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

Does Chomsky have a grudge with capitalism

rated by 0 users
Not Answered This post has 0 verified answers | 8 Replies | 3 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
158 Posts
Points 3,965
the5thresistance posted on Tue, May 11 2010 3:08 PM

surprise

how do you destroy a chomskyite

  • | Post Points: 65

All Replies

Top 150 Contributor
785 Posts
Points 13,445

Yes....

/Thread

Although I sense I've missed some bad joke...

"Lo! I am weary of my wisdom, like the bee that hath gathered too much honey; I need hands outstretched to take it." -Thus Spake Zarathustra
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
519 Posts
Points 9,645

Chomsky, ironically enough, has a grudge with words. Most of the things that fly from his mouth make zero sense.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
358 Posts
Points 8,245

We need specific arguments from chomskyites before we can 'destroy' them.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
133 Posts
Points 2,670

 

Does Chomsky have a grudge against whatever he feels at any moment like calling "capitalism?" Uh yes.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
158 Posts
Points 3,965

I will commence the search for stupidity

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
3,592 Posts
Points 63,685
Sieben replied on Tue, May 11 2010 6:53 PM

The fundamental difference between Chomsky and Ancaps it that the former doesn't believe in Lockean Homesteading. We both agree with free association though.

Chomsky thinks that lockean homesteading will lead to a concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. He adopts a Utilitarian stance that workers ought to own the means of production because its the best thing for the workers.

Two things to point out:
1) VOLUNTARISM:
If you're opposed to ownership of *things* because of scarcity, then you must also be opposed to self ownership because individuals are also scarce. Chomsky is afraid that a big corporation will own all the food and enslave everyone by threatening to withold food. Similarly, a brain surgeon could enslave his patients by refusing to perform the operation.

In short, both capital *and* people are the means of production. Hence the term human capital. You cannot be a voluntarist and then oppose private property on consequentialist grounds. For consistency, Chomsky needs to drop the voluntarist label.

2) UTILITARIANISM:
If worker-ownership of the means of production were really the most efficient way to run things, it would already be being done. In some businesses, it actually is. It just depends on the motivation/composition/skills of your workforce. Its a matter of practicality.

A bunch of workers binding together and deciding to pool their resources, and open a factory is perfectly in line with Anarcho Capitalism.

What Chomsky also seems to think is useful is for workers to usurp control of the means of production from its owners. This completely ignores the capital creation process, where entrepreneurs engage in risks so that they might reap rewards of their labor. If you take away the rewards, you no longer get entrepreneurs investing in capital. Capital investment saves the human race. I think this point undermines Chomsky's Utilitarian position.

 

Banned
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
785 Posts
Points 13,445

"I will commence the search for stupidity"

Now THAT is a short journey my friend.

"Lo! I am weary of my wisdom, like the bee that hath gathered too much honey; I need hands outstretched to take it." -Thus Spake Zarathustra
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
366 Posts
Points 5,635
yessir replied on Tue, May 11 2010 7:44 PM

can;t you find common ground with them on foreign policy? the only difference is they blame it on capitalism.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (9 items) | RSS