Can someone please tell me why Chomsky is wrong? I really hate the guy.
>>1252396
>I hate the guy
>I don't know why tho
Anti-communists in a nutshell.
In what field?
Everyone is wrong sometimes.
Uni-grammar has been criticised.
His post-ideological "manufacturing consent" has been criticised.
His idea of "ideology" as false truth (basically the Marxist idea) has been criticised.
He has been wrong here and there.
It is very hard to criticise him in politics above "you got this minor detail wrong" since he doesn't usually engage in vast theories, and then he usually sticks to the "formal facts."
>>1252400
Does he actually say anything other than capitalism is bad? Since that has already been proven wrong.
>>1252422
What are the criticisms of manufacturing consent?
>>1252396
>hate the guy
>don't know why I hate the guy
Millenials in a nutshell.
>>1252396
>why Chomsky is wrong?
He has a strictly utilitarian approach to ethics, simply tallying the number of corpses on each side as the sole basis of where moral blame lies, totally ignoring all matters of context. For example, the Nazis lost more people fighting WW2 than the Americans did, so for Chomsky, the Americans are the bad guys. This kind of absolute blindness to context makes his morality no more useful than Kant's.
>>1252423
>Capitalism is bad
>This has been proven wrong
Got news for you, pal. The vast majority of the planet has been capitalist for quite some time and the vast majority of the planet is a shithole.
>>1252443
>Ah yes, North Korea that pure example of capitalism!
Let's just brush aside south Korea.
>By God! The richest countries are the capitalist ones! Since correlation does not equal causation I'm just going to ignore the idea that capitalism is good!
Back to r/Fullcommunism Comrade.
>>1252431
You can dislike how someone appears/sounds without knowing much about them or their thoughts.
>>1252464
>By God! The richest countries are the capitalist ones!
On the contary most capitalist countries are poor as shit.
What is true however is that the richest countries are the imperialist ones. And no one will dispute imperialism makes a country rich.
>>1252423
capitalism is literally what keeps the rich rich, the poor poor and the working class slaves, it makes us exhuast resources on things we don't need so that a stupefied culture will exchange their hard earned work for the gain of the individual, and that's the biggest evil of capitalism, it promotes selfishness and psychopathy and chaos, how is the antithesis of harmony supposed to stabilize our civilization is beyond me, it is a destructive force that will sooner or later will bring either the destruction of civilization or a dystopian kingdom for the high class to rule as God's,you must be the worst kind of idiot to think that capitalism is a good.
>>1252464
south korea and north korea are both authoritarian shitholes anon
>>1252473
>Spain is the most successful country in the world
>Mongolia must be really rich
>Portugal
Wow, those great imperialists the Scandinavians/Swiss!
On the contrary you pulled that idea out of your ass. Most countries have turned to capitalism recently as they are poor, and are in the process of becoming richer. You have mixed up cause and effect.
>>1252428
"Chomsky is empirically wrong, he ignored the I d e o l o g y"
>>1252467
It seems to me that would be a tragic loss. You should listen to what a person has to say, always, before you gauge on your like/dislike of a person. I mean, it's one thing if the person is hurting you somehow and yeh that's going to make you dislike him. If it's just some person on the street or if it's just some guy in a picture then it sounds pretty strange to me to simply dislike him.
>>1252478
South Korea was but is now a democracy.
Also I'd rather be in a rich authoritarian state, than a poor one.
>>1252492
Top zizek
he's not wrong, sorry to say.
>>1252443
>Got news for you, pal. The vast majority of the planet has been capitalist for quite some time
Yeah, and living standards all over it is improving quite drastically.
>>1252475
>Well first of all, tell me: Is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed? You think Russia doesn’t run on greed? You think China doesn’t run on greed? What is greed? Of course, none of us are greedy, it’s only the other fellow who’s greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system.
Who are you to tell the average person what they need and do not need?
Rich don't stay rich for long unless if they fulfill people's demands. Social mobility is higher in capitalist countries. Free markets plus social insurance is the way to go thank you.
>>1252396
>I hate this guy
>Can you tell me why he is wrong?
You are part of the problem. Do you happen to be Christian?
>>1252498
Anti-Caps BTFO
>>1252513
Communists too.
>>1252443
Look at the anual growth and the amount of people that have escaped poverty in the last century retard.
>>1252490
>Spain
Pretty damn rich
>Mongolia
If you are trying to say the Mongol horde is comparable to European empires then you are retarded.
>Portugal
Also pretty damn rich, if a bit shit by western European standards.
> Scandinavians/Swiss!
Scandinavians were pretty interested in imperialism on the small scale.
>Most countries have turned to capitalism recently as they are poor, and are in the process of becoming richer.
All countries become richer as technology progresses and the population grows. Even if a country is totally stagnant and technology backwards the GDP will still generally grow at least proportionally to the population growth.
However you're lying when you say these countries have turned to capitalism recently, unless you're defining capitalism to mean your own special concept of capitalism. Because to take for instance Guatemala the US has made perfectly sure that this country is """"free""" for over 100 years now and it is a shithole. And when Jacopo Arbenz tried to institute some progressive reforms that would alleviate the crushing poverty the US made sure to cut that shit out because it would undermine the capitalist interests in keeping Guatemala exploited.
And that fundamentally is the nature of the relationship between the first and the third world in capitalism. One exists to consume and one to be exploited just as it is between the upper class and the working class in every capitalist country.
>>1252498
>Look at these charts!
I can do that too.
>>1252473
>On the contary most capitalist countries are poor as shit.
>What is true however is that the richest countries are the imperialist ones. And no one will dispute imperialism makes a country rich.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
Protip: You are a retard
>>1252524
What do you think you just proved?
>>1252475
>capitalism is literally what keeps the rich rich
Wrong. People go bankrupt all the time.
>the poor poor
Wrong. No system has had as much social movility as our current one.
>and the working class slaves
Memes are not real life. Have you even work in your entire life? You can quit,and even open your own bussiness with an small investment
>it makes us exhuast resources on things we don't need
And you are the one determining this right? We actually dont need houses, nor heaters,we have survived without those for millenials. Should we ban this things too,which are obvioulsy not needed?
> so that a stupefied culture will exchange their hard earned work for the gain of the individual, and that's the biggest evil of capitalism, it promotes selfishness and psychopathy and chaos, how is the antithesis of harmony
No evidence,just bullshit the sentence
>supposed to stabilize our civilization is beyond me, it is a destructive force that will sooner or later will bring either the destruction of civilization or a dystopian kingdom for the high class to rule as God's,you must be the worst kind of idiot to think that capitalism is a good.
Not a single argument,the paragraph.
>I know nothing about economics. The post.
>>1252531
>>1252522
Iceland wasn't imperialist. Norway wasnt imperialistic. Switzerland wasnt imperialistic. Sweden wasnt imperialistic,while Portugal was the biggest imperial country relative to its size and is the poorest of all the countries in western Europe. Imperialism was most costly than anything else.
>inb4 trading is imperialistic
>>1252534
You just posted made up bullshit without a single fact. And your comment is full of falacies.
>>1252475
>>capitalism is literally what keeps the rich rich, the poor poor and the working class slaves,
What you call capitalism is the Human Rights
>>1252519
Spain is poorer than the Swiss/scandies.
You said that imperialism always makes a country rich, Mongolia refutes that.
A few trading posts and one Caribbean island wouldn't be a large enough factor to make all of Scandinavia rich. Finland was under the swedes for centuries and then the Russians.
Obviously foreigners taking over the political system will be bad, but you are just cherry picking here, look at Costa Rica for more success. Not to mention that capitalism requires good institutions to work at max capacity.
>What is mutually beneficial exchange
Of course you don't believe that can happen. It's a matter of faith to you people.
Globalisation has been a great thing for the poorest in the world.
>>1252538
>Iceland
>Norway
>Switzerland
Iceland I will say is pretty good. And a great example of why government involvement in the economy can be a massive benefit.
Norway on the other hand happened to be lucky enough to make bank on oil.
Sweden actually was imperialist though.
> Portugal was the biggest imperial country relative to its size and is the poorest of all the countries in western Europe
Portugal was doing well until very recently actually. Interestingly it seemed that after the liberalization of the economy around the turn of the century is when things got worse.
>>1252544
I'm not the same guy I just had to say
>you don't understand economics
Is the oldest non-argument in the book.
>>1252553
>Mongolia refutes that.
I'm sorry... Mongolia refutes what, exactly?
>>1252400
first post best post
>>1252432
This is by far the best post so far. Accurate criticism. I largely agree with his politics and assessments, as impractical as they may be. But he's meticulous is providing sources for his opinions, and by and large he sticks to the facts to begin with.
>>1252562
>Government within a capitalist system is not capitalism
You do realise capitalism does not equal
Anarchocapitalism, right?
It's strange that the countries that Sweden took are also doing rather well? Maybe imperialism isn't such a big factor huh
>>1252569
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Mongolia
Rich leader != Success of an economy
>>1252562
>Sweden actually was imperialist though.
When did I mention Sweden? Let me guess you are American.
Ireland was de facto a colony and now is wealthier than the UK. Portugal was a backwards country since the XVIII century. Your meme theories are just that. Memes.
>>1252553
Spain is by no means poor, and as a matter of fact it's good that you mention it because the height of their success was when they were literally imperialist.
>You said that imperialism always makes a country rich, Mongolia refutes that.
Mongolia did not set up capitalist imperialist trading venturies all across the planet, nor was it centralized to Mongolia. They were nomads that swept across Eurasia then collapsed shortly afterwards. Not at all comparable to say Britain's many-century long economic exploitation of many continents.
>A few trading posts and one Caribbean island wouldn't be a large enough factor to make all of Scandinavia rich
No, but it certainly gave Sweden and Denmark a massive head start in cultivating native industry.
Finland however you may note is not comparable to overseas colonies. For all intents and purposes it was essentially an integral part of the empire.
Additionally I must say everyone ITT takes the term "imperialism" very literally without considering modern day imperialism.
>Of course you don't believe that can happen.
I do believe mutually beneficial exchange can happen, I just also believe socialism is an infinitely superior system for the creation of it.
>Globalisation has been a great thing for the poorest in the world.
Globalisation is good, capitalism is not.
>>1252565
Not when he proves it with his post. I never used it as an argument.
>>1252575
I never said government involvement isn't capitalism. I just pointed it out as notable.
>>1252531
>Wrong. People go bankrupt all the time.
so do you think Bill Gates will go "bankrupt" soon? what about the Bankers? Politicians? Apple? McDonald's? Google? Oil companies? weapon manufacturers?
>Wrong. No system has had as much social movility as our current one.
why is it than that the niggers on the streets aren't getting high education? why do they turn to crime? why can't the middle class average individual start his own business without risking his whole life on a lawn that might bankrupt him forever? why can't he build a house without selling his soul on a mortgage?
>Memes are not real life. Have you even work in your entire life? You can quit,and even open your own bussiness with an small investment
so what you're saying is "you can quit and enslave yourself to something else for the benefit of the 1%" "how is that slavery brah"
>And you are the one determining this right? We actually dont need houses, nor heaters,we have survived without those for millenials. Should we ban this things too,which are obvioulsy not needed?
how fucking stupid can one individual be, of course I'm not talking about our fundamental needs although this can be much more efficient as well, I'm talking about phones that come out every year with zero improvements, I'm talking about fast food enterprises that objectively poison our society, I'm talking about weapon manufacturers that profit from the death of other humans, I'm talking about pharmaceuticals and other giants who don't invest in important research because it's not profitable for them etc etc
everything else you said is just "I'm too stupid to understand what you're saying" the post
>>1252583
You did, right here.
>Sweden wasnt imperialistic
>Ireland was de facto a colony and now is wealthier than the UK
Yes, Ireland is also a tax-haven with through the roof unemployment and is an absolute shithole by European standards.
I can tell you this with certainty because I live there.
>. Portugal was a backwards country since the XVIII century.
It was not, in the late 90s Portugal had some serious economic growth going on.
>>1252396
I say this as someone fond of left libertarianism and more disappointed than anything.
1) His ideology is inherently flawed, attempting a top-down approach imposing abstract concepts on society like many other ideologues. His vision of an economy dominated by worker's cooperatives for example suffers from various practical problems and would require an Amish level of devotion to maintain, but he generally glosses over this safe in the knowledge his ideas work in theory so it must be capitalist boogeymen crushing his dreams not cold hard reality.
2) Though he is critical of some left wing authoritarian regimes he is still deep into his own ingroup and the bulk of his arguments follow the same formula with him, fellow intellectuals and working class folk on one side versus nuts among the right wing, evil corporations, abusive political authority and so on, all interconnected by his theories on capitalism which border on a conspiracy theory.
3) He unironically believes socialist meme magic can alter power relations in society and that the CIA's meddling in other countries and US support of dictators during the cold war was almost entirely orchestrated by business interests because some central american generalissimo sold a pineapple to the united fruit company decades ago.
>>1252587
>Spain is by no means poor, and as a matter of fact it's good that you mention it because the height of their success was when they were literally imperialist.
Not true. People were wealthier proportionally before America was discovered in Castile.
>>A few trading posts and one Caribbean island wouldn't be a large enough factor to make all of Scandinavia rich
>No, but it certainly gave Sweden and Denmark a massive head start in cultivating native industry.
>Finland however you may note is not comparable to overseas colonies. For all intents and purposes it was essentially an integral part of the empire.
If you imply that the lame danish colonies made the country wealthy,you are totally lost.
>Additionally I must say everyone ITT takes the term "imperialism" very literally without considering modern day imperialism.
>>Of course you don't believe that can happen.
>I do believe mutually beneficial exchange can happen, I just also believe socialism is an infinitely superior system for the creation of it.
Kek.
>Free association
>Socialism
>>Globalisation has been a great thing for the poorest in the world.
>Globalisation is good, capitalism is not.
That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Zimbabwe says hi. The only poor countries that are growing are pretty capitalistic.
>>1252603
>in the late 90s Portugal had some serious economic growth going on.
So did China. That doesnt make Portugal's economic backwardness compared to Europe any less true.
>>1252605
Thank you for actually answering my question.
>>1252606
>Not true. People were wealthier proportionally before America was discovered in Castile.
How could anyone possibly calculate this?
>If you imply that the lame danish colonies made the country wealthy,you are totally lost.
I do not, I imply they gave them a massive head start in cultivate industry.
Do note however that the colonies Sweden and Denmark had were more like trading posts and generally not lame at all in terms of usefulness.
>Kek.
Not an argument
>That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Zimbabwe says hi. The only poor countries that are growing are pretty capitalistic.
Libya was socialist and they were doing great until they got """"liberated""""".
>>1252595
>so what you're saying is "you can quit and enslave yourself to something else for the benefit of the 1%" "how is that slavery brah"
Having your own bussiness is hard and demanding work. But by no means you are benefiting the "1%" . Its your bussiness and your money.
>so do you think Bill Gates will go "bankrupt" soon? what about the Bankers? Politicians? Apple? McDonald's? Google? Oil companies? weapon manufacturers?
Why would anyone whose product is in high demand go bankrupt?
>>1252562
>Iceland
A country that doesn't even have a military and when attempted to a few years ago could literally not afford it.
>>1252595
>so do you think Bill Gates will go "bankrupt" soon? what about the Bankers? Politicians? Apple? McDonald's? Google? Oil companies? weapon manufacturers?
It could happen. Weapons and oil are sustained by the goverment,so nothing to do with Market economies.
>why is it than that the niggers on the streets aren't getting high education? why do they turn to crime? why can't the middle class average individual start his own business without risking his whole life on a lawn that might bankrupt him forever? why can't he build a house without selling his soul on a mortgage?
The nigger has lots of oportunities. Affirmative action is probably the most discriminatory thing that there is,and niggers benefit the most from it. A useless nigger with a garbage GPA,can become a doctor thanks to affirmative action. They turn to crime,because nost of them are retards,with fucked up families. The middle class can start a bussiness,and not get bankruptcy at all. Only very huge investments could make this happen,while most bussinesses are small. And if the person doesnt take the risk,someone else would have to carry the loses. Which would destroy the economy btw. Anyone can build a house in his piece of land,and respect badic regulations. Most people just dont know how to do it,or just preffer to buy one. I doubt that you know how to build a house
>so what you're saying is "you can quit and enslave yourself to something else for the benefit of the 1%" "how is that slavery brah"
Most bussinesses are owned by middle class people,that are far from being in the 1%. You just use memes,because it fits your stupid rhethoric better.
>how fucking stupid can one individual be, of course I'm not talking about our fundamental needs.
Again how do you determine what is needed? Basic needs is not objective. A basic need for an European standards us a priviledge to an African.Again using memes doesnt make your argument right
>>1252622
>How could anyone possibly calculate this?
Urbanization,% of beggars and the huge price rises with stagnating wages. The only people that benefited about the empire were Genovese bankers.
> Do note however that the colonies Sweden and Denmark had were more like trading posts and generally not lame at all in terms of usefulness.
Do you actually know which industries grew the most in thise countries at the time? The colonies had little to no impact. Sweden developed due to similar reasons than Switzerland,not meme colonies
> Libya was socialist and they were doing great until they got """"liberated""""".
Lybia was an stable NA country,North African countries have always been wealthier than sub saharian, that earned all its money due oil and gas. Gadaffi's Lybia's economic performance is just a meme.
>>1252676
It's the classic Arab dictator/monarchy trick. Buy people with oil money and don't bother with the private sector. At least Dubai has tried to get foreigners to invest.
>>1252396
>Can someone please tell me why Chomsky is wrong? I really hate the guy.
The fox-news generation in a nutshell
*bashes bible*
*burns koran*
*passively aggressively postures at anti-trump protestors*
>>1252695
Yeah,Dubai did find,but Saudi Arabia is kind of fucked,if they dont do something.
you don't like chomsky because he makes you face the truth about the way things work
>>1252443
>the vast majority of the planet has been capitalist for quite some time and the vast majority of the planet is a shithole.
Oh like Vietnam? Oh wait, that's not your specific brand of communism right? Yet you group all "capitalist" nations together like there is no difference between them.
>>1252658
Why do I even try? you ignore what I say and only respond to what seems comfortable, your arguments are on per with your economic ideology, the only thing you have successfully proved is that my theory about capitalists being total idiots is true.
but non the less I shall respond to you for it is my duty to at least try to make you understand
behind Capitalism there is a basic philosophy, that philosophy is the idea that you should labor to increase your capital,that philosophy which is the basis of our economic society drives us to see each other as competitors on a "race" for having the most capital and "winning" life by having the most materialistic indulgence's, that causes us to psychopaticaly regress our empathy to other human beings so we could put our needs before theirs and hurt them when we need if it furthers our individual goals, that is the capitalist mentality, that is the modern age philosophy, that allows for people who already hold a lot of power=money to easily maneuver their lives in the direction of their choosing which is naturally stability, more power, more money, and more control, what that creates is a society that is largely controlled by a small group of individuals who are scared shitless to lose their power and will do anything to keep themselves in a position of power even if that means hurting the environment we exist in,or causing wars, or poisoning the average citizen of that society,this is what happens, it is the devaluing of morals that keeps our society corrupted and inefficient, we work backwards and most people, like you have demonstrated are stupid enough to believe this is the best humanity can do,
>>1252829
and that it's actually good to be slaves for the benefit of our capitalist masters, capitalism is controlled chaos, it drives toward an end that isn't sustainable, resources are limited, they will either drive us right into a huge disaster, or use technology to control us completely.
eventually capitalism is only the product of humanity's need to clinge to inefficient spooks such as nationality, racial identity, culture and tradition, it is the symptom of uncivilized civilization, we are large in numbers, we can communicate instantly through distances as far as the whole world,we have the ability to easily comprehend globalism, but we still aren't ready to live harmonically, capitalism is not the major evil, only a sad reminder of the fact that humanity can be much more efficient if they worked on a global scale but instead choose to make an illusion like money, believe that that piece of paper hold the meaning of life and power, worship it as a God and dedicate their whole lives for the sake of it,a reminder of the lack of awareness the sheeple of humanity is led by easily into its own doom.
>>1252829
You havent give me any argument yet. Your explanation is just made up bullshit. You are assuming things that are not true. Capitalism is just an economic system. Capitalist societies can form communes and the like,but you just preffer to type some pseudointelectual bullshit,based on reading some random comments on 4chan. Capitalist societies outperform in every possible way communist ones. In terms of individual freedoms,free association,economic prosperity,respect of the law or technological output. . You also built your own ideology about spooks,like inequality is bad or that materialism is bad. Proving nothing more than you are just an edgy Stirner poster that hasn't touch the unique and its own. Saying that resources are finite,prove nothing. We barely use land whale oil anymore,when it was an important resources a couple of centuries ago. New resources appear ir the old ones gain a new use,and technology develops. Also,noone expects infinite growth,that is just a meme that Marxists made up. As infinite growth is physically and temporarily impossible.
>>1252880
>You havent give me any argument yet. Your explanation is just made up bullshit.
no you
>>1252704
Koran>Bible>Chomsky>fox news
>>1252944
Please tell me where you get all that made up info,that you just posted in your comments. Is mostly bullcrap,with no evidence to back it up. You start calling spooks,while your entire post is based around them. No data has been given in all your comments,but fedora tier pseudophilosophy.
>>1252830
"globalism". Instantly dropped. If you think being utterly controlled by uncaring global dictators who sees you as a number on a sheet is better than working for someone who sees you as a number on a sheet you are naive.
>>1252957
it is literally proving itself, fucking go outside and analyze human behavior inside modern society.
>>1252990
Ok no evidence. None of what you said has been proven,other than inside of your little pseudointelectual mind
>>1253009
seriously how stupid can you be?
I'm talking to you about philosophy, the idea of reality people hold and propels them to do whatever it is they do, no further evidence is needed or can possibly be achieved other than an objective look of the ideas I have suggested and comparing them to the reality you experience, how can I prove to you that humans are driven by materialism other than showing you the products of our culture, listen to the music people are listening to, watch them go berserk as they trample one another on the rush for a brand new television set on a black Friday, see their behavior as they shit on one another to get an advance, see their fascination with wealth and power, what more do you want me to do? point you to an article showing how bad McDonald's is for your health? or showing the environment being destroyed by inefficient factories? or show you how the makers of weapons profit from war?
are you this ignorant to real life?
>>1253064
>no further evidence is needed or can possibly be achieved other than an objective look of the ideas I have suggested
Literally you just accepted that you made everything up. No evidence was given, if you claim that something is worse than socialism or that is failing at least try to bring some evidence other than your autism
>Le capitalism is better than communism
>it somehow proves cronyism, skewed media, oil conflicts, imperialism etc. are justified and sustainable.
>>1252396
>OP is clearly pro-Chomsky and mocking his detractors
>Chomsky fanboys are literally too retarded to see this
>>1253079
It proves itself,throughout history. It has been sustainable for 200 years,and has stomped in every measurable way any competition.
>>1252396
>Can someone please tell me why Chomsky is wrong? I really hate the guy.
Anti-chomskyites in a nutshell. Think about this for one fucking second and just get over your petty bullshit politics already.
>>1253075
holy shit kill yourself you're the most stupid degenerate lowlife drop of cum I had ever encountered on this site
>>1253102
Not an argument. You said that "we could achieve so more with socialism" and I am still waiting for the evidence. Wanting to discuss facts,instead of the exercise of mental masturbation that you are doing is called critical thinking.
>>1253088
>200 years
Not a continuance of same form of exploitation used by every kingdom and empire of the past, mind you they all fell.
>>1252494
>South Korea was but is now a democracy.
lmfao
>Also I'd rather be in a rich authoritarian state, than a poor one.
The definition of a useful idiot
>>1252498
>GDP = living standards
Holy shit anon
>>1253153
That doesnt make them unsustainable. And communism felt in 80 years.
>>1253169
You are sugesting that commie china had better living conditions than post Deng China?
>>1253190
Quasi-capitalist states existed long before it became the dominant system and replaced feudalism. Just as quasi-socialist states have been and gone.
>>1253193
For a lot of people yes.
>>1253211
For Whom? Famines under Mao were the rule.
>>1253210
>have failed every single time
>>1253190
>collapsing
>sustainable
pick one
>>1253220
>1789
>Still thinking the French revolution is a good idea
>He doesn't now the nobility is necessary because of human nature
>He still thinks the bourgeoisie can efficiently run an economy.
lmao republicucks don't you see than non-feudalism has failed every time?
>>1253214
All the people that would not be homeless now that are because of Deng's pseudo-socialism.
>Famines under Mao were the rule.
Exactly 1 famine happened in the PRC prior to Deng.
>>1253244
>Exactly 1 famine happened in the PRC prior to Deng.
You say this like if was a fucking acomplishment
>>1253230
The difference is that capitalism prove itself to work before the French revolution. Socialism has fauled every single time.
>>1253088
That's not the point, it's whether all this crap is still befitting for the current era.
https://youtu.be/rWpY7ZhhvS0
https://youtu.be/s8mP2jN6bJI?t=537
>>1253244
One famine that lasted for all of Mao's rule.
>>1253269
If your going to remain on the left right dichotomy you could argue that social capitalism has proven to be more constructive and reliable than laissez-faire capitalism.
Feudal aristocracies on the other hand.
>>1253285
>social capitalism
Yes,the south of Europe is doing wonders with it.
>>1253269
Where exactly?
>Republic of Pisa
Fell
>Republic of Florence
Fell
>Commonwealth of England
Fell & also a despotic shithole.
>Novgorod
Fell
>USA
An agrarian third world country that's going to fall any day now.
Face it anon, capitalism doesn't work.
>>1253308
Kek.
>Not posting the united provinces
>>1253230
You have a point actually. Feudalism is superior to capitalism and communism.
>>1253328
>Rightfully Spanish rump state living off noble-produced foreign goods and British support
>Intact nobility
>Successful example of republicanism.
>>1253336
>inb4 it wasn't true republicanism,my own type of republicanism has never been tried.
>Not mentioning based Venice
>>1252443
it was an even bigger shithole before the 18th century
Capitalism made the world less of a shithole
>>1253269
cuba was isolated as part of the cold war, america tried several times to sabatagoe/overthrow cuba....wheras singapore was created not purely by a free democratic socioty by by a semi authoriterian regime which still holds an almost one party grip on the state and its economy......im not sure they make a good compare and contrast
>>1253269
singapore was rewarded for being capitalist next to china and vietnam...cuba was punished for dareibg to try and restore ownership of cubas material weath to cuba(liberating it from american banks/companies)
>>1253398
Cuba could trade with the rest on the world. It was a US embargo. Spain was embargoed by more countries and turned out way better. Hong Kong had an embargo with China,and they turned out to be better. Socialism is the very definition of a failure
>>1253414
Spain had worse punishments and turned out to be better. And didnt you guys hated free trade? Why are you using it as an excuse for Cuba's failure?
>>1253417
Yeah the embargo meme is stupid
Only the us embargoed them.
Why would Cuba want to trade with the capitalist scum anyway?
>>1253398
>hate capitalism and free trade
>WTF WHY CAN'T WE TRADE WITH CAPITALIST COUNTRIES ????
>>1253064
So slaving away building canals for the state or living on a communal farm that you're not allowed to leave is better? I can choose to go get trampled on Black Friday or I can choose not to. I eat healthy because I want to, maybe because mom only buys you McDonald's it's all you know but I can choose whatever I want to eat, not like in the socialist hellhole of Venezuela I came from where they are rationing everything thanks to people like you and your damn "ideology".
>environment destroyed by inefficient factories
KEK
Look up the environmental damage caused by the Soviet Union. Look up Norilsk. Or try to find what's left of the Aral Sea.
>profit from weapons blablabla
Most prolific firearm on Earth is the AK-47 comrade :3
>>1253456
>hate capitalism
yes
>free trade
no
>>1253064
>environment being destroyed by inefficient factories?
Are you actually trying to defend socialism? USSR and China completely raped nature.
>>1253302
Doing better than 'Murica is with a 19 trillion dollar debt to the largest communist state to ever exist.
>>1253477
>>1253064
>>1253478
>southern Europe talking about debt
lmfao
>>1253211
Having lived in China, I can now without doubt say that you are insane and have no idea what you're talking about. And 99.99% of Chinese would think you're an absolute nutcase for saying that. My friends there have parents and grandparents who remember the constant hunger, the endless hateful fear in the 1960s, there's a reason they all love Deng. Before that it was just a gigantic North Korea. The Maoist era was good for yes homeless illiterates with no desire to have anything better than a small hovel and a bit of rice. If that's all that life is to you, then I'm sorry.
>>1253471
Kek. This meme again. Why would workers trade with oppressive capitalist,and perpetuate them into power? Isnt socialism suppose to be international,to """free workers from oppression"""".
>>1253478
Debt % GDP south of Europe
Spain 100
Greece 175
Portugal 129
Italy 136
>Social democracies works I swear :DDDDD
>>1253491
>there's a reason they all love Deng
Because it's illegal not to?
>>1253497
>Why would workers trade with oppressive capitalist,and perpetuate them into power?
To make their socialist states richer.
> Isnt socialism suppose to be international,to """free workers from oppression"""".
Yes.
>>1253490
>>1253503
>>1252443
Holy shit, both capitalistic and communist countries have eaten bread. Both capitalistic and ex commie countries are shitholes. Dude, bread makes places shitholes
>>1253510
>To make their socialist states richer.
>Socialism
>Rich
Pick one. The country would just get flooded with cheaper products,as socialist factories couldnt compete and kill all local manufacturing and balloing unemployment. As entrepreneurship is almost null in socialism the economy would just collapse. If commie countries dont impose super high tariffs,their countries would collapse.
>>1253514
>2025 forecast
lol'd heartily
>>1253514
The 2010 forecast was wrong,let alone the others.
>Posting shit that hasnt happen
Holy mother of kek
>>1253505
Because they all literally have families who remember living in North Korea XXL edition and because thankfully Deng wasn't an ideological nutcase like you and the fuckboys who drove China into the Cultural Revolution, which I'm sure you think was awesome and fantasize about regularly but to the average family wanting to live as decent a life as possible was a hell on earth created by mad edgelords and their stupid ideologies. Of course you haven't traveled around Asia though so I'm sure you think it's all rice paddies and Apple factories full of muh oppressed workers.
>>1253519
Yes, and imposing protectionist policies with aims of controlling their economic growth is something countries generally do.
What's the matter?
>>1253525
Then why do you bitch about an embargo that basically does that?
>>1253523
>Deng wasn't an ideological nutcase
Remind me exactly why China is just as undemocratic and authoritarian as before if there is nothing they need to keep a lid on against the government.
>>1253527
I do not.
>>1253522
It did happen if you adjust for inequality; a word you probably don't understand the meaning of.
>>1253547
Source? Even then inequality is good.
>>1253553
>inequality is good
>>1253553
Here you go anon, eat up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index#Inequality-adjusted_HDI_4
>>1253554
Not him but why is it bad? Poverty is bad, not inequality.
>>1253563
>inequality adjusted
>>>/trash/
>>1253554
Yes. Inequality allows the accumulation of capitals and more advanced investments. If everyone had the same income,the economy would be reduce to microcompanies that just fulfill basic services. Inequality also applies to the state as an entity too. A state with a chunk of the GDP could invest in bigger projects like the Manhattan one or the space race. Big companies and inequality= strong economy.
>>1253563
The forecast is still wrong...
>>1253567
Because gross inequality is a definite sign that some serious exploition is going on here.
It is simply not possible, no matter how hard someone works to become a billionaire without giving many other people a massively raw deal. Such a system, on a utilitarian basis at least, is clearly a bad system.
>>1253568
>Why aren't you doing well? The banks are doing great!
>>1253584
Banks dont hold more than 4% of the total GDP in most countries..
>>1253582
Czech republic has more equality than the US yet the poor people in the US live better than the middle class in Czech republic. Inequality per se is a meme, it's only bad if it leads to dismal poverty.
>serious exploitation
Only if you believe that equality is a natural order of things and only by exploiting people you can achieve inequality, which isn't the case.
>>1253573
I'm not implying everyone should be materially equal, I'm implying that inequality is not an inherent good as it's entirely possible for it to be out of control as seen in say Qatar, and likewise extremely gross inequality as seen in similar states is a sign something is wrong with the organization of society as outlined in a response to another anon.
>>1253587
Implying banks are the only problem.
>>1252396
even chomsky's fiercest critics in linguistics accept his most fundamental contributions to the field like universal grammar. he's most likely wrong about many of his proposals about language, but that's why he proposes them, to formulate hypotheses which can be tested.
>>1253582
>Inequality
>Bad
>>1253599
Implying that I said that
>>1253593
> it's only bad if it leads to dismal poverty.
I agree, I'm not saying inequality should be eliminated. Just that it should be monitored so that wealth can be used in a way most ultimately beneficial to society.
>and only by exploiting people you can achieve inequality,
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying only by partaking in massive amounts of exploition could you possibly become a billionaire (for instance) as it is simply not possible to accrue such a level of wealth without doing so.
>>1253601
>societal blights
>good
>>1253582
Not necessarily m8
>Nozick's famous Wilt Chamberlain argument is an attempt to show that patterned principles of just distribution are incompatible with liberty. He asks us to assume that the original distribution in society, D1 is ordered by our choice of patterned principle, for instance Rawls's Difference Principle. Wilt Chamberlain is an extremely popular basketball player in this society, and Nozick further assumes 1 million people are willing to freely give WC 25 cents each to watch him play basketball over the course of a season (we assume no other transactions occur). Wilt now has $250,000, a much larger sum than any of the other people in the society. The new distribution in society, call it D2, obviously is no longer ordered by our favored pattern that ordered D1. However Nozick argues that D2 is just. For if each agent freely exchanges some of his D1 share with WC and D1 was a just distribution (we know D1 was just, because it was ordered according to your favorite patterned principle of distribution), how can D2 fail to be a just distribution? Thus Nozick argues that what the Wilt Chamberlain example shows is that no patterned principle of just distribution will be compatible with liberty. In order to preserve the pattern which arranged D1, the state will have to continually interfere with people's ability to freely exchange their D1 shares. For any exchange of D1 shares explicitly involves violating the pattern that originally ordered it.
>>1253594
No. There is nothing wrong in being able to perform high investments. A sing of a rotten society,is the one that have to waut into a line to get their weakly food, and no toilet paper. Singapore is unequal as fuck,like Hong kong,and both of them are the most developed economies in the world. Also welfare is a fucking huge waste,but that is another matter
>>1253611
Yeah why don't we just kill all of the poorest and the richest? Removes all of the societal blights.
>>1253605
>implying you didn't
>>1253611
All succesful societies were unequal.
>>1253618
>Implying I did
>>1253608
Land value tax now!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice
Is this a good criticism of Chomsky?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tLz_9xmLKI
>>1253621
And then they collapsed.
>>1253614
>There is nothing wrong in being able to perform high investments
High investments are largely meaningless as trickle-down economics does not work.
More Keynesian strategies however do, justifying state taxation and spending into less advantaged sections of society to stimulate the economy. Ultimately causing the best societal goods.
> A sing of a rotten society,is the one that have to waut into a line to get their weakly food, and no toilet paper
I agree
> Singapore is unequal as fuck,like Hong kong,and both of them are the most developed economies in the world.
That they are, they also have outrageous amounts of poverty that make life very difficult for large sections of society. Their development is largely meaningless to these sections of society, compared to the much fairer life offered to poor individuals in say Scandinavia.
> Also welfare is a fucking huge waste,but that is another matter
It is not, as even a welfare-recipient contributes to the economy by spending.
>>1253634
Because people demanded distribution of wealth and handouts. Is not something new. Europe is the prime example currently,but it happened to Rome,to Spain or France
>>1253646
and Russia
>>1253478
this meme again
>>1253639
>High investments are largely meaningless as trickle-down economics does not work.
Memes. Didnt space exploration helped the economy. When I mean inequality,I am also refering to the state,not just in the private sector. Higher investments improve the economy and open new markets,with better paying jobs. You just have to look at the companies that pay better wages.
>More Keynesian strategies however do, justifying state taxation and spending into less advantaged sections of society to stimulate the economy. Ultimately causing the best societal goods.
No. Keynesian economics leads to the collapse of manufacturing against bigger competition,as has been shown with China and its huge companies.
> That they are, they also have outrageous amounts of poverty that make life very difficult for large sections of society.
Poverty is relative. That is why the % is so high in those places. When in reality they have quite confortable lifes.
>Their development is largely meaningless to these sections of society, compared to the much fairer life offered to poor individuals in say Scandinavia.
Scandinavia
Scandinavia is a meme that survives on high taxation of its citizens. Only 2 big companies open in Sweden after the socialdemocrat reing which is pathetic.
>It is not, as even a welfare-recipient contributes to the economy by spending.
Spending is only useful to capitalize the companies even more. Welfare spending is mostly on sectors that really dont need to capitalize that much. Just increasing the profits of companies that contribute little in terms of tech advancement.
>>1253673
>Didnt space exploration helped the economy.
I do not know what this sentence means
>Higher investments improve the economy and open new markets,with better paying jobs. You just have to look at the companies that pay better wages.
Higher investments do not necessarily improve the economy. One of the main problems with this is the creation of boom-bust cycles which are essentially a product of supply-side thinking. Because of this too much capital leads to excess speculation that will eventually collapse on itself. The better method of investment is into smaller areas of society that can contribute to the economy over a larger area and ultimately permeate all levels of the economy.
>Keynesian economics leads to the collapse of manufacturing against bigger competition,as has been shown with China and its huge companies.
It does not, Keynesian economics has basically been proven to be correct throughout the 20th century.
>Poverty is relative. That is why the % is so high in those places. When in reality they have quite confortable lifes.
That is true, however purchasing power is also relative making it very hard to be poor even if your money puts you at an advantage compared to someone in a poorer country it is still of relative worth at home.
>Scandinavia is a meme that survives on high taxation of its citizens. Only 2 big companies open in Sweden after the socialdemocrat reing which is pathetic.
Scandinavia is a very nice place where everyone seems to be very happy. I'm not sure what more you could want from a society.
>Welfare spending is mostly on sectors that really dont need to capitalize that much. Just increasing the profits of companies that contribute little in terms of tech advancement.
You phrase tech advancement like it's the ultimate good.
In truth welfare spending will ultimately make its way to essentially anything as it would chiefly be spent into the most common aspets of life like bills, rent, food, perhaps even luxury electronics.
>>1253639
>Investment does not help the economy
>Seriously beloved trickle down economics is a thing.
Tax cuts are sometimes good (as a stimulus so long as a deficit is ran) or indeed to stimulate investment but most of the time the money can be better spent on education or social insurance.
In rare occasions a tax cut might actually increase tax revenues! But our tax rates are already below the point of max revenue so tax cuts are a stupid idea if you want more revenue.
>>1253673
>2016
>Thinking Keynesian economics is wrong
>Not being a new Keynesian
Fuck off back to vienna
>>1253715
Higher investments bring technological progress,thus,the creation of whole new markets for the economy to expand.
> . One of the main problems with this is the creation of boom-bust cycles which are essentially a product of supply-side thinking
Irrelevant as capital stays in few hands. Speculation happens when most people enter in the investment circle,last recession was purely for how the banking sector was structured. If few people hold most of the wealth,a wrong investment, wouldnt terminate all his wealth and allow him to keep investing.
>The better method of investment is into smaller areas of society that can contribute to the economy over a larger area and ultimately permeate all levels of the economy.
No. Small areas of the economy would just stagnate the economy in the long term as new markets arent expanded. Capitalism would have collapsed if it wssnt for all the technology discovered during its life spam. Just look at the biggest companies of today,and you will see that all of them come from new markets.
> It does not, Keynesian economics has basically been proven to be correct throughout the 20th century.
This is simply wrong.
> purchasing power is also relative
Never deny this. They can still go on a weekend and buy whatever the fuck they want.
>I'm not sure what more you could want from a society
Actual prosperity and advancement. Scandinavia is stagnated on a mediocracy.
>You phrase tech advancement like it's the ultimate good.
It is. Tech advancement is the true force behind economic growth
>In truth welfare spending will ultimately make its way to essentially anything as it would chiefly be spent into the most common aspets of life like bills, rent, food, perhaps even luxury electronics.
Leading to the increase in meme research and increase the profit margins of companies that reinvest very little. True prosperity happens,when a company invests in a nuclear fussion plant or Space exploration.
>>1253732
I am not a lolbertarian. I just defended goverment expending like in the space exploration.
>>1253755
We are all Keynesians now
Keynesian does not mean exclusively fiscal policy, conventional monetary policy can be used for demand management so long as interest rates aren't very close to zero.
>>1253763
Keynesianism died in the 70's. If you have read keynes you would know this.
>>1253758
Ah right. In the cases of a downturn some money must be spent by the government on those unemployed by the business cycle to prevent the loss of human capital.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis_(economics)
>>1253769
What I'm trying to say is that Keynesian ideas were absorbed into the economic mainstream, then they were improved by the critiques of the monetarists and the new classical so that all three of them mixed and became nowadays mainstream economics.
If by Keynesianism you mean government expenditure to get full employment, well yes that's over.
>>1253770
I believe that the goverment should invest all the money of welfare in research and development,via subsidies,military or direct spending . I actually dont mind a medium size state. Unregulated market is also preferable.
>>1253786
Places like Scandinavia have unregulated markets and social insurance. Denmark has a privitised fire service for Christ's sake!
Some money must be spent on helping the poor get educated and helping them find jobs, these things help capitalism.
>>1253769
Orthodox economics is like 70% Keynes 29% Chicago school and like 1% Marx.
And in very recent years Keynesianism has gotten renewed interest as neoliberal ideas are coming under heavy scrutiny.
>>1253806
Macro economics yeah, but most of micro is still based upon the original classical economists/ neoclassical.
>>1253798
I am not disagreeing with you education is fine by me. But welfare is just waste. I would rather just spend that money in pure research and development, to really enhace capitalism to its fullest extend. The faster the technology advances,the healthier the capitalist economy is. The problem with the Scandinavian model is that it is usually,or was, too pro worker,which killed economic growth for some years in Sweden for example.
>>1253852
What about for the disabled?
>>1253863
We will have to start somewhere for artificial enhacements
>>1253269
>Singapore in 1950
That must have been the last hut left in Singapore by then.
http://www.vintag.es/2013/05/pictures-of-singapore-from-1950s-60s.html
>>1253897
That picture was cherry picked but Cuba had had such buildings for much longer than Singapore.
Before Castro is was better off than most of the other Latin American nations, more doctors and cars per capita than the Uk I think. They still have more doctors. It's system with a few successes (healthcare and education) but overall not that great.
>>1252432
>For example, the Nazis lost more people fighting WW2 than the Americans did, so for Chomsky, the Americans are the bad guys.
I'm probably stupid for asking, but this is a caricatural exaggeration of his views and nothing he actually said, right?
>>1254021
It's still better off than most Latin American nations.
>>1252527
If you'd clicked the link you would have seen that several of the richest states are the ones that were least involved in imperialism.
See
>>1252538
and
>>1252553
>>1252704
You what m8?
>>1252712
I disagree with 50% of what the guy says but it seems like OP doesn't even know what he believes yet somehow already disagrees with him, which is sad
>>1252829
>that philosophy which is the basis of our economic society drives us to see each other as competitors on a "race" for having the most capital and "winning" life by having the most materialistic indulgence's
This is subjective.
>that causes us to psychopaticaly regress our empathy to other human beings so we could put our needs before theirs and hurt them when we need if it furthers our individual goals
Again subjective and also wrong. This is how businessses think, not individuals
>it is the devaluing of morals that keeps our society corrupted and inefficient
There's that "morality is decaying" crap again.
>>1252830
>only a sad reminder of the fact that humanity can be much more efficient if they worked on a global scale but instead choose to make an illusion like money, believe that that piece of paper hold the meaning of life and power, worship it as a God and dedicate their whole lives for the sake of it,a reminder of the lack of awareness the sheeple of humanity is led by easily into its own doom.
Please, tell me what you think our subjective but somehow collective purpose in live should be.
>>1252880
>Saying that resources are finite,prove nothing. We barely use land whale oil anymore,when it was an important resources a couple of centuries ago. New resources appear ir the old ones gain a new use,and technology develops.
Great post until this. The larger the human population, the more easy it will be to use those resources. With the human population exploding in the past century and into the near-future, it will be very easy to deplete resources.
>>1252944
Your argument was just your subjective philosophy of how you think other people operate and how you think society is going to go. You didn't cite any stats, facts or information to support it.
>>1253079
Just because those things exist doesn't mean we should totally rewire how society functions to some failed ideology or another, rather we should work to correct those.
>>1253102
Troll detected, you had me on a run there for a minute 8/10
>>1253163
So you'd rather be in a poor authoritarian society than a rich one?
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2015/south-korea
South Korea is fairly free, my bro
>>1253308
>USA
>agrarian
>third world
>fall any day now
What?
>>1253478
>Modern China
>Communist
>US debt
>even that bad, relatively, compared to many European countries
>>1253633
Good response, actually on topic somehow
>>1253715
>Scandinavia is a very nice place where everyone seems to be very happy. I'm not sure what more you could want from a society.
This was true until the migrant crisis...
>>1254672
*Caribbean nations
ftfy
I loved Chomsky comments about Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution and how it showed a path for social development outside neoliberalism.
Why doesn't he comments about Venezuela anymore?
>>1253465
holy fuck you people are stupid, I won't even argue with you because I might as well argue with a rock.
>>1255427
>Please, tell me what you think our subjective but somehow collective purpose in live should be.
obviously being happy and living a good life, as dictated by the people who understood it best(Aristotle, Plato, Buddha, etc), we really have the formula of how to live a good and happy life and with the use of technology we can easily maximize it.
>your argument was just your subjective philosophy of how you think other people operate and how you think society is going to go. You didn't cite any stats, facts or information to support it.
no shit we're talking about philosophy, how do you want me to empirically prove you exactly how society would look like 50 years from now? it's only an outlook on how the world works, how individual humans behave inside the dynamic dimension that is society, the problem with you fags is that you're so unable to think by yourself, that for every idea you must have some sort of easy to digest objective empirical so you won't have to deal with the problem of thinking for yourself, read what I say with as little emotional bias as possible, check it against reality, think about it yourself and and see if you find it "true" or not, your "your opinions are subjective so I don't have to listen lalalala" attitude wouldn't get you anywhere, no shit they're subjective, but they're still true, because they are based on objective facts.
>>1255864
Because it has turned to shit?
At least Morales kept the rhetoric but was actually pragmatic, e.g not nationalising the hydrocarbon industry, just increasing the share of the profits that the state gets (which is fundamentally the neoliberal choice).
>>1252443
Chile > Venezuela
Pinochet > Chavez
Washington > Lenin
It's objective truth, faggot
>>1257148
>Because it has turned to shit?
Dude is still going to bat for the Khmer Rogue, so it's not like that is a problem.
>>1253611
Inequality is a problem when it leads to other social maladies, but inequality itself is rarely the main culprit of societal problems. Some of the most unequal nations ever had high standards of living for the vast majority of people, but nothing compared to the opulence of the upper class. This can and often does become an issue, but it's not a sign of societal failure.
>>1252396
>caring about anything Chomsky says outside of linguistics
>1997+19
>>1252400
So this implies that Chomsky is another first-world-ivory-tower-commie?
>>1253540
At least less backwards than Mao
>>1252396
Noam "Gnome" Chomsky is an anarcho-troskyite bourgeois REVISIONIST who's only achievement in philosophy is having hot opinions.
his linguistics are legit tho.
>>1255864
What did Castro do wrong besides stand up to American imperialism?
>>1252531
>Wrong. No system has had as much social movility as our current one.
Nope.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/america-social-mobility-parents-income/399311/
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/447575/Downward_mobility_opportunity_hoarding_and_the_glass_floor.pdf
>>1252443
>vast majority of the planet is a shithole
Why do commies keep doing this.
My commie friend keeps claiming that in capitalism only big businessmen thrive yet my family are average middle-class citizens, probably barely making the top 50% of earners and we are doing just fine, we can buy whatever we want and are happy. And my country is considered pretty poor by western world standards.
>hurr durr muh africa
Africa has always been a shithole, yet capitalism is improving it. Excluding shitholes that are in civil war, many african countries have great economic growth.
>>1258527
Robo-communism Allende>Pinochet
You know it's true.
>>1252422
It is pretty easy to criticize him on politics. He has no insider sources, no classified documents he citing, and yet he acts like he knows why every administration takes every act.
Journalists with far better access to elite decision makers don't act nearly as sure or as smugly about their knowledge of how decisions are made in Washington.
Hey also cherry picks events like a motherfucker.
>>1253211
Fucking ebin dude
>>1252573
Not even true. He has stated repeatedly that the bombing of the al-Shifa plant in Sudan was a deliberate reprisal. He is sure, with no fucking sources, but SURE, that the Americans knew it was a medical plant and blew it up anyways.
No evidence though aside from cherry picking lots of supporting facts and pretending information to the contrary doesn't exist.
>>1253269
Singapore used market forces to enrich itself but is by no means even close to a purely capitalistic society.
Lee Kuan Yew ensured that his development vision was free from influence of business, unions, or political opposition. Market forces were a means to an end.
>>1252577
Mongolia as a horde was functionally way different from any modern nation state that we are discussing.
Also, Mongolia spent time under the yoke of Russia, which was a totalitarian command economy that utterly ruined its economy to compete with the US. I will assert that communism has never existed and never will, you fucking morons. I shouldn't even have to make this aside. But to whoever, the sniveling kneejerk troll of so little importance that you must post contrarian bullshit: you are so pathetically stuck on the idea that Ideology MUST be 100% congruent with governance, that there is literally no point in even speaking to you about this. Mongolia's only current form of participation in the global economy now, which most globalized countries now rely on, is a finite source of mineral wealth. It's often an excuse made for capitalism that it's failures have no bearing on its successes. But this assertion can't be made without accepting some mode of geographic determination in economic success. Not just business savvy.
And even then, that's likely a fraction of the reasons for Mongolia's current wealth. And I'm perfectly willing to say that I have no fucking clue otherwise as to why they're a desert shithole, other than that the land there isn't particularly arable. So can we get over the idea that capitalism is a monolithic idea that has real, zero-sum, deterministic effects on a place should only the leaders embrace it and the people wear blue jeans?
Can we get away from this stupid narrative that capitalism and communism are on a linear gradient of good and evil, and have been in a biblical conflict ever since the early 20th century? How can you even say they're opposites and that you favor capitalism, when doing so means you buy into Marx's ideology wholesale?
>>1252432
I'd been under the impression that it's a more reactionary approach to American nationalism. That he does it to say: "Look! A lot of those other guys died too, have a think about that." If it were to be a criticism, it's that he pushes it to be anything but a reactionary approach. And that's really the impression I get a lot with what he says. Because his statements about politics are usually pretty vindictive and reactionary.
But still, I'd have never heard of the abuses and imperialistic behavior of my own government until I started taking him more seriously. The problem is that his reactions tend to behave like a narrative. And since he's so hands off, his following solidifies the narrative nature of his statements about the US.
In reality, there is some argument to be made for American international deterrance. The problem here again, is incongruence with his following. He routinely states that American behavior in foreign policy is nothing new or exceptional. And the problem is that we treat it as exceptional. He routinely states the mafiate behavior, deterrence, and authoritarianism are things that almost every empire does. But he doesn't question the massive benefit it's given us, or that we aren't still living with a lot of the more noble enlightenment ideals. He asks, is our wealth worthwhile? Are we living up to these standards? Do we have the right to our things when procuring them might cause somebody else to suffer?
Really, my biggest problem with the dude is that his fans have made themselves into something of a cult. The reverence they show in his talks are disgusting. They ask him questions that nobody can answer, as if he were some messiah. And because it's expected of him, he does. That's the problem I see. The dude seems to have let this messianic image get to him.
