That answer was amazing. He's right. The best anarchist thinker is the common everyday anarchist. The ones who long for justice,peace and comradeship. Noam is one of my favorites. Along with proudhon, bakunin,maletesta, kropotkin,etc.
Structure, structure, structure....structure, structure, structure, structure....The key to distinguishing Noam Chomsky from the post-modernist liberal is structure. He is relentless in his logic about the structure of society. Who do I work for? Who does he work for? Who does that person work for? Why is it so? He has authority. Why does he have authority? Propaganda.
We all got authority. But some have unjustified authority. Propaganda is not bad, but inclined to one side. Information, detail and education. All news, information etc that humans eat everyday from other humans is propaganda. Just because it's him and his ideology doesn't make it forced authority. But voluntarily, you made yourself listen and hate
wow thank you. I agree completely! "Power of office" is the fundamental mistake in ordering human relations, but unless people are awakened to the fact that happiness is about "us" and not "me exploiting you," utopia (your "perfect way to live") will remain elusive. Can we talk?
@@aaronsilver-pell411 last time I did my research, some "livestock" species are indeed domesticated beyond being able to survive in the wild but some are still capable of it. So opposite can be true depends on semantics because every man chooses whether or not to be a farmer but animals were bred to be obedient. Hence it's also speciesist to assume that man can't change and stop exploiting the animals. Which gives Mr.47's saying some dimensions if we think about it in terms of metaphor again.
@@aaronsilver-pell411 actually that's untrue. If you actually understand the analogy, workers/employees protect human society from wild animals. Scientists/engineers are also workers/employees who create and design and protect us from "wild animals". All of society manages itself, creates and innovates without the farmer/rich person. All of the managing, designing, creating is done by employees. Managing managers is even done by employees. The only reason we keep on supporting rich people and let them leech off of us is because millionaire news hosts tell us it's not possible for us to manage ourselves, they tell us workers to sacrifice our lives and genocide people in communist countries, and then tell us that communist countries don't work.
He is talking about Buenaventura Durruti, Ascaso and Garcia Oliver. Leaders of the movement in Spain back in the day. When Durruti was assassinated, more than half a million anarquist atended his funeral in Barcelona czcams.com/video/1k4HzLpuF-0/video.html
Question itself is product of bourgeois thinking. Ranting speculations, baseless insecurities, and the lurking feeling that every man should rule, or lead, instead of follow, and follow those who can neither read or write. Such ideas, obsessed with the rights of man, have completely forgotten his nature and innate common sense. Wise answer by the linguist, Mr Chomsky.
slavery is not very different than wage labor--chomsky if you want to read an eye opening book "causes of the civil war" by Kenneth stampp. it's 87 different accounts from Lincoln to Davis to Douglas, both Frederick and Stephen, Seward, Calhoun. (c) 1962 brilliant!
@@BuGGyBoBerl the book is rife with excerpts from 1790-1940; presidents, statesmen, writers, philosophers, etc. one of the main points was the civil war kickstarted the us into the industrial revolution.
same with the ukrainian of 1917 with Nestor Makhno who helped the peasants create a federation of 300 communes with millions of poeple (before lenine and trotsky betrayed them and slaughtered them). In fact there's a bridge with Spain as Makhno and Durutti met and corresponded. There's also another coincidence as the same bolcheviks killed the spanish anarchists (along with mainly Franco of course)..
No, Chomsky, the Spanish Civil War didn't happen cause of the anarchists took over Barcelona, it happened cause there where two irreconcilable sides killing each other during the whole of the II Republic years
He actually doesn't even attempt here to answer the question "why did the spanish war happened"... so you're not even disagreeing or agreeing with him, just stating some out of the context thing... The anarchist community that he mentions did exist, did flourish because (and was part of) the war that began, and was eventually crushed by the so called nationalist side, as well as it was by the stalinist branch of communism that was part of the republican side (anarchists, trotskists and stalinists actually began the war in collaboration, up to a certain point). So there were more than 2 sides, but again, that has nothing to do with what chomsky is saying...
@@ruiresende84 you got a point, good on you, but in my opinion, he does hint that everyone, fascists, stalinists, liberals, stopped what they were doing to stop the anarchists in Barcelona. For Franco crushing the socialists in Castilla or the anarchists in Barcelona had exactly the same meaning, no one was specially worried about the anarchists besides the socialists, who wouldn't have centralized power in their "own" territory. I understand what you say about there being more than just two sides, but so did the other side, many liberal/libertarians who'd sign to fight against the dictatorship of the proletariat progressively fled the country.
@@FeelMetalMan Well actually the fascists had nothing directly to do with the fall of the anarchist structure. It was sort of an inside job (if you consider the republican side as one, which is actually not true). The "events of May" (1937) as they are a set of struggles, streets battles etc, pretty much all in Barcelona (and other parts of Catalonia), and which confronted CNT (anarchists) with the POUM (the sort of trotskyst communist faction) and the PSUC (soviet sponsored). Franco was learning about this from the sidelines (and evidently with a smile on his face). The soviet faction (imbued with that typical stalinist paranoia) wanted to establish hierarchy, to which the anarchists wouldn't yield. the CNT was defeated, also POUM (who initially wanted the same thing as psuc). The PSUC repressed CNT and destroyed/discredited the POUM: As a matter of example of that sort of dirty paranoia/propaganda/totalitarian stalinist way, check the fate of Andreu Nin, the leader of POUM: he was arrested, misteriously disappeared; than taken in secret to a prison in Madrid, tortured but not confessing the fake accusations of colaboration with the fascists. He was taken to a country house, beaten to death, and than the soviets brought some germans from the international brigades, dressed as gestapo members, had them entering as if they were "saving" him, and alleged later that they hadn't killed Nin, he had been rescued and taken to Berlin or something. Check chapter 23 of The Battle for Spain, by Beevor. Remarkable stuff...
@@ruiresende84 you know a lot, thanks for the info. I am a spaniard and most people here know the basics of the conflicts within the republican "side". I couldn't have explained it better.
You mean that as in dangerous people? Prisons would still exist. A CZcams comment section is probably not where you will find a satisfying answer though
@@hwllw464 lolz I hear that . I’ve always believed the blind spot of anarchy ; to be the implicit assumption that abolishing all coercive force won’t also give room for a surfeit of violence in a minority.
@@Jide-bq9yf it's not like neoliberalism or fascism really solve that issue, I'd say that raising class solidarity, fighting for equality on an economic level and directly fighting against prejudice against minorities are the most effective solutions to the problem you addressed. I do recognize that living in a socialist or communist society won't automatically solve racism or misogyny. Also, it's important to understand that nobody is advocating for directly turning our country into an anarchist federation or whatever all at once. Way more than a hundred years and a transitional government would be required to completely decommodify goods and to democratise all workplaces. By then our society would be radically different from what we see today.
@@hwllw464 I’m all for the brotherhood and freedom of man . I’m just skeptical about the kind of utopia that will be the fruit of a class war to the bitter end . What manner of society awaits us when we wade out of a sea of blood to stand on the shores of our promised land ? Who will wipe the blood from my hands ? who will wipe yours ? You truly believe we can live happy lives of love and joy as murderers fresh from the birth of a new world ? Or will it all just begin again .? The most ferocious at the top . We as ever at the bottom ? Hope I’m not depressing you but I think truth as far as it can be ascertained is only worthy of its mantle ; When It stands before us ; naked and unvarnished .
@@Jide-bq9yf a revolution would be necessary, yes. Just like it was necessary in order to form the liberal "democratic" government with the French Revolution. I'd say that no matter how bloody the French Revolution was, I'm glad it happened. Or would you like to still live as a serf? Revolutions are necessary and worthwhile.
@@ericsutter5957 Bakunin is the probable answer if it boils down to activism and book work, two inseparable achievements, involving propaganda of the deed and the intellect. But question is flawed.
@@DiamorphineDeath I know right. They think they can be anarchist by violence and stealing people's property. Historically it was happening via anarchist Black Guard which is just like the Police. They were jailing or hanging people if they refused to collectivise. They did that in Catalonia. It's a fucking sham. Forced collectivism =/= Freedom.
Anarchy is dumb. Noam Chomsky is dumb. All you need is a free market and a government that respects and defends its people's rights. Literally nothing else is needed. Let freedom ring.
A free market doesn't lead to good outcomes when the true costs of production are not baked into the selling price. For example, if a farmer in Brazil cuts down part of the Amazon rainforest to clear land to graze cattle, and that meat ends up in hamburgers in an American fast food restaurant, how is the purchaser of that hamburger meant to know they are contributing to the destruction of their home planet?
@@FreakingDoubt The point is this, you don't know all the details about all the products you buy, and you can't "vote with your wallet" if you don't know what you're voting for.
@@blahdelablah give me and other people a little credit. There is nothing you can know that isn't knowing. You can and do do know for yourself. You don't nees Noam Chomsky and others to do all the thinking and knowing for you. Long live almighty Man. Long live the dollar.
Are the laughs because he's supposed to be the one? Anarchist Spain is an interesting experiment but there were many crimes against private property... and yes, PP is absolutely essential. Also, it's very funny how Chomsky would pay homage to Cataluña and think that Central Banks are indispensable at the same time. Circle that square for me please!
That answer was amazing. He's right. The best anarchist thinker is the common everyday anarchist. The ones who long for justice,peace and comradeship.
Noam is one of my favorites. Along with proudhon, bakunin,maletesta, kropotkin,etc.
I agree. TBH the initial question was little more than celebrity gossip à la 'who d'you prrfer, Blur or Oasis'?
He may be right but by his own admissions, he's not an anarchist.
Is there anybody bigger than Bakunin ?
@@End-Result yeah he is? His answer was to say there isnt one.
Malatesta* =)
this is neat. I don't think I've ever seen Chomsky doing anything other than criticism. it's nice to see what excites him.
Kropotkin turns 180 today, December 9, 2022! I salute you, brothers and sisters anarchists!
❤
It's funny that Chomsky gets asked that question lol
true, since he doesn't know much about anarchism outside of the anarcho-syndicalist tradition
@@tranquil87 doesn't speak of - maybe, but what makes you think that he doesn't Know?
@@tranquil87 Maybe he knows but doesn't subscribe to others?
@@suckadick7754
That's precisely the point:Chomsky doesn't subscribe to the anarchist tradition at all.
By a Trot no less.
The automatic subtitles on the thumbnail said "amethyst" and then "diner kiss" when it was trying to say "anarchist".
Along with trying to polarize and distort the definition in media, this is the closest they can get to removing the word from the dictionary
Thank You Mr.Chomsky!
Keep up the videos! I have them as notifications on my phone, so I watch everything as it comes out :) !!
For me, aside from Chomsky himself, Proudhon, Kropotkin and Bookchin
Structure, structure, structure....structure, structure, structure, structure....The key to distinguishing Noam Chomsky from the post-modernist liberal is structure. He is relentless in his logic about the structure of society. Who do I work for? Who does he work for? Who does that person work for? Why is it so? He has authority. Why does he have authority? Propaganda.
anythgofnthg Yes. He seems to have a lot of influence from the analytic philosophical tradition.
We all got authority. But some have unjustified authority. Propaganda is not bad, but inclined to one side. Information, detail and education. All news, information etc that humans eat everyday from other humans is propaganda. Just because it's him and his ideology doesn't make it forced authority. But voluntarily, you made yourself listen and hate
He's so quick with his amazing replies.
Anarchy is not chaos. It is the lack of authority and combined with The Golden Rule, it is the perfect way to live.
wow thank you. I agree completely! "Power of office" is the fundamental mistake in ordering human relations, but unless people are awakened to the fact that happiness is about "us" and not "me exploiting you," utopia (your "perfect way to live") will remain elusive. Can we talk?
If I may add, anarchy it's the lack of illegitimate authority.
I wouldnt say its the lack of authority, id say its the lack of unworthy authority
@@antoineharvey-boudreault5565 I wanted to answer almost the same. I think anarchy wouldnt deny a kind of natural authority but forced authority.
@@Gieszkanne id beat up any unworthy authority if I could. Thats why the cops have to carry sticks.
could the livestock go on without the farmer? YES
could the farmer go on without the livestock? NO
actually that's untrue. the livestock would get eaten alive by wild animals if the farmer died.
@@aaronsilver-pell411 could get eaten would be more precise
@@aaronsilver-pell411 last time I did my research, some "livestock" species are indeed domesticated beyond being able to survive in the wild but some are still capable of it. So opposite can be true depends on semantics because every man chooses whether or not to be a farmer but animals were bred to be obedient. Hence it's also speciesist to assume that man can't change and stop exploiting the animals. Which gives Mr.47's saying some dimensions if we think about it in terms of metaphor again.
@@aaronsilver-pell411 feral hogs
@@aaronsilver-pell411 actually that's untrue. If you actually understand the analogy, workers/employees protect human society from wild animals.
Scientists/engineers are also workers/employees who create and design and protect us from "wild animals".
All of society manages itself, creates and innovates without the farmer/rich person. All of the managing, designing, creating is done by employees. Managing managers is even done by employees. The only reason we keep on supporting rich people and let them leech off of us is because millionaire news hosts tell us it's not possible for us to manage ourselves, they tell us workers to sacrifice our lives and genocide people in communist countries, and then tell us that communist countries don't work.
Proudhon, Bakounine, Kropotkine, Stirner.
He is talking about Buenaventura Durruti, Ascaso and Garcia Oliver. Leaders of the movement in Spain back in the day.
When Durruti was assassinated, more than half a million anarquist atended his funeral in Barcelona
czcams.com/video/1k4HzLpuF-0/video.html
If his point is the best things grow out of direct experience over time, there is a legitimacy to that. Top down is a hammer even if it’s soft.
Great man Chomsky is in his answer.
Kropotkin
I'd say it's Richard Buckminster Fuller.
He was an anarchist?
👏👏👏🌹
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon!!
Even without any appeal or any action on my part whatsoever, my agenda is victorious on every front.
🚩🏴
When was this filmed and where can I find the full video..?
+Alex Abraham czcams.com/video/DOQFmBiAc9g/video.html & czcams.com/video/X4JD-qvpOw4/video.html
+Chomsky's Philosophy Thank you :)
Does anyone have these documents?
@Balaclava Bandit I am reading "the spanish anarchists" right now ! What a book !
Question itself is product of bourgeois thinking. Ranting speculations, baseless insecurities, and the lurking feeling that every man should rule, or lead, instead of follow, and follow those who can neither read or write. Such ideas, obsessed with the rights of man, have completely forgotten his nature and innate common sense. Wise answer by the linguist, Mr Chomsky.
seems more like an statist way of thinking tho
IWW, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Makhno
I saw Tariq several years ago. He’s truly an amazing speaker.
David Graeber is very overlooked imo
famous for comming up with a bullshit theory, yes
I mourn his death.
Kropotkin is up there for sure.
slavery is not very different than wage labor--chomsky if you want to read an eye opening book "causes of the civil war" by Kenneth stampp. it's 87 different accounts from Lincoln to Davis to Douglas, both Frederick and Stephen, Seward, Calhoun. (c) 1962 brilliant!
whats the general message of the book? supporting this idea or what?
@@BuGGyBoBerl the book is rife with excerpts from 1790-1940; presidents, statesmen, writers, philosophers, etc. one of the main points was the civil war kickstarted the us into the industrial revolution.
Who's the man asking the question?
Tairq Ali
Apu.
Tariq Ali
@@funkymunky That's pretty racist dude...
@@davidjones500 Eh... It was worth a shit.
same with the ukrainian of 1917 with Nestor Makhno who helped the peasants create a federation of 300 communes with millions of poeple (before lenine and trotsky betrayed them and slaughtered them). In fact there's a bridge with Spain as Makhno and Durutti met and corresponded. There's also another coincidence as the same bolcheviks killed the spanish anarchists (along with mainly Franco of course)..
Republicans aint talking about wage slavery any longer, neither are democrats
One of the few occasions in which Chomsky makes a joke.
Who’s the interviewer? I’ve seen him before.
Tariq Ali
whos the people he named?
Peasants from Aragon and Catalonia of the Spanish Anarchist revolution.
CNT FAI AIC etc
a few survived, the wrote some stuff i think
CNT FAI IWW all still exist
At first was divided states of America an divided states of America seems a very good ideal
Stirner, only Stirner lol
.
Jesus
I didn't know Albert Einstein was still alive.
No, Chomsky, the Spanish Civil War didn't happen cause of the anarchists took over Barcelona, it happened cause there where two irreconcilable sides killing each other during the whole of the II Republic years
He actually doesn't even attempt here to answer the question "why did the spanish war happened"... so you're not even disagreeing or agreeing with him, just stating some out of the context thing... The anarchist community that he mentions did exist, did flourish because (and was part of) the war that began, and was eventually crushed by the so called nationalist side, as well as it was by the stalinist branch of communism that was part of the republican side (anarchists, trotskists and stalinists actually began the war in collaboration, up to a certain point). So there were more than 2 sides, but again, that has nothing to do with what chomsky is saying...
@@ruiresende84 you got a point, good on you, but in my opinion, he does hint that everyone, fascists, stalinists, liberals, stopped what they were doing to stop the anarchists in Barcelona. For Franco crushing the socialists in Castilla or the anarchists in Barcelona had exactly the same meaning, no one was specially worried about the anarchists besides the socialists, who wouldn't have centralized power in their "own" territory. I understand what you say about there being more than just two sides, but so did the other side, many liberal/libertarians who'd sign to fight against the dictatorship of the proletariat progressively fled the country.
@@FeelMetalMan Well actually the fascists had nothing directly to do with the fall of the anarchist structure. It was sort of an inside job (if you consider the republican side as one, which is actually not true). The "events of May" (1937) as they are a set of struggles, streets battles etc, pretty much all in Barcelona (and other parts of Catalonia), and which confronted CNT (anarchists) with the POUM (the sort of trotskyst communist faction) and the PSUC (soviet sponsored). Franco was learning about this from the sidelines (and evidently with a smile on his face). The soviet faction (imbued with that typical stalinist paranoia) wanted to establish hierarchy, to which the anarchists wouldn't yield. the CNT was defeated, also POUM (who initially wanted the same thing as psuc). The PSUC repressed CNT and destroyed/discredited the POUM: As a matter of example of that sort of dirty paranoia/propaganda/totalitarian stalinist way, check the fate of Andreu Nin, the leader of POUM: he was arrested, misteriously disappeared; than taken in secret to a prison in Madrid, tortured but not confessing the fake accusations of colaboration with the fascists. He was taken to a country house, beaten to death, and than the soviets brought some germans from the international brigades, dressed as gestapo members, had them entering as if they were "saving" him, and alleged later that they hadn't killed Nin, he had been rescued and taken to Berlin or something. Check chapter 23 of The Battle for Spain, by Beevor. Remarkable stuff...
@@ruiresende84 you know a lot, thanks for the info. I am a spaniard and most people here know the basics of the conflicts within the republican "side". I couldn't have explained it better.
Bakunin
Yup
David Graeber Is the Best Anarchist Thinker!
He is 😂
Chomsky philosophy, need philosophy.
But how do we handle the psychopaths in an anarchist society ?
You mean that as in dangerous people? Prisons would still exist.
A CZcams comment section is probably not where you will find a satisfying answer though
@@hwllw464 lolz I hear that . I’ve always believed the blind spot of anarchy ; to be the implicit assumption that abolishing all coercive force won’t also give room for a surfeit of violence in a minority.
@@Jide-bq9yf it's not like neoliberalism or fascism really solve that issue, I'd say that raising class solidarity, fighting for equality on an economic level and directly fighting against prejudice against minorities are the most effective solutions to the problem you addressed.
I do recognize that living in a socialist or communist society won't automatically solve racism or misogyny.
Also, it's important to understand that nobody is advocating for directly turning our country into an anarchist federation or whatever all at once.
Way more than a hundred years and a transitional government would be required to completely decommodify goods and to democratise all workplaces.
By then our society would be radically different from what we see today.
@@hwllw464 I’m all for the brotherhood and freedom of man . I’m just skeptical about the kind of utopia that will be the fruit of a class war to the bitter end . What manner of society awaits us when we wade out of a sea of blood to stand on the shores of our promised land ? Who will wipe the blood from my hands ? who will wipe yours ? You truly believe we can live happy lives of love and joy as murderers fresh from the birth of a new world ? Or will it all just begin again .? The most ferocious at the top . We as ever at the bottom ? Hope I’m not depressing you but I think truth as far as it can be ascertained is only worthy of its mantle ; When It stands before us ; naked and unvarnished .
@@Jide-bq9yf a revolution would be necessary, yes. Just like it was necessary in order to form the liberal "democratic" government with the French Revolution. I'd say that no matter how bloody the French Revolution was, I'm glad it happened. Or would you like to still live as a serf? Revolutions are necessary and worthwhile.
The Pirahã people
bhomsky always out here with non-answers
He gave his answer. The unnamed anarchists of Catalonia because they organized and achieved something great.
@@ericsutter5957 Bakunin is the probable answer if it boils down to activism and book work, two inseparable achievements, involving propaganda of the deed and the intellect. But question is flawed.
Jesus Christ.
Heheh, true !!... :-)
i dont think a stateless society/anarchy can work at all its a pipedream
It literally worked before.
The POUM lasted briefly for a couple of months until the Stalinist crushed it. Not exactly a success.
Murray Rothbard
Capitalists can't be Anarchists.
That’s where you’re wrong kiddo
socialists can't be anarchists.
@@mac1414 This is true.
@@DiamorphineDeath I know right. They think they can be anarchist by violence and stealing people's property.
Historically it was happening via anarchist Black Guard which is just like the Police. They were jailing or hanging people if they refused to collectivise. They did that in Catalonia. It's a fucking sham.
Forced collectivism =/= Freedom.
Answer: not the guy who took money from Epstein
Anarchy is dumb. Noam Chomsky is dumb. All you need is a free market and a government that respects and defends its people's rights. Literally nothing else is needed. Let freedom ring.
A free market doesn't lead to good outcomes when the true costs of production are not baked into the selling price. For example, if a farmer in Brazil cuts down part of the Amazon rainforest to clear land to graze cattle, and that meat ends up in hamburgers in an American fast food restaurant, how is the purchaser of that hamburger meant to know they are contributing to the destruction of their home planet?
@@blahdelablah if you don't like something, don't buy it. Thus the self regulating nature of the free market
@@FreakingDoubt The point is, you don't know all the details of the products you're buying, so you can't vote with your wallet.
@@FreakingDoubt The point is this, you don't know all the details about all the products you buy, and you can't "vote with your wallet" if you don't know what you're voting for.
@@blahdelablah give me and other people a little credit. There is nothing you can know that isn't knowing. You can and do do know for yourself. You don't nees Noam Chomsky and others to do all the thinking and knowing for you. Long live almighty Man. Long live the dollar.
Anarchy doesn't work
THIS ANARCHIST UTOPIA IS EXACTLY THAT A UTOPIA . DOESNT LAST LONG IF SOMEDY TRIES IT BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE TOO SELFISH.
Speak for yourself (or your own culture). There are many anarchist societies in the world. Not utopias, but actual societies.
if people are selfish why would you want a system where power is contained at the top? anarchism is the best antidote to selfishness
Are the laughs because he's supposed to be the one? Anarchist Spain is an interesting experiment but there were many crimes against private property... and yes, PP is absolutely essential. Also, it's very funny how Chomsky would pay homage to Cataluña and think that Central Banks are indispensable at the same time. Circle that square for me please!
Personal property is essential. Private property is absolutely not.
Chomsky's comments regarding central banks are directed toward state capitalist societies, not anarchist ones.
Andrew Ryan as clear as daylight I heard him once say Central Banks are inevitable and necessary.
@@javierborda8684 In the context of living within a state capitalist system.
@John Gregg Protect your property, be of service to others and never commit any theft or act of violence.
The opposite of Anarchy is lawfulness, system, method, organization, harmony, peace, order, calm, rule.
the opposite of anarchy is archy, aka government. that’s all.
You should read about anarchism. You'll learn a lot
@@pacotaco1246 yup it’s basically the book knowledge of good & evil
Or so you've been told
**How to demonstrate in one sentence that I don't know anything about anarchism**
Alexander Berkman ? Voltairine de Cleyre ?
Pierre Joseph Proudhon ?
Peter Kropotkin ?
Michel Bakunin ?
Chomsky clearly favours people that put their beliefs into practice, and I support this outlook.