Thanks!
In the first interview a few secs after 21:23 he says that workers must be kept in fear for their job so they don't act threatening the ruling class.
I've read something like that quite a few times but I always doubted it and put it aside as a conspiracy theory by disenfranchised hysterical people.
But it's true. This link jumps directly to 21:23 where Chomsky is leading up to quoting an Alan Greenspan who really did explain that exact measure as a tool to keep the ruling system running. In 1978 in a US senate hearing.
I was dumbstruck seeing that!
[my addition: And on a global scale, when people all over are in competition with each other for their very bread... how wonderfully quiet an environment that provides for the "masters of society" - strike that, "masters of mankind". ]
The other revelation, although not supported by such a quote, was rather at the beginning when Noam says of Aristotle that he saw a flaw in democracy and offered a solution. The flaw was poor people acting out and threatening the governing system. And Aristotle's remedy was, according to Noam, the welfare state. Keep the poor fed and they won't destabilize order.
Then, Noam points out that today's remedy to the same flaw is: reducing democracy.
I currently see both claims in practice here in Germany and in the EU. The one to keep workers insecure to keep them quiet - and the one to reduce democracy instead of upping the welfare.
Just this week, the EU has introduced a percentage cap for the election after the one in 2019. From then on, a party or independent EU candidate must get 5% of the voters. Failing that he is out - and his voters have no say at all in EU parliament.
Reading Solzhenitsyn's extremely harsh - yet accurate - criticism of the USA in particular (after being forcibly deported from his homeland Soviet Union for being anti-Communist) as far back as 1978 is rather telling.
Thanks!
In the first interview a few secs after 21:23 he says that workers must be kept in fear for their job so they don't act threatening the ruling class.
I've read something like that quite a few times but I always doubted it and put it aside as a conspiracy theory by disenfranchised hysterical people.
But it's true. This link jumps directly to 21:23 where Chomsky is leading up to quoting an Alan Greenspan who really did explain that exact measure as a tool to keep the ruling system running. In 1978 in a US senate hearing.
I was dumbstruck seeing that!
[my addition: And on a global scale, when people all over are in competition with each other for their very bread... how wonderfully quiet an environment that provides for the "masters of society" - strike that, "masters of mankind". ]
The other revelation, although not supported by such a quote, was rather at the beginning when Noam says of Aristotle that he saw a flaw in democracy and offered a solution. The flaw was poor people acting out and threatening the governing system. And Aristotle's remedy was, according to Noam, the welfare state. Keep the poor fed and they won't destabilize order.
Then, Noam points out that today's remedy to the same flaw is: reducing democracy.
I currently see both claims in practice here in Germany and in the EU. The one to keep workers insecure to keep them quiet - and the one to reduce democracy instead of upping the welfare.
Just this week, the EU has introduced a percentage cap for the election after the one in 2019. From then on, a party or independent EU candidate must get 5% of the voters. Failing that he is out - and his voters have no say at all in EU parliament.
Annette - the same is happening in Australia. I've read a few of Noam's books in the past, but hadn't really read/heard much about his thoughts on society in general etc and was gobsmacked that pretty much every idea he mentioned in this documentary I've been saying for 15+ years to friends, family members and work colleagues, all of whom are uninterested sadly. I'm not as eloquent as Noam, perhaps that is the reason why!
Most of my concentrations with regards to Noam's written works were in regards to the illegal Israeli occupation of sovereign Palestinian territories and the atrocities that Israel has committed in the interim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewisM
Reading Solzhenitsyn's extremely harsh - yet accurate - criticism of the USA in particular (after being forcibly deported from his homeland Soviet Union for being anti-Communist) as far back as 1978 is rather telling.
All empires eventually fall, as history - paraphrasing Santayana - repeats.
The US hegemony is but the most recent empire (yet blatantly and arrogantly accuse others of imperialism!), and it too will fail. We already have the indications of such an impending collapse, especially moral decay, unsupportable inflation and debt, and an insane thirst for "defence" (actually OFFENCE). The US annually expends more on "defence" spending than ANY other sector by a HUGE margin. Shades of the Roman Empire all over again (shall we call Trump Caligula? )
Having said that (that Noam could be the "allowed critic" but that has no impact in a discussion of ideas), I looked up what this Alan Greenspan did say.
Remember : that's how Noam proves his theory:
Greenspan:
"Atypical restraint on
compensation increases
has been evident for a few years now,
but as I outlined in some detail
in testimony last month,
I believe that job insecurity
has played the dominant role."
Noam's conclusion:
"Keep workers insecure,
they're going to be under control."
This is a rather dubious conclusion. Especially so since the "live cam" scene is used as a rhetorical tool to make the quote and conclusion even more believable.
But viewing in context, Greenspan speaks about inflation and analyses which factors caused the inflation not to rise. Manuscript of his testimony in full.
Sorry for this long quote - but it saves us from clicking and scrolling through possibly irrelevant stuff. Also, at the end of the quote, Greenspan says something interesting - at least for me. He says the workers' fear of automation and job loss lead to low job fluctuation, low wages, and long unions contracts covering 6 years instead of the usual 3. Here in Germany and some other EU countries I follow the main news headlines in, "digitalisation" and "industry 4.0" are terms thrown about for a few years now, and are creating fear of a monster in the shadows. No one credibly analyses their potential on particular job areas. Politicians and guest commenters from "think tanks" (read "Mont Pelerin Scoiety/Atlas Network") suggest "life long learning" as a remedy - but then fall short of actually suggesting or putting in place policies supporting that alleged necessity. Well, without analysis on where that monster in the shadow will show its ugly face - how could they?
That inaction on their part has had me befuddled. Greenspan's words might point towards an explanation. Because today, Germany is in some respects in the very situation Greenspan describes. Low unemployment, longstanding low salary increase, long union contracts (for those workers still organised in unions - that number was intentionally decreased by the Socialst Democrats who turned neoliberal in the early 2000s) , low CPI inflation.
Quote:
Thus, the FOMC continues to see the distribution of inflation risks skewed to the upside and must remain especially alert to the possible emergence of imbalances in financial and product markets that ultimately could endanger the maintenance of the low-inflation environment. Sustainable economic expansion for 1997 and beyond depends on it.
For some, the benign inflation outcome of 1996 might be considered surprising, as resource utilization rates--particularly of labor--were in the neighborhood of those that historically have been associated with building inflation pressures. To be sure, an acceleration in nominal labor compensation, especially its wage component, became evident over the past year. But the rate of pay increase still was markedly less than historical relationships with labor market conditions would have predicted. Atypical restraint on compensation increases has been evident for a few years now and appears to be mainly the consequence of greater worker insecurity. In 1991, at the bottom of the recession, a survey of workers at large firms by International Survey Research Corporation indicated that 25 percent feared being laid off. In 1996, despite the sharply lower unemployment rate and the tighter labor market, the same survey organization found that 46 percent were fearful of a job layoff.
The reluctance of workers to leave their jobs to seek other employment as the labor market tightened has provided further evidence of such concern, as has the tendency toward longer labor union contracts. For many decades, contracts rarely exceeded three years. Today, one can point to five- and six-year contracts--contracts that are commonly characterized by an emphasis on job security and that involve only modest wage increases. The low level of work stoppages of recent years also attests to concern about job security.
Thus, the willingness of workers in recent years to trade off smaller increases in wages for greater job security seems to be reasonably well documented. The unanswered question is why this insecurity persisted even as the labor market, by all objective measures, tightened considerably. One possibility may lie in the rapid evolution of technologies in use in the work place. Technological change almost surely has been an important impetus behind corporate restructuring and downsizing. Also, it contributes to the concern of workers that their job skills may become inadequate. No longer can one expect to obtain all of one's lifetime job skills with a high-school or college diploma. Indeed, continuing education is perceived to be increasingly necessary to retain a job. The more pressing need to update job skills is doubtless also a factor in the marked expansion of on- the-job training programs, especially in technical areas, in many of the nation's corporations.
What I'm saying: Noam's conclusion that keeping workers insecure is a tool to keep them quiet and to keep them away from creating chaos in the system of the rich -
can not be true. Or he would have used a better proof to support his claim.
The one chosen can not be called proof.
I'm no economist. But I do believe that controlling inflation is in the interest of the rich as well as of the poor.
Especially in our system in which not "caring sustainability" but "greed and growth" are touted as THE governing forces of human beings and their societies.
So Noam should not be taken as the herald of truth. I for one will be cautious. I don't want to be lured into hopeless cynicism for nothing
I mentioned the Atlas Network, the organised branch/successor of the Mont Pelerin Society. It has 9 member institutes in Aus/NZ. https://www.atlasnetwork.org/partner...nd-new-zealand
They have infiltrated or, more benign, convinced university chairs of economics in "western" countries of their superior ideology neoliberalism/neoclassicism.
How deeply rooted the brain washing or, more benign, the focus has become by now to the disadvantage of other theories and concepts has been the subject of a German study in 2016 at all economics university chairs on the balance between neoclassical and other teaching content. The picture here shows the neoclassical part in blue and the alternative part in orange. And that's been going on since I don't know when.
No wonder that even socialist democrats began to follow the yellow brick road into deregulation, enslavement and slashing benefits. It has been implemented as THE truth and without being taught a broader understanding, students and later managers, bankers, politicians can't and won't think out of that box any more. https://www.pluralowatch.de/media/fi...85_upscale.png
This is not hopeless. It shows us that the "brain washing conspiracy" was successful. So far. But it's a reasonable forecast to say that rationally learned content can be unlearned and amended. Students aren't brainwashed with emotions here. Emotions are powerful. It takes a generation and a half to change emotions of a population (German lesson learned ) . But this is unemotional, rational content. That can be turned by rational discussion of ideas.
That's why I'm still on Facebook. I make it my job to disseminate doubt re the neoclassical mainstream and its symptoms and tools.
The Atlas NEtwork website is particularly helpful. Because guest commenters from "Think Tanks" can usually be quickly identified as fellows from the Atlas Network when they write about some dubious economics study conducted by their institute. Or also, about CO2 emissions and how they allegedly don't contribute to climate change. The majority of the institutes active in that disinformation tactics by Big Oil are members of the Atlas Network.
uhm Clive, I now lean towards your original death sentence re Chomsky.
Having disproven Chomsky's first claim, I set out to verify the 2nd one which had impressed me so much.
The other mind boggling Chomsky claim was, that for the problem in a democracy, when the majority is poor they will seize the property of the rich, the solution Aristotle came up with was the welfare state.
But ever since James Madison, Chomsky claims, the actual practiced solution was/is "reduce democracy".
Aristotle really did say what Noam says he did. "And first, to prevent stealing from necessity, let every one be supplied with a moderate subsistence, which may make the addition of his own industry necessary; second to prevent stealing to procure the luxuries of life, temperance be enjoined; and thirdly, let those who wish for pleasure in itself seek for it only in philosophy, all others want the assistance of men.” [ Aristotle. “Politics: A Treatise on Government.” Chapter VII] https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6762
James Madison did say something a little bit like what Chomsky puts in his mouth. Madison suggests to have a Senate as "Upper House", consisting of landowners who should not be elected but have something like a lifelong mandate.
Madison: "The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa, or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe; when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be jsut, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered." http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp
So yeah. The unelected body of the Senate is in factual result a reduction of a "total democracy".
But - Chomsky does not attempt to show the insinuated continuation and further application right through into our days of the, let's call it "Madison rule".
He only states his claim - then the movie shows an old bleached document, the name James Madison (4th president and member of the discussion group for the constitution) is mentioned.. which probably triggers some weird emotion like US-patriotism? ... and because it's an "old" source it must be true that it pertains until today... ... I don't know. The movie again goes into polemic tools. And that doesn't make it more credible.
Anyway. Noam doesn't show us 'a string of pearls' of proof that this "Madison rule" was truly incorporated into a still practiced conspiracy of the rich against the poor majority.
Chomsky is a revered intellectual with huge knowledge background. So ... he must tell the truth, aye?
But he doesn't. He twists the facts. And not only that... he twists the facts in favour of a conspiracy theory ... he then can't or won't sustain.
How enlightening this morning has been... bummer. Life was easier while I believed I could rely on Noam to explain the world to me.
IMHO China is going to show democracy is a failure. Get rid of elections and put people in power based on demonstrated ability, not ideology (basically daydreams).
China is still a work in progress as their laws leave a lot to be desired, however it is clear that when they make a decision they are able to get on with it.
Unlike here where anything important is either wrecked or hopelessly compromised by:
a) pollies afraid of a voter backlash at the next election, where the locality must change for the greater good of the city or country
b) a minority party holding the balance of votes in one house or the other;
c) a certain party whose idea of "managing the economy" is to spend nothing - nil, zip, nada - on infrastructure of lasting value, while handing out lollies to their arty-farty party mates.
Sure corruption and nepotism occur - but no worse than here. But the difference is in the penalty...
IMHO China is going to show democracy is a failure. Get rid of elections and put people in power based on demonstrated ability, not ideology (basically daydreams).
China is still a work in progress as their laws leave a lot to be desired, however it is clear that when they make a decision they are able to get on with it.
Unlike here where anything important is either wrecked or hopelessly compromised by:
a) pollies afraid of a voter backlash at the next election, where the locality must change for the greater good of the city or country
b) a minority party holding the balance of votes in one house or the other;
c) a certain party whose idea of "managing the economy" is to spend nothing - nil, zip, nada - on infrastructure of lasting value, while handing out lollies to their arty-farty party mates.
Sure corruption and nepotism occur - but no worse than here. But the difference is in the penalty...
Your post is a good reason to have a like button.
We believe democracy is the only way but look what we have as a result...the money is in too few pockets and plans revolve around elections and wining favour from an electorate which is not necessarily able to understand but certainly subject to manipulation by fancy adds.
Personal rights are somewhat overrated and often stand in the way of getting things done.
Alex
China is still a work in progress as their laws leave a lot to be desired, however it is clear that when they make a decision they are able to get on with it.
Same could be said for people like Hitler, Mussolini, PolPot etc etc etc
Andrew
Same could be said for people like Hitler, Mussolini, PolPot etc etc etc
Andrew
Agreed.
As to democracy, the US is *not* a democracy (nor is Germany, or Australia for that matter). Voting for people who then make decisions on your behalf is *not* a democracy. Everyone having a say on every piece of law going through parliament IS a democracy. I always laugh at the "will of the people" BS that gets spouted. Trump giving unprecedented tax cuts to the filthy rich in the US? Pretty sure that the majority of the voting age residents of the US aren't happy with that. Bailing out the filthy banks in the 2008 crash? Nope. I mean, say I have a mortgage on a house, and the stop paying said mortgage, and instead, drink lots, do lots of drugs, and hire lots of prostitutes...and renege on my mortgage. Will the government pay off my mortgage for me and cover my rear end for doing stupid things? Nope. It should be no different for businesses.
I must respectfully disagree with others here - Noam is 10000% correct in his statements in the linked video.
The current greed is not sustainable. There will come a time when the masses will rise up against governments, and the wealthy. That time of reckoning is fast approaching imho.
As is implied in the video that Suzy just posted, I think that the massive
unemployment caused by robots and artificial intelligence will cause
public upheaval before capitalism and faux democracies do.
raymo
)
