Noam Chomsky — Can Civilisation Survive?

[Waremu]

Wait here a second. Are you actually insinuating that a central bank offers checks and balances? You do realize the Fed is the most private institution we have, which runs government, but is not actually government?

And ideally, democracy isn't the best thing to have either (that is why America was founded as a republic, not a democracy), since democracy is basically mob rule.

No, I wasn't insinuating that, War. :)

Seems like to me,
if you are saying you'd like your ideal country
to be a republic along the lines of the USA...

...but then you also want this ideal country to be purely capitalist...

What happens when your republic votes to regulate financial systems,
adopt a progressive tax scheme, provide universal health insurance, etc...?

Yes, America was founded as a republic and with a capitalistic system. The public can vote on what they want, but that has to be in accordance with the law of the land.

If healthcare costs are so cheap (like they were in the early 20th century), and people had more money in their pocket and their money was not being devalued, and they had more savings, they would not need socialized healthcare. Socialized healthcare only really became an issue because people could not afford it and the reason why they could not afford it (unlike their grandparents could) is because the government and insurance companies drive the costs of healthcare up too high. I don't see things like healthcare to be a right (though one should have the right or freedom to treat themselves in whatever way they find valuable), just like owning a house or a car isn't a right. The reason why people pay so much in taxes is because of A) a big/growing government and B) a central bank which requires the government to pay debt on each dollar it borrows of it's "own money" to print, etc. The government then has to keep raising taxes across the board to pay down the increasing debt they owe, though they even fail miserably at that also.

Really, it all goes back to economics. The problem is, most of the so-called academics are ignorant of economics or only have a basic understanding of it, or sometimes may have a background in pseudo-economics, such as the school of keynesian economics, which has failed miserably and is not indicative of reality-based economics. Sadly, most people who are for socialism or communism really are ignorant of economics and therefore lack some of the most basic rational/critical thinking skills which are required to govern or at least understand how governments work.

 

[Waremu]

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/27/corporations-paid-us-senators-fast-track-tpp

I would think that a place where this is not allowed would not be very capitalistic.

This is corporatism. In a republic, the politicians are representatives of the people. This is why you have two houses. The constitution clearly states that they are to vote on behalf of the people, not any conflicts of interest. People can say whatever they may, but this IS a conflict of interest. Lobbyists are a conflict of interest because it sways the politician from fulfilling his legal duty of voting on behalf of the people to voting on behalf of the corporation.

So again, this is the merger of corporations and government. This is corporatism, not capitalism. People only still call America a capitalistic society because either A) they are ignorant of the definitions (as many are) or because B) it started out that way, before it moved to socialized corporatism and mob rule.

Our government does not even follow it's own laws anymore. This would and should not be permissible under a strictly constitutions society. Anyone who calls this capitalism is resorting to emotions rather than factual definitions of things. Sadly, too many people run government who are going off of emotion and not facts or logic.

 

[Waremu]

You know, it inevitably comes to this point with libertarian schemes.
Some non-libertarian like myself can't really decode what is being said.

For that decoding I'd have to enter whole hog into
The Special Knowledge:
the backstories of
The Evil Federal Reserve,
The Evil IMF,
The Evil Bilderberg Group,
The Evil Trilateral Commission,
etc.
And then try to unravel the Subtle Mysteries of the exalted Austrian Economics.

It is a separate mythic universe
with its own set of Evil Forces
sneaking about behind the scenes,
oft times with hooked noses and greedy fingers.
They are our Masters and we are their feudal Serfs.
This mythic universe is like a Tolkien novel,
a self-enclosed and self-sufficient universe.
It makes perfect and obvious sense to those who choose to live within that universe.
But very little to those of us without The Special Knowledge.

It would be easier if we could just have an example of
one of these ideal libertarian countries.
You know...a real one.
That really exists in this world at this time.
That works great like you guys say.
Where we could move to if we wanted.

Congrats, you named a number of groups of people who have a lot of money and power to influence the politics of nations in their favor.
There are no ideal libertarian countries because A) libertarianism is a fairly young concept in light of the history of civilized society, B) most nations still have the roots of their older more traditional governments; C) governments love money and power and a truly libertarian society favors people over government, therefore by nature government officials will not like it. Most governments have corruption to various degrees and in the end human nature comes in and money talks. This is why there has been no ideal libertarian society. Furthermore, such a society requires an aware and educated public who holds government accountable.

 

[narouz]

So again, this is the merger of corporations and government. This is corporatism, not capitalism. People only still call America a capitalistic society because either A) they are ignorant of the definitions (as many are) or because B) it started out that way, before it moved to socialized corporatism and mob rule.

Our government does not even follow it's own laws anymore. This would and should not be permissible under a strictly constitutions society. Anyone who calls this capitalism is resorting to emotions rather than factual definitions of things. Sadly, too many people run government who are going off of emotion and not facts or logic.

Could you give us your favorite definition of capitalism?

 

[Waremu]

It's not something that you "try", what you refer to is at best proletarian dictatorship and at worst a West-funded totalitarian regime.

The last few decades, America has done it's bidding on behalf of it's banker masters. Ever since the establishment of the Fed system in 1913, America went further and further away from capitalism into a system which centralizes power and allows government to regulate and control everything, much similar to communism than to capitalism. While the remnants of what made America great were dying off, governments still reminded people of how bad communism was --- and rightly so. But that is no more. Even communist countries such as China and Russia have opened their doors to capitalism and have benefited greatly from it ever since. And that is why they do not want to go back to pure communism, and are slowly moving further away from it, because they know firsthand that capitalism works. Sadly ever since cultural Marxism and radical liberalism flooded in, the government has moved further away from what it was founded as to the degree that today it is almost like an entirely different country. This is because the central bankers prefer to use the tools of communism or extreme socialism to gain a foothold on countries, as in pure republics which have limited governments, it is hard to control the people and rule in their own favor by getting the government to do their bidding. We saw this with the EU, for example. Not every EU country got to even vote on entering the EU.

The sad thing is, in desperate times, people often elect radical leaders and revolutions occur, often not for the greater good. Over the last few decades, because America has been trying to nation build and police the world, on behalf of their globalist masters, many people including youth today are unhappy and are willing to take desperate measures to stop the corruption they may see. But the reality of the situation is in their unhappiness with the way the country has been ruling, they are turning back to extreme measures as a means to solve these problems. In so doing, and in their desperation, they turn to radical systems such as communism. They hear their radical Marxist teachers bash capitalism (even though their teachers often know nothing about it or about economics) and then they hear the government-controlled media bash capitalism and the things that made America an economic powerhouse. So they don't think for themselves and turn to extreme measures.

I understand those who are fed up with the way America is going, but to give the government more power by transforming it into something that does not work for the people will not work and will just play into the master plan of the financial elite who really run the country from the higher chain of command. America has funded dictators and has done some bad things. But this is because it's people no longer rule it, but rather a few financial elite.

But at the same time you seem to have a conception of communism which is exactly the one emanated by Cold War Western propaganda.

No, I just look at the big picture. People in America were fighting communism and did believe it was anti-freedom and they were right. Again, some of the largest genocides which occurred in the not so distant past were under communist governments. I could easily say your concept mirrors communist soviet propaganda.

The truth is, while communism was a faulty system, and while many within the American government were genuinely worried about it and wanted to fight it, there were also those at the very top who hid under the guise of fighting communism to take out two superpowers which were a threat to their agenda of global government. Remember, Europe and America's IMF masters wanted this for quite some time. This was what they tried to do with the league of nations treaty. They thought if they could have WW1, it would scare all these nations into coming together and signing on to one single treaty which brings them under one power structure. But that didn't work and when Nazism and Communism threatened the crown, they had to take out those two superpowers by causing them to fight against each other. Once WW2 was over, they were left with the bigger monster and that was communist Russia (hence the cold war). Russia and China are naturally very strong nationalists and globalists hate nationalism. So it's not that communism wasn't a faulty system, but that a greater evil was waging war against Russia and exploited it's flaws as a pretext to disarm them or take them out. Of course that failed numerous of times, because of nukes, etc.

If communism worked so well, Russia and China would not be opening their doors to capitalism as they have done over the past 10-15 years. And they have improved their economies as a result. Even they both know deep down that communism does not work in the long run. But again, they still have to keep a close grip on their people so that international influence on behalf of western Europe and America does not cause it's people to rise up against their government to the degree that they could.

 

[narouz]

The truth is, while communism was a faulty system, and while many within the American government were genuinely worried about it and wanted to fight it, there were also those at the very top who hid under the guise of fighting communism to take out two superpowers which were a threat to their agenda of global government. Remember, Europe and America's IMF masters wanted this for quite some time. This was what they tried to do with the league of nations treaty.

Who were
"those at the very top who hid under the guise of fighting communism to take out two superpowers which were a threat to their agenda of global government"...?

 

[Waremu]

I think capitalism could work even if one does not agree to join international money, as long as their currency was backed by a tangible commodity and their own government regulated and coined the currency, instead of some central bank.

The problem is, unless you cave in to the globalist banker demands, which is to join the IMF/or work with their member countries in that part of their global enslavement economy, then it will work, but only for a time. Until they cause you to rank up trillions of dollars in debt until your bonds become worthless and then you collapse and then they come in and buy everything up and gain more control. Russia and China are the enemies, not because communism is good, but because they won't play into their system. And we see this with their BRICS system they are now building to oppose the IMF system.

By taking all IMF controlled money off the gold standard, they have rigged the system ... it's like everyone 10x their money with the flick of a switch. Countries choosing not to join had to just sit there and watch the illusion grow, and what a great illusion it is. The only problem is it also 10x those country's debt.

If you back your countries dollar to the gold standard, it's tough to keep up with countries playing with pretend money. That's why only super powers like Russia & China have been able to survive the communist storm that the IMF sent their way. Keeping debt low is the only way to insure continued success, and unless we bring back the real celebration of jubilee which wiped out country debt once or twice a century, everyone's headed for the situation Greece is currently experiencing.

It's frustrating that we cannot just come out and say that the whole reason NATO is fighting Russia is b/c Russia wants to go back to the old way of life where a country could borrow from itself without all this interest nonsense, while staying up to date in 21st century capitalistic opportunities. I'm pretty sure if you ask any American if they would rather have put 400 billion a year for the last 30 years into their countries debt instead of into the money makers pockets, it would make them want to go get their rifle. In this case interest means TAX. Doesn't anyone remember the reason why they broke away from Britain in the first place?

Yes, it seems that you understand the bigger picture. Exactly. Once one begins to look at it from an economic perspective, it becomes very apparent that there is a single agenda that is being used of the financial elite and they are pushing it through the puppet governments they own, through their fractional reserve central banking system.

Something that really shows us what is happening before our eyes is Ukraine and Grease. Notice that the IMF is telling Grease to pay up and that it is reaching it's deadlines and to take more money from the people and Grease is fighting them as they cannot pay back the debt they owe to the IMF.

Meanwhile, here is another bankrupt country which is at war. The IMF is flooding them with loans even though they know Ukraine will never pay those loans back!

Here we see a straight up double standard on behalf of the IMF. But more importantly, we see the IMF bankers themselves getting directly involved with geopolitics. Some economists who don't see the big picture are now asking, "since when has the IMF ever been involved in politics?" Well, sadly, those economists have not studied their history. But here we have the IMF telling two nations which are collapsing two totally different things. The only difference is one is at war and the other is not and both will never be able to pay the loans back. Clearly the political agenda of the IMF can be seen here in how they are arming (under NATO) Ukraine to be a front-man against Russia. Furthermore, Grease also signed a pipeline treaty with Turkey and Russia recently. So this is a sign to the IMF that they will soon leave the EU. Now it makes perfect sense why they are pressing Grease. Oh, also, the IMF is breaking it's own law by giving loans to a country at a time of war.

 

[Waremu]

The truth is, while communism was a faulty system, and while many within the American government were genuinely worried about it and wanted to fight it, there were also those at the very top who hid under the guise of fighting communism to take out two superpowers which were a threat to their agenda of global government. Remember, Europe and America's IMF masters wanted this for quite some time. This was what they tried to do with the league of nations treaty.

Who were
"those at the very top who hid under the guise of fighting communism to take out two superpowers which were a threat to their agenda of global government"...?

I could make a huge list. But, in short, the same people who are running things today. NATO and American/British intelligence and the central bankers who fund them. The IMF and TLC. These people have been wanting to take out Russia for quite some time and are trying to do it now. Look at what is going on with Ukraine. NATO is arming them to go against Russia and the IMF is funding them. The IMF bankers are going to start another world war if they are not careful.

 

[Such_Saturation]

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/27/corporations-paid-us-senators-fast-track-tpp

I would think that a place where this is not allowed would not be very capitalistic.

This is corporatism. In a republic, the politicians are representatives of the people. This is why you have two houses. The constitution clearly states that they are to vote on behalf of the people, not any conflicts of interest. People can say whatever they may, but this IS a conflict of interest. Lobbyists are a conflict of interest because it sways the politician from fulfilling his legal duty of voting on behalf of the people to voting on behalf of the corporation.

So again, this is the merger of corporations and government. This is corporatism, not capitalism. People only still call America a capitalistic society because either A) they are ignorant of the definitions (as many are) or because B) it started out that way, before it moved to socialized corporatism and mob rule.

Our government does not even follow it's own laws anymore. This would and should not be permissible under a strictly constitutions society. Anyone who calls this capitalism is resorting to emotions rather than factual definitions of things. Sadly, too many people run government who are going off of emotion and not facts or logic.

It doesn't matter, it is a deranged scenario of a "capital"-run world and it is also born from the womb of the greed of man.

A definitive system is one that is not only bulletproof to derangement (by being born as a solution to a deranged environment, by being born in a distributed manner in every point of space and by not requiring "instructions"), it is one that is bulletproof to greed itself by RECOGNIZING the connection between each and every agent. It is thus one that comes into being through a desire of the people, a desire for complete and utter well-being.

Capitalism in its most basic tenets, or more generally the very notion of private and privacy, has failed each one of these requirements.

 

[Waremu]

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/27/corporations-paid-us-senators-fast-track-tpp

I would think that a place where this is not allowed would not be very capitalistic.

This is corporatism. In a republic, the politicians are representatives of the people. This is why you have two houses. The constitution clearly states that they are to vote on behalf of the people, not any conflicts of interest. People can say whatever they may, but this IS a conflict of interest. Lobbyists are a conflict of interest because it sways the politician from fulfilling his legal duty of voting on behalf of the people to voting on behalf of the corporation.

So again, this is the merger of corporations and government. This is corporatism, not capitalism. People only still call America a capitalistic society because either A) they are ignorant of the definitions (as many are) or because B) it started out that way, before it moved to socialized corporatism and mob rule.

Our government does not even follow it's own laws anymore. This would and should not be permissible under a strictly constitutions society. Anyone who calls this capitalism is resorting to emotions rather than factual definitions of things. Sadly, too many people run government who are going off of emotion and not facts or logic.

It doesn't matter, it is a deranged scenario of a "capital"-run world and it is also born from the womb of the greed of man.

A definitive system is one that is not only bulletproof to derangement (by being born as a solution to a deranged environment, by being born in a distributed manner in every point of space and by not requiring "instructions"), it is one that is bulletproof to greed itself by RECOGNIZING the connection between each and every agent. It is thus one that comes into being through a desire of the people, a desire for complete and utter well-being.

Capitalism in its most basic tenets, or more generally the very notion of private and privacy, has failed each one of these requirements.

Oh, so now people shouldn't have the right to privacy? You see, you're getting things mixed up. The government should never be secretive or have privacy. However, the people should have that right. It is those in power who need to be watched and do their work out in the open and not in the shadows of the night.

And for the record, there will be no utopian society. Human nature always does and always will prevail. Capitalism is the best system we have had and it has worked. But again, for those who go by the definition of actual words, America hasn't had capitalism in a long time. The desire of the people is simply to be free and left alone and to prosper. Government is always the threat to these desires of the people and is like medicine. In large amounts it is poison and therefore must be constrained to small amounts by the people. removing that power from the hands of the people and centralizing it in Government will always be a disaster and any system that does that will be overthrown after not too long by the same people because it never works.

 

[Such_Saturation]

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/27/corporations-paid-us-senators-fast-track-tpp

I would think that a place where this is not allowed would not be very capitalistic.

This is corporatism. In a republic, the politicians are representatives of the people. This is why you have two houses. The constitution clearly states that they are to vote on behalf of the people, not any conflicts of interest. People can say whatever they may, but this IS a conflict of interest. Lobbyists are a conflict of interest because it sways the politician from fulfilling his legal duty of voting on behalf of the people to voting on behalf of the corporation.

So again, this is the merger of corporations and government. This is corporatism, not capitalism. People only still call America a capitalistic society because either A) they are ignorant of the definitions (as many are) or because B) it started out that way, before it moved to socialized corporatism and mob rule.

Our government does not even follow it's own laws anymore. This would and should not be permissible under a strictly constitutions society. Anyone who calls this capitalism is resorting to emotions rather than factual definitions of things. Sadly, too many people run government who are going off of emotion and not facts or logic.

It doesn't matter, it is a deranged scenario of a "capital"-run world and it is also born from the womb of the greed of man.

A definitive system is one that is not only bulletproof to derangement (by being born as a solution to a deranged environment, by being born in a distributed manner in every point of space and by not requiring "instructions"), it is one that is bulletproof to greed itself by RECOGNIZING the connection between each and every agent. It is thus one that comes into being through a desire of the people, a desire for complete and utter well-being.

Capitalism in its most basic tenets, or more generally the very notion of private and privacy, has failed each one of these requirements.

Oh, so now people shouldn't have the right to privacy? You see, you're getting things mixed up. The government should never be secretive or have privacy. However, the people should have that right. It is those in power who need to be watched and do their work out in the open and not in the shadows of the night.

And for the record, there will be no utopian society. Human nature always does and always will prevail. Capitalism is the best system we have had and it has worked. But again, for those who go by the definition of actual words, America hasn't had capitalism in a long time. The desire of the people is simply to be free and left alone and to prosper. Government is always the threat to these desires of the people and is like medicine. In large amounts it is poison and therefore must be constrained to small amounts by the people. removing that power from the hands of the people and centralizing it in Government will always be a disaster and any system that does that will be overthrown after not too long by the same people because it never works.

The people in "the government" should be every single person, so ideally everyone knows everything about everyone. Not that you should be best friends with someone, but concealment of information is the root of this kind of issues. The laws of thermodynamics state such a process for physical systems, and the moment you imply that human societies should have a working that is above this, you commit the prime mistake.

Unfortunately the fact that you see competition as a most basic and unchangeable nature of man makes it all to easy to predict that you would be a strong advocate for the capitalistic economy. As soon as you see that it is not, it is very easy to move on. Egocentrism dissolves when the basic requirements are met, and if multiple people coalesce, then they can accomplish more than the simple sum of what their individual potentials would suggest. It is an intrinsic property of space. You wouldn't be here if your cells had not long ago given up their ability to exist separately from one another.

 

[narouz]

You know, it inevitably comes to this point with libertarian schemes.
Some non-libertarian like myself can't really decode what is being said.

For that decoding I'd have to enter whole hog into
The Special Knowledge:
the backstories of
The Evil Federal Reserve,
The Evil IMF,
The Evil Bilderberg Group,
The Evil Trilateral Commission,
etc.
And then try to unravel the Subtle Mysteries of the exalted Austrian Economics.

It is a separate mythic universe
with its own set of Evil Forces
sneaking about behind the scenes,
oft times with hooked noses and greedy fingers.
They are our Masters and we are their feudal Serfs.
This mythic universe is like a Tolkien novel,
a self-enclosed and self-sufficient universe.
It makes perfect and obvious sense to those who choose to live within that universe.
But very little to those of us without The Special Knowledge.

It would be easier if we could just have an example of
one of these ideal libertarian countries.
You know...a real one.
That really exists in this world at this time.
That works great like you guys say.
Where we could move to if we wanted.

Libertarianism under it's original form was Libertarian socialism. It took a more humanistic approach to the hardcore political trends of the time. I believe Peter Kropotkin fell under this category.

Ray Peat has stated in one of his first interviews with politics and science, that Peter Kropotkin was one of his main influences growing up. He also stated that he was one of his first authors that he read as a young child.

You know, jag,
now that you mention that name...
I think I've read or heard it before, in connection with Peat.

I'm gonna have to check that out!

 

[Stuart]

Fascinating discussion. But the most pressing issue that is confronting humans right now is the failure of any system of government we have experimented with so far to effectively and accurately price externalities. The environmental damage cliff the human race is about to take this planet over (not just AGW either, although that is arguably the most catastrophic) seems to be developing a bizarre unstoppable momentum, whatever 'lip service' politicians give it (or deliberately try to obfuscate about, or what is even worse, deny that it is even happening).

So sad for our kid's and their kids really, not to mention the rest of the biosphere we seem so hell bent on royally shafting.

Chomsky's take on the advertising industry is interesting isn't it? I'm struck by Elon Musk (unlike most entrepreneurs) also thinking advertising is almost by definition dishonest and manipulative.

Which has eerie parallels in how democracies work. The straight line correlation between the amount of money spent, and the governments who are eventually elected guarantees that the winners will always be beholden to the corporate interests which finance them. So even though the Democrats are arguably more leftist than the Republicans, we still end up with a government at the beck and call of corporate interests.

 

[mas]

Total Priviatization of Every Aspect of Life

Water Priviatization

The impacts of World Bank and IMF structural adjustment programs on countries in the Global South have been well-documented in the areas of health and education, food security and jobs. However, less is known about the impacts of the World Bank's latest obsession -- the privatization of water services. In country after country in recent years, the World Bank has been quietly imposing a for-profit system of water delivery, leaving millions of people without access to water.

The World Bank serves the interests of water companies both through its regular loan programs to governments, which often come with conditions that explicitly require the privatization of water provision, and through its private sector arm, the International Finance Corporation, which invests in privatization projects and makes loans to companies carrying them out. Lending about $20 billion to water supply projects over the last decade, the World Bank has been the principle financer of privatization. A year-long study by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, a project of the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity, released in February, 2003, found that the majority of World Bank loans for water in the last five years have required the conversion of public systems to private as a condition for the transaction. The performance of these companies in Europe and the developing world has been well documented:
huge profits, higher prices for water, cut-offs to customers who cannot pay, little transparency in their dealings, reduced water quality, bribery, and corruption.

https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/ ... 43398.html

_______________________________

Neo feudalistic global Mega corporations/governance extortion policies have taken down sovereign countries as well as US town and cities into bankruptcy by design (Detroit, Vallejo, Stockton & San Bernadino CA , Harrisburg Pa, etc…and the list grows daily). Mitt Romney & Co and other vulture “capitalists” ( Definitely NOT capitalism) picked the bones clean of “failing” businesses and promptly sent these businesses overseas. Romney & Co made nice profits for themselves on the back of destroyed US citizens defined by their debt slavery.

The so called "Affordable Health Care" is going to get progressively more costly every year. An MD who no longer practices medicine because of the corrupt and dangerous medical system, proclaimed that the "health insurance" scheme system is designed to financially ruin people!

We are told by the news media that California has a drought now. It is not a drought but water diversion by design. See the movie Chinatown to understand how factions and special interest groups diverted water to take over private farmland in the early 1900s in order to conglomerate Big Ag that we have today which promotes Big Pharma chemical poisons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Water_Wars

History repeats itself. Soon landowners in California in “drought” areas will sell their land for pennies to the dollar because the price of commodities for the cost of living will go through the roof. The mega corporations will get their greedy hands on our public water supplies and utilities. The price of food for all Americans will go sky high too. The slow implementation of these Agenda 21 policies continue as Americans are diverted by media propaganda and “entertainment” as main media outlets don’t even touch this or any newsworthy subjects at all.

What is the breaking point as all these numerous policies and schemes do their damage ecologically, economically and spiritually?

http://primarywater.org/?page_id=26
http://stopthecrime.net/waterlandtheft.html

 

[Such_Saturation]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEFL8ElXHaU

 

[SaltGirl]

I see people in this thread talk about current capitalism not being true capitalism. This is a fallacy known as a No True Scotsman and you could just as well argue about the merits of socialism and communism through the same fallacy which is why it is considered a fallacy. For some reason I see people defending capitalism always resort to this logical fallacy, more so than the socialists. It also creates a goal post that can't really be targeted. So even if we'd create this "utopian" capitalist society and it failed, the people using aforementioned logical fallacy would say: "Well, this was not TRUE capitalism". It's an intellectually dishonest trick, but a popular one.

Power accumulates to the top. This is a known fact and has been apparent throughout human history. Capitalism is in no way free from this. Without government or legalization capitalism would still be as rotten as wealth would accumulate to the few(they'd just be free of middle men and potential road blocks). This is an undeniable fact that seems to be ignored by people who appear to view capitalism as some sort of sacrosanct religious tenet that will guide humanity as some sort of deity(an indirect homage to the god like Invisible Hand of the market). We are living in the result of capitalism. Accumulated power and wealth gave rise to corporations. Those with the most wealth will always prey on the weak and in the purest of capitalism they could do so just as well, or as someone said it: "The weak are meat, and the strong do eat."

There are also some huge misconceptions about socialism in this thread. Socialism diverges into two thinkings: State Socialism(which we have seen) and Socialism(Social Libertarianism). Noam Chomsky has said that he is a Social Libertarian in many if not most ways. Ray Peat also appears to be a Social Libertarian as well, but that's just an educated guess and not based on him admitting to what his political leanings are.

(In the spirit of openness I am a Social Libertarian, or anarchist, myself. I also believe that the system that might eventually save us is some sort of UBI.)

 

[pboy]

any ism is a problem. Anything that is other than people operating out of intelligence and compassion, is a problem...and in that case, you don't need any system, just basic protocol to make things easier. This kind of conversation will go on for all time until that is the case

 

[Such_Saturation]

I want to express my disappointment with anyone who helped get this moved to "Political Talk"

 

[charlie]

I want to express my disappointment with anyone who helped get this moved to "Political Talk"

 

[Such_Saturation]

Ok now let's carry on with the banter