|
|||||||||||||
Though it is true that Noam Chomsky is arguing against Corporatist Capitalism with vested interests, that is only the conclusion of following such a system. For instance, if someone said, "Capitalism will produce wealth," and we follow the rules of Capitalism, only to arrive at poverty, they may respond, "But see! That's not real Capitalism, because you have poverty!" By following the rules of Capitalism, we only arrive at Corporate Capitalism, where the politicians are bought out by CEOs. That is the end result of Capitalism. To argue that it is not "real Capitalism" is to judge it simply be conclusion and not method, with is arrogance. If Capitalism is capable of producing the greatest benefit for mankind, why is it that under Capitalist regimes, children are known for being deformed due to their excess of labor? This was but one hundred years ago under Capitalism, and with all the technology that was advanced, Thomas Paine even commented that workers were better off without machinery. In "Agrarian Justice," he compared the lifestyles of Native Americans to those of manufacturers, and the Native Americans -- primitive hunter-gatherers -- had much more leisure time and many more luxuries. So, when the Native Americans took one hour to make a doll, and when a manufacturing worker could produce the same doll in one minute, the worker produced more than the primitive, but still, the worker was in worse conditions. That is the cruelty of Capitalism.
Oh, well, it's quite simple. I never stated there to be laws to coerce people to work. You sort of made that up on your own. I only stated that there ought to be an equal obligation for everyone to work, meaning that if you don't work (and unless you're extremely old or on disability), then you don't get fed. But, it's comparatively better than Capitalism -- where you work eight hours a day and barely get fed. In a Communism, where people are given the wealth they produce, such cruel brutalities will cease to exist.
|
