Noam Chomsky - Does Economic Growth Justify the System?

[@pthompson108]

Notice how "growth" is always offered up as an indicator of social health.

[@CrazyFanaticMan]

Yes, as you pointed out, its a very strange irony - the two couldn't be farther apart from each other

[@HarryS77]

My doctor told me I have a growth in my brain. I was thrilled. Then she explained cancer to me.

[@jeromeschwartz3699]

@Slave2PaperWithInkOn The rich always get richer because people believe politics can solve our problems. It’s impossible for politics to solve our problems because politics can’t influence money. The reason why is because money influences politics. That’s just how our system works. If we want to have an impact on politics, then the most sensible approach would be for us to influence money directly. One way of accomplishing that is to cut off their revenue stream, like unions used to do before they had a “no strike” clause in their contracts. We the people absolutely have the capability to influence money in many, many ways ... directly. Given the fact that money influences politics, *and* our ability to influence money, we can work together to make our lives better without having to depend upon some politician to do it for us!

[@bobjones2460]

Yes, you have to understand the language. Growth means growth and wealth for the elites, not in general. Once you understand that, you'll understand why the media always equates stock market growth with benefits for all.

[@GiantSandles]

The guy went home and didn't leave his room for 3 weeks after this

[@skyguy5587]

GiantSandles Some say... He’s still there

[@toddmg]

Thank you young man for standing and asking your question. Hearing an answer was helpful for you and us watching.

[@bethenawaltz4190]

hear hear

[@holeshothunter5544]

Yeah. Learn from a fool. Wearing a suit doesn't help, either.

[@Red-pv7kx]

@@holeshothunter5544😂😂😂

[@darthvadeth6290]

Write the same thing under conservative comment sections and see what they reply 😂😂

[@Modguw]

That man is like 70 now. 😅

[@abbysmith1148]

One of the things that I love about what Chomsky does with this initial questioner, is that despite the questioner's obvious nervousness and timidness, Chomsky immediately addresses him with the confidence and assertive delivery that he would afford for any questioner. He treats this young timid man as an equal, even though he disagrees with him. Classy.

[@SeanOCallaghan0106]

This man is a fucking encyclopedia

[@weirdo1083]

A walking encyclopedia hahaaaa.

[@blacklyfe5543]

​@weirdo1083 what does that mean?

[@conors4430]

Standards of living have been rising since the scientific revolution in the 16th century. The growth of economy wouldn’t be bad if the growth was actually passed on to the public, basically since the 70s that hasn’t happened.

[@kentallard8852]

Standards of living are now declining: Life expectancy is dropping and mortality rate is rising. Especially the "deaths of despair" are sharply increasing.

[@kentallard8852]

@Beto Rdz look it up

[@erniereyes1994]

@@kentallard8852 that's utterly incorrect, although your god Chomsky espouses that view so therefore it must be "true." Once you get over your bias, do some actual reading. "Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress," by Steven Pinker, might give you some hope.

[@1997lordofdoom]

@@erniereyes1994 Steven Pinker, lmao the guy that wrote the book about how this is the most peaceful time in history and that we have the least amount of violence and was instantly debunked by anthropologists. Go read actual intellectuals like Chomsky not jokes like Pinker that have many times been humiliated by guys like Chomsky. Actually I don't think guys like you have the mental capacity to actually read Chomsky so here is a clip of Chomsky dunking on Pinker, it might give you some hope and maybe you get over your bias. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qaO1l4OcecqFaKM&ab_channel=Chomsky%27sPhilosophy

[@1997lordofdoom]

@@erniereyes1994 You owned yourself the moment you mentioned Steven Pinker

[@americanmisfit1]

I think it's important not to bash the person for asking the question. As Chomsky often points out, many people don't understand the actual situation because their consent is manufactured. I don't know what this man does, but I'm sure he's no thought leader. In any case, his courage to ask the question is why we have a good answer-- he was obviously nervous to ask it anyway.

[@pappapaps]

That's a good point.

[@afgor1088]

he's not bashing the person asking the question, he's just not treating him like a child who needs to be mollycoddled and have their ego protected far worse than giving someone a direct answer that might embarrass them is protecting their feelings but leaving them as uninformed as when they asked it

[@holeshothunter5544]

What YOU think is unimportant, and wrong. Let him speak, then BASH Hard.

[@darthvadeth6290]

Funny, I never see comments like these under conservative channel comment sections 😂😂😂

[@americanmisfit1]

@@darthvadeth6290 I’m practicing impulse control lol

[@BuGGyBoBerl]

whats going on with these comments? really disturbing. this isnt a soccer game where you trash your opponent and shittalk him. this is just a guy with less experience asking a question/delivering an argument and gets his argument dismantled. nothing bad about that. leave that guy alone. this is just toxic. how do you expect to learn when you shittalk people who try to learn?

[@marianoz2301]

It’s the internet people are going to be toxic.

[@hazymorning1823]

@@marianoz2301 doesn't mean we should tolerate it

[@seedyoda5714]

Savage.

[@jamiehartman3350]

Are you really a Anarchist Platonist? :D omg I'm not alone please be true!

[@zeldaman211]

Man......shut down.

[@ChrisXarke2286]

damn... he crushed it

[@philledwith8307]

In the space of a six minute quote, Chomsky references the Documentary record (which he says dries up in the '60's) on Stalinism, alludes to relevant statements by Truman and Churchill on Stalin himself, discusses US Labor History from regression in the '20s to Concessions in the '60s, discusses the economic benefits of slavery and then paraphrases the arguments of George Fitzhugh (which is a pretty deep reach all by itself), and then tops it off with an economics/history lesson on the rise of Hitler. All without any kind of preparation. It's not just the depth and range of his knowledge, it's his ability to draw instant parallels and connections from that repository. Amazing.

[@ChiRedWhiteBlue]

This man is so brilliant. Love listening to him

[@spaghettiking7312]

These few minutes blow up so many political arguments, it's insane.

[@1844Freddy]

Peak Chomsky

[@libertine999]

Best part is when he climbs back into the grave he made for himself with his half baked argument.

[@eddievangundy4510]

That's not a half-baked argument. It's a good argument. Chomsky trying to use Soviet Russia as a counter example is what is the stretch here. Now if Chomsky wants to talk about Deng's China he might have a point. Of course all of Asia has grown enormously- almost all of it under state capitalism.

[@MrBetweenbars]

Hey, I think I'll stand up and try to debate the smartest man in the world with a half-baked proposition. What could possibly go wrong?

[@michaelsmith8665]

It's amazing how many commenters there are who can barely write a sensible paragraph denounce Chomsky, the author of 128 books (by recent count) widely noted for their logical coherence and abundant factual substantiation.

[@innis17]

Well it was a genuine idea he had. I actually commend him for defending his point of view even if i disagree with him.

[@nielsw.8587]

@@innis17 Exactly, people here are very rude and arrogant. Chomsky never makes fun of people for making bad arguments, he explains why he thinks they are wrong. Coming up with these ideas and asking questions is the way to get a better understanding of the world.

[@avi.12345]

As much as I admire Chomsky, its painful to see credulous people like you who blindly support him and are devoid of judgment. Isn't it good that there is an argument taking place?

[@CIARUNSITE]

What could go right? Maybe he thought about the response to his question and has now at least moderately altered his viewpoint. He is likely a college student. That's the point of college. You work through different viewpoints and change them many times. It takes far more than 20-25 years to arrive at real conclusions if you're honestly trying to examine them.

[@dannysyl2477]

Why are people attacked for asking questions? Asking questions, even if they aren't the most thought out still leads to stimulating conversation, with the above example. We all learn from something. This attack/aggression reaction that people have is very unhealthy, it may be a product of conditioning within our society.

[@davidnflowers]

Brutal! Anyone know if there's more video from this conference online?

[@Snoopies622]

I saw the whole thing on C-Span back in 1996. To tell you the truth, as I remember it, it was a pretty dry, dull talk and this was the very last question asked at the end, and it was the only thing worth remembering. Still a great exchange.

[@omarmahfouz5599]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/n4e3gZyihtR7jqM

[@FirstLast-ms4yl]

4:25 LMFAO kid said "fuck this"

[@excitedaboutlearning1639]

I'll use that argument next time I hear economic growth as an argument against my point of view.

[@spencerjames9417]

Idk what we'll do when this man is gone

[@jeromeschwartz3699]

I’ll take over. I intend to accomplish more than he did. I don’t mean to say that he did poorly, I only mean that I’m going to pick up where he leaves off. He’ll certainly be missed. Noam Chomsky is quite possibly the most brilliant human being who ever lived. (except for Jesus Christ of course ... but that goes without saying ...)

[@michaelsmith8665]

@@jeromeschwartz3699 Good luck . . . a recent count puts Chomsky's published book total at 128.

[@jeromeschwartz3699]

@@michaelsmith8665 well, I didn’t say I’d fill his shoes. I’ll take the reins though. I’ll bet I can talk the talk better than he did. God bless him but, he’s too nice. I’m not shy. I’m not even remotely afraid to identify who the problem is, or what we need to do to manage them.

[@pappapaps]

​@@jeromeschwartz3699 "I intend to accomplish more than he did." - he wrote 128 books. " well, I didn’t say I’d fill his shoes." XD

[@jeromeschwartz3699]

@@pappapaps "accomplish" more. XD

[@guskalo1981]

Charlie Kirk's dad.

[@lukethomeret-duran5273]

If Charlie Kirk ever got the chance to debate Chomsky he would run for his life and make shitty excuse about being busy. Chomsky, unlike conservative thinkers, is an intellectual.

[@doccarter5283]

I wonder if the questioner listened....

[@LouSassle2999]

They talked about it then, we’re seeing it now.

[@rjill7000]

The question is: who benefits from growth?

[@silentkiller4091]

So whats the solution accoring to chomsky?

[@pappapaps]

What are the documentary records that he is talking about? Can someone explain. And does anyone know where to find Fitz Hughes arguments?

[@afgor1088]

you can look fitz up and read his work as pdfs online and the documentary records he's talking about are largely declassified government documents, especially CIA which show the US was incredibly scared of the USSR's superior growth which is why they attacked it

[@nohbuddy1]

I like how he dismantles both capitalist and left Tankie arguments at the same time

[@naveed210]

Left tankie?

[@michaelmcgovern3434]

@@naveed210 tankie is a term generally used to describe people who romanticize the "communism" that existed in the soviet union, despite how it was imperialistic and interventionist. So people who want to send in tanks in the name of "communism"

[@michaelsmith8665]

@@michaelmcgovern3434 Hard to call the USSR imperialist, since imperialism grows out of private monopoly. But yes, there's plenty to criticize in the former USSR, as in any system of power.

[@paintedhorse6880]

@@michaelsmith8665 The government is a monopoly. A monopoly on violence. Imperialism doesnt have to be private though.

[@nickkemp4979]

"Anyone I disagree with is a Tankie." Literally anytime that people have used that word has always been a slur they hurl out of desperation because they can't back up their arguments. Also, most prominently used in regards to discussions about Russia.

[@redgekagaoan9462]

goodbye

[@guskalo1981]

Charlie Kirk's dad got owned.

[@garrethoien6666]

Well, Noam has a unique view....Thomas Sowell explains it best

[@tobiastobias2419]

Capitalists in a way think the same as Stalinists They just use different economics

[@lapums]

I sometimes wonder what happened to this young man after this video. Where is he now? What does he do for work? Is he now advocating for seizing the means of production?

[@Red-pv7kx]

The world may never know!

[@bobbie3713]

For anyone wondering the date is 1997

[@AfroMedic]

I was born in that year and still, I got trapped in this stupid American wage-slavery nation.

[@matthewkopp2391]

Thank you, I tried to look it up.

[@thethird1967]

I know one man that probably won’t debate him….Thomas Sowell.

[@SquantoShinyShorts]

The guy politely asked a very fair question, not that I agree with him

[@kforest2745]

There’s no such thing as rich they’re poor

[@jesusisking452]

All of those points are in fact arguments for those systems. Saying they aren't arguments for those systems is to stare evidence in the face and reject it. The slave owners, the commissars, the Gestapo the old Republican Party and you are not going to give as much personal freedom as an individually, not collectively, economically empowering system like post civil rights highly market driven Capitalism. Also, expanding into space would be almost impossible in anarchist society as large worker's alliances are very unlikely to exist in great enough scale to be effective at large projects or even simpler ones like an effective, modern healthcare system because of protectionist arrangements since there is no profit to be made from hard, long work hours and global trade networks that make everything cheaper. The fact that no other system plans for indefinite growth which is not impossible on a "finite world" since it can colonize and extract resources from everywhere between the lower beginning of the Earth's crust and the entirety of space is Capitalism, and therefore it is the best system available, though arguably with the addition of social programs.

[@jeromeschwartz3699]

Given: a.) 1 prize b.) 4 runners Guaranteed 3 people will lose. If three of the four people are guaranteed to lose, then how do all 4 of them have a chance to win?

[@edwardjones2202]

Huh?

[@jeromeschwartz3699]

@@edwardjones2202 I meant to say, " ... have *a* chance to win?" Sorry, I don't always form sentences properly. What can I say?

[@martinpospisil3747]

@@jeromeschwartz3699 Its the idea of one day you can make it too that keeps capitalism alive. Im surrounded by these people who believe one day they will be rich and I know for a fact that thats impossible.

[@jeromeschwartz3699]

@@martinpospisil3747 Imagine I’m offered three options; A, B and C. I choose A, but I don’t receive A. Was A an option?

[@jemandoondame2581]

If you want to make a point, you don't really need to ask us a question. I am not even sure how this is supposed to relate to the video.

[@nespith]

I've never liked that rent a car analogy. What if my car is a piece of shit that I treat like shit specifically because I don't care about it while a rental I treat well because I don't want to be fined. (this is has nothing to do with chomskys arguments, I just don't like that analogy.)

[@markus4698]

I think the point of the analogy isn't that it's actually true, the point is how cleverly it was used to justify oppression.

[@michaelsmith8665]

@@markus4698 Both. Industrial workers were routinely worked to death in their teens and early twenties.

[@MrNewberryL]

I guess in 19th C industry there weren’t any “fines”, so to speak?

[@flippydaflip5310]

It's a perfectly fine analogy even in the case you posit. You own the car - therefore you get to treat it like garbage because you have a piece of paper that says you can. Owning a car and owning a human is the same damn thing under chattel slavery.

[@c.galindo9639]

Reasonable argument but not really one to disprove what he was arguing against. What really matters is the implementation of things and how people abide by them. Capitalism, socialism, communism, democracy and whatever else all can have “good” in them or what is to be deemed as good but as far as an overall collective system in reality. Capitalism has proven to thrive better for people than other implementations of government systems. A main superior reason is that it was founded to have great success in the US which is a Constitutional Republic and the US government system has a large array of different governmental system implementations. The greatest success for it was really because of capitalism helping people to thrive with greater success and to create a free market for people to grow on. Now his argument against certain societal norms or issues in certain areas or points in time really is being disingenuous on a large scale and really isn’t a valid argument to try and disprove a form of government, especially when he just put out points to try and disprove an idea rather than have a reasonable counter to better clarify why what he wants to disprove isn’t such a grand idea

[@avernvrey7422]

It IS an argument for slavery, fascism, etc. "It's the economy, stupid." Bread and Circuses. The demos doesn't want to be free and poor.

[@matthewkopp2391]

Your assuming that Chomsky’s position would make the less poor, I so no reason why that would be the case, I see the opposite being the case. Citizens can be both more free and more prosperous by abandoning the corporate system.

[@MrDanielfff777]

What about speed growth? Capitalism pretty fast

[@1997lordofdoom]

What speed growth, Capitalism needed 300 years, the USSR did it in one generation, Chomsky explains why both of these systems are crap.

[@MrDanielfff777]

@@1997lordofdoomit did what in one generation?

[@kyleanderson8511]

@@MrDanielfff777 Russia went from one of the poorest countries in Europe to having a huge economy and being the second most powerful country in the world in a generation.

[@MrDanielfff777]

@@kyleanderson8511 then why did it collapse

[@kyleanderson8511]

@@MrDanielfff777 I think we’re missing the point here. The point isn’t sustainability. The point is that you wouldn’t use the growth argument in favor of communism so you shouldn’t use it for capitalism.

[@ashwaqahmed9656]

This the role Noam plays. All these wars, refugees, climate change, high suicide and depression rates, racism, pretty much each region their societies are crashed due to their role in this large money making. And he is here justifying it himself the one he criticized. This the role of Noam Chomsky’s a gate keeper.

[@pappapaps]

How is he justifying it?

[@gatopardoantico5657]

Once again, Chomsky compares and contrasts wage labour under Capitalism with supposedly humane slavery. His argument about 'humane relations between slaves and slave-owners' is pathetic to say the least. Furthermore, comparing 19th century growth rates is unconvincing, as per head growth was much lower than even nowadays.

[@jeromeschwartz3699]

Did he not just hear what that man said? He said, “Your arguments are terrible!” aka: “Sit down, shut your mouth, and attempt to suppress your bias for, oh I don’t know, a nanosecond or two so you might actually learn something instead of assuming I’m always wrong and you’re always right!”

[@torontolarrivee7965]

This is clearly a bad argument. Chomsky is correct that an economic system founded on *slavery* cannot be justified by economic growth. From this it does not follow that economic growth bears *no weight* in our choice of economic system. Suppose we're choosing between a mixed economy like Sweden's and an Anarcho-Syndicalist economy of the sort Chomsky advocates. Suppose further that we have good reason to believe that Chomsky's Anarcho-Syndicalist economy will be half as productive. Obviously we must take this difference in productivity into account. To say 'productivity can't justify slavery, therefore we shouldn't care about it,' is like saying, 'Aspirin won't cure cancer, therefore we shouldn't care about it.'

[@harshkumar2473]

Productivity is not the basic fundamental premise in his arguements ..... I think it's about a just hierarchy without tyranny.... In which all people who are involved in the production owns the means and have a say in it.... For example look at mondragon.... Not a perfect system ... But workers are happy because they own it... they have a democratic say in the decisions .. and the difference between the income of a worker and a ceo is just 300%... and the profit goes directly into the pockets of workers and there are colleges, schools in which there children go owned by the cooperative... obviously there are conflicts and sometimes conflicts needs to be suppressed ... But people gets room and education to think critically whether the decision is actually for the betterment or not... And decide accordingly

[@torontolarrivee7965]

@@harshkumar2473 I'm aware that 'productivity is not the basic premise' of Chomsky's anarcho-syndicalism. But it is the premise of the question he's being asked. Suppose someone asks, "Shouldn't we be concerned about the potential productivity losses that result from a shift from (say) Swedish style mixed economy to an anarchy-syndacalist economy". Your answer should address that choice. If you replace the question (as NC does here) with, "Shouldn't we be concerned about the potential productivity losses that result from a shift from *a slave economy* to an anarchy-syndacalist economy", you're not proving anything vis-a-vis the original question.

[@harshkumar2473]

@@torontolarrivee7965 the productivity won't decrease... Because it's not like market will be vanquished.....anarcho syndicalism is about democratic factories and corporates and companies owned by worker councils... The only reason why the productivity could decrease is if a tyrant is there on the picture .... And I think mondragon is a good example of what anarcho syndicalism will look like .. that's why I gave you the example and the productivity is as great as it is in any private corporation

[@torontolarrivee7965]

​@@harshkumar2473 I don't think this is a good argument but more importantly it's not the argument Chomsky is making. To the person worried about productivity losses under anarcho syndicalism, he is not saying ' the mondragon experiment shows that a-s can be productive.' He's saying instead, "Why are you asking about productivity? Would you tolerate a *slave* economy, if that were efficient?" I understand why you're trying to change the subject. It's a ridiculous argument he's offering.

[@harshkumar2473]

@@torontolarrivee7965 i think what the dude's arguement is that the poor people has been also uplifted and there is a increase in the standard of living of people under capitalism..... What chomsky is saying is that if the increase in the standard of living of people is the sole basis of the defense of capitalism... Then in that case why not also defend stalinism and feudalism and slavery.... Because definitely there has been increas in the standard of living of people with time in those system...... Now comes the productivity and efficiency ...... The whole arguement of capitalism is based on that it is more productive and efficient then all the system tried in human history... And the dude is also in favour of that arguement.... What chomsky is saying is that by no means productivity and efficiency can be the sole purpose of s system and a system which achieves that by any means should be upheld.. .......

[@dangeroso121]

Comparing slavery to capitalism is a ridiculous false comparison. Slavery is forced compulsion into an oppressive system. The irony is that socialism is a better comparison to slavery. You can live as socialist in a capitalist society. You can't live as a capitalist in a socialist society.

[@realistblue-_-136]

And what exactly are you referring to the user cuz you would be correct my friend they weren’t Marxist in a truly free socialist society you could think whatever you want Stalin was a bag of dicks and Lenin eventually sided with him the early ideals were there but when your under constant threat by western ideology your government ups the propaganda leading to an ultimatum between these ideas of capitalism and socialism all a big shit show

[@realistblue-_-136]

*use not user mb

[@realistblue-_-136]

Ussr Jesus even KZbin doesn’t even want me to type it lol

[@epicphailure88]

A socialist in a capitalist society is a worker. A capitalist in a socialist society is a worker. The majority of people aren't capitalists. If anything the argument for capitalism is that it was a system that had eliminated the aristocracy. Now the aristocracy has returned and eventually people will be forced back into slavery. Corporations are buying up homes and turning them into rental units. Tech companies pretty much have data on everyone etc.

[@clipkut4979]

The hell are you talking about? Capitalist societies like 1930s Germany killed communists. And yes you can live as a socialist in a capitalist country, in the sense that you can hold onto that belief but you're not allowed to implement it, and you're forced to follow the capitalist way either anyway or starve. In the same way, a capitalist would be forced to follow socialism in a socialist society.

[@Bolognabeef]

What a stupid analogy that of slavery. Not only it doesn't make sense because they weren't an economic system but were part of one, and because he ignored that in the north there was fully fledged capitalism and it was much richer and equal than any other society on earth at the time; but it's also disrespectful because it implies that the suffering an AVERAGE American suffers today (not being able to find their dream job, having to pay relatively high mortgages and insurances) is anywhere near the suffering that slaves experienced.

[@johnathanvale8634]

Id love to go to a debate stage with noam chomsky. His economics is so FUCKING ABSURD

[@flippydaflip5310]

No. You wouldn't.

[@johnathanvale8634]

@@flippydaflip5310 why do you think that?

[@flippydaflip5310]

@@johnathanvale8634 Because you'd be about as sucessful as all the others who tried that.

[@johnathanvale8634]

@@flippydaflip5310 funny, given that despite his apparent success in the realm of debate, he hasn't got a spec of logic or reasoning which can hold a candle to both 1. The evidence given forth to the contrary 2. The logic and reasoning of the Austrian school of economics The fact that he believes he can even pretend to be qualified to speak on topics like economics and politics, of which he isn't even educated in, baffles me

[@flippydaflip5310]

@@johnathanvale8634 That's a pretty convoluted way of demonstrating that your (alleged) smarts only exist as fantasy inside your own head. If you were smarter, you'd have found a less convoluted way - but I guess that's neither here nor there, is it? Good for you that you never challenged Chomsky in public - I don't think you'd deal with humiliation all that well.

[@hotsteamypudding]

I dont think thats a good argument to be honest, the guy asking the question was asking about modern US capitalism, not Stalinism or Slavery or Nazism. Those systems killed millions of people and literally enslaved them which is peoples modern problem with those systems (no one says "those damn nazis and their economic growth"), within modern US society can you say the same?

[@chaygamin2549]

As was pointed out in another comment, you definitely can say the same for capitalism. Its a good argument because Chomsky gets at the underlying logic of what the speaker is proposing. He’s suggesting that good results mean the system is good, so Chomsky offers examples where this is not true. Not any different from disproving a theorem.

[@JohnPopcorn06]

@@mateusz-1398 It is more about maintaining their hegemony in military and economic sense as u said, but it is not the privilege of the capitalist systems. If u look at history, this is more like the logic of empires, this is how they operate, they try to oppress other nations. Of course, it does not mean that corporations did not have any role on all of these military activities for oil for instance in Iraq to gain profit, but it is not the whole picture I m sure about that.

[@sichambers9011]

You've missed the point. Chomsky is making exactly your point about Stalinism. Then asking if an increased standard living under those systems justifies them. His point is, it doesn't.

[@michaelsmith8665]

@@michaeld8555 It's not a rant. It's a sensible argument. Living standards are irrelevant unless they are rising because of a commitment to the well-being of the general population.

[@kyleanderson8511]

@@michaeld8555 Standard of living is, I believe, at least a factor to consider, but it doesn’t serve as a justification for a system of domination and subjugation. Like he said, does that mean a slave should be grateful he’s living til he’s 70 in 1850 instead of just living to 50 in 1750? I don’t think a slave would accept that argument.

[@eddievangundy4510]

Chomsky seems to be reaching here. Economic growth in the Soviet Union was slow and accompanied by famines and so forth.

[@dempseyf_5118]

?

[@hhhahahhhahha]

they industralized from a peasant society into an industrial one with all of its perks in ONE generation

[@idonnow2]

it wasn't slow it's one of the fastest industrializations in modern history, and the fact that it was accompanied by famines IS THE POINT, that tankies use the "fast industrialization" argument in the same way that the guy asking is using the "economic growth" argument

[@mathias4851]

Boss Chomsky

[@pocojoyo]

student became a slave after this cause "he was better off" than renting himself

[@clipkut4979]

Same here. I work remotely as self-employed, but there are no laws in place to guarantee wages or fair working conditions for international self-employed contractors, it's literally the 1800s all over again. So I'm better off renting myself to a local slave owner because I would be under a Union contract and protection from being undercut by global remote slaves that can work for 1$ per hour.