Noam Chomsky — Can Civilisation Survive?

[Such_Saturation]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Jn2I4ElQh4

 

[jaa]

Pure capitalism? No. At least not given current human behaviour. Humans will game a system to their own personal advantage even if it hurts the group. That's why we need regulations to guard against externalities.

There's also evidence in the scandi nations that some degree of socialism works better than the current american system. But to far to the left, and you get communism, which doesn't seem to work well given (almost) current human technology and behaviour.

I think as tech increases, it will become more optimal (from a citizen well being perspective) for nations to adopt greater degrees of socialism. I think some amount of capitalism to incentivize innovation will be required, but that will tend to diminish. I wouldn't be surprised if that goes to zero and happens way faster than I expect.

 

[narouz]

It was interesting to me, Such,
that Peat had a lot of antipathy towards Chomsky
concerning his ideas about linguistics and language.
Peat studied that before he did his doctorate work.

I can't quite remember where I read that about Peat and Chomsky...
It may be in one of his articles about language and linguistics.
But he may've elaborated on it in an interview.
I can't recall.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Yes, it concerned the generative grammar.

 

[narouz]

This was one of the sources I was thinking of.
From Peat's Intuitive knowledge and its development
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/in ... edge.shtml

Years ago, I had been criticizing Noam Chomsky's theory of language so much, that I thought I might have misjudged or inappropriately depreciated his general attitude toward consciousness, so I asked him some questions about the intelligence of animals. His response confirmed my view that he subscribed to the most extreme form of "genetic epistemology":

"I don't know whether there is a common animal ability to manipulate images and generalize. In fact, I doubt it very much. Thus the kind of "generalization" that leads to knowledge of lanugage from sensory experience seems to me to involve principles such as those of universal grammar as an innate property, for reasons I have explained elsewhere, and I see no reason to believe that these principles underlie generalization in other animals. Nor do I think that the kinds of generalization that lead a bird to gain knowledge of how to build a nest, or to sing its song, or to orient itself spatially, are necessarily part of the human ability to generalize."

All of the textbooks that I have seen that discuss the issue of animal intelligence have taken a position like that of Chomsky--that any knowledge animals have is either rigidly instinctual, or else is just a set of movements that have been mechanically learned. In other words, there isn't anything intelligent about the complex things that animals may do. Konrad Lorenz and the ethologists explained animal behavior in terms of chains of reflexes that are "triggered" by certain sensations or perceptions. This claim that animals' behavior just consists of mechanical chains of reflexes strictly follows Descartes' doctrine, and Chomsky has consistently acknowledged that his theory is Cartesian. The claim that children have their own non-logical way of understanding things is very similar to the doctrine about animals, in the way it limits real rational understanding to adult human beings.

 

[Waremu]

I think Noam Chomsky makes some good points about a number of things, but when it comes to economics,I do believe the guy is rather clueless about what capitalism is. It's actually very sad, but the level of ignorance among many radical liberal academics concerning what capitalism actually is in it's pure sense is so far off the mark and the result is that young idealistic (which is a good thing) kids today take that and run with it in such an extreme way that they condemn capitalism (which is probably the greatest economic system ever to create such a level of wealth for many countries, which we see today). But yet, what is ironic is that socialism is actually a system which still utilizes capitalism and actually cannot exist without capitalism, yet they never admit this fact when many of them speak of the short-comings of capitalism and go so far as to say that it is evil.

I do agree with him that even capitalism is not a perfect system, but the truth is, there is no perfect system. The problem that Noam Chomsky speaks about concerning the merger of corporations with government happening in capitalistic societies is a problem, as that is what we have today (corporatism, which is a form of fascism). But the problem is, this is the by-product of crony capitalism, not actual capitalism.

And because of their lack of understanding of what true capitalism is, they really have no idea that they are really talking about crony capitalism. For example, the main points Chomsky makes are all what we see going on in a crony capitalistic society.

But the true main cause of this is the fractional reserve banking system that we have, which encourages bad investments via cheap money. Yes, we have corporations merging with government, but who funds government? Taxpayers, right? No, not really. The main economic driver for the US Government is actually the Federal Reserve central bank. The Federal Reserve has been causing boom and bust cycles through inflation and deflation (bubbles) for many decades now and governments love this because they can inflate their debt away to a great degree. The problem, however, is, that during the artificial boom cycle, cheap money floods the markets, allowing bad investments, and thus junk assets to accumulate. We saw this with the housing market bubble, which the Fed caused, by keeping interest rates artificially low. This caused people to take on loans they otherwise could not afford. Those loans were rolled up with other loans, becoming junk assets, due to their fragile and toxic nature. Speculators and things like credit default swaps only made the problem worse by amplifying it.

So once the bust occurs, the bubble pops, we have a major economic crisis. People lose money, stocks of companies collapse the companies, and that allows the mega corporations/banks to buy them up cheaply.

Kind of like a bartender who gives drinks to alcoholics at a bar who then drive home drunk and crash their cars killing someone. Yes, corruption amplified the problem, but that corruption and speculation was largely the result of all the cheap money/artificially low interest rates (unlimited alcohol) the Fed (bartender) was flooding the markets with that caused the crisis.

This is NOT capitalism. This is crony capitalism --- actually, because of the central planning factor, it is closer to socialism or communism.

In a true capitalistic society, the market should set interest rates, not a central bank like the Fed. This causes bubbles. Also, in a true capitalistic society, according to our government at least, congress is supposed to regulate the currency and have it backed by tangible commodities.

What we have today is crony capitalism and corporatism. We are actually not that far from socialism either, as we already have a number of socialist programs. So using a post 1920's America as an example to point out the evils of capitalism really isn't a very good example.

Socialism, on the other hand, only works for a time because the main problem with socialism is that it is the government deciding to equally distribute the money to everyone and whenever you trust government with that power, as history shows, it always eventually allocates the money in the wrong areas of the economy and government bureaucrats also never make better decisions than the free market does because government workers don't understand economics or what it is like trying to run a business. That is the problem we have today, with Washington DC trying to tell companies that they have to do all kinds of things. The regulations are getting so crazy, it is getting harder for many to even start up businesses.

And that is not to say that we do not need any regulation, but sensible and little regulation is far better than what we have today. And even then, because the government has such a choke-hold on capitalism because it is merging with corporations, many of the regulations they place are to favor the big corporations and to hurt the little guys. The most important regulations that need to be put into place are those which allow lobbyists to pay off representatives who are supposed to vote on behalf of the people, but instead vote on behalf of the banks and corporations.

If capitalism had full-proof laws in place to prevent the merger of corporations and government, then we would benefit from the fruit of capitalism much much better. But capitalism in of itself is not responsible for corporatism, like Chomsky claims.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Yeah you could say the same about "real communism", there's no point.

 

[johns74]

Yeah you could say the same about "real communism", there's no point.

Wrong.

Central Banks are not capitalist institutions. Central Banks are proposed in the Communist Manifesto.

In capitalism the government doesn't intervene in the economy. If there is a Central Bank, that means the government practically took over the economy because it's in every transaction, and sets one of the most important prices.

So clearly, when we recognize that the current monetary system is more like one proposed in the Communist Manifesto and not at all capitalism (where government is not involved in the production of money), that's not some sort of rationalization that capitalism isn't pure enough. It's simply the obvious recognition that it isn't capitalism.

This issue is really good to tell apart and judge the intelligence of people.

 

[Waremu]

Yeah you could say the same about "real communism", there's no point.

No, not really. Capitalism is capitalism. And capitalism sets the interest rates, not privately owned banks. This is a fundamental pillar of capitalism. America does not have capitalism if we want to go by the actual definition. We simply have corporatism.

And with communism, you don't really own anything, as that is a pillar of that system, so someone couldn't say a country has communism unless those fundamental definitions were there. And actually, we are probably closer to communism at this point than we are to capitalism (which we do not have). Corporatism is a good broad term I like to use, however, as that can actually happen in more than one type of economic system (though not in a true capitalistic system).

 

[Such_Saturation]

Neither definition can be compared to what we actually have, because we don't form societies based on textbooks. Furthermore, Marx's was somewhat of a forecast based on a method. This method was the real invention. In this invention "capitalism" is not "capitalism", everything exists in the context that the ruling class has produced.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

You might as well claim that what was set up after the "fall" of aristocracy wasn't true capitalism either, but if you expect people to just randomly start following the definition of a word that you wrote on a piece of paper then you're going to die waiting.

 

[johns74]

Neither definition can be compared to what we actually have, because we don't form societies based on textbooks. Furthermore, Marx's was somewhat of a forecast based on a method. This method was the real invention. In this invention "capitalism" is not "capitalism", everything exists in the context that the ruling class has produced.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

You might as well claim that what was set up after the "fall" of aristocracy wasn't true capitalism either, but if you expect people to just randomly start following the definition of a word that you wrote on a piece of paper then you're going to die waiting.

There were many societies without central banks before the communist ideas took over. Those in some cases can be called capitalist, and some cases are arguable. However, no country with a central bank can be called capitalist. We might as well start calling up down, black white, etc.

 

[mt_dreams]

communism or capitalism are just ideas. What we have in reality is you're either using international money, or your country gets cut off from the rest of the world. This is why a country like the Soviet can survive by being cut off, but a country like Cuba doesn't do as well. If communist countries weren't always being attacked by Nato (aka the IMF's military), who knows what kind of life communism could bring to a country that could thrive off it's own land. When they're using up all their resources for military purposes, it just doesn't work. This war b/w the imf & Russia has been brewing for hundreds of years, they've been the only constant threat since they started taking over the money supply of countries all over the world.

 

[Waremu]

Neither definition can be compared to what we actually have, because we don't form societies based on textbooks. Furthermore, Marx's was somewhat of a forecast based on a method. This method was the real invention. In this invention "capitalism" is not "capitalism", everything exists in the context that the ruling class has produced.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

You might as well claim that what was set up after the "fall" of aristocracy wasn't true capitalism either, but if you expect people to just randomly start following the definition of a word that you wrote on a piece of paper then you're going to die waiting.

There were many societies without central banks before the communist ideas took over. Those in some cases can be called capitalist, and some cases are arguable. However, no country with a central bank can be called capitalist. We might as well start calling up down, black white, etc.

Oh, but didn't you know, "Capitalism" is just a social construct! It can be anything now!

 

[johns74]

If communist countries weren't always being attacked by Nato (aka the IMF's military), who knows what kind of life communism could bring to a country that could thrive off it's own land.

They probably would've collapsed much sooner as they wouldn't have the boogeyman of imperialism as an excuse to imprison people (without ties to the enemies). Without the U.S. embargo Castro would've been gone a long time ago.

 

[Waremu]

communism or capitalism are just ideas. What we have in reality is you're either using international money, or your country gets cut off from the rest of the world. This is why a country like the Soviet can survive by being cut off, but a country like Cuba doesn't do as well. If communist countries weren't always being attacked by Nato (aka the IMF's military), who knows what kind of life communism could bring to a country that could thrive off it's own land. When they're using up all their resources for military purposes, it just doesn't work. This war b/w the imf & Russia has been brewing for hundreds of years, they've been the only constant threat since they started taking over the money supply of countries all over the world.

People put too much trust in government. That's the problem with systems such as communism. If you have the government controlling everything and you have no true ownership, then you are not truly free. You have no property rights in such a system. I think the problem with people like Chomsky, is that in their their attempt to expose what "evil" corporations do (and yes, mega corporations do have a lot do power and they use it in not so pleasant ways at times), he completely loses focus of the main problem --- the financial elite who have political agendas and push those agendas through with the force of government (who naturally always wants more power and control anyway) as they fund government and government has no actual control over them.

We saw what communism did to its people even before Russia entered into WW2, for example. Just look how the bolsheviks and other leaders rose to power.

Also, look at China with Mao. They were not fighting a major war with anyone and look at what they did to their own people. Communism never worked because of its very structure. It does not work for the people and any system that does not work for the people but only the elite will always eventually collapse in on itself.

When you give government centralized power, they will absolutely always abuse it, as history shows. There has to be checks and balances.

 

[Such_Saturation]

-Centralized power IS NOT communism-

 

[Such_Saturation]

If communist countries weren't always being attacked by Nato (aka the IMF's military), who knows what kind of life communism could bring to a country that could thrive off it's own land.

They probably would've collapsed much sooner as they wouldn't have the boogeyman of imperialism as an excuse to imprison people (without ties to the enemies). Without the U.S. embargo Castro would've been gone a long time ago.

Yeah thank god they had all these capitalists to make fedoras for

 

[Waremu]

-Centralized power IS NOT communism-

How so?

 

[johns74]

-Centralized power IS NOT communism-

lol, a fanatic of communism decades after it has collapsed spectacularly everywhere it's been tried. Some people just can't learn.

 

[Such_Saturation]

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