MICHAEL PARENTI, NOAM CHOMSKY, HOWARD ZINN, NAOMI KLEIN, CHRISTIAN PARENTI, GORE VIDAL, ARUNDHATI ROY, ROBERT FISK, VANDANA SHIVA, JASON BURKE, MARC BARRY, GREG PALAST, DAVID RAY GRIFFIN, ALEXANDER COCHBURN, GARY WEBB, BERTRAND RUSSELL, JOHN DEWEY, RALPH NADER, DENNIS KUCINICH, MICHAEL MOORE, GEORGE CARLIN, CORNEL WEST, JOHN PERKINS, ANTONY SUTTON, TARIQ ALI, EDWIN BLACK, SAMUEL EPSTEIN, AMY GOODMAN, JOHN STOCKWELL, MICHAEL RUPPERT, EDWARD SAID, WARD CHURCHILL, DANIEL ELLSBERG etc(NOT ron paul)
@Knaeben Exactly my point..there is no functioning democracy and Chomsky lives in the clouds if he thinks his utopia will come about based on a dream of it coming back. And for the record...we were supposed to be a REPUBLIC run by checks and balances...not a democracy which is majority rule. The Taliban can have a democracy....
Chomsky wants to increase the size of government., giving more power to a corrupt Fedzilla. When asked why anyone would want to put their lives in the hands of tyrannical Federal officials he states at about 26.50 that it would work ...."If we had a real democratic government.."Talk about removed from reality , like he accuses others of...projection anyone? What alternate version of reality does he live in? Come down to Earth and fight with the rest of us in the here and now. Seriously...
@LibertyisTheAnswer Have you been living the last thirty years, on the moon? Many people pay lip service to the idea of America being a functioning democracy, but I think I finally found someone who actually buys that propaganda. The people in America are supposed to BE the government... but it doesn't work that way: the corporate lobby controls who does and doesn't get funded at election time... A plea for people to get their heads out of the propaganda machine and THINK for themselves!
I think this is one of my favorite Chomsky videos. It's brilliantly accurate and profound, from the framework of mainstream political discourse. @wil318466 I am also curious what you find incoherent about the interview.
@vdotme Well, the mainstream media is too busy reporting on Fiona Apple's new makeup and the kid who won the Illinois State Spelling Bee. The mainstream US media doesn't report the damn news, so you have to look further afield to get more indication of what's going on out there.
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".
Any town that is within cancer cluster ranges should all unite in solidarity on tax day and have NO ONE in the town pay their taxes untit emissions are lowered. The problem is everyone might have to at least know some loved one who developed cancer or some other disease in order to garner enough support for the cause. But I heard of some cancer clusters with stunningly high rates of cancer.
Dr. Chomsky recently declared that the US invaded Afghanistan when it had no evidence that al Qaeda did 9/11. See my video "Chomsky on Faith-based Wars and 9/11"
@nonpartpundit I'm not sure how you figure that the stagnation, middle class squeeze is somehow a manifestation that the free market, and libertarian non-socialist country is less viable.
Fully all of this is the result of socialist policies. Redistributive policies to the poor, has drained the middle class to the point that it is about to vanish. The US, in the bad old capitalist days, was a MIDDLE CLASS SOCIETY. Socialism ALWAYS creates wealth gaps- look at soviet russia
@brooksbrook1 so are you defining socialism in the modern propaganda sense? because if you think the soviets were actually socialist in the original sense of the term no one can believe anything you say because that's the equivalent of saying the earth is flat. And if you have any confusion about what I'm saying that will prove threat you're just talking out of your ass. Notice that I'm not really saying anything about your arguments just saying that you may be unaware of some elementary facts.
Respond to this video...classic rhetoric, that also happens to be a fact, wealth exploded in Sweden under capitalism, and transformed a poor nation with few resources and no colonies into the richest european country per capita in 1913. It also made it very free low intervention state. All of that is changing for the worse now in Sweden- gvt regimentation is high, and its system will eventually come to grief when the state will produce less then it consumes (as it already is).
@nonpartpundit thats a very nice try, but actually the liberal party in 2006 tabled surveillance legislation that would get internet service providers to essentially spy on their own customers among other things... and i'm sorry but to call the lIberal party of canada "right of center" is the height of absurdity, they are plain run of the mill socialists.
@nonpartpundit what is this "right wing press" youre referring to? I do not know of any publication that is pro free market, anti egalitarian, anti socialist of any relevance anywhere in the western world. That is because of the bias that actually permeates every aspect of modern western media, the right wing is sedulously suppressed- most media outlets are severely regimented, and we're all aware of countless politically correct orthodoxies that everyone must obey.
@nonpartpundit Socialist healthcare systems are vastly more expensive, because they need an army of "middle men" to ALLOCATE AND DISTRIBUTE SERVICES. A capitalist system can simply let the market dictate where resources are sent. But for example in britain, the Health care system there is the LARGEST EMPLOYER IN EUROPE- it is a huge machine of people with jobs that are UTTERLY USELESS to provide health care services- that drives the cost of business skyhigh, and the cost is forwarded to everyone
@nonpartpundit the cost of essential services is minimal... um duh! if you subtract the cost in taxation that these services levy! There is no such thing as free healthcare and cheap education ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD... everybody gets paid at the end, the difference is that in countries like sweden and canada the government fishes the money out of our pockets DIRECTLY WITHOUT OUR CONSENT. And btw the swedish and canadian healthcare system costs way more to maintain than the US model.
@BloodTypeRagu i'm talking about the total cost of a particular system as well as per capita. The canadian system costs vastly more per capita than the US system. The UK system even more so.
@lictor313 Weird, cause every study shows that the US health care system is twice as large per capita as all the north european countries, and the former doesn't even cover everyone...
The second highest health care per capita cost in the world is Norway, which is still just 3/4 of what the US society pays even though we have the highest cost of living in the world due to the oil wealth.
But go ahead, don't rely on actual numbers... Made up facts are much easier to fit to your argument.
@RakshasaCat that doesn't factor in the 42% higher administrative charges you don't have in the US. I know the litany as well as anyone else, i've seen the OECD reports that argue the Canadian system is cheaper, but most disregaurd the TOTAL cost of the system. They merely look at what the average person seeking healthcare pays.
The US system is far from perfect of course, it is still FAR too government subsidized and abused by persons with no health insurance who pay nothing...
Your kind fascinates me. Here we are discussing the convoluted distortions and power plays that elites use to divide and dominate civil societies everywhere, and there you are blaming the victims, performing for us the very division of efforts that elites count on.
@GodlessXVIII "the elites" (in this case globalist socialist finance, big state factions like the rockerfeller foundation, combined with the controlled MSM) deny and indeed prevent the general populace from speaking out on such subjects as immigration. The vast majority (92% on most polls) suggest a strong antipathy and call to action against the scourge of illegal immigration, yet one would never know that judging from the mass media and for instance the platforms of the dems or republicans.
@GodlessXVIII immigration was not even an issue in the farce of the 08 election: mccain and obama had indistinguishable policies on the subject.
the problem with most well meaning "fellowtravellers" nowadays is that they fail to realize that the elite are the crypto communist would be commissars of the NWO, not free market capitalists, or conservatives. And they do distort and divide... gay marriage, stem cell and the haircut of a president are now 1st rate policy issues. go on...
I don't doubt that immigration is almost never set up as an electoral issue in the US, except in the most symbolic way. Because the high influx of immigrants from poorer countries is essential to elite interests in the context of neoliberalism :
1) By replenishing the pool of labor desperately willing to work for almost nothing in terms of pay and benefits, thus driving a race to the bottom in those areas by employers.
2) By being an handy scapegoat for those policies and other.
@GodlessXVIII yes indeed! mass third world immigration does the very big service of lowering the quality of life, exploding debt (which benefits wallstreet and finance), lowering wages, and of course always results in a swelling of the government... because third worlders bring with them the blessings of a "multicultural society" i.e: rampant crime, chaotic mores, mutual incomprehension, tension and a wealth of other log rolling conflicts that demands government intervention.
@GodlessXVIII it does benefit the neoliberal internationalist because it provides labor WHILE increasing the basis for a big state
it also diminishes the percentage of european americans to have them replaced with bovine 3dworld immigrants who acquiesce far more easily to corruption and lower quality of life, neglect and are far less likely to be sufficiently intelligent as a group to navigate beneficially in the poltiical landscape... I mean lets look at the regions these creatures come from!
The uselessness of terms like liberal and conservative, to say nothing of capitalist and communist, in the context of an analysis of contemporary elite power relations is probably the reason why we're arguing in the first place. That being said, if you think our elites are socialists (redistribution for the benefit of the whole of society) rather than Washington Consensus state capitalists, I don't think we'll find much common ground. The "socialist" charge is ignorant/illiterate.
@GodlessXVIII I agree liberal and conservative are loaded and debased words, especially when we consider what the prostitutes in the media sometimes describe as "conservative" and "liberal".
Socialism/Communism has never been a serious ideology, it is a conspiracy, the politburo in russia was everybit as elitist and abusive (in fact infinitely more so) as any monarchy or dictatorship on earth. Socialism is a scheme to empower "people" via the "GOVERNMENT" (a crucial stipulation indeed)
@GodlessXVIII capitalism is anti regimentation, anti-intrusion and anti- big government...
and if we are honest, who have been the biggest destroyers of life, squanderers of wealth and perpetrators of genocide and democide? governments of course..
our elites are socialist because they seek power above all, and there is no greater power than a government in a socialist world. The dispenser of goods, the "god of the nation" becomes the state- which decides of the circumstances everyone lives in
I thought for a few comments that you had a worthwhile perspective, but for all your bluster about media manipulation of words and events, you fall back to the most romantic, propagandized view of capitalism possible.
Seriously heal thyself. If Communism is reducible to its historical occurrences, the same should be said of Capitalism : namely, that it is and always was a system of elite rule via revolving door institutional nomadism. Big Gov. is a feature, not a bug. Read up.
@GodlessXVIII heal thyself? are you seriously entertaining the notion that communism has fared about as good as capitalism as far as human misery, democide and genocide? really? Are you this deluded? my mere statement of fact that historically GOVERNMENTS are by far and away the largest creators of human misery, in justice and wide scale mass murder is irrefragable. - it logically follows that any ideology that relies on government as an elite to carry out its goals is simply doomed to fail
And, please, don't tell me you believe this bilge about government being the most powerful actor around. Did you notice all those politicians, State Dep. officials, Pentagon generals and even mere soldiers moving into the private sector, namely the boardrooms of Wall Street banks, oil companies, insurance groups, mining cartels, weapons manufacturers? Those industries aren't capitalistic? If you ask me, it seems like Big Government is being wagged pretty hard.
@GodlessXVIII LOL! soldiers in wall street? woah calm down the "fellow traveler" canard! you mean all these companies like GM and blackwater who have been bailed by the gvt out and NATIONALIZED? Thats not capitalism! Also notice the size of government and taxation which has been blooming incrementally the past 60 years with its automatic consequence of progressing impoverishment. Sure there are some remaining vestiges of capitalism but who would dream to think that the free market is the problem
Respond to this video... How can any sane person call the US a properly capitalist country? When jobs are allocated by the millions? The state is both our guardian and employer. The state determines our work, our diet and they dictate the way we interact with each other. When the current president is unabashed admitting to want to "spread the wealth"... when it spouts Orwellian nonsense such as "diversity is our strength"?government spending in the US is up to 39.7% of GDP, up from 15,8% in 82
Respond to this video...Cost of living has indeed increased: as is verified by the rise in the price of commodities:
Between 1971 and 1977, the United States CPI increased 47%
From 1981 to 2009, the CPI has increased by another 63%
Don't be fooled the "elites" you refer to don't even hide the fact that they think that globalization goes hand in hand with big government and socialism! Robert Reich even said on MSNBC that he would want to see the income tax increased to 60%!
@GodlessXVIII while reading Karl Marx, Selected Writings, by Karl Marx and Lawrence H. Simon, I noticed some of the points of the communist manifesto:
Point 5 of The Communist Manifesto calls for the “ centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.” Today, Citigroup, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and Federal Mortgage Association, and many others have been nationalized outright! wow capitalism again?
You seem to oppose capitalism and government, which weapons-grade historical stupid all by itself. I don't really wish to pursue the matter with you, so my final advice is to make the effort to look for free-market small-government capitalism in the annals of history. You know, just to make sure that what you think capitalism means actually has some bearing somewhere outside think-tank propaganda and the mind of Friedrich von Hayek.
@GodlessXVII of course you don't want to qualify your position, you'd be much better off if you simply glossed over the fact that socialism and big government are the prime movers in human misery,unproductivity and ultimately democides and genocides. Much better to simply not argue your position and say that free market and small government nationbuilding is "obsolete" and glory in the gulag which you seem to long for. Socialists after all are born slaves (the Aristotelian definition of slaves)
Speaking "bollox" on youtube follows from the format. Google "chomsky concision" on youtube. But I do believe in what I was trying to make lictor313 aware of, namely that the networks of interests driving all the neoliberal crap around the world cannot be reduced to the "big governement" canard. You know what's bigger than governments? Try money markets. Agribusiness patents. Numbered accounts in confetti states. Revolving-door institutional nomadism.
@RakshasaCat for iunstance government funding of health care in Canada was equivalent to [US$] 1,893 per person. In the U.S. government spending per person was US$ 2,728.
Factor in the 20 to 30 million illegal immigrants, of which 80% do not have health care- yet still receive treatment and you can see problems on the horizon. The US model would do well to keep pharmaceutical and insurance company overhead low, but still, the system in canada will not sustain itself for much longer.
@nonpartpundit first off the actual numbers are in the US: with the top 10% possessing 80% of all financial assets [and] the bottom 90% holding only 20% of all financial wealth" a major problem indeed, but how do you figure free market is responsible for this? The US wealth gap was DRAMATICALLY lower in the 1950's, and was at peak equity in the 1910's... when the income tax was 1.5% and the US was a true free market capitalist nation- funny how the wealth gap widens in proportion to socialism!
@nonpartpundit Yes wiretapping was instituted by the spendthrift, crypto-socialist Bush administration... and I don't know where you get your facts but canada has horrendous internet freedom, and the canadian government subcontracts its wiretapping to the Converse company in Israel- there are countless examples of other severe encroachments of civic liberties here, canadian customs actually have a list of banned books that include "Mein Kampf", Johann Gregor Mendel`s and 900 other volumes!
brooksbrook1: Although Sweden has a government that is led by liberal conservatives, it ranges from center (sometimes even center-let) to center-right. And the parliament is still almost equally divided between the socialist and social democrats on the one hand, and progressive liberals to liberal conservatives on the other. The tax levels and degree of wealth distribution is still one of the highest in the world.
brooksbrook1: I'm afraid you are wrong regarding Sweden and its wealth. Sweden was actually a very poor country up until the after WWII. And in many ways it reached its peak in the last 60s, which was with overwhelming evidence due the progressive social democratic ideals encapsulated in the notion of "folkhemmet". The reason why Sweden have managed so well (in relative terms) given the recession is most likely due to the well-established social safety net.
@PeterEsq77 actually brooksbrook is correct: During the 1830s Sweden was an impoverished nation,but all this changed as capitalism was introduced in the country. Free markets, property rights and the rule of law created an environment where the Swedish people could achieve a long period of rapid economic development. Between 1870 and 1960 Sweden had the second highest economic growth in the world, second only to Japan. It has since plummeted precisely in parallel to its level of socialism.
@nonpartpundit Oh but wait ... an interesting fact: In the midst of a global recession, Sweden has recorded a 6.9% year-on-year increase in GDP last quarter, and unemployment is falling. Unusual facts: the central bank has been raising rates and the government has been cutting taxes for all groups including the very rich.
ITS ALWAYS LIKE THIS... TAXES GO DOWN... GDP GOES UP. the whole story of the success of the Swedish economic model is a fraud.
@nonpartpundit so to recap- Sweden was at richest per capita when it was a capitalist monarchy... Sweden has seen a breakdown of their productive process- government funded education has virtually eliminated essential trades in the country- and now the country features an unemployment rate of 10% while 31% of the nation works part time. In sweden, electiricians, plumbers, mechanics are all in short supply and command exorbitant prices. This is all due to the government funding the UNPRODUCTIVE
@nonpartpundit Sweden has been enjoying stupendous human development since the 1800's... in fact Sweden was the richest per capita GDP nation all the way in 1912, better than Great Britain then... Since then it has receded to 24th place. Infringement of civil liberties!???/ Are you this ignorant of sweden's wiretapping law that passed two years ago? The Swedish gvt spies on ALL EMAIL- TELEPHONE- CELL- private conversations in the workplace! Sweden sheds about 3% of it PP every year!
@nonpartpundit there aren't 26 ways of defining "government control" in fact I consider the question to be a reductio ad absurdam type of question..
Its simple any industry, asset, legislation, under the control and authority of a GOVERNMENT. Freedom of press? No Sweden allows slightly more radical left wing views then the US. But the Sweden Democrats (SD) party for instance jsut got their ads rejected because they were critical of immigration.. so no, you're quite wrong i'm afraid.
“in comparison to the conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise.” -Chomsky, Communist Sympathizer
I suggest you re-watch the video. In your view, federal spending = socialism. This is absolutely absurd when, as Chomsky points out, the country has drifted so far to the right that most democrats today are about as liberal as Republicans were 40 yrs ago. Wages are stagnant, the middle class is shrinking, the income gap vastly beyond what it was 40 years ago. If you think this is the result of socialist policies, I suggest you look at a country that is actually socialist and compare.
@Evanm3 i realise what chomsy is saynig... but again if social spending of EVERY kind (be they programs like the no child left behind act) the 500+% increase in education spending, the 1300+% in government healthcare spending, the dramatic 900% increase in social security...
again the evidence is that there has never been a more left wing United States... A strong and large middle class is the result of a free market economy- the middle class is shrinking IN PARRALEL TO THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT!
I'm sorry, but what you are talking about bears absolutely no resemblance to reality. Your definition of the left, much like your definition of socialism, completely ignores what the words really mean. Of course it's true that the middle class has shrunk in inverse proportion to the size of the government. The same thing happened under Reagan, and the reason is that government policy is aimed at protecting corporate interests that require an ineffective, inefficient government.
@Evanm3 they also require to sustain HUGE unproductive segments of the economy.. social workers, the welfare state, handouts of one form or another, healthcare socialist schemes, huge log rolling swollen bureaucracies.
AND NO! Government policy is aimed at INCREASING government control: to take power AWAY from the middle class- AGAIN GOVERNMENT CONTROL= SOCIALISM... And btw Reagan was the most spendthrift president of his day- and increased the size of government twofold... some conservative!
However, I agree, as would Chomsky, that Reagan was not a conservative. He certainly was not a socialist. Reagan, like most Americans who self-identify as conservative, was a fanatical right-wing nationalist corporatist.
@Evanm3 I<m not sure that Reagan was a fanatical anything: he was a mouth piece, and a lazy crook that took orders from the same masters Obama does.
His appeal to "conservatism" was a mere tactical device he employed to steal the votes of the unthinking herd that are politely called "american voters". He was as socialist and left wing as Clinton.
@Evanm3 Look, this subject is not complicated. More government control leads toward socialism; less government control leads away from socialism. In addition, the socialism is advocated by BOTH republican AND democrat. Just look at the new "national energy policy"- what is that if not for a collectivist scheme?
There is no real "right wing" in america... or even a proper fiscal conservative- chomsky misread the political landscape- he's chasing unicorns.
You are confusing simple with simple-minded. More government control leads toward socialism? Then by your definition, Czarist Russia was socialist. Every fascist regime that ever existed was socialist. Socialism governments implements policies aimed at distributing wealth more equally. A system where income inequality grows over time is by DEFINITION not socialist. You can use your own definitions, the rest of the world will use theirs.
@Evanm3 every fascist regime? Fascism is usually concerned with national syndicalism... so yes ... absolutely.
also.. um nazi (if you didn<t know!) means NATIONAL SOCIALISM- and wow CZARIST RUSSIA!?!?!? That was an absolute monarchy! No russian Tsar had ever imposed a taxation rate higher than 5% per annum on cultivators. How does that compare to today's nearly 10 times higher rate in the US?
On the contrary, I am trying to use the comparisons you give me. The fact that your definition of socialism encompasses Nazi Gemany, Soviet Russia and contemporary Sweden is proof enough that your definition is vague to the point of uselessness. There are many kinds of totalitarian regimes. If you want to lump them together and associate them with a small European democracy like Sweden, I won't stop you. But there is no point i trying to have a discussion about it. Good night.
@Evanm3 i"m not sure i understand your seemingly willful obfuscation here>
why do you consider my definition of socialism as incorrect... if in fact all the examples I listed are indubitably SOCIALIST? You're right: it is all encompassing. and quite valuable for it.
GOVERNMENT CONTROL = SOCIALISM
is government control high in Sweden? Yes...
Communist Russia (absolutely- highest)
Communist China (YES!)
Nazi Germany: (YES) ---- all are SOCIALIST and self described socialist on top of it
@Evanm3 i didn<t speak of totalitarian regimes btw... but SOCIALIST ONES --- that many socialsit regimes are often totalitarian- authoritarian etc- is not our concern here.
@Evanm3 you say: "Socialism governments implements policies aimed at distributing wealth more equally."
How do you figure that a government implements redistribution? By definition a socialist government MUST BE IN CONTROL- it must have absolute authority to IMPLEMENT redistribution. This is also very inefficient because you have to HIRE A BUREAUCRACY to implement this "distribution" where as in other systems the distribution sorts itself out-
That is a problem only if, as is the case in contemporary America and under fascist regimes, the federal government does not represent the interests of its citizens. America is controlled by corporate interests. In a functioning democracy, the federal government represents the will of its people. Democracy and socialism are compatible. Democracy and fascism are not.
@Evanm3 America is not at all fascist: you really need to pick up a politiical science book to read up on what the different systems are... fascism is concerned with national syndicalism... America is not even a nation anymore but a country... that is becoming global. A nation is a society of individual related by birth... America is a multiracial multicultural NON-NATION. Fascist states REJECT OUT OF HAND: egalitarianism, materialism, and rationalism- again- the US is not AT ALL fascist
@Evanm3 I know that your revolutionary marcuse bias makes you think nd actually believe that the US is fascist... But that is obvious nonsense and hokum. A National Socialist nation would never stand for materialism and decadent values. Fascist regimes are more similar to ancient Knighthoods of chivalry, courage, prowess in war and is fundamentally anti-modernism- none of this can be said of modern day america- which is far closer to Marxist Socialism than any other ideology-
@Evanm3 income inequality is a fact of life because none of us provide the same services and hence provide the same value for our human communities...
Also notice Communists never successfully distributed wealth equally. This is inherent in the nature of wealth. Because wealth cannot be subdivided (only rights to wealth can) to the masses, they seized wealth for their own clique.
Get out of the 60's- the socialist experiment never worked.. nor will it ever...
!? what are you even talking about? already by the late 80’s, the budget for the Department of Education, had more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending had risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs had gone from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it had hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987!
Micheal Moore suggested that its PR firms like AMCO who fool the American people with lies! Along with PR firms for the Likud Party and the radical zionist in Israel. The PR firms to influence Media, Micheal Moore mentions how PR firms are being used to defend the corporations. They use our media and control our media, like camara and even christian funamentalist. Fuck the PR FIRMS AMCO! FUCK PR FIRMS THAT REPRESENT THE ZIONIST ISRAELI!
I certainly admire Chomsky as a defender of free speech and his sober analysis of the role of mass media in our society,
But its clear that his economic theories have almost no contact with reality... Historically, governments with the largest amount of power (ie big government) have been the most brutal and oppressive.
Only the propagandized lemmings - the people who merely express their minds (which are made up by the mass media that Chomsky detests) want socialism.
@lictor313 I don't think you quite understand what Chomsky is saying. He is saying that we have big government -- that the right and the corporations who pretend to favor small government don't in fact do so. They pay lip service to cutting social programs like welfare, medicare and education, while increasing the size of the military and defending corporate institutions. If we had a true functioning democracy, investing power in the federal government would actually benefit its citizens.
@Evanm3 yes but the "right" for all practical purposes do not form any significant part of the power echelon of either the mass media, multinational corporations or the like...
most of the major actors in the corporate arena are headed by leaderships who encourage large government and support democratic candidates and follow the liberal party line-- Monsanto, Texaco, The Rockerfeller Foundation...
@Evanm3 the government increases every single aspect of what amounts to socialist schemes. what was Bushes "no Child Left Behind" act if not for a typical example of a socialist egalitarian program funded by taxpayers? Not only has the gross federal debt grown (which exists because of government spending from financed borrowing) from 900 billion in 1981 to nearly 13 trillion today (projected to be close to 20 trillion by 2012!) but the gvt has also more then doubled taxation rates from the 80's
BOYS more respect please, Chomsky-sama is a living legend. -- but when did his brain turn into water? o_O (Note: This IS the correct way to criticize a king in Japan, formally).
There is NO nobel prize for economics! -- Economics is a human science. -- The USA can't solve it's problem with Keynesian-economics (he refers to it) neither with growth/reindustrialization. -- The 'Krugmanites' are dangerous (see the book 'Free fall' it's steaming rubbish), Chomsky gives 'Krugmanites' street-creds T_T.
The word "republic" wasn't used in this interview, instead just "democracy".
There's a reason why the Founders chose a republic and rejected a democracy, because they feared mob rule and an oppressive majority. Today's system if flawed but the populous is not necessarily the good-natured group who won't abuse their "democratic powers".
Some of the worst racism and bigotry and bloodthirstiness I came across after 9-11 wasn't from politicians but from everyday people.
@Vebinz The CIA figured it out o_O The government form of the USA is called -- according to the CIA -- "Republic, with a strong democratic tradition". ^_^
@Vebinz republic describes a state independent from higher authority. Democracy is a method of choosing leaders or policy. Nine times out of ten, any country which puts republic or democracy in its name is neither.
@Vebinz I'm British, so I mean the state. Our head of state is our Monarch who has the power to sack corrupt politicians and call a general election. Her Maj is the figure head of the armed forces, but our political leaders give the orders (for the most part). Your head of state is also the head of your government, and armed forces. That is how I define Republic.
Celebrate April 15th??? I've been a fan of Chomsky all my life... but, he's clearly lost it in his old age. I will celebrate April 15 like I will celebrate a thug in a costume holding a gun to my head while an aggressive mob takes 30% of everything I have earned from my life energy.
I find it interesting while someone speaks in a peaceful tone while encouraging the initiation of force against others... even if that force is democratically voted for, it is wrong.
@magichandpuppet obviously you dont get his point. in a purely democratic society the government fully represents the people, and when we pay taxes, were paying for that oppurtunity, the oppurtunity for living in a democracy. To pay taxes in a democratic society is to pay for to keep everything we have and work for.
@magichandpuppet obviously you dont get his point. in a purely democratic society the government fully represents the people, and when we pay taxes, were paying for that oppurtunity, the oppurtunity for living in a democracy. To pay taxes in a democratic society is to pay for to keep everything we have and work for. The corruption has nothing to do with it, because he clearly mentions this only takes place in an ideal democracy, one that w. europe has mastered, but the u.s. is struggling with.
@sterling1205 - actually, I do get his point. But, you are completely wrong about your assumption of democracies. It is impossible for a government to "fully" represent ALL people. It represents a majority which can vote away your rights and your property. I do not like our system. But, I am glad it is not a democracy. I am sad that it has become the fascist/corporatist system it has become, but that was only possible through convincing people that we are in a democracy.
@sterling1205 (West-)Europe has a lot of democratic-deficits too (Police-state, Neo-liberalism, Fear-politics, etc.) and virtually as much (structural-) problems as the US.
But the worst thing about Europe is: The EU (European union) members are hypocritical suckers (I'm from Europe -_-) For example: Europe used neo-liberal economics -- to ruthlessly plunder/exploit 'developing' countries and their citizens. The UK is co-responsible for the Iraq war etc etc.
Chomsky is a glassy eyed idealist, same as us, but with an important distinction. He believes that people can set aside their natural, inherent tendencies towards acting out of rational self-interest. He would have you believe that the only path to happiness and prosperity of the individual is THROUGH the collective. He's got it backwards. Our ideal is collective prosperity through primacy of the individual, and has historical precedent, unlike his ideas.
@immanent His ideas DO have historical precedent. Think of the labor struggles from 1850 onwards. The improvements in the lives of ordinary working people were achieved through COLLECTIVE action: abolishment of child labor, 8 hr workday, sick pay - all of which most Americans take for granted. Chomsky may be glassy eyed idealist, but so was Ayn Rand.
people are opposed to obamacare because lobbyists wrote it and congress didnt read it before they passed it. The same corporations that brought us W, brought us Barak Obama. When there is a perfect melding between the corporations and the state, that's fascism. America has evolved into a fascist state with a powerful monied oligarchy. When the unions had clout, the dems were more grassroots because they had that unique source of funding. NAFTA/GATT cut off the legs of the unions
@Bravesfan4500 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade signed by the Clinton administration. It's part of the surrender of economic sovereignty by Clinton and the Republican held house and senate
I'd like to personally give Chomsky a copy of Hans Hoppe's "Democracy: The God That Failed."
His assertion that because a majority of people want higher spending on certain welfare programs means it's good for us is downright laughable. I'd like to see how scientific the polls he quoted were. It makes no sense to me that people who believe in smaller gov't would be claiming they support higher spending. No small government proponent I have ever met is that dense.
In a "small-government" laissez-faire economy, corporations can only derive their power by popular democracy. It's called the marketplace. In typical fashion Chomsky gives the viewer the false choice: government must regulate economic activity or no one will (corporations on your back). Corporations are just associations of people. Government often grants unnatural monopolies, and interferes with competition (regulation->barriers to market entry). I wish Ludwig von Mises were still around.
@ 15:15 he says, "and then with the growth of the economy...you can overcome the deficits...that is pretty much the way it's been done in the past." Can anyone point me to when exactly he was talking about? I'd like to look into that for myself.
@kingcherub The US economy grew so much after WW2 that it could pay down it's formerly humongous depth quite easily, but there's just NO space for this amount of GDP-growth for the USA in today's world.
However, Greece had 70%, Japan has over 100% of GDP as depth, but the USA only 40-50% -- so there's a lot of space to make even more depth. (None the less, the USA can't solve it's problems by growing it's economy.)
first of all, it's all under the control of the super wealthy. there are no liberal or conservatives as it pertains to people who reach the masses. it's all set up to make people think they have advocates in high places...they don't. This is a fascist corporate plutocracy and pretty much anyone commercial is being funded by them one way or another. the rich unionize through control of large lobbying groups, trade associations et cetera. business competes against labor(costs) instead of eachothe
@stanjz Fair enuff, why not calling it 'neo-feudal-cleptocracy'. However, the interview wasn't only about naming and shaming the status-quo. A few key points:
1: The divide between 'conservative' and 'liberal' voters is blown out of proportion.
2: The Americans aren't represented by their 'politicians' at all.
3: They would like a social-safety-net and other public-services, if they are asked carefully.
4: The media created a link between 'social-savety-net' and 'decadent New Yorker' o_O.
Chomsky reached buddha-hood o_O a long-long time ago, but who will pick up his work? Where is the new generation of american-radicals? Chomsky, Gore Vidal, Cockburn, Nader et al can't take this much longer.
The recipes offered by TED-talks (-_-), today's chief-ideologist (eg opinion-leaders aka op-ed writers) and 'Krugmanites' (Krugman & Stigliz are dangerous [sic!]) will fail miserably.
Can you feel the need for revolution? But there's no space for revolution or is there?
Chomsky is so FOS. How can the public differ with those they vote for?? Obviously, the public is manipulated via the information monopoly, the propaganda. They don't think as Chomsky thinks, the idiot. Chomsky has been FOS since the 60's.
@neverindoubt The public can differ with those they vote for because the public is easily manipulated into believing those they vote for are something that they're not. Bless.
This has been flagged as spam show
MICHAEL PARENTI, NOAM CHOMSKY, HOWARD ZINN, NAOMI KLEIN, CHRISTIAN PARENTI, GORE VIDAL, ARUNDHATI ROY, ROBERT FISK, VANDANA SHIVA, JASON BURKE, MARC BARRY, GREG PALAST, DAVID RAY GRIFFIN, ALEXANDER COCHBURN, GARY WEBB, BERTRAND RUSSELL, JOHN DEWEY, RALPH NADER, DENNIS KUCINICH, MICHAEL MOORE, GEORGE CARLIN, CORNEL WEST, JOHN PERKINS, ANTONY SUTTON, TARIQ ALI, EDWIN BLACK, SAMUEL EPSTEIN, AMY GOODMAN, JOHN STOCKWELL, MICHAEL RUPPERT, EDWARD SAID, WARD CHURCHILL, DANIEL ELLSBERG etc(NOT ron paul)
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 month ago
@Knaeben Exactly my point..there is no functioning democracy and Chomsky lives in the clouds if he thinks his utopia will come about based on a dream of it coming back. And for the record...we were supposed to be a REPUBLIC run by checks and balances...not a democracy which is majority rule. The Taliban can have a democracy....
LibertyisTheAnswer 5 months ago
@LibertyisTheAnswer Semantics.
Bushwacked487 4 months ago
Comment removed
LibertyisTheAnswer 5 months ago
Chomsky wants to increase the size of government., giving more power to a corrupt Fedzilla. When asked why anyone would want to put their lives in the hands of tyrannical Federal officials he states at about 26.50 that it would work ...."If we had a real democratic government.."Talk about removed from reality , like he accuses others of...projection anyone? What alternate version of reality does he live in? Come down to Earth and fight with the rest of us in the here and now. Seriously...
LibertyisTheAnswer 7 months ago
Comment removed
Knaeben 5 months ago
@LibertyisTheAnswer Have you been living the last thirty years, on the moon? Many people pay lip service to the idea of America being a functioning democracy, but I think I finally found someone who actually buys that propaganda. The people in America are supposed to BE the government... but it doesn't work that way: the corporate lobby controls who does and doesn't get funded at election time... A plea for people to get their heads out of the propaganda machine and THINK for themselves!
Knaeben 5 months ago
Comment removed
LibertyisTheAnswer 7 months ago
I think this is one of my favorite Chomsky videos. It's brilliantly accurate and profound, from the framework of mainstream political discourse. @wil318466 I am also curious what you find incoherent about the interview.
CytotoxicTrev 7 months ago
Roflmao. @2:02 one of the 2 has an audible tummy rumble. Not news I know but what the hey.
vdotme 8 months ago
@vdotme and again at 18:20
vdotme 8 months ago
this is an extremely helpful interview
mcshobe2008 9 months ago
Chomsky's message is becoming incoherent to me as I get older. It almost seems as if we're looking at two different realities.
And I like the guy.
wil318466 1 year ago
@wil318466 At least provide an example that someone can debate with you...It should be easy if he's being incoherent.
shallbeagain 11 months ago
I love Chomsky
TrentH190 1 year ago
ouch... "atm machine". i wouldn't have thought a man of his knowledge would be capable of such a faux pas ;)
notthere83 1 year ago
Challenge your beleifs and be open-minded.
w w w . lewrockwell . com / orig8 / preston5 . html
CytherLynx 1 year ago
You know you're fucked when an alternative news source is called the REAL news.
caffeininja 1 year ago 8
@caffeininja You're really fucked when an alternative news source actually delivers the real news. ;)
vdotme 8 months ago
@vdotme Well, the mainstream media is too busy reporting on Fiona Apple's new makeup and the kid who won the Illinois State Spelling Bee. The mainstream US media doesn't report the damn news, so you have to look further afield to get more indication of what's going on out there.
Knaeben 5 months ago
@Knaeben So we're fucked. All agreed?
vdotme 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Knaeben So we're fucked. All agreed?
vdotme 5 months ago
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
boy, does Chomsky ever hit the nail on the head with this one! absolutely brilliant interview on the current state of affairs.
truthslap 1 year ago
24:00 minutes in, socialism!
IWillKeepThisAccount 1 year ago
Any town that is within cancer cluster ranges should all unite in solidarity on tax day and have NO ONE in the town pay their taxes untit emissions are lowered. The problem is everyone might have to at least know some loved one who developed cancer or some other disease in order to garner enough support for the cause. But I heard of some cancer clusters with stunningly high rates of cancer.
unfortunatebeam 1 year ago
@seahawks78 not my 21st century
unfortunatebeam 1 year ago
Dr. Chomsky recently declared that the US invaded Afghanistan when it had no evidence that al Qaeda did 9/11. See my video "Chomsky on Faith-based Wars and 9/11"
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
Chomsky has it right about slogans. The Debt Panel brought on a reaction that was without a doubt against any spending cuts whatsoever.
Radnally 1 year ago
free markets, heheheheheheheheee
BloodTypeRagu 1 year ago
There is 1 turd in the punchbowl.
marquee989 1 year ago
@nonpartpundit I'm not sure how you figure that the stagnation, middle class squeeze is somehow a manifestation that the free market, and libertarian non-socialist country is less viable.
Fully all of this is the result of socialist policies. Redistributive policies to the poor, has drained the middle class to the point that it is about to vanish. The US, in the bad old capitalist days, was a MIDDLE CLASS SOCIETY. Socialism ALWAYS creates wealth gaps- look at soviet russia
brooksbrook1 1 year ago
@brooksbrook1 so are you defining socialism in the modern propaganda sense? because if you think the soviets were actually socialist in the original sense of the term no one can believe anything you say because that's the equivalent of saying the earth is flat. And if you have any confusion about what I'm saying that will prove threat you're just talking out of your ass. Notice that I'm not really saying anything about your arguments just saying that you may be unaware of some elementary facts.
BloodTypeRagu 1 year ago
Respond to this video...classic rhetoric, that also happens to be a fact, wealth exploded in Sweden under capitalism, and transformed a poor nation with few resources and no colonies into the richest european country per capita in 1913. It also made it very free low intervention state. All of that is changing for the worse now in Sweden- gvt regimentation is high, and its system will eventually come to grief when the state will produce less then it consumes (as it already is).
brooksbrook1 1 year ago
@nonpartpundit thats a very nice try, but actually the liberal party in 2006 tabled surveillance legislation that would get internet service providers to essentially spy on their own customers among other things... and i'm sorry but to call the lIberal party of canada "right of center" is the height of absurdity, they are plain run of the mill socialists.
brooksbrook1 1 year ago
@nonpartpundit what is this "right wing press" youre referring to? I do not know of any publication that is pro free market, anti egalitarian, anti socialist of any relevance anywhere in the western world. That is because of the bias that actually permeates every aspect of modern western media, the right wing is sedulously suppressed- most media outlets are severely regimented, and we're all aware of countless politically correct orthodoxies that everyone must obey.
brooksbrook1 1 year ago
@nonpartpundit Socialist healthcare systems are vastly more expensive, because they need an army of "middle men" to ALLOCATE AND DISTRIBUTE SERVICES. A capitalist system can simply let the market dictate where resources are sent. But for example in britain, the Health care system there is the LARGEST EMPLOYER IN EUROPE- it is a huge machine of people with jobs that are UTTERLY USELESS to provide health care services- that drives the cost of business skyhigh, and the cost is forwarded to everyone
lictor313 1 year ago
@nonpartpundit the cost of essential services is minimal... um duh! if you subtract the cost in taxation that these services levy! There is no such thing as free healthcare and cheap education ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD... everybody gets paid at the end, the difference is that in countries like sweden and canada the government fishes the money out of our pockets DIRECTLY WITHOUT OUR CONSENT. And btw the swedish and canadian healthcare system costs way more to maintain than the US model.
lictor313 1 year ago
@lictor313 are you talking about per capita cost?
BloodTypeRagu 1 year ago
@BloodTypeRagu i'm talking about the total cost of a particular system as well as per capita. The canadian system costs vastly more per capita than the US system. The UK system even more so.
lictor313 1 year ago
@lictor313 Weird, cause every study shows that the US health care system is twice as large per capita as all the north european countries, and the former doesn't even cover everyone...
The second highest health care per capita cost in the world is Norway, which is still just 3/4 of what the US society pays even though we have the highest cost of living in the world due to the oil wealth.
But go ahead, don't rely on actual numbers... Made up facts are much easier to fit to your argument.
RakshasaCat 1 year ago 8
@RakshasaCat that doesn't factor in the 42% higher administrative charges you don't have in the US. I know the litany as well as anyone else, i've seen the OECD reports that argue the Canadian system is cheaper, but most disregaurd the TOTAL cost of the system. They merely look at what the average person seeking healthcare pays.
The US system is far from perfect of course, it is still FAR too government subsidized and abused by persons with no health insurance who pay nothing...
lictor313 1 year ago
@lictor313
Your kind fascinates me. Here we are discussing the convoluted distortions and power plays that elites use to divide and dominate civil societies everywhere, and there you are blaming the victims, performing for us the very division of efforts that elites count on.
Financial crisis? Irresponsible homeowners. Healthcare debate? Illegal immigrants. US debt? Lazy poors.
Go on.
GodlessXVIII 1 year ago
@GodlessXVIII "the elites" (in this case globalist socialist finance, big state factions like the rockerfeller foundation, combined with the controlled MSM) deny and indeed prevent the general populace from speaking out on such subjects as immigration. The vast majority (92% on most polls) suggest a strong antipathy and call to action against the scourge of illegal immigration, yet one would never know that judging from the mass media and for instance the platforms of the dems or republicans.
lictor313 1 year ago
@GodlessXVIII immigration was not even an issue in the farce of the 08 election: mccain and obama had indistinguishable policies on the subject.
the problem with most well meaning "fellowtravellers" nowadays is that they fail to realize that the elite are the crypto communist would be commissars of the NWO, not free market capitalists, or conservatives. And they do distort and divide... gay marriage, stem cell and the haircut of a president are now 1st rate policy issues. go on...
lictor313 1 year ago
@lictor313
I don't doubt that immigration is almost never set up as an electoral issue in the US, except in the most symbolic way. Because the high influx of immigrants from poorer countries is essential to elite interests in the context of neoliberalism :
1) By replenishing the pool of labor desperately willing to work for almost nothing in terms of pay and benefits, thus driving a race to the bottom in those areas by employers.
2) By being an handy scapegoat for those policies and other.
GodlessXVIII 1 year ago
@GodlessXVIII yes indeed! mass third world immigration does the very big service of lowering the quality of life, exploding debt (which benefits wallstreet and finance), lowering wages, and of course always results in a swelling of the government... because third worlders bring with them the blessings of a "multicultural society" i.e: rampant crime, chaotic mores, mutual incomprehension, tension and a wealth of other log rolling conflicts that demands government intervention.
lictor313 1 year ago
@GodlessXVIII it does benefit the neoliberal internationalist because it provides labor WHILE increasing the basis for a big state
it also diminishes the percentage of european americans to have them replaced with bovine 3dworld immigrants who acquiesce far more easily to corruption and lower quality of life, neglect and are far less likely to be sufficiently intelligent as a group to navigate beneficially in the poltiical landscape... I mean lets look at the regions these creatures come from!
lictor313 1 year ago
@lictor313
The uselessness of terms like liberal and conservative, to say nothing of capitalist and communist, in the context of an analysis of contemporary elite power relations is probably the reason why we're arguing in the first place. That being said, if you think our elites are socialists (redistribution for the benefit of the whole of society) rather than Washington Consensus state capitalists, I don't think we'll find much common ground. The "socialist" charge is ignorant/illiterate.
GodlessXVIII 1 year ago
@GodlessXVIII I agree liberal and conservative are loaded and debased words, especially when we consider what the prostitutes in the media sometimes describe as "conservative" and "liberal".
Socialism/Communism has never been a serious ideology, it is a conspiracy, the politburo in russia was everybit as elitist and abusive (in fact infinitely more so) as any monarchy or dictatorship on earth. Socialism is a scheme to empower "people" via the "GOVERNMENT" (a crucial stipulation indeed)
lictor313 1 year ago
@GodlessXVIII capitalism is anti regimentation, anti-intrusion and anti- big government...
and if we are honest, who have been the biggest destroyers of life, squanderers of wealth and perpetrators of genocide and democide? governments of course..
our elites are socialist because they seek power above all, and there is no greater power than a government in a socialist world. The dispenser of goods, the "god of the nation" becomes the state- which decides of the circumstances everyone lives in
lictor313 1 year ago
@lictor313
I thought for a few comments that you had a worthwhile perspective, but for all your bluster about media manipulation of words and events, you fall back to the most romantic, propagandized view of capitalism possible.
Seriously heal thyself. If Communism is reducible to its historical occurrences, the same should be said of Capitalism : namely, that it is and always was a system of elite rule via revolving door institutional nomadism. Big Gov. is a feature, not a bug. Read up.
GodlessXVIII 1 year ago
@GodlessXVIII heal thyself? are you seriously entertaining the notion that communism has fared about as good as capitalism as far as human misery, democide and genocide? really? Are you this deluded? my mere statement of fact that historically GOVERNMENTS are by far and away the largest creators of human misery, in justice and wide scale mass murder is irrefragable. - it logically follows that any ideology that relies on government as an elite to carry out its goals is simply doomed to fail
lictor313 1 year ago
@lictor313
And, please, don't tell me you believe this bilge about government being the most powerful actor around. Did you notice all those politicians, State Dep. officials, Pentagon generals and even mere soldiers moving into the private sector, namely the boardrooms of Wall Street banks, oil companies, insurance groups, mining cartels, weapons manufacturers? Those industries aren't capitalistic? If you ask me, it seems like Big Government is being wagged pretty hard.
GodlessXVIII 1 year ago
@GodlessXVIII LOL! soldiers in wall street? woah calm down the "fellow traveler" canard! you mean all these companies like GM and blackwater who have been bailed by the gvt out and NATIONALIZED? Thats not capitalism! Also notice the size of government and taxation which has been blooming incrementally the past 60 years with its automatic consequence of progressing impoverishment. Sure there are some remaining vestiges of capitalism but who would dream to think that the free market is the problem
lictor313 1 year ago
Respond to this video... How can any sane person call the US a properly capitalist country? When jobs are allocated by the millions? The state is both our guardian and employer. The state determines our work, our diet and they dictate the way we interact with each other. When the current president is unabashed admitting to want to "spread the wealth"... when it spouts Orwellian nonsense such as "diversity is our strength"?government spending in the US is up to 39.7% of GDP, up from 15,8% in 82
lictor313 1 year ago
Respond to this video...Cost of living has indeed increased: as is verified by the rise in the price of commodities:
Between 1971 and 1977, the United States CPI increased 47%
From 1981 to 2009, the CPI has increased by another 63%
Don't be fooled the "elites" you refer to don't even hide the fact that they think that globalization goes hand in hand with big government and socialism! Robert Reich even said on MSNBC that he would want to see the income tax increased to 60%!
lictor313 1 year ago
@GodlessXVIII while reading Karl Marx, Selected Writings, by Karl Marx and Lawrence H. Simon, I noticed some of the points of the communist manifesto:
Point 5 of The Communist Manifesto calls for the “ centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.” Today, Citigroup, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and Federal Mortgage Association, and many others have been nationalized outright! wow capitalism again?
lictor313 1 year ago
@lictor313
In response to your multiple rambling comments :
You seem to oppose capitalism and government, which weapons-grade historical stupid all by itself. I don't really wish to pursue the matter with you, so my final advice is to make the effort to look for free-market small-government capitalism in the annals of history. You know, just to make sure that what you think capitalism means actually has some bearing somewhere outside think-tank propaganda and the mind of Friedrich von Hayek.
GodlessXVIII 1 year ago
@GodlessXVII of course you don't want to qualify your position, you'd be much better off if you simply glossed over the fact that socialism and big government are the prime movers in human misery,unproductivity and ultimately democides and genocides. Much better to simply not argue your position and say that free market and small government nationbuilding is "obsolete" and glory in the gulag which you seem to long for. Socialists after all are born slaves (the Aristotelian definition of slaves)
lictor313 1 year ago
@GodlessXVIII you are talking complete bollox mate and you know it. If you don;t then you are even thicker than your post makes you out to be,
padry1509 1 year ago
@padry1509
Speaking "bollox" on youtube follows from the format. Google "chomsky concision" on youtube. But I do believe in what I was trying to make lictor313 aware of, namely that the networks of interests driving all the neoliberal crap around the world cannot be reduced to the "big governement" canard. You know what's bigger than governments? Try money markets. Agribusiness patents. Numbered accounts in confetti states. Revolving-door institutional nomadism.
"Big Gov" is unfocused.
GodlessXVIII 1 year ago
@RakshasaCat for iunstance government funding of health care in Canada was equivalent to [US$] 1,893 per person. In the U.S. government spending per person was US$ 2,728.
Factor in the 20 to 30 million illegal immigrants, of which 80% do not have health care- yet still receive treatment and you can see problems on the horizon. The US model would do well to keep pharmaceutical and insurance company overhead low, but still, the system in canada will not sustain itself for much longer.
lictor313 1 year ago
@nonpartpundit first off the actual numbers are in the US: with the top 10% possessing 80% of all financial assets [and] the bottom 90% holding only 20% of all financial wealth" a major problem indeed, but how do you figure free market is responsible for this? The US wealth gap was DRAMATICALLY lower in the 1950's, and was at peak equity in the 1910's... when the income tax was 1.5% and the US was a true free market capitalist nation- funny how the wealth gap widens in proportion to socialism!
lictor313 1 year ago
@nonpartpundit Yes wiretapping was instituted by the spendthrift, crypto-socialist Bush administration... and I don't know where you get your facts but canada has horrendous internet freedom, and the canadian government subcontracts its wiretapping to the Converse company in Israel- there are countless examples of other severe encroachments of civic liberties here, canadian customs actually have a list of banned books that include "Mein Kampf", Johann Gregor Mendel`s and 900 other volumes!
lictor313 1 year ago
The term "private tyranny" is a fallacious concept.
qtutoringhelps 1 year ago
Chomsky is NOT an anarchist; he's a statist.
qtutoringhelps 1 year ago
brooksbrook1: Although Sweden has a government that is led by liberal conservatives, it ranges from center (sometimes even center-let) to center-right. And the parliament is still almost equally divided between the socialist and social democrats on the one hand, and progressive liberals to liberal conservatives on the other. The tax levels and degree of wealth distribution is still one of the highest in the world.
PeterEsq77 1 year ago
brooksbrook1: I'm afraid you are wrong regarding Sweden and its wealth. Sweden was actually a very poor country up until the after WWII. And in many ways it reached its peak in the last 60s, which was with overwhelming evidence due the progressive social democratic ideals encapsulated in the notion of "folkhemmet". The reason why Sweden have managed so well (in relative terms) given the recession is most likely due to the well-established social safety net.
PeterEsq77 1 year ago
@PeterEsq77 actually brooksbrook is correct: During the 1830s Sweden was an impoverished nation,but all this changed as capitalism was introduced in the country. Free markets, property rights and the rule of law created an environment where the Swedish people could achieve a long period of rapid economic development. Between 1870 and 1960 Sweden had the second highest economic growth in the world, second only to Japan. It has since plummeted precisely in parallel to its level of socialism.
lictor313 1 year ago
@nonpartpundit Oh but wait ... an interesting fact: In the midst of a global recession, Sweden has recorded a 6.9% year-on-year increase in GDP last quarter, and unemployment is falling. Unusual facts: the central bank has been raising rates and the government has been cutting taxes for all groups including the very rich.
ITS ALWAYS LIKE THIS... TAXES GO DOWN... GDP GOES UP. the whole story of the success of the Swedish economic model is a fraud.
brooksbrook1 1 year ago
@nonpartpundit so to recap- Sweden was at richest per capita when it was a capitalist monarchy... Sweden has seen a breakdown of their productive process- government funded education has virtually eliminated essential trades in the country- and now the country features an unemployment rate of 10% while 31% of the nation works part time. In sweden, electiricians, plumbers, mechanics are all in short supply and command exorbitant prices. This is all due to the government funding the UNPRODUCTIVE
brooksbrook1 1 year ago
@nonpartpundit Sweden has been enjoying stupendous human development since the 1800's... in fact Sweden was the richest per capita GDP nation all the way in 1912, better than Great Britain then... Since then it has receded to 24th place. Infringement of civil liberties!???/ Are you this ignorant of sweden's wiretapping law that passed two years ago? The Swedish gvt spies on ALL EMAIL- TELEPHONE- CELL- private conversations in the workplace! Sweden sheds about 3% of it PP every year!
brooksbrook1 1 year ago
@nonpartpundit there aren't 26 ways of defining "government control" in fact I consider the question to be a reductio ad absurdam type of question..
Its simple any industry, asset, legislation, under the control and authority of a GOVERNMENT. Freedom of press? No Sweden allows slightly more radical left wing views then the US. But the Sweden Democrats (SD) party for instance jsut got their ads rejected because they were critical of immigration.. so no, you're quite wrong i'm afraid.
brooksbrook1 1 year ago
“in comparison to the conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise.” -Chomsky, Communist Sympathizer
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
What a GREAT man. I never get tired of listening to him.
Canada1953 1 year ago
Reagan was such a racist prick.
Mjhavok 1 year ago
but government spending in the US is up to 39.7% of GDP, up from 15,8% in 1982. By the end of this administration: it shall grow to 43+%
ON TOP OF THIS: Cost of living has indeed increased: as is verified by the rise in the price of commodities:
Between 1971 and 1977, the United States CPI increased 47%
From 1981 to 2009, the CPI has increased by another 63%
this while as Chomsky even admits- wages have stagnated to their 1981 levels! s0 again... big socialist government is to blame
lictor313 1 year ago
Comment removed
Evanm3 1 year ago
@lictor313
I suggest you re-watch the video. In your view, federal spending = socialism. This is absolutely absurd when, as Chomsky points out, the country has drifted so far to the right that most democrats today are about as liberal as Republicans were 40 yrs ago. Wages are stagnant, the middle class is shrinking, the income gap vastly beyond what it was 40 years ago. If you think this is the result of socialist policies, I suggest you look at a country that is actually socialist and compare.
Evanm3 1 year ago
@Evanm3 i realise what chomsy is saynig... but again if social spending of EVERY kind (be they programs like the no child left behind act) the 500+% increase in education spending, the 1300+% in government healthcare spending, the dramatic 900% increase in social security...
again the evidence is that there has never been a more left wing United States... A strong and large middle class is the result of a free market economy- the middle class is shrinking IN PARRALEL TO THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT!
brooksbrook1 1 year ago
@brooksbrook1
I'm sorry, but what you are talking about bears absolutely no resemblance to reality. Your definition of the left, much like your definition of socialism, completely ignores what the words really mean. Of course it's true that the middle class has shrunk in inverse proportion to the size of the government. The same thing happened under Reagan, and the reason is that government policy is aimed at protecting corporate interests that require an ineffective, inefficient government.
Evanm3 1 year ago
@Evanm3 they also require to sustain HUGE unproductive segments of the economy.. social workers, the welfare state, handouts of one form or another, healthcare socialist schemes, huge log rolling swollen bureaucracies.
AND NO! Government policy is aimed at INCREASING government control: to take power AWAY from the middle class- AGAIN GOVERNMENT CONTROL= SOCIALISM... And btw Reagan was the most spendthrift president of his day- and increased the size of government twofold... some conservative!
brooksbrook1 1 year ago
@brooksbrook1
However, I agree, as would Chomsky, that Reagan was not a conservative. He certainly was not a socialist. Reagan, like most Americans who self-identify as conservative, was a fanatical right-wing nationalist corporatist.
Evanm3 1 year ago
@Evanm3 I<m not sure that Reagan was a fanatical anything: he was a mouth piece, and a lazy crook that took orders from the same masters Obama does.
His appeal to "conservatism" was a mere tactical device he employed to steal the votes of the unthinking herd that are politely called "american voters". He was as socialist and left wing as Clinton.
brooksbrook1 1 year ago
@Evanm3 Look, this subject is not complicated. More government control leads toward socialism; less government control leads away from socialism. In addition, the socialism is advocated by BOTH republican AND democrat. Just look at the new "national energy policy"- what is that if not for a collectivist scheme?
There is no real "right wing" in america... or even a proper fiscal conservative- chomsky misread the political landscape- he's chasing unicorns.
brooksbrook1 1 year ago
@brooksbrook1
You are confusing simple with simple-minded. More government control leads toward socialism? Then by your definition, Czarist Russia was socialist. Every fascist regime that ever existed was socialist. Socialism governments implements policies aimed at distributing wealth more equally. A system where income inequality grows over time is by DEFINITION not socialist. You can use your own definitions, the rest of the world will use theirs.
Evanm3 1 year ago
@Evanm3 every fascist regime? Fascism is usually concerned with national syndicalism... so yes ... absolutely.
also.. um nazi (if you didn<t know!) means NATIONAL SOCIALISM- and wow CZARIST RUSSIA!?!?!? That was an absolute monarchy! No russian Tsar had ever imposed a taxation rate higher than 5% per annum on cultivators. How does that compare to today's nearly 10 times higher rate in the US?
brooksbrook1 1 year ago
@brooksbrook1
Let's run with your logic. Fascism = socialism. Finland = socialist. Therefore, Finland = fascist.
Right...
Evanm3 1 year ago
@Evanm3 no lets run by my logic for real:
government control = SOCIALISM
hence: Nazi Germany: SOCIALIST
COMMUNIST CHINA: SOCALIST
SOVIET RUSSIA: SOCIALIST
Sweden: SOCIALIST
does that clear things up for you? Or would you rather keep making comparisons I never made?
brooksbrook1 1 year ago
@brooksbrook1
On the contrary, I am trying to use the comparisons you give me. The fact that your definition of socialism encompasses Nazi Gemany, Soviet Russia and contemporary Sweden is proof enough that your definition is vague to the point of uselessness. There are many kinds of totalitarian regimes. If you want to lump them together and associate them with a small European democracy like Sweden, I won't stop you. But there is no point i trying to have a discussion about it. Good night.
Evanm3 1 year ago
@Evanm3 evan evan...
what I said was very straight forward: I did not compared Communist China to Sweden...
i merely pointed out (quite obviously and quite correctly) that:
"More government control leads toward socialism; less government control leads away from socialism"
Now;
Is Sweden Socialist? i'm quite certain you and I both know it is... The state bureaucracy is the biggest employer there
Was National Socialist Germany socialist? LOL? Need we answer that question?
brooksbrook1 1 year ago
@Evanm3 i"m not sure i understand your seemingly willful obfuscation here>
why do you consider my definition of socialism as incorrect... if in fact all the examples I listed are indubitably SOCIALIST? You're right: it is all encompassing. and quite valuable for it.
GOVERNMENT CONTROL = SOCIALISM
is government control high in Sweden? Yes...
Communist Russia (absolutely- highest)
Communist China (YES!)
Nazi Germany: (YES) ---- all are SOCIALIST and self described socialist on top of it
brooksbrook1 1 year ago
@Evanm3 i didn<t speak of totalitarian regimes btw... but SOCIALIST ONES
brooksbrook1 1 year ago
@Evanm3 i didn<t speak of totalitarian regimes btw... but SOCIALIST ONES --- that many socialsit regimes are often totalitarian- authoritarian etc- is not our concern here.
brooksbrook1 1 year ago
@Evanm3 you say: "Socialism governments implements policies aimed at distributing wealth more equally."
How do you figure that a government implements redistribution? By definition a socialist government MUST BE IN CONTROL- it must have absolute authority to IMPLEMENT redistribution. This is also very inefficient because you have to HIRE A BUREAUCRACY to implement this "distribution" where as in other systems the distribution sorts itself out-
brooksbrook1 1 year ago
@brooksbrook1
That is a problem only if, as is the case in contemporary America and under fascist regimes, the federal government does not represent the interests of its citizens. America is controlled by corporate interests. In a functioning democracy, the federal government represents the will of its people. Democracy and socialism are compatible. Democracy and fascism are not.
Evanm3 1 year ago
@Evanm3 America is not at all fascist: you really need to pick up a politiical science book to read up on what the different systems are... fascism is concerned with national syndicalism... America is not even a nation anymore but a country... that is becoming global. A nation is a society of individual related by birth... America is a multiracial multicultural NON-NATION. Fascist states REJECT OUT OF HAND: egalitarianism, materialism, and rationalism- again- the US is not AT ALL fascist
brooksbrook1 1 year ago
@Evanm3 I know that your revolutionary marcuse bias makes you think nd actually believe that the US is fascist... But that is obvious nonsense and hokum. A National Socialist nation would never stand for materialism and decadent values. Fascist regimes are more similar to ancient Knighthoods of chivalry, courage, prowess in war and is fundamentally anti-modernism- none of this can be said of modern day america- which is far closer to Marxist Socialism than any other ideology-
brooksbrook1 1 year ago
@Evanm3 income inequality is a fact of life because none of us provide the same services and hence provide the same value for our human communities...
Also notice Communists never successfully distributed wealth equally. This is inherent in the nature of wealth. Because wealth cannot be subdivided (only rights to wealth can) to the masses, they seized wealth for their own clique.
Get out of the 60's- the socialist experiment never worked.. nor will it ever...
brooksbrook1 1 year ago
!? what are you even talking about? already by the late 80’s, the budget for the Department of Education, had more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending had risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs had gone from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it had hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987!
lictor313 1 year ago
Paul: excellent interview with Professor Chomsky. We actually met several times years ago when I was at Harvard.
AJsOwner 1 year ago
Chomsky is always noted for being the best American intellectual - the truth is, they just don't make em like him anymore.
What an incredibly diligent and hard-working truth teller. Uncorruptable.
7264124 1 year ago
Chomsky is getting up there in the years. At this point, I'm almost bracing myself for the bad news.
phooey108 1 year ago
Brilliant interview TRNN, thank you.
RedGaribaldi 1 year ago
chomskys losing it
governmentdidit 1 year ago
It is going to be a sad day when chomsky dies. I dont see anyone to take his place
thesparitan 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
akkonburike 1 year ago
Americans Should Boycott Black Friday!
Micheal Moore suggested that its PR firms like AMCO who fool the American people with lies! Along with PR firms for the Likud Party and the radical zionist in Israel. The PR firms to influence Media, Micheal Moore mentions how PR firms are being used to defend the corporations. They use our media and control our media, like camara and even christian funamentalist. Fuck the PR FIRMS AMCO! FUCK PR FIRMS THAT REPRESENT THE ZIONIST ISRAELI!
EmeterioBetances 1 year ago
I certainly admire Chomsky as a defender of free speech and his sober analysis of the role of mass media in our society,
But its clear that his economic theories have almost no contact with reality... Historically, governments with the largest amount of power (ie big government) have been the most brutal and oppressive.
Only the propagandized lemmings - the people who merely express their minds (which are made up by the mass media that Chomsky detests) want socialism.
lictor313 1 year ago
@lictor313 I don't think you quite understand what Chomsky is saying. He is saying that we have big government -- that the right and the corporations who pretend to favor small government don't in fact do so. They pay lip service to cutting social programs like welfare, medicare and education, while increasing the size of the military and defending corporate institutions. If we had a true functioning democracy, investing power in the federal government would actually benefit its citizens.
Evanm3 1 year ago
@Evanm3 yes but the "right" for all practical purposes do not form any significant part of the power echelon of either the mass media, multinational corporations or the like...
most of the major actors in the corporate arena are headed by leaderships who encourage large government and support democratic candidates and follow the liberal party line-- Monsanto, Texaco, The Rockerfeller Foundation...
lictor313 1 year ago
@Evanm3 the government increases every single aspect of what amounts to socialist schemes. what was Bushes "no Child Left Behind" act if not for a typical example of a socialist egalitarian program funded by taxpayers? Not only has the gross federal debt grown (which exists because of government spending from financed borrowing) from 900 billion in 1981 to nearly 13 trillion today (projected to be close to 20 trillion by 2012!) but the gvt has also more then doubled taxation rates from the 80's
lictor313 1 year ago
BOYS more respect please, Chomsky-sama is a living legend. -- but when did his brain turn into water? o_O (Note: This IS the correct way to criticize a king in Japan, formally).
There is NO nobel prize for economics! -- Economics is a human science. -- The USA can't solve it's problem with Keynesian-economics (he refers to it) neither with growth/reindustrialization. -- The 'Krugmanites' are dangerous (see the book 'Free fall' it's steaming rubbish), Chomsky gives 'Krugmanites' street-creds T_T.
akkonburike 1 year ago
The word "republic" wasn't used in this interview, instead just "democracy".
There's a reason why the Founders chose a republic and rejected a democracy, because they feared mob rule and an oppressive majority. Today's system if flawed but the populous is not necessarily the good-natured group who won't abuse their "democratic powers".
Some of the worst racism and bigotry and bloodthirstiness I came across after 9-11 wasn't from politicians but from everyday people.
Vebinz 1 year ago
@Vebinz it's called fear-mongering
razvaNazdravan 1 year ago
@Vebinz 'Democracy' is a synonym for 'republic'.
akkonburike 1 year ago
Comment removed
Vebinz 1 year ago
@Vebinz The CIA figured it out o_O The government form of the USA is called -- according to the CIA -- "Republic, with a strong democratic tradition". ^_^
akkonburike 1 year ago
@akkonburike
Yeah you're right.
Funny given that the CIA is a threat to both.
Good call.
Vebinz 1 year ago
@Vebinz What if we delete the last few comments? (I'm looking like a total sucker...) ^_^
akkonburike 1 year ago
@Vebinz I can only assume you would like to get your representatives within your
own "headrepublic" by a castingshow or elections if they weren`t democratic, can`t I?
Realizalize 1 year ago
@Realizalize
I'm not sure I understand, though I can sense the sarcasm.
Vebinz 1 year ago
@Vebinz republic describes a state independent from higher authority. Democracy is a method of choosing leaders or policy. Nine times out of ten, any country which puts republic or democracy in its name is neither.
jacksawild 1 year ago
@jacksawild
I tend to define republic as the public choosing leaders to make policy, while democracy is the public making policy themselves.
But what do you mean by 'higher authority"?
Vebinz 1 year ago
@Vebinz I'm British, so I mean the state. Our head of state is our Monarch who has the power to sack corrupt politicians and call a general election. Her Maj is the figure head of the armed forces, but our political leaders give the orders (for the most part). Your head of state is also the head of your government, and armed forces. That is how I define Republic.
jacksawild 1 year ago
226 likes, 0 dislikes :)
McScreenName 1 year ago
Comment removed
immanent 1 year ago
Celebrate April 15th??? I've been a fan of Chomsky all my life... but, he's clearly lost it in his old age. I will celebrate April 15 like I will celebrate a thug in a costume holding a gun to my head while an aggressive mob takes 30% of everything I have earned from my life energy.
I find it interesting while someone speaks in a peaceful tone while encouraging the initiation of force against others... even if that force is democratically voted for, it is wrong.
magichandpuppet 1 year ago
Comment removed
sterling1205 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@magichandpuppet obviously you dont get his point. in a purely democratic society the government fully represents the people, and when we pay taxes, were paying for that oppurtunity, the oppurtunity for living in a democracy. To pay taxes in a democratic society is to pay for to keep everything we have and work for.
sterling1205 1 year ago 2
@magichandpuppet obviously you dont get his point. in a purely democratic society the government fully represents the people, and when we pay taxes, were paying for that oppurtunity, the oppurtunity for living in a democracy. To pay taxes in a democratic society is to pay for to keep everything we have and work for. The corruption has nothing to do with it, because he clearly mentions this only takes place in an ideal democracy, one that w. europe has mastered, but the u.s. is struggling with.
sterling1205 1 year ago
@sterling1205 - actually, I do get his point. But, you are completely wrong about your assumption of democracies. It is impossible for a government to "fully" represent ALL people. It represents a majority which can vote away your rights and your property. I do not like our system. But, I am glad it is not a democracy. I am sad that it has become the fascist/corporatist system it has become, but that was only possible through convincing people that we are in a democracy.
magichandpuppet 1 year ago
@sterling1205 - "an ideal democracy, one that w. europe has mastered"
Wow. That is quite the delusional statement of the year. If you believe that, then you are easy prey for the bankers. Ha ha ha!
magichandpuppet 1 year ago
@sterling1205 (West-)Europe has a lot of democratic-deficits too (Police-state, Neo-liberalism, Fear-politics, etc.) and virtually as much (structural-) problems as the US.
But the worst thing about Europe is: The EU (European union) members are hypocritical suckers (I'm from Europe -_-) For example: Europe used neo-liberal economics -- to ruthlessly plunder/exploit 'developing' countries and their citizens. The UK is co-responsible for the Iraq war etc etc.
akkonburike 1 year ago
@magichandpuppet
Chomsky is a glassy eyed idealist, same as us, but with an important distinction. He believes that people can set aside their natural, inherent tendencies towards acting out of rational self-interest. He would have you believe that the only path to happiness and prosperity of the individual is THROUGH the collective. He's got it backwards. Our ideal is collective prosperity through primacy of the individual, and has historical precedent, unlike his ideas.
immanent 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@immanent - very well said!!!
magichandpuppet 1 year ago
@immanent His ideas DO have historical precedent. Think of the labor struggles from 1850 onwards. The improvements in the lives of ordinary working people were achieved through COLLECTIVE action: abolishment of child labor, 8 hr workday, sick pay - all of which most Americans take for granted. Chomsky may be glassy eyed idealist, but so was Ayn Rand.
55ella2007k 1 year ago
people are opposed to obamacare because lobbyists wrote it and congress didnt read it before they passed it. The same corporations that brought us W, brought us Barak Obama. When there is a perfect melding between the corporations and the state, that's fascism. America has evolved into a fascist state with a powerful monied oligarchy. When the unions had clout, the dems were more grassroots because they had that unique source of funding. NAFTA/GATT cut off the legs of the unions
snappa52 1 year ago 12
@snappa52 what is the GATT?
Bravesfan4500 1 year ago
@Bravesfan4500 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade signed by the Clinton administration. It's part of the surrender of economic sovereignty by Clinton and the Republican held house and senate
snappa52 1 year ago
I'd like to personally give Chomsky a copy of Hans Hoppe's "Democracy: The God That Failed."
His assertion that because a majority of people want higher spending on certain welfare programs means it's good for us is downright laughable. I'd like to see how scientific the polls he quoted were. It makes no sense to me that people who believe in smaller gov't would be claiming they support higher spending. No small government proponent I have ever met is that dense.
immanent 1 year ago
@immanent
people don't want higher spending per se, they want more prioritized spending that focuses on what matters for typical people.
echoplex89 1 year ago
In a "small-government" laissez-faire economy, corporations can only derive their power by popular democracy. It's called the marketplace. In typical fashion Chomsky gives the viewer the false choice: government must regulate economic activity or no one will (corporations on your back). Corporations are just associations of people. Government often grants unnatural monopolies, and interferes with competition (regulation->barriers to market entry). I wish Ludwig von Mises were still around.
immanent 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
akkonburike 1 year ago
Comment removed
akkonburike 1 year ago
@ 15:15 he says, "and then with the growth of the economy...you can overcome the deficits...that is pretty much the way it's been done in the past." Can anyone point me to when exactly he was talking about? I'd like to look into that for myself.
kingcherub 1 year ago
@kingcherub let me clearify: in the exact order of events he stated...Goverment creats demand, the economy gets going again etc...
kingcherub 1 year ago
@kingcherub The US economy grew so much after WW2 that it could pay down it's formerly humongous depth quite easily, but there's just NO space for this amount of GDP-growth for the USA in today's world.
However, Greece had 70%, Japan has over 100% of GDP as depth, but the USA only 40-50% -- so there's a lot of space to make even more depth. (None the less, the USA can't solve it's problems by growing it's economy.)
akkonburike 1 year ago
no progress with an Avatar President. Give us a real man.
Rico8458 1 year ago
brilliant Noam as usual..the world will lose a step the day he passess...like Cornell West, beyound their time..superb intellect.
PaulCheElias 1 year ago
he looks and sounds old :(
rainman2242 1 year ago
first of all, it's all under the control of the super wealthy. there are no liberal or conservatives as it pertains to people who reach the masses. it's all set up to make people think they have advocates in high places...they don't. This is a fascist corporate plutocracy and pretty much anyone commercial is being funded by them one way or another. the rich unionize through control of large lobbying groups, trade associations et cetera. business competes against labor(costs) instead of eachothe
stanjz 1 year ago
@stanjz Fair enuff, why not calling it 'neo-feudal-cleptocracy'. However, the interview wasn't only about naming and shaming the status-quo. A few key points:
1: The divide between 'conservative' and 'liberal' voters is blown out of proportion.
2: The Americans aren't represented by their 'politicians' at all.
3: They would like a social-safety-net and other public-services, if they are asked carefully.
4: The media created a link between 'social-savety-net' and 'decadent New Yorker' o_O.
akkonburike 1 year ago
Chomsky reached buddha-hood o_O a long-long time ago, but who will pick up his work? Where is the new generation of american-radicals? Chomsky, Gore Vidal, Cockburn, Nader et al can't take this much longer.
The recipes offered by TED-talks (-_-), today's chief-ideologist (eg opinion-leaders aka op-ed writers) and 'Krugmanites' (Krugman & Stigliz are dangerous [sic!]) will fail miserably.
Can you feel the need for revolution? But there's no space for revolution or is there?
akkonburike 1 year ago
@akkonburike good or bad the new radicals are running in the anarchist direction.
kingcherub 1 year ago
Comment removed
akkonburike 1 year ago
I wonder how workers could go about taking over factories?
catgumart 1 year ago
Chomsky is so FOS. How can the public differ with those they vote for?? Obviously, the public is manipulated via the information monopoly, the propaganda. They don't think as Chomsky thinks, the idiot. Chomsky has been FOS since the 60's.
neverindoubt 1 year ago
@neverindoubt Yes, you're the TRUE genius around here. No doubt about it.
Fuck off, you jackass. Where is YOUR contribution to ANYTHING?
Papwithanhatchet 1 year ago
@neverindoubt The public can differ with those they vote for because the public is easily manipulated into believing those they vote for are something that they're not. Bless.
1RastaWarrior 1 year ago
why only 360p? but nonetheless, thank you for posting whole interview.
Hoopmov 1 year ago