Chomsky on market anarchism, Keynesianism & reformism

wcropp1 Says:

Mar 25, 2012 - therefore that simply undermining the state is not sufficient--that you cannot speak of ending the state until we are also on the verge of a socialist revolution, or apparently have brought about a pseudo-socialist system via government decree. That's an interesting tactical question to ponder, and I'm not sure whether I agree with him or not, but the prospect of state socialism worries me in some ways. Then again, so does ending the state in a capitalist society.

wcropp1 Says:

Mar 25, 2012 - Regardless, I think tactics is at the core of this argument--Marxism vs. anarchism, positive vs. negative liberty--are we better off fighting over the state, or smashing it? And "smashing" the state doesn't necessarily have to mean complete revolution or nothing--you can challenge state powers, laws, etc. in a more "reformist" way. Should we focus our efforts on limiting state protection for the wealthy? Or establishing social programs for the poor? The libertarian in me says "get rid of state

wcropp1 Says:

Mar 25, 2012 - protection for the wealthy," and doesn't really like the coercive nature of the state, but the socialist in me can understand how a capitalist system can produce tremendous inequalities/poverty/suffering that may require state action to remedy. Voluntary mutual aid is great, but when the a majority of a nation's wealth is owned by a tiny fraction of the population, there's only so much voluntary mutual aid can do, and rich people have no incentive to participate in these "friendly societies," or

wcropp1 Says:

Mar 25, 2012 - whatever you want to call them. Voluntary, non-statist solutions are obviously ideal, but may not be inadequate in the context of a capitalist economic system. I suppose the solution is to be practical and flexible, while also making sure not to undermine individual freedom in your attempts to remedy "capitalist injustice," the tragic mistakes many Marxists made. The state is certainly a tool you can use to effect change, but a dangerous one you must use reluctantly, at your own risk.

32peartree Says:

Apr 5, 2012 - Did Marxism make so many mistakes - I'm not so sure, after all it was set up to help lessen the burden on the backs of the poor - and by and large it achieved this. In every country where communism has collapsed the living conditions of the working class have degenerated. Sure the bourgeois thought communism was a mistake - but they would - wouldn't they?

daniacea Says:

Apr 9, 2012 - When Chomsky said that free market capitalism cannot satisfy our needs he was completely wrong. America had the best healthcare in the World when it had a open system which was free of government regulation. It is government regulation, licensing and restrictions which has caused the great increase in cost, thus putting it out of reach of the poor. I am more weary of government oppression than corporate oppression because government oppression is backed by force with guns and prisons.

nanasevenheaven Says:

Apr 11, 2012 - diniacea - you are so very wrong, it was NOT the government that destroyed healthcare in this country, it was capitalism that did. When healthcare first started and was the best in the world, it was, well, I guess you could call it a socialist model - those who wanted it (and most employers/unions offered it) all paid into a pool that was there for you to draw from as needed.

nanasevenheaven Says:

Apr 11, 2012 - It wasn't until the capitalists noticed that huge pool of money sitting there, that they got greedy and decided that it should be made a FOR PROFIT TO STOCKHOLDERS industry - the money then went into the stockholders pockets and only by denying care to those who needed it (and paid for it) could they maintain their profits.

nanasevenheaven Says:

Apr 11, 2012 - It was because they were refusing to allow actual health care to those who paid for it that the need for government to step in and start regulating what they were doing became necessary. It was the birth of the "HMO" that killed actual healthcare - the "M" being MANAGED - by the corporations that wanted profit more than they wanted healthy people. It was theft on a grand scale - "death panels" exist - they are called HMO executives.

nanasevenheaven Says:

Apr 11, 2012 - ...and the prisons are rapidly becoming privatized too - the USA now has more people imprisoned, per capita, that ANY other country in the world, again, once a prison becomes a for-profit to stockholders venture, in order to maintain profitability, they must imprison as many people as possible and keep them for as long as possible. Hence the continued "war on drugs..." OUR tax dollars still pay to maintain them, so no savings to us - they now cost more than ever. Got to make $

ariuszarim Says:

Apr 14, 2012 - The problem with Chomsky's argument against true free-markets (namely, that they have never existed) is also valid as an argument against a socialist society. There has never been a society where the people owned and operated the means of production. Nor has there ever been a welfare society in which socially powerful organizations didn't use the welfare engine as a tool for obtaining dominance. The problem of absent human freedom is not resolved by any form of force.

DamiaanVDW Says:

Apr 16, 2012 - Untrue, I shall only give one example, but it is an example that almost totally represents Chomsky's politics (I believe); 1936 Spanish Revolution - check it out :)

ariuszarim Says:

Apr 16, 2012 - Assuming that the Spanish Revolution was totally representative of Chomsky's Libertarian Socialist vision, it is just another example that proves the rule. Just as every free-market capitalist society has developed into some form of state capitalism, every small state socialist society has grown into something like state socialism. My suspicion is that any form of a state will naturally aggregate power. I maintain, the fault lies with individuals attempting to control the levers of power.

DamiaanVDW Says:

Apr 17, 2012 - Well.. to my understanding, the system in question (1936 Spanish Anarchism) was destroyed by fascist and communist armies. It wasn't the failure of the system, unless you mean it failed to defend itself; this is certainly true, and is a very valid criticism of libertarian socialism (and anarchism in general).

ariuszarim Says:

Apr 17, 2012 - It is a valid criticism, but not one I had intended to make. I suspect that part of history is not well known on purpose. *sigh* some other event of massive historical importance that I know next to nothing about. If I understand the timeline correctly, the Republican forces eventually surrendered. The collectivist society ended before the Spanish Civil War had concluded. I think the movement was stopped before it ever had a chance to develop into an actual economy, or so it seems.

BuddhaBebop Says:

Apr 19, 2012 - when you reply to one of your own comments it doesnt send a notice to the other user at his email. fyi

VotePaineJefferson Says:

Apr 23, 2012 - You can't repeal a thousand years of economic law through reform...

htiberian Says:

Apr 25, 2012 - I pretty sure the opposite of everything he just said is true. FDR was a free-marketeer?!

JohanRegus12 Says:

Apr 28, 2012 - Well, the New Deal and the welfare programmes introduced were used to keep down any clamour for reform of the economic system, thereby saving coporate capitalism through government support at its hour of crisis. Not that I oppose Social Security, for example, but that was the purpose. And as Chomsky pointed out, that kind of support was exactly why Roosevelt got the backing of substantial big business interests whom you usually would consider natural opponents of his agenda.

WSilva832 Says:

May 21, 2012 - libertarian socialist communities that had developed in Spain were viciously crushed by fascist, communist, and even neoliberal powers of the West before they could barely ever even stand a chance. The problem with libertarian socialism is a question of pragmatism; they're extremely threatening to the powers that be and highly vulnerable due to lack of a unified defense controlled by a state authority.

ariuszarim Says:

May 21, 2012 - Why would a unified defense require a state authority? There are numerous historical instances of individuals forming militant groups without state support. In fact, if there's no centralized control of a defensive body, there can be no unified surrender. A huge group of scattered, isolated militant cells is significantly more powerful than any ordered military. Better still, mix the militants with the civilian population. Then an invader can never win. Think Stinger missiles vs Migs.

SlaveryEvolves Says:

May 25, 2012 - Yea I am confused, didn't the health industry support Obama? why wouldn't those who benefit from mandatory health insurance support it?

htiberian Says:

May 25, 2012 - Chomsky said he doesn't know what capitalism is, but then he claims that anarcho-capitalism is a fallacy because capitalism requires government to prop it up? So, I guess that means we don't live in a capitalist society because governments need to violate market principals to thrive. But then he agrees that we are a capitalist society?!?!?

htiberian Says:

May 25, 2012 - My question about worker-owned businesses is, "If they do a better job than top-down businesses, where are they?" I know there are a few out there, but why aren't they more prevalent?

NattligMelodi Says:

May 28, 2012 - I used to like Chomsky but i'm starting to think he's a pseudo-intellectual. Sure, there is no modern example of Market Anarchism or Anarcho-Capitalism, but to say that any historical example of market anarchism was forced onto the people is biased and inaccurate. It worked well in Medieval Iceland and several other places, even within the United States in its VERY early history.