I like Chomsky, but saying "Everything you said is worng" is neither answer nor argument. The US is not a "failed state". That term has a very specific meaning in Pol Sci, and he's just wrong to apply it to the U.S. It's also silly for him to speak of building up democracy between elections so as to put forth radically new candidates not dependent on wealth. This ignores the hard reality of how money impacts our process, and paints him as more naive than the revolutionary who addressed him.
@76libertyordeath Chomsky is an anarchist, so I don't really know how you came to the conclusion that he wants to expand government. He has plenty of literature on the subject, if you want to look into his views.
I am curious where is the data to support his assertions? Political therory is far different from scientific therory! It is clear that his assertions are incorrect if you research history! The only solution to the evils of government is the absent of government itself! Expanding government to attain his utopia is clearly the only way to attain his vision. What then? Democracy? Hardly! Socialism? Hardly! Dictatorship! Absolutely and history proves this just not in chomsky's labratory.
Chomsky cites everything thoroughly. He's pretty much on point with historical references and citations. What exactly are you trying to say? I'm a liitle lost.
@76libertyordeath if you look at the last century's history you'll find that every basically democratically elected leader propagating for a nationalization of its country's main resources for the benefit of the people,was toppled with the help of the US..harsh dictators on the other hand were largely left alone..but for a market apapted example of states with big pub. sectors take the nordic countries;large pub sectors and most socially developed with the least corruptionrates in the world
Democracy can also be hijacked very very easily too. Besides, when ever a communist party has looked like it was going to be elected within a democratic system - reactionary bourgeois forces have nearly always opted to dissolve universal suffrage.This is the real politik laying behind the realities of the cold war - because what might first have appeared to be power hungry Nonemklaturas grabbing control were, in retrospect, an inevitable consequence of gigantic class struggles.
@GnosticHumanist Bullshit. They just recognize the difference between a person asking honest questions and a person simply bloviating blatant falsehoods for a couple minutes.
I agree with erikbmyname, the Audience weren't acting like you say they were at all - the Girl was babbling fatuously and his audience probably knew for example, that he never supported the Sanctions; i'd be surprised if he HAD to point it out to anyone else in the room other than her..
She didn't ''Question'' him either, she did.. well, exactly as erikbmyname put it.
the majority of voters have the illusion that they have any power by the mere act of voting..yet most are unsatisfied by the consequences of the Corporate minorities who control the decisions of the puppet president/politicians who are there to simply get market shares in return.
@RENEDU2 You are a bit too stupid for me to be able to dispel your conspiracy-theory-tinted worldview in a few short sentences. Rest assured I once shared your mentality, although I never stooped quite so low as to write Corporate with a big C - this pseudo-germanistic use of caps is for me a clear alarm bell.
you're too much of a cretin to have any form of dialogue as I can realize.. if you can't deal with any different opinion than your own..maybe you can shove your head back in your arse?..
speaking of low..you can't even share your opinion except for insults based on spelling errors .. how constructive of you.. not..
maybe one day you'll have an opinion worth debating with..for now you can't think or speak for yourself it seems.. happy brainwash to you!
@RENEDU2 You lose bro, for a) you blocked me like a pussy b) you call me a queer - sorry, I don't think a guy who posts videos of canaries has any business calling others queer c) you spout uninformed, stupid opinions and expect respect - you ain't gonna get any and you should feel ashamed for being ignorant.
It must be frustrating to be Noam Chomsky. He regularly has to contend with irrational, simple-minded inquiries from both the right and left-leaning. It must feel like being stuck inside a moron sandwich.
No, I don't think the Jim Crow laws or slavery are a direct result of capitalism, but are similarly the result of the social structures of people's values in themselves. Perhaps these values are again rooted in nepotism and sustaining one's own culture and heritage, but in this case, the restricting a specific race from the voting polls has much less to do with capitalism and more to do with abusing the systems of control (rule&law) which inevitably exist in our social system.
The root of capitalism is the accumulation of legacy wealth which is inherited. Inheritance tends to pass along the bloodlines of race since descendents of wealth tend to be blood related and thus belonging to the same race.
Lenin accused Anarchists of being bourgeois wreckers - " Subordination of the working class to bourgeois politics in the guise of negation of politics" "Fragmentation of the working class movement". Chomsky holds out for a hopelessly utopian society - meanwhile the working class are crushed by the bourgeois every day - he also has no praise for the genuine achievements of the Soviet Union and Cuba in improving the dire living conditions of peasants and workers. Not a friend of the proletariat
@32peartree Most anarchists do not understand the state. If they knew how and why state originated in the ancient greco-roman period they would first demand the class differences eliminated before the elimination of state. That's probably why they got slaughtered in Paris Commune...if they would've used and forced the authority of workers, they might've lasted a bit longer.
@kaushiksays I just see anarchists has bourgeois interlopers - with nothing serious to offer - that's why the mass media have this love affair with them. Do you think the cops would allow thousands of communists to "occupy wall street"? They know the working class are not going to buy it. In Greece recently the anarchists actually fought on the side of the cops against the communists. Liberal capitalists and anarchists are just two sides of the same coin - fellow travelers.
@32peartree I hope people don't think I'm mindlessly bashing Anarchists because I was one at a point of time..only to realize the flaws in it. The irony of Anarchists being anti-state and supporting the police (a state organ) in Greece is against their principles themselves. Proudhon did not want women as a workforce because in France any work they did was considered unskilled, an him coming from the artisan class meant their work would be considered unskilled.Hopefully they read more literature
@32peartree Anarchists do have something to offer. Perhaps it's better to be Libertarian Socialist rather than pure Anarchist, but the Marxist-Leninist "dictatorship of the proletariat" is often is just manipulated to non-Socialist and non-Democratic ideals. I suppose they're just trying to counter balance this by removing any notion of one party rule which can be hijacked very, very easily.
@teevanator Therefore libertarian socialism is an oxymoron - socialism by its nature has to be authoritarian for the simple reason that bourgeois elements will always try to overthrow it. Chomsky likes to hang on to his precious principles and ignore brutal realities.
@32peartree Well you seem to take a very traditional Marxist view of History. I tend to think that assessing History teleologically will always lead to your desired outcome; for you that would be the vindication of class struggle. Seek and ye shall find. I for one would much rather live, uncontrolled and free, in a Libertarian Socialist society (if technically possible) than a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Power inherently corrupts. That is the brutal reality.
@teevanator I've seen too many democratically elected left-wing governments violently overthrown to believe in "libertarian socialism". It might upset western liberal sensibilities - but perhaps dictatorship is the only way the working class can be protected from their ideological enemies. This is probably the real politik that the USSR recognized and the western left didn't.Of course I'd like to believe in libertarian socialism - but the caveat is - it never quite seems to materialize.
Hey socialists, I have a question I would like to ask you. Do you think it's okay for people to take of themselves and find their own destiny? Also why do you feel the need to spend my money?
@IntronDepot1 WOW DUDE, calm down im not a socialist i do not want to spend your money. Im an Anarchist i want to BURN your money. and i believe people should pursue their passion
I'm not a socialist, but I can answer your questions.
-"Do you think it's okay for people to take of themselves and find their own destiny?"-
As long as it doesn't interfere with my life or lives of others.
-"Also why do you feel the need to spend my money?"-
The fact that you exist is thanks to the hard work and tax dollars of others. If you don't like people "spending" your money, then don't use roads, public schools or public hospitals.
That girl is why many have a negative view on socialists. People see socialists like her and think that we're all an uneducated bunch who just throw around words like capitalism, class warfare, and imperialism like they're meaningless buzzwords.
@bkr0127 he gets more angry in his debate against Silber. its on youtube. only time i've heard him raise his voice in the 100s of hours of listening to him speak
i think the girl kind of has a point, even though she was wrong about a few things. it's the fact that everyone supports what they know is the lesser of two evils that makes our democracy useless.
People just like to sound intelligent..... the fact is you need to be intelligent to be intelligent otherwise you end up like a clown being false to your own truth.
What we have in America is Fascist Corporatism, What we need is for the Public to rule the economy NOT the State, We should Abolish the Federal Reserve and the IRS and let Free-Market Capitalism take root and Make America a Prosperous Free country!! Vote RON PAUL for President 2012!! End The Wars!
any socialist that turns from anarchism has already lost their way. the anarchist spirit, even though it is more idealistic and coinciding in a platonic realm, is much more important to salvage than any horizontalization project that is strictly underacheiving. no one gives a shit about boshelivkism or any of that anymore, only deranged idiots, collaboration is the key to the left from moderate-lefts to anarchists or it will never turn into anything. part of it resides in consciousness.
any socialist that turns from anarchism has already lost their way. the anarchist spirit, even though it is more idealistic and coinciding in a platonic realm, is much more important to salvage than any horizontalization project that is strictly underacheiving. no one gives a shit about boshelivkism or any of that anymore, only deranged idiots, collaboration is the key to the left from moderate-lefts to anarchists or it will never turn into anything. part of it resides in consciousness.
any socialist that turns from anarchism has already lost their way. the anarchist spirit, even though it is more idealistic and coinciding in a platonic realm, is much more important to salvage than any horizontalization project that is strictly underacheiving. no one gives a shit about boshelivkism or any of that anymore, only deranged idiots, collaboration is the key to the left from moderate-lefts to anarchists or it will never turn into anything. part of it resides in consciousness.
any socialist that turns from anarchism has already lost their way. the anarchist spirit, even though it is more idealistic and coinciding in a platonic realm, is much more important to salvage than any horizontalization project that is strictly underacheiving. no one gives a shit about boshelivkism or any of that anymore, only deranged idiots, collaboration is the key to the left from moderate-lefts to anarchists or it will never turn into anything. part of it resides in consciousnes
@gen6k 'no one gives a shit about boshelivkism' well what about Nepal, Colombia, Cuba, Angola, India, Ecuador, Yemen - or don't those people matter? And what exactly has anarcho syndacalism, or whatever you call it, produced for the poor of this world. Just keep on rioting and having your useless meetings.
@32peartree all socialist populous movement have been hijacked and the power completely centralized. And thus betrays the very principals of socialism. Anarchism rids that problem at the root. There have been anarchist societies before. and I have no doubt it is only A beginning
any socialist that turns from anarchism has already lost their way. the anarchist spirit, even though it is more idealistic and coinciding in a platonic realm, is much more important to salvage than any horizontalization project that is strictly underacheiving. no one gives a shit about boshelivkism or any of that anymore, only deranged idiots, collaboration is the key to the left from moderate-lefts to anarchists or it will never turn into anything. part of it resides in consciousness.
any socialist that turns from anarchism has already lost their way. the anarchist spirit, even though it is more idealistic and coinciding in a platonic realm, is much more important to salvage than any horizontalization project that is strictly underacheiving. no one gives a shit about boshelivkism or any of that anymore, only deranged idiots, collaboration is the key to the left from moderate-lefts to anarchists or it will never turn into anything. part of it resides in consciousness.
any socialist that turns from anarchism has already lost their way. the anarchist spirit, even though it is more idealistic and coinciding in a platonic realm, is much more important to salvage than any horizontalization project that is strictly underacheiving. no one gives a shit about boshelivkism or any of that anymore, only deranged idiots, collaboration is the key to the left from moderate-lefts to anarchists or it will never turn into anything. part of it resides in consciousness.
Why does every Chomsky video have endless pages of pseudo-intellectual debates? Have you people heard of forums? Did you know that you could send private messages to someone?
@MCcookiebreath This is a forum, of a type. It encourages brevity and allows a larger number of people to respond than would otherwise. I wish they extended the character limit though, maybe to 1000 characters or something.
@MCcookiebreath This is a forum, of a type. It encourages brevity and allows a larger number of people to respond than would otherwise. I wish they extended the character limit though, maybe to 1000 characters or something.
@yanikv My honest impression of Chomsky is in total reverse of what you just said. Not that i think he is without faults as im sure everyone are in their own right, but to claim that he narrows debates is just laughable. He brings up points that the elites tries to avoid, and of course he focuses on America, he lives there. And It is the dominating power and is involved everywhere and keeps a record. The points isn't to follow Chomsky, but to verify what he says by the accessible documents.
Marxists... allways worshiping their leaders and silencing critics.
What if the stupid lil girl is telling the truth. Shutup! Chomsky is perfect. Shutup! Lenin was the greatest man of the universe. Shutup! Fidel is a young leader. Shutup! The Berlin Wall was a good idea
also i love marxist leninists whose biggest concern is coming to videos of chomsky and criticizing them. I dont know what's funnier, people supporting stalin in the 21st century or that according to the dislikes, there are only 4 of them left overall
well said, mr.naysayer, do you have anything half as impressive in terms of activism to match chomsky or are you blowing hot air out of your stupid mouth
The real issue is she(and rest of her Spartacist League which is one of most idiotic irrelevant "socialist" organization) DOESN'T CARE TO KNOW about Chomsky or his ideas.
The shame is that the original Spartacus League were actually quite respectable, formed by a number of great prominent leftist thinkers like Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecth. A bit too radical for my taste, but nevertheless serious thinkers.
The Spartacus League today are a joke, filled with angst ridden college students whose dialectic consists of little more than stockpiled slogans and whose worldview is an ideological fantasy where real world facts are irrelevant.
I agree. Not only that, what is worst isn't simply that their politic is irrelevant but the fact that their sectarianism is extremely antagonistic to other leftists as you can see here. And if I shall add one more thing, Spartacist League of today is NOT the continuation of Spraticist League from time of Rosa Luxemburg. Today's Spartacist League just copied the same name from Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht.
I probably should've made that distinction. Thanks for the correction. The original Spartacus League became the Communist Party of Germany in 1918.
I actually have personal experience with this. I attended an anti-death penalty protest once in Toronto that was hosted by far leftist groups. The woman speaking on behalf of the Spartacus League in the second half her speech did nothing but slander the other groups at the protest (Intl Trostkyists, et al). It was pathetic.
In short, like the girl in this video shows, you're absolutely right.
I mean, calling Chomsky a Democrat? Saying that he supported the Iraq sanctions? Both you and I know that that shows an ignorance not just in Chomsky's literature, but even in Chomsky's basic principles. I wouldn't even have to read one of his articles on the subject of the Iraq sanctions, for example, to decipher that he probably would have opposed them.
Exactly. I personally disagreed with Chomsky's decision of voting for Kerry but his motive was hoping that militancy of political movement in the U.S. will increase through the defeat of Bush. One can argue whether voting for Democrats is necessary action to support for rise of such militancy but it's simply illogical and STUPID to conclude that Chomsky "support" Democrats and everything that Kerry supported such as Iraq sanction.
I think it's combination of their ignorance and their irrelevant ultra-leftist sactarian politic. They support "revolution" over "reform". Fine! How do we get to the revolutionary stage? By rejecting reform that not only can bring victories for activists and working class but also can potentially radicalize more people into activism, they are also rejecting the potential of developing the movement closer to revolutionary stage.
If someone like you who said SL of early 20th Century was "too radical" for your taste, what can someone like me do? Best for someone like me to do is to unite for common interest despite the fact that there may be difference in the level of radicalism. Such as fight against death penalty or racism - issues that are so relevant and important for those who are not living in revolutionary stage and try to obtain more victories for that struggles and develop solidarity.
And it's fact that people who may not be as radical can become more radical when movement gets bigger, solidarity become stronger and victories are won. This is how movement develops. But for Spartacus League, since you are not radical and revolutionary, you are "reformist" and "reactionary". Thus you are an enemy. Not only that, since I tried to work with you for reform and other "non-revolutionary" struggles, I myself am their enemy too.
This is the main reason why Spartacus have react the way they did with Chomsky as well as your experience with anti-death penalty protest. I am a member of socialist organization who Spartacus League marked as "reformist" and "supporters of Democratic Party". Do you know what their "activism" is? Coming to our gathering and try to push people away from our organization. They even physically attacked one comrade. 40 years old man was jumped by four of 20 years old of them.
They are not helping the left. They are helping to destroy the left. Unfortunately they are quite big in the States. I heard they are very small in Australia. I get that you are from Canada. I don't know how big they are there but I hope you guys are suffering same way we do. But fortunately, they are insignificant and have no particular roles here. lol
If I was that woman at the beginning of the clip, I would wake up every morning, red-faced with embarrassment for the rest of my life for making such ignorant (and blatantly false) statements, especially towards one of the greatest minds to have walked the earth. I believe the kids would describe this as "Chomsky owned her ass"
Torn APART. I feel bad for her, though. She's obviously committed to similar ideals as Chomsky, and he only seemed to want to set the record straight, not incite the embarrassment she endured.
That girl is fantastically silly and careless, anyone following with some attention Chomsy's arguments (and I am not exactly a Chomsy fan) knows those are false.
you gentiles are Pathetic Always take some jew and make him god or Messiah just like the jesus and kerl marx and know this noam chomsky did you ever wondering why is this all your biggst gods and messiah and your intellectuals from right and left are jewish and you wonder how we the jews call are self the chosen people dont diss this
comment in 100 yreas from know your kids will things that holly histroy just like your Fathers Though't even the arebs belive in a jewish idea of god
@FRSFreeStateES He was taking on someone from the 'Spartacus League', a very sectarian and Ultra-left group that fiercely idolizes Rosa Luxembourg and Leon Trotsky. They are deplored by most socialist on the Democratic Left and the Revolutionary Left.
Chomsky again shows what an idiot he is. Obomba is FAR MORE DANGEROUS than even Bush. He has expanded the wars. Now he is killing people in Yemen and Libya and Pakistan. The same imperial agenda is being pushed at an even faster pace. Yet Chomsky will always side with such people, showing that is indeed no anarchist at all. He even touted the "efficiency" of gov't run healthcare! The man is a joke.
@MillionthUsername maybe he's an idiot, maybe he's not if you had given yourself time to see when the clip is from (2004) you might have discovered that it would be unfair to talk about Obama, to come to if you're looking for videos about Chomsky and Obama you will hear that Chomsky believes Obama is a continuation of Bush ... so your postulate is not justified
@MrBandholm Chomsky says that voting doesn't make a difference, but then goes on to explain why it does. He poses as an "anarchist" and then tells people that Bush is in a unique category of extremism - implying falsely that the democrats are not - so it would be better to vote for democrats. He's a weasel. He always wants it both ways. Here he's saying Kerry would make a difference domestically. He had the same rap about Obomba PRIOR TO the election. Knee-jerk unthinking pointless leftism.
@MillionthUsername He says that it does not make much difference when the two parties are two divisions of the business lot (so it is not possible to obtain significant changes) but there is obviously a difference between the two, and that means that there may come a bit change (which is of course logic)
@MillionthUsername LOL I was watching a video on youtube just before Obama was elected where Chomsky was telling people to listen to Obama's rhetoric. Obama would say Iraq is bad and then openly talk about expanding Afghanistan and going into Pakistan.
There is a world of nuance in saying that a certain side could be a little advantageous to working class people's 401k retirement plan. Politics aren't as black and white as some leftists would like to believe. I have been there before I get it.
@lbcdemon Exactly. Obomber was telegraphing quite clearly that he was going to expand into Pakistan. He's got the same policy as Bush. That's the "continuity of agenda" we find between the two supposedly opposite parties. Things continue down the same path regardless of which wing of the statist party is in power. Obomber easily put the "anti-war left" to sleep like a master hypnotist. Apparently they think all the wars are over now when he's bombing even more countries! It's insane.
I did a quick Google search, and Chomsky strongly opposed the sanctions, even suggesting that without them the Iraq people may have been able to get rid of Saddam on their own.
So yea, the chick asking the question is either an idiot or a blatant liar -- I'm not sure which is worse.
@nofuture13: Do I really have to answer every idiot who does not even have the necessary intelligence for a decent conversation? You're an idiot, and unless you bring an argument that could contradict my theories rather than bashing with insults, I advise you to go to the jungle and live with a group of gorillas so that you would finally be with your own kind... Good bye!
to fulfill their goals, and the only reason they succeeded was the fact that the people hated the lack of rights and the authoritarian leanings of that systems. I support a planned economy within a democratic system, and my vision of planned economy is a bit different from the Stalinist one as I would accept the existence of self-employed workers, family businesses (where family members are both owners and workers) and private workers cooperatives, which would be businesses where the employees
people rich at the expense of the majority, and corruption worsened the situation. That was the story you will find in every eastern European state - the planned economy was abolished because it protected the majority of people in front of the interests of the selfish exploiter, but the effects were very damaging for the economies of that countries!
In consequence, planned economies never failed, but were abolished for the interests of some greedy politicians, who manipulated the public opinion
stealing), and after the revolution they sold 80% of the factories of the state (if not more) at bargain prices and built themselves villas with the money, but there was also the fact that the privatization process reduced the nation's profits, and as private enterprises do not use their profits to provide free health care or free education, these services became unaffordable for some people after the revolution, and the purchasing power parity decreased. Privatization made a tiny number of
abolished. Take the example of my country, Romania: We had a GDP of 112 billion $ (2010 $) in 1988, and 3 years after the capitalist revolution of 1989 we reached a GDP of 35 billion $. How did this happen? Well of course, there was the fact that the personalities who started the revolution which ended Ceausescu's rule were actually the corrupt members of the "Romanian Communist Party" who wanted nothing but open season for stealing money (since the Stalinist system had harsh punishments for
propagandist idiot like him? Look, the fact that the ex-Stalinist states are moving from a planned economy to a free market economy doesn't prove a thing about the functioning of a planned economy. On the contrary, these changes have been adopted by the profitarian political elite who wanted to increase its wealth at the expenditure of the prosperity of the people, and as the planned economies do not allow for exploitation and concentration of wealth into the hands of the few, they have been
production and the people would control the state. In the USSR or Mao's China, the state was an authoritarian godly force which controlled both the economy and the people, and the only reason I called them socialist DICTATORSHIPS is to make you understand that these states were hybrid systems born from the mixture of socialism and totalitarianism.
Regarding your question, I am still wondering whom did you get the idea that planned economies do not work from. Was it Glenn Beck or another
Communism represents a stateless and classless society, (thing which never existed in human history) while socialism represents a society transitioning from capitalism to communism, in which the differences between classes are much smaller than in capitalism and states do still exist. Now, the Stalinist states were as well a deformation of socialism, and it is somehow wrong to call them socialist as well, since Marx clearly stated that in a socialist country the state would control the means of
@andyz0007: I only asked for Chomsky's political position within socialism and I don't have the nerves and the time necessary for another political debate with a person who barely knows anything about politics. I made this statement because you used the words "ex-communist state", and if you would have the slightest notion of what communism really is, you would already know that the Soviet Union and the ex-Stalinist/ex-Maoist countries were SOCIALIST DICTATORSHIPS, not communist states. Why?
@Vict0r1984 In academic discourse Communism, with a capital C, is taken to mean the Marxist-Leninist form of socialism, i.e. revolutionary socialism. If forgot the "C", my apologies.
@michaelcjordan: I don't know that much about him, but I agree with Chomsky's speech from this movie and from the movie "Chomsky on socialism" as well. I am a Marxist democrat socialist and I support a planned economy within a politically democratic system with freedoms of expression and elections, and with workers cooperatives controlling the economy rather than the bourgeoisie of the so-called "Communist party" like in Stalinist systems. What kind of socialism does Chomsky support?
@Vict0r1984 Planned economies are a bad way to organize economic activity. Hence almost every socialist/ex-communist state has or is in the process of abandoning them in favor of a market system. Why are you in favour of something that has persistently failed. I'm curious.
@andyz0007 Chomsky says that the word socialism has no real meaning... you are using it in the western style: to demonize the failed states which are called socialist in the history books, despite being tyrannical dictatorships. Unfortunately, it's a lot more complicated than that... much easier to tell someone that something is evil if you have some kind of vested interest in their resources.
@fdalkjfdsalkj I can't see how anyone who cares about proletarian revolution and the liberation of the working class can ever admire Mao. Mao's positive notes are GREATLY outnumbered by his negative notes. Mao was an open Stalinist. There is NOTHING admirable about Stalinism. I'm a communist myself but we have to remain critical of these "leaders". In fact I think many American Socialists are clinging too much to the "liberal" establishment. But that's just my views.
@medliberty Tax programs and social benefits programs, was his example here. He was stating that, despite Clinton and Bush's limited differences, Bush's policies were devastating to the general welfare by way of his tax legislation and his assault on the benefit programs intended for the lower classes. Obama and McCain have a tiny margin of difference, but I think there are obvious large effects that has come out of that paper thing difference, easily seen in Cash for Clunkers, for example
I like Chomsky, but saying "Everything you said is worng" is neither answer nor argument. The US is not a "failed state". That term has a very specific meaning in Pol Sci, and he's just wrong to apply it to the U.S. It's also silly for him to speak of building up democracy between elections so as to put forth radically new candidates not dependent on wealth. This ignores the hard reality of how money impacts our process, and paints him as more naive than the revolutionary who addressed him.
tenagnek 14 hours ago
@76libertyordeath Chomsky is an anarchist, so I don't really know how you came to the conclusion that he wants to expand government. He has plenty of literature on the subject, if you want to look into his views.
ftw522 1 week ago
@ftw522 Although he does support some sort of transitional phase through the state, like Luxemburg before Bakunin etc.
AndrewMann552 2 days ago
I am curious where is the data to support his assertions? Political therory is far different from scientific therory! It is clear that his assertions are incorrect if you research history! The only solution to the evils of government is the absent of government itself! Expanding government to attain his utopia is clearly the only way to attain his vision. What then? Democracy? Hardly! Socialism? Hardly! Dictatorship! Absolutely and history proves this just not in chomsky's labratory.
76libertyordeath 1 week ago
Chomsky cites everything thoroughly. He's pretty much on point with historical references and citations. What exactly are you trying to say? I'm a liitle lost.
maxwellnolan 1 week ago
@76libertyordeath if you look at the last century's history you'll find that every basically democratically elected leader propagating for a nationalization of its country's main resources for the benefit of the people,was toppled with the help of the US..harsh dictators on the other hand were largely left alone..but for a market apapted example of states with big pub. sectors take the nordic countries;large pub sectors and most socially developed with the least corruptionrates in the world
ElBank2012 2 days ago
Revolutionary socialists give reform/democratic socialists a bad name.
Logarithmify 1 week ago
Don't anger the Chomsker his massive intellect will eat you
peoman2 1 week ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people want young white females to mix with non-white males.
I made a one-minute video highlighting a very small sample of race-mixing advertisements.
I love white people, and I am opposed to race-mixing. But I do not hate non-whites.
If you click on my name “awhitesoul2012” highlighted in blue below this comment, you can watch my video.
Thanks.
awhitesoul2012 1 week ago
Democracy can also be hijacked very very easily too. Besides, when ever a communist party has looked like it was going to be elected within a democratic system - reactionary bourgeois forces have nearly always opted to dissolve universal suffrage.This is the real politik laying behind the realities of the cold war - because what might first have appeared to be power hungry Nonemklaturas grabbing control were, in retrospect, an inevitable consequence of gigantic class struggles.
32peartree 2 weeks ago
What a waste of time and resources. That's what happens when you let bitches have opinions.
misOBGYNist 2 weeks ago
Lol, the audience are like: "how DARE she question Lord Chomsky!!!"
GnosticHumanist 1 month ago
@GnosticHumanist Bullshit. They just recognize the difference between a person asking honest questions and a person simply bloviating blatant falsehoods for a couple minutes.
erikbmyname 1 month ago
@GnosticHumanist
I agree with erikbmyname, the Audience weren't acting like you say they were at all - the Girl was babbling fatuously and his audience probably knew for example, that he never supported the Sanctions; i'd be surprised if he HAD to point it out to anyone else in the room other than her..
She didn't ''Question'' him either, she did.. well, exactly as erikbmyname put it.
BelfastAtheist 3 weeks ago
Girl's insane!
JJaguar333 1 month ago
Please don't use the Spartacists as an example of "socialists". They're a nutty sect.
Risperdali 1 month ago
Lady, you're making my head hurt.
homerco213 1 month ago
democracy is as corrupted as any other system..
RENEDU2 1 month ago
@RENEDU2 explain plz
vokuvoku 1 month ago
@vokuvoku
the majority of voters have the illusion that they have any power by the mere act of voting..yet most are unsatisfied by the consequences of the Corporate minorities who control the decisions of the puppet president/politicians who are there to simply get market shares in return.
RENEDU2 1 month ago
@RENEDU2 yea well that's real simplistic, for you then that which is called democracy right now=democracy
gotta be less black and white
vokuvoku 1 month ago
@vokuvoku
let's hear your 'sohisticated' explanation
RENEDU2 1 month ago
@RENEDU2 You are a bit too stupid for me to be able to dispel your conspiracy-theory-tinted worldview in a few short sentences. Rest assured I once shared your mentality, although I never stooped quite so low as to write Corporate with a big C - this pseudo-germanistic use of caps is for me a clear alarm bell.
vokuvoku 1 month ago
@vokuvoku
you're too much of a cretin to have any form of dialogue as I can realize.. if you can't deal with any different opinion than your own..maybe you can shove your head back in your arse?..
speaking of low..you can't even share your opinion except for insults based on spelling errors .. how constructive of you.. not..
maybe one day you'll have an opinion worth debating with..for now you can't think or speak for yourself it seems.. happy brainwash to you!
RENEDU2 1 month ago
@RENEDU2 You lose bro, for a) you blocked me like a pussy b) you call me a queer - sorry, I don't think a guy who posts videos of canaries has any business calling others queer c) you spout uninformed, stupid opinions and expect respect - you ain't gonna get any and you should feel ashamed for being ignorant.
vokuvoku 1 month ago
It must be frustrating to be Noam Chomsky. He regularly has to contend with irrational, simple-minded inquiries from both the right and left-leaning. It must feel like being stuck inside a moron sandwich.
jasondelauro 1 month ago 3
@zwiiyt
No, I don't think the Jim Crow laws or slavery are a direct result of capitalism, but are similarly the result of the social structures of people's values in themselves. Perhaps these values are again rooted in nepotism and sustaining one's own culture and heritage, but in this case, the restricting a specific race from the voting polls has much less to do with capitalism and more to do with abusing the systems of control (rule&law) which inevitably exist in our social system.
SBRslacker00 1 month ago
@zwiiyt
The root of capitalism is the accumulation of legacy wealth which is inherited. Inheritance tends to pass along the bloodlines of race since descendents of wealth tend to be blood related and thus belonging to the same race.
SBRslacker00 1 month ago
lol, what a amusing idiot
DavidByrne85 1 month ago
Lenin accused Anarchists of being bourgeois wreckers - " Subordination of the working class to bourgeois politics in the guise of negation of politics" "Fragmentation of the working class movement". Chomsky holds out for a hopelessly utopian society - meanwhile the working class are crushed by the bourgeois every day - he also has no praise for the genuine achievements of the Soviet Union and Cuba in improving the dire living conditions of peasants and workers. Not a friend of the proletariat
32peartree 1 month ago
@32peartree Most anarchists do not understand the state. If they knew how and why state originated in the ancient greco-roman period they would first demand the class differences eliminated before the elimination of state. That's probably why they got slaughtered in Paris Commune...if they would've used and forced the authority of workers, they might've lasted a bit longer.
kaushiksays 2 weeks ago
@kaushiksays I just see anarchists has bourgeois interlopers - with nothing serious to offer - that's why the mass media have this love affair with them. Do you think the cops would allow thousands of communists to "occupy wall street"? They know the working class are not going to buy it. In Greece recently the anarchists actually fought on the side of the cops against the communists. Liberal capitalists and anarchists are just two sides of the same coin - fellow travelers.
32peartree 2 weeks ago
@32peartree I hope people don't think I'm mindlessly bashing Anarchists because I was one at a point of time..only to realize the flaws in it. The irony of Anarchists being anti-state and supporting the police (a state organ) in Greece is against their principles themselves. Proudhon did not want women as a workforce because in France any work they did was considered unskilled, an him coming from the artisan class meant their work would be considered unskilled.Hopefully they read more literature
kaushiksays 2 weeks ago
@32peartree Anarchists do have something to offer. Perhaps it's better to be Libertarian Socialist rather than pure Anarchist, but the Marxist-Leninist "dictatorship of the proletariat" is often is just manipulated to non-Socialist and non-Democratic ideals. I suppose they're just trying to counter balance this by removing any notion of one party rule which can be hijacked very, very easily.
teevanator 2 weeks ago
@teevanator Therefore libertarian socialism is an oxymoron - socialism by its nature has to be authoritarian for the simple reason that bourgeois elements will always try to overthrow it. Chomsky likes to hang on to his precious principles and ignore brutal realities.
32peartree 2 weeks ago
@32peartree Well you seem to take a very traditional Marxist view of History. I tend to think that assessing History teleologically will always lead to your desired outcome; for you that would be the vindication of class struggle. Seek and ye shall find. I for one would much rather live, uncontrolled and free, in a Libertarian Socialist society (if technically possible) than a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Power inherently corrupts. That is the brutal reality.
teevanator 2 weeks ago
@teevanator I've seen too many democratically elected left-wing governments violently overthrown to believe in "libertarian socialism". It might upset western liberal sensibilities - but perhaps dictatorship is the only way the working class can be protected from their ideological enemies. This is probably the real politik that the USSR recognized and the western left didn't.Of course I'd like to believe in libertarian socialism - but the caveat is - it never quite seems to materialize.
32peartree 2 weeks ago
she fucked herself by introducing this oxymoron into her philosophy: "rational and enlightened form of imperialism". no such thing.
gamesguru 1 month ago
Chomsky thoroughly destroyed this women.
fLcGambit 1 month ago
*take care of themselves
IntronDepot1 1 month ago
Hey socialists, I have a question I would like to ask you. Do you think it's okay for people to take of themselves and find their own destiny? Also why do you feel the need to spend my money?
IntronDepot1 1 month ago
@IntronDepot1
I have a question for you: why is it that you consider the money 'yours' to begin with?
Lodatzor 1 month ago
@IntronDepot1 WOW DUDE, calm down im not a socialist i do not want to spend your money. Im an Anarchist i want to BURN your money. and i believe people should pursue their passion
NDPdEport 1 month ago
@IntronDepot1
I'm not a socialist, but I can answer your questions.
-"Do you think it's okay for people to take of themselves and find their own destiny?"-
As long as it doesn't interfere with my life or lives of others.
-"Also why do you feel the need to spend my money?"-
The fact that you exist is thanks to the hard work and tax dollars of others. If you don't like people "spending" your money, then don't use roads, public schools or public hospitals.
JonathanTheAlchemist 1 month ago
This bitch is nuts.
IntronDepot1 1 month ago
wow Chomsky is outlefted !
xtrmsprts 2 months ago
@xtrmsprts Wrong. Trtskyouts are th the right of Chompsky.
milascave2 2 months ago
That girl is why many have a negative view on socialists. People see socialists like her and think that we're all an uneducated bunch who just throw around words like capitalism, class warfare, and imperialism like they're meaningless buzzwords.
Thankfully, Chomsky pwned her.
CrazyCheeseMagee 2 months ago 27
@CrazyCheeseMagee No, many see socialists in a negative view because of Soviet and American propaganda machines running for 70 years.
ped200014 1 month ago
sheeps.. let her ask a question and him answer..ffs
RENEDU2 2 months ago
@RENEDU2 The plural of sheep is sheep :) Like fish.
jenko4292 2 months ago
@jenko4292
thanks for correction!
RENEDU2 2 months ago
With this question, I wouldn't be surprised if this photo was actually a video of his disbelief in the asker's ignorance.
michaelwuzthere 3 months ago
That is the most angry i have seen chomsky get. That girl was quite fatuous though.
bkr0127 3 months ago 4
@bkr0127 he gets more angry in his debate against Silber. its on youtube. only time i've heard him raise his voice in the 100s of hours of listening to him speak
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 month ago
i think the girl kind of has a point, even though she was wrong about a few things. it's the fact that everyone supports what they know is the lesser of two evils that makes our democracy useless.
ienjoyapples 3 months ago
People just like to sound intelligent..... the fact is you need to be intelligent to be intelligent otherwise you end up like a clown being false to your own truth.
astarotcito 3 months ago
What the hell is a "democratic society"
OsoLeBlanc 3 months ago
"I'm sure I opposed them far more strongly than you did."
What a boss.
TheLockon00 4 months ago 22
This has been flagged as spam show
What we have in America is Fascist Corporatism, What we need is for the Public to rule the economy NOT the State, We should Abolish the Federal Reserve and the IRS and let Free-Market Capitalism take root and Make America a Prosperous Free country!! Vote RON PAUL for President 2012!! End The Wars!
Leftovervictim1991 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
any socialist that turns from anarchism has already lost their way. the anarchist spirit, even though it is more idealistic and coinciding in a platonic realm, is much more important to salvage than any horizontalization project that is strictly underacheiving. no one gives a shit about boshelivkism or any of that anymore, only deranged idiots, collaboration is the key to the left from moderate-lefts to anarchists or it will never turn into anything. part of it resides in consciousness.
gen6k 5 months ago
Comment removed
gen6k 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
any socialist that turns from anarchism has already lost their way. the anarchist spirit, even though it is more idealistic and coinciding in a platonic realm, is much more important to salvage than any horizontalization project that is strictly underacheiving. no one gives a shit about boshelivkism or any of that anymore, only deranged idiots, collaboration is the key to the left from moderate-lefts to anarchists or it will never turn into anything. part of it resides in consciousness.
gen6k 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
any socialist that turns from anarchism has already lost their way. the anarchist spirit, even though it is more idealistic and coinciding in a platonic realm, is much more important to salvage than any horizontalization project that is strictly underacheiving. no one gives a shit about boshelivkism or any of that anymore, only deranged idiots, collaboration is the key to the left from moderate-lefts to anarchists or it will never turn into anything. part of it resides in consciousness.
gen6k 5 months ago
any socialist that turns from anarchism has already lost their way. the anarchist spirit, even though it is more idealistic and coinciding in a platonic realm, is much more important to salvage than any horizontalization project that is strictly underacheiving. no one gives a shit about boshelivkism or any of that anymore, only deranged idiots, collaboration is the key to the left from moderate-lefts to anarchists or it will never turn into anything. part of it resides in consciousnes
gen6k 5 months ago
@gen6k 'no one gives a shit about boshelivkism' well what about Nepal, Colombia, Cuba, Angola, India, Ecuador, Yemen - or don't those people matter? And what exactly has anarcho syndacalism, or whatever you call it, produced for the poor of this world. Just keep on rioting and having your useless meetings.
32peartree 3 months ago
Comment removed
gen6k 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@32peartree eww. it does have some efficacy with a strong government hand, but no long term potential.
gen6k 3 months ago
@32peartree Your arguments are acceptable.but its time to fight together not to fight among ourselves.
VALANIFS 3 months ago
@VALANIFS agreed, but the Spartiicus Leauge is notorius for only attacking other leftists.
milascave2 2 months ago
@32peartree all socialist populous movement have been hijacked and the power completely centralized. And thus betrays the very principals of socialism. Anarchism rids that problem at the root. There have been anarchist societies before. and I have no doubt it is only A beginning
NDPdEport 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
any socialist that turns from anarchism has already lost their way. the anarchist spirit, even though it is more idealistic and coinciding in a platonic realm, is much more important to salvage than any horizontalization project that is strictly underacheiving. no one gives a shit about boshelivkism or any of that anymore, only deranged idiots, collaboration is the key to the left from moderate-lefts to anarchists or it will never turn into anything. part of it resides in consciousness.
gen6k 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
any socialist that turns from anarchism has already lost their way. the anarchist spirit, even though it is more idealistic and coinciding in a platonic realm, is much more important to salvage than any horizontalization project that is strictly underacheiving. no one gives a shit about boshelivkism or any of that anymore, only deranged idiots, collaboration is the key to the left from moderate-lefts to anarchists or it will never turn into anything. part of it resides in consciousness.
gen6k 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
any socialist that turns from anarchism has already lost their way. the anarchist spirit, even though it is more idealistic and coinciding in a platonic realm, is much more important to salvage than any horizontalization project that is strictly underacheiving. no one gives a shit about boshelivkism or any of that anymore, only deranged idiots, collaboration is the key to the left from moderate-lefts to anarchists or it will never turn into anything. part of it resides in consciousness.
gen6k 5 months ago
What a dumb girl ... she obviosly dosent have no idea who Chomsky is
clickswitchh 5 months ago
Why does every Chomsky video have endless pages of pseudo-intellectual debates? Have you people heard of forums? Did you know that you could send private messages to someone?
MCcookiebreath 6 months ago
@MCcookiebreath This is a forum, of a type. It encourages brevity and allows a larger number of people to respond than would otherwise. I wish they extended the character limit though, maybe to 1000 characters or something.
radscorpion8 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MCcookiebreath This is a forum, of a type. It encourages brevity and allows a larger number of people to respond than would otherwise. I wish they extended the character limit though, maybe to 1000 characters or something.
radscorpion8 5 months ago
@yanikv My honest impression of Chomsky is in total reverse of what you just said. Not that i think he is without faults as im sure everyone are in their own right, but to claim that he narrows debates is just laughable. He brings up points that the elites tries to avoid, and of course he focuses on America, he lives there. And It is the dominating power and is involved everywhere and keeps a record. The points isn't to follow Chomsky, but to verify what he says by the accessible documents.
Tyrfingr 6 months ago 2
Marxists... allways worshiping their leaders and silencing critics.
What if the stupid lil girl is telling the truth. Shutup! Chomsky is perfect. Shutup! Lenin was the greatest man of the universe. Shutup! Fidel is a young leader. Shutup! The Berlin Wall was a good idea
trifulquita15 6 months ago
As a Marxist, im deeply ashamed by that trolling cunt.
shurednichso 6 months ago
also i love marxist leninists whose biggest concern is coming to videos of chomsky and criticizing them. I dont know what's funnier, people supporting stalin in the 21st century or that according to the dislikes, there are only 4 of them left overall
MrAbe345 6 months ago
@yanikv
well said, mr.naysayer, do you have anything half as impressive in terms of activism to match chomsky or are you blowing hot air out of your stupid mouth
MrAbe345 6 months ago
That woman knows absolutely nothing about Chomsky or his ideas.
BloggerMusicMan 6 months ago
@BloggerMusicMan
The real issue is she(and rest of her Spartacist League which is one of most idiotic irrelevant "socialist" organization) DOESN'T CARE TO KNOW about Chomsky or his ideas.
unorthodoxtrotsky 6 months ago
@unorthodoxtrotsky
The shame is that the original Spartacus League were actually quite respectable, formed by a number of great prominent leftist thinkers like Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecth. A bit too radical for my taste, but nevertheless serious thinkers.
The Spartacus League today are a joke, filled with angst ridden college students whose dialectic consists of little more than stockpiled slogans and whose worldview is an ideological fantasy where real world facts are irrelevant.
BloggerMusicMan 6 months ago
@BloggerMusicMan
I agree. Not only that, what is worst isn't simply that their politic is irrelevant but the fact that their sectarianism is extremely antagonistic to other leftists as you can see here. And if I shall add one more thing, Spartacist League of today is NOT the continuation of Spraticist League from time of Rosa Luxemburg. Today's Spartacist League just copied the same name from Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht.
unorthodoxtrotsky 6 months ago
@unorthodoxtrotsky
I probably should've made that distinction. Thanks for the correction. The original Spartacus League became the Communist Party of Germany in 1918.
I actually have personal experience with this. I attended an anti-death penalty protest once in Toronto that was hosted by far leftist groups. The woman speaking on behalf of the Spartacus League in the second half her speech did nothing but slander the other groups at the protest (Intl Trostkyists, et al). It was pathetic.
BloggerMusicMan 6 months ago
@unorthodoxtrotsky
In short, like the girl in this video shows, you're absolutely right.
I mean, calling Chomsky a Democrat? Saying that he supported the Iraq sanctions? Both you and I know that that shows an ignorance not just in Chomsky's literature, but even in Chomsky's basic principles. I wouldn't even have to read one of his articles on the subject of the Iraq sanctions, for example, to decipher that he probably would have opposed them.
BloggerMusicMan 6 months ago
@BloggerMusicMan
Exactly. I personally disagreed with Chomsky's decision of voting for Kerry but his motive was hoping that militancy of political movement in the U.S. will increase through the defeat of Bush. One can argue whether voting for Democrats is necessary action to support for rise of such militancy but it's simply illogical and STUPID to conclude that Chomsky "support" Democrats and everything that Kerry supported such as Iraq sanction.
unorthodoxtrotsky 6 months ago
@BloggerMusicMan
I think it's combination of their ignorance and their irrelevant ultra-leftist sactarian politic. They support "revolution" over "reform". Fine! How do we get to the revolutionary stage? By rejecting reform that not only can bring victories for activists and working class but also can potentially radicalize more people into activism, they are also rejecting the potential of developing the movement closer to revolutionary stage.
unorthodoxtrotsky 6 months ago
@BloggerMusicMan
If someone like you who said SL of early 20th Century was "too radical" for your taste, what can someone like me do? Best for someone like me to do is to unite for common interest despite the fact that there may be difference in the level of radicalism. Such as fight against death penalty or racism - issues that are so relevant and important for those who are not living in revolutionary stage and try to obtain more victories for that struggles and develop solidarity.
unorthodoxtrotsky 6 months ago
@BloggerMusicMan
And it's fact that people who may not be as radical can become more radical when movement gets bigger, solidarity become stronger and victories are won. This is how movement develops. But for Spartacus League, since you are not radical and revolutionary, you are "reformist" and "reactionary". Thus you are an enemy. Not only that, since I tried to work with you for reform and other "non-revolutionary" struggles, I myself am their enemy too.
unorthodoxtrotsky 6 months ago
@BloggerMusicMan
This is the main reason why Spartacus have react the way they did with Chomsky as well as your experience with anti-death penalty protest. I am a member of socialist organization who Spartacus League marked as "reformist" and "supporters of Democratic Party". Do you know what their "activism" is? Coming to our gathering and try to push people away from our organization. They even physically attacked one comrade. 40 years old man was jumped by four of 20 years old of them.
unorthodoxtrotsky 6 months ago
@BloggerMusicMan
They are not helping the left. They are helping to destroy the left. Unfortunately they are quite big in the States. I heard they are very small in Australia. I get that you are from Canada. I don't know how big they are there but I hope you guys are suffering same way we do. But fortunately, they are insignificant and have no particular roles here. lol
unorthodoxtrotsky 6 months ago
A pathetic woman who wishes to simply glorify herself and her ideals.
Ermal8711 6 months ago
If I was that woman at the beginning of the clip, I would wake up every morning, red-faced with embarrassment for the rest of my life for making such ignorant (and blatantly false) statements, especially towards one of the greatest minds to have walked the earth. I believe the kids would describe this as "Chomsky owned her ass"
urcritic 6 months ago
Torn APART. I feel bad for her, though. She's obviously committed to similar ideals as Chomsky, and he only seemed to want to set the record straight, not incite the embarrassment she endured.
controverter 7 months ago
It's like she never even read one of his books.
jessemaurais 7 months ago 23
sounds like a femi-nazi to me. Also she has facts wrong. Chomsky does not support the democracts full stop.
brownie1982ad 7 months ago
That girl is fantastically silly and careless, anyone following with some attention Chomsy's arguments (and I am not exactly a Chomsy fan) knows those are false.
danielrep 7 months ago 26
This has been flagged as spam show
you gentiles are Pathetic Always take some jew and make him god or Messiah just like the jesus and kerl marx and know this noam chomsky did you ever wondering why is this all your biggst gods and messiah and your intellectuals from right and left are jewish and you wonder how we the jews call are self the chosen people dont diss this
comment in 100 yreas from know your kids will things that holly histroy just like your Fathers Though't even the arebs belive in a jewish idea of god
ehudnold9 7 months ago
SUCH rape
blockhart 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This shows what a two faced phony Chumpsky is
truthout911 7 months ago
man, he got pissed, but damn, who the hell did she think she was talking to?
ThePatcam 7 months ago
Noam Chomsky taking on a socialist, I like it
FRSFreeStateES 8 months ago
@FRSFreeStateES He was taking on someone from the 'Spartacus League', a very sectarian and Ultra-left group that fiercely idolizes Rosa Luxembourg and Leon Trotsky. They are deplored by most socialist on the Democratic Left and the Revolutionary Left.
Tougemaster06 7 months ago
@Tougemaster06 Sounds like some leftists in Canada. Do you know if they have Canadian ties?
quincee33 6 months ago
@quincee33 I am not surprised if they do.
Tougemaster06 6 months ago
I do hate people who abuse the question-answer system, even if they have a valid point.
Bluehawk2008 8 months ago
of course, you have to ask, who exactly are the spartacist league?
munkdo3 8 months ago
"good idea" rofl
wow, he didn't like that accusation
munkdo3 8 months ago
Russia increased its military to bully its neighbors.
Toddthedidger 8 months ago
Chomsky again shows what an idiot he is. Obomba is FAR MORE DANGEROUS than even Bush. He has expanded the wars. Now he is killing people in Yemen and Libya and Pakistan. The same imperial agenda is being pushed at an even faster pace. Yet Chomsky will always side with such people, showing that is indeed no anarchist at all. He even touted the "efficiency" of gov't run healthcare! The man is a joke.
MillionthUsername 8 months ago
@MillionthUsername maybe he's an idiot, maybe he's not if you had given yourself time to see when the clip is from (2004) you might have discovered that it would be unfair to talk about Obama, to come to if you're looking for videos about Chomsky and Obama you will hear that Chomsky believes Obama is a continuation of Bush ... so your postulate is not justified
MrBandholm 8 months ago
@MrBandholm Chomsky says that voting doesn't make a difference, but then goes on to explain why it does. He poses as an "anarchist" and then tells people that Bush is in a unique category of extremism - implying falsely that the democrats are not - so it would be better to vote for democrats. He's a weasel. He always wants it both ways. Here he's saying Kerry would make a difference domestically. He had the same rap about Obomba PRIOR TO the election. Knee-jerk unthinking pointless leftism.
MillionthUsername 8 months ago
@MillionthUsername He says that it does not make much difference when the two parties are two divisions of the business lot (so it is not possible to obtain significant changes) but there is obviously a difference between the two, and that means that there may come a bit change (which is of course logic)
MrBandholm 8 months ago
@MillionthUsername i hear you, ppl was too exited to about the guy itself and having a first black president so they forgot all the other stuff
geppegep 7 months ago
@MillionthUsername LOL I was watching a video on youtube just before Obama was elected where Chomsky was telling people to listen to Obama's rhetoric. Obama would say Iraq is bad and then openly talk about expanding Afghanistan and going into Pakistan.
There is a world of nuance in saying that a certain side could be a little advantageous to working class people's 401k retirement plan. Politics aren't as black and white as some leftists would like to believe. I have been there before I get it.
lbcdemon 7 months ago
@lbcdemon Exactly. Obomber was telegraphing quite clearly that he was going to expand into Pakistan. He's got the same policy as Bush. That's the "continuity of agenda" we find between the two supposedly opposite parties. Things continue down the same path regardless of which wing of the statist party is in power. Obomber easily put the "anti-war left" to sleep like a master hypnotist. Apparently they think all the wars are over now when he's bombing even more countries! It's insane.
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
Dear Youtube, hiding a comment because of a negative rating ensures that it will be read and paid attention to.
justinvestal26 9 months ago
Noam can take care of himself...! Kudos to Prof. Chomsky. (Again...)
Chomsky 1: bullshit 0...
absolutelyfree1963 9 months ago
I did a quick Google search, and Chomsky strongly opposed the sanctions, even suggesting that without them the Iraq people may have been able to get rid of Saddam on their own.
So yea, the chick asking the question is either an idiot or a blatant liar -- I'm not sure which is worse.
PoliticsStudent 9 months ago
bitch.
snergs 9 months ago
Noam Chomsky wearing a strap on!
Catcherintherye11111 9 months ago
That question was way too long for me. NEXT!!!
mabell01 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nofuture13: Do I really have to answer every idiot who does not even have the necessary intelligence for a decent conversation? You're an idiot, and unless you bring an argument that could contradict my theories rather than bashing with insults, I advise you to go to the jungle and live with a group of gorillas so that you would finally be with your own kind... Good bye!
Vict0r1984 10 months ago
Comment removed
Vict0r1984 10 months ago
are the shareholders who work as a collective for their prosperity and do not exploit each other's labour.
Vict0r1984 10 months ago
@Vict0r1984 you're a fag
nofuture13 10 months ago
to fulfill their goals, and the only reason they succeeded was the fact that the people hated the lack of rights and the authoritarian leanings of that systems. I support a planned economy within a democratic system, and my vision of planned economy is a bit different from the Stalinist one as I would accept the existence of self-employed workers, family businesses (where family members are both owners and workers) and private workers cooperatives, which would be businesses where the employees
Vict0r1984 10 months ago
people rich at the expense of the majority, and corruption worsened the situation. That was the story you will find in every eastern European state - the planned economy was abolished because it protected the majority of people in front of the interests of the selfish exploiter, but the effects were very damaging for the economies of that countries!
In consequence, planned economies never failed, but were abolished for the interests of some greedy politicians, who manipulated the public opinion
Vict0r1984 10 months ago
stealing), and after the revolution they sold 80% of the factories of the state (if not more) at bargain prices and built themselves villas with the money, but there was also the fact that the privatization process reduced the nation's profits, and as private enterprises do not use their profits to provide free health care or free education, these services became unaffordable for some people after the revolution, and the purchasing power parity decreased. Privatization made a tiny number of
Vict0r1984 10 months ago
abolished. Take the example of my country, Romania: We had a GDP of 112 billion $ (2010 $) in 1988, and 3 years after the capitalist revolution of 1989 we reached a GDP of 35 billion $. How did this happen? Well of course, there was the fact that the personalities who started the revolution which ended Ceausescu's rule were actually the corrupt members of the "Romanian Communist Party" who wanted nothing but open season for stealing money (since the Stalinist system had harsh punishments for
Vict0r1984 10 months ago
propagandist idiot like him? Look, the fact that the ex-Stalinist states are moving from a planned economy to a free market economy doesn't prove a thing about the functioning of a planned economy. On the contrary, these changes have been adopted by the profitarian political elite who wanted to increase its wealth at the expenditure of the prosperity of the people, and as the planned economies do not allow for exploitation and concentration of wealth into the hands of the few, they have been
Vict0r1984 10 months ago
production and the people would control the state. In the USSR or Mao's China, the state was an authoritarian godly force which controlled both the economy and the people, and the only reason I called them socialist DICTATORSHIPS is to make you understand that these states were hybrid systems born from the mixture of socialism and totalitarianism.
Regarding your question, I am still wondering whom did you get the idea that planned economies do not work from. Was it Glenn Beck or another
Vict0r1984 10 months ago
Communism represents a stateless and classless society, (thing which never existed in human history) while socialism represents a society transitioning from capitalism to communism, in which the differences between classes are much smaller than in capitalism and states do still exist. Now, the Stalinist states were as well a deformation of socialism, and it is somehow wrong to call them socialist as well, since Marx clearly stated that in a socialist country the state would control the means of
Vict0r1984 10 months ago
@andyz0007: I only asked for Chomsky's political position within socialism and I don't have the nerves and the time necessary for another political debate with a person who barely knows anything about politics. I made this statement because you used the words "ex-communist state", and if you would have the slightest notion of what communism really is, you would already know that the Soviet Union and the ex-Stalinist/ex-Maoist countries were SOCIALIST DICTATORSHIPS, not communist states. Why?
Vict0r1984 10 months ago
@Vict0r1984 In academic discourse Communism, with a capital C, is taken to mean the Marxist-Leninist form of socialism, i.e. revolutionary socialism. If forgot the "C", my apologies.
andyz0007 9 months ago
@michaelcjordan: I don't know that much about him, but I agree with Chomsky's speech from this movie and from the movie "Chomsky on socialism" as well. I am a Marxist democrat socialist and I support a planned economy within a politically democratic system with freedoms of expression and elections, and with workers cooperatives controlling the economy rather than the bourgeoisie of the so-called "Communist party" like in Stalinist systems. What kind of socialism does Chomsky support?
Vict0r1984 10 months ago
@Vict0r1984 Planned economies are a bad way to organize economic activity. Hence almost every socialist/ex-communist state has or is in the process of abandoning them in favor of a market system. Why are you in favour of something that has persistently failed. I'm curious.
andyz0007 10 months ago
@andyz0007 Chomsky says that the word socialism has no real meaning... you are using it in the western style: to demonize the failed states which are called socialist in the history books, despite being tyrannical dictatorships. Unfortunately, it's a lot more complicated than that... much easier to tell someone that something is evil if you have some kind of vested interest in their resources.
benspruce 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ah, the Chomsky cult. You guys would follow him off a cliff.
MaoLeninMarx 10 months ago
@MaoLeninMarx speaking of following people off a cliff, look at your username.
fdalkjfdsalkj 10 months ago 132
@fdalkjfdsalkj God Almighty I never saw such an epic reply. Thumbs Up!
MGGoblin 8 months ago
@fdalkjfdsalkj hes just a communist pesimist who is jealous of successful people
maxswixx 7 months ago
@maxswixx Chomsky is?....hahahaha that's hilarious.
comanchio1976 7 months ago
@fdalkjfdsalkj I can't see how anyone who cares about proletarian revolution and the liberation of the working class can ever admire Mao. Mao's positive notes are GREATLY outnumbered by his negative notes. Mao was an open Stalinist. There is NOTHING admirable about Stalinism. I'm a communist myself but we have to remain critical of these "leaders". In fact I think many American Socialists are clinging too much to the "liberal" establishment. But that's just my views.
ahhhhjjjj 7 months ago
@MaoLeninMarx You fully invited that come-back didn't you? Hahahaha. Owned!
stoprainingonme 10 months ago
@MaoLeninMarx yeah good job supporting two tyrants
authorityblues 9 months ago
@MaoLeninMarx Damn you ARE an imbecile! lol
PhreakPhantom 5 months ago
@MaoLeninMarx And exactly what point do you disagree with Chomsky on?
ShadeToSun 5 months ago
I like her. She has balls.
euclid901 10 months ago
what I heard was "um, uh, um, uh, um um um, uh" and socialist-on-socialist drive-by
wwaalltthheerr 11 months ago
She should at least have her facts straight before taking on Chomsky, she just humiliated herself by advertising her ignorance.
comanchio1976 11 months ago
long live haiti
fallenempireoverdrve 11 months ago
Spartacus league....? Isn't that a German organization from the 1920s?
GodOfTheInternets 11 months ago
What does he say around 0:50?
Cheers
stoprainingonme 11 months ago
I love Chomsky but he was dead wrong on that last point. Obama did support the 'tax breaks for the rich' scenario just as the republicans wanted.
Cabronosidad 11 months ago
@Cabronosidad He isn't talking about Obama at all. He couldn't have been because the talk is from 2004. This is about Bush vs Kerry.
drherbaceous 11 months ago
We are never told how these "small differences translate into big effects". I doubt very much that they do; there is no evidence of such to date.
medliberty 11 months ago 3
@medliberty Tax programs and social benefits programs, was his example here. He was stating that, despite Clinton and Bush's limited differences, Bush's policies were devastating to the general welfare by way of his tax legislation and his assault on the benefit programs intended for the lower classes. Obama and McCain have a tiny margin of difference, but I think there are obvious large effects that has come out of that paper thing difference, easily seen in Cash for Clunkers, for example
CaseyEs 11 months ago
This is funny!
knowthetruth1492 11 months ago
What a fucking lunatic.... Chomsky supporting the sanctions? what is she smoking???
TheProgressistViewer 1 year ago
I wish he would go back to his studies about language. He was magnificent.
helloniyi 1 year ago