Once you understand the structure and rules of a corporation this is all common sense. Dr. Chomsky simplifies ideas to their essence. He is an awesome human being. Thank you Noam!
FF, Right-Because who could possibly know more about, ' the structure and rules of a corporation ', than a career Linguistics Professor, who has never even run a burger stand himself, & whose criticisms all have the great luxury of 20/20 Hindsight! SMH
A swedish university recently did a research study of stats that became a flow chart of who the top corporations are and how a very few financial organizations controls the lot of them. So the bank you think is competing with the one across the street , when you look at the chart, shows you that they are owned by the same organization which is higher on the chart Get a good account at a community credit union if you want to avoid them.... It's time to review who really owns what...if you care about having some freedom in the future.
juliandereus2 I believe I came across it from David Willcocks research. Go to www.divinecosmos.com s I don't have the links anymore. It'll be in his archives.
+christel mayland jensen HI, I think I found the original source here: www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354-500-revealed-the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world/ Since then I think some students have been creating stats out of it and getting them published. Its getting kind of dated this article but is worth archiving. And here is a quote from the analysis: The fact that control is highly concentrated in the hands of few top holders does not determine if and how they are interconnected. It is only by combining topology with control ranking that we obtain a full characterization of the structure of control. A first question we are now able to answer is where the top actors are located in the bow-tie. As the reader may by now suspect, powerful actors tend to belong to the core. And here is a direct link to the study: arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf copy this stuff before the the links disappear. Did you know that there are corporate lobbyists trying to control internet linking with laws and taxes? Here in Canada, openmedia.org have been fighting this. They are tabling their trojan horse bills all the time. Let me know if this was helpful.
luvcheney1 You don't have to run a corporation to analyse the corporate (power)structure and see what comes out of this structure. It's just a fact that corporations are ran by a few managers and directors, and that their goal is to maximize profits. Relatively low wages, long working hours and no or little participation for the working people are the consequences. So far I haven't said anything controversial, did I? This is a top-down structure and therefore totalitarian in essence. There's a reason why we have a political democracy, and that's because if there's one thing that history has told us, is that power leads to abuse. When you have the power to benefit yourself, even though it's at the expense of others, you'll exercise this power. Nothing controversial there, is, there? The same goes for corporations. Corporations are totalitarian institutes with the interests of the managers/directors in mind, and not the interestes of the working people. The interests of the working people are only in favor of the managers and directors when their position is at stake. For example when they're criticized by research groups, media, the government of other influential organisations, or when the working people are protesting or campaigning. Then corporations will make compromises to maintain the corporation's position in the market. For some reason we accepted that corporate power is legitimized and that it's just the way it is. Probably because corporations, unlike governments, don't have a violence monopoly so that they can't use violent force to serve their interests, so we don't consider it as a big threat, although it disadvantages the far majority of the population. There's a solution, namely workingplace democracy. Don't know if it's a perfect system, but at least it is worth looking into it.
juliandereus2 Your argument is amazingly unfounded. With your logic the President of the United States should never be able to make a decision about any industry that he hasn't had personal experience in... The reason why Chomsky is so well versed in many subjects is because he reads and converses with friends and colleagues that do know things. It's called learning.
+Riley LaForge, Seriously? Did you even read the comment? "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."-John Dalberg-Acton. Our president Does not have absolute power--our government was designed to ensure that. Unfortunately there are no checks in place to ensure that corporate heads are denied absolute power in their domains. Because of that, they acquire the funds to buy more and more power outside of their domains. Eventually we end up with a corporate oligarchy bought and paid for buy these unchecked, power-hungry corporate heads.
@@rileylaforge7640 , You seem to be missing the key point here: Chomsky merely, ' reading and conversing ', about fields that he has never worked in himself-Which is everything outside Linguistics-Does NOT make him qualified to judge those fields! The President might not be the top expert in Economics-BUT-he was still nevertheless elected to lead the country, and accept responsibility for the decisions and actions for the Policies he enacts! As opposed to a Linguistics Professor, who has spent his entire life merely criticizing others from the sidelines, and with the luxury of Hindsight-Which entails ZERO actual Responsibility whatsoever!
JL, Noam Chomsky presumes to judge others in areas that he has ZERO Real World Experience in himself, using his recitations of fact & figures, which he gleans via his exploitations of 20/20 Hindsight! So that is what is relevant to know about Noam Chomsky, and in so practical terms-YES-He is Just a Linguist! SMH
Does anyone know where one might find more info on the early 20th century corporate law he describes here? Has Chomsky written about it anywhere? Thanks :)
Tyrant --"from Greek tyrannos "lord, master, sovereign, absolute ruler unlimited by law or constitution." Corporations are people and they are a tyranny.
@Malebitsa Timbukta, Then isn't it strange every dollar Chomsky has ever made himself has come from Corporations! MIT = Corporation Publishers of Chomsky's books = Corporations Other Colleges/Universities/Institutes where Chomsky lectures = Corporations Magazines and Journals that have featured Chomsky's articles = Corporations It's amazing Chomsky has accepted money from such, ' tyrannical ', people for so long! SMH
Next week: Jeff Bezos starts his podcast lecturing about Linguistics at MIT! Can't wait to hear his insights into that topic! -See how ridiculous it is for Noam Chomsky to lecture about how He Thinks corporations work? SMH
M CK if Bezos spends just 5 to 10 years studying (even if only by himself) Linguistics, then I wouldn’t mind him lecturing about it even if He doesn’t earn a degree on it.
@@amadoubah9296 , I never said anyone needed a degree. But Bezos cherry-picking selected data to support his own preconceived conclusions about a field he has never actually worked in himself, does not make him qualified to judge Linguistics! Which is exactly what Chomsky does with Corporations!
@@TheDanielLivingston , Actually, it is not an, ' ad hominem ', to state the reality that Chomsky, again, cherry-picks data to support his own biased, preconceived conclusions, about how He Thinks Corporations Work! So it would actually be, ' intellectually honest ', for Chomsky to acknowledge clearly that Every Dollar he has ever made himself is from-guess who-Corporations! MIT = Corporation! Publishers of Chomsky's books = Corporations! Other Universities/Colleges/Institutes where Chomsky lectures = Corporations! And Magazines/Periodicals that have articles by Chomsky = Corporations! So isn't it strange that Chomsky has affiliated himself all these years with all these, ' tyrannical ', entities??? :-D
Once you understand the structure and rules of a corporation this is all common sense. Dr. Chomsky simplifies ideas to their essence. He is an awesome human being. Thank you Noam!
FF, Right-Because who could possibly know more about, ' the structure and rules of a corporation ', than a career Linguistics Professor, who has never even run a burger stand himself, & whose criticisms all have the great luxury of 20/20 Hindsight! SMH
A swedish university recently did a research study of stats that became a flow chart of who the top corporations are and how a very few financial organizations controls the lot of them. So the bank you think is competing with the one across the street , when you look at the chart, shows you that they are owned by the same organization which is higher on the chart Get a good account at a community credit union if you want to avoid them.... It's time to review who really owns what...if you care about having some freedom in the future.
Where can I read the report?
juliandereus2 I believe I came across it from David Willcocks research. Go to www.divinecosmos.com s I don't have the links anymore. It'll be in his archives.
+juliandereus2 did you find the study, and if so can you give me the link?
+christel mayland jensen HI, I think I found the original source here: www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354-500-revealed-the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world/
Since then I think some students have been creating stats out of it and getting them published. Its getting kind of dated this article but is worth archiving. And here is a quote from the analysis:
The fact that control is highly concentrated in the hands of few top holders does not determine
if and how they are interconnected. It is only by combining topology with control ranking that
we obtain a full characterization of the structure of control. A first question we are now able to
answer is where the top actors are located in the bow-tie. As the reader may by now suspect,
powerful actors tend to belong to the core.
And here is a direct link to the study:
arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf
copy this stuff before the the links disappear. Did you know that there are corporate lobbyists trying to control internet linking with laws and taxes? Here in Canada, openmedia.org have been fighting this. They are tabling their trojan horse bills all the time.
Let me know if this was helpful.
Its the same with grocery stores. They get away with it by giving each chain of stores in different region and states a different name.😏
luvcheney1 You don't have to run a corporation to analyse the corporate (power)structure and see what comes out of this structure. It's just a fact that corporations are ran by a few managers and directors, and that their goal is to maximize profits. Relatively low wages, long working hours and no or little participation for the working people are the consequences. So far I haven't said anything controversial, did I? This is a top-down structure and therefore totalitarian in essence. There's a reason why we have a political democracy, and that's because if there's one thing that history has told us, is that power leads to abuse. When you have the power to benefit yourself, even though it's at the expense of others, you'll exercise this power. Nothing controversial there, is, there? The same goes for corporations. Corporations are totalitarian institutes with the interests of the managers/directors in mind, and not the interestes of the working people. The interests of the working people are only in favor of the managers and directors when their position is at stake. For example when they're criticized by research groups, media, the government of other influential organisations, or when the working people are protesting or campaigning. Then corporations will make compromises to maintain the corporation's position in the market. For some reason we accepted that corporate power is legitimized and that it's just the way it is. Probably because corporations, unlike governments, don't have a violence monopoly so that they can't use violent force to serve their interests, so we don't consider it as a big threat, although it disadvantages the far majority of the population. There's a solution, namely workingplace democracy. Don't know if it's a perfect system, but at least it is worth looking into it.
juliandereus2 Your argument is amazingly unfounded. With your logic the President of the United States should never be able to make a decision about any industry that he hasn't had personal experience in... The reason why Chomsky is so well versed in many subjects is because he reads and converses with friends and colleagues that do know things. It's called learning.
+Riley LaForge, Seriously? Did you even read the comment? "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."-John Dalberg-Acton. Our president Does not have absolute power--our government was designed to ensure that. Unfortunately there are no checks in place to ensure that corporate heads are denied absolute power in their domains. Because of that, they acquire the funds to buy more and more power outside of their domains. Eventually we end up with a corporate oligarchy bought and paid for buy these unchecked, power-hungry corporate heads.
+Lana Janoski don't know why it's in response to this comment. My response is to another of his comments further down
Good thinking.
@@rileylaforge7640 ,
You seem to be missing the key point here:
Chomsky merely, ' reading and conversing ', about fields that he has never worked in himself-Which is everything outside Linguistics-Does NOT make him qualified to judge those fields!
The President might not be the top expert in Economics-BUT-he was still nevertheless elected to lead the country, and accept responsibility for the decisions and actions for the Policies he enacts!
As opposed to a Linguistics Professor, who has spent his entire life merely criticizing others from the sidelines, and with the luxury of Hindsight-Which entails ZERO actual Responsibility whatsoever!
Yes!
If you think Noam Chomsky is just a linguist, you don't know much about him.
JL, Noam Chomsky presumes to judge others in areas that he has ZERO Real World Experience in himself, using his recitations of fact & figures, which he gleans via his exploitations of 20/20 Hindsight!
So that is what is relevant to know about Noam Chomsky, and in so practical terms-YES-He is Just a Linguist! SMH
So true. Be Blessed.
Does anyone know where one might find more info on the early 20th century corporate law he describes here? Has Chomsky written about it anywhere?
Thanks :)
Does anyone know what presentation the title image is from? Seen it once and wanted to rewatch it.
🤪
Tyrant --"from Greek tyrannos "lord, master, sovereign, absolute ruler unlimited by law or constitution." Corporations are people and they are a tyranny.
@Malebitsa Timbukta,
Then isn't it strange every dollar Chomsky has ever made himself has come from Corporations!
MIT = Corporation
Publishers of Chomsky's books = Corporations
Other Colleges/Universities/Institutes where Chomsky lectures = Corporations
Magazines and Journals that have featured Chomsky's articles = Corporations
It's amazing Chomsky has accepted money from such, ' tyrannical ', people for so long!
SMH
Next week: Jeff Bezos starts his podcast lecturing about Linguistics at MIT! Can't wait to hear his insights into that topic!
-See how ridiculous it is for Noam Chomsky to lecture about how He Thinks corporations work? SMH
M CK if Bezos spends just 5 to 10 years studying (even if only by himself) Linguistics, then I wouldn’t mind him lecturing about it even if He doesn’t earn a degree on it.
@@amadoubah9296 ,
I never said anyone needed a degree.
But Bezos cherry-picking selected data to support his own preconceived conclusions about a field he has never actually worked in himself, does not make him qualified to judge Linguistics!
Which is exactly what Chomsky does with Corporations!
The intellectually honest response would be to attempt to refute Chomsky’s points, instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks.
@@TheDanielLivingston ,
Actually, it is not an, ' ad hominem ', to state the reality that Chomsky, again, cherry-picks data to support his own biased, preconceived conclusions, about how He Thinks Corporations Work!
So it would actually be, ' intellectually honest ', for Chomsky to acknowledge clearly that Every Dollar he has ever made himself is from-guess who-Corporations!
MIT = Corporation!
Publishers of Chomsky's books = Corporations!
Other Universities/Colleges/Institutes where Chomsky lectures = Corporations!
And Magazines/Periodicals that have articles by Chomsky = Corporations!
So isn't it strange that Chomsky has affiliated himself all these years with all these, ' tyrannical ', entities??? :-D
And btw, you are also presuming that Bezos, ' studying ', Linguistics will lead to accurate conclusions about Linguistics.