President
24th November 2008, 21:40
This intellectual and right wing proponent will not stop slandering Noam Chomsky's and the Left on Chomsky's Facebook page.
For instance:
There's always been two things about radical-left logic and reasoning that never made much sense to me and most other people, which is what is holding much of the far-left back these day. Those two things are 1) an insistence on attacking "elites" and "power structures" or "the system" and 2) a insistence that Socialism is still a viable economic option for the 21st century.
I say, lets go to work!
[under 25 posts]
Its Chomsky's facebook page -
h t t p : / / w w w . f a c e b o o k . c om / t o p i c . p h p ? u i d = 2 2 04 3 4 8 4 0 3 & t o p i c = 6 5 8 5
Could use the help anyways, my fingers are tired from my endless facebook arguments, and as a 19 year old against a 23 year old, I have met my match.
Hope someone has the time to respond. I'll post the full msg here for those without facebook:
There's always been two things about radical-left logic and reasoning that never made much sense to me and most other people, which is what is holding much of the far-left back these day. Those two things are 1) an insistence on attacking "elites" and "power structures" or "the system" and 2) a insistence that Socialism is still a viable economic option for the 21st century.
When you attack "the system" or the "power structure," you're actually helping those corrupt few who abuse it to their personal gain. When you attack "the elite" or "the ruling class," you diffuse blame away from those corrupt and harmful elements in "the system" and spread it to those that are actually beneficial and socially responsible. Corrupt politicians, greedy CEO's, or Third World dictators who rob or slaughter their own people aren't to blame; "the system" is. You're killing the body instead of killing the tumor.
And the problem is, what about all those who are suffering outside of "the system?" What if you're a starving Burmese? Or a Zimbabwean opposition prisoner? What if you're a Venezuelan who's in prison for striking while 2 murderers were released to make room in prison (Venezuela has the highest rates of robbery, rape and murder in any Latin American country)? What if you're an Iranian or Palestinian lesbian who's about to be murdered by her own family? Or a Sri Lankan child soldier? What if you're a Darfuri woman who was gang raped by Sudanese militia men?
What if you're daily miseries are NOT the result of American businessmen and Israeli militarists, or American militarists and Israeli businessmen? Who will speak foryou? The radical left? No, you have your hands full with the Palestinians and the Zapatistas already.
Where do these tens of millions of people fit in the grand scheme of things? What place do they have in the struggle against "the system" or "the empire" when they are outside of cold grip of "the elites" or "the ruling class" yet still suffering?
They don't have a place. There is no room for them in radical strategy or even discourse, so they don't exist. They are to die twice over; once from the culpable, real individuals who starve them, torture them and murder them, and a second time from memory and history.
Second of all, I don't understand how anyone with even the slightest grasp of economics or history still believes that Socialism is a viable option.
Socialism is not the end result of capitalism, as Marx predicted. History proves this. Capitalism AND socialism are two possible end results of feudalism. Every country that had a significant communist or socialist movement, successful or not (Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Spain, Russia, China, Vietnam, Angola, etc) were all feudal agrarian societies.
At the end of agrarian feudalism and when industry starts to develop, socialism and capitalism diverge; they are different roads through industrialization. But what happens towards the end of industrialization? What happens when a post-industrial society starts to emerge? Socialism and capitalism merge, or at least come closer, back together.
States with capitalist economies adopt labor laws and social welfare policies, and states with socialist economies grant property and entrepreneurial rights to the people. France adopts a 35 hour workweek and a $15 per hour minimum wage, and America under Bush sees the largest increases in education and welfare spending in history. Meanwhile, Cuba abandons equal wages for all workers, Vietnam allows farmers to own their plots and sell produce at their own prices, and both countries adopt a stock market.
I'm a staunch capitalist. Of course I believe that there should be some, minimal regulation and assistance; of course the government should mandate safety requirements for workers, and there should be some degree of social-welfare assistance; one that is non-dependence forming and, most importantly, sustainable. And no one even argues anymore that the government shouldn't provide roads, schools and hospitals.
However, there is absolutely no reason that these should infringe on the rights of individuals to own what they strive for or to create their own wealth, without the fear of forceful expropriation.
Pure socialism becomes impossible in a post-industrial society because in a post-industrial economy, the primary sectors aren’t agriculture or industrial manufacturing, but finance, information/technology and services. The primary mode of production is no longer material (machines or raw resources) or manual labor, but speculation, ingenuity and all the various forms of intellectual labor that exist in the abstract. In short, the mind becomes the primary mode of production.
Socialism seeks to grant the masses free and equal access to the modes of production. Okay; how to do grant the masses free and equal access to the minds of individuals? You can’t; it’s not possible.
For instance:
There's always been two things about radical-left logic and reasoning that never made much sense to me and most other people, which is what is holding much of the far-left back these day. Those two things are 1) an insistence on attacking "elites" and "power structures" or "the system" and 2) a insistence that Socialism is still a viable economic option for the 21st century.
I say, lets go to work!
[under 25 posts]
Its Chomsky's facebook page -
h t t p : / / w w w . f a c e b o o k . c om / t o p i c . p h p ? u i d = 2 2 04 3 4 8 4 0 3 & t o p i c = 6 5 8 5
Could use the help anyways, my fingers are tired from my endless facebook arguments, and as a 19 year old against a 23 year old, I have met my match.
Hope someone has the time to respond. I'll post the full msg here for those without facebook:
There's always been two things about radical-left logic and reasoning that never made much sense to me and most other people, which is what is holding much of the far-left back these day. Those two things are 1) an insistence on attacking "elites" and "power structures" or "the system" and 2) a insistence that Socialism is still a viable economic option for the 21st century.
When you attack "the system" or the "power structure," you're actually helping those corrupt few who abuse it to their personal gain. When you attack "the elite" or "the ruling class," you diffuse blame away from those corrupt and harmful elements in "the system" and spread it to those that are actually beneficial and socially responsible. Corrupt politicians, greedy CEO's, or Third World dictators who rob or slaughter their own people aren't to blame; "the system" is. You're killing the body instead of killing the tumor.
And the problem is, what about all those who are suffering outside of "the system?" What if you're a starving Burmese? Or a Zimbabwean opposition prisoner? What if you're a Venezuelan who's in prison for striking while 2 murderers were released to make room in prison (Venezuela has the highest rates of robbery, rape and murder in any Latin American country)? What if you're an Iranian or Palestinian lesbian who's about to be murdered by her own family? Or a Sri Lankan child soldier? What if you're a Darfuri woman who was gang raped by Sudanese militia men?
What if you're daily miseries are NOT the result of American businessmen and Israeli militarists, or American militarists and Israeli businessmen? Who will speak foryou? The radical left? No, you have your hands full with the Palestinians and the Zapatistas already.
Where do these tens of millions of people fit in the grand scheme of things? What place do they have in the struggle against "the system" or "the empire" when they are outside of cold grip of "the elites" or "the ruling class" yet still suffering?
They don't have a place. There is no room for them in radical strategy or even discourse, so they don't exist. They are to die twice over; once from the culpable, real individuals who starve them, torture them and murder them, and a second time from memory and history.
Second of all, I don't understand how anyone with even the slightest grasp of economics or history still believes that Socialism is a viable option.
Socialism is not the end result of capitalism, as Marx predicted. History proves this. Capitalism AND socialism are two possible end results of feudalism. Every country that had a significant communist or socialist movement, successful or not (Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Spain, Russia, China, Vietnam, Angola, etc) were all feudal agrarian societies.
At the end of agrarian feudalism and when industry starts to develop, socialism and capitalism diverge; they are different roads through industrialization. But what happens towards the end of industrialization? What happens when a post-industrial society starts to emerge? Socialism and capitalism merge, or at least come closer, back together.
States with capitalist economies adopt labor laws and social welfare policies, and states with socialist economies grant property and entrepreneurial rights to the people. France adopts a 35 hour workweek and a $15 per hour minimum wage, and America under Bush sees the largest increases in education and welfare spending in history. Meanwhile, Cuba abandons equal wages for all workers, Vietnam allows farmers to own their plots and sell produce at their own prices, and both countries adopt a stock market.
I'm a staunch capitalist. Of course I believe that there should be some, minimal regulation and assistance; of course the government should mandate safety requirements for workers, and there should be some degree of social-welfare assistance; one that is non-dependence forming and, most importantly, sustainable. And no one even argues anymore that the government shouldn't provide roads, schools and hospitals.
However, there is absolutely no reason that these should infringe on the rights of individuals to own what they strive for or to create their own wealth, without the fear of forceful expropriation.
Pure socialism becomes impossible in a post-industrial society because in a post-industrial economy, the primary sectors aren’t agriculture or industrial manufacturing, but finance, information/technology and services. The primary mode of production is no longer material (machines or raw resources) or manual labor, but speculation, ingenuity and all the various forms of intellectual labor that exist in the abstract. In short, the mind becomes the primary mode of production.
Socialism seeks to grant the masses free and equal access to the modes of production. Okay; how to do grant the masses free and equal access to the minds of individuals? You can’t; it’s not possible.