Excellent New Chomsky Interview

[Gandhi]

I have never heard him say anything positive about trade. I've only heard him give excellent talks on labor and the way we think about labor and capital. But his blanket criticisms are frustrating. I have no doubt that he could pull something out of that encyclopedia in his head if he had to.

Trying to read his mind is silly, but I would have to guess that he just hates the entire way that labor and capital are organized and thus doesn't have anything positive to say about trade, as if it's just not worth his time. That bugs me because I think we could work toward better conditions for labor if we could make a better case for trade. A lot of the shit corporations get away with is because labor is not engaged with capital at all. The unions of the future are cooperative, as much as that rustles old anarchist jimmies.

I would tend to agree with this

 

[HomerThompson]

Only when he's going into detail, he does his share of outrageous one liners to get media attention.

Are you referring to his comments on the Republican Party vis a vis climate change?

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Are you referring to his comments on the Republican Party vis a vis climate change?

*vis-à-vis

 

[HomerThompson]

*vis-à-vis

I don't know how to add that script, dammit!

Edit: I legit fucked up on the hyphens, though.

 

[Ruprecht]

Are you referring to his comments on the Republican Party vis a vis climate change?

That's the first one that comes to mind (actually his comment about the election deciding the fate of mankind, but it was in regard to the republican party on climate change), but he's made other comments where it almost seemed like he was parodying himself until he got given the platform where he could go into more detail.

 

[HomerThompson]

That's the first one that comes to mind (actually his comment about the election deciding the fate of mankind, but it was in regard to the republican party on climate change), but he's made other comments where it almost seemed like he was parodying himself until he got given the platform where he could go into more detail.

Yeah, the recent one about the Republican Party is definitely hyperbolic, but his follow up breakdown is what you'd expect.

 

[Fawlty]

I don't know how to add that script, dammit!

Edit: I legit fucked up on the hyphens, though.

psst...alt codes are handy https://usefulshortcuts.com/alt-codes/accents-alt-codes.php

alt+0224 (à)

♥

 

[HomerThompson]

psst...alt codes are handy https://usefulshortcuts.com/alt-codes/accents-alt-codes.php

alt+0224 (à)

♥

Looks like sorcery to me. Are you a secret wizard?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

But he, like the far left in general have a totally one sided view of the impacts of these agreements. Again I see zero nuance regarding the impacts on global poverty or the reduction in global relative inequality. Nor is there a discussion of the practical result of diminishing conflict. There is a lense that views all events as the simple hijacking of the political system for corporate ends in what amounts to a zero sum game. There is a lot of truth to that view, but it's an incomplete picture.

All of the pros come from free trade which could be accomplished within 10 pages.
The cons come from the other 4090 pages of our free trade agreements which have nothing to do with trade and allow for the exploitation of people and resources while further compromising our democracy.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Again, you're not really of any help to me here, just a shit sparring partner. Not interested.

k shifty.

 

[Fawlty]

Looks like sorcery to me. Are you a secret wizard?

Never trust a fawlty wizard. He will mean well, but you'll end up flooded and getting haped by brooms.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

 

[HomerThompson]

Hey @Gandhi, could you expound on your complaint about Chomsky's views on Iran. Be specific if you can. Thanks.

:sniper:

 

[Gandhi]

All of the pros come from free trade which could be accomplished within 10 pages.
The cons come from the other 4090 pages of our free trade agreements which have nothing to do with trade and allow for the exploitation of people and resources while further compromising our democracy.

Not really, the rules of arbitration, synchronization of IP rules, and then all the exceptions that get (unfortunately) lobbied in, how to address subsidies, tax breaks, etc. That is not 10 pages. Then there is predictions and interpretations that I am just not overly confident in. Was free trade between the USA and Canada used to force Canada to sell all its resources at a discount and get rid of universal health care? No, but I could find plenty of far left sources predicting that. Likewise a lot of the complaints about ISDS' have merit but some sort of system is needed here, it's a question of reform not getting rid of the thing. And even more than that, it's the simple recognition of the pluses and minus column that accompany a market based system and global trade, that is noticeable absent from Cs and the far left' s analysis.

 

[Gandhi]

Hey @Gandhi, could you expound on your complaint about Chomsky's views on Iran. Be specific if you can. Thanks.

:sniper:

Yes Mr President.

Iran has called for a nuclear free zone according to ch9msky and deserves a pat on the back for it.

A country that thinks Israel should be dumped into the sea and has no nukes currently, wants Israel, who is sorrounded by hostile nations that use it as a defection for there own shitty govts (Iran included), to disarm.

I think, notwithstanding my dislike of the occupied territories, that C is leaving important context out.

 

[HomerThompson]

Yes Mr President.

Iran has called for a nuclear free zone according to ch9msky and deserves a pat on the back for it.

A country that thinks Israel should be dumped into the sea and has no nukes currently, wants Israel, who is sorrounded by hostile nations that use it as a defection for there own shitty govts (Iran included), to disarm.

I think, notwithstanding my dislike of the occupied territories, that C is leaving important context out.

I disagree with the characterization that they want Israel dumped into the sea, not to mention that only one of those two countries has started a war in the region.

Also, please source where he says they deserve a pat on the back. That seems to be your own biases leading you to that interpretation.

Also also, Iran is correct in their position. Not to mention how hypocritical it is to allow Israel to have tons a nukes, and disallow other countries that Israel has openly attacked the ability to have them for defense. It's insane to think Iran would get a nuke to actually use. They want to be welcomed into the world order, and to be safe. Israel has been gunning for them for quite some time, and a reasonable familiarity with US/Iran relations shows Iran to be correct in their posture.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Not really, the rules of arbitration, synchronization of IP rules, and then all the exceptions that get (unfortunately) lobbied in, how to address subsidies, tax breaks, etc. That is not 10 pages. Then there is predictions and interpretations that I am just not overly confident in. Was free trade between the USA and Canada used to force Canada to sell all its resources at a discount and get rid of universal health care? No, but I could find plenty of far left sources predicting that. Likewise a lot of the complaints about ISDS' have merit but some sort of system is needed here, it's a question of reform not getting rid of the thing. And even more than that, it's the simple recognition of the pluses and minus column that accompany a market based system and global trade, that is noticeable absent from Cs and the far left' s analysis.

Free trade is the removal of tariffs, much of the rest, especially stuff that gets lobbied in is what takes up most of the agreement and takes it from a free-trade agreement to a multinational corporate protectionist treaty. Maybe 10 pages is an exaggeration, but closer to 10p than 1,700 (NAFTA), or 5,000 (TPP).

Well, I'm not saying Canada would get stripped of its natural resources (although Gretsky does live here now, so...), or that they would get rid of UHC, and neither is Chomsky. How is income inequality in Canada?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Yes Mr President.

Iran has called for a nuclear free zone according to ch9msky and deserves a pat on the back for it.

A country that thinks Israel should be dumped into the sea and has no nukes currently, wants Israel, who is sorrounded by hostile nations that use it as a defection for there own shitty govts (Iran included), to disarm.

I think, notwithstanding my dislike of the occupied territories, that C is leaving important context out.

I think Iran has more to fear from Israel and its allies than Israel has to fear from Iran. Infinitely more.

 

[VivaRevolution]

He doesn't make that clear. He just rails against it as part of his objection to the internationalization of production. His complaint then is that there are not really transnational unions to reduce the negative effects of global trade. But I don't hear him kicking in support for transnational labor movements, or suggesting how those could be negotiated. He just bemoans that trade agreements ignore those. Well, okay, but lower barriers to trade is desirable. It's up to the people to demand unions. That's our job- we aren't going to be given that. We have always had to fight for it.

So in the end, I don't get that particular complaint about trade.

Why is it that the people don't have to demand trade agreements, but they do have to demand unions?

And fyi, corporations aren't people.

 

[Fawlty]

Why is it that the people don't have to demand trade agreements, but they do have to demand unions?

And fyi, corporations aren't people.

You don't have to "fyi" me about corporations not being people. Their rights are in many cases prized above those of human beings, and we will have major problems as long as that continues to be the case, such as criminality being charged to faceless super-entities. Hell, even our President has been shielded by that criminal insurance.

It's kinda simple why people have to do more work to demand unions- corporations can demand whatever they want and receive it without much argument, because our laws favor capital, our values favor individual greed, and our politics are pure in that sense (pure meaning that there is almost no artificial check against the influence of capital on politics). We have to change our laws, adjust our values, and pressure our politics- in addition to demanding negotiations with management (or just overthrowing them like Chomsky recommends). This is a failure of the people. We have to win labor fights, it takes "war" to get shit done. Never has there been an exception to this in America. Our labor rights are hard-won and hard-kept. Labor in the US is losing, and it's labor's fault.

Trade agreements are different beasts and I'm not really knowledgeable about them. It doesn't make much sense to me to ask the question in the way you asked it. But if labor wants to influence trade agreements (I'm not sure to what extent it already does), then they have to influence the trade agreements. I guess if the state of play is such that unions are strong again- in whatever new shape they have to take- then labor will be in a position to influence trade agreements, indirectly at least, if we have the politicians by the balls. I would way, way prefer that to these populist movements that are disorganized, or corporate conspiracies like the Tea Party. Like, imagine if Sanders had been campaigning in a nation full of well-represented workers. It would be night and day.