you are either free and at liberty or you are not. do not confuse 'freedoms' with freedom. 'freedoms' are what a ruled and controlled populas are permitted by their masters whilst freedom means to be free and have no masters. you can walk around outside if you want. the more pressing issue which automatically will destroy power and create a free society is that i have just noticed the sea level has gone up a metere in a year
Hahaha, you couldnt debate with me on intelliectual or factual grounds. so you tried to insult me and call me names. this is called an ad hominem attack. this is the lowest form of interaction possible...
I think your screen name is slightly dishonest, dont you? keep studying bro....
Why does noam keep talking about ancient history, crackpotkin, luxembourg et al? who cares? why does he keep trying to frame the debate in terms of historical so called 'thinkers' and their bogus armchair philosophies. Bring it back to morality and reality please mr ivy league, state funded, sedentary professor. I would sooner listen to someone who knows the value of hard work and understands the practical application of REAL principles.
@sidvidkid You're asking -archly, no less(!)- why a social theorist is making references and allusions to historic events and thinkers?
Is this a joke?
Stop trying to think; you just don't have the neurological hardware -and for God's sake desist immediately and permanently from ever proffering any opinion or observation in any semi-public forum *ever* again.
see how the interviewer keeps trying to put anarchism into one dogmatic box or other, which then makes it easy to dismiss...but if we understand anarchism as the practical application of the non aggression principle then it can never be dismissed. There is nothing 'pre-industrial' about morality and the non aggression principle transcends all boundaries and boxes its fascist opponents try to put it into.
I am glad that the argument for anarchy has finally come down to weather or not we should be free - any argument against being free will always be beaten
by the fact that it is right to be free and we must do what ever it takes so that we can be - a free society is not impossible because i can gaurantee you that its right to be free and has just been made to look that way by
5000 years of rule and enslavement since the begining of the first states
@godkingofthepunks There is no such thing as a totally free society or a totally enslaved society. Even people in the least free societies have some personal choices they can make and even people in the most open societies will have restrictions. Libertarians focus on the qualitative differences while others focus more on the quantitative differences, but neither can be said to be correct in an absolute sense. Eg. I am willing to give up the freedom to walk around outside naked.
@godkingofthepunks IMO, the most important action regarding liberty is to figure out where your line in the sand is, and be honest and direct in arguing for that.
For example, I think we should fight very hard for the right to avoid being taken over in a military queue, but we should be less concerned about preventing terrorists (because I live in a strong country). The key question is, what freedoms are most important if you want to be unrestricted in living the lifestyle you want to live.
The insane system in which we live is to give being free a name which is Anarchy so it can be put on the political scale and be made to sound like a bad idea then use propaganda and indoctrination to convince people that they
are free living under rule of law and authority - we are coming to the end of this system as people are figuring this out - goal is to give understanding of being free (Anarchy) to the people and not just within intellectual circles
>>we are coming to the end of this system as people are figuring this out
It isn't a conspiracy. Most people who critically evaluate anarchist liberty find it preposterous. What Chomsky describes is a very idealized type of society which could be easily exploited by powerful people, and foreign invaders. We have a state because for everyone who wants a free society, there's another that wants to exploit and oppress others simply if they have the opportunity.
I'm not liberal but I love listening to him, he is very persuasive. It might just be the way he says things though, how he uses emphasis... makes me lose all doubt.
his ideals are in print for us all to read. it is up to us all to inject new enthusiasm into social ideals and consructs...definitive and unwavering action must also take place
As far as intellectuals go, Chomsky has been unusually consistent in his positions throughout the course of his life. Nonetheless, the younger Chomsky did deal much more explicitly with issues of political theory, his vision of a future society and so on, while as he got older he seemed to be less and less concerned with such matters. Perhaps it was simply the enduring presence of the youthful spirit from the late 60's, but I, too, miss the freshness of his younger approach to politics.
he never lost his passion for politics. otherwise he would just be known as a scientist. he just started focusing more on foreign policy ,and thats just pointing out the actual atrocities from probable situations with the capitalist power structure. Someone has to do it.
@Irtidad I think he's become tired of discussing pure theory, i.e. topics that you can find in "an academic seminar somewhere," a phrase he frequently uses in interviews. Whenever someone makes some abstract point to him about how the only way to change things is to overthrow the government, he gets visibly irritated and asks what happens after that. Young Chomsky is definitely inspiring, but modern Chomsky is actionable.
you are either free and at liberty or you are not. do not confuse 'freedoms' with freedom. 'freedoms' are what a ruled and controlled populas are permitted by their masters whilst freedom means to be free and have no masters. you can walk around outside if you want. the more pressing issue which automatically will destroy power and create a free society is that i have just noticed the sea level has gone up a metere in a year
godkingofthepunks 2 months ago
@polymath7
Hahaha, you couldnt debate with me on intelliectual or factual grounds. so you tried to insult me and call me names. this is called an ad hominem attack. this is the lowest form of interaction possible...
I think your screen name is slightly dishonest, dont you? keep studying bro....
All the best
sidvidkid 3 months ago
@brownie1982ad
"Trust" - this is your biggest mistake.
Trust no one trust only provable facts. Whatever makes you irrationally angry is likely to be true.
sidvidkid 3 months ago
Why does noam keep talking about ancient history, crackpotkin, luxembourg et al? who cares? why does he keep trying to frame the debate in terms of historical so called 'thinkers' and their bogus armchair philosophies. Bring it back to morality and reality please mr ivy league, state funded, sedentary professor. I would sooner listen to someone who knows the value of hard work and understands the practical application of REAL principles.
sidvidkid 5 months ago
@sidvidkid Trust Chomsky over a person who waffles empty platitudes like you.
brownie1982ad 4 months ago
@sidvidkid You're asking -archly, no less(!)- why a social theorist is making references and allusions to historic events and thinkers?
Is this a joke?
Stop trying to think; you just don't have the neurological hardware -and for God's sake desist immediately and permanently from ever proffering any opinion or observation in any semi-public forum *ever* again.
polymath7 3 months ago
see how the interviewer keeps trying to put anarchism into one dogmatic box or other, which then makes it easy to dismiss...but if we understand anarchism as the practical application of the non aggression principle then it can never be dismissed. There is nothing 'pre-industrial' about morality and the non aggression principle transcends all boundaries and boxes its fascist opponents try to put it into.
sidvidkid 5 months ago
He is really describing the Resource-based Economy talked about in Zeitgeist documentaries.
Gravija1980 5 months ago
I am glad that the argument for anarchy has finally come down to weather or not we should be free - any argument against being free will always be beaten
by the fact that it is right to be free and we must do what ever it takes so that we can be - a free society is not impossible because i can gaurantee you that its right to be free and has just been made to look that way by
5000 years of rule and enslavement since the begining of the first states
godkingofthepunks 8 months ago
@godkingofthepunks There is no such thing as a totally free society or a totally enslaved society. Even people in the least free societies have some personal choices they can make and even people in the most open societies will have restrictions. Libertarians focus on the qualitative differences while others focus more on the quantitative differences, but neither can be said to be correct in an absolute sense. Eg. I am willing to give up the freedom to walk around outside naked.
sfjeff1089 2 months ago
@godkingofthepunks IMO, the most important action regarding liberty is to figure out where your line in the sand is, and be honest and direct in arguing for that.
For example, I think we should fight very hard for the right to avoid being taken over in a military queue, but we should be less concerned about preventing terrorists (because I live in a strong country). The key question is, what freedoms are most important if you want to be unrestricted in living the lifestyle you want to live.
sfjeff1089 2 months ago
The insane system in which we live is to give being free a name which is Anarchy so it can be put on the political scale and be made to sound like a bad idea then use propaganda and indoctrination to convince people that they
are free living under rule of law and authority - we are coming to the end of this system as people are figuring this out - goal is to give understanding of being free (Anarchy) to the people and not just within intellectual circles
godkingofthepunks 10 months ago
@godkingofthepunks
>>we are coming to the end of this system as people are figuring this out
It isn't a conspiracy. Most people who critically evaluate anarchist liberty find it preposterous. What Chomsky describes is a very idealized type of society which could be easily exploited by powerful people, and foreign invaders. We have a state because for everyone who wants a free society, there's another that wants to exploit and oppress others simply if they have the opportunity.
kDest 8 months ago
I'm not liberal but I love listening to him, he is very persuasive. It might just be the way he says things though, how he uses emphasis... makes me lose all doubt.
noahnz 1 year ago
@noahnz He's not liberal either.
genobeeno 5 months ago
very good interviewer
murray1234567891011 1 year ago 5
his ideals are in print for us all to read. it is up to us all to inject new enthusiasm into social ideals and consructs...definitive and unwavering action must also take place
jammatoonarmy 1 year ago 4
Where can I find the transcript for this interview?
DontEatEggs666 2 years ago
Youtube prevents me from posting the link, but search 'Relevance of Anarcho-Syndicalism' and you'll promptly find it.
fearofthesea 2 years ago
Thought I remembered this; I have the transcript in print. Good videos regardless.
SwashYourBuckle 2 years ago
bad ass video.
old-school noam is the best in my mind.
mikezephyr 2 years ago 24
As far as intellectuals go, Chomsky has been unusually consistent in his positions throughout the course of his life. Nonetheless, the younger Chomsky did deal much more explicitly with issues of political theory, his vision of a future society and so on, while as he got older he seemed to be less and less concerned with such matters. Perhaps it was simply the enduring presence of the youthful spirit from the late 60's, but I, too, miss the freshness of his younger approach to politics.
Irtidad 2 years ago 20
as he's gotten older hes probably lost a sense of hope and idealism, which i think is completely natural when you near your death.
crayyawn 2 years ago 4
he never lost his passion for politics. otherwise he would just be known as a scientist. he just started focusing more on foreign policy ,and thats just pointing out the actual atrocities from probable situations with the capitalist power structure. Someone has to do it.
mieery 1 year ago 6
@Irtidad I think he's become tired of discussing pure theory, i.e. topics that you can find in "an academic seminar somewhere," a phrase he frequently uses in interviews. Whenever someone makes some abstract point to him about how the only way to change things is to overthrow the government, he gets visibly irritated and asks what happens after that. Young Chomsky is definitely inspiring, but modern Chomsky is actionable.
scientrophic 1 year ago
@mikezephyr Irony's old stuff was better
InformationPollution 1 year ago