Join us on Patreon! www.patreon.com/ManufacturingIntellect Donate Crypto! commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/868d67d2-1628-44a8-b8dc-8f9616d62259 Share this video!
This is one of the most brilliant and information-rich 35-minute interviews I've ever watched, yet it only has 19k views. That makes all this even more depressing.
it is amazing that he is the only person who can think, publicly speak, is such deep, logical, and clear manner. How comes we do not have more people like him?
I knew when I was 20 that Bolshevism was a Leninist deviation and that Rousseau was on the right track and that modern behaviorism was a repackaged totalitarian impulse and that liberal progressives might as well be fascist apologists. I didn't know how to make a sentence like that or who Harold Laswell was but I suspected all of the themes by the time I was in Westen Civ 2 and Psych 151 at the local community college.
Every child should be shown this before they graduate and get spat out into the marketplace. He shows how Bakunin predicted the course of 20th century,.expecially the Cold War. He shows how someone like Chris Hitchens can readily switch from Trotstyist left to a neo-con supporter. The rise of Amazon etc etc. Just superb.
@Quam Its completely accurate. Hitch's god was Orwell and an old school, distinctly English, elitist form of socialism, which he traded for a bizarre obsession with America and Thomas Jefferson after 9/11. I also think a lifetime of drinking an inhuman amount of alcohol eventually started to warp his brain.
i hope you guys realize that by merely commenting here, we re doing exactly what chomsky was predicting around 23'. we re just sharing our opinion, without meaningful interaction with each other, and... nothing else happens. remember, capitalism appropriates everything. even chomsky's interviews.
30 years ago and he is spot on, even the same non elected organisations weaving power, IMF, World Band, WHO, G7, G8 meetings, its all there 1994, Noam is an inspiration, he is a truth seeker and his knowledge is baffling. Thank you Noam.
His analysis reminds me of the idea of the "panoptic prison" ... the so called perfect prison structured in a such a way that cells would be open to a central tower but the individuals in the cells could not interact with each other and are constantly confronted by the panoptic tower.
Interesting. When I started teaching in the UK in the 1980s, I rapidly concluded that I was working in an essentially totalitarian set up. The only element of freedom was provided by the incompetence of the institution's methods of control. That gap has closed massively since then. By the time I left reaching, there was almost no free scope, little choice, hardly any room for personal judgements and little space for you to respond creatively to your perception of the actual needs of your pupils. The idea of fostering the development of the 'best self' of young people was gradually squeezed out of the system, and by the pretty identical actions of both left and right. There was no space given in the main channels of public discourse or the main media organs to principled opposition to this process as a whole, just the same arguments constantly revisited as to how to do it and the kind of end product that was needed. These developments were essentially corporatist in outlook: managerialist, with decisions made and handed down from the top, using 'business' models and concepts, with a focus on 'performance' and 'outcomes', but random and arbitrary measures of these. At the same time, these decisions increasingly were made on ideological rather than empirical grounds. 'Critical' thought, in the sense of thinking rooted in individual experience, perception and interpretant response, and personally-held values or principles, rather than 'theories' or dogmas, pretty well disappeared. I eventually found the work of C S Peirce, which gave me intellectual grounds on which to fight back, by emphasising the role of response rather than initiation in the development of pupils' - and teachers' - selves, and the part played by the imagination in meaning-making transactions at all levels. 'Creative evolution', if you like as a basis for change in people and institutions alike. But the university I worked with to do my masters and doctorate became so corporatist durng the ten years I was associated with it that the institutional support for and embrace of this work steadily disappeared. My supervisor tried to get me interested in multiculturalism instead, which was being funded. So the link between funding and content of research proved to be a mechanism for ensuring the priorities of the centre and closing down activity based on teachers' experience of students in the classroom. You were told what was important and no one wanted to listen to what you had found to be important.
What a chad. It feels like every second of what the man said is magnum opus material. but he continues. There was one thing i disagreed with when him mentioned sports at minute 26 or something. nevertheless, what absolute brilliance in my opinion.
I think democracy is better understood as a bidirectional relationship between the population and their governance, rather than as freedom from tyranny. Freedom from tyranny may be a precursor to democracy, but I don't think it captures the idea. Of course, I'm writing in 2024 after the collapse of neoliberalism, and in 1994 when Chomsky was making these comments, anti-neoliberalism didn't seem so pressing. Freedom from tyranny and freedom to tyrannize, it turns out, exist in a reciprocal relationship. In practice, a sustainable democracy will require some level of tyrannical coercion towards anti democracy. Perhaps a code of ethics might be a better expression of democracy. Every democratic citizen should be able to identify a power relationship, and understand that there should be no power without accountability, and justification towards the powerless. Call it the rule of power reversal. Perhaps it shouldn't be universally enforced, but I think it's a good pattern to notice in a functional system of law. I think something like this has to be a social norm, or you're never getting anywhere with this democracy thing. Keep in mind, America is a former slave owning colony. There's a culture of abuse of power, and it still needs some civilizing, apparently.
@@edwardjones2202 how the only difference between practiced socialism, communism, and capitalism is the terminology we're indoctrinated to use to describe them while they all have classes of extreme poverty and extreme wealth.
@@moodist1er He didn’t say that though. He talked specifically about certain bureaucrat personalities who like power easily shift to another system of power. There are many examples of that. For example Vladimir Putin. Or even Angela Merkel. As far as the Eastern Bloc which he didn’t support the regimes, he said for many workers they are worse off which for about 1/3 that is true. But he can make a distinction between the two ideologies very well.
I keep reading people who say Chomsky hates communists. . but since the only thing I've ever really heard him do is criticize the evil of Western capitalists . . I've never really seen this. Here, he somewhat explains it. I'd be more convinced of his anti-communist credentials if he had seriously criticized them before, say, 1985 or so. Everyone became an anti-communist after 1989 or so and became some kind of anarchist (as a way to, more or less, stay a marxist yet maintain their own moral superiority over corrupt systems). So, what is the truth here: He is the controlled opposition? That beneath the surface, in the subtext to his writing, he reveals pro western society viewpoints? Or his position (as it is, and this isnt' a new adoption, his anti-communism), in doing so, he reveals how he is better than everyone?
So, he's mostly about promoting White guilt. Because he want's to physically kill Whites, or see them die. You provide a quite detailed moral explanation for it, however. Thanks. Things aren't as simple as they seem!
Like most academics, this guy misrepresents the work of Marx. First, the idea of materialism, which is the foundation of marxism, doesn't mean that humans are just like clay and have no individuality, as he seems to believe. It means that societies (as a large group of people) have no individuality and are dependent on their material conditions. And, in fact, Noam just goes on giving examples that this is really true for our society: our population has been repressed by the material conditions imposed by capitalism, the advance of TV, mass media, etc. So, the ideas of Marx are really correct and libertarian ideas are wrong, otherwise how can you explain that in a society that considers itself to be "free" we have unprecedented levels of programed behaviors by mass media and the political apparatus? The distinction between individual humans and social groups is very clear and well understood in sociology and political science, however detractors of Karl Marx like to confuse these concepts, on purpose of by ignorance, to say that marxism is about slaving people. It is a fact that if we want a better society we need to create policies that will shape society to do what we expect to be for its best. When we give away this goal, we are in fact removing freedom from the majority of individuals (who currently have no say on public debate, as Noam rightly points out) and give unprecedented levels of power to some agents (the capitalist leaders in our society), who will use this power in an undemocratic way to advance their private interests. Later on he says that marxists are interested in taking control of population for themselves. This is just a gross misrepresentation of reality. In any organized society there will always be representatives of people. According to marxism, the goal of society is to free people from material labor (working fewer hours than in normal capitalist mode) so that citizens will have the time to organize themselves and participate in government, but this doesn't negate the fact that some people will have to dedicate themselves to that task full time. Anti-marxists demonize the task of government as if it was the same as coercion and tyranny. In reality they are denying people the freedom to organize themselves and forming a government that represent their interests. This is in fact the whole basis of destabilizing any form of government in developing countries that doesn't conform to the desires of big capital represented by western-style democracy. So, without knowing, Noam Chomsky is supporting the very ideology used by the US to assassinate leaders they don't like and to demonize popular governments all around the world.
coliv2 I liked your comment, but I believe what noam was saying about Marxism had to do with the way some "Marxists" have interpreted conflict theory, not so much what Marx himself believed or wrote. In terms of Marxism being used to grab state power, it seemed that he was talking about the subsequent cherry picking of Marxist ideas as tools used to propogandize populations into accepting the state authoritan power and the state controlled economy/labor seen in Leninism, Stalinism and so on, rather than Marxism itself.
Marxism is by necessity and design a historical and developing ideology, not a static belief system, as some people want to. Therefore it is a mistake to believe that true Marxism is just what Marx said. According to the given material conditions (economical and political), Marxist leaders will do what is necessary (and not necessarily the best) to advance the interests of the people. In that sense, Lenin was a true Marxist, although one can always point to certain decisions that could have made differently. In fact, there is no right Marxism, since Marx himself despised empty ideologies. There is only a set of historical struggles that move us towards a socialist society. These struggles may be pacific or not, depending on the situation the proletariat is in each historical period. Marxism is the ideology, founded by Marx, that illuminates and explains the material basis for these class struggles.
Chomsky was referring to Marxist currents such as that of Gramsci, who remarked that "human nature is the totality of historically determined social relations," that is to say that human nature is like clay, malleable, as opposed to Chomsky's conception of human innateness: propensity towards creativity and inquiry and a desire for freedom.
@@adhhxgxhhg Though I don't agree with most of what Chomsky says, your comment cannot be refuted. I wouldn't even know where to begin to formulate such complex ideas. Hence, though I have opinions, I'm reluctant to share them and even believe them without knowing how to frame them panoramically as Chomsky does. Your comment is an obvious yet surprisingly astute observation.
Professor Noam Chomsky.... you are the best.....1994....naw...2024...are technology is relatively much different....we are see, but are political -socio -humanity - relationship- is the same... nothing is different... and maybe is more worse...🫵👽
Καλα βεβαια τωρα η Ανατολικη Ευρωπη ειναι πλουσια, επεσε εξω ο Τσομσκυ εδω. Υπολογιζεται οτι μεχρι το 2030 η Πολωνια μπορει να ειναι πιο πλουσια κατα κεφαλη απο τη Βρετανια...
Join us on Patreon! www.patreon.com/ManufacturingIntellect
Donate Crypto! commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/868d67d2-1628-44a8-b8dc-8f9616d62259
Share this video!
This is a gem. This interview hits most of Chomsky’s key ideas on human nature, power and politics, in a succinct and clear way.
This is one of the most brilliant and information-rich 35-minute interviews I've ever watched, yet it only has 19k views. That makes all this even more depressing.
brilliant awareness and explanation
it is amazing that he is the only person who can think, publicly speak, is such deep, logical, and clear manner. How comes we do not have more people like him?
Rare abilities
I would blame television and sex drugs and rock n roll and hip hop. Twitter was just icing on the cake. And now there's Tik tok.
You're listening to the wrong rock and roll and hip hop.
I knew when I was 20 that Bolshevism was a Leninist deviation and that Rousseau was on the right track and that modern behaviorism was a repackaged totalitarian impulse and that liberal progressives might as well be fascist apologists. I didn't know how to make a sentence like that or who Harold Laswell was but I suspected all of the themes by the time I was in Westen Civ 2 and Psych 151 at the local community college.
Because you voted for these corrupt people
Εξαίρετο• ευχαριστώ για την ανάρτηση.
9:25 🎯
He's beyond being a national treasure. Chomsky is a gift to the entire human race
At around the 22 minute mark he accurately foretells Amazon and Facebook
This is literally the smartest video on youtube
My third eye seems to have opened. Probably the most important vid I've ever watched on UA-cam.
22:00 Interesting, considering i'm watching this on UA-cam on Super-Bowl Sunday, with ads omitted, but just ordered a book on Amazon with one click.
Genius as always!!!
Every child should be shown this before they graduate and get spat out into the marketplace.
He shows how Bakunin predicted the course of 20th century,.expecially the Cold War. He shows how someone like Chris Hitchens can readily switch from Trotstyist left to a neo-con supporter. The rise of Amazon etc etc.
Just superb.
@Quam Its completely accurate. Hitch's god was Orwell and an old school, distinctly English, elitist form of socialism, which he traded for a bizarre obsession with America and Thomas Jefferson after 9/11. I also think a lifetime of drinking an inhuman amount of alcohol eventually started to warp his brain.
i hope you guys realize that by merely commenting here, we re doing exactly what chomsky was predicting around 23'. we re just sharing our opinion, without meaningful interaction with each other, and... nothing else happens.
remember, capitalism appropriates everything. even chomsky's interviews.
29:00 And 30 years after this interview was recorded, the pendulum has swung back the other way.
Is this a full movie? I really want to see full version.
who watches this video in the Covid era?
Is there a way I can obtain this video? I think it's the best Chomsky video I've seen.
30 years ago and he is spot on, even the same non elected organisations weaving power, IMF, World Band, WHO, G7, G8 meetings, its all there 1994, Noam is an inspiration, he is a truth seeker and his knowledge is baffling. Thank you Noam.
I can't find the original source for this anywhere. Anyone have a clue who published this under what title?
It's the Greek Radio-Television archive, this is their portal archive.ert.gr/6776/
@@kuriotsportokalis Thank you for this.
33:17 art
His analysis reminds me of the idea of the "panoptic prison" ... the so called perfect prison structured in a such a way that cells would be open to a central tower but the individuals in the cells could not interact with each other and are constantly confronted by the panoptic tower.
35:30 ... on the drug war
Interesting. When I started teaching in the UK in the 1980s, I rapidly concluded that I was working in an essentially totalitarian set up. The only element of freedom was provided by the incompetence of the institution's methods of control. That gap has closed massively since then. By the time I left reaching, there was almost no free scope, little choice, hardly any room for personal judgements and little space for you to respond creatively to your perception of the actual needs of your pupils. The idea of fostering the development of the 'best self' of young people was gradually squeezed out of the system, and by the pretty identical actions of both left and right. There was no space given in the main channels of public discourse or the main media organs to principled opposition to this process as a whole, just the same arguments constantly revisited as to how to do it and the kind of end product that was needed. These developments were essentially corporatist in outlook: managerialist, with decisions made and handed down from the top, using 'business' models and concepts, with a focus on 'performance' and 'outcomes', but random and arbitrary measures of these. At the same time, these decisions increasingly were made on ideological rather than empirical grounds. 'Critical' thought, in the sense of thinking rooted in individual experience, perception and interpretant response, and personally-held values or principles, rather than 'theories' or dogmas, pretty well disappeared. I eventually found the work of C S Peirce, which gave me intellectual grounds on which to fight back, by emphasising the role of response rather than initiation in the development of pupils' - and teachers' - selves, and the part played by the imagination in meaning-making transactions at all levels. 'Creative evolution', if you like as a basis for change in people and institutions alike. But the university I worked with to do my masters and doctorate became so corporatist durng the ten years I was associated with it that the institutional support for and embrace of this work steadily disappeared. My supervisor tried to get me interested in multiculturalism instead, which was being funded. So the link between funding and content of research proved to be a mechanism for ensuring the priorities of the centre and closing down activity based on teachers' experience of students in the classroom. You were told what was important and no one wanted to listen to what you had found to be important.
Try living in russia or china
The grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence
Brilliant mind and he was/is right…
wow chomsky AND preisner? how does it get better?
Prophetic borne of simple wholistic analysis.
Called the internet right from the start.
What a chad. It feels like every second of what the man said is magnum opus material. but he continues. There was one thing i disagreed with when him mentioned sports at minute 26 or something. nevertheless, what absolute brilliance in my opinion.
6:57
How was he so accurate about the internet?
I think democracy is better understood as a bidirectional relationship between the population and their governance, rather than as freedom from tyranny.
Freedom from tyranny may be a precursor to democracy, but I don't think it captures the idea.
Of course, I'm writing in 2024 after the collapse of neoliberalism, and in 1994 when Chomsky was making these comments, anti-neoliberalism didn't seem so pressing.
Freedom from tyranny and freedom to tyrannize, it turns out, exist in a reciprocal relationship.
In practice, a sustainable democracy will require some level of tyrannical coercion towards anti democracy.
Perhaps a code of ethics might be a better expression of democracy.
Every democratic citizen should be able to identify a power relationship, and understand that there should be no power without accountability, and justification towards the powerless.
Call it the rule of power reversal.
Perhaps it shouldn't be universally enforced, but I think it's a good pattern to notice in a functional system of law.
I think something like this has to be a social norm, or you're never getting anywhere with this democracy thing.
Keep in mind, America is a former slave owning colony. There's a culture of abuse of power, and it still needs some civilizing, apparently.
True Treasure *
Wow! Just wow!
And there's nothing Noam Chomsky said here that is even controversial.
D requires more compassion than other forms of government o wok properly.
Democracy requires compassion to work properly.
30:28 Turns out a lot of people actually are gangsters.
Sortition
stop it with the "creative" camera movements! its a distraction
(i know the uploader can t control it.. but still xD its annoying)
fos duma
most doomer video ive ever seen
its ridiculous how stupid most of these ideas are so easy to see through yet so much of society is brain washed by them
For example...
@@edwardjones2202 how the only difference between practiced socialism, communism, and capitalism is the terminology we're indoctrinated to use to describe them while they all have classes of extreme poverty and extreme wealth.
@@moodist1er He didn’t say that though. He talked specifically about certain bureaucrat personalities who like power easily shift to another system of power. There are many examples of that. For example Vladimir Putin. Or even Angela Merkel.
As far as the Eastern Bloc which he didn’t support the regimes, he said for many workers they are worse off which for about 1/3 that is true. But he can make a distinction between the two ideologies very well.
@@matthewkopp2391 nothing you said has anything to do with the context of this comment thread
Same
You are all stupid
I keep reading people who say Chomsky hates communists. . but since the only thing I've ever really heard him do is criticize the evil of Western capitalists . . I've never really seen this. Here, he somewhat explains it. I'd be more convinced of his anti-communist credentials if he had seriously criticized them before, say, 1985 or so. Everyone became an anti-communist after 1989 or so and became some kind of anarchist (as a way to, more or less, stay a marxist yet maintain their own moral superiority over corrupt systems). So, what is the truth here: He is the controlled opposition? That beneath the surface, in the subtext to his writing, he reveals pro western society viewpoints? Or his position (as it is, and this isnt' a new adoption, his anti-communism), in doing so, he reveals how he is better than everyone?
do you know the distinction between anarchists and statists
Shut up, you ignorant disgusting pig.
So, he's mostly about promoting White guilt. Because he want's to physically kill Whites, or see them die. You provide a quite detailed moral explanation for it, however. Thanks. Things aren't as simple as they seem!
Does your comment imply that eastern Europeans are not white?
I'm not sure my comment makes sense. I kind of go for making sense about 50% of the time . . .
Just take a breath Chomsky, grab a copy of Platos Republic and it all might make sense to you.
Do you think he hasn't read it yet?
Why?
Like most academics, this guy misrepresents the work of Marx. First, the idea of materialism, which is the foundation of marxism, doesn't mean that humans are just like clay and have no individuality, as he seems to believe. It means that societies (as a large group of people) have no individuality and are dependent on their material conditions. And, in fact, Noam just goes on giving examples that this is really true for our society: our population has been repressed by the material conditions imposed by capitalism, the advance of TV, mass media, etc. So, the ideas of Marx are really correct and libertarian ideas are wrong, otherwise how can you explain that in a society that considers itself to be "free" we have unprecedented levels of programed behaviors by mass media and the political apparatus?
The distinction between individual humans and social groups is very clear and well understood in sociology and political science, however detractors of Karl Marx like to confuse these concepts, on purpose of by ignorance, to say that marxism is about slaving people. It is a fact that if we want a better society we need to create policies that will shape society to do what we expect to be for its best. When we give away this goal, we are in fact removing freedom from the majority of individuals (who currently have no say on public debate, as Noam rightly points out) and give unprecedented levels of power to some agents (the capitalist leaders in our society), who will use this power in an undemocratic way to advance their private interests.
Later on he says that marxists are interested in taking control of population for themselves. This is just a gross misrepresentation of reality. In any organized society there will always be representatives of people. According to marxism, the goal of society is to free people from material labor (working fewer hours than in normal capitalist mode) so that citizens will have the time to organize themselves and participate in government, but this doesn't negate the fact that some people will have to dedicate themselves to that task full time. Anti-marxists demonize the task of government as if it was the same as coercion and tyranny. In reality they are denying people the freedom to organize themselves and forming a government that represent their interests. This is in fact the whole basis of destabilizing any form of government in developing countries that doesn't conform to the desires of big capital represented by western-style democracy. So, without knowing, Noam Chomsky is supporting the very ideology used by the US to assassinate leaders they don't like and to demonize popular governments all around the world.
coliv2 I liked your comment, but I believe what noam was saying about Marxism had to do with the way some "Marxists" have interpreted conflict theory, not so much what Marx himself believed or wrote.
In terms of Marxism being used to grab state power, it seemed that he was talking about the subsequent cherry picking of Marxist ideas as tools used to propogandize populations into accepting the state authoritan power and the state controlled economy/labor seen in Leninism, Stalinism and so on, rather than Marxism itself.
Marxism is by necessity and design a historical and developing ideology, not a static belief system, as some people want to. Therefore it is a mistake to believe that true Marxism is just what Marx said. According to the given material conditions (economical and political), Marxist leaders will do what is necessary (and not necessarily the best) to advance the interests of the people. In that sense, Lenin was a true Marxist, although one can always point to certain decisions that could have made differently. In fact, there is no right Marxism, since Marx himself despised empty ideologies. There is only a set of historical struggles that move us towards a socialist society. These struggles may be pacific or not, depending on the situation the proletariat is in each historical period. Marxism is the ideology, founded by Marx, that illuminates and explains the material basis for these class struggles.
Chomsky was referring to Marxist currents such as that of Gramsci, who remarked that "human nature is the totality of historically determined social relations," that is to say that human nature is like clay, malleable, as opposed to Chomsky's conception of human innateness: propensity towards creativity and inquiry and a desire for freedom.
It is your interpretation that he talking about Gramsci. If that was the case, he should have clarified.
He outright said - "You get this even with people like Gamsci."
Let me prove his point and disagree with him at the same time. I don't like the way he sells this product.
I invite you to express your opinion. Impress me.
Present your arguments, and let's see.
lol
I think he's describing himself, not reality.
Consider the time and effort he put into his opinion vs. the time and effort you put into yours.
@@adhhxgxhhg Though I don't agree with most of what Chomsky says, your comment cannot be refuted. I wouldn't even know where to begin to formulate such complex ideas. Hence, though I have opinions, I'm reluctant to share them and even believe them without knowing how to frame them panoramically as Chomsky does. Your comment is an obvious yet surprisingly astute observation.
Describe reality for me
Professor Noam Chomsky.... you are the best.....1994....naw...2024...are technology is relatively much different....we are see, but are political -socio -humanity - relationship- is the same... nothing is different... and maybe is more worse...🫵👽
Καλα βεβαια τωρα η Ανατολικη Ευρωπη ειναι πλουσια, επεσε εξω ο Τσομσκυ εδω. Υπολογιζεται οτι μεχρι το 2030 η Πολωνια μπορει να ειναι πιο πλουσια κατα κεφαλη απο τη Βρετανια...