Noam Chomsky on India - pt2 - Amartya Sen and India's idological crime

[@PrashantRawat]

arnab will call him deshdrohi for this

[@quaintdeliveries247]

you're wrong for so many reasons.....chomsky is not an indian citizen...sen definitely doesn't live in india...and he wouldn't because it's a genuine study meant to be a reflection on india rather than politics...

[@sandeepy7ec288]

Ofcourse, if arnab says Noam is deshdrohi, then Noam is wrong in having US citizenship and not Indian :P

[@TheNishja]

What stupidity are you spewing,why would arnab even come into this debate???.The man is clearly critical of a third rate pseudo intellectual called amartya sen,he states clearly of his biased study ,leaving india's corrupt governance and its utter incompetence in the dark.Focusing on famines ,while at the same time leaving rural mortality rates out of the picture lol,isn't that what certain corrupt government,of a certain corrupt party, in this country are guilty of ??.You morons are a clear example of what this man once stated before,you have neither thought nor courage to float an absolute mentality of absolute idealism.Your attempt to bring arnab into this matter,into this discussion which has no relevance or for that matter need of comparison,clearly shows your pathetic mentality.Liberalism is an ideal afforded by the brave and strong-willed,not the cowards that try to moronically attack their "perceived political enemy" .I'm guessing you work or worked for NDTV.Such a disgrace it is to share space in this universe ,let alone planet, with your fools.

[@qaidrashid6351]

MAC KASH very right and true. i love your words. exactly

[@jayaramj5441]

Arnab wud piss in his pants if he ever mess with Chomsky

[@quaintdeliveries247]

It's really interesting what Chomsky says....if you read the papers and watch corporate media channels...you'll know that there's such an entity as sen but not his work...would like more academic analysis that seeks to give constructive criticism and have a discussion that helps india evolve

[@kartik_adhia]

This is actually Chomsky's life work. According to him, the media (both mainstream and marginalised) serve only corporate and political interests and not public interests.Thats why they won't publish about Sen. He explains this in his book Manufacturing consent.

[@ddandymann]

@@kartik_adhia Saying that media outlets serve political interests is fairly meaningless depending on your definition of politics. The broader definitions of politics that are prevalent in the 21st century and are favoured by Chomsky himself consider most forms of public activity to be political. As such calling a media outlet political is a bit like calling a boat buoyant, you're just describing an intrinsic part of its nature.

[@sirherbert6953]

Can someone tell me what paper from Amartya Sen chomsky is talking about

[@DrClean1]

I don't know if there was an exact paper or set of papers but the quote Chomsky cites is from "Hunger and Public Action" by Sen and Dreze. I read this and "Poverty and Famines." They were both quite accessible and enlightening.

[@sljolt]

Amartya Sen, like Chomsky, has a huge number of published books. Can anyone tell me what specific work of Sen's that Chomsky is referring to when he says the neglected information is in the 'same papers'?

[@sljolt]

I searched a bit more carefully and found a citation in 'Rogue States': Jean Drèze and Amartya Sen, 'Hunger and Public Action' (Oxford, 1989), chap. 11.

[@kandasamybalu1286]

an uncertain glory

[@megakeenbeen]

its his main work on famines and comparative studies of india and china that won him the nobel prize that he's referring to

[@winter_silhouette]

The book is Poverty and Famine.

[@20shourya]

Omnomnimnomnom Chomsky

[@pratikali4u2]

What many have pointed out since 1917, "communist" states were actually only state capitalist societies. Moishe Postone has shown very interestingly how the same world crisis of capitalism saw the emergence birth to fordist welfare states in the advanced capitalist bloc, and nationalized dictatorships in countries like china and russia. To nitpick on ours versus theirs is narrow-minded criticism which could only seem subversive in the context of imaginary warfare between capitalism and state capitalism.

[@whythelongface64]

Your comment is peak liberalism

[@pratikali4u2]

@@whythelongface64 sure.. i guess i got owned

[@pranjal8912]

Cost of the bloodless revolution for which India still pays to this day.

[@shaheenshad5012]

What revolution?

[@whythelongface64]

Had the working class seized power in India, we would be much better now, but of course then Chomsky would call us state capitalist authoritarians lol

[@shaheenshad5012]

@@whythelongface64 only if you engaged in state capitalist authoritarianism, there are other ways that won't derail into vanguardist movements. Remember Cuba, Burkina Faso ofcourse that would mean inviting crippling sanctions and constant infliction of instabilities through funding terrorism and insurgent movements by the west, the west won't Even let you had nuclear weapons.

[@whythelongface64]

@@shaheenshad5012 Wdym "derail into vanguardist movements"? All successful socialist movements are vanguardist

[@shaheenshad5012]

@@whythelongface64 Cuba was not a vanguardist revolution nor was Thomas sankara. Vanguardism is just another way to create a bourgeois class within the proletariat movement. Remember Stalin?

[@amritkumar7488]

2.25 ? Capitalist principles ? Wasn't India economy almost completely state controlled till economic reforms in 90s ?

[@SnehaFairy1111]

Absolutely. India was socialist, major ally of USSR at the time before 1991, until LPG reforms were introduced. he doesn't know what he is talking about

[@Giovanni1972]

Chomsky responds "India was a capitalist in the normal sense. Private capital was not only untouched but supported. It didn’t become more capitalist. That’s the way it was from the start. If you look at the analysis by Amartya Sen which I reported, he makes it crystal clear that it was precisely the super-capitalist features of Indial capitalism that were responsible for the 100 million deaths."

[@jestermoon]

Yes, thx 😊

[@yashawasthi242]

Noam : "India was a capitalist and democratic" License Raj : Am I a joke to you! ( and Liberalisation happened in 1991 )

[@kumar-jatin-2000]

Regulated capitalism is still capitalism.

[@gabbar51ngh]

@@kumar-jatin-2000 it wasn't capitalism by any means. Chomsky is simply a fraud. He thinks entire period of USSR isn't "True socialism". That alone tells us he isn't credible. Chomsky isn't even professional Economist and tries to dunk on Hayek and Milton Friedman. License raj was literally inspired by Soviets and India was a dirigiste economy with extreme socialist elements. Our very own first prime minister of india was involved with Fabian socialists. Indira Gandhi even added socialist into our constitution? But somehow India is capitalist. Chomsky is a literal chuttiya. Only a buffoon would take him seriously

[@kumar-jatin-2000]

@@gabbar51ngh Capitalism is: >Private ownership of the means of productions >Market Exchange of Goods for profit motive >Wage labour. India was a mixed-economy country. Of-course it wasn't neo-liberal economy. Simply nationalizing few industries doesn't make a country socialist. Because of this same argument Libertarians claim that America is socialist. Socialism can be achieved with or without a state. He thinks entire period of USSR isn't "True socialism" because he is an anarchist. He has attacked Leninism on quite a few occasions. India tried to dirigiste economy with socialist elements for gaining economic independence and upliftment of its mostly backward population. (After being enslaved by a company for 200 years inviting more transnational capitalists to exploit your country just after gaining independence doesn't sounds like a wise thing to do).

[@gabbar51ngh]

@@kumar-jatin-2000 Capitalism is merely private ownership and freedom to trade. You are trying to give definition of capitalism from a socialist perspective rather than liberal one. No one's stopping you to create an employee owned business within capitalism or a non profit organization. India heavily leaned towards socialism after its independence and barely uplifted anyone. Colonialism followed a Mercantilist model something which was attacked by Adam Smith himself in his book. So Capitalism isn't mercantilism or colonialism which socialists often conflate as one. "Inviting more trans nationalists to exploit your country" instead got exploited by the indian government, Later USSR. Interestingly as India opened up it's economy, the poverty has gone down and more people have found work. Further proof why and how socialism was a failure in india. Today India's economy is bigger than UK itself. Thanks to reforms which made india move towards Capitalism rather than socialism.

[@gabbar51ngh]

@Bronson Narator he's a linguist. His knowledge about economics and history sucks. Chomsky shouldn't be taken seriously beyond language. Look up Thomas Sowell who wrote About intellectuals like Noam Chomsky. They master one subject and think they know everything

[@user-vf8ti4dq3d]

change title to "ideological"

[@ashutoshchakravarty2669]

What a well educated comments section

[@ashishchauhan9671]

rare feat

[@iamdanyboy1]

But that's just poor govt policy. Even Uber Capitalist countries like the US have a health insurance programme for the poor called MedicAid. India had nothing along those lines till RSBY and the now Ayushman Bharat Yojana came along. I hate the proto fascists in today's govt as any one else, but the healthcare sector was trashed by all govts. Look at the supply side economics. We have so few doctors . And medical licensing is NOT capital controlled(on paper) but a function of govt control. Yet we have so few docs. Govt Hospitals get swarmed every day because the only point of delivery for govt healthcare is govt setups. That is so dumb. A massive Single payer system overhaul is long due. Even a limited public option would be a good start in India.

[@anaghganguly8999]

One of the things one has to be careful about with professor chomsky is his definition of concepts. You and I may have a definition of capitalism but it may not be the same as chomsky's definition.

[@hritizgogoi3739]

In India the words secular, socialist etc wtc whatever is used by governments (and oppositions) doesn't matter and has no meaning. What Noam points out here is state capitalism and crony capitalism which always existed in India (and continue to exist), not free market capitalism

[@shaheenshad5012]

@@hritizgogoi3739 selective bias still exists in india, rich have control of free open market and the poor suffers from rugged market regulations, the media and government hides it under the guise of nationalism and minorities are scapegoated so that they won't blame the corporations.

[@hritizgogoi3739]

@@shaheenshad5012 there's no denying of the same. Personally I dont care, I was a concerned citizen but both of us know how little it matters to be a concerned citizen in this sorry of a republic

[@shaheenshad5012]

@@hritizgogoi3739 you should care, you hold more power than you think, india still is a democracy and voter suppression is minimal to non existent and cast your vote.

[@silentstorm718]

@@shaheenshad5012 Many folks of a particular minority community yell "Sar tan se juda".

[@KarthikSoun]

Did he say India was captalist? Wasn't India socialist till 1990 reform. Selective bias.

[@saarthaktomar1610]

Quasi welfare and protectionism is not socialism. By that logic Trump's tax regime is socialism. Socialism means "those who do the work, control the work." there have never been any socialist societies yet other than during the Spanish revolution and minor experiments globally like the early Kubbits.

[@KarthikSoun]

@@saarthaktomar1610 Very Nobel and i agree its wonderful but If there isn't any perfect socialist model its because it probably doesn't work. Unions destroyed industry through strikes and pay hikes where the tax payer bailed the factories from loss like Air India or NTC, sorry i think any kid can see the disparity of the world and we can do quick sell of socialism as equality to them, i agree its a lovely plan but frankly the human animal is greedy, its like putting a bowl of food on the floor and asking the dogs to share with out fighting, we are worse than these dogs because the dog only fight for todays food we want the entire future. I don't see socalism working as its artificial and imposed which requires policeing and once the police man is out the dogs steal. Thats why you don't see socialism because its against what we are.

[@saarthaktomar1610]

@@KarthikSoun Yes and so was women's rights against "what we are" few centuries back and chattle slavery was a regular thing.

[@KarthikSoun]

@@saarthaktomar1610 Yes i understand what you mean, What we thought wasn't possible has become possible with women's rights and slavery i totally agree but that was a artificial imposed and man made structure like Socialism that had to crumble, I think all primates or male lion for example treat their women fairly just so they can get sex, it obvious you have to be gentlemanly to survive and produce offspring in society(not during war) it was only the advent of Middle Eastern religions that made it even worse or did not allow us to evolve better methods of approaching the opposite sex. However Slavery is not over it has been monatisised and shifted to China or Vietnam ctc., Economics is like food not sex so its kind of nuanced.

[@akarshkumar354]

saarthak tomar Hey. I think socialism in practical sense has turned out to be any form of society that has a good balance of state and private ownership. Prior to ‘91, India has been Nehruvian socialist as per literature. Can you quote any source where prior to ‘91 India has been called a capitalist country? Will be interested. Thank you!

[@KoustavSeth]

India had a capitalist system? when? Indira Gandhi was literally a "socialist"

[@vals4207]

Indira gandhi was socilaist so india didn't had capitalist system??? Wow true genius.

[@gabbar51ngh]

Chomsky is chuttiya.

[@vals4207]

@@gabbar51ngh and why anyone should listen to you??

[@gabbar51ngh]

@@vals4207 listen to Milton Friedman and Thomas sowell then.

[@vals4207]

@@gabbar51ngh I've read both of their books and their critic of marx has been debunked several times. I respect sowells cause he is the only one who have read marx and then criticised it but still his argument got debunked. And still marx's labour theory of value stands correct.

[@prashantchaudhary2569]

in 1945, there's a big famine in bengal & India was socialist back then , became liberalised in 91 & in China because of Communism, there wouldn't be any independent inquiry, like Cuba healthcare propaganda

[@pelestsetung]

India was a British colony, in case you are not being sarcastic.

[@DipakBose-bq1vv]

Bengal Famine was in 1943 , India was a colony of Britain. It was not a socialist then which was started in 1955, abolished in 1992.

[@mr1001nights]

The years where those 100 million died in India are 1949-1979. During those years the economy was primarily based on private ownership of the means of production. That is capitalism. Communism and other leftist systems have either state ownership, or worker council ownership of the means of production.

[@PrimoPete]

mr1001nights Wtf you jackass. And post 80s the means of production turned absolutely public right? You effectively forget license raj. For goodness sake the preamble in our constitution the first fucking page says that India is socialist. And if socialism was so good and fine then why the decision to liberalise the economy in the 90s.

[@jemandoondame2581]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZmeQiZZ3ntiqj5Y / kzbin.info/www/bejne/nZfHn5WDmZ51n6c kzbin.info/www/bejne/hKekcqqfrt19g9k

[@BK-rj7eg]

Fun Fact: china was never colonized by Europeans. chomsky is wrong this time

[@bobbie3713]

Theres many types of colonialism is not just simply people coming and planting their flag

[@itsoblivion8124]

Nope. They are different types of colonialism. Quin dynasty used to give taxes to brtis empire

[@chosoninmingunmanse1953]

Forgot opium war??

[@AijazAlfaz]

Even though Europeans ruled through forced contracts with Chinese, they were even more repressed and neglected than India

[@TheRowanmoses]

He's an armchair theorist. He knows nothing about other factors in India. India was colonized, we were literally broke after 1947! We could not afford primary healthcare for so many years. This guy is deluded! And Sen being Bengali wants socialism to be right regardless of the outcome! I admire him but I think Rawls is better!