Noam Chomsky (2013) "What is Anarchism?"
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 11. 2013
- ©2013 Leigha Cohen Video Production www.leighacohenvideo.com/ / leighacohen
This video was produced with cooperation from MIT and the Boston Review., filmed and edited by Leigha Cohen.
Noam Chomsky spoke at MIT Wong Auditorium on November 18, 2013. The event was sponsored by the Boston Review. This event was based on the topic of Noam Chomsky's new volume, On Anarchism.
Noam Chomsky, world-renowned public intellectual and MIT Professor emeritus discussed the reasoning behind his fearless lifelong questioning of the legitimacy of entrenched power. Chomsky's anarchism is distinctly optimistic and egalitarian. It is a living, evolving tradition, situated in a historical lineage, which emphasizes the power of collective, rather than individualist, action.
His scathing analysis of everything that's wrong with our society reaches more and more people every day. His brilliant critiques of - among other things - capitalism, imperialism, domestic repression, and government propaganda, have become mini-publishing industries unto themselves.
Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on in this video are copyrighted to Leigha Cohen Video, All rights reserved. No part of this video may be used for any purpose other than educational use and any monetary gain from this video is prohibited without prior permission from myself. Therefore, reproduction, modification, storage in a retrieval system is prohibited. Standard linking of this video is allowed and encouraged.
"Anarchism is a tendency in human development that seeks to identify structures of hierarchy and domination, authority, and others that constrain human development - and then it seeks to subject them to a very reasonable challenge: Justify yourself. Demonstrate that you're legitimate - maybe in some special circumstances or conceivably in principal. And if you can't meet that challenge - which is the usual case - the structure should be dismantled. And as Nathan rightly adds, not just dismantled but reconstructed from below."
I don't think this says anything particularly interesting. What sort of justification will anarchists accept? Do you really think the masters will share the same morality as the slaves? The master will value their strength and the slaves will call anyone strong evil out of ressentiment.
Ryan no, they won't, and that's the point. All authority is illegitimate.
Ryan, we are human beings hence we share the same morality. If you believe in reason you should find it conceivable that the masters can or can not give a justification for their position.
The way Chomsky describes anarchism is as it only purpose is to criticise capitalism and hierarchy,but it doesn't offer any solution or alternative
@@cv4809 mark passio goes over the solution. try looking through his content in order to grasp the whole of anarchy.
larken rose is another one.
_Workers should be the masters of their own industrial fate. Not tools rented by employers, not directed by state authorities._
@police-and-military-are-welfare-whores I agree! Ancap FTW!
@police-and-military-are-welfare-whores I'm sorry that you are so lonely.
@police-and-military-are-welfare-whores nice bait
@police-and-military-are-welfare-whores ok troll
@police-and-military-are-welfare-whores if you'e really not a troll I feel bad for you 😁
19:27" - "educational practice should be designed to encourage creativity, exploration, independence, cooperative work. Exactly the opposite of what is happening today"
then you need anarchy or capitalism.
@@BrockJamesStory When he says cooperative work you know for a fact it won't be Capitalism.
The only genuine 'leader' is wisdom born of a respect for truth..
It is the severe lack of naturalised 'elder wisdom' that leads to the kind of politicised world we suffer today. When the Europeans invaded the Americas they saw themselves as having the 'right' to obliterate everything from a position of 'superiority', where in fact they couldn't have been more wrong; replacing a self-sustaining series of inter-connected micro systems based on elder-wisdom philosophy with a savage greed for self-interest, leading ultimately to self-destructive behaviour..
It all really boils down to control. External, ever increasing and changing forms of control by exterior and self-interested 'forces', or personal responsibility through self-control, which negates the need for the external, but does still require a form of on-going and naturally evolving wisdom tradition..
Neither are without problems, but the wisdom option can see where those problems arise and has the ability to deal successfully with them. It also has the added bonus of never blindly sinking into a self-destructive state, and thus will remain sustainable..
Anarchy is the most human way to live, I feel it and every time I think about is more and more reasonable. Good explanation mr. Chomsky.
+Hexatonic I agree that our government is not run this way, but society is a much broader term than simply the ruling class or something like that. We have all lived and do live in mini-societies and communities that are basically anarchistic and so most of us have had a taste for living self-governed for short periods of time, at least when you go camping.
Right
sounds pretty devoid of any humanity to me. considering human relations themselves are fundamentally based in domination/submission and human groups intrinsically work in various forms of power relations
My neighborhood is effectively run on anarchist principles, without most people realizing it. We borrow tools, we offer furniture and other items we have no use for, we have local mini-libraries, etc., and all without any money changing hands and without central planning or government. Anarchy is the natural organizational principle that people use in their day-to-day dealings. But we don't seem to be able to come to the realization that we can and should expand it to politics and the workplace.
"considering human relations themselves are fundamentally based in domination/submission and human groups intrinsically work in various forms of power relations"
Jeez! Where on Earth do you live?
It's heartbreaking that the term freedom has become nothing more than a matter of perspective to so many people.
Was it ever not a matter of perspective? You might be mistaking your own realization that it's not with actual history. Or a familiarity with the term as it relates to an ideology once engrossing, and how it becomes more complicated upon closer inspection and relative to other beliefs and ideologies (or just good old fashioned skepticism)
It's interesting that almost all the comments arguing against Chomsky's views of anarchism itself are made as if those people haven't listened to the talk. The most basic issues Chomsky discusses even at the beginning already dismiss them.
FUCK BRAZIL DUDE
ANARQUISMO É A RESPOSTA!!
Examples of "basic issues" he addresses that you see being raised? Specifically?
Go for it. We stand on the shoulders of giants and see further. None of the giants have had five minutes for anarchism. Am I missing something or is Popper wrong?
Many of the giants you refer to were anarchists. If you listen to Chomsky's speech. Chomsky said Anarchists should be called "Truth-ists". Think of the greats who went against the status quo and were thought to be crazy...
Yet you see that as a good thing?!
I am enjoying listening to Chomsky breathe in every few seconds thanks to that microphone.
Just as long as he's still breathing.
*****
It's okay. Everybody has to go some time. He left a hell of a legacy.
+devourerofbabies my exact thought
lol thats creepy
But your parents aren't enjoying that you live in there basement
Simply, stunningly brilliant, as usual. That man's brain is a treasure.
Yeah ... old, creaky, out of date and vastly overvalued.
His brain is a treasure? The most dangerous aspect of people like this is that they are spurred on by their own paradigm of their own construct which is mistaken for a conscience. Every anarchy in history has defended to tyranny. If anyone is in immediate need of the results of this philosophy, I offer to you Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, China, Russia but not NSDAP controlled Germany. Anarchy is a far right condition which quickly leads to total control
His brain is a treasure? The most dangerous aspect of people like this is that they are spurred on by their own paradigm of their own construct which is mistaken for a conscience. Every anarchy in history has descended to tyranny. If anyone is in immediate need of the results of this philosophy, I offer to you Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, China, Russia where revolutionaries tried to replace a power structure with egalitarianism. Anarchy is a far right condition which quickly leads to total control, which is far left, on the political spectrum of the classical liberals. The fabric of freedom in America is being consumed by the philosophy of failure, the Creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy.
Wayne Harmon ".....Every anarchy in history has descended to tyranny. ..."
Only when people abandon the principles of anarchy and embrace the principles of statism.
Well done for defining statism as tyranny though, and placing it beneath anarchy.
Anarchy would be fine among angels, but total self rule by human beings who may enjoy the seven virtues at one point, are also in other situations susceptible to the seven deadly sins as well. Without covenant and a provision for representative leadership, anarchy fails to protect even our most natural rights.
4:15 the most brilliant definition of anarchism I've ever heard. That is exactly it!
It is highly probable that I will have to cry the day when this beautiful being leaves our plane of existence.
I am grateful to have lived in a period that has had a brilliant mind like Chomsky being a beacon for humanity.
Es hat.....wow!! I'm enlightened
@@DJK-cq2uy Oh? You too?! How nice. Now you are just like everyone else. 😘
Hmmph
yes, i know what you mean. In a world that deifies stupidity and selfishness, this man is a rare gem. Humanity as a whole will be poorer. i think i will feel a profound sense of loss, as well. but, his thoughts, ideas and deep compassion will survive for generations in our hearts and minds.
You’re straight tard…..
I look at the comments and wonder how many people actually listened to and considered Chomsky's speech.
What, you think nobody is legitimately disagreeing with him? What specifically do you mean?
I can't remember what my impression was now, but I think a lot of the comments outright give criticism that were addressed in the video, with no mention those adresses or of related points in the video.
Mo Lester OK. My impression is that a lot of people are raising legitimate questions, both with regards to how anarchy is defined and (mostly) possible problems with application of anarchistic principles.
@@iridescentsquids anarchist principles are based on morality. no anarchist on earth suggest otherwise, and if they do they lack understanding in the premise of anarchy. Mark passio is worth a look. he is anarchy in its full form (not litterally)
I'd say, the people who truly criticize this wonderful speech and his principles in general, the number is less than a dozen or so. They hear "anarchism" and think chaos. When, in reality, cutting regulations and restrictions on the market (like conservatives and liberals love to do) isn't chaos. Capitalism has been proven to be the worst model. I mean, it's literally become a plutocracy in less than 200 years. The Founding Fathers, flawed as they were personally, would despise current America. I mean, they fought a damn revolution against tyranny and single-authority. Well, we have it. It may not be worded as "King/Queen," but in effect, that's what we have. Anarchism > Socialism > Capitalism
I look up to this man so much
Please give me one reason why and then we will try some great thinkers like Mill, Smith, Popper and of course Socrates who will trash him and we will give up all our opinions and beliefs to the best arguments.
Capitalism is a system where men with guns protect the wealth acquired from the population through military, political or market advantage. It is a system designed such that the working and middle class are dependent on the owning class until automation replaces the labor they provide. In that world the working and middle class only alternative to death is to reorganize society according to Anarchist principles. In other words Anarchism or death is inevitable because Capitalism will not work in the near future.
Don't look up
Look ahead
There is no hierarchy
Aye, people think anarchy is a simple economic theory. It is much much more than this. Purely political/economic theories always fail as they are completely detached to what they are trying to benefit- HUMAN EXPERIENCE. The first step, the pure deep-rooted foundation to all societies is the human psyche. Every single person can lead to a revolution by trying to restructure the way we look at each other, the way we interact and our goals in life--- this is how to change things. GUNS DON'T HELP, RADICALS ARE IDEALISTIC. Once you become an anarchist socially there is no challenge in the revolution, it is a natural way.
@@accountdeleted8751 That is literally a joke. Fact is anarchy always degenerates to the least qualified most violent take over.
Thankyou for posting this- a great talk.
I’m 12 years old and I want to be an anarchist one day just like Professor Chomsky. What steps can I take to become one ?
?????
Thank YOU so much for alerting me. Just favorited and play listed. Best for the weekend, Lisa
Many Thanks to You. Hope you are doing well. It has been awhile.
LeighaCohen All is well here and yes, it has been a while. Just put YOUR channel in my featured channel box. Sent YOU a mail regarding another topic.
Best for the week ahead, Lisa
I a sorry for this. I have sent emails to all the players who granted me permission. I have not had an issue with the channel nor did I receive anything from ESA. Is there a contact number I can reach them at. I will also call MIT tomorrow..
LeighaCohen
As we discussed earlier, there are channels who upload the addresses of Noam with commercials on them and not merely for educational purposes. F.e. the chomskyvideos channel. My concern is, that we might face copy right claims for the wrong reasons which should be addressed to those earning money with the intellectual property of Noam. This needs to be sorted out!
LeighaCohen
Am not yet familiar with the Google overall approach. Received a mail from YOU and responded. Hope YOU find this in YOUR inbox. If not, please let me know. Best, Lisa
Noam Chomsky a great mind, a great human being Progressive thinkers need read, hear and try to understand this great man...
I’m 12 years old and I want to be an anarchist one day just like Professor Chomsky. What steps can I take to become one ??
When i drove 18 wheeler flat bed in 48 States and Canada, occasionally ran into empolyee owned small business companys. What a joy to witness.
It is allowed under our system... but is mot or at lease has not been under socialism/communism
@@timeWaster76 Employee owned business is basically the definition of socialism, it wouldn't only be allowed, but is the ideal. However, real word implementation on a national scale has typically resulted in authoritarianism in the name of someday achieving this goal. I agree that so far, capitalist orientated states have been the best at allowing such businesses to operate freely and thrive, but please understand that this "revolutionary communism/socialism" that elevates a general idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" isn't necessarily an anarcho-socialist/communist position, and the authoritarian natures of real-world socialist countries represent only a fraction of those who are ultimately dedicated towards maximizing liberty for all. IMO the biggest influence towards authoritarian/extremist left wing thought is the suppression and disregard for the more humane variations. If not, well, I salute you for your intellectual curiosity nonetheless.
@@sieda666 It is just as much about private property. Just how many people is it worth killing to install socialism. When you go to confiscate their property that won't go smoothly.
Public ownership is all over the place already. I pay my city for electric, waste and water is a business the city owns.
Really socialism is on a spectrum from state regulated economy to state owned means of production. The part about worker managed is a pipe dream. There will still going to be bosses count on it ... always whether the workers vote or otherwise the half the voted for the other guy will be unhappy so.. forget it.
There are two ways to organize a culture and the systems that govern. One is where you do so with the understanding the natural ways people interact and use them to counter balance or you come up with a centralized plan and try and enforce it.
There are two things that make socialism a no go, private property and the ability to profit in a transaction...capitalism provides for people to go their own way with there on description of a chair it they wish... It creates innovation and incentive. Capitalism can also provide for as robust system of social programs that people in consensus are wise enough to provide. People operating under capitalism intended.. where everyone has the freedom to operate it is amazing how generous and just they can be... but there is always sociopaths out their looking to model the world to their pleasures and socialism does hopelessly off the rails when that happens. We will soon be rid of trump.
@@timeWaster76 Capitalism by necessity has Hierarchy, and this cannot stand if one wishes freedom or justice. Public ownership means nothing without a direct say in the utilization of said systems. You might elect a person that you think will act as you would, but that can be shown to be a missguided belief if one simply looks at the legislative efforts of politicians compared to the stances of their constituents. When the workers come for the means of production, it could be peaceful as long as the elite allows that. They will not, so yes, people must die to assure our survival as a species. Worker managed businesses exist, thrive, and are better for everyone on both paper and practice. You have limited your views due to your indoctrination and ideology. Many systems do what Capitalism does, it is not unique in having markets nor property. People can still own their house, their car, and their cloths under Socialism ( check the Nordic Model, it is effectively already happening). The issue is private ownership of the means of production. Anarchism is Libertarian socialism, meaning everyone has a say in what is done with the means of production. There would be no representatives, everyone would have a equal say. No presidents are needed, no senators, no sherif nor judges to judge you. Catalonia before the Spanish revolution is an example that not only can it work, it works so well that the other forms of governance could not allow it to exist. Capitalism is Feudalism with some minor tweaks, and should no longer be defended nor held as absolute by people as intelligent as you are.
@@rjones197 Socialism or communism won't stop Hierarchy. People are not all created equal. Maybe you have never hired anyone or not gone to college but I can tell you not everyone is as smart or fast or good looking as the next person. I hired five workers one makes me money. one costs me money... I fire the one the cost me or pay him what it worth but no way they get paid the same. Some people are so lazy and so uncooperative that the literally are not worth having on the books. If the government takes over my business and gives it to my workers I'll quit And I can tell you what will happen, the mediocre take over.
The average worker doesn't know how to run a Tesla... or amazon.
The kind of craftsman the can build a custom house is not your average person. There is a level of skill and experience required. That puts a skilled worker in demand and they can charge more. Maybe you hire a helper.. but you're no going to pay them as you would a lead carpenter if their mistakes are causing more work for the carpenter and wasting materials.
The "Nordic Model" is not socialism You are being sold a bill of goods. And it they were, then, so is America. The problem is the attempt to install socialism in the hopes of reaching some communist utopia. The fact is that does mean you don't own a car, or property or even tools... that is all capital. It means you work for the state the problem is these selling you socialism don't tell you that. The say the workers will run the plant on equal footing. That is because the need the workers to do the killing and the dying to install a centralized government.
Leftist Anarchy is a promise the can not be realized. What happens is in the absence of a state, opposing forces will have the people the revolution was out to "liberate" killing each other.
Chomsky is for me the most influential intellectual ever. And Anarchism one of the most important subjects for me to reflect about.
hes not an anarchist he hates business which means he hates people making money or having resources for themselves he wants to own all.
The only genuine 'leader' is wisdom born of a respect for truth..
It is the severe lack of naturalised 'elder wisdom' that leads to the kind of politicised world we suffer today. When the Europeans invaded the Americas they saw themselves as having the 'right' to obliterate everything from a position of 'superiority', where in fact they couldn't have been more wrong; replacing a self-sustaining series of inter-connected micro systems based on elder-wisdom philosophy with a savage greed for self-interest, leading ultimately to self-destructive behaviour..
It all really boils down to control. External, ever increasing and changing forms of control by exterior and self-interested 'forces', or personal responsibility through self-control, which negates the need for the external, but does still require a form of on-going and naturally evolving wisdom tradition..
Neither are without problems, but the wisdom option can see where those problems arise and has the ability to deal successfully with them. It also has the added bonus of never blindly sinking into a self-destructive state, and thus will remain sustainable..
viva l anarchia sempre grande Noam
thanks so much
hope all pass it around
Anarchists were right about problem of marxism. I hope contents like this get highlighted by the media so more people are educated about anarchism.
@dacian prime because he believes that true Marxist will not be the new bourgeois. Just like he believes that Lenin is not a Marxist but just politician.
I would say Noam needs to be educated about anarchism, but it will take Anarchists to do it and what the Anarchists take over Noam will be out.
The only genuine 'leader' is wisdom born of a respect for truth..
It is the severe lack of naturalised 'elder wisdom' that leads to the kind of politicised world we suffer today. When the Europeans invaded the Americas they saw themselves as having the 'right' to obliterate everything from a position of 'superiority', where in fact they couldn't have been more wrong; replacing a self-sustaining series of inter-connected micro systems based on elder-wisdom philosophy with a savage greed for self-interest, leading ultimately to self-destructive behaviour..
It all really boils down to control. External, ever increasing and changing forms of control by exterior and self-interested 'forces', or personal responsibility through self-control, which negates the need for the external, but does still require a form of on-going and naturally evolving wisdom tradition..
Neither are without problems, but the wisdom option can see where those problems arise and has the ability to deal successfully with them. It also has the added bonus of never blindly sinking into a self-destructive state, and thus will remain sustainable..
Noam Chomsky is certainly the conscience of the world. As he is advancing in age, is there any of the moralists out there who will take over from where he will have left? I often wonder. But be that it may, I have enormous respect for this great academic and intellectual.
mark passio
With internet and CZcams, more specifically, Noam’s finite ideas can be shared infinitely; also, his death might get him some clicks and new viewers. Not everything is bad.
Nicht zu vergessen
Er hat ein sehr großes Herz 💓❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
Brilliant... again... again!
It is always inspiring how, despite his justifiably brutal criticisms of modern societal systems, Noam Chomsky often seems surprisingly optimistic at the prospect of replacing them with freer and more democratic systems. Quite encouraging, indeed.
"... Changing industry from a feudalistic to a democratic social order - one that's based on workers' control, community control, respects the dignity of the producer as a genuine person - not a tool in the hands of others - in accordance with a libertarian tradition that has deep roots; and like Marx's old mole, is always burrowing quite close to the surface, and ready to spring forth."
I’m 12 years old and I want to be an anarchist one day just like Professor Chomsky. What steps can I take to become one ????--/2
my ideas about anarchism are freedom from all constraint and helping your fellow people in loving ways
thanks for uploading this
I’m 12 years old and I want to be an anarchist one day just like Professor Chomsky. What steps can I take to become one ?
--/())))
"Anarchism", or egalitarianism as it is referred to more properly in the anthropological literature, is the original political/social philosophy of humankind. State level civilizations eroded this with the imposition of centralized authority using military force, and we have lived with it ever since. And it was spread around the world by state level societies and colonialists by conquering and destroying egalitarian societies around the world.
anarchism is not compatible with a complex technological world with 7 billion people in it.Maybe in the future when you have nanobots in your bloodstream that undo the effects of aging and self reparing spaceships that allow you to get tf out of earth and settle on exoplanets
The only genuine 'leader' is wisdom born of a respect for truth..
It is the severe lack of naturalised 'elder wisdom' that leads to the kind of politicised world we suffer today. When the Europeans invaded the Americas they saw themselves as having the 'right' to obliterate everything from a position of 'superiority', where in fact they couldn't have been more wrong; replacing a self-sustaining series of inter-connected micro systems based on elder-wisdom philosophy with a savage greed for self-interest, leading ultimately to self-destructive behaviour..
It all really boils down to control. External, ever increasing and changing forms of control by exterior and self-interested 'forces', or personal responsibility through self-control, which negates the need for the external, but does still require a form of on-going and naturally evolving wisdom tradition..
Neither are without problems, but the wisdom option can see where those problems arise and has the ability to deal successfully with them. It also has the added bonus of never blindly sinking into a self-destructive state, and thus will remain sustainable..
This is great! I'm going to download the transcript. Bookmarking my spot 28:05
Over 2 years later, did you ever finish? 😁😁😁
@@redacted5035 yes
loved the Ken Burns sound track at the end!!! such a great song
What a wonderful talk, so concise, so addressing social problems at their deepest (i.e., most radical) roots. As always, Thank You Professor Chomsky, and thank you Leigha Cohen and the Boston Review.
I’m 12 years old and I want to be an anarchist one day just like Professor Chomsky. What steps can I take to become one ?
@@JohnSmith-ds1lu wie lieb von dir. Wichtig ist sich immer treu zu bleiben und immer selbst denken und reflektieren.
Saint Exupery lässt den kleinen Prinzen sagen dass wir nur mit dem Herzen gut sehen hören können. Aloha
You (Rudolf) Rock(er) for putting this up! The Q&A, too. I have always felt like we ought to at least try anarchism/libertarian socialism/radical democracy before we kill ourselves off. I mean, why not? We've tried everything else. Let's commit suicide by majority vote, as it were, if that's all we can handle. I bet we can handle more, though. Let's find out.
great compression
Beautiful lecture.
I’m 12 years old and I want to be an anarchist one day just like Professor Chomsky. What steps can I take to become one ?
/---
Chomsky's definition of anarchism is quite unusual: it also includes left Marxism. I think there are two key differences between anarchism and left Marxism:
- Anarchists are against any hierarchy or only for a very flat hierarchy. Left Marxists are for hierarchy, but not in a representative system but in a council system. They are also workers' control of production, but in contrast to anarchists they think it is not enough if each company is controlled by it's workers but they think that the whole economy must be planned by a democratic elected instance. History showed that flat hierarchies don't work, in the Spanish Civil War the CNT didn't want to take power but entered a popular front government with the bourgeoisie instead and in the Russian Civil War, the Anarchist fighters around Makhno didn't recognize the power of the Soviet and basically became scoundrels, which they where not only called by Trotsky, but also by the anarchist Kropotkin.
- Anarchists think that the state can be abolished immediately and replaced by what Marx called "a higher phase of communist society". Marxists understand that there have to be steps in between, because the consciousness of the masses can't make leaps that are too big. He called these steps "dictatorship of the proletariat" and a "lower phase of communist society". Lenin's concept was basically the same, except that he called the "higher phase of communist society" "communism" and the "lower phase of communist society" "socialism".
I’m 12 years old and I want to be an anarchist one day just like Professor Chomsky. What steps can I take to become one ?
????????????????????
Smart man right there
Loved it. Also, instrumental piece in closing credits? Any ideas?
Awesome 👍
i have so much respect for this man
I’m 12 years old and I want to be an anarchist one day just like Professor Chomsky. What steps can I take to become one ??????
Solidarity with all poor, oppressed and working people of the world #AnInjuryToOneIsAnInjuryToAll
Non violent mass NON-PARTICIPATION in all area's.
I think it helps to vote for Bernie, in the USA. He can move things towards the right direction. He encourages workers unions time and time again f.e.
But I still do share your sentiment mostly!
DAVID GRAEBER was a founding member of the Institute for Experimental Arts
He did a lecture with the title: How social and economic structure influences the Art World in the Financial Consequences - International MultiMedia Poetry Festival organized by the Institute for Experimental Arts supported by LSE Department of Anthropology.
Influential anthropologist David Graeber, known for his 2011 volume Debt: The First 5000 Years speaks about the correlation between the cultural sphere and society. The intellectuals and the artists create an imaginary way to criticize the economic system in any era. Art can overcome hegemonic frameworks and acknowledge other possible worlds, offer us the opportunity to understand better the marginalized social entities. Social exclusion is the process in which individuals or people are systematically blocked from (or denied full access to) various rights, opportunities and resources that are normally available to members of a different group, and which are fundamental to social integration and observance of human rights within that particular group (e.g., housing, employment, healthcare, civic engagement, democratic participation, and due process). As the economic crises go deeper in time more people face the effects of exclusion. Art and social sciences can give voice to the voiceless. Especially young social aware poets can give us a clear view of the real social effect of the financial consequences. - David Graeber
You can watch the Lecture here:
czcams.com/video/WCF-8OQj0RE/video.html
Is there any transcript of this somewhere please?
Tis to work, and have such pay
As just keeps life from day to day
In your limbs, as in a cell
For the tyrants' use to dwell
Tis to be a slave in Soul,
And to bold no strong control.
Over your own wills, but be
All that others make of ye.
That was an excellent Shelley reference from a great poem in its entirety.
It certainly was. I had to stop the video and listen to it 3 times. Then I had to find and read the whole poem. Chomsky never ceases to amaze.
Jim Walker
- And Percy Shelley may not be too bad, himself.
3 years ago: oh wow, yeah that does seem to make sense - that those who work should also be those who own the production. Sounds cool, though I can't imagine it working in practice really.
Now: The destruction of capitalism is inherent and another world is possible *starts singing the internationale*
Lol. I'm at Stage 3: Human nature is too inert, this talk of self governance and free will hasn't lead to anything in literally centuries, everyone just drops belly up before the authority and eats each other instead of the common enemy. What's the point of trying to change this colony of fleas?
@@kaworunagisa4009 eh, sort of same, but you are an angel, so I can't trust you
@@tomio8072 Fair 😂Then again, I have the advantage of seeing humanity from the outside.
Problems with this lecture:
1. Liberalism is juxtaposed with anarchism, for evidence of this look into international political theory.
2. At about 9:20 Chomsky argues that Anarchism is aimed at liberty from large oppressive systems, in favor of smaller systems. Such smaller systems would still be considered government, albeit local, and thus not anarchy in the truest sense of the word.
3. At about 11:30, the American version of Libertarianism is arguably the most prominent as it is in the most powerful and richest nation in the world.
4. at about 14:45 Chomsky begins to discuss the objective of governments, to which he is mistaken, our government is not intended to support the oppressive nature of private greed, but to protect the people from its goal of subjugating the masses.
5. At around 30 minutes Chomsky begins to argue that "responsible leaders" are similar to nobility, but forgets that anyone in our nation is capable of being one of those "responsible leaders."
6. Very early on, Chomsky abandons his focus on Anarchism, in favor of Democracy.
Does anyone looked up or knows the passage in Adam Smiths "Wealth of Nations"? I would like to know which chapter it is. Thank you for any hints.
the most educated person of our time, he is like the father of humanity
wrong. that would be mark passio.
Actually I don't see how the anarchic social order is achievable under condition of confrontation (e.g. with other aggressive societies which is the case).
I would probably agree and so would Noam as well but that doesn't stop that doesn't mean that it isn't something to work towards
Ireland was historically anarchistic as is the celtic way of things an when a confrontation happened they'd fight against it an just rolled on. Cromwell managed to end celtic rule for awhile but Irelands coming back. so a free society would simply defend an rebuild. like we celt are doing now we had a secular legal system (brehon) social justice an equality an we voted in our kings. the only ills we had b4 rome where 2 things kings though our kings where under the law. unlike most leaders whom our the law im still not philosophically keen on kings even a good 1. and slaves whom could be anybody long story short usually criminals. when our day comes next it will be perfect idealistic as it sounds . tiocfaidh ar la
Your position then is that we should appoint our oppressors? In your view government sells itself as protection against other governments. For this protection we must be forced to pay our government. Seems to boil down to something like a choice between the Mafia or the Yakuza to pay protection to.
an fuck both lol
For a start private military/ police/ security would be far more viable and cost effective in an anarchic society. And far less dangerous when paid for voluntarily rather than via taxes and government debt.
Secondly without a government/ tax revenue already in place (and an obedient, brainwashed population willing to do as their told by 'authority') what's the incentive of a statist society to mess with an anarchic society?
Remember, when nations invade other nations, their objective is to overthrow and replace that nations government (rulers). In other words, a nation is only worth invading ifit is ALREADY enslaved to a government.
Invading an anarchic society would be like herding cats (but cats with guns and private military!)
And anyway the anarchic society would just have to show the invading soldiers how prosperous their economy was, how free their society was, how pot and prostitution was legal, how everybody was happy and free and you can bet those soldiers would desert in a heartbeat and join the anarchic society LOL
" Educational practice should be designed to encourage creativity, exploration, independence, cooperative work, exactly the opposite of what's happening today."
Does anyone know the author (or work) Chomsky references at 21:35? Norman Weir? I’ve heard him invoke the name before, but I can’t seem to find anything on him.
aidanmcballs Norman Ware.
aidanmcballs Norman Ware. His book is called The Industrial Worker.
chlorophyllc2 Thank you!
I speed him up to 1.25 speed and it's easier to listen without falling asleep...
Vive la commune! Go Catalonia!
Brilliant!
This has been such an inspirimg speech. - Thank you
I’m 12 years old and I want to be an anarchist one day just like Professor Chomsky. What steps can I take to become one ????1
Anarchism, Libertarianism, Communism (in its true sense), "Classical Liberalism" and Democracy are all different forms of Liberalism, different streams branching out from the same fountain.
Liberalism has dominated the Western world so completely that it can become invisible, and friction between different branches of Liberalism can seem like war between diametrically opposed ideologies rather than a mere factional disagreement. It also leads to confusion and terror when we encounter a culture which genuinely has never embraced Liberalism, such as Iraq.
Here is an example of how close the different streams of Liberalism are: the magnificent words of Jefferson's Declaration of Independence can be used as quite a good translation of the lyrics of "L'Internationale":
All people are created equal
With rights to life and liberty
The State must be the People's servant
That they might be safe and free
And if the State should shirk its duty
The People then must stand
Their right's to alter or abolish it
And remake it by their hand!
And so I ask all Liberals, whether they are conservative Liberals like George H. W. Bush, moderate Liberals like President Obama or progressive Liberals like Bernie Sanford or Dr. Chomsky, not to lose sight of the fact that we are all travelling along the great arc of history together, seeking to ensure that it does indeed bend towards justice.
Remember-Remember Fifth-of-November
If ***** wants to see what a real Fascist looks like, here you are.
no god, no master
Is there any movements or any parties seeking to implement anarchism into our government? If so I’d love to join and help in any way I can, and if not, I’ll start one myself
I was not able to sleep after listening to this...I slept peacefully
...wat 🤣
@Tuenis Dokter: Stalinism is not feasible. That is why minimal Maoism is the best system.
Yeah. I can't reply to old Tuenis there, but I think his avatar is wearing a fucking polo. So I don't give a shit on principle.
I find the policies of Mao to be indefensible. What is minimal Maoism?
So what happens when 2 different people do exactly the same job but 1 has better salesmanship skills than the other. Equal work still better pay for the better salesman. This is a flaw in anarchism, not everybody has equally good skills exploiting their fullest potential, on top of having unequal skills to start out with.
Never even mind narrow focus specialization of higher science and engineering, the bigger public works, all back to medieval times along with anything truly ambitious. This while the world needs to unlock unlimited fusion power desperately, we need it to clean up the mess of the industrial revolution and solve future water and food problems. We need Manhattan scale science and engineering to survive and get off this rock.
Holden get rid of sales jobs, most consumer tendencies need to be reconstructed too if we all want a functioning planet.
@@stevenglansburg856 completely true.
Where can I get a soft copy of this speech
Anarchism is as much (if not more) about conclusions than about motives or methods. Chomsky would have us believe that what makes and motivates an anarchist movement is a grounded sense of skepticism of government.
I think we should admit that it's the conclusion that government is almost never justifiable that defines the anarchist--not just the motivating principle that a government structure shouldn't exist if it can't be justified.
I think I understand his point about anarchists invoking, for example, state power to stop the ravages of privatization. But many skeptics of government would align themselves the same way with the state, as these anarchists do, without coming to the conclusion that these very same state powers shouldn't exist in the long run.
So we have degrees and kinds of skepticism, but it's the anarchist's conclusion that makes them an anarchist, not the nature of their skepticism. Short of advocating for the long-term dismantling of these structures, no skeptic of government is an anarchist.
His definition not only casts the net too wide, it gets pretty close to painting a picture of anarchists as the critical thinkers within society by definition. I think it's a way of avoiding a big problem with anarchism: It purports to be a solution merely by being in opposition--by being critical.
By defining it by motive and not conclusion, Chomsky can tout the intellectual basis for being skeptical of government without justifying the ultimate conclusion that government is truly unjustifiable.
Once we accept that anarchism is the conclusion, not just the motive, we can look beyond the theoretical basis for anarchy at a wide array of additional motives for these beliefs, including the simple and pedantic fact that it's just so much easier to be opposed to something than offer a viable alternative.
We might in doing so discover that anarchists are often no better at thinking critically about what aspects of government are justifiable than non-anarchists. That's been my experience.
I'd like to listen to this guy more, but it's so hard to pay attention to him when it sounds like he's completely uninterested in what he's talking about.
The anarchists during the Spanish Civil War killed nuns and destroyed churches in their zeal for "individual freedom" Sorry, that's not so noble, actually- and not so different from any other zealots, convinced they are right and those who disagree are not just wrong, but evil. We can do better, people.
Try and find a political ideology that hasn't been involved in violence. capitalism? Its built of violence and the brutal treatment of peasants and indigenous populations. The free market? General pinochet killed people by the masses. Communism, socialism, capitalism or anarchism violence is taken for all of them. I will say however anarchist often propose non violent ways of revolution, general strikes for example.
laurence. S You're right. They're all violent.
Why not say they all have peaceful sides, too?
(If you're going to be fair about it. )
Advocates of every system say they're special. Violence, or lack thereof, certainly doesn't set anarchism apart.
***** "We kill for the *right* reasons." Says everybody who kills for their cause.
***** Apparently no more rational or intelligent, though.
Je' Czaja Yes, and nuns and the ecclesiastical authorities supported Franco and his fascist party. And even before the fascist uprising, the church was responsible for the death, torture, and imprisonment of many people who wanted nothing more than freedom and dignity. Fuck them. Let them burn.
of course, changes will take many decades and that is for this sense not easy but neither that tough it is just a matter of time.
Who is the Perovich guy he mentioned who does work on Workers Co-operatives?
Gar Alperovitz
ListenDontShout Many Thanks. If anyone else is interested in Workers Co-ops; On Monday Chomsky replied to an email i sent him and recommended a book called Economic Justice and Democracy by Robin Hahnel.
I was surprised by how quickly he got back to me, this man must work all hours of the day.
anarchism is the final destination for people addicted to lost causes
Love it! (also a definition of love) Here's one for you: "Politics: show business for ugly people."
wailinburnin lol well played :)
If anarchism is a lost cause then humanity is a lost cause.
You couldn't be more wrong professorbland
lake old thanks for the laugh… i almost fell over
i just like that there is still an idea of complete freedom
+Hexatonic Well, I cannot speak for every country, but here in the US, we cannot.
We are always subject to rule, and taxation.
+Hexatonic Well, I cannot speak for every country, but here in the US, we cannot.
We are always subject to rule, and taxation.
Very Nice
I am 20 years old. Is anyone else my age watching this? The revolution only dies when it dies within our hearts.
I’m 12 years old and I want to be an anarchist one day just like Professor Chomsky. What steps can I take to become one ?
//;;:::::
I wish we had the courage to live like anarchists.
The only genuine 'leader' is wisdom born of a respect for truth..
It is the severe lack of naturalised 'elder wisdom' that leads to the kind of politicised world we suffer today. When the Europeans invaded the Americas they saw themselves as having the 'right' to obliterate everything from a position of 'superiority', where in fact they couldn't have been more wrong; replacing a self-sustaining series of inter-connected micro systems based on elder-wisdom philosophy with a savage greed for self-interest, leading ultimately to self-destructive behaviour..
It all really boils down to control. External, ever increasing and changing forms of control by exterior and self-interested 'forces', or personal responsibility through self-control, which negates the need for the external, but does still require a form of on-going and naturally evolving wisdom tradition..
Neither are without problems, but the wisdom option can see where those problems arise and has the ability to deal successfully with them. It also has the added bonus of never blindly sinking into a self-destructive state, and thus will remain sustainable..
Does anyone know what New York Times editorials he is referencing when talking about wage slavery?
What's Wong with the auditorium?
;)
"Archon" is the Greek word for "ruler". A ruler is an implement for drawing straight lines, and the role of ruler in society was to establish norms for weights and measures throughout society.
An anarchist is one who wishes to use their own weights and measures, or perhaps in a metaphorical sense, the desire to diverge from straight lines. To draw freehand.
I’m 12 years old and I want to be an anarchist one day just like Professor Chomsky. What steps can I take to become one ?---
The variety of experiences and problems a single person has is incomparably more complex than any system can capture. Nevertheless, the well-being of each individual is and remains the central motive of every civilization.
The only genuine 'leader' is wisdom born of a respect for truth..
It is the severe lack of naturalised 'elder wisdom' that leads to the kind of politicised world we suffer today. When the Europeans invaded the Americas they saw themselves as having the 'right' to obliterate everything from a position of 'superiority', where in fact they couldn't have been more wrong; replacing a self-sustaining series of inter-connected micro systems based on elder-wisdom philosophy with a savage greed for self-interest, leading ultimately to self-destructive behaviour..
It all really boils down to control. External, ever increasing and changing forms of control by exterior and self-interested 'forces', or personal responsibility through self-control, which negates the need for the external, but does still require a form of on-going and naturally evolving wisdom tradition..
Neither are without problems, but the wisdom option can see where those problems arise and has the ability to deal successfully with them. It also has the added bonus of never blindly sinking into a self-destructive state, and thus will remain sustainable..
Let us all help to speed the day when this wonderful earth and its rich resources are held in common for the benefit of all humanity.Abolish the wages System.
I have two questions (and please do not suppose it is meant as an attack, but a constructive inquiry). I really like Chomsky's view and definition of anarchism but I cannot help but think:
1. How is a society meant to define what is a legitimate or illegitimate exercise of authority? Also, are these subjective or objective? Either way we run into trouble: if they are subjective, we have the problem of practice. If they are objective we have theoretical/philosophical troubles.
2. How is a society meant to decide and agree upon these as well? Would there be a standard procedure for such matters? If yes, what would it look like? If not, then we again have issues in practice.
Solving these issues is of utmost importance for this theory's practical validity, given that Chomsky's anarchism is collective rather than individualistic. These two problems are crucial for making this theory practice, which should be the end goal of any political philosophy. I also believe that an additional problem is that the average human being is not advanced enough intellectually and spiritually for this type (or any type actually) of anarchism to actually work on a large scale... Please engage! I would be very happy if we were to find a way for this type of anarchism to be valid and functional in practice.
Achilleas Vriniotis a lot of people have tackled this issue! For example, legitimate hierarchy and power is a doctor being a doctor because of their knowledge and ability. Illegitimate is a businessman being a politician because of their money.
20:30 garel perewitz? anyone know exactly who this is? intrigued.
Niall Toner Gar Alperovitz.
The only genuine 'leader' is wisdom born of a respect for truth..
It is the severe lack of naturalised 'elder wisdom' that leads to the kind of politicised world we suffer today. When the Europeans invaded the Americas they saw themselves as having the 'right' to obliterate everything from a position of 'superiority', where in fact they couldn't have been more wrong; replacing a self-sustaining series of inter-connected micro systems based on elder-wisdom philosophy with a savage greed for self-interest, leading ultimately to self-destructive behaviour..
It all really boils down to control. External, ever increasing and changing forms of control by exterior and self-interested 'forces', or personal responsibility through self-control, which negates the need for the external, but does still require a form of on-going and naturally evolving wisdom tradition..
Neither are without problems, but the wisdom option can see where those problems arise and has the ability to deal successfully with them. It also has the added bonus of never blindly sinking into a self-destructive state, and thus will remain sustainable..
" D. Day's, Catholic Workers movement ... " -- any followups, on what this means? Who they are, and what they represent?
This video does not allow embedding?
Really?
Why???
No master! No oppression and No power above human being!
Congratulations real explained 🙂
This is a genuine question,I'm not trying to be flip or sarcastic. Did he define anywhere how we determine wether or not a structure is legitimate?
There is no definition, the structure has to justify itself. You need to view some of Noam's other videos, but I can't recall which one specifically states this.
Daniel Ortega gets to decide that. But really, comrade, it's better not to ask that question.
what on earth is that beautiful music at the end?
ryan neitzel I *think* it is 07 Breath of Heaven (Mary's song)
soundcloud.com/katherine-hawkins
Imagine a more subdued but equally visibly passionate 'Tyler Durden' like figure giving this talk. So many of Chomsky's ideas are fascinating while his stage presence of soporific.
It is an intentional effect. Chomsky made the decision long ago that it must be his words and ideas that carry weight, not the means in which they are delivered. The key is to avoid being a demagogue.
@@DanielEastland well said Daniel.
Great point imo, Mack.
Is there a great difference between anarchism and socialism?
please add subtitles 😭😭😭
Wow! What a soul!
traducido al castellano??? quién puede cargarlo!!! gracias
omg the background noise fading in and out is so frustrating. Makes me feel like I can't breath O_o
Try focusing on the message.
Offtopic: yesterday in our local newspaper Novi List there was an article which stated that former Slovene PM Janez Janša was released from prison due to his status as a politician and his membership in the parliament.
I almost thought it was a sick April Fools joke... Turned out to be bloody real story.
I doubt that is the reasoning, I think he was let go on a procedural matter or something. But it is true that whilst in prison he was allowed to attend parliamentary sessions and the debate was whether a convict can serve as an elected politician (he was convicted and started serving time before the elections).
+TheSpiritOfTheTimes How can a criminal be elected.
Chomsky mentions "Nathan." Can we view the presentation made by Nathan?
i want to hear the Q&A
There is another video with the Q&A titled the same
panarchism or motley anarchism is the only way to practically apply anarchist principles on a societal level. though anarchy is already practiced upon an individual level.
Hahah... lol. Panarchy is one big fuck-up of an ideology. The only consistent anarchist ideals are anarcho-communism and anarcho-socialism
I think that in order to achieve anything like this you have to have a very strong moral system in which you include teaching a deep respect for the autonomy and dignity of the individual, starting with themself of course. But it is by extension of themself, namely the moral selfish self-interest in autonomy and dignity that someone can understand the need for others to have the same. The way to know if you have understood it is if you feel a natural aversion at the idea of getting involved in someones life. Further that if involvement is still pursued despite the aversion that it is done with great care and respect, or in the case of conflict, proportionally and honorably.
How achievable is it? Shouldn't be hard, parents already do some of this and can easily be relied on and I would bet you they would love to be better at it, preferably in a way that involves their children in a positive way. The mission would be summarized as: "How to be a responsible individual". Now if only I knew how to turn this into instructive entertainment...
I’m 12 years old and I want to be an anarchist one day just like Professor Chomsky. What steps can I take to become one ?
--////
I know of no anarchist theory trying to analyze capitalism properly and at the same time I can see no difference in what most anarchist's goals are to what Marx describes as 'free association of individuals' or 'communism as a real movement'. Even in this talk. So I clung to Marx, since you first need to understand what you want to abolish to be able to abolish it. I don't know if it is simply laziness or the confusion of Marx and Marxism/Leninism why people are still sticking to Anarchism. It is pretty common these days to dismiss Marx because people say he tried to describe communism and then add that what he described simply didn't work out. I understand Anarchism as some nice utopian Idea of how the world could be without any profound analysis of what capitalism actually is. So read Marx ! - I like Mr Chomsky however
Marx said very little about what a future communist society would look like, but what he did say is not inconsistent with the anarcho-communists. The main point of difference is that Marx/Engels believed the transitional "revolutionary" state would disappear (wither away, Aufhebung), and that those in power would only act in the interests of the proletariat. Anarchists reject this, arguing that power corrupts and that the centralized state would remain, serving the interests of this new class of so-called revolutionaries to the detriment of the working classes they claim to represent. Bakunin was particularly critical of Marx in this regard. Anarchists' major focus of critique is thus on the state per se, as an institution of domination regardless of who runs it - hence, Marx's idea that the "revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat" would only be temporary is delusional.
psbarrow
fair enough,
so what is the argument WHY Marx' idea to 'use the state' is delusional ? - because power corrupts: come on, that's a truism.
I think you're right if we look at the history of the soviet union, and there are numerous other examples, and yes: no party or state can really represent a left movement, but what are the options. I don't see any anarchist community organizing the transportation system or logistics of a city. I think this is what we should be discussing then. How can we engage in /with power structures etc
*****
I'd rather say: the anarchy is the anarchy of the free market production and appropriation of labour. But if you look at the details it is far not as "free" as it seems. The state makes up the market, it couldn't exist in this form without the market.
And my freedom to eat what I want depends first on the food industry and secondly on if I'm willing to work so that I am able to pay for it (industry-work-money). And yes, I endorse stealing food
Never heard of this man lol where has he been all my life?
I’m 12 years old and I want to be an anarchist one day just like Professor Chomsky. What steps can I take to become one ?
()$:///
@@JohnSmith-ds1lu *read all the books by these anarchist authors: proudhon, bakunin, kropotkin, malatesta, emma goldmann, martin luther king jr., gandhi, chomsky, murray bookchin, david graeber, michael malice, abdullah ocalan...
Thank you for your contribution.
No bosses? Let me say he gives the average American way too much credit. Its not lazy, its not criminal. It's just that most people can't organize themselves on this way on their own.
When I worked in health care in El Salvador back in the mid 1990s I was struck by some of the collectively organized communities in Chalatenango--they practiced a radical democracy where every member of the town had a voice in matters affecting the whole. They functioned beautifully well--in one case they had created a day care and a clinic, they had electricity powered by a generator, the people were bright and smiling, filled with hope, contrasted to unorganized communities where people seemed devastated and crushed. I never forgot that experience and Chomsky's description of Anarchism fits what I saw perfectly.
"A VILLAGE" They were so over joyed to have ageneratot.. where are they now.
interesting ideas...and very human also