Thread: American Imperialism

Originally Posted by Leo

That is a good analysis of what Chomsky is on about, but I think some of his stances are not quite so clear cut.

Basically he is advocating social justice and one example he examines is the wage slavery concept. The worker does not always have plenty of choices to (a) find another job, or (b) start his own business and 'run the mill'. Chomsky does not only address the situation in wealthy societies such as the USA, but this does not always apply in the US either.

A semi-illiterate black worker in the USA with very little experience in the field has remarkably few choices in this respect, and the same applies to a semi-literate factory worker in the industrial north of the UK. Both will tend to live from week to week on minimal wages, and neither is likely to have either the capital or the opportunity to set up their own factory. So the element of choice is almost non-existent, and the similarity to slavery is more than passing.

I have seen men around town pushing carts selling frozen ices. A cart costs about $400 and these men are not slaves to anyone.

At one time I was a job developer and I created a business to allow disabled people to gain work experience. We sold candy bars in an office building. There were only about 50 employees in the building and each worker made about $60/week in 15 hours. Later they would go get jobs in the community.

If these disabled people had the abilities of a semi-literate factory worker they could have visited many more offices and made much more money.

Without getting into the math too much my point is that just about anyone can succeed in America without being a wage-slave. Many other people do choose to be employees and they might even make more money. But there is choice.

In a country where everyone has a tv and a vcr people have proven that they can afford to start a business.

I have known several people who put them selves through college washing windows. Virtually, all they needed was a squeegee and a bucket. This costs even less than the ice cart.

Additionally, a good panhandler can make more than I do. And he is not a wage-slave.

I don't think being a wage slave is so bad but if someone does not want to do it then they can start a business. Many landscapers started with minimal equipment and some of them have turned cutting grass into a big company.

I do respect Noam Chomsky, but in a totally different way from what most of you are thinking. Although I do not agree with his views on the subject of linguistics, IMO he is pretty much the premier linguist in the US... you know, cognitive grammar, VSO and OSV embedded on one's head the day you were born, that kinda stuff?

As for his political stances, I don't know much about that.

Originally Posted by lakeman

Without getting into the math too much my point is that just about anyone can succeed in America without being a wage-slave.

I am sure all of what you say is so, but I don't think it is as simple as that.

Otherwise why would you have millions of homeless people, 40% of your population who cannot afford healthcare, and so much poverty? Surely all these millions of people are not lazy?

Originally Posted by Leo

I am sure all of what you say is so, but I don't think it is as simple as that.

Otherwise why would you have millions of homeless people, 40% of your population who cannot afford healthcare, and so much poverty? Surely all these millions of people are not lazy?

Because the people who compile the statistics that lead you to conclusions like the ones you just posted fudge the numbers and the meanings of the numbers.

There are homeless people but they are a miniscule percent of the population. Most of them are mentally ill people who should be in a hospital but foolishly exercise their right to refuse treatment. This would be the same under any system that allowed people to refuse care. A few of the homeless are homeless temporarily and do receive aid.

The 40% stat on people who can't afford health insurance (you must have meant that because healthcare is free to anyone who can't afford it) is one of those lies that statisticians make-up.

The people who live below the poverty level fall into many categories. Those who are defined as poor because someone wanted to pad the numbers, those who are lazy, those who would like to be productive but can't and are getting aid. Of those who can't be productive some would be if the systems did not trap them in their circumstances. Some are only poor temporarily. And the number of people who want to be productive but can't and will be poor permanently is pretty small. These are the people that almost all of us agree need to be helped.