Noam Chomsky - Mill and the Work Contract

Chomsky on classical liberalism, John Stuart Mill, and the work contract.
Source: • IPSP Panel and Documen...

[@scioarete7987]

Where did Mill say this??

[@BartAlder]

Principles of Political Economy. See p543 here: lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/101/Mill_0199_EBk_v6.0.pdf Most versions available online are abridged and seem to omit this section.

[@blackflagsnroses6013]

Joel Ashworth most of them can be found in their works though I don’t know the specifics. You can just put a quote and the internet will find the rest usually. As for Lincoln: State of the Union Address: Abraham Lincoln (December 3, 1861) It is not needed, nor fitting here [in discussing the Civil War] that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions; but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effect to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor, in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them, and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded thus far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life. Now, there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless. Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights.

[@BartAlder]

@Joel Ashworth Adam Smith offers various critiques of completely free markets and references social inequities all through his writings. So there's this in Book 1, chapter 10 of Wealth of Nations: _'Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters.'_ and this from Book 2, Chapter 4 _'All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind'_ and there's this from Book 5, Chapter 1 _'Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality. '_ and from the same chapter, _'Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.'_ Lincoln was what Republicans of today would call a progressive, a liberal, a SJW or even a commie. So for example: _'inasmuch [as] most good things are produced by labour, it follows that [all] such things of right belong to those whose labour has produced them. But it has so happened in all ages of the world, that some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. _*_To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government._*_ But then the question arises, how can a government best, effect this?'_ which can be found in 'Fragments of a Tariff Discussion'. See here: quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln1/1:423?rgn=div1;view=fulltext (see p413) Locke's Second Treatise on Government has this to say (you have to get through a lot of religious arguments to get anywhere interesting with Locke): _' The earth and all that is therein is given to men for the support and comfort of their being. And though all the fruits it naturally produces, and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in common, as they are produced by the spontaneous hand of Nature, and nobody has originally a private dominion exclusive of the rest of mankind in any of them'_ . He adds, _' The “labour” of his body and the “work” of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state Nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men. For this “labour” being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others.'_ See here: www.yorku.ca/comninel/courses/3025pdf/Locke.pdf pp115,116. Pretty much all of Paine's writing talks about the rights of individuals against tyrannies of bad governments. It was Paine, of course, who created this idea of equitable human rights as being supreme over unfair human laws. The Rights of Man should be read by everyone. ia800907.us.archive.org/5/items/rightsofman00painiala/rightsofman00painiala.pdf Hope that helps.

[@BartAlder]

@Joel Ashworth No worries, Joel. Am a huge fan of the history of Liberalism and socialism. Glad it helped!

[@scioarete7987]

@@BartAlder for real though: thank you for your effort and help. I don't understand. Chomsky is suggesting that classical liberalists and economists did not quite like the capitalist model. It almost seems like they were trying to tame it (like Smith's idea of enlightened self interest), but why not look at shifting?

[@benjaminseng4271]

Let the class structure collapse and let the people be free.

[@titankiller5287]

benjamin seng As long as some jobs are harder than others, then it would be difficult to have no class structure whatsoever, right?

[@blackflagsnroses6013]

TitanKiller that’s not class structure at all. Socialism encourages the individual to develop their own innate abilities and talents. By owning the factors of production, their own work, would be a more free society. This is what George Orwell wrote about, as well as Oscar Wilde in “The Soul of Man Under Socialism”

[@titankiller5287]

Thanks for clearing this up guys, I genuinely was confused by the comment, I appreciate the help!

[@2Majesties]

Thanks for these great uploads. Please check your audio volume levels.

[@Jader7777]

Why does Chomsky always have GARBAGE audio recording?!

[@Edgar-Friendly]

No one listens to him anyway. Those of us here are in the minority.

[@jimmaotibia]

From which book is the Mill's quote from?

[@BartAlder]

This question was already asked and responded to but... sigh... It's from _Principles of Political Economy._ See p543 here: lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/101/Mill_0199_EBk_v6.0.pdf

[@wisemen8695]

Hi dear, I hope you going well ? I'm looking for a work contract please ?

[@wisemen8695]

@@martinpearson1249 can you explain more please ?

[@paifu.]

2:25

[@imhoisntworthmuch5441]

over 157k already?

[@imhoisntworthmuch5754]

177k..

[@gooddogreallygooddog6157]

Is there a video of chomsky where he doesn’t talk about factory girls

[@Shirley-lock]

Dear sir, You are living in a bubble. Your words sound great. If we look to history we see the result. Please stop this nonsense. Greed and lack of morals and ethics always seem to win out.

[@BlakeBjornstad1]

It’s really easy to look at the world capitalism built and say “wow this world, is greedy, shitty and will always be this way”. All the people who have changed it for the better, fortunately weren’t so cynical. It’s quite a bit harder to look at it, try and understand it and figure out how to make it better but I agree the dystopian nature of capitalism does at times make it seem monolithic. The same was thought of Feudalism and slavery as well.

[@BartAlder]

I saw the end of the depravity called the Soviet Union. I also saw the end of the disgrace called Apartheid in South Africa. When my mother was young she was one of two women who studied physics and mathematics at Imperial College in London. When her mother's mother was young women didn't even have the right to vote. If all you see is greed and loathing in this world with no cause for any hope at all and no purpose for political discourse what a fucking horrible life you must be having.

[@utilitymonster8267]

That is a weak argument. No one ever claimed that a cooperation relies on altruism and morality. The argument is that it would benefit all workers, so if humans were actually greedy, the system of a cooperation would work just as fine. Also, there is no need to look at history, you only have to look at the cooperations of today.