Noam Chomsky 1988 Interview with Bill Moyers, Part 5/5

[centurion180ad]

Stripping women of their Natural Rights was an act that demonic Western priests invented prior to the onset of the Dark Ages. Women as viewed by insane pervert mass murderers of that day, had to be expunged from religious & economic life their rightful and primary concerns, to be reduced down to chattels first of their fathers and then of their husbands.

No more Briseis or Cassandra in the temples & marketplaces, and they have never recovered.

[centurion180ad]

It is an //incredibly// narrow spectrum of personal gain that is being supported by this sick-O economic system, a type of gain that is itself a delusional fiction, and that is gains rated in hollow irredeemable debt-fraud currency.

[N0g0dzN0masterz]

Oh no not the corporations! NAhhh! who would of thunk it.

[dunkafelic]

he wants us to be BLEEDING-HEART LIBERALS? hahaha

*suppress*

see how easy that was?

it works for millions of us.

[RusselBertrand]

"Its hard to look at the 20th century and be an optimist"

Greed will destroy the commons!!! This planet is going to be a fucking wasteland before we are done with it!

[apostolostv]

Popular movements are the source of cultural advancement. Change ALWAYS comes from below. Yes, an elected official can OFFICIALLY cast his vote to pursue the public will, though that is supposed to be his responsibility in theory. In practice, it is totally the other way around. Elected officials and their elite supporters/cohorts preach the elementary truisms that we are supposed to accept. True democracy is people organizing to control the agenda and decide on the outcomes.

[dugbalaserstream]

Check out Youtube:

"Chomsky refutes "libertarian" "anarcho"- capitalism"

Did Chomsky really say that

Adam Smith, founder of economics, said the effects of the division of labor on:

..."[The employee] naturally loses, ...and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become."

Yep. And Smith did say that.

For more, google "Division of Labor, Assembly Line Thought - The Paradox of Democratic Capitalism"

[Alexopolux]

Chomsky bases his entire views on democracy, freedom, etc on a benevolent human nature assumption- as the so called "utopian socialists" did and before they Humboldt, Rousseau, etc.

He says it at 4:34-39: "I'd like to believe that people are born to be free, but if you ask for proof, I couldn't give it to you"

My question is: does anybody of you, know of some research project conducted outside western countries where the freedom/solidarity assumption has been verified? Thanks.

[dirkcjelli]

Actually, he bases his views more on intellectual honesty and self-consistency. His book "On Anarchism" would give you a clearer view than this interview. This is mostly his conclusions.

For a first-hand account of how people behave in such a situation, Orwell's Homage to Catalonia (especially the first chapter; the whole book is available online free, legally.) It isn't a work of fiction, it is his first-hand account of the Spanish Civil War. First chapter is short.

[Cosbibi]

Everything that's said about topics like freedom and human nature is pretty much speculation. For some interesting speculation on the topic try "Language and Freedom", you can find it on chomsky his website.

[Cosbibi]

Moral Minds by Mark Hauser is a good book about the topic

[TodMcInerney]

Glad I watched this ... brilliant!

[Bucksin07]

2:20****If the republican base could stop listening to Rush for a second, and listen to this intelligent brilliant man, maybe US can start addressing real problems that face this country.

Obama in 08

[hwbanger]

Years of Rush and Fox News have brainwashed the Right into seeing name-calling and browbeating as the only form of rational argument. This would be over their head.

[harpoonflyby]

Listen to what he says in part 2 and 3? There is no right or left, the fact we believe that there is, is a symptom of years of our consenting and consuming a manufactured illusion of a two party political system. Fox News is merely the logical extension of the problem at hand - it is an acknowledgement they no longer need to worry about the population figuring out what's happening. Because we willingly consume lies.

[yrrmom]

Well, the Democrats are no more prepared to "start addressing real problems that face this country" than Republicans are. Remember, "this intelligent brilliant man" pointed out that the Democrats are a "faction of the Business Party" just as the Republicans are. We must look beyond these 2 factions of the Business Part if we really want to "start addressing real problems that face this country". Obama in 08 isn't going to changes things all that much; he serves the Business Party too.

[Bucksin07]

2:00-2:30

2:50

Democrats and Obama are MORE apt to solve the real problems, Global Warming, Alternative fuels, Iraq War, Unemployment, Health Care, Economy than Republicans. Norm Chomsky in this 1988 interview foresaw this ECONOMIC MESS before BUSH. An administration based on greed/deregulation/ subsidies for Big Business, has lead to 10 trillion dollar debt, Homeloan scandals, high gas prices and WAR. This brilliant man is stating Obama's policies almost verbatim. Whose more tied to lobbyists?

[Bucksin07]

We should not be lap dogs to big business, THATS NOT DEMOCRACY thats the republican plattform.

[SweetDissident]

Hindsight is 20/20, eh?

[blockthis08]

Chomsky's views of the Bush administration before it occurred?

[SweetDissident]

Nah, that too, maybe~ good point. But I was directing that @ Bucksin07, who doesn't seem to understand what little difference there is between dems & repubs. We still are fighting illegal, undeclared wars, we still do not have a single-payer healthcare system, and we still arm Israel, and reject 242. No real change to policy has ocurred, nor is it likely to, unless citizens organize their protest of it.

[blockthis08]

Change will occur in a year? I think progressives are spoiled. Change is never drastic its usually slow. If you want to take the road of lumping everyone together...let's see how much change will occur if Palin or another Republican gets into office. You sound like Nader saying it makes no difference if GORE or BUSH was in office for 8 years. If you want to be a defeatest and claim there is no difference....you are well on your way of not effecting that change you desire.

[SweetDissident]

No, you are well on your way of not effecting the change you desire if you think change comes with elected leaders; it does not. People together change things. As Chomsky describes in this video. And I also agree with Chomsky that Dems and Repubs are less like two separate parties, and more like 2 factions of the same business party.

[blockthis08]

"People together change things."

Electing leaders proper leaders is part of that change. 0:18 Chomsky doesn't ascribe to the opinion of disassociating from democracy. I would love to see your SPECIFIC model or example of effecting the change that you see.

[SweetDissident]

@blockthis08: You say, "Chomsky doesn't ascribe to the opinion of disassociating from democracy." Never said he did. I don't get how you got the idea that I am advocating "disassociating from democracy," on the contrary; I think it'd be nice if we had one. What we have more closely resembles a "polyarchy"~ Chomsky's own words. Change doesn't come from electing so-and-so, so much as it does from social movements and protest.

[blockthis08]

The Ideology of the Polyarchy By Norm Chomsky. I think its important to state the context in which he made those comments. He wrote that in 2003 and many examples he gave were of the Bush Administration. Positions on climate change, Pre-emptive militarization ect. He stated at the time US resembled more of a polyarchy and not democracy. I agree with him on that. However this bolsters my argument even more. Change is intimately connected with social movements AND PEOPLE WHO WE elect.

[SweetDissident]

I think you may want to look at more recent interviews with Chomsky; he hasn't changed his mind.

[blockthis08]

Source? article?

[SweetDissident]

Source or article for what? I have no idea what you are talking about here. Anyone with a minimal grasp of history knows that legislative changes effecting social justice have been fought for. Preceded by movements of the people. Struggled for. If you don't know this, I really don't know what to say.

[blockthis08]

Source where CHomsky equated Obama administration to a polarchy. You should really try to follow your own comments.

[SweetDissident]

just look at this video on You Tube:

Noam Chomsky: Obama recycles George W. Bushs plans

[blockthis08]

Look at what in particular? He states Obama is not moving fast enough 5- 6 months into his administration. 4:14 he articulates doing the very thing Democrats want to be done on healthcare reform. Republicans are adamantly opposed. Chomosky is right about the democracy is not being healthy....but you are either part of the solution or the problem. Have the movement but effect change by influencing the parties.

[SweetDissident]

@blockthis08: You really need me to point out specific examples of change that has occurred due to "people power?" Uh, okay. . . the Civil Rights movement, the women's movement, the anti-nuclear movement, Gravel's National Initiative for Democracy, Nader's accomplishments of getting consumer safety legislation passed in the 1960's and 1970's, how strange that these things are foreign to you. Also, many third party candidates never make it to the ballot in many states, mine included. Sad.

[blockthis08]

Civil rights legislation enacted and signed into law by LBJ (D). Women's right to vote 19th amendment signed into law by Wilson (D). Nuclear anti-proliferation passed and sponsored by Obama (D). All pushed with a ground swell of support of people influencing there elective representatives even Naders safety legislation. This idea that you live in vacuum where movements are not linked with representatives just doesn't exist. You still haven't given me an example of one.

[SweetDissident]

None of which would have ever ocurred if it had not been for the people who fought for these things. You seems to miss that point.

[blockthis08]

I got the point. You just didn't answer the question. Both are integral to the solution.

[SweetDissident]

Right; they are. But it's the people who make it happen, it's soo easy to be lazy or apathetic, and change comes with struggle. It's hard to get organized with others sometimes, but at least we can write or call our congressmen; may not do much good, but if a lot of us do it, it would. =)

[blockthis08]

Whose discounting the people? Your simply discounting viable candidates who can enact the change you want. You want to work on the outside with a lofty goals of a third party candidate ushering in your change. IT hasn't happened. Better to be pragmatic than to allow another Bush sneak into the whitehouse while your waiting for Nader or Gravel to be president.

[SweetDissident]

That's because I never said that. You keep putting words in my mouth that I never said. I never said we exist in a vacuum, never said elected leaders do nothing. They are supposed to be our representatives; our voices.  You are satisfied with the way that works; good for you. I'd like to actually have a democracy one day.

[blockthis08]

I asked you specifically to give an example of change taking place without an elected official from one of the two major parities. You gave none. No model of pushing your theory where the movements alone enacts change. No model of third party candidate being picked from that movement. So people actually participating in the process within the current system enacted the change that you brag about ...not blindly equating the two parties. Grass roots movement can enact change in democratic party.

[SweetDissident]

I gave you several; and these movements have led to the legislation you mentioned. Without the popular struggle for change, things wouldn't change. It's not theory; the civil rights movement happened. The legislation came after much struggle. I am not "blindly equating the two parties;" contrarily, you seem unwilling to admit their similarities. I wasn't "bragging" about anything; I wasn't born when the civil rights movement took place. Nader was a third party candidate, Gravel too.

[blockthis08]

You can't have one without the other. The movement led to the election of officials who COULD ENACT the change. It wasn't in a blind vaccum. i.e. abolitionists were a major reason why Lincoln got elected because there beliefs were part of the party plattform. Civil right movement help get democrats elected who supported that movement ect ect. Yes you are blindly equating the parties and the end result is a dream of what? Nader and Gravel....brief footnotes in history that got a couple of votes?

[SweetDissident]

blockthis08; I am not sure why you continue to put words in my mouth. And I'm also not sure why you continue to miss the point; people change things; not parties. I'm also not sure what it is you have against third parties if you believe in a democracy. But I am sure I am through beating a dead horse. I highly recommend you continue to peruse Chomsky, and am sure you will find much there to learn from.

[blockthis08]

People change things. Not very specific. Doesn't really address what the people will do to enact the change on a national level. Effecting congress, presidency, ect. Then you end by giving examples of third party candidates who have done nothing. I wanted a road map. You gave me your dream.

[SweetDissident]

Bucksin07, presidential candidates of either party are bought. That's how American politics works. The candidate with the most backing from big business, the one with the most $ and best (ad) campaign will win. Our beloved "democracy."

[blockthis08]

I don't deal in absolutes. Its useless to do so. How will you get the will to effect change if you already state you've lost the battle. I think its damaging to put them all in one category. There will never be a perfect candidate. However we can work within the party to get our views heard.

[yrrmom]

Democrats maybe a TINY bit more apt to solve these problems, but they have yet to do so even now when they control Congress. Who is more tied to lobbyists? They ALL are; it's otherwise impossible to win an election in the US. Chomsky may be stating "almost verbatim" the policies that Obama PROFESSES to advocate. But remember: it's an election season: they will say - as always - what they think needs saying to win. Doesn't mean they accept them or will do anything substantive to effect them.

[Bucksin07]

Democrats controlled the congress for what...a year? Anything they pushed is either vetoed by Bush or obstructed with filibusters by the republicans.

Just speaking bluntly. People like you who quickly want to equate the two parties while blindly ignoring the rampant corruption last 8 years i.e. Stevens, Nay, Delay, Cunningham, Iraq War and waste make me sick. Its true lobbyists have influence in both camps, but are you able to discern the degree to which they effect their decision making?

[Bucksin07]

Obama or Mccain hmmm...thats NOT A TUFFY.

[nzkobc]

Why are the democrats just another segment of the business party, and not a labor part? Possibly because our unions and too few, too weak, and too disorganized to make any real demands of their elected candidates. Hopefully, the employee free choice act will pass, unions will grow, and stronger demands can be made of the democratic party.

[blockthis08]

Why are the two parties equated to each other simply because business is a faction of the two. Republicans are dominated by big business to a larger extent the democrats. You need not look beyond the two party system, simply look at the players in the party and see which dictates policies. Obama is the lesser of the two evils.

[lucite11]

I'd actually like to seem him debate Andrew Sullivan, and I think you'll know why.

[guitarboy22j]

"The destruction of a fragile environment, that should have been obvious decades ago".

-Noam Chomsky, 1988

[donttrustany1]

one of the best chomsky interviews.

thanks for posting.

[kabbinet]

Great intervju, Thanks for posting it! It would have been nice to hear a evaluation from Bill afterworths, he really seemed interesed.

[guyac2006]

awesome

[lapinoja]

Fabulous interview.

[54683NS]

Outstanding program!

It's so great that we can now see so much of Chomsky on You Tube and the Internet in general.

[samiegray]

This interview kicks fucking ass.

[roarkpickles]

Does anyone know of any Chomsky lectures or articles where he speaks specifically on nuclear threats to survival? I mean dedicating the whole article or speech to the topic, and not on foreign policy.

[vicnameless]

Chomsky deserves The medal of freedom for this interview alone.....imaagine Chomsky debating Bush.

[paadelante]

Around 3:10, listen closely to that.  Many thanks Chomskyan for this.

[blookup]

I'm new to Noam, but I'm going to grow old with him.

[organizedn015e]

excellent interview. thanks

[Chomskyan]

Thanks Xenu. Some stuff I taped myself in the last couple of years. Some I've collected from different sources, and others are on the web. I am kind of a Chomsky fanatic I guess.

later

[Xenu]

Where do you find this stuff? This is a very good interview. It's a compact presentation. Thanx.