I'm gunna say nah simply cuz I doubt he would want it and it sounds borderline Leninist to bring those we see as brilliant back from the grips of time. With this said, I share your sentiment.
Before the 1st 20 seconds of this clip have elapsed, Chomsky said something that most Americans would miss and some that would get it would become reactionary over. He uses the term "Left Wing Marxism". As political terms, from their inception the terms Left and Right were about what power structure forms one supported. Left meaning horizontal as in direct democracy or similar. Right meaning hierarchical or authoritarian, as in monarchs (strong men) or small bodies of representatives. This lends itself to the question, "what is right wing Marxism and what does it look like?" An example of right wing (hierarchical) Marxism is The Soviet Union. Chomsky goes on to speak of "Libertarian Socialism" and "Anarchism". These are left wing structured political forms and end up in far different, and more personally free, places. I recommend pursuing learning more about them. you can do so here on yt, or look up the anarchist library on the web.
STARTING with wikipedia pages on anti authoritarian left, anti stalinist left, left communism would also help. You're right the RICH HISTORY OF culturally free real leftism is all but forgotten in mainstream debates. Korsh, Pannekoek, Guerin, Rocker, Kropotkin, Bakunin 's writings to be looked up after that (all available online , even I need to do this) , FOR LIBERTARIAN MARXISM, AND CLOSELY RELATED CURRENTS, like Anarcho socialism, syndicalism, left libertarianism, strains WITHIN LEFT ANARCHISM, as well as listening to Chomsky online about the historical fallacy of right libertarianism It's important to remember that these political positions are consistent descendants of CLASSICAL LIBERAL /ENLIGHTENMENT THOUGHT acc to Chomsky so reading Proudhon, Humboldt (Chomsky quotes often) and European enlightenment thinkers (list available online) will give a clear historical picture to the intellectual spectrum containing Anarchism TO Left Marxism (anti statist socialism) What will work even better is to finally trace European enlightenment thought to Western Classicism. A Google search on anti authoritarian left will also throw up names like ROSA LUXEMBURG EMMA GOLDMAN SYLVIA PANKHURST, most of the work by 19-20 century Anarchist---Left Marxist SPECTRUM people is easily accessible online.
I would argue that David Graeber until his untimely death. Vanderloos is a phenomenal Anarchist. Judge Napalitano is great though he is somewhat stifled by his reputation and desire for wealth.
@@ericosagie3046on the subject of libertarian socialism? Wouldn’t be too difficult even for me. Even the definitions of the words completely contradict each other.
I've listened to this twice and I'm not ashamed to say I'm going to probably end up listening to it probably at least double that much again. It's too much for me to digest with a single swing. That said, excellent information from a very intelligent man.
@penguins inadiorama Technological advancement makes it possible to cater to at least 12 billion population when the world population itself is 7.7 billion. We have abundance of food. Not to mention, crops and other harvests being disposed in large quantities on grounds it doesn't have necessary quality that the free market demands. That is ridiculous when people are starving to death. Not to mention, poor harvests is caused by environmental depletion and climate change, which again is a consequence of Capitalism's conquest on nature. There are millions of homes lying empty in America and millions of homeless people. Sure, population explosion is real. But, the idea that we are overpopulated, is a myth. Statistics show otherwise.
@penguins inadiorama I didn't read the excerpt because I feel you misinterpreted my statement and therefore the except is probably following that line of misled thinking. Firstly, about crops. I was never talking about quantity when I said "poor harvest". I was talking about quality. Technology will always make sure we produce enough, but it won't ensure quality since that is derived from soil nutrients. And there's a bit of irony here. You see, Capitalism, and the free market throw away loads of produce because they don't meet competitive standards. And the fact that they fall short of standards is because, of depleted soil nutrients, caused by acid rain, deforestation induced erosion, overuse of pesticides (this is more controversial) among other things, which in the first place is caused by Capitalism itself. And also, I further questioned as to why these discarded products are discarded so when there are people starving. Secondly, moving on to homeless people. I'd recommend you look up some statistics, but there are decent habitable homes in USA lying empty. And while confiscation of wealth and property may seem radical, it's the natural conclusion you arrive at when you follow the socialist line of thinking and start questioning the worst aspects of Capitalism. And then you said something about entropy. Well, I have a pretty solid understanding of the fundamentals of empirical physics and a bit of quantum physics too. And you must understand, when you're talking of entropy, you're also subscribing to the radical determinism of science. Entropy merely says that things tend to grow more chaotic over time, and achieve a state of dynamic equilibrium. This idea of dynamic equilibrium and chaos is infact brought by Hegel's idealism when he talks of "Contradiction" and furthered by Marx in his dialectic laws (Law of negation, law of interpenetration of opposites, law of transformation, especially the first two). So, that line of thinking infact established what Chomsky was talking about. Anarchism and dissolution of the social hierarchy or certainly the power structure related to it, since things grow more chaotic over time. Lastly, applying entropy to population study is wrong, at least your conclusions are. Because every species has certain population curves (S curve, J curve), there is no constant rate of explosion of population, or any consistent exponential rate for that matter. It varies with phases. I'm not saying that humans will naturally control population explosion, but entropy certainly doesn't answer all questions here. And by the way, while we are at it, I'm against applying hardcore scientific deterministic laws such as that of entropy in the context of human society. I'm not a radical idealist either. I believe there must be established some sort of a balance between the two, which eliminates applying entropy to describe human society. And even if you do, a stateless divisionless society as suggested by Anarchists/Marxists is the natural conclusion.
@penguins inadiorama There are several fundamental points where you and I vastly disagree. And I believe we are both thoroughly indoctrinated to our respective belief systems for good reason to be so. I'd like to clear some doubts you have regarding Socialism though. It's not about Egalitarianism. And Marx made his antithesis to Hegel's idealism by observing metaphysical phenomenon. So no, I'm not conflating Idealism and Determinism. I'm doing so, on a materialist premise since there is an appropriate (materialist) antithesis to Hegel's idealism. So, my analogy of entropy and anarchism/Marxism is legitimate, or at least, there's no counter argument you've provided to that. And I provided perfect reasons to support my claim of declining soil quality. You merely mentioned "overpopulation" without actually backing that up in any sort of way. Or countering my own arguments, at that. And no, there aren't half as many vacant homes in India. And even in there were, there's no justification for them to exist. And I am from India, so don't tread down that door I'd advise. Also, while we are at that, there are vast differences between property rights and human rights. So let's not confuse between the two. Also, there's no reason why people like Chomsky would disregard his system. At least, your argument of "hatred and envy" isn't applicable here. So...
@penguins inadiorama Okay. Firstly, I'd like to thank you for shrinking the size of your replies and I'll try to do it myself. Firstly, "physics governs states". Honestly, that idea is downright ludicrous. It's fun to talk about metaphysics, but it's equally important to recognise limitations in a particular discipline. Physics, and all of Science, in fact, talks of a strictly deterministic universe, where there's no such thing as free will( in the Existentialist sense), and "human nature". Because, in the end, we merely enact and execute what the system makes us do, instead of being guided by innate schematisms. And that overlaps with what philosophers call Materialism. Chomsky isn't a materialist, he's an idealist. So, people like him, would disregard your statement right away on the ground, that it treats humans as mere particles that can be perfectly expressed with their coordinates in some sort of a field, the system could be thermodynamic, could be a gravitational field, electrostatic, Electromagnetic or whatever. That's putting it in strictly scientific terms. And they've got legitimate reasons to downplay thinking of the sort. Even transcendentalists, and Existentialists would agree with the Libertarian Socialist, in this case. Marx wasn't a radical idealist, or at least, Marxism isn't. And because it shares a similar materialist premise, I can draw analogues. And people have, Marx has, and it's perfectly legitimate, and is therefore labelled Scientific Socialism. So, if you're a materialist, Marxist analogues legitimise socialism. If you're an idealist, Libertarian Socialism does.
“Reading, after a certain age, diverts the mind too much from its creative pursuits. Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking.” Einstein
@@evolvedape2161 That is an odd comment from Einstein, but he appears that he made it. I cannot determine how old Einstein was when he made that remark. Schrödinger, whose scientific accomplishment exceeded Einstein's in scope and importance, was a lifelong reader and interested in many topics outside of his "creative pursuit".
@@HeathWatts By that quote, Einstein likely meant that you should not allow other people's ideas to form the entirety of your individual system of belief. You ought to think for yourself and engage in formulating your own ideas. Think outside of the box, as Einstein was well-known for doing. Write; don't just read. Contribute to the exchange of ideas.
I am not a socialist but I would like to be as informed as possible - so if any out there who have an understanding of Chomsky would consider these questions I would be grateful. 1. How long does he think that the members of councils will be sufficiently engaged and informed that they will administer those councils competently -, including holding those they elect to account? 2. How will he prevent those who's competences are essentially in the field of getting elected to lead and administer the councils simply becoming a professional political class and thereby return to the evils of centralised governance that he would avoid?
@Aleksandar Lukichthankyou. Are there live examples of such companies surviving in a market economy? - I mean working profitably. Can the company be anything but very small? Who adjudicates in a conflict between two entities? E.g. between a factory and local residents? Or between two sections of the same company?
@Aleksandar Lukich I have some questions regarding this - how will this system deal with people who have no interest in "company politics"? It seems like there is a huge load on the employee - whereby he not only needs to know about his job but also about company politics - what it happens, how it evolves and so on. Roughly put, how does this system deal with mediocrity, incompetence, ignorance, and indifference, which we must admit, there is plenty in the world? Looking over your answer, I had multiple other questions, but I guess this statement would sum it up if I understood correctly - the goal is not to flatten the hierarchy - there will still be one, there will be inequalities in terms of pay in the least, but they will be much lesser. One question that remains though is if leadership is based on skill and experience and they do not decide the evolution of the company, what value is there for their existence if the inexperienced - at least in comparison to themselves - will take the decisions?
I wonder how Chomsky feels about that talk now. We know now that the industrial society is basically over, or will be soon, because of the ecological disaster and exhaustion of natural ressources. Yet, I think anarchist ideas will still be valid in the post-industrial world which is hopefully coming.
He's right about the Left's "suicidal tendencies," which is why unity and non-sectarianism is so important if we're going to succeed. I lean toward Anarchism/Council Communism/Libertarian Socialism/whatever the most, but I've spent a lot of time with ML comrades and had long discussions, and none of them actually want an authoritarian government or state socialism as the end goal. Basically, anything to Left of Capitalism is better than what we have, even if I have my preferences for getting there or organization. I think modern Cuba and Vietnam are good examples of how it's simply not true that any form of Socialism besides what Chomsky is talking about are somehow just as bad as Capitalism, which many Anarchists are very stubborn about.
I don't know much about Vietnam, but Cuba is a good example that "anything Left of Capitalism" can be even worse than Capitalism itself! I completely disagree with that claim ("anything Left of Capitalism is better than what we have"), we can very well build something worse if we just aimlessly destroy what we have and usher ourselves in political chaos, which is the perfect condition for an authoritarian government to assume the reigns. Remember: fascism rises when capitalism is at crisis. We need to be very clear about what we want and how we believe we can achieve it and we need to be very careful in choosing our allies (of course we do need allies). About Leninists: they're libertarian and against authoritarianism...... until they reach power. They're against authoritarianism and they want to achieve its extinction through authoritarian means. They have this weird tendency to believe that THEY know what society needs and that THEY are the ones that can build the common utopia. They'll seize totalitarian societal control and reign it with "iron hands" in the name of setting it free. They'll persecute the state "enemies" (which, in the USSR included anarchists, syndicalists and other socialists and communists), they'll hold close vigilance on society, they'll censor, exclude and murder those with diverging ideologies. They'll try to achieve a free society through its tight control. Give power to a Leninist party and perhaps they're competent and self-neglecting enough and the conditions are right enough that they'll achieve a free socialist society and give away their power when the time comes. Perhaps, though, you might end up with something like North Korea. Who the fuck knows? We have given absolute power to a party which deems itself superior to its people. And even if a communist society is achieved; at what cost? Are authoritarian measures worth the construction of communism? Let's not forget the genocides that happened in the USSR (and elsewhere). I know, common anti-communist claim, it's an important claim though and we should be critical of our past and avoid to repeat it. I know that revolutions involve casualties, but are we sure we want to give the power to decide which casualties are necessary to a totalitarian political party? Who will hold such a party accountable of their choices? I'd very much prefer a revolution that would be democratic from the start, and that will construct socialism democratically since conception... Let's remember that at the time of the Soviet revolution there was no internet. The power we have to bring masses of people together today, organise and spread information is far superior than what was possible at Lenin's time. His method might've been realistic for his time, but is by now outdated and should be understood as such. We should strive to do better!
@@pedrohenriquedadaltdequeir4859 If there is any excuse for the original Bolsheviks, it's that, while the idea of 'power corrupts' was certainly around, it hadn't been tested in this specific constellation. We have learned from history and we have observed that some of the absolute worst outcomes ever have arisen from left authoritarianism. I'd say Cuba (and Latin America in general, including Venezuela) has actually had some of the better results. Still nowhere near communism and nowhere near liberty.
It’s very telling of how worthless your views are when you confess you lean towards libertarian socialism, two words which contradict each other. Literally every other economic system we have ever tried has all been worse than capitalism. The claim that anything left of capitalism is better is beyond stupid, it is such a dumb statement that it could only be uttered by a moron. And you proceed to reinforce my assertion by saying Cuba and Vietnam are somehow good examples of socialisms 😂 those countries are fucking hell holes shut the hell up you absolute lemon.
@@bladdnun3016 being tortured for 3 hours is certainly better than being tortured for 12 hours, neither is fucking preferable. Communism will never work because it’s fundamentally perfect for the worst possibly results for the people. A system designed to be corrupt. Capitalism isn’t.
ANARCHY=Life as a priceless irreplaceable gift. Responsibility for ones self is humanity. Liberty can only acheived from accountability. A Qaulity Life is achieved by a self empowered, righteous pursuit of ones own aspirations. To pursue ones own calling without contempt or apathy. Anarchy is all around us. Blinded by a Hierarchy, based in Psycopathy, with an illusion they grip tightly to their illusion of control. Clearly infectious just look at the hypocritocal, nahscient, daily enslavement to the idiocracy of a hierarchical company store. The saddest part is not that you carry little curiosity as to how the US became so great? No most melancholy is that the longest period of this kleptocratic illusion has achieved a nonaggressive peace is 5 whole years. For 200+ years war upon war on millions and millions of brothers and sisters lost for the racketeering of the hierarchy.
I believe that most people are happier with and prefer having their life styles dictated to them and want to conform to societal norms. I believe that is to be expected in any system of governance. What is critically vital to me is the freedom of the individual to choose to go against the flow in our choices as to how to freely live our individual lives. To me this is what America represents.
finally someone who agrees with me, both of our parties and systems are corrupt. i hope A.I will help humanity grow into a new idea that respects our civil rights, aids the working class, fulfills our basic needs like food and shelter and gives us the freedom we once fought and died for.
He does endorse the center-right neoliberal candidates where the left wing candidates can't win in a swing state. You look at GWB's governance, Gore wasn't very left wing, we could all agree he'd probably have kept us out of Iraq and IMO probably would have prevented 9/11, because Bush was very cavalier on all the red lights flashing that a major attacking coming up, terrorism was absolutely not on his radar. Probably would have been on a better fiscal track too since he didn't support dumbass tax cuts for the wealthy. Hillary...No I don't like Hillary. She seems firmly, bourgeous, and aristocracy, but yes, I'd rather work with her as President, than someone like Trump who hates every fiber of my being. Bare minimum she's competent, which Trump and GWB assuredly were not. And he endorsed Biden, again though, I'd rather work with Biden, than someone who hates every fiber of my being like Trump and the billionaire class. This is not the time for staying home or voting for dipshit green party candidates. THose green party keep fucking the left, it'd be better to do what the Tea Party did and primary democrats for being insufficiently left wing at all levels even if we can't do it on presidential candidates quite as effectively. Hope I don't sound like a partisan shill, but that's the reality. But IMO, America is a failing state, the corruption is overwhelming, and I think they're gonna rig the elections, and even if Dems win fair and square, they'll act like their win was a huge injustice because Dems who won fair and square the election was rigged and therefore not valid. These shit for brains loonies can't be worked with, we MAY need to balkanize the country, IMO I'd just write into new constitutions, reconvene every 20 years and see if we could find common ground reform up, maybe/perhaps, but these right wingers are so far off the deep end, they're IMPOSSIBLE to work with, whether it's the lowly useful idiots who fly confederate flags (who may not remember this but they were slated for the horrible task of being mere cannon fodder fed into the civil war meat grinder by their beloved plantation aristocracy overlords over that of the slaves because a slave killed on the battlefield was worth money to the aristocracy, look up the Battle of Franklin sometime to see what I mean), or the Carl Icahn's, McConnel's and Donald Trump's. And of course my fellow leftists will argue against Chomsky for saying we SHOULD vote for Biden...I don't agree with them, Chomsky is fucking right again even if it seems counter-intuitive/disingenuous. I dunno if this counts as socialist accolades, I'm on r/socialism, r/latestagecapitalism, I definitely identify more socialist than I have in previous years, more marxist because of Cheeto Benito's election. I stand with Chomsky he's on point to even endorse a center-right bourgeois/aristocracy Biden because the Republicans are the most dangerous coalition of human beings on the planet, that's not an exaggeration.
Wouldn't dividing the economy into a plurality of democratic communes impede production by halting interconnectivity and prevent the utopian ideal where production allows from each according to his ability and to each according to his need?
not necessarily, they could form a network of interconnected democratic communes which are able to produce and provide for each other what each commune needs.
I support his Chomsky vision of a Utopian Anarchistic Socialism with a twist of Libertarianism bordering Feudalism based on an early Neanderthal Parliament founded of Neolithic Principles following sound Economic Standards of Supply and Demand.
It's a pity that such a shining beacon of clarity such as this video of Chomsky's should be overrun with comments of such ideological stupefaction and stultified hero worship.
Conditions(social,technological,infrastructure, natural resources, and economical ones in general), shape and condition the method, measures and the level of "intensity"(if coercion is contemplated and necessary), to "rearange" the disorder(assuming there was one), for a new set of institutions, programs and so forth, to apply the new "beginning"...every place and time(era), demands a "costumized" "Taylored" approach in practical terms...culturally, such attempts, will have a rather optimistic acceptance, as one can only expect a substantial change in living conditions that guarantee security in the first place, and financial stability(urban concept of a postmodern society)...nonetheless, taking the financial element as the necessary precondition to spawn all the aforementioned expectations, the means of production have to be developed, whether by becoming self-sufficient or by foreign investment...so, unfortunately when a country is in "Tatters" financially and its arcades depleted, adding dire basic, medical and social programs, the measures and immediate results are only going to seem "apparent"...why?...because foreign capital(financial investments), are necessary for development...everyone wants results immediately, specifically the destitute ones...the question is how to improve sectors where there is no opportunity to work and at the same time, be part of what is meant to be in place...unfortunately, the restructuring of an economical system, is not going to start from the bottom up, but from top to bottom...giving it of course, the benefit of the doubt to the one(s); you have chosen to lead the way...
I do not think that the problem is that people are not mature enough for freedom, I think that a public organization with clear rules, clear punishments and a clear level of authoritarianism is way easier to organize efficiently and is porbably more efficient overall (as long as the majority of the people are politically relevant) than a system without rules, punishments and at least a slimmer of authoritarianism. Also a society with laws and a more central decission making can adapt quicker. And I don´t think that you can entirely bridge this gap through a change in culture, education and ethics, which is again very ahrd to reach in an anarchist society anyway. Counterarguments?
Laws were not designed and are not in place, to cement some despotic power structures, but to create a more objective system than the whims of individuals, people choose to create laws. You are free to try to create a few territories without a state or lawfull rule, but if you by any chance suceed I highly doubt you will like the result.
Hi! :) Yhea I have, well I think what needs to be clarify is that anarcho communism (from my understanding) doesn't mean no rules or punishment. But the fact that the creator and executor of those rules are not part of a dominant class. Or even of a class at all. The centralisation is maybe more effective in time and energy for the production but less in terms of liberty and equity. That's why the society must organize itself in a horizontal way from and the bottom to the top, in smaller groups working together instead of a big nation dividing itself with hierarchies.
@@GilouKiwi I mean every political decission making is based and legitimized on the peoples votes and while the USA may only have two relevant parties most have significantly more. Sure capitalism has inheritances, which create a strong enough privilege to make it more or less reasonable to speak of a class, though it is not a sealed one, but when I think of anarcho communism, I don´t think about capitalism with equal starting chances and a working democratic welfare state. Not trolling you, seriously confused^^
@@TheRedMooncorp the abolition of the state, the salariat, religion and exploitable property wich create hierachy. But those are difficult subjects I think many will believe for exemple that the abolition of religion mean we can't believe in anything whereas the only think to be destroyed is the organizations telling that non beiliver are different, that there is a omniscient God and only one truth to be followed that nothing can change. We are quite far from this nowadays and society still organize itself from top to bottom. When you vote, you just sell your liberty to someone else. He makes it what he wants nobody punish him if he do the opposite he was elected from. But hey I may be dreaming for something impossible to make in our lifetime. The only thing I know is that I would feel better in a world with more liberty for all, and not just rich and powerful people.
@Uncle Joe you didn't even debunk any of his ideas. You are just a troll. You're so pathetic that you went on a video posted 5 years ago just to shit post. I can't believe you can't fuck off
Actual libertarian here. Thought experiment: You somehow dissolve ownership of private enterprise without the use of force (impossible, but let's pretend). Now, everyone involved in a production facility is in charge of every decision that company makes. Why should a person in HR have the save control of questions of electricity as someone in operations and facilities? So, you might say, the person in control of electrical work should have a higher role for electrical questions. Now how do we scale this up?
The first Libertarian was an anarcho communist in 1858. Is that what you mean by "actual libertarian"? Recognized expertise from within the ranks of the workers themselved would be deferred to for specialized knowledge in key areas. Mikhailn Bakunin has a quote about this: "Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult the architect or the engineer For such special knowledge I apply to such a "savant." But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the "savant" to impose his authority on me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions and choose that which seems to me soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even m special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, the tool of other people's will and interests." Mikhail Bakunin
"Actual libertarian" - My dude, libertarianism is a 200 year old left wing tradition. The term was co-opted in the mid 20th century by right wing capitalists, explicitly to muddy the waters as part of the project to make the politically unaware think that left wing = government and right wing = 'freedom' Murray Rothbard in the 70s: "One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy. 'Libertarians' had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over". I think if you research the history of your own stated ideology you will find the answers to all of the questions in your thought experiment. For example, you say that the dissolution of private ownership is impossible despite it happening hundreds of times in history
Interesting talk, his argument on efficiency at the end is very weak though. He says modern society "devotes such enormous resources to waste and destruction", that may be so, however in terms of standard of living and rising wealth across the world, state capitalism is so far better than anything else tried (tribalism was less destructive, but people died at like 30 too). And says at the end "maximization of commodities is hardly a decent measure of existence", again, that might have some truth... but state capitalism so far has been able to provide a wider array of products than any other system of government tried... e.g. one of the triggers in the background in East Germany for the fall of the Berlin wall was state socialism being unable to provide enough commodities (i.e. coffee riots).
Has little to do with capitalism and more to do with science, technology, basic progress and evolution. Humanity never stopped evolving technologically and scientifically. The misconception that the Medieval Ages were "Dark" in comparison to Ancient Times is false. Technology had progressed far more and far more people were wealthier, even if the highest standard of living was (presumably) slightly lower. In other words, instead of an elite class of Romans and "tribal" Celts, now you had many Feudal nations of moderate wealth. But also, in fact, the highest cap was still higher than Rome living standards. Maybe not when comparing to a Roman Emperor, but even elite vs elite, standard of living was much better. I've studied a lot of Medieval History, but I won't go into details. You can fact check it yourself. And of course we all know that the Renaissance and later Age of Enlightment and such were better overall than Ancient times and so on. In other words, progress never ended or slowed down. It is just growing exponentially, and we are on the latest line upwards, so it feels like it's growing faster because it is. But it's not because of the system, not so much at least, but because of the basics of Positive Feedback Loops. (and I just want to add a detail: Medieval Times were also considered dark due to diseases, plagues, etc. which were caused by a lot of people urbanizing, moving into cities. But humans had never struggled so much with these problems and thus were unaware how to resolve them. naturally, there was a temporary dip. But also consider that the mere fact that a lot of people were urbanizing and the population was so large it couldn't feed itself, means that there was so much wealth and food to make that possible. In other words, Medieval societies (in Europe) had far outperformed Ancient ones. The romanticization of Ancient times as better we have is due to inappropriate historical study in the Renaissance, which corrupt our perception of our historical timeline to this day. Of course, I am not as knowledgeable on Asian or American history, but I can say that the Aztecs had far better tools than Incas and Mayas, and even had to resort to radical sacrifices to sustain their immense populations and avoid mass starvations (which, is also an indication of economical progress to the point such a large population can be created in the first place)). Oh, and an important point, Russia was piss poor and fought two wars. Eastern Europe, along with it was dragged. China and other nations had suffered immense colonialism and such. Their progress was still significant, even if they failed to the Western Powers in the end. But consider not the political systems, but the most major factors - initial starting wealth. The colonial powers (and after WW2 USA specifically as Western Europe fell back significantly) had extracted most wealth from other nations and had an initial advantage. No wonder then, that on the global economic playground, those with more capital won out and those with less slowly died out. It had little to do with political systems, as trading, between humans has never really been very different. Tariffs and such are factors, significant on the small scale, but the way we do trading today is very similar to feudal times, except with more tech and possibility, on the macro scale (note: on the macro scale. Of course tariffs and other policies can harm economies significantly, but the point is, if you consider it as a natural system, the two systems - "socialist" (authoritarian) and capitalist ("democratic") systems were very very similar. The authoritarians lost mostly because they were more centralized (and centralization always leads to failure and corruption) and because they were starting waaay back. Still, China managed to dig itself out while the rest were "fighting" and Japan, allying itself with USA, managed to net some of its value. USSR and other nations, in opposition to the powers that be (USA), were destroyed. Again, little to do with systems, more to do with colonialism and starting capitals of nations. In short, capitalism is not the reason for economic progress and it's possibly even slowing us down from realizing our full economic and social progress potential. Sure, it's the best we've had but it's still pretty feudal and not that far off as some idealize it. Consider history and historical political systems, down to the last details, and you will find many very similar parallels between Feudalism, Guildism, Industrialism and Capitalism, as well as other systems. The revolution was not so much in the economic sector, as much as it was in the social - where we now enjoy social freedoms unique throughout history.
He makes it clear here and many times in related talks, that the foundation of such a society must first involve a spiritual reawakening of the individual, a radical and complete transition into an insofar totally unrecognizable "standard" philosophy of life, in which altruism is primary, one's commitment to community is absolute, and creative acts are commonplace for their own sake. He says that the institutions that emerge from the first steps toward such a society will help to retrain people to be better suited for such a drastically different consciousness. It's also misleading to say that "state capitalism is clearly best so far" when what he proposes has never existed in reality for more than a few years.
You know, he said that, and he said a lot of things just like that ... and then he wholeheartedly supported the lockdowns and other COVID stuff, loudly criticizing those who rejected the mainstream narrative. This confuses me. What, exactly, does he mean when he says "freedom"? He rails against "technocrats", but apparently supports technocratic control of the economy/polity at least sometimes in certain cases; so then, is his anarchism somehow limited? And if you put limits on anarchy, is it really anarchy anymore?
Well because most of the decisions with lockdowns and such and such were supported by medical professionals and scientists who just wanted to save as many lives as possible. Those were not a matter of politics, those were recommended by people who really did know better than the public, but everyone felt entitled to rejecting their facts and knowledge just because they did not want to work from home in order to save the lives of others.
@@pauforcadellcampos4452 This is indeed a highly contentious topic, but what my point is, is what exactly is "anarchy", or even "democracy"? There's lots of serious debates as to what exactly is "science", what "scientism" is, and the question of should we have a "scientocracy" or an "epistocracy". There's very rarely perfect consensus on any topic, even amongst experts in the scientific community. Hanna Arendt talked about "ever arguing experts", and Hume's scepticism is well known. Should entire societies be ruled by experts? If so, is that "anarchy"?
What exactly is to stop me, in this coercion free society, from simply selling my labour to someone who is willing to buy it? If I'd rather take a job for wages than join one of these worker communes, what is stopping me?
@Aleksandar Lukich If the goal of socialism is the control of the means of production and property then how exactly does the individual "control all aspects of his own life"? The individual would be at the mercy of the collective. His "means of production" and property would not be his own.
He just insults people who disagree with him. Whenever he's at a Q & A, he just insults or makes accusation when asked dissenting questions (some of which are very good questions). He's impatient, and bitter. In these days, he was quite a good debater and could handle disagreement with sophistication, and usually could win a debate with content and not insults. It's sad.
If you are anarchist you have to be socialist, because anarchism is against power/hierarchy and if you are not socialst ( which is capitalist) you have always people with more power over many others. Socialism however can exist in an authoritarian society.
@Rick Vis Small random people doing some kind of capitalism is maybe not the nicest way of interaction but as long as it keeps small scale that not a big Problem for the society. When companies start to get bigger and just buy their competitors or they have large impact in the politics then capitalism is detrimental for any society. In short: The more power and more hierarchy there is, the worse it is for the society. In your example is relatively less power and a small hierarchy.
@Rick Vis It would be like taking drugs personally in your backyard. If you get caught, society would punish you according to the laws (most likely fines, not imprisonment, for oppressing another through "salaries"), but you probably won't get caught and even if you did no one would care. Just like we do today when a kid drinks alcohol or a person doesn't put their seatbelt on. Sure, there are laws but even if you get caught sometimes they'd let you go (at least in my country). Is it right? Eh, depends. In the examples I gave, who cares really, they are not that detrimental. In your example you'd be actively oppressing another in order to extract a larger profit from them than what you give in return, but it'd probably be such a minor profit that it'd be near irrelevant. But see, if you start mass producing drugs... that's different. There will always be a grey economic sector, and the small-scale one is never really pursued or punished much, but there isn't much need to anyway. And the problem in your example wouldn't even be the payment necessarily, because supposedly it could be meritocratic, it'd be the procedure you go through. The point of following the procedure is to make it so that both parties (working and employing) can negotiate on a fair stage as cooperators, instead of a position of authority. Both must have all data available on the task at hand, the budget, the % of work they'd be doing (and thus the % they'd have to be earning) and so on. Additionally, once working together none should hold power over the other in terms of social and other means. In other words, democracy. People would cooperate instead of employ/hire. If we remove our laws for democracy, we'd slide back into monarchies extremely quickly. That's why procedure must be followed.
Sorry, but the only society we can create in the United States, which includes the States, is a Republican Form of Government, and a libertarian socialist society does not qualify as a republican form of government! A governing system forms a society through a participation versus compliance agreement which establishes the benefits, privileges, rights of participation in decision making and cost of membership, citizenship, in the resulting society. By the way, the people are not governed, the collective decision making is what is governed and the legislative process to reach a majority consensus is the governor!
@@normalperson-x7o Absolutely not! A Republic is a legislative assembly which is formed by an exact representation of ALL THE PEOPLE, where ALL THE PEOPLE may participate in the legislative assembly as if they were present in person to participate and vote themselves to reach a majority consensus of ALL THE PEOPLE. If a democracy is arithmetic, then a republic is calculus.
@@normalperson-x7o Libertarian Socialism is not a governing system, just like capitalism, communism, and socialism are not governing systems! A governing system establishes how those of a society interact with each other to form and maintain the society. The people are not governed, the collective decision making of the people is what is governed, and the legislative processes to reach a majority consensus is the governor. The people participate as equals in the legislative assembly, even though demographically the people are not considered equals. That’s what made our democracy, the confederate assembly of the States as the Union, unique, never before throughout history did unequal factions of the society join as equals to make the collective decisions of that society. All these isms are moot in a democracy, because that’s not what government is all about. Government is about decision making, and democratic and republican forms of government are about collective decision making where ALL participate as equals in the legislative assembly, with equal suffrage, where those collective decisions are made. We need to separate government from economics, they are not the same and are in no way are dependent upon each other!
@@nfpnone8248oh, ok. sorry for the misunderstanding. for government, i embrace council democracy, mixed with delegative democracy. if you want to ask more, I will answer.
The state/government/public-sector in the foreseeable far-future/long-term when bottom-up social-cultural-political-legal-economic/socio-cultural-political-legal-economic marxist/marxian socialism with marxist/marxian communism in mind comes to fruition but only once the labor-force military-force/external police-force and the police-force/internal military-force are fully-thoroughly-and-fatally the criminal-force will be made redundant and thereby abolished even the military-force/external police-force and the police-force/internal military-force can be greatly reduced or drastically reduced since a secularised-and-rationalised society through-and-under the broader work-force except the labor-force-like job's/career's/occupation's/profession's/rank's/position's/field's in the broader work-force which are quintessentially bull-shit job's/career's/occupation's/profession's/rank's/position's/field's in the broader work-force or white-collar job's/career's/occupation's/profession's/rank's/position's/field's so blue-collar personalities-and-psychologies/mind-set's have-and-will be liberated/emancipated/vindicated
I forgot to add first-and-foremost this will happen within the next 150/200 year's-and-decades decades-and-centuries centuries-and-millennias to 800 year's-and-decades decades-and-centuries centuries-and-millennias probably decades-and-centuries it will be the longest conflict-and-war akin to either the american revolutionary war or the afghan civil war and it will be the bloodiest conflict-and-war similar to either world war 1 or world war 2 since we live-and-breathe in an almost conflictless-and-warless era except for proxy conflict's-and-wars which are insurgencies/armed rebellion's financially-funded by either so-called state/government/public-sector actor's or non-state/government/public-sector actor's such as multi-millionaires billionaires multi-billionaires and emerging trillionaires through-and-under front group's/organisation's/entities/businesses to further their interest's-and-issues/care's-and-concerns/woe's-and-worries which is in essence money/fiat currency/capital/surplus/medium-of-exchange/legal tender/disposable income through attempting to own-and-organise the production-and-distribution of both raw material's and natural resources for either good's-and-services so they can remain either upper-middle socioeconomic individual person's or upper-socioeconomic individual person's
he is voting for harm reduction, to do less harm to the material conditions of the average person. Shitty Obamacare is better then no affordable healthcare. You realize you can vote Biden to stop the worst excesses of a trump presidency and still organize and be a socialist otherwise right? Why do so many people believe voting is the only form of political action? How privileged that you dont have to worry about your material conditions that you can afford not to vote for Biden...
@@onecardshort2934 His main argument for voting for Biden is global warming, wich is an existencial treat to human kind and Trump administration is increasing the problem. At least Biden will implement some measures to mitigate global warming.
@Uncle Joe No, it's workers taking control of their labour. No a cult, if anything the right is a cult, the right wing is pretty much the same, the left on the other hand, has been fighting eachother since 1917
The problem with democracy is 51% rule the 49%. Not to mention the fact that hierarchies of power are not formed simply by exerting physical power, it's because of their competence. Would you rather have 1000 morons coming up with ideas or 1 bill gates coming up with ideas? Capitalism and private ownership is the fastest route to innovation and efficiency. And calling capitalist hierarchies and the people on top "authoritarians" is not accurate at all. If that authoritarian does anything wrong or wrongs anyone and people find out, if people don't like it they will stop using his products/services. He will be immediately "dethroned". A lot of mischaracterizations in this.
"If that authoritarian does anything wrong or wrongs anyone and people find out, if people don't like it they will stop using his products/services. He will be immediately "dethroned"." That is hilarious.
@@sky-magnet You disagree? Go become successful and start a massive business. If you murdered someone, you are not going to be on top of that hierarchy very long.
Bill Gates did not come up with “ideas” the computer was developed in two of the few socialist institutions the USA has the universities and the military. The idea of council socialism does not mean that you hire 1000 morons. Cooperativism is not new, it has been a part of both USA and European mixed economies for 200 years. But there was a severe set back in cooperativism in the USA in the first Red Scare. That said it would be a continual evolutionary structure. In the USA places where I see an immediate need for cooperative industries are the areas where corporate stock holder industry has abandoned in the 70’s and 80’s like furniture making, and other light industry. If you don’t have to worry about stock holders it becomes a viable competitive domestic US industry again. But there are multiple other possibilities. I think that for the amount the US government bailed out the auto industry stock holders it would be an appropriate industry for a large cooperative structure. I don’t think it will work for every industry. But I think the USA has very little choice if we wish to become a productive nation again. We need a more mixed economy with a larger cooperative sector.
@@matthewkopp2391 I will agree about bailing out auto industries. That's bs. But no one claimed bill gates invented the internet, but he founded Microsoft. I'm making the point that we need to allow these brilliant people to do their thing and get rewarded immensely for it. If you try and level the playing field, that kills the incentive to create ground breaking products. Those hyper rich people are hyper rich because they have provided goods and services and along the way lifted millions out of poverty. If we have a system where we don't reward the studs, the US isn't as powerful as it is. Lastly, who says the US doesn't produce anything? We are leaders in innovation and we have lifted the rest of the world up with us. The US and capitalism have lifted more people out of poverty than any other system ever.
That's the thing. A lot of what you said is abstract and hypothetical while being stated as concrete fact. First, I agree with you that democracy as we currently have it involves the rule of the 51% over the 49%. Anarchists propose direct democracy, which is where decisions are made by consensus through structures such as spoke councils (see occupy wall street movement). In this way, decisions are arrived by the true majority instead of by one of marginal numerical superiority. There are ways of executing this efficiently through nested council structures each made up of recallable delegates acting for their respective groups. As to the notion that the powerful are in some sense beholden to consumers, this is very much not the case in real life, where terms of economic relation are heavily biased toward those in power. For instance, the advertising industry convinces us of buying products that we have no need for by appealing to our emotions. Public protest against unpopular policies are seldom successful, and even when they are there are plenty of disagreeable policies passed in the governments of the world that aren't even seen in the public eye before being approved. As to innovation and efficiency, whichever form of tech we talk about, the process of innovation is almost always driven by non profit-motivated institutions. It is no coincidence that leading scientific organisations like MIT have always been surrounded by profit-making companies ready to swoop in and claim patents over new inventions in order to then turn a profit. We see this for instance with the technology for iPhones, which the economist Mariana Mazzucatto points out was developed by government engineers in the Pentagon. Same thing with GMO products which companies like Monsanto now use to exploit Global South farmers by making it so they have to keep buying their seed year on year. The tech for GMO was invented by the scientist Boyer and his colleague to create insulin, not by Monsanto itself. As to the notion that people have a real choice between leaders, the past 50 years of history say otherwise. Every US president since Reagan, democrat or republican, has been a neoliberal, that is someone who favours a small state (except for prisons), low government intervention (except to protect corporate interests abroad, for instance) and private enterprise to solve social problems (resulting in a situation where, for example, people with chronic life-threatening conditions are often unable to buy the medicines they require due to the forbiddingly high prices). None of these things are the result of simple misfortune. The fact is that the state and capitalim work in concert to maintain a self-reinforcing unequal power dynamic between them and the people.
@@pauforcadellcampos4452 which basis? Read above, if anarchism is a bad ideology, a reformist twist to it make it only worse. If this is not evident for you please let me know why.
@@MK-jc6us as far as I know, reformism is only defined as a political system that advocates for making changes in the establishment rather than abolishing it and building it from the ground up. I don't see why reformism is necessarily bad in and of itself. Also it is quite a bold statement to say that anarchism is simply bad. While its ideals might be hardly achieved, delusional or inaplicable, saying that it is a plainly bad ideology is shallow. "Bad" is a moral judgement.
@@pauforcadellcampos4452 reformism imo is not a political system. Reformism is an alternative to revolutionary strategy and tactics. I am not against every single reformist tactic, I am against reformism as a strategy. It is unthinkable that reforms might be achieved w/o a revolutionary push (reforms in Western Europe were possible thanks to the revolution in Russia). About anarchy, yes bad is a moral judgement but also a scientific one. It is a bad ideology based on weak historical, economical and sociological analysis. Anarchy is a nonsense from a cocneptual standpoint and the evidence is that it was unable to impose itself against all competing ideologies.
@@lesterthejester9406 He denies the God whom he knows exists but suppresses the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1). He literally supports anything that goes against goodness and morality; the murder of unborn humans, the destruction of marriage and human sexuality, racism, socialism, Neo Marxism, the freedom of religion, etc. He holds zero redeeming value. He is a lost, spiritually dead soul.
@@patrickc3419 You dont believe in freedom of religion and you dislike gay people? Don't you realize that many of God's teachings on helping the poor share similarities with Marxist thought? An example of this is the doctorine of Liberation Theology. For reference, I'm a Catholic who subscribes to theology of the Jesuits.
@Bukali Kat Gaming I agree, I just think that there is more evidence in biblical texts for the support of Christian socialism than there is for the support of Christian conservatism.
You just think socialism is the opposite of anarchism because the socialist countries right now are authoritarian. And authoritarianism is the opposite of anarchism. Socialism and capitalism are more directly the opposite. However if you have socialism you can distinguish between authoritarian and anarchist socialsim. Either the state has the power to distribute everything or the society has the power to distribute amongs its people. If you are anarchist you have to be socialist, because anarchism is against power/hierarchy and if you are capitalist you have always people with more power over many others.
tim1tim2tim3tim4 no you don’t have to be an socialist to be a good little anarchist... there’s such a thing as altruism... people do things for other people out of the kindness of there hearts. Socialism uses coercion to force people to do something. Anarchism is altruism, socialism is coercion.
@@nickhanley5407 That's a very nice argument which made me think a lot. However I think you cannot say that actions from anarchists are always done from kindness of their heart. If a group of anarchists decides on a rule for them to help the poor it woll be also coercion on them. If anarchism is against any form of power/hierarchy they are doing a coercion on everyone with power. If they wouldn't do that, society might turn into anarcho capitalism because people who are not altruistic will have a disadvantage over the people who aren't.
@@tim1tim2tim3tim4 A true progressive will understand you must have certain rules . To say a socialist is an anarchist makes no sense ! Yes they would much rather see a society where people are not going to jail for ridiculous and petty reasons , but that hardly makes them anarchists ! This view only comes from someone on the right . Conservatives are the only people thinking a socialist or a progressive is an anarchist !
@@tim1tim2tim3tim4 Chomsky cannot be right about everything , especially when he considers himself to be a Conservative . The science behind the political brain has produced interesting results indeed ! Wit 5 different studies over 28 years involving more than 140.000 people . the results can explain the difference between right and left philosophy . The first and longest study lasting twenty years involving more than 130.000 people . Which is where the long term effects on the the brain was researched . And positive or negative influences can change the size and activity of sertain sections of the brain . The studies have shown the difference in the level of development of the brain between a conservative and a liberal . And basically the more one goes to the right , the larger and more active the amygdala is , And the Anterior cingulate cortex is smaller and less active in a Conservative . Which is the reverse in a progressive, or liberal ! This explains a great deal as to the difference in moral comprehension between right and left ! Google Conservative brain VS Liberal brain.
We need a "moonshot" project to reverse aging and make Noam Chomsky immortal.
Loren Miller Agreed!
Maybe ask him first though.
I'm gunna say nah simply cuz I doubt he would want it and it sounds borderline Leninist to bring those we see as brilliant back from the grips of time. With this said, I share your sentiment.
@@iank1234 well said, but immortal noam chomsky sounds lit
Amen Sir
Before the 1st 20 seconds of this clip have elapsed, Chomsky said something that most Americans would miss and some that would get it would become reactionary over. He uses the term "Left Wing Marxism".
As political terms, from their inception the terms Left and Right were about what power structure forms one supported. Left meaning horizontal as in direct democracy or similar. Right meaning hierarchical or authoritarian, as in monarchs (strong men) or small bodies of representatives.
This lends itself to the question, "what is right wing Marxism and what does it look like?" An example of right wing (hierarchical) Marxism is The Soviet Union.
Chomsky goes on to speak of "Libertarian Socialism" and "Anarchism". These are left wing structured political forms and end up in far different, and more personally free, places.
I recommend pursuing learning more about them. you can do so here on yt, or look up the anarchist library on the web.
STARTING with wikipedia pages on anti authoritarian left, anti stalinist left, left communism would also help. You're right the RICH HISTORY OF culturally free real leftism is all but forgotten in mainstream debates.
Korsh, Pannekoek, Guerin, Rocker, Kropotkin, Bakunin 's writings to be looked up after that (all available online , even I need to do this) , FOR LIBERTARIAN MARXISM, AND CLOSELY RELATED CURRENTS, like Anarcho socialism, syndicalism, left libertarianism, strains WITHIN LEFT ANARCHISM, as well as listening to
Chomsky online about the historical fallacy of right libertarianism
It's important to remember that these political positions are consistent descendants of CLASSICAL LIBERAL /ENLIGHTENMENT THOUGHT acc to Chomsky so reading Proudhon, Humboldt (Chomsky quotes often) and European enlightenment thinkers (list available online) will give a clear historical picture to the intellectual spectrum containing Anarchism TO Left Marxism (anti statist socialism)
What will work even better is to finally trace European enlightenment thought to Western Classicism.
A Google search on anti authoritarian left will also throw up names like ROSA LUXEMBURG EMMA GOLDMAN SYLVIA PANKHURST,
most of the work by 19-20 century Anarchist---Left Marxist SPECTRUM people is easily accessible online.
Noam is the most important person alive right now and has been for decades. Anarcho syndicalism!✊🏼✊🏽✊🏾✊🏿🏴
@Uncle Joe I would love to see you try to debate Chomsky
I would argue that David Graeber until his untimely death. Vanderloos is a phenomenal Anarchist. Judge Napalitano is great though he is somewhat stifled by his reputation and desire for wealth.
@@mrmtn37 Did you mean Peter Gelderloos?
@@ericosagie3046on the subject of libertarian socialism? Wouldn’t be too difficult even for me. Even the definitions of the words completely contradict each other.
thats incorrect if you understand the roots of libertarianism and the principles of socialism-without the state i.e. anti-authoritarian
I've listened to this twice and I'm not ashamed to say I'm going to probably end up listening to it probably at least double that much again. It's too much for me to digest with a single swing. That said, excellent information from a very intelligent man.
Whether it’s 2018 or 1978, professor Chomsky’s brilliance
is deeply felt. Either he was never a child, or he was born
at the age of 45.WOW !,,
If I were him, I'd probably think everyone else in society is a buncha dumbshits lol
Puke
NPC
DERP
the energy is gone, the coherent logical discourse lives on forever
I am not surprised that the energy is gone. Since he has started his political and social critique, things have got even worse economically.
The energy was supposed to be built upon by the youth - sadly, they bought the alt-BS like trckle down economics, state propaganda and nationalism
you couldnt be more correct. My god, how easily weve been duped.
A Khan Such a sad state of affairs.
Not all of us A Khan. I can assure you not all of us!
jesus fucking christ he lays it down in this speech, I find myself coming back to it periodically. My man Noam spitting straight facts😭
I love these old chomsky talks
He had more energy in those Days, not surprisingly.
@penguins inadiorama
Technological advancement makes it possible to cater to at least 12 billion population when the world population itself is 7.7 billion.
We have abundance of food.
Not to mention, crops and other harvests being disposed in large quantities on grounds it doesn't have necessary quality that the free market demands. That is ridiculous when people are starving to death. Not to mention, poor harvests is caused by environmental depletion and climate change, which again is a consequence of Capitalism's conquest on nature.
There are millions of homes lying empty in America and millions of homeless people.
Sure, population explosion is real.
But, the idea that we are overpopulated, is a myth. Statistics show otherwise.
@penguins inadiorama
I didn't read the excerpt because I feel you misinterpreted my statement and therefore the except is probably following that line of misled thinking.
Firstly, about crops.
I was never talking about quantity when I said "poor harvest". I was talking about quality. Technology will always make sure we produce enough, but it won't ensure quality since that is derived from soil nutrients. And there's a bit of irony here.
You see, Capitalism, and the free market throw away loads of produce because they don't meet competitive standards. And the fact that they fall short of standards is because, of depleted soil nutrients, caused by acid rain, deforestation induced erosion, overuse of pesticides (this is more controversial) among other things, which in the first place is caused by Capitalism itself.
And also, I further questioned as to why these discarded products are discarded so when there are people starving.
Secondly, moving on to homeless people. I'd recommend you look up some statistics, but there are decent habitable homes in USA lying empty.
And while confiscation of wealth and property may seem radical, it's the natural conclusion you arrive at when you follow the socialist line of thinking and start questioning the worst aspects of Capitalism.
And then you said something about entropy. Well, I have a pretty solid understanding of the fundamentals of empirical physics and a bit of quantum physics too.
And you must understand, when you're talking of entropy, you're also subscribing to the radical determinism of science. Entropy merely says that things tend to grow more chaotic over time, and achieve a state of dynamic equilibrium. This idea of dynamic equilibrium and chaos is infact brought by Hegel's idealism when he talks of "Contradiction" and furthered by Marx in his dialectic laws (Law of negation, law of interpenetration of opposites, law of transformation, especially the first two). So, that line of thinking infact established what Chomsky was talking about. Anarchism and dissolution of the social hierarchy or certainly the power structure related to it, since things grow more chaotic over time.
Lastly, applying entropy to population study is wrong, at least your conclusions are.
Because every species has certain population curves (S curve, J curve), there is no constant rate of explosion of population, or any consistent exponential rate for that matter. It varies with phases. I'm not saying that humans will naturally control population explosion, but entropy certainly doesn't answer all questions here.
And by the way, while we are at it, I'm against applying hardcore scientific deterministic laws such as that of entropy in the context of human society. I'm not a radical idealist either. I believe there must be established some sort of a balance between the two, which eliminates applying entropy to describe human society.
And even if you do, a stateless divisionless society as suggested by Anarchists/Marxists is the natural conclusion.
@penguins inadiorama
There are several fundamental points where you and I vastly disagree.
And I believe we are both thoroughly indoctrinated to our respective belief systems for good reason to be so.
I'd like to clear some doubts you have regarding Socialism though.
It's not about Egalitarianism.
And Marx made his antithesis to Hegel's idealism by observing metaphysical phenomenon.
So no, I'm not conflating Idealism and Determinism. I'm doing so, on a materialist premise since there is an appropriate (materialist) antithesis to Hegel's idealism.
So, my analogy of entropy and anarchism/Marxism is legitimate, or at least, there's no counter argument you've provided to that.
And I provided perfect reasons to support my claim of declining soil quality. You merely mentioned "overpopulation" without actually backing that up in any sort of way.
Or countering my own arguments, at that.
And no, there aren't half as many vacant homes in India.
And even in there were, there's no justification for them to exist. And I am from India, so don't tread down that door I'd advise.
Also, while we are at that, there are vast differences between property rights and human rights. So let's not confuse between the two.
Also, there's no reason why people like Chomsky would disregard his system. At least, your argument of "hatred and envy" isn't applicable here.
So...
@penguins inadiorama
Okay.
Firstly, I'd like to thank you for shrinking the size of your replies and I'll try to do it myself.
Firstly, "physics governs states". Honestly, that idea is downright ludicrous. It's fun to talk about metaphysics, but it's equally important to recognise limitations in a particular discipline.
Physics, and all of Science, in fact, talks of a strictly deterministic universe, where there's no such thing as free will( in the Existentialist sense), and "human nature". Because, in the end, we merely enact and execute what the system makes us do, instead of being guided by innate schematisms. And that overlaps with what philosophers call Materialism.
Chomsky isn't a materialist, he's an idealist.
So, people like him, would disregard your statement right away on the ground, that it treats humans as mere particles that can be perfectly expressed with their coordinates in some sort of a field, the system could be thermodynamic, could be a gravitational field, electrostatic, Electromagnetic or whatever. That's putting it in strictly scientific terms. And they've got legitimate reasons to downplay thinking of the sort. Even transcendentalists, and Existentialists would agree with the Libertarian Socialist, in this case.
Marx wasn't a radical idealist, or at least, Marxism isn't.
And because it shares a similar materialist premise, I can draw analogues. And people have, Marx has, and it's perfectly legitimate, and is therefore labelled Scientific Socialism.
So, if you're a materialist, Marxist analogues legitimise socialism.
If you're an idealist, Libertarian Socialism does.
I could listen to chomsky all day for the rest of my life haha
“Reading, after a certain age, diverts the mind too much from its creative pursuits. Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking.” Einstein
@@evolvedape2161 That is an odd comment from Einstein, but he appears that he made it. I cannot determine how old Einstein was when he made that remark. Schrödinger, whose scientific accomplishment exceeded Einstein's in scope and importance, was a lifelong reader and interested in many topics outside of his "creative pursuit".
@@HeathWatts By that quote, Einstein likely meant that you should not allow other people's ideas to form the entirety of your individual system of belief. You ought to think for yourself and engage in formulating your own ideas. Think outside of the box, as Einstein was well-known for doing. Write; don't just read. Contribute to the exchange of ideas.
Evolved Ape Yep cheers for that mate
Noam smoking the jazz cabbage at MIT in '63.
Man you had to be there.
I am not a socialist but I would like to be as informed as possible - so if any out there who have an understanding of Chomsky would consider these questions I would be grateful.
1. How long does he think that the members of councils will be sufficiently engaged and informed that they will administer those councils competently -, including holding those they elect to account?
2. How will he prevent those who's competences are essentially in the field of getting elected to lead and administer the councils simply becoming a professional political class and thereby return to the evils of centralised governance that he would avoid?
@Aleksandar Lukichthankyou.
Are there live examples of such companies surviving in a market economy? - I mean working profitably. Can the company be anything but very small?
Who adjudicates in a conflict between two entities? E.g. between a factory and local residents? Or between two sections of the same company?
Aleksandar Lukich Spot on, basically where labor is the voting power of the company as board members.
@@lessismore7271 See Mondragon Corporation as an example of a very large institution - but there are co ops all over the world structured this way
Very true. Prof. Wolff (from Democracy at Work youtube channel) is a big advocate of worker co-ops, and will be able to provide more details.@@lp8969
@Aleksandar Lukich I have some questions regarding this - how will this system deal with people who have no interest in "company politics"? It seems like there is a huge load on the employee - whereby he not only needs to know about his job but also about company politics - what it happens, how it evolves and so on. Roughly put, how does this system deal with mediocrity, incompetence, ignorance, and indifference, which we must admit, there is plenty in the world?
Looking over your answer, I had multiple other questions, but I guess this statement would sum it up if I understood correctly - the goal is not to flatten the hierarchy - there will still be one, there will be inequalities in terms of pay in the least, but they will be much lesser.
One question that remains though is if leadership is based on skill and experience and they do not decide the evolution of the company, what value is there for their existence if the inexperienced - at least in comparison to themselves - will take the decisions?
Thank you Noam for everything and it is really a lot!
A lot of rot
I wonder how Chomsky feels about that talk now. We know now that the industrial society is basically over, or will be soon, because of the ecological disaster and exhaustion of natural ressources. Yet, I think anarchist ideas will still be valid in the post-industrial world which is hopefully coming.
if it comes it wont be in a good way
He's right about the Left's "suicidal tendencies," which is why unity and non-sectarianism is so important if we're going to succeed. I lean toward Anarchism/Council Communism/Libertarian Socialism/whatever the most, but I've spent a lot of time with ML comrades and had long discussions, and none of them actually want an authoritarian government or state socialism as the end goal. Basically, anything to Left of Capitalism is better than what we have, even if I have my preferences for getting there or organization. I think modern Cuba and Vietnam are good examples of how it's simply not true that any form of Socialism besides what Chomsky is talking about are somehow just as bad as Capitalism, which many Anarchists are very stubborn about.
Anarchists really should not unite with Marxist Leninists,
I don't know much about Vietnam, but Cuba is a good example that "anything Left of Capitalism" can be even worse than Capitalism itself! I completely disagree with that claim ("anything Left of Capitalism is better than what we have"), we can very well build something worse if we just aimlessly destroy what we have and usher ourselves in political chaos, which is the perfect condition for an authoritarian government to assume the reigns. Remember: fascism rises when capitalism is at crisis. We need to be very clear about what we want and how we believe we can achieve it and we need to be very careful in choosing our allies (of course we do need allies).
About Leninists: they're libertarian and against authoritarianism...... until they reach power. They're against authoritarianism and they want to achieve its extinction through authoritarian means. They have this weird tendency to believe that THEY know what society needs and that THEY are the ones that can build the common utopia. They'll seize totalitarian societal control and reign it with "iron hands" in the name of setting it free. They'll persecute the state "enemies" (which, in the USSR included anarchists, syndicalists and other socialists and communists), they'll hold close vigilance on society, they'll censor, exclude and murder those with diverging ideologies. They'll try to achieve a free society through its tight control.
Give power to a Leninist party and perhaps they're competent and self-neglecting enough and the conditions are right enough that they'll achieve a free socialist society and give away their power when the time comes. Perhaps, though, you might end up with something like North Korea. Who the fuck knows? We have given absolute power to a party which deems itself superior to its people. And even if a communist society is achieved; at what cost? Are authoritarian measures worth the construction of communism? Let's not forget the genocides that happened in the USSR (and elsewhere). I know, common anti-communist claim, it's an important claim though and we should be critical of our past and avoid to repeat it. I know that revolutions involve casualties, but are we sure we want to give the power to decide which casualties are necessary to a totalitarian political party? Who will hold such a party accountable of their choices?
I'd very much prefer a revolution that would be democratic from the start, and that will construct socialism democratically since conception... Let's remember that at the time of the Soviet revolution there was no internet. The power we have to bring masses of people together today, organise and spread information is far superior than what was possible at Lenin's time. His method might've been realistic for his time, but is by now outdated and should be understood as such. We should strive to do better!
@@pedrohenriquedadaltdequeir4859 If there is any excuse for the original Bolsheviks, it's that, while the idea of 'power corrupts' was certainly around, it hadn't been tested in this specific constellation. We have learned from history and we have observed that some of the absolute worst outcomes ever have arisen from left authoritarianism. I'd say Cuba (and Latin America in general, including Venezuela) has actually had some of the better results. Still nowhere near communism and nowhere near liberty.
It’s very telling of how worthless your views are when you confess you lean towards libertarian socialism, two words which contradict each other.
Literally every other economic system we have ever tried has all been worse than capitalism. The claim that anything left of capitalism is better is beyond stupid, it is such a dumb statement that it could only be uttered by a moron. And you proceed to reinforce my assertion by saying Cuba and Vietnam are somehow good examples of socialisms 😂 those countries are fucking hell holes shut the hell up you absolute lemon.
@@bladdnun3016 being tortured for 3 hours is certainly better than being tortured for 12 hours, neither is fucking preferable. Communism will never work because it’s fundamentally perfect for the worst possibly results for the people. A system designed to be corrupt. Capitalism isn’t.
ANARCHY=Life as a priceless irreplaceable gift.
Responsibility for ones self is humanity.
Liberty can only acheived from accountability.
A Qaulity Life is achieved by a self empowered, righteous pursuit of ones own aspirations. To pursue ones own calling without contempt or apathy.
Anarchy is all around us. Blinded by a Hierarchy, based in Psycopathy, with an illusion they grip tightly to their illusion of control. Clearly infectious just look at the hypocritocal, nahscient, daily enslavement to the idiocracy of a hierarchical company store. The saddest part is not that you carry little curiosity as to how the US became so great?
No most melancholy is that the longest period of this kleptocratic illusion has achieved a nonaggressive peace is 5 whole years. For 200+ years war upon war on millions and millions of brothers and sisters lost for the racketeering of the hierarchy.
Anarchism, not Anarchy...they both different things...
There's a great deal that's been packed into just 20 minutes.
I believe that most people are happier with and prefer having their life styles dictated to them and want to conform to societal norms. I believe that is to be expected in any system of governance.
What is critically vital to me is the freedom of the individual to choose to go against the flow in our choices as to how to freely live our individual lives. To me this is what America represents.
this is awesome!
That's what I am! GO CHOMSKY!
@Uncle Joe Dude, how pathetic are you? You went on a video posted 5 years ago just to troll, fuck off.
finally someone who agrees with me, both of our parties and systems are corrupt. i hope A.I will help humanity grow into a new idea that respects our civil rights, aids the working class, fulfills our basic needs like food and shelter and gives us the freedom we once fought and died for.
We could turn the world into I, Robot but we will need to proceed with extraordinary care. AI has the potential to become our collective undoing
He does endorse the center-right neoliberal candidates where the left wing candidates can't win in a swing state.
You look at GWB's governance, Gore wasn't very left wing, we could all agree he'd probably have kept us out of Iraq and IMO probably would have prevented 9/11, because Bush was very cavalier on all the red lights flashing that a major attacking coming up, terrorism was absolutely not on his radar. Probably would have been on a better fiscal track too since he didn't support dumbass tax cuts for the wealthy.
Hillary...No I don't like Hillary. She seems firmly, bourgeous, and aristocracy, but yes, I'd rather work with her as President, than someone like Trump who hates every fiber of my being. Bare minimum she's competent, which Trump and GWB assuredly were not.
And he endorsed Biden, again though, I'd rather work with Biden, than someone who hates every fiber of my being like Trump and the billionaire class. This is not the time for staying home or voting for dipshit green party candidates. THose green party keep fucking the left, it'd be better to do what the Tea Party did and primary democrats for being insufficiently left wing at all levels even if we can't do it on presidential candidates quite as effectively.
Hope I don't sound like a partisan shill, but that's the reality. But IMO, America is a failing state, the corruption is overwhelming, and I think they're gonna rig the elections, and even if Dems win fair and square, they'll act like their win was a huge injustice because Dems who won fair and square the election was rigged and therefore not valid. These shit for brains loonies can't be worked with, we MAY need to balkanize the country, IMO I'd just write into new constitutions, reconvene every 20 years and see if we could find common ground reform up, maybe/perhaps, but these right wingers are so far off the deep end, they're IMPOSSIBLE to work with, whether it's the lowly useful idiots who fly confederate flags (who may not remember this but they were slated for the horrible task of being mere cannon fodder fed into the civil war meat grinder by their beloved plantation aristocracy overlords over that of the slaves because a slave killed on the battlefield was worth money to the aristocracy, look up the Battle of Franklin sometime to see what I mean), or the Carl Icahn's, McConnel's and Donald Trump's.
And of course my fellow leftists will argue against Chomsky for saying we SHOULD vote for Biden...I don't agree with them, Chomsky is fucking right again even if it seems counter-intuitive/disingenuous. I dunno if this counts as socialist accolades, I'm on r/socialism, r/latestagecapitalism, I definitely identify more socialist than I have in previous years, more marxist because of Cheeto Benito's election.
I stand with Chomsky he's on point to even endorse a center-right bourgeois/aristocracy Biden because the Republicans are the most dangerous coalition of human beings on the planet, that's not an exaggeration.
AI will never change us, because it is outside of the human mind. Only we can change ourselves, which can only come about through introspection.
Well said. AI does have this potential.
Socialist will make it more corrupt 😂 man you people never pay attention to history or your own economic philosophies
So true bestie 💕💕💕🥺🥺
Very cogent arguments!
i will be binging this channel now thank you lol
Does anyone have this written. I have adhd and it’s hard for me to understand him because of the background.
@Uncle Joe Dude, seriously fuck off.
There are captions, if that helps?
Chomsky greatly influenced my political thought!
Wouldn't dividing the economy into a plurality of democratic communes impede production by halting interconnectivity and prevent the utopian ideal where production allows from each according to his ability and to each according to his need?
not necessarily, they could form a network of interconnected democratic communes which are able to produce and provide for each other what each commune needs.
@@mohitnair2541extensive trade networks
I support his Chomsky vision of a Utopian Anarchistic Socialism with a twist of Libertarianism bordering Feudalism based on an early Neanderthal Parliament founded of Neolithic Principles following sound Economic Standards of Supply and Demand.
This is the true way.
It's a pity that such a shining beacon of clarity such as this video of Chomsky's should be overrun with comments of such ideological stupefaction and stultified hero worship.
What yoga pose is that?
Conditions(social,technological,infrastructure, natural resources, and economical ones in general), shape and condition the method, measures and the level of "intensity"(if coercion is contemplated and necessary), to "rearange" the disorder(assuming there was one), for a new set of institutions, programs and so forth, to apply the new "beginning"...every place and time(era), demands a "costumized" "Taylored" approach in practical terms...culturally, such attempts, will have a rather optimistic acceptance, as one can only expect a substantial change in living conditions that guarantee security in the first place, and financial stability(urban concept of a postmodern society)...nonetheless, taking the financial element as the necessary precondition to spawn all the aforementioned expectations, the means of production have to be developed, whether by becoming self-sufficient or by foreign investment...so, unfortunately when a country is in "Tatters" financially and its arcades depleted, adding dire basic, medical and social programs, the measures and immediate results are only going to seem "apparent"...why?...because foreign capital(financial investments), are necessary for development...everyone wants results immediately, specifically the destitute ones...the question is how to improve sectors where there is no opportunity to work and at the same time, be part of what is meant to be in place...unfortunately, the restructuring of an economical system, is not going to start from the bottom up, but from top to bottom...giving it of course, the benefit of the doubt to the one(s); you have chosen to lead the way...
I do not think that the problem is that people are not mature enough for freedom, I think that a public organization with clear rules, clear punishments and a clear level of authoritarianism is way easier to organize efficiently and is porbably more efficient overall (as long as the majority of the people are politically relevant) than a system without rules, punishments and at least a slimmer of authoritarianism. Also a society with laws and a more central decission making can adapt quicker.
And I don´t think that you can entirely bridge this gap through a change in culture, education and ethics, which is again very ahrd to reach in an anarchist society anyway.
Counterarguments?
Laws were not designed and are not in place, to cement some despotic power structures, but to create a more objective system than the whims of individuals, people choose to create laws. You are free to try to create a few territories without a state or lawfull rule, but if you by any chance suceed I highly doubt you will like the result.
Hi! :) Yhea I have, well I think what needs to be clarify is that anarcho communism (from my understanding) doesn't mean no rules or punishment. But the fact that the creator and executor of those rules are not part of a dominant class. Or even of a class at all.
The centralisation is maybe more effective in time and energy for the production but less in terms of liberty and equity. That's why the society must organize itself in a horizontal way from and the bottom to the top, in smaller groups working together instead of a big nation dividing itself with hierarchies.
@@GilouKiwi Thanks for the reply, then what is the difference between anarcho communism and a modern day democracy?
@@GilouKiwi I mean every political decission making is based and legitimized on the peoples votes and while the USA may only have two relevant parties most have significantly more.
Sure capitalism has inheritances, which create a strong enough privilege to make it more or less reasonable to speak of a class, though it is not a sealed one, but when I think of anarcho communism, I don´t think about capitalism with equal starting chances and a working democratic welfare state.
Not trolling you, seriously confused^^
@@TheRedMooncorp the abolition of the state, the salariat, religion and exploitable property wich create hierachy. But those are difficult subjects I think many will believe for exemple that the abolition of religion mean we can't believe in anything whereas the only think to be destroyed is the organizations telling that non beiliver are different, that there is a omniscient God and only one truth to be followed that nothing can change.
We are quite far from this nowadays and society still organize itself from top to bottom. When you vote, you just sell your liberty to someone else. He makes it what he wants nobody punish him if he do the opposite he was elected from.
But hey I may be dreaming for something impossible to make in our lifetime. The only thing I know is that I would feel better in a world with more liberty for all, and not just rich and powerful people.
“soulful corporation”
*laughs amongst the audience*
"No elaboration is necessary." Damn.
Could workers councils decide how much of profit goes to investments and how much into salaries (consumption)?
@Uncle Joe you didn't even debunk any of his ideas. You are just a troll. You're so pathetic that you went on a video posted 5 years ago just to shit post. I can't believe you can't fuck off
Argeed I think nonism is the best governing system .
Actual libertarian here. Thought experiment:
You somehow dissolve ownership of private enterprise without the use of force (impossible, but let's pretend). Now, everyone involved in a production facility is in charge of every decision that company makes. Why should a person in HR have the save control of questions of electricity as someone in operations and facilities?
So, you might say, the person in control of electrical work should have a higher role for electrical questions. Now how do we scale this up?
The first Libertarian was an anarcho communist in 1858. Is that what you mean by "actual libertarian"?
Recognized expertise from within the ranks of the workers themselved would be deferred to for specialized knowledge in key areas. Mikhailn Bakunin has a quote about this: "Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult the architect or the engineer For such special knowledge I apply to such a "savant." But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the "savant" to impose his authority on me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions and choose that which seems to me soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even m special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, the tool of other people's will and interests."
Mikhail Bakunin
"Actual libertarian" - My dude, libertarianism is a 200 year old left wing tradition. The term was co-opted in the mid 20th century by right wing capitalists, explicitly to muddy the waters as part of the project to make the politically unaware think that left wing = government and right wing = 'freedom'
Murray Rothbard in the 70s: "One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy. 'Libertarians' had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over".
I think if you research the history of your own stated ideology you will find the answers to all of the questions in your thought experiment. For example, you say that the dissolution of private ownership is impossible despite it happening hundreds of times in history
Straight up intellectual
Interesting talk, his argument on efficiency at the end is very weak though. He says modern society "devotes such enormous resources to waste and destruction", that may be so, however in terms of standard of living and rising wealth across the world, state capitalism is so far better than anything else tried (tribalism was less destructive, but people died at like 30 too). And says at the end "maximization of commodities is hardly a decent measure of existence", again, that might have some truth... but state capitalism so far has been able to provide a wider array of products than any other system of government tried... e.g. one of the triggers in the background in East Germany for the fall of the Berlin wall was state socialism being unable to provide enough commodities (i.e. coffee riots).
Has little to do with capitalism and more to do with science, technology, basic progress and evolution.
Humanity never stopped evolving technologically and scientifically.
The misconception that the Medieval Ages were "Dark" in comparison to Ancient Times is false. Technology had progressed far more and far more people were wealthier, even if the highest standard of living was (presumably) slightly lower. In other words, instead of an elite class of Romans and "tribal" Celts, now you had many Feudal nations of moderate wealth. But also, in fact, the highest cap was still higher than Rome living standards. Maybe not when comparing to a Roman Emperor, but even elite vs elite, standard of living was much better.
I've studied a lot of Medieval History, but I won't go into details. You can fact check it yourself. And of course we all know that the Renaissance and later Age of Enlightment and such were better overall than Ancient times and so on.
In other words, progress never ended or slowed down. It is just growing exponentially, and we are on the latest line upwards, so it feels like it's growing faster because it is. But it's not because of the system, not so much at least, but because of the basics of Positive Feedback Loops.
(and I just want to add a detail: Medieval Times were also considered dark due to diseases, plagues, etc. which were caused by a lot of people urbanizing, moving into cities. But humans had never struggled so much with these problems and thus were unaware how to resolve them. naturally, there was a temporary dip. But also consider that the mere fact that a lot of people were urbanizing and the population was so large it couldn't feed itself, means that there was so much wealth and food to make that possible. In other words, Medieval societies (in Europe) had far outperformed Ancient ones. The romanticization of Ancient times as better we have is due to inappropriate historical study in the Renaissance, which corrupt our perception of our historical timeline to this day. Of course, I am not as knowledgeable on Asian or American history, but I can say that the Aztecs had far better tools than Incas and Mayas, and even had to resort to radical sacrifices to sustain their immense populations and avoid mass starvations (which, is also an indication of economical progress to the point such a large population can be created in the first place)).
Oh, and an important point, Russia was piss poor and fought two wars. Eastern Europe, along with it was dragged. China and other nations had suffered immense colonialism and such. Their progress was still significant, even if they failed to the Western Powers in the end. But consider not the political systems, but the most major factors - initial starting wealth. The colonial powers (and after WW2 USA specifically as Western Europe fell back significantly) had extracted most wealth from other nations and had an initial advantage. No wonder then, that on the global economic playground, those with more capital won out and those with less slowly died out. It had little to do with political systems, as trading, between humans has never really been very different. Tariffs and such are factors, significant on the small scale, but the way we do trading today is very similar to feudal times, except with more tech and possibility, on the macro scale (note: on the macro scale. Of course tariffs and other policies can harm economies significantly, but the point is, if you consider it as a natural system, the two systems - "socialist" (authoritarian) and capitalist ("democratic") systems were very very similar. The authoritarians lost mostly because they were more centralized (and centralization always leads to failure and corruption) and because they were starting waaay back. Still, China managed to dig itself out while the rest were "fighting" and Japan, allying itself with USA, managed to net some of its value. USSR and other nations, in opposition to the powers that be (USA), were destroyed. Again, little to do with systems, more to do with colonialism and starting capitals of nations.
In short, capitalism is not the reason for economic progress and it's possibly even slowing us down from realizing our full economic and social progress potential. Sure, it's the best we've had but it's still pretty feudal and not that far off as some idealize it. Consider history and historical political systems, down to the last details, and you will find many very similar parallels between Feudalism, Guildism, Industrialism and Capitalism, as well as other systems. The revolution was not so much in the economic sector, as much as it was in the social - where we now enjoy social freedoms unique throughout history.
He makes it clear here and many times in related talks, that the foundation of such a society must first involve a spiritual reawakening of the individual, a radical and complete transition into an insofar totally unrecognizable "standard" philosophy of life, in which altruism is primary, one's commitment to community is absolute, and creative acts are commonplace for their own sake. He says that the institutions that emerge from the first steps toward such a society will help to retrain people to be better suited for such a drastically different consciousness.
It's also misleading to say that "state capitalism is clearly best so far" when what he proposes has never existed in reality for more than a few years.
Rest in peace
hey he just quoted Ed Miliband's dad
You know, he said that, and he said a lot of things just like that ... and then he wholeheartedly supported the lockdowns and other COVID stuff, loudly criticizing those who rejected the mainstream narrative.
This confuses me. What, exactly, does he mean when he says "freedom"? He rails against "technocrats", but apparently supports technocratic control of the economy/polity at least sometimes in certain cases; so then, is his anarchism somehow limited? And if you put limits on anarchy, is it really anarchy anymore?
Well because most of the decisions with lockdowns and such and such were supported by medical professionals and scientists who just wanted to save as many lives as possible. Those were not a matter of politics, those were recommended by people who really did know better than the public, but everyone felt entitled to rejecting their facts and knowledge just because they did not want to work from home in order to save the lives of others.
@@pauforcadellcampos4452 This is indeed a highly contentious topic, but what my point is, is what exactly is "anarchy", or even "democracy"? There's lots of serious debates as to what exactly is "science", what "scientism" is, and the question of should we have a "scientocracy" or an "epistocracy".
There's very rarely perfect consensus on any topic, even amongst experts in the scientific community. Hanna Arendt talked about "ever arguing experts", and Hume's scepticism is well known. Should entire societies be ruled by experts? If so, is that "anarchy"?
Young Chomsky looks like Sam Seder lmao
What exactly is to stop me, in this coercion free society, from simply selling my labour to someone who is willing to buy it? If I'd rather take a job for wages than join one of these worker communes, what is stopping me?
1926 Convention on Slavery, Article 5.
How does he, or how would he define freedom?
There will be freedom when there is no control. specifically the opression and control of the government upon the citizens.
his would definition be a tyrant ruling every aspect of your life so you're "free" from thinking or making choices.
@@luise.8718 does that include capitalists and the market.
@@thejudge4421 no it wouldn't.
@Aleksandar Lukich If the goal of socialism is the control of the means of production and property then how exactly does the individual "control all aspects of his own life"? The individual would be at the mercy of the collective. His "means of production" and property would not be his own.
8:40 No the proliteriat revolution needs to begin from the people up and stay decentralized
Ideally yes, but it is very hard for a revolutionizing organism not to crumble under its own weight when it is not structured
Oh Chomsky, how much you've changed.
Bulhakas How so?
Tyler Munro got a lot slower in speed when talking and isn't quite the stud he was in this picture
TableTurn never seen him protesting in the streets then
fuck are u talking about tableturn, he's probably been to more places youd go in 100 lifetimes
He just insults people who disagree with him. Whenever he's at a Q & A, he just insults or makes accusation when asked dissenting questions (some of which are very good questions). He's impatient, and bitter. In these days, he was quite a good debater and could handle disagreement with sophistication, and usually could win a debate with content and not insults. It's sad.
Libertarian Socialism, so who forces others to give tax money to the state? Wouldn’t that violate non-violence?
" infantile ultra leftism" Lenin
Non-relevant, but Chomsky looks smoking hot in that picture 😂
DemoCRIPS and ReBLOODlicans: No More Gangs in Government Paperback - May 28, 2013
by Jesse Ventura (Author), Dick Russell (Contributor)
1:11 "Every Anarchist is a Socialist, but not every Socialist is necessarily an Anarchist."
4:56 "Council Communism..."
Manu Forster your point?
If you are anarchist you have to be socialist, because anarchism is against power/hierarchy and if you are not socialst ( which is capitalist) you have always people with more power over many others.
Socialism however can exist in an authoritarian society.
@Rick Vis Small random people doing some kind of capitalism is maybe not the nicest way of interaction but as long as it keeps small scale that not a big Problem for the society. When companies start to get bigger and just buy their competitors or they have large impact in the politics then capitalism is detrimental for any society.
In short: The more power and more hierarchy there is, the worse it is for the society. In your example is relatively less power and a small hierarchy.
@Rick Vis It would be like taking drugs personally in your backyard. If you get caught, society would punish you according to the laws (most likely fines, not imprisonment, for oppressing another through "salaries"), but you probably won't get caught and even if you did no one would care. Just like we do today when a kid drinks alcohol or a person doesn't put their seatbelt on. Sure, there are laws but even if you get caught sometimes they'd let you go (at least in my country). Is it right? Eh, depends. In the examples I gave, who cares really, they are not that detrimental. In your example you'd be actively oppressing another in order to extract a larger profit from them than what you give in return, but it'd probably be such a minor profit that it'd be near irrelevant.
But see, if you start mass producing drugs... that's different.
There will always be a grey economic sector, and the small-scale one is never really pursued or punished much, but there isn't much need to anyway.
And the problem in your example wouldn't even be the payment necessarily, because supposedly it could be meritocratic, it'd be the procedure you go through. The point of following the procedure is to make it so that both parties (working and employing) can negotiate on a fair stage as cooperators, instead of a position of authority. Both must have all data available on the task at hand, the budget, the % of work they'd be doing (and thus the % they'd have to be earning) and so on. Additionally, once working together none should hold power over the other in terms of social and other means. In other words, democracy. People would cooperate instead of employ/hire.
If we remove our laws for democracy, we'd slide back into monarchies extremely quickly. That's why procedure must be followed.
@Rick Vis Trade by itself is not the same as Capitalism.
Bakuninist?
Sorry, but the only society we can create in the United States, which includes the States, is a Republican Form of Government, and a libertarian socialist society does not qualify as a republican form of government!
A governing system forms a society through a participation versus compliance agreement which establishes the benefits, privileges, rights of participation in decision making and cost of membership, citizenship, in the resulting society.
By the way, the people are not governed, the collective decision making is what is governed and the legislative process to reach a majority consensus is the governor!
im pretty sure that republic means public matters, and libertarian socialism favors states as public matters
@@normalperson-x7o
Absolutely not! A Republic is a legislative assembly which is formed by an exact representation of ALL THE PEOPLE, where ALL THE PEOPLE may participate in the legislative assembly as if they were present in person to participate and vote themselves to reach a majority consensus of ALL THE PEOPLE. If a democracy is arithmetic, then a republic is calculus.
@@nfpnone8248 libertarian socialism, at least according to my view, should do that kind of thing.
@@normalperson-x7o
Libertarian Socialism is not a governing system, just like capitalism, communism, and socialism are not governing systems! A governing system establishes how those of a society interact with each other to form and maintain the society. The people are not governed, the collective decision making of the people is what is governed, and the legislative processes to reach a majority consensus is the governor. The people participate as equals in the legislative assembly, even though demographically the people are not considered equals. That’s what made our democracy, the confederate assembly of the States as the Union, unique, never before throughout history did unequal factions of the society join as equals to make the collective decisions of that society.
All these isms are moot in a democracy, because that’s not what government is all about. Government is about decision making, and democratic and republican forms of government are about collective decision making where ALL participate as equals in the legislative assembly, with equal suffrage, where those collective decisions are made.
We need to separate government from economics, they are not the same and are in no way are dependent upon each other!
@@nfpnone8248oh, ok. sorry for the misunderstanding.
for government, i embrace council democracy, mixed with delegative democracy. if you want to ask more, I will answer.
The state/government/public-sector in the foreseeable far-future/long-term when bottom-up social-cultural-political-legal-economic/socio-cultural-political-legal-economic marxist/marxian socialism with marxist/marxian communism in mind comes to fruition but only once the labor-force military-force/external police-force and the police-force/internal military-force are fully-thoroughly-and-fatally the criminal-force will be made redundant and thereby abolished even the military-force/external police-force and the police-force/internal military-force can be greatly reduced or drastically reduced since a secularised-and-rationalised society through-and-under the broader work-force except the labor-force-like job's/career's/occupation's/profession's/rank's/position's/field's in the broader work-force which are quintessentially bull-shit job's/career's/occupation's/profession's/rank's/position's/field's in the broader work-force or white-collar job's/career's/occupation's/profession's/rank's/position's/field's so blue-collar personalities-and-psychologies/mind-set's have-and-will be liberated/emancipated/vindicated
I forgot to add first-and-foremost this will happen within the next 150/200 year's-and-decades decades-and-centuries centuries-and-millennias to 800 year's-and-decades decades-and-centuries centuries-and-millennias probably decades-and-centuries it will be the longest conflict-and-war akin to either the american revolutionary war or the afghan civil war and it will be the bloodiest conflict-and-war similar to either world war 1 or world war 2 since we live-and-breathe in an almost conflictless-and-warless era except for proxy conflict's-and-wars which are insurgencies/armed rebellion's financially-funded by either so-called state/government/public-sector actor's or non-state/government/public-sector actor's such as multi-millionaires billionaires multi-billionaires and emerging trillionaires through-and-under front group's/organisation's/entities/businesses to further their interest's-and-issues/care's-and-concerns/woe's-and-worries which is in essence money/fiat currency/capital/surplus/medium-of-exchange/legal tender/disposable income through attempting to own-and-organise the production-and-distribution of both raw material's and natural resources for either good's-and-services so they can remain either upper-middle socioeconomic individual person's or upper-socioeconomic individual person's
Stop being such a 15:00
Bernie sanders 🥰
but now he says vote biden cuz trump. literally manufacturing consent.
he is voting for harm reduction, to do less harm to the material conditions of the average person. Shitty Obamacare is better then no affordable healthcare. You realize you can vote Biden to stop the worst excesses of a trump presidency and still organize and be a socialist otherwise right? Why do so many people believe voting is the only form of political action?
How privileged that you dont have to worry about your material conditions that you can afford not to vote for Biden...
@@shift7200 He is voting for status quo because it suits him. Apparently you are doing okay too. gfy
@@onecardshort2934 His main argument for voting for Biden is global warming, wich is an existencial treat to human kind and Trump administration is increasing the problem. At least Biden will implement some measures to mitigate global warming.
@@hectorhernandez7299 liar like biden
@@TheTazzietiger this is a lie. Imagine trying to sell democracy to ppl if that is your definition.
Demanding the impossible in hopes of arriving at Utopia.
Nothing about this is utopian
@Uncle Joe No, it's workers taking control of their labour. No a cult, if anything the right is a cult, the right wing is pretty much the same, the left on the other hand, has been fighting eachother since 1917
People simply can't be entrusted with Libertarianism.
The problem with democracy is 51% rule the 49%. Not to mention the fact that hierarchies of power are not formed simply by exerting physical power, it's because of their competence. Would you rather have 1000 morons coming up with ideas or 1 bill gates coming up with ideas? Capitalism and private ownership is the fastest route to innovation and efficiency. And calling capitalist hierarchies and the people on top "authoritarians" is not accurate at all. If that authoritarian does anything wrong or wrongs anyone and people find out, if people don't like it they will stop using his products/services. He will be immediately "dethroned". A lot of mischaracterizations in this.
"If that authoritarian does anything wrong or wrongs anyone and people find out, if people don't like it they will stop using his products/services. He will be immediately "dethroned"."
That is hilarious.
@@sky-magnet You disagree? Go become successful and start a massive business. If you murdered someone, you are not going to be on top of that hierarchy very long.
Bill Gates did not come up with “ideas” the computer was developed in two of the few socialist institutions the USA has the universities and the military.
The idea of council socialism does not mean that you hire 1000 morons.
Cooperativism is not new, it has been a part of both USA and European mixed economies for 200 years. But there was a severe set back in cooperativism in the USA in the first Red Scare.
That said it would be a continual evolutionary structure.
In the USA places where I see an immediate need for cooperative industries are the areas where corporate stock holder industry has abandoned in the 70’s and 80’s like furniture making, and other light industry. If you don’t have to worry about stock holders it becomes a viable competitive domestic US industry again.
But there are multiple other possibilities. I think that for the amount the US government bailed out the auto industry stock holders it would be an appropriate industry for a large cooperative structure.
I don’t think it will work for every industry. But I think the USA has very little choice if we wish to become a productive nation again. We need a more mixed economy with a larger cooperative sector.
@@matthewkopp2391 I will agree about bailing out auto industries. That's bs. But no one claimed bill gates invented the internet, but he founded Microsoft. I'm making the point that we need to allow these brilliant people to do their thing and get rewarded immensely for it. If you try and level the playing field, that kills the incentive to create ground breaking products. Those hyper rich people are hyper rich because they have provided goods and services and along the way lifted millions out of poverty. If we have a system where we don't reward the studs, the US isn't as powerful as it is. Lastly, who says the US doesn't produce anything? We are leaders in innovation and we have lifted the rest of the world up with us. The US and capitalism have lifted more people out of poverty than any other system ever.
That's the thing. A lot of what you said is abstract and hypothetical while being stated as concrete fact. First, I agree with you that democracy as we currently have it involves the rule of the 51% over the 49%. Anarchists propose direct democracy, which is where decisions are made by consensus through structures such as spoke councils (see occupy wall street movement). In this way, decisions are arrived by the true majority instead of by one of marginal numerical superiority. There are ways of executing this efficiently through nested council structures each made up of recallable delegates acting for their respective groups.
As to the notion that the powerful are in some sense beholden to consumers, this is very much not the case in real life, where terms of economic relation are heavily biased toward those in power. For instance, the advertising industry convinces us of buying products that we have no need for by appealing to our emotions. Public protest against unpopular policies are seldom successful, and even when they are there are plenty of disagreeable policies passed in the governments of the world that aren't even seen in the public eye before being approved.
As to innovation and efficiency, whichever form of tech we talk about, the process of innovation is almost always driven by non profit-motivated institutions. It is no coincidence that leading scientific organisations like MIT have always been surrounded by profit-making companies ready to swoop in and claim patents over new inventions in order to then turn a profit. We see this for instance with the technology for iPhones, which the economist Mariana Mazzucatto points out was developed by government engineers in the Pentagon. Same thing with GMO products which companies like Monsanto now use to exploit Global South farmers by making it so they have to keep buying their seed year on year. The tech for GMO was invented by the scientist Boyer and his colleague to create insulin, not by Monsanto itself.
As to the notion that people have a real choice between leaders, the past 50 years of history say otherwise. Every US president since Reagan, democrat or republican, has been a neoliberal, that is someone who favours a small state (except for prisons), low government intervention (except to protect corporate interests abroad, for instance) and private enterprise to solve social problems (resulting in a situation where, for example, people with chronic life-threatening conditions are often unable to buy the medicines they require due to the forbiddingly high prices).
None of these things are the result of simple misfortune. The fact is that the state and capitalim work in concert to maintain a self-reinforcing unequal power dynamic between them and the people.
Reformist-Anarchism. If you ever thought that Anarchism couldn't become worse than it is...
Worse on which basis? Getting fucked over by capitalism and being happy about it is definitely something
@@pauforcadellcampos4452 which basis? Read above, if anarchism is a bad ideology, a reformist twist to it make it only worse. If this is not evident for you please let me know why.
@@MK-jc6us as far as I know, reformism is only defined as a political system that advocates for making changes in the establishment rather than abolishing it and building it from the ground up. I don't see why reformism is necessarily bad in and of itself. Also it is quite a bold statement to say that anarchism is simply bad. While its ideals might be hardly achieved, delusional or inaplicable, saying that it is a plainly bad ideology is shallow. "Bad" is a moral judgement.
@@pauforcadellcampos4452 reformism imo is not a political system. Reformism is an alternative to revolutionary strategy and tactics. I am not against every single reformist tactic, I am against reformism as a strategy. It is unthinkable that reforms might be achieved w/o a revolutionary push (reforms in Western Europe were possible thanks to the revolution in Russia). About anarchy, yes bad is a moral judgement but also a scientific one. It is a bad ideology based on weak historical, economical and sociological analysis. Anarchy is a nonsense from a cocneptual standpoint and the evidence is that it was unable to impose itself against all competing ideologies.
All social orders have to imposed on people - a contradiction wheŕe Libertarianism is concerned.
anarcho fantasy
"Libertarian Socialism" sounds like a "Vegan Tiger"
That's because the Libertarian Capitalists are very good at marketing... however, they are not good at much else.
This is language without logic. A throwaway thought without thought
Tell me you're an American without telling me you're an American challenge
Michael Parenti > Noam Chomsky
Bolshevik apologists < literally any other socialists
Humanity only needs to end.
No
Why? The people most responsible for destroying the planet will suffer the least.
Humanity only needs to end? Wow, that's twisted stuff, yet you have a need to write to others your thoughts, that act contradicts your statement
I don't think even he knows what he's talking about. Words don't make is so.
You fucking idiot. You can’t even formulate grammatically correct sentences! 😂
All bull
Feel free to challenge even one point.
@@DrMrManGuy Lol he didn't bother to refute anything.
Capitalism means eating ass, change my mind
@@bongoseropersa5240 If he supports capitalism, then he loves eating ass!
What, are you a fan of Capitalism or something? :p
Such bullshit...
What a morally and spiritually bankrupt demon.
Oh my.
On what grounds are you categorizing him as a “demon”?
@@lesterthejester9406 He denies the God whom he knows exists but suppresses the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1). He literally supports anything that goes against goodness and morality; the murder of unborn humans, the destruction of marriage and human sexuality, racism, socialism, Neo Marxism, the freedom of religion, etc.
He holds zero redeeming value. He is a lost, spiritually dead soul.
@@patrickc3419 You dont believe in freedom of religion and you dislike gay people? Don't you realize that many of God's teachings on helping the poor share similarities with Marxist thought? An example of this is the doctorine of Liberation Theology. For reference, I'm a Catholic who subscribes to theology of the Jesuits.
@Bukali Kat Gaming I agree, I just think that there is more evidence in biblical texts for the support of Christian socialism than there is for the support of Christian conservatism.
this is nonsense.
logical fruit Can you explain why with a proper argument?
........3 months later......
lol
........9* months later.........
@@minationissapientiae9411 *1 year later
NOT. POSSIBLE.
Chomsky is disingenuous. Anarchism and socialism are opposites not just about the same thing
You just think socialism is the opposite of anarchism because the socialist countries right now are authoritarian. And authoritarianism is the opposite of anarchism.
Socialism and capitalism are more directly the opposite. However if you have socialism you can distinguish between authoritarian and anarchist socialsim. Either the state has the power to distribute everything or the society has the power to distribute amongs its people.
If you are anarchist you have to be socialist, because anarchism is against power/hierarchy and if you are capitalist you have always people with more power over many others.
tim1tim2tim3tim4 no you don’t have to be an socialist to be a good little anarchist... there’s such a thing as altruism... people do things for other people out of the kindness of there hearts. Socialism uses coercion to force people to do something. Anarchism is altruism, socialism is coercion.
@@nickhanley5407 That's a very nice argument which made me think a lot. However I think you cannot say that actions from anarchists are always done from kindness of their heart. If a group of anarchists decides on a rule for them to help the poor it woll be also coercion on them.
If anarchism is against any form of power/hierarchy they are doing a coercion on everyone with power. If they wouldn't do that, society might turn into anarcho capitalism because people who are not altruistic will have a disadvantage over the people who aren't.
@@tim1tim2tim3tim4
A true progressive will understand you must have certain rules . To say a socialist is an anarchist makes no sense !
Yes they would much rather see a society where people are not going to jail for ridiculous and petty reasons , but that hardly makes them anarchists !
This view only comes from someone on the right .
Conservatives are the only people thinking a socialist or a progressive is an anarchist !
@@tim1tim2tim3tim4
Chomsky cannot be right about everything , especially when he considers himself to be a Conservative .
The science behind the political brain has produced interesting results indeed !
Wit 5 different studies over 28 years involving more than 140.000 people .
the results can explain the difference between right and left philosophy .
The first and longest study lasting twenty years involving more than 130.000 people .
Which is where the long term effects on the the brain was researched . And positive or negative influences can change the size and activity of sertain sections of the brain .
The studies have shown the difference in the level of development of the brain between a conservative and a liberal .
And basically the more one goes to the right , the larger and more active the amygdala is , And the Anterior cingulate cortex is smaller and less active in a Conservative .
Which is the reverse in a progressive, or liberal !
This explains a great deal as to the difference in moral comprehension between right and left !
Google
Conservative brain
VS
Liberal brain.
"Mass slaughter of the workers Paradise"
Noam the Chump CHOMPSKY.
All social orders have to imposed on people - a contradiction wheŕe Libertarianism is concerned.