Noam Chomsky: On Anarchism Libertarian Socialism

[roman14032]

lets think about this for a sec, no goverment, communal ownership of property.

that will be a gang fight in 5 min.

[MsSexySocialist]

@roman14032

Libertarian socialism doesn't mean no government. It just means no state. The two are not the same thing.

The state is a "monopoly on the use of coercion" and an unjust concentration of political power, while government is the mechanism that allows for the administration and coordination of both economy and polity.

In lib-soc the state is dissolved and government is decentralized into a network of directly-democratic local assemblies; offering administration without force

[roman14032]

@MsSexySocialist you seem to be completly unaware reality

[MsSexySocialist]

@roman14032

You seem to be completely unaware of how to construct a sentence given the lack of the necessary word "of" in between "unaware" and "reality" ^_^

[roman14032]

@MsSexySocialist OK, you win, can we be freinds now?

[Allrightteam]

@MsSexySocialist His post was more more clearly communicated than was yours.

[fabianstraregy]

I guess Mr.choppers is so used to having students as captive audiencesthat he's forgotton that there's people who can stillthink on their own.For instance would have us believe that some old definition of "libertarian".Liberty is the root word of libertarian and it comes from old french liberte' meaning;freedom,freewill,absen­ce of restraint.This french word was out long before the rise of communism. A century ago.But smug elitest bastards think everyone is stupid and don't know how to research

[roman14032]

this actually a fascist propagandist

[SanguineBullet667]

Silly Socialists, rationality is for Libertarians.

[fabianstraregy]

@SanguineBullet667 Well sh*t fire there actually are real libertarians commenting on this site. Noam chomski , what a bold faced lier. And how do these so called professors try to combine anarchism , libetarianism AND socialism together. How stone assed retarded are these marxist fcuks?

[Allrightteam]

Wikipedia says: Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production. It says: Communism is a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of a classless, moneyless, stateless and revolutionary socialist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production. I smell a re-branding...

[MsSexySocialist]

@Allrightteam

It seems you're confusing small "c" communism with the capital "C" Communism; the political and economic system of every former Marxist-Leninist country.

The original sense of the word as used in the 19th century thinkers referred exclusively to a stateless society based on free association.

The political leaders of "Communist" countries didn't call their ideology Communism because of what they thought their society WAS, but what it would eventually lead to.

[fabianstraregy]

@MsSexySocialist A classic trick of your bretheren the marxists is : Don't change the words , change the MEANING of the words miss SS. And you, silly girl, might try fool school . The queen of England still has a staff opening for the "Fool". You'll make lots of people get great laughs and chuckles. It'll be so grand for you :) It will be so much better than scribbling in your coloring books , you'll see. (snicker snicker)

[Allrightteam]

@MsSexySocialist A distinction without a difference.

[MsSexySocialist]

@Allrightteam

(continued)

Which it didn't. Because it couldn't.

Because thinking you can get rid of the state by strengthening it is just about the stupidest idea conceivable.

Which is why libertarian socialists are, and always have been, opposed to strengthening state power as a means of affecting political change.

And there's no "re-branding". Libertarian Socialism was around LONG before Soviet tyranny reared its ugly head upon the world.

[fabianstraregy]

@MsSexySocialist I can't even talk to you because you have some how combined (in your mind)socialism and libertarianism which is like trying to mix water and oil . It ain't happening. And you're mad as a hatter trying to attempt such.

[MsSexySocialist]

@fabianstraregy

Haha. Good one. ^_^

I love how you act like someone who doesn't even know that the very word "libertarian" itself was coined by a socialist and anarchist all the way back in 1857.

And throw around words like "Marxist", "anarchist", "socialist" and others in exactly the right way as to show you know absolutely nothing about them.

Keep up the good work on making people laugh; you might even make circus clown one day and get yourself out of that trailer park.

[fabianstraregy]

@MsSexySocialist Wow I can make circus clown but only if I'm one of the lucky ones in the trailer park (snicker snicker,are'nt you the funny one today).I wish you would have given me more liberal vitriol I'd b more comfortable playing wack a moles... ideas ; u being the mole of course.Communism and socialism are different sides of the same marxist coin. I, miss SS, am a for real libertarian and I really do know what real freedom is and it was laid out in my nations founding docs, no semantics

[MsSexySocialist]

@fabianstraregy

"I, miss SS, am a for real libertarian and I really do know what real freedom is and it was laid out in my nations founding docs, no semantics "

"Semantics" in this context meaning using key terms in the way the were originally intended? lol

I see my pointing out of the fact that the very word you use to describe yourself was coined back in the mid 19th century by a socialist fell on deaf ears.

Please continue, you make my job of snark-dealing very easy ^^

[fabianstraregy]

@MsSexySocialist I'm not done with you Miss Sexy Time - I mean sexy socialist :)What is wrong with you, I know you're a libtard so why are'nt you acting like ya'll normally do which is argumentim ad hominem. Attack attack attack ,that is what ya'll do.when you do that it makes it so much easier for me to sh*t all on ya'll. With you I have to look things up and it's more enjoyable roll around in the mud with you lib bastards (oops) . So let's ramp this up Misssexytime .das vidaniya babushka :)

[fabianstraregy]

@MsSexySocialist Do I sense your raising of the white flag of surrender.Oh well,all of my victories can't be down and dirty raw dawg like I like it, but I'll take victory any way I can get it.The truth cannot be stopped by 20inches armor plating made of depeleted uranium.Ur and Chomskis' mental gymnastics can never completely hide the murderous history of marxism.Pretty woman you must deal in truth instead of lies because U will never ever win against the truth with lies.bye, Fabian Strategy

[Freethinker12341]

@fabianstraregy I agree with you on this point about socialism and libertarianism not mixing. You ca'nt have "socialism" without some sort of organization or government, so I don't really understand what Chomsky is talking about. He's talking about a highly organized society, that's also socialist, but no government. I don't really understand it. haha

[TheTaoOfSteve]

@MsSexySocialist Does "democratic control of the means of production" also include democratic control of the distribution of profits? How would compensation be determined within such a system?

[MsSexySocialist]

@TheTaoOfSteve

It varies depending on which particular model

Libertarian socialism isn't a single economic or political system, but rather a whole category of them; which each sharing the principles of individual autonomy, democratic self-management, free and voluntary association, and confederalism.

Some models advocate having a market partially determine pay, some remunerating in proportion to the onerousness or difficulty of one's job, some even advocate abolishing money itself

[TheTaoOfSteve]

@MsSexySocialist As a Libertarian Minarchist I agree with the principles of individual autonomy & voluntary association. A few more questions for you, first- which economic model do you personally advocate? Second- what does "democratic self-management" mean to you? Since democracy means "people rule" & self-management is "self-rule", the phrase appears contradictory to me.

[MsSexySocialist]

@TheTaoOfSteve

Personally I feel a model developed recently by the political scientist Takis Fotopoulos called *Inclusive Democracy* is what would work best. I also hold another model called *Participatory Economics* in high regard although I disagree with its claims that all markets are inherently bad and should be replaced with decentralized democratic planning.

Inclusive Democracy uses democratic planning for the macro-economy, but still retains a market for the micro-economy.

[MsSexySocialist]

@TheTaoOfSteve

[continued]

"Democratic self-management" generally refers to how individuals administer and coordinate things among themselves in the absence of institutional hierarchy and centralization of power.

In practice it means our institutions (economic and political) being run by those who actually participate in them through consensus-based decision-making.

The very first video you see on my channel "Participatory Democracy or Mob Rule?" gives the gist of how this works.

[TheTaoOfSteve]

@MsSexySocialist I understand the position somewhat better now, thank you. I see both pros & cons within the ideology. I think it would be interesting to participate in such a business endeavor. Within a Libertarian political society, a business could easily operate in accordance with your ideas. Would you advocate that legal constraints be placed on the existence of privately owned businesses in which the business owner(s) are the decision makers and employees follow their lead if they choose?

[MsSexySocialist]

@TheTaoOfSteve

There would be no "legal constraints" as such on operating a business using wage-labor and subordination of employees to an elite, although there would exist no external authority to enforce a private owner's claim to means of production, so such cases would be highly unlikely - for the same reason it's unlikely today that someone could walk into a neighborhood and declare themselves its emperor and expecting anyone to take their claim seriously.

[MsSexySocialist]

@TheTaoOfSteve

[continued]

This is the reason why capitalism as an economic system is fundamentally statist by its very nature.

The very institution that defines it - private ownership of the means of production - requires an external authority able to use violence in order to maintain it.

Without the state or state-like institutions, capitalism and wage-labor could not exist; as there would be nothing to stop those who actually participate in institutions from taking over them.

[TheTaoOfSteve]

@MsSexySocialist Would there be any external protective authority to protect one Inclusive Democracy business group from another, or would each group be required to defend their collective claim to their group's means of production against the use of force from others by themselves?

[MsSexySocialist]

@TheTaoOfSteve

Any individuals or groups who wanted to start an enterprise would be able to lease out MOP on long-term contract on the basis of *usufruct*.

Only the original usufructury(s) claim to the productive property would be deemed legitimate and therefore able to engage with the entire rest of the economy.

If some other group came along and seized justly leased property, it would be effectively useless as no other enterprise or community would recognize their right to it.

[TheTaoOfSteve]

@MsSexySocialist Leased?.. from whom? By what right does that entity claim ownership of the property and the right to lease it out to others? If it is a collective of people, how is it that such a collective can claim full ownership and a right to lease property, but an individual *cannot*? Or *can* they? And if they *can* own property, how is it that they have no claim to the property that ought to be respected by others?

[MsSexySocialist]

@TheTaoOfSteve

Common ownership.

Or in more technical terms: indivisible stewardship.

What this means in practice is that the MOP of a given economy is held in a kind of economy-wide trust fund.

This is a way of ensuring that no individual or groups can claim "own" MOP; hence capital is itself neutralized.

[TheTaoOfSteve]

@MsSexySocialist I must say- your position is a very unique one, & this is one of the most interesting YT discussions I've had in a very long time. Thank you :)

To me material property is just that- material property, peroid. Is personal property to be allowed in this society? If so, how is the hammer in my home (which is clearly a form of MOP) to be distinguished from this collective pool of MOP that no individual can claim ownership of? Is "personal MOP" to be limited somehow?

[MsSexySocialist]

@TheTaoOfSteve

It would depend on (A) how the system was set up in the first place by its founders on a macro level, and (B) what each individual municipality decided would work best for them.

Generally though, I think it would make sense only to hold MOP in common ownership that are immovable and require more than one person to operate in order to produce something; ie: land, factories, heavy machinery, mines, and so on.

[continued]

[TheTaoOfSteve]

@MsSexySocialist "It would depend on how the system was set up in the first place by its founders on a macro level"

Hmm... my thoughts are drawn to the founders of the US constitution- recognition of slavery, exclusion of women etc.- I'm sure you know its gross anti-libertarian faults. I don't put weight in "founding principles", rather I put weight in "rational, moral & compassionate" principles.

Not to imply that *you* don't, I strongly suspect that you do also. :)

[TheTaoOfSteve]

@MsSexySocialist I figured out the "glitch", in part at least- your comments are being marked as spam. I believe it's an automated YT issue, as your comments are not showing in my inbox. I will apply the "Not Spam" button on your comments as I encounter them.

[MsSexySocialist]

@TheTaoOfSteve

[continued]

And to address your first question, yes every single school of libertarian socialism from the pro-market to the market-abolitionist supports ownership of personal property.

That is, property that is claimed by an individual that meets two criteria:

1. Active personal use.

2. Occupancy.

eg: a house, car, furniture, computers, ect.

Property that meets this criteria is, after all, the only form of property that can be owned without a state to enforce it.

[Greenbat85]

Same analyse about ownership of personal property. ^^ (Then I'm probably a bit more moderate about the means of production). I think it's just important to evaluate the psychology of individuals: everybody doesn't feel ok with owning every means of work in common (even deliberately) and everybody doesn't feel ok with putting every decisions about work and distribution of means to one owner. So both private and collectiv ownership of work must be acknowledged for a free world.

[TheTaoOfSteve]

@MsSexySocialist "Property that meets this criteria is... the only form of property that can be owned without a state to enforce it."

So each individual must independently enforce their right of ownership of their property? If an individual has the *right* to enforce their claim of ownership, can't they appoint others to do so on their behalf? Who, if anyone, would act as an arbiter of force between individuals & groups? How would disputes regarding alleged infringements of rights be settled?

[TheTaoOfSteve]

@MsSexySocialist [continued]

How are people & their property to be protected against the use of force from both internal & external entities who would initiate the use of force against them & their belongings?

[TheTaoOfSteve]

@MsSexySocialist You referred to "a legal framework to make sure that an individual possessing personal property has certain guaranteed rights to be recognized as the owner of that property" & a "municipal police service". Flawed as they often are, we have these in our present society. How might they differ in a Libertarian Socialist society where the state is dissolved & government is decentralized into a network of directly-democratic local assemblies; offering administration without force?

[TheTaoOfSteve]

@MsSexySocialist "It could be possible that certain communities will decide that they don't need police at all, & could resolve disputes through voluntary arbitration or some other means." Surely they could make that choice. If they did, who would investigate a crime I allege? Not I, I have an interest- a rational arbitrator should not consider my investigation impartial. The arbitrating party should be impartial & they must use force in order to investigate & prosecute a crime, meaning- police.

[TheTaoOfSteve]

@MsSexySocialist I have been considering your earlier statement that [stolen property] would be "effectively useless as no-one would recognize their claim to it and would refuse to engage with them economically - meaning it would be a pointless endeavor to begin with." Sans any state, government or social group coercion, such a lack of recognition would depend on the integrity of individuals (separately or collectively). Are you *counting* on this? Can you give me some context to your assertion?

[TheTaoOfSteve]

@MsSexySocialist Well, this is odd- I can't see your recent comments to me on this video, nor can I see your last comment to DrCruel on the Anti-wage slavery video, on multiple PCs, multiple browser apps, either logged in or logged out (I'm an IT guy, it's natural for me to try such things). I can only see them on your channel. If you replied to the PM I sent to you, I'm not seeing that either. Hopefully YT will un-stick whatever glitch is causing it. I'll check back later.

[TheTaoOfSteve]

@MsSexySocialist "Property that meets this criteria is, after all, the only form of property that can be owned without a state to enforce it."

I do not understand the rationale behind that idea. State or not, property is property. Force, actual or implied, must be used when ANY property right of any sort is to be enforced.

I do not agree that active use and occupancy are proper criteria for personal property. I view witnessed & notarized title & bills of sale/transfer as the ideal criteria.

[fabianstraregy]

@Freethinker12341 Most people can't understand giberrish either.Only "collegiates" like Ms sexy Socialist can vomit back nonsense like this and think that she is presenting valid , useful information. We're not stupid, there just is'nt anything in Chomskis' video that society can use. I am a libertarian ---> one who lives freely, without restraint and without violating someone elses liberty. His statements are complicated on purpose in order to obfuscate the reality of his beloved marxism. adios

[Freethinker12341]

@fabianstraregy But I'm a strong "Canadian" Liberal. I believe in social democracy and just society. Pure capitalism doesn't work either. And people like Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, etc are just are ideological and fanatical as Chomsky. You need to have some form of government to play a part in the economy in my opinion. Yes it's about creating wealth and jobs, but prosperity must be widely and deeply shared at all times.

[fabianstraregy]

@Freethinker12341 Hey freethinker , I think you are a good hearted person but I also know that YOU HAVE NOT read Ayn Rands book other wise you would never ever call her a fanatic. You are only calling her that because you got it from a second hand source.What can it hurt, Read this book because it really is a beautiful book about the sovereignty of the individual. The individuals freedom to choose how they should live thier own individual life. Democracy is mob rule over the individual...PERIOD

[fabianstraregy]

@fabianstraregy the name of the book is "Atlas Shrugged".Fountain head is good too. It almost seems to me like George Orwell got his material for "1984" from Fountainhead . Fountainhead is not as good as Atlas

Free Thinker 12341

[Freethinker12341]

@fabianstraregy hah im sure ur a good hearted person too, and i believe in democracy, but sometimes i duno, i feel like the masses dont always know best. in a democracy we can elect anyone we want. anyone can run for office also. that's democratic isn't it? the people dont always know best. the public need to be educated and we need to be as informed as possible at all times. political party should be in the hands of the smartest people at all times

[Freethinker12341]

@fabianstraregy I've read the fountainhead and part of the 'virtue of selfishness'. I don't agree with her philosophy. Maybe 'fanatical' was the wrong word to use, but she was certainly a bit extreme on some issues. she was totally against the idea of government playing a role in the economy (to eleviate poverty,etc) and she was against public funded education and public funded health care. like i said there needs to be SOME government, some rules i think.

[Freethinker12341]

@fabianstraregy but yes mssexymarxist is an ideologue. the far left is totally unreasonable. you cant be a thinking person and believe what Chomsky is saying. it doesn't make any sense. Chomsky is advocating a highly planned, socialist society, but no government? Makes no sense lol Don't know what he's talking about. Meanwhile he's walking away from lectures with huge checks taking money from poor people. Hes a professor at MIT in Linguistics (not politics) so not even his field

[ymatmband]

@Allrightteam I think there is a subtle but important difference between the two. Communism tends to rely on Marx's historism, It also has little to say about hierarchy. In fact communism is sympathetic to some form of established government body to weild some form of power. Anarchistic syndicalism is socialist and in that sense is similar to communism but differs from communism in that it denies all forms of power relations. Also AS don't see revolution as inevitable.

[fabianstraregy]

@ymatmband When you say,"In fact communism is sympathetic to some form to some form of established government body to wield some form of power".That is quite the tame description of the most murderous form of"gov't"that has ever walked the face of the earth:20million USSR,65millionChiComs,2million­Cambodians,2million N.Koreans and on and on. Stalin even said it,"Death solves all problems - no man, no problem".And communism killed millions upon millions of human beings for merely having an opinion

[ymatmband]

@fabianstraregy I agree. Most societies have killed lots of their people, and other cultures. Its called genocide and xenophobia. I don't think it is fair to call all communists murderers, because they aren't and anyone who thinks that they are probably grew up in the 50's. Power can have negative consequences, just look at the American corporate plutocracy. The UBER capitalism of modern day China. This is why anarchic-syndicalism rejects all power relations as illegitimate.

[ymatmband]

@fabianstraregy As for the number game. I recommend you read Steven Pinker's book The Better Angels of Our Nature. Where he discusses the relative decline of violence in modern times. The numbers you just posted might SOUND large but it is relative to the population. This is not to say what these dictators did was ok, but it is to stress that a lot worse has happened through out human existence. There has been far worse or equally worse forms of government sadly.

[fabianstraregy]

@ymatmband I'Il bet you would'nt think the murders were relative if it were you, your friends and family in front of the fcuking firing squad. It's all games and philosophy and relativism to you marxist fcuks until you're the ones getting shat on. Then you scream to high heaven , "no fair" or "time out". Why don't you stay in the peanut gallery and quit tring to compete in the arena of ideas because you are completely out gunned here . So PISS OFF you marxist fcuk :)

[ymatmband]

@fabianstraregy Someone can't defend their position so they resort with violent rhetoric. How ironic that you accuse communists as being killers and then use "gunned down" as a metaphor to squash other ideas. Furthermore, I am not a Marxist. I don't doubt leaving under communism was horrifying. Life is horrifying. But proclaiming someone is an enemy, and that enemy needs to be eradicated is the exact thing regimes do no matter who they are. Which is why your in Iraq.

[fabianstraregy]

@ymatmband I must have really rattled you because you could'nt even repeat back what I actually said hich was:"in the arena of IDEAS you are completely 'out gunned'".You say I resorted to violent rhetoric and the two don't mix ie.,violence and rhetoric.And this seems to be a common theme among you marxists up in the ivory tower looking down on us trailer park folk or us hood rats all of whom ya'll think are porch monkeys drinking 40's on Friday and Saturday nights.You said I said "gunned down".

[fabianstraregy]

@fabianstraregyGunned down actually does mean that some one has been shot down and is laying in a pool of their own blood.I know for a fact that u neverfired a weapon in anger at others who were trying to kill u,if u had then u would'nt attempt to make WORDS somehow violent. Because real violenc does exist in the world.I have shot at people trying to kill me and I'm still here. I took an oath to protect theconstitution from enemies foreign and domestic.U look down ur nose at me and I say PISSOFF

[ymatmband]

@fabianstraregy You don't even know me. I don't even know you. I never called you a porch monkey. I claimed you used false information. A KNOWN misquote. Furthermore, even if I was in academia would you ever know? AND ... for the third time I AM NOT A MARXIST. Which means you are being a dishonest person. REGARDLESS of your position in life. I don't follow an ideology, I follow one thing ... TRUTH. Which means I can admit my own mistakes, you said out gunned not gunned down.

[fabianstraregy]

@ymatmband I know what I said but you still don't get what you ACTUALLY said that I said. Whew, this is getting complicated. You win I'm done

[ymatmband]

@fabianstraregy What part of what you said? You said out gunned to imply that an argument for marxism or anarchistic syndicalism is out gunned by some other ideology you never specifically stated... capitalism? republicanism? democracy? Which means that your ideas are bigger? better? stronger? more aggressive? True? Which if I knew WHAT you were defending I could say something more about it. Instead you call me a marxist and tell me to piss off, because I pointed out a misquote.

[ymatmband]

@fabianstraregy However, your sentiment remains the same. Somehow you are right and you think it necessary to validate yourself with violent rhetoric because all you have to back yourself up is false information and insult (your need to use fcuk in this exchange of ideas. And your ability to shut out debate by telling people to piss off. I never once tried to exclude you, I never called you anything but what you are, IGNORANT, since you used false information.

[ymatmband]

@fabianstraregy Yet YOU sir... YOU try to tell me I am a Marxist, I am an Ivory tower elite, and that I should have no say in the conversation and should leave from this conversation because my ideas are weak .."out gunned" by your better ideas. ... Well, stare in the mirror Stalin because I think you and him would make great friends (If your opinion of him is even accurate) {which it isn't} [obviously]

[ymatmband]

@fabianstraregy Fundamentalist Ideologies kill people, be they state, capitalist, communist, or religious. They externalize the enemy. Create us or them mentalities, and eventually have to purge the world of those who oppose them. So while you begin to emulate the forces in which you so deride, I will not fall victim to the ignorance and false moral superiority you seem to have in your own opinion. And won't have to LIE and MISLEAD to make a point. Quote Miner.

[ymatmband]

@fabianstraregy And finally to sum up why your comment is COMPLETELY ridiculous. That quote by Stalin is by Anatoly Rybakov. And when asked whether he had proof that Stalin said it, he responded ... NO... astonishing. That being said Stalin did some terrible things, but I recommend to save yourself from looking like an uneducated human being that you take the time to understand what you are talking about. And furthermore look at sources before you quote things.

[fabianstraregy]

@Allrightteam yep!!!

[balkiprasanna1984]

I from India.. I think capitalism has caused more damage to this country... Now two extreme class of people have been forced to be moved... One extremely rich .... Another extremely poor.... I have seen many poor people living on the streets without any proper access to food, education and healthy life. On the other hand, extremely rich people.... Capitalism is really evil....

[fabianstraregy]

@balkiprasanna1984 Capitalism works,and it's the only system that will work between individuals,groups and nations.What has'nt worked is"Croney Capitalism".Wherein politicians whore themselves out to the highest corporate bidder.The politician initialy employed by the taxpayer is now a corporate whore.Socialist creep is another culprit in the malaise of our economy.We're not ever coming back fom this sh*t until all levels of gov't collapse.Then we start over again,ORIGINAL consitution in effect!

[32peartree]

Human beings are incredibly resourceful and the powers that be know that - that's why they flood ghettos with toxic drugs and allow them to be run by gangsters - they know full well if they left them to their own devices a commune might emerge - that's why Hoover destroyed the black panthers and allowed the gangs to take over.

[CIRCLECIX]

This is sort of what John Lennon into.

[Freethinker12341]

anti-statist marxism. that's some serious utopian stuff!

[SlipAllCityToy]

@Freethinker12341

What isn't!?!?

[Freethinker12341]

@SlipAllCityToy huh?

[SlipAllCityToy]

@Freethinker12341

...

What isn't?

Utopian I mean.

[fabianstraregy]

@Freethinker12341 marxism is statism , so surely you jest?

[Freethinker12341]

@fabianstraregy depends how we're defining statism. If you're equating "statism" with Stalinism, then I have to disagree. Marxism isn't Stalinism. Marxism (originally) wasn't intended to be about dictatorship or totalitarianism. But I think that's what the result inevitably is. Therefore, pure socialism isn't possible. You HAVE to have a dictatorship in order for it to work. Humanity isn't ready for socialism at this point.

[fabianstraregy]

@Freethinker12341 What humanity is ready for is and always will be ready for is the freedom to live their lives as they see fit and to enjoy the fruits of their labor with NO GOVERNMENT INTRUSION.No stealing the individuals under the guise of "helping" the indidual.Social Security,guise:In the 1930's the feds said that we were to stupid to figure out how to provide for ourselves in our old age.So they sid they would take a small bit of money and invest it and we'd all have a nice little nest egg

[fabianstraregy]

@fabianstraregy Not only did we not get our nest egg, but THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT STARTED THE LARGEST PONZI SCHEME EVER.They pissed our money away from day one to the tune of $60trillion. And that's without the so called "investing". Yes a lot of people have been getting social security money but they're getting it from the current income earners and not from the nest egg that never was. Putting gov't in charge of your money is like putting Rosie Odonnal in charge of your last donut

[Freethinker12341]

@fabianstraregy That's a cynical view in my opinion. Government isn't the problem man. I'm from Canada so the idea of more government and more social programs and more regulation isn't a scary idea for me. You say we should be able to live our lives in whatever way we want. Alright. I want a society with partial private sector, partial public sector. If you don't like dont then u have to leave e country. If the majority of people vote on something, that's it. That's all there is to it.

[fabianstraregy]

@Freethinker12341 It's not cynical It's a fact that when I get my paycheck that 40% of my check has already been finger fcuk skimmed by various levels of gov't. 40%of the fruits of my labor stolen without as much as a kiss is slavery. Gov't is just a huge burden and has sucked the very lfie out of it's own citizens through taxation.The only thing the gov't can be good for is national defense, postal service and building roads. Capitalism will take care of all the rest.

[Freethinker12341]

@fabianstraregy 40% eh? what do u do for a living? how much do you make?

[Freethinker12341]

@fabianstraregy personally i dont mind if the government takes 40% of my money. if i was making a good $250 000 a year at a bank, then i think its just. but if i were making $10 000 a year in a kitchen, that would be a different story. See some of us don't care all the much about money. we just want the satisfaction of knowing that we'll be able to get by. as long as i feel like my work is contributing to something i feel a sense of purpose.

[bfoaliali]

I dont get what he means. Does he mean, lets take a very common example, that workers at Mcdonlads should own the Mcdonlads? Or, the the workers of Amazon should own Amazon? How would that work out?

[s2586201]

@bfoaliali It means that the workplace would function through worker's control. This'd involve new decision-making structures that allow for direct democracy to emerge, rather than decisions being dictated from the top (i.e. CEOs) down (to wage-slaves). Further, the workers'd share in the profits etc made from the enterprise either in relation to labour input, or more communistic models depending on what's decided upon. This'd presuppose a society organised in a very different fashion though!

[RainbowBeast666]

@bfoaliali Also, in an anarchist society McDonalds and Amazon wouldn't really work the same way. The real farmers (the people that have been forced to stop producing by huge capitalistic corporations that supply food to places like McDonalds), would be in charge of the land again and be able to produce like they want to. What I'm trying to get at is that these sorts of businesses would not be totally necessary. More people would work the land and the factories, producing necessities.

[fabianstraregy]

@bfoaliali Here'show it would work.Marxist took over the the apartheid nationof Rodesia and turned it into a communist dictatership.Well Bob'o(Robert Mugabe)took everything from the white folks(assholes though they were)and gave it all to his marxist croneys who promptly bankrupted the newly named Zimbabwe.The people who made the economy work were thrown out and people who did'nt have a clue fcuked it up.The same would happen at Mcdonalds people without a clue would bankrupt the store,post haste

[bleachfan32ser]

@wtfjaftw Google libertarian socialism -_-

[justinvestal26]

I don't understand how anarchism can work on a large scale in modern times. Chomsky always points to pre-civil war Spain as an example but they were taken over by fascists. That seems to be one of it's major flaws. How can an anarchist society defend itself against more aggressive societies? I'd love it if anarchism could work but it seems impractical to me. Can anyone explain it to me?

[johnmickle]

@justinvestal26 The Fascists in Spain out alot of outside help. The Germans, Italians, British, AND Americans provided them with material and military aid. To add a little context, the centralized governments of France, Hungary, Poland ect also fell to Germany alone. So it wasn't just the anarchist movement in Spain that was defeated by fascism in this period. In an anarchist society there are still elected officials, generals ect. I don't see where it's impractical.

[johnmickle]

* had alot of outside help.

[SuperAcab666]

(A) and respect from Denmark

[Killer9ss]

@wtfjaftw That's the thing, you aren't forced to sell anything. It is a voluntary community in which you need not take part. If you were forced you wouldn't have a choice to live in it but you do (if it is anarchist). Also, troll was not used in that sense when I used it. I used it in the sense of someone trying to incite anger in another by any means possible, in this case by using egregiously false claims. An example of this was "Socialism is always force that's the definition".

[agapeiron]

@wtfjaftw Do you even know how to counter an argument or have a rational discussion? Or do you just like misrepresenting things to avoid having to defend your absurd beliefs? You're like every other irrational defender of capitalism on Youtube; no substance, cowers from every argument, then after avoiding confrontation, lamely offers up some nerdy net speak "OMG!" to let me know you're unable to respond. Do you get nervous when your flaky ideas are disrobed?

[agapeiron]

@wtfjaftw Not force in the sense of empirical acts of threats or violence for buyer and seller, yet economic forces propel sellers of labor-- who have nothing else to sell because of the separation of workers from the means of social life-- into the hands of capitalists. Capitalists who have private property because force was used to appropriate land in the first place. That's why ideological capitalists nowadays like market and property-oriented "non-coercion"-- To cling to their holdings.

[agapeiron]

@wtfjaftw Capitalism was founded on force. A ruling class established itself by force. It has always been sustained by State intervention. What societies exist today that are capitalist in economy but require absolutely no State intervention to maintain capitalism?

A totally bare knuckles capitalism with extreme private property accumulation without State intervention on its behalf would need to hire private thugs to protect its holdings, viz. to maintain inequality and exploitation.

[Allrightteam]

@agapeiron No it didn't. When I raise money (Capital) to start a business I don't do it by force, and when I hire, nobody forces anyone to take the job or the pay. Communism, on the other hand, is always imposed by force. Chomsky himself advocates violence in establishing his worldview. He's also always supported governments that have done so - he denied the Chinese holocaust that was the great leap foreward, supported Cambodia's genocide of it's own people etc...

[fabianstraregy]

@Allrightteam People like 'agapeiron' are so stupid it is breath taking. The bare "knuckles and force" that he says issued from capitalism is preciely what his beloved marxists have ACTUALLY DONE.Soviet communists murdered 20million Soviets the Chinese communists murdered 65million ChiComs and the purgings have gone on through out the communist world. adios friend , Fabian Strategy

[Killer9ss]

@wtfjaftw YouAreQuiteTheIgnorantLadIHone­stly cannot tell if this is a troll or just sad and patheticOnce agian Socialism"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"I see no force involved with that definitionAlso if in a capitalist society slaves are forced to work for others for no pay is that voluntary exchange?Force and voluntary exchange are separate from each ideology

[Killer9ss]

@wtfjaftw "the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole" This means that a community of people can voluntarily share production, distribution and exchange and regulate it through direct democracy in an anarchist community. Those you don't want to benefit from the social services and contribute to them do not have to. Socialism is not necessarily slavery or force. Also that would not be capitalism at all if it's asocialistcommunity.

[govlover]

@wtfjaftw Uh.... 'stupidest' is not a word ( at least not around most circles ). 'Dumbest' is more appropriate. And you are right, I don't believe in freedom, especially when one must choose freedom or liberty... for this is not a free country for the immigrant. It was for the chattel owners / genocidal 'founding fathers,' but everyone else must pay their tribute in one form or another.

[Killer9ss]

@wtfjaftw Socialism "advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole" Anarchism "abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion" It is not force it is a voluntary system that you either can participate in or not. People can form their own socialized communities to work together... Anarchy is a voluntary system

[Killer9ss]

@wtfjaftw It actually isn't a contradiction. Why don't you do some research before making an ignorant comment?

[666FATTY]

@wtfjaftw google Libertarian socialism

[1x93cm]

@evelmassa mckenna didnt die- he moved past the eschaton

[hac5x3]

Is that Woody Allen?

[Atalay]

Full development of civil society's ability to regulate itself is the only way for withering away of the state. True socialism should based on direct democracy democracy with citizens' assemblies, worker councils. Private ownership of means of production is not a right, it's explotation of labor.

[Atalay]

Without participatory and direct democracy, without self-government, without decentralization, without making political communalize, we cannot talk about healthy democracy which is impossible for capitalism's economic model. Capitalism is based on class conflicts and in a society which based on classes and explotation, we cannot even talk about true democracy. It's just an oxymoron. Traditional representive democracy is a joke. Wake up

[thenoorys]

Anarchism does not recognize so called bourgeois rights such as "property rights".

[Atalay]

@thenoorys

Right. Like Gramsci said, capitalism maintained control not just through violence, political and economic coercion, but also ideologically, through a hegemonic culture in which the values of the bourgeoisie became the common sense values of all. Thus a consensus culture developed in which people in the working-class identified their own good with the good of the bourgeoisie and helped to maintain the status quo rather than revolting. That's how exploitation became "right" for lumpens

[EnergizerBunny804]

how could Libertarian socialism even be achieved? in an authoritarian socialist society the government could essentially take over EVERYTHING, and give the workers an illusion of power, but how could socialism exist without a government to restrict property rights?

[thenoorys]

@EnergizerBunny804

the state (the institution) is nothing but the democratic working class in socialism. when you're saying authoritarian you're essentially saying the authority of democracy. this has never in history happened at a national level, it's always ended with representation by dictators/corporate powers.

Anarchism takes it a step further by cutting out the state and replacing it with communalism that transcends borders and nationalism.

[raidon04]

Left-libertarianism (or 'libertarianism') is a rather beautiful political idea.

[xmattycorex]

@raidon04 its the best of both worlds...a free and equal society, with self-management and co-operation. not division, corruption, greed, and injustice you'll find in both capitalistic and statist societies we're used to today.

[pneumatictrousers]

Capitalism causes people to literally whore themselves out to a corrupt pimp

[jazzgtrplayer]

@kiltyoposse probably to get more views

[govlover]

Wow... "renting yourself / hiring yourself out was an attack to your personal integrity" couldn't agree with that more!!!!!! running time 4:00

[Raymonddaycom]

@govlover

easy enough to fix though...don't rent or sell yourself....it is your choice, no one forces you to work for others in a free society.  Just work for yourself.

[agapeiron]

@Raymonddaycom Agreed. Not that I agree that a truly free society can exist with class division and market competition, though. But rather than isolate it to the choice of one person, let us be honest about it: we need broad libertarian movements, with the working classes and oppressed peoples refusing to rent themselves. THEN capitalism can be uprooted and smashed, and humanity-- or at least a sizable chunk of it-- can begin to "work for themselves" through free association and solidarity.

[Raymonddaycom]

@agapeiron Do you believe in private property? I , too, believe in free association, but that includes who I trade with. Is Noam Chomsky suggesting that I shouldn't have right to sell my own labor? Don't I own my body? Shouldn't I be able to sell my services to anyone who wants to buy them? That isn't slavery, that is free trade. I could go subsist on my own. I , however, choose to cooperate with other people because dividing labor is far more efficient, ie less of my inputs for = outputs.

[gerryhiles]

Noam is me, just far more able.

[mistertakeda]

Interesting tags.

[fakeham]

@mistertakeda

Yeah, uh, wtf?

[djamorpheus]

@mistertakeda spread the word! hahaha

[diceyLee]

Free-market Capitalism == financial barbarism.

[LEAHCIM71457]

A Democracy is two wolves and a small lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Freedom under a Constitutional Republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. B.Franklin.

[thenoorys]

@LEAHCIM71457 Contesting the approval of a more well armed Wolf.

If that is democracy than a republic is two wolves escorting a hundred lambs into the slaughter house. How can you possibly trust someone to approve your vote. Of course B. Franklin would say that he was a Representative!!

Just like how Obama and his ilk are representing you

[LEAHCIM71457]

@thenoorys Your point is well taken. The Republic was and is a great experiment which has gone terrifyingly wrong. And be asured the oligarchy DOES NOT REPRESENT YOU OR I. But we get the type government we deserve. Thanks.

[leahcim3360]

'Democracy all the way through'...insightful.

[Experiment47]

Americans always have to be difficult.

[QwidgyboMan]

@Experiment47

Can I borrow some aluminum?

Haha.