12:34 The problem lies in the definition. Like Chomsky stated anarchism is utopian, meaning institutions serving a value never need to or never will change, as opposed to people will never get reality anyway and don't have the power to change an administration. But, this does not withstand ignorant authorities can learn to change, or people can have an enlightement. Leading to surpassing old institutions which are then swiftly forgotten.
"only those at the apex of some power structure could get by being useless" Rigid power structures essentially appeared after the invention of agriculture some 10-12k years ago, so for the overwhelming majority of mankind's history, there was no real power structures to speak of. An argument could be made of course that intra-tribe social hierarchy is a power structure in itself, but of a different type, I would argue. Moreover, this seems to ignore a strong altruistic component to human nature, where our survival success owes a great deal to our capacity to emote and empathize with one another. As such, I would contend that competition/production is one side of the coin while empathy and altruism is the other. There are for instance numerous documented exemples of healed bones and of humans suffering from debilitating illnesses who have been cared for for years in spite of their temporary or permanent "uselessness" in terms of material production. At last, I also think that there might be a relativity to usefulness? What's the direct practical usefulness of a story-teller? Of a shaman who interprets the "will of the gods" and blesses the hunts? Sociological usefulness might be just as indispensable as practical usefulness, and in that sense, there might have been myriads of ways to be useful depending on capability, where an individual can successively be a hunter, then a tracker, then a weapon manufacturer and then eventually a teacher and story-teller as he ages and slowly translates youthful energy and strength into experience, knowledge and stories. "I would not put freedom as an absolute atm. " Amen to that brother. Freedom must be subservient to a way of life that not only is conducive to the perpetuating of the species and life in general, but which is also an acceptable state of affairs for the lowest common denominator. Then only comes freedom, maybe. This is why libertarianism is so terrifying to me. Anyway. Cheers. PS: cool vid btw!
7:13 Also Humbold's statement liberty (libertarialism) is a precondition for an appropriate society is incomplete. It depends on the circumstances. Because randomness by definition remains a non choice.
Anarchism is libertarianism minus any semblance of economic theory, at least in my experience of both. Anarchists who understand economics often understand that anarchism can be manifested as a very centrist ideology. Generally the core difference is in social issues.
To me, "anarchism" means support of anarchy, and anarchy means no government. I am glad that Chomsky is not that sort of anarchist. For the sake of clarity, I would instead use two other words to describe his philosophy: "liberalism," which is to say, support of liberty; "rationalism," which is to say, support of the view that claims to authority may be dismissed if incompatible with logic or evidence.
Liberalism means something very different. Anarchism is the absence of authority, and therefore the ultimate form of freedom. This does not preclude societal organisation, it just means you do it without hierarchies of power.
Neo-liberalism isn't so much an ideology as a convention that everybody tacitly agrees on. Concentrated private capital is obvious and perfectly acceptable in everyone's eyes.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Bigger In Texas [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QxTkZTLWdo4/mqdefault.jpg)
"Someone who seeks out power structures and challenges them to legitimize themselves" - You betcha.
Great video
12:34 The problem lies in the definition. Like Chomsky stated anarchism is utopian, meaning institutions serving a value never need to or never will change, as opposed to people will never get reality anyway and don't have the power to change an administration.
But, this does not withstand ignorant authorities can learn to change, or people can have an enlightement. Leading to surpassing old institutions which are then swiftly forgotten.
Right on. Thanks for sharing.
"only those at the apex of some power structure could get by being useless"
Rigid power structures essentially appeared after the invention of agriculture some 10-12k years ago, so for the overwhelming majority of mankind's history, there was no real power structures to speak of. An argument could be made of course that intra-tribe social hierarchy is a power structure in itself, but of a different type, I would argue.
Moreover, this seems to ignore a strong altruistic component to human nature, where our survival success owes a great deal to our capacity to emote and empathize with one another. As such, I would contend that competition/production is one side of the coin while empathy and altruism is the other. There are for instance numerous documented exemples of healed bones and of humans suffering from debilitating illnesses who have been cared for for years in spite of their temporary or permanent "uselessness" in terms of material production.
At last, I also think that there might be a relativity to usefulness? What's the direct practical usefulness of a story-teller? Of a shaman who interprets the "will of the gods" and blesses the hunts? Sociological usefulness might be just as indispensable as practical usefulness, and in that sense, there might have been myriads of ways to be useful depending on capability, where an individual can successively be a hunter, then a tracker, then a weapon manufacturer and then eventually a teacher and story-teller as he ages and slowly translates youthful energy and strength into experience, knowledge and stories.
"I would not put freedom as an absolute atm. "
Amen to that brother. Freedom must be subservient to a way of life that not only is conducive to the perpetuating of the species and life in general, but which is also an acceptable state of affairs for the lowest common denominator. Then only comes freedom, maybe. This is why libertarianism is so terrifying to me. Anyway. Cheers. PS: cool vid btw!
I’ve always been an actual anarchist without Chomsky’s conception. It never meant chaos. Politicians label it chaos because we’re their enemy.
I never mention being an anarchist in public, because I don’t want to be connected to the left wing lunatic anarchists that lack sanity and morals.
7:13 Also Humbold's statement liberty (libertarialism) is a precondition for an appropriate society is incomplete. It depends on the circumstances. Because randomness by definition remains a non choice.
Basically burk.
Please add subtitles
Hell yes.
Anarchism is libertarianism minus any semblance of economic theory, at least in my experience of both.
Anarchists who understand economics often understand that anarchism can be manifested as a very centrist ideology.
Generally the core difference is in social issues.
Chomsky has had a lot of highly problematic conceptions, including that generative grammar idiocy.
To me, "anarchism" means support of anarchy, and anarchy means no government. I am glad that Chomsky is not that sort of anarchist. For the sake of clarity, I would instead use two other words to describe his philosophy: "liberalism," which is to say, support of liberty; "rationalism," which is to say, support of the view that claims to authority may be dismissed if incompatible with logic or evidence.
Liberalism means something very different. Anarchism is the absence of authority, and therefore the ultimate form of freedom. This does not preclude societal organisation, it just means you do it without hierarchies of power.
@@Lincoln_Bio You say liberalism is something very different. What is it?
Chomsky defines himself as a libertarian socialist and anarchosyndicalist. He IS an actual anarchist
@@luismigueltolda3571 How do you define anarchist?
"No government" is simply unattainable and is, if most people support government, a form of injustice. Government is here to stay.
Neo-liberalism isn't so much an ideology as a convention that everybody tacitly agrees on. Concentrated private capital is obvious and perfectly acceptable in everyone's eyes.
Anarchism is completely unworkable, people naturally need leaders and a legal system without institutions there would be chaos.