Chomsky's Economics

[Anonymous]

Chomsky's Economics

By James Ostrowski

[Posted January 7, 2003]

Aside from Noam Chomsky's work as a linguist, he is a great critic of US foreign policy, the corporate state, and the media establishment. There is much to criticize in these spheres and Chomsky does so prolifically. He is so prolific a critic that we are inevitably drawn to the question, "What is Noam Chomsky for?" It is difficult to discern this from his essays and remarks which are overfilled with analysis and criticism.

Why should we care what Chomsky, or any critic, is for? Simply because if we get rid of that which the critic criticizes, and install the critic's favored form of regime, it just might be worse! To so conclude does not and would not justify the status quo; it would merely point us away from a particular alternative to the status quo.

It turns out that figuring out what Chomsky is for is not easy. He just doesn't say much about it. He doesn't like what we have now. He disfavors Stalinism and fascism. He despises the libertarian alternative to the present regime, which he calls American libertarianism. So he is not for a minimal state, anarcho-capitalism, or a free market.

He describes Murray Rothbard's vision of a libertarian society as "so full of hate that no human being would want to live in it." (I will not attempt to dissect this insane remark here except to note how the "anti-authoritarian" Chomsky purports to speak for all human beings.) He is against any form of capitalism. It goes without saying that he is not a political conservative. But he has repeatedly denounced "Marxism"[1] and fiscal Keynesianism and protectionism as well[2].


More (http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1132)

[Som]

Well that article is full of ignorance.

Chomsky ISN'T an anarcho-syndicalist. Chomsky is purposely vague about what he wants, beyond that he's an anarchist, and has alot of praise for the spanish anarchists. After that, he doesn't actually propose any economic system.

Then after that, its arguments against syndicalism are against traditional capitalist and statist economics, instead of new socialist and anti-statist system that the anarcho-syndicalists put forward. They completly neglect that instead of competing, a huge portion of industry would instead voluntary cooperate, and money is at least given a much lesser role in the scheme of things.
Also ignoring the achievments of the spanish anarchists that chomsky often talks about, like how that the anarchist area was producing 10 times as much as the other areas of spain.

Anarcho-Syndicalism, as seen in action during the Spanish Civil War, is yet another dangerous leftist utopian fantasy. There, the syndicalists tried to abolish money, but ended up using "coupons" (money) instead. They promised to abolish the state, but instead created a bunch of mini-states—"committees." They promised that a new individual freedom would blossom, but what emerged was a frightening new totalitarian control by the committee, over every aspect of life.

Committees are not mini-states, and coupons are not money. Councils and commitees are a part of anarchist theories, it leaves out that these councils are completley directly democratic and bottom up, and has no real power outside of public consensus. Not all forms of anarchism seek to abolish what they called 'coupons' at all. There are three main anarchist economic systems, mutualism, collectivism, and communism, out of those three, only communism seeks to get rid of money. The other two just want to replace it with labor notes, or.. coupons.
While they managed to find one account that wasn't favorable, its easy to find alot more accounts that were.

Noam said once, "There are supposed to be laws of economics. I can't understand them." You are correct, Sir!

Easier for him to take that out of context. He actually says things like in a few places, usually saying that economics is more than just the simple statistics of like some capitalist economists do, its a study of human interactions, and that no one can really understand something so complicated.

Overall, a really opinionated article, making a bunch of weak points after dragging things far out of context.


(Edited by Som at 1:31 am on May 12, 2003)

[antieverything]

I'm yet to see anyone challenge Chomsky concerning the facts. I've only seen him attacked as anti-American (which he is, as am I...so big fucking deal) or on stupid grounds such as those of this article...the scary thing is, I've looked for sources refuting Chomsky but have been unable to find anything.

The fact that someone so prolific and popular on the left goes pretty much unchallenged on the right is a marvel of the American population's selective ignorance.

(Edited by antieverything at 12:49 am on May 12, 2003)

[kidicarus20]

Wow that just makes me like Chomsky even more (dark capitalist probably doesn't even know who he is he just heard the name ten found the article).

Yah, chomsky says some awesome stuff against American Libertarianism, he's for true libertarianism, why I like him so much is he understands the rules of capitalism do not mean individualism and exactly what happens when free-markets are put into practise (free-market fantasies).

In interviews he's said that he's somewhat anarcho-syndicalist, or anarchist, he doesn't really care about labels though he just describes how societies should be run, and how they shouldn't (selling yourself into slavery)


Economists has nothing to fucking do with it. Economists is a study of capitalism basically, no one cares which regulation works and which doesn't, communism and anarchy provide an endless amount of supplies with human's deciding who gets what (unlike capitalist where prices go up with how rare they are).

"Economists are merely apologists for the existing capitalist order" -- Karl Marx


Interestingly many pure capitalists (ie non fascists) like chomsky's critiques of American capitalism, for instance harry browne, and chomsky has been on some libertarian websites (mostly talking about free-speech, which capitalits are against anway).

I think his idea's are a lot better than Marx's, but chomsky has said if there needs to be a socialist alternative to american politics and media.

[truthaddict11]

Chomsky is not i repeat NOT anti-american

[The Muckraker]

I started to read the essay, but stopped when I got to these two paragraphs:

"Details aside, imagine how this syndicalism idea would have worked out recently in America. Let's say the workers had the privilege of owning Enron. Giddy syndicalists seem to view ownership of business concerns as always and everywhere a good thing.

"But ownership also implies risk and liability, liability for debts and lawsuits. After Enron collapsed into a pile of incomprehensible derivatives, how many workers there wished they co-owned Enron? Under current law, employers are responsible for the torts and contract breaches of employees. How many workers would want to bear that risk?"

This is what happens whenever Austrians try to talk about the real world: they make idiots of themselves.

The writer presupposes that the crimes committed by the bourgeoisie at Enron would have been committed had the entire structure of the business been different, though there is absolutely no reason to believe that this is true. Worse still, he lies about what happened. Rather than admitting that crimes were committed, he simply calls them "risks."

Now that's quite rich, isn't it?

Apparently, getting caught manipulating prices is just another "risk" of capitalist business for the Austrians. Not questioned is the action of the crime itself, only the getting caught.

But even further, many Enron workers were, in fact, co-owners through a pension program, and those pensions are now virtually worthless. That's the price the workers had to pay while the bourgeois managers got richer and richer from the crimes they committed.

That's how silly the entire Austrian school is. Completely worthless, really.

Kind of like capitalists in general.

[Robot Rebellion]

Syndicalists love to dream about what to do with "existing" businesses and how the workers will take control in a putsch. However, that factory was only there in the first place because some greedy capitalist thought he could make a profit selling widgets, and he invested capital he derived from prior savings. How about starting new businesses? How many workers have the capital to contribute? How many would risk that capital even if they had it, on a business "run democratically by the workers"?He contradicts himself (as he does throughout his piece). He sees the factory as an individualist contribution of the capitalist, and yet scoffs at the idea that the workers could individually create such. This argues there is something greater that goes into the factory that supercedes the individual, and yet mysteriously this belongs to the capitalist and not the worker...

The risk argument is so stupid... Property isn't a result of brave capitalist risking their own personal contributions, but a reflection of the social order. The yacht factory might 'risk capital', but this ignores the fact that he actually has the capital to risk to start with and that ultimately it is the workers who will create the plant.

The whole article is messed up...

[redstar2000]

It occurred to me that what this article is really doing is attacking Chomsky for not being a consistent Marxist.

Well, I wish he was, too. He'd be a good one!

:cool:

[Exploited Class]

I love it when right wingers post Anti-Chomsky articles.

I was on another board and a right winger posted a "The truth behind Noam Chomsky" article. And everybody was saying things like, "Noam, with a name like that I would never listen to him." Just dumb things.

Well I got intrested and wanted to know who Noam was, and wow impressive. So much credit to his name, with tons of facts and figures. I read some of his shorter pieces and they were great. Then bought one book then another then Manufacturing consent. Amazing and brilliant writer. His strenght is in tearing down and pointing out all the gross flaws that this current system holds and how they are used for exploitation.

Download some of his MP3s. Great one is where a college student from the audience says, "But has capitalism given us great advancements and raised our quality of living?"

And Noam replies with, "Well the slaves of the US in the later 1800's had better standards of living than those of the late 1700's, is that an argument for slaverly?"

Love the man, and love the right wingers for pointing out a man you can not tear down, nor have I seen it done intelligently or with good facts. Everytime they try they just build up a case for him, over and over and over...

[YKTMX]

I'm not certain what he's for, however he did write an introduction to an Daniel Guerin book about Anarchism, not sure if that means anything.

[antieverything]

It isn't a secret that Chomsky is an Anarchist. Anarchy, however, is a pretty broad classification and unfortunately, he doesn't go into the specifics very much.

Usually, he just says stuff like, "my aspirations are pretty much the same as those of the early libertarians"...or something like that.

[Urban Rubble]

Let's all throw down a couple bucks and buy him an island, then we'll see how his theories work !!

But seriously, Chomsky is a genius, I love the guy.