/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2472309]

My summer project will be to read the entire works of Chomsky

what order /lit/?

[Anonymous No.2472312]

naruto

[Anonymous No.2472316]

>>2472309
I'd order you to the head doctor for even suggesting such a thing. What sane person would want to read the rambling and bloated blatherings of a deranged paranoid?

[Anonymous No.2472315]

>>2472309
translate the titles into chinese, read them in order of total stroke count.

[Anonymous No.2472322]

>>2472316
you can't handle his infinite nature.

[Anonymous No.2472327]

>>2472322
Yes, his infinite vapidity defies understanding.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2472339]

>>2472316
What exactly is your argument against his positions?
Also, if hes a psychotic why is he so widely acclaimed by academical institutions, like MIT for instance.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2472344]

>>2472316
By the way, he is also universally considered the founder of modern linguistics.
Is that also "the ramblings of a paranoid"?

[Anonymous No.2472364]

Way back in 2004, I collected all the Chomsky audio I could find. His albums are great. I gave it to a friend and he lay in bed for a long weekend listening. He dubbed it a 'Chomsky incubation.'

[Anonymous No.2472367]

>>2472344

I do not contest his pivotal position in modern linguistics (though the tide of scholarship seems lately to be turning against his ideas). Outside of the domain, however, he was out of his element and spewed a lot of malarkey. I find his Cold War stuff (Manufacturing Consent etc) pretty asinine, and unlike wine, he has not improved with age (in fact, he's become as sour and astringent as vinegar). I'm not a neocon, but anyone who asserts via moral equivalence that the 9/11 attacks were justified or that America is an reincarnation of the Third Reich has lost credibility.

[Anonymous No.2472382]

>>2472367

wow you write like a 19-year-old pretending to be middle-aged. really jarring.

[Anonymous No.2472421]

>>2472382
I know that isn't a compliment, but I /am/ 19 years old. impressed.jpg

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2472426]

>>2472367
That is not actually what he is saying.
He is just saying that what the US actually does on a consistent basis is at least as bad as those whom its propaganda machine makes out to be the bad guys. The US isnt the Third Reich, It's the US. Noone contests this.

What is pretty ironic and sad is that you almost explicitly agrue that we should just dismiss his ideas outright just because his conclusion doesnt sound right to you, because it is too outlandish in your experience, or just no pleasant to hear, or whatever.
Not that I expect you to even realise there being any sort of problem with that when I put it to you in these terms, but whatever.

[Anonymous No.2472431]

>>2472367
do you mean he asserts they were unjustified? i thought chomsky was against the iraq war.

the funny thing is though i think the war wasn't a rational or fruitful campaign even though it was morally justifiable (and does more good for the muslimtards than it does for the usa)

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2472433]

>>2472421
Yeah, a 19 year old trying to sound like a middle aged condescending douche.
Not a compliment indeed...

[Anonymous No.2472435]

>>2472426
This mordant flavor of cynicism has been expressed elsewhere, with greater originality and eloquence. It's really quite threadbare by the time Chomsky adopts it as his own.

[Anonymous No.2472440]

>but anyone who asserts via moral equivalence that the 9/11 attacks were justified or that America is an reincarnation of the Third Reich has lost credibility.

Why?

[Anonymous No.2472443]

ITT: butthurt socialists. because chomsky's penis tore their anus.

[Anonymous No.2472448]

>>2472367
Fuck this 19 year old. As if anyone cares what you think of Chomsky.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2472451]

>>2472435
It's not a question of literary style you moron.
It's about political science.
What are you saying, that all his analyses are plagiarism? That he is more inclined to align himself with some popular ideology than the average person in the field of political sciences? With all its pundits and think tanks and overlap between political activism and the academic world?
What a load of genuine horse shit.

[Anonymous No.2472466]

>>2472382
I was really just about to put that... and I'm 19 also.

[Anonymous No.2472482]

>>2472367
Either you haven't read Chomsky and are merely regurgitating something someone told you, or you have the reading comprehension of a preschooler.

For your sake, I hope it's the former.

[Anonymous No.2472560]

>>2472367
Disregard this faggot; he sucks cock, and lacks basic comprehension. Yes, anyone who claims that 9/11 was justified or that America is the reincarnation of the Third Reich probably does need to be reassessed unless he presents near-flawless arguments. Good thing Chomsky never made either statement (or anything even remotely similar).

[Anonymous No.2472570]

you're a facing ideot

[Anonymous No.2472625]

Although I've heard a lot about him, I've never read anything of Chomsky's. But this...discussion, has piqued my interest. I want to try reading something of his. What should I read, if anything?

[Anonymous No.2472641]

>>2472625
I like his books Why America is Evil and How the Rich Control Everything and Lie to You

Failed States is a mix of both.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2472654]

>>2472625
Be sure to check out his lectures on Youtube too.

[Anonymous No.2472663]

>>2472654
His voice is the human version of microsoft sam.

[Anonymous No.2472699]

>>2472641
Okay, thank you for answering!

>>2472654
>>2472663
Alright, will do. And it's true...He sounds just like him.

[Anonymous No.2472716]

>>2472364
>mentioning audio collection and sharing with your fellow anons

still have it, bro? put up a mediafire link.

[Anonymous No.2472727]

>>2472699
Just so you know, the first two titles were a joke.

[Anonymous No.2472739]

>>2472663
I miss his old voice from the 70s. He's really old now.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2472744]

>>2472309
Left to right. There need not be any order.

[Anonymous No.2472752]

The foam-flecked and frenetic defense of Chomsky here betrays the single-mindedness behind his political philosophy and also carries the imprint of Chromsky's rabidly fanatical cult of personality.

Either doff your logic-impervious tinfoil hats or remove yourself from /lit/.

[Anonymous No.2472756]

what's the point in reading that private ironist?

[Anonymous No.2472771]

>>2472752
the 19 yr old returns.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2472785]

>>2472752
Yes, you realise that these are all patently fallacious arguments right?

[Anonymous No.2472803]

>>2472785
>mfw when I haven't read any chomsky and still managed to incite foaming-at-the-mouth responses

[Anonymous No.2472809]

>>2472752
Haha. This dude is trying so hard.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2472832]

>>2472803
Would you say I am "foaming at the mouth" though?
Why?
Is there some point where I stop making sense?
In fact, I see a conspicuous pattern in the anti Chomsky comments in this thread. They all seem to claim someone is confused and irrational in what they are saying without bothering to go into the content in any way.
Same person?

[sage No.2472846]

>>2472832
Yes, you nitwit, all the rabble-rousing is me. I'm simply surprised you didn't follow your demigod's advice:
"By entering into the arena of argument and counterargument, of technical feasibility and tactics, of footnotes and citations, by accepting the presumption of legitimacy of debate on certain issues, one has already lost one's humanity"

Isn't it useless to engage with someone who hasn't read any Chomsky? Why did you engage with ignorance? Why did you dignify idiocy with a response?

[Anonymous No.2472940]

Uhhh there is no point in reading Chomsky beyond his linguistics contributions.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2473119]

>>2472846
Ok so what you are saying is, you are some kind of major political ideological powerhouse, and trying to form a well thought out response to your obvious atrocities is an insult to your victims?

[Anonymous No.2473124]

I think it would be more productive to listen/watch a few of his lectures and interviews.

[Anonymous No.2473182]

>>2472364
Gimme that thang.

[Anonymous No.2473226]

I am pretty much the ultimate Chomsky enthusiast, I have read most of his books and 100's of interviews over the years.

My advice to you, if you are genuinely concerned with the state of the world and what you can do about it, is to go for Chomsky's most recent works, those in the last decade. I recommend you start with Hopes and Prospects or Targeting Iran (which is co-written with Barsamian.) Yes, all of his work is amazing, and you can start with The New Mandarins and At War With Asia, or even that In Defense of State book that is a collection of his Responsibility of Intellectuals era essays, all of which are brilliant and deeply enriching, but the reality is that those works discuss situations that are nearly 50 years old now. They are extremely dense and reference events, people, and institutions that did not exist in your lifetime, and take a lot of research to become familiar with. This realization came to me when I read an introduction to one of his newer works by Norman Finklestein who points this out and suggests that you focus on newer works because that is where the moral value lies.

If your goal is to understand the complexities of particular geopolitical situations, go for his essays on Iran, Obama, and Iraq/Afghanistan, depending on your interest.

If you're trying to learn from his philosophy about life and his incredible academic accomplishments, I can summarize his most common assertions and suggestions:

1. People are not controlled by force any longer but by a system of indoctrination and propaganda which in the US has its roots in the organizations founded to stir up support for US involvement in WWI....

[Anonymous No.2473228]

>>2473226 continued

2. The most elementary moral truth is that we should apply to ourselves the same standards we apply to others. This pretty effectively dismantles many, many
common arguments and fallacies that are used to justify state atrocities.

3. The United States is a business run society. The institutions of government are owned and manipulated by a small and powerful minority.


I love to go on about this shit, if anyone has questions or whatever

[Anonymous No.2473247]

>>2473228

Being the megafan I am, I have taken to heart Chomsky's demand that I believe nothing unless I've proven it to myself, and I've spent a reasonable amount of time reading criticism of his work. Critiques of Chomsky that are even worth reading are hard to find, however, as the large majority are the most base of ad hominem nonsense, often written with the explicit intent of defaming him (The Anti-Chomsky Reader, etc), comprised of circumstantial nit-picking, most of it erroneous or irrelevant. The few coherent critiques of his work that I've seen come from within the Anarchist tradition, but most of them I disagree with (individualist silliness, marxist wankery, etc)

After all this, there are still only two issues that I disagree with him on, pornography (I don't believe it has to be inherently degrading to women as he claims) and gun control (I own guns, don't wanna give 'em up)

[Anonymous No.2473251]

>>2473226

Errata:

I believe the name is For Reasons of State

[Anonymous No.2473253]

>>2473228
>The institutions of government are owned and manipulated by a small and powerful minority.

the juden

[Anonymous No.2473260]

>>2473253

Throughout the majority of human history, societies have mostly been controlled by a wealthy powerful elite. I don't think that's at all controversial. It seems very reasonable to assume that it's true today, and I think that the evidence is readily available to anyone who cares to look.

The wealth inequality in this country was similar to what it is today from the founding of the first colonies, and the institutions of government were primarily controlled by the wealthy landowners. Today they are controlled by those who can afford to buy senators and presidents campaigns.

[Anonymous No.2473268]

>>2473260
inequality is irrelevant because wealth/economics is not a zero sum game.

[Anonymous No.2473271]

>>2473268

That's a pretty bold claim, but I don't understand your reasoning, you'd need to elaborate.

[Anonymous No.2473280]

>>2473271
i chop down a tree in a forest and make a chair

are you richer or poorer?

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2473292]

>>2472443

Maybe I lack basic reading comprehension, but it sounds to me like you're trying to say that Chomsky is tearing the anuses of Socialists. Are you aware that Chomsky is a Socialist? He certainly dislikes the Authoritarian breed, but he's still a Socialist.

[Anonymous No.2473319]

>>2473292

There is a lot of confusion between Leninism/Trotskyism/Stalinism and actual Socialism. I believe Chomsky would tear the anii of state socialists, but not true socialists.

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2473326]

>>2473319

And I would agree.

[Anonymous No.2473342]

>>2473319
socialism inherently involves tyranny

that's just how it works.

The only possible socialism which makes sense is NATIONAL SOCIALISM, because only among your kin are you going to give/care.

[Anonymous No.2473340]

>>2473280

This really couldn't be used to prove that wealth inequality is irrelevant (to what? You didn't really say, I assume you mean to a fair and equitable society) but I do I really have to refute it?

I'm a wealthy landowner and you're a subsistence farmer. I own enough land to vote to pass a Land Enclosure Act (which you are not allowed to vote on) to force you off the public land you use. I put up a lumber mill on the land you used to farm. You try to resist but my right to own the Property is protected by the state. You can work in my factory or starve.

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2473356]

>>2473342

>makes unsupported claims
>thinks he's right

[Anonymous No.2473358]

You can't just say "thats how it works," you have to prove your assertion.

What you claim is pretty outrageous, so I am pretty certain that you are confusing Stalinism/"State Socialism" with the political ideology of "socialism" which is the idea that workers should own the means of production and society should be organized around productive labor unions. Nothing about socialism involves the State at all, that is just a bizarre perversion of the Soviet Era, which has nothing to do with socialism whatsoever.

The only reason that people believe the Soviet Union was "Socialist" is because the two major propaganda systems of the world (the US and the USSR) both wanted to associated the USSR with socialism, the US to discredit socialism by associating it with the horrors of Stalinism, and the USSR to take advantage of the positive connotations that many people had with historical Socialism.

[Anonymous No.2473370]

>>2473356
prove me wrong

[Anonymous No.2473384]

chumpsky

[Anonymous No.2473387]

>>2473370
see
>>2473358

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2473392]

>>2473370

The burden of proof lies on you. You made the initial claim, you need to back it up with empirical evidence. If you cannot, your claim can be considered null until proven otherwise.

Besides that, though, Socialism is not inherently Statist. Just as Capitalism can operate on a spectrum ranging from completely free market (Libertarian) to extreme government intervention and control (Authoritarian), so can Socialism. In fact, Socialists were the first to use the term "Libertarian" politically.

Josephe Dejacque published 'Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social' in a New York between 1858 and 1861, while the use of the term "libertarian communism" dates from November, 1880, when a French Anarchist congress adopted it. [Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, p. 75 and p. 145]

There is a whole Libertarian Socialist political philosophy that, apparently, you've never heard of.

[Anonymous No.2473402]

>>2473392

A thought I've been having lately, based on this Murray Bookchin talk I listened to, is that Socialism is a goal of Anarchism. Socialism addresses inequality in the workplace and economic sphere, but Anarchism extends the critique of hierarchy and domination into the home and the community. I believe that's what Bookchin would say.

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2473416]

>>2473402

Indeed. Anarchism, as a political philosophy, was founded as an explicitly Socialist movement. It wasn't until recently that Rothbard popularized the term "Anarcho-Capitalism," adding a whole new spectrum to the Anarchist movement.

Proudhon, the founder of modern Anarchism, noted that Anarchism is, "the no government sysytem of Socialism." [Proudhon, Anarchism, p. 46]

Malatesta said that Anarchism is, "the abolition of exploitation of man by man, that is the abolition of private property and government." [Errico Malatesta, Towards Anarchism, p. 75]

"We are convinced that freedom without Socilaism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is Slavery and Brutality." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 269]

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2473419]

You have to keep repeating this to an american audience,
but European style social democracy did arise from genuinely socialist popular movements and were always a huge influence on decision making wether they were actually in the government or in the opposition. They were instrumental in the maturation of the european style welfare states, models which, contrary to what most americans apparently want to believe, work perfectly well. The only real threat to them is the kind of disastrous crisis capitalism that threatens every political system today indiscriminately. If you look at scandinavian societies, relative to the american situation, they really just dole out money and free time to people and it only just makes them more productive.
Whow who would have thought investing in the people themselves would actually put out better people, eh? Yeah. What a miracle...

[Anonymous No.2473425]

>>2473419
>scandinavia
>productive

>giving handouts is investing in people

fucking commies..

[Anonymous No.2473432]

>>2473419

Ameri-Brofist, euro-comrade

[Anonymous No.2473436]

>>2473419
I believe that the reason this did not happen in the United States is that the labor movement was smashed with such astonishing violence in the 20-30s.

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2473438]

>>2473419

The problem with Social Democracies, though, is that they attempt to balance out the negatives of a market economy by employing things like high taxation and protectionist policies. This combined with the globalization of the market, as Takis Fotopoulos notes, is why Social Democracies aren't as viable as they once were. When you have high taxes and protectionist polices in a global market scenario, businesses will just go elsewhere and leave your economy to shrivel. Social Democracies are more viable when considering a largely self sustaining area based on internal commerce.

[Anonymous No.2473444]

>>2473438
>negatives of a market economy
there are no negatives.

>>2473436
or maybe because people in the USA aren't worthless socialists?

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2473445]

>>2473425
Yeah, really.
Well actually they dont just hand it out indiscriminately. But they will actually hand it out to people with low education and no jobs and lots of children etc...

And guess what? It works! Dont just take my word for it, look it up! That's right, read some social policy papers on the scandinavian model of the welfare state...

Sorry to burst your bubble on... life actually being easier than you would like to imagine it to be, apparently?
:)

Oh by the way, don't confuse social democracy with communism. It just makes you appear uneducated. And you wouldnt want to appear as someone who cant keep up with the intellectuals, would you?

[Anonymous No.2473449]

>>2473438

Giant vampiric entities that scour the globe for the cheapest people and places to exploit while ignoring the consequences even to their own society are a consequence of capitalism though. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is not enough to stop this phenomena.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2473452]

>>2473436
You are, of course, correct.

>>2473444
You are, of course, a faggot who likes to make shit up as he goes.

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2473458]

>>2473444

Market economics boils down to a system of 'rationing by price', essentially meaning 'rationing by the wallet.'

"Within the framework of the market economy, only a small portion of the Earth’s population can satisfy whatever real or imaginary ‘needs’ they have, drawing on scarce resources and damaging ecosystems, whereas the vast majority of people on the planet cannot even cover their basic needs. But freedom of choice is meaningless unless basic needs have already been met."

http://www.democracynature.org/vol3/fotopoulos_outline.htm

[Anonymous No.2473469]

>>2473445
I don't read socialist propaganda pieces about how wonderful socialist countries are. USA is number 4 on HDI, so it can't be all that bad.
Plus these leftists are importing shitskins to replace the native population and their economic growth is basically non-existant.


>>2473449
hurr because paying people to work is exploitation right?
And businesses are "vampires" right?
fucking idiot.

>>2473458
da fuq
considering the vast majority of people continue living, it's pretty clear they ARE covering their basic needs.
It's almost as if these leftists think poor countries are poor because the rich refuse to share with them.

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2473471]

>>2473449

Exactly. That is precisely why I'm saying Social Democracies are obsolete. They try to artificially promote economic and social equality and welfare whilst operating within the framework of a contradictory market (i.e. they still maintain the Capitalist mode of production.)

Social Democracies are essentially a synthesis of a watered down version of Capitalism and a watered down version of Socialism.

[Anonymous No.2473474]

>>2473449
here

>>2473469
I don't know why you are asserting that I said any of those things. Are you trying to employ the straw man fallacy? To what end?

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2473477]

>>2473469

I suppose that if you define "basic needs" as the bare minimum requirement to survive, you are right. At the same time, I doubt you can call the death of thousands due to starvation a + for the market.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2473478]

>>2473458
Yeah, but this whole "free market" nonsense is really one of the strong points of Chomsky's theories.
Basically he does nothing more than point out what should be obvious, but is oh so easy to overlook, due to all the propaganda to the contrary. That the biggest "success stories" of the american "free market" are actually crown companies that have been pampered over decades by means of protectionist measures, subsidies, excessive government contracts, etc... arising directly from the strong alliance between the government and big business. Then when markets fail for all the other players they of course need to be punished by the market by leaving them to their own devices or forcing entire countries to "privatize".
The entire situation has nothing to do with free markets, and the perception to the contrary rests entirely on an ideologically instilled confusion between "free market" and capitalism.
Because we do indeed live in a capitalist system, but capitalism has many faces. In fact I fear that the Frankfurter Schule predictions of monopoly capitalism are becoming a reality.

[Anonymous No.2473480]

>>2473471

Oh, I think I understand what you mean now. You can create a better quality of life by administering a welfare state but if you leave Capitalism intact you will inevitably be affected by it, if not at home then by the world economy.

[Anonymous No.2473484]

>>2473480
Capitalism exists because of reality, it is the natural order, it is not a "system" it exists by default and you can do nothing about it.

You can't just "remove capitalism", that's nonsense and stupidity.

Further market dynamics exist for reasons as well.

>>2473477
And how much money have you given to charity this year? Oh wait just another hypocritical leftist huh?

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2473491]

>>2473478

Indeed. America is not a free market in any sense of the term. I ultimately have a problem with the State before Capitalism, as Capitalism is just as well and good as Socialism as long as they both remain on a voluntary basis. I'm not sure why one would subject oneself to a Capitalist society if alternatives were given, but hey, to each his own.

>>2473480

Yes - I think Democratic Socialism would be a step towards the right direction, although I am still opposed to any State, whether it be Socialist, Capitalist, or anything else.

[Anonymous No.2473494]

>>2473484

Modern capitalism did not always exist and there is no natural law that says that it will always continue to exist. Claiming it as a "natural order" is absurd.

Also, ad hominem?

Also, I've noticed an interesting pattern. In my experience, it is primarily ardent apologists for capitalism who employ rhetorical tactics like attacking the actions of people they refer to as "leftists." I cannot think of any notable instances where those arguing against capitalism focused their arguments on the actions of "rightists" rather than than on a discussion of the principles of capitalism and its flaws, with anything like the frequency the former have shown.

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2473498]

>>2473484

>Capitalism exists because of reality, it is the natural order

Capitalism exists as a natural evolution from Feudalism, not from reality. A large part of human existence (see "Original Affluent Society") existed without Capitalism, and hopefully a large part of the future will as well.

>And how much money have you given to charity this year? Oh wait just another hypocritical leftist huh?

10% of my meager income (I'm your archetypal poor student). The point, though, is that private charities would become unnecessary in some economic systems that are opposed to Capitalism.

[Anonymous No.2473503]

Anteater is an unstoppable juggernaut of courteous and reasonable arguments.

[Anonymous No.2473514]

>>2473498
That's a nice picture. Are Anteaters from Madagascar? And yellow moths?

[Anonymous No.2473516]

>>2473494
>Modern capitalism did not always exist

what? For all intents and purposes, it has.
Reality is why it exists, resources/wealth are finite, people will engage in trade and want to profit from their labor.
You can't just fucking wish away these things!

>>2473498
>The point, though, is that private charities would become unnecessary in some economic systems that are opposed to Capitalism.
There are no "economic systems"
There are basic economic laws and facts and reality and human response to it which we term "capitalism".
Then you have various amounts of tyranny and disruption of the market.

>A large part of human existence (see "Original Affluent Society") existed without Capitalism,
This is more nonsense proposed by a jewish leftist.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2473517]

>>2473469
I think its ironic you first dismiss a completely peer reviewed and consensus branch of policiy sciences as "socialist propaganda".
Especially since then, in order to make the US look good in comparison to the scandinacian model, you resort to a measurement that has been criticised as "Scandinavia comes out on top because basically it measures how scandinavian a country is"... Just because at least this measure doesnt take into consideration how the goods it measures are stratified (inequally distributed) over the population.
Basically, you know that in the countries I mentioned almost everyone is doing sort of ok, while in the US a growing mass of people is doing horrible while a minority is doing really ok. So using this measure, at least the US isnt exposed for the meatgrinder that it is.

Whatever. There is actually an inequality corrected version and there the US is only in 12th place. Although I dont really see how even that does justice to the dire poverty that exists in the American underclasses in comparison to Europe.

Remember we are talking about the country that is by far the most powerful in the world...

[Anonymous No.2473520]

>>2473503
Anteater a a nonsensical trip-fag. Fewer words would result in more clarity.

[Anonymous No.2473524]

>>2473520
sounds like a concession veiled by an ad hominem to me

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2473530]

>>2473516
> There are no "economic systems"
> There are basic economic laws and facts and reality and human response to it which we term "capitalism".
> Then you have various amounts of tyranny and disruption of the market.

I covered this in:
>>2473478

Please take your hysterically pumped up, epic mealtime model of political sciences mentality under the one arm, your retard tier interpretations of Rawls and Hayeck under the other and scuttle on out of here. Thank you.

[Anonymous No.2473531]

I really wish that a well-spoken and well-read challenger would appear to make some more difficult challenges instead of these nitwits.

Maybe I could play devil's advocate and try to simulate a worthy Buckley-esque opponent? I dunno if I'm up to it... Honestly you come to realize that it takes an incredible wit to be so deceitful and skilled at rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.2473532]

>>2473517
>you resort to a measurement that has been criticised as "Scandinavia comes out on top because basically it measures how scandinavian a country is"

da fuq?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
norway is on top due to oil money fueling a socialist welfare state.
Then you have netherlands because they are pure germanic aryans(though of course, like everywhere else the leftists are trying to kill it), and australia/america.

inequality is a meaningless measurement, socialists love it because their crippling policies makes everyone poorer and drives out businesses so they can brag about how everyone is equally miserable.

>Basically, you know that in the countries I mentioned almost everyone is doing sort of ok, while in the US a growing mass of people is doing horrible while a minority is doing really ok.

What? The US is doing better then all these countries.
Obviously niggers do poorly, they would do poorly anywhere because their average IQ is mentally retarded.

>to the dire poverty that exists in the American underclasses in comparison to Europe.
hurr because we need to give out million dollar houses to non-working drug addicts, that's the "fair" thing to do. Socialism is so grand!

Hint: rhetoric from your leftist professors ain't reality.

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2473533]

>>2473516

I think I remember seeing some of your posts before. You were ranting and raving and essentially expanding the modern definition of Capitalism to include any and all trade that has gone on throughout human history. If you're not the same person, you two should get together. I think you'd enjoy each others' company.

>There are basic economic laws and facts and reality and human response to it which we term "capitalism".

See - now I really do think that you're the same person. Capitalism, whether you like it or not (you can't just wish it away) is a defined economic system. There are also other economic systems, some of which are batshit insane, some of which are largely coherent (and have been successful in the past.) Besides, you could have uttered the exact same sentence 700 years ago and simply replaced the word Capitalism with Feudalism.

>This is more nonsense proposed by a jewish leftist.

B-b-but...I'm not Jewish - neither religiously nor ethnically. Also, resorting to Ad Hominem attacks doesn't do much to bolster your argument.

[Anonymous No.2473537]

>>2473533
>B-b-but...I'm not Jewish
The person who invented that variation of noble savage nonsense was a jewish leftist.

Anyways, the leftist would LIKE capitalism to be a "system", because that would imply you could do other things, which is simply not true at all.
There are economic laws which cannot/will not change.

[Anonymous No.2473539]

>>2473524
>>2473524
>>2473524
You drove me nuts, you make no sense.

[Anonymous No.2473540]

stormfriend is really losing his edge these days

[Anonymous No.2473546]

>>2473540
Doubt it.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2473547]

>>2473532
I am duly aware of the discrepancies between reality and the majority of leftist rethoric, within or without academia.
However, I think the correspondence between peer reviewed economics and political science and reality is substantially greater than between reality and your angry gut feelings about capitalism, racial superiority and socialist conspiracies.
Surely there must be a lingering awareness in there somewhere that pulling stuff like that out of your ass simply is less of a guarantee than doing scientific research.

> mfw he explained his theory of capitalism and it turned out he doesnt grasp the difference between the philosophies of natural rights and natural law
> mfw he thinks hes trolling but the fact the people hes arguing against respect sound methodology so hes just a kind of target practice

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2473553]

>>2473537

>The person who invented that variation of noble savage nonsense was a jewish leftist.

Actually, the individual who formulated the socio-economic ideology with which I identify most was an outspoken anti-Semite.

>Anyways, the leftist would LIKE capitalism to be a "system", because that would imply you could do other things, which is simply not true at all.
There are economic laws which cannot/will not change.

"Anyways, the Capitalists would LIKE Feudalism to be a "system", because that would imply you could do other things, which is simply not true at all.
There are economic laws which cannot/will not change." - Wealthy noble 700 years ago

Besides, there have been Economic "systems" that aren't Capitalism, yet HAVE worked. Take a look at Revolutionary Catalonia, for instance. It was around 70% Anarchic, relying on economic schools of thought like Anarchist Communism and Collectivist Anarchism, and it saw a rise in the standard of living, a decrease in prices, and a production increase of up to 20% in some areas. It didn't fail because of internal issues, but because aggressive States saw its success as an affront to their power. Protip : no matter what economic "system" you have, if the Fascists and Soviets are gunning for you, you're pretty much done for.

Your argument is getting quite shaky at this point.

[Anonymous No.2473556]

>>2473553
>Actually, the individual who formulated the socio-economic ideology with which I identify most was an outspoken anti-Semite.

Just curious who we're referring to here? Haven't been following the debate too closely.

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2473559]

>>2473556

Bakunin.

"This whole Jewish world, comprising a single exploiting sect, a kind of blood sucking people, a kind of organic destructive collective parasite, going beyond not only the frontiers of states, but of political opinion, this world is now, at least for the most part, at the disposal of Marx on the one hand, and of Rothschild on the other... This may seem strange. What can there be in common between socialism and a leading bank? The point is that authoritarian socialism, Marxist communism, demands a strong centralisation of the state. And where there is centralisation of the state, there must necessarily be a central bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, speculating with the Labour of the people, will be found."

This led to some severe conflicts with Marx.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2473560]

>>2473553
Hm, I was always under the impression that those Anarchic projects were sort of failed experiments. In any case Im pretty sure their attempts to form militias were pretty poor. Although I think anarchism has sort of a natural disadvantage there (and fascism a natural advantage). Do you have any reliable sources on that?

[Anonymous No.2473564]

>>2473547
Mainstream economics really has no correspondence with reality.
Personally i prefer austrian economics. I'm not sure why you talk about science when we're talking economics or politics.

>>2473553
>Take a look at Revolutionary Catalonia, for instance.
ya where they dragged tens of thousands of people out into the streets and murdered them for daring to disagree or keep their property.
Paradise.
I highly fucking doubt your statistics about any improvement brought about by these tyranical communists.

[Anonymous No.2473573]

>>2473553
Also: I'd like to address this anarchist shit again, they still operated under capitalism, because that's the natural order.
They still purchased goods, traded, used currency, etc.
Except it was a tyrannical communist country with price controls and such things. The fact it only existed for a few years likely hid the underlying economic problems developing from the mass looting of the country.

[Anonymous No.2473577]

>>2473573

How do you have the energy to keep making this shit up?

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2473579]

>>2473560

Burnett Bolloten (an anti-Socialist historian) noted, "In many communities money for internal use was abolished, because, in the opinion of Anarchists, 'money and power are diabolical philtres, which turn a man into a wolf, into a rabid enemy, instead of into a brother.' 'Here in Fraga [a small town in Aragon], you can throw banknotes into the street,' ran an article in a Libertarian paper, 'and no one will take any notice. Rockefeller, if you were to come to Fraga with your entire bank account you would not be able to buy a cup of coffee. Money, your God and your servant, has been abolished here, and the people are happy.' In those Libertarian communities where money was suppressed, wages were paid in coupons, the scale being determined by the size of the family. Locally produced goods, if abundant, such as bread, wine, and olive oil, were distributed freely, while other articles could be obtained by means of coupons at the communal depot. Surplus goods were exchanged with other Anarchist towns and villages, money being used only for transactions with those communities that had not adopted the new system."

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2473581]

>>2473579

"Despite the critics clamoring for "maximum efficiency" rather than revolutionary methods, anarchist collectives often produced more than before the collectivization. In Aragon, for instance, the productivity increased by 20%.[8] The newly liberated zones worked on entirely libertarian principles; decisions were made through councils of ordinary citizens without any sort of bureaucracy (it should be noted that the CNT–FAI leadership was at this time not nearly as radical as the rank and file members responsible for these sweeping changes). In addition to the economic revolution, there was a spirit of cultural revolution. Traditions some viewed as oppressive were done away with. For instance, women were legally permitted to have abortions, and the idea of "free love" became widely prevalent. In many ways, this spirit of cultural liberation prefigured that of the "New Left" movements of the 1960s."

Orwell (who was there).."There was no unemployment, and the price of living was still extremely low; you saw very few conspicuously destitute people, and no beggars except the gypsies. Above all, there was a belief in the revolution and the future, a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine."

>http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Spanish_Revolution

Further reading can be had in Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia."

Overall, I don't necessarily agree with the way in which Anarchism was implemented, nor do I hold any illusions as to the fact that coercion was used to foster compliance in some cases, but the legitimacy of the economic model still stands.

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2473587]

>>2473573
>>2473564

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2473588]

>>2473564
> Personally i prefer austrian economics. I'm not sure why you talk about science when we're talking economics or politics.
> Personally i prefer austrian economics
> not sure why you talk about science when we're talking economics or politics.
> Austrian school of economics
> not scientific
> just generally ignorant about the equivalence between science and any method for obtaining demonstrable empirical knowledge

YA BASICALLY I BELIEVE SCIENCE IS A JEWISH PLOY TO TURN US INTO GIRLIEMEN AS TO KEEP US FROM LIVING IN OUR NATURAL STATE OF FREEDOM FROM WELFARE STATE TYRANNY WHERE US NEO-CLASSICAL ECONOMIST WARRIORS RUN FREE WITH OUR BIG DICKS OUT

You must be the singlemost boorish retard I have met here on /lit/

[Anonymous No.2473610]

>>2473588
Austrian school of economics is far more scientific and empirical than others.

There's no empirical knowledge in this thread anyways, we are talking about human interaction.

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2473618]

>>2473610

"The Austrian School of economics is a school of economic thought which advocates methodological individualism and a deductive approach to economics called praxeology. It is famously critical of econometrics and the application of empirical research to economic theory, such as taken by neoclassical economists."

"Mainstream economists generally argue that Austrian economics lacks scientific rigor, rejects the scientific method, and rejects the use of empirical data.[10][12][119] Thomas Mayer has argued that Austrians have advocated a rejection of scientific methods which involve directly using empirical data in the development of (falsifiable) theories; application of empirical data is fundamental to the scientific method.[11][119]"

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_school

Not only have you made up your own definition of Capitalism, you have completely failed to research the very economic model you are proposing. You win my 'poster of the night' award.

[Anonymous No.2473621]

>>2473618
Are you an idiot?

[Anonymous No.2473623]

Hey guys remember that time when Foucault bitch-slapped Chomsky, that was a hoot!

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2473628]

>>2473621

No, I'm an Anteater.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2473635]

>>2473610
They undoubtedly caused a revolution in economist thinking but this proves little about the ideologies people claim to derive from them which are based on abstract notions of natural right and moral obligation anyways. And I seriously doubt they would agree with anything you are saying here. Foremostly, your notion that (free market) capitalism is this naturally given situation is a gross simplification of the austrian school. There were always still problems like those of public goods or how the protection of property rights demand specialised agencies that would lead to monopolies on typical state power type goods, e.g. monopoly of violence etc...
As was said before, the problem that Chomsky and others recognise is that in fact we dont live in a free market society because it is de facto constantly being overruled by other things. We do however live in a capitalist system. At least under socialist policies it happens in a way that doesnt screw over the little guy.
And we have manifestly been making verifyable empirical claims, what the hell are you talking about.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2473642]

>>2473623
I was under the impression they got along rather well, what exactly are you referring to?

[Anonymous No.2473643]

>>2473623

It was pretty unimpressive. Foucault lives in a dream world of sophistry.

[Anonymous No.2473646]

>>2473635
>At least under socialist policies it happens in a way that doesn't screw over the little guy.
haha oh wow
this is what socialists actually believe.

>>2473628
Austrian economics uses empirical data as much as any other system, they use it however to prove themselves correct, rather then basing their whole theories on the data and just drawing straight lines on graphs since the data doesn't tell them anything.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2473685]

>>2473646
>haha oh wow this is what socialists actually believe.

Seriously, you're shooting yourself in the foot with this "no argument even needed" mentality. Has it ever ocurred to you that your intuitions might be wrong?

[Anonymous No.2473689]

>>2473685
Can you grasp that all these "socialist" areas are still capitalistic, they just force everyone into communes where tyrants can decide what they need and take all of what they produce? Mob rule is still a tyranny.

[Anonymous No.2473698]

>>2473689
Also: People give within families and freely share, does that make capitalist countries not capitalist?

Then how could communes existence make these places not capitalist?
It's funny how you claim socialism/anarchist communes is some better organization or system when it will take WIDESPREAD MASSIVE COERCION to bring it about to existence.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2473701]

>>2473689
What "areas" are you speaking of?
Be concrete.
I'll grant you that the regions I was thinking of are indeed "under capitalism", that is why I was talking about socialist policies as opposed to "a socialist system" as if it would be something comprehensive. I'm not so very opposed to free markets by the way. But you know, social policy in Europe really isnt about forcing people to live in communes under tyrants or whatever you were trying to say...
There are very few tyrants around over here in Europe. That is if you disregard the people who run companies and are allowed to run them in a completely totalitarian fashion because thats just what everyone expects as normal. And there the difference with the US is clear.

[Anonymous No.2473712]

>>2473701
All areas.

the anger of leftists, socialists, is directed towards unavoidable realities, the existance of scarcity and voluntary trade.
Hence they propose alternative "systems", which noone actually wants to participate in, this progresses to tyranny and coercion.

You are always free to quit a company if you don't like how its run, they cannot coerce you.
If you have a problem with high unemployment, that's an entirely different situation created by the government.

[Anonymous No.2473713]

The US is actually 23rd in inequality-adjusted HDI. Here are the countries ahead of it:

Norway 0.890
Australia 0.856
Sweden 0.851
Netherlands 0.846
Iceland 0.845
Ireland 0.843
Germany 0.842
Denmark 0.842
Switzerland 0.840
Slovenia 0.837
Finland 0.833
Canada 0.829
Czech Republic 0.821
Austria 0.820
Belgium 0.819
France 0.804
Spain 0.799
Luxembourg 0.799
United Kingdom 0.791
Slovakia 0.787
Israel 0.779
Italy 0.779
lol Not to mention it's 37th in healthcare. USSAAA #1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.2473721]

>>2473713
>inequality-adjusted

XDDDDD

Would we be worse off if rich aliens settled on the moon?
These inequality arguments don't make any sense.

Further, the metrics of health care look at a whole bunch of socialist shit rather then actual quality.
Not like the USA is a free market or has free market health care.

[Anonymous No.2473740]

>>2473721
lol I think you're missing the point. You can be rich and live well in any country in the world. A millionaire in Zimbabwe lives as lavishly and ostentatiously as millionaires in America. It doesn't matter if an extremely tiny portion of your population owns all the wealth, thus why no studies attempt to measure such a vacuous statistic. Anyways, I'm wasting my time; you're clearly a retard. Come on, "at a whole bunch of socialist shit rather then [sic] actual quality>" Are you 12 years old? I think you'll realize soon enough when you're at a community college and working as a cashier at Best Buy what these statistics mean, and why they're calculated the way they are. Anteater and "A HUGE FAGGOT" have been incredibly generous, but it's time to call a spade a spade.

[Anonymous No.2473742]

>>2473740
What the fuck are you even talking about now? This concentration of wealth comes from anti-free market practices of the government/central bank.

Why SHOULDN'T they live lavishly when they have contributed to society which is how they earned their money?

[Anonymous No.2473750]

>>2473742
So, how exactly do your mental gymnastics get around the fact that socialist countries have the lowest GINI coefficients? Cuba, even with the embargo and economic sanctions placed on it, has a healthcare system that is roughly equal to that of the United States. But then again, it's much easier to keep your beliefs the same and change the facts than vice versa. There's nothing special about wealthy people in the United States or their "contributions." Once you're born into a wealthy family and inherit a family company, you don't have to move up the corporate ladder; you're already at the top. America is a pseudo-aristocracy because of faggots like you, who can barely read, but think they understand economics and vote accordingly. Let me guess, you get Ds on your papers and you think it's just because your professors (or teachers, judging by how young you seem) are liberal? No, it's because you are cognitively incapable. Time to come to terms with it. For the sake of the future of this shithole country, don't vote, please.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2473752]

>>2473712
I dont know any areas where socialist welfare policies are enacted where people are forced to live in communes under tyrants.
I do know some of these areas.
So I'm pretty sure theyre not "all areas".
I dont even know what the hell you are talking about to be honest...

Also, you are a complete idiot if you dont grasp that you cant use a measure that takes average values to actually measure how many people are doing well and how many are not doing well. The point is, if everyone in the US was living in dire poverty because one person was tyranising them, and that person had like trillions of dollars worth of wealth, obviously the average value would not be very informative.
The same principle applies to the HDI thing.

How can you pretend to understand anything about economy if you cant even get a grasp on that?

[Anonymous No.2473781]

>mfw everybody itt is being trolled by big brother, who is sitting i hismansions laughing at you idiots trying in vain to convince each other that you're right and not actually doing anything in the slightest to fix the problem, while he's loving life
>mfw sigh at people these days...

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2473796]

>>2473781
Who are you to say any one of us is not doing anything about it?
Do you know us personally?
You must be one of those people who was told "LOL, ARGUING ON THE INTERNET IS LIKE BEING IN THE SPECIAL OLYMPICS" and then completely assimilated this maxim out of sheer fear of being perceived to be a retard on the internet.
The irony is that nothing is so destructive of political awareness as the anti-intellectualist reluctance to tolerate spontaneous discussion and debate.

[Anonymous No.2473812]

>>2473796
sigh... where to start...

first, you say i judge without any evidence, then go on to say that i must be one of those people.. etc etc. hypocrisy much?

second, the simple fact that you have suddenly become so defensive about maintaining your OWN image shows that my previous statement may have been more accurate than i thought

third, i am not "anti-intellectualist" - who the fuck is anti-intellectualist?!?! - , nor do i have any problem with "spontaneous discussion and debate", i am merely pointing out that both sides arguing and bitching - yes, bitching, its like the fucking Frankfurt Parliament, you just sit there and complain about each other - and becoming increasingly aggressive is not only doing very, very little good - for either cause - but is also what the people you are complaining about actually want. all i'm saying is, just have a debate where you don't get heated up and start calling each other faggot if you actually want to have some effect on other people.

and here's the part where i get raged at

[Anonymous No.2473816]

"A HUGE FAGGOT," if you don't mind me asking, where do you live? I need to get the fuck out of this place. The overwhelming majority of Americans really are this stupid. I even go to a top college and no avail. Hopefully you don't live in the UK, though, because, based on what I read online, the UK is just as much of a shithole.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2473822]

>>2473812
Whow, yeah, I sure made a major slipup there with the special olympics comment. Yes, what a major breach in my integrity.
No, really, the point I was trying to make was merely that noone gets anywhere if you're going to be so dismissive of people discussing things. How do you expect people to organize things based on proper decisions if they cant learn about each others ideas?
It is my opinion that this is anti-intellectualist since you put this fantastical notion of "just going ahead and doing stuff" over and above people actually getting together and informing each other. Im not willing to believe that your poor understanding of scientific method is coincidental to this.

[Anonymous No.2473823]

>>2473816
Just go anywhere. Anywhere is better than America.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2473836]

>>2473816
Im not very particular about where I live, but the Netherlands are still a very cool place to be I believe. It all sort of depends on what you are looking for. Im sure you will have an easier time to just find a circle of clever people to be your friends than actually moving abroad. Especially if the requirement is just that they are clever. In fact, this is sort of a class thing actually. People tend to interact differently and form networks around that kind of thing. These boundaries areeasily underestimated. People of very different levels of education might as well live in a different country from one another. Of course once you expect them to follow a certain particular line of thought... Well, yeah, theres still a sort of regional aspect to schools of thought.

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2473940]

>>2473712

Scarcity and Voluntary Trade are something Fotopoulos addresses directly in his Economic Model for an Inclusive Democracy.

I have to leave, but I'll post a brief summary of it and see how discussion goes when I'm back.

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2473943]

>>2473940

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2473944]

>>2473943

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2473945]

>>2473944

I'll be back in a couple of hours to see if this has drummed up any *constructive* conversation. I doubt it.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2474010]

>>2473940
>>2473943
>>2473944
>>2473945
I appreciate the gesture but I need to work on something sort of urgently. And there is also still the need to sleep.

[Anonymous No.2474085]

>>2473750
The point is, inequality is irrelevant and meaningless.
They take nothing from anyone else for being wealthy.
I do very much understand economics, more so than you, filthy commie.

[Anonymous No.2474086]

>>2473752
Who is in dire poverty in the USA?
The dominant problem of the lower class is OBESITY and DRUG ABUSE!

Europe is bankrupting itself through their socialist policies, the same leftists who promote socialism also promote mass immigration/decadent liberalism, they kill themselves and their ideology.
Also: Is taking 60%+ of someones income for their entire life not tyranny?

[Anonymous No.2474096]

>>2473823
You'll find out the opposite is true as soon as you leave.

>>2473836
Go to the nederlands, and be killed by a muslim you can't even defend yourself against.
Also you find that people in europe are a lot poorer than americans.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2474120]

Just a few things:

We dont live in a free market society and this is hardly the fault of socialist policies, rather those who actually claim to be against government intervention, but whose big companies have always depended on it anyways.
The more accute crisis everyone is suffering from right now is exactly caused by these people, now, if they manage to drag social policies down with them... That means they win I guess?? lol no.
Another thing to think about: Poverty can be understood exactly as inefficiencies of human capital through lack of investment, nothing more, nothing less. Now, whatever the reason may be, poverty is more accute in the US than in those European nations heavy on social spending. This simply means that people are being invested in on a wider scope (e.g. on a longer term basis) than the crude financial schemes of your revered monopoly capitalist scam will ever be capable of.
It is ironic that all of this is being maintained in the name of the religion of this mythical free market the US business class seeks to enforce on others. One reason why it is ironic is that they themselves seem exempt from this enforcement, being pampered in the form of protectionism, subsidies, excessive government contracting, bailouts, lobbyism, ...
Another reason is that this religion of free market seems to forbid exactly this kind of investment in what matters most, being actual people. Especially the further they are removed from mentioned business class.
So you see, if you want to drag 1st semester tier notions like pareto efficiency into it, be my guest. You will find that you cant even sincerely rely on these either to make your point.

[Anonymous No.2474126]

>>2473944
>>2473945
>>2473945
>>2473943
>>2473940
Should be obvious the massive amount of tyranny this sort of plan assumes, like all leftist social engineering schemes.
Anyways, what he proposes is exactly what the market/our countries already is anyways, except he wants to get away with evil things like savings, investment, entrepreneurship, etc. Freezing the economy where it is so that in 50 years you'll be so hopelessly far behind....
It also ignores that we don't even produce these goods in our own countries anymore. We trade for them from the third world.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2474188]

>>2473945
>>2473944
>>2473943
>>2473940

Hmmm I dont know man, you seem to be wandering pretty far on the side of planned economics here... I think that might not work out so well... This whole thing doesnt seem very specific about how exactly this market would be "artificial" and to which degree.
Either you "artificially" correct a market in a way that people can rely on being efficient, or you will have things like black markets on your hand. So you would need very specific ways to capture market deficits and correct for those in an exact manner and in a manner that economic agents can somehow rely on "in real time" so they wont have incentives to counteract your efforts. So you see, you cant just assume this "artificial market" that is supposed to be regulated by political decision making without good reason to assume it will be economically sound.
On a more general note, I think it is rather utopian and besides the point to try to emulate communist conditions at this point in history, or even assume that it will ever apply.

[Anteater !!VyIROBcMkwf No.2474222]

>>2474126

>Should be obvious the massive amount of tyranny this sort of plan assumes, like all leftist social engineering schemes.

Could you point out in which aspect of this plan the tyranny takes place? Given that it's a voluntary society, free of a State, and with little to no bureaucracy (as well as no coercion), I don't see where the word "tyranny" comes in to play.

>Anyways, what he proposes is exactly what the market/our countries already is anyways, except he wants to get away with evil things like savings, investment, entrepreneurship, etc. Freezing the economy where it is so that in 50 years you'll be so hopelessly far behind..

It's vastly different from the current state of the economy. There is not State, no markets (in the current sense) and no currency. It seems like you're equating 8 to 4, here.

>It also ignores that we don't even produce these goods in our own countries anymore. We trade for them from the third world.

It doesn't ignore that fact, it eliminates it.

>you seem to be wandering pretty far on the side of planned economics here

Fotopoulos is incredibly critical of Centrally Planned economies. He recognizes that it cannot address the changing preferences of consumers and producers, and ultimately results in the concentration of power. His system takes a democratic planning approach as far as the Basic Needs of citizens, and a 'market' approach as far as the Non-basic needs. It is very far from both a Planned and Market economies.

As far as 'artificially' correcting the market, you're slightly missing the point.

Here is his whole essay, which goes to greater depth and clears things up.

http://www.democracynature.org/vol3/fotopoulos_outline.htm

[Anonymous No.2474652]

>>2474222
>Given that it's a voluntary society,
People will not voluntarily give up their possessions, this sort of society will never come about on its own, and if it did, you naturally use coercion to prevent outsiders/greedy sorts from taking all they want.

>free of a State
hah? Did you miss the whole part where a state or "committee" or bureaucracy will decide what people "need" how much they need to work, what they will be paid, what they will work on, what is to be valued, etc etc etc?
What do you think a state is, but that?

>and no currency.
What do you think these coupons he brought up are? Just a different name for a same thing, it's people still working for money, except the money isn't good anywhere else so they are never able to save and leave, or save and invest.

>no markets (in the current sense)
The current sense is an artificial creation of the state, he would create a different sense, but it's still a market, and they would recognize immediately that market processes exist for reasons which cannot be wished or legislated away.

>democratic planning approach
Democratic doesn't mean anything, it's just a different form of tyranny, often far worse and more vicious than any other. Consensus rarely produces good results.

Do you actually know the poor in our countries today? they all have their "Basic needs" and then some. Their problem is obesity and waste and stupidity and laziness.
Would you leave the citizen to starve if he doesn't work? If so, then how is it any different from what we have now?

[Anonymous No.2474684]

>>2474120
>Poverty can be understood exactly as inefficiencies of human capital through lack of investment, nothing more, nothing less.

da fuq

No it isn't. It's not inefficiency, it's that these people are worth far less then anyone else for whatever reason, so they will make less money.

Throwing money at people is not "investing" in them, jesus, i don't know how you could think socialism is "investing in human capital", that's not at all what the government does.
How does getting a handout means you are more capable or productive or whatever?

Always hilarious where the leftists tells us capitalism turns men into beasts, just take a look at any leftist person, or leftist country, or leftist society! The worst mass murdering tyrannies on the planet! How many times have you ever heard a leftist admit he would love to kill tons of people? I'm sure you hear it all the time.
And you think you could trust these people to be "compassionate" and only accepting what they "need" ?

[Anonymous No.2474688]

>>2474684
Spoken like a true randroid.

[Anonymous No.2474698]

Lets address people inheriting money, does a parent not have the right to assist their child? To pass on what they have earned in their lives?

Is it their fault for your ancestors built nothing, saved nothing, and didn't prosper at all?

At some point they gained their money in a legitimate honest way, through hard work and success.
What they have is irrelevant to you and what you have since wealth is continually created.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2474762]

>>2474684
Why are you still pretending I am talking about soviet backed dictatorships when it's perfectly clear I have been discussing social democracy type welfare states with socialist inspired social policies...
Also, your idea of poor people is completely unrealistic. Most people that are poor were born poor, they just have less of a chance because they dont have the same opportunities. Surely you wont deny that...
>>2474698
The interesting question is: is it someones fault if their parents or grandparents didnt save anything?

[Anonymous No.2474771]

>>2474762
>they just have less of a chance because they dont have the same opportunities.

They have all the same opportunities, they were born into this earth, the same as anyone else.

[Anonymous No.2474772]

>>2474698
>gained their money in a legitimate honest way

I don't think you understand how capitalism and Private Property work. Either that or you have no concept of morality.

[Anonymous No.2474775]

>>2474772
I think you are a commie who doesn't understand eocnomics.

[Anonymous No.2474796]

>>2474775

Your constant use of pejoratives in place of any concrete argument really points to you having no understanding of any of the topics that have been discussed. It's obvious that you possess no desire to learn, only to argue and to continue basing your analysis of the world on blind faith in your pre-conceived opinions without any knowledge or good faith efforts to understand another side of things.

You are pretty much the definition of an ideologue and you live in a fantasy world, by deliberate choice. I say this makes you an intellectual coward.

Good day, sir.

[Anonymous No.2474798]

>>2474796
There is nothing to discuss with a commie, when he stops being a commie, then perhaps we could talk.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2474804]

>>2474771
Ok, so suddenly the value of money is meaningless just for this isolated theoretical occasion where it applies to someone being born under certain conditions?
Because Im pretty sure money can buy opportunities, in fact everything in economics whatsoever should derive back to opportunities because the most general way to describe anything in economics is in terms of opportunity costs.
The primacy of blind ideological fervor in your argument is really exposed here.
The term "bad faith" comes to mind...

[Anonymous No.2474808]

>>2474804
Funny a socialist talking about how the only way to succeed in life is to make lots of money.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2474819]

>>2474808
Not necessarily, there are alternatives. For instance, if you have a developed welfare system this could provide you with the means to develop talents that will pay off more than the welfare invested, which you wouldnt develop if you, lets say started working in sweat shops from age 7.
Of course if you have lots of money to begin with that isnt necessary.
Makes sense, right?

[Anonymous No.2474820]

>>2474804

Dude, we need to just stop talking to this guy. The only conceivable reason to engage him is to call him on his outrageous arguments for the sake of someone who may be watching. Anteater already wiped the floor with him for hours last night. Continuing to reply is only going to show him that he can always waste peoples time with his nonsense.

[A HUGE FAGGOT No.2474836]

>>2474820
I dont really care, I mean hey we are on 4chan to begin with.
Seriously, there is a larger point to be made here I think. I think this whole irrational fear of getting trolled is very symptomatic of the kind of ideology that maintains all this bullshit. It is a kind of cultural terror regime. You always sort of have to display your willingness to bail out with rethoric, to just constantly show you are really in it to win the argument, if you arent that cynical you're some kind of natural born loser. Yes of course then people are never gonna end up seriously debating things in the first place. I dont think people fully realise how anti-critical, anti intellectualist and consensus-preserving this kind of atmosphere is. It is a kind of repressive tolerance Mk2

[Anonymous No.2474865]

The family is a socialist unit; it revolves around the socialist principle "from each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her needs". If it works for the sacrosanct family, why not society? What now, "family-values" conservatives?

[Anonymous No.2474867]

>>2474865
>it revolves around the socialist principle
No it doesn't.

>why not society?
So you are advocating National Socialism?

[Anonymous No.2474872]

>>2474865
family =! society, as Aristotle understood so well (read The Politics). Society is not merely the family writ large; the two are different not only in scale, but in kind. Biology changes everything.

[Anonymous No.2474874]

>>2474836

I suppose you have a point.

[Anonymous No.2474881]

>>2474867
So you're contending that families do not evince a redistribution of wealth? That children do not subsist on the wealth of their parents et cetera?? You're a dullard. And no, I'm advocating socialism not Nazism.

[Anonymous No.2474885]

>>2474881
I'm saying they don't revolve around "from each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her needs" you faggot.

>I'm advocating socialism not Nazism.
nazism IS socialism, just a different form, the only form that could possibly work!
What is the nation but an extension of the family!

[Anonymous No.2474896]

Call me a simpleton, but when you do away with abstractions and examine the track record, socialism of any flavor has never been implemented without serious infractions against human rights (well, more serious than under capitalist systems). Socialism is less congenial to a thriving, ambitious society that wants to progress forward.

[Anonymous No.2474898]

>>2474896
Progress has no place in a true and fair society!
Once we have gone to the effort of making everyone equal, we don't want anything to change and mess it all up!