WE ARE HERE TO FULLFILL A DESTINY OF BECOMING A DIVINE AND AWAKENED SPIRIT,ONLY THRU CREATIVE ARTISTS,PAINTING,POETRY AND MUSIC,MAY MANKIND ARISE AND AWAKEN TO HIS/HER PUREST POTENTIAL,OKCHA 2012
Amazing how Chomsky fails to conceptualize the categories of slavery and wages. He seems to be a great fan of quoting the purely rhetorical statements of canonical thinkers. These quotations say nothing about the nature of slavery or wages; they are simply the quips made by Enlightenment thinkers on the subjects slavery and wages.
I'm going to take a not so wild guess and say you're a free market capitalist? What exactly is the difference between slavery, serfdom and capitalism?
"I have shown how democracy favors the growth of manufactures and increases without limit the numbers of the manufacturing classes; we shall now see by what side-road manufacturers may possibly, in their turn, bring men back to aristocracy."
Chomsky mentioned Tocqueville, so maybe we should re-think what understand of liberalism and the 18th century... those are people who value freedom beyond everything and yet you read of that inequalities can and will most likely destroy it.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Even non-religious people know this.
The homosexual agenda is not good for anyone, including those who consider themselves "gay".
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Good vid; relevant ideas. A suggestion: either lower the volume of the backing track and/or raise the volume of Chomsky's voice, or just dump the backing track altogether. Seriously, it would improve the video and highlight what's important.
I'm not going to say the modern employee has the same hardships as an actual slave but for the sake of argument...Technically, the slave could have left the slave owner by trying to run away. This was obviously fraught with many consequences. The slave would have no home, no roof, would probably lose any family he may have, would have no place to go because obviously he could be caught and the consequences could be severe. Trying to just leave the system of wage slavery has similar consequences
Why oh why oh why add musak to a Chomsky lecture?!?! I hope they play John Denver all through you funeral elegy so that nobody can hear what's being said.
He skipped the part where the guy asks for work. Dont complain when you ask for the job, get the job, and then dont have as much of a say as you would like in how the owner operates his business. Slavery is to work for the benefit of others against your will with no benefit to yourself. This in no way fits that criteria. You work in an agreeement between you and your emplyer whom you asked for a job for an amount that you agreed to work for based upon your labor skill. Thats not slavery.
@LexNaturalis1982 You have to ask for a job if you're not in a position to start your own business. A person might not technically have to work for that particular employer, but he has to work for someone.
@knglerxst A man who owns his own business works for his customers. Do we call him a slave? No. He does it voluntairly. The trader principle is what the world runs on. True wage slavery is when a man is looked upon as equal to everyone else despite his hard work, education, or talent. Blame unions, socialists, or communists, and collectivists like Comsky for the advocasy of that.
@LexNaturalis1982 excpet capitalism justifies non labor income. worker owned does not mean its necessary to not see the fruits of ones labor. it means what i proportionally put in, i get out.
Employer: Well I will start you off at minimum wage until your skills are more valuable to this company and you will receive more responsibility accordingly.
You: THATS WAGE SLAVERY!
Employer: Then create your own business and make your own rules and see if you can compete with me with that mentality.
@13stevejohnson I dont want to own your labor. I would never ask anyone to do something against their will. Dont want to work for me? You think your employer owes you more money than your worth? Fine. Find another job that will pay you more or create your own business. No force here. No ownership of anyone here. Just two people coming togather to work in agreement. Dont agree? Find work elsewhere.
@13stevejohnson Then work two jobs. What? U would force me to pay for their lack of a job skills, lack of an education, or perhaps the fact that their father couldent keep his dick in his pants and his mother couldent keep her legs shut? And now because of their lack of diciplen and lack of an ability to raise children it is somehow now incumbent upon me to pay for their future, education, and force their employer to hire morons? Would you have me provide all their wants? If so, why work at all?
@LexNaturalis1982 The man who owns his own business has more bargaining power over the price of the goods and services his customers buy. His employes have no bargaining power over their wages, hours, and security. It's this asymmetry in power that prevents any sort of 'freedom' from materializing.
@mentalrectangle The worker has more than you think. If he is skilled labor he can work anywhere he wants in accordance with that skill. If he holds a rare skill, or more experience, employers will pay more for him to work for them. There is no such thing as someone that doesent work for someone. You bargin with your worth to the company by making it disadvantagous to fire you. If you dont have that then you dont deserve the pay your offered. But let me guess? You want something for nothing?
@LexNaturalis1982 A worker can't force employers to hire him, even if he's the most qualified candidate for the job. The hiring process isn't an auction like ebay, where you just put yourself out there until the highest bidder comes along. There is a large amount of inelasticity when it comes to the labor market. You get a job through networking more than qualifications.
@mentalrectangle Networking is in itself a job skill just like all others. If you dont know this your an idiot and you dont deserve a job. Its part of the process. However, I dont see how the government forcing an employer to hire a moron is beneficial to anyone. Its kinda like when the farmers in the USSR protested collectivization and the theft of their lands. Lenin then kicked them all out and replaced them with government bureaucrats. Mass starvation ensued.
@mentalrectangle One other thing to add to the previous statement. Would you trust the guy who is networking to get elected to make expert decesions on who employers sould hire? Do you think people will choose someone who is better at networking or because of their vast qualifications? Look at the Whitehouse and get back to me on that one. Let the employer make the life and death descisions about his OWN business and if he fails he fails. Just like if you fail, you fail!
@LexNaturalis1982 Haha listen to you. Apparently it's bad when a politician makes life and death decisions for other people, but when an employer makes life and death decisions for a company without letting the thousands of people under him get any say, that's totally fine! Governments and corporations are the same entities ultimately. They are coercive entities that consolidate power in the hands of a few. Good luck with your one man "occupy this Noam Chomsky video" movement. That'll go far.
@mentalrectangle The reason why government & corporations are so entertwined is because some leftist one day (FDR) descided to ignore article 1 section 8 of the constitution & allow congress to legislate outside the enumerated powers in order to give out the government goodies you advocate for. What he didnt plann for is that if you can give out money one way you can do the same in the other. Since then its all been down hill. Because of people trying destroy poverty. Dont call this capitalism!
@LexNaturalis1982 In the absence of a strong central government, corporations become de-facto governments. Unlike a democracy where the populace has at least some small control over their government's actions, the people at the top of a corporate hierarchy are feudal lords: completely unaccountable. The period of the industrial revolution in the late 1800s is called the 'gilded age', not the 'golden age' for a reason. Horrible working conditions, crippling poverty, massive economic inequality.
@mentalrectangle The historical record in this respect is absolutly clear. When laws were made to prevent monopolies and corporate corruption the corporations just bribed polititions and used the new laws to create barriers of entery. In many cases they lobbied for regulation to prevent competition. HOWEVER, despite your hatred for their actions in the guilded age, the common man had never been as well off before that time. I'll put my BA in history against your socialist talking points any day
@LexNaturalis1982 Yes, corporations were and have always been in control of the public process in this country. That is not an argument for laissez-faire, as I said in laissez-faire the corporations become de-facto governments. A boundary between government regulations and private interests must be created and maintained if an economic system is going to be just and equitable. BA in history, my ass. I could find a biology major that believes in young earth creationism. Come back with a doctorate
@mentalrectangle Once again, if the federal government never ventured outside the bounds of the enumerated powers of Article 1 Section 8, (as James Madison deemed unconstitutionl, SEE THE LAST 4 PARAGRAPHS OF FEDERALIST 41) they would lack the power to give out corporate welfare for political donations and kickbacks. But then liberal polititions couldnt bribe the masses with social welfare for votes. Now no one can vote their concious. Dont complain about one when you advocate for another.
@mentalrectangle By the way. Freedom is not a good or service. You do not have a right to goods and services. You have a right to pursue them but you have no right to force someone else to provide it for you against their will. THAT would be slavery. In order for freedom to exist you must have both the freedom to succeed and to fail. To guarantee success would to limit freedom, not increase it.
Oh yeah, I believe him when he says it's nice to do things you like to do. But then he only is able to do that because people have been coerced (taxes) to pay him the money to do it.
Society works different however: You ought to do what the demand of society is, what it offers you to do certain tasks and sometimes that means cleaning the toilet.
When you're on your own you have to do some work you wouldn't normally do in order to survive. You do what is necessary, not what you'd like to to.
@rustyrusky GOOD POINT. Of course, it's the usual - the libtard always has the solution for the "lower masses" but of course, when they implement their plan, they are the UPPER MASSES, and as all of them have said "then we will be in control!" - a perfect example is our current foreign national of Britain and Indonesia usurper- who now owns GM, pays the 100K plus top 5% salaries and ganks back millions for his already flying around the world re-election campaign as "the masses" eat crumbs n die
@Silicondoc Liberality is about the needlessly powerfull relinquishing control to the populace. In a trully liberal system the potlical and social machinery for the enforcment of state or private capital dominance would be dissasembled. The so called Parliament or Senate would not exist, there would be no one in charge. Were the need for a leader or institution to arise it would be dissmantled at the completion of its task, in much the same way as corporations used to.
Is it slavery if you voluntarily enter into a relationship where you must obey a command? Slavery means you are forced into that relationship. Selling your own labor voluntarily is not forced at all.
@repatternthis You have no idea. Chomsky does NOT support statism -ie modern welfare state (most of which is corporate tax breaks). In our society, the rich receive the most aid through subsidies, and milking the military industrial complex (public funds). As far as the poor go, we have a MUCH lower social safety net than any other "developed democracy'.
God I hate it so much when people put this kind of music behind these types of videos. It feels like your watching some kind of cultist brainwashing tape. Aren't his word effective enough on their own?
The monetary serfdom of humanity shackled in a politically manipulated market system of artificial scarcity is the template of our common alienation,exploitation and suffering. Capitalism is historically outdated and a tyrannical imposition for minority private gain. A democratic,conscious, majority movement for a world of cooperation for our common needs and well being expressing our creative energies in a MONEYLESS,CLASSSLESS,STATELESS COMMUNITIES OF HUMNAITY
@michael616joaquin i think it's alright makes him look cool which s good street people are becoming enlightended. the key to enlightenment is sharing knowledge and becoming intuituve, the illuminated ones do this amongst themselves only. elitist satanist bums!
ok enough where is the original, the music is overpowering. the way you do spoken word is in my opinion to set an entire speech to a backing track, but rather to make a track and edit in his voice at key points and only using key phrases. listen to some contemporary trance and see how they edit in people.
@babayabadabadu Demand and scarcity give value, not labor; that is a unicorn fantasy. You better do something other than respond, since there is no response to give.
@qwertypoiu4321 Yeah your forgetting supply there bud and how do we get supply ?? By combining labour and capital! Nice attempt though. Furthermore, labour itself can, at times, be scarce and sold/rented at a premium price.
@7117teddy You are confusing value and production, like a complete imbecile. Supply is just scarcity, which is irrelevant without Human Demand, which is therefore the anti-LTV, subjectivist theory of value. You are also confusing homonym's, supply is scarcity, not as in supplying which is human action. Doofus.
@babayabadabadu Calling me names will not change the fact that 'Anarcho-Syndicalists' borrow the whole LTV economic system from Marx and only have some minor, aesthetic, political changes from Marx on top of those fallacious economic myths. Fallacious Marxist LTV economics is synounymous with 'Anarcho-Syndicalist' economics.
People sell their labor for money, you moron. How are you going to ban people from making contracts with each other, you commie nutbag? You gonna hang all the employers during your "revolution"? Stupid twit.
@babayabadabadu He absolutely is economically, he is a proponent of fallacious LTV, marxist economic nonsense. This whole rambling of his was a fallacious LTV myth.
hei, put that horible bcgrnd track OFF.we r interrested in what Chomsky says, not in your decoration abilities.i understand u r passionate about him - so m i , but...don'twaste my time, please.
I was reading an online economics encyclopedia and when they addressed unions, they called them 'cartels' that control the price of humans. I was suddenly awakened to the fact that modern capitalism still exhibits the inhumane attitude it did when it was built on the backs of slave labor. We abolished slavery, yes, but people or impersonal corporations can still RENT humans.
All the haters with negative comments on this are intellectually supercillious. Chomsky should be heard by people who listen to hip hop music just as much as the crowd with privileged access to an elite education. Whose side are you on anyway?
Caveat-lector: Chompsky's specious argument does not actually solve the problem of wage slavery. In order for humans to survive, they must consume resources (namely food, water, shelter, air). If they are unable to produce enough resources on their own or trade for them, then they starve to death. So one may say that humans are compelled to work for an employer. But simply shifting the distribution of property ownership does not change this fact. Are you not compelled to join the worker's union?
No you are not. It depends on the anarchist system one imagines. Mutualism (market socialism) has worker cooperatives hiring or buying labour and mutual credit syndicates. No worker sells his labour to capital, the workers instead buy capital. No wage labour in Mutualism.
In AnarchoCommunism there is no wage SYSTEM, money is abolished. This does not mean a return to barter, instead a gift economy or horizontal network of consumers and producers, i.e. decentralized planning.
@GlobalAlternateMedia, With all due respect, to the best of my knowledge, Chomsky is NOT necessarily a muralist, but rather an anarcho-syndicalist, as he seeks to have a federated system of workers organizations be the owners of the means of production and thus the bosses. I didn't see any mention of mutualism on Chomsky's WikiLeaks page, so I don't know his exact view. In "Notes on Anarchism" he suggests "that some form of council communism is the natural form of revolutionary socialism..."
I am not saying Chomsky is a mutualist, I was just offering you alternatives
A few notes: anarcho-syndicalism is not an ideology but a tactice to achieve anarchist collectivism or anarchist communism. The community owns the means of production, however bosses do not exist, instead there is workers self-management, which simply means: the community owns the means of production but the workers CONTROL the means of production, i.e. no bosses. A federated system doesn't have bosses
@GlobalAlternateMedia, but I am forced to accept the workers association stipulations on how I am allowed to use their property when I want to work, thus they are my boss. And how is membership in this community determined? Am I permitted to own the means of production for my trade myself or am I subject to work only according to the workers association's dictats? But only if I am not subject to work for a group and can own the means of production privately, then I have no boss.
The community is not your boss because they do not decide how much time you have to work, how to work, when to work, etc. you, the workers, decide this for yourselves. The only reason we have common ownership is because we do not want a market. At best, the consumers of a community and the producers of an enterprise contrive together the daily, weekly or monthly production plan.
The means of production are not monopolized, if you wish to own some you are allowed to. Read (A)FAQ
@GlobalAlternateMedia, How exactly do "the consumers of a community and the producers of an enterprise contrive together the daily, weekly or monthly production plan." Is this some type of consensus type? What if my friends and I do not agree with the community's production plan? What if we prefer to exchange units of commodities to trade/barter instead of following the community's production plan? What good is it to own my own means of production privately if I must follow the community's plan?
@ericfontainejazz You have to remember that the community has some control now, through government. ie safety standards, hiring standards, and pay standards. I image that would continue, though perhaps through different institutions. The community should leave you along outside issues like pollution which effects the whole. Communities could influence production through investment and maybe other non cohesive means, like facilitation of trade among different groups etc...
Dr. Chomsky recently told Iranian TV that at the time the US invaded Afghanistan, they had no evidence that al Qaeda did 9/11. See my video "Chomsky on Faith-Based Wars and 9/11"
"That's why you have democratic structure, it let's people control things together."
Under this system, does not the majority then control the minority? Seem contradictory to anarchism and also contradictory to the whole idea of removing slavery from life. The will of the majority is forced onto the minority.
Of course not. Like with democratic education, it is a misnomer. Democratic education does not mean that when the majority decides they want history, the minority is compelled to take history as well. Instead, every individual child follows the lessons he wants to. "Democratic" education is actually sociocracy. The democratic workplace too is a sociocracy, the individual worker decides for himself but common problems will be decided on with all workers, at first attempting consensus.
Slavery never ended - the ruling class of slave masters /our rulers simply upgraded their methods of extracting human labour - now with
the "job" and monetary system slaves actively seek their own labour - once you surrender your will and just work for money as 99% of us have to do who ever controls the money supply controls you.
To be free and at liberty the whole system must fall but people now do not want to be free
@godkingofthepunks you are right; it is because peope have not been educated to think, to how to make association with peers, to cherish liberty, and to believe in our skills. So until the education continue to educate us to make believe we need boss or masters, we will be afraid of thinking freely, and envy to dream to liberty
@godkingofthepunks you are right; it is because people have not been educated to think, to how to make association with peers, to cherish liberty, and to believe in our skills. So until the education continue to educate us to make believe we need boss or masters, we will be afraid of thinking freely, and envy to dream to liberty
Even more dishonest than most Chomsky. The backlash dating from the Enlightenmnet was against compulsory - not wage - labor and he distorts de Tocqueville completely, neglectibg that such an occurring aristocrayc was the "least dangerous" in history and neglecting of course, that de Tocqueville, while a great thinker, was not perfect and got the effects upon the worker (and their evolution in society) utterly and completely wrong.
Chomsky (outside of linguistics) is not to be taken seriously
@FletchforFreedom al you've done is try to discredit people chomsky mentioned (not referenced). You neglected to note that he was saying 'the core idea' that went back to the enlightenment, not 'the entire idea'.
I didn't discredit people Chomsky referenced at all. Unlike Chomsky, de Tocqueville and the the thinkers of the Enlightenment actually have credibility. What I have done is correct the absolutely false statements that Chomsky has made about the treatment of wage labor by Enlightenment thinkers and the gross and deliberate distortion of de Tocqueville's writings. That ANY rejection of wage labor and/or private property goes back to the Enlightenment is pure bunkum.
This is new age state capitalism, A socialist big government pool of corruption. A wolf in sheep's clothing. A near opposite of free market capitalism. It's all just an attempt to destroy the(not to be cheesy) american dream. Government has never accomplished anything. The people are the ones who made this country and big government has destroyed it. It has happened many many times in history.
A moneyless,classless,stateless communities of humanity expressing our freedom in creative harmonious cooperation for a world that is so POTENTIALLY AND ACTUALLY nourishing. Capitalism in any form, Statist or Corporatist is the denial of our common humanity in a politically manipulated,tyrannical armed MARKET SYSYTEM of artificial scarcity that is designed to perpetuate the enslavement of immense humanity for material interest of the criminal ruling elite
@fielsjd shut up and focus on content,you nit wit..its called tuning out the noise.ill admit,that its a distraction,but i know you're able.now eat your cereal and go to bed.dad loves you.
He is bang on - slavery never ended ! the ruling class of slave masters have just
upgraded their methods of extracting human labour - now with the the "job" and monetary system slaves no longer require enourmous resources to keep them giving work and now even seek their own labour ! This is why the illusion of freedom had to be given
I just had this video deleted and a warning strike for "inapropriate content"
Wage slavery is accepted by virtually all classical Anarchsits besides the so called market anarchists, but they are more like privatized monarchists. Each wealthy land owner is a private king. They are not against hierarchy, they are against government monopoly of the state.
The evolution of recent human history has been dominated by minority control over the majority, the rulers have come up with nessesary illusion for compliance and servitude of the many, Science and technology has created a world of plenty, but the market mechanism is about artificial scarcity to perpetuate poverty and exploitation in a modality of war,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty and so on . The new paradigm is sharing the Earth for our collective needs and wellbeing.
What an elitist prick. His ideas are disjointed and amount to nothing. A criticism of what, people who don't love their jobs like he does? That amounts to slavery? Gas bag.
@sharperguy, whether controlling one's own work life is a "right" or simply a desire doesn't negate the argument that selling one's own bodily energies, movements, output, and time to another person-- for the fulfillment of another person's ends-- is a last resort for those who have nothing else to sell. Because remember, capitalism is all about selling (or speculating on future sales...). if you own nothing to commodify, then you are forced to commodify your self. how is this freedom again?
Chomsky doesn't really address the issue of low IQ individuals. Low IQ individuals aren't capable of the type of work he's explaining. He seems to think that they're low IQ because of lack of education, which is completely false. IQ is mostly determined by genetics.
True true. but basically the point is that of course not everyone can possibly exceed at everything(or even most things), but a society should (imo) maximize the potential for people to choose the work they want without threats (starvation, lowered living standards, etc). We don't want a technocracy. It is definitely true though that i.q. has a strong genetic factor.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
slaverty is not as bad as it seems...
this might sound crazy tomany of you north americans...
slaverty can be good or bad, just like anything else in the world but good slaverty is better than renting people for wages, its better for slave owners and slaves but not the government.
In part I agree with you. First I think you're wrong that slavery isn't 'as bad as it seems'. Slavery's one of the most egregious crimes against humanity, it's always bad. However, when you say that 'good slavery is better than renting people for wages', there's some truth in that. In either case the person is alienated from their labour but in 'good slavery' (assuming that means something like your owner is a nice person, doesn't beat you etc.) at least you're guaranteed a decent material life.
If you're referring to right at the start of the video it's Wilhelm von Humboldt and the actual quote is:
"If a man acts in a mechanical way, reacting to external demands or instruction rather than in ways determined by his own interests and energies and power, we may admire what he does, but we despise what he is."
Anarchism "has a broad-back" Perhaps, sharperguy is an anarcho-capitialist or more individualist anarchist. Chomsky represents one strand in Anarchism, more specifically, anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-socialist.
The state permitted form of Corporate-Capitalism, which leads to wage-slavery, needs to be brought down along with the state. Just my humble opinion.
because the very existence of the state, throughout history, has been to protect property. and if you don't have a system to protect property, you cannot conceivably have capitalism!
government's purpose is to subsidize big business. every major innovation in the marketplace has had some kind of guidance from the government.
my point is that, given this reality, the government should set high standards that corporations must meet in order to earn the subsidies!
Well even if there are, the most important companies get some level of funding. Transportation companies, energy companies, airplane companies, food companies...You know shit like that.
I disagree with some kinds of subsidies, but it would be unrealistic to think that we should get rid of all of them.
no i don't like big business. i probably dislike it as much as you do. but i am a realist and i don't think we can sustain our wealth without subsidies.
what do you think big business does? they provide services and produce things. i'm saying that we should give them subsidies to continue this activity as long as they conform to certain rules (i.e. no corruption, environmental regulation, no high-scale gambling with the money, etc.)
that's a different issue. the issue of corruption within government is a problem that i think we need to get a handle on. i would propose having term limits of congresspeople.
@pdaniels9000 Here's a quick reason why subsidies are bad.
Imagine a business makes cutlery for £10 a set, but then finds it can only sell a set for £8. The government then subsidises the production of the cutlery by £5 on each set made. Since this subsidy is being payed for through taxes it essentially means that if all tax-payers bought a set of cutlery they'd think they were paying £8 and getting a good deal while really paying £13.
yea freedom is overrated. i want to be controlled 60 hours per week, it feels so good to be forced to do things you dont want to do. why would anyone want this random weird freedom thing, its a cult.
taking that line would eliminate the chance for popular movement. it would mean that a group of people has no right to change something about the world if at least one person disagrees.
I'm not entirely sure where you draw that conclusion from...
If people think things should be done differently, they just have to start doing things differently and if it works for you others will probably follow.
The music is a problem with this video.
TheDAT573 3 weeks ago
I can't hear the speech over the music.
lovelittlecats 4 weeks ago
Why on earth would you put music on this. Moronic decision.
peoman2 4 weeks ago 5
WE ARE HERE TO FULLFILL A DESTINY OF BECOMING A DIVINE AND AWAKENED SPIRIT,ONLY THRU CREATIVE ARTISTS,PAINTING,POETRY AND MUSIC,MAY MANKIND ARISE AND AWAKEN TO HIS/HER PUREST POTENTIAL,OKCHA 2012
anumpeshi 4 weeks ago
Amazing how Chomsky fails to conceptualize the categories of slavery and wages. He seems to be a great fan of quoting the purely rhetorical statements of canonical thinkers. These quotations say nothing about the nature of slavery or wages; they are simply the quips made by Enlightenment thinkers on the subjects slavery and wages.
CazUnlimited 1 month ago
@CazUnlimited
I'm going to take a not so wild guess and say you're a free market capitalist? What exactly is the difference between slavery, serfdom and capitalism?
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 3 weeks ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Sorry you never grew a brain
CazUnlimited 3 weeks ago
@CazUnlimited
What a compelling argument! Oh wait it was just an insult. If you can't take the heat don't bother responding.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CazUnlimited
What a compelling argument! Oh wait it was just an insult. If you can't take the heat don't bother responding.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CazUnlimited
What a compelling argument! Oh wait it was just an insult. If you can't take the heat don't bother responding.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 3 weeks ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH
"I have shown how democracy favors the growth of manufactures and increases without limit the numbers of the manufacturing classes; we shall now see by what side-road manufacturers may possibly, in their turn, bring men back to aristocracy."
Chomsky mentioned Tocqueville, so maybe we should re-think what understand of liberalism and the 18th century... those are people who value freedom beyond everything and yet you read of that inequalities can and will most likely destroy it.
KrugmanTheKing 3 weeks ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH But to be respectful, I only need to words to set you straight: Time Preference.
CazUnlimited 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hehe try to keeping you job for ten years while working for Korean Boss!
Might be notified at the last minute to stay back for hours on end with no definite knowledge of when your shift ends.
Physical Assault because you weren't psychic enough to magically know what they expect 100% of the time.
Doing extra things that goes beyond your job description that the Boss expects WITHOUT PAY!
Never knowing if you're getting paid on time or AT ALL!
EasternMerchant 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Even non-religious people know this.
The homosexual agenda is not good for anyone, including those who consider themselves "gay".
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 2 months ago
Good vid; relevant ideas. A suggestion: either lower the volume of the backing track and/or raise the volume of Chomsky's voice, or just dump the backing track altogether. Seriously, it would improve the video and highlight what's important.
CrazyLinguiniLegs 3 months ago
hard to hear
aglorincz 3 months ago
those who employed have right or chance to leave from the employers. so the definition of current slavery is not the same as the old one.
ibkmoon 3 months ago
I'm not going to say the modern employee has the same hardships as an actual slave but for the sake of argument...Technically, the slave could have left the slave owner by trying to run away. This was obviously fraught with many consequences. The slave would have no home, no roof, would probably lose any family he may have, would have no place to go because obviously he could be caught and the consequences could be severe. Trying to just leave the system of wage slavery has similar consequences
jstang112358 2 months ago
Now all Noam needs to do is bust out some gangsta rhymes.
blabblab1212 3 months ago 2
Wow, chomsky is a great rapper. This is something to make love to.
athabascka 3 months ago
Why oh why oh why add musak to a Chomsky lecture?!?! I hope they play John Denver all through you funeral elegy so that nobody can hear what's being said.
38dragoon38 3 months ago
A thorough analysis of estranged, or alienated, labor was given by Marx See marxists org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm
littleleekeater 3 months ago
He skipped the part where the guy asks for work. Dont complain when you ask for the job, get the job, and then dont have as much of a say as you would like in how the owner operates his business. Slavery is to work for the benefit of others against your will with no benefit to yourself. This in no way fits that criteria. You work in an agreeement between you and your emplyer whom you asked for a job for an amount that you agreed to work for based upon your labor skill. Thats not slavery.
LexNaturalis1982 3 months ago
@LexNaturalis1982 You have to ask for a job if you're not in a position to start your own business. A person might not technically have to work for that particular employer, but he has to work for someone.
knglerxst 3 months ago
@knglerxst A man who owns his own business works for his customers. Do we call him a slave? No. He does it voluntairly. The trader principle is what the world runs on. True wage slavery is when a man is looked upon as equal to everyone else despite his hard work, education, or talent. Blame unions, socialists, or communists, and collectivists like Comsky for the advocasy of that.
LexNaturalis1982 3 months ago
@LexNaturalis1982 excpet capitalism justifies non labor income. worker owned does not mean its necessary to not see the fruits of ones labor. it means what i proportionally put in, i get out.
13stevejohnson 2 months ago
@LexNaturalis1982 why should i work on command? why cant i have a say in my labor?
13stevejohnson 2 months ago
@13stevejohnson
You: can I have a job please?
Employer: Whats your job skills?
You: I have none in your field.
Employer: Well I will start you off at minimum wage until your skills are more valuable to this company and you will receive more responsibility accordingly.
You: THATS WAGE SLAVERY!
Employer: Then create your own business and make your own rules and see if you can compete with me with that mentality.
LexNaturalis1982 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LexNaturalis1982 again, why do you want to own my labor?
13stevejohnson 2 months ago
@13stevejohnson I dont want to own your labor. I would never ask anyone to do something against their will. Dont want to work for me? You think your employer owes you more money than your worth? Fine. Find another job that will pay you more or create your own business. No force here. No ownership of anyone here. Just two people coming togather to work in agreement. Dont agree? Find work elsewhere.
LexNaturalis1982 2 months ago
@LexNaturalis1982 what about other people who are alienated from their labor? they cant quit because they have to survive.
13stevejohnson 2 months ago
@13stevejohnson Then work two jobs. What? U would force me to pay for their lack of a job skills, lack of an education, or perhaps the fact that their father couldent keep his dick in his pants and his mother couldent keep her legs shut? And now because of their lack of diciplen and lack of an ability to raise children it is somehow now incumbent upon me to pay for their future, education, and force their employer to hire morons? Would you have me provide all their wants? If so, why work at all?
LexNaturalis1982 2 months ago
@LexNaturalis1982 The man who owns his own business has more bargaining power over the price of the goods and services his customers buy. His employes have no bargaining power over their wages, hours, and security. It's this asymmetry in power that prevents any sort of 'freedom' from materializing.
mentalrectangle 2 months ago
@mentalrectangle The worker has more than you think. If he is skilled labor he can work anywhere he wants in accordance with that skill. If he holds a rare skill, or more experience, employers will pay more for him to work for them. There is no such thing as someone that doesent work for someone. You bargin with your worth to the company by making it disadvantagous to fire you. If you dont have that then you dont deserve the pay your offered. But let me guess? You want something for nothing?
LexNaturalis1982 2 months ago
@LexNaturalis1982 A worker can't force employers to hire him, even if he's the most qualified candidate for the job. The hiring process isn't an auction like ebay, where you just put yourself out there until the highest bidder comes along. There is a large amount of inelasticity when it comes to the labor market. You get a job through networking more than qualifications.
mentalrectangle 2 months ago
@mentalrectangle Networking is in itself a job skill just like all others. If you dont know this your an idiot and you dont deserve a job. Its part of the process. However, I dont see how the government forcing an employer to hire a moron is beneficial to anyone. Its kinda like when the farmers in the USSR protested collectivization and the theft of their lands. Lenin then kicked them all out and replaced them with government bureaucrats. Mass starvation ensued.
LexNaturalis1982 2 months ago
Comment removed
LexNaturalis1982 2 months ago
@mentalrectangle One other thing to add to the previous statement. Would you trust the guy who is networking to get elected to make expert decesions on who employers sould hire? Do you think people will choose someone who is better at networking or because of their vast qualifications? Look at the Whitehouse and get back to me on that one. Let the employer make the life and death descisions about his OWN business and if he fails he fails. Just like if you fail, you fail!
LexNaturalis1982 2 months ago
@LexNaturalis1982 Haha listen to you. Apparently it's bad when a politician makes life and death decisions for other people, but when an employer makes life and death decisions for a company without letting the thousands of people under him get any say, that's totally fine! Governments and corporations are the same entities ultimately. They are coercive entities that consolidate power in the hands of a few. Good luck with your one man "occupy this Noam Chomsky video" movement. That'll go far.
mentalrectangle 2 months ago
@mentalrectangle The reason why government & corporations are so entertwined is because some leftist one day (FDR) descided to ignore article 1 section 8 of the constitution & allow congress to legislate outside the enumerated powers in order to give out the government goodies you advocate for. What he didnt plann for is that if you can give out money one way you can do the same in the other. Since then its all been down hill. Because of people trying destroy poverty. Dont call this capitalism!
LexNaturalis1982 2 months ago
@LexNaturalis1982 In the absence of a strong central government, corporations become de-facto governments. Unlike a democracy where the populace has at least some small control over their government's actions, the people at the top of a corporate hierarchy are feudal lords: completely unaccountable. The period of the industrial revolution in the late 1800s is called the 'gilded age', not the 'golden age' for a reason. Horrible working conditions, crippling poverty, massive economic inequality.
mentalrectangle 2 months ago
@mentalrectangle The historical record in this respect is absolutly clear. When laws were made to prevent monopolies and corporate corruption the corporations just bribed polititions and used the new laws to create barriers of entery. In many cases they lobbied for regulation to prevent competition. HOWEVER, despite your hatred for their actions in the guilded age, the common man had never been as well off before that time. I'll put my BA in history against your socialist talking points any day
LexNaturalis1982 2 months ago
@LexNaturalis1982 Yes, corporations were and have always been in control of the public process in this country. That is not an argument for laissez-faire, as I said in laissez-faire the corporations become de-facto governments. A boundary between government regulations and private interests must be created and maintained if an economic system is going to be just and equitable. BA in history, my ass. I could find a biology major that believes in young earth creationism. Come back with a doctorate
mentalrectangle 2 months ago
@mentalrectangle Once again, if the federal government never ventured outside the bounds of the enumerated powers of Article 1 Section 8, (as James Madison deemed unconstitutionl, SEE THE LAST 4 PARAGRAPHS OF FEDERALIST 41) they would lack the power to give out corporate welfare for political donations and kickbacks. But then liberal polititions couldnt bribe the masses with social welfare for votes. Now no one can vote their concious. Dont complain about one when you advocate for another.
LexNaturalis1982 2 months ago
@mentalrectangle By the way. Freedom is not a good or service. You do not have a right to goods and services. You have a right to pursue them but you have no right to force someone else to provide it for you against their will. THAT would be slavery. In order for freedom to exist you must have both the freedom to succeed and to fail. To guarantee success would to limit freedom, not increase it.
LexNaturalis1982 2 months ago
Great clip. Why the music?
yossariancomplex 3 months ago
the music drowned him out but I could pick out his points
Miketar2424 4 months ago
@Miketar2424 learn to multitask
boxermaf 3 months ago
Oh yeah, I believe him when he says it's nice to do things you like to do. But then he only is able to do that because people have been coerced (taxes) to pay him the money to do it.
Society works different however: You ought to do what the demand of society is, what it offers you to do certain tasks and sometimes that means cleaning the toilet.
When you're on your own you have to do some work you wouldn't normally do in order to survive. You do what is necessary, not what you'd like to to.
rustyrusky 4 months ago
@rustyrusky GOOD POINT. Of course, it's the usual - the libtard always has the solution for the "lower masses" but of course, when they implement their plan, they are the UPPER MASSES, and as all of them have said "then we will be in control!" - a perfect example is our current foreign national of Britain and Indonesia usurper- who now owns GM, pays the 100K plus top 5% salaries and ganks back millions for his already flying around the world re-election campaign as "the masses" eat crumbs n die
Silicondoc 4 months ago
@Silicondoc Liberality is about the needlessly powerfull relinquishing control to the populace. In a trully liberal system the potlical and social machinery for the enforcment of state or private capital dominance would be dissasembled. The so called Parliament or Senate would not exist, there would be no one in charge. Were the need for a leader or institution to arise it would be dissmantled at the completion of its task, in much the same way as corporations used to.
yossariancomplex 3 months ago
I was waiting for the auto-tune to kick in...
1warpig 4 months ago 12
I was waiting for the auto-tune to kick in...
1warpig 4 months ago
Is it slavery if you voluntarily enter into a relationship where you must obey a command? Slavery means you are forced into that relationship. Selling your own labor voluntarily is not forced at all.
furyofbongos 4 months ago
@repatternthis You have no idea. Chomsky does NOT support statism -ie modern welfare state (most of which is corporate tax breaks). In our society, the rich receive the most aid through subsidies, and milking the military industrial complex (public funds). As far as the poor go, we have a MUCH lower social safety net than any other "developed democracy'.
Grwida 5 months ago
um....modern capatalism came out of the enlightenment.
mixmastermeeks 5 months ago
God I hate it so much when people put this kind of music behind these types of videos. It feels like your watching some kind of cultist brainwashing tape. Aren't his word effective enough on their own?
nomis101uk 5 months ago 3
I wonder if Chomsky hires wage slaves to clean his million dollar vacation home?
I wonder if he shares his Pentagon subsidized salary with the wage slaves in his department?
MillionthUsername 5 months ago
Uhhgg Chomsky...my life's objective is to take advantage of the slave/wage earner system. Stop trying to wake people up !!!
jooks223 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The monetary serfdom of humanity shackled in a politically manipulated market system of artificial scarcity is the template of our common alienation,exploitation and suffering. Capitalism is historically outdated and a tyrannical imposition for minority private gain. A democratic,conscious, majority movement for a world of cooperation for our common needs and well being expressing our creative energies in a MONEYLESS,CLASSSLESS,STATELESS COMMUNITIES OF HUMNAITY
arzoyan 5 months ago
MC Chompsky!
bkiknorite 5 months ago
I love Chomsky but he aint got no flow.
itsthearistocrat 5 months ago 3
Comment removed
Reneetognietti 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I can't hate you for this.
BobSlydell100 6 months ago
so i shouldn't get a part time job at mcdonalds!?!?
SUpersaiyajinjerkbag 6 months ago
stop that music background
EngineeringFun 6 months ago
The music kills this..not in a good way.
michael616joaquin 6 months ago 67
@michael616joaquin i think it's alright makes him look cool which s good street people are becoming enlightended. the key to enlightenment is sharing knowledge and becoming intuituve, the illuminated ones do this amongst themselves only. elitist satanist bums!
boxermaf 4 months ago
@michael616joaquin It is for the "hip hop generation".
S2Cents 3 months ago
RAP = rhythm and poetry... works well... i would class chomsky's words as poetry.. some wouldnt.... dot dot dot ...
TheCoffeeandafag 6 months ago
Why- WHY- put distracting music in the background? Who the hell would think of doing that?
gerasoras 7 months ago
ok enough where is the original, the music is overpowering. the way you do spoken word is in my opinion to set an entire speech to a backing track, but rather to make a track and edit in his voice at key points and only using key phrases. listen to some contemporary trance and see how they edit in people.
munkdo3 7 months ago
@babayabadabadu Troll.
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@babayabadabadu Keep changing the subject, that is the only thing you can do at this point.
qwertypoiu4321 7 months ago
@babayabadabadu Demand and scarcity give value, not labor; that is a unicorn fantasy. You better do something other than respond, since there is no response to give.
qwertypoiu4321 7 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321 Yeah your forgetting supply there bud and how do we get supply ?? By combining labour and capital! Nice attempt though. Furthermore, labour itself can, at times, be scarce and sold/rented at a premium price.
7117teddy 7 months ago
@7117teddy You are confusing value and production, like a complete imbecile. Supply is just scarcity, which is irrelevant without Human Demand, which is therefore the anti-LTV, subjectivist theory of value. You are also confusing homonym's, supply is scarcity, not as in supplying which is human action. Doofus.
qwertypoiu4321 7 months ago
@babayabadabadu Calling me names will not change the fact that 'Anarcho-Syndicalists' borrow the whole LTV economic system from Marx and only have some minor, aesthetic, political changes from Marx on top of those fallacious economic myths. Fallacious Marxist LTV economics is synounymous with 'Anarcho-Syndicalist' economics.
qwertypoiu4321 7 months ago
stop the shitty music. one cannot understand the talk.
EngineeringFun 7 months ago
People sell their labor for money, you moron. How are you going to ban people from making contracts with each other, you commie nutbag? You gonna hang all the employers during your "revolution"? Stupid twit.
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
@babayabadabadu He absolutely is economically, he is a proponent of fallacious LTV, marxist economic nonsense. This whole rambling of his was a fallacious LTV myth.
qwertypoiu4321 7 months ago
One by one they fall like flies
As operate in disguise
You have your TV
But you’re not free
We’re taking over
You’ll see
St3v3Patrio7 7 months ago
hei, put that horible bcgrnd track OFF.we r interrested in what Chomsky says, not in your decoration abilities.i understand u r passionate about him - so m i , but...don'twaste my time, please.
jeenthough 7 months ago
More marxist economic nonsense from Chomsky.
qwertypoiu4321 7 months ago
loud music....too distracting....couldn't watch all of it....thumbs down
Gary190tube 9 months ago
Wonder if he supports the global strike for a moneyfree world 2012?
nick9tap 9 months ago
As a writer and freelance journalist, I understand what Chomsky is saying here.
Most workers have no control over their labor whether they like or dislike their jobs or not.
Just ask a field worker in the west or southwest or a fast food employee or most workers.
The average worker can be seen as an easy of contempt and ridicule because they labor at the bottom or near bottom of the employment totem pole.
They are not so much wage slaves as machines and when a machine breaks down, you junkit
MultiSmartass1 9 months ago
I wonder how Mr Chomsky would react to having a backing track.
skinnybirds 11 months ago 56
@skinnybirds he would love it.
he would dedicate his life to finding better backingtracks to read to,
you would buy his speeches on itunes, they would be greatest hits.
chomsky feat david guetta -- "girl dig my anarchism"
munkdo3 7 months ago
@skinnybirds eminem lol
444damn 4 months ago
I was reading an online economics encyclopedia and when they addressed unions, they called them 'cartels' that control the price of humans. I was suddenly awakened to the fact that modern capitalism still exhibits the inhumane attitude it did when it was built on the backs of slave labor. We abolished slavery, yes, but people or impersonal corporations can still RENT humans.
BoricuaChiTown 11 months ago
All the haters with negative comments on this are intellectually supercillious. Chomsky should be heard by people who listen to hip hop music just as much as the crowd with privileged access to an elite education. Whose side are you on anyway?
ajames95 11 months ago
Caveat-lector: Chompsky's specious argument does not actually solve the problem of wage slavery. In order for humans to survive, they must consume resources (namely food, water, shelter, air). If they are unable to produce enough resources on their own or trade for them, then they starve to death. So one may say that humans are compelled to work for an employer. But simply shifting the distribution of property ownership does not change this fact. Are you not compelled to join the worker's union?
ericfontainejazz 1 year ago
@ericfontainejazz
No you are not. It depends on the anarchist system one imagines. Mutualism (market socialism) has worker cooperatives hiring or buying labour and mutual credit syndicates. No worker sells his labour to capital, the workers instead buy capital. No wage labour in Mutualism.
In AnarchoCommunism there is no wage SYSTEM, money is abolished. This does not mean a return to barter, instead a gift economy or horizontal network of consumers and producers, i.e. decentralized planning.
GlobalAlternateMedia 1 year ago
@GlobalAlternateMedia, With all due respect, to the best of my knowledge, Chomsky is NOT necessarily a muralist, but rather an anarcho-syndicalist, as he seeks to have a federated system of workers organizations be the owners of the means of production and thus the bosses. I didn't see any mention of mutualism on Chomsky's WikiLeaks page, so I don't know his exact view. In "Notes on Anarchism" he suggests "that some form of council communism is the natural form of revolutionary socialism..."
ericfontainejazz 1 year ago
@ericfontainejazz
I am not saying Chomsky is a mutualist, I was just offering you alternatives
A few notes: anarcho-syndicalism is not an ideology but a tactice to achieve anarchist collectivism or anarchist communism. The community owns the means of production, however bosses do not exist, instead there is workers self-management, which simply means: the community owns the means of production but the workers CONTROL the means of production, i.e. no bosses. A federated system doesn't have bosses
GlobalAlternateMedia 1 year ago
@GlobalAlternateMedia, but I am forced to accept the workers association stipulations on how I am allowed to use their property when I want to work, thus they are my boss. And how is membership in this community determined? Am I permitted to own the means of production for my trade myself or am I subject to work only according to the workers association's dictats? But only if I am not subject to work for a group and can own the means of production privately, then I have no boss.
ericfontainejazz 1 year ago
@ericfontainejazz
The community is not your boss because they do not decide how much time you have to work, how to work, when to work, etc. you, the workers, decide this for yourselves. The only reason we have common ownership is because we do not want a market. At best, the consumers of a community and the producers of an enterprise contrive together the daily, weekly or monthly production plan.
The means of production are not monopolized, if you wish to own some you are allowed to. Read (A)FAQ
GlobalAlternateMedia 1 year ago
@GlobalAlternateMedia, How exactly do "the consumers of a community and the producers of an enterprise contrive together the daily, weekly or monthly production plan." Is this some type of consensus type? What if my friends and I do not agree with the community's production plan? What if we prefer to exchange units of commodities to trade/barter instead of following the community's production plan? What good is it to own my own means of production privately if I must follow the community's plan?
ericfontainejazz 1 year ago
@ericfontainejazz You have to remember that the community has some control now, through government. ie safety standards, hiring standards, and pay standards. I image that would continue, though perhaps through different institutions. The community should leave you along outside issues like pollution which effects the whole. Communities could influence production through investment and maybe other non cohesive means, like facilitation of trade among different groups etc...
mrvilemaxim 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr. Chomsky recently told Iranian TV that at the time the US invaded Afghanistan, they had no evidence that al Qaeda did 9/11. See my video "Chomsky on Faith-Based Wars and 9/11"
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
"That's why you have democratic structure, it let's people control things together."
Under this system, does not the majority then control the minority? Seem contradictory to anarchism and also contradictory to the whole idea of removing slavery from life. The will of the majority is forced onto the minority.
datalorez 1 year ago
@datalorez
Of course not. Like with democratic education, it is a misnomer. Democratic education does not mean that when the majority decides they want history, the minority is compelled to take history as well. Instead, every individual child follows the lessons he wants to. "Democratic" education is actually sociocracy. The democratic workplace too is a sociocracy, the individual worker decides for himself but common problems will be decided on with all workers, at first attempting consensus.
GlobalAlternateMedia 1 year ago
didn't give a shit about listening/couldn't listen because of the damn song. thanks
musicadeloslocos 1 year ago
Could you take the music out please, I do not want to hear Eminem right now.
RawwestHide 1 year ago
music ruins it
matchbox555 1 year ago
Slavery never ended - the ruling class of slave masters /our rulers simply upgraded their methods of extracting human labour - now with
the "job" and monetary system slaves actively seek their own labour - once you surrender your will and just work for money as 99% of us have to do who ever controls the money supply controls you.
To be free and at liberty the whole system must fall but people now do not want to be free
godkingofthepunks 1 year ago
@godkingofthepunks you are right; it is because peope have not been educated to think, to how to make association with peers, to cherish liberty, and to believe in our skills. So until the education continue to educate us to make believe we need boss or masters, we will be afraid of thinking freely, and envy to dream to liberty
Archangel2069 1 year ago
@godkingofthepunks you are right; it is because people have not been educated to think, to how to make association with peers, to cherish liberty, and to believe in our skills. So until the education continue to educate us to make believe we need boss or masters, we will be afraid of thinking freely, and envy to dream to liberty
Archangel2069 1 year ago
The background music makes this unwatchable, its overbearing and stupid.
medliberty 1 year ago
Even more dishonest than most Chomsky. The backlash dating from the Enlightenmnet was against compulsory - not wage - labor and he distorts de Tocqueville completely, neglectibg that such an occurring aristocrayc was the "least dangerous" in history and neglecting of course, that de Tocqueville, while a great thinker, was not perfect and got the effects upon the worker (and their evolution in society) utterly and completely wrong.
Chomsky (outside of linguistics) is not to be taken seriously
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom al you've done is try to discredit people chomsky mentioned (not referenced). You neglected to note that he was saying 'the core idea' that went back to the enlightenment, not 'the entire idea'.
extremepietbh 1 year ago
I didn't discredit people Chomsky referenced at all. Unlike Chomsky, de Tocqueville and the the thinkers of the Enlightenment actually have credibility. What I have done is correct the absolutely false statements that Chomsky has made about the treatment of wage labor by Enlightenment thinkers and the gross and deliberate distortion of de Tocqueville's writings. That ANY rejection of wage labor and/or private property goes back to the Enlightenment is pure bunkum.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
How do you shut off the music?
susejrodavlas 1 year ago
This is new age state capitalism, A socialist big government pool of corruption. A wolf in sheep's clothing. A near opposite of free market capitalism. It's all just an attempt to destroy the(not to be cheesy) american dream. Government has never accomplished anything. The people are the ones who made this country and big government has destroyed it. It has happened many many times in history.
therealist1057 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A moneyless,classless,stateless communities of humanity expressing our freedom in creative harmonious cooperation for a world that is so POTENTIALLY AND ACTUALLY nourishing. Capitalism in any form, Statist or Corporatist is the denial of our common humanity in a politically manipulated,tyrannical armed MARKET SYSYTEM of artificial scarcity that is designed to perpetuate the enslavement of immense humanity for material interest of the criminal ruling elite
arzoyan 1 year ago
Chomsky is lecturing and not singing, is he? why this annoying music then?
ashutoshmikku 1 year ago
Why the music?
fielsjd 1 year ago
@fielsjd shut up and focus on content,you nit wit..its called tuning out the noise.ill admit,that its a distraction,but i know you're able.now eat your cereal and go to bed.dad loves you.
dempsey981 1 year ago
He is bang on - slavery never ended ! the ruling class of slave masters have just
upgraded their methods of extracting human labour - now with the the "job" and monetary system slaves no longer require enourmous resources to keep them giving work and now even seek their own labour ! This is why the illusion of freedom had to be given
I just had this video deleted and a warning strike for "inapropriate content"
godkingofthepunks 1 year ago
Anarcho-Capitalism isnt really Anarchism at all.
Wage slavery is accepted by virtually all classical Anarchsits besides the so called market anarchists, but they are more like privatized monarchists. Each wealthy land owner is a private king. They are not against hierarchy, they are against government monopoly of the state.
Djinn227 1 year ago
Part of the MTV generation are we?
Incapable of conceiving of anything without a mediocre musical soundtrack?
Apparently the answer is "yes" to both questions.
bapyou 1 year ago
what's with the dumb fucking music tard?
jimbob1969 1 year ago
The evolution of recent human history has been dominated by minority control over the majority, the rulers have come up with nessesary illusion for compliance and servitude of the many, Science and technology has created a world of plenty, but the market mechanism is about artificial scarcity to perpetuate poverty and exploitation in a modality of war,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty and so on . The new paradigm is sharing the Earth for our collective needs and wellbeing.
arzoyan 1 year ago
Full text and cartoons and more regarding wage slavery (including full text of this Chomsky exerpt) are at
economicdemocracy DOTT org/workplace-democracy.html
at third from the top link "a superb elaboration by Chomsky"
econdemocracy 1 year ago
what retard put modern hip hop in noam chomsky's background
benizbitchin 1 year ago
Chomsky is fanatstic, as ever, the music is SO annoying.
hugoegbert79 1 year ago
free ; the state of existence exempt from authority, rule or control
money = slavery
you should only do something because you want to do it ! Do not allow yourself to be bought and sold !
Humans are not for sale !
Sold as a slave ! Renting your will is still selling it !
Stateism has made it so you cannot live with money - without being a slave
godkingofthepunks 1 year ago
What an elitist prick. His ideas are disjointed and amount to nothing. A criticism of what, people who don't love their jobs like he does? That amounts to slavery? Gas bag.
razerfish 1 year ago
Source?
airente 1 year ago
The Aristocracy of Pull
Fittykent 1 year ago
Is this clip on youtube WITHOUT the music?
qspacetemp 1 year ago
@sharperguy, whether controlling one's own work life is a "right" or simply a desire doesn't negate the argument that selling one's own bodily energies, movements, output, and time to another person-- for the fulfillment of another person's ends-- is a last resort for those who have nothing else to sell. Because remember, capitalism is all about selling (or speculating on future sales...). if you own nothing to commodify, then you are forced to commodify your self. how is this freedom again?
Edansmommy 1 year ago
@Edansmommy Either you do something for someone, so that they do something for you, or you do everything for yourself.
sharperguy 1 year ago
Comsky and shitty hip hop music don't mix.
vRennas 1 year ago 51
@vRennas Poor spelling and hating don't mix.
BCsJonathanTM 11 months ago
@vRennas Oh... I don't know...the beat is actually pretty good. I like it...it adds a little drama at the right places.
ActorGuy 11 months ago
Music is distracting
canaan1967 1 year ago
the music has to go. Noam Chomsky does not need background music.
annuitcoeptis2008 1 year ago
This is pretty eloquent stuff.
mrtyles 1 year ago
Chomsky doesn't really address the issue of low IQ individuals. Low IQ individuals aren't capable of the type of work he's explaining. He seems to think that they're low IQ because of lack of education, which is completely false. IQ is mostly determined by genetics.
Roguemember 1 year ago
@Roguemember Stop reading the bell curve haha
wolfetho 1 year ago
I read it in a NY Times article. The Bell Curve was focused more on race rather than genes. I'll email you the link to the article.
Roguemember 1 year ago
True true. but basically the point is that of course not everyone can possibly exceed at everything(or even most things), but a society should (imo) maximize the potential for people to choose the work they want without threats (starvation, lowered living standards, etc). We don't want a technocracy. It is definitely true though that i.q. has a strong genetic factor.
wolfetho 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
slaverty is not as bad as it seems...
this might sound crazy tomany of you north americans...
slaverty can be good or bad, just like anything else in the world but good slaverty is better than renting people for wages, its better for slave owners and slaves but not the government.
f11R2 2 years ago
In part I agree with you. First I think you're wrong that slavery isn't 'as bad as it seems'. Slavery's one of the most egregious crimes against humanity, it's always bad. However, when you say that 'good slavery is better than renting people for wages', there's some truth in that. In either case the person is alienated from their labour but in 'good slavery' (assuming that means something like your owner is a nice person, doesn't beat you etc.) at least you're guaranteed a decent material life.
SheikahZeo 2 years ago
I like the speech. The song is fucking annoying.
mistermoen 2 years ago 53
Can anyone tell me who from the Enlightenment is Chomsky paraphrasing...
Nades129 2 years ago
@Nades129
Check out his lecture called 'On Government in the Future'... he elaborates a bit there
PavedStones 2 years ago
If you're referring to right at the start of the video it's Wilhelm von Humboldt and the actual quote is:
"If a man acts in a mechanical way, reacting to external demands or instruction rather than in ways determined by his own interests and energies and power, we may admire what he does, but we despise what he is."
Profound shit fo' sho'.
SheikahZeo 2 years ago 3
Anarchism "has a broad-back" Perhaps, sharperguy is an anarcho-capitialist or more individualist anarchist. Chomsky represents one strand in Anarchism, more specifically, anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-socialist.
The state permitted form of Corporate-Capitalism, which leads to wage-slavery, needs to be brought down along with the state. Just my humble opinion.
JohnnyOrlandoMusic 2 years ago
you can't have capitalism without a state.
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
Why not?
amartin7889 1 year ago
because the very existence of the state, throughout history, has been to protect property. and if you don't have a system to protect property, you cannot conceivably have capitalism!
government's purpose is to subsidize big business. every major innovation in the marketplace has had some kind of guidance from the government.
my point is that, given this reality, the government should set high standards that corporations must meet in order to earn the subsidies!
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
Why not just ban subsidies?
amartin7889 1 year ago
haha! because than we wouldn't have an economy.
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
Stupid assertion. There are plenty of
companies that flourish without subsidies.
amartin7889 1 year ago
Well even if there are, the most important companies get some level of funding. Transportation companies, energy companies, airplane companies, food companies...You know shit like that.
I disagree with some kinds of subsidies, but it would be unrealistic to think that we should get rid of all of them.
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
You sound like a PR man for big business.
amartin7889 1 year ago
no i don't like big business. i probably dislike it as much as you do. but i am a realist and i don't think we can sustain our wealth without subsidies.
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
I think you mean "big business" wouldn't
sustain their wealth w/o subsidies. I don't
mind big business, but when they start
imposing mandatory taxation (State) to fund their
R&D is when they need to be stopped.
They have the money to do that.
amartin7889 1 year ago
what do you think big business does? they provide services and produce things. i'm saying that we should give them subsidies to continue this activity as long as they conform to certain rules (i.e. no corruption, environmental regulation, no high-scale gambling with the money, etc.)
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
That's fine, but they are plenty of companies that are
expected to get along fine without these
subsidies. I'll give them money if I want to
buy their product, no other circumstance.
Besides, you don't think businesses will resort
to corruption to get those subsidies? Congress
will be squeaky clean when it's time to
appropriate these funds?
amartin7889 1 year ago
that's a different issue. the issue of corruption within government is a problem that i think we need to get a handle on. i would propose having term limits of congresspeople.
pdaniels9000 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000
Any people with the power of the purse are probably going to be corrupt. I don't think term limits will solve that.
amartin7889 1 year ago
@pdaniels9000 Here's a quick reason why subsidies are bad.
Imagine a business makes cutlery for £10 a set, but then finds it can only sell a set for £8. The government then subsidises the production of the cutlery by £5 on each set made. Since this subsidy is being payed for through taxes it essentially means that if all tax-payers bought a set of cutlery they'd think they were paying £8 and getting a good deal while really paying £13.
sharperguy 1 year ago
Any philosophy where the core idea is based on the granting of an arbitrary "right" to be defended at all costs is narrow-minded at best.
sharperguy 2 years ago
yea freedom is overrated. i want to be controlled 60 hours per week, it feels so good to be forced to do things you dont want to do. why would anyone want this random weird freedom thing, its a cult.
whereismytie 2 years ago 25
Actually I'm an anarchist.
I just think this whole "wage slavery" thing is a load of nonsense.
Better a world where people are able to make the best decisions for themselves, since no-one else could possibly know what they want.
sharperguy 2 years ago
taking that line would eliminate the chance for popular movement. it would mean that a group of people has no right to change something about the world if at least one person disagrees.
whereismytie 2 years ago 5
I'm not entirely sure where you draw that conclusion from...
If people think things should be done differently, they just have to start doing things differently and if it works for you others will probably follow.
sharperguy 2 years ago
If you're anarchist you have absolutely no clue behind the philosophy.
/watch?v=MqIMrh_DV-g
Arkinight 2 years ago