The Coercive Anarchism of Chomsky....

[RadioRaheem84]

Who decides what work is best for mankind? Noam Chomsky?

"The most obvious form of control . . . is differential wages. . . . Since the industrial revolution, [socialism] has been much concerned with the problems of ‘wage slavery’ and the ‘benign’ forms of control that rely on deprivation and reward rather than direct punishment." And: "There is, of course, no doubt that behavior can be controlled, for example, by threat of violence or a pattern of deprivation and reward. . . . Sanctions backed by force restrict freedom, as does differential reward. . . . t would be absurd . . . to overlook [as does Skinner] the distinction between a person who chooses to conform in the face of threat, or force, or deprivation and differential reward and a person who ‘chooses’ to obey Newtonian principles as he falls from a high tower."
Both Skinner and Chomsky believe the same thing, that economic persuasion is not persuasion but "control" — coercion — and those subject to it are not free. Whereas the traditional taskmaster beat those who did not obey orders (force), today’s marketplace employer simply fires them ("deprivation") — or, if they do obey, pays them ("reward"). Capitalism controls all behavior by matching different behaviors with different wages ("differential reward"), with zero being the wage for some behaviors (again, "deprivation").
Susan Lopez wants to be a singer like her idol, Jennifer Lopez. However, she is not free to be one. She isn’t thrashed when she opens her mouth. It’s just that no one (including Professor Chomsky) will pay her to sing; she is "free" to sing only to the extent that she is "free" to starve. Consequently, she has no choice but to work at the only job for which people will pay her — collecting bedpans at the retirement home. This is not what she wants to do at all, and she would prefer at the very least to work only part-time, but that means the loss of her medical benefits. For Chomsky, Susan Lopez is not free — free to be "able to do as one pleases," which is the "natural goal" of a "decent society," one in which all the Susan Lopezes will have the same freedom as "those fortunate few [e.g., Jennifer Lopez] who can choose their own work generally do today." And, as Providence would have it, the professor knows exactly what will take us to this Promised Land: the redesign of our culture to approximate the "socialist dictum, ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.’" The first part will eliminate "reward," the second "deprivation."
His program for clause one is quite simple: stop paying people to work. No wages, no "wage slavery." Chomsky doesn’t tell us who will accomplish this or how. He is skeptical, even scornful, of the suggestion that people work for "extrinsic reward," be it money or "prestige [or] respect," and won’t work (i.e., will "vegetate," in his characterization) without it. The "decent society" will have "no shortage of scientists, engineers, surgeons, artists, craftsmen, teachers, and so on, simply because such work is intrinsically rewarding."2 Any intimation that "history and experience" might cast doubt on this is dismissed as having "the same status as an eighteenth-century argument to the effect that capitalist democracy is impossible."3 He insists that "from the lessons of history we can reach only the most tentative conclusions about basic human tendencies" at one (anti-empirical) moment, only to insist elsewhere that "[w]e also find . . . that many people often do not act solely, or even primarily, so as to achieve material gain, or even so as to maximize applause." Exactly where we find these "many people," the professor, renowned for his copious footnotes, provides not even a clue.
Chomsky writes, "interesting and socially useful work is . . . rewarding in itself." Socially useful — determined how and by whom, absent the mechanism of supply and demand? "Were we to rank occupations by social utility in some manner" — what manner? The answer comes in the form of a question: "Is it obvious that an accountant helping a corporation to cut its tax bill is doing work of greater social value than a musician, riveter, baker, truck driver, or lumberjack?" It is, if "social value" denotes how everyone allocates his personal resources. That’s why the accountant earns far less than Jennifer Lopez but far more than Susan Lopez.4 But the professor uses the term "social value" to denote how he would allocate everyone else’s resources. What emerges is another implicit "dictum": from each according to his own judgment, to all according to Chomsky’s.
[I]And how can Chomsky guarantee that the jobs that are "socially useful" (e.g., bedpan collection) will be the same that people (e.g., Susan Lopez) find "interesting"? He can’t, which is why we’re informed that in this "decent society, socially necessary and unpleasant work would be divided on some egalitarian basis." But the obligatory mention about "egalitarian basis" tells us only how people will ideally do the work; it doesn’t tell us why they’ll do it. Since the work is not "interesting," it cannot be "rewarding in itself." That leaves only two alternative motivations: the button of "direct punishment" or the switch of "deprivation and reward." A self-professed "libertarian and humanist" who seeks to guide and free us from any manifestation of "authoritarian rule," Chomsky himself can find only sundry "forms of control" blocking all the exits.
These one-dimensional models of [selfless and selfish souls]motivation simply ignore the way that many different and complex members of humanity are able to speak for themselves in the forum of the market, where each names his price and others take it or leave it. Of course, this is the very "wage slavery" Chomsky denounces.
What about the second clause — "to each according to his needs" — the other half of the moral formula to free us from such "slavery"? Here Chomsky provides no argument at all. He has nothing to say about the sort of practical policies that would be needed to implement this principle (and thus eradicate "deprivation"). Apparently, if any sense at all is to be made of this, we must make it ourselves.
One way that is sometimes suggested is a guaranteed income or a ration of basic necessities. In contrast to the free-market, the free-lunch frees Susan Lopez to sing full-time without starving. Leaving aside the question of how the government of the "decent society" will acquire the wealth for this distribution, does this distribution satisfy Chomsky’s standard of freedom? Here "history and experience" offer two answers: socialist dictatorship and social democracy. The first is easily disposed of: Noam Chomsky himself would be the last person in the Free World not to concede that Communist governments, in their monopolization of all resources, employ "deprivation and reward" as a means of exacting obedience from their subjects.
But what about a social democracy, which, as a matter of "positive rights, simply gives people what they need, no questions — or obligations — asked? A decisive no comes from 1971’s Regulating the Poor, edited by Francis F. Piven and Richard A. Cloward, which concludes that welfare programs arise "from the need to stem political disorder during periods of mass unemployment, and to enforce low-wage work during periods of economic and political stability. The institution of relief is thus best understood, not as charity, but as a system for regulating the poor." So, "when the destitute become disorderly and tumultuous, often on a scale which threatens political stability," the amount of a welfare payment is raised in order to quiet them down ("reward"). "Once turbulance subsides," the amount of a payment is lowered to sub-wage levels ("deprivation") and the poor "are forced off the relief rolls and into the low-wage labor pool." Yes, "wage slavery"!
The only remaining political option is anarcho-syndicalism, so it’s hardly surprising that this approach is so closely associated with Chomsky.5
Here we must run our own Gedanken experiment. Let us imagine that there are no ethical or economic problems in a situation in which the kids who were hired at a Big Burger outlet Monday take over the store Tuesday. They kick out the manager and break all ties with the corporate home office, and no police intervene to protect property rights. Having truly seized the means of production from the bosses, these workers have at last freed themselves from "wage slavery" and the concomitant "deprivation and reward." Or have they? The fact is, they still must arrive for work on time, look presentable, keep the place clean, cook the right food the right way, and be courteous, or else they won’t get paid — by the only real boss: the sovereign consumer, who pays (or doesn’t pay) the salaries of all the employees of Big Burger, from its CEO to the guy working the fryer.
Fundamentally, either Smith gives something — food, clothing, medicine, money, acknowledgment, friendship, consent, cooperation, approval, sex, love — to Jones ("reward") or he doesn’t ("deprivation"). What isn’t either "deprivation" or "reward"? Chomsky’s terms cover (and condemn) all of the give-and-take inherent in human interaction — "a handy explanation for any eventuality."
But just who’s enslaving whom in "wage slavery"? Am I the consumer controlling the kid behind the counter through "deprivation" by withholding my money if he doesn’t "take my order"? Or is he controlling me through "deprivation" by withholding the burger (which I need for food) if I don’t obey his demand for a specific sum of money (for which I had to work)? Is my physician coercing me into working (for wages) by denying me medical care if I don’t pay him, or am I coercing him into working (as a physician) by denying him money (for food, clothing, etc.) if he doesn’t treat me? The very logic of "wage slavery" casts each man as both slave and master.7 I am reminded at this point of the wonderful cartoon that has one mouse in the Skinner box saying to the other, "Have I got this guy trained! All I have to do is press on this bar and he gives me food."

The Chains That Bind Us All
How could it be otherwise? Freedom, for Chomsky, could only be behavior that occurs apart from any social environment — i.e., apart from one’s fellow human beings, whose every response to one’s every action constitutes either "deprivation" or "reward." To free oneself from Chomsky’s "slavery," one must live apart from society and provide his own food, shelter, medical care, companionship, etc.8
For money and definitions alike, bad drives out good. Absurdist conceptions of freedom serve only to undermine valid ones.
http://97.74.65.51/Printable.aspx?ArtId=20016

[Havet]

In before IcarusAngel ^^

[IcarusAngel]

That article tells us more about the author (whoever it is) than it does about Noam Chomsky.

The article is unreadable, incoherent, unanalytical and provides no sources or any kind of coherent analysis. It is thus like reading something from the Libertarian left website, and it seems like a criticism of anarchism rather than of Chomsky specifically.

But Chomsky does not seek a type of 'freedom' that is only possible out in "the wild." He says himself repeatedly that social cooperation is necessary for freedom, and that the workers themselves should be in charge of the means of production rather than some 'voluptuous master,' such as a landowner or any other form of anarchism. For example, the role of the 'intellectual' would be that of an intellectual worker, who uses his talents for the benefit of the community (Chomsky reader). His criticisms of theories like the "Bell Curve" are that they are about as useful as studying the "length of the blades of grass in a field" and therefore should be discarded as they ignore the fact that you can find diveristy within any population, and much of it is meaningless. This (his social cooperation) puts him in line with anarchists such as Rocker, Proudhon, etc., but also within the framework of some of the more extreme ends of the enlightenment and classical liberal tradition of von Humboldt, Rousseau, etc.

If you want "cooercive anarchism" look at anarcho-capitalism or hayenmill's "beliefs."

[Havet]

If you want "cooercive anarchism" look at anarcho-capitalism or hayenmill's "beliefs."

It's quite remarkable how you manage to write so much without saying anything at all. You should run for office. Seriously.

[IcarusAngel]

Well, it's funny that you would be fooled by an article from Front Page Mag, a site created by conservative Stalinists, which was so bad that even they took it down. It's also funny you apparently don't know that "from each according to his ability" is a communist ideology, not a syndicalist one, and certainly not one Chomsky believes.

This is the nail in the coffin: You have studied no "anarchist" theory outside of the "Libertarian left" website, proving you lied when you claimed you had studied "anarchism" and "Chomsky." You're like Olaf, the only ideology you know of is your own.

[Havet]

Well, it's funny that you would be fooled by an article from Front Page Mag, a site created by conservative Stalinists, which was so bad that even they took it down. It's also funny you apparently don't know that "from each according to his ability" is a communist ideology, not a syndicalist one, and certainly not one Chomsky believes.

Well I wasn't fooled because I didn't even bother to read it.


This is the nail in the coffin: You have studied no "anarchist" theory outside of the "Libertarian left" website, proving you lied when you claimed you had studied "anarchism" and "Chomsky." You're like Olaf, the only ideology you know of is your own.

I never claimed to have "studied" anything, especially Chomsky.

[IcarusAngel]

Also, I know who David and Chomsky are (especially Chomsky, you seem to love him, not that it matters anyway)...

So you "know who they are" you've just never read anything by them? We were talking about theory. I claimed you had studied none of the anarchists who are also anti-capitalists.

You claimed you were familiar with them, specifically professors Schweickart and Chomsky.

Thanks for conceding your intellectual dishonesty.

[IcarusAngel]

By the way, just once it'd be nice to see an article with some intellectual integrity to it, something along the lines of:

Chomsky said this...

This is why it's wrong .

Like this:


Freedom, for Chomsky, could only be behavior that occurs apart from any [I]social environment — i.e., apart from one’s fellow human beings, whose every response to one’s every action constitutes either "deprivation" or "reward.


in a truly free society "any interaction among human beings that is more than personal -- meaning that takes institutional forms of one kind or another -- in community, or workplace, family, larger society, whatever it may be, should be under direct control of its participants. So that would mean workers' councils in industry, popular democracy in communities, interaction between them, free associations in larger groups, up to organisation of international society." [Anarchism Interview]

Instead we have another ideological tract from a Stalinist "neo-con" website; Stalinism being a RIGHT-WING, not a left-wing theory. Stalinism deprived people of freedom which is why it didn't work - it was, so to speak, coercive.

(And by the way what kind of "Marxist" would cite something critical of one of the main tenants of Marxism in the first place.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1A2ZZAfEn8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxAQbGwWv5I&feature=related


As you can see there is no comparison between Chomsky's theories and Stalinism, Right Libertarianism, or anything else his criticis have thrown at him.

There have been good criticisms of left-anarchism, specifically syndicalism, from Marxists. I am thinking of course of Anton pannekoek, who, while critical of anarchism, was actually a "left-Marxist" who also criticized state socialism and advocated something similar to collective anarchism in the first place. Chomsky considers this, not Stalinism or Leninism, the true descendent of Marxism, which many Marxists would probably agree with.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

There's one thing that people who play around with definitions of "freedom" always seem to forget...

Once you've defined your idea of freedom, you have to actually make an ARGUMENT for why it is desirable. You can't just take it for granted that freedom is good - especially if not everyone shares your definition.

[IcarusAngel]

The article itself is all over the place, cites Chomsky without citing where they are taking his words, and "quotes" him by quoting words he has used such as "interesting," "socially useful," "wage slavery, etc."

For all anybody knows, he could have been supporting wage slavery.

Even a quick reading of the anarchist FAQ, in my signature, could provide someone with a better understanding of Chomsky's beliefs than this article or hayenmill.

[Havet]

So you "know who they are" you've just never read anything by them? We were talking about theory. I claimed you had studied none of the anarchists who are also anti-capitalists.

You claimed you were familiar with them, specifically professors Schweickart and Chomsky.

Thanks for conceding your intellectual dishonesty.

Being familiar with =/= Having studied them in depth

[IcarusAngel]

Lol. "Familiar" to you = hearing soemone on the internet mention their name, probably one of the idiots over at the "Libertarian Left" webiste who supports private property and other tyrannies.

You have obviously not read a book by either author.

By the way have you ever read a political book of ANY KIND by someone like Marx, Chomsky, or someone else who is well cited in political science? My guess here is also "no." You just seem like someone in politics who doesn't actually like to read anything "political."

Maybe you should be the one who runs for office.

[Havet]

Lol. "Familiar" to you = hearing soemone on the internet mention their name, probably one of the idiots over at the "Libertarian Left" webiste who supports private property and other tyrannies.

Being familiar to me is having heard the name, some quotes of the person and some articles.


By the way have you ever read a political book of ANY KIND by someone like Marx, Chomsky, or someone else who is well cited in political science? My guess here is also "no." You just seem like someone in politics who doesn't actually like to read anything "political."

Maybe you should be the one who runs for office.

Honestly, is it mandatory for someone to read a book of the author in order to criticize it?

That's like saying one can only critize racism unless one is "black" and has felt the kind of discrimination "they" have.

[IcarusAngel]

lol. I'll take that as a "no," you do not generally study politics. You are hilarious, but not an anarchist.

No it isn't necessary to read someone's book (God forbid) to be critical of them. If there is enough evidence that they are a kook (such as Ludwig von Mises, where an entire field of economists have left his work; and where a plurality of philosophers are 'egalitarian' etc. ) then that is enough to safely ignore them.

But in Chomsky's case, where a lot of his work has been misunderstood and misrepresented, but where he is still quite popular in both anarchist/leftist and academic circles - it still is "mainstream" in linguistics - it'd probably be a good idea to get a varity of opinions and perhaps even some primary sources.

And certainly you should be familiar with other ideologies besides your own before you are critical of them. That is intellectual honesty, it's not a left or right issue (although the right tends to be more intellectually dishonest).

[Havet]

And certainly you should be familiar with other ideologies besides your own before you are critical of them. That is intellectual honesty, it's not a left or right issue (although the right tends to be more intellectually dishonest).

Just because you do not agree with my opinion on other ideologies doesn't mean I am not "familiar" with them.

[ComradeMan]

No it isn't necessary to read someone's book (God forbid) to be critical of them. If there is enough evidence that they are a kook (such as Ludwig von Mises, where an entire field of economists have left his work; and where a plurality of philosophers are 'egalitarian' etc. ) then that is enough to safely ignore them.


I would disagree, it is always important to know what the "other side" say. Ignorning people outright because of their beliefs or positions is foolish in my opinion. For example, if you want to understand Hitler you need to read Mein Kampf, regardless of what you think of him. Supposing you were a Bakuninite- :)- would that mean you ignore Marx? Marx certainly comes under a very bad light from the Bakuninite point of view but how can you engage in dialogue with Marxists without having read what the man had to say?

But in Chomsky's case, where a lot of his work has been misunderstood and misrepresented, but where he is still quite popular in both anarchist/leftist and academic circles - it still is "mainstream" in linguistics - it'd probably be a good idea to get a varity of opinions and perhaps even some primary sources.


You can't really analyse ideas of Universal Grammar and Language acquisition devices from a left/right point of view can you? I don't think that's what you mean but I fail to see how the reference to his linguistic work is pertinent here. Chomsky is mainstream now because his theories "became" mainstream...

And certainly you should be familiar with other ideologies besides your own before you are critical of them. That is intellectual honesty, it's not a left or right issue (although the right tends to be more intellectually dishonest).


I agree with your main point but the last comment... I think you may be on dangerous grounds there, what about the Stalinist left? What about the negative views of Bakunin extolled by Marxists?
I get your idea but I think it's too much of a generalisation to be fair.

[ComradeMan]

Re the article: Basically the article says "I don't like Chomsky!":D

[New Tet]

Well, it's funny that you would be fooled by an article from Front Page Mag, a site created by conservative Stalinists, which was so bad that even they took it down. It's also funny you apparently don't know that "from each according to his ability" is a communist ideology, not a syndicalist one, and certainly not one Chomsky believes.

This is the nail in the coffin: You have studied no "anarchist" theory outside of the "Libertarian left" website, proving you lied when you claimed you had studied "anarchism" and "Chomsky." You're like Olaf, the only ideology you know of is your own.

This is no "nail in a coffin", sir, but it's a firm jab with a red-hot poker into the eye of willful, self-satisfied ignorance.

[Kayser_Soso]

Well, it's funny that you would be fooled by an article from Front Page Mag, a site created by conservative Stalinists,


Conservative "Stalinists"? LOL WUT

If I remember correctly, Frontpagemag was associated with David Horowitz, who was an ex-Trotskyite. Your theories on "Stalinism" are hilarious. For one thing, "Stalinism", compared to the ideas of Khruschev, Brezhnev, et al, did "work". Yes, people were deprived of "freedom"(for whom, to do what?), as they are in any society that has a state. What is the point of that.

[Kayser_Soso]

Actually this author has a point, if only because Chomsky, and others like him, paint themselves into a corner with their idealism. Hoisted with his own petard.

[New Tet]

Conservative "Stalinists"? LOL WUT

If I remember correctly, Frontpagemag was associated with David Horowitz, who was an ex-Trotskyite. Your theories on "Stalinism" are hilarious. For one thing, "Stalinism", compared to the ideas of Khruschev, Brezhnev, et al, did "work". Yes, people were deprived of "freedom"(for whom, to do what?), as they are in any society that has a state. What is the point of that.

He said it wrong, I think. He said "conservative" where he should have said "unrepentant", as in "unrepentant Stalinist".

Repent!

[IcarusAngel]

I would disagree, it is always important to know what the "other side" say. Ignorning people outright because of their beliefs or positions is foolish in my opinion. For example, if you want to understand Hitler you need to read Mein Kampf, regardless of what you think of him. Supposing you were a Bakuninite- :)- would that mean you ignore Marx? Marx certainly comes under a very bad light from the Bakuninite point of view but how can you engage in dialogue with Marxists without having read what the man had to say?

You absolutely wouldn't read "Mein Kampf" to understand Hitler or Nazism. There is a lot of discprency about what he believed in the book (as shown by his actions and policy) and there is even some question that he wrote it. Generally, historians look at the individual actor, his actions, and what they think the motives for his actions were as shown by other actions, writings, talks, and so on. That is at the lowest level, historians generally prefer to analyze the actions of the state as a whole, not just one man. For example it's claimed that the assassination of franz ferdinand caused WWI but there were many other factors as well.

In the case of Nazism it would probably be preferable to study Hitler's table talk to get his true intentions. Since there is too much information out there, most people have the sense to rely on historians to collect the data and report it fairly. This is true in the case of nazism where the War brought an early opening to the archieves.

History is much like science, in that fraud historians will be outdated and lose their credibility, so they have a vested interest in remaining honest.

What you're claiming, to go and read all the primary sources about everything, is ridiculous and unrealistic.


You can't really analyse ideas of Universal Grammar and Language acquisition devices from a left/right point of view can you?

Yes. Right-wingers have tended to believe that the human mind is blank and needs shaping and tuning from the a higher order, without any innate abilities at all, such as in behaviorist theory. What they forget is that it's quite clear that some of our actions that are apparently 'innate,' like muscles, do require some learning through movement and some of our 'learned actions,' such as reading, have innate characteristics to them, such as the ability to decipher words from the page and to move our eyes along in a rapid fashion. It's pretty much been proven that a lot of language is indeed innate.

Behaviorists such as Watson taught that everything, including language, was all a matter of learned reactions. That is to say we repeat the same things for any given circumstance.

Also, Chomsky's work in linguistics brought some attention to his politics, and in turn his politics brought a lot of attention to his linguistics work. So he was equally famous in both of them for a while, but, since more people care about politics than linguistics is mostly well known for his politics. So there is that connection as well.



I don't think that's what you mean but I fail to see how the reference to his linguistic work is pertinent here. Chomsky is mainstream now because his theories "became" mainstream...

His theories didn't 'become' mainstream they changed how linguistics was taught and thought of. Also, I mentioned his linguistic work because like his political work it was/is controversial and often misunderstood. (We were talking about when it would be a good time to read primary sources. Please follow along the line of dicussion.)



I agree with your main point but the last comment... I think you may be on dangerous grounds there, what about the Stalinist left? What about the negative views of Bakunin extolled by Marxists?

What about the Stalinist left? Intellectual dishonest means to claim to be an expert on something without knowing what you're talking about, to deliberately misrepresent the facts, to distort, and so on.

Stalinists are just confused. Stalinism is not an admirable goal, and clearly was proven failure by history by its inability to allow people to participate in a democracy.

There really isn't that much difference between Stalinists and today's neocons and many of them were Stalinists prior to their neo-con conversion.

[IcarusAngel]

He said it wrong, I think. He said "conservative" where he should have said "unrepentant", as in "unrepentant Stalinist".

Repent!

No, many Front Page Mag founders, and many neo-cons even in the Bush administration, were stalinists, trotskyists, and other cults. They just changed under what purposes imperialism was justified. Christopher Hitchens, for example, notes that he "didn't have to change his views" much to go from Trotskyism to Neo-Conservatism. Horowitiz was raised by stalinists and always had conservative beliefs.

[IcarusAngel]

Re the article: Basically the article says "I don't like Chomsky!":D

What exactly do you agree with disagree with in the article? Where did Chomsky ever claim to be a Marxist-anarchist or quote "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Where book is the author quoting from Chomsky?

[Kayser_Soso]

No, many Front Page Mag founders, and many neo-cons even in the Bush administration, were stalinists, trotskyists, and other cults. They just changed under what purposes imperialism was justified. Christopher Hitchens, for example, notes that he "didn't have to change his views" much to go from Trotskyism to Neo-Conservatism. Horowitiz was raised by stalinists and always had conservative beliefs.

Horowitz and all the neo-cons were Trots, not "Stalinists".

[Kayser_Soso]

You absolutely wouldn't read "Mein Kampf" to understand Hitler or Nazism. There is a lot of discprency about what he believed in the book (as shown by his actions and policy) and there is even some question that he wrote it. Generally, historians look at the individual actor, his actions, and what they think the motives for his actions were as shown by other actions, writings, talks, and so on. That is at the lowest level, historians generally prefer to analyze the actions of the state as a whole, not just one man. For example it's claimed that the assassination of franz ferdinand caused WWI but there were many other factors as well.

In the case of Nazism it would probably be preferable to study Hitler's table talk to get his true intentions. Since there is too much information out there, most people have the sense to rely on historians to collect the data and report it fairly. This is true in the case of nazism where the War brought an early opening to the archieves.


A good point but you would also never have a complete understanding of Nazism if you hadn't read Mein Kampf, among other key pieces of Nazi propaganda.





Intellectual dishonest means to claim to be an expert on something without knowing what you're talking about,

Think about this sentence long and hard.



Stalinists are just confused. Stalinism is not an admirable goal, and clearly was proven failure by history by its inability to allow people to participate in a democracy.

See that line I quoted above? It was "Stalinism" that succeeded in the Soviet Union, whereas those who followed did nothing but corrupt and wreck the USSR. It was also Stalin who pushed the issue of democratic participation in government to the forefront during the mid-30s, yet was forced to compromise with the 1st secretaries of the Central Committee which were afraid of what it would mean for their power. See Stalin and the Struggle for Democracy by Grover Furr.



There really isn't that much difference between Stalinists and today's neocons and many of them were Stalinists prior to their neo-con conversion.

Except that "Stalinists" the world over oppose imperialism, sometimes violently, whereas Neo-Cons consider it wonderful and necessary to "civilize" backward peoples- yup, almost the same!!

Also if you knew dick about Neocons you would know they were originally Trotskyites, not "Stalinists"- though their past beliefs don't really matter.

Chomsky's theories on politics and society may work wonderfully in the lecture hall and the realm of his mind and those of his cult-like followers. Sadly in the real world, they are 100% useless.

[IcarusAngel]

So you're saying "Stalinism" works and was democratic but actual democratic reforms and workers' rights were "failures."

Got it.

[Kayser_Soso]

So you're saying "Stalinism" works and was democratic but actual democratic reforms and workers' rights were "failures."

Got it.

So I'm saying don't reduce complicated history to a few buzzwords like "Stalinism" and "democracy". The fact remains that Under Stalin the Soviet Union was successful, and he while its downfall toward revisionism was due partly to some of Stalin's own mistakes, the destruction of the Soviet Union economically and culturally was brought forward by the "democratic" reformers like Khruschev(ironically Khruschev began the process of eliminating workers' democratic rights in the workplace), Brezhnev, and of course Gorbachev.

Again, Chomsky's ideas- great on paper, useless in the real world.

[IcarusAngel]

If you knew anything about Chomsky you'd know the same reforms and alternatives to US imperialism he has purposed have now been proven to work in Latin America with the countries who've implemented them now on a successful trackrecord, the same type of reforms that the US and most of Europe used to build themselves up, and the same type of international relations that has provided Europe with at least 50 years of avoding internal conflict.

Stalinism or one party dictatorships have been proven not to work and fail at getting resources distributed to the masses of the population. It's clear whose ideas work, and whose do not.

[Kayser_Soso]

If you knew anything about Chomsky you'd know the same reforms and alternatives to US imperialism he has purposed have now been proven to work in Latin America with the countries who've implemented them now on a successful trackrecord, the same type of reforms that the US and most of Europe used to build themselves up, and the same type of international relations that has provided Europe with at least 50 years of avoding internal conflict.

And yet most of Latin America still lives in poverty, and Europe has become an imperialist superstate. Wonderful. Attributing reformist measures to Chomsky is idiotic.


I
Stalinism or one party dictatorships have been proven not to work and fail at getting resources distributed to the masses of the population. It's clear whose ideas work, and whose do not.

Socialism is not like flipping on a lightswitch. In virtually every country that was at some time socialist, the socialist regime did a far better job at getting resources distributed to the population than the previous regime, and in most cases the succeeding regime as well. All the reforms that intellectuals like Chomsky praise so much can, have been, and are being taken back by the ruling class every time the situation favors them.

[IcarusAngel]

And yet most of Latin America still lives in poverty, and Europe has become an imperialist superstate....

They are working their way out of it. They are still in poverty because they implemented free-market reforms with no democratic measures or protections, or public investments. They, and India, etc., also suffered from 'brain drain' due to the very stacked free-trade agreements that were more like internal trade agreements between corporations. Latin American countries who've since implemented social democracy have improven their standards.


Wonderful. Attributing reformist measures to Chomsky is idiotic.

They are the reforms that he suggested the US should have allowed Latin America to make. Had they implemented the reforms they'd be on their way to be first world countries due to the amount of resources they had. Had they followed "Stalin" like reforms they'd be in a situation worse than Afghanistan.

This is also in contrast to the Soviet Union which was declining even under Brezhnev and lost its place in the world as one of the leading manufacturers, being outcompeted by the United States and even Japan, until it finally collapsed.

Furthermore, the Soviet Unions boneheaded investments instead of investing in electronics and newer technology was another one of its problems that led to collapse. It wasn't all political and many economists predicted its collapse accurately. This is because one party dictatorships fail to understand the needs of its people, which is what Stalin considered "democratic."

You are claiming societies that 'collapsed' that diverted from Marxism, that all Marxists hated, even communal Marxists, are somehow good.




Socialism is not like flipping on a lightswitch. In virtually every country that was at some time socialist, the socialist regime did a far better job at getting resources distributed to the population than the previous regime...

Ridiculous. In both western Europe and the US people had more resources than in the Soviet Union.

[Kayser_Soso]

They are working their way out of it. They are still in poverty because they implemented free-market reforms with no democratic measures or protections, or public investments. They, and India, etc., also suffered from 'brain drain' due to the very stacked free-trade agreements that were more like internal trade agreements between corporations. Latin American countries who've since implemented social democracy have improven their standards.

Improved perhaps, but barring a radical revolution the aforementioned problems you allude to will continue to make short work of any short-term improvements.




They are the reforms that he suggested the US should have allowed Latin America to make. Had they implemented the reforms they'd be on their way to be first world countries due to the amount of resources they had.


Wow, Chomsky was the only guy who suggested social democratic reforms in Latin America? And what evidence do you have to back up your idle speculation here? In a capitalist world, a huge bloc of third world countries like those in Latin America would never be allowed to implement reforms that put them on the way to becoming first world nations, as it is detrimental to those who rule the existing first world nations. You simply can't have a capitalist world when most nations are first world nations.



Had they followed "Stalin" like reforms they'd be in a situation worse than Afghanistan.

500 Retardation points awarded for this comment. "Stalin" like reforms, whatever the hell you are referring to, grew out of the situation in the late Russian Empire/early USSR, not the mind of Stalin. Only an idiot would consider implementing the policies of the 1930s Soviet Union somewhere else in the world in the 21st century. And by the way, what Stalin DID implement did not reduce the USSR to a state "worse" or on par with Afghanistan.



This is also in contrast to the Soviet Union which was declining even under Brezhnev and lost its place in the world as one of the leading manufacturers, being outcompeted by the United States and even Japan, until it finally collapsed.

Yes, due to the increasing introduction of market-oriented reforms beginning under Khruschev.



Furthermore, the Soviet Unions boneheaded investments instead of investing in electronics and newer technology was another one of its problems that led to collapse. It wasn't all political and many economists predicted its collapse accurately.

This occurred long after Stalin was dead and his policies and strategies were discarded.



You are claiming societies that 'collapsed' that diverted from Marxism, that all Marxists hated, even communal Marxists, are somehow good.

Introduce basic grammar to this sentence and try again.





Ridiculous. In both western Europe and the US people had more resources than in the Soviet Union.

Read the sentence again moron. I wasn't comparing the USSR or socialist regimes to the US and Western Europe, which in fact would be an inaccurate comparison. And besides, so what? I thought all you liberal types were anti-consumerists anyway? Or is it only when it's convenient to be so?

[Skooma Addict]

No it isn't necessary to read someone's book (God forbid) to be critical of them. If there is enough evidence that they are a kook (such as Ludwig von Mises, where an entire field of economists have left his work; and where a plurality of philosophers are 'egalitarian' etc. ) then that is enough to safely ignore them.

Well since you don't really know anything about economics, I don't really think you have much credibility here. Regardless, you are wrong. Mises' most famous arguments against socialism are studied and elaborated by many contemporary neoclassical and Austrian economists. More importantly, Austrian capital and monetary theory have gained prestige thanks to people like Hayek and Robbins.

Now if you want to see a declining economic doctrine, look at Marxist economics. Ever since Menger, Jevons, and Bohm-Bawerk exploded the LTV, Marxist economics has been on the decline. This is why many Marxists have resorted to polylogism and other mystic doctrines. Then there are those deluded people who think Socialism is somehow inevitable.

[IcarusAngel]

Mises used straw man arguments against socialism and words to prove his 'axioms' and theorems. He had no training in logic and mathematics. You've already proven that you are incapable of studying anything 'advanced' and have no knowledge of politics or economics outside of the Austrian school.

[Skooma Addict]

Mises used straw man arguments against socialism and words to prove his 'axioms' and theorems.

What straw man arguments? What are you talking about?


He had no training in logic and mathematics.

Wrong. Do you just make stuff up as you go? By the way, this is not even relevant.



You've already proven that you are incapable of studying anything 'advanced' and have no knowledge of politics or economics outside of the Austrian school.

Yes, I am incapable of studying anything advanced.:rolleyes:

As usual, you avoid the topic completely.