Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Chris]

 

[bripat9643]

Your poster has already been debunked, asshole.

 

[Andylusion]

Sutton has take many liberties in his ATTEMPT to understand why the USSR failed or how much was relative to Wall Street.

He was correct that the USSR got their technology from the US.

I was going to say.... doesn't the fact the USSR relied on our technology, kind of support my position?

After all, technological advancement is a function of the economic system. When there is no profit motive to investing capital into risky R&D project, logically no one does it.

I mean seriously, how much of all the technology we have today, was built on the research performed by Bell Labs. And why did the company do this? Well of course to sell those advancements, or capitalize on those advancements themselves.

In the USSR, where there is no profit motive, where CEOs of state run companies have zero to gain, and tons to lose in risky investments... naturally there was no investment into new unproven technology. That's why they waited for us to create it, so they could import it. Of course this meant the USSR was consistently behind the rest of the world... which is yet another perfect example of how Socialism fails everyone, and benefits only the super rich in government.

The counter argument Chomsky and others make would point out socialism was disbanded in the USSR when Lenin dissolved the worker soviets (councils) and took their power for himself and a small cohort of elites in control of an all powerful state.

Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist.

Again, all the other leftists have made that argument before, and the problem is still the same. Name *ONE* socialist based system that didn't confiscate all power under government?

It's part of the system. It's how socialism works.

See the problem you people on the left have, is that you assume that everyone else supports your position, unless they are rich.

That's simply not true. During the 'July Days' Russia 1917, the soldiers and the workers both refused to protest in favor of the Bolsheviks, with some workers protesting AGAINST the Bolsheviks.

Victor Chernov: “Take power, you son-of-a-bitch, when it is given to you.”

Tony Cliff: Lenin 2 - All Power to the Soviets (14. The July Days)
Tony Cliffs Vladimir Lenin Chapter 14

See you assume that all the workers automatically support socialism. They don't. You assume we are all against the rich wealthy capitalists. We're not.

It reminds me of the Union story I think I mentioned in this thread somewhere (if not I can look up the references again).

I mentioned how the United Auto Workers union (UAW), arranged a meeting with the German Auto Workers Union. The UAW assumed that German Unions were just like them, trying to 'stick it to the man' and attack the company, and all the nonsense.

When the German Unions realized what the UAW wanted to do to German auto plants in the US, they completely broke off talks. The German workers are PRO-Company. Not anti-company.

Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship
By Jonathan Aves
On sale today on Amazon!
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Workers-Against-Lenin-Dictatorship-International/dp/1860640672#]Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship (International Library of Historical Studies, 6): Jonathan Aves: 9781860640674: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Shameless promotions of education to the ignorant.

Paraphrase from Page 179.
Lenin claimed the biggest threat was the Worker's Opposition Union, and the Democratic Centralist Group. The biggest critic of the Communist part was Shliapnikov (say that 5 times fast), who has support from the workers trade Union, Metal workers union, and was supporting adoption of a market system.

Market system.... where prices floated, and people made profit. Sounds like Free-market Capitalism. Well of course Lenin was against that. He had to fight those evil capitalist supporting workers.

Lenin had no choice but to oppose the people. The entire movement and the whole communist party was built on destroying the Capitalist system. The moment he allowed the workers to choose Capitalism, it would slowly undermine the foundation of his entire movement.

This is why every true Socialist system around the world, turns to dictatorship sooner or later. The people do not support socialism, and never have, and never will. You might get some incremental movement, but eventually when true socialism is adopted, people oppose it.

 

[georgephillip]

I was going to say.... doesn't the fact the USSR relied on our technology, kind of support my position?

After all, technological advancement is a function of the economic system. When there is no profit motive to investing capital into risky R&D project, logically no one does it.

I mean seriously, how much of all the technology we have today, was built on the research performed by Bell Labs. And why did the company do this? Well of course to sell those advancements, or capitalize on those advancements themselves.

In the USSR, where there is no profit motive, where CEOs of state run companies have zero to gain, and tons to lose in risky investments... naturally there was no investment into new unproven technology. That's why they waited for us to create it, so they could import it. Of course this meant the USSR was consistently behind the rest of the world... which is yet another perfect example of how Socialism fails everyone, and benefits only the super rich in government.

The counter argument Chomsky and others make would point out socialism was disbanded in the USSR when Lenin dissolved the worker soviets (councils) and took their power for himself and a small cohort of elites in control of an all powerful state.

Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist.

Again, all the other leftists have made that argument before, and the problem is still the same. Name *ONE* socialist based system that didn't confiscate all power under government?

It's part of the system. It's how socialism works.

See the problem you people on the left have, is that you assume that everyone else supports your position, unless they are rich.

That's simply not true. During the 'July Days' Russia 1917, the soldiers and the workers both refused to protest in favor of the Bolsheviks, with some workers protesting AGAINST the Bolsheviks.

Victor Chernov: “Take power, you son-of-a-bitch, when it is given to you.”

Tony Cliff: Lenin 2 - All Power to the Soviets (14. The July Days)
Tony Cliffs Vladimir Lenin Chapter 14

See you assume that all the workers automatically support socialism. They don't. You assume we are all against the rich wealthy capitalists. We're not.

It reminds me of the Union story I think I mentioned in this thread somewhere (if not I can look up the references again).

I mentioned how the United Auto Workers union (UAW), arranged a meeting with the German Auto Workers Union. The UAW assumed that German Unions were just like them, trying to 'stick it to the man' and attack the company, and all the nonsense.

When the German Unions realized what the UAW wanted to do to German auto plants in the US, they completely broke off talks. The German workers are PRO-Company. Not anti-company.

Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship
By Jonathan Aves
On sale today on Amazon!
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Workers-Against-Lenin-Dictatorship-International/dp/1860640672#]Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship (International Library of Historical Studies, 6): Jonathan Aves: 9781860640674: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Shameless promotions of education to the ignorant.

Paraphrase from Page 179.
Lenin claimed the biggest threat was the Worker's Opposition Union, and the Democratic Centralist Group. The biggest critic of the Communist part was Shliapnikov (say that 5 times fast), who has support from the workers trade Union, Metal workers union, and was supporting adoption of a market system.

Market system.... where prices floated, and people made profit. Sounds like Free-market Capitalism. Well of course Lenin was against that. He had to fight those evil capitalist supporting workers.

Lenin had no choice but to oppose the people. The entire movement and the whole communist party was built on destroying the Capitalist system. The moment he allowed the workers to choose Capitalism, it would slowly undermine the foundation of his entire movement.

This is why every true Socialist system around the world, turns to dictatorship sooner or later. The people do not support socialism, and never have, and never will. You might get some incremental movement, but eventually when true socialism is adopted, people oppose it.

"Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist."

First convince me you know as much about socialism as Chomsky

"When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles.

"One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept.

"In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction."

The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky

 

[georgephillip]

I was going to say.... doesn't the fact the USSR relied on our technology, kind of support my position?

After all, technological advancement is a function of the economic system. When there is no profit motive to investing capital into risky R&D project, logically no one does it.

I mean seriously, how much of all the technology we have today, was built on the research performed by Bell Labs. And why did the company do this? Well of course to sell those advancements, or capitalize on those advancements themselves.

In the USSR, where there is no profit motive, where CEOs of state run companies have zero to gain, and tons to lose in risky investments... naturally there was no investment into new unproven technology. That's why they waited for us to create it, so they could import it. Of course this meant the USSR was consistently behind the rest of the world... which is yet another perfect example of how Socialism fails everyone, and benefits only the super rich in government.

The counter argument Chomsky and others make would point out socialism was disbanded in the USSR when Lenin dissolved the worker soviets (councils) and took their power for himself and a small cohort of elites in control of an all powerful state.

Wow, another loser. Noam Chomsky, a linguist who made many comments he knew little about. I will agree that, as is the only road in any socialist state, became a dictatorship with little resemblance of the socialist utopia it was supposed to be. That is the only way a socialist state can survive for any length of time, by autocratic/dictatorial leadership with only the commissars having any prosperity. But then, I have said that numerous time on this thread, and only now you are recognizing it because a linguist said its so? ROTFLMAO

Convince me you know more than Chomsky:

"Avram Noam Chomsky (/ˈnoʊm ˈtʃɒmski/; born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher,[20][21] cognitive scientist, logician,[22][23][24] political commentator and activist. Sometimes described as the 'father of modern linguistics',[25][26]

"Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy.[20] He has spent most of his career at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he is currently Professor Emeritus, and has authored over 100 books.

"He has been described as a prominent cultural figure, and was voted the "world's top public intellectual" in a 2005 poll.[27]"

Start with your Wiki and don't forget to mention how many books you've published.

Chomsky spent much of his youth absorbing socialism in New York during the politics of the Depression era at his uncle's kiosk at 72nd and Broadway. All the various Marxist sectarian politics were discussed during the greatest crisis capitalism has produced so far. You're probably arrogant enough to believe anything you've said rivals Chomsky, but all you've really accomplished is to reestablish the dangers of mixing ignorance with arrogance.

Noam Chomsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Andylusion]

"Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist."

First convince me you know as much about socialism as Chomsky

Well apparently I don't have to, because you take the word of a linguist on social economic systems.

If you are that dumb.... then I don't have to convince you of anything.

Further, you just eliminated all credibility that you have. So why would I bother trying to convince someone who takes the word of a linguist on social economic systems?

That's like Forest Gump demanding I convince him on quantum physics. Why would I care if I convinced him of anything? Same goes for you.

 

[bripat9643]

The counter argument Chomsky and others make would point out socialism was disbanded in the USSR when Lenin dissolved the worker soviets (councils) and took their power for himself and a small cohort of elites in control of an all powerful state.

Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist.

Again, all the other leftists have made that argument before, and the problem is still the same. Name *ONE* socialist based system that didn't confiscate all power under government?

It's part of the system. It's how socialism works.

See the problem you people on the left have, is that you assume that everyone else supports your position, unless they are rich.

That's simply not true. During the 'July Days' Russia 1917, the soldiers and the workers both refused to protest in favor of the Bolsheviks, with some workers protesting AGAINST the Bolsheviks.

Victor Chernov: “Take power, you son-of-a-bitch, when it is given to you.”

Tony Cliff: Lenin 2 - All Power to the Soviets (14. The July Days)
Tony Cliffs Vladimir Lenin Chapter 14

See you assume that all the workers automatically support socialism. They don't. You assume we are all against the rich wealthy capitalists. We're not.

It reminds me of the Union story I think I mentioned in this thread somewhere (if not I can look up the references again).

I mentioned how the United Auto Workers union (UAW), arranged a meeting with the German Auto Workers Union. The UAW assumed that German Unions were just like them, trying to 'stick it to the man' and attack the company, and all the nonsense.

When the German Unions realized what the UAW wanted to do to German auto plants in the US, they completely broke off talks. The German workers are PRO-Company. Not anti-company.

Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship
By Jonathan Aves
On sale today on Amazon!
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Workers-Against-Lenin-Dictatorship-International/dp/1860640672#]Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship (International Library of Historical Studies, 6): Jonathan Aves: 9781860640674: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Shameless promotions of education to the ignorant.

Paraphrase from Page 179.
Lenin claimed the biggest threat was the Worker's Opposition Union, and the Democratic Centralist Group. The biggest critic of the Communist part was Shliapnikov (say that 5 times fast), who has support from the workers trade Union, Metal workers union, and was supporting adoption of a market system.

Market system.... where prices floated, and people made profit. Sounds like Free-market Capitalism. Well of course Lenin was against that. He had to fight those evil capitalist supporting workers.

Lenin had no choice but to oppose the people. The entire movement and the whole communist party was built on destroying the Capitalist system. The moment he allowed the workers to choose Capitalism, it would slowly undermine the foundation of his entire movement.

This is why every true Socialist system around the world, turns to dictatorship sooner or later. The people do not support socialism, and never have, and never will. You might get some incremental movement, but eventually when true socialism is adopted, people oppose it.

"Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist."

First convince me you know as much about socialism as Chomsky

ROFL! Chomsky defended the Khmer Rouge. That's all you need to know to understand what an incredible dumbass Chomsky is.

 

[bripat9643]

The counter argument Chomsky and others make would point out socialism was disbanded in the USSR when Lenin dissolved the worker soviets (councils) and took their power for himself and a small cohort of elites in control of an all powerful state.

Wow, another loser. Noam Chomsky, a linguist who made many comments he knew little about. I will agree that, as is the only road in any socialist state, became a dictatorship with little resemblance of the socialist utopia it was supposed to be. That is the only way a socialist state can survive for any length of time, by autocratic/dictatorial leadership with only the commissars having any prosperity. But then, I have said that numerous time on this thread, and only now you are recognizing it because a linguist said its so? ROTFLMAO

Convince me you know more than Chomsky:

"Avram Noam Chomsky (/ˈnoʊm ˈtʃɒmski/; born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher,[20][21] cognitive scientist, logician,[22][23][24] political commentator and activist. Sometimes described as the 'father of modern linguistics',[25][26]

"Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy.[20] He has spent most of his career at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he is currently Professor Emeritus, and has authored over 100 books.

"He has been described as a prominent cultural figure, and was voted the "world's top public intellectual" in a 2005 poll.[27]"

Start with your Wiki and don't forget to mention how many books you've published.

Chomsky spent much of his youth absorbing socialism in New York during the politics of the Depression era at his uncle's kiosk at 72nd and Broadway. All the various Marxist sectarian politics were discussed during the greatest crisis capitalism has produced so far. You're probably arrogant enough to believe anything you've said rivals Chomsky, but all you've really accomplished is to reestablish the dangers of mixing ignorance with arrogance.

Noam Chomsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The number of books you publish doesn't make you correct about anything. Karl Marx published one book. Is he dead wrong?

 

[Andylusion]

But it's not true.... so.... why post something over and over that isn't true?

 

[georgephillip]

"Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist."

First convince me you know as much about socialism as Chomsky

Well apparently I don't have to, because you take the word of a linguist on social economic systems.

If you are that dumb.... then I don't have to convince you of anything.

Further, you just eliminated all credibility that you have. So why would I bother trying to convince someone who takes the word of a linguist on social economic systems?

That's like Forest Gump demanding I convince him on quantum physics. Why would I care if I convinced him of anything? Same goes for you.

I'm sure Chomsky has an opinion of socialism that is far more grounded in reality than yours.

Feel free to disabuse me of that belief if you can.

Start with his contention that any relation between socialism and the system created by Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin is one of contradiction.

 

[georgephillip]

I was going to say.... doesn't the fact the USSR relied on our technology, kind of support my position?

After all, technological advancement is a function of the economic system. When there is no profit motive to investing capital into risky R&D project, logically no one does it.

I mean seriously, how much of all the technology we have today, was built on the research performed by Bell Labs. And why did the company do this? Well of course to sell those advancements, or capitalize on those advancements themselves.

In the USSR, where there is no profit motive, where CEOs of state run companies have zero to gain, and tons to lose in risky investments... naturally there was no investment into new unproven technology. That's why they waited for us to create it, so they could import it. Of course this meant the USSR was consistently behind the rest of the world... which is yet another perfect example of how Socialism fails everyone, and benefits only the super rich in government.

The counter argument Chomsky and others make would point out socialism was disbanded in the USSR when Lenin dissolved the worker soviets (councils) and took their power for himself and a small cohort of elites in control of an all powerful state.

Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist.

Again, all the other leftists have made that argument before, and the problem is still the same. Name *ONE* socialist based system that didn't confiscate all power under government?

It's part of the system. It's how socialism works.

See the problem you people on the left have, is that you assume that everyone else supports your position, unless they are rich.

That's simply not true. During the 'July Days' Russia 1917, the soldiers and the workers both refused to protest in favor of the Bolsheviks, with some workers protesting AGAINST the Bolsheviks.

Victor Chernov: “Take power, you son-of-a-bitch, when it is given to you.”

Tony Cliff: Lenin 2 - All Power to the Soviets (14. The July Days)
Tony Cliffs Vladimir Lenin Chapter 14

See you assume that all the workers automatically support socialism. They don't. You assume we are all against the rich wealthy capitalists. We're not.

It reminds me of the Union story I think I mentioned in this thread somewhere (if not I can look up the references again).

I mentioned how the United Auto Workers union (UAW), arranged a meeting with the German Auto Workers Union. The UAW assumed that German Unions were just like them, trying to 'stick it to the man' and attack the company, and all the nonsense.

When the German Unions realized what the UAW wanted to do to German auto plants in the US, they completely broke off talks. The German workers are PRO-Company. Not anti-company.

Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship
By Jonathan Aves
On sale today on Amazon!
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Workers-Against-Lenin-Dictatorship-International/dp/1860640672#]Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship (International Library of Historical Studies, 6): Jonathan Aves: 9781860640674: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Shameless promotions of education to the ignorant.

Paraphrase from Page 179.
Lenin claimed the biggest threat was the Worker's Opposition Union, and the Democratic Centralist Group. The biggest critic of the Communist part was Shliapnikov (say that 5 times fast), who has support from the workers trade Union, Metal workers union, and was supporting adoption of a market system.

Market system.... where prices floated, and people made profit. Sounds like Free-market Capitalism. Well of course Lenin was against that. He had to fight those evil capitalist supporting workers.

Lenin had no choice but to oppose the people. The entire movement and the whole communist party was built on destroying the Capitalist system. The moment he allowed the workers to choose Capitalism, it would slowly undermine the foundation of his entire movement.

This is why every true Socialist system around the world, turns to dictatorship sooner or later. The people do not support socialism, and never have, and never will. You might get some incremental movement, but eventually when true socialism is adopted, people oppose it.

"I mentioned how the United Auto Workers union (UAW), arranged a meeting with the German Auto Workers Union. The UAW assumed that German Unions were just like them, trying to 'stick it to the man' and attack the company, and all the nonsense.

"When the German Unions realized what the UAW wanted to do to German auto plants in the US, they completely broke off talks. The German workers are PRO-Company. Not anti-company."

Do you know why those Germans were PRO-company, Forrest?

Because in Germany workers have voting members sitting on the boards of directors of the companies they work for. When greedy, German capitalists wanted to move "their" factories to China, their workers voted against the move.

Think of it as an example of socialism bringing democracy to the work place.

 

[dnsmith35]

Great! One more Capitalist economy, which simply has more social programs than the US. It doesn't make it better, only different. In our little southern state The average teacher salary is $47,803. I have one daughter, single mother, who works in that field and she does very well on her salary and she relishes that she only has to work an average of 180 days a year to earn it. She makes more than then the average person in Alabama and with our cost of living is saving for a great retirement.

If you want to whine about what people earn in other countries, you need to research HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO LIVE IN THAT COUNTRY. Prices in Denmark are VERY HIGH and it is very likely my daughter has more left over at the end of the month than that Danish teacher. You don't have to go beyond our shores to see disparities in income. The average teacher in Alabama makes less than the average teacher in California or New York, yet our teachers can afford a better living here than there. One can buy a decent 3 BR 2 Bath brick home here for around $100,000. Can you do that in L.A. or NYC.

If you want to concern yourself with other economies, look at India, where at the school where I graduated from in 1952 are not allowed by the Indian government to pay more than the $400 a month, which exceeds the national average for teachers. Yet those teachers do very well with the cost of living in India.

That being the case, your arbitrary choice to tell us about Danish teachers means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

 

[dnsmith35]

The counter argument Chomsky and others make would point out socialism was disbanded in the USSR when Lenin dissolved the worker soviets (councils) and took their power for himself and a small cohort of elites in control of an all powerful state.

Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist.

Again, all the other leftists have made that argument before, and the problem is still the same. Name *ONE* socialist based system that didn't confiscate all power under government?

It's part of the system. It's how socialism works.

See the problem you people on the left have, is that you assume that everyone else supports your position, unless they are rich.

That's simply not true. During the 'July Days' Russia 1917, the soldiers and the workers both refused to protest in favor of the Bolsheviks, with some workers protesting AGAINST the Bolsheviks.

Victor Chernov: “Take power, you son-of-a-bitch, when it is given to you.”

Tony Cliff: Lenin 2 - All Power to the Soviets (14. The July Days)
Tony Cliffs Vladimir Lenin Chapter 14

See you assume that all the workers automatically support socialism. They don't. You assume we are all against the rich wealthy capitalists. We're not.

It reminds me of the Union story I think I mentioned in this thread somewhere (if not I can look up the references again).

I mentioned how the United Auto Workers union (UAW), arranged a meeting with the German Auto Workers Union. The UAW assumed that German Unions were just like them, trying to 'stick it to the man' and attack the company, and all the nonsense.

When the German Unions realized what the UAW wanted to do to German auto plants in the US, they completely broke off talks. The German workers are PRO-Company. Not anti-company.

Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship
By Jonathan Aves
On sale today on Amazon!
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Workers-Against-Lenin-Dictatorship-International/dp/1860640672#]Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship (International Library of Historical Studies, 6): Jonathan Aves: 9781860640674: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Shameless promotions of education to the ignorant.

Paraphrase from Page 179.
Lenin claimed the biggest threat was the Worker's Opposition Union, and the Democratic Centralist Group. The biggest critic of the Communist part was Shliapnikov (say that 5 times fast), who has support from the workers trade Union, Metal workers union, and was supporting adoption of a market system.

Market system.... where prices floated, and people made profit. Sounds like Free-market Capitalism. Well of course Lenin was against that. He had to fight those evil capitalist supporting workers.

Lenin had no choice but to oppose the people. The entire movement and the whole communist party was built on destroying the Capitalist system. The moment he allowed the workers to choose Capitalism, it would slowly undermine the foundation of his entire movement.

This is why every true Socialist system around the world, turns to dictatorship sooner or later. The people do not support socialism, and never have, and never will. You might get some incremental movement, but eventually when true socialism is adopted, people oppose it.

"Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist."

First convince me you know as much about socialism as Chomsky

"When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles.

"One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept.

"In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction."

The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky

When you quote Noam Chomsky, the linguist who believes he knows everything about everything, you need to recognize that he as a linguist really knows little about anything besides linguistics.

I over looked one reference to Sutton, who once worked at the same place as Sowell. It is a shame what Sowell understood did not rub off on Sutton. If it had, Sutton would not be making such sweeping comments of which he in completely incomparable to Sowell.

 

[dnsmith35]

The counter argument Chomsky and others make would point out socialism was disbanded in the USSR when Lenin dissolved the worker soviets (councils) and took their power for himself and a small cohort of elites in control of an all powerful state.

Wow, another loser. Noam Chomsky, a linguist who made many comments he knew little about. I will agree that, as is the only road in any socialist state, became a dictatorship with little resemblance of the socialist utopia it was supposed to be. That is the only way a socialist state can survive for any length of time, by autocratic/dictatorial leadership with only the commissars having any prosperity. But then, I have said that numerous time on this thread, and only now you are recognizing it because a linguist said its so? ROTFLMAO

Convince me you know more than Chomsky:

"Avram Noam Chomsky (/ˈnoʊm ˈtʃɒmski/; born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher,[20][21] cognitive scientist, logician,[22][23][24] political commentator and activist. Sometimes described as the 'father of modern linguistics',[25][26]

"Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy.[20] He has spent most of his career at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he is currently Professor Emeritus, and has authored over 100 books.

"He has been described as a prominent cultural figure, and was voted the "world's top public intellectual" in a 2005 poll.[27]"

Start with your Wiki and don't forget to mention how many books you've published.

Chomsky spent much of his youth absorbing socialism in New York during the politics of the Depression era at his uncle's kiosk at 72nd and Broadway. All the various Marxist sectarian politics were discussed during the greatest crisis capitalism has produced so far. You're probably arrogant enough to believe anything you've said rivals Chomsky, but all you've really accomplished is to reestablish the dangers of mixing ignorance with arrogance.

Noam Chomsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. Publishing a book does not prove your competence in a subject other than your specialty.
2. I would accept much of what Chomsky says about Linguistics.
3. I don't need to prove crap about what I know beyond what socialists believe is good for the state.
4. There has never been a successful socialist economy, and there never will be.
5. Marxism is the epitome of dictatorial statism.
6. Marxism/Socialism/Communism needs an autocratic/dictatorial government to function even for a few years and only the leaders/commissars ever acquire any level of prosperity.

 

[dnsmith35]

"Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist."

First convince me you know as much about socialism as Chomsky

Well apparently I don't have to, because you take the word of a linguist on social economic systems.

If you are that dumb.... then I don't have to convince you of anything.

Further, you just eliminated all credibility that you have. So why would I bother trying to convince someone who takes the word of a linguist on social economic systems?

That's like Forest Gump demanding I convince him on quantum physics. Why would I care if I convinced him of anything? Same goes for you.

I'm sure Chomsky has an opinion of socialism that is far more grounded in reality than yours.

Feel free to disabuse me of that belief if you can.

Start with his contention that any relation between socialism and the system created by Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin is one of contradiction.

Actually, he doesn't. Chomsky is enamored with socialism without reason. Like you, he has wasted his credibility by discussing subjects relative to economics without understanding economics. One will find it difficult or impossible to prove a negative; and since Chomsky is not economics knowledgeable you will just have to accept the many stupid things he says about many things, including socialism, without further ado.

Knowing what socialism is does not in any make one an expert on socialism in practice. When I see the "Chomsky" reference outside of linguistics, I know the referee is not familiar of the subject or Chomsky. I also know that even when confronting you with data from a study, you still don't accept the data unless it is one of your skewed left wing extremist sites.

 

[dnsmith35]

The counter argument Chomsky and others make would point out socialism was disbanded in the USSR when Lenin dissolved the worker soviets (councils) and took their power for himself and a small cohort of elites in control of an all powerful state.

Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist.

Again, all the other leftists have made that argument before, and the problem is still the same. Name *ONE* socialist based system that didn't confiscate all power under government?

It's part of the system. It's how socialism works.

See the problem you people on the left have, is that you assume that everyone else supports your position, unless they are rich.

That's simply not true. During the 'July Days' Russia 1917, the soldiers and the workers both refused to protest in favor of the Bolsheviks, with some workers protesting AGAINST the Bolsheviks.

Victor Chernov: “Take power, you son-of-a-bitch, when it is given to you.”

Tony Cliff: Lenin 2 - All Power to the Soviets (14. The July Days)
Tony Cliffs Vladimir Lenin Chapter 14

See you assume that all the workers automatically support socialism. They don't. You assume we are all against the rich wealthy capitalists. We're not.

It reminds me of the Union story I think I mentioned in this thread somewhere (if not I can look up the references again).

I mentioned how the United Auto Workers union (UAW), arranged a meeting with the German Auto Workers Union. The UAW assumed that German Unions were just like them, trying to 'stick it to the man' and attack the company, and all the nonsense.

When the German Unions realized what the UAW wanted to do to German auto plants in the US, they completely broke off talks. The German workers are PRO-Company. Not anti-company.

Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship
By Jonathan Aves
On sale today on Amazon!
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Workers-Against-Lenin-Dictatorship-International/dp/1860640672#]Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship (International Library of Historical Studies, 6): Jonathan Aves: 9781860640674: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Shameless promotions of education to the ignorant.

Paraphrase from Page 179.
Lenin claimed the biggest threat was the Worker's Opposition Union, and the Democratic Centralist Group. The biggest critic of the Communist part was Shliapnikov (say that 5 times fast), who has support from the workers trade Union, Metal workers union, and was supporting adoption of a market system.

Market system.... where prices floated, and people made profit. Sounds like Free-market Capitalism. Well of course Lenin was against that. He had to fight those evil capitalist supporting workers.

Lenin had no choice but to oppose the people. The entire movement and the whole communist party was built on destroying the Capitalist system. The moment he allowed the workers to choose Capitalism, it would slowly undermine the foundation of his entire movement.

This is why every true Socialist system around the world, turns to dictatorship sooner or later. The people do not support socialism, and never have, and never will. You might get some incremental movement, but eventually when true socialism is adopted, people oppose it.

"I mentioned how the United Auto Workers union (UAW), arranged a meeting with the German Auto Workers Union. The UAW assumed that German Unions were just like them, trying to 'stick it to the man' and attack the company, and all the nonsense.

"When the German Unions realized what the UAW wanted to do to German auto plants in the US, they completely broke off talks. The German workers are PRO-Company. Not anti-company."

Do you know why those Germans were PRO-company, Forrest?

Because in Germany workers have voting members sitting on the boards of directors of the companies they work for. When greedy, German capitalists wanted to move "their" factories to China, their workers voted against the move.

Think of it as an example of socialism bringing democracy to the work place.

ROTFLMAO! And of course you have lots of experience with German Unions, right? ROTFLMAO!. I spent 13 years in Germany, and in 8 of those years worked with German Union workers. In 3 of those 8 years, as the Materiel Officer for an industrial operation I was constantly in discussion with the unions. German unions cannot stop German companies from out sourcing, especially for components which are imported into Germany for installation in the end product.

When the German company Mercedes opened its doors in ALABAMA, the company let the UAW reps come in and discuss the union with all the labor, which unequivocally told the union NO. Just one example of Mercedes outsourcing for costs.

 

[georgephillip]

Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist.

Again, all the other leftists have made that argument before, and the problem is still the same. Name *ONE* socialist based system that didn't confiscate all power under government?

It's part of the system. It's how socialism works.

See the problem you people on the left have, is that you assume that everyone else supports your position, unless they are rich.

That's simply not true. During the 'July Days' Russia 1917, the soldiers and the workers both refused to protest in favor of the Bolsheviks, with some workers protesting AGAINST the Bolsheviks.

Victor Chernov: “Take power, you son-of-a-bitch, when it is given to you.”

Tony Cliff: Lenin 2 - All Power to the Soviets (14. The July Days)
Tony Cliffs Vladimir Lenin Chapter 14

See you assume that all the workers automatically support socialism. They don't. You assume we are all against the rich wealthy capitalists. We're not.

It reminds me of the Union story I think I mentioned in this thread somewhere (if not I can look up the references again).

I mentioned how the United Auto Workers union (UAW), arranged a meeting with the German Auto Workers Union. The UAW assumed that German Unions were just like them, trying to 'stick it to the man' and attack the company, and all the nonsense.

When the German Unions realized what the UAW wanted to do to German auto plants in the US, they completely broke off talks. The German workers are PRO-Company. Not anti-company.

Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship
By Jonathan Aves
On sale today on Amazon!
Workers Against Lenin: Labour Protest and the Bolshevik Dictatorship (International Library of Historical Studies, 6): Jonathan Aves: 9781860640674: Amazon.com: Books

Shameless promotions of education to the ignorant.

Paraphrase from Page 179.
Lenin claimed the biggest threat was the Worker's Opposition Union, and the Democratic Centralist Group. The biggest critic of the Communist part was Shliapnikov (say that 5 times fast), who has support from the workers trade Union, Metal workers union, and was supporting adoption of a market system.

Market system.... where prices floated, and people made profit. Sounds like Free-market Capitalism. Well of course Lenin was against that. He had to fight those evil capitalist supporting workers.

Lenin had no choice but to oppose the people. The entire movement and the whole communist party was built on destroying the Capitalist system. The moment he allowed the workers to choose Capitalism, it would slowly undermine the foundation of his entire movement.

This is why every true Socialist system around the world, turns to dictatorship sooner or later. The people do not support socialism, and never have, and never will. You might get some incremental movement, but eventually when true socialism is adopted, people oppose it.

"Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist."

First convince me you know as much about socialism as Chomsky

"When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles.

"One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept.

"In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction."

The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky

When you quote Noam Chomsky, the linguist who believes he knows everything about everything, you need to recognize that he as a linguist really knows little about anything besides linguistics.

I over looked one reference to Sutton, who once worked at the same place as Sowell. It is a shame what Sowell understood did not rub off on Sutton. If it had, Sutton would not be making such sweeping comments of which he in completely incomparable to Sowell.

It's a shame you can't remember the subject of this conversation involves what Chomsky knows about socialism, remember? He knows more about that subject, and many others, than you, Sowell, and Sutton COMBINED.

You are really a legend in your own mind, aren't you?

 

[dnsmith35]

"Here we go, using the 'authority' of a linguist."

First convince me you know as much about socialism as Chomsky

"When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles.

"One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept.

"In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction."

The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky

When you quote Noam Chomsky, the linguist who believes he knows everything about everything, you need to recognize that he as a linguist really knows little about anything besides linguistics.

I over looked one reference to Sutton, who once worked at the same place as Sowell. It is a shame what Sowell understood did not rub off on Sutton. If it had, Sutton would not be making such sweeping comments of which he in completely incomparable to Sowell.

It's a shame you can't remember the subject of this conversation involves what Chomsky knows about socialism, remember? He knows more about that subject, and many others, than you, Sowell, and Sutton COMBINED.

You are really a legend in your own mind, aren't you?

Not at all.. But you prove conclusively you are not a legend in anyone's mind by quoting people who lean socialist to justify your personal attraction to socialism. My only call to fame is, I don't address areas about which I am not personally aware. Economics and economic systems are my forte. It appears you don't have any forte at all but making stupid statements and calling on people to support you who are no more an expert in the field than you are. You are totally economics challenged. Chomsky LIKES socialism, he doesn't understand the ramifications of the system.

In fact the conversation was about Chomsky NOT KNOWING MUCH ABOUT SOCIALISM. What is it that Chomsky used as his primary assertion that the USSR did not have socialism?

But why not answer a couple of questions:

Who owned the principle production and distribution systems in the USSR?

What is it that Chomsky used as his primary assertion that the USSR did not have socialism?

Who received most of what prosperity there was in the USSR?

 

[georgephillip]

When you quote Noam Chomsky, the linguist who believes he knows everything about everything, you need to recognize that he as a linguist really knows little about anything besides linguistics.

I over looked one reference to Sutton, who once worked at the same place as Sowell. It is a shame what Sowell understood did not rub off on Sutton. If it had, Sutton would not be making such sweeping comments of which he in completely incomparable to Sowell.

It's a shame you can't remember the subject of this conversation involves what Chomsky knows about socialism, remember? He knows more about that subject, and many others, than you, Sowell, and Sutton COMBINED.

You are really a legend in your own mind, aren't you?

Not at all.. But you prove conclusively you are not a legend in anyone's mind by quoting people who lean socialist to justify your personal attraction to socialism. My only call to fame is, I don't address areas about which I am not personally aware. Economics and economic systems are my forte. It appears you don't have any forte at all but making stupid statements and calling on people to support you who are no more an expert in the field than you are. You are totally economics challenged. Chomsky LIKES socialism, he doesn't understand the ramifications of the system.

In fact the conversation was about Chomsky NOT KNOWING MUCH ABOUT SOCIALISM. What is it that Chomsky used as his primary assertion that the USSR did not have socialism?

But why not answer a couple of questions:

Who owned the principle production and distribution systems in the USSR?

What is it that Chomsky used as his primary assertion that the USSR did not have socialism?

Who received most of what prosperity there was in the USSR?

"Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation.

"As the Marxist theoretician Anton Pannekoek observed, 'this goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie,' but can only be 'realized by the workers themselves being master over production.'

"Mastery over production by the producers is the essence of socialism, and means to achieve this end have regularly been devised in periods of revolutionary struggle, against the bitter opposition of the traditional ruling classes and the 'revolutionary intellectuals' guided by the common principles of Leninism and Western managerialism, as adapted to changing circumstances.

"But the essential element of the socialist ideal remains: to convert the means of production into the property of freely associated producers and thus the social property of people who have liberated themselves from exploitation by their master, as a fundamental step towards a broader realm of human freedom.

"The Leninist intelligentsia have a different agenda.

"They fit Marx's description of the 'conspirators' who 'pre-empt the developing revolutionary process' and distort it to their ends of domination; 'Hence their deepest disdain for the more theoretical enlightenment of the workers about their class interests,' which include the overthrow of the Red Bureaucracy and the creation of mechanisms of democratic control over production and social life.

"For the Leninist, the masses must be strictly disciplined, while the socialist will struggle to achieve a social order in which discipline 'will become superfluous' as the freely associated producers 'work for their own accord' (Marx).

"Libertarian socialism, furthermore, does not limit its aims to democratic control by producers over production, but seeks to abolish all forms of domination and hierarchy in every aspect of social and personal life, an unending struggle, since progress in achieving a more just society will lead to new insight and understanding of forms of oppression that may be concealed in traditional practice and consciousness.

"The Leninist antagonism to the most essential features of socialism was evident from the very start.

"In revolutionary Russia, Soviets and factory committees developed as instruments of struggle and liberation, with many flaws, but with a rich potential.

"Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power, immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of these instruments, establishing the rule of the Party, in practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders -- exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood.

"Not only the masses, but even the Party must be subject to 'vigilant control from above,' so Trotsky held as he made the transition from revolutionary intellectual to State priest."

The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky

 

[bripat9643]

It's a shame you can't remember the subject of this conversation involves what Chomsky knows about socialism, remember? He knows more about that subject, and many others, than you, Sowell, and Sutton COMBINED.

You are really a legend in your own mind, aren't you?

Not at all.. But you prove conclusively you are not a legend in anyone's mind by quoting people who lean socialist to justify your personal attraction to socialism. My only call to fame is, I don't address areas about which I am not personally aware. Economics and economic systems are my forte. It appears you don't have any forte at all but making stupid statements and calling on people to support you who are no more an expert in the field than you are. You are totally economics challenged. Chomsky LIKES socialism, he doesn't understand the ramifications of the system.

In fact the conversation was about Chomsky NOT KNOWING MUCH ABOUT SOCIALISM. What is it that Chomsky used as his primary assertion that the USSR did not have socialism?

But why not answer a couple of questions:

Who owned the principle production and distribution systems in the USSR?

What is it that Chomsky used as his primary assertion that the USSR did not have socialism?

Who received most of what prosperity there was in the USSR?

"Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation.

"As the Marxist theoretician Anton Pannekoek observed, 'this goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie,' but can only be 'realized by the workers themselves being master over production.'

"Mastery over production by the producers is the essence of socialism, and means to achieve this end have regularly been devised in periods of revolutionary struggle, against the bitter opposition of the traditional ruling classes and the 'revolutionary intellectuals' guided by the common principles of Leninism and Western managerialism, as adapted to changing circumstances.

"But the essential element of the socialist ideal remains: to convert the means of production into the property of freely associated producers and thus the social property of people who have liberated themselves from exploitation by their master, as a fundamental step towards a broader realm of human freedom.

"The Leninist intelligentsia have a different agenda.

"They fit Marx's description of the 'conspirators' who 'pre-empt the developing revolutionary process' and distort it to their ends of domination; 'Hence their deepest disdain for the more theoretical enlightenment of the workers about their class interests,' which include the overthrow of the Red Bureaucracy and the creation of mechanisms of democratic control over production and social life.

"For the Leninist, the masses must be strictly disciplined, while the socialist will struggle to achieve a social order in which discipline 'will become superfluous' as the freely associated producers 'work for their own accord' (Marx).

"Libertarian socialism, furthermore, does not limit its aims to democratic control by producers over production, but seeks to abolish all forms of domination and hierarchy in every aspect of social and personal life, an unending struggle, since progress in achieving a more just society will lead to new insight and understanding of forms of oppression that may be concealed in traditional practice and consciousness.

"The Leninist antagonism to the most essential features of socialism was evident from the very start.

"In revolutionary Russia, Soviets and factory committees developed as instruments of struggle and liberation, with many flaws, but with a rich potential.

"Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power, immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of these instruments, establishing the rule of the Party, in practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders -- exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood.

"Not only the masses, but even the Party must be subject to 'vigilant control from above,' so Trotsky held as he made the transition from revolutionary intellectual to State priest."

The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky

That's propaganda. Chomsky is just making excuses for the failure of socialism by claiming it wasn't real socialism. There isn't a single fact in that diatribe. so what is it that Chomsky "knows" about socialism that's actually true?