Chomsky never discussed the philosophy of Marx namely Dialectical and Historical materialism, a philosophy that is yet to be refuted by physical sciences, anthropology, archeology and sociology. Marx ultimate goal is to end man, the conscious being, from being alienated from himself, others and nature. Chomsky is not being objective here and in the process his views are not scientific. The ruling class has no issue with Chomsky since he does not have nor follows any philosophy that undermines its hegemony and exploitation of the working class. He wants us to be happy but never asks the question why we are unhappy. His indulgence in himself blinds him from being objective. Sad for an intellectual with big following.
Why not mention Hegel's influence on early Marx? Marx used to be a Young Hegelian and Hegel's concept of alienation had been the main influence on Marx' own philosophy.
Oh no. Back to the whole business about people being forced to work against their will and how everybody shouldn't have to work. I'll try to convince bees not to collect nectar anymore, see how that works out.
The theory of alienation from Marx”s Paris manuscript can still be seen in his later The Capital, but is then called commodity fetischism. The latter term describes workers tendency to see the economic circumstances as laws of nature. In the earlier Paris manuscript the term alienation is the end product that starts with objectification in the production process, and then becomes externalisation, and finally, that workers becomes alienated to their products at work. This was all taken from the early Hegel, and gives a somewhat negative view on workers ability to fight back. It seems to be impossible to resist since workers are alienated already at their machines. The early Lukacs and Marcuse from the Frankfurt School had that view on the working class movement. Lukacs realized he had exaggerated and that objectification was not the same as alienation. The Frankfurt School instead continued on that road and Marcuse claimed that only some few intellectuals could resist the alienation, which led Lukacs to later call them Grand Hotel Abyss.
I like Chomsky, but he is not describing Marx fairly when he says Marx believed people are only molded by their environment. With Marx, it is not simply a matter of idealism versus materialism, nature versus nurture, i.e., whether ideas shape us, or our material circumstances do. Marx said it is a synthesis of both rather than one or the other. It is called Dialectical Materialism.
The idea that people are only products of the environment and that it leads to leninism and that Chomsky allegedly found that in Marx's late writings is pure fantasy. Nothing what Chomsky ever said about marxism was really about marxism or Marx, it was Chomsky's "debate" with leninism or "leninism".
Modelling of the humans by society does not mean necessarily something bad and reflects the rather true idea that humans are growing within the society and they create themselves in the mirror of other people. The only thing is that up until now power groups have not created such society in which humans could develop their abilities freely. I think later writings of Marx and Engels stressed this point however their big mistake was that they did not form operational rules (using game theory wording) how to do it right and what follows was that the power structures in Russia and other so called socialist countries could freely use the narrative as they wish. Generally I see this problem in XIX century philosophical works that the ideas are actually good but what is lacking is how to do it. And now it is a time to be more clever in XXI century and to concentrate on "how to" , we know mistakes of the past so we should concentrate on operational factors more than on discussing ideas.
Is it just a coincidence that someone called Marx wrote about Marxism? What a strange world.
Ohhhhhhhhhh that view is very appealing to the interlectuals bc they think they can be the molders. This is gold.
Chomsky never discussed the philosophy of Marx namely Dialectical and Historical materialism, a philosophy that is yet to be refuted by physical sciences, anthropology, archeology and sociology. Marx ultimate goal is to end man, the conscious being, from being alienated from himself, others and nature. Chomsky is not being objective here and in the process his views are not scientific. The ruling class has no issue with Chomsky since he does not have nor follows any philosophy that undermines its hegemony and exploitation of the working class. He wants us to be happy but never asks the question why we are unhappy. His indulgence in himself blinds him from being objective. Sad for an intellectual with big following.
The volume does not go high enough to ever clearly hear this man speak.
Why not mention Hegel's influence on early Marx? Marx used to be a Young Hegelian and Hegel's concept of alienation had been the main influence on Marx' own philosophy.
Oh no. Back to the whole business about people being forced to work against their will and how everybody shouldn't have to work. I'll try to convince bees not to collect nectar anymore, see how that works out.
Marx was a brotha
If reading Marx led you to Communism, you wouldn't have heard about Marx.
This is truly the type of intellectual one should to aspire to be.
classical marxism is closer to anarchy
Wow!! Bite sized Chomsky vids, what a gift!!
The theory of alienation from Marx”s Paris manuscript can still be seen in his later The Capital, but is then called commodity fetischism. The latter term describes workers tendency to see the economic circumstances as laws of nature. In the earlier Paris manuscript the term alienation is the end product that starts with objectification in the production process, and then becomes externalisation, and finally, that workers becomes alienated to their products at work. This was all taken from the early Hegel, and gives a somewhat negative view on workers ability to fight back. It seems to be impossible to resist since workers are alienated already at their machines. The early Lukacs and Marcuse from the Frankfurt School had that view on the working class movement. Lukacs realized he had exaggerated and that objectification was not the same as alienation. The Frankfurt School instead continued on that road and Marcuse claimed that only some few intellectuals could resist the alienation, which led Lukacs to later call them Grand Hotel Abyss.
I like Chomsky, but he is not describing Marx fairly when he says Marx believed people are only molded by their environment. With Marx, it is not simply a matter of idealism versus materialism, nature versus nurture, i.e., whether ideas shape us, or our material circumstances do. Marx said it is a synthesis of both rather than one or the other. It is called Dialectical Materialism.
Gracias con todo corazon Noam Chomsky!! merci, ana maria
Please make the sound louder, so it is better heard (also figuratively speaking) ;)
The idea that people are only products of the environment and that it leads to leninism and that Chomsky allegedly found that in Marx's late writings is pure fantasy. Nothing what Chomsky ever said about marxism was really about marxism or Marx, it was Chomsky's "debate" with leninism or "leninism".
I did not yet found a video of Chomsky that has a high level of audio
there's the life you learn with and the life you live with after that.
God damn Chomsky's got some spunk in this clip.
Modelling of the humans by society does not mean necessarily something bad and reflects the rather true idea that humans are growing within the society and they create themselves in the mirror of other people. The only thing is that up until now power groups have not created such society in which humans could develop their abilities freely. I think later writings of Marx and Engels stressed this point however their big mistake was that they did not form operational rules (using game theory wording) how to do it right and what follows was that the power structures in Russia and other so called socialist countries could freely use the narrative as they wish. Generally I see this problem in XIX century philosophical works that the ideas are actually good but what is lacking is how to do it. And now it is a time to be more clever in XXI century and to concentrate on "how to" , we know mistakes of the past so we should concentrate on operational factors more than on discussing ideas.