Noam Chomsky: Is State Capitalism Making Life Better?

louiethegreater Says:

Apr 15, 2012 - The statement I made was completely accurate. You are the one to historically illiterate to understand the problem Eisenhower was having during the cold war. You have no clue, so why do you continue to wallow in your stupidity. Go back to making statements that do not say anything. Make some quotes by historical Philosophers, maybe Churchill. Even the dumbest brit would know who he is.

BAxxxKJ Says:

Apr 15, 2012 - You would have me believe that you know whereof you speak when you mention WWII, but your poor attempt to make your point is to no avail. No, the US did not implement the Marshall Plan to keep Europe and Japan out of the communist camp. The Marshall Plan was implemented to find new outlets for U.S industrial production to be exported abroad. Europe was economically devastated and the USA had to help her rebuild its economy in order to export its production, PERIOD.

louiethegreater Says:

Apr 15, 2012 - Hey do you know that mix sent a fool on a fools errand. Hey ignorant I didn't say why the Marshall Plan was implemented. I said and you brought up the quote, you are just to ignorant to read it. I said they were given large large portions of US manufacturing to keep them out of the communist camp. Pat Buchanan explains this under the sub-title " A Marshall Plan Mentality ". NOW listen you ignorant moron, get the book and read it. Do not remain mixes sucker, he can't debate the subject so he se

BAxxxKJ Says:

Apr 17, 2012 - I'm not taking no orders from you, you're such an arrogant prick. Thanks for the fun and the entertaining value your poor contribution added to this thread.

louiethegreater Says:

Apr 17, 2012 - Fine, now you can go back to watching SpongeBob.

BAxxxKJ Says:

Apr 18, 2012 - No wonders your sense of humour is only to be compared to your feeble mentality.

mixmastermeeks Says:

Apr 20, 2012 - The part that is really ridiculous about his comment is that the Marshall Plan didn't apply to Japan. He absolutely refuses to admit it. Just the idea that the Plan, which was mostly just financial aid, exported American jobs is ridiculous. But the initial conversation we had was him telling me that auto jobs were transported to Japan under the Marshall Plan. And he is still pretending Japan was part of the Marshall plan.

BAxxxKJ Says:

Apr 20, 2012 - Right on Mix, he's a great laugh... Now, seriously, that he refuses to admit it is so ironical given the accusations he made about us being the historically illiterates ones.

FukCommando Says:

Apr 21, 2012 - and uzbekistan

annunaki2060 Says:

May 5, 2012 - 8:40 after i heard that i wanted to throw up.

PanzerDivisionBOM Says:

May 12, 2012 - In the long run, the interests of society are most closely aligned with those of the consumers. Cheaper goods mean an increase in real wages for everyone. Resources in these countries will be freed up to engage in new lines of production, with each region specializing in the industries where they have the greatest comparative advantage.The real problem is government intervention, both in China and in the West. The way these decreased costs have been brought about haven't exactly been -

PanzerDivisionBOM Says:

May 12, 2012 - - lasseiz-faire, and a lot of people now suffer needless disenfranchisement and miserable poverty in China, same as when the Brittish government kicked farmers off of their land as part of the Enclosure Movement. And with the West being the way it is, resources could end up locked into their current lines of production for some time, resulting in tremendous waste.

BAxxxKJ Says:

May 13, 2012 - The interests of society do not necessarily coincide with thoses of consumers, unless what you mean by that is a consumers' society. I agree to a certain extent, however, it would be an oversimplifying since what defines society is also political, cultural, religious. That cheap goods mean increasing real wages is also true to the extent that cheap is not synonym with low quality, for there would be no way to increase real wages with products nobody would buy: consummers do have the choice.

BAxxxKJ Says:

May 13, 2012 - Surely, the problem is government intervention in a domain in which it has no prerogatives, the more laws a government makes, the less liberties individuals enjoy. A government should only be allowed to do what it intended for, namely govern, and protect individuals rights and freedoms. The British government example you gave about enclosures and rationalization is a striking one, a kind of foretatse for the advent of capitalism and the pins factory during the I.R.

PanzerDivisionBOM Says:

May 13, 2012 - I should think that it is evident that the Enclosure Movement, and similar measures undertaken in China and attempted in some places in the Third World, are anti-capitalistic to the core, because they constitute a violation of property rights. In that way, it is possible that people are worse off immediately after industrialization than before - not because of some inherent injustice in the system of free enterprize, but because they have had their property stolen by their government! -

PanzerDivisionBOM Says:

May 13, 2012 - - I would define those finer things in life as also being consumption decisions, and political concerns to be something separate from and entirely beneath the concern of civil society.If the cheap goods are still preferred over the expensive goods, then that should be enough. If there's a significant difference in quality, then there will probably be a niché market, to satisfy preferences for different tradeoffs between price and quality.

BAxxxKJ Says:

May 13, 2012 - Property rights violations did occur during the middle ages, only from the viewpoint of the standards we apply nowdays as regards individual rights and freedoms. Workingclass consciousness did not exist before the I.R, and neither did democracy for that matter. Beyond the transformation of rights from civil, pol, and social, it is this very concept of rationalization which was central to the advent of capitalism. It was a stiking example b/c the agricultural revolution preceeded the I.R.

BAxxxKJ Says:

May 13, 2012 - Now, who knows if people where better off before or after the advent of capitalism, or say, property owning democracy or not, time will tell.... The example of China only shows that the government alone cannot solve the problem of general poverty or provide the general well being, or things like propserous society and wealth creation. Contrarywise, the economy alone cannot either, there has to be both forces combined together within a system of check and balances.

Bentleyyoyo Says:

May 13, 2012 - Yea China is not a great case for arguing that government cannot remedy poverty or improve citizens well being. First off China has a sixth of the worlds population which is without precedent in history. Furthermore China's economy is very capitalist but because of they're totalitarian regime they can pursue strong interventionist policies and social restructuring that would not be feesible under the scrutiny of even a semi-functioning democracy.

ilikemitchhedberg Says:

May 21, 2012 - hey Noam, stfu and gtfo you liberal fool

VegitoVai90 Says:

May 21, 2012 - You like the comic genius Mitch Hedberg, yet you dislike Noam Chomky? Idk, I guess you're neutral then.

mixmastermeeks Says:

May 25, 2012 - The most obvious thing to point out is that China has a sixth of the world pop because the Chinese government doesn't let people leave. So you are trying to give the gov credit for dealing with a problem it is currently contributing to. And their economy is not VERY capitalistic. The fact that the gov grants monopolies to certain companies is not only non capitalistic it is not good for their economy. China has done a poor job for it's citizens. They would do better without their gov.

BAxxxKJ Says:

May 27, 2012 - Them Yuppireens don't know nothing anyhow.

jarvy251 Says:

May 27, 2012 - "Ìs state capitalism making life better?"Yeah I wonder how that question is going to go. Not even capitalists think state capitalism is good, why would Chomsky?