Re: He's dead Jim (Chomsky)

James A. McDonald wrote:
>There is ample Chomsky material outside this quote supporting socialism,
>and as well as socialism, those measures that socialism makes necessary,
>namely silencing of dissent, mass murder, and rule by terror.
 
Ah, so now we see why Mr. McDonald feels forced to interpret everything
Chomsky writes as meaning the exact opposite of what it says - why
Mr. McDonald thinks that Chomsky *must* be trying to promote
totalitarian repression, even though Chomsky nowhere advocates repression
of any kind.

>There is ample Chomsky material outside this quote supporting socialism,

correct.

>and as well as socialism, those measures that socialism makes necessary,
>namely silencing of dissent, mass murder, and rule by terror.

Mr. McDonald infers this because, although Chomsky, if taken at face value,
does not _appear_ to be advocating "mass murder, and rule by terror",
McDonald __knows__ that:

1. a society without capitalism must be based on rule by terror.

and

2. anybody as intelligent as Chomsky knows (1).
 
thus anybody who advocates socialism is really advocating rule by terror
and so Chomsky clearly means the opposite of what he says.

Mr. McDonald's reasoning is perfect except that (1) is false.

If the "unwashed masses", the unruly mob should forget their place in life
(to be subservient to the elite, who are superior, because they claim they
are) and abolish the state, the army and the police and if they in their
foolishness should decide that they never liked capitalism and from now
on everything should be free then they have no need to oppress people like
Mr. McDonald if he wishes to try to accumulate capital by offering goods
and/or services for a price. Since everything is free in this hypothetical
society, nobody will have any reason to buy your goods and/or services
Mr. McDonald, because they can get them somewhere else for free. Thus
capitalism will never return (unless people who prefer a repressive society
restore capitalism by force) without anybody doing anything to repress
capitalism or other dissident ideas. I think this is the sort of society
Mr. Chomsky is advocating.

Of course, Mr. McDonald _knows_ that such a society is impossible because
everybody is as selfish as he is so nobody will want to share anything or
give anything away for free and they won't do so unless forced to.
Again, you are mistaken. The unwashed masses, while far from perfect, are
much more altruistic than right-wing cypherpunks such as yourself
(I realise that many cypherpunks are not right-wing) and when given the
chance they have shown that they prefer something that resembles Chomsky's
society more than the usual state/army/police-enforced capitalism. Examples
where the working class has had a brief taste of freedom are Paris, 1871,
Ukraine ~1917, Spain, 1920s and Derry, Ireland ~1969. In every case 
capitalism (Soviet state capitalism in the case of the Ukraine) was 
restored by force within a few months or years.

I don't think anyone thinks this mailing list is the right place to 
discuss your Chomsky conspiracy theories so if you haven't finished yet,
take them to alt.conspiracy.
Note: if Mr. McDonald pig-headedly insists on replying to this post on the 
mailing list, I will almost certainly ignore him, out of consideration for
the rest of you.

P.S. Lewis McCarthy wrote: "Quick, somebody mention Hitler".
Okay. Mr. McDonald is as fascist as Hitler.

Anonymous writes:
> James A. McDonald wrote:
> >There is ample Chomsky material outside this quote supporting socialism,
> correct.
> >and as well as socialism, those measures that socialism makes necessary,
> >namely silencing of dissent, mass murder, and rule by terror.
> Mr. McDonald infers this because, although Chomsky, if taken at face value,
> does not _appear_ to be advocating "mass murder, and rule by terror",
> McDonald __knows__ that:
> 1. a society without capitalism must be based on rule by terror.
> and
> 2. anybody as intelligent as Chomsky knows (1).

> thus anybody who advocates socialism is really advocating rule by terror
> and so Chomsky clearly means the opposite of what he says.

> Mr. McDonald's reasoning is perfect except that (1) is false.

   Well, perhaps in theory, but let's see what real dedicated
socialists think. Quoted from an article in my campus newspaper
"Long Island University Professor Condemns Capitalism" (the idiot
came to give a speech to about 10 people claiming Russia was
"state capitalist". He's been a socialist since the 1930s)

"`Capitalism will not collapse. You've got to overthrow it', Seigal
said.
  After the revolution, those who would have resisted the change and
who would pose a threat to the workers and their new socialist
government would have to somehow be removed from society. Commenting
on the secret police force established in the Soviet Union after 1917,
Professor Seigal said, `[the Soviets] realized that you need the state
to surpress all of the people who would resist the socialist
revolution'" 

Summary: in a socialist state, only socialist thought can
be allowed (otherwise, it would quickly collapse.) Want to start a
party based on market economics? Meet the firing squad.

  There you have it. Socialism may in theory exist in a free society,
in practice, it always leads to big brother. 

> and/or services for a price. Since everything is free in this hypothetical
> society, nobody will have any reason to buy your goods and/or services
> Mr. McDonald, because they can get them somewhere else for free. Thus
> capitalism will never return (unless people who prefer a repressive society
> restore capitalism by force) without anybody doing anything to repress
> capitalism or other dissident ideas. I think this is the sort of society
> Mr. Chomsky is advocating.

   Obviously Mr. Chomsky missed out on Economics 101. A civilization
without an economy can not allocate resources in a rational manner (I
refer you to Von Mises). The only place your "everything will be free"
ideal will work is in a tribal society.  No socialist "economy" is
going to build a computer or automobile, efficiently, if at all. If it
did succeed in building them, only the politicians would have them,
and they'd look like the ENIAC. Meanwhile, I'm enjoying rapid
advancement of technology and and reduction of cost at an almost
exponential rate (price a pentium 66mhz or 28.8kbps modem back in
June and now. Amazing isn't it?)

   Have you ever given any thought to how you'd run a global
economic system based on the idea that "everything will be free,
people will do the right thing, and you will get the goods
you want and need automagically?"

> I don't think anyone thinks this mailing list is the right place to 
> discuss your Chomsky conspiracy theories so if you haven't finished yet,
> take them to alt.conspiracy.

   Huh? Isn't it Chomsky who has the conspiracy theories, namely his
bogus theory that the media is conspiring to protect capitalists?
Chomsky may not be a totalitarian, but he certainly is deluded
when it comes to how an economy works, and how the media functions.

   Socialism is dead, all hail welfare statism.