Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

I am merely defining the similarity that Chomsky sees with the USA in 1919.
Remarkable that you don't agree.

Embarrassment for what? The fact that Weimar had too many socialists and couldn't manage its money (war repayments) and failed...?

Ah well, lets agree to disagree.

RobbyG wrote:Its sad that an American like you isn't able to recognize the foundations that led to our current Western civilization.

Don't be too harsh on the lad Robby - when cherished ideals and 'truths' are exposed as being non-factual, the natural desire is to go into denial.

Chomsky criticises Israel, therefore Chomsky is an intellectual fraud therefore when a list of Chomsky's 'lies' are produced it must be true.

But most embarrassingly, when the lad thought he was providing a 'knock-out blow' to show that Chomsky doesn't know what he's talking about... well, let me be fair and quote the boy:

event horizon wrote:Errgh, Chomsky isn't really interested in facts. Just read his statements. He makes claims up that cannot be easily proved or disproved and goes on from there - such as claiming that the Wiemar Republic was the height of Western civilization.

Ignoring the absurdity of such a statement, how can you easily prove or disprove that?

So, let's look at that:

'Isn't really interested in facts' - slur and factually incorrect

'he makes up claims that cannot be easily proved' - again, does not stand up to scrutiny

And the embarrassment that the example statement is neither absurd nor difficult to prove is perhaps a straw too much for him.


It's a shame - there are actually some Chomsky ideas that are worth discussing - however trying to libel him so as to avoid discussing the facts he brings out speaks volumes.


Cheers,
Shafique

RobbyG wrote:I am merely defining the similarity that Chomsky sees with the USA in 1919.
Remarkable that you don't agree.

Embarrassment for what? The fact that Weimar had too many socialists and couldn't manage its money (war repayments) and failed...?

Ah well, lets agree to disagree.

My bad rob.

I do disagree with you on one point. I think the cornerstone of contemporary Western civilization (since the enlightenment) has been personal liberty, rather than communal welfare.

Communism, leftism and Islam seek to curb the rights of the individual for the sake of the rest of the population.

Although you probably did not actually say that (in fact, I know you didn't) - that is just how I interpreted your comment on 'plurality'.

-- Sat May 29, 2010 9:38 am --

But most embarrassingly, when the lad thought he was providing a 'knock-out blow' to show that Chomsky doesn't know what he's talking about... well, let me be fair and quote the boy:

Do you agree or disagree with Chomsky that the Weimar republic was the peak of Western civilization?

^Ok, let's be clear on what Chomsky said and then see whether he has a point:

Chomsky invoked Germany during the Weimar Republic, and drew a parallel between it and the United States. “The Weimar Republic was the peak of Western civilization and was regarded as a model of democracy,” he said.

And he stressed how quickly things deteriorated there.

“In 1928 the Nazis had less than 2 percent of the vote,” he said. “Two years later, millions supported them. The public got tired of the incessant wrangling, and the service to the powerful, and the failure of those in power to deal with their grievances.”

He said the German people were susceptible to appeals about “the greatness of the nation, and defending it against threats, and carrying out the will of eternal providence.”

When farmers, the petit bourgeoisie, and Christian organizations joined forces with the Nazis, “the center very quickly collapsed,” Chomsky said.

No analogy is perfect, he said, but the echoes of fascism are “reverberating” today, he said.

“These are lessons to keep in mind.”

So, the quote is:
The Weimar Republic was the peak of Western civilization and was regarded as a model of democracy.

I agree with this statement (having read the evidence presented). The Weimar WAS the peak of Western Civilisation and WAS indeed regarded as a model of democracy.


I understand that you disagree with Chomsky, eh - but you also stated (and couldn't back up) that you believed Chomsky was a liar too. The examples you've shown have been shown to be lacking in substance (he did not lie in either case), and this one you just seem to disagree with his opinion - despite the evidence presented.

Cheers,
Shafique

He-he. It sounds like Hyde park is the top of the Western Civilization.

How about democracy? It means power of people in one dead language. Does it exist? I don't know. I did not see any difference living in Dubai (where I definitely has no power) and Moscow (where I should have). The volunteer job of my wife in Parent-Teacher Association has more common with the initial concept than all those regular elections.

How far has the "Civilization" climbed for almost 2500 years?

event horizon wrote:

RobbyG wrote:I am merely defining the similarity that Chomsky sees with the USA in 1919.
Remarkable that you don't agree.

Embarrassment for what? The fact that Weimar had too many socialists and couldn't manage its money (war repayments) and failed...?

Ah well, lets agree to disagree.

My bad rob.

I do disagree with you on one point. I think the cornerstone of contemporary Western civilization (since the enlightenment) has been personal liberty, rather than communal welfare.

Communism, leftism and Islam seek to curb the rights of the individual for the sake of the rest of the population.

Although you probably did not actually say that (in fact, I know you didn't) - that is just how I interpreted your comment on 'plurality'.

When I think of an open society and mention keywords as plurality, cultural diversity and democratic republic, it speaks to itself that personal liberties (freedom, rights) are created as part of such society. Perhaps I should have mentioned it and be more clear.

To me, it was more than evident. After all, individual freedom and property rights are the foundation of Western civilization. When we lose those rights, we are in serious decline as a society...

Event Horizon wrote:
I do disagree with you on one point. I think the cornerstone of contemporary Western civilization (since the enlightenment) has been personal liberty, rather than communal welfare.

Communism, leftism and Islam seek to curb the rights of the individual for the sake of the rest of the population.

Eh Why do you think capitalist economies had to have communal welfare as well?
Is that becouse Capitalism also seek to curb the rights of the individual for the sake of the rest of the population?

shafique wrote:I agree with this statement (having read the evidence presented). The Weimar WAS the peak of Western Civilisation and WAS indeed regarded as a model of democracy.

Really? I believe that Iceland back in the nineties was the peak of Western civilization.

Perhaps you'll share what evidence compelled you to agree with Chomsky on this issue?

Berrin wrote:

Event Horizon wrote:
I do disagree with you on one point. I think the cornerstone of contemporary Western civilization (since the enlightenment) has been personal liberty, rather than communal welfare.

Communism, leftism and Islam seek to curb the rights of the individual for the sake of the rest of the population.

Eh Why do you think capitalist economies had to have communal welfare as well?
Is that becouse Capitalism also seek to curb the rights of the individual for the sake of the rest of the population?

To respond to those questions, first of all, capitalist economies don't need to have communal welfare from government. It is a (socialist) politician that seeks to attract voters and raise taxes so that he/she can take claim on society's poor. This should not be necessary in a truly free capitalist economy.

When government stays out of the welfare business, the total tax burden on working citizens can remain low and charity can gather enough funds to support the poor and handicapped. Unfortunately, the high tax burden makes that nearly impossible as richer individuals have to progressively pay more taxes for the fruits of their hard labour. In essence, government restricts both the economy and social welfare, merely because politicians want to manage the process and please the electorate.

You are also wrong about Capitalism seeking to curb the rights of the individual. Capitalism is focussed on the individual and his efforts to produce efficiently and increase his/her standard of living. Nobody likes to work and put off 40 (avg) percent of your earnings! Government confiscates the 40 percent by taxation! And still its appetite is horrendously large... see government debts in the Western world.

So politicians are to blame for willing to take responsibility for the weaker in society and to manage everything their utopian agenda calls for. This increases tax burdens and limits the productivity of individuals in society. After all, I don't work to subsidize government, I work for my own prosperity. If government takes all my fruits, I can just as well not work at all. The harder you work, the more you pay. Bad incentive right?

Sometimes you could joke and argue that we should introduce a totalitarian democracy (lol) like Singapore. Low taxes and a leader who really follows the Constitution. Democracy has its burden of big government. Its a horror in my eyes.

event horizon wrote:

shafique wrote:I agree with this statement (having read the evidence presented). The Weimar WAS the peak of Western Civilisation and WAS indeed regarded as a model of democracy.

Really? I believe that Iceland back in the nineties was the peak of Western civilization.

Well, Iceland and it's 400,000 odd inhabitants is an odd choice for the Peak of civilization in the 1990s - but hey, perhaps you really like Bjork?

It's not the weirdest belief you've shared - but hey, whatever rocks your boat. I wouldn't have picked Iceland myself - but I'd be hard-pushed to think of the most civilized Western nation, but it would probably be a Scandinavian one - Norway perhaps.

event horizon wrote:Perhaps you'll share what evidence compelled you to agree with Chomsky on this issue?

Well, I read what Rob posted, looked up the Weimar Republic's credentials and indeed I agreed with Chomsky's assessment.


I guess we've moved on from the initial allegations that Chomsky hates facts and lies.


Cheers,
Shafique

RobbyG wrote:You are also wrong about Capitalism seeking to curb the rights of the individual. Capitalism is focussed on the individual and his efforts to produce efficiently and increase his/her standard of living.

We have seen no evidence of that for almost 40 years in the US. Instead Toyota generated 60 000 jobs and killed a million on other plants using robots instead of workers with "high" salary in US car industry.

I have discussed this many times now and I will repeat it again Mr. Reddish.

Capitalism is a model. Governments (not just the US) interfere with that model and the FED has contiously inflated the money supply and funded the imperialist war efforts of the US government. This brought down the value of the dollar and coincidingly the wealth of the American people. Lets not forget globalization efforts from Bush.

The US is no free capitalist society anylonger. Even though it does have the best entrepreneurial spirit and flexible workforce still available in the world. Just look at government involvement in the private sector. Its more socialist than Venezuela for f@ck sake. Well, we're getting close...

I asked that question because if I changed Capitalism for Socialim it would be exact verse from the "Brief Course of History of CPSU" by Joseph Stalin.

I don't blame you or your Austrian messangers in plagiarism though.


Anyway why do you think that current governance, you blamed in so many sins, is almost top of Western Civilazation

Damn Marxists (you too Chief). Ruined everything we once fought for...

It's the lie, which everybody incorporates in any propaganda. In reality most capitalists think only about maximizing profit. Period.

Hey, that's a bit unfair - our resident young American spends most of his time thinking about moooslims!

Cheers,
Shafique

I agree, but that would only be detrimental to society when profits are taken by taxation and the central bank is manipulating interest rates lower, so that every investor is fighting for a Return on Investment in far to liquid world of easy money. (look out the window)

At that point, ethics are out the door. Especially when Marxist government guarantees everything. Were all Keynsians now!

Keynesian socialists are the Communists! ...We need a revolution!

To respond to those questions, first of all, capitalist economies don't need to have communal welfare from government. It is a (socialist) politician that seeks to attract voters and raise taxes so that he/she can take claim on society's poor. This should not be necessary in a truly free capitalist economy.

Hell, I would never like to live in your version of capitalist economy..

I wonder how they could manage misfortunes like i.e..- Rise in birth defects, aids spread, inrease in the number of children with autism -auto-immune diseases, rise in mentally handicapped people, too many people with psychological problems, bacteria-virus clamity, deadly illnesses,draughts, natural disasters,Famine, new chernobyls or infact just being a man or woman aged over 40 incase employers don't wish to employ costly staff and prefer inexperienced cheap labour etc.

I guess under such circumstances our compassionate Rob would like to offer his billions to bail out human losses in favour of his loss of all he had..

Berrin wrote:

To respond to those questions, first of all, capitalist economies don't need to have communal welfare from government. It is a (socialist) politician that seeks to attract voters and raise taxes so that he/she can take claim on society's poor. This should not be necessary in a truly free capitalist economy.

Hell, I would never like to live in your version of capitalist economy..

I wonder how they could manage misfortunes like i.e..- Rise in birth defects, aids spread, inrease in the number of children with autism -auto-immune diseases, rise in mentally handicapped people, too many people with psychological problems, bacteria-virus clamity, deadly illnesses,draughts, natural disasters,Famine, new chernobyls or infact just being a man or woman aged over 40 incase employers don't wish to employ costly staff and prefer inexperienced cheap labour etc.

I guess under such circumstances our compassionate Rob would like to offer his billions to bail out human losses in favour of his loss of all he had..

Like almost all idealists Rob is ready to harsh infinite number of people to prove his "model".

In my world, the private sector would be strong and rid of excessive tax burdens (I opt for 15 percent flattax) so that the private sector can flourish and individuals can decide to contribute to charity.

When people do good, they have a moral urge to do good to others. Take that away from them (by government intervention in the economic system: inflation, taxation) and you can scrap ethics and morals from your private sector.

Besides, government doesn't produce anything other than excessive and inefficient regulation. It is the private sector that produces tools that make our life easy. I never saw a government create a medicin for cancer treatment. Have you?

I know you don't.

-- 29 May 2010, 18:11 --

Red Chief wrote:
Like almost all idealists Rob is ready to harsh infinite number of people to prove his "model".

You never had ideals you g-damn Redneck from the Soviet era!
Only ethic you had was your Smirnoff Vodka...

RobbyG wrote:You never had ideals you g-damn Redneck from the Soviet era!
Only ethic you had was your Smirnoff Vodka...

Only for your information "Smirnoff Vodka" has never been Russian. It was Western plagiarism and in this extend an opinion of Westerns how something Russian shoud taste or look like. Sale of this bogus brand is prohibited on all territory of Russian Federation.

Drink genuine product and you will have the same manners as Russian aristocrats of XIX century had, my little friend.

I know. The Russian elixer is cheaper to mix.

Na zdorovje, my reddish friend from the Dnepr region.

The traveling circus is gone but one clown is still available.

At your service!

In my world, the private sector would be strong and rid of excessive tax burdens (I opt for 15 percent flattax) so that the private sector can flourish and individuals can decide to contribute to charity.
When people do good, they have a moral urge to do good to others.

How could have you been such a twat all this time.Now you're getting to be a good muslim

But hey what makes you think that every person will have moral urge to do good when there is also a drive to hoard wealth until everyone gets what the richest is able to get most?

Protestant ethic.

Look at Germans - they pay taxes more accurately than any other nation, almost 100%.

mooshlim my butt.

Well, wealth is subjective and depends on the individuals needs and desires. If you are affluent, you can afford to spend money to charity and donate to the private institutions who take care of the poor, homeless and disabled. If there is enough wealth in a country, some percentage will flow to these funds and such goodwill will reflect on themselves. In a world of capitalism with a truly free market economy, everything can be taken care of privately, and government only regulates the area's where there is gross negligence.

Government should always and ever be limited to serve and protect the people. And when you look at the USA of today, you know that government is in bed with corporate America. The private sector lobbies for billions of dollars every year with Congress and Senate to get their way paved into legislation. This is not free market capitalism. That crony capitalism. Corporatism.

So what the world really needs is a bit of proper Austrian economic philosophy. Start reading Berrin. Drop the mooshlim madness. God doesn't exist, Pbuh neither. We need sanity in this world and productive capacity.

Two right hands and hard labour will do the trick. And the occassional arm-chair scientist to keep you under the gun.

Well, I read what Rob posted, looked up the Weimar Republic's credentials and indeed I agreed with Chomsky's assessment.


I guess we've moved on from the initial allegations that Chomsky hates facts and lies.

Ya know, for someone who writes excessively long posts (often on topics you know little about), you are rather mum about why, exactly, you believe the Weimar republic was the peak of Western civilization.

I guess we have indeed moved on from the allegations of 'lies' and now want to know which part of Rob's descriptions of Weimar republic I approve of as justification for Chomsky's valid statement that I quoted in full above.

Interesting that.

Chomsky 3, eh - 0.

Cheers,
Shafique

Good summary Shaf.