Chomsky on Anarchism (sidenote; education)

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
no, if the factors of production are privately owned on a collective basis (for example) by the means of production based on a system contrary to the wage system than that is not capitalism- it is a negation of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure I agree with this - capitalism says that the means of production are owned by individuals and those individuals decide how they are used. There's nothing that says that the means of production can't be used by "the workers" who use them.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
yes and none of the front page sources are credible

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that they all quote Chomsky, I can see why you would say this.

This is a ridiculous statement. Have you even read what Chomsky wrote at the time?

[zasterguava]

"Uh, that isn't private ownership. Do you know what the word "private" means? It means individual. "

No, private ownership is not exclusive to individual ownership over something. Collectivist ownership of property is acknowleding property rights as in opposition to state ownership. private property would exist with the means of production owning the factors of production collectively or on some sort of private democratised leve.
[ QUOTE ]
(for example) by the workers themselves

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean like a syndicate? Do they have individual shares that they can buy and sell? If so, fine. But that's capitalism. If not, then it isn't private ownership.

[ QUOTE ]
based on a system contrary to the wage system than that is not capitalism- it is a negation of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this even mean: "based on a system contrary to the wage system"? Are you saying that you don't want workers to get paid for their work? I boggle. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

It would depend on how you define "paid". If you define it by recieving a proportionate return on their work then that is what you are stricly opposing.

[ConstantineX]

Perhaps it would be easier if you could give simple examples of what would be allowed, not allowed or different under your system, and how those rules would be enforced.

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
yes and none of the front page sources are credible

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that they all quote Chomsky, I can see why you would say this.

This is a ridiculous statement. Have you even read what Chomsky wrote at the time?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I suggest you do the same. He criticizes the US interpretation of events in Cambodia using his propoganda model suggesting that the media is in the pocket of private and state power and as such down played the US's part in the atrocity.

Give me ONE quote where Chomsky praises the Khmer Rouge and Ill send you a cookie.

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps it would be easier if you could give simple examples of what would be allowed, not allowed or different under your system, and how those rules would be enforced.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't propose any system; it was Chomsky's view on anarchism I was wishing to debate for which I am sympathetic. Chomsky stresses if you read the sources that it is impossible to predict the outcome of anarchism and even admits the ony way to find out is to 'try it and see'.

[Bill Haywood]

Borodog wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
productivity would completely crash without private ownership.... if you started with a completely, totally equal division of property, in the first minute of socialism inequalities would immediately arise.... To maintain "equality" would require ongoing massive violence....
Not to mention, who makes the decisions about what to produce? Who bears the risks if the wrong things are made?

[/ QUOTE ]

You misunderstand him thoroughly. Chomsky is not so arrogant as to imagine the details of how an anarchist society would work. In fact, in the interview he refused to be drawn into discussing the specifics of an ideal society, because he appreciates that grandiose schemes of human engineering are empty, naive, fantasies. To burden him with the failings of planned economies is pure straw man.

He gave a very, very, modest definition of anarchism:

[ QUOTE ]
an expression of the idea that the burden of proof is always on those who argue that authority and domination are necessary

[/ QUOTE ]

Further,

[ QUOTE ]
it is not a movement with an ideology. It is a tendency in the history of human thought and action which seeks to identify coercive, authoritarian, and hierarchic structures.... and if their legitimacy [cannot be justified] to work to undermine them and expand the scope of freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's all it is to him. A philosophical belief that power must always be forced to justify hierarchy, and limited when it cannot. So methods of production, distribution, ownership, are all up for negotiation. Unlike Leninists or libertarians, he says "I don't think there are formulas that can be applied."

The difference between Chomsky and anarcho-capitalists is that he makes the toweringly obvious observation that private power can be a source of tyranny, just like public.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
5. Many "anarcho-capitalists" claim that anarchism means the freedom to do what you want with your property and engage in free contract with others. Is capitalism in any way compatible with anarchism as you see it?

Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always get a laugh out of this one. Easy to tear down a philosophy when you seemingly know nothing about it.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]

"Uh, that isn't private ownership. Do you know what the word "private" means? It means individual. "

No, private ownership is not exclusive to individual ownership over something. Collectivist ownership of property is acknowleding property rights as in opposition to state ownership. private property would exist with the means of production owning the factors of production collectively or on some sort of private democratised leve.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, what? The means of production are the factors of production. "Private democratised leve"? What does that mean? You get a vote on what to do with the factors of production? What if you don't agree with the majority? Can you sell your share or not?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(for example) by the workers themselves

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean like a syndicate? Do they have individual shares that they can buy and sell? If so, fine. But that's capitalism. If not, then it isn't private ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

No answer here?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
based on a system contrary to the wage system than that is not capitalism- it is a negation of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this even mean: "based on a system contrary to the wage system"? Are you saying that you don't want workers to get paid for their work? I boggle. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

It would depend on how you define "paid". If you define it by recieving a proportionate return on their work then that is what you are stricly opposing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, no it isn't. That is exactly what tends to happen under capitalism; workers tend to be paid their marginal revenue product.

If you have 100 workers producing $1000 of revenue per hour, and you hire a 101st worker and the total revenue increases to $1007, then the workers will be paid $7/hour. If you paid them more than $7 per hour, you lose money for every worker you hire. If you pay them less, then there exists a profit opportunity for another employer to exploit by bidding workers away from you, and competition among employers for workers is fierce.

Who is going to bear the risk in your system? Who is going to do the saving? Under capitalism, the capitalist's function is to save; he defers consumption and saves, so that he can pay the workers during the lengthy production process. All of the factors of production must be paid ahead of time. And if it turns out that he has made an error about what to produce or how to produce it, he suffers the loss, and not the workers, who have gotten paid all along. What happens to all the workers who collectively own a firm making things that they suddenly realize they cannot sell except at a loss? They all get [censored], that's what. That's pretty much what happened to all the employees of Enron. They had all their savings tied up in shares of their company which turned out to be rotten at the core. The fact that the collapse was due to accounting shananigans is irrelevent; it could have just been an external change in conditions that suddenly made the company not profitable (buggy whip manufacturers when the car was invented). And all those workers got *hosed*.

Why do you hate the worker?

[Money2Burn]

Serious question:

Would locks/fences be illegal in this type of society?