3 ms·

Funnily enough Chomsky is implicitly assuming that government spending has a crowding out effect, which is an idea popular with economists who are "hired to dev

Funnily enough Chomsky is implicitly assuming that government spending has a crowding out effect, which is an idea popular with economists who are "hired to develop capitalist theology," as you label them. But, probably not. Even "social spending" opens up lots of procurement opportunities for the corporate manager. There might be some crowding out in real terms (government having political authority to exclude activity it deems to be an interference), but it'll be offset by the likely benefits of ensuing expansion, corporate welfare grants and workforce mobilization. The problem with Chomsky here and many others is that they have the causality backwards. They see corporations as evil entities that spontaneously emerged from the ground to usurp the state, when in fact they were explicitly cultivated by states looking for economic growth.

calibraxis 11y ago
> "They see corporations as evil entities that spontaneously emerged from the ground to usurp the state" This is the problem in an HN culture where commenters don't support claims with cites. Chomsky frequently explains that corporations are creations of the state, and they share the same interests to a first approximation. You can find it in the book I referenced, or google for sources. This comment seems to paint him as a liberal who favors the state (blaming everything on corporations), when of course he's an anarchist who sees both state & its corporate creations as illegitimate top-down power structures.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  In an interview, he clearly states that he favors maximization of state power in some narrowly defined "short term," and largely believes that the only alternative to a state is anarcho-syndicalism. He's relying on it withering away. [1] I know full well he isn't a liberal and never implied that he's one (in the modern Galbraith sense). Nonetheless, most analyses by the revolutionary left are definitely slanted towards a picture of painting the issue as being primarily one of corporate hegemony. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiqPCRtzOBw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiqPCRtzOBw

calibraxis 11y ago

> "They see corporations as evil entities that spontaneously emerged from the ground to usurp the state" This is the problem in an HN culture where commenters don't support claims with cites. Chomsky frequently explains that corporations are creations of the state, and they share the same interests to a first approximation. You can find it in the book I referenced, or google for sources. This comment seems to paint him as a liberal who favors the state (blaming everything on corporations), when of course he's an anarchist who sees both state & its corporate creations as illegitimate top-down power structures.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
In an interview, he clearly states that he favors maximization of state power in some narrowly defined "short term," and largely believes that the only alternative to a state is anarcho-syndicalism. He's relying on it withering away. [1] I know full well he isn't a liberal and never implied that he's one (in the modern Galbraith sense). Nonetheless, most analyses by the revolutionary left are definitely slanted towards a picture of painting the issue as being primarily one of corporate hegemony. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiqPCRtzOBw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiqPCRtzOBw