My refutation to his touted "modernization within a generation" claim within russia, and with inferrence that "look how well socialism was doing" is simply this:
At what cost.
Utterly millions of people as per some nations such as russia and china, were killed in these modernization efforts of the communist regimes. People starved to death in drove.
This at the benefit, of becoming an as stated, second-world nation.
So, grandma starved and your brother's dead, your uncle's stuck in the gulag, but congratulations.
You have indoor plumbing now. -.-
While I'd wager he'd disagree somehow, I would still say that we as a capitalist society made all those accomplishments they did, and did them much better. Didn't even have to lose lives to oppression and starvation numbering in the double digit millions in doing it either. But, based from his answers to questioning on the video, I'm sure he'd dive into some few imperfect things within the next argument he would express, to try and paint the two consequences as anything near to being equal.
He insists upon their accomplishments. Downplaying their flaws, and up-playing ours. If Chomsky isn't a statist or a communist, he sure does often go out of his way to defend them. Or anyone else that is socially collectivist it seems to be.
Communism was a disaster.
Sounds like taking a Great flying Leap... Forward I mean.
Chomsky then goes on from that, to the usual leftist spiel against the turn of the 20th century era based on an argument of presentism, about "labor history." Usual.
He proposed how the late 18/early1900's were horrible, solely because according to him we didn't have regulations. That basis he put forth instead of the truth, which is that particular age 'sucked' in the manners it did, not because of it being without more regulation, but because 1860... was 1860.
I'm Sorry Chompy but put simply, age of no tractor = child work or child starve, if you may grasp what I mean.
No resources were available for him and his philosophy to redistribute then, deal with it. A child had to work,
because Childhelp = childfood existing to go into child's belly. You can't get blood from a turnip, because it's just not there to be got. You can't have a full time public school system and no child labor in a world dependent, not reliant that isn't the word, dependent upon child labor.
I use that example of child labor, because it's one of the main ones brought up by people criticizing that era, and the premise to me generally remains the same for other arguments. The rest of society couldn't take up the slack the socialists cry out against. The means were not there.
It was simply a case of allocation of scarce resources; for my stated example, you can either of had those resources and wealth go where they did, with children being fed, or you could of allocated them via government to fund full-time schools for all, chasing simply impractical dreams for that age, and as consequence somebody somewhere is starving to death.
Chompy could jump in a ufo and ring the world like a Superman movie, back to that age to spread his idealism around. It doesn't matter because it simply wasn't a possible option to address all his issues with the time period. Wouldn't we all just wish we lived in solid gold mansions and had our every whim fulfilled. Not possible however, and that is where the socialist's arguments fall apart. They aren't practical. You can only stress a system so much, and as day after day reveals socialists tend to always choke themselves chasing their utopias and denying reality of both past and present. That era he criticized was probably as near to good as it could be.
I have criticisms of my own to the time period for unfair government subsidies, some lack of property rights, cultural issues and the like but mostly it was nearing as good as it could get for that pre-assembly line era.
He then goes on from that point to complain about labor in the 1920s. Perhaps, I don't know. I do know that generally the 8 hour work day was beginning to become the norm, and average work hours had been going down for a long time, as innovation allowed. Allowed being a key word. As in, made even possible. You can't not-work, if notwork means not-eat, because not-working there's not food. Extra hours were required to produce goods. After assembly lines and production boosts ect. allowed people to get past the 'manufacture one wagon a week' hump, things got a little easier for the more free time for the average laborer concept.
Irrc, real wages in relation to production rose up until the early 1910s, the two being very close to one another, so Labor wasn't really getting jipped out of wages and got some share during that period. That trend had been improving constantly, if I'm not mistaken. So worker safety or not, they were getting paid for the production. Another issue able to be addressed toward practically, brought from the new explosive boost of production from the average laborer.
Let me recap what I said, once more in a different way: If you can't easily produce all those nice little things to stay fed and alive with a little disposable income, and have some of what your work produces there for Mr. Company owner to sell so he gets some money and has incentive to give his workers a job,
then it isn't even
possible to start addressing all these other issues the socialists think they've had to swoop in like a hero the past century and use government to address in any manner. Why so, because when you don't even have enough to eat or don't make enough stuff to create, use, build and sell, due to that lack of innovation the past ages were unfortunate to hold, you don't have the resources to spare laying around all those other leisure hours in that established 8 hour work day. You have to work more to get out more production. Little Johnny, doesn't have that option to go to an affordable school, because unless Little Johnny is milking the cow or banging coalrocks in order to buy the cow's milk, Little Johnny's going to be one starving kid. Because Farmer John can't milk if he can't afford coal not to freeze, Miner John can eat if he doesn't have milk bought from working the mines, and neither one of them are going to produce enough to stay both fed and thawed out unless both Little Johnnys are working.
Until that whole little "industrial revolution" bit lead to Farmer John being able to bale loads more hay that led to loads more cows thus more and cheaper milk per farmer, and Miner John got a machine to crank out more coal per miner. THEN, and only then, could Little Johnny not have to work and could go more often to school and learn past the three R's, and their fathers could have some time off work. That was the case before the industrial revolution, and THAT, was why things weren't the little perfect wonderworld that Chomsky wished they were.
I'm not saying absolutely everything before factories and all the rest was bad, but I am saying it's done marvelous good. More than socialist.
Capitalism and the very social results that arose from the incentives it creates, are required even for the socialist to start yelping for all his reforms.
Reforms that in my opinion that are premature and only come about when trends to the human positive will continue occurring anyway, provided the markets stay free.
Enough of that argument from him...
Then, he moves to this gem.
His equating of slavery and employment, to owning a car vs. renting a car. This analogy, is ignorant. I find it insulting it's so snobbish.
Slaves and free workers aren't the same, wages aren't slavery. This bit makes me so angry at libertarian socialists.
Seeing how this analogy is ignorant, let us use it.
To begin with he calls a worker, a "rented car".
A rented car, however, cannot drive itself into the garage of whatever owner will pay him the most rent. An employee, provided that the market works and is free enough for businesses to arise thus competition, can do so. Plus, in a general wide sense, when the "rented car" is paid for in it's monthly rent fee (as in wage), it amount is the
highest price that is competitive. Else the rented car (employee) will seek another garage (company, employment) Car Owners (Owners of businesses who employ wage earners), have to compete in price for "rented cars" and constantly must find out new things to create and produce, and to produce them in cheaper ways, for those "rented cars" to spend their rent charges toward (consummerism).
This all leads to improving the lot of the rented car, provided there are no large barriers for the creation of new garages to compete with one another, for those rented cars.
They will then have to compete in rent charges (pay) for those rented cars. In other words, the value of labor becomes a matter of competition provided companies have to compete for labor. They have to complete in service and price to the consumer.
The lot of the "rented car" improves one heck of lot faster, and certainly a lot less one-side than his slave, owned car.
Does anyone really want to argue that slaves are the same as a person receiving a wage. Chomsky does.
He then argues "well the slaves, "owned cars" I suppose, are better off in 1850 that in 1750."
Oh yeah buddy? Well tell you what the past 4000 years, those slaves were pretty much in there getting generally the same treatment as a constant. Maybe some bumps for living in
an age where they can take a dip in a Roman bathhouse somewhere in there, but generally, a slave in ancient Sumeria is just about completely as bad off as a slave standing over the same dirt 5400 years later.
You know what made that quality of life improve in that 100 years?
Probably, all those new, freed-up company employer "garages" in your analogy, competing for all those banged up employee rented cars buzzing around.
His analogy is dumb and history isn't as so kind to him imo.
Speaking of which, there goes his "no it's not a triumph of capitalism" spiel in the video. Why didn't his little supposedly equal in merit/function/whatever, thousand-year slave labor age, stay pretty much the same for centuries maybe pulling off the occasional advancement in catapult tech, while the freest in history capitalist age, exploded human endeavor in a short time? (and yes he used it all as some moral argument actually against slave owners but he Still equated employees to slaves so I nail that notion)
This is all made in light of his supported socialistic, command economy experiments, failing over and over repeatedly the whole world wide everywhere it's attempted, and whose only touted successes being muster up, are as being second rate to a capitalistic society, at the cost of starvation of millions within a few decades?
Oh but we're not done yet on this bit but nearly. Where's the second rate worrisome communist Soviets? Oh yes, they collapsed. Where's the Chinese? Oh yes they adopted some rudimentary capitalistic principles and they didn't. At least yet.
In the short time period where socialism in the modern sense has been tried, and liberty with capitalism has been tried, socialism has failed so many times it's laughable. Capitalism has that little up/down graph arrow rising and over time constantly improving. This doesn't need a smart person to know, capitalism beats out socialism. Capitalism has won already.
Next and lastly in the video, it's on to Hitler. Oh how great. Hitler. Look at that.
Well la, tee, dah.
"Everyone improved under Hitler, Hitler was great, I'm Chompsky and dahduhdah.
Yeah I'd say they were better off, whoopty doo. Their entire monetary system was just destroyed.
Anything that addressed that was going to mean being better off.
He asks, "Is that an argument for fascism?"
Hmmm let me think nevermind, no. No.
I would say, it's a good argument for at least some certain amount and form of monetary stability, this in comparison to basically none,
but an argument for fascism as he claims?
Oh please.
Oh Yes, Chomsky. -.-
Authoritarian Fascists being able to conjure up some amount of economic stability, following directly after what I would call a rock bottom total collapse and in comparison to it,
is so an argument for fascism.
In other news, cubans being able to read and farm, is an argument for communism.
Or maybe it's just an argument for literacy and agriculture. Much like the stated is actually an argument for currency stability.
You know. General concepts that are independent of whatever he's saying and trying to impose.
I think Chomsky is wrong.
