TheIneff posted:he calls the USSR "basically a slave state" lol
well, post-stalin it basically was.
Superabound posted:the problem with Chomsky isnt that he has no theoretical grounding or whatever the fuck nerd shit yall are talking about
.......
then provdes them with zero, check 'em, ZERO actual solutions to any of the shit he just talked about
hhhMMMMMMhhmm. HMMMMM..,... hmmm.... HMMMMM.
Petrol posted:well that kurschev was a real wet blanket.
how did he establish slavery? anyway im gonna cut to the chase: Chomsky is full of shit. It's not slavery. The big thing that changed after Stalin's death was the *political* make up of the leadership. There were ideological changes but the majority of the institutions did not change drastically, the basic structure was 'socialist' up until the collapse. (Labor wasn't sold as a commodity, essentials were provided as were a host of cultural, recreational, and educational activities, and national liberation movements were heavily subsidized worldwide, there was a planned economy in place generally, etc etc)
Arguably, 'class struggle' or what have you wasn't advanced effectively or whatever, that's a different argument. Nonetheless, even under Gorbachev, there were policies to increase participation of women and underrepresented national minorities at all levels of the political apparatus.
Chomsky hasn't done anything noteworthy outside of manufacturing consent. That's a good book though.
Edited by ArisVelouchiotis ()
Crow posted:Petrol posted:well that kurschev was a real wet blanket.
how did he establish slavery? anyway im gonna cut to the chase: Chomsky is full of shit. It's not slavery. The big thing that changed after Stalin's death was the *political* make up of the leadership. There were ideological changes but the majority of the institutions did not change drastically, the basic structure was 'socialist' up until the collapse. (Labor wasn't sold as a commodity, essentials were provided as were a host of cultural, recreational, and educational activities, and national liberation movements were heavily subsidized worldwide, there was a planned economy in place generally, etc etc)
Arguably, 'class struggle' or what have you wasn't advanced effectively or whatever, that's a different argument. Nonetheless, even under Gorbachev, there were policies to increase participation of women and underrepresented national minorities at all levels of the political apparatus.
yeah, chomsky sucks. the only reason he could exist within high academia and was bandied between Operation Mocking Bird media institutions was because he was serving empire—by reifying the notion that "communism only works in theory". plus added a nice leftist veneer of legitimacy for turning the USSR into a cartoonishly evil Other
Question 65: In Western countries prices are rising constantly. Is it the same in the Soviet Union?
Prices in the Soviet Union are formed in a way that is far different from that in the west. In capitalist countries, they are fixed, for the most part, spontaneously, depending on market fluctuations. In the USSR, they are fixed and regulated by the government and endorsed by the State Prices Committee...its basic principle is that goods and essential services should be accessible to every section of the population.
Rent in the Soviet Union has not been raised since 1928 [Note: This pamphlet debuted in 1986]. Payments for electricity, heating, hot water, and the telephone have remained the same since 1948. Underground railway fares are the same as they were back in the 1930s, when the underground opened its doors to passengers for the first time. The [prices] for breakfast cereals, vegetable oil, sugar, the main kinds of fish, and canned foods have remained stable since 1955. The prices for meat and dairy products have not changed since 1962.
...The same is true with respect to financing the maintenance of housing and the output of many children's goods that are sold at prices below production costs. But this applies especially to farm produce. For instance, meat in Soviet shops is sold at prices that constitute half, or even one-third, of its production costs.
http://www.amazon.com/USSR-100-Questions-Answers-CCCP/dp/B001A4GYAA/
Food staples and other necessities were subsidized, while luxury items were sold well above their costs.
Public transportation was efficient, extensive, and practically free. Subway fare was about eight cents in the 1970s, unchanged from the 1930s (Szymanski, 1984). Nothing comparable has ever existed in capitalist countries. This is because efficient, affordable and extensive public transportation would severely limit the profit-making opportunities of automobile manufacturers, petroleum companies, and civil engineering firms. In order to safeguard their profits, these firms use their wealth, connections and influence to stymie development of extensive, efficient and inexpensive public alternatives to private transportation. Governments, which need to keep private industry happy so that it continues to provide jobs, are constrained to play along. The only way to alter this is to bring capital under public control, in order to use it to meet public policy goals set out in a consciously constructed plan.
The Soviet Union placed greater stress on healthcare than their capitalist competitors did. No other country had more physicians per capita or more hospital beds per capita than the USSR. In 1977, the Soviet Union had 35 doctors and 212 hospital beds per 10,000 compared to 18 doctors and 63 hospital beds in the United States (Szymanski, 1984). Most important, healthcare was free. That US citizens had to pay for their healthcare was considered extremely barbaric in the Soviet Union, and Soviet citizens “often questioned US tourists quite incredulously on this point” (Sherman, 1969).
Education through university was also free, and stipends were available for post-secondary students, adequate to pay for textbooks, room and board, and other expenses (Sherman, 1969; Szymanski, 1984).
Income inequality in the Soviet Union was mild compared to capitalist countries. The difference between the highest income and the average wage was equivalent to the difference between the income of a physician in the United States and an average worker, about 8 to 10 times higher (Szymanski, 1984). The elite’s higher incomes afforded privileges no greater than being able to acquire a modest house and car (Kotz, 2000). By comparison, in 2010, Canada’s top-paid 100 CEOs received incomes 155 times higher than the average full-time wage. The average full-time wage was $43,000 (Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2011). An income 10 times larger would be $430,000—about what members of the capitalist elite make in a single week. A factor that mitigated the modest degree of Soviet income inequality was the access all Soviet citizens had to essential services at no, or virtually, no cost. Accordingly, the degree of material inequality was even smaller than the degree of income inequality (Szymanski, 1984).
http://gowans.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/do-publicly-owned-planned-economies-work/
Not slavery.
AmericanNazbro posted:Going on record to say: Parenti is better than Chomsky.
Chomsky hasn't done anything noteworthy outside of manufacturing consent. That's a good book though.
that was primarily written by edward herman
Superabound posted:provides them with zero, check 'em, ZERO actual solutions to any of the shit he just talked about.
unlike all the other leftists, whose solutions to contemporary problems are clearly outlined with a roadmap for getting from here to there and an extensive practical vision of a new society.
revolutionary arrest
Edited by blinkandwheeze ()
NoFreeWill posted:Superabound posted:provides them with zero, check 'em, ZERO actual solutions to any of the shit he just talked about.
unlike all the other leftists, whose solutions to contemporary problems are clearly outlined with a roadmap for getting from here to there and an extensive practical vision of a new society.
Ok someone put this guy in IFAP and make him write 750 words on the different groups of "leftists" and how they outline 'solutions to contemporary problems'.
NoFreeWill posted:Superabound posted:provides them with zero, check 'em, ZERO actual solutions to any of the shit he just talked about.
unlike all the other leftists, whose solutions to contemporary problems are clearly outlined with a roadmap for getting from here to there and an extensive practical vision of a new society.
i had one of my non-autistic handlers explain to me that this "sarcasm" actually means that you are accusing leftists of having vague solutions. Which is true in most cases. but the problem with Chomsky isnt that he has vague solutions, its that he has NO solutions. his entire political career has been one long Awareness campaign. and "Awareness" for its own sake is passive liberal bullshit
Superabound posted:the problem with Chomsky isnt that he has no theoretical grounding or whatever the fuck nerd shit yall are talking about its that he specifically appeals to young, idealistic, champing-at-the-bit college students who want to go out and change the world, outlines to them all these structural problems, and then provides them with zero, check 'em, ZERO actual solutions to any of the shit he just talked about. youd probably have more success getting people to change the world by hiring an actual imperialist to take his place and gloat about how hes "already won" until everyone listening just goes out and does their own whatever out of sheer righteous buttmad
When this comes up he often says something along the lines of "well people in poor countries don't ask me that. There's no easy fix". It's an evasion, but a fair observation in itself...that MTW is correct. 
getfiscal posted:chomsky does have a strategy. he supports social-democrats like chavez and grumbling votes for obama.
lmao chavez a social democrat
tpaine posted:mtw ftw.
,,,, this, except unironically
le_nelson_mandela_face posted:how come chomsky said so many mean things about the USSR just cause it killed millions of its own people and discredited socialism forever? i'm mad
hank... no...
