I love Chomsky's opening argument that classical liberalism has lead him to become a type of anarchist and socialist. Completely 100% logical. No wonder he was banned from every major news outlet in the USA. If monarchy states were the dominant concentration of power that classical liberals theorized against and fought against, and our current concentrated power is unaccountable corporate tyranny who monopolize not merely wealth but the levers of the state. Then an honest classical liberal today would be an Anarchist Socialist.
Frank Manning There would be a different type of hierarchy and perhaps a different set of problems to address in that regard. The general rule is that power is not taken but given. So for example in a work setting it would be the employees themselves electing their own managers. A manager in this situation would less likely be a tyrant as they are chosen by the group and accountable to the group. If a person aspires to that position they in the very least will need to understand how to be of service to the workers concerns.
Those who hostilely disagree with Chomsky are just being lazy. All he does is lay out the reasons he has for coming to his particular conclusion, and those those disagree with him are against his conclusion but most of all against his reasoning, which I think is sound. I don't think his detractors are elites, nor do I think they distrust the public, although they may; I think have more faith in the ideological mechanisms of man than man himself.
I would argue that his is not just "a conclusion" but a description of reality.- From a dialectic standpoint, whether his description is accurate or not can only be determined by its resiliance to challenging descriptions.-
I don't think it is laziness. The way classical liberalism is twisted by Neoconservatives and Neoliberals is dishonest and propaganda and they have been working very very hard at it. Marx agreed with much of Adam Smith, both many of his values and his observations, but questioned the outcomes of industrialized capitalism. The solution is to never engage in real arguments Marx made simply conflate him with Lenin or Stalin or even more absurd with identity politics or even transgender or gay people. It is extremely hard and expensive work to make these conclusions and then defend them. The logic is: 1 + 2 = Gulags
By 3:00 it becomes clear that the Big Man is ennumerating the frightful similarity between the modern world and the fascism of Mussolini and Hitler. Indeed economic policy in more and more countries begins to resemble a low-key version of the corporatism that underpinned fascism.
The problem with Chomsky is that he couldn't 'sketch out' what would be the absolute basis for the foundation of the society and that's why Capitalists have the edge, since they can easily point to money as that real foundation. He could've answered that this foundation is called morality, specifically in the fact that our species sees its members as the same as itself. This is different from animals and plant species which do not care about their own species and even eat their own babies. Adam Smith called this foundation as 'fellow-feeling'. Therefore, according to this new foundation, those humans who show no fellow-feeling would not be given access to certain perks of society. China is implementing a similar system through their automated social credit system that deprives certain social benefits to law breakers, since law-breaking is a manifestation of the lack of fellow-feeling.
I don't see the necessity for "total" narratives and "complete" foundation stories. That works in the Bible, but it oversimplifies everything. Capitalists might say "money" is a foundation, but Marx demonstrated that money itself is founded on exploited labour and anti-democratic abstractions. I think you've succumb to the allure of singularity (simplicity) over complex thinking.
@@FreekinEkin2 Did Marx really demonstrate that? Because if he did, one would presume that we'd see some concrete examples of successful Marxist economies in the last 150 years.
@@frankmanning3815it has never existed that I know of. USSR was definitely not socialist despite what their leaders said. There was no worker controlled anything it was centralized power over everything
At around minute 25 "A global society organized around that principle [that the ultimate goal is maximization of profit] is headed for disaster" Keep in mind that clip is probably from the 1980's. Given where we are now with climate change and our moron in chief con man president tearing up nuclear non-proliferation treaties, an unfortunately prescient comment.
Agreed. And he explains how minds can be controlled without conspiracy theory technology but just by the content we get from the media every day... and especially the content we almost never get. I had to move to San Francisco before I could hear Chomsky on the radio (I'm old... there used to be a time when we didn't have the Internet kids!). I always listened to NPR but he was almost never on NPR only on a private far left radio network called Pacifica that is only available in a few cities such as New York and San Francisco (they also were the original distributors of Democracy Now!).
That's no gargoyle it's Michel Fouc... oh wait, not much difference. Just kidding. But I really don't have a lot of respect for people like Foucault. I mean at least I think his intentions were in the right place but intellectuals like him are all talk and no action. If you see the full debate a lot of it comes down to that. Foucault makes these very esoteric points about how concepts like "justice" are a result of our capitalist system and hence really can't be trusted. Which isn't entirely wrong, I agree we should be careful not to just accept a capitalist culture's definition of justice but to say we should throw out the concept completely encourages a point of view (which unfortunately I've seen all my life in my fellow far left colleagues) that things are so corrupt it's pointless to even participate in the system to try and change it. Which is EXACTLY what the people on the right want the left to think.There are even quotes from people who did strategy for the Republicans that one of their main goals from Nixon to Trump is to encourage apathy in the general population.
Chomsky asserts that US and USSR even thought they are at opposite poles (in terms of political system) they behave very much alike. And this is for deep seeded reasons stemming from the exercise of power. He early challenged the claim that whatever the US does it is in self defense and whatever the USSR does it is an aggression even though they may claim they are liberating the people and protecting them from terrorists from the outside. However he later caveated that there is an element truth to the their claims. This caveat conflicts with his main criticism. The notion that US exercising power is immoral because they have inherent immoral intents because of their capitalist institutions. Even though there is an element of truth to the idea that they are defending themselves, liberating the people and stopping terrorists from the outside. This means his criticism of American foreign policy is really a backdoor attack on state capitalism which in his view is economic oppression.
The US can say that they are going to country A to liberate them from a brutal dictator and while there may be an element of truth in that claim, the real reason for heading there is for an immoral intent (mainly installing a government friendly to US economic interests). These fail to conflict with each other because in countries who have brutal dictators that are friendly to US interests, the US allows and even promote the atrocities to continue. Furthermore, in countries who have brutal dictators and no valuable economic interest to the US, they treat the situation with indifference and fail to act like the humanitarians they claim to be. In essence, the US are only liberators of the oppressed, defenders of human rights, and fighters of terrorism only when it lines up with corporate interests. If the brutal regime is in support of US interests, then the US are supporters of human rights oppression, and increased terrorist atrocities.
He does not say they have 'inherent immoral intents' because of capitalist institutions. He does say there are indeed intents that are inherently immoral, but he fundamentally criticises state capitalism as an effect, not a cause.
They aren't opposites though. The USSR was totalitarian, the US was totalitarian in nature and on the verge of eradicating all democratic institutions for functional monarchy during the GD/WWII era. Fast forward 80 or so years and the US is a functional (well not really functional) plutocracy, and has eradicated almost, if not, all democratic institutions. If disenfranchising +300 million people for the benifit of about 500 isn't totalitarian idk what is.
Anarchy is simply human organization without "government". "Government" is defined by its monopoly on coercion and violence. As George Washington himself said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." Add to this the observation by Lord John Acton, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." And we see the inherent danger in government; and the need to outgrow our childish need for the abusive "parent state". \\][//
He says "before corporations were people"....corporations have always been people due to tax code and liability insurance. That goes back all the way to the East India Tea Company from the 1600's...
Have you ever read the "Communist Manifesto" authored by Frederick Engles and Karl Marx. Very good writing on society and the working classes. Don't think liberalism had been born or invented yet. Societal evolution-lol.
Please do in synthesis before realizing in believe it’s what’s beautiful speech with on stairs of Lies in rallying of Elections ones was Please realize and get in deep down way to believe. Please come by carefully considering . Thank you 😊.
Chomsky just has a way of talking that manipulates you into thinking his ideas are the authoritative answer. He is amazing. But he is quite often wrong. But he is wrong in a way that is totally convincing.
When I was younger I could never work out what I was missing with Chomsky. Now after 20 years of solid learning, I still think he talks around the bush. Problem = Life is unfair, people are not equal in skills and opportunities. Solution a) create a reverse inequality in favour of the less well off. b) Let the natural inequality play out, and hope that human nature is fundamentality good and will try and address the problem. c) Dismantle the whole of society and rebuild it on different principles other than competition. To me the clear winner from these options is b. If Chomsky thinks that humans are capable of option c, then he must think we are capable of being nice to each other. So sit back and let us try that. What we have done at the moment is a go far enough to in option a as to make the people who the state is being unfair to (the wealthy via tax) resent being forced to help at threat of violence, and also it hasn't solved the problem. Chomsky doesn't really just lay out a solution, as he knows that option c hasn't worked when tried, and will most likely never work.
The only reality-based solution is for people to understand and come into harmony with the Ten Commandments. That is the only balanced solution that exists and that is where Chomsky unconsciously is going. We need to make it a conscious effort.
@@lovemovement8808 I agree insomuch as the ten commandments represent a set of principles that everyone must internalise. I am a virtue ethics guy myself, I have a similar set of principle but they have a more solid grounding than divine fiat.
@@neoepicurean3772 I don't know what to say. Perhaps starting with the fact that the Ten Commandments are the internal image of God in us, and the first thing every single human being knows before the external world impresses things on them. God spoke them directly to us, He wrote them directly to us, and He placed them in the ark of the covenant below His throne on earth to remind us something we are born already knowing: who we are, where we came from, and where we are going. They are the eternal pact that all beings of free will must agree to in order for us all to live together in harmony and be assured we can never hurt each other. All of our pain is caused when we go against one or more of them and because of that pain we are on a good kind of collision course with them. When our pain is great enough we search for relief and always find it is the violation of one or more of the Ten Commandments that is causing the pain. These facts can't help but come out more and more. I am not trying to argue with you, there are just so many benefits to individuals and the world in understanding how the Ten Commandments really work that I think you'll be excited to know, but if you show me how you think something else is more grounded I can show you how the Ten Commandments is even more so.
@@lovemovement8808 I don't want to argue either - but I did study theology at university so I am very familiar with religious foundations and the different ways of arriving at religious belief - I find Fideism the strongest - and If you want to take a Fideist approach then there is literally nothing to argue against, as argumentation implies reason, and if the grounds for your belief is beyond reason then there is nothing we can argue about. It wouldn't be called 'faith' if it was easy to prove!
@@neoepicurean3772 I don't want to make a big critique of your idea but didn't you use reason to decide which method you think is the best and doesn't that violate the premise of it? Anyway, there are a lot more things to consider. One is that the Bible spends a lot of time trying to warn us about what Noam Chomsky would call "state power" and it's very specific and it actually foretells what will happen in the future. There is a coherent and complete science to it that connects everything you want to know. Because of the precise nature of that science, I can tell you a few things that are guaranteed to happen in the future and what we must do to prepare for them. For example, in Revelation 13:16-17 it talks about a 'mark of the beast'. I can tell you with 100% certainty that america is one of the powers that forces the mark on the world and I can tell you exactly what it is, why and how to avoid it so you and your family are safe. In Revelation 13 america is described as a 'beast'. Noam Chomsky is a neutral witness to that fact with everything he shows us and if you listen to him you will be convinced even though he has no clue himself that what he is saying is in the Bible. I can also tell you that when people deviate from the harmony in the Ten Commandments lifestyle then they end up creating an imbalance that creates illegitimate powers and those powers are our true enemies that we must struggle to get rid of. It's a science that I can describe to you in detail. If our conversation continues long enough you will see it all. It requires you to question it so I can give the understanding of it otherwise you will just get sidetracked by misconceptions you have of it.
+Mike Mace It's almost like you don't have ears. He said that the new liberalism, that came after classical liberalism, is the theory of state capitalism and state intervention. He is describing the liberalism that was theorized by Murray Rothbard, Ludwig Von Mises, & F.A Hayek.
just incoherent rambling. Yes, creativity. maybe ill be interested in making crap that nobody wants or cares about? the bottom line is people have needs that must be fulfilled and society must have mechanisms to fulfill them and organize the work necessary to do so. If we all make miniature castles from matchsticks who is gonna grow food? heal the sick and wounded? build homes? Clean toilets? The system to an extent must reflect the fact that some work that nobody wants to do MUST be done. We are not imaginary abstract beings that can sustain ourselves from the ether. What he described IS capitalism and until he CAN come up with some details about how his imaginary alternative system is to be organized he has said nothing.
The fact that you don't think anarchist haven't thought of that is just insulting. The goods we need to make as a community to survive require much less man power that you think. Look up bullshit jobs by David Graeber, capitalism makes unnecessary jobs just to fill the gaps in the job market created by improving automation etc. People volenteer and more people will volenteer to do help their communities if they dont have jobs taking up their time, people are passionate about growing food and building and architecture people will still do it and will have more time to so it. As for work that is particularly bad that no one wants to do, well this is easy to resolve. A simple router, maybe you have to get your hands dirty doing something you don't like once a year but so will everyone else and no one will be forced to do it as their daily toil. People will be free to help their communities as they please not forced to do a job like advertising which helps no one other than gaining you money and enriching your boss.
@@theblackrose3130 david graebr is a hack. and what you are offering is pie in the sky. the unnecessary jobs are a result of a need for beurocracy because of government intervention int the economy. those are truly bullshit jobs that companies only have cause they must comply with regulations by law. and no not all people are "creative". some have no problem doing repetitive work or just doing nothing watching tv or playing computer games or drinking hard liquor all day... With our production capabilities so do rise our "basic needs" and the standards of yesterday no longer satisfy even minimum wage workers. There will never be a utopian post scarcity society because our standards and values will change to accomodate cheaper leaner and more complex and automated production lines. The only acceptable anarchism is anarco capitalism but that will require most of the world being some form of minimal intervention democratic rule with small governments.
There are “shitty, menial” jobs that require specialization, that require some individuals to be better than others at certain things. A hierarchy of labor naturally develops, as in all arenas of human activity; and ultimately all arenas of nature. So you will INEVITABLY have people “toiling” just as you do now. And people doing as they please is not a prescription for a functioning society, in the same way that it would not be an appropriate method for raising your children. Now, definitely, I believe/know children benefit from a certain level of freedom and “following intuition” (Montessori, for example); but this only works within a larger set of boundaries/limitations. There are definitely things to critique about the way our society is currently structured, but we must reckon with human nature and nature at large. And I say all this as someone who is very sympathetic with “anarchism”. The way I reconcile these feelings currently is to assert/manifest the anarchic value in day to day life. How much of human affairs actually requires a state/state equivalent? How can we cultivate and foster independence from an unnecessarily centralized system? I think it in part comes precisely from recognizing the necessity of toil, not ignoring it as an inconvenience. This is what a healthy community is made of: people accepting their roles to make something greater than its parts. Unfortunately (or not, if you accept my premise) this means a certain kind of inequality.
Is good to know that Chomsky has never changed. He did and still does use the same vacuous discourse of affirmation after affirmation, none of that pesky evidence needed.
jqbtube wow, I see you follow the Leftist school of thought, "if you don't think what I think, you are stupid (and possibly a nazi)". Great job getting Drumpf elected idiots..
I don't see you offering any contrary evidence. Take for instance his assertion that modern US liberalism represents state capitalism, which undemocratically centralizes power in both the state, and totalitarian private agglomerations. He's assuming you are capable of doing your own research to support or refute this position.
Can anybody describe which trains of thought that Chomsky has articulated are refutable with evidence or are short-sighted or something to the same effect? Bring forth some substance.
Chomsky only has less than half of human nature. A fundamental human characteristic is also a desire to dominate. Many reasons, motivations and excuses - from ideology to egotism or even religion - all results in a drive to control.
TheLoyalOfficer Perhaps a drive to control oneself is in working order. If you were to obey every one of your desires that came from your reptilian brain would you not grow tired with all the tumult you would cause when those around you disagreed with a single thought of yours, or a desire to wage a fight without sound reason, or to bomb another country for economic gain. With examples like those I think Chomsky's point is not controversial when thought out.
This is what I see a lot as well, there is kind of an unofficial hierarchy that is fought over most of the time, and it is quite sad and ridiculous. In my experiences that is hardly any persuading or reason, whilst these aspects of human nature are ignored and it makes you doubtful that such a thing then could be allievated. I've known a lot of people, there's no persuading them otherwise in their thoughts even if it is harmful and illogical. No one wants to help anyone. Either that or you take away all individual differences so we fool ourselves thinking we are all the same and sure it's more peaceful but it feels kind of empty and automative to me.
In most human interactions, a lot of people are just trying to donate each other and most social interactions revolve around this. There are then contrived showings of class or status and authority to subjugate or mitigate these desires. Also, a whole host of individuals in a society always start to get concieted and think of themselves as aristocrats, they try to justify and signify their superiority all of the time, and think they have the right to dominate and rule over everyone. Then they become classist and want to enforce their ways of looking, behaving, fashion all to signify their superiority. If the state gains too much power it just becomes worse.
Sure, that's why it's important to get through the proletarians because many of them need to stop allowing themselves to be oppressed, or taken advantage of, but that's quite an undertaking. In many of my experience likewise, it's Stockholm syndrome for something they won't listen hardly. I mean that's the thing with capitalism, why do so many people fall for it all the time? Almost everyone does, even capitalism itself is kind of a mirage. Trying to "get rich" is there always a point? So you can feel superior? We could just every redistribute the wealth.
I hear you. It's this godamn economic system. Individuality is conflated with Capitalism everyday by think tanks and media in order to maintain the incentive for people to continue participating in our economy. Capitalism and the freedom to have "choices" isn't freedom. So what, you can buy fritos or doritos; Toyota or Ford; you can buy any product you like-- they allow that type of "freedom". But you can't change your consciousness without permission of the state, you can't organize with your fellow man to bargain collectively for better wages and benefits, or barely that is and you're allowed to be a consumer, but your not allowed to be human. And the forces of the status quo are incredibly resistant to presenting the ideas that already have popular support like universal health care and addressing climate change without them instinctively broadcasting defenses against them. It's the corporate-state fusion that is kicking our ass so that the tiny upper class can have their status symbols and comfy homes and designer diets, whatever.
Technically libertarians can voluntarily organize themselves under socialism and it has happened. The problem is that its failed every single time. Chomsky here though admonishes an overthrow of capitalism which would definitely be coercion for the majority of the population that don't want it lol.
I love Chomsky's opening argument that classical liberalism has lead him to become a type of anarchist and socialist.
Completely 100% logical. No wonder he was banned from every major news outlet in the USA.
If monarchy states were the dominant concentration of power that classical liberals theorized against and fought against, and our current concentrated power is unaccountable corporate tyranny who monopolize not merely wealth but the levers of the state. Then an honest classical liberal today would be an Anarchist Socialist.
What stops free associations from developing hierarchical power structures?
Frank Manning There would be a different type of hierarchy and perhaps a different set of problems to address in that regard.
The general rule is that power is not taken but given.
So for example in a work setting it would be the employees themselves electing their own managers. A manager in this situation would less likely be a tyrant as they are chosen by the group and accountable to the group. If a person aspires to that position they in the very least will need to understand how to be of service to the workers concerns.
@@frankmanning3815accountability. Leadership in itself is not bad as long as it is accountable to the people
This is just music... Thank you.
Only 1,600 views? This is some of the most profound video on CZcams.
Who knew that Chomsky used to be Stephen Colbert?!
?? You are the second person saying that ...what's similar to Colbert? The glasses?
Richard Hunter I truly LOL'd, thank you. 😂
Shame Colbert and friends refuse to acknowledge his existence.
Huh? What a stupid comment. I mean really, really fucking stupid.
Chomsky is waaay hotter than Colbert
Nicely done, understandingpower.
Wonderful rebuttal of dogmatic neo conservative ignorance.
No, it's not conservatives holding anti free speech riots at our universities.
Grey Winters yes you, the honourable trump voters - the last bastions of free speech
Fantastic
The Bill Moyers part is pure gospel.
Those who hostilely disagree with Chomsky are just being lazy. All he does is lay out the reasons he has for coming to his particular conclusion, and those those disagree with him are against his conclusion but most of all against his reasoning, which I think is sound. I don't think his detractors are elites, nor do I think they distrust the public, although they may; I think have more faith in the ideological mechanisms of man than man himself.
I would argue that his is not just "a conclusion" but a description of reality.- From a dialectic standpoint, whether his description is accurate or not can only be determined by its resiliance to challenging descriptions.-
I don't think it is laziness. The way classical liberalism is twisted by Neoconservatives and Neoliberals is dishonest and propaganda and they have been working very very hard at it.
Marx agreed with much of Adam Smith, both many of his values and his observations, but questioned the outcomes of industrialized capitalism. The solution is to never engage in real arguments Marx made simply conflate him with Lenin or Stalin or even more absurd with identity politics or even transgender or gay people.
It is extremely hard and expensive work to make these conclusions and then defend them. The logic is:
1 + 2 = Gulags
26:36 is mind has just been blown
Quite the contrast to present day Chomsky
Gotta love platitudinous abstractions.
took all day combing the dictionary for that one, eh?
Anyone know what talk the clip at the end is from?
I really wanna know too! Anyone?
By 3:00 it becomes clear that the Big Man is ennumerating the frightful similarity between the modern world and the fascism of Mussolini and Hitler.
Indeed economic policy in more and more countries begins to resemble a low-key version of the corporatism that underpinned fascism.
Is the interview with Peter Jay avilable anywhere? I've seen it transcribed, but is the video available anywhere?
Foucault picking his teeth looks like ghoul from a Vincent Prize movie.
Why do so many Chomsky videos I’ve seen this week have exactly 100 likes. I have been 101 like 7 of the 9 videos. Anyone else?
The problem with Chomsky is that he couldn't 'sketch out' what would be the absolute basis for the foundation of the society and that's why Capitalists have the edge, since they can easily point to money as that real foundation.
He could've answered that this foundation is called morality, specifically in the fact that our species sees its members as the same as itself. This is different from animals and plant species which do not care about their own species and even eat their own babies.
Adam Smith called this foundation as 'fellow-feeling'. Therefore, according to this new foundation, those humans who show no fellow-feeling would not be given access to certain perks of society. China is implementing a similar system through their automated social credit system that deprives certain social benefits to law breakers, since law-breaking is a manifestation of the lack of fellow-feeling.
I don't see the necessity for "total" narratives and "complete" foundation stories. That works in the Bible, but it oversimplifies everything. Capitalists might say "money" is a foundation, but Marx demonstrated that money itself is founded on exploited labour and anti-democratic abstractions. I think you've succumb to the allure of singularity (simplicity) over complex thinking.
@@FreekinEkin2 Did Marx really demonstrate that? Because if he did, one would presume that we'd see some concrete examples of successful Marxist economies in the last 150 years.
@@frankmanning3815it has never existed that I know of. USSR was definitely not socialist despite what their leaders said. There was no worker controlled anything it was centralized power over everything
At around minute 25 "A global society organized around that principle [that the ultimate goal is maximization of profit] is headed for disaster" Keep in mind that clip is probably from the 1980's. Given where we are now with climate change and our moron in chief con man president tearing up nuclear non-proliferation treaties, an unfortunately prescient comment.
45 minutes long and you had to close with the most depressing cut of all that was said. :P
Doctor Chomsky has explained and elucidated the means by which mind control enables 'democracy' to continue.
Agreed. And he explains how minds can be controlled without conspiracy theory technology but just by the content we get from the media every day... and especially the content we almost never get. I had to move to San Francisco before I could hear Chomsky on the radio (I'm old... there used to be a time when we didn't have the Internet kids!). I always listened to NPR but he was almost never on NPR only on a private far left radio network called Pacifica that is only available in a few cities such as New York and San Francisco (they also were the original distributors of Democracy Now!).
stop zooming in the the gargoyle picking his teeth!!!! Im trying to hear Chomsky speak
Nate Elliott That's Foucault.
lmao
The great Foucault
That's no gargoyle it's Michel Fouc... oh wait, not much difference. Just kidding. But I really don't have a lot of respect for people like Foucault. I mean at least I think his intentions were in the right place but intellectuals like him are all talk and no action. If you see the full debate a lot of it comes down to that. Foucault makes these very esoteric points about how concepts like "justice" are a result of our capitalist system and hence really can't be trusted. Which isn't entirely wrong, I agree we should be careful not to just accept a capitalist culture's definition of justice but to say we should throw out the concept completely encourages a point of view (which unfortunately I've seen all my life in my fellow far left colleagues) that things are so corrupt it's pointless to even participate in the system to try and change it. Which is EXACTLY what the people on the right want the left to think.There are even quotes from people who did strategy for the Republicans that one of their main goals from Nixon to Trump is to encourage apathy in the general population.
Chomsky asserts that US and USSR even thought they are at opposite poles (in terms of political system) they behave very much alike. And this is for deep seeded reasons stemming from the exercise of power. He early challenged the claim that whatever the US does it is in self defense and whatever the USSR does it is an aggression even though they may claim they are liberating the people and protecting them from terrorists from the outside. However he later caveated that there is an element truth to the their claims. This caveat conflicts with his main criticism. The notion that US exercising power is immoral because they have inherent immoral intents because of their capitalist institutions. Even though there is an element of truth to the idea that they are defending themselves, liberating the people and stopping terrorists from the outside. This means his criticism of American foreign policy is really a backdoor attack on state capitalism which in his view is economic oppression.
The US can say that they are going to country A to liberate them from a brutal dictator and while there may be an element of truth in that claim, the real reason for heading there is for an immoral intent (mainly installing a government friendly to US economic interests). These fail to conflict with each other because in countries who have brutal dictators that are friendly to US interests, the US allows and even promote the atrocities to continue. Furthermore, in countries who have brutal dictators and no valuable economic interest to the US, they treat the situation with indifference and fail to act like the humanitarians they claim to be. In essence, the US are only liberators of the oppressed, defenders of human rights, and fighters of terrorism only when it lines up with corporate interests. If the brutal regime is in support of US interests, then the US are supporters of human rights oppression, and increased terrorist atrocities.
He does not say they have 'inherent immoral intents' because of capitalist institutions. He does say there are indeed intents that are inherently immoral, but he fundamentally criticises state capitalism as an effect, not a cause.
They aren't opposites though. The USSR was totalitarian, the US was totalitarian in nature and on the verge of eradicating all democratic institutions for functional monarchy during the GD/WWII era. Fast forward 80 or so years and the US is a functional (well not really functional) plutocracy, and has eradicated almost, if not, all democratic institutions.
If disenfranchising +300 million people for the benifit of about 500 isn't totalitarian idk what is.
His speaking is less monotonous when he was younger...
10 billion lectures and speeches will do that. All the more reason to respect him. The man is a living encyclopedia of supressed history
@@robertstewart4953 Suppressed or just ignored?
Anarchy is simply human organization without "government". "Government" is defined by its monopoly on coercion and violence.
As George Washington himself said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
Add to this the observation by Lord John Acton, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." And we see the inherent danger in government; and the need to outgrow our childish need for the abusive "parent state".
\\][//
He says "before corporations were people"....corporations have always been people due to tax code and liability insurance. That goes back all the way to the East India Tea Company from the 1600's...
Liberalism brought under opposite
Have you ever read the "Communist Manifesto" authored by Frederick Engles and Karl Marx. Very good writing on society and the working classes. Don't think liberalism had been born or invented yet. Societal evolution-lol.
rambling on semicoherently jumping from one topic to another like my schizophrenic brother.
Please do in synthesis before realizing in believe it’s what’s beautiful speech with on stairs of Lies in rallying of Elections ones was Please realize and get in deep down way to believe. Please come by carefully considering . Thank you 😊.
Chomsky just has a way of talking that manipulates you into thinking his ideas are the authoritative answer. He is amazing. But he is quite often wrong. But he is wrong in a way that is totally convincing.
Lol nah
When I was younger I could never work out what I was missing with Chomsky. Now after 20 years of solid learning, I still think he talks around the bush. Problem = Life is unfair, people are not equal in skills and opportunities. Solution a) create a reverse inequality in favour of the less well off. b) Let the natural inequality play out, and hope that human nature is fundamentality good and will try and address the problem. c) Dismantle the whole of society and rebuild it on different principles other than competition.
To me the clear winner from these options is b. If Chomsky thinks that humans are capable of option c, then he must think we are capable of being nice to each other. So sit back and let us try that. What we have done at the moment is a go far enough to in option a as to make the people who the state is being unfair to (the wealthy via tax) resent being forced to help at threat of violence, and also it hasn't solved the problem. Chomsky doesn't really just lay out a solution, as he knows that option c hasn't worked when tried, and will most likely never work.
The only reality-based solution is for people to understand and come into harmony with the Ten Commandments. That is the only balanced solution that exists and that is where Chomsky unconsciously is going. We need to make it a conscious effort.
@@lovemovement8808 I agree insomuch as the ten commandments represent a set of principles that everyone must internalise. I am a virtue ethics guy myself, I have a similar set of principle but they have a more solid grounding than divine fiat.
@@neoepicurean3772 I don't know what to say. Perhaps starting with the fact that the Ten Commandments are the internal image of God in us, and the first thing every single human being knows before the external world impresses things on them. God spoke them directly to us, He wrote them directly to us, and He placed them in the ark of the covenant below His throne on earth to remind us something we are born already knowing: who we are, where we came from, and where we are going. They are the eternal pact that all beings of free will must agree to in order for us all to live together in harmony and be assured we can never hurt each other. All of our pain is caused when we go against one or more of them and because of that pain we are on a good kind of collision course with them. When our pain is great enough we search for relief and always find it is the violation of one or more of the Ten Commandments that is causing the pain. These facts can't help but come out more and more. I am not trying to argue with you, there are just so many benefits to individuals and the world in understanding how the Ten Commandments really work that I think you'll be excited to know, but if you show me how you think something else is more grounded I can show you how the Ten Commandments is even more so.
@@lovemovement8808 I don't want to argue either - but I did study theology at university so I am very familiar with religious foundations and the different ways of arriving at religious belief - I find Fideism the strongest - and If you want to take a Fideist approach then there is literally nothing to argue against, as argumentation implies reason, and if the grounds for your belief is beyond reason then there is nothing we can argue about. It wouldn't be called 'faith' if it was easy to prove!
@@neoepicurean3772 I don't want to make a big critique of your idea but didn't you use reason to decide which method you think is the best and doesn't that violate the premise of it? Anyway, there are a lot more things to consider. One is that the Bible spends a lot of time trying to warn us about what Noam Chomsky would call "state power" and it's very specific and it actually foretells what will happen in the future. There is a coherent and complete science to it that connects everything you want to know. Because of the precise nature of that science, I can tell you a few things that are guaranteed to happen in the future and what we must do to prepare for them. For example, in Revelation 13:16-17 it talks about a 'mark of the beast'. I can tell you with 100% certainty that america is one of the powers that forces the mark on the world and I can tell you exactly what it is, why and how to avoid it so you and your family are safe. In Revelation 13 america is described as a 'beast'. Noam Chomsky is a neutral witness to that fact with everything he shows us and if you listen to him you will be convinced even though he has no clue himself that what he is saying is in the Bible. I can also tell you that when people deviate from the harmony in the Ten Commandments lifestyle then they end up creating an imbalance that creates illegitimate powers and those powers are our true enemies that we must struggle to get rid of. It's a science that I can describe to you in detail. If our conversation continues long enough you will see it all. It requires you to question it so I can give the understanding of it otherwise you will just get sidetracked by misconceptions you have of it.
(classical) liberalism is a theory of State capitalism and State intervention? WTF?
Mike Mace Yeah, dude is off his rocker.
+Mike Mace It's almost like you don't have ears. He said that the new liberalism, that came after classical liberalism, is the theory of state capitalism and state intervention. He is describing the liberalism that was theorized by Murray Rothbard, Ludwig Von Mises, & F.A Hayek.
+MainstreamAnarchist You ever read Rothbard, Mises, or Hayek??? What Chomskyite nonsense.
+Mike Mace I have, The Road to Serfdom is quite boring Proto-red scare bullshit.
+MainstreamAnarchist Based on the experience of history then and now.
just incoherent rambling. Yes, creativity. maybe ill be interested in making crap that nobody wants or cares about? the bottom line is people have needs that must be fulfilled and society must have mechanisms to fulfill them and organize the work necessary to do so.
If we all make miniature castles from matchsticks who is gonna grow food? heal the sick and wounded? build homes? Clean toilets?
The system to an extent must reflect the fact that some work that nobody wants to do MUST be done.
We are not imaginary abstract beings that can sustain ourselves from the ether.
What he described IS capitalism and until he CAN come up with some details about how his imaginary alternative system is to be organized he has said nothing.
The fact that you don't think anarchist haven't thought of that is just insulting. The goods we need to make as a community to survive require much less man power that you think. Look up bullshit jobs by David Graeber, capitalism makes unnecessary jobs just to fill the gaps in the job market created by improving automation etc. People volenteer and more people will volenteer to do help their communities if they dont have jobs taking up their time, people are passionate about growing food and building and architecture people will still do it and will have more time to so it. As for work that is particularly bad that no one wants to do, well this is easy to resolve. A simple router, maybe you have to get your hands dirty doing something you don't like once a year but so will everyone else and no one will be forced to do it as their daily toil. People will be free to help their communities as they please not forced to do a job like advertising which helps no one other than gaining you money and enriching your boss.
@@theblackrose3130 david graebr is a hack. and what you are offering is pie in the sky.
the unnecessary jobs are a result of a need for beurocracy because of government intervention int the economy.
those are truly bullshit jobs that companies only have cause they must comply with regulations by law.
and no not all people are "creative". some have no problem doing repetitive work or just doing nothing watching tv or playing computer games or drinking hard liquor all day...
With our production capabilities so do rise our "basic needs" and the standards of yesterday no longer satisfy even minimum wage workers.
There will never be a utopian post scarcity society because our standards and values will change to accomodate cheaper leaner and more complex and automated production lines.
The only acceptable anarchism is anarco capitalism but that will require most of the world being some form of minimal intervention democratic rule with small governments.
@@theblackrose3130 Yeah, I have to agree that this is as pie in the sky as it gets.
There are “shitty, menial” jobs that require specialization, that require some individuals to be better than others at certain things. A hierarchy of labor naturally develops, as in all arenas of human activity; and ultimately all arenas of nature. So you will INEVITABLY have people “toiling” just as you do now. And people doing as they please is not a prescription for a functioning society, in the same way that it would not be an appropriate method for raising your children. Now, definitely, I believe/know children benefit from a certain level of freedom and “following intuition” (Montessori, for example); but this only works within a larger set of boundaries/limitations.
There are definitely things to critique about the way our society is currently structured, but we must reckon with human nature and nature at large. And I say all this as someone who is very sympathetic with “anarchism”. The way I reconcile these feelings currently is to assert/manifest the anarchic value in day to day life. How much of human affairs actually requires a state/state equivalent? How can we cultivate and foster independence from an unnecessarily centralized system? I think it in part comes precisely from recognizing the necessity of toil, not ignoring it as an inconvenience. This is what a healthy community is made of: people accepting their roles to make something greater than its parts. Unfortunately (or not, if you accept my premise) this means a certain kind of inequality.
Is good to know that Chomsky has never changed. He did and still does use the same vacuous discourse of affirmation after affirmation, none of that pesky evidence needed.
jqbtube wow, I see you follow the Leftist school of thought, "if you don't think what I think, you are stupid (and possibly a nazi)".
Great job getting Drumpf elected idiots..
I don't see you offering any contrary evidence. Take for instance his assertion that modern US liberalism represents state capitalism, which undemocratically centralizes power in both the state, and totalitarian private agglomerations. He's assuming you are capable of doing your own research to support or refute this position.
You sir, are welcome to debunk Chomsky right now. What is it that is so fucked up and not true about what he's saying?
No, you are lazy.- Why don't you list the inaccuracies and false claims here?
Can anybody describe which trains of thought that Chomsky has articulated are refutable with evidence or are short-sighted or something to the same effect? Bring forth some substance.
Goes on a bit doesn't he?
boring
It’s an interview haha
Yawnnn.. 7:26
Chomsky only has less than half of human nature. A fundamental human characteristic is also a desire to dominate. Many reasons, motivations and excuses - from ideology to egotism or even religion - all results in a drive to control.
TheLoyalOfficer Perhaps a drive to control oneself is in working order. If you were to obey every one of your desires that came from your reptilian brain would you not grow tired with all the tumult you would cause when those around you disagreed with a single thought of yours, or a desire to wage a fight without sound reason, or to bomb another country for economic gain. With examples like those I think Chomsky's point is not controversial when thought out.
This is what I see a lot as well, there is kind of an unofficial hierarchy that is fought over most of the time, and it is quite sad and ridiculous. In my experiences that is hardly any persuading or reason, whilst these aspects of human nature are ignored and it makes you doubtful that such a thing then could be allievated. I've known a lot of people, there's no persuading them otherwise in their thoughts even if it is harmful and illogical. No one wants to help anyone. Either that or you take away all individual differences so we fool ourselves thinking we are all the same and sure it's more peaceful but it feels kind of empty and automative to me.
In most human interactions, a lot of people are just trying to donate each other and most social interactions revolve around this. There are then contrived showings of class or status and authority to subjugate or mitigate these desires. Also, a whole host of individuals in a society always start to get concieted and think of themselves as aristocrats, they try to justify and signify their superiority all of the time, and think they have the right to dominate and rule over everyone. Then they become classist and want to enforce their ways of looking, behaving, fashion all to signify their superiority. If the state gains too much power it just becomes worse.
Sure, that's why it's important to get through the proletarians because many of them need to stop allowing themselves to be oppressed, or taken advantage of, but that's quite an undertaking. In many of my experience likewise, it's Stockholm syndrome for something they won't listen hardly. I mean that's the thing with capitalism, why do so many people fall for it all the time? Almost everyone does, even capitalism itself is kind of a mirage. Trying to "get rich" is there always a point? So you can feel superior? We could just every redistribute the wealth.
I hear you. It's this godamn economic system. Individuality is conflated with Capitalism everyday by think tanks and media in order to maintain the incentive for people to continue participating in our economy. Capitalism and the freedom to have "choices" isn't freedom. So what, you can buy fritos or doritos; Toyota or Ford; you can buy any product you like-- they allow that type of "freedom". But you can't change your consciousness without permission of the state, you can't organize with your fellow man to bargain collectively for better wages and benefits, or barely that is and you're allowed to be a consumer, but your not allowed to be human. And the forces of the status quo are incredibly resistant to presenting the ideas that already have popular support like universal health care and addressing climate change without them instinctively broadcasting defenses against them. It's the corporate-state fusion that is kicking our ass so that the tiny upper class can have their status symbols and comfy homes and designer diets, whatever.
It baffles me how someone so high in the intelligentsia can be so naive about how the world works.
John Mulligan No, I’m referring to my asshole. Yes, OBVIOUSLY, I was referring to Chomsky.
John Mulligan Oh yeah, so incredibly absurd you forgot how to English real quick. Go fuck yourself, you tool.
hes a modernist with a meta narrative to shill.
@@evolvedape2161 Lmao
@@evolvedape2161 Moron.
Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron?
theloniousMac You can have social ownership structures without a state government
Technically libertarians can voluntarily organize themselves under socialism and it has happened. The problem is that its failed every single time. Chomsky here though admonishes an overthrow of capitalism which would definitely be coercion for the majority of the population that don't want it lol.
Extraordinary amount of nonsense.