The concept of corporate personhood has existed in law for centuries. Corps do NOT have the rights of individuals. The primary reason for corporate personhood is so that corporations can create contracts, can sue and be sued in civil court. These misinterpretation of Citizen's United are ridiculous.
In the above, he talks about the origins of it in the revolution and before, and in 1840s US law, giving the world to corporate interests and cementing wage slavery in place here. The Federal Reserve Act was a big moment, of them consolidating gains. The income tax another.
It saddens me to know that there will come a time when Chomsky will no longer be with us. His insight is admirable, he’s truly one of the greatest figures of the 20th and 21st century.
@trig1dentity Any dumbass who wants to advance power while pretending to be against it. I mean really how hard is it to see that is easier to punish a corporation than a government? He can't even keep his story straight on whether corporations control the government or the government should be given more power.
He is irreplaceable. I don't believe anyone has read as much of the stuff that he has over the Decades of his lifetime! His books contain longer bibliographies than any others that I have read. Chomsky knows a hella lot!
@@newperve he is an open anarchist. He has the opinion mature individuals would reach proper conclusions. Small government because of responsible citizens. Utopia nowadays but makes perfect sense.
@@trig1dentity He's the type of "anarchist" that openly and consistently calls for more government power. He doesn't think that democracy will result in smaller government and if he was he'd be against it. And no it doesn't make sense that people would be responsible in the political realm, they never have been and there are good game theory reasons for that,.
As someone of Scottish descent, I am heartened that someone in the public eye really understands Adam Smith's humanitarian leanings. He is one of the most misrepresented of economists. A bit like Nietzsche in philosophy, people think that they understand the ideas without having read the text.
@David Gwin he made many more points than that , but he was calling our the neo liberals who want globalised markets for cheap labour from China who use Smith as an example , when he wasn't
Very true. Smith like Nietzsche because of the true complexity of their work are too often not read to be understood, but can easily be used anecdotally.
Interesting and correct from what I can tell. This is the quote from Moral Sentiments with enough to give it reasonable context: (en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments/Part_IV) "The rich only select from the heap what is most precious and agreeable. They consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity, though they mean only their own conveniency, though the sole end which they propose from the labours of all the thousands whom they employ, be the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires, they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species." Basically saying a person can only consume so much, though one's ego/nature drives one to produce well in excess of that, and the excess would end up with the poor in some fashion. This would be the polar opposite (is that redundant?) of what Chomsky claims at 4:50 that Smith wrote the landed gentry would care for their workers out of sympathy. I don't know if this is confusion or a sleight of hand. I admit one aspect of the way Chomsky writes and speaks that draws me in is his unflappable confidence. I hope, a little, that it was just a fault of memory.
Marc Moseley Sometimes it's hard to tell what Chomsky means because of his linguistics background. I think we have to ask why he qualified the word "sympathy" with the word "natural". I don't think he would have done that if he was using "sympathy" in it's most common meaning. Maybe he's trying to describe something more akin to natural phenomena like "sympathetic vibration" or "sympathetic resonance". I think that would be pretty consistent with the idea Smith was trying to convey.
Libertarianism vs Classic Liberalism 2:30 Capitalism in the US 8:07 Failures of British capitalism 10:20 Laissez Faire in US 1945 11:30 A Word on Democracy 15:10 Correlation between income, Voter abstinence, who shapes public policy 16:12
He said 1945 not '35*, and it's also wrong: as soon as WW2 ended the US abandoned the gold standard which means that interventionism didn't have any curbs, hence laissez faire literally stopped existing not the other way around. I don't expect a linguist to know economics, but at least he shouldn't twist history.
10:20 ... oh gee, do ya suppose british imperialism, monarchy, and colonialism had anything of import on success or failure of capitalism there ??? I even recall that as recently as the 80's , the "crown" owned either 1/3 or 2/3 of the city of London . And they still, like sheep, love to vocalize "god save the queen"... Hmmm .
Amazing individual. I find myself mesmerized by the depth of his insight and factual argumentation in such a broad and complex field. His courage to speak out so directly and unapologetically seems heroic to me - society is better off because of it. I'm grateful for Noam Chomsky.
open-minded skeptic Courage? What are you talking about? Since when does it take courage to be a celebrity? Courage used to mean moral strength needed in order not to back down when facing some kind of a danger. What kind of danger does Chomsky face?
@@rexnemovi6061 Going back to the 60's, Chomsky had to hire security for his anti-Vietnam War meetings because of the physical threats against him. He's been surveilled by the FBI and the CIA for decades. Also, courage has nothing to do with danger, and has everything to do with fear. It doesn't require danger for one to be courageous. Even still, I wouldn't call Chomsky courageous because he clearly is not afraid to speak his mind.
As a conservative, Noam Chomsky is one of the few leftist that I not only respect, but stand in awe of his wealth of knowledge and the ease with which he can recall it and tie all together. What a brilliant mind!
America was never founded as a Democracy! It's the Representative Republic given the illusion of people voting for elected representatives who in turn ignore the voters and represent the oligarchs who pay them to implement their agendas. They have been very successful in their propaganda that people don't know whether they're coming or going. In order to maintain this charade, you must have useful idiots, ie, Neocons, Libertarians, Centrist, both acting as a defensive and offensive line against the opposition.
@Vindexproeliator oh god. Mexico's full name is the united states of mexico and theyre called mexicans. USA went the same route and calls its citizens Americans. Everyone's always so fucking outraged at this when the whole concept to being called Americans is that they are a conglomerate of different states in the Americas.
I hate how conservatives distort Adam Smith. Adam Smith was pretty progressive. It would do the conservatives some good to actually read what he wrote!
He was primarily a moral philosopher, and his views on morality heavily permeated his economics. 99% of people have no clue what he wrote, the invisible hand doesn't even mean what we're told it means
Roland Deschain Would you mind recommending some real economists??? Sowell is at least somewhat respectable, but Mises hasn't been relevant for decades outside of 4chan. Praxeology is reason enough to laugh
Really glad to hear that corporations are looking out for my needs. I can tell because of all the free apps out there. All I have to do is give them my personal information and they use it only for good things and only send me ads for things I really need.
i was in vietnam in 1970....shortly afterwards i heard of and started reading stuff by chomsky.....this man has been spot on to the reality of america for over 50 years.....
you don't have to go to bed. you're already asleep believing you are living the american dream. and like all sleep time dreams, eventually you wake up....
@@TheLinuxYes Why would you assume that everyone watching this video is American? That's also a massive issue, the most powerful country on the planet's population think the world revolves around them. Even left wing Americans. There is a whole world out there with the internet man..
No, it means unemployment. All of the workers would vote themselves high salaries and benefits that bankrupt the businss in no time. All publicly traded companies have democracy in the form of corporate boards. Most corporate boards make poor long term decisions as the typically vote for short term gains that pumps up stock prices that allows them to cash out before the bills and problems of their decisions unfold. Private business usually plan for the long term so that the company can be pased on to future generations. Even business owners don't have real freedom. The business owner is always the last person in the company to be paid. All of the bills and workers compensation (salary + benefits) must be paid before the owner recieved a dime. If the company loses money, its the business owner that pays the bills and wages out of his or her own pocket. Business owners need to mantain authoritarian in order to ensure the business remains sound. Mandating workplace democracy is not democracy as the business owners have no choice (removing any decisions from them). Any should mandate would quickly bankrupt most business as the workers vote for excessive compensation, or make poor business decisions. If you want to be part of the decision process than start your own business.
*****. Rarely does corporate democracy exceed authoritarian corporate system. In most cases corporate democracy reverts to mob rule. "Also there is unemployment now and we already have an economy where corporate dictatorships predominate." This because of the hand of gov't. The MegaCorps manipulate the gov't through lobbyists campaign contributions, and use that advantage over the small businesses. Thats why Walmart has destroyed local businesses. All of the biggest companies have tight connections to gov't, whether its the Mega retailers, Industrial Military complex, Banking and Finance, etc "Partly because everyone has an interest in making the business grow and succeed as everyone is an owner or partner" As a business owner, this could not be further from the truth. Most workers want a 9to5 Job and have little interest in making the company profitable. Few workers are willing to volunteer, work extra (non-paid) hours to improve the business. If you believe in corporate democracy than build and run your own business. As a business owner, I have to voluteer my free, unpaid time to grow my business. In many cases I need to take money out of my own savings to pay for the resources needed to begin new revenue sources. None of my employees are willing to contribute time or money into the business. How many workers in the average company would be willing to vote a 10% wage reduction and use the capital to expand the business? How many workers will be willing to vote for a 25% wage increase? "Plato to parliamentary democracy because ordinary people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves." Or the just don't care. Few people ever show up to Townhall meetings or other open public events. Unfortunately in most instances people put in about 5 minutes of attention on a important issues or problem. They fail to spend an appropriate amount of time thinking and researching to make a sound voting decision which may take dozens of hours. 98% of the population spends there free time watching TV, Sports, Xbox, or use other forms of entertainment. Almost none are willing to spend free time doing something of value. "However these companies are still within the free market and so in order to compete with their autocratic rivals " The same is true with workers. Workers are free to choose which companies they work at, and they can always start their own business. Companies with the best ideas and workplaces will thrive. Poorly run companies will lose out to competitors and they will also lose their workers. In a way this is a form of corporate democracy since people will vote with their wallets and workers will choose their employers.
That's very transparent to me that your own expectations of what a worker should give to contribute to the success of your company is very out of tune with their own expectations and needs. You should ask yourself that. Working from 9 to 5 I could be a slack or proficient, even I could take responsibilities if I get compensated to it. Now I know your probably already being super fair boss, at least in your view. I'm just saying maybe you should stop and think about it. Cheers
"The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgement concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life... But in every improved and civilized society, this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall unless the government takes some pains to prevent it." Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, 1776
@@capiche2759 if workers own the means of production then they can decide for themselves what is the most valuable way to spend their time. Why should there airways be this silly dichotomy between private ownership or centralized control. It is possible to have decentralized cooperative control of shared resources.
That's not Democracy, that's Plutocracy. First time I've ever heard somebody else say that, and by the God that doesn't exist, was it refreshing to do so. I've been disillusioned for years, but I've only just begun to truly wake up in the last 2-3. I wish I'd have known of people like Noam Chomski 20 years ago. What a true gem.
It's not really a democratic process in USA -its a ratification process, where, every four years the citizens get to choose which of two billionaires will rule over them for the next four years in the interests of the people who hired them, other billionaires! Only the people who represent the corprotocracy and have their interests at heart would ever get enough sponsorship to ever even get their name heard or get promoted to the public at large. A "plutocracy" in other words.
They're still out there, it's just frustrating finding them because you have to go through a lot of bad stuff to get there. Finkelstein is pretty fantastic. So is Angela Davis. Howard Zinn too.
It seems to be the freedom to purchase products freely...it's a very shallow form of "liberalism" that I use to find intriguing (and was very inspired by Friedman in my 20s). Now I see that Noam's point of view is the strongest and most well-rounded...Friedman was effectively a prop of the wealthy industrial class. The freedom to purchase and use your own money freely isn't much of a freedom if your purchasing POWER is being continuously marginalized by the ruling elite. It's not an illusion (the idea of an oligarchy controlling the purchasing power of most Americans)...it's a reality, and I do believe more and more Americans are waking up to that fact, especially younger Americans, who are seeing that the "American Dream" of home ownership is a fantasy, at the median compensation levels we are expected to work with today, while the top 1% of earners accumulate the majority of wealth (and in an increasing fashion, as time goes on...in a very unsustainable and socially-unbalancing manner).
@@bernlin2000 If you think freedom to purchase products is shallow you are the one who lacks depth. Friedman spent half his time attacking policies that helped the wealthy industrialist class as you put it. Friedman argued against the ways that the elite marginalised people while Chomsky showed Marxist crap. What you mean by calling Chomsky more well rounded is that he's fashionable. You can't actually support Chomsky against Freidman, hell you can't even attack him without ignoring what tippy know about him, that he was against the interests of the ruling class and said so often.
@@newperve but the point is what he advocated for was the complete opposite of his anti-elite rhetoric. He could rail against the elite all he wants, the laissez-faire system would only greatly benefit them over everyone else. And I don't think the argument is that the freedom to purchase at will is shallow but rather to say this is true freedom is shallow. It can certainly be a facet of freedom, but not freedom in and of itself.
@@TeaParty1776 reality is that if u bother to read any world history ud know that when wealth gaps continue to grow over time unchecked by democratic forces, revolutions happen. When that happens no one will be able to protect u or ur property. Have a nice day!
An entire college course could constructed from the Chomsky archives on UA-cam! This is the essence of what is generally omitted from college courses-the truth!
Carson Smith Yeah, he redistributes his wealth of personal positions on issues he either doesn't know enough about, or knowingly misrepresents. He doesn't redistribute the material wealth acquired as a result of doing so.
@Andrea MENDENHALL Thanks Andrea for your extremely complex analysis and rebuttal of professor Chomsky’s words. Glad to know your ideas are much more sophisticated.
Thank you for uploading this intelligent, serene and well-balanced talk by Noam Chomsky - as always packed with important and most relevant historical data. He is a hero to me.
@@smocloud A bit?? See, I assume that you would consider yourself to be left - as do I - but it's time we start speaking up against what twitter, facebook and co are doing - despite it mostly hitting those who are politically opposed to us. Discourse is the solution, literal censorship never is. If these platforms remain unchecked, it will sooner or later not only hit those who are mostly considered "enemies" by the public, but anyone who doesn't fit into twitters or facebooks safe space utopia where they control what people think and feel. We long have reached the point at which tech giants like them, or in this regard mostly google, have strong and strongly questionable impact on how opinions are formed. The dystopia is already here, we are just too busy fighting amongst ourselves to notice.
Raw Engineer And how can you avoid the creation of monopolies in a non-regulated economy? Competitive economies can be reasonably balanced during a period of time, but in the long run this becomes unsustainable, some major business ends up consuming the minor ones. This is what competition means, instability. At some point corporations/businesses would have to use centrally-planned economies (CEOs already do this, for example, to manage in a centralized way foreign ramifications of their enterprises), appropriating themselves all aspects of a government, only it not being democratic, since democracy doesn’t exist inside of a corporation, in the workplace (one of the propositions of libertarian socialism is to apply a democratic system inside of the workplace). In the end, it’s all about centralization or de-centralization. Only De-centralization supports democracy. Right Libertarians want business centralization, which is against democracy. I understand someone can be against democracy, which explains capitalism, but Chomsky is definitely right in this video, in all matters.
emu I agree, but not so much on Discourse, but Dialogue. A discourse can be planned to be extremely centralized and focused on a singular matter seen only with a singular perspective, this is how publicity, propaganda, the providing of mainstream information, commodity fetishism, pure ideology and so on all function. On the other hand, Dialogue DEMANDS perspective, it demands de-centralization, etc. This is also the way Dialectical Materialism is supposed to function, just like Marx, thinking about Socrates and his methods, predicted.
His comment on libertarianism was flawless. When he followed up saying maybe they just don't understand it, he is not being disingenuous - "I'm not saying that you don't believe what you're saying; I'm saying that if you didn't believe what you were saying you wouldn't be sitting here"
If you're interested in this particular topic then I suggest another talk by Chomsky entitled the Year 501. He goes into more detail in his description.
"I am afraid, I've got to leave." Very sadly and unbearably, one day he will have to leave together with his vast ocean of knowledge and deep understanding, and will leave us bereft of being able to hear snippets of his meticulous and cohesive thinking and accurate discussions and arguments on a vast array of subjects on which he has had a commanding authority. It has always been very educational and a great joy listening to this wonderful polymath.
I heard libertarians, or people who think they’re libertarians, described as house cats: convinced of their fierce independence, while utterly dependent on a system they neither appreciate nor understand.
Here's an excerpt from pages 349 and 350 of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith that Chomsky refers to when talking about the invisible hand: "As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor he knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectual than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those affected to trade for the public good. It is an affection, indeed, not very common among the merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it."
Children were the first slave's in Britain, read about their Industrial revolution. Getting rich off children's back's. Dickens's wrote books on this subject.
Wow..ive just began checking out noam chomskys ideas and I find it amazing that he says the same things I do about a lot of things..nice to know im not alone..lol
LOL Well to be fair, in order to be a, ' Charlatan ', Chomsky has to be AWARE of the fact that he has no idea WTF he is talking about! I would not take that bet... 😀
There was a man by the name of Limantour, who was the financial secretary for Porfirio Diaz. He once said something to the effect "The proof of Americas greatness is its poor style of governance." Getting at the idea that America had proven some form of greatness because it had managed to generate a capitalist system with some form of democracy. I am not a fan of Limantour at all, but it's quite interesting actually. Because for those who look at it from an ideological standpoint, democracy and capitalism do not exactly see eye to eye--I am not saying I dislike democracy, I'm saying capitalism is flawed and our society is in need of restructuring; I am not even saying we need to ban free markets, but that they need to be heavily regulated--It may seem as though America has democracy, but look at how many countries America has aided specifically because they didn't have democracy. American businessmen, for example, loved Diaz because he maintained stability and order. His people may not have been free, and the working class may have been suffering, but it was the cost for increased capital for American companies. In other words, America might preach local democracy, but it thrives on exterior positivism and non-free people.
At one point Dr Chomsky thinks faster than he speaks; there should have been a "not" in there: "the kind of interference in the market they wanna block, is the kind that would (not) permit unconstrained tyranny on the part of totally unaccountable private tyrannies, which is what corporations are."
I love that Chomsky reinforces that theme of the "vile maxim of our time" almost every time he speaks. That is the basic point and problem with the world - we are all taught that being psychopathic selfish SOBs is the way to live, but only the very few at the top benefit from that ... . it is pure insanity.
Nobody is taught that except the socialists. Being selfish isn't being sociopathic and not wanting government to control your actions is not being selfish. Seeking gain has done more good than his kind ever managed.
@@newperve tell me what is the "vile maxim" because like most of your right-wing republicans shipdits i can tell you know nothing about what you are talking about.
@@garythegman9680 Yes, and who would bail out the criminal bankers? Tax write-offs given to corporations that can't compete- that is, those lazy broke people funding them. Then you have asset stripping of public wealth, and asset stripping of the wealth and resources of indigenous peoples in other countries through tricks, murder, assassination, regime change and debt enslavement. Read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". Envy politics- yes, envy of the thief who sells you back your own stuff having stolen it from you.
In capitalism, wealth, luxary and true freedom will always, ALWAYS be in the hands of the few and the "elite". This is because instead of sitting down and planning the future and taking what progress we do have and organizing it, the slightly richer, to the extremely richer, will always ALWAYS use their power to demand more progress before any common man can catch up.
I wonder if Chomsky could benefit from a UA-camr with great editing skills and the ability to inflect for dramatic emphasis repeating the exact content of his speeches and bolstering the signal with those skills and abilities.
Jay Little well I have tried in my limited capacity to get Chomsky on UA-cam. I filmed him about 7 times at people throughout the world have view him over a million times. He has a huge following. The brilliance of Chomsky is to just listen.He is an artist..deep and complicated..I do minimal editing...just so you know this was Chomsky answering just 1 question after his main speech.
@@rexnemovi6061 ok sis since you're being deliberately obtuse let me be more precise. any time you try to persuade an audience of anything, whether it's true or not, you are propagandizing. propaganda is just a tool; the way it's used determines whether it's good or bad. and i know i'm entitled to my opinion. didn't need you to tell me that. but thanks anyway ily
I always love finding out that I've been saying the same things as Noam. Though I have no doubt he was first. This video beautifully explains my grievance with many supposed people. Take Cenk Uygur of the young turks for example, here is two quotes from him "I love democracy" "I love capitalism" He see's absolutely no hypocrisy in holding those positions simultaneously, and this is the failure of many good people across the world both left and right.
Competition hinders innovation because competitors hide technological secrets from each other. And without competition, you can collaborate and exchange ideas. Under capitalism, each firm writes its own software, and under socialism, you can go to another firm and rewrite everything there for free or take a standard one from a common database.
it also hinders innovation because it’s centered around classism and racism. It does not care to hear what the lower class or minority races think, in fact it actively suppresses their development, which actively suppresses the development of the human race.
His misreading of Adam Smith is astounding. I'm sure Chomsky means well, but he quoted Adam Smith's ' _The_ _Theory_ _of_ _Moral_ _Sentiments_ ' and said Smith's example argument for wealth distribution hinged on the landlords "natural sympathy for other people" when in reality the premise of this example was that the Landlord was uncaring and unfeeling, with no sympathy at all. Smith was really saying that the ways in which he paid his laborers would inevitably create a fair income distribution. The quote for anyone interested: "The proud and unfeeling landlord views his extensive fields, and without a thought for the wants of his brethren, in imagination consumes himself the whole harvest ... [Yet] the capacity of his stomach bears no proportion to the immensity of his desires ... the rest he will be obliged to distribute among those, who prepare, in the nicest manner, that little which he himself makes use of, among those who fit up the palace in which this little is to be consumed, among those who provide and keep in order all the different baubles and trinkets which are employed in the economy of greatness; all of whom thus derive from his luxury and caprice, that share of the necessaries of life, which they would in vain have expected from his humanity or his justice...The rich...are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species. When Providence divided the earth among a few lordly masters, it neither forgot nor abandoned those who seemed to have been left out in the partition." This is another example of Chomsky's complete overconfidence in areas not in his specialty- he really shouldn't think he knows Adam Smith better than Friedman.
reading that twice and rewatching the bit of the clip where he quotes that book directly, i feel pity for you now instead of being critical. you really haven't a clue do you?
His most important annotation “It is changeable, it is not run by force” is exactly the Unique quality of Capitalism, under any other system it will be run by force
Chomsky has had the "freedom" to complain about his comfortable western lifestyle for many years. Protesting in safety is a luxury that people many countries can only dream of.
Sowell is no fan of Chomsky at all. His book "Intellectuals and Society" could have been squarely aimed at Chomsky, who he said "Should have stuck to language"
The big money shot-callers in this country are fond of presenting capitalism as if it was synonymous with democracy. That's the bedrock foundation of their Big Lie. In fact, democracy is a political philosophy and capitalism is an economic one. A cogent argument can be made that capitalism is completely antithetical to democracy - that it undermines democracy, that it never takes the public welfare into account, that its only concern is the value of it's stock and the return it provides to investors. Everything else is subordinated to that Holy Grail: the environment, democracy, workers, safety, you name it. Unless you understand that very basic distinction, you won't be able to make any sense of current events and will be vulnerable to swilling the corpspeak Kool-Aid about how unregulated corporations are wonderful for America and the world.
Very interesting. The phrase that dawned on me as I was listening was "compared to what?". Every governmental system has deep flaws, and can't deliver what it claims to be able to deliver, but one has to look at the outcomes of living conditions, and compare the options that we have so far tried. Also remember that virtually every idea that is tried in industry, business, science, and government is a failure before it succeeds - it's very difficult or impossible to know what the outcome will be of trying to affect a complex and chaotic system. We are continually refining and improving the system so that it serves more and more people - 70% disenfranchisement is better than the 90% it might have been 100 years ago and the 99% it was 100 years before that. "Pure" democracy is not some panacea either - the tyranny of the majority is a very real issue to contend with - the idea that if its just based on a popular vote, then a popular vote could legitimately vote to destroy a minority ethnic group or an individual or the intellectuals, or whatever minority you care to mention.
Kyniker Solon society is always partly tyrannical and alienating. It’s also partly educating, supportive and sustaining. Empirically speaking Democracy combined with capitalism is so far the best system we humans have worked out.
@@greatmomentsofopera7170 Hard to say depends how you define capitalism, were the Romans capitalist? If you mean the system that has emerged mostly in the 20th century well it is running faster through resource than a heroin addict through his stash. Nothing indicates that it is in any way sustainable so we might just be living in the short window of time before a major ecologic crash.
This was me, a naive "libertarian" who had never actually read Smith. Of course, I hardly ever really read any books in college, I just skimmed what I could to keep up with the syllabus and take the exam
Good thing we don't have a democracy in the United States of America and we're just a republic where each state of the republic elects its federal representatives democratically.
None of the conventional "isms" address the fundamental imbalance between human and property rights associated with access to and control over nature. In terms of labor and capital goods, nature has a zero cost of production. Nature is provided to humans for our use and survival. Almost alone among the great political and economic thinkers, the American Henry George presented a cogent argument for a labor and capital goods basis for property. Nature is, George argued, the commons from which all wealth is produced. Nature is the source of private wealth but is not legitimate private wealth. The ideal structure for accessing any part of nature is under a competitive bidding system for a leasehold interest issued by the community or society. Note that government is, then, the agent of the community and society for administrating such as system. As deeds to nature had already become a widespread norm, George argued that a second-best approach was for government to collect from every "owner" of land (broadly defined to include such natural assets with an inelastic supply as frequencies on the broadcast spectrum) the full potential annual rental value. This would serve as the fund with which to pay for democratically agreed upon public goods and services, which the potential for an annual citizen's dividend to be distributed. The term that best described the principles embraced by Henry George is "cooperative individualism". Edward J. Dodson, Director School of Cooperative Individualism www.cooperative-individualism.org
"None of the conventional "isms" address the fundamental imbalance between human and property rights " Property rights are human rights, do you imagine they belong to cephalopods from Alpha Centuri have them?
@@newperve The moral issue is whether nature is to be treated as the source of property (i.e., of private wealth) or as an asset to be bought and sold and mortgaged. My view is that nature is our commons, access to which is an equal birthright that can only be protected by the societal collection of location rents.
I like this video very much, but of course, like all premises in an argument, one must define one's terms. And the term "capitalism" in its simplest form is a far cry from what Chomsky is honestly and accurate describing. That is to say, what Chomsky is describing is State/Corporate capitalism. In its simplest form, capitalism is quite benign, in my view, as it is just the voluntary exchange of one good or currency for another good, without any covert or overt influences. If say, I buy an album by say, Sting -- or AC/DC -- or the Sweden Radio Orchestra (or whoever), or buy a Noam Chomsky book -- those too are capitalist endeavors, and I don't see how that is inherently anti-Democratic. (at least in any obvious way!) But these simple examples I give are entirely different from the way corporate entities have almost always succeeded in "socializing the costs" that they would otherwise be obligated to pay out of their own pockets. Yet that phenomena of socializing costs to the taxpayer -- or any other "externalities" -- is often referred to as "capitalism," rather than straightforward transactions. There are many -- perhaps an infinite number -- of ways of usurping a true and honest capitalist system, and sadly, I think most of them have always accompanied capitalism in all of its history, and prevented it from realizing its full potential. Hence it has a largely justifiably negative reputation. But this shouldn't be absolute! The fact is that the "libertarian" in his most basic nature is right -- he suspects the government is evil for its interference in simple transactions. And the government is indeed the tool for corporate (or other malevolent interests) that primarily tax and regulate him for the purpose of benefiting the corporate entities. The problem is that many libertarians have historically failed to see corporations as "the enemy" -- instead thinking of them as sort of "big individuals" -- that the corporation is like him only on a much larger scale. This is a fatal mistake and completely blinds him to the real problem. (Of course, I'm being very simple. I haven't even brought the "satanic" nature of the state's use of war to subjugate people and keep them "in line." I probably have left out some other stuff too that should be mentioned . . . )
Above, at the end of the post, I stated that "I had probably left out some other stuff that should be mentioned . . . " One thing I think I should mention, in regard to the Libertarian Party, is that the presidential candidates they have nominated over the years have all been anti-imperialists, though they do believe in "defense." Andre Marrou, the 1992 Libertarian candidate, stated his intention to close all overseas military bases during his campaign, and I think that is pretty much the same position all of their candidates advocate.. In addition, the party's categorical pro-legalization of drugs would spell an end to "the drug war." The anti-imperialism (if enacted) would deal a huge blow to the "military industrial complex" by stripping it of much of its income that it gets to build and/or maintain the "defense" (I. e. aggression) that the US government uses overseas. The anti-drug war policy (if enacted) would strip the "prison industrial complex" of much of its power and rationale for existence. But the party and its attendant non-affiliated think tanks, such as the Reason Foundation or the Cato Institute,are NOT manifestly anti-corporate, and even have gotten some major funding via some of the "bad actors" in the corporate world (such as the Exxon-Mobil funding the "climate change denial" papers at the Cato Institute). Nonetheless, there is a lot of constructive, positive commentary coming from these think-tank institutions. Cato, for example, is anti "natural monopoly" in regard to utilities, and its members are largely all anti nuclear power subsidies, and have always been. Furthermore, you can find some very perceptive commentary on the nefarious nature of institutions like the World Bank and the IMF sometimes. However, you will also find in Reason and Cato very pro corporate and anti-environmentalist writings as well. Michael Pollen, the famous writer on food issues, I've noticed, has featured two libertarians in his books and writings. In one article at least 10 years ago that he wrote for Harper's in regard to the bizarre legal/illegal status of growing poppies, one of the main characters he profiled was a libertarian named Jim Hogsworth (or something like that) who was very much involved in challenging the governments schizophrenic policy in this regard. The US gov't allows the widespread cultivation and selling of poppy seeds and plants, yet at times elects to prosecute (via the DEA) people who buy and grow them! In "The Omnivore's Dilemma," Pollen mentions a successful libertarian farmer whose eggs and chickens are famous for their taste and their sustainable organic origins (unfortunately I don't remember his name). My point? That libertarians are a varied and motley group - and simply pigeonholing them as people who "worship at the altar of Milton Friedman" is an absurd and rather misleading allegation. It would be no different than pigeonholing all Democrats as "Obamacrats" by ignoring more honest ones like John Lewis(GA), Jim McGovern(MA) and former representative Dennis Kucinich, amongst many others. Obama might not want to close the SOA, but that certainly isn't true of other democrats. So yeah, I love Doc Chomsky -- but this film is not my favorite, and could be very misleading. Likewise, looking at the left, there is an old article that Jan Wenner penned in his magazine, Rolling Stone, called "Why Rolling Stone is a capitalist publication." I was around 12 years old when he wrote it (I'm 58 now). More recently, at the end of Oliver Stone's documentary, "South of the Border," Stone states that he believes that there are certain "benign forms of capitalism." My point: the so-called "anti-capitalist" nature that the "Left" has needs to be more explicitly defined, and if there are various disagreements, those need to be more honestly and openly discussed and articulated. While it is obvious that most leftists and most libertarians are aghast at the nature of our system's extreme prejudice for the ultra-wealthy and powerful, that isn't in and of itself helping define what a proper capitalist system is (or would be, assuming that such a person believes it can even exist. I do, but that is me.)
"capitalism is quite benign, in my view, as it is just the voluntary exchange of one good or currency for another good, without any covert or overt influences." I have no problem with this statement, but you should know it's kind of a revisionist interpretation of the word capitalism. That's how some people have come to use that term, but it isn't exactly the way it was first intended to be used. Do you know who created the term capitalism? That's right, none other than Karl Marx. Yes, that Marx. And this is not at all what he meant when he coined the term. In fact, for many years, capitalism was used in a very pejorative way, and most capitalists avoided it, instead using the term liberalism. We already have a term for what you described, and it isn't capitalism. It's called a market economy. Capitalism refers to the entire system and ideology that undergirds it, not just to that one component of that system that we like. But I'm basically fine with changing the word to mean this thing since we have come to idolize it so much. But as long as we understand that we are reappropriating the word, and that when others use that word, they may not mean the same thing we mean by capitalism. It's also important to note that what you described need not be a feature of capitalism, and usually is not, and therefore it probably is not capitalism in its simplest form. Let's look at an extreme example, China. Would you say capitalist? Probably. But you probably wouldn't say that there are no covert or overt influences putting pressure on the market. They are after all, still a communist society.
Hey +Quantam Mechanic! Thank you very much for your response and explanation(s)! Your post really "hits the nail on the head"! I agree very much with what you said, and don't see anything in your post that I could possibly raise an issue with whatsoever! :-D
You're not mentioning the extraction of labor from the worker so the one who sells the CD makes a profit. This is capitalism. I love Oliver Stone's films, but a "more benign" form of capitalism is not possible. They always want more.
It doesn’t matter if there is exterior influences or not, a corporation or entity could still become tyrannical and far too powerful under your system.
I learnt about Noam Chomsky in the Seventies of the past century, when his Transformational Grammar became popular among linguists. I like linguists dealing with political issues because they are not bribable for ideological reasons but show a pragmatical attitude. They are hardly biased but always credible.
College students don't often read the classics, they read sections of the classics printed out and distributed by their professors. Classics that, taken out of context, often seem to support the professor's ideological, philosophical, and political views. I think most mean well and are trying to cut student costs, but the consequences of skating the mere surface of many great works is the easy manipulation and misunderstanding of those works.
Oh, I think professors would LOVE to educate their students well, most love what they do, it's the economic system that is the problem, those who are educated the least, follow orders the best, same old story. What the system wants is obedient workers that think as little as possible and don't question what they're doing and why. Fortunately, humans evolve continually, let's see where we'll go next, this cannot last forever.
Chomsky has had his entire life to seek a position as a legislator. Or any type of actual Public Service Position. Yet instead he chose to spend his life merely criticizing everyone else from the sidelines about fields that he has never actually worked in himself-Which is everything outside Linguistics! So IF Chomsky really could have done a better job than all those he has been criticizing all these years, then it is Chomsky alone bears the, ' greatest shame ', for never even trying!
When the US government was begun formally, after the revolution, capitalism was young but to many economic elites, it was clear that it was only just getting started, had massive wealth potential, and that feudalism was over, that was in Europe, and the anti UK revolution in the US was a revolution against being used as a colony to supply raw materials to British manufacturing, for growth of capitalist ruling interests there. The US interests wanted to realize this wealth expansion potential in their own new country, a country they saw themselves as the owners of, i mean, their class, the property owners. They didn't see it as belonging to all the people, except in the abstract symbolic ideological sense. They had no intention of having a democracy in the US. The guy who wrote the constitution, by himself in his house, not together with other elites, they gave him the job because of his abilities an because he represented their interests and shared them, was James Madison. The constitution of the US was overtly designed to prevent democracy. Madison and his people were very afraid of a majority of people coming together to legislate redistribution of wealth. This information isn't something hidden that you need to read between lines to find out, back in those days, most elites were not for democracy and any conflict was over how much symbolism of democracy there would be and how much there wouldn't be. Madison and John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, who in those days called themselves Federalists, wrote a large number of papers called The Federalist Papers, in which each of them were explaining the new constitution they were proposing and in those papers they were defending it and advocating for it and giving their reasons for that. Probably the most famous one is called The Federalist Paper No.10, written by Madison. It's a few pages long (It's on line, in PDFs and also excerpts). It's famous because in it, he gives the reasons for changing the government from the original government, Articles of Confederation ,to the Constitution that he wrote and it's considered to be the authoritative explanation of the purposes of the constitution and the means it uses to achieve its purposes. The reason they were making all these arguments was because the Constitution had to be voted into power, and these were their publications to try to persuade people to vote for it. In those days a majority of people were not eligible to vote, there were property requirements. So the voters that Madison was appealing to were the propertied people. His main argument is that societies are mainly divided into two factions, the majority which has no property and the minority which has property. There are other factions, he says, but these are the main ones in all societies. These factions compete with each other because of the differences in property. Madison says, echoing the political thought of John Locke, that some people are born into wealth and this is just the way it is, some people work hard and build wealth, some people are born with a lot of it and they are entitled to what they have, no one else has a just claim on it. The propertyless people want more than what they have . This is only natural. Both sides want what they can get. As it turns out, only a minority have very much property Human nature, he says, is ruled by passion. When people fight over property, they are fueled by passion, passion overcomes reason, this is just human nature, he says. Bot the majority and minority factions are motivated by their passions and less by reason. In fact he says the majority of people who don't have property are not motivated by reason at all, while the minority who have property are not as overwhelmed by their passions because having property is something that makes people more reasonable, more able to see bigger picture and think things through. This is why he argues that democracy is a bad form of government and that's why he created the constitution to prevent this bad kind of government from happening. Near the beginning the essay he says 'the greatest threat to the union' is the threat of the majority influence. By definition, the procedural form of democracy is majority rule. Madison says this is disastrous because the majority is not enlightened, they are ruled totally by passion, he gives the only historical example, the ancient Athenian democracy, and he relates that it lasted for a while, but people were all fighting and disagreeing all the time, and finally it fell apart and an oligarchy took over. He said even if you're for democracy, if you are realistic about it, you will want to prevent it because it will just end up in oligarchy in the end anyway. The biggest problem of democracy is that it would give the majority the power to legislate redistribution of wealth. Madison said this would be unjust and would be a form of theft. These ideas are so deep in American thinking. For this reason, theft by majority using legislation, Madison did not want a parliamentary form of government like the British had. Parliamentary means legislative rule, the majority of people (those who are allowed to vote) elect representatives to go to the parliament and in the parliament they pass laws by majority rule. Madison thought this would be harmful to the interests of the properties minority, and therefore, harmful to everybody's interests, as he says. The propertied minority was the faction most capable of running the country in its own best interests. He says the the propertied people know the majority's interest better than the majority itself. i won't go into the parts about how the constitution was designed to prevent democracy, other than to say it prevented legislative rule by creating a very different form of government with "separation of powers", legislative, executive, judicial branches each with different powers. in a parliamentary system , the prime minister in the legislature is the chief executive of the country, so there isn't a separation of legislative (majority) and executive powers. Another thing about parliamentary systems is that if the government is not satisfying the public with its running of the country, a vote of no confidence can be held, at any time, it's not necessary to wait 4 years or 8 years to vote again, and this gives the majority of the public a lot more power to influence their governnent how it is in the US. The parliamentary system in the UK predated the sort of birth of capitalism and was not create with capitalist interest in mind Madison and his allies were smart and could see that the capitalist system was capable of doing all kinds of great things economically, especially for his class but also in general, it was kind of visionary, and his thinking was, the less restriction and regulation of capitalists the better for the country because of how wealth would grow compared to the land based wealth and production system that it was steadily replacing, political change was bourgeois, it was for the capitalist class, and especially the industrialist capitalist class. The US revolution was a capitalist revolution, the replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution completed the capitalist revolution and created the country that would be the most successful dynamic capitalist country in the world. It worked. The US can never be a democracy as long as the US constitution is its government, there is no way, unless the elite wanted to get rid of capitalism, which is not what has been happening through out US history and there's no sign of that now. Without going into the argument here that Madison makes about how the Constitution will prevent democracy, i will just say that in Federalist No 10, he makes a 'divide and rule' argument for the constitution. In many ways he says, it divides up the majority so that not only can they not act as a majority. They can't even think as a majority, there is no consciousness of a common majority interest (such as universal publicly funded health care and other policies Madison considered unjust wealth redistribution, even though it turns out it would use money the public has paid in taxes to finance the government , but people aren not able to think very clearly in this way, the constitution, which as Madison argues, enlarges the power of the federal government, and the expansion of the country which he advocated, brings diverse interests under the same political system in which they have to compete with each other for government resources and this keeps them from looking at common interests they share, in the US people, if the constitution is passed, will be loyal to their more local or specialized interests and will not trust each other to join on what they share -- this keeps the propertied minority safe and these are the people who will best "represent" the chopped divided majority, people who have property which frees them to have time to be representatives in the government. They were never intended to have the same interests as the people they represent. He wanted them to rule precisely because they didn't have the unwise interests of the majority You can agree or disagree with him, he had some good points, about instability in a democracy, and also mainly, i would say he and his faction created the absolute best possible government for capitalism to grow rapidly and to realizes and maximize its wealth creating potential, and it's been a good thing for the world, over all. But no system lasts for ever because things evolve, capitalism has changed things and public needs and goals change. I just want to point out what almost no one in the US knows, the impossibility of democracy under the US constitution and that this was deliberate on the part of the people who created this government.
Corporations are "people" in the same sense as governments are "people": large organizations of people under which power is concentrated, but accountability is diffused until totally abstracted. When a large bank, for example, undergoes policy that tanks a world economy, defenders point to the unnavigable bureaucratic structure, and say, "nobody is responsible, the bank is not an individual!" This is the catch-22 of corporate power: corporations are composed of people, but that does not mean that they are accountable as people, nor should they enjoy rights as individuals. Could you imagine someone saying "governments are people, my friend"? Such a statement is absurd.
Does anyone other than me sadly realise that, for all his great thinking and writing and lecturing, NC has had no influence on a single politician or piece of legislation anywhere on the world. Despite all his agitation to the contrary "The System" has just continued along screwing us up the same as it always has. My core belief, at age 63, is that by adulthood, 99% of people are already well entrenched in their worldviews and partisan political standpoints such that Noam, and other truly progressive thinkers like him, spend their lives doing nothing but preeching to the converted, ie their own crowd. The pollies who get elected (right across the political spectrum) care nought about any of the facts or ideas he espouses. He ain't a congressman, (nor a financial lobbyist) so therefore he can be ignored by them. Unfortunately he's not a PLAYER, has no real power, and therefore, sadly, no change can ever come through all his words. He's just like a spectator on the sidelines, shouting out his frustrations about the way the players are behaving. Yes, he makes all of us fans feel good in our agreement with him, but NOTHING EVER CHANGES on Capital Hill because of Noam Chomsky. Yes, we will miss him terribly when he dies; he will be called things like the greatest intellectual of the 20th and 21st centuries; people will say he was so prescient; but his life's work will have been in vain. Sad but true, I feel.
The Worse that so-called, ' experts ', like Chomsky THINK that our Policy Makers have acted all these years, then the Worse it makes Chomsky himself look, for never seeking a Policy Making Position Himself, and-With his superior wisdom-Show he can do better! Instead of spending his life merely complaining from the sidelines, like the worthless Armchair Critic that he is!
No one knows the full impact of Noam's work and ideas throughout his lifetime. Every person who has read his books or listened to his talks/speeches has to have been enlightened. Just look at the numbers of people who have listened to this talk and many others on YT, and took the time to respond thoughtfully. In some ancient cultures the rulers were wise enough to know that they didn't have all the answers so they appointed a poet or a wise man to guide them to enact laws that served the common good. I believe Noam Chomsky has been a wise, ethical and moral guide for all of us over his lifetime even though he didnt do great things to change the world. He's not alone in being a voice crying in the wilderness, so to speak. After all Jesus Christ never enacted laws, wrote books or did anything the world considers impressive yet his simple message of love is remembered and he remains one of the most well known and loved figures the world over for 2000 years. I'm sure Noam would get a kick out of being compared to Jesus Christ but after all they're both Jewish so that counts for something. End of sermon.
@@maureenmannion6748 Your funny bit at the end about Noam being Jewish was totally out of left field and totally irrelevant. 1. I've never heard Chomsky mention that his Jewishness has influenced his thinking in any way. 2. Jesus's popularity, 2000 years later, is the biggest informational con ever pulled off in humanity. Yes, in his name, many good deeds have been done. But also the most attrocious military and colonial crimes. Sadly,, imo Chomsky's talks and writings will gradually wane in consumption as humanity grows deeper into materialism. His thinking is an anachronism to the status quo, too dangerous for the rulers to ever countenance, and what good is political thinking if it never gets enacted via the political process.
@thedolphin5428 It is true NC does not speak or write about the influence his Jewishness has on his thinking. I decided to do a cursory check of his early life to see if the Jewish values were a prominent part of his formative years which may have had a lasting impact on his thinking later in his life. There wasn't a lot about his youth but what was there describes a childhood immersed in a Jewish cultural tradition which should have had a lasting impact. Noam grew up in what was described as a "Jewish-Zionist cultural tradition", in an immigrant community, and a child of the depression. It was a Jewish working class world, highly intellectual, very poor but rich in intellectual pursuits and stimulating debates. His father fled from the Ukraine, which was under Russian control at the time, to America, taught in Hebrew schools in the US, eventually becoming a college professor of Hebrew grammar, and president of the college where he taught,a position he held for over 40 years. Amazing! Noam's mother, American born of Belarusian parents, was also a gifted intellectual involved with Zionism and the Hebrew language. Their home was considered a "Hebrew-Jewish home." From an early age Noam was surrounded by very smart and stimulating people at home and later at a very unstructured elementary school that seemed similar to a Montessori-like education system. Later, he was drawn into an intellectual youth group during his teens that helped form the beliefs that underlie his political views today. They had a commitment to Kibbutz values, the Hebrew culture, and anarchrist political leanings. Later, Noam actually lived in a Kibbutz in Israel for a while. I know this doesn't make much of a case for his Jewishness informing his adult thinking but it does show that his earliest understandings were formed by people who were steeped in the Jewish tradition and values which had to have an influence on his thinking and writing in adulthood.
Marx said Democracy was the road to socialism. However, he also warned of the dangers of a growing middle-class. 'the more a ruling class is able to assimilate the most prominent men of the dominated classes the more stable and dangerous is its rule' 'Situated mid-way between the workers on one hand and the capitalists and land-owners on the other, these middle-classes rest with all their weight upon the working class and at the same time increase the social security of the upper class' And those predictions have come to pass, whereby the capitalist class have endeavored to inflate the middle-class demographic - be that through further education, right to buy schemes, cheap credit, business grants, tax breaks etc. Naturally, a larger middle-class means Democracy is no longer the road to socialism - but rather constitutes the Dictatorship of the Petty Bourgeois. Thus we are seeing the exponential growth in Petty Bourgeois ideology - namely the scrooge like Libertarians and the hand-wringing non-voting Millennials. What's left of the working-class - the bottom 20% who don't own property, don't go on holiday, don't send their kids to college - is set to take an even worse battering.
"hand-wringing non-voting Millennials" they are a totally different generation with radically differing (incrementally differentiating itself) ideology.
unity20000 Not really. The well meaning Liberal who seems to go AWOL come election time was a phenomena recognized by Marx. Marx was scathing of the Liberals of his day (Whigs) who he claimed had achieved little or nothing in terms of social progress despite centuries of hand-wringing..
derwen talia I think that's a myth. Have you any stats to prove the middle-class are shrinking? More people drive cars; own their own homes; have access to lines of credit, have children in further education than ever before. Only 20 percent of American household earn less than 30,000 a year. Not saying most Americans are living the life, but such stats might explain why the Left continues to make little or no progress. Just not a enough poor people around anymore. And the poor people that are left are slipping into an A political lumpen proletariat.
@8:30 Being from India, have to agree to the two key points made by Chomsky: a) India was the already the commercial hub of the world prior to British colonization and b) In the 100 years as a British colony, it underwent forcible 'de-development'.
If you look at standard of living of people in India, what you imply with "commercial hub" and "de-development" is wrong, SidTube. Study economic history that includes some quantitative information that you think is trustworthy. You choose. It's the opposite. Maybe you just been reading some anti-colonialism banter. Colonialism is reprehensible for sure, but standard of living increased during the British rule, and diminished drastically after independence.
@@Sidtube10 Thank you, SidTube, for your prompt answer. I thought that you would choose Maddison figures because he's the most quoted economist on the issue of quantitative impact of colonialism in India. What can I tell you that it hasn't been said already? Even trusting Maddison made-up figures (his estimates, really) of pre-colonial India, the subcontinent was still behind any GDP per capita in Western Europe (although considering India's enormous population at that time, that lower per capita figure made them nonetheless a world power house as measured in total GDP). During British rule, not only GDP per capita rose (about 40%) but inequality diminished significantly. Thus, although the per capita figure didn't skyrocketed, the welfare of 200 million Indians was impacted positively. But the world kept on growing and India lagged behind in total GDP. Following Maddison figures (more accurate when closer to the present day), one can see, after the 1947 independence, a drop in welfare that lasted for more than 40 years. The topic is complex and I condemn colonialism. But the concepts of "hub of the world" before British rule or "forcible de-development" during the rule itself are grossly misleading.
@@GordonLFwould you also say something like racism was reprehensible but introducing blacks to the west has been largely beneficial for African Americans ? You talking about picking sources to get info you want. That’s cherry picking. But you know what maybe you’re right Maybe the Indians who were killed, shipped off to places, forced to grow crops on their land that would make it unusable for growing food further and then leave them when they’ve outlived their usefulness was what Indians needed and wanted. They were saved. The British of the time seem like nice civilised people
@@krona2894No, I would not use that line of thought. Although at that time I would have chosen to live amongst those cruel British instead that amongst the other people.
Noam Chomsky is a very intelligent man, and he is right by saying that Adam Smiths arguments for free markets are rather balanced and nuanced, but unfortunately his assertions regarding how Adam Smith used the term “Invisible Hand” in “Wealth of Nations”, and how that relates to the modern use of the expression, are misleading at best, and plain wrong at worst. Since there seems to be a lot of confusion on the topic, I decided to write a short explanation on how Adam Smith used the metaphor of the “Invisible Hand” in “Wealth of Nations”, and why I think Chomsky’s claims are misleading. I have posted some version of this text on multiple UA-cam videos in which Chomsky talks about this subject. Since this specific video is a little bit longer and covers many other things as well, I want to point out that I do not argue against other points that Chomsky is making here. My argument is only concerned with his interpretation of the "Invisible Hand". In “Wealth of Nations”, the “Invisible Hand” is mentioned once in book IV, chapter 2. That chapter is concerned with restraints upon importation of goods that can be produced at home. Among many other things that are discussed in this chapter, Adam Smith mentions the phrase “Invisible Hand” somewhat offhandedly, in a discussion about investment behavior. Now let’s look at the full quote: “By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain; and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.” With this sentence Adam Smith summarizes 2-3 previous pages in which he outlines his arguments. The quote has roughly four parts. We now look at each of them individually, and add in the context of the previous pages. 1. “By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; […]” This is the part that Chomsky mostly talks about. Adam Smith argues that upon equal or close to equal profits, merchants generally prefer to invest their capital in domestic rather than foreign industry. The reason for this is that the merchants like to have direct oversight over their business, and they are more accustomed to the people and the laws of their home country, which reduces the risk of doing business. Now, Chomsky is largely correct when he says that the “Invisible Hand” refers to this sort of “Home Bias”, but he fails to mention that according to Adam Smith, this is due to investors acting in their own self-interest. More importantly, he also fails to mention that this “Home Bias” is not the only thing to which the “Invisible Hand” is referring to. 2. “[…] and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain […]” This is a totally separate argument and has absolutely nothing to do with the “Home Bias” that was the subject of the first part. Smith argues, that when people invest their money, they look for the most profitable industry to do so. The most profitable industry in turn, is the industry which creates the most value. Since the annual revenue of a society is equal to the value added in production, the self-interest of investors, according to Smith, leads to the most beneficial investment of capital. This very much resembles how the expression “Invisible Hand” is used today, but Chomsky does not acknowledge or even mention this part at all. 3. ”[…] and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.” Finally, we come to the part, where Adam Smith describes these mechanisms with the metaphor of the “Invisible Hand”. It generally refers to the fact that the self-interested actions of individuals can lead to outcomes which were not intended by the individuals. The important part here is “AS IN MANY OTHER CASES”, meaning that the metaphor is not limited to the aforementioned instances, but can be applied to many other cases as well. 4. “Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.” This last part concludes by saying, that this mechanism of the “Invisible Hand” frequently leads to outcomes which are beneficial to society as a whole, which again is very much in line with the modern use of the expression. Arguments for other cases where the “Invisible Hand” leads to better societal outcomes, can be found all over the book. In summary, the “Invisible Hand” as it is used by Adam Smith in “Wealth of Nations”, refers to the fact, that individual self-interested actions can lead to unintended outcomes. Smith also states, that the unintended results of individual self-interested actions, frequently improve national welfare better, than actions which are consciously designed to do so. Smith mentions the metaphor while explaining two mechanisms (1. Self-interested investors prefer to invest at home compared to abroad; 2. Self-interested investors invest in industries, which are most beneficial to society), but he also clearly states, that this holds in many other cases as well. So, Chomsky is right in saying that Adam Smith uses the “Invisible Hand” in “Wealth of Nations” to explain some sort of “Home Bias”, but he is wrong in reducing the expression to this very specific instance. He acknowledges only the first part of the sentence, but ignores the second part, and even more importantly, he ignores the third part in which Adam Smith explicitly says that the two mentioned cases are just specific examples of a more general concept, which applies to many other cases as well. Chomsky seems to imply that the way the expression of the “Invisible Hand” is used and understood today, is somehow in contrast to what Adam Smith wrote, but this assertion is simply not correct. The modern use of the expression “Invisible Hand” is a completely legitimate interpretation, and exactly in line with how Adam Smith used it in “Wealth of Nations”. Chomsky’s reductive interpretation, which he has repeated many times over the years in many different places, is indicative of him being either disingenuous or misinformed. If we give him the benefit of the doubt by assuming that he is being genuine, then his line of argumentation reveals a very superficial reading on his part, and he would have been well-advised to read the passage a little bit more carefully.
In the US, capital trumps democracy. The US is utterly controlled by capital. What those who control capital want they essential get. Voting is for show.
it has been noted MANY times, that there is NO SUCH THING as a purely capitalistic nor a purely socialistic economic system in any country ANYWHERE in the world.. all countries employ a mix of the two systems, yes even the united states and china which like to think of themselves as being on opposite ends of the spectrum
6 років тому+1
We have the best of all possible systems - welfare for the wealthy, and laissez faire capitalism for the workers. /s
i don't understand where he is getting at. what's the alternative? i don't think anyone with a reasonable understanding of socioeconomics isn't aware of our current societies' flaws. that doesn't mean better alternatives are available.
Promote free enterprise but use democracy to prevent monopolies, corruption, lobbying, and crony capitalism. It's hard work on the part of citizens and intellectuals, but those are all visible hands if we care to look.
i have a copy of wealth of nations on my book shelf, still not read it but I honestly always believed Smith was for completely unrestrained capatalism, and so does does everyone I know
Great speech but his brother's wedding was no place to give it.
LMAO.
HA
HAAAAAAAAAAAA - You funny!
LMAO
That was TERRIBLY funny. I have tummy pains now...
Corporations should never have been given the legal status of "persons".
The concept of corporate personhood has existed in law for centuries. Corps do NOT have the rights of individuals. The primary reason for corporate personhood is so that corporations can create contracts, can sue and be sued in civil court. These misinterpretation of Citizen's United are ridiculous.
they have better status than persons
How so ?
So IOW you can't make a coherent argument but are filled with anti-biz bigotry. Got it.
In the above, he talks about the origins of it in the revolution and before, and in 1840s US law, giving the world to corporate interests and cementing wage slavery in place here. The Federal Reserve Act was a big moment, of them consolidating gains. The income tax another.
It saddens me to know that there will come a time when Chomsky will no longer be with us. His insight is admirable, he’s truly one of the greatest figures of the 20th and 21st century.
Who could take the torch?
@trig1dentity Any dumbass who wants to advance power while pretending to be against it. I mean really how hard is it to see that is easier to punish a corporation than a government? He can't even keep his story straight on whether corporations control the government or the government should be given more power.
He is irreplaceable. I don't believe anyone has read as much of the stuff that he has over the Decades of his lifetime! His books contain longer bibliographies than any others that I have read. Chomsky knows a hella lot!
@@newperve he is an open anarchist. He has the opinion mature individuals would reach proper conclusions. Small government because of responsible citizens. Utopia nowadays but makes perfect sense.
@@trig1dentity He's the type of "anarchist" that openly and consistently calls for more government power. He doesn't think that democracy will result in smaller government and if he was he'd be against it. And no it doesn't make sense that people would be responsible in the political realm, they never have been and there are good game theory reasons for that,.
As someone of Scottish descent, I am heartened that someone in the public eye really understands Adam Smith's humanitarian leanings. He is one of the most misrepresented of economists. A bit like Nietzsche in philosophy, people think that they understand the ideas without having read the text.
@David Gwin he made many more points than that , but he was calling our the neo liberals who want globalised markets for cheap labour from China who use Smith as an example , when he wasn't
@Mike C Results say Marx was a fool. Philosopher's say he is a genius. I'll side with the results.
@@hayteren Precisely selected results in correspondence with your bias
Hmmm Hmmm reality has no bias.
Very true. Smith like Nietzsche because of the true complexity of their work are too often not read to be understood, but can easily be used anecdotally.
His take on Adam Smith deserves to be studied in depth. Specially by neo-liberals...
Well it took me less than 5 minutes to find out he lied about what he meant by the invisible hand, how "in depth" is that?
Michael Price how so? I didn't catch that.
Well Smith specifically said it wasn't about concern for others.
Interesting and correct from what I can tell. This is the quote from Moral Sentiments with enough to give it reasonable context:
(en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments/Part_IV)
"The rich only select from the heap what is most precious and agreeable. They consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity, though they mean only their own conveniency, though the sole end which they propose from the labours of all the thousands whom they employ, be the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires, they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species."
Basically saying a person can only consume so much, though one's ego/nature drives one to produce well in excess of that, and the excess would end up with the poor in some fashion. This would be the polar opposite (is that redundant?) of what Chomsky claims at 4:50 that Smith wrote the landed gentry would care for their workers out of sympathy. I don't know if this is confusion or a sleight of hand. I admit one aspect of the way Chomsky writes and speaks that draws me in is his unflappable confidence. I hope, a little, that it was just a fault of memory.
Marc Moseley Sometimes it's hard to tell what Chomsky means because of his linguistics background. I think we have to ask why he qualified the word "sympathy" with the word "natural". I don't think he would have done that if he was using "sympathy" in it's most common meaning. Maybe he's trying to describe something more akin to natural phenomena like "sympathetic vibration" or "sympathetic resonance". I think that would be pretty consistent with the idea Smith was trying to convey.
Libertarianism vs Classic Liberalism 2:30
Capitalism in the US 8:07
Failures of British capitalism 10:20
Laissez Faire in US 1945 11:30
A Word on Democracy 15:10
Correlation between income, Voter abstinence, who shapes public policy 16:12
He said 1945 not '35*, and it's also wrong:
as soon as WW2 ended the US abandoned the gold standard which means that interventionism didn't have any curbs, hence laissez faire literally stopped existing not the other way around.
I don't expect a linguist to know economics, but at least he shouldn't twist history.
@@Bolognabeef Nicely done. I like Chomsky, really, but he does have some fuckboy ass takes sometimes.
@@Bolognabeef Nice cherry pick, smartboy.
10:20 ... oh gee, do ya suppose british imperialism, monarchy, and colonialism had anything of import on success or failure of capitalism there ??? I even recall that as recently as the 80's , the "crown" owned either 1/3 or 2/3 of the city of London . And they still, like sheep, love to vocalize "god save the queen"... Hmmm .
@@Marxamillian I have always thought he was a stalin apologist. I am 77.
Amazing individual. I find myself mesmerized by the depth of his insight and factual argumentation in such a broad and complex field. His courage to speak out so directly and unapologetically seems heroic to me - society is better off because of it. I'm grateful for Noam Chomsky.
Daniel amongst the lions?
Very knowledgable prof
Live long and prosper
open-minded skeptic
Courage?
What are you talking about? Since when does it take courage to be a celebrity?
Courage used to mean moral strength needed in order not to back down when facing some kind of a danger. What kind of danger does Chomsky face?
@@rexnemovi6061 Going back to the 60's, Chomsky had to hire security for his anti-Vietnam War meetings because of the physical threats against him. He's been surveilled by the FBI and the CIA for decades.
Also, courage has nothing to do with danger, and has everything to do with fear. It doesn't require danger for one to be courageous. Even still, I wouldn't call Chomsky courageous because he clearly is not afraid to speak his mind.
As a conservative, Noam Chomsky is one of the few leftist that I not only respect, but stand in awe of his wealth of knowledge and the ease with which he can recall it and tie all together. What a brilliant mind!
A true intellectual can only be lefty.
Ok then show me a one minute stretch of this video where he doesn't lie.
Let's all remember that it is much easier to APPEAR to be, ' Brilliant ', when one has the great luxury of 20/20 Hindsight, like Chomsky does...
So virtually all Leftists are contemptible?
@@newperve Show me a one minute stretch where he does lie.
The US is a democracy? Hmm. Today, it seems more like an oligarchy.
🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯
The state is the actual tyranny.
America was never founded as a Democracy! It's the Representative Republic given the illusion of people voting for elected representatives who in turn ignore the voters and represent the oligarchs who pay them to implement their agendas. They have been very successful in their propaganda that people don't know whether they're coming or going. In order to maintain this charade, you must have useful idiots, ie, Neocons, Libertarians, Centrist, both acting as a defensive and offensive line against the opposition.
@Vindexproeliator oh god. Mexico's full name is the united states of mexico and theyre called mexicans. USA went the same route and calls its citizens Americans. Everyone's always so fucking outraged at this when the whole concept to being called Americans is that they are a conglomerate of different states in the Americas.
@QQminusS DO IT!
I hate how conservatives distort Adam Smith.
Adam Smith was pretty progressive. It would do the conservatives some good to actually read what he wrote!
He was primarily a moral philosopher, and his views on morality heavily permeated his economics. 99% of people have no clue what he wrote, the invisible hand doesn't even mean what we're told it means
David O'Hara Preach.
The original advocate for socialized health insurance.
I have and you're a idiot. Read Mesis and Thomas Sowell too.
Roland Deschain Would you mind recommending some real economists??? Sowell is at least somewhat respectable, but Mises hasn't been relevant for decades outside of 4chan. Praxeology is reason enough to laugh
Really glad to hear that corporations are looking out for my needs. I can tell because of all the free apps out there. All I have to do is give them my personal information and they use it only for good things and only send me ads for things I really need.
i was in vietnam in 1970....shortly afterwards i heard of and started reading stuff by chomsky.....this man has been spot on to the reality of america for over 50 years.....
👍
@@ronniecortex4936 one ronnie to another
well you know, thank you for your service
Thank you for your service. God Bless.
Thank you for your Service.
"I'm afraid I gotta leave" is the Chomskyist version of a mic drop.
LOL - it was impressive though!
@AV Mendenhall I don't wanna be sparky or anything but how does that work? I mean people have significantly less dollars than others
*some people
Pretty much relatable to what freedom is as stated by Žižek: We feel free because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom.
Do you know the words "oppressed" and "slave" and "unfairness"
@@baitman2368read the book 1984 and the part about Newspeak
I put this on as I was going to bed. It’s like having Noam read you a socialist bedtime story. Ahhhh
eriknephron gfr LMAO
you don't have to go to bed. you're already asleep believing you are living the american dream. and like all sleep time dreams, eventually you wake up....
@@TheLinuxYes Why would you assume that everyone watching this video is American? That's also a massive issue, the most powerful country on the planet's population think the world revolves around them. Even left wing Americans. There is a whole world out there with the internet man..
I'm encouraged that there are people of the left in the US.
Does that include 100M socialist murders?
The guy who said “woo!” at the :54 mark
- that was me. That’s my union 1199.
And I am one of the two people who filmed it. Small world.
LeighaCohen hi!!! Awesome video! Thank you!
Are you from Massachusetts too? Are you a member of the 1199?
LeighaCohen I subscribed to your channel.
based
yeah bro hahaha
Workplace Democracy = Real Freedom
No, it means unemployment. All of the workers would vote themselves high salaries and benefits that bankrupt the businss in no time. All publicly traded companies have democracy in the form of corporate boards. Most corporate boards make poor long term decisions as the typically vote for short term gains that pumps up stock prices that allows them to cash out before the bills and problems of their decisions unfold. Private business usually plan for the long term so that the company can be pased on to future generations.
Even business owners don't have real freedom. The business owner is always the last person in the company to be paid. All of the bills and workers compensation (salary + benefits) must be paid before the owner recieved a dime. If the company loses money, its the business owner that pays the bills and wages out of his or her own pocket. Business owners need to mantain authoritarian in order to ensure the business remains sound. Mandating workplace democracy is not democracy as the business owners have no choice (removing any decisions from them). Any should mandate would quickly bankrupt most business as the workers vote for excessive compensation, or make poor business decisions. If you want to be part of the decision process than start your own business.
*****. Rarely does corporate democracy exceed authoritarian corporate system. In most cases corporate democracy reverts to mob rule.
"Also there is unemployment now and we already have an economy where corporate dictatorships predominate."
This because of the hand of gov't. The MegaCorps manipulate the gov't through lobbyists campaign contributions, and use that advantage over the small businesses. Thats why Walmart has destroyed local businesses. All of the biggest companies have tight connections to gov't, whether its the Mega retailers, Industrial Military complex, Banking and Finance, etc
"Partly because everyone has an interest in making the business grow and succeed as everyone is an owner or partner"
As a business owner, this could not be further from the truth. Most workers want a 9to5 Job and have little interest in making the company profitable. Few workers are willing to volunteer, work extra (non-paid) hours to improve the business. If you believe in corporate democracy than build and run your own business. As a business owner, I have to voluteer my free, unpaid time to grow my business. In many cases I need to take money out of my own savings to pay for the resources needed to begin new revenue sources. None of my employees are willing to contribute time or money into the business. How many workers in the average company would be willing to vote a 10% wage reduction and use the capital to expand the business? How many workers will be willing to vote for a 25% wage increase?
"Plato to parliamentary democracy because ordinary people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves."
Or the just don't care. Few people ever show up to Townhall meetings or other open public events. Unfortunately in most instances people put in about 5 minutes of attention on a important issues or problem. They fail to spend an appropriate amount of time thinking and researching to make a sound voting decision which may take dozens of hours. 98% of the population spends there free time watching TV, Sports, Xbox, or use other forms of entertainment. Almost none are willing to spend free time doing something of value.
"However these companies are still within the free market and so in order to compete with their autocratic rivals "
The same is true with workers. Workers are free to choose which companies they work at, and they can always start their own business. Companies with the best ideas and workplaces will thrive. Poorly run companies will lose out to competitors and they will also lose their workers. In a way this is a form of corporate democracy since people will vote with their wallets and workers will choose their employers.
That's very transparent to me that your own expectations of what a worker should give to contribute to the success of your company is very out of tune with their own expectations and needs.
You should ask yourself that. Working from 9 to 5 I could be a slack or proficient, even I could take responsibilities if I get compensated to it. Now I know your probably already being super fair boss, at least in your view. I'm just saying maybe you should stop and think about it. Cheers
Check Gramsci - workers councils,
Mondragon Cooperative.
"The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgement concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life... But in every improved and civilized society, this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall unless the government takes some pains to prevent it." Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, 1776
Just another socialist clown telling lies as usual.No socialist country has ever been successful,they just leech off of everyone else..
@@garythegman9680 UNga unga ungaaahhhh! There is the translation of your arguments my fellow imbecile.
@@garythegman9680 what a moron
@@capiche2759 if workers own the means of production then they can decide for themselves what is the most valuable way to spend their time. Why should there airways be this silly dichotomy between private ownership or centralized control. It is possible to have decentralized cooperative control of shared resources.
@@kvaka009 Yes. It is.
That's not Democracy, that's Plutocracy. First time I've ever heard somebody else say that, and by the God that doesn't exist, was it refreshing to do so. I've been disillusioned for years, but I've only just begun to truly wake up in the last 2-3. I wish I'd have known of people like Noam Chomski 20 years ago. What a true gem.
Welcome to the Desert of the Real. (beats the hell out of being plugged into the Matrix)
He's not gone yet, and he wrote books, too. You can read them for free at the Republic library.
It's not really a democratic process in USA -its a ratification process, where, every four years the citizens get to choose which of two billionaires will rule over them for the next four years in the interests of the people who hired them, other billionaires!
Only the people who represent the corprotocracy and have their interests at heart would ever get enough sponsorship to ever even get their name heard or get promoted to the public at large.
A "plutocracy" in other words.
Anyone who has ever said that the government should be run like a business/corporation does not believe in democracy
This man can say something you’ve always thought about. He articulates it in such a way , any sensible being would understand.
Chomsky is one of the last real intellectuals.
They're still out there, it's just frustrating finding them because you have to go through a lot of bad stuff to get there. Finkelstein is pretty fantastic. So is Angela Davis. Howard Zinn too.
Last..
So true.
There are many others on the scientific community. It's just that they are usually too mesmerized in their own fields so they don't make noise...
I've twice asked for a one minute stretch of this video where he didn't lie. Guess how many takers I've got?
It's spelled least not last.
haha, Libertarianism fights for freedom of one to submit oneself as slave to the other.
+ganzo
You forgot to mention what'd hell you've been smoking!
If you can't tell the difference between slavery and working you have a problem.
It seems to be the freedom to purchase products freely...it's a very shallow form of "liberalism" that I use to find intriguing (and was very inspired by Friedman in my 20s). Now I see that Noam's point of view is the strongest and most well-rounded...Friedman was effectively a prop of the wealthy industrial class. The freedom to purchase and use your own money freely isn't much of a freedom if your purchasing POWER is being continuously marginalized by the ruling elite. It's not an illusion (the idea of an oligarchy controlling the purchasing power of most Americans)...it's a reality, and I do believe more and more Americans are waking up to that fact, especially younger Americans, who are seeing that the "American Dream" of home ownership is a fantasy, at the median compensation levels we are expected to work with today, while the top 1% of earners accumulate the majority of wealth (and in an increasing fashion, as time goes on...in a very unsustainable and socially-unbalancing manner).
@@bernlin2000 If you think freedom to purchase products is shallow you are the one who lacks depth. Friedman spent half his time attacking policies that helped the wealthy industrialist class as you put it. Friedman argued against the ways that the elite marginalised people while Chomsky showed Marxist crap. What you mean by calling Chomsky more well rounded is that he's fashionable. You can't actually support Chomsky against Freidman, hell you can't even attack him without ignoring what tippy know about him, that he was against the interests of the ruling class and said so often.
@@newperve but the point is what he advocated for was the complete opposite of his anti-elite rhetoric. He could rail against the elite all he wants, the laissez-faire system would only greatly benefit them over everyone else. And I don't think the argument is that the freedom to purchase at will is shallow but rather to say this is true freedom is shallow. It can certainly be a facet of freedom, but not freedom in and of itself.
Capitalist democracy is an oxymoron.
Mob rule is not freedom. Owning the product of your labor, is.
@@TribalGlobe Yeah and that's the opposite of capitalism
and the majority of rich capitalists in murca are morons. ~66% inherited their wealth.
@@TheLinuxYes Your claim is mysticism. Try looking out at reality.
@@TeaParty1776 reality is that if u bother to read any world history ud know that when wealth gaps continue to grow over time unchecked by democratic forces, revolutions happen. When that happens no one will be able to protect u or ur property.
Have a nice day!
freedom to exploit
Coward
Grey Winters Who is a coward ?
Its like Magna Carta, the freedom to do what you're told.
'Coward' does not apply in this context. So....explain.
he doesn't know what he said.
An entire college course could constructed from the Chomsky archives on UA-cam! This is the essence of what is generally omitted from college courses-the truth!
Glad Noam redistributes his wealth of knowledge!
Did he have any wealth to redistribute too?
Carson Smith
Yeah, he redistributes his wealth of personal positions on issues he either doesn't know enough about, or knowingly misrepresents.
He doesn't redistribute the material wealth acquired as a result of doing so.
@Andrea MENDENHALL Thanks Andrea for your extremely complex analysis and rebuttal of professor Chomsky’s words. Glad to know your ideas are much more sophisticated.
@Andrea MENDENHALL And you’re a professional UA-cam commenter?
@@drrydog
His knowledge is infinitely more valuable. I'm sure he would agree that his taxes should go up though.
Thank you for uploading this intelligent, serene and well-balanced talk by Noam Chomsky - as always packed with important and most relevant historical data.
He is a hero to me.
What a fantastic person he is, he explains it thoroughly, Thank you Noam, you inspire me to be a better human being.
Chomsky makes me happy
He in fact enlightened me
Truth makes me happy. Yoda Chomsky (:
Me too he makes you wanna read a book a week
unaccountable corporate tyrannies - google apple Amazon patreon Twitter.......
he was right!
SDsc0rch Twitter is even starting to get a bit authoritarian, censoring people off of the platform entirely.
@@smocloud A bit?? See, I assume that you would consider yourself to be left - as do I - but it's time we start speaking up against what twitter, facebook and co are doing - despite it mostly hitting those who are politically opposed to us. Discourse is the solution, literal censorship never is. If these platforms remain unchecked, it will sooner or later not only hit those who are mostly considered "enemies" by the public, but anyone who doesn't fit into twitters or facebooks safe space utopia where they control what people think and feel. We long have reached the point at which tech giants like them, or in this regard mostly google, have strong and strongly questionable impact on how opinions are formed. The dystopia is already here, we are just too busy fighting amongst ourselves to notice.
Raw Engineer And how can you avoid the creation of monopolies in a non-regulated economy? Competitive economies can be reasonably balanced during a period of time, but in the long run this becomes unsustainable, some major business ends up consuming the minor ones. This is what competition means, instability. At some point corporations/businesses would have to use centrally-planned economies (CEOs already do this, for example, to manage in a centralized way foreign ramifications of their enterprises), appropriating themselves all aspects of a government, only it not being democratic, since democracy doesn’t exist inside of a corporation, in the workplace (one of the propositions of libertarian socialism is to apply a democratic system inside of the workplace). In the end, it’s all about centralization or de-centralization. Only De-centralization supports democracy. Right Libertarians want business centralization, which is against democracy. I understand someone can be against democracy, which explains capitalism, but Chomsky is definitely right in this video, in all matters.
emu I agree, but not so much on Discourse, but Dialogue. A discourse can be planned to be extremely centralized and focused on a singular matter seen only with a singular perspective, this is how publicity, propaganda, the providing of mainstream information, commodity fetishism, pure ideology and so on all function. On the other hand, Dialogue DEMANDS perspective, it demands de-centralization, etc. This is also the way Dialectical Materialism is supposed to function, just like Marx, thinking about Socrates and his methods, predicted.
There was plenty of corporate tyrannies before, during and after this speech.
I think the takeaway here, in 2019, is we live in a plutocracy and do we want to continue to do so.
"It takes an effective educational system to prevent people from seeing it..."
I love his humor!
His comment on libertarianism was flawless. When he followed up saying maybe they just don't understand it, he is not being disingenuous - "I'm not saying that you don't believe what you're saying; I'm saying that if you didn't believe what you were saying you wouldn't be sitting here"
Pretty sure any libertarian would immediately object to his pretty much all of his characterizations 0:18-01:00.
If you're interested in this particular topic then I suggest another talk by Chomsky entitled the Year 501. He goes into more detail in his description.
"I am afraid, I've got to leave."
Very sadly and unbearably, one day he will have to leave together with his vast ocean of knowledge and deep understanding, and will leave us bereft of being able to hear snippets of his meticulous and cohesive thinking and accurate discussions and arguments on a vast array of subjects on which he has had a commanding authority. It has always been very educational and a great joy listening to this wonderful polymath.
"think it through, its obvious" - noam chomsky
I heard libertarians, or people who think they’re libertarians, described as house cats: convinced of their fierce independence, while utterly dependent on a system they neither appreciate nor understand.
Here's an excerpt from pages 349 and 350 of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith that Chomsky refers to when talking about the invisible hand:
"As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor he knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectual than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those affected to trade for the public good. It is an affection, indeed, not very common among the merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it."
Thanks for publishing this insightful speech from Noam, giving youngsters an opportunity to benefit from his virtually limitless insight.
Freedom comes with resposibility. This is where freedom fails.
Vincent Krommenhoek definitely spot on
Actually -this is where human beings fail
So what does that make Chomsky for never being, ' responsible ', for any field outside Lingusitics-Other than complaining from the sidelines?
As they say "vote with your dollar". Of course that is dependent on how many dollars you have...
" Free market capitalism is the only system invented that makes even its critics rich, as Mr Chomsky and others have found out" - Dougals Murray.
This guy is awesome, been a voice of truth for so long. My guru
Children were the first slave's in Britain, read about their Industrial revolution. Getting rich off children's back's. Dickens's wrote books on this subject.
Wow..ive just began checking out noam chomskys ideas and I find it amazing that he says the same things I do about a lot of things..nice to know im not alone..lol
Minute 1:42 when he says "is the kind that would permit" he clearly meant "is the kind that would prevent."
This never gets old
Now, I understand why people call Chomsky a charlatan.
LOL Well to be fair, in order to be a, ' Charlatan ', Chomsky has to be AWARE of the fact that he has no idea WTF he is talking about!
I would not take that bet... 😀
Chomsky is like a real life hero to myself and many others around the world
in this pandemic the ones still profiting are retailers and pharma go figure
Because they pay off the government
There was a man by the name of Limantour, who was the financial secretary for Porfirio Diaz. He once said something to the effect "The proof of Americas greatness is its poor style of governance." Getting at the idea that America had proven some form of greatness because it had managed to generate a capitalist system with some form of democracy. I am not a fan of Limantour at all, but it's quite interesting actually. Because for those who look at it from an ideological standpoint, democracy and capitalism do not exactly see eye to eye--I am not saying I dislike democracy, I'm saying capitalism is flawed and our society is in need of restructuring; I am not even saying we need to ban free markets, but that they need to be heavily regulated--It may seem as though America has democracy, but look at how many countries America has aided specifically because they didn't have democracy. American businessmen, for example, loved Diaz because he maintained stability and order. His people may not have been free, and the working class may have been suffering, but it was the cost for increased capital for American companies. In other words, America might preach local democracy, but it thrives on exterior positivism and non-free people.
At one point Dr Chomsky thinks faster than he speaks; there should have been a "not" in there:
"the kind of interference in the market
they wanna block, is the kind that would (not)
permit unconstrained tyranny on the part of
totally unaccountable private tyrannies,
which is what corporations are."
Wow these awful comments. He must really threaten your beliefs.
I love that Chomsky reinforces that theme of the "vile maxim of our time" almost every time he speaks. That is the basic point and problem with the world - we are all taught that being psychopathic selfish SOBs is the way to live, but only the very few at the top benefit from that ... . it is pure insanity.
Nobody is taught that except the socialists. Being selfish isn't being sociopathic and not wanting government to control your actions is not being selfish. Seeking gain has done more good than his kind ever managed.
@@newperve
tell me what is the "vile maxim" because like most of your right-wing republicans shipdits i can tell you know nothing about what you are talking about.
What if everyone thought like socialists? Who would bail out all the broke lazy people?
@@garythegman9680
The laziest people by scientific calculation are those who get billions and trillions of dollars in tax cuts for doing nothing.
@@garythegman9680 Yes, and who would bail out the criminal bankers? Tax write-offs given to corporations that can't compete- that is, those lazy broke people funding them. Then you have asset stripping of public wealth, and asset stripping of the wealth and resources of indigenous peoples in other countries through tricks, murder, assassination, regime change and debt enslavement. Read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". Envy politics- yes, envy of the thief who sells you back your own stuff having stolen it from you.
In capitalism, wealth, luxary and true freedom will always, ALWAYS be in the hands of the few and the "elite". This is because instead of sitting down and planning the future and taking what progress we do have and organizing it, the slightly richer, to the extremely richer, will always ALWAYS use their power to demand more progress before any common man can catch up.
Adam Smith said that the wants and needs of the producers should not be allowed to outweigh that of the consumers/workers. Paraphrasing
In the wild the hunters eat first. Survival tactic.
I wonder if Chomsky could benefit from a UA-camr with great editing skills and the ability to inflect for dramatic emphasis repeating the exact content of his speeches and bolstering the signal with those skills and abilities.
Jay Little well I have tried in my limited capacity to get Chomsky on UA-cam. I filmed him about 7 times at people throughout the world have view him over a million times. He has a huge following.
The brilliance of Chomsky is to just listen.He is an artist..deep and complicated..I do minimal editing...just so you know this was Chomsky answering just 1 question after his main speech.
Absolutely he could. Every propagandist can benefit from skillful editing.
Rex Nemovi all ideas are propoganda
@@sethroy4318
If you believe that two times two is four, Pythagorean Theorem or Archimedes Law are propaganda, you're entitled to your opinion.
@@rexnemovi6061 ok sis since you're being deliberately obtuse let me be more precise. any time you try to persuade an audience of anything, whether it's true or not, you are propagandizing. propaganda is just a tool; the way it's used determines whether it's good or bad.
and i know i'm entitled to my opinion. didn't need you to tell me that. but thanks anyway ily
I always love finding out that I've been saying the same things as Noam. Though I have no doubt he was first. This video beautifully explains my grievance with many supposed people. Take Cenk Uygur of the young turks for example, here is two quotes from him
"I love democracy"
"I love capitalism"
He see's absolutely no hypocrisy in holding those positions simultaneously, and this is the failure of many good people across the world both left and right.
fuck cenk uygur, and fuck democracy.
Competition hinders innovation because competitors hide technological secrets from each other. And without competition, you can collaborate and exchange ideas. Under capitalism, each firm writes its own software, and under socialism, you can go to another firm and rewrite everything there for free or take a standard one from a common database.
it also hinders innovation because it’s centered around classism and racism. It does not care to hear what the lower class or minority races think, in fact it actively suppresses their development, which actively suppresses the development of the human race.
His misreading of Adam Smith is astounding. I'm sure Chomsky means well, but he quoted Adam Smith's ' _The_ _Theory_ _of_ _Moral_ _Sentiments_ ' and said Smith's example argument for wealth distribution hinged on the landlords "natural sympathy for other people" when in reality the premise of this example was that the Landlord was uncaring and unfeeling, with no sympathy at all. Smith was really saying that the ways in which he paid his laborers would inevitably create a fair income distribution.
The quote for anyone interested:
"The proud and unfeeling landlord views his extensive fields, and without a thought for the wants of his brethren, in imagination consumes himself the whole harvest ... [Yet] the capacity of his stomach bears no proportion to the immensity of his desires ... the rest he will be obliged to distribute among those, who prepare, in the nicest manner, that little which he himself makes use of, among those who fit up the palace in which this little is to be consumed, among those who provide and keep in order all the different baubles and trinkets which are employed in the economy of greatness; all of whom thus derive from his luxury and caprice, that share of the necessaries of life, which they would in vain have expected from his humanity or his justice...The rich...are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species. When Providence divided the earth among a few lordly masters, it neither forgot nor abandoned those who seemed to have been left out in the partition."
This is another example of Chomsky's complete overconfidence in areas not in his specialty- he really shouldn't think he knows Adam Smith better than Friedman.
reading that twice and rewatching the bit of the clip where he quotes that book directly, i feel pity for you now instead of being critical. you really haven't a clue do you?
Can you make this captionable .. this is a great talk and I want to show it to my students and have a few who need to read subtitles. Thx
There is a feature on youtube now where you can submit/edit the CC... Fyi
The owner needs to enable that option
Why? So you can further pollute the minds of young people with the self destructive ideas of collectivism using a socialist hack like Chomsky?
@@MDebou whoa!! lay off that bong dude!
@@TheLinuxYes No way! Gotta keep hitting' the bonger! Lol
His most important annotation “It is changeable, it is not run by force” is exactly the Unique quality of Capitalism, under any other system it will be run by force
Nope
Yope
Capitalism is run by force
@@GalacticNovaOverlord Noam’s own words “Not run by force”. And be realistic with “Utopia” , Paradise cannot be restored.
Chomsky has had the "freedom" to complain about his comfortable western lifestyle for many years. Protesting in safety is a luxury that people many countries can only dream of.
"... fraid I gotta leave" - the ever humble Noam Chomsky
Yoda Chomsky
@@TheLinuxYes lmfao
I wish Thomas Sowell and Noam could have 1 debate before they die, much respect to both
Sowell is no fan of Chomsky at all.
His book "Intellectuals and Society" could have been squarely aimed at Chomsky, who he said "Should have stuck to language"
Sowell would wipe the floor with him.
Agreed
Just remember you may not share the same opinion as him, but he has a lot more evidence and research backing his opinion than you do
The big money shot-callers in this country are fond of presenting capitalism as if it was synonymous with democracy. That's the bedrock foundation of their Big Lie. In fact, democracy is a political philosophy and capitalism is an economic one. A cogent argument can be made that capitalism is completely antithetical to democracy - that it undermines democracy, that it never takes the public welfare into account, that its only concern is the value of it's stock and the return it provides to investors. Everything else is subordinated to that Holy Grail: the environment, democracy, workers, safety, you name it. Unless you understand that very basic distinction, you won't be able to make any sense of current events and will be vulnerable to swilling the corpspeak Kool-Aid about how unregulated corporations are wonderful for America and the world.
"Mr. Chosmky, could you give us a few words for Lil' Jimmy's birthday?"
Chomsky: 0:08
Very interesting. The phrase that dawned on me as I was listening was "compared to what?". Every governmental system has deep flaws, and can't deliver what it claims to be able to deliver, but one has to look at the outcomes of living conditions, and compare the options that we have so far tried. Also remember that virtually every idea that is tried in industry, business, science, and government is a failure before it succeeds - it's very difficult or impossible to know what the outcome will be of trying to affect a complex and chaotic system. We are continually refining and improving the system so that it serves more and more people - 70% disenfranchisement is better than the 90% it might have been 100 years ago and the 99% it was 100 years before that. "Pure" democracy is not some panacea either - the tyranny of the majority is a very real issue to contend with - the idea that if its just based on a popular vote, then a popular vote could legitimately vote to destroy a minority ethnic group or an individual or the intellectuals, or whatever minority you care to mention.
So you prefer a tyranny of the top 30 percent?
Kyniker Solon society is always partly tyrannical and alienating. It’s also partly educating, supportive and sustaining. Empirically speaking Democracy combined with capitalism is so far the best system we humans have worked out.
@@greatmomentsofopera7170 Hard to say depends how you define capitalism, were the Romans capitalist? If you mean the system that has emerged mostly in the 20th century well it is running faster through resource than a heroin addict through his stash. Nothing indicates that it is in any way sustainable so we might just be living in the short window of time before a major ecologic crash.
"We are continually refining and improving the system..." In fact, it's totally the opposite.
@@kynikersolon3882 Nice Black and White fallacy dude!
This was me, a naive "libertarian" who had never actually read Smith. Of course, I hardly ever really read any books in college, I just skimmed what I could to keep up with the syllabus and take the exam
Good thing we don't have a democracy in the United States of America and we're just a republic where each state of the republic elects its federal representatives democratically.
None of the conventional "isms" address the fundamental imbalance between human and property rights associated with access to and control over nature. In terms of labor and capital goods, nature has a zero cost of production. Nature is provided to humans for our use and survival. Almost alone among the great political and economic thinkers, the American Henry George presented a cogent argument for a labor and capital goods basis for property. Nature is, George argued, the commons from which all wealth is produced. Nature is the source of private wealth but is not legitimate private wealth. The ideal structure for accessing any part of nature is under a competitive bidding system for a leasehold interest issued by the community or society. Note that government is, then, the agent of the community and society for administrating such as system. As deeds to nature had already become a widespread norm, George argued that a second-best approach was for government to collect from every "owner" of land (broadly defined to include such natural assets with an inelastic supply as frequencies on the broadcast spectrum) the full potential annual rental value. This would serve as the fund with which to pay for democratically agreed upon public goods and services, which the potential for an annual citizen's dividend to be distributed. The term that best described the principles embraced by Henry George is "cooperative individualism".
Edward J. Dodson, Director
School of Cooperative Individualism
www.cooperative-individualism.org
"None of the conventional "isms" address the fundamental imbalance between human and property rights "
Property rights are human rights, do you imagine they belong to cephalopods from Alpha Centuri have them?
@@newperve The moral issue is whether nature is to be treated as the source of property (i.e., of private wealth) or as an asset to be bought and sold and mortgaged. My view is that nature is our commons, access to which is an equal birthright that can only be protected by the societal collection of location rents.
I like this video very much, but of course, like all premises in an argument, one must define one's terms. And the term "capitalism" in its simplest form is a far cry from what Chomsky is honestly and accurate describing. That is to say, what Chomsky is describing is State/Corporate capitalism.
In its simplest form, capitalism is quite benign, in my view, as it is just the voluntary exchange of one good or currency for another good, without any covert or overt influences. If say, I buy an album by say, Sting -- or AC/DC -- or the Sweden Radio Orchestra (or whoever), or buy a Noam Chomsky book -- those too are capitalist endeavors, and I don't see how that is inherently anti-Democratic. (at least in any obvious way!)
But these simple examples I give are entirely different from the way corporate entities have almost always succeeded in "socializing the costs" that they would otherwise be obligated to pay out of their own pockets. Yet that phenomena of socializing costs to the taxpayer -- or any other "externalities" -- is often referred to as "capitalism," rather than straightforward transactions.
There are many -- perhaps an infinite number -- of ways of usurping a true and honest capitalist system, and sadly, I think most of them have always accompanied capitalism in all of its history, and prevented it from realizing its full potential. Hence it has a largely justifiably negative reputation. But this shouldn't be absolute!
The fact is that the "libertarian" in his most basic nature is right -- he suspects the government is evil for its interference in simple transactions. And the government is indeed the tool for corporate (or other malevolent interests) that primarily tax and regulate him for the purpose of benefiting the corporate entities. The problem is that many libertarians have historically failed to see corporations as "the enemy" -- instead thinking of them as sort of "big individuals" -- that the corporation is like him only on a much larger scale. This is a fatal mistake and completely blinds him to the real problem.
(Of course, I'm being very simple. I haven't even brought the "satanic" nature of the state's use of war to subjugate people and keep them "in line." I probably have left out some other stuff too that should be mentioned . . . )
Above, at the end of the post, I stated that "I had probably left out some other stuff that should be mentioned . . . "
One thing I think I should mention, in regard to the Libertarian Party, is that the presidential candidates they have nominated over the years have all been anti-imperialists, though they do believe in "defense." Andre Marrou, the 1992 Libertarian candidate, stated his intention to close all overseas military bases during his campaign, and I think that is pretty much the same position all of their candidates advocate.. In addition, the party's categorical pro-legalization of drugs would spell an end to "the drug war."
The anti-imperialism (if enacted) would deal a huge blow to the "military industrial complex" by stripping it of much of its income that it gets to build and/or maintain the "defense" (I. e. aggression) that the US government uses overseas.
The anti-drug war policy (if enacted) would strip the "prison industrial complex" of much of its power and rationale for existence.
But the party and its attendant non-affiliated think tanks, such as the Reason Foundation or the Cato Institute,are NOT manifestly anti-corporate, and even have gotten some major funding via some of the "bad actors" in the corporate world (such as the Exxon-Mobil funding the "climate change denial" papers at the Cato Institute). Nonetheless, there is a lot of constructive, positive commentary coming from these think-tank institutions. Cato, for example, is anti "natural monopoly" in regard to utilities, and its members are largely all anti nuclear power subsidies, and have always been. Furthermore, you can find some very perceptive commentary on the nefarious nature of institutions like the World Bank and the IMF sometimes. However, you will also find in Reason and Cato very pro corporate and anti-environmentalist writings as well.
Michael Pollen, the famous writer on food issues, I've noticed, has featured two libertarians in his books and writings. In one article at least 10 years ago that he wrote for Harper's in regard to the bizarre legal/illegal status of growing poppies, one of the main characters he profiled was a libertarian named Jim Hogsworth (or something like that) who was very much involved in challenging the governments schizophrenic policy in this regard. The US gov't allows the widespread cultivation and selling of poppy seeds and plants, yet at times elects to prosecute (via the DEA) people who buy and grow them! In "The Omnivore's Dilemma," Pollen mentions a successful libertarian farmer whose eggs and chickens are famous for their taste and their sustainable organic origins (unfortunately I don't remember his name).
My point? That libertarians are a varied and motley group - and simply pigeonholing them as people who "worship at the altar of Milton Friedman" is an absurd and rather misleading allegation. It would be no different than pigeonholing all Democrats as "Obamacrats" by ignoring more honest ones like John Lewis(GA), Jim McGovern(MA) and former representative Dennis Kucinich, amongst many others. Obama might not want to close the SOA, but that certainly isn't true of other democrats.
So yeah, I love Doc Chomsky -- but this film is not my favorite, and could be very misleading.
Likewise, looking at the left, there is an old article that Jan Wenner penned in his magazine, Rolling Stone, called "Why Rolling Stone is a capitalist publication." I was around 12 years old when he wrote it (I'm 58 now). More recently, at the end of Oliver Stone's documentary, "South of the Border," Stone states that he believes that there are certain "benign forms of capitalism."
My point: the so-called "anti-capitalist" nature that the "Left" has needs to be more explicitly defined, and if there are various disagreements, those need to be more honestly and openly discussed and articulated. While it is obvious that most leftists and most libertarians are aghast at the nature of our system's extreme prejudice for the ultra-wealthy and powerful, that isn't in and of itself helping define what a proper capitalist system is (or would be, assuming that such a person believes it can even exist. I do, but that is me.)
"capitalism is quite benign, in my view, as it is just the voluntary exchange of one good or currency for another good, without any covert or overt influences." I have no problem with this statement, but you should know it's kind of a revisionist interpretation of the word capitalism. That's how some people have come to use that term, but it isn't exactly the way it was first intended to be used. Do you know who created the term capitalism? That's right, none other than Karl Marx. Yes, that Marx. And this is not at all what he meant when he coined the term. In fact, for many years, capitalism was used in a very pejorative way, and most capitalists avoided it, instead using the term liberalism.
We already have a term for what you described, and it isn't capitalism. It's called a market economy. Capitalism refers to the entire system and ideology that undergirds it, not just to that one component of that system that we like. But I'm basically fine with changing the word to mean this thing since we have come to idolize it so much. But as long as we understand that we are reappropriating the word, and that when others use that word, they may not mean the same thing we mean by capitalism.
It's also important to note that what you described need not be a feature of capitalism, and usually is not, and therefore it probably is not capitalism in its simplest form. Let's look at an extreme example, China. Would you say capitalist? Probably. But you probably wouldn't say that there are no covert or overt influences putting pressure on the market. They are after all, still a communist society.
Hey +Quantam Mechanic! Thank you very much for your response and explanation(s)! Your post really "hits the nail on the head"! I agree very much with what you said, and don't see anything in your post that I could possibly raise an issue with whatsoever! :-D
You're not mentioning the extraction of labor from the worker so the one who sells the CD makes a profit. This is capitalism.
I love Oliver Stone's films, but a "more benign" form of capitalism is not possible. They always want more.
It doesn’t matter if there is exterior influences or not, a corporation or entity could still become tyrannical and far too powerful under your system.
Still active at 90, incredible!
I learnt about Noam Chomsky in the Seventies of the past century, when his Transformational Grammar became popular among linguists. I like linguists dealing with political issues because they are not bribable for ideological reasons but show a pragmatical attitude. They are hardly biased but always credible.
College students don't often read the classics, they read sections of the classics printed out and distributed by their professors. Classics that, taken out of context, often seem to support the professor's ideological, philosophical, and political views. I think most mean well and are trying to cut student costs, but the consequences of skating the mere surface of many great works is the easy manipulation and misunderstanding of those works.
Oh, I think professors would LOVE to educate their students well, most love what they do, it's the economic system that is the problem, those who are educated the least, follow orders the best, same old story. What the system wants is obedient workers that think as little as possible and don't question what they're doing and why. Fortunately, humans evolve continually, let's see where we'll go next, this cannot last forever.
Im agreed with you
And also with roses and song
Reading is not reserved for college years.
It is a life long journey.
The greatest shame is that America, and the world never got to experience this great man as a legislator.
Chomsky has had his entire life to seek a position as a legislator. Or any type of actual Public Service Position.
Yet instead he chose to spend his life merely criticizing everyone else from the sidelines about fields that he has never actually worked in himself-Which is everything outside Linguistics!
So IF Chomsky really could have done a better job than all those he has been criticizing all these years, then it is Chomsky alone bears the, ' greatest shame ', for never even trying!
This man is my man. I live by his philosophy.
Why not live by *your own* philosophy?
When the US government was begun formally, after the revolution, capitalism was young but to many economic elites, it was clear that it was only just getting started, had massive wealth potential, and that feudalism was over, that was in Europe, and the anti UK revolution in the US was a revolution against being used as a colony to supply raw materials to British manufacturing, for growth of capitalist ruling interests there. The US interests wanted to realize this wealth expansion potential in their own new country, a country they saw themselves as the owners of, i mean, their class, the property owners. They didn't see it as belonging to all the people, except in the abstract symbolic ideological sense. They had no intention of having a democracy in the US.
The guy who wrote the constitution, by himself in his house, not together with other elites, they gave him the job because of his abilities an because he represented their interests and shared them, was James Madison.
The constitution of the US was overtly designed to prevent democracy. Madison and his people were very afraid of a majority of people coming together to legislate redistribution of wealth. This information isn't something hidden that you need to read between lines to find out, back in those days, most elites were not for democracy and any conflict was over how much symbolism of democracy there would be and how much there wouldn't be.
Madison and John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, who in those days called themselves Federalists, wrote a large number of papers called The Federalist Papers, in which each of them were explaining the new constitution they were proposing and in those papers they were defending it and advocating for it and giving their reasons for that.
Probably the most famous one is called The Federalist Paper No.10, written by Madison. It's a few pages long (It's on line, in PDFs and also excerpts). It's famous because in it, he gives the reasons for changing the government from the original government, Articles of Confederation ,to the Constitution that he wrote and it's considered to be the authoritative explanation of the purposes of the constitution and the means it uses to achieve its purposes.
The reason they were making all these arguments was because the Constitution had to be voted into power, and these were their publications to try to persuade people to vote for it. In those days a majority of people were not eligible to vote, there were property requirements. So the voters that Madison was appealing to were the propertied people.
His main argument is that societies are mainly divided into two factions, the majority which has no property and the minority which has property. There are other factions, he says, but these are the main ones in all societies. These factions compete with each other because of the differences in property. Madison says, echoing the political thought of John Locke, that some people are born into wealth and this is just the way it is, some people work hard and build wealth, some people are born with a lot of it and they are entitled to what they have, no one else has a just claim on it. The propertyless people want more than what they have . This is only natural. Both sides want what they can get. As it turns out, only a minority have very much property
Human nature, he says, is ruled by passion. When people fight over property, they are fueled by passion, passion overcomes reason, this is just human nature, he says. Bot the majority and minority factions are motivated by their passions and less by reason. In fact he says the majority of people who don't have property are not motivated by reason at all, while the minority who have property are not as overwhelmed by their passions because having property is something that makes people more reasonable, more able to see bigger picture and think things through.
This is why he argues that democracy is a bad form of government and that's why he created the constitution to prevent this bad kind of government from happening. Near the beginning the essay he says 'the greatest threat to the union' is the threat of the majority influence. By definition, the procedural form of democracy is majority rule. Madison says this is disastrous because the majority is not enlightened, they are ruled totally by passion, he gives the only historical example, the ancient Athenian democracy, and he relates that it lasted for a while, but people were all fighting and disagreeing all the time, and finally it fell apart and an oligarchy took over. He said even if you're for democracy, if you are realistic about it, you will want to prevent it because it will just end up in oligarchy in the end anyway.
The biggest problem of democracy is that it would give the majority the power to legislate redistribution of wealth. Madison said this would be unjust and would be a form of theft.
These ideas are so deep in American thinking. For this reason, theft by majority using legislation, Madison did not want a parliamentary form of government like the British had. Parliamentary means legislative rule, the majority of people (those who are allowed to vote) elect representatives to go to the parliament and in the parliament they pass laws by majority rule. Madison thought this would be harmful to the interests of the properties minority, and therefore, harmful to everybody's interests, as he says. The propertied minority was the faction most capable of running the country in its own best interests. He says the the propertied people know the majority's interest better than the majority itself.
i won't go into the parts about how the constitution was designed to prevent democracy, other than to say it prevented legislative rule by creating a very different form of government with "separation of powers", legislative, executive, judicial branches each with different powers. in a parliamentary system , the prime minister in the legislature is the chief executive of the country, so there isn't a separation of legislative (majority) and executive powers. Another thing about parliamentary systems is that if the government is not satisfying the public with its running of the country, a vote of no confidence can be held, at any time, it's not necessary to wait 4 years or 8 years to vote again, and this gives the majority of the public a lot more power to influence their governnent how it is in the US.
The parliamentary system in the UK predated the sort of birth of capitalism and was not create with capitalist interest in mind Madison and his allies were smart and could see that the capitalist system was capable of doing all kinds of great things economically, especially for his class but also in general, it was kind of visionary, and his thinking was, the less restriction and regulation of capitalists the better for the country because of how wealth would grow compared to the land based wealth and production system that it was steadily replacing, political change was bourgeois, it was for the capitalist class, and especially the industrialist capitalist class. The US revolution was a capitalist revolution, the replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution completed the capitalist revolution and created the country that would be the most successful dynamic capitalist country in the world. It worked.
The US can never be a democracy as long as the US constitution is its government, there is no way, unless the elite wanted to get rid of capitalism, which is not what has been happening through out US history and there's no sign of that now.
Without going into the argument here that Madison makes about how the Constitution will prevent democracy, i will just say that in Federalist No 10, he makes a 'divide and rule' argument for the constitution. In many ways he says, it divides up the majority so that not only can they not act as a majority. They can't even think as a majority, there is no consciousness of a common majority interest (such as universal publicly funded health care and other policies Madison considered unjust wealth redistribution, even though it turns out it would use money the public has paid in taxes to finance the government , but people aren not able to think very clearly in this way, the constitution, which as Madison argues, enlarges the power of the federal government, and the expansion of the country which he advocated, brings diverse interests under the same political system in which they have to compete with each other for government resources and this keeps them from looking at common interests they share, in the US people, if the constitution is passed, will be loyal to their more local or specialized interests and will not trust each other to join on what they share -- this keeps the propertied minority safe and these are the people who will best "represent" the chopped divided majority, people who have property which frees them to have time to be representatives in the government. They were never intended to have the same interests as the people they represent. He wanted them to rule precisely because they didn't have the unwise interests of the majority
You can agree or disagree with him, he had some good points, about instability in a democracy, and also mainly, i would say he and his faction created the absolute best possible government for capitalism to grow rapidly and to realizes and maximize its wealth creating potential, and it's been a good thing for the world, over all.
But no system lasts for ever because things evolve, capitalism has changed things and public needs and goals change.
I just want to point out what almost no one in the US knows, the impossibility of democracy under the US constitution and that this was deliberate on the part of the people who created this government.
Noam and Jordan Peterson should debate each other about capitalism.
Peterson is a dating coach. And a mediocre one at that
Peterson would get obliterated guy is a dummie.
Corporations are "people" in the same sense as governments are "people": large organizations of people under which power is concentrated, but accountability is diffused until totally abstracted. When a large bank, for example, undergoes policy that tanks a world economy, defenders point to the unnavigable bureaucratic structure, and say, "nobody is responsible, the bank is not an individual!" This is the catch-22 of corporate power: corporations are composed of people, but that does not mean that they are accountable as people, nor should they enjoy rights as individuals. Could you imagine someone saying "governments are people, my friend"? Such a statement is absurd.
No they are not! government takes 20% of my income every year. No corporate takes a dollar of my money unless I volunteerly buy their product!
Does anyone other than me sadly realise that, for all his great thinking and writing and lecturing, NC has had no influence on a single politician or piece of legislation anywhere on the world. Despite all his agitation to the contrary "The System" has just continued along screwing us up the same as it always has. My core belief, at age 63, is that by adulthood, 99% of people are already well entrenched in their worldviews and partisan political standpoints such that Noam, and other truly progressive thinkers like him, spend their lives doing nothing but preeching to the converted, ie their own crowd. The pollies who get elected (right across the political spectrum) care nought about any of the facts or ideas he espouses. He ain't a congressman, (nor a financial lobbyist) so therefore he can be ignored by them. Unfortunately he's not a PLAYER, has no real power, and therefore, sadly, no change can ever come through all his words. He's just like a spectator on the sidelines, shouting out his frustrations about the way the players are behaving. Yes, he makes all of us fans feel good in our agreement with him, but NOTHING EVER CHANGES on Capital Hill because of Noam Chomsky. Yes, we will miss him terribly when he dies; he will be called things like the greatest intellectual of the 20th and 21st centuries; people will say he was so prescient; but his life's work will have been in vain. Sad but true, I feel.
The Worse that so-called, ' experts ', like Chomsky THINK that our Policy Makers have acted all these years, then the Worse it makes Chomsky himself look, for never seeking a Policy Making Position Himself, and-With his superior wisdom-Show he can do better!
Instead of spending his life merely complaining from the sidelines, like the worthless Armchair Critic that he is!
that’s life
No one knows the full impact of Noam's work and ideas throughout his lifetime. Every person who has read his books or listened to his talks/speeches has to have been enlightened. Just look at the numbers of people who have listened to this talk and many others on YT, and took the time to respond thoughtfully.
In some ancient cultures the rulers were wise enough to know that they didn't have all the answers so they appointed a poet or a wise man to guide them to enact laws that served the common good.
I believe Noam Chomsky has been a wise, ethical and moral guide for all of us over his lifetime even though he didnt do great things to change the world. He's not alone in being a voice crying in the wilderness, so to speak. After all Jesus Christ never enacted laws, wrote books or did anything the world considers impressive yet his simple message of love is remembered and he remains one of the most well known and loved figures the world over for 2000 years. I'm sure Noam would get a kick out of being compared to Jesus Christ but after all they're both Jewish so that counts for something. End of sermon.
@@maureenmannion6748
Your funny bit at the end about Noam being Jewish was totally out of left field and totally irrelevant.
1. I've never heard Chomsky mention that his Jewishness has influenced his thinking in any way.
2. Jesus's popularity, 2000 years later, is the biggest informational con ever pulled off in humanity. Yes, in his name, many good deeds have been done. But also the most attrocious military and colonial crimes. Sadly,, imo Chomsky's talks and writings will gradually wane in consumption as humanity grows deeper into materialism. His thinking is an anachronism to the status quo, too dangerous for the rulers to ever countenance, and what good is political thinking if it never gets enacted via the political process.
@thedolphin5428 It is true NC does not speak or write about the influence his Jewishness has on his thinking. I decided to do a cursory check of his early life to see if the Jewish values were a prominent part of his formative years which may have had a lasting impact on his thinking later in his life. There wasn't a lot about his youth but what was there describes a childhood immersed in a Jewish cultural tradition which should have had a lasting impact.
Noam grew up in what was described as a "Jewish-Zionist cultural tradition", in an immigrant community, and a child of the depression. It was a Jewish working class world, highly intellectual, very poor but rich in intellectual pursuits and stimulating debates. His father fled from the Ukraine, which was under Russian control at the time, to America, taught in Hebrew schools in the US, eventually becoming a college professor of Hebrew grammar, and president of the college where he taught,a position he held for over 40 years. Amazing! Noam's mother, American born of Belarusian parents, was also a gifted intellectual involved with Zionism and the Hebrew language. Their home was considered a "Hebrew-Jewish home." From an early age Noam was surrounded by very smart and stimulating people at home and later at a very unstructured elementary school that seemed similar to a Montessori-like education system. Later, he was drawn into an intellectual youth group during his teens that helped form the beliefs that underlie his political views today. They had a commitment to Kibbutz values, the Hebrew culture, and anarchrist political leanings. Later, Noam actually lived in a Kibbutz in Israel for a while.
I know this doesn't make much of a case for his Jewishness informing his adult thinking but it does show that his earliest understandings were formed by people who were steeped in the Jewish tradition and values which had to have an influence on his thinking and writing in adulthood.
Simple. Because democracy is actually socialism.
социализм - это смерть культуры- а за ней и физическая смерть.
@@nemezidanemezida5110clown
Marx said Democracy was the road to socialism. However, he also warned of the dangers of a growing middle-class.
'the more a ruling class is able to assimilate the most prominent men of the dominated classes the more stable and dangerous is its rule'
'Situated mid-way between the workers on one hand and the capitalists and land-owners on the other, these middle-classes rest with all their weight upon the working class and at the same time increase the social security of the upper class'
And those predictions have come to pass, whereby the capitalist class have endeavored to inflate the middle-class demographic - be that through further education, right to buy schemes, cheap credit, business grants, tax breaks etc.
Naturally, a larger middle-class means Democracy is no longer the road to socialism - but rather constitutes the Dictatorship of the Petty Bourgeois. Thus we are seeing the exponential growth in Petty Bourgeois ideology - namely the scrooge like Libertarians and the hand-wringing non-voting Millennials.
What's left of the working-class - the bottom 20% who don't own property, don't go on holiday, don't send their kids to college - is set to take an even worse battering.
"hand-wringing non-voting Millennials"
they are a totally different generation with radically differing (incrementally differentiating itself) ideology.
unity20000 Not really. The well meaning Liberal who seems to go AWOL come election time was a phenomena recognized by Marx.
Marx was scathing of the Liberals of his day (Whigs) who he claimed had achieved little or nothing in terms of social progress despite centuries of hand-wringing..
+trev moffatt and yet the super wealthy elite are actually erasing the middle working class
derwen talia I think that's a myth. Have you any stats to prove the middle-class are shrinking? More people drive cars; own their own homes; have access to lines of credit, have children in further education than ever before.
Only 20 percent of American household earn less than 30,000 a year. Not saying most Americans are living the life, but such stats might explain why the Left continues to make little or no progress.
Just not a enough poor people around anymore. And the poor people that are left are slipping into an A political lumpen proletariat.
@8:30 Being from India, have to agree to the two key points made by Chomsky: a) India was the already the commercial hub of the world prior to British colonization and b) In the 100 years as a British colony, it underwent forcible 'de-development'.
If you look at standard of living of people in India, what you imply with "commercial hub" and "de-development" is wrong, SidTube. Study economic history that includes some quantitative information that you think is trustworthy. You choose. It's the opposite. Maybe you just been reading some anti-colonialism banter. Colonialism is reprehensible for sure, but standard of living increased during the British rule, and diminished drastically after independence.
@@GordonLF Please look up the work of British economist, Angus Maddison commissioned by the OECD and you will have your answer.
@@Sidtube10 Thank you, SidTube, for your prompt answer. I thought that you would choose Maddison figures because he's the most quoted economist on the issue of quantitative impact of colonialism in India. What can I tell you that it hasn't been said already? Even trusting Maddison made-up figures (his estimates, really) of pre-colonial India, the subcontinent was still behind any GDP per capita in Western Europe (although considering India's enormous population at that time, that lower per capita figure made them nonetheless a world power house as measured in total GDP). During British rule, not only GDP per capita rose (about 40%) but inequality diminished significantly. Thus, although the per capita figure didn't skyrocketed, the welfare of 200 million Indians was impacted positively. But the world kept on growing and India lagged behind in total GDP. Following Maddison figures (more accurate when closer to the present day), one can see, after the 1947 independence, a drop in welfare that lasted for more than 40 years. The topic is complex and I condemn colonialism. But the concepts of "hub of the world" before British rule or "forcible de-development" during the rule itself are grossly misleading.
@@GordonLFwould you also say something like racism was reprehensible but introducing blacks to the west has been largely beneficial for African Americans ?
You talking about picking sources to get info you want. That’s cherry picking.
But you know what maybe you’re right
Maybe the Indians who were killed, shipped off to places, forced to grow crops on their land that would make it unusable for growing food further and then leave them when they’ve outlived their usefulness was what Indians needed and wanted. They were saved.
The British of the time seem like nice civilised people
@@krona2894No, I would not use that line of thought. Although at that time I would have chosen to live amongst those cruel British instead that amongst the other people.
#privatetyranny #endUSURYnow #protecttheSacred
Noam Chomsky is a very intelligent man, and he is right by saying that Adam Smiths arguments for free markets are rather balanced and nuanced, but unfortunately his assertions regarding how Adam Smith used the term “Invisible Hand” in “Wealth of Nations”, and how that relates to the modern use of the expression, are misleading at best, and plain wrong at worst. Since there seems to be a lot of confusion on the topic, I decided to write a short explanation on how Adam Smith used the metaphor of the “Invisible Hand” in “Wealth of Nations”, and why I think Chomsky’s claims are misleading. I have posted some version of this text on multiple UA-cam videos in which Chomsky talks about this subject. Since this specific video is a little bit longer and covers many other things as well, I want to point out that I do not argue against other points that Chomsky is making here. My argument is only concerned with his interpretation of the "Invisible Hand".
In “Wealth of Nations”, the “Invisible Hand” is mentioned once in book IV, chapter 2. That chapter is concerned with restraints upon importation of goods that can be produced at home. Among many other things that are discussed in this chapter, Adam Smith mentions the phrase “Invisible Hand” somewhat offhandedly, in a discussion about investment behavior. Now let’s look at the full quote:
“By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain; and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.”
With this sentence Adam Smith summarizes 2-3 previous pages in which he outlines his arguments. The quote has roughly four parts. We now look at each of them individually, and add in the context of the previous pages.
1. “By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; […]”
This is the part that Chomsky mostly talks about. Adam Smith argues that upon equal or close to equal profits, merchants generally prefer to invest their capital in domestic rather than foreign industry. The reason for this is that the merchants like to have direct oversight over their business, and they are more accustomed to the people and the laws of their home country, which reduces the risk of doing business. Now, Chomsky is largely correct when he says that the “Invisible Hand” refers to this sort of “Home Bias”, but he fails to mention that according to Adam Smith, this is due to investors acting in their own self-interest. More importantly, he also fails to mention that this “Home Bias” is not the only thing to which the “Invisible Hand” is referring to.
2. “[…] and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain […]”
This is a totally separate argument and has absolutely nothing to do with the “Home Bias” that was the subject of the first part. Smith argues, that when people invest their money, they look for the most profitable industry to do so. The most profitable industry in turn, is the industry which creates the most value. Since the annual revenue of a society is equal to the value added in production, the self-interest of investors, according to Smith, leads to the most beneficial investment of capital. This very much resembles how the expression “Invisible Hand” is used today, but Chomsky does not acknowledge or even mention this part at all.
3. ”[…] and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.”
Finally, we come to the part, where Adam Smith describes these mechanisms with the metaphor of the “Invisible Hand”. It generally refers to the fact that the self-interested actions of individuals can lead to outcomes which were not intended by the individuals. The important part here is “AS IN MANY OTHER CASES”, meaning that the metaphor is not limited to the aforementioned instances, but can be applied to many other cases as well.
4. “Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.”
This last part concludes by saying, that this mechanism of the “Invisible Hand” frequently leads to outcomes which are beneficial to society as a whole, which again is very much in line with the modern use of the expression. Arguments for other cases where the “Invisible Hand” leads to better societal outcomes, can be found all over the book.
In summary, the “Invisible Hand” as it is used by Adam Smith in “Wealth of Nations”, refers to the fact, that individual self-interested actions can lead to unintended outcomes. Smith also states, that the unintended results of individual self-interested actions, frequently improve national welfare better, than actions which are consciously designed to do so. Smith mentions the metaphor while explaining two mechanisms (1. Self-interested investors prefer to invest at home compared to abroad; 2. Self-interested investors invest in industries, which are most beneficial to society), but he also clearly states, that this holds in many other cases as well.
So, Chomsky is right in saying that Adam Smith uses the “Invisible Hand” in “Wealth of Nations” to explain some sort of “Home Bias”, but he is wrong in reducing the expression to this very specific instance. He acknowledges only the first part of the sentence, but ignores the second part, and even more importantly, he ignores the third part in which Adam Smith explicitly says that the two mentioned cases are just specific examples of a more general concept, which applies to many other cases as well. Chomsky seems to imply that the way the expression of the “Invisible Hand” is used and understood today, is somehow in contrast to what Adam Smith wrote, but this assertion is simply not correct. The modern use of the expression “Invisible Hand” is a completely legitimate interpretation, and exactly in line with how Adam Smith used it in “Wealth of Nations”. Chomsky’s reductive interpretation, which he has repeated many times over the years in many different places, is indicative of him being either disingenuous or misinformed. If we give him the benefit of the doubt by assuming that he is being genuine, then his line of argumentation reveals a very superficial reading on his part, and he would have been well-advised to read the passage a little bit more carefully.
hope Chomsky words will never be lost/forgotten/forsaken! Long live, Noam Chomsky!
is this the guy who praised Pol Pot? Has he ever apologized?
it would be interesting to read the actual transcript or watch the actual clip. i don't suppose you found it while watching fox news?
In the US, capital trumps democracy. The US is utterly controlled by capital. What those who control capital want they essential get. Voting is for show.
These old sages spout for decades and the world remains in chaos.
This man is way out of sight. The greatest philosopher of his time.
it has been noted MANY times, that there is NO SUCH THING as a purely capitalistic nor a purely socialistic economic system in any country ANYWHERE in the world.. all countries employ a mix of the two systems, yes even the united states and china which like to think of themselves as being on opposite ends of the spectrum
We have the best of all possible systems - welfare for the wealthy, and laissez faire capitalism for the workers. /s
1.75 playback speed
Who’s here in 2024 before the US elections 😅?
Breaking news: There are good boomers!
@R J I'm sorry but you're practically begging me to do this.
I had no choice.
*ok, boomer*
@Jack oof. not a baby boomer
Just a boomer
i don't understand where he is getting at. what's the alternative?
i don't think anyone with a reasonable understanding of socioeconomics isn't aware of our current societies' flaws. that doesn't mean better alternatives are available.
Promote free enterprise but use democracy to prevent monopolies, corruption, lobbying, and crony capitalism. It's hard work on the part of citizens and intellectuals, but those are all visible hands if we care to look.
@@razinalim8049 how?
i have a copy of wealth of nations on my book shelf, still not read it but I honestly always believed Smith was for completely unrestrained capatalism, and so does does everyone I know
***** yeah I understood that.
Re-read it. That is precisely what Chomsky urges you to do. Form your own singular, unadulterated opinion and unsupported by friends!
Jordan Hollister read the book for fuck sake before you comment
Adam Smith, along with his "Wealth of Nations", was pulled from the grave to become the unwilling poster boy of the Reagan campaign. That's how.
If you take all the wealth you should pay all the taxes.