Policy: what do Americans want?


Setting aside anyone's personal feelings for Chomsky, it would be interesting to see how people disagree with his points.

I'd like to hear opinions on:
Lobbying- private enterprise and the government
Banks that are "too big to fail"
Citizen's United: money as freedom of expression and corporations as people
A marginalized public
Do Americans feel inequality exists? If so, does it warrant the kind of attention given today?

reply

While I don't personally disagree with Noam Chomsky on economic or social policy, I did find this page (http://morepoliticalrants.blogspot.rs/2013/11/noam-chomsky-professional-liar.html) in which a person attacks Chomsky's ideology. Just going by this page, I think one gets a better sense of the mind-frame of an individual against Chomsky's politics, which also seems consistent with those I've seen attack him including to his own face.

Most critics of Chomsky pay little attention to any anecdotal or direct evidence used to prove his assertions. Instead, they re-interpret or assign new meanings to his words based on their own perceptions and political biases to dismiss him as a communist liar masquerading as an intellectual. However, by not addressing the evidence used or in some cases, the main assertion by Chomsky, they don't offer a fact-based rebuttal of Chomsky's assertions.

In the case of that page, the first attack is toward Chomsky's assertion that in a capitalist system, corporations have the advantage and can freely dictate economic policy to disenfranchise the population in order to increase their own wealth. Chomsky further asserts that political and economic power should be in the hands of the people. The writer claims from his own intuition that "the people" Chomsky is talking about are his fellow Marxist friends. However, nowhere in that is a rebuttal of the concept. The writer never poses a coherent argument that the American business class is fairly equitable and the American capitalism is a fair system of which there is no better alternative or version than what we have now. He uses his own experience coming from a communist nation to apply force to his opinions, but as many do, he makes no distinction between the various forms of the Marxist thought. To him, Marxism, communism, socialism and democratic socialism are all the same when they're not.

As for inequality, most Americans do feel that there's inequality but it diverges among the source. Most left-leaning people feel that the super-wealthy, corporations and business class have ruined the idea of an American dream by depressing wages and reducing opportunity. Working class right-leaning individuals somewhat agree but mostly in regard to trade. Where such individuals diverge is the ability to convince right-leaning individuals that socialism, regulation, minorities, immigrants and liberal politicians' "reduction" of America's place in the world is the culprit, and that only nationalism, strict capitalism and reducing the demographic changes is the answer. Of course, there are obvious contradictions in there strain of thought.

Now, the only place where I might have some disagreement with Chomsky is the subject of Islam. I don't think Chomsky has ever made a definitive claim about the doctrine of Islam, but seems to have give more weight and friendliness to the "multiculturalists" who call any criticism of Islam a form of Islamophobia. Chomsky has been a bit more hostile to the New Atheist movement of thinkers who are fiercely critical of Islam (as well as all religions) and who have placed the danger of Islamic fascism at the top of their major concerns. Figures who fit into this mold include Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins & Maajid Nawaz. I agree with them on the issue of Islam, and disagree with Chomsky's hostility toward them. This is not to discount Chomsky's observations, but to argue that liberal tolerance of illiberal ideas on the basis of mulitculturalism is a bad idea and no weight or credibility should be given to those who do this. Admittedly, I do think Hitchens' description of the cause of Islamic fascism is one-sided, when I think he, Harris and Chomsky are all right on the causes. Its not just one cause, but many rolled into one like any major problem.

reply

If the system was a Capitalistic system things would not be as dire... Chomsky mentions that this is not Capitalism anymore. He shows many presidents bailing out Corporations. If this was indeed Capitalism, they would just go bankrupt, and that would be the end of these Corps.
I think Americans and Canadians are living in denial or just plain ignorance. Things are happening all over the place, that shouldn't. No more permanent jobs, no more full time jobs. No more if I work hard I will have a house and a car I CAN AFFORD, which is I believe the whole point of this documentary. I have at least 2 friends in denial (anecdotal evidence at best I know) in Atlanta and San Francisco. They think they are going through a hard time... That's it! Nothing more... But things have radically changed. I know I am not the only one who have friends who cannot find a good job anymore, instead working 2 or 3 part time jobs to survive.

reply

If the system was a Capitalistic system things would not be as dire..

Vastly incorrect. The increased free-market practices led to economic instability as deregulation has allowed corporations to engage in risky gambles that threatened the economy. They used their capital to influence public policy to end the conditions that led to upward mobility in the 1940s to 1970s such as the New Deal and Great Society programs while also attacking democracy. As this transpired from the 1980s to now, the opportunity you speak has disappeared while economic crashes have increased.

Unrestrained capitalism without a hint of conscience allows bankers, Wall Street and the wealthy to do what they have done over the course of 30+ years. If your answer is more of that, then one shouldn't complain about the 2 or 3 part time jobs needed to survive. Its purely the decision of corporate America to limit work to part time jobs, which they do only to maximize their profit margins. Capitalism dictates that they are perfectly within their rights to do so.

Chomsky mentions that this is not Capitalism anymore. He shows many presidents bailing out Corporations. If this was indeed Capitalism, they would just go bankrupt, and that would be the end of these Corps.

Chomsky never stated the bailout was a form of capitalism. In many lectures/interviews, he says the contrary. The U.S. has a quasi-capitalist system with elements of socialism and other systems. In fact, Chomsky has often said that capitalism has never existed in its purest form as it would quickly collapse. The evidence of this is in your statement. If the government had not rejected capitalist theory in order to bail out the banks and corporate America, the nation would have slipped into a major economic collapse worse than the Great Depression as credit would dry up and banks would implode. The problem wasn't the bailout, but the lack of conditions placed on these institutions to ensure they couldn't do it again. These institutions are playing the same game and anticipate another crash as well as another condition-less bailout. In Europe, the only conditions are placed on the people who are told to live within their means (austerity) while the banks gamble on the means of people who have little.

The real issue here is that corporations have too much direct influence on the political system and law, which depresses the conditions, outlook and quality of life of the working and poor classes. To end this, democracy must be restored by getting money out of elections, putting in place rules to ensure economic responsibility of corporations/banks, educating the electorate, and engaging in empathetic social activism.

reply

Nice and clear post.

It is very easy to pin-down said issues and offer solutions, but why it is so hard to accomplish it in reality?

Would you care to elaborate? Are we cowards? Dumb? Or both?

I will die without seeing a politician stripping himself from his own power through any voting/political system. I will probably have to kill one myself to see it.


“Gentlemen, You Can’t Fight In Here! This is The War Room!”: Dr. Strangelove

reply

The only way to accomplish solutions in a political system is to obtain power. The people in power set up the system to preserve their dominance. To defeat them, you must have a detailed strategic plan to coalesce massive support bases and economic resources in tactical campaigns that are able to anticipate the maneuvers of the power and counter them. The average citizen thinks emotionally, not tactically. Furthermore, our politics are posed through divisive polemics, which makes it politically impossible to unite on key issues of agreement as partisanship won't allow it.

As the populace divides into the far reaches of the left and right, the center falters and reason is lost. Strategy is abandoned for purist principles that will never see the light of day without the strategy to back it up. The focus has been lost. Many Bernie Sanders fans saw him as a savior, but polling showed that the Congress would pretty much remain the same. If a centrist like Obama couldn't enact policy with this Congress, how could Sanders enact leftist ideas? And yet there was no excitement for the Congressional races. It was all on Sanders. Its that kind of shortsightedness that damns the populace to the whims of the powerful.

Yates summed up the political climate best in his poem "The Second Coming." Those with the best intentions lack the conviction of tactical understanding while the worst are full of passionate intensity in the service of their pursuit of power. In the despair of the people, things fall apart and the center cannot hold, unleashing mere anarchy upon the world.

reply

It as comforting as disturbing to see that I was right. Even if by having an agreement between our ideas seems to leave no challenge at all for me, I can clearly see that this would be the worst possible scenario.

The power has to be taken away from the powerful with the same avid and gratuitous violence they cast upon us, all at the same time it has the risk, not of power falling on the weak's hand, but of the weak failing by holding all the power on his hands.

“Gentlemen, You Can’t Fight In Here! This is The War Room!”: Dr. Strangelove

reply

The worst case scenario is a world without a future. I'm not in that space yet.

If there's any comfort that can be given to you, it comes from two distinct possibilities.

1. The System Collapses: Entropy dictates that all systems reach a climax and move toward its demise with a new system replacing it. Its possible and probable that the authoritarian "political-outsiders" will drive things toward a chaotic/catastrophic end of the current system with a new system replacing it. This possibility will leave lots of collateral damage.

2. The Millennial Future: Millennials will not enjoy the prosperity or stability of previous generations, but within that they may be the generation to clean things up as they have a different perspective and they are invested in the future. Given that democracy has been taken for granted by this generation, its possible that with time, wisdom and maturity with lead to them co-opt the political reigns. Their children will enjoy the benefits. This possibility is more desirable, but much more of my hope than a belief of certainty.

In my opinion, a mixture of both will happen.

reply

If hope resides in the people responsible for the consolidation of the sort like Steve Jobs and products like iphone, I'm really not that hopeful. Would you?

The system has collapsed already, I can't believe US didn't rise in a gulf of flames during the bailout. My country has been in turmoil since then, not only mine, the whole world is. They cross the world to kill people, when the people they should kill are just in front of their nose.

I appreciate the optimism anyway.

“Gentlemen, You Can’t Fight In Here! This is The War Room!”: Dr. Strangelove

reply

If hope resides in the people responsible for the consolidation of the sort like Steve Jobs and products like iphone, I'm really not that hopeful. Would you?

I'm not sure where you get the implication that "Steve Jobs" is going to save the world. Hope lies in a populace willing and invested in changing the current system to something a bit fairer. However, we cannot kid ourselves into believing that "Steve Jobs" won't be part of that future.

In all circumstances, there is a top and a bottom. This cannot be avoided, but if understood, it can be modulated to reflect fairness because the top is nothing without the bottom. If you ditch the emotions and self-righteousness, you might find the modulation.

The system has collapsed already

No it hasn't. Its beginning to crack. If the U.S. economic system had completely collapsed, there would be mass chaos of the type and scale that was averted by the bailout. In the U.S., there are many people suffering but many people still watch cable TV, play on their iPhones and go to the movies. This is not the behavior of a collapsed society. The fact that you have time to discuss the issue on IMDb also shows that most is not lost... yet.

I can't believe US didn't rise in a gulf of flames during the bailout.

The U.S. has the largest economy in the world with too many other large economies dependent upon relationship/access with that economy, and thus the collapse of the U.S. is not an acceptable option. If the U.S. goes down, whatever turmoil your nation faces now will seem like a vacation in the Bahamas.

My country

I'm curious to what country that is. If its Brazil as I am guessing, Dilma Rousseff handed the keys to her defeat over to her opponents, and for that the left and the rest of the nation will pay the price. In the UK, the ineffectual left in their bickering have handed the future of the UK to the Conservative Party, and for that the nation will pay the price. Always look at the role your side plays in the damage. Its easiest thing to change... and the first thing to change.

...has been in turmoil since then, not only mine, the whole world is.

Pockets of turmoil, but not complete. Third worlds nations are always in turmoil, but after 2007, many nations suffered including the U.S. but some have recovered to a fragile state of stability. There are problems but they have not overwhelmed the function of day-to-day life for most. And it seems Europe is in more turmoil than the U.S.

They cross the world to kill people, when the people they should kill are just in front of their nose.

I detect bitterness and emotions here but what has this gotten you? A cheer in the parade for the fallen? Do you think when bankers destroy a nation that they do it with malice or emotional antipathy? No. Bankers only care about numbers of which you are only one in a column. They operate devoid of emotion in their tactical calculations, which can be used against them, but not with an emotional attitude. If you kill 5 bankers and 10 politicians, you'd just amount to being a terrorist... easy to malign and destroy with your fellow men helping to hunt you down.

There's another way.

reply

[deleted]

Nice bait, I'm not going down that road.

“Gentlemen, You Can’t Fight In Here! This is The War Room!”: Dr. Strangelove

reply

Admittedly from this point on:

It as comforting as disturbing to see that I was right. Even if by having an agreement between our ideas seems to leave no challenge at all for me, I can clearly see that this would be the worst possible scenario.

It was very difficult to comprehend what you're angling at with any of your posts.

In many respects, I don't know what you want. If its idealism, I have no interest in musing about it with you. I hate idealism. If its something attainable, then by all means.

reply

Look, again I will not flip out just because you wrote something personal about me. Simply because if it is true or not, I should not worry.

You could frame anything I said as anything you want, including idealism.

Your rhetoric regarding the system wasn't good to begin with. You went in a totally opposite direction I was trying to highlight, even to the point assuming some of my inclinations.

The fact that I mentioned Steve Jobs has nothing to do with expecting him to save the world, but to expect anyone not to make the world a worst place to begin with. What good can do conceptual luxury advertising?

My previous reply implied that by agreeing with your, well thought out previous post, left me with nothing better than what we already have, the illusion of democracy that has always existed.

I appreciate your attempt to reach me, but I found it was slightly condescending.

“Gentlemen, You Can’t Fight In Here! This is The War Room!”: Dr. Strangelove

reply

Again, I don't know what you're angling about because nothing personal is being said about you and it is not my intention.

I think its a waste of time expecting people not to make the world a worse place when they are rewarded greatly for it. Its like saying, "I expect everyone to do the right thing 100% of the time" or "Let's completely eradicate racism." Its a pipe dream. At best, a system can be modulated to reduce bad behavior but you'll never root it out completely.

And of course democracy is an illusion. I'm not shocked or even offended by this because to feel so denotes that I expected different. And that's what I hate about the left. The left expects the system to be fair and become emotional in their shock of a contrary truth, and lead with that emotion.

By the way, democracy only functions when most take upon the responsibility to be informed. When they're not, the illusion takes hold. Steve Jobs is not responsible for the forfeit of information by society. Society is, and they'll suffer for it as they should. As such I only expect things from myself. If you want a better world, its starts with you, not them. They don't care about you and you should have zero expectation that they will. If you or anybody have such expectations, you deserve condescension and more. There's a price to mining for fool's gold.

reply

By reading I think we agree more than you would like to admit. But something is bothering me. Yes indeed. The pipe dream would be expecting something else from the system, thats what I said in my first post, violence would be the way. You just confirmed it preaching about meritocracy.

I didn't used the word fair, my first post implied that political class impose us a living on completely outdated rituals and conformism, enforce it by law and police they do not abide to, telling us we should play this mind numbing game. All the while, this minority is living the future at the expense of everyone else.

After all, if you really think like that, why have you refrained from the idea of terrorism and violence? You seem a little contradictory, not regarding how you position yourself politically. But you are misleading.

Do you mean I should work hard enough to beat them at their own game when all they do when they lose a battle is close the game/market? Or should I work hard enough to be the guy stomping others people faces?

What I understood from you is that you support the violence while is monopolized by the state under the fallacy of law because all we people should hope is to be that guy stomping people faces.

I understand the system pretty well, it doesn't mean I have to be an actor and start my scene every single time someone comes at me and sing to me.



“Gentlemen, You Can’t Fight In Here! This is The War Room!”: Dr. Strangelove

reply

The pipe dream would be expecting something else from the system
- You

I think you're conflating expectation and acceptance. Most black Americans did not expect white America to favor voting rights for African-Americans in 1964, but they got it through a tactical movement that killed no one.

thats what I said in my first post, violence would be the way.
- You

Mass suicide would be more productive in putting your burdens to rest. There are three end results to this approach:
1. Anarchy
2. Authoritarian Regime
3. Shut down, demoralized and demonized

You also have to factor in that if a violent coup breaks out in a country, other countries try to steer the results to their favor. I also never advocated violence. I advocate self-education, political action and withholding your support for entities that don't have your best interest at heart. In the absence of that, I can only advise picking the lesser of two evils. Many people say they won't do that, which is fine... because there's always someone who will make that choice for you.

my first post implied that political class impose us a living on completely outdated rituals and conformism, enforce it by law and police they do not abide to, telling us we should play this mind numbing game. All the while, this minority is living the future at the expense of everyone else.
- You

The political class can't impose anything that the people don't accept, which Noam Chomsky argues. For instance, a NY state politician won a primary election despite having committed suicide 2 weeks before, which by law allows the Republican Party to choose his successor. So if Republican voters hate the Republican "establishment," why did they ensure those same insiders choose the person representing them? Why didn't they pass a law requiring an electoral delay to replace dead candidates on the ballot? Or not vote for the dead guy? Are they stupid or just uninformed? No matter the answer, the political class is not responsible for that. The people are.

The people don't utilize the political system that's available to them. They blame politicians, the media and corporations, but on what are those things built? The people. If you want that to stop, you don't have to play the capitalist game. Just utilize the unused democracy that the people choose to forfeit to a class of people who don't have their interests. The politicians, corporations and media are merely a reflection of the people who support them, and yes its ugly, stupid and bad... and so are the people.

But the question here is, "What do you want? How do you the system to work?"

reply

Look, I don't think that using the example of the black rights movement in US is the best one when you wan't to portrait a peaceful movement towards human rights.

There is a lot of backlash that we could endlessly argue about it, same with other movements. I will just give you a taste of how you are wrong in some of your assertions.

I clearly do not see a movement where both of its heads were shot dead and where we had a lot of riots, vandalism and over the top of inhuman police brutality, as non-violent. They just scratched the hornet's nest that is human rights if we could assume it ever existed. Negroes are still being murdered in the streets everyday. I say the police brutality escalated even higher with the Obama administration, a "black" president.

Mass suicide? So you are worried with the labels right? What about mass murder? Genocide? Are you suggesting that we should spoil the fun and kill ourselves already? Thats *beep* up bro. lol

Look, wisdom resides in knowing what to let go. I appreciate your effort and thank you for your time.

“Gentlemen, You Can’t Fight In Here! This is The War Room!”: Dr. Strangelove

reply

I don't believe you grasp half of what I say nor do you know much about the civil rights movement nor the state of black America as a whole. And if you advocate violence against others for positive change, YES, kill yourself because you're dead the moment you try it. And I will let it go because wisdom also dictates acknowledgement that the person you're talking isn't following you.

reply