Choam Nomsky

>By God! The richest countries are the capitalist ones!
On the contary most capitalist countries are poor as shit.
What is true however is that the richest countries are the imperialist ones. And no one will dispute imperialism makes a country rich.

capitalism is literally what keeps the rich rich, the poor poor and the working class slaves, it makes us exhuast resources on things we don't need so that a stupefied culture will exchange their hard earned work for the gain of the individual, and that's the biggest evil of capitalism, it promotes selfishness and psychopathy and chaos, how is the antithesis of harmony supposed to stabilize our civilization is beyond me, it is a destructive force that will sooner or later will bring either the destruction of civilization or a dystopian kingdom for the high class to rule as God's,you must be the worst kind of idiot to think that capitalism is a good.

south korea and north korea are both authoritarian shitholes user

>Spain is the most successful country in the world
>Mongolia must be really rich
>Portugal

Wow, those great imperialists the Scandinavians/Swiss!

On the contrary you pulled that idea out of your ass. Most countries have turned to capitalism recently as they are poor, and are in the process of becoming richer. You have mixed up cause and effect.

"Chomsky is empirically wrong, he ignored the I d e o l o g y"

It seems to me that would be a tragic loss. You should listen to what a person has to say, always, before you gauge on your like/dislike of a person. I mean, it's one thing if the person is hurting you somehow and yeh that's going to make you dislike him. If it's just some person on the street or if it's just some guy in a picture then it sounds pretty strange to me to simply dislike him.

South Korea was but is now a democracy.
Also I'd rather be in a rich authoritarian state, than a poor one.

Top zizek

he's not wrong, sorry to say.

>Got news for you, pal. The vast majority of the planet has been capitalist for quite some time
Yeah, and living standards all over it is improving quite drastically.

>Well first of all, tell me: Is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed? You think Russia doesn’t run on greed? You think China doesn’t run on greed? What is greed? Of course, none of us are greedy, it’s only the other fellow who’s greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system.

Who are you to tell the average person what they need and do not need?

Rich don't stay rich for long unless if they fulfill people's demands. Social mobility is higher in capitalist countries. Free markets plus social insurance is the way to go thank you.

>I hate this guy

>Can you tell me why he is wrong?

You are part of the problem. Do you happen to be Christian?

Anti-Caps BTFO

Communists too.

Look at the anual growth and the amount of people that have escaped poverty in the last century retard.

>Spain
Pretty damn rich
>Mongolia
If you are trying to say the Mongol horde is comparable to European empires then you are retarded.
>Portugal
Also pretty damn rich, if a bit shit by western European standards.

> Scandinavians/Swiss!
Scandinavians were pretty interested in imperialism on the small scale.

>Most countries have turned to capitalism recently as they are poor, and are in the process of becoming richer.
All countries become richer as technology progresses and the population grows. Even if a country is totally stagnant and technology backwards the GDP will still generally grow at least proportionally to the population growth.

However you're lying when you say these countries have turned to capitalism recently, unless you're defining capitalism to mean your own special concept of capitalism. Because to take for instance Guatemala the US has made perfectly sure that this country is """"free""" for over 100 years now and it is a shithole. And when Jacopo Arbenz tried to institute some progressive reforms that would alleviate the crushing poverty the US made sure to cut that shit out because it would undermine the capitalist interests in keeping Guatemala exploited.

And that fundamentally is the nature of the relationship between the first and the third world in capitalism. One exists to consume and one to be exploited just as it is between the upper class and the working class in every capitalist country.

>Look at these charts!
I can do that too.

>On the contary most capitalist countries are poor as shit.
>What is true however is that the richest countries are the imperialist ones. And no one will dispute imperialism makes a country rich.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
Protip: You are a retard

What do you think you just proved?

>capitalism is literally what keeps the rich rich
Wrong. People go bankrupt all the time.
>the poor poor
Wrong. No system has had as much social movility as our current one.
>and the working class slaves
Memes are not real life. Have you even work in your entire life? You can quit,and even open your own bussiness with an small investment
>it makes us exhuast resources on things we don't need
And you are the one determining this right? We actually dont need houses, nor heaters,we have survived without those for millenials. Should we ban this things too,which are obvioulsy not needed?
> so that a stupefied culture will exchange their hard earned work for the gain of the individual, and that's the biggest evil of capitalism, it promotes selfishness and psychopathy and chaos, how is the antithesis of harmony
No evidence,just bullshit the sentence
>supposed to stabilize our civilization is beyond me, it is a destructive force that will sooner or later will bring either the destruction of civilization or a dystopian kingdom for the high class to rule as God's,you must be the worst kind of idiot to think that capitalism is a good.
Not a single argument,the paragraph.
>I know nothing about economics. The post.

...

Iceland wasn't imperialist. Norway wasnt imperialistic. Switzerland wasnt imperialistic. Sweden wasnt imperialistic,while Portugal was the biggest imperial country relative to its size and is the poorest of all the countries in western Europe. Imperialism was most costly than anything else.
>inb4 trading is imperialistic

You just posted made up bullshit without a single fact. And your comment is full of falacies.

>>capitalism is literally what keeps the rich rich, the poor poor and the working class slaves,
What you call capitalism is the Human Rights

Spain is poorer than the Swiss/scandies.

You said that imperialism always makes a country rich, Mongolia refutes that.

A few trading posts and one Caribbean island wouldn't be a large enough factor to make all of Scandinavia rich. Finland was under the swedes for centuries and then the Russians.

Obviously foreigners taking over the political system will be bad, but you are just cherry picking here, look at Costa Rica for more success. Not to mention that capitalism requires good institutions to work at max capacity.

>What is mutually beneficial exchange

Of course you don't believe that can happen. It's a matter of faith to you people.

Globalisation has been a great thing for the poorest in the world.

>Iceland
>Norway
>Switzerland
Iceland I will say is pretty good. And a great example of why government involvement in the economy can be a massive benefit.

Norway on the other hand happened to be lucky enough to make bank on oil.

Sweden actually was imperialist though.

> Portugal was the biggest imperial country relative to its size and is the poorest of all the countries in western Europe
Portugal was doing well until very recently actually. Interestingly it seemed that after the liberalization of the economy around the turn of the century is when things got worse.

I'm not the same guy I just had to say
>you don't understand economics
Is the oldest non-argument in the book.

>Mongolia refutes that.

I'm sorry... Mongolia refutes what, exactly?

first post best post

This is by far the best post so far. Accurate criticism. I largely agree with his politics and assessments, as impractical as they may be. But he's meticulous is providing sources for his opinions, and by and large he sticks to the facts to begin with.

>Government within a capitalist system is not capitalism
You do realise capitalism does not equal
Anarchocapitalism, right?

It's strange that the countries that Sweden took are also doing rather well? Maybe imperialism isn't such a big factor huh

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Mongolia

Rich leader != Success of an economy

>Sweden actually was imperialist though.
When did I mention Sweden? Let me guess you are American.
Ireland was de facto a colony and now is wealthier than the UK. Portugal was a backwards country since the XVIII century. Your meme theories are just that. Memes.

Spain is by no means poor, and as a matter of fact it's good that you mention it because the height of their success was when they were literally imperialist.

>You said that imperialism always makes a country rich, Mongolia refutes that.
Mongolia did not set up capitalist imperialist trading venturies all across the planet, nor was it centralized to Mongolia. They were nomads that swept across Eurasia then collapsed shortly afterwards. Not at all comparable to say Britain's many-century long economic exploitation of many continents.

>A few trading posts and one Caribbean island wouldn't be a large enough factor to make all of Scandinavia rich
No, but it certainly gave Sweden and Denmark a massive head start in cultivating native industry.

Finland however you may note is not comparable to overseas colonies. For all intents and purposes it was essentially an integral part of the empire.

Additionally I must say everyone ITT takes the term "imperialism" very literally without considering modern day imperialism.

>Of course you don't believe that can happen.
I do believe mutually beneficial exchange can happen, I just also believe socialism is an infinitely superior system for the creation of it.

>Globalisation has been a great thing for the poorest in the world.
Globalisation is good, capitalism is not.

Not when he proves it with his post. I never used it as an argument.

I never said government involvement isn't capitalism. I just pointed it out as notable.

>Wrong. People go bankrupt all the time.
so do you think Bill Gates will go "bankrupt" soon? what about the Bankers? Politicians? Apple? McDonald's? Google? Oil companies? weapon manufacturers?

>Wrong. No system has had as much social movility as our current one.
why is it than that the niggers on the streets aren't getting high education? why do they turn to crime? why can't the middle class average individual start his own business without risking his whole life on a lawn that might bankrupt him forever? why can't he build a house without selling his soul on a mortgage?

>Memes are not real life. Have you even work in your entire life? You can quit,and even open your own bussiness with an small investment

so what you're saying is "you can quit and enslave yourself to something else for the benefit of the 1%" "how is that slavery brah"

>And you are the one determining this right? We actually dont need houses, nor heaters,we have survived without those for millenials. Should we ban this things too,which are obvioulsy not needed?
how fucking stupid can one individual be, of course I'm not talking about our fundamental needs although this can be much more efficient as well, I'm talking about phones that come out every year with zero improvements, I'm talking about fast food enterprises that objectively poison our society, I'm talking about weapon manufacturers that profit from the death of other humans, I'm talking about pharmaceuticals and other giants who don't invest in important research because it's not profitable for them etc etc

everything else you said is just "I'm too stupid to understand what you're saying" the post

You did, right here.
>Sweden wasnt imperialistic

>Ireland was de facto a colony and now is wealthier than the UK
Yes, Ireland is also a tax-haven with through the roof unemployment and is an absolute shithole by European standards.

I can tell you this with certainty because I live there.

>. Portugal was a backwards country since the XVIII century.
It was not, in the late 90s Portugal had some serious economic growth going on.

I say this as someone fond of left libertarianism and more disappointed than anything.

1) His ideology is inherently flawed, attempting a top-down approach imposing abstract concepts on society like many other ideologues. His vision of an economy dominated by worker's cooperatives for example suffers from various practical problems and would require an Amish level of devotion to maintain, but he generally glosses over this safe in the knowledge his ideas work in theory so it must be capitalist boogeymen crushing his dreams not cold hard reality.

2) Though he is critical of some left wing authoritarian regimes he is still deep into his own ingroup and the bulk of his arguments follow the same formula with him, fellow intellectuals and working class folk on one side versus nuts among the right wing, evil corporations, abusive political authority and so on, all interconnected by his theories on capitalism which border on a conspiracy theory.

3) He unironically believes socialist meme magic can alter power relations in society and that the CIA's meddling in other countries and US support of dictators during the cold war was almost entirely orchestrated by business interests because some central american generalissimo sold a pineapple to the united fruit company decades ago.

>Spain is by no means poor, and as a matter of fact it's good that you mention it because the height of their success was when they were literally imperialist.
Not true. People were wealthier proportionally before America was discovered in Castile.
>>A few trading posts and one Caribbean island wouldn't be a large enough factor to make all of Scandinavia rich
>No, but it certainly gave Sweden and Denmark a massive head start in cultivating native industry.
>Finland however you may note is not comparable to overseas colonies. For all intents and purposes it was essentially an integral part of the empire.
If you imply that the lame danish colonies made the country wealthy,you are totally lost.
>Additionally I must say everyone ITT takes the term "imperialism" very literally without considering modern day imperialism.
>>Of course you don't believe that can happen.
>I do believe mutually beneficial exchange can happen, I just also believe socialism is an infinitely superior system for the creation of it.
Kek.
>Free association
>Socialism
>>Globalisation has been a great thing for the poorest in the world.
>Globalisation is good, capitalism is not.
That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Zimbabwe says hi. The only poor countries that are growing are pretty capitalistic.

>in the late 90s Portugal had some serious economic growth going on.
So did China. That doesnt make Portugal's economic backwardness compared to Europe any less true.

Thank you for actually answering my question.

>Not true. People were wealthier proportionally before America was discovered in Castile.
How could anyone possibly calculate this?

>If you imply that the lame danish colonies made the country wealthy,you are totally lost.
I do not, I imply they gave them a massive head start in cultivate industry.
Do note however that the colonies Sweden and Denmark had were more like trading posts and generally not lame at all in terms of usefulness.

>Kek.
Not an argument

>That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Zimbabwe says hi. The only poor countries that are growing are pretty capitalistic.
Libya was socialist and they were doing great until they got """"liberated""""".

>so what you're saying is "you can quit and enslave yourself to something else for the benefit of the 1%" "how is that slavery brah"

Having your own bussiness is hard and demanding work. But by no means you are benefiting the "1%" . Its your bussiness and your money.

>so do you think Bill Gates will go "bankrupt" soon? what about the Bankers? Politicians? Apple? McDonald's? Google? Oil companies? weapon manufacturers?

Why would anyone whose product is in high demand go bankrupt?

>Iceland
A country that doesn't even have a military and when attempted to a few years ago could literally not afford it.

>so do you think Bill Gates will go "bankrupt" soon? what about the Bankers? Politicians? Apple? McDonald's? Google? Oil companies? weapon manufacturers?
It could happen. Weapons and oil are sustained by the goverment,so nothing to do with Market economies.
>why is it than that the niggers on the streets aren't getting high education? why do they turn to crime? why can't the middle class average individual start his own business without risking his whole life on a lawn that might bankrupt him forever? why can't he build a house without selling his soul on a mortgage?
The nigger has lots of oportunities. Affirmative action is probably the most discriminatory thing that there is,and niggers benefit the most from it. A useless nigger with a garbage GPA,can become a doctor thanks to affirmative action. They turn to crime,because nost of them are retards,with fucked up families. The middle class can start a bussiness,and not get bankruptcy at all. Only very huge investments could make this happen,while most bussinesses are small. And if the person doesnt take the risk,someone else would have to carry the loses. Which would destroy the economy btw. Anyone can build a house in his piece of land,and respect badic regulations. Most people just dont know how to do it,or just preffer to buy one. I doubt that you know how to build a house
>so what you're saying is "you can quit and enslave yourself to something else for the benefit of the 1%" "how is that slavery brah"
Most bussinesses are owned by middle class people,that are far from being in the 1%. You just use memes,because it fits your stupid rhethoric better.
>how fucking stupid can one individual be, of course I'm not talking about our fundamental needs.
Again how do you determine what is needed? Basic needs is not objective. A basic need for an European standards us a priviledge to an African.Again using memes doesnt make your argument right

>How could anyone possibly calculate this?
Urbanization,% of beggars and the huge price rises with stagnating wages. The only people that benefited about the empire were Genovese bankers.
> Do note however that the colonies Sweden and Denmark had were more like trading posts and generally not lame at all in terms of usefulness.
Do you actually know which industries grew the most in thise countries at the time? The colonies had little to no impact. Sweden developed due to similar reasons than Switzerland,not meme colonies
> Libya was socialist and they were doing great until they got """"liberated""""".
Lybia was an stable NA country,North African countries have always been wealthier than sub saharian, that earned all its money due oil and gas. Gadaffi's Lybia's economic performance is just a meme.

It's the classic Arab dictator/monarchy trick. Buy people with oil money and don't bother with the private sector. At least Dubai has tried to get foreigners to invest.

>Can someone please tell me why Chomsky is wrong? I really hate the guy.

The fox-news generation in a nutshell

*bashes bible*
*burns koran*
*passively aggressively postures at anti-trump protestors*

Yeah,Dubai did find,but Saudi Arabia is kind of fucked,if they dont do something.

you don't like chomsky because he makes you face the truth about the way things work

>the vast majority of the planet has been capitalist for quite some time and the vast majority of the planet is a shithole.

Oh like Vietnam? Oh wait, that's not your specific brand of communism right? Yet you group all "capitalist" nations together like there is no difference between them.

Why do I even try? you ignore what I say and only respond to what seems comfortable, your arguments are on per with your economic ideology, the only thing you have successfully proved is that my theory about capitalists being total idiots is true.

but non the less I shall respond to you for it is my duty to at least try to make you understand

behind Capitalism there is a basic philosophy, that philosophy is the idea that you should labor to increase your capital,that philosophy which is the basis of our economic society drives us to see each other as competitors on a "race" for having the most capital and "winning" life by having the most materialistic indulgence's, that causes us to psychopaticaly regress our empathy to other human beings so we could put our needs before theirs and hurt them when we need if it furthers our individual goals, that is the capitalist mentality, that is the modern age philosophy, that allows for people who already hold a lot of power=money to easily maneuver their lives in the direction of their choosing which is naturally stability, more power, more money, and more control, what that creates is a society that is largely controlled by a small group of individuals who are scared shitless to lose their power and will do anything to keep themselves in a position of power even if that means hurting the environment we exist in,or causing wars, or poisoning the average citizen of that society,this is what happens, it is the devaluing of morals that keeps our society corrupted and inefficient, we work backwards and most people, like you have demonstrated are stupid enough to believe this is the best humanity can do,

and that it's actually good to be slaves for the benefit of our capitalist masters, capitalism is controlled chaos, it drives toward an end that isn't sustainable, resources are limited, they will either drive us right into a huge disaster, or use technology to control us completely.

eventually capitalism is only the product of humanity's need to clinge to inefficient spooks such as nationality, racial identity, culture and tradition, it is the symptom of uncivilized civilization, we are large in numbers, we can communicate instantly through distances as far as the whole world,we have the ability to easily comprehend globalism, but we still aren't ready to live harmonically, capitalism is not the major evil, only a sad reminder of the fact that humanity can be much more efficient if they worked on a global scale but instead choose to make an illusion like money, believe that that piece of paper hold the meaning of life and power, worship it as a God and dedicate their whole lives for the sake of it,a reminder of the lack of awareness the sheeple of humanity is led by easily into its own doom.

You havent give me any argument yet. Your explanation is just made up bullshit. You are assuming things that are not true. Capitalism is just an economic system. Capitalist societies can form communes and the like,but you just preffer to type some pseudointelectual bullshit,based on reading some random comments on Veeky Forums. Capitalist societies outperform in every possible way communist ones. In terms of individual freedoms,free association,economic prosperity,respect of the law or technological output. . You also built your own ideology about spooks,like inequality is bad or that materialism is bad. Proving nothing more than you are just an edgy Stirner poster that hasn't touch the unique and its own. Saying that resources are finite,prove nothing. We barely use land whale oil anymore,when it was an important resources a couple of centuries ago. New resources appear ir the old ones gain a new use,and technology develops. Also,noone expects infinite growth,that is just a meme that Marxists made up. As infinite growth is physically and temporarily impossible.

>You havent give me any argument yet. Your explanation is just made up bullshit.
no you

Koran>Bible>Chomsky>fox news

Please tell me where you get all that made up info,that you just posted in your comments. Is mostly bullcrap,with no evidence to back it up. You start calling spooks,while your entire post is based around them. No data has been given in all your comments,but fedora tier pseudophilosophy.

"globalism". Instantly dropped. If you think being utterly controlled by uncaring global dictators who sees you as a number on a sheet is better than working for someone who sees you as a number on a sheet you are naive.

it is literally proving itself, fucking go outside and analyze human behavior inside modern society.

Ok no evidence. None of what you said has been proven,other than inside of your little pseudointelectual mind

seriously how stupid can you be?
I'm talking to you about philosophy, the idea of reality people hold and propels them to do whatever it is they do, no further evidence is needed or can possibly be achieved other than an objective look of the ideas I have suggested and comparing them to the reality you experience, how can I prove to you that humans are driven by materialism other than showing you the products of our culture, listen to the music people are listening to, watch them go berserk as they trample one another on the rush for a brand new television set on a black Friday, see their behavior as they shit on one another to get an advance, see their fascination with wealth and power, what more do you want me to do? point you to an article showing how bad McDonald's is for your health? or showing the environment being destroyed by inefficient factories? or show you how the makers of weapons profit from war?
are you this ignorant to real life?

>no further evidence is needed or can possibly be achieved other than an objective look of the ideas I have suggested
Literally you just accepted that you made everything up. No evidence was given, if you claim that something is worse than socialism or that is failing at least try to bring some evidence other than your autism

>Le capitalism is better than communism
>it somehow proves cronyism, skewed media, oil conflicts, imperialism etc. are justified and sustainable.

>OP is clearly pro-Chomsky and mocking his detractors
>Chomsky fanboys are literally too retarded to see this

It proves itself,throughout history. It has been sustainable for 200 years,and has stomped in every measurable way any competition.

>Can someone please tell me why Chomsky is wrong? I really hate the guy.
Anti-chomskyites in a nutshell. Think about this for one fucking second and just get over your petty bullshit politics already.

holy shit kill yourself you're the most stupid degenerate lowlife drop of cum I had ever encountered on this site

Not an argument. You said that "we could achieve so more with socialism" and I am still waiting for the evidence. Wanting to discuss facts,instead of the exercise of mental masturbation that you are doing is called critical thinking.

>200 years
Not a continuance of same form of exploitation used by every kingdom and empire of the past, mind you they all fell.

>South Korea was but is now a democracy.
lmfao
>Also I'd rather be in a rich authoritarian state, than a poor one.
The definition of a useful idiot

>GDP = living standards

Holy shit user

That doesnt make them unsustainable. And communism felt in 80 years.

You are sugesting that commie china had better living conditions than post Deng China?

Quasi-capitalist states existed long before it became the dominant system and replaced feudalism. Just as quasi-socialist states have been and gone.

For a lot of people yes.

For Whom? Famines under Mao were the rule.

>have failed every single time

>collapsing
>sustainable
pick one

>1789
>Still thinking the French revolution is a good idea
>He doesn't now the nobility is necessary because of human nature
>He still thinks the bourgeoisie can efficiently run an economy.

lmao republicucks don't you see than non-feudalism has failed every time?

All the people that would not be homeless now that are because of Deng's pseudo-socialism.

>Famines under Mao were the rule.
Exactly 1 famine happened in the PRC prior to Deng.

>Exactly 1 famine happened in the PRC prior to Deng.
You say this like if was a fucking acomplishment

The difference is that capitalism prove itself to work before the French revolution. Socialism has fauled every single time.

That's not the point, it's whether all this crap is still befitting for the current era.
youtu.be/rWpY7ZhhvS0
youtu.be/s8mP2jN6bJI?t=537

One famine that lasted for all of Mao's rule.

If your going to remain on the left right dichotomy you could argue that social capitalism has proven to be more constructive and reliable than laissez-faire capitalism.
Feudal aristocracies on the other hand.

>social capitalism
Yes,the south of Europe is doing wonders with it.

Where exactly?

>Republic of Pisa
Fell
>Republic of Florence
Fell
>Commonwealth of England
Fell & also a despotic shithole.
>Novgorod
Fell
>USA
An agrarian third world country that's going to fall any day now.

Face it user, capitalism doesn't work.

No, I say it as if it means famines weren't the rule. Which is true.

The great Chinese famine went from 1959-1961.

Mao was in power from 1945-1976.

Kek.
>Not posting the united provinces