And the active voice filled with slander is a respectable substitute?
>Noam Chomsky is old enough to know that in the context of 1945-1955 the
>economic benefits from a program to stimulate exports and create a
>higher-pressure economy were a bit more equally distributed than the
>then-current distribution of income, and were much more equally distributed
>than the post-1945 tax burden.
You of course have conclusive evidence of this "in the context of 1945-1955" ... or are you going to hand-wave again with your import/export numbers, which show nothing?
> .... He knows as well as I do that a program to
>use tax money to boost exports--the Marshall Plan, in its domestic-impact
>facet--was not an inequality-increasing transfer of wealth away from
>hard-working American taxpayers.
Here we have the deep thinker pontificating on the eternal goodness of American capitalism: what's good for corporate America *must*, by doctrinal assumption, be good for workers, and cannot be a windfall for the wealthy. Again, Charles Wilson's "what's good for General Motors" bubbles up through the muck.
>And Noam Chomsky knows as well as I do the first obligation of every
>participant in any speech situation: to do your best to raise the level of
>the debate--not to create false consciousness.
As he does, tirelessly. You seem to think that vituperative slander is preferable.
>The use of political debate as an opportunity to create false consciousness...
Which he does not. You have a different opinion than he does, so you accuse him of creating false consciousness. Let me ask you this, since your crystal ball is so pure: since you claim he is using "political debate" to "create false consciousness", you must have some evidence of a deliberate effort on his part to do so, otherwise we are left with a mere disagreement between a champion of popular democracy and freedom, and the screeching of a mainstream economist. Please, do share with us this evidence, or withdraw your shameful claims.
>The opposing of hard-working "taxpayers" to sinister parasites...
The taxpayers financed it. He did not use the phrase "hard-working" nor the phrase "sinister parasites". These are your inventions, and yours alone.
>The invocation of nationalism...
Please offer a citation for this. Where did he say it?
>The condemnation of social democracy as a mask for plutocratic interests,
>coupled with a certain... fuzziness... as to what the alternative set of
>economic arrangements is.
Just where did Chomsky condemn social democracy? And what do you mean by "alternative set of economic arrangements"?
>You can call this political complexion whatever you want. You can even
>ignore that it exists. But it *is* a kissing cousin to Action Francaise,
>Benito Mussolini, Francisco Franco, and the National Socialist German
>Workers' Party. It isn't full-blown fascism. But it is proto- or
>pseudo-fascism.
You're showing your true colors here. I asked you before and you declined to answer: Tom Ferguson agrees with Chomsky in the essentials, and stated to me that "No question primary beneficiary and reason it was done was to help US companies stay in Europe, esp. the auto companies, oil, and banks." I ask you again, Brad, do you consider Thomas Ferguson also to be a proto-fascist? I can tell him if you like, or I can give him your e-mail address so you can tell him directly.
>I don't have to bury my head in the sand and pretend that we aren't hearing
>more of it from *all* directions on the political spectrum.
Nothing like a broad brush to get your work done, is there?
Bill