, how could absolute inequality = absolute efficiency? Of course we need a certain amount of equality; but HOW and to what extent we redistribute is important (e.g. investing in employment strategies). Do we need Absolute equality, just for equality's sake? And besides human rights: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html (a good short read) IF basic needs are being met for all, and people are paid non-exploitative wages; why care if some are wealthy? That's envious avarice. I don't think you can psychologically program people with an Economic system; “Greed” is most likely a natural human element, if not taught by Social systems (as part of the drive for “Success”- money being one “merit badge” among many; as if self-worth shouldn't be simply based on being a decent human being). If people fail to see necessary compromises and tradeoffs then, the answers must seem very easy, with consequent zealotry.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Allen, Robert at Sep 24, 2005 06:15 AM
"Anti-capitalists are motivated by idealogy." No, it's indignation, something a smug motherfucker like you wouldn't understand.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Sep 24, 2005 04:57 AM
"r4d20... You are kidding right?" Well, yeah, sort of. Obviously I don't think EVERY self-described "communist" is a would-be murderer. But seriously, for all the talk of "market fundamentalism", anti-market activists strike me as being the fundamnentalists and future leaders of the Inquisition. Capitalists are motivated by greed. Anti-capitalists are motivated by idealogy. I find greed less threatening. Id rather be oppressed by the greedy than by the dogmatic.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Allen, Robert at Sep 23, 2005 22:43 PM
"Another great thought, but. If you remove the profit from business, there will be no business." That's the point- to get rid of business, which entails exploitation, that is, theft of workers' time (as I've shown in other posts). This is a point apologists for capitalism never seem to get: a society does not need to have some of its members profiting from the toil of others. Workers could get along fine without these bloodsuckers.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Jasons888, Shmity72 at Sep 23, 2005 21:15 PM
I am mentally disabled...what good can come of it... I'll tell you. You see soverienty in a whole new light. I do not think capitalizem is evil. In fact 'properly' employed it can be a successful form of government, as long as 'might makes right' in this damnable world. It is my belief that, until the masses are electroshocked into 'realizeing' the need for the elimination of the poor sector...and i'm talking about the 'poor' poor...we'll just have to turn to each other. To all you nazis out there that would use my skin as lampshades...I give you the finger. Yours truly, JDS

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Gammon101, Bwong at Sep 23, 2005 20:24 PM
People don't get paid based on how much they contribute to collective well being. Does a lawyer who "work hard" on corporate mergers which result in massive laid offs contribute anything positive to the society? Should a chemist who "works hard" to make cigarettes more addictive and get paid hansomely be considered a "prdocutive citizen"? Society can do better without a lot "hard working" people. At least the bum doesn't cause any harm other than annoyance. On the other hand a lot of people do valuable work without getting paid. E.g. mothers raising children. There is no necessary correlation between rewards, labour and the value of labour. The idea that those who "work" and earn money are contributing while those who don't are parasites is a fiction. In primitive societies the meaning of "pulling one's weight" was clearcut. But that is not true in modern societies where most people don't directly involve in food production or "wealth creation",--to use a cliche. "Work" and renumerations are socially constructed fictions. Money is a social fiction. If only paid work is real work, only prostitution should be considered real sex.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Mjc7373, Mcorbin at Sep 23, 2005 19:13 PM
JD: I'll just point out now that I think capitalism is amoral. What makes it worse is the addition of corporate welfare, privatization of social security, and other methods of looting the public trust. "Yes, some of that money comes from labor profits; but if you're not against non-exploitative labor profits, or see the alternatives as worse, you might see less of a problem." ALL money earned by those who do not work comes from those who do, unless I am missing something. If you are implying that any alternative to our system would be worse you are definitely missing a lot. We agree on one thing: The ideal is worker-owned collective business. I worked for a such a collective in the 90's and it was the only true democracy I've ever experienced.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Sep 23, 2005 15:58 PM
"Through dematerialization...growth is less dependent on natural resources (i.e. the media, paperless electronic miniaturization, etc.)" This is great thought, but fails in reality. More "advanced" capitalist countries use far more resources and continue to use more and more. Electronic advances, ie. computers, have actually increased paper use while using more toxic substances. Any advances from dematerialization is being appropriated by an increase in aggregate consumption, that is as things become cheaper and more advanced people just have more stuff. "Market forces should be directed into solving social and environmental goals, of which eradication poverty is the foremost." Another great thought, but. If you remove the profit from business, there will be no business. The hegemon of capital will always find a way to ascertain a large portion of the output of a capitalist system. Seeking equity out of a system designed to accentuate and reward competition and avarice is futile. "An alternative could be “encouraging” everyone to save and invest..." Ah, the great casino capitalism theory. Everyone could just invest and everyone would come out on top, right. This is simply redistributing wealth upwards by investing in the companies owned by the elite. 95% of all stock in the US is owned by 10% of the populace. Any investment benifits these 10%, so a tax on the poor. r4d20... You are kidding right?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Casten, J.d. at Sep 22, 2005 22:49 PM
MCorbin, I agree with you on the education issue (my mention of education above was something of a mistake; I was thinking of higher education and priorities, and wrongly). Much hangs on one's definition of exploitation: from taking any profit from another's labor at all, to paying the lowest wages the market will bear. If a company is not profiteering, and their workers can afford to live with security, dignity, and human rights, I personally do not think the workers are being exploited (my ideal is employee owned businesses competing in open markets). I'm not an advocate of “trickle down economics”… completely. Investment is necessary with capitalism, but much just unproductively floats in the stock market. However, after the Reagan era tax cuts, the wealthy have taken on a larger share of the tax burden: currently, 80% of U.S. income tax revenues come from the wealthiest 20%. Yes, some of that money comes from labor profits; but if you're not against non-exploitative labor profits, or see the alternatives as worse, you might see less of a problem. Personally, I believe the wealthiest could be paying more taxes than they currently do; but what if the wealthy mostly reinvest their savings with consequent higher tax revenues? An alternative could be “encouraging” everyone to save and invest (as with privatizing social security) and taxing that. Either way the Future or the Present must be sacrificed for the other.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Mjc7373, Mcorbin at Sep 22, 2005 20:21 PM
JD, I think we are not on the same page here. I am not talking about giving money away, I am talking about not exploiting others. There is a difference. We need not ask how or why we should give money to those in poverty, but how they got that way and what, if anything, our economic systems have done to contribute it. "But, with progressive taxation, for example, where does the money come from for governments to invest in creating the circumstances and tools by which (rural) poverty can be alleviated?" How about funding public schools in poor areas at least as much as schools in affluent areas? Public schools are virtually the last institutions where upper and lower classes interact. The more we allow disparity in public funding, the more we encourage upper classes to remove their kids from public schools to go to private schools, which results in less funding for public school, and the cycle continues until there is total class segregation. You seem to advocate "trickle down" economics, which has been proven in the real world to be an abysmal failure. And to answer your tax question with another question: Where does the capital on which the wealthy will pay tax come from?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Sep 22, 2005 20:06 PM
"How is walmart less hated by capitalists than the so called "coordinator class"?" Ummm... because Wal-Mart doesn't drag you out of your bed at night and shoot you in the back of the head for not shopping there. Communists, on the other hand, always vote for mass murder about 2 seconds after they realise that most of us will never buy their crap.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Casten, J.d. at Sep 22, 2005 18:39 PM
MCorbin, et. al.: The “we” needing surpluses would include victims of the Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina, and anyone else who can not support themselves through WORKING for some reason. A sustenance level working arrangement would have a hard time adjusting to catastrophes. The U.S. providing full welfare benefits for all developing nations sounds like a good idea, but I think you could figure out what that would do to our economy. But I mostly agree with Outcomes Man. I personally applaud those who would seek to theorize and experiment with alternatives such as Parecon; but I think many fail to see how well the world is TRYING to solve its problems with a very complex mass of strategies that negotiate various conflicts & trade-offs. Most sides have good intentions, with different emphases in approach. Change will most likely occur, not with an uprooting, but with a new growth that displaces the old. I believe attaining full global employment would require growth, but profits do not require it; in 2002 10 drug companies had a 17% profit margin (IMO profiteering should be taxed), but the 490 other fortune 500 companies had only 3.1%. Through dematerialization, with less material and more labor input, growth is less dependent on natural resources (i.e. the media, paperless electronic miniaturization, etc.). Some, like Bjorn Lomborg, are optimistic about growth sustainability, but IMO alternative energy sources are critical.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Man, Outcomes at Sep 22, 2005 18:16 PM
We need to target outcomes. If we want to eradicate poverty there's enough surplus to do it. Redirect resources away from the military and corporate welfare. The rich world gives around 12 times more aid to its own farmers as it does to the third world. We need to subordinate policy to outcomes. Market forces should be directed into solving social and environmental goals, of which eradication poverty is the foremost. Instead of searching for formulas or ideologies, we could reward people who help eradicate poverty, however they do it. (My website has more info.)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Wshirley, Willied at Sep 22, 2005 17:02 PM
"A system requireing infinite growth does not fit in a finite world." My wife and I often wonder at economists who feel that there must be growth at all times. The economy must grow seems to be a given, and yet I honestly cannot see why growth is so vital. It certainly isn't organic since all things which grow also decay. So it's a societal affectation, a cultural icon. I understand this next thought is blasphemy in a capitalist society, but growth in this context is based on profit taking, and I cannot fathom why profits are the end all and be all of society. You always have to get more than you give. In a finite system you cannot have infinite growth. Money is a symbol of work done. In order for a billionaire to exist there must be many thousands of workers, none of whom is a billionaire, or even a millionaire. How did we get to a point where a person can claim the benefits of all those workers, often simply by existing? Blasphemy it may be in the religion of capitalism, but what about a system where fair trade is the prime motive, rather than profits? We are told that few would work for a break-even situation, but isn't that because we have always been told that you need to have profit, you need to have growth? Constant growth and constant profit taking is expensive in terms of human life and suffering.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Sep 22, 2005 12:47 PM
" both supply and demand are both economically important; and inequality (monetary, educational, etc.), pales in comparison to starvation, disease, and loss of biodiversity." I am not sure how you seperate the two sets of issues. Inequality is obviously the cause of starvation and disease, just look to the disparity between how we (people in the core countries) live and people in Africa or periphery regions live. An equitable distribution of the resources would eliminate the problems of poverty and disease whit large. As for biodiversity, any system predicated on advancement of self interest over group well being is going to foster a distructive effect on the biosystem. IMO there is no way to effectively internalize the biosystem into the markets and therefore they will always be a way to profit by degrading, or a means to exturnalize costs onto the commons. A system requireing infinite growth does not fit in a finite world.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Mjc7373, Mcorbin at Sep 22, 2005 09:11 AM
J.D. Casten: "Don't we need surplus wealth in the first place, in order to re-distribute it?" Who are "we", and where do would that surplus come from? "If they are getting richer that means that their investments are paying off, which in turn means people are being employed" That's fine if you are the one hiring, or you enjoy spending your life on a preverbial gerbil wheel fattening an already richer person's bank account.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Casten, J.d. at Sep 21, 2005 23:19 PM
MTbrad: I agree with much of what you say. Increased efficiencies and expansions also mean higher profits and CEO salaries. Even given little consensus with empirical studies, that pressure groups receive significant political favors for their campaign finance support, pressure groups DO get access. Somehow politicians must navigate the varying persuasive lobbyist views, and represent their constituents; more likely, sans corruption, they will judge by their own political perspective that their constituents more or less know and voted for. From my observations, things are slippery, not due to buyouts, but due to the tactics of opposing sides in congress. Representatives and Senators play poker; exaggerating demands here for concessions there, getting their constituents as much pork as possible, and legislating political advantages for their party: advocating their clients' cases as adversary lawyers. I don't buy the notion of “rampantly corrupt government-media-corporate buy-off.” Referencing Donald Davidson's “Principle of Charity,” where people can communicate because our core competency and beliefs are shared and true, I would hazard that corruption is as proportionately prevalent as it is reported in the media. For me though, both supply and demand are both economically important; and inequality (monetary, educational, etc.), pales in comparison to starvation, disease, and loss of biodiversity.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Sep 21, 2005 20:05 PM
"Investments in new stock issues and bond investments directly expand the supply side of production reducing prices or increasing employment." Or, increasing CEO saleries and company profit taking. Which then flows into the political system to further undermine the democracy. "tax cuts increase wealth at an accelerated rate, and increased wealth yields higher tax revenues." Tax cuts do not increase aggregate wealth, only increase wealth stratification. Therefore, increase the availability of wealth to be useed as power against the majorty by a minority of ever increasingly wealthy elite. The job of the government is to regulate or facilitate capitalism by redistributing the wealth downwards which will then increase spending at a much higher rate and not undermine democracy. " At issue here is not, rich people (not) helping the poor, but democratically optimizing the system to aim for security and necessities for all far into the future." This is the issue, and Chomsky is saying what many have shown, that increasing the wealth disparity leads to undermining of the democratic processes through increased inequatibility of political power. It is not an issue of evil rich people, but of a flawed system that privledges bad behaviour and therefore requires high degrees of govenmental intervention to sustain it.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Casten, J.d. at Sep 21, 2005 19:17 PM
IMO the wealthy are not the powerful masters some think: but rather supper consumers, often buying higher labor content products. Yes, some may loaf and lobby for their own wallet collection. But it's sheer prejudice to isolate a group without general traits other than what defines them, and apply non-defining specifics to the whole group. Are there no public debates about zoning, pubic health (illegalize Coke? How much control is necessary?), or trading off habitats for cleaner hydro-electric power? Investments in new stock issues and bond investments directly expand the supply side of production reducing prices or increasing employment. Empirical numbers prove the obvious: tax cuts increase wealth at an accelerated rate, and increased wealth yields higher tax revenues. Bush's tax cuts would take many decades before his tax rate revenues out-strip pre-Bush tax rates revenues. Are you “biased” against dreams of taxed concentrations of investment accumulation paying for poverty and ecological safety nets of the Future? The bad math may come if government deficits grow faster than the tax revenues. At issue here is not, rich people (not) helping the poor, but democratically optimizing the system to aim for security and necessities for all far into the future.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Sep 21, 2005 16:10 PM
Market based societies have historically trended towards fascism. As the elite or wealthy gain increasing amounts of wealth they buy out thier compitition which leads to a monopoly. This monopoly has historically always figured out how to influece governmental policy to its advantage. Witness the recent reduction of the progressive tax scheme in the US and the role of enron in the election cycles. How is walmart less hated by capitalists than the so called "coordinator class"? The ability of a company to weild its power over very large swathes of the population without electoral intervention is the true problem and I think what Chomsky is refering too. The notion that rich people are out there "creating" wealth and their fore helping to lift the poor is a ridiculously simplistic caricaturization of economics. They are amassing wealth, which means taking it from others. Global economic expansion (globalization) has not increased the productivity of the worlds economy. World bank statistics show that as the global economy has become integrated the global productivity has slowed. Sure there are always a few case to hold up as having "improved" (a highly subjective term) but this does not prove to be the rule. Overall the higher the levels of forign investment the lower the levels of capital accumilation.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Jasons888, Shmity72 at Sep 21, 2005 09:17 AM
A problem I see is too much advocating against enemies, and not enough adjudicating legitimate opposing views. It seems more people like playing rather than refereeing a (very serious) game. here here!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Casten, J.d. at Sep 21, 2005 08:29 AM
What do these evil “extremely rich” do, besides spend or invest their money, and pay higher tax rates? If they are getting richer that means that their investments are paying off, which in turn means people are being employed. Are they buying off governments? In that case, in the U.S., a significant number states would have to be, poltico-demographically, absolutely purple (rather than Ralph Nader noting that 93% of congressional districts are one-party districts): even close races have not been proven to be influenced by money (yes, winners tend to raise more money; but if they're more popular in the first place, and predicted to win by favor-pursuers, then of course they'll raise more money). Point being, that wealth itself can be seen as fairly benign; and many may have to face the fact that in many places, “the people” are freely and rationally electing the governments that they actually want. A problem I see is too much advocating against enemies, and not enough adjudicating legitimate opposing views. It seems more people like playing rather than refereeing a (very serious) game.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Casten, J.d. at Sep 21, 2005 07:58 AM
Keir: Some facts from the U.N. Trade and Development Report 2005 report can be found here: http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=76701 “UNCTAD noted that the main growth engines are China and India, where rapid economic development has reduced poverty” Of course inequality is a problem: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4252308.stm And that inequality has much to do with the urban/rural disparity: http://www.ifpri.org/divs/fcnd/dp/fcndp196.htm Chomsky's points seem re-enforced here: http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/070280.html But, with progressive taxation, for example, where does the money come from for governments to invest in creating the circumstances and tools by which (rural) poverty can be alleviated? Don't we need surplus wealth in the first place, in order to re-distribute it? Yet, many economists will tell you that growing an economy and monetary re-distribution are at odds.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Sep 21, 2005 04:38 AM
"thanks to extermination or expulsion of the native population and slavery—not exactly in accord with market principles" Got to give him credit for pointing out that extortion, violence, and slavery are NOT parts of the "Free market". Unfortunatly, the connotation of "free market" has come to mean "free from Government compulsion" rather than "free from compulsion by any other party" - it is used to mean "non-socialist" when it really means a lot more than that. In a TRUE free market no party can pressure another except by changing prices, and all transactions are "willing". A market in which your buyer/seller can use force on you is not a free market, its more like a black market dominated by organised crime - a mob racket rather than a free market. I hate seeing people call these kind of things "capitalism" or "Free market" probably as much as some of you hate seeing Stalin called "socialist". "An historical problem with free market competition... is that more .. powerful organizations can unfairly muscle out competition" A historic problems of attempts at socialism has been that the "vanguard"/"coodinator class" has seized power and become a new ruling class.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Casten, J.d. at Sep 21, 2005 03:44 AM
To my knowledge, poverty has been reduced in China and India due to freer markets. (Global) Trade is growth oriented (capital formation=increased wages), while government redistribution (global and local aid) CAN be an Investment without return as far as sustainable poverty reduction is concerned (although aid may be necessary for a humane present, often at some expense to a promised more humane future). “Humane” centralized government intervention, at its extreme with Communism, has its atrocious history too: 55 million famine deaths. An historical problem with free market competition, which Chomsky points to, is that more (and less!) powerful organizations can unfairly muscle out competition (both locally and globally, sometimes with military force), too often with horrible subjugations, or with consequent desperate terrorist reactions. Freedom is dangerous, and must be fairly channeled (via laws set by freely competing ideologies). Hence “my” view that a complex balance is necessary between Libertarian economic efficiencies (decentralized being more efficient than centralized), and a Sustainability oriented global consciousness (see my simple-minded essay “Capital Regulation,” at www.jdcasten.info ).

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Jasons888, Shmity72 at Sep 21, 2005 01:25 AM
capitalism/socialism/getting your medicine... I think you guys are kinda giving a sweeping thought to what capitalism means to this country. I also believe that Chomsky is making more of a statement: Can a house(the american government), stand(that is to say contribute sensibly in the world market), without a firm foundation(the anexation of half of Mexico etc...). It is a wh question in the form of how. To put it simply: to revelutionize 'our' economy would take trust in the forefathers vision, and a hard look by market analysts at the 'good' that can come from long-term capitalization. but that's just my opinion. were I to do something about it I would hug my niece and educate her in the ways of 'civil disobedience' and God.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Sep 21, 2005 01:03 AM
This is just one more example of what people have been saying for years; neoliberals do one thing and tell others to do another. This thereom can be extrapalated on to the broader elite class. The proclaim rights, freedoms and equality, then use all of their resources to do the opposite. As for forcing the elites to make concessions to the general welfare, I think one can address it in the laguage they speak, that is to speak of the need to place capital in the hands of consumers by paying them more which will stimulate the market. On a more radical note, I wonder if capitalism itself is constructed completely on contradictions. That if we sought to socialize markets to include the social costs or externalities if they would not implode.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Michael, Bobbo at Sep 20, 2005 22:49 PM
Changing the priorities of the economic and political elite towards a social democratic ideal is a laudable and practical goal. However, it cannot happen by simply advocating it. History has taught us that elites in general, and capitalist elites specifically, only make concessions to the general welfare of the society when they are forced. The end result of many calls for revolutionary struggle have been, in fact, some form of social democracy or welfare state. Most of the trappings of modern democracy, including human rights, are the result of a sense of crisis among elite circles that forced them out of their willful blindness. That sense of crisis is not brought about by sitting at home, sipping wine, and discussing social democracy politely with your friends. Whatever the result of popular struggle may come to be (libertarian socialism, social democracy, or merely a recognition of elementary political rights), the goal should always be to roll back the advance of authoritarianism and systematic inequality.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Allen, Robert at Sep 19, 2005 20:02 PM
"Bastards are people to (sic)." Did I say that they weren't? Does that make them any less monstrous- witness what they are doing in Iraq as we speak.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Organum, Baby at Sep 19, 2005 19:57 PM
They might be villains, but criminology teaches that most crooks can be brought back to society. As a social democrat i think it is feasible to train new generations of businesspeople how not to kill their society ( the proverbal golden goose ) and to see the benefits of peace and a less competitively murderous policy. Armed revolution is impossible in a land like USA. Or most likely as a rightwing-rebellion against a left-government. Do you guys have workerrepresentation in your boardrooms ? PS Bastards are people to.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Market Principles?

By Allen, Robert at Sep 19, 2005 18:12 PM
Reports like this only verify what all decent persons have long suspected, based on our own bitter experiences: capitalist bastards and their lackeys will take whatever they can get away with taking, the common good be damned. There is not a dime's worth of difference between them and your average thug.

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (183)

Loading_border