Discussion on Globalization

THRILLHOUSE85 Says:

Jul 21, 2009 - Chomsky didn't mention "a dictatorship of the 'proletariat'" at all in this video, nor did he advocate Marx. Learn to pay closer attention to what's actually said rather than making broad and unfounded assumptions.

psykotrol Says:

Jul 24, 2009 - whats your point? I never said Chomsky did, I was refuting PersianMarxists point that Marxism is the solution to capitalist tyranny. Marxism degenerates into statism, almost all the time, at the expense of workers. Ive watched more Chomsky than I care to admit, and I know that he is not a Marxist. Learn to pay attention to whats actually said rather than making broad and unfounded assumptions. Anarchism is the natural extension of the Enlightenment era, not state-Socialist despotism.

AnahuacRising Says:

Jul 27, 2009 - i am very much not in favor of globalization One thing that i disagree with mr. chompsky

cylon21921 Says:

Aug 2, 2009 - Is it true the Jewish people are pushing glob. and multiculteralism. Lets make one thing clear. The average White American does not want to live in a multiculteral world. If America goes way to the left it will cease to be supported by most whites and we will look for another place to creat a super power.

mollen19 Says:

Aug 19, 2009 - noam is a jew... and you are a white racist, that thinks that white people can go anywhere and create superpowers out of nothing... "answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." - proverbs xxvi. 4-5

PersianGuileAgain Says:

Aug 22, 2009 - Go study your history my friend.

Kelzen650 Says:

Aug 24, 2009 - Speak for yourself cylon. Don't be a fuck.

0urGaia Says:

Sep 14, 2009 - When he says everyone's in favor of globalization, think he is talking about his own elite friends. I suspect if he talked to the 25% unemployed in america, he would hear a different story. Me, I don't see the point in using 61% of worlds oil transporting crap around the world, especially if it can be made locally. Which makes me feel pretty crappy about having to pay a bullshit carbon tax that might save 1% world oil usage. Bullshit still reign's.

greenhell666 Says:

Sep 18, 2009 - Chomsky is a libertarian socialist and a bakunist.

psykotrol Says:

Sep 20, 2009 - yeah, but I think you mean anarcho-syndicalist, of which Bakunin was a supporter. No such thing as "bakunist" to my knowledge. also, as a side note, cult of personality is very dangerous. Id be wary of anybody giving their own name to a political movement, seems pretty arrogant and egotistical to me.

psykotrol Says:

Sep 20, 2009 - He has clearly made a distinction between financial globalization, and the globalization favored by alter-globalists and the World Social Forum. The distinction is crucial. In the latter sense of the term, every sane person supports it. As far as the local sustainability thing, youre right. The large amount of energy used to transport food is largely due to free trade, where foreign business can lower labor costs by outsourcing production to 3rd world countries.

greenhell666 Says:

Sep 20, 2009 - you say potato, I say potato ... an anarcho-syndicalist is a bakunist alright, as an state socialist is a marxist. but bakunin the way he was would never put his own name in the ideology.

psykotrol Says:

Sep 20, 2009 - well no, because the groundwork of anarcho-syndicalism was laid by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, not Bakunin. Bakunin popularized it within the First International. Its because anarcho-syndicalism was not HIS ideology, though he did adopt it and refined it, later coming in conflict with Marxist statism in the First International. His introduction of anarcho-syndicalism to the First International later led to its implementation in Spain, France, Brazil, Mexico, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands.

THRILLHOUSE85 Says:

Sep 27, 2009 - Smart man.

crimlinwest Says:

Oct 3, 2009 - Stop nit picking any movement has to start somewhere. Some things are named after their origin....so what. Its not the originators who name something after themselves. Its those who come after.

foobarsnow Says:

Oct 3, 2009 - great man. so intelligent and educated, yet so humble, and good-intended (engl not my native lang, sry)

estorpai Says:

Oct 12, 2009 - tHE GOOD PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS PUSHED TO THE FRINGES BY THE DEMONS WHO WILL ALWAYS DO ALL TO STICK TO POWER. This is is one one the finest asset of America,Agreat man both inside and outside. God bless you.

DannyFuckinTanner Says:

Oct 16, 2009 - Am I the only one who just wants to cuddle with him?

dusteroo Says:

Oct 19, 2009 - Everyone favors globalization.. ..really ?

JP2times2007 Says:

Oct 20, 2009 - He is right on most points. On Bretton woods at 4:57 he isn't exactly right. The Bretton Woods agreement was designed not to handcuff finance capital but to nuture it. The Keynesian economy was the incubator that planted the seeds for today's neo-liberalism. See NSC-68 1950 - The US goal was create a world system conducive to their material hegemony. Kennedy/ Congress both endorsed the Euro single market. Bankers were never put second in line to workers...only when they needed rehab 1945-1981

peaceful0tiger Says:

Oct 23, 2009 - You can rewatch that section, its followed by a however,and the simplest definition at the very beginning.

fair7deal Says:

Oct 31, 2009 - New World Order, Rothschild British Nazi Monarch..

dusteroo Says:

Nov 1, 2009 - is that supposed to be an answer to my question ?

Shnufkin Says:

Nov 16, 2009 - You don't favour international integration dusteroo? The rejection of nationalism, the acceptance that humans are one people and should be treated accordingly?

tophu1021 Says:

Nov 23, 2009 - Yeah, well everyone that matters. Not, like for example, the conspirators who think Globalization is the end of US sovereignty, freedoms, and the beginning of totalitarianism and concentration camps. International integration does not mean global governance.