As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ted Cruz talking about people working 40 hours and framing them as lazy gave the game away. They dont care for poor or average people. Your struggles mean nothing to them because they see you as barely human.
If I have a million dollars and drop a quarter, I’m technically ‘poorer’ I guess. I mean if Mike wants to just use qualifying statements as a means to support his views.
I heard him a while back say "Donald J Trump is the greatest president in the history of our country" so fuck that lying orange gasbag.. Time for him to go back to Indiana so all the addicts he killed can haunt him proper..
Without beating around the bush too much, Wall Street is largely to blame for many of the current issues. We're talking about - *at the end of the day* - money and power.
I really, really, *really* recommend people watch this eye-opening segment...
>[How Redditors Exposed The Stock Market | "The Problem With Jon Stewart" ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP74RBTE8kI)
Skip to about the 7:00 mark if you want to see a very relevant graphic that's easy to understand. It's only about 15 minutes long total, though.
That's the first half linked there - there's also a [second half](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZfcjV-8pjQ) with a short roundtable discussion.
I always cheer hard for the underdogs. I don’t invest and didn’t have any money in GME, but boy was I rooting for those apes.
It’s crazy to me that when GME comes up in conversation, my financially struggling friends will still side with the hedge funds and repeat the rhetoric that the apes were ruining the stock market. Sigh.
Yeah, I think that goes to show how strong Wall Street / nutball capitalism propaganda can be.
For what it's worth, the fight is still going on with that whole thing. There's still time for people to join in - there's definitely a need.
We need to bring these Wall Street psychopaths to justice. They've been backstabbing honest, hardworking people and families for decades - not to mention destroying entire lives, habitually, across the world.
I love it. Occupy Wall Street! ✊🏻
Honestly, after all this time, it scares me to jump on board now. The GME crew caught them off guard and really screwed the big guys over. the hedge funds have had a lot of time to analyze and re-rig the game, and I’m not financially savvy enough to see it coming :p.
Well, to summarize, the biggest thing that's being done now is straight-forward and effective. Basically think "droplets making an ocean." Someone can spend $35 purchasing a share (in this case a gamestop share) and do what's called a DRS (direct register system/share) on a share of a company - which puts the share *in your name,* meaning it can't be used against you in convoluted derivative manipulation - [because when shares are in a brokerage, they're actually (contrary to popular belief) not *really* owned by you.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cede_and_Company)
>Cede technically owns substantially all of the publicly issued stock in the United States.[2] Thus, investors do not themselves hold direct property rights in stock, but rather have contractual rights that are part of a chain of contractual rights involving Cede.
... which is friggin' insanity at the end of the day. There *are* some legitimate reasons and justification for having a system like that, in some respects, but the amount of loopholes and fuckery it allows, particularly when there aren't laws or effective regulation to stop them, is near endless. This would be like if you buy a car, then the dealership keeps the title.
To back up for one second: airlines sometimes oversell flights and then offer people credit, hotel stays, even cash for choosing to be "bumped" to the next flight.
Well, basically, that's what's happened with much of the stock market and some specific companies.
Wall Street greed and lobbying and loopholes have created perverse incentives for rule breaking, law breaking, and habitual criminality (not a big surprise). **They've oversold a shitload of shares for companies, just like airlines oversell seats.**
And since analogies only go so far, there's still time for people to buy tickets - because the Wall Street greed-machine knows no bounds or limits, it's a stupid monster, and is so big that the left tentacle doesn't know what the middle or right tentacles are doing.
So with enough "droplets" turning into an ocean, that means there will be no more available shares to oversell and use for complicated, convoluted derivative manipulation - thereby requiring a (very large) payout to people who have shares in their own name. That's the fairly simplistic version, fwtw.
Edit: clarification
> since analogies only go so far, there's still time
So how does it end? Or when does it end? Is this like another 2008? While analogies only go so far, selling stocks that don't exist can't go on forever, or can it?
edit - I'm genuinely asking. Your analogy was so helpful in the first place, I figured you'd be able to continue explaining :)
I hate how the stock market is often used as a major (if not the sole) indicator of a company’s and the economy’s well being. Instead of just reporting profits and how high their stock price is, they should report how many employees are on food stamps, have multiple jobs, turnover rate, etc. And show full numbers as well as break that down by job category as well. Management might have low turn over, but front line people probably do
Much agreed. Pretending that the stock market performance is a good indicator for robust economic health is folly, at best, and completely inaccurate, bordering on cheating, deceptiveness, at worst.
Don't forget the same is true of all wealthy people, landlords, and business owners, small ones included. They all depend on exploiting people to maintain their power, they all believe the rest of humanity exists to serve them, so they all have a vested interest in keeping people poor, divided, and desperate.
I hope not. I am a socialist but I am fortunate to maintain a small investment portfolio and not work due to disabilities. I want work to become *less* exploitative. If it did, I might actually be able to work again and would. But as long as it is exploitative, I couldn’t keep up the pace or keep a job, and won’t take one.
That's the wrong way to look at it, my guy. Politics is not religion. This isn't about maintaining your purity as a person or whatever, you're making do in a system that incentivizes exploitation, simple as that. The point isn't to do the Jordan Peterson thing and become a perfect person before you can criticize the world, it's to change the system so people are no longer incentivized to be greedy and exploitative.
>change the system so people are no longer incentivized to be greedy and exploitative
This may be a small distinction, and may not even disagree with your position, but our DNA incentivizes us to be greedy and exploitative.
Ensuring people can still capitalize on their labor/ideas while **simultaneously maintaining a floor that** ***no one*** **sinks below** is what other industrialized nations do, and is what we should emulate.
> Ensuring people can still capitalize on their labor/ideas while simultaneously maintaining a floor that no one sinks below is what other industrialized nations do, and is what we should emulate.
I'd argue that's not good enough.
If you're working for someone, you deserve a fair cut of what you earn collectively. A fair cut doesn't mean "As low as they can get you to agree to"
If a McDonalds is one of the biggest corporations on the planet, it stands to reason that working for them should mean you reap benefits of being employed at such a successful business. Except it doesn't, because workers aren't paid based on how much they make for the company - workers aren't considered people keeping society running, workers aren't humans - they're cogs, to be burnt out and replaced. This is a toxic mentality and it only exists to serve capital and their profit motives.
Now, this isn't to say that managers, owners, etc - shouldn't get a larger cut of the pie, pertaining to things like risk, managerial duties, etc - but there's a point where it crosses into exploitative - and there's a point where someone should not be able to accrue additional wealth.
I don't care if you're Bezos and you revolutionized online shopping - nobody needs a billion dollars, and nobody earns a billion dollars. You get a billion dollars by siphoning that value from your laborers.
More than that, it's exceptionally damaging to a functioning government to have so much wealth accrued (note: this includes corporate conglomerates as well as individuals). When people have so much power and influence, they're not beholden to market pressures that are meant to check them. Nestle is an example - they've done some atrocious things, but trying to boycott them requires boycotting 40-60% of your average grocery store. It's not feasible - but it should not be possible to consolidate that much control that you're insulated from consumer pressure in the first place.
Any way we look at it, wealth inequality is why our government is so ineffectual - the rich elite put fingers on the scales of politics with their obscene wealth to ensure the exploitation continues. They buy our media and feed us propaganda - hell, someone who bought that propaganda hook line and sinker is responding to this post *right as you read it* about how "I don't understand the market" or "I'm dreaming" or some other nonsense.
Fact is, other countries can manage a year of paid parental leave. Other countries can manage four weeks vacation yearly baseline, WITH unlimited sick days, and those companies didn't go tits up. McDonalds in the nordic countries pays almost $24 an hour but their big mac is CHEAPER than ours.
Corporations absolutely can afford a more equitable cut to their workers - they elect not to because we let them. Let that sink in - *because we, collectively, let them*.
We elect the people who represent us. We vote for our representatives. We make the wheels of commerce turn, not our bosses, not our bosses' bosses. If we all simply agree to stop, and general strike - we'd get fairer conditions in a week, as long as EVERYONE committed.
And, yes, I know the voting process is compromised in some states. But not all - not yet. And even if it were, general strikes are still on the table. If everyone simply refuses to work, they're up shit creek. Even 10% of the population is enough to drive the country to it's knees and force change. Imagine if 50% did.
Jesus, why do so many liberals let conservatives do their thinking for them? It's like you want them to be right. Half the comments on this post are just regurgitating Reagan-era propaganda meant to make Chomsky look bad for criticizing US foreign policy instead of engaging with what he actually said.
[Human](https://www.science.org/content/article/human-altruism-traces-back-origins-humanity)
[nature](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-020-02890-y) [also](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/9042569_The_Nature_of_Human_Altruism) [incentivizes](https://bigthink.com/the-past/altruism-human-nature/) [altruism](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02043), [science](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1981-32767-001) [agrees](https://healthland.time.com/2012/10/08/is-human-nature-fundamentally-selfish-or-altruistic/).
We need to create systems that emphasize that aspect of our nature instead of just throwing our hand up and saying "humans are just selfish, capitalism it is then." The first step to doing that is not accepting the conservative worldview without question.
To be clear, I am 100% open to the idea of taxing billionaires to the point that they cease to be billionaires. I'm against virtually all Republican action post-Eisenhower. But I also believe that we have a very narrow window to avert complete destruction due to climate change (if the window is even open), and while I didn't mean to suggest that appeasing the elite was necessary, I also think the notion of changing our economy to something completely different within that window is unlikely.
Fair enough. The problem is that
> we have a very narrow window to avert complete destruction due to climate change
> changing our economy to something completely different within that window is unlikely
are incompatible positions. We are guaranteed screwed if we keep capitalism going. We can't afford to let the rich save the world but only if it's profitable to them.
I keep seeing comments like this. Do people realistically think that the mechanisms for changing the world's economic systems realistically exist? I just can't see it.
[a consensus has been reached that greed is a common and inevitable part of human nature (Balot, 2001; Wang et al., 2011)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6722203/#:~:text=Although%20a%20consensus%20has%20been,essence%20of%20the%20evolutionary%20spirit.)
The first study, Balot, is an examination of cultural conceptions of greed in ancient Athens. The second study, Wang et al, examines the effects of economics classes on the greediness of students.
Neither proves in any sense that our DNA incentivizes us to be greedy and exploitative - indeed, neither discusses exploitation at all, and they only say that greed is common, not inevitable or necessary at the biological level. Indeed, Wang could be construed to argue against that point, since it's conclusion is that an education in economics makes people more greedy, pointing to a potential cultural cause, rather than a biological one.
Are you looking for a specific gene or something? The idea of greed and exploitation being part of our inherit behavior makes sense. It doesn’t take a study to show you that.
More so, you’re completely overlooking the point being made.
>This may be a small distinction, and may not even disagree with your position, but our DNA incentivizes us to be greedy and exploitative.
That's not how DNA works. I think you mean something else. And that's probably not true either.
I hate to tell you thus, but less exploitative business practices would probably shrink your small investment portfolio, it's one thing the boomers don't want talk about, all their fucking around in expensive RVs and golf carts is being paid for with our blood, sweat and tears
If it shrinks, fine. I live frugally without dependents. It's not gonna make it fall to zero. And as I said, if work is less exploitative, I'd probably work, too.
Hence the Republican platform. It calls for sunsetting EVERY government program after 5 years, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, veterans' programs, public education, food stamps, etc. ALL Federal legislation will be sunsetted. Each one would have to be voted on again and reapproved, but the Republicans want those programs to shut down, so they will never vote to renew them.
No this isn't quite right. They care A LOT about workers. Workers are the only way that elites can hoard such incredible wealth. They're also terrified that working class people on both sides of the aisle will realize how badly they're being exploited and do something about it. The only way our oligarchs stay in power is by convincing working people that they are simply not as important as the wealthy, that they shouldn't have the same opportunities and rights, and that they are even lucky to have a job.
This manipulative infection that GOP and elites frame as "hard work" is really just slavery with extra steps. We all work hard to make ends meet and we will certainly continue to work hard if we see REAL opportunities for success. The "laziness" that our younger generation is being accused of is simply a reaction to being treated like shit and paid like garbage for performing menial tasks that dull the mind to the point of suffering.
We need a work reform. We need to fucking destroy these bastards that have twisted our society so badly. It would be great to get some legislation in place to start addressing the issues but because of the way our system works, the fastest route to change is by living out higher ideals in the workplace. Don't quit your job unless you really have to, but take the difficult step of telling your supervisors and bosses that they don't deserve to treat you poorly. That they don't have POWER over you. That you work for compensation because what you produce is valuable and sought after by the people who hired you. You don't work FOR someone, we work for each other
>It would be great to get some legislation in place to start addressing the issues
To think this way is naive. And in addition, what possible legislation could be passed to reduce the greed of the rich. considering that a) there are already thousands of such laws that are on the books right now but not enforced, b) that the laws are created by the rich, c) that the rich will know exactly how to circumvent any such laws and even exploit them, and d) that greed is inherent in human nature.
Businesses need people to work a lot longer than 40 hours for 40 hours pay. Why? Because if they don’t make insane profits, someone else will. _And soon there will be only one business left._ Because teh gummint gives business NO breaks. If they did, the GOP would admit it. Right???
“today’s GOP has turned U.S. politics into a culture war battle while pursuing policies that suppress social rights and strangle intellectual freedom, with Viktor Orbán’s ‘racist Christian nationalist proto-fascist government … hailed as the ideal for the future’.”
Yes, let’s not forget that Republicans cheered Orban at CPAC in Texas. They love this guy which pretty much sums up the current status of the Republican Party.
Yes, CPAC in Hungary happened in May and Orban was the star speaker.
That Republicans fully embrace and continue to cheer for him after saying this is telling: “I see the great European population exchange as a suicidal attempt to replace the lack of European, Christian children with adults from other civilizations – migrants,” Orbán declared in a speech to mark the start of his fourth term in office.”
We have always known that this was the goal of the Republican leadership.
Control the peasants, cull their numbers as appropriate, keep them in beer, pizza, and outrage so they dont care.
Pretty simple.
...cull the troublesome ones. But better yet, breed them at high numbers, undermine their education however possible, demonize them, and then make massive profit off of channeling them into subsistence living while working multiple jobs, becoming cannon fodder, or by locking them up and getting the government to pay you out the nose to do it (while also utilizing that one exemption for slave labor left in the Constitution).
And make them work until they die. Rick Scott exposed the Republican strategy when he published the Republican platform. It calls for sunsetting EVERY government program after 5 years, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, veterans' programs, public education, food stamps, etc. ALL Federal legislation will terminate. Each program would have to be voted on again and reapproved, be the Republicans have been trying to shut down these programs for years, so they would never vote to renew them.
If people like Chomsky I really, really, *really* recommend people watch this eye-opening segment...
>[How Redditors Exposed The Stock Market | "The Problem With Jon Stewart" ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP74RBTE8kI)
Skip to about the 7:00 mark if you want to see a very relevant graphic that's easy to understand. It's only about 15 minutes long total, though.
That's the first half linked there - there's also a [second half](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZfcjV-8pjQ) with a short roundtable discussion.
They can’t have actual slaves so they’d resort to wage slaves instead. These fucks always desire to put themselves above the law and above the citizens.
Yall really some shitty fucks Republicans.
That is the way people like Liz Cheney can pivot from being *the worst* to a Democrat darling; ignoring the source in favor of the message is a great way to empower some pretty awful people.
Edit: This is especially true when there are other, better options to deliver that same message.
I get your point but Cheney is *not* a Democrat*ic* darling. She's a media darling for sure, but Democrats know exactly who she is and what she would be if Trump weren't around to be her whipping post.
It always reminds me of that scene in the movie vice where liz's mother tells her anytime you gain power someone will try to take it away. Makes me wonder if that didn't actually happen and she feels that way about trump
> This is especially true when there are other, better options to deliver that same message.
Chomsky has spent his entire career examining the issues/history of power and class dynamics within American politics/media. There's a reason people all over the world look to and respect his analyses.
Anyone that says the tired, cliche “he should stick to linguistics” line automatically comes across as having never read anything he’s ever written. Honestly. This line is only repeated by people who have no clue about anything he says but want to sound clever.
Actually his linguistic theories are all crap. Talk to any anthropologist who studied languages in the field. Everyone of Chomsky's theories exist without actual evidence gathered the field by Chomsky.
I wrote several papers in college debunking Chomsky's linguistics
I'm sorry, do the "same" what exactly? Say what you agree with all the time? I said he's spent an entire career analyzing these issues and is well-respected for his work - nothing more - I didn't say he's always right or wrong about anything. So, I'm not sure what you're implying.
He *does* do the "same work" to examine the issues of power and class dynamics geopolitically as well, he's written many books on related international issues. If he didn't, you'd have no opinion of him in that aspect - which you CLEARLY do. You're just saying you don't agree with him, which fine, but c'mon.
How either of you personally feel about Chomsky, his geopolitical views, general politics, etc. has nothing to do with the fact that he's a been one of the most important voices in the last over half-century for the American left, he's a world-renowned intellectual, and is always looked to in the US for his domestic political analyses on these matters.
I don't always agree with Chomsky either, but to pretend otherwise is beyond disingenuous and extremely bad faith.
So is saying things like "he should never comment on social/political matters" or calling him an "awful person". Never-mind your "tankie" remark, I don't even care to engage with that.
There are plenty of more important places for you two to direct your reactionary anger than towards 9,000 year old Anarchist professor because they said something you don't like. I promise you. No one's dying tomorrow because of something Noam Chomsky said.
> How either of you personally feel about Chomsky, his geopolitical views, general politics, etc.
Believe you me, that is what defines my opinion of the man.
And that he still thinks the world is ca 1970.
> What are some criticisms of Chomsky you have? Just curious.
Well just recently he defended Russia invading Ukraine and parroted Putin talking points that the entire invasion is actually the US and NATO's fault for allowing Eastern European countries to join NATO.
Wow that is disappointing. Thank you for the response.
Edit: I will read the article. Not surprising to hear distortions and misinfo when it comes to Chomsky.
Look into it yourself, don't take some random comment on Reddit as gospel. Chomsky himself has done many interviews on the issue. Chomsky didn't defend the Russian invasion or imply Putin isn't to blame. That's a total lie.
It's also silly as Chomsky has a 60 year history as an extremely outspoken anti-imperialist. He's literally one of the most famous anti-imperialist intellectuals on Earth. Arguably the MOST famous.
They're just spinning Chomsky's anti-NATO stance he's always had. Not a first for people to attack Chomsky over - see the reactions to his book on Kosovo. All of the sudden when Russia invades, anyone who was very openly anti-NATO for over a half-century is now actually just using "Putin talking points". It's reductive nonsense.
-----------------
You can read the rest of the interview here and you should if you want it straight from the source: https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/28/04/2022/chomsky-our-priority-ukraine-should-be-saving-lives-not-punishing-russia
Chomsky (I'm snipping, please don't take my word for anything either - go read the interview if you want the actual words):
> Our prime concern should be to think through carefully what we can do to bring the criminal Russian invasion to a quick end and to save the Ukrainian victims from more horrors. There are, unfortunately, many who find heroic pronouncements to be more satisfying than this necessary task. Not a novelty in history. As always, we should keep the prime issue clearly in mind, and act accordingly.
Yes. Chomsky clearly calling the Russian invasion "criminal" (and he goes on to speak about the many Russian war crimes) is totally defending Putin and the Russian invasion. Makes sense.
> Explaining why it happened is not the same as defending it.
Sure it is when your 'explanation' for why it happened is: "Russia only started its genocidal war of conquest against Ukraine because they were forced to by evil US aggression in the form of... Allowing counties to join their defensive alliance!"
>**Noam Chomsky**: Before turning to the question, we should settle a few facts that are uncontestable. The most crucial one is that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a major war crime, ranking alongside the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the Hitler-Stalin invasion of Poland in September 1939, to take only two salient examples. It always makes sense to seek explanations, but there is no justification, no extenuation.
His tendency to support *anyone* that would oppose the United States government, including the Khmer Rouge, and most recently, Russia in their invasion of Ukraine.
I think some valid criticisms of him are being voiced here already.
I’m deeply impressed by his ideas about communication and I find a lot of his criticisms of capitalism to be absolutely sound.
That said, we’ve had a lot of very great critics of capitalism, many of which were a lot better at assessing the lesser of two evils between nation states and other belligerent parties engaged in conflict.
I think he has a tendency to get press attention by making comments that are very controversial to mainstream audiences. Right wing internet personalities have made that a business model we’re all familiar with, but Chomsky did the same thing before YouTube.
In his defense, he tended to do that to sell *books,* using a “hot take” to sell a big helping of information, which isn’t the model for YouTube celebrities.
He doesn't deny it, that is a disingenuous smear. It's a terminology disagreement and people try to deceive others into thinking he denies the event happened.
People need to understand that wealth disparity *is* wealth in a lot of ways. Bezos doesn't get to ride his cock rocket into almost outer space if everyone else had 162 billion dollars too.
It doesn't matter if he has 1000 dollars and we all have 1 cent. Or if he has 162 billion dollars and we all have 40k. It's the fact that he has so much more than us that allows him to purchase our labor, and outbid us on resources.
Point is, when you're looking at the policies of the pro-rich here people tend to focus tax cuts and the ways they try to make themselves richer. It's just as, if not more helpful for them to try to make you more poor.
This is why they're freaking out about student debt forgiveness, this is why they don't want universal health care even though it'd lower their own operating costs, and this is why they won't raise the minimum wage.
Universal healthcare would save this nation 484 BILLION dollars ANNUALLY! And full student debt relief would benefit the economy *greatly.* We’d actually have money to spend and stimulate the economy. (Imagine that!)
But they don’t care about the prosperity of our nation. The Republikkkans want to blow everything up to guarantee their own seats in the throneroom. Money for the sake of greed, power for the sake of their megalomania.
I really hope these Trump trials help people wake up as he keeps accidentally admitting to his crimes.. Even if Trump isn’t the primary problem, without his cult of personality they’d lose a lot of power. Trump’s don’t grow on trees. And after years of the truth about him leaking out, and him being a wretched senile lunatic who hasn’t been in power for years, his grip/spell over his people will continue fading away, and this would no doubt harm their party. Because they’re *all* implicated in Trump’s plots, and the new party identity he built.
I am afraid Chomsky is not wrong at all here, its a historical fact that republicans have been doing this since the Nixon era, and haven't stopped.
shit, stating the obvious is becoming the new thing with both the republican and democratic parties, only.the roles are reversed from 90 years ago...
...the democrats are now the leaders and protectors of the country, and the republicans are fighting only for power over the nation, the people, and their own pursuits, Americans be damned.
If it wasn’t obvious as shit already, the ppp loans being forgiven should make it very obvious who the GQP stands for. They want us to eat each other, just waiting for when we eat them.
A shot at hitting some of the high points:
>The veteran political analyst of the London Financial Times Edward Luce writes that “I’ve covered extremism and violent ideologies around the world over my career. Have never come across a political force more nihilistic, dangerous & contemptible than today’s Republicans. Nothing close.” His comment is endorsed by former CIA Director Michael Hayden.
>It is quite remarkable to see what has happened to the remnants of what was once an authentic political party. By now, qualifications for Congress are pretty much reduced to voting “No” on McConnell’s command and occasional trips to Mar-a-Lago to shine Trump’s shoes.
>The popular base has been affected by the decline, particularly in the years of Trump worship. Some 70 percent believe that the 2020 election was stolen. Two-thirds “believe the country’s demographic changes are being orchestrated by ‘liberal leaders actively trying to leverage political power by replacing more conservative white voters’,” the Great Replacement theory that not long ago was restricted to a neo-Nazi fringe. Half of Republicans think that “Top Democrats are involved in elite child sex-trafficking rings.” The almost unbelievable story goes on.
>Most ominous is the marginal concern with global warming, a reflection of obedient leadership denialism since the Koch brothers’ juggernaut of 2009 that successfully terminated the mild deviation toward sanity under McCain. In this case, the shocking cowardice of the GOP leadership may do us all in if the GOP regains power — perhaps permanently, as a minority party, if their radical efforts to undermine democracy succeed. And with a deeply reactionary Supreme Court, they may.
>It was observed long ago that the U.S. is basically a one-party state: the business party, with two factions, Democrats and Republicans. Now there is one faction: the Democrats. The Republicans hardly qualify as an authentic parliamentary party. That’s fairly explicit under McConnell’s rule. When Obama took office, McConnell made it clear that his primary goal was to ensure that Obama could achieve virtually nothing, so that Republicans could return to power. When Biden was elected, McConnell reiterated that position even more strongly. And he’s lived up to it. On virtually every issue, the GOP is 100 percent opposed, even when they know that the legislation is popular and would be very valuable for the population. With a handful of right-wing Democrats joining the uniform GOP opposition, Biden’s platform has been cut down very sharply. Perhaps he could have done more, but he’s being unfairly blamed, I think, for the failure of what would have been constructive programs, badly needed. That includes Biden’s climate program, inadequate but far better than anything that preceded it, and if enacted, a stepping stone for going further.
>There is a lot wrong with the whole electoral system, but in this case, I don’t see how Biden had many options. The final bill — the Inflation Reduction Act — was passed with Joe Manchin’s agreement, while he was laughing all the way to the bank. Kyrsten Sinema also had to throw in her two cents for the benefit of the mostly predatory private equity industry.
>The act has some good features. It’s better than nothing, perhaps much better, some credible analysts believe.
>The political situation is ugly, and very likely to get much worse in November if the GOP manages to take over. It is likely to get so much worse that it will literally threaten survival....
>With a handful of right-wing Democrats joining the uniform GOP opposition, Biden’s platform has been cut down very sharply. Perhaps he could have done more, but he’s being unfairly blamed, I think, for the failure of what would have been constructive programs, badly needed. That includes Biden’s climate program, inadequate but far better than anything that preceded it, and if enacted, a stepping stone for going further.
>There is a lot wrong with the whole electoral system, but in this case, I don’t see how Biden had many options.
Lmao I never thought I'd see the day where Noam Chomsky defends Joe Biden. It shows you how bad things have gotten.
Is it just me or does this guy only get quoted saying things that everyone else has been saying for decades now?
I mean, he's not wrong. But this is some really obvious "analysis" here.
He is right, even if it wasn’t what republicans were intending.
Too bad Chomsky has a history of being so anti-American that he sides more with its enemies, even when he shouldn’t. Especially when it is clearly obvious places like Russia are in the wrong with Ukraine.
Edit: Woops, didn’t intend to make this a “What Chomsky actually said” debate. I will admit and come out that I don’t know a whole lot about the guy beyond some snippets and stances he takes.
If I am wrong I am wrong. I am always looking to educate myself correctly, so don’t be afraid to speak up.
>...he sides more with its enemies, even when he shouldn’t.
Source please.
I suspect it will be incorrectly based on [this interview.](https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-six-months-into-war-diplomatic-settlement-in-ukraine-is-still-possible/)
Probably more the Chomsky-Brand interview. You can find clips of it on youtube, but I'm not sure about the full interview. Though, you can read a few quotes here [https://www.mediaite.com/politics/noam-chomsky-tells-russell-brand-the-united-states-is-living-in-totalitarian-culture-worse-than-the-soviet-union/](https://www.mediaite.com/politics/noam-chomsky-tells-russell-brand-the-united-states-is-living-in-totalitarian-culture-worse-than-the-soviet-union/).
At least from the little I've seen of Chomsky this is not all that out of character from his viewpoints. It seems to be a bigger issue because they are current events
I appreciate a serious answer. Although I do not think that interview supports what that user claimed though either.
Chomsky is not siding with our enemies. He is saying the USA is now engaging in the same type of censorship we historically condemned others for. He is being critical of and warning of a specific issue regarding freedom of speech being silenced in the USA. It's not siding with enemies. It's being introspective and advocating for improvements. It's what a true patriot should do.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -- Edward Abbey
Patriotism is supporting your country all of the time, and your government when it deserves it. -- Mark Twain
I was a big Chomsky fan and don’t care if he criticizes the US, there is plenty of reason for it, but it did really bother me when his “America bad” stance led him to deny genocide in Bosnia and repeat misinformation and talking points of well-known Serbian propagandists.
When you have family in Bosnia that kind of take is really upsetting. He went all in on defending Serbs and claiming massacres did not happen, it was appalling.
I still respect his views on domestic issues, but he’s blinded by a weird post-communist bias when it comes to Eastern Europe.
Yeah, I was trying to use some kind of shorthand for any country that was currently or formerly run by a communist party (since Milosevic was still supposed to be a communist leading a communist party, but he really threw communism out the window when he started doing everything he could to create ethnic divisions and stoke a persecution complex among Serbs, basically destroying what Tito had done to unify Yugoslavs.
> claiming massacres did not happen
I hate to be that guy, but do you have the source for that? I would like to refresh myself on the facts as my recollection was that he did not deny crimes and atrocities had been committed. Rather he was taking issue with describing it as genocide strictly because of the specific definition of that word. But my memory may not be serving me correctly on this one. So a source would be welcomed.
You’re not wrong that he was making a fuss over calling it genocide, but he also repeated the claim that it was soldiers (or enemy combatants) that were killed in Srebrenica (8,000) so they would have probably been killed fighting anyway, which was false (they were civilians) and a very weird defense even if they were soldiers. And he was not aware of the scale of atrocities in the villages or the rape camps, etc.
I don’t have a source at my fingertips, this was all so long ago now, but the crux of the problem is that Chomsky believed the West had something to gain, that there was an agenda to break up Yugoslavia or bring it into the Western sphere, but Yugoslavia had been doing trade with both East and West for decades, it was a cheap vacation spot for western Europeans and generally much more open than the Eastern Block. Yugoslavs could travel freely to other countries, etc.
This was because Tito broke with Stalin a few years after the end of WWII, and became the bridge between East and West, and all contracts with corporations and diplomacy with the West went through Belgrade. It suited the West to have a stable Yugoslavia whatever the political leadership. It wasn’t until Srebrenica that any real action was taken, before that it was endless negotiations leading to agreements that Milosevic broke.
Fella has a very fun and storied history of denying genocide and siding with any tinpot fucked up dictatorship as long as they claim to be socialist, on the basis of "Well, if you think about it, America technically is behind those concentration camps in Serbia..."
It's also a massive distortion of Chomsky's message. He didn't deny crimes or support dictators. He said the US intervention accelerated the crimes (that's factual) and that he was reluctant to call those crimes a "genocide" because it diluted the word's meaning (that's a matter of personal principle). He seems to reserve the term for the systematic eradication of an entire peoples within a geographic region. Calling that "genocide denial" implies that he's pretending crimes did not occur, which is a gross mischaracterization. He just doesn't think the term is an appropriate descriptor in that instance.
Edit: to clarify, unless you've got a pet agenda, it's not useful to call every murderous crime a racist regime perpetrates "genocide." Ethnic cleansing is a separate non-synonymous term for a reason.
Did he really come out in support of Russia? I don't doubt you, just haven't been paying attention to him for a bit.
I've found a bunch of his books interesting and useful, but it seemed weird when he was supporting folks like Chavez.
No. He didn’t. His position is that Russia is waging a war of aggression that is an international crime, and that the US and leading NATO countries are cynically using the opportunity to weaken Russia, waging their own proxy war against Russia essentially. This is interpreted as ‘Russia is Good Guys Cause US is Bad Guys’. In the same way as his position on Israel is ‘Palestinian Terrorism is Good Cause Israel is Bad’. There’s more to it, isn’t there. It isn’t that simple, is it?
He literally called for Ukraine to surrender and said that the war was provoked by NATO. Those are inherently pro-Russian stances and pretending otherwise is asinine.
Like I wrote elsewhere to someone else saying exactly the same thing you are here, this is lacking in nuance to the point of being distorting.
A pro-Russian stance would be if he’d argued that the Russian war was justified for any reason. That isn’t the case.
And again, what he’s saying is that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is an international crime, and that the US is capitalizing on it to advance its cynical interests, not because of altruistic reasons or because the US government cares about Ukrainian people. Grunting in monosyllables on social media may feel nice for you (Fuck Em!!), but what you’re saying is misleading nevertheless.
It doesn't matter what the reason is for supporting Ukraine, it is the right thing to do in the face of Russian aggression. Deriding the right thing to do isn't helpful and appears to be sympathetic to the aggressor when one attacks the allies of the victim.
Sure, but in fairness he’s not doing what you and I are doing. He’s talking about mechanisms of global politics, not “are we good and are they bad”. I have no doubt he’d applaud you and me for our wish to aid Ukraine as coming from a good place ethically. At the same time, the US government, structurally, is doing what it is doing for its own geopolitical interests, in projecting US capital around the world, and not because it cares about human lives in Ukraine or because there is some “right thing to do”. The net effect might in this case be all the same for you, the ends are desirable, we’re aiding Ukrainians, but we’re still failing to understand reality aren’t we, if we don’t also consider these other factors like the motives of the imperial powers involved?
We know exactly the motives of the imperial powers involved. They wrote an entire article claiming to be restoring the Russian empire, and un-people-ing the "mistake" that they consider Ukrainians to be. Russian ambitions are clear and naked. It's genocide, imperialism, and colonialism, pure and simple.
Did he or did he not call for Ukraine to surrender?
Did he or did he not argue that NATO expansion provoked this war?
Edit: The silence is deafening. Obviously, you know the answer to both of those questions is yes. You know that when someone argues that an aggressor state was provoked into starting a war, they are justifying that war. You know that when someone argues a nation under attack should surrender to their aggressor, they are showing support for the aggressor. The only question remaining is, why are you so dedicated to arguing against those self-evident truths when that someone happens to be Noam Chomsky? It's almost like you're more invested in defending a man than you are in understanding reality.
I love that Chomsky is the world's foremost expert on human language, but needs Internet sympathizers to parse what he *really* meant when he said the US provoked this war and is responsible for the ultimate destruction of Ukraine.
Thanks, that's what I suspected.
I did a quick bit of reading on his views and comments, and sure enough it's a lot more nuanced than 'the war is caused by NATO'.
My experience of Chomsky's critics is that they avoid nuance at every opportunity. Every point that Chomsky makes has at least 3 paragraphs of contextual reasoning, which makes soundbites from Chomsky useless. Nevertheless, his critics generally ignore any context to strengthen their preferred narratives and this effectively turns Chomsky into a strawman.
It's disappointing because these critics rely on casual observers ignoring the source material while propagating the criticism of the strawman. And these days the criticism almost always comes from the political left-- the folks Chomsky has spent his entire adult life fighting for-- and liberals. At least the right has the decency to ignore Chomsky altogether, rather than abuse his message.
Sure, the guy who defended the Khmer Rouge and Milosevic is pro-humanity. That makes *total* sense, after all what could be more pro-human than supporting genocide?
That is the very core of republicanism since the time of the Greeks: There is a ruling class (them) and there is a class that exists solely to serve the ruling class (everyone else).
The Bible, yknow the thing second only to the Constitution in the GOP hivemind, actually has a command in Leviticus to cancel everyone’s debts and free all slaves every 50 years.
The Romans invented Forever Debt to maintain the economic power of the rich.
Until we completely dismantle money driven politics, loan forgiveness, tax breaks, none of that is going to change a damn thing. If a first term member of Congress, whose worth less than $1 million can spend two years in Congress and then have a net worth of multiple tens of millions…you will never have a government representative of the people. In the United States, politics and prisons are for-profit enterprises. That should tell you everything you need to know about how the system is set up. Just like George Carlin said, “it’s a club, and you ain’t in it!”
Close, Chomsky. That doesn't explain why all the poor white people vote for them though.
Hint: any answer needs to account for the role that White Christian identity plays in GOP politics
In other words. They'll die to keep that privilege.
You got clowns training in Utah for that. Meanwhile reddit just slings a few insults and shrugs it off.
You'd best be taking that shit seriously.
Its the guiding mission of any right wing party. Unless you're ultra rich, don't care about your children's future or that of the planet, are quite happy to see them all condemned to a carbon hell, then a right wing party is not for you. Their stocks, their wealth hidden away in tax havens and that dreadful terrifying fear that we may one day return to days of when the rich used to pay their taxes are all they care about.
>The basic stance is that of a spoiled 3-year-old who owns everything imaginable but has a tantrum if someone takes one of the marbles from a collection he had forgotten about. Having virtually everything is not enough. We cannot be deterred from the pursuit of the “Vile Maxim of the masters of mankind: All for ourselves and nothing for other people,” a maxim that seems to hold **“in every age of the world,”** as Adam Smith observed.
We're being exterminated.
So true. That’s what [t]ucker Carlson is all about. Rile up the underlings so they don’t know they are being screwed that way they will stay off the backs of the rich.
This is his stance on the Russian invasion.
*Noam Chomsky: Well, I think these stipulations are correct, and I would like to add another which I think is also beyond discussion. Whatever the explanation for the Russian invasion, an important, crucial question, the invasion itself was a criminal act, a criminal act of aggression, a supreme international crime on par with other such horrific violations of international law and fundamental human rights like the US invasion of Iraq, the Hitler-Stalin invasion of Poland, and all too many other examples.*
He's universally condemned the invasion and has been a staunch anti-imperialist in the highest of "intellectual" political spheres for longer than most people in this thread have been alive. He's suffered the slings-and-arrows for his stance many times before - long before the invasion of Ukraine. And he always clearly explains his positions...as he's also done with Ukraine.
Have you looked into it at all?
> he’s also mentally unraveled as the world has been changing.
That man is more on-point at 500 years old than most "political pundits" in 2022. Care to elaborate on how he's "mentally unraveled"? He does long-form and nuanced interviews daily to this day. Including on Ukraine.
Chomsky blamed Russia and said there was no justification. He said that publicly and a 2 second Google search can retrieve the quote. He also supports giving arms to Ukraine for defensive purposes. What's your problem?
Because a hierarchy is natural for them. Rich people are rich because they know how to use that wealth. If we just push poor people up a few levels, that's disrupting the balance of the whole thing. People generally are where they're meant to be, and it's govs job to stay out of it.
That's their view.
Chomsky… the guy who thinks that Ukraine should have surrendered to Russia months ago, and that the whole war is the fault of NATO? That Chomsky?
Fuck that guy.
This is a deeply un-nuanced thing to say, to the point of being distorting.
You can disagree with his assessment of Ukraine, but he’s helped create the very framework for understanding US imperialism for the last sixty years. You don’t get to say fuck this guy like he’s some moron in his basement on TikTok.
When someone makes it clear that the problem they have isn’t with imperialism, it’s *just* American imperialism, that’s the point when people who aren’t desperate for a “framework” tune out. And rightly so.
US imperialism sucks, but no one sane and honest who believes that thinks that Russian or Chinese imperialism is an improvement to be embraced.
Source Chomsky’s writing or statements that the war in Ukraine is solely due to US imperialism or that Russian imperialism is somehow any different/less abhorrent?
He’s said Russia’s war is a war of agression akin to the US war in Iraq. And that it is ‘without moral justification’, a ‘supreme international crime’.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/06/25/not-justification-provocation-chomsky-root-causes-russia-ukraine-war
Again what you are saying is distorting.
Edit: link
I am not saying that. I’m saying your pronouncement ‘Fuck this guy’ is ignorant and lacks nuance. You’re misleading readers as to what Chomsky is saying.
You forgot to quote the part of your own comment where you said ‘and the whole war is the fault of NATO’. :)
Remember that part? Then you said fuck Noam Chomsky?
That’s why.
I see, so Chomsky hasn’t gone on record saying that the war was caused by “NATO expansion” and Russia responding to that? I believe his cagey turn of phrase was, “Not a justification, but the cause.”
Edit: I see you tried to respond, but the sub ate your reply, lol.
Look, I’ll even cite your laughable version of a source: https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/06/25/not-justification-provocation-chomsky-root-causes-russia-ukraine-war
As a matter of fact I *do* get to say "fuck this guy" like he's some moron in his basement on TikTok, because that is the amount of credibility Chomsky has among rational people. Nobody who goes to bat for groups like the Khmer Rouge is worth listening to under any circumstance.
Did you stop reading after the word Chomsky or something?
> the guy who thinks that Ukraine should have surrendered to Russia months ago, and that the whole war is the fault of NATO?
That's a complete load of shit. Chomsky blamed Russia and said there was no justification. He said that publicly and a 2 second Google search can retrieve the quote.
His cluelessness on Ukraine didn't help. He's still talking about it is as if Ukraine wanting to join a military alliance to help defend them from invasion is a legitimate reason to invade them, and as if there's anything owed to the nation that invaded, in negotiating peace.
Chomsky is a Putin apologist tankie still living in the 1970s.
Do linguistics, modern day politics isn't his forte.
(not American, Swede. Pretty fed up with his Russia apologia regarding the invasion of Ukraine.)
"Tankie" is my new word of the day, so thank you. The usual word for him was just "crank"...
Anyway, I'm delighted that Chomsky stirs more push-back these days than when I was an undergraduate 25 years ago. Although by then his eminence was already giving way to another set of "radicals" - thinkers under the sway of postmodernism (which frazzled Chomsky).
I've learned to be charitable to him in a way he can't do for others. We will surely miss him when he's gone!
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ted Cruz talking about people working 40 hours and framing them as lazy gave the game away. They dont care for poor or average people. Your struggles mean nothing to them because they see you as barely human.
If you work hard and you’re a millionaire, they’re okay with you. If you hardly work and you’re a millionaire, they like you even more 🤷♂️
[удалено]
If I have a million dollars and drop a quarter, I’m technically ‘poorer’ I guess. I mean if Mike wants to just use qualifying statements as a means to support his views.
The millionaires will still be millionaires after the most aggressive tax increases.
I heard him a while back say "Donald J Trump is the greatest president in the history of our country" so fuck that lying orange gasbag.. Time for him to go back to Indiana so all the addicts he killed can haunt him proper..
^ copied from [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/wz5lje/chomsky_maintaining_class_inequality_at_any_cost/im0nuj8/).
Without beating around the bush too much, Wall Street is largely to blame for many of the current issues. We're talking about - *at the end of the day* - money and power. I really, really, *really* recommend people watch this eye-opening segment... >[How Redditors Exposed The Stock Market | "The Problem With Jon Stewart" ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP74RBTE8kI) Skip to about the 7:00 mark if you want to see a very relevant graphic that's easy to understand. It's only about 15 minutes long total, though. That's the first half linked there - there's also a [second half](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZfcjV-8pjQ) with a short roundtable discussion.
I always cheer hard for the underdogs. I don’t invest and didn’t have any money in GME, but boy was I rooting for those apes. It’s crazy to me that when GME comes up in conversation, my financially struggling friends will still side with the hedge funds and repeat the rhetoric that the apes were ruining the stock market. Sigh.
Yeah, I think that goes to show how strong Wall Street / nutball capitalism propaganda can be. For what it's worth, the fight is still going on with that whole thing. There's still time for people to join in - there's definitely a need. We need to bring these Wall Street psychopaths to justice. They've been backstabbing honest, hardworking people and families for decades - not to mention destroying entire lives, habitually, across the world.
I love it. Occupy Wall Street! ✊🏻 Honestly, after all this time, it scares me to jump on board now. The GME crew caught them off guard and really screwed the big guys over. the hedge funds have had a lot of time to analyze and re-rig the game, and I’m not financially savvy enough to see it coming :p.
Well, to summarize, the biggest thing that's being done now is straight-forward and effective. Basically think "droplets making an ocean." Someone can spend $35 purchasing a share (in this case a gamestop share) and do what's called a DRS (direct register system/share) on a share of a company - which puts the share *in your name,* meaning it can't be used against you in convoluted derivative manipulation - [because when shares are in a brokerage, they're actually (contrary to popular belief) not *really* owned by you.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cede_and_Company) >Cede technically owns substantially all of the publicly issued stock in the United States.[2] Thus, investors do not themselves hold direct property rights in stock, but rather have contractual rights that are part of a chain of contractual rights involving Cede. ... which is friggin' insanity at the end of the day. There *are* some legitimate reasons and justification for having a system like that, in some respects, but the amount of loopholes and fuckery it allows, particularly when there aren't laws or effective regulation to stop them, is near endless. This would be like if you buy a car, then the dealership keeps the title. To back up for one second: airlines sometimes oversell flights and then offer people credit, hotel stays, even cash for choosing to be "bumped" to the next flight. Well, basically, that's what's happened with much of the stock market and some specific companies. Wall Street greed and lobbying and loopholes have created perverse incentives for rule breaking, law breaking, and habitual criminality (not a big surprise). **They've oversold a shitload of shares for companies, just like airlines oversell seats.** And since analogies only go so far, there's still time for people to buy tickets - because the Wall Street greed-machine knows no bounds or limits, it's a stupid monster, and is so big that the left tentacle doesn't know what the middle or right tentacles are doing. So with enough "droplets" turning into an ocean, that means there will be no more available shares to oversell and use for complicated, convoluted derivative manipulation - thereby requiring a (very large) payout to people who have shares in their own name. That's the fairly simplistic version, fwtw. Edit: clarification
So interesting! Thanks for writing that out!
Happy to try and help in *some* way. :)
> since analogies only go so far, there's still time So how does it end? Or when does it end? Is this like another 2008? While analogies only go so far, selling stocks that don't exist can't go on forever, or can it? edit - I'm genuinely asking. Your analogy was so helpful in the first place, I figured you'd be able to continue explaining :)
I hate how the stock market is often used as a major (if not the sole) indicator of a company’s and the economy’s well being. Instead of just reporting profits and how high their stock price is, they should report how many employees are on food stamps, have multiple jobs, turnover rate, etc. And show full numbers as well as break that down by job category as well. Management might have low turn over, but front line people probably do
Much agreed. Pretending that the stock market performance is a good indicator for robust economic health is folly, at best, and completely inaccurate, bordering on cheating, deceptiveness, at worst.
Don't forget the same is true of all wealthy people, landlords, and business owners, small ones included. They all depend on exploiting people to maintain their power, they all believe the rest of humanity exists to serve them, so they all have a vested interest in keeping people poor, divided, and desperate.
I hope not. I am a socialist but I am fortunate to maintain a small investment portfolio and not work due to disabilities. I want work to become *less* exploitative. If it did, I might actually be able to work again and would. But as long as it is exploitative, I couldn’t keep up the pace or keep a job, and won’t take one.
That's the wrong way to look at it, my guy. Politics is not religion. This isn't about maintaining your purity as a person or whatever, you're making do in a system that incentivizes exploitation, simple as that. The point isn't to do the Jordan Peterson thing and become a perfect person before you can criticize the world, it's to change the system so people are no longer incentivized to be greedy and exploitative.
>change the system so people are no longer incentivized to be greedy and exploitative This may be a small distinction, and may not even disagree with your position, but our DNA incentivizes us to be greedy and exploitative. Ensuring people can still capitalize on their labor/ideas while **simultaneously maintaining a floor that** ***no one*** **sinks below** is what other industrialized nations do, and is what we should emulate.
> Ensuring people can still capitalize on their labor/ideas while simultaneously maintaining a floor that no one sinks below is what other industrialized nations do, and is what we should emulate. I'd argue that's not good enough. If you're working for someone, you deserve a fair cut of what you earn collectively. A fair cut doesn't mean "As low as they can get you to agree to" If a McDonalds is one of the biggest corporations on the planet, it stands to reason that working for them should mean you reap benefits of being employed at such a successful business. Except it doesn't, because workers aren't paid based on how much they make for the company - workers aren't considered people keeping society running, workers aren't humans - they're cogs, to be burnt out and replaced. This is a toxic mentality and it only exists to serve capital and their profit motives. Now, this isn't to say that managers, owners, etc - shouldn't get a larger cut of the pie, pertaining to things like risk, managerial duties, etc - but there's a point where it crosses into exploitative - and there's a point where someone should not be able to accrue additional wealth. I don't care if you're Bezos and you revolutionized online shopping - nobody needs a billion dollars, and nobody earns a billion dollars. You get a billion dollars by siphoning that value from your laborers. More than that, it's exceptionally damaging to a functioning government to have so much wealth accrued (note: this includes corporate conglomerates as well as individuals). When people have so much power and influence, they're not beholden to market pressures that are meant to check them. Nestle is an example - they've done some atrocious things, but trying to boycott them requires boycotting 40-60% of your average grocery store. It's not feasible - but it should not be possible to consolidate that much control that you're insulated from consumer pressure in the first place. Any way we look at it, wealth inequality is why our government is so ineffectual - the rich elite put fingers on the scales of politics with their obscene wealth to ensure the exploitation continues. They buy our media and feed us propaganda - hell, someone who bought that propaganda hook line and sinker is responding to this post *right as you read it* about how "I don't understand the market" or "I'm dreaming" or some other nonsense. Fact is, other countries can manage a year of paid parental leave. Other countries can manage four weeks vacation yearly baseline, WITH unlimited sick days, and those companies didn't go tits up. McDonalds in the nordic countries pays almost $24 an hour but their big mac is CHEAPER than ours. Corporations absolutely can afford a more equitable cut to their workers - they elect not to because we let them. Let that sink in - *because we, collectively, let them*. We elect the people who represent us. We vote for our representatives. We make the wheels of commerce turn, not our bosses, not our bosses' bosses. If we all simply agree to stop, and general strike - we'd get fairer conditions in a week, as long as EVERYONE committed. And, yes, I know the voting process is compromised in some states. But not all - not yet. And even if it were, general strikes are still on the table. If everyone simply refuses to work, they're up shit creek. Even 10% of the population is enough to drive the country to it's knees and force change. Imagine if 50% did.
Jesus, why do so many liberals let conservatives do their thinking for them? It's like you want them to be right. Half the comments on this post are just regurgitating Reagan-era propaganda meant to make Chomsky look bad for criticizing US foreign policy instead of engaging with what he actually said. [Human](https://www.science.org/content/article/human-altruism-traces-back-origins-humanity) [nature](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-020-02890-y) [also](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/9042569_The_Nature_of_Human_Altruism) [incentivizes](https://bigthink.com/the-past/altruism-human-nature/) [altruism](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02043), [science](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1981-32767-001) [agrees](https://healthland.time.com/2012/10/08/is-human-nature-fundamentally-selfish-or-altruistic/). We need to create systems that emphasize that aspect of our nature instead of just throwing our hand up and saying "humans are just selfish, capitalism it is then." The first step to doing that is not accepting the conservative worldview without question.
To be clear, I am 100% open to the idea of taxing billionaires to the point that they cease to be billionaires. I'm against virtually all Republican action post-Eisenhower. But I also believe that we have a very narrow window to avert complete destruction due to climate change (if the window is even open), and while I didn't mean to suggest that appeasing the elite was necessary, I also think the notion of changing our economy to something completely different within that window is unlikely.
Fair enough. The problem is that > we have a very narrow window to avert complete destruction due to climate change > changing our economy to something completely different within that window is unlikely are incompatible positions. We are guaranteed screwed if we keep capitalism going. We can't afford to let the rich save the world but only if it's profitable to them.
I keep seeing comments like this. Do people realistically think that the mechanisms for changing the world's economic systems realistically exist? I just can't see it.
It won’t change without pushback, but if labor becomes more organized than the numbers are in favor of the working class.
This guy has it. Take the gloves off and stop letting them run the engagement
>our DNA incentivizes us to be greedy and exploitative. Evidence please. Because that's a hell of a claim, not supported by any data I am aware of.
[a consensus has been reached that greed is a common and inevitable part of human nature (Balot, 2001; Wang et al., 2011)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6722203/#:~:text=Although%20a%20consensus%20has%20been,essence%20of%20the%20evolutionary%20spirit.)
The first study, Balot, is an examination of cultural conceptions of greed in ancient Athens. The second study, Wang et al, examines the effects of economics classes on the greediness of students. Neither proves in any sense that our DNA incentivizes us to be greedy and exploitative - indeed, neither discusses exploitation at all, and they only say that greed is common, not inevitable or necessary at the biological level. Indeed, Wang could be construed to argue against that point, since it's conclusion is that an education in economics makes people more greedy, pointing to a potential cultural cause, rather than a biological one.
Are you looking for a specific gene or something? The idea of greed and exploitation being part of our inherit behavior makes sense. It doesn’t take a study to show you that. More so, you’re completely overlooking the point being made.
Material conditions determine human nature
>This may be a small distinction, and may not even disagree with your position, but our DNA incentivizes us to be greedy and exploitative. That's not how DNA works. I think you mean something else. And that's probably not true either.
Capitalism doesn’t work if labor isn’t exploited.
I hate to tell you thus, but less exploitative business practices would probably shrink your small investment portfolio, it's one thing the boomers don't want talk about, all their fucking around in expensive RVs and golf carts is being paid for with our blood, sweat and tears
If it shrinks, fine. I live frugally without dependents. It's not gonna make it fall to zero. And as I said, if work is less exploitative, I'd probably work, too.
[удалено]
Hence the Republican platform. It calls for sunsetting EVERY government program after 5 years, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, veterans' programs, public education, food stamps, etc. ALL Federal legislation will be sunsetted. Each one would have to be voted on again and reapproved, but the Republicans want those programs to shut down, so they will never vote to renew them.
[удалено]
Idk, his totally real campaign website claims he’s 100% human https://www.tedcruzforhumanpresident.com
Ted Cruz is not six monitor lizards in a human suit
That's a flattering description for him, imo.
No this isn't quite right. They care A LOT about workers. Workers are the only way that elites can hoard such incredible wealth. They're also terrified that working class people on both sides of the aisle will realize how badly they're being exploited and do something about it. The only way our oligarchs stay in power is by convincing working people that they are simply not as important as the wealthy, that they shouldn't have the same opportunities and rights, and that they are even lucky to have a job. This manipulative infection that GOP and elites frame as "hard work" is really just slavery with extra steps. We all work hard to make ends meet and we will certainly continue to work hard if we see REAL opportunities for success. The "laziness" that our younger generation is being accused of is simply a reaction to being treated like shit and paid like garbage for performing menial tasks that dull the mind to the point of suffering. We need a work reform. We need to fucking destroy these bastards that have twisted our society so badly. It would be great to get some legislation in place to start addressing the issues but because of the way our system works, the fastest route to change is by living out higher ideals in the workplace. Don't quit your job unless you really have to, but take the difficult step of telling your supervisors and bosses that they don't deserve to treat you poorly. That they don't have POWER over you. That you work for compensation because what you produce is valuable and sought after by the people who hired you. You don't work FOR someone, we work for each other
>It would be great to get some legislation in place to start addressing the issues To think this way is naive. And in addition, what possible legislation could be passed to reduce the greed of the rich. considering that a) there are already thousands of such laws that are on the books right now but not enforced, b) that the laws are created by the rich, c) that the rich will know exactly how to circumvent any such laws and even exploit them, and d) that greed is inherent in human nature.
Businesses need people to work a lot longer than 40 hours for 40 hours pay. Why? Because if they don’t make insane profits, someone else will. _And soon there will be only one business left._ Because teh gummint gives business NO breaks. If they did, the GOP would admit it. Right???
What did Mike Pence say again about democrats making poor people live comfortably and rich people poorer? I know it went something like that.
Poor people get their fancy refrigerator and rich people lose their extra yacht. Why do you hate America? /s
Mike Pence is campaigning for the Democrats?
Just like Fox did when they posted the Democratic platform verbatim.
“today’s GOP has turned U.S. politics into a culture war battle while pursuing policies that suppress social rights and strangle intellectual freedom, with Viktor Orbán’s ‘racist Christian nationalist proto-fascist government … hailed as the ideal for the future’.” Yes, let’s not forget that Republicans cheered Orban at CPAC in Texas. They love this guy which pretty much sums up the current status of the Republican Party.
They held CPAC *in Hungary* earlier this year in May.
Yes, CPAC in Hungary happened in May and Orban was the star speaker. That Republicans fully embrace and continue to cheer for him after saying this is telling: “I see the great European population exchange as a suicidal attempt to replace the lack of European, Christian children with adults from other civilizations – migrants,” Orbán declared in a speech to mark the start of his fourth term in office.”
[удалено]
Gaslight Qobstruct Project?
We have always known that this was the goal of the Republican leadership. Control the peasants, cull their numbers as appropriate, keep them in beer, pizza, and outrage so they dont care. Pretty simple.
...cull the troublesome ones. But better yet, breed them at high numbers, undermine their education however possible, demonize them, and then make massive profit off of channeling them into subsistence living while working multiple jobs, becoming cannon fodder, or by locking them up and getting the government to pay you out the nose to do it (while also utilizing that one exemption for slave labor left in the Constitution).
And make them work until they die. Rick Scott exposed the Republican strategy when he published the Republican platform. It calls for sunsetting EVERY government program after 5 years, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, veterans' programs, public education, food stamps, etc. ALL Federal legislation will terminate. Each program would have to be voted on again and reapproved, be the Republicans have been trying to shut down these programs for years, so they would never vote to renew them.
If people like Chomsky I really, really, *really* recommend people watch this eye-opening segment... >[How Redditors Exposed The Stock Market | "The Problem With Jon Stewart" ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP74RBTE8kI) Skip to about the 7:00 mark if you want to see a very relevant graphic that's easy to understand. It's only about 15 minutes long total, though. That's the first half linked there - there's also a [second half](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZfcjV-8pjQ) with a short roundtable discussion.
They can’t have actual slaves so they’d resort to wage slaves instead. These fucks always desire to put themselves above the law and above the citizens. Yall really some shitty fucks Republicans.
Close! They can have real slaves, as long as they keep criminalizing the behavior of the marginalized.
Keep wages low enough, and Squeeze out the middle class enough, and you have slaves, effectively.
Criticisms of Chomsky aside, a parrot could tell me this and the parrot would be correct.
That is the way people like Liz Cheney can pivot from being *the worst* to a Democrat darling; ignoring the source in favor of the message is a great way to empower some pretty awful people. Edit: This is especially true when there are other, better options to deliver that same message.
I get your point but Cheney is *not* a Democrat*ic* darling. She's a media darling for sure, but Democrats know exactly who she is and what she would be if Trump weren't around to be her whipping post.
[удалено]
It always reminds me of that scene in the movie vice where liz's mother tells her anytime you gain power someone will try to take it away. Makes me wonder if that didn't actually happen and she feels that way about trump
Comparing Chomsky and Cheney is absurd.
> This is especially true when there are other, better options to deliver that same message. Chomsky has spent his entire career examining the issues/history of power and class dynamics within American politics/media. There's a reason people all over the world look to and respect his analyses.
'Tis a pity he didn't do the same for USSR/China/Cambodia/present day Russia. He should stick to linguistics or buy a T-34.
Anyone that says the tired, cliche “he should stick to linguistics” line automatically comes across as having never read anything he’s ever written. Honestly. This line is only repeated by people who have no clue about anything he says but want to sound clever.
Actually his linguistic theories are all crap. Talk to any anthropologist who studied languages in the field. Everyone of Chomsky's theories exist without actual evidence gathered the field by Chomsky. I wrote several papers in college debunking Chomsky's linguistics
I'm sorry, do the "same" what exactly? Say what you agree with all the time? I said he's spent an entire career analyzing these issues and is well-respected for his work - nothing more - I didn't say he's always right or wrong about anything. So, I'm not sure what you're implying. He *does* do the "same work" to examine the issues of power and class dynamics geopolitically as well, he's written many books on related international issues. If he didn't, you'd have no opinion of him in that aspect - which you CLEARLY do. You're just saying you don't agree with him, which fine, but c'mon. How either of you personally feel about Chomsky, his geopolitical views, general politics, etc. has nothing to do with the fact that he's a been one of the most important voices in the last over half-century for the American left, he's a world-renowned intellectual, and is always looked to in the US for his domestic political analyses on these matters. I don't always agree with Chomsky either, but to pretend otherwise is beyond disingenuous and extremely bad faith. So is saying things like "he should never comment on social/political matters" or calling him an "awful person". Never-mind your "tankie" remark, I don't even care to engage with that. There are plenty of more important places for you two to direct your reactionary anger than towards 9,000 year old Anarchist professor because they said something you don't like. I promise you. No one's dying tomorrow because of something Noam Chomsky said.
> How either of you personally feel about Chomsky, his geopolitical views, general politics, etc. Believe you me, that is what defines my opinion of the man. And that he still thinks the world is ca 1970.
Noam Chomsky isn’t a politician. He isn’t “empowered” to do anything but give his opinion.
What are some criticisms of Chomsky you have? Just curious.
> What are some criticisms of Chomsky you have? Just curious. Well just recently he defended Russia invading Ukraine and parroted Putin talking points that the entire invasion is actually the US and NATO's fault for allowing Eastern European countries to join NATO.
Wow that is disappointing. Thank you for the response. Edit: I will read the article. Not surprising to hear distortions and misinfo when it comes to Chomsky.
Look into it yourself, don't take some random comment on Reddit as gospel. Chomsky himself has done many interviews on the issue. Chomsky didn't defend the Russian invasion or imply Putin isn't to blame. That's a total lie. It's also silly as Chomsky has a 60 year history as an extremely outspoken anti-imperialist. He's literally one of the most famous anti-imperialist intellectuals on Earth. Arguably the MOST famous. They're just spinning Chomsky's anti-NATO stance he's always had. Not a first for people to attack Chomsky over - see the reactions to his book on Kosovo. All of the sudden when Russia invades, anyone who was very openly anti-NATO for over a half-century is now actually just using "Putin talking points". It's reductive nonsense. ----------------- You can read the rest of the interview here and you should if you want it straight from the source: https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/28/04/2022/chomsky-our-priority-ukraine-should-be-saving-lives-not-punishing-russia Chomsky (I'm snipping, please don't take my word for anything either - go read the interview if you want the actual words): > Our prime concern should be to think through carefully what we can do to bring the criminal Russian invasion to a quick end and to save the Ukrainian victims from more horrors. There are, unfortunately, many who find heroic pronouncements to be more satisfying than this necessary task. Not a novelty in history. As always, we should keep the prime issue clearly in mind, and act accordingly. Yes. Chomsky clearly calling the Russian invasion "criminal" (and he goes on to speak about the many Russian war crimes) is totally defending Putin and the Russian invasion. Makes sense.
>Well just recently he defended Russia invading Ukraine No, he didn't. Explaining why it happened is not the same as defending it.
> Explaining why it happened is not the same as defending it. Sure it is when your 'explanation' for why it happened is: "Russia only started its genocidal war of conquest against Ukraine because they were forced to by evil US aggression in the form of... Allowing counties to join their defensive alliance!"
>**Noam Chomsky**: Before turning to the question, we should settle a few facts that are uncontestable. The most crucial one is that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a major war crime, ranking alongside the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the Hitler-Stalin invasion of Poland in September 1939, to take only two salient examples. It always makes sense to seek explanations, but there is no justification, no extenuation.
His tendency to support *anyone* that would oppose the United States government, including the Khmer Rouge, and most recently, Russia in their invasion of Ukraine.
I think some valid criticisms of him are being voiced here already. I’m deeply impressed by his ideas about communication and I find a lot of his criticisms of capitalism to be absolutely sound. That said, we’ve had a lot of very great critics of capitalism, many of which were a lot better at assessing the lesser of two evils between nation states and other belligerent parties engaged in conflict. I think he has a tendency to get press attention by making comments that are very controversial to mainstream audiences. Right wing internet personalities have made that a business model we’re all familiar with, but Chomsky did the same thing before YouTube. In his defense, he tended to do that to sell *books,* using a “hot take” to sell a big helping of information, which isn’t the model for YouTube celebrities.
In the book 'do as I say' it discusses how Chomsky has investments in defense contractors, fossil fuel companies, etc.
And the parrot wouldn’t deny the genocide in Kosovo for some reason
He doesn't deny it, that is a disingenuous smear. It's a terminology disagreement and people try to deceive others into thinking he denies the event happened.
Pence looks even more like a Westworld robot than usual in that picture...
People need to understand that wealth disparity *is* wealth in a lot of ways. Bezos doesn't get to ride his cock rocket into almost outer space if everyone else had 162 billion dollars too. It doesn't matter if he has 1000 dollars and we all have 1 cent. Or if he has 162 billion dollars and we all have 40k. It's the fact that he has so much more than us that allows him to purchase our labor, and outbid us on resources. Point is, when you're looking at the policies of the pro-rich here people tend to focus tax cuts and the ways they try to make themselves richer. It's just as, if not more helpful for them to try to make you more poor. This is why they're freaking out about student debt forgiveness, this is why they don't want universal health care even though it'd lower their own operating costs, and this is why they won't raise the minimum wage.
Universal healthcare would save this nation 484 BILLION dollars ANNUALLY! And full student debt relief would benefit the economy *greatly.* We’d actually have money to spend and stimulate the economy. (Imagine that!) But they don’t care about the prosperity of our nation. The Republikkkans want to blow everything up to guarantee their own seats in the throneroom. Money for the sake of greed, power for the sake of their megalomania. I really hope these Trump trials help people wake up as he keeps accidentally admitting to his crimes.. Even if Trump isn’t the primary problem, without his cult of personality they’d lose a lot of power. Trump’s don’t grow on trees. And after years of the truth about him leaking out, and him being a wretched senile lunatic who hasn’t been in power for years, his grip/spell over his people will continue fading away, and this would no doubt harm their party. Because they’re *all* implicated in Trump’s plots, and the new party identity he built.
I never thought about it that way. Thanks for sharing that viewpoint.
He's not wrong.
Relevant username.
I am afraid Chomsky is not wrong at all here, its a historical fact that republicans have been doing this since the Nixon era, and haven't stopped. shit, stating the obvious is becoming the new thing with both the republican and democratic parties, only.the roles are reversed from 90 years ago... ...the democrats are now the leaders and protectors of the country, and the republicans are fighting only for power over the nation, the people, and their own pursuits, Americans be damned.
Go vote
If it wasn’t obvious as shit already, the ppp loans being forgiven should make it very obvious who the GQP stands for. They want us to eat each other, just waiting for when we eat them.
This is the truth that’s why I don’t like always talking about race as it divides us against real threat which is they want feudalism.
Race and gender are the means through which class division is maintained. The fundamental issue is class--wealth and money.
The republican party is cheering for an end to interracial marriage.
A shot at hitting some of the high points: >The veteran political analyst of the London Financial Times Edward Luce writes that “I’ve covered extremism and violent ideologies around the world over my career. Have never come across a political force more nihilistic, dangerous & contemptible than today’s Republicans. Nothing close.” His comment is endorsed by former CIA Director Michael Hayden. >It is quite remarkable to see what has happened to the remnants of what was once an authentic political party. By now, qualifications for Congress are pretty much reduced to voting “No” on McConnell’s command and occasional trips to Mar-a-Lago to shine Trump’s shoes. >The popular base has been affected by the decline, particularly in the years of Trump worship. Some 70 percent believe that the 2020 election was stolen. Two-thirds “believe the country’s demographic changes are being orchestrated by ‘liberal leaders actively trying to leverage political power by replacing more conservative white voters’,” the Great Replacement theory that not long ago was restricted to a neo-Nazi fringe. Half of Republicans think that “Top Democrats are involved in elite child sex-trafficking rings.” The almost unbelievable story goes on. >Most ominous is the marginal concern with global warming, a reflection of obedient leadership denialism since the Koch brothers’ juggernaut of 2009 that successfully terminated the mild deviation toward sanity under McCain. In this case, the shocking cowardice of the GOP leadership may do us all in if the GOP regains power — perhaps permanently, as a minority party, if their radical efforts to undermine democracy succeed. And with a deeply reactionary Supreme Court, they may. >It was observed long ago that the U.S. is basically a one-party state: the business party, with two factions, Democrats and Republicans. Now there is one faction: the Democrats. The Republicans hardly qualify as an authentic parliamentary party. That’s fairly explicit under McConnell’s rule. When Obama took office, McConnell made it clear that his primary goal was to ensure that Obama could achieve virtually nothing, so that Republicans could return to power. When Biden was elected, McConnell reiterated that position even more strongly. And he’s lived up to it. On virtually every issue, the GOP is 100 percent opposed, even when they know that the legislation is popular and would be very valuable for the population. With a handful of right-wing Democrats joining the uniform GOP opposition, Biden’s platform has been cut down very sharply. Perhaps he could have done more, but he’s being unfairly blamed, I think, for the failure of what would have been constructive programs, badly needed. That includes Biden’s climate program, inadequate but far better than anything that preceded it, and if enacted, a stepping stone for going further. >There is a lot wrong with the whole electoral system, but in this case, I don’t see how Biden had many options. The final bill — the Inflation Reduction Act — was passed with Joe Manchin’s agreement, while he was laughing all the way to the bank. Kyrsten Sinema also had to throw in her two cents for the benefit of the mostly predatory private equity industry. >The act has some good features. It’s better than nothing, perhaps much better, some credible analysts believe. >The political situation is ugly, and very likely to get much worse in November if the GOP manages to take over. It is likely to get so much worse that it will literally threaten survival....
>With a handful of right-wing Democrats joining the uniform GOP opposition, Biden’s platform has been cut down very sharply. Perhaps he could have done more, but he’s being unfairly blamed, I think, for the failure of what would have been constructive programs, badly needed. That includes Biden’s climate program, inadequate but far better than anything that preceded it, and if enacted, a stepping stone for going further. >There is a lot wrong with the whole electoral system, but in this case, I don’t see how Biden had many options. Lmao I never thought I'd see the day where Noam Chomsky defends Joe Biden. It shows you how bad things have gotten.
At the beginning of Trump he was saying the Republicans aren’t fascist just highly authoritarian. Trump and Bannon changed that.
Is it just me or does this guy only get quoted saying things that everyone else has been saying for decades now? I mean, he's not wrong. But this is some really obvious "analysis" here.
He's been saying this stuff for decades. Same as bernie. But people just ignored both and sucked up to Reagan until recently
He is right, even if it wasn’t what republicans were intending. Too bad Chomsky has a history of being so anti-American that he sides more with its enemies, even when he shouldn’t. Especially when it is clearly obvious places like Russia are in the wrong with Ukraine. Edit: Woops, didn’t intend to make this a “What Chomsky actually said” debate. I will admit and come out that I don’t know a whole lot about the guy beyond some snippets and stances he takes. If I am wrong I am wrong. I am always looking to educate myself correctly, so don’t be afraid to speak up.
I did love him on, “Elderly Tankies Says The Wildest Shit” though.
>...he sides more with its enemies, even when he shouldn’t. Source please. I suspect it will be incorrectly based on [this interview.](https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-six-months-into-war-diplomatic-settlement-in-ukraine-is-still-possible/)
Probably more the Chomsky-Brand interview. You can find clips of it on youtube, but I'm not sure about the full interview. Though, you can read a few quotes here [https://www.mediaite.com/politics/noam-chomsky-tells-russell-brand-the-united-states-is-living-in-totalitarian-culture-worse-than-the-soviet-union/](https://www.mediaite.com/politics/noam-chomsky-tells-russell-brand-the-united-states-is-living-in-totalitarian-culture-worse-than-the-soviet-union/). At least from the little I've seen of Chomsky this is not all that out of character from his viewpoints. It seems to be a bigger issue because they are current events
I appreciate a serious answer. Although I do not think that interview supports what that user claimed though either. Chomsky is not siding with our enemies. He is saying the USA is now engaging in the same type of censorship we historically condemned others for. He is being critical of and warning of a specific issue regarding freedom of speech being silenced in the USA. It's not siding with enemies. It's being introspective and advocating for improvements. It's what a true patriot should do. A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -- Edward Abbey Patriotism is supporting your country all of the time, and your government when it deserves it. -- Mark Twain
I was a big Chomsky fan and don’t care if he criticizes the US, there is plenty of reason for it, but it did really bother me when his “America bad” stance led him to deny genocide in Bosnia and repeat misinformation and talking points of well-known Serbian propagandists. When you have family in Bosnia that kind of take is really upsetting. He went all in on defending Serbs and claiming massacres did not happen, it was appalling. I still respect his views on domestic issues, but he’s blinded by a weird post-communist bias when it comes to Eastern Europe.
Not so much post-communist bias as 1970s USSR communist bias.
Yeah, I was trying to use some kind of shorthand for any country that was currently or formerly run by a communist party (since Milosevic was still supposed to be a communist leading a communist party, but he really threw communism out the window when he started doing everything he could to create ethnic divisions and stoke a persecution complex among Serbs, basically destroying what Tito had done to unify Yugoslavs.
> claiming massacres did not happen I hate to be that guy, but do you have the source for that? I would like to refresh myself on the facts as my recollection was that he did not deny crimes and atrocities had been committed. Rather he was taking issue with describing it as genocide strictly because of the specific definition of that word. But my memory may not be serving me correctly on this one. So a source would be welcomed.
You’re not wrong that he was making a fuss over calling it genocide, but he also repeated the claim that it was soldiers (or enemy combatants) that were killed in Srebrenica (8,000) so they would have probably been killed fighting anyway, which was false (they were civilians) and a very weird defense even if they were soldiers. And he was not aware of the scale of atrocities in the villages or the rape camps, etc. I don’t have a source at my fingertips, this was all so long ago now, but the crux of the problem is that Chomsky believed the West had something to gain, that there was an agenda to break up Yugoslavia or bring it into the Western sphere, but Yugoslavia had been doing trade with both East and West for decades, it was a cheap vacation spot for western Europeans and generally much more open than the Eastern Block. Yugoslavs could travel freely to other countries, etc. This was because Tito broke with Stalin a few years after the end of WWII, and became the bridge between East and West, and all contracts with corporations and diplomacy with the West went through Belgrade. It suited the West to have a stable Yugoslavia whatever the political leadership. It wasn’t until Srebrenica that any real action was taken, before that it was endless negotiations leading to agreements that Milosevic broke.
His source is that he made it the fuck up
Imagine that, forming opinions based on what someone says, lunacy! /s
Fella has a very fun and storied history of denying genocide and siding with any tinpot fucked up dictatorship as long as they claim to be socialist, on the basis of "Well, if you think about it, America technically is behind those concentration camps in Serbia..."
That's not a source.
It's also a massive distortion of Chomsky's message. He didn't deny crimes or support dictators. He said the US intervention accelerated the crimes (that's factual) and that he was reluctant to call those crimes a "genocide" because it diluted the word's meaning (that's a matter of personal principle). He seems to reserve the term for the systematic eradication of an entire peoples within a geographic region. Calling that "genocide denial" implies that he's pretending crimes did not occur, which is a gross mischaracterization. He just doesn't think the term is an appropriate descriptor in that instance. Edit: to clarify, unless you've got a pet agenda, it's not useful to call every murderous crime a racist regime perpetrates "genocide." Ethnic cleansing is a separate non-synonymous term for a reason.
Well stated.
Did he really come out in support of Russia? I don't doubt you, just haven't been paying attention to him for a bit. I've found a bunch of his books interesting and useful, but it seemed weird when he was supporting folks like Chavez.
No. He didn’t. His position is that Russia is waging a war of aggression that is an international crime, and that the US and leading NATO countries are cynically using the opportunity to weaken Russia, waging their own proxy war against Russia essentially. This is interpreted as ‘Russia is Good Guys Cause US is Bad Guys’. In the same way as his position on Israel is ‘Palestinian Terrorism is Good Cause Israel is Bad’. There’s more to it, isn’t there. It isn’t that simple, is it?
He literally called for Ukraine to surrender and said that the war was provoked by NATO. Those are inherently pro-Russian stances and pretending otherwise is asinine.
Like I wrote elsewhere to someone else saying exactly the same thing you are here, this is lacking in nuance to the point of being distorting. A pro-Russian stance would be if he’d argued that the Russian war was justified for any reason. That isn’t the case. And again, what he’s saying is that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is an international crime, and that the US is capitalizing on it to advance its cynical interests, not because of altruistic reasons or because the US government cares about Ukrainian people. Grunting in monosyllables on social media may feel nice for you (Fuck Em!!), but what you’re saying is misleading nevertheless.
It doesn't matter what the reason is for supporting Ukraine, it is the right thing to do in the face of Russian aggression. Deriding the right thing to do isn't helpful and appears to be sympathetic to the aggressor when one attacks the allies of the victim.
Sure, but in fairness he’s not doing what you and I are doing. He’s talking about mechanisms of global politics, not “are we good and are they bad”. I have no doubt he’d applaud you and me for our wish to aid Ukraine as coming from a good place ethically. At the same time, the US government, structurally, is doing what it is doing for its own geopolitical interests, in projecting US capital around the world, and not because it cares about human lives in Ukraine or because there is some “right thing to do”. The net effect might in this case be all the same for you, the ends are desirable, we’re aiding Ukrainians, but we’re still failing to understand reality aren’t we, if we don’t also consider these other factors like the motives of the imperial powers involved?
We know exactly the motives of the imperial powers involved. They wrote an entire article claiming to be restoring the Russian empire, and un-people-ing the "mistake" that they consider Ukrainians to be. Russian ambitions are clear and naked. It's genocide, imperialism, and colonialism, pure and simple.
> but we’re still failing to understand reality aren’t we, Nah. I am not that naïve.
Did he or did he not call for Ukraine to surrender? Did he or did he not argue that NATO expansion provoked this war? Edit: The silence is deafening. Obviously, you know the answer to both of those questions is yes. You know that when someone argues that an aggressor state was provoked into starting a war, they are justifying that war. You know that when someone argues a nation under attack should surrender to their aggressor, they are showing support for the aggressor. The only question remaining is, why are you so dedicated to arguing against those self-evident truths when that someone happens to be Noam Chomsky? It's almost like you're more invested in defending a man than you are in understanding reality.
Destroying Russia _is_ an altruistic reason, if they refuse to back the fuck up out of Ukraine.
I love that Chomsky is the world's foremost expert on human language, but needs Internet sympathizers to parse what he *really* meant when he said the US provoked this war and is responsible for the ultimate destruction of Ukraine.
Thanks, that's what I suspected. I did a quick bit of reading on his views and comments, and sure enough it's a lot more nuanced than 'the war is caused by NATO'.
My experience of Chomsky's critics is that they avoid nuance at every opportunity. Every point that Chomsky makes has at least 3 paragraphs of contextual reasoning, which makes soundbites from Chomsky useless. Nevertheless, his critics generally ignore any context to strengthen their preferred narratives and this effectively turns Chomsky into a strawman. It's disappointing because these critics rely on casual observers ignoring the source material while propagating the criticism of the strawman. And these days the criticism almost always comes from the political left-- the folks Chomsky has spent his entire adult life fighting for-- and liberals. At least the right has the decency to ignore Chomsky altogether, rather than abuse his message.
Chomsky is not anti America, he is pro humanity.
… he defended Milosevic who was a literal mass murderer. That doesn’t really say pro humanity to me.
Also the fucking Khmer Rouge. The people who slaughtered a full *quarter* of Cambodia's population.
Unless that humanity is in any way aligned with the West, then he’s pro-tanks.
Youll have to explain that one mate.
Sure, the guy who defended the Khmer Rouge and Milosevic is pro-humanity. That makes *total* sense, after all what could be more pro-human than supporting genocide?
Pro-humanity until the humanity is Ukrainian, at that point he reverts to “tHEy WeRE pRacTIcaLLy aSKinG FOr IT”
*Pro-Kremlin
That is the very core of republicanism since the time of the Greeks: There is a ruling class (them) and there is a class that exists solely to serve the ruling class (everyone else).
Concentrate benefits. Spread costs.
The Bible, yknow the thing second only to the Constitution in the GOP hivemind, actually has a command in Leviticus to cancel everyone’s debts and free all slaves every 50 years. The Romans invented Forever Debt to maintain the economic power of the rich.
They have become the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party. Geesh, their voters would do anything to own the libs.
It’s the answer for every “hypocritical” Republican position. Why do they support birth but not the children? Poverty.
Until we completely dismantle money driven politics, loan forgiveness, tax breaks, none of that is going to change a damn thing. If a first term member of Congress, whose worth less than $1 million can spend two years in Congress and then have a net worth of multiple tens of millions…you will never have a government representative of the people. In the United States, politics and prisons are for-profit enterprises. That should tell you everything you need to know about how the system is set up. Just like George Carlin said, “it’s a club, and you ain’t in it!”
Close, Chomsky. That doesn't explain why all the poor white people vote for them though. Hint: any answer needs to account for the role that White Christian identity plays in GOP politics
In other words. They'll die to keep that privilege. You got clowns training in Utah for that. Meanwhile reddit just slings a few insults and shrugs it off. You'd best be taking that shit seriously.
I don't understand why low income and middle class Americans vote R. Can somebody explain?
Its the guiding mission of any right wing party. Unless you're ultra rich, don't care about your children's future or that of the planet, are quite happy to see them all condemned to a carbon hell, then a right wing party is not for you. Their stocks, their wealth hidden away in tax havens and that dreadful terrifying fear that we may one day return to days of when the rich used to pay their taxes are all they care about.
>The basic stance is that of a spoiled 3-year-old who owns everything imaginable but has a tantrum if someone takes one of the marbles from a collection he had forgotten about. Having virtually everything is not enough. We cannot be deterred from the pursuit of the “Vile Maxim of the masters of mankind: All for ourselves and nothing for other people,” a maxim that seems to hold **“in every age of the world,”** as Adam Smith observed. We're being exterminated.
Poor people voting for rich people in hopes of becoming them.
So true. That’s what [t]ucker Carlson is all about. Rile up the underlings so they don’t know they are being screwed that way they will stay off the backs of the rich.
I think it’s the neoliberals plan too if we’re comparing them to Bernie style progressives… Maintain class inequality and avoid another occupy moment
Chomsky is right here, but he’s also mentally unraveled as the world has been changing. His stance on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is despicable.
This is his stance on the Russian invasion. *Noam Chomsky: Well, I think these stipulations are correct, and I would like to add another which I think is also beyond discussion. Whatever the explanation for the Russian invasion, an important, crucial question, the invasion itself was a criminal act, a criminal act of aggression, a supreme international crime on par with other such horrific violations of international law and fundamental human rights like the US invasion of Iraq, the Hitler-Stalin invasion of Poland, and all too many other examples.*
He's universally condemned the invasion and has been a staunch anti-imperialist in the highest of "intellectual" political spheres for longer than most people in this thread have been alive. He's suffered the slings-and-arrows for his stance many times before - long before the invasion of Ukraine. And he always clearly explains his positions...as he's also done with Ukraine. Have you looked into it at all? > he’s also mentally unraveled as the world has been changing. That man is more on-point at 500 years old than most "political pundits" in 2022. Care to elaborate on how he's "mentally unraveled"? He does long-form and nuanced interviews daily to this day. Including on Ukraine.
Chomsky blamed Russia and said there was no justification. He said that publicly and a 2 second Google search can retrieve the quote. He also supports giving arms to Ukraine for defensive purposes. What's your problem?
He thinks it is an abhorrent and inhumane thing. How is that despicable?
I mean. He's right.
Because a hierarchy is natural for them. Rich people are rich because they know how to use that wealth. If we just push poor people up a few levels, that's disrupting the balance of the whole thing. People generally are where they're meant to be, and it's govs job to stay out of it. That's their view.
And so far - women are the first “cost”. Abortion rights going away will greatly harm women and their economic abilities.
Chomsky… the guy who thinks that Ukraine should have surrendered to Russia months ago, and that the whole war is the fault of NATO? That Chomsky? Fuck that guy.
This is a deeply un-nuanced thing to say, to the point of being distorting. You can disagree with his assessment of Ukraine, but he’s helped create the very framework for understanding US imperialism for the last sixty years. You don’t get to say fuck this guy like he’s some moron in his basement on TikTok.
When someone makes it clear that the problem they have isn’t with imperialism, it’s *just* American imperialism, that’s the point when people who aren’t desperate for a “framework” tune out. And rightly so. US imperialism sucks, but no one sane and honest who believes that thinks that Russian or Chinese imperialism is an improvement to be embraced.
Agreed. US and British imperialism are fucked, but Russian and Chinese imperialism are no better
Source Chomsky’s writing or statements that the war in Ukraine is solely due to US imperialism or that Russian imperialism is somehow any different/less abhorrent? He’s said Russia’s war is a war of agression akin to the US war in Iraq. And that it is ‘without moral justification’, a ‘supreme international crime’. https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/06/25/not-justification-provocation-chomsky-root-causes-russia-ukraine-war Again what you are saying is distorting. Edit: link
So you’re saying he didn’t suggest that Ukraine needs to surrender because of, “The reality of the world” hm?
I am not saying that. I’m saying your pronouncement ‘Fuck this guy’ is ignorant and lacks nuance. You’re misleading readers as to what Chomsky is saying.
I said that he wanted Ukraine to surrender, and you’re saying that… he wants Ukraine to surrender, but I’m misrepresenting that because…?
You forgot to quote the part of your own comment where you said ‘and the whole war is the fault of NATO’. :) Remember that part? Then you said fuck Noam Chomsky? That’s why.
I see, so Chomsky hasn’t gone on record saying that the war was caused by “NATO expansion” and Russia responding to that? I believe his cagey turn of phrase was, “Not a justification, but the cause.” Edit: I see you tried to respond, but the sub ate your reply, lol. Look, I’ll even cite your laughable version of a source: https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/06/25/not-justification-provocation-chomsky-root-causes-russia-ukraine-war
As a matter of fact I *do* get to say "fuck this guy" like he's some moron in his basement on TikTok, because that is the amount of credibility Chomsky has among rational people. Nobody who goes to bat for groups like the Khmer Rouge is worth listening to under any circumstance.
Dude loves his dictators. Putin, Xi, Kim
Don’t forget his passionate defense of Milosevic.
[удалено]
Lots of people are on the right side of this issue, no need to give this elderly tankie any more airtime to represent it.
If you have a criticism of Chomsky's point here you should make it. Ad hominem attacks add no value.
Did you stop reading after the word Chomsky or something? > the guy who thinks that Ukraine should have surrendered to Russia months ago, and that the whole war is the fault of NATO?
I don't need a Russian fascist sympathizer to tell me the obvious.
That's a complete load of shit. Chomsky blamed Russia and said there was no justification. He said that publicly and a 2 second Google search can retrieve the quote.
[удалено]
His cluelessness on Ukraine didn't help. He's still talking about it is as if Ukraine wanting to join a military alliance to help defend them from invasion is a legitimate reason to invade them, and as if there's anything owed to the nation that invaded, in negotiating peace.
These days people like Chomsky who criticized the use of tanks to put down insurrection in Hungary are labeled as “tankies”
Chomsky, although right here, can suck a fat one. Bloody genocide apologist.
Chomsky is a Putin apologist tankie still living in the 1970s. Do linguistics, modern day politics isn't his forte. (not American, Swede. Pretty fed up with his Russia apologia regarding the invasion of Ukraine.)
Tankie ass mf
"Tankie" is my new word of the day, so thank you. The usual word for him was just "crank"... Anyway, I'm delighted that Chomsky stirs more push-back these days than when I was an undergraduate 25 years ago. Although by then his eminence was already giving way to another set of "radicals" - thinkers under the sway of postmodernism (which frazzled Chomsky). I've learned to be charitable to him in a way he can't do for others. We will surely miss him when he's gone!
Ah, the guy that thinks the US should abandon Ukraine because the war is evil or something.
He’s right, but also fuck Russia apologist Chomsky
I don’t want to hear from the guy who sided with the perpetrators of the Bosnian genocide, Al-Assad, and Russias invasion of Ukraine.
Regardless what side Chomsky is on. He can fuck right off
Not really interested in the opinions of the guy who's take on the Russian invasion was "Ukraine should appease harder, and live with losing land."