Anarchism, Libertarian Socialism & Anarcho-Syndicalism (Noam Chomsky)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 июл 2024
- "Anarchism, Libertarian Socialism & Anarcho-Syndicalism: Workers' self-management and Democracy from below". Excerpts from "Conversations with History" (2003), "Beyond State Socialism" (2011), "Human Nature: Justice vs. Power" (1971) & "The Relevance of Anarcho-Syndicalism" (1976)
"The Relevance of Anarcho-Syndicalism" [full]:
audio: • Noam Chomsky - The Rel...
text: www.chomsky.info/interviews/19...
"Beyond State Socialism" [full]:
• Motmakt: Noam Chomsky ...
"Human Nature: Justice versus Power" [full]:
televised debate: • Debate Noam Chomsky & ...
text: www.chomsky.info/debates/1971x...
"Conversations with History" [full]:
• Noam Chomsky - Convers...
Links:
libcom.org/
www.freedompress.org.uk/news/
anarchosyndicalism.net/index.php
workersolidarity.org/
occupywallst.org/
"As far as my purely personal preferences went I would have liked to join the Anarchists." George Orwell - Homage to Catalonia page 116. Another good intro to the subject.
The Grand Pa soft spoken encyclopedia
of Marxist politics, economics, semantics
Aka endless Revisionist History.
Always reinventing himself as a proper
Anarchist Sociopath should do.
Not doubt 60+++ years of the same
"Analysis" just changing ' critical'
words to seem appropriate and relevant for decades.
Chomsky
Parenti
Wolf
Zinn
Cornel West
And countless other "Academic"
Left Wing Peopagandists all saying and reading from the same playbook.
Since Democracy ( Demagogues)
Murdered Socrates for pointing out
their endless logical fallacies and Deconstructionist arguments that
Every Dictator in recorded human history
has used to work their way into
Absolute power and murdered
Tens of tens of tens of Millions OF HUMAN BEINGS IN PEACETIME.
THE TIME HONORED OLD FASHION way
Forced labor
Starvation
And the Final Solution
That even Hitler couldn't out do
DISEASE.
THE PERFECT SOLUTION TO Uncooperative
Socialist Citizens.
"Anyone can have the word if they like." Love it, Noam.
An open ended friend
The "bird's the word."
The "Libertarian Socialist"
Grand Pa monotoned
soft spoken encyclopedia
of Marxist politics, economics, semantics
Aka endless Revisionist History.
Always reinventing himself as a proper
Anarchist Sociopath should do.
Not doubt 60+++ years of the same
"Analysis" just changing ' critical'
words to seem appropriate and relevant for decades.
Chomsky
Parenti
Wolf
Zinn
Cornel West
And countless other "Academic"
Left Wing Peopagandists all saying and reading from the same playbook.
Since Democracy ( Demagogues)
Murdered Socrates for pointing out
their endless logical fallacies and Deconstructionist arguments that
Every Dictator in recorded human history
has used to work their way into
Absolute power and murdered
Tens of tens of tens of Millions OF HUMAN BEINGS IN PEACETIME.
THE TIME HONORED OLD FASHION way
Forced labor
Starvation
And the Final Solution
That even Hitler couldn't out do
DISEASE.
THE PERFECT SOLUTION TO Uncooperative
Socialist Citizens.
In his interviews Noam often has such a gentle nature. He really wants to help people understand and is very happy to do so.
People should be able to control their own work. In order for that to be achieved, the economic institutions must be democratized. You’re free to mow someone’s lawn if you want to; the point is that people should have a say in the things that affect them.
If you try to dismantle things that have been established by the people, then you will be stopped, of course.
so it's mob rule essentially?
Anarchists are liberal shill
A democratic government wouldent let u decide the value of your own labour.its just replacing few rulers with many rulers
Sounds like capitalism
@@dburgessnotburgerit amazes me that many anarchist are pro democracy since anarchism means no rulers.i dont want 300million+ rulers :P
@Kirk Aug, I would also point to the mondragon corporation based in spain, as it is the largest sydicalist (worker-cooperative) corporation with 100k worker-members.
That is a capitalist organization
It still exploits workers in Latin America and is a for profit corporation. However, the managers are directly elected by the workers making it more democratic than your usual company...
@@idrisselba4451 dumbass syndicalism isnt anti-capitalism (in your definition) it's worker led.
In an unregulated capitalist society, wealth and power will primarily be concentrated in the hands of the financial elite and the corporations. That’s unacceptable.
People should have a say in the things that affect them; the institutions in society must therefore be controlled democratically by the workforce and the communities.
You mean it'll be controlled by the people who actually work
@@euroamerican6473 ya but dont tell him that he might get a job
Democracy and Democrats
Murdered Socrates.
Within 10 years of doing so
Athens became a ghost town and a destroyed historical legend.
Democracy
Demagogue
DEMOCIDE
The Tri Fecta of the
Mass Murder in Peacetime
By Democrats
( Demagogues)
DEMOCIDE
that achieved Anarchy in it's purest form
Marxism
Karl Marx
120 MILLION
HUMAN BEINGS
MURDERED OVER
DECADES OF
FORCED LABOR
STARVATION
DISEASE
DEMOCIDE make ALL
HUMAN Genocide
PALE IN THE HISTORY OF MASS MURDER.
Danny Brown, what are you doing interviewing Noam Chomsky? I kid. Great video.
As someone who started using RUclips regularly about 3 years ago, it's weird to see these old comments sections where the replies to comments were not made w/ the reply button (was it not a feature back then?)
ive been using yt for almost ten years and i wonder about the same. i think it was always an option
There was a reply button but it didn't open a sub-thread like it does now. It just tagged who were replying to and left your comment amongst all the other comments.
There was, then Google’s social media came in and screwed everything up (after Google acquired RUclips) and then after massive amounts of complaints, they reverted back to the old system.
Libertarian Socialism is the perfect description for Anarchism. It is a state of being that attempts to eradicate the need for violence and coercion on a social and economic level.
Noam’s voice actually makes all audio quality sound bad, regardless of the mic 😂
I know. This is where subtitles help.😂
No labels.
Very simple . All policies implemented must be focused on the people , or how it will effect the people before anything else , and without exception !
Very simple .
great video ! thnx for putting this together
Anarchy is simply human organization without "government". "Government" is defined by its monopoly on coercion and violence.
As George Washington himself said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
Add to this the observation by Lord John Acton, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." And we see the inherent danger in government; and the need to outgrow our childish need for the abusive "parent state".
\\][//
@trufiend138 that's minarchism. not anarchism
Marxism is the deadliest religion
Man kind ever practiced.
The 20 TH CENTURY in
Russia and China alone
Murdered in peacetime
at least 120+++million
Human beings by
Forced labor
Starvation
And
The socialist Final Solution
DISEASE.
CHOMSKY IS A MARXIST SOCIOPATH
WITH NO EQUALS IN THE SELECTIVE
Amnesia OF MASS MURDER BY SOCIALISM
U know, it's always nice to have an idea and see people who reached the same idea independently. The exact phrase "monopoly of violence" is something I've been thinking about. Like, as a woman, I've noticed that legally it's very hard to physically protect myself. Statistically, I'm more likely to be prosecuted for shooting a man trying to sexually assault me or someone else than that man is for commiting a sexual assault. The more I've thought about it and looked at the laws in different states the more obvious it seems to me that the reason is (apart from our legal system being built by and for men) that the state, in various ways, generally seeks to make its use of violence the only acceptable form. It allows for the possibility of "self defence" pleas, of course, but the burden of "proof" that the violence was justified rests on the citizen. Rarely if ever seems to work the other way around. If anything, the state stands in the way between me and my personal safety.
Thank you for posting this Andy80o
Kirk Aug Valve software is an example. There's an interesting econtalk (podcast) where the now Greek finance minister is intrerviewed about that company (he used to work there) among other things.
Right you are, comrade. He wrote about it not only in Homage to Catalonia but in Volume I of his collected essays. He even recommends Mairin Mitchell's book Storm over Spain. "Anyone who wants to know what Spanish Anarchism stands for, and the remarkable things it achieved...should read ch. 7 of Miss Mitchell's book." George Orwell, The Collected Essays; Volume I page 290-291. Ⓐ
Anarchy is for suckers.
Karl Marx is Anarchist God #1.
Marxism is the supreme ideological idea that caused more death and misery in. All of recorded human history
Glad you liked it :)
Who?
@Tyler Fox Oh, right 👍
It’s not that simple. The economy affects us all; it’s all-encompassing. The other things you mentioned did not make sense.
Thanks for this.
I'm not a leftist, but I have alot of respect for Noam.
let the record show he has no respect for you.
@@ocean34560 a leftist respects their fellow man even if they don’t agree with their ideals
@@nxght6694 that makes no sense, where on the political compass is respect?
He's is massive Marxist Anarchist Critical THEORY Revisionist.
The most dangerous Marxist semantics encyclopedia in the history of left wing ACADEMIC Demagoguery.
Since when they murdered Socrates.
Isnt leftist anti establishment(definately not a dem or rep)?
I agree with Noam that the essential core leading to a better life and society is *spiritual* - within the individual consciousness.
Emma Goldman; under;"Syndicalism" on; the Anarchist Library (also a good text to read if it interests you) One;love
All these mean only one fact that in civilization there are two types of citizens, the owners and the owned.
Invective requires objects of address to qualify as effective criticism. Further instruction on the nature and use of rhetorical devices in contemporary English can be found in H.W. Fowler's "Modern English Usage". It includes Nolan Charts and matrices which I've found most conservative American Libertarians find appealing and intelligible.
Say the workers in the mill actually own it. Say demand falls, and it becomes inevitable to downsize. How can you go about doing that if all the workers are also part owners of the mill?
The mandragon worker coop in spain voted to take a pay cut after the 2008 crash. Democratically. They also bounced back faster
Chomsky is like the figure head of Anarchism, Darwinianly culled focus of attention mediated by a democratic process of deciding he is worth listening to from the grass to the brass.
Millions millions millions
Took Dirt Naps
Premature
Dirt Naps in
The Marxist Ideology and semantics of
Sociopaths exactly like
Noam f..... ng Chomsky
"[enclosure] was done to force people into factories"
I'm not sure it was done "in order to" force people in factories ; but it was the final consequence for sure.
The enclosure movement had some strong economical reasons for those who advocated it e.g. the privatization of profits of common lands.
It was linked to the dismantling of the feudal social organization (power lies in the bonds between persons) and the rise of private property (power lies in the amount of possessions).
Well put, sister.
I'm digging the interviewer's hair.
Did you receive a link from me?
I thought I posted it last night.
He talked about freedom of the press, imagine what he must think now being posted on youtube and having 10,000 people comment on his views and perhaps a percentage of those people spreading his knowledge through podcast, blogs, and other means. Anarchism is rising and it is not the choas we've been sold. I am happy to be alive right now! :)
Here
If any anarcho communist are reading this than can any of you answer me some question please. Im not looking for a debate or anything I'm
just genuinely confused as to how this system could work.
Would this stateless society have a military of some sorts for internal and external threats? Or would it be militia (civilians with guns) who do the fighting?
What would happen to specific, non labor intensive jobs? Like artist,fishermen,doctors,proffessors,ect.
How could this society continue in the scientific field like astronomy, biology,and medicine?
How would border security work? Or would there be none?
What if someone doesn't want to work as hard as everyone?do they go to jail?
How would leadership work? Do all the communes have to vote same thing? What if one says no to something?
What would happen to entertainment? Like TV,internet,movies
Would schools still be a thing? If so, do they change in any way?
Don't be rude Please I'm just asking questions
I would like to preface by saying I am not a communist nor do I believe in any libertarian/Anarchist system as that leaves a power vacuum, in my sincere opinion, that is easily exploitable. Moreover direct democracies can be manipulated as a way to oppress minorities or vice versa.
There's a good documentary on Rojava which is pretty akin to a communist system. Essentially their population serve as a militia (they're at war with ISIS, Syria and Turkey last I heard). "The Communes of Rojava: A Model In Societal Self Direction" is the name of the video here on RUclips.
Fishermen, Doctors and Professors are necessary within any functioning society so there will be training and teaching in those fields. The university system is pretty much a cooperative in essence, anyways. Artistic endeavors will be most likely done in people's leisure as oppose to a career path.
A lot of science is already open source and this will continue. As far as funding you don't necessarily have to destroy money in order to be an anarchist collectivist (anarcho communist). However, if there is no monetary or currency systems you will adjust production to allow the scientists to receive the resources/products/materials they need.
The people's army (ironically named in most totalitarian governments) will protect the borders and afford the citizens with security. The citizens themselves will have weapons and military training.
As far as hard work, it would be similar to now. Some people work harder than others even in the same positions if you're not working out the cooperative managers will suggest a career change. As far as no work at all? No jail, they will probably be excluded from society and have to ask people for scraps or they will become thieves or criminals. The people's police will then jail them. Kids, elderly and ill persons will be taken care of by the collectives/communes.
Communes would have to hear what their citizens advocate for. All the rules would be made democratically.
Schools will be a thing but most likely will emphasize a different approach of operation/teaching. That would have to be democratically decided. Who knows maybe we will turn them all into religious schools? (I'm being facetious as I don't believe in a direct democracy which has pitfalls such as this).
Internet will be similarly used, however, since there is no centralized platform most likely it will be operated by IT professionals. Alex Jones will still be allowed to make videos after his work shifts. Since there is no government he would have to blame Commune 812 as the source of gay frog experimentation.
TV and Movies no one really talks about too much. I'm assuming they would be made in times of leisure after work or on your day off. You would go to the local camera store and show you worker's ID and then get a camera. All the current movie makers will still make movies and teach others how to do it. Also if labor is optimized we can see shorter work weeks.
Sorry for any grammatical or spelling errors. I did not proofread this in any way. Primarily because I am lazy and probably would be kicked out from our commune... I did edit to add the lazy part.
Mr. Rapey I'm far from an expert but here's some of the ideas I've had. Also, I'm more of a anarcho- communitarianist than communist...I like my privacy, but seek the group buying power inherent in co-ops, buying clubs etc. I also don't see a need to get rid of large government completely but to reduce it to an administrative role, without it being involved in politics. The problem with politics on large scale is the corruption that comes from concentrated wealth combined with anonymity. The problem with individuality is that economics has robbed the individual of their power by making each person buy what is needed, thereby imposing a high cost of living which leads to a loss of freedom. These two problems are avoided by establishing another level of politics, between the family and the municipal levels. This is the small group, eco village type.
The stateless society could work as regards to defense, by adopting the Libertarian free market approach, where a militia is a private company. Libertarian.org has a number of great talks on this with Hoppe and others. The danger I see with this free market is that we merely substitute large companies for high level politics, the scale is too large, and there is less opportunity for iterative change with large corporations. Hoppe says that the free market will decide the worth of a company but I think this hinges on lowering the cost of living, since a person whose focus is on cheap rather than good will put in place one sort of company over another, thru their buying habits. He also talks about third party regulation that is also privately owned, and this could work I think for education where the actual education is given by youtube type videos and then qualified by a third party.
My thoughts are that we need all of the above in one way or another. We need to reduce government bloat, rein in large corporations, reduce waste and inefficiency to protect the environment, promote education and individual freedoms, all this and more but also start to limit the areas in which we are using tech, specifically machinery. What machinery has done is to encourage sloth and this, combined with easily available food, reduces health overall. Another problem is the loss of skills. I'm not saying we should all be Amish, just that (and I'm thinking of agriculture in particular) some jobs should not be mechanized. Not only is opportunity lost for low level workers but there is a less definable societal health component, and a food security component as well. It's better to have a diverse range of small producers than a few large mono croppers. A lot of people love farming and they don't care about what economists do, which is efficiency.
I see the establishment of small village structure being the way forward. It's hard to imagine this happening when we look at the scale of a Los Angeles, but I think the two could co-exist. One incentive for small scale could be the most effective way we know, which is economic enticement...low cost of living, high quality of life. Have a corporative structure for it's legal strength, keep the group small so that everyone knows their neighbor, each family stewards a hectare or so and has privacy, economic coercion is avoided by group buying power, control of utilities, car share, etc. This is all made possible now thru internet marketplace and education/communication. Now it's possible to live in cheaper rural areas.
Another idea is to encourage the growth of this by adopting a pay forward setup (instead of the profit motive) where part of the low annual village fee is used to buy more cheap rural land and make it available for the next group.
Check out the RUclipsr NonCompete's series entitled "How Anarchism Works" which gives a pretty good, simple (and funny) overview of anarchist views that doesn't go to deep into theory. I would stress however that these are HIS views, and not necessarily representative of the views of all anarchists.
ruclips.net/p/PLCcemL_x8RtdtFuib1Wl6VwyuYOEDb5Wv
For more in depth stuff (mostly theory) check out the anarchist library site on the World Wide Information Super High Way, Known As The Inter Net Webs.
theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index
Guess what. Anarcho-syndicalism, or any other stateless system Chomsky describes, cannot solve the problems you listed. Chomsky is a fraud. Use you own common sense and you will come up with solutions that actually work.
The individual has no choice in a communist system envisioned by Marx or Lenin, because communism is socialism with complete government control. The individual has more choices in the libertarian socialist system envisioned by Chomsky, because the individual takes part in more business decisions, for instance. The democratization of society leads to more individuals taking part in more decisions, and ultimately having more choices.
Is there anything stopping people from creating a anarcho-syndocalist company? You can use a democratic system with computer voting and auction off different jobs (including the organizing job) without having the duties specialized. Does anybody know what happened to these companies in the past?
We need a broad anarchist coalition, from Marxists to individualist market anarchists to AnCaps if we ever want to bring about a stateless society, acknowledging that after the fall of the state, different people want different things and thus communities of AnComs and AnCaps can coexist. Agree?
There's no submitting involved, thats the whole point.... They don't control you any more than some people getting together and deciding to have a picnic.
the only power is the money in your hand and who you give the power to. If you want to buy and trade goods/services with other people- it should be voluntarily. You can choose to live either by yourself or in a combine- but what else is more efficient than bartering or paying for something?
He did join them in the fighting. He was there.
Where's the last clip from?
Ancap here.
I'm fairly well acquainted with the philosophical, moral, and economic basis of Market Anarchism, but I don't know much about other types of anarchism. I don't particularly care about capitalism, what I care about most is freedom, and if other types of Anarchism have something to say about freedom, I'm interested. Is there anything I can read, watch, listen to, to get a kind of "Traditional Anarchism 101".
Well, this is 5 years late, but the Anarchist FAQ would be anyone's best source fir a rudimentary understanding of "traditional" anarchism.
Also, competition is not only active when you have multiple firms competing, but even when a monopoly controls 100% of it's industry's market share, because as soon as that monopoly decides demand higher profits, the opportunity is thereby created for anyone to enter into that industry and cut into the gap they are leaving open, thus robbing them of their market share.
'... the opportunity is thereby created for anyone to enter into that industry and cut into the gap...' - Absolute abaurdity based on theory rather than practice.
@@anothertime1282 Oh gosh..
Tell me; regarding the famous basis of formal logic “A can not simultaneously be non-A” - would you say that’s true or “just a theory not based on practice”?
Another way of asking this would be; do you think if you look far and wide enough that you could find a planet where 2+2=5? Or is it literally baked into the number 2 that to double it would be - universally - to have 4?
I was watching a kids show with my niece and nephew this morning and the moral of the show was that there are some things we can know for sure while there are some things we can’t.
What you’re doing is making the mistake that because wrong theories exist, there can never be a correct theory. Even worse, you’re not seeing the difference between a “theory” like a personal or even expert opinion, and deductive reasoning.
You’re the kind of person who thinks supply and demand is “just a theory”. And because you can find a case where price goes down along with supply, you think you’ve defeated the notion.
Meanwhile, it’s well known that there are many factors which can cause this, most notably a concurrent lowering in demand.
But you lefties mistake one tiny piece as the whole puzzle.
And that’s why in the so called great communist regimes throughout history, all that can ever happen is the continuous escalation of violence in response to the failure of their policies. And it’s because of arguments like this; being able to pretend that all other context simply doesn’t exist and make an emotional argument; no different than folks who lean on the false dichotomy of street smarts vs book smarts to comfort themselves about their insecurities.
It’s a plausible notion in place of either solid deductive reasoning, or really any argument referring to a balance of context at all.
And that’s the great irony with this stuff because you’re criticizing me for not having achieved perfect knowledge, and meanwhile you have little more to offer in support of your own ideals than nice sounding, plausible, emotionally appealing, sentimental platitudes.
You want to look out for the little guy; good for you give yourself a cookie. So does mostly everybody else.
We just disagree about how. For you to pretend I’m some kind of lunatic based on this argument proves this is all emotional for you. You know you can’t win the actual argument, so you call my argument absurd as a substitute for giving any explanation as to how exactly it is absurd; which is fascinating seeing as how obvious it seems to be to you. I mean if this is so obvious that you could just call it absurd and move on with your day, couldn’t you make some - any - reference to an argument? Shouldn’t the truth beat out the lie at literally every turn of argument?
@@anothertime1282 oh and of course there is plenty of proof of what I explained.
For instance at one point European chemical cartels threatened Herbert Dow to undersell him out of business in America if he continue to sell Bromine so cheap in Europe. But he was only doing so because he had discovered a cheaper way to produce Bromine.
Now according to you, he should be screwed, right? He can’t out match them in size, not even close.
He refused to stopes and so they did in fact start selling at a loss in America, killing Dows American sales.
Was he powerless but to go out of business? Well to someone like you who only looks at one or two factors, gets the answer thry we’re looking for, and then refuses to analyze any further context, there is no possible way he can survive in this situation.
However, the fact that you can’t execute much less fathom an adaptation of this kind doesn’t mean it’s impossible or even unlikely - it’s just you don’t have the humility to admit that.
What happened was that Dow began buying the cartels Bromine in America at the cut prices and then continuing to undersell them in Europe, causing them to bleed from 2 wounds while he was only bleeding from one.
The cartel continue to lower their prices not knowing what he was doing, all the while making their situation worse and playing into his strategy. And eventually they couldn’t do it anymore and gave up.
Go look it up.
The fact of the matter is all you have to rely on are platitudes and cliches that enough other useful idiots believe. You have no facts and no arguments. Heck, you’re out here denouncing arguments like “that’s just a theory!”.
Oh that’s right, because you’re ideas aren’t theories - they’re just wrote truth, is that how it is? You don’t have to prove any of your “theories” because they’re just so self evident that to do anything to prove them would be an insult to our intelligence.
Sure is convenient don’t you think?
We are slaves first to our hunger and at last to gravity. Those who find these facts humiliating are arrogant. Complaining about why pies in the sky fall to earth is a fine pastime but it can never become a profession outside a university. I respect Chomsky's achievements in linguistics.
In service of explication of my position I advocate a debt-GDP ratio of 350%, this would be best achieved through a program of incremental increases in the debt over a period of twenty to thirty years. This manipulation would improve U.S. markets protractedly, and the U.S. has so much soft power that we could readily maintain political solvency.
Not sure he's right putting Rosa Luxemburg in with the anarcho bunch.She said lots of words in support of Lenin (boo, hiss !), although she also had a disagreement with him as , but she was more on his side than with anarchists I'd have thought. I remember this from a conversation I had with a British Trotskyist.
I like the Flock of Seagulls guy!
How would you go about solving the current economic and financial troubles? As far as I'm concerned this just shows he's thoughtful enough to not be an ivory tower theorist who has all these inconsequential ideas like abolishing the State and similar ideas that have no bearing in the real world.
I think there's a new paradigm in anarchism, coercion through anarchism (Statist in disguise) and conventional anarchism.
As I’ve said before: it doesn’t make any sense to talk about voluntary agreements when the overwhelming power is concentrated on the wealthy and the private owners. In an unregulated capitalist system there’s hierarchy and domination - things anarchists should oppose.
“in the long run the practice of solidarity proves much more advantageous to the species than the development of individuals endowed with predatory inclinations.” - Kropotkin
Upon further deliberation I've resolved that my previous comment is insufficient. That politics is necessarily or mostly determined by strategy and economics is a supposition not of inevitable but of manifest deficiency.
In support of your comments:
"The collective paid no taxes of any sort, nor did it seek legal recognition from any authority. There was free uncomplicated exchange of produce with private individuals." The CNT in the Spanish Revolution by Jose Peirats.
"There was never any shortage of food, clothing, footwear-in short life's essentials were in ample supply." ibid
And you're right that money was abolished by nearly all the collecitves and replaced by self-management and mutual aid.
Please check out People for Democratic Revolution Boston's channel, PDRBoston, for the video Socialism's goals and methods vs. PDRBoston's goals and methods.
Thank you! Ring the Bells of Revolution!
How did this bantering theologian get so many thumbs up in the 21st century. I know science isn't the answer to everything either but most religions are dinosaurs and there's no going back to them.
And trivial knowledge has always been mainstream. Most people don't really care to consider political theory or any other abstract in depth contemplation.
So, in reality, people would have a say in the things that affect them, namely; by action or abstaining from action on the market.
It is extremely difficult to compete in a free market, this meaning the best price and product for the consumer. To say that someone can "simply" amass wealth, and then "simply" squander it directly against the wishes of consumers without any natural, regulatory market backlash is obviously ridiculous.
He is not making a statement, he is quoting XIXnth century "Republicans" (a labor movement): "We're free people, the first free people , and [wage labor is] destroying and undermining that freedom".
This quotation is included within a delicate demonstration, maybe worth listening again, since you've completely missed the point.
Please listen carefully before making harsh remarks. Especially about someone who not only sounds intelligent but is "arguably" within the top 10 of smart guys.
5:15
Okay, google 'the plenarchist'
He has some different ideas. Anti govt but not anti state. He endorses a form or demarchy or sortition. Government by the people, not representative democracy or any of that nonsense.
It's just a lead. He's one of the few people with a rough plan and not simply a romance.
Conflicts should be expected. A lot of conflict. So long as AnCaps stick to their NAP and anarchists stick to anarchism, none of it will end bloody. That might be too much of a optimistic outlook though, given humanity's track record. I think most anarchists are pacifistic to some degree though, so maybe there's hope.
Why are Chomsky vids related to Neutral Milk Hotel musics?
Gamers :)
The Fed is a proper, discrete institution which should not be conflated with the U.S. Department of Treasury in reference.
This vid is a very good intro re: "Anarchism 101." There's also David Graeber interviews, one w/ Charlie Rose here. You'll find zero, however, that supports anything "ancappish" because anarchism and capitalism are not, in any way, compatible. So you may be disappointed until you realize that.
As an anti-capitalist I advocate maximal leveraging of the U.S. Federal budget, Luxembourg is evidently not a nation but a bank so their policy is not a feasible maximum, and Iceland has set a precedent in political ramifications of economic abuse. Rather I advocate maintenance of a ratio like the Netherlands' .
The issue I have here is that Chomsky is unfairly escaping having to deal with the strongest points that exist against his ideology simply by equating all anarcho-capitalists with the likes of Paul Ryan. His readership should know that anarcho-capitalist theory is not even alike in kind to modern or neo-conservative rhetoric because one is explicit on the principle of property rights, while the other makes arbitrary exceptions whenever they please.
Well, I'd obviously disagree with you, but thanks for the info!
My point is that if there is no system or regulation stating what I'm doing is a crime, then what will prevent me from taking your stuff?
Working for wages = prosititution
At least the prostitute has the freedom to work, therefore making money. Can't see you contributing anything to society. Also, why do anarchosyndacalists claim to be about freedom from tyranny, yet you're tyrannising the prostitute for her own choice??? Contradiction is obvious
By the way, I might have you confused with someone else. It happens.
Why do prices have to go away? Anyways, I see that you may not fully understand Anarcho-Syndicalism. There is no central planner; decentralized planning is the whole point. The current problem IS central planning. We have the few super rich trading securities to the point where pricing is not genuine. If our system kept prices within reason, we likely wouldn't have these economic problems. I know new ideas seem alien, or ridiculous, but this is only when you don't compare it to the current one.
This is an age-old economic fallacy. In an unregulated market, resources tend towards the hands of those who will best please consumers. Thus, it flows away from those who do the opposite, and indeed - for the most part - even from those who are trying their best to make a profit (please consumers) but yet not doing as well as their competitors.
If you you tube around, you'll find a couple of Chomsky videos displaying admiration for demand-side econ (austerity =bad, central bank controlled stimulus =good). Not only that, his views on state run welfare are quite mainstream. When considering this, it's hard to reconcile such discordant views with anarcho-syndicalism (stateless socialism by another name). This is Chomsky's Achilles heal I'm afraid. He's just another garden variety leftist on the issues.
Laws change all the time. The only "sacred" ones are the bill of rights, which change anyway.
I guess theft laws shouldn't be considered sacred.
What is theft? When the Louisiana Purchase was enacted, how gracious were the Native Americans to learn that they were now part of The United States of America?
Funny, I don't think they signed up to be subject to being taxed by the US government. Maybe they should have informed the US that possession counts for something and maybe they shouldn't have purchased it from France but rather consulted with them first.
Or does a power plant have the right to pollute the air and water.
Property is a tricky thing. To pretend otherwise is naivete.
I don't think I'm going to take advice from a person who doesn't even know how to use the comment section properly.
❤🖤
How hard is Chomsky trying not to laugh at this kid's haircut?
Timothy Anderson he just doesn't give a shit.
He’d laugh at yours
This is the soup Chomsky swims in.
I just disagree with being a democracy that means the majority rules we should have representation for the minority as well I think the system but being a republic would be much better
I'm here thinks to Captain fantastic
Which janitors?
How is it moronic?
What gives you property rights and recognizes you have "property"? The government.
What gives you the right to "own" something anyway? Who presides over you suing someone? A government judge paid for by that evil 'theft' of taxation.
Why shouldn't I just take your stuff if there is no government regulations saying I'm not allowed to?
Well I guess before governments existed no one owned anything?
Funny that you put theft in quotes when mentioning taxation, people like you seem to be anti-statist until it comes to making money then they’re the most statist animals you meet wanting to tax and expropriate everything and to turn working people into slaves for that state that they themselves fiercely opposed but now have created and praise.
So wrong, ownership starts with yourself bud. And then you can mix your labour with nature to create property. I agree with you in that state sanctioned ownership is not legitimate, but to say that government is the only way one can own something is just not factual.
That's it? No elaboration? Ok.
Mr. Chom is one of those thinkers utterly lost within overlapping and low-sense definitions. There exists the various forms of authoritarianism (dictatorship, one party rule, monarchy) and there's democracy (acknowledging here the vast spectrum of imperfection potential within the category) . Democracy will always vacillate and shudder in an uneasy balance within the extremes of personal liberty and constantly emergent coalitions that carry with them their own annexation of personal liberties (unions, various factions of divergent moral leaning - religious or not - as well as the simple matter of general majority versus minority valuations for what constitutes just living). You needn't go any further than the disappointingly pedestrian names like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson to have all this covered. So much of the rest, that Chom likes to reference, are thinking in circles and/or envisioning without considering complexity. Perfection is being the enemy of the best possible for navel gazers/big word spitters like these.
His frequent reference to this or that society ("Libertarian Spain") that was "fairly organized society...pretty sucessful economically..." makes the mistake of overlooking the need for any system to display itself over time. The answer might be that the aforementioned uneasy balance broke an axel, or it was full of powerful enough actors that didn't get that perfection would never be achieved, or it simply evolved, democratically, as he, by his vaguely asserted credo, would have to accept gracefully, understanding of course it could evolve back. SO much detail in his words, and yet one can't help but wonder: Are we not actually in the very midst of his vaguely forwarded promised land? After all, he never spells out the proper and "good" quotients of individual happiness or economic success. Is he, by the way, down with the present lunge towards total equality of outcome? Because tis is a specific goal that seems to eschew any concern for how said goal is arrived at. It's power and power only, for this one goal. Democracy be damned.. With these passing references we've no way of knowing that their disappearance wasn't baked in the clay of their founding principles.
"...controlled from below," "will always have to have some sort of representation..." Oh Chom, draft your frigg'n constitution already.
Wow, MIT should have hired you to teach political philosophy instead of a hack like him.
Who does then? They certainly have the laws in place to protect them. Government has a law called theft so that I can't take your shit without punishment. But without that, why couldn't I just take it?
I'm not arguing moral behavior. Has nothing to do with laws/rights. I still believe stealing is wrong, but that is irrelevant to the topic.
Why can't I use the threat of force? Who says I can't?
>Nobody gives authority
Today my county is electing the local Sheriff. So yes they do.
>Nobody has the right to offense
Says who? Show me the law that says I can't take your stuff. Oh wait, governments make laws. Never mind.
Government via the consent of the governed.
? No. Because the CEO's are profiting from the opposite of anarcho-syndicalism. anarcho-syndicalism doesn't mean "crime syndicate," or connote anything "criminal." Anarcho-syndicalism has to do w/ workers controlling and taking ownership of the means of production. It has to do w/ workers uniting to replace and transcend the current wage labor system. So CEO's and their lobbyists are the mortal enemies of Anarcho-syndicalism, and of workers. What CEOs do now w/ politicians is plutocracy.
Ohhhhh Nietzsche would have SO much to say to Chomsky, I would imagine... :D
Isaac Taylor yes,he went insane cz he cldnt reconcile his ACTUAL ideas,not the 1s his sister botched together from his notes
Nah, just angry poetry from Nietzsche as always.
Nietzsche was not political. He slammed everyone equally. Ironically, that's the closest he came to anything remotely democratic.
abolishing the state is the long term goal
/watch?v=PiqPCRtzOBw
The mill workers all fight in a battle royal until the required number of workers are left. Hell the damn mill itself will end up in a dictatorship or anarchy anyway. lol
1. No but don't expect to benefit from the society but since anarcho syndicalist "societies" base on voluntarism you are free to join another community or stay alone.
2. You can mow other peoples lawn if they agree
3.You won't need anything in exchange, look at the '36 anarcho syndicalism in Spain, thex nearly removed all currency
Democracy in an anarchist society doesn't mean 51% tell 49% what to do but they will try to find the best solution for everyone...
ghi
>Because you don't.
Wow. What gives you the right to say I can't take something? You don't have authority over me.
Sorry but the only thing that ensures you keep your "property" is government. Sure they can take it away, but so can anyone else if there wasn't something preventing them from taking it.
I do oppose direct democracy being used for every single thing. For the local Sheriff? It's fine.
Dude it’s so hard to listen to Chomsky. Something about is voice that makes it hard to follow. Thought it was his age but he spoke just like that when he was younger too... 😅
Why should a socialist concede to your dialogue's capitalist, statist predication? That you find ethea ridiculous is not that you may license their whole dismission; such societies have existed and successfully exercised sovereignty regardless of your disdain, and they inevitably will do again.
You seem to occupy a Bismarckian Smithian reduction of reality which must, as all fantasy, unfortunately answer to nature; you cannot afford to ignore Anarcho-Syndicalism or even Chomsky.
They have no incentive to play nice. So what makes you think a society without some threat of force/order via police will keep everyone calm and not start going into violent tribes?
I'll just take your shit then.
Just saying - that is not how capitalism or law works.
There is no difference all it is rebranding democratic socialism is just as socailist as syndicalism
Chomskey, is just a plain state apologist.
"Here it means ultra-Ayn Rand or something like that". No, it doesn't.
Ayn Rand wasn't a libertarian, she was an objectivist.
It's nice that Chomsky is in such a comfortable position that he can afford to disingenuously misrepresent his adversaries, but it scarcely serves honest academic discourse. I can correctly identify Chomsky's own position, why can't he afford me that same respect?
anarchists are the smartest people
ur smart
Not everyone is going to agree 100% on everything, hence majority rule, which you've been arguing is a GOOD thing and should happen.
Herp derp.
Stateless society, sounds nice, but why is it that syndicalists think that everyone wants society to be organized the way they want it to be? How is this complex system to be maintained if there is no coercive power? Will those who don't want to be part of thi society be allowed to form their own communities? Legit question, because if the libertarian socialists don't care about people doing there own thing, then I have no real issue with the movement. I can't say that I think you are right, but if you trully mean that you want to get rid of coercion, then I don't really care about whether you are correct or not.
This is a kind of open letter to anyone who watches the video, I've been looking for an answer to this question for a while.
While I appreciate Noam Chomsky for being a visionary with good intentions, I can't seem to see how libertarian socialism is not coercive. Pure democracy is in itself coercive, because 51 people telling 49 others what to do is not voluntary at any level. I prefer individuals voluntarily associating in the exchange of goods and services, forming voluntary coalitions how they choose--whether it be direct democracy, republican, individuals, etc. anarcho-capitalism is a truly non-coercive society.
Any society is coercive by your definition. Even anarcho-capitalism needs somebody to enforce contracts. The question is how to make this coercion palatable and sensible, not whether we can get rid of it.
Nice hair