Chomsky on Socialism, Communism & Government

[cadfog]

Anybody who has read the comics can tell you that Captain America, the true Steve Rogers of the main Marvel Universe, has been portrayed as a New Deal Democrat. The "commie smasher" Captain America, who only appeared during a brief revival from late 1953 to early 1954, was revealed in a retcon to be a different Captain America named William Burnside who eventually became a right-wing supervillian called The Grand Director.

[zzzzJAGJEETzzzz]

love the music in the back

[Masterfootballer23]

The people were not "Virtual Slaves". Damn it, even though Noam Chomsky is smart, I don't apreciate his view on a country where my parents lived and should know the truth better than some american (Or Jew)

[utopianguy]

Sometimes I feel there is more intelligence in Noam Chomsky's single interview than people like George W Bush's entire life.

[FreeMarketAnarchy]

@utopianguy lol because there is

[LiBlub1]

If you've read Marx, you'd know what communism is.

First of all, Communism and Totalitarianism are absolute contradictions.

[Licmycat]

@MrSalamander7 O-excuse me, I thought you were a writer. I was wrong. I apologize.

[Licmycat]

@MrSalamander7 I would think it would depend on which group of them u hear their opionion. So since ur going to nit-pick, u betta get microscopic about the issue! They try to use stupidty against us poor to dictate to us and that is evil and anti-American. If ur going to be perfect u betta get ur statistics straight on the issue! And caitalism says this about most important business issue: Location, location, location!

[SimulacrumMaster]

Man, Chomsky is blind. Socialism is not a permanent form of government, it's merely the vehicle that *turns* a civilization into a dictatorship. That's what happens when the state nationalizes everything. Go back to teaching LINGUISTICS, please.

And the military, for instance, developed computer machines for proper military goals. After they became viable products the market developed them for common usage. This is why I shake my head when people talk about cutting military development.

[QuatFax]

@SimulacrumMaster Socialism is the road to freedom. It puts workers in control of production. Things are produced based on what the people want and need, not on the whims of the bourgeoisie.

What, can't he study more than one thing? Is a linguist not allowed to have an opinion on politics? Why don't we design a society where only those with political science degrees are allowed to vote, and see how that works out for freedom.

[SimulacrumMaster]

@QuatFax

haha, socialism is the road to serfdom. "organizers" play on tribalism so there are 10,000 tyrants that eventually lead up to The One that takes over all. also, mass production is already marketed toward the common denominator. lol

chomsky is only versed in linguistics, he rants that politics can't be "studied" in the traditional sense, ie: dismissing criticism of his ignorance out of hand. keep praising your blind messiah. your sense of "freedom" is the road to serfdom

[QuatFax]

@SimulacrumMaster Socialism allows democratic control over the means of production. It can only lead to tyranny if the masses cease to make demands and allow themselves to be subjugated (which is true in any system).

Again, Chomsky's education in linguistics does not preclude his knowledge of politics. If you want to criticize his arguments with facts, go ahead. But don't act as if he had no right to discuss politics just because he doesn't have a degree in it.

[SimulacrumMaster]

@QuatFax

"democratic control" is mob rule. historically, democratic socialism is mid-level agitators collecting people intro faceless hegemonic tribes that then vie against each other without limit-- classic divide and conquer. communism's atrocities didn't happen in a vacuum.

where is chomsky getting his "knowledge"? is he sucking it out of the ether?

[QuatFax]

@SimulacrumMaster Democratic control is the only form of government that does not involve the tyranny of the minority. It has defects, certainly, but is superior to any other system devised.

The "communist" states you speak of (USSR,China,Vietnam, etc.) were all formed under extremely violent circumstances. In that situation, totalitarianism is often the result: people either submit to an autocrat, or are destroyed. That shows the undemocratic nature of violence, not the tyranny of socialism.

[SimulacrumMaster]

@QuatFax

instead of tyranny of minority it's tyranny of majority. almost every country is created by violence but those that enshrine rights of the individual remain the freest the longest

a lynch mob is pure democracy. sometimes majority want violence, denying their will would be undemocratic

chomsky's status is overblown. he's no more respectable than o'reily

power in the hands of any single group is a concentration of power. marx referred to this as the dictatorship of the proletariat

[QuatFax]

@SimulacrumMaster Not true. Some countries were created violently, some were not.

That's my point: democracy is tyranny of the majority. Every other form of government is tyranny of the minority. But democracy is better because people actually have to work together to make decisions, and thus learn to cooperate with other groups of people.

[SimulacrumMaster]

@QuatFax

be concise, stop spamming.

the public is another singular body, vulnerable to corruption (specifically demagoguery of tyrants). USA's power is split by household, local, state, federal levels, then to electorate, legislative, judicial, executive bodies. no one has control, all have freedom.

mobs vote for tyrants. tribes fight each other, which is what the tyrant will "fix" with new powers. people respect each other only if they cannot use force, period.

[QuatFax]

@SimulacrumMaster I can't say everything I want to say in 500 characters.

The US government is controlled by corporations. The Executive and Legislative branches are elected with corporate funds and controlled by corporate media and by corporate capital flight. And the Judicial branch is appointed by the Executive and Legislative branch, and is thus indirectly controlled by corporations. The United States is an oligarchy.

[SimulacrumMaster]

@QuatFax

500 limit is a rule not a challenge

people keep voting for shills. you get the gov't you vote for, the essence of democracy

rofl, unions and environmentalists are "democratic"? they do all the same stuff that corporations do. unions act against their members' interests and enviros are almost never a majority. you can't just label your political views as "freedom"

people don't need to cooperate if they can steal what others' do by voting. what do you think entitlements are?

[QuatFax]

@SimulacrumMaster I'm going to post these comments in as much detail as I want. Deal with it or stop debating.

They are far more democratic than corporations. They actually exist to promote the ideas of people; corporations only exist to maximize profit.

People do need to cooperate in democracy. That's how it works. People who have an agenda need to form partnerships with others to gain a majority, and that means cooperating on issues.

[QuatFax]

@SimulacrumMaster You clearly have no understanding of actual history. When people are in positions to use direct democracy and self-manage society, cooperation and freedom abound.

What of the recuperated factories movement in Argentina? The coop economy in Ecuador? The Mondragon experience in Spain? These are all experiments with direct democracy, and not one of them transformed into a dictatorship. People learned to cooperate, minority opinion was respected, and freedom was promoted.

[QuatFax]

@SimulacrumMaster Unions and environmental groups both represent people getting together and organizing democratically. They decide that there is some problem (low wages, global warming, etc.) and agree to work together to fix it. They protest, hold rallies, stike, and try to bring over as many as possible to their side. This is democracy. It fosters cooperation and growth, and has been behind much of the freedom and progress in United States history.

[pmango1000]

@SimulacrumMaster : well said! And why is it that environmental groups are pushing the "Robin Hood Tax" so "wealthy countries can be forced to give even more tax $ to poor countries? and unions are a large reason why manufacturing jobs have been moved over seas

[QuatFax]

@SimulacrumMaster There is, however, some limited popular-democratic influence on the government. Most politicians have to be elected, and unions and environmental groups hold some limited sway (though nothing compared to that of corporations). The government has to respond somewhat to the people, and, thus, some freedoms have been retained.

Democracy CAN degenerate into autocracy, but that doens't mean it always will. People respect each other if they learn to cooperate, which they have done

[QuatFax]

@SimulacrumMaster Those societies that remain free are the ones that incorporate some levels of democracy into them. For example, the United States is an oligarchy, but the government has to respond, to some extent, to the will of the people. So individual freedoms have been protected.

That's exactly my point about Marx: he wanted to concentrate power. I say that true socialism can only be achieved through decentralized democracy, without concentration of power.

[QuatFax]

@SimulacrumMaster It is true that the common people can become violent and intolerant (such as your example of a mob). This is far more likely, however, to happen under authoritarian governments. When people are actually allowed to govern themselves through democracy, they must cooperate with each other in order for society to function. Under direct democracy, tolerance and mutual respect grow.

[QuatFax]

@SimulacrumMaster Where does Chomsky get his knowledge? Presumably from books, newspapers, documentaries, etc. (the same places you or I or anyone would gain knowledge of politics)

What are you suggesting, exactly? That only those with political science degrees be allowed to discuss politics? Just because one doesn't have a degree in a subject doesn't mean one can't study it.

[QuatFax]

@SimulacrumMaster The problem is Marxism, not communism. Marxism is one form of communism that requires the state to directly take control of the entire economy. Any such concentration of power will lead to tyranny. There are other forms of communism, however, that don't require state control (such as Kropotkin's Anarchist Communism); these would not concentrate power in a way that would engender tyranny.

[Licmycat]

Communists are crooks.

[mtklaric]

im sorry noam but personal computers and almost all the digital gadgets evolved in the marketplace, not the state.....only the concept of the internet was first used in military circles

[Mookusness]

@mtklaric It would be better if all your post said was "Nuh uh!" because you havent got any sources to back up what you say, and you are only parroting conventional wisdom.

[mtklaric]

@Mookusness, correction, ALL the things we have today evolved in the marketplace, even the ones you could say evolved from the state were funded from the private sector, the market...the only invention the state can take credit for is essentialy taxes, the power to forcefully take hardearned money from the people...

[dontliethetruth]

@mtklaric No. computers were developed by various state militaries in and after WWII. the pentagon and the nazis financed the IBM 601!

take de-/encoding machines as enigma/the turing bomb/colossus. NASA used the first server to calculate satellite physics that was as big as a mansion. howard aiken invented ASCC in harvard. attanasov-berry @ iowa state uni. your fucking pc-mouse was developed in stanford. private sector took over pc development only as soon as the market was already established

[mtklaric]

im sorry noam but personal computer evolved out of the market, not the state

[johnowensjr1234]

socialism is more democratic than our current capitalistic system

[TreblePop]

Thanks for posting.  Short, but excellent video

[blaziermissy]

Chomsky is efficient at opening peoples eyes to logic when thinking about economies...if you study it thoroughly it will lead you to see that a resource based economy would solve mammoth world problems. Btw, an elitist version of a RBE isn't acceptable....

[Antiks72]

The U.S. model of propaganda makes every other nation's propaganda look crude in comparison. It is so subtle and insidious people are had and never even realize it. Just look at shows like CSI, or any cop show out there. Cops are good, and are always right, etc. Look at the messages on TV.

[vktrsx]

Those fucking comic books say it all. All-you-can-eat capitalist propaganda, open 24-hours, from cradle-to-grave.

[HashyBee]

GREAT VIDEO!!!

NICE JOB!

[brokennarcissist]

Anyone else find it weird that Steve Rogers (Cap) was an Aryan?

[seigneurvoland666]

pure aryan? why would it be weird

[brokennarcissist]

Because the narrative is that it takes the Aryan superman to free America from the threat of Nazism. This is depicted in the iconic cover where Cap is punching Hitler in the face.

Also his character is the embodiment of democracy. He is an ideal, and his physical ideal is Aryan.

[seigneurvoland666]

ahh yesi see now!

[jeremybalfe]

Thank you for this, 1001nights. Another great video that succesfully puts things in their proper perspecitve.

[IndividualAutonomy]

Kill those commies Captn America.

Communism for the rich; markets and taxes for the poor!

[Tsukae]

lol

[metalorg]

What was the background music? I dig it's retro marching army sound

[organdva]

In state socialism there can be different levels of ''workers control'' and more libertarian or anarchic are favorable.

The problem obviously is the word ''state''.

[GhostVirusx90]

what about stateless communism? Communalism is the way forward.

[organdva]

Communism is the goal but it must be accepted by all people and it naturally fallows after socialism :D

[cary123]

communism is stateless by defition...

[Tsukae]

Omg. Someone who actually knows what Communism means! You get an imaginary internet cookie. :)

[xTAxGUNZ]

@cary123

Have you ever read the Manifesto?

Marx and Engels claimed that the workers would have control of the mean of production through the STATE. They did claim that the state would eventually dissolve because it would be unnecessary. But it is illogical to think an all powerful centralization of force would every dissolve. It might collapse under its own weight taking everyone else with it but it would never dissolve.

[cary123]

@xTAxGUNZ Indeed they did, but marx called this period "The dictatorship of the proletariat" or socialism. Communism is the end goal, you can argue marx's way of getting to communism is wrong, thats fine. Plenty of anarcho-communists think that.

However under Stalin there was not a dictatorship of the proletariat, there was a dictatorship of the party. Marx simply meant a proletarian democracy as opposed to bourgeois democracy. Stalin corrupted Lenin's idea of a vanguard to create a new class.

[Tsukae]

Agreed 100%.

[tanvo93]

@GhostVirusx90 it takes the idea of caring for everyone rather than urself..which the capitalist system is about..

isnt greed like a sin? hahaha..i agree with ur statement though man