Noam Chomsky on how to stop planetary destruction and move past capitalism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 тра 2024
- The force pushing humanity towards destructive wars and climate catastrophe is “very simple,” Noam Chomsky says. It’s “the word we’re not allowed to think about called: capitalism.”
In this interview with The Breach’s publisher Dru Oja Jay, Chomsky explains why our current period of capitalism is particularly harsh. He also lays out why co-ops are the basis for collective movements and says that organized, active groups of workers can make gains against the system.
“It’s difficult, of course, class war is not easy.”
The Breach’s full interview with Chomsky also covers NATO, the war in Ukraine, why capitalism is a “suicide pact” and what type of organizing can create a better world. Read it here: breachmedia.ca/noam-chomsky-o...
_________________________________________________________________________
Want to see more videos like this?
Become a sustaining member at breachmedia.ca/support-us/
An hour of your wages each month will fuel independent and progressive journalism, free of corporate agendas - and never behind a paywall.
_________________________________________________________________________
Twitter: / thebreachmedia
Instagram: / thebreachmedia
Facebook: / thebreachmedia
Can you imagine being that lucid in your 90s? Incredible!
hes brilliant👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👍❤
Most people aren't that lucid in their 30's -- faster, maybe, but if one simply speeds up the audio to 1.25x, that trivial difference disappears.
Satan is millions of years old and very lucid but hell for mankind is his objective.
That is not just lucid. That is Jedi thinker level.
My Dad was till his final day at 96
The workplace is where we trade our daily lives for a pittance from profiteers while the profits of our labor are used to increase our subjection. The workplace is the key to our power, and we have to get organized to use it for our own working people's benefit.
Marxist fairytale nonsense.
We tend to forget that we are 1 false step and global nuclear war becomes a nuclear war where there are 11:35 no wiiner. The uppsteppinng of t. Ukraire war is a play wiith fire that wiil be t. end of humanity🌻 The form of Scandinavian national socialism offers more equaliy, however the growth of greedy Neocons has so now the politicians are afraid that poor Russia is a Universal threat in the same form är Global Warming Emergency. Still too many People unaware that we cant make war against mother earth, this is suicidal pessimism. Co2 & fossile fuel to reformed quickly.🌻
If a presidential canditate, like Robert F. Kennedy, manages to win the confidence of the American people there is still a chance that can deal with global warming and end environmental destruction.🌻
@@chadabercrombie6860 Then maybe we need to realize that Profit isn't why we're alive?
@@vigorberg4798 Not sure anybody can change that we are very set in stupid destructive ways.
my hero❤
Greed kills.
A lot of what Chomsky says regarding practical action comes down to what we do in our immediate surroundings, our communities and workplaces.
Yeah ok. Um, we need structural change in our society. That is what Chomsky is saying. He's not saying the same old hog wash about making a difference by doing small things in your community. I think a 40 hour work week or an eight hour work shift is a small thing, but it took anarchism and continual activism of an early labor movement over a period of twenty years at brutality by the police and security forces and in some cases death. But now we have the internet, and we now have the ability to organize online at a mass scale like nothing ever seen in human history, but are we doing it, NO. Should we, Yes! We need a public, online, democratic platform via some kind of public web portal that will allow individual citizens to freely participate in the political process in a very constructive, intelligent, and significant way. It can be done fairly quickly. Without something like that, it's going to be the same old shit, and trying to make a difference in the workplace can only get you so far. STRUCTURAL CHANGE -- politically, economically, and socially, that's the solution. We don't have to get rid of capitalism, but it's aggressive and ugly qualities, including anything goes for the sake of profit, will have to come to an end and be replaced with a kind of capitalism that is subservient to the will and to the needs of the people. This is leftist thinking, and this is what we need.
@@chadabercrombie6860 It's not supposed to be profitable dumb dumb. It is supposed to be practical. Doing things in a logical and practical way is the major thrust of his thinking. I wish there was a trolly car that took me to work instead of having to ride my bike along a highway where people drive like maniacs. It's a mad world in which we live, and someone like Chomsky is a voice of reason.
@@chadabercrombie6860the personal automobile-based transportation system is also heavily subsidized by the public. The automobile owner pays a fraction of the costs of using an automobile. It is also deadly (thousands killed daily around the globe), environmentally destructive, and actually quite inefficient (chronic congestion and insufficient parking..)
Not sure if you have ever heard of Chomsky before, but even this one video, you might have heard the answer to your query. To only employ the system which maximises profit, as opposed to the one which also factors in things like health, pollution etc. is exactly what has led us to the cliff edge we stand on now, where global warming is about to kill most people.
I am well aware of him. I have a playlist available to the public called Human Understanding, and Chomsky dominates throughout.
Peaceful, practical, productive professional. Such a lovely soul.
My god, when Chomsky is on his deathbed he'll still be spitting political discourse.
There are always people or probably bots on the Chomsky videos to make their point that Chomsky is wrong. If he is wrong... why are you here? Because that's your job. Bot.
Read Chomsky's article "The Soviet Union versus Socialism" published about 35 years ago (available at his website)
I bought the book Chomsky references for that article! thanks - there's a couple vids on youtube that quote from that book.
No, thanks... I don't like wasting my time!
In the April 1999 Monthly Review (50, no. 11:40-47), Robert McChesney gives what amounts to an encomium to Noam Chomsky. McChesney credits the MIT professor with (a) leading the battle for democracy against neoliberalism, (b) demonstrating “the absurdity of equating capitalism with democracy” (44), and (c) being the first to expose the media’s complicity with the ruling class. I would suggest that in these several areas credit for leading the way goes to the generations of Marxist writers and other progressive thinkers who fought the good fight well before Chomsky made his substantial and much appreciated contributions.
More important is the question of Chomsky’s politics. McChesney says that Chomsky can be “characterized as an anarchist or, perhaps more accurately, a libertarian socialist” (43). “Libertarian socialist” is a sweeping designation, safely covering both sides of the street. Of course, the ambiguity is not McChesney’s but Chomsky’s. As far as I know, Chomsky has never offered a clear explication of his anarcho-libertarian- socialist ideology. That is to say, he has never explained to us how it would manifest itself in organized political struggle or actual social construction.
McChesney says that Noam Chomsky has been a persistent “opponent and critic of Communist and Leninist political states and parties” (43). I would add that, as a “critic,” Chomsky has yet to offer a systematic critique of existing Communist parties and states. (Not that many others have.) Here is a sampling of Chomsky’s views on Communism and Leninism:
In an interview in Perception (March/April 1996), Chomsky tells us: “The rise of corporations was in fact a manifestation of the same phenomena that led to Fascism and Bolshevism, which sprang out of the same totalitarian soil.” Like Orwell and most bourgeois opinion makers and academics, Chomsky treats Communism and fascism as totalitarian twins, offering no class analysis of either, except to assert that they are both rooted in some unspecified way to today’s corporate domination.
In Z Magazine (October 1995), four years after the Soviet Union had been overthrown, Chomsky warns us of “left intellectuals” who try to “rise to power on the backs of mass popular movements” and “then beat the people into submission....You start off as basically a Leninist who is going to be part of the Red bureaucracy. You see later that power doesn’t lie that way, and you very quickly become an ideologist of the Right.... We’re seeing it right now in the Soviet Union [sic]. The same guys who were communist thugs two years back, are now running banks and [are] enthusiastic free marketeers and praising America.”
In its choice of words and ahistorical crudity, this statement is rather breathtaking. The Leninist “communist thugs” did not “very quickly” switch to the right after rising to power. For more than seventy years, they struggled in the face of momentous Western capitalist and Nazi onslaughts to keep the Soviet system alive. To be sure, in the USSR’s waning days, many like Boris Yeltsin crossed over to capitalism’s ranks, but other Reds continued to resist free-market incursions at great cost to themselves, many meeting their deaths during Yeltsin’s violent repression of the Russian parliament in 1993.
In the same Perception interview cited above, Chomsky offers another embarrassingly ill-informed comment about Leninism: “Western and also Third World intellectuals were attracted to the Bolshevik counterrevolution [sic] because Leninism is, after all, a doctrine that says that the radical intelligentsia have a right to take state power and to run their countries by force, and that is an idea which is rather appealing to intellectuals.” Here Chomsky fashions a cartoon image of ruthless intellectuals to go along with his cartoon image of ruthless Leninists. They do not want the power to end hunger, they merely hunger for power.
In his book Powers and Prospects (1996, 83), Chomsky begins to sound like Ronald Reagan when he announces that Communism “was a monstrosity,” and “the collapse of tyranny” in Eastern Europe and Russia is “an occasion for rejoicing for anyone who values freedom and human dignity.” Tell that to the hungry pensioners and child prostitutes in Gorky Park. I treasure freedom and human dignity as much as anyone, yet I find no occasion for rejoicing. The post-Communist societies do not represent a net gain for such values. If anything, what we are witnessing is a colossal victory for gangster capitalism in the former Soviet Union, the strengthening of the most retrograde forms of global capitalism and economic inequality around the world, a heartless and unrestrained increase in imperialistic aggression, and a serious setback for revolutionary liberation struggles everywhere.
We should keep in mind that Chomsky’s political underdevelopment is shared by many on the left whose critical views of “corporate America” represent their full ideological grasp of the political world. Be he an anarcho-libertarian or libertarian- socialist or anarcho-syndicalist-socialist or just an anarchist, Chomsky appeals to many of the young and not so young. For he can evade all the hard questions about organized struggle, the search for a revolutionary path, the need to develop and sustain a mass resistance, the necessity of developing armed socialist state power that can defend itself against the capitalist counterrevolutionary onslaught, and all the attendant problems, abuses, mistakes, victories, defeats, and crimes of Communist revolutionary countries and their allies.
What we used to say about the Trotskyites can apply to the Chomskyites: they support every revolution except those that succeed. (Cuba might be the exception. Chomsky usually leaves that country unmentioned in his sideswipes at existing or once- existing Communist countries.) Most often, organized working- class struggles and vanguard parties are written off by many on the left (including Chomsky) as “Stalinist,” a favorite, obsessional pejorative made all the more useful by remaining forever undefined; or “Leninist,” which is Chomsky’s code word for Communist governments and movements that have actually gained state power and fought against the west to stay in power. Through all this label-slinging, no recognition is given to the horrendous battering such countries and movements endure from the Western imperialists. No thought is given to the enormously distorting impact of capitalist counterrevolutionary power upon the development of existing and once-existing Communist governments, nor the evils of international capitalism that the Communists and their allies were able to hold back, evils that are becoming more and more apparent to us today.
Bereft of a dialectical grasp of class power and class struggle, Chomsky and others have no critical defense against the ideological anti-Communism that inundates the Western world, especially the United States. This is why, when talking about the corporations, Chomsky can sound as good as Ralph Nader, and when talking about existing Communist movements and society, he can sound as bad as any right-wing pundit. In sum, I cannot join McChesney in heaping unqualified praise upon Noam Chomsky’s views. When Chomsky departs from his well-paved road of anticorporate exposé and holds forth on Communism and Leninism, he shoots from the hip with disappointingly facile and sometimes incomprehensible pronunciamentos. We should expect something better from our “leading icon of the Left.”
@@DDd-gm8uz Supposed SOURCE of the "quote" of Noam Chomsky, “The rise of corporations was in fact a manifestation of the same phenomena that led to Fascism and Bolshevism, which sprang out of the same totalitarian soil.” as cited by Professor Michael Parenti: Chomsky interviewed by Husayn Al-Kurdi, Perception, March/April 1996. So I looked up the quote since I have realized over the years that people like to misquote Chomsky. Sure enough there is no interview with Chomsky in the March/April issue of 1996 journal Perception. There is a "Perceptions, Vol 3 No 3 ( Issue 15), May-June 1996" interview with Chomsky by Husayn Al-Kurdi Al-Kurdi called "Part two" but also has nothing of the quote that Parenti claims Chomsky wrote or said. An Interview with Noam Chomsky by Husayn Al-Kurdi originally appeared in issue #35 (Summer, 1995) - Globalization and Resistance. With Husayn Al-Kurdi. Summer, 1995.
this DOES have similar statements (see below) by Chomsky that Parenti is claiming to quote but definitely does NOT have the supposed quote that Parenti claims. So we can infer that was the article Parenti was wrongly claiming to quote. To be honest I expected better from Michael Parenti since he's a Professor! Obviously he has some kind of bias that he needs to cover up. I'll be blogging this error since I find it completely unacceptable by a supposed professional scholar.
An Interview with Noam Chomsky by Husayn Al-Kurdi
This article originally appeared in issue #35 (Summer, 1995) of Kick It Over
Globalization and Resistance. With Husayn Al-Kurdi. Summer, 1995.
is the ONLY interview...this is further corroboration that the Perception magazine interview, listed as Part Two was based on the first interview in the magazine, Kick It Over.
Volume 3, Number 2 (Issue #14): (80 pages)
The World According to Chomsky
OK I did find that interview referenced in #15.
NC: The Soviet Union was pretty much what Lenin and Trotsky said it was. The Bolshevik revolution was a counter-revolution. Its first moves were to destroy and eliminate every socialist tendency that had developed in the pre-revolutionary period. Their goal was as they said; it wasn't a big secret. They regarded the Soviet Union as sort a backwater. They were orthodox Marxists, expecting a revolution in Germany. They moved toward what they themselves called "state capitalism," then they moved on to Stalinism. They called it democracy and called it socialism. The one claim was as ludicrous as the other. However, when you read about the end of the Soviet Union, it's always about the "death of socialism." They never say "the death of democracy." But it makes about the same sense.
I should add to this that Western intellectuals, and also Third World intellectuals, were attracted to the Bolshevik counter-revolution because Leninism is, after all, a doctrine which says that the radical intelligentsia have a right to take state power and to run their countries by force, and that is an idea which is rather appealing to intellectuals."
You obviously haven't read "The Bolsheviks & Workers' Control" by Maurice Brinton (Solidarity, 1970), reissued in 1972 and 1975 is the edition I have. That's the book that Noam Chomsky recommends. good luck breaking out of your simplistic cult. Communism is definitely not the answer to the ecological crisis! It's already caused a huge part of the ecological crisis. too late now. As usual Parenti tries to "glob on" environmental issues at the very end of his book as if it's an after thought. Hilarious.
see The Bolshevik Position -- Lenin Was Not A Socialist -- 4 on the youtube channel IntellectualFreedom uploaded on Nov 18, 2018 for a presentation of The Bolsheviks & Workers' Control" by Maurice Brinton. You can run but you can't hide from the truth about Lenin and the Bolsheviks.
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 If you can't find the source, then you'd perhaps like to use one of these:
The grants of rights and the legal theory that lay behind them are *rooted in much the same intellectual soil* as nourished the other two major forms of twentieth century totalitarianism, Fascism and Bolshevism.
-- Noam Chomsky, Powers and Prospects
If you look at the background of it, it's the same background that led to fascism and Bolshevism. [...] Out of that same background came three major things: fascism, Bolshevism, and corporate tyranny.
-- Noam Chomsky, Class Warfare
In the twentieth century, three forms of totalitarianism developed: Bolshevism, fascism, and corporations. They really are three forms of totalitarianism.
-- Noam Chomsky, Democracy and Power
The most prominent examples are Bolshevism, fascism, and private corporatism, which is a form of privatized tyranny. Two of these systems have collapsed.
-- Noam Chomsky, Rogue States
There were basically three kinds gaining prominence in the early 20th century: one was Fascism, a second was Bolshevism, and a third was private corporations - corporatism.
-- Noam Chomsky, Journal of International Affairs, Spring 2000, 53, no. 2
In my view, corporations are illegitimate institutions of tyrannical power, *with intellectual roots not unlike those of fascism and Bolshevism.*
-- Noam Chomsky, The Common Good: Interviews.
Absolutely Brilliant I hope I can Pay attention as much as Noam has moving forward in my life. He is a absolute treasure of knowledge truth and virtue. Thank you Mr. Chomsky If more of us could follow your Wisdom.
Getting rid of greed is the only solution for capitalism. Co-ops can be good if they are not run greed. Power and control over others would have to stop too and people would have to be in tune with nature. Knowing truth and peace would help.
It takes power and control to force any type of utopianism on people. Which is why it's doomed to become what it hates.
@chadabercrombie6860 That's the thing a leftist society wouldn't be focused on profit, instead, what would be better for the people.
@@chadabercrombie6860 You will buy a ticket or pay at the pump. but mass transit is cheaper when you consider the cost of a car vs a bus ticket
Capitalism inherently encourages greed, it's systemic greed - thinking you can change an entire system just by a few moralistic individuals stopping 'greed' is woefully idealistic
My hero.
Very low standards
thank you for the latest from Noam Chomsky!
@@chadabercrombie6860 What taxpayers? Eisenhower had a 90% or 91% marginal tax rate on the wealthy - was Eisenhower a Commie? haha. Eisenhower used that "tax subsidy" to build the interstate highway system! What's the tax rate now? It's just tax evasion for corporate elite and the wealthy. There is no taxes to be paid to subsidize anything - unless it's the military of course. Eisenhower was funding the military with his 91% tax marginal rate - but the Fascist Reagan-Thatcher Feudalism was a regressive tax while doubling military spending. So now the military "budget" is mainly debt spending. The true cost of the military is way more than it's budget reveals due to the healthcare costs and debt interest costs.
Yeah mass transit is a subsidy for corporations to keep the costs of their workers down! Why do you think Walmart has its workers getting food stamps - so the Walton family can make more billions! The real subsidy is the welfare for the elite multi-billionaires by passing off the true costs of workers to the government.
Unless of course it's healthcare which is the 2nd highest domestic cost after the military. Canada has a 7 page healthcare law for universal coverage! The U.S. - oh healthcare is too "complicated" haha - that's just a euphemism for private insurance CEOs making billions in wealth so that the richest country in the world has a terrible health failing - so much that it's difficult to find people qualified now for the military. hahaha. Even babies are now obese now from toxic corn syrup in infant formula!
Wow - 100% tax deduction for advertising as mass mind control and you think mass transit is a waste of money? hilarious. I guess the mind control really does work!
China covers the costs of general welfare because that keeps the true costs of industry low for the workers - that's how the U.S. started - the "general welfare" covered by government is so the COST of business is kept lower: roads, healthcare, mass transit and education!
There was a criminal conviction against Firestone, G.M, etc. for buying up the mass transit electric trolley systems in all the major cities in the U.S. - they all got dismantled and replaced by inefficient smog diesel buses so that the elite could get more SUBSIDIES. "Between 1938 and 1950, National City Lines and its subsidiaries, American City Lines and Pacific City Lines-with investment from GM, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California (through a subsidiary), Federal Engineering, Phillips Petroleum, and Mack Trucks-gained control of additional transit systems in about 25 cities...Most of the companies involved were convicted in 1949 of conspiracy to monopolize interstate commerce in the sale of buses, fuel, and supplies to NCL subsidiaries,"
Profit is a private subsidy that is Feudalism - there is absolutely no voting system for private profit except the brainwashed brown-No$ers hoping to "float" to the top if they keep ass-kissing and goose-stepping and hiding out the middle of the herd. haha.
"our national welfare therefore requires the provision of good urban transportation, with the properly balanced use of private vehicles and modern mass transport to help shape as well as serve urban growth". Funding for transit was increased with the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1970 and further extended by the National Mass Transportation Assistance Act (1974) which allowed funds to support transit operating costs as well as capital construction costs.
In 1970, Harvard Law student Robert Eldridge Hicks began working on the Ralph Nader Study Group Report on Land Use in California, alleging a wider conspiracy to dismantle U.S. streetcar systems, first published in Politics of Land: Ralph Nader's Study Group Report on Land Use in California.[53]
In 1972, Senator Philip Hart introduced into congress the 'Industrial Reorganization Act', with an intention to restructure the U.S. economy to restore competition and address antitrust concern.[54]
During 1973, Bradford Snell, an attorney with Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro[55] and formerly, for a brief time, a scholar with the Brookings Institution, prepared a controversial and disputed paper titled "American ground transport: a proposal for restructuring the automobile, truck, bus, and rail industries."[56] The paper, which was funded by the Stern Fund, was later described as the centerpiece of the hearings.[57] In it, Snell said that General Motors was "a sovereign economic state" and said that the company played a major role in the displacement of rail and bus transportation by buses and trucks....
"Clearly, GM waged a war on electric traction. It was indeed an all out assault,...Streetcar lines were built using funds from private investors and were required to pay numerous taxes and dividends. By contrast, new roads were constructed and maintained by the government from tax income."
Workers MUST own and control the means of production.
compliments to the editor! I usually have to turn up the volume when Chomsky speaks
@@chadabercrombie6860 isn't all forms of transportation subsidized? Is there a more heavily subsidized industry than air travel?
@@f4d3r_tv
trolling ...same statement made in 4 reply on this video comment.
Namaste
The average employer makes 175.00 per hour before paying you
1:08 capitalism is the driver
1:48 maximize profit or get kicked out
2:43 maximize profit no matter the consequences (capitalism)
4:08 capitalist autocracy
4:33 class war the past 40 years
5:28 it's now or we're destroyed
5:51 put an end to fossil fuel system
Commenting to boost!
Thank you Professor Noam Chomsky for the information that enabled me to better understand my reality. I am grateful to Professor Noam Chomsky for his guidance and commitment.
Great interview
Change the Sytems to free humanity and thrive without hierarchies war and poverty.
Yeah, let's get, finally, civilized!
You don't need to change the system, just go after all the manipulation they use to make people do things they wouldn't normally do. By banning product advertisements you would drastically cut consumption.
People need to start breaking those idiotic playing rules. Its becoming more obvious by the day
Moving past capitalism is to leave a good game behind. I'm for moving along with capitalism with a new game that solves all the problems that capitalism may not afford. Hopefully the invention of the new game will bring just as much fun. Savage capitalism requires very expensive maintenance: Homelessness, lack of medical care, hunger and perhaps warfare are the great expenses that support the standard capitalist economic discipline. We need a game that competes with capitalism by eliminating the expenses of maintaining such a captivatingly primitive economic discipline.
Amen... Im curious what new game rules you are thinking about...
I don't think at this point capitalism is captivating. It is cruel and unfair. If the system destroys my grandson's future, it is death.....say what it means to keep that horrible system in place.
@@pinkuscrowther4151 The new game might be to acknowledge that in moving toward global industrial balance, every human being has the same fundamental needs in civil infrastructure. The game could be called Civic Piety.
Civic Piety... I love it!!! Global industrial balance sounds where the interesting action takes place in this game,,, I like Jacque Fresco resources based economy with a counter balance with participatory economy,,, I can't remember the guys name for that one,,, Michael something,,, I'm a big fan of co-ops in the new game...
One myth that is constantly put forth is that liberalism is and always was capitalism. Liberalism is not a theory of capitalism, not even Adam Smith. It was predominantly a theory of human rights and against tyrannies that inhibit human rights.
So take Thomas Jefferson for example, he was for small independent farms and businesses but against monopolies. But by the term monopoly he meant „institutions where the interests of the minority dominate the interests of the majority.“
This idea of monopoly, then is greatly expanded. If an industry or business does not serve the interests of the people then they have no right to exist. So his prescription was to tax monopolies out of existence. Most notably land monopolies. But he also refused to support joint-stock companies but supported profit share industry. And even utopian Socialism of New Harmony.
Capitalism as a term was popularized by Marx, and was very specific. It was similar to Thomas Jefferson‘s understanding of monopolies.
A liberal socialist economy can enjoy all the human rights, freedom of movement, association, speech religion, as well as have plenty of fulfilling opportunities.
A start would be to eliminate what Jefferson described as a monopoly which would mean all corporations. They have no right to exist. And they are a danger to human existence.
Does this mean the end of exchange of money and markets? Of course not. You can have a free market economy without capitalism.
It would mean the end of the obscene accumulation of wealth and a restoration of democracy.
The monopoly that Jefferson want to exterminate was land monopolies, we are now in a very similar situation in regards to the current real estate industry, where people can’t even afford to live. They should be eliminated and affordable housing should be a Human Right.
This proposal of destroying the real estate monopolies is in fact conservative, it is also real liberalism.
it is time societies step up rise and develop countries they desire!!!!!!!!!
To return to a more regimented form of capitalism (particularly within finance capital) is definitely needed.
Problem is, the very basis of the system won't allow this.
The schism within capital relates to post Hegelian liberalism.
Accumulated finance capital will never come to terms with this readjustment and is permanently maladaptive. It will be interesting how Eurasian industrial capital asserts itself when finance capital provokes calamity to distort this reality.
For once I agree with his historical analysis and how he destroys the fantasy of politically and historically ignorant young people who want to revert to Stalinism or Maoism ! Good job !!
Are you sure it's not "Tory Davis"?
The existence of the soviet union is the only reason the New Deal was conceded - it was a historical break with the capitalist history you've seemingly accepted. The "cold" war (not very cold when, say, engulfed in napalm) which is curiously elided from your supposed historical awareness (shocker, boomer history intensifies) was the US state ensuring, as Thatcher eventually put it, there is no alternative. Killing hope, as the title of William Blum's book accurately encapsulates this process of global imperialism that is apparently invisible to you as it is _required_ to maintain the current status quo (ie what is considered _not_ "Stalinism" or "Maoism") - the necons certainly know this, the "realpolitik" demonic arcons like Kissinger as well (look at the meticulously crafted Operation Condor for a particularly fucked example - the south american Operation Gladio terror network), but fucking liberals continue to live in denial of the reality of endless holocausts that the US imposes. How do you think this will get better? I got news for ya, it won't unless we actually fight it.
Perhaps we shouldn't forget in the 1918 German "revolution" that formalized the Weimar republic, the momentum for a socialist revolution, the very event Marx had predicted and the one the bolsheviks were counting on to unify with else be doomed from the start (Lenin _literally says this exact sentence_ ) and forced toward an "authoritarian" state capitalism in the geopolitical context of competitive nation-states, was kicked off by sailor revolts and various other domestic uprisings but was put down by the social democratic party with folks like Ebert who were presumably too comfortable in their bourgeois lives to risk such upheaval, supporting the precursor to the SS in the freikorps to put down the revolts. As Goebbels said of the occasion in his diary, _"the communists had their chance and they will never have it again."_ The choice of socialism over barbarism, as Rosa Luxemberg put it before being executed by that freikorps as if to underscore her point, cannot be compromised. That big mean "Stalinism" defeated Nazi Germany, and the US reich resuscitated it. As Red Army Marshal Zhukov put it, _"We liberated Europe from fascism, and they will never forgive us for it."_
My point here is that history does not exist in a vacuum, it is a continuity ("process metaphysics" vs. discreet historical moments that can be neatly sorted a la Kantian "things in themselves") of tidal _material_ forces that must be considered - even the immediate formation of the USSR we can also note how correct the predictions of external assault was - western support of the white army during the Russian civil war in addition to the so-called "Polar Bear expedition" (literally just a US invasion) and a constant barrage of destabilizing external pressures. What exactly was Stalin supposed to do? Oh just be "good" and not "bad"? Cool...great analysis lol...
What exactly is the "threat of communist expansion" that you've clearly acquiesced to so as to prima facie excuse US empire/hegemony? To the contrary, if you look at the now declassified intelligence assessments, the so-called "threat" was entirely contrived to "manufacture consent" (see our boy Chomsky/Herman's book of the same name on corporate media propaganda filters) to construct a global empire in the nostalgic shadow of the optimates dominion of Rome. I mean my god, take a step back and think about the implicit justification you're presenting more thoroughly, to _not_ resist US "full spectrum domination" - the something like 850,000 tons of American bombs dropped on North Vietnam alone (just during Rolling Thunder, compared with ~650,000 tons dropped during the entire Korean War and 500,000 tons in the Pacific theater during WWII) is supposedly "standing up to military aggression" but yet Stalin unintentionally caused a famine that reached Moscow once to industrialize and then started censoring/spying on people (as if the NSA/FBI/CIA, etc. doesn't exist) so it's way worse...? If you want peace, prepare for war.
The US has positioned itself as the "consumer of last resort" at the end of the global supply chain to absorb inevitable overproduction of capitalism through cheap consumption or of course through our favorite activity of war/arms sales (military Keynesianism, the only button we can push at this point clearly), launching itself to hegemony post-WWII via imposing the Bretton-Woods international financial system using the leverage of being the only industrialized nation-state _not_ bombed to shit (US made sure of this with Dresden/Tokyo fire-bombings and of course the entirely unnecessary atomic bombings which were solely to draw radioactive lines in the sand toward the USSR) and taking the imperial baton from the British and their pound sterling. NATO (for an extremely relevant aspect of this) emerges out of this, supplementing the international financial institutions of the World Bank and IMF which entrench the US dollar as the "global reserve currency" and proliferate the US dollar as the main tentacle of imperial extraction (as noted by Nixon's treasury secretary John Connally, _"the dollar is our currency, but _*_your_*_ problem"_ ) and continue to maintain US hegemony through debt-peonage/resource capture of nation-states globally, ie the "washington consensus" and its "structural adjustment programs" policy which stipulates dollar loans in exchange for complete subordination to US corporate/finance capital and its "shock therapy" austerity programs which serve to strip-mine resources and control labor/regional markets.
NATO (again, just because it's extremely relevant at the moment) is an arms distribution network for the military industrial complex and essentially the public face of a European sphere of US domination, covertly enforced by a "strategy of tension" template seen in things like Operation Gladio in Italy (see: "years of lead", Aldo Moro assassination, Bologna bombings, etc.) with parallel operations in _every_ NATO country (and even the ostensibly "neutral" countries like Belgium, Sweden and Finland, Austria in fact having done an extensive internal investigation after discovering this if I recall) where the CIA directed fascist paramilitary insurgencies to stoke public fear toward particular goals favorable to US corporate/finance capital and continued US hegemony. _These_ are the materially entrenched political forces cultivated consciously towards these ends; as the first sec.gen. of NATO Lord Ismay succinctly described NATO's geopolitical raison d'être, _"to keep the Americans in, the Germans down, and the Russians out"_ and what a "coincidence", it merely continues to enforce this state of affairs, the "keep the Germans down" aspect corroborated further in its intersection with this current war in Ukraine when one notes for example the destruction of Nord Stream II by the US as reported by Seymour Hersh, aptly described by an associate as "deconstructing the obvious."
_"Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."_
As it turns out, in the most important ways, the nazis didn't really lose WWII despite the USSR's best efforts...I mean my god, the CIA's raison d'être is essentially as the SS 2.0 for transnational corporate/finance capital. The only distinction between the US neoliberal corporate empire and the third Reich fascist project seems more aesthetic/ideological than anything else, chopping off the viscerally ultranationalist id in favor of a generic "cost-effective" corporate sheen (serving "the market" gods essentially; an unconscious ideological drive to maximize "efficiency" aka capital accumulation in neoclassical/neoliberal econ), trading an explicitly racist ideological lens for one guided by that drive toward technocratic "efficiency". Sheldon Wolin's conception of "inverted totalitarianism" elaborates this well.
Hell, far from hyperbole, post-WWII and beyond the more well-known/acquiesced Operation Paperclip, the CIA not only protected non-science-related high-level nazi leadership in the ratlines to South America (useful for things like Operation Condor aka the Monroe Doctrine 2: no sovereignty for you) but put _literal SS_ on the payroll for their anticommunist "counterinsurgency" bona fides aka terrorism guided by that useful ultranationalist (which is to say, inherently racist, necessarily defined by a negation of an "other") ideological tunnel-vision utilized a la that "strategy of tension"; Klaus "butcher of Lyon" Barbie in France/Bolivia, Reinhard Gehlen of the Gehlen Organization (who literally helms the West German BND), Otto Skorzeny of the Paladin Group who is basically nazi james bond, just to name a few...
The entirety of US "regime change" history further reveals and allows one to triangulate the basic macro here (see: The Jakarta Method by Vincent Bevins, Killing Hope by William Blum, Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins, The Devil's Chessboard by David Talbot to fill in the rest of the blanks here); but taking just a few - we start with Iran in '53 with Operation AJAX overthrowing democratically elected Mosaddegh to prevent him from nationalizing oil (installing the Shah who instituted the "morality police" currently being protested, "weird" the US had no problem with it all those years, almost like it actually has to do with the oil thing, how about that lol...) until overthrown in '79, Guatemala in '54 with Operation PBSUCCESS to prevent Arbenz from executing mild land reform with unused land owned by the United Fruit Company (also see: banana wars, War is a Racket by maj.gen.Smedley Butler; a deep rooted history of US domination over south America that informs their neutrality on Ukraine today), Sukarno in Indonesia, Lumumba in the Congo, the _first_ 9/11 in 1973 in Chile overthrowing democratically elected Allende for Pinochet's military dictatorship, etc. etc. this is merely the tip of the imperialist iceberg.
Anyway, sorry for this screed of consciousness, it's all to point out the historical tides driven by an overarching US empire and the context this provides to ground us to reality beyond the thin blood-soaked curtain of technologically mediated social control. Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to assume "historical ignorance" is my main point here. Also clearly I have nothing better to do lol...
_"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."_ - William Casey, -demonic arcon- CIA Director under Reagan
Surely he's giving two big thumbs up in hell, which at this point is probably hard to distinguish from the world he helped create for us.
To echo Rosa Luxemburg from interwar Germany, before of course being executed by the freikorps paramilitary mentioned earlier (again, later becoming the SS, shocker) at the behest of Ebert's ostensibly _social democratic_ SPD party, almost immediately resonating the truth of such a succinct political dichotomy to this day:
*_socialism or_* [continued] *_barbarism._*
troy: Well, he has pretty much been battling authoritarian Communism, along with Capitalism, his whole life. And there have always been peole in every generation who thought that Leninism in some form was the way to go. So this is old ground for him.
@@BisquickAI rambling? Yeah gringos bad, also russkis bad...
Love it!!!!!!!!!!!
"those who don't blindly follow SCIENCE(tm), let them starve"
Extinction Sucks Sometimes. I protest. We have been down that road.
based on what the host said i think this was recorded March 28th 2023
thanks! solid and short conversation with Chomsky.
@@chadabercrombie6860 Working people moving in cities is paid for by taxes. That's true. Profit is working people giving away too much of their labor, so I'm all for taxing the estimated 1 TRILLION in untaxed corp. taxes and billionaires theft via tax avoidance to pay for mass transit. Go to Europe and ride the rails in Germany. it is embarrassing what savage capitalism has made us bow down to here in the states. Germans have high taxes and great transit.
Noam Chomsy is my favorite guy.
"A little bit of history might be useful." That's very polite for an ill-informed interviewer.
Chomsky stands out as our most prolific conceptual thinker of our complex times. However, for his conceptualizations to take physical manifestation, socially we need a collective paradigm shift from focus on profit to focus on people! Without this shift we will remain stuck in cycles of economic survival puppeteered by the few who benefit.
I agree with this. This neoliberal capitalism sucjs.. ive never heard it being called savage capitalism..
We have much more immediate things that need to happen before all of this. America needs a government that obey the law and the constitution. But simple things like this are much to "unacademic" for Chomsky and his lofty tomes. First things first---a government that does not wish to run roughshod over everything for personal gain!!!!!!
Keep on praying for a good government
Government will *never* work for you so long as bourgeois class interest remains intact. The government isn't broken. It's working entirely as intended. There is no "corrupting force" when you're already a devil. You will never go back to a mythical foundation of equality that never existed in the first place.
📍15:12
2📍8:32
Chomsky works from a position of ideology as a starting point. He is an intellectual. He uncritically assumes that "capitalism" is a well defined notion. He seems to uncritically assume that the doctrine of "dangerous man-made carbon-dioxide-emissions global warming" is reliable. I would say that there is no hope for real advance from such a position.
hi noam :)
Capitalism™ Brand Personal Greed. Good for families and great for kidz too!
If we put the rubbish in the bin we'll be fine
Hi.
Dr. Chomsky are you aware of the "philosophy" of individuals like say, peter thiele, or the late barrie seid?
These guys GET OFF on the savagery of the class war.
Nature will force a switch from profit mode to survival mode, but maybe way too late. i am an ashamed human.
That is a great analysis. This situation will not end well.
You need to CAP wealth. If you don’t CAP wealth then you have a world ruled by a handful of loony zillionaires. I propose a CAP of $25 million. Enough to have fancy homes and fancy cars and boats and planes. But not enough to corrupt the whole system.
I've recently come to the conclusion that everyone should be taxed equally, and by that I don't mean a flat tax rate. If one person is paid (I won't say "earns") 50% of all income in an economy then they should pay 50% of the income tax of that economy.
Edit: On further reflection, what I've just outlined could be a flat tax rate anyway in which case I don't advocate for it. Everyone needs to be able to afford the essentials in life, above that then rate of taxes should increase as income increases.
4:00 We don't have the time to overthrow Capitalism before the environment is destroyed.
7:00 Communism yes, Stalinism and Maoism no.
10:10 Anarcho-Syndicalism
Substantive choice republic
Didn't the little garden gnome get the message that class war is out and identity war is in?
He's getting pretty old, lol.
No
Ordinary
Articulate
Man
Professor Chomsky, you should interview me. I know that's the exact opposite approach as normal, where others interview YOU, but I'm more than ready to give you a real, left biased (nothing unbiased, but nothing prejudicial either, unless it's against hatreds) Canadian poor working class account of how the myriad of people I've talked to, dealt with, engaged with on the level of community engagement. I'm a member of no ngroup, no organization although I for one would like to see that change across the board for everyone eventually. I've worked for wages, worked for free, worked illegally. I've been in street fights with Christian Fascists, been to funerals for real hardcore Canadian leftists who gave an intentionality and determination to whatever kind of movement still needs to be fomented that I find sorely lacking. I'm called an intellectual by some, although personally I doubt I have time for it with so much to actually think about and learn. I am acutely aware of the seemingly ludicrous nature of such a request, however I abjure you to not disregard it altogether as I am absolutely genuine, and I fully intend to argue with God (all things being equal?) so I'm not easily intimidated. Intelligence and character I respect highly, I would not disrespect you or make a mockery while not being afraid to ask or answer hard questions. I had this idea while watching this second interview by The Breach. The left is riven with uncertainty and ambiguity and the right is organized and implacable. I've never even read any of your books, as I only buy used books and for some reason few people seem to sell yours..... but I've got a few on my notes to read, so I can remedy that. I watch most any interview with you lately, I enjoy listening to someone I don't wish to interrupt because they're not making sense. People tell me they find me "interesting", I'm sure it's meant placatingly but I don't mind. Well, unlikely Prof. Chomsky has the time to read every comment on his multitudinous interviews given online or elsewhere, let alone my ever getting a response in the form of a polite denial but I've never been called faint of heart or not ready to ask the unaskable. So WTF it was worth a try, because there's no points for trying, but not no point in it.
An important long term goal is to get human populations down to a sustainable level after we make it through the current crisis.
The Earth can sustain life for an indefinite length of time between two billion and three billion people. We passed the tipping point for population control in 1970. I've been preaching population control for the past 60 years and nobody wants to listen--especially big business but also on an individual level. I never had kids because I knew it would be harder and harder to survive in the future as the years go by
We need to listen to professor Noam Chomsky...but that is the problem...we don't listen.... humanity is in bad situation... well is like that for decades.....Homo sapiens...sapiens Homo...👍
pure evil without humanity
Outlaw capitolism, save the world.
Outlaw collectivist utopianism and save lives.
@@johnhatchel9681 "One key difference between *utopian* socialists and other socialists such as most anarchists and Marxists is that utopian socialists generally do not believe any form of class struggle or social revolution is necessary for socialism to emerge.
Utopia - literally “nowheresville” - was the name of an imaginary republic described by Thomas More in which all social conflict and distress has been overcome. There have been many versions of Utopia over the years, many of them visions of socialist society. Although Marx and Engels defined their own socialism in *opposition to Utopian Socialism* (which had many advocates in the early nineteenth century), they had immense respect for the great Utopian socialists like Charles Fourier and Robert Owen.
By describing how people would live if everyone adhered to the socialist ethic, utopian socialism does three things: it inspires the oppressed to struggle and sacrifice for a better life, it gives a clear meaning to the aim of socialism, and it demonstrates how socialism is ethical, that is, that the precepts of socialism can be applied without excluding or exploiting anyone.
The *problems with Utopian socialism* are that it does not concern itself with how to get there, presuming that the power of its own vision is sufficient, or with who the agent of the struggle for socialism may be, and, instead of deriving its ideal from criticism of existing conditions, it plucks its vision ready-made from the creator’s own mind. Further, it gives no guidance as to how we should act here and now, in the really existing world, confining itself to telling us how to act as if everyone were to recognise the same ethical principles."
@DDd-gm8uz Yes, it's an impossible pipedream. Believers in this delusion are children and adults that never reached full mental/emotional maturity.
@@johnhatchel9681 You're one to talk of "mental maturity" when you're just as anti-communist and anti-revolutionary as Chomsky, but without the reading comprehension.
@DDd-gm8uz Chomsky has been regurgitating Marxist philosophy for decades. It's like Hitler claiming he wasn't racist 🙄
It's disingenuous to claim that worker/labour revolution will lead to communism. It's socialism and it's how we got many of our basic labour and healthcare rights today.
socialism is crumbs from the table, only communism can stop the crooked from ruling us.
And untold death, tyranny and misery. Don't leave that out.
@@johnhatchel9681 every death under communism was due to capitalist sabotage, and every war for the last ten thousand years has been because of the capitalist mindset.
the death toll of capitalism is in the billions.
@@johnhatchel9681 no. Universal Healthcare, Labour rights, Old age security etc. All overwhelmingly popular today. The only issue was that it didn't go far enough and left out things like universal vision care, dental care.
@serpentvert Americans do not want crappy, watered down healthcare. We do not want half our yearly income wasted on sub par government services that the private sector does much better.
Peace, Love and Putin ❤ Chomsky rules ❤
Putin? Oligarchies?
Doesn't work in real life.
Because humans are greedy fucks?
Yes, because of Noam's vast experience as an engineer, geophysicist, biologist & economist.
@@chadabercrombie6860It's a utility, you dolt, it doesn't need to make profit. It supports profit and the economy. Don't tell me they richest nation in Earth couldn't afford it.
And the way to maximize such a utility’s utility would be to create a rail/maglev/something not yet invented road system that could centrally control all vehicles that travel on it. Such a system could exponentially expand efficiency and theoretically reduce emotions to near zero while also creating an enormous economic burst by creating a market for the vehicles that use it while simultaneously creating a sustained economic and cultural revolution by making high speed, hands free travel accessible to billions that could never dream of such a thing. Boom. Win, win, win, win. Anything is possible.
Chomsky is the mansky
He knows perfectly well that he looks like Marx with that beard.
The man is over 90, most senior seniors don't shave for obvious reasons.
Dear old Chomps. Let me guess. Communism!
I'm more interested in hearing about his time with Jeffrey Epstein. I don't think there's any better example of, "I can't change anything because I'll be kicked out of the game."
If my grandkids turn out the same way my grandparents' grandkids did, the sooner this planets shits us all off the planet the better. I'm thinking of ther rest of Nature that didn't crap on itself.
Why am I so cynical? Because capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive and capitalism won hands down. As Galbreith put it: “People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage.” Chomsky verified that here.
Well said. Hope is dwindling away.
OK Noam, you can, ' move past Capitalism ', yourself, by GIVING BACK all the MILLIONS you have made over the years-Via Capitalism-OK!? 😀😀😀
Nah the environments fine
"The planet isn't doomed, we are" - George Carlin.
Does anyone else have a hard time listening to him anymore? He talks so slow and so much bass i can still understand him but sometimes i just can't listen anymore. And I've spent many hours of my life listening to chomsky. This audio is better than other programs tho.
He can speak, but he cannot say anything.
There is no way oil use will be lowered. Oil is power. Oil is control. Oil is wealth. Renewables, wind, solar, hydro don't carry the saMe punch, efficiency and adaptability. Wishful thinking Mr. CHOMSKY.
The wishing and hopeing of Mr. Chomsky is nonsense.
Well then humanity is fucked. As simple as that.
Chomsky is dismissive of Karl Marx yet there is no record of him critiquing his work and or philosophy. The reason why he was never perceived to be a threat to the ruling class. Of course leaving a side anarchism is a dead end.
He is dismissive of totalitarianism in all forms. That is where the anarchism comes in. Libertarian socialism is also what he believes in. It’s monsters like Stalin, Hitler etc that have tainted socialist ideology both on the left and the right.
Even an extreme leftist like Chomsky knows Marx was a fraud.
He never dismissed Karl Marx specifically he said there was a great deal people can learn from Marx. He dismisses Marxist-Leninism and Vanguardism.
Marx made next to no prescriptions as to government other than the Paris Commune. But the Paris Commune example as he illustrated it has no resemblance to Lenin Vanguardism.
And Chomsky on a philosophy level criticized certain material reductionist Marxist, in the psychological sense, I do to i find it naive and abhorrent.
@@matthewkopp2391 would love a record or reference if Chomsky discussing Marx ideas.
@@matthewkopp2391
Climat hysteria.
No thx.
Yes but what about the climate. If you cant spell Is common word, i doubt you have read anything scientific.
@@thorinbane
English is not only language in this planet 😜😜😜 Did you know that? Tell me smart one. What is current level of CO2 in atmosphere?
What will happen to plants if we double it of triple? What was higher level in earth history? What was clumat then? Why Greenland isn't green anymore. Safe for humans level CO2 to breathe? Who is dummy now? 😀😜😁
@@SD-cq4iw OK, smart one, tell me what life on earth was like when CO2 levels were double or triple those we have atm. I'll give you a hint: there was no human or anything resembling a human, no mammal. The air was super warm and humid. Not the kind of planet I want. I want humans, birds, insects, mammals, etc....
Greenland was never green (at least not in human history), it was named that in order to get people to move there during the medieval warm period.@@SD-cq4iw
Our problem is that we are...siners
The solution..... believe in Jesus and you will be saved
Blah blah blah.
Exactly.
What profits a man who finds his voice, and loses his audience?
Chomsky Vision:
1. Obey Vlad
2. Don't resist Vlads of the world
3. Don't stand in the way of genocidal wars Vlads unleash.
The old clown totally lost his marbles if he had any to begin with.
im still waiting for this shill to apologise for demonizing the unvaxxed.
It's a bad idea. Ever heard of polio, measles, mumps, rubella? No, it's cause vaccines put them down. And the annual flu vaccines given for decades....
@@occamsshavecream4541 that's like, your opinion man. Do you fancy yourself some expert? 👍
even worse demonization is the website "sorryantivaxxer"
I think probably time to move on chap
@@clappedoutmotor move on and learn nothing. convenient.
What is his relationship to Jeffery Epstein?