Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Noam Chomsky protege on Youtube

rated by 0 users
Answered (Not Verified) This post has 0 verified answers | 28 Replies | 7 Followers

Not Ranked
19 Posts
Points 560
AussieAustrianBlog posted on Wed, Oct 20 2010 11:22 PM

Here's a link to a video/channel of a Marxist youtuber to help you polish-up on your Capitalism vs Socialism debate skills.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_d8v5P_5KM

All Replies

Top 25 Contributor
Male
3,055 Posts
Points 41,895

Funny thing is... you would think that "linguists" would know the difference between the literal meaning of a word vs. the hyperbolic/metaphorical meaning.  I'm a prisoner of time in the jail of presence.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,943 Posts
Points 49,130
SystemAdministrator
Conza88 replied on Wed, Oct 20 2010 11:51 PM

"Protege" ?

LMFAO! Hahahah, that is fcken comedic gold! laugh yes

Edit: I might get round to actually addressing the form and contents of his arugments (fallacies) - when I stop laughing. It might be awhile.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
871 Posts
Points 15,025
chloe732 replied on Thu, Oct 21 2010 12:32 AM

Imagine being confined to a socialist re-education camp and then being forced to watch this.  I watched 30 seconds of it on my own accord.  Painful.

"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner.   "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
1,434 Posts
Points 29,210

Did you guys watch Refuting 20 Capitalist Myths (here)? If anyone has the time to dispute each point, I'm sure he would love to be be incorrect in front of his YouTube followers.

EDIT: If you look around the comments on many of his videos, he uses "In colonial Brazil, slaves could actually buy their own freedom and become business owners, self-employed, or even slave owners themselves. Did that justify slavery?" (almost that exact sentence) multiple times to refute his claims. Can you say - only one argument?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
1,008 Posts
Points 19,520
Eric080 replied on Thu, Oct 21 2010 12:57 AM

I have watched a few of this guys videos.  Another gem is MaoistRebelNews2:

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/MaoistRebelNews2

 

Man, you think Communists who play the "that's not real Communism!" card wouldn't want to dress like Fidel Castro.  To be fair, I'm not sure he's one of those blush

"And it may be said with strict accuracy, that the taste a man may show for absolute government bears an exact ratio to the contempt he may profess for his countrymen." - de Tocqueville
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
1,434 Posts
Points 29,210

I just watched a part of that homepage video and it seems like he's bagging on the Federal Reserve's interest rates at first, but I stopped watching.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
5,118 Posts
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Is he saying that Adam Smith ... was a Red?

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Male
796 Posts
Points 14,585

Lawls A little hidden truth about Adam Smith (the anti-capitalist) the Mises Institute doesn't want you to see.

The same Mises Institute that publishes An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought: Volume I by Murray Rothbard? The book which contains this quote?:

If Smith was not the creator of economic theory, neither was he the founder of laissez-faire in political economy. Not only were the scholastics analysts of, and believers in, the free market and critics of government intervention; but the French and Italian economists of the eighteenth century were even more laissez-faire-oriented than Smith, who introduced numerous waffles and qualifications into what had been, in the hands of Turgot and others, an almost pure championing of laissez-faire. It turns out that, rather than someone who should be venerated as creator of modern economics or of laissezfaire, Smith was closer to the picture portrayed by Paul Douglas in the 1926 Chicago commemoration of the Wealth of Nations: a necessary precursor of Karl Marx.

Is he saying that Adam Smith ... was a Red?

Is he saying that? Yes. Is he correct? No. On the other hand, without Smith and Ricardo, Marxism is unthinkable.

"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,221 Posts
Points 34,050
Moderator

Marx interpreted Smith & Ricardo with his own ideological filters, so no, Marx still created Marxism.


However, from the very same classical economists, you get the proto-Austrian / Walrusian arguments from Schumpeter in "Capitalism Democracy & Socialism"., where even someone who favored capitalism made an argument for it's eventual demise from analyzing then current trends.

 It's no surprise though that in the age old tradition of "people not all being equally intelligent + consuming economic theory & interpreting it in different ways = some very bad ideas being spawned", that from Smith came Marxism eventually.  

I would say Smith was more of a proto-mixed economist; it's a shame as one would think that a personal friend & collegue of David Hume would've had a bit more sense in him :P 

The almost surreal worshiping that Smith recieves after his time from both supposed capitalists & Marxists merley shows how much the latter has influenced the earlier over time, and how out of touch the common conception & followers of "capitalism" really are, regarding the basics of capitalism itself (i.e. wherein capitalism as it's popularly used now no longer really means capitalism).  

Just another effect of populism dumbing ideas down over-time, methinks.    

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
1,189 Posts
Points 22,990

"I'll say it again: the reality for most people in the world is that they HAVE to work for a boss in a hierarchal, authoritarian workplace under capitalism. You HAVE TO or else you starve and go homeless. Even if you can quit your job and become your own boss it still doesn't justify any oppression on any end of the social ladder. People "look for work" because they have to due to the coercion of living without basic needs."

How do i argue against that?

Freedom has always been the only route to progress.

Post Neo-Left Libertarian Manifesto (PNL lib)
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
283 Posts
Points 5,580

It's nature's fault for making things so we have to work and eat to survive.  Earth, wind, and fire are oppressors!!!

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
1,189 Posts
Points 22,990

That's what I told them! Free markets are just too realistic!

Freedom has always been the only route to progress.

Post Neo-Left Libertarian Manifesto (PNL lib)
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
19 Posts
Points 560

A link to his faq on anarchy socialism/syndacalism. He definately dislikes Rothbard (refer section on wages and unemployment).

 

http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionC

  • | Post Points: 35
Page 1 of 2 (29 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS