First, his Left-Right dichotomization of the political spectrum is too simplistic. Deadbeat I am sure is very much aware that the Left is heterogeneous and this fact renders his statement also as too simplistic. The Left is composed of many groups with their own ideological frameworks; there is not just one frame.

DB: “If what Scott Noble is presenting to us is OUT OF CONTEXT fragments then shouldn’t we be QUESTIONING his motives.”

This is preposterous. Noble presented a statement made by Lenin that Deadbeat reveals to be authentic. I wrote a review – not a transcription – of the film. Deadbeat apparently did not do all his homework and view Human Resources — otherwise he would have known that the quotation is in context.

DB: “Also I have to question Chomsky being presented as a anarchist.”

Now Chomsky is no longer an anarchist according to Deabeat! Deadbeat’s oft repeated anti-Chomsky views have become tedious. I certainly diverge from Chomsky on points. I believe that Chomsky demeans his oft cited “elementary morality” when he “intellectually” presents arguments that present a cover for the continuation of massive Zionist crimes that Chomsky professes to disdain. However, for Deadbeat to then seemingly argue against every word spoken by Chomsky (as if people were Manichean) is gibberish. Chomsky is an exceptionally knowledgeable speaker on the crimes of US imperialism, the complicity of the corporate media, the insidiousness of capitalism, etc.

Ergo, if Deabeat can get his points wrong, then by his “logic,” shouldn’t “we” be questioning his motives?

I submit that the logical course is to ditch the focus on personalities and focus on what others say, evaluate the words for factuality and rationale and then choose to accept and incorporate what one considers reasonable and moral and discard what is unreasonable and immoral. Just because one point is deemed unreasonable does not necessitate that all other points are unreasonable.

My first curiosity has to do with this remark …

Paradoxically, Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin supported Taylorism’s scientific management although it was disliked by workers. Human Resources quotes Lenin: “Socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly.” If this is the case, then the state has merely replaced the corporations in the economic system, and the Marxist refrain of a dictatorship of the proletariat becomes a meaningless slogan.

So I did a lookup to see if this remark is being taken out of context and I found this on [http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm]:

V. I. Lenin
The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It : Can We Go Forward If We Fear To Advance Towards Socialism?

Below is a more complete in-context excerpt …

For if a huge capitalist undertaking becomes a monopoly, it means that it serves the whole nation. If it has become a state monopoly, it means that the state (i.e., the armed organisation of the population, the workers and peasants above all, provided there is revolutionary democracy) directs the whole undertaking. In whose interest?

Either in the interest of the landowners and capitalists, in which case we have not a revolutionary-democratic, but a reactionary-bureaucratic state, an imperialist republic.

Or in the interest of revolutionary democracy—and then it is a step towards socialism.

For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.

There is no middle course here. The objective process of development is such that it is impossible to advance from monopolies (and the war has magnified their number, role and importance tenfold) without advancing towards socialism.

Either we have to be revolutionary democrats in fact, in which case we must not fear to take steps towards socialism. Or we fear to take steps towards socialism, condemn them in the Plekhanov, Dan or Chernov way, by arguing that our revolution is a bourgeois revolution, that socialism cannot be “introduced”, etc., in which case we inevitably sink to the level of Kerensky, Milyukov and Kornilov, i.e., we in a reactionary-bureaucratic way suppress the “revolutionary-democratic” aspirations of the workers and peasants.

There is no middle course.

If what Scott Noble is presenting to us is OUT OF CONTEXT fragments then shouldn’t we be QUESTIONING his motives. I’m am not fully versed in Leninism and thus would rather have someone else rebut the out of context fragment but I was able to find the complete context of Lenin’s remark on the Internet. I would think that Scott Noble should have been able to do his research in this day and age to fairly and justly present Lenin or any other opponent’s remark within their proper context.

Also I have to question Chomsky being presented as a anarchist. As a real anarchist he would never profess to be a supporter of Israel or any nation as they are staunchly against any form of nationalism. Thus is it any wonder that Chomsky would make a claim, like his Z-Mag buddy Michael Albert that “socialism” became “degraded” when both Albert and Chomsky have spent decades “degrading” the Left.

thanks fro that quote. i am not surprised that people beat me to that knowledge.

i often assert that people thruout ages and in all supremacistic societies have said the same thing.
i only use diff words to elucidate perils we are since 10 k yrs ago: possible permanence of the master-serf relationship. it is personal and religious supremacists, claiming infallibility, who lead us to wars, poverty, hatred of one another, e[abuse] of too many kinds of one another, etc. tnx

Let’s see go to a football game, buy gold, a rock concert, go shopping, watch the royal wedding and wish we were there, watch more Fox New’s none of the above.

{http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/feb/23/need-to-protect-internet-from-astroturfing}

War Administration
From the beginning of preparedness in 1939 through the peak of war production in 1944, American leaders recognized that the stakes were too high to permit the war economy to grow in an unfettered, laissez-faire manner. American manufacturers, for instance, could not be trusted to stop producing consumer goods and to start producing materiel for the war effort. To organize the growing economy and to ensure that it produced the goods needed for war, the federal government spawned an array of mobilization agencies which not only often purchased goods (or arranged their purchase by the Army and Navy), but which in practice closely directed those goods’ manufacture and heavily influenced the operation of private companies and whole industries.

There it is again the corporations hard at work pursuing their institutional role: maximizing short-term profit and putting aside externalities. The externalities no big deal just the ability of Earth sometimes called the home planet to sustain life. Why doesn’t anybody say anything well to busy going to football games and buying little plastic things and listening to messages on who to vote for or what to buy to be a real person. Those tar sand’s will do the trick trust me on this one.

Oh look the Gulf is recovering thank you BP we all love corporations very very much what’s your next act old boy’s.

Speaking of corporations take a look at that that’s January 2011 and on that page you will see projection type it say’s regular well look and that then click on that to see polar. Will you see that on CNBC or the Weather Channel, CNN, MSNBC, Fox no you sure will not as they are corporations and I guess feel it’s better we don’t see that because we are of course just savages. You know shop at Wal Mart, work real jobs and just like football games and movie stars. The corporations could have a point there and we might need to change that if we wish to survive. How humans are regarded as a resource by corporations, something to be exploited for pecuniary gain. Based in the notion that there are superior and inferior humans, superior and inferior races. Will I don’t know about anybody else but some of my friends are ex felons and many people I know are from South of the border and are very hard workers and take care of there families. Do I know any of these so called superior human’s sure and I treat them the same as anybody else and ever now and then will hear do you know who I am, no please tell me am a great listener.

200 years ago, when public education was only just being born, the Mechanics Magazine perfectly identified the problem:

“Men had better be without education than educated by his rulers; for then education is nothing but the mere breaking in of the steer to the yoke.”

Also the competition thing is a tired and worn-out argument now. There’s nothing wrong with competition, per se. The problem is when it’s used (as it nearly always is) to favour the privileged at the expense of the deprived. Most people who play sport for pleasure, for example, love competition and voluntarily choose to enter competitions in the sports they love to play. The key ingredient here is “voluntarily choose” to compete – something which is completely absent from the education system.

butifully said. tnx

i assert that [mis]shaping of human behavior happened millennia ago and over a period of time.

the modern shapers or conditioners of human behavior have not changed the system already in place 8k yrs ago!
i view social ‘sciences’, psychiatry, sociology, politics, economics as ancient ruses and misteachings in order to enslave us.
i do not split asunder serf- or slave-making into ancient and modern.

dehumanizing people goes on today as it did millennia ago. however, those people who escaped from asia and landed in n. america, circumvented that process.
did indigenes run away from asia to amerika because some asians wanted to dehumanize them? well, we don’t know. all we know that they had been until very recently quite civilized in civic affairs!
some africans have also managed to prevent own dehumanization; at least, until arabs or europeans arrived.
lte’s faced it, even religious ‘teachings’ represent dehumanization of people!

but even driving, tank, chariot, car, presiding a meeting, writing a law, dehumanizes people! tnx

o boy, what a way to talk to or with people!! surely as an anarchist, NC, also, to use his word, “degraded” the meanings of the label “socialism”.
and all personal and faith supremacists!
But why use of the word “degrading” [and whatever that means to NC] when saying that supremacists and anarchists lied about it, wld fit reality much better? tnx

thus anyone who uses labels such as “socialism”, “industrialization”, “state , in my knowledge, either deliberately or unwittingly obnubilates simplicities and thus clarities.
which only cld be understood. or if not immediately, then eventually! labels, on then other hand, representing overgeneralizations, cannot ever be understood.

thus their nauseating overuse in all media, schooling, discussions, and even on alternate media.

the natural order of evaluation requires that one first of all posits all of the salient facts that pertain and only thereafter concludes, wishes, etc. tnx