I think the fact that he's kind of boring an inoffensive is one of the most attractive qualities. If he were more combative the media could just smear him, but even when he encounters extreme hostility he remains placid.
At the end of the day Noam Chomsky's "libertarian socialism" is just another form of communism. It requires the destruction of individual property rights...which can only be accomplished by big, oppressive government.
@jscottupton The USA is a big oppressive government owned by the corporations and the banks. It is a bully in the world and helbent to destroy the planet with its form of cancer capitalism. Socialism isn't a dirty word like the US propaganda dishes out. Individual rights aren't destroyed in a socially just world, they are however, balanced with responsibility. People who can no longer empathise with those less fortunate have lost their humanity.
@gamerunknown If I say "right to life" or "right to liberty"...does "life" or "liberty" have more rights than people ?" You are playing word games. ALL rights are rights possessed by individuals (society has no rights...the "poor" have no rights...government has no rights...only individuals. The slavery issue should have been a no brainer...slave owners didn't own the slaves because it was stolen property.
I wasn't trying to be facile. I was referring to the distinction Chomsky makes about rights of property (corporations) versus those of illegal immigrants. Or if one wants to extend that further, rights over all non-human life thanks to a ruling in favour of Monsato. I think libertarian socialism is different from Communism in the devolution of power to the people. Without some form of police, people could still own slaves. Some slaves were sold (sweatshops, prostitution, wages).
Well Marx was vociferously in opposition to Socialism; the majority of the Communist Manifesto was spent decrying it. The rest of his work dealt with Capitalism. I suppose the distinction between State Comm. and Stateless Comm. is horizontally opposed and between Stateless Capitalism (or Anarchocapitalism/Austrian school/"Libertarian") and SL Comm. vertically opposed. However, Amartya Sen argued for a mixture of institutions, but under worker control I think. Room for centrism?
@gamerunknown I have actually only read an excerpt of the Communist Manifesto, and I don't associate socialism or communism with that. It is hard for me to understand what you are actually saying. I actually think it is useless to talk about what ideology is oposed to what. And I don't tell people that I am left or right or centrist. I sympathize with classical anarchism, and I sympathize with non-dualism, fallibilism and the scientific method. So really, I support criticism.
Even from the excerpt I read from the Communist Manifesto (CM), state communism seemed like an oxymoron, since communism by its definition was stateless. The Russian anarchist Mihail Bakunin ridiculed the CM, where he pointed out what to him seemed like a contradiction, that they wanted an authoritarian regime to create anarchism, i.e. the communist end-goal was essentially anarchism.
Well I was talking about the spectrum on the political map, where top right would be fascism (hierarchy in government and work), bottom right anarcho-capitalism (self-governance but feudal work model), top left state communism and bottom left autonomy. I'd argue for preservation of certain aspects of central government: ensuring roughly standardised training for doctors and police. Independent businesses, but under worker control. Agree on science and monism.
@gamerunknown I know about the political compass, but I've come to the conclusion that it is counterproductive, because it doesn't really explain anything in my opinion. I think classical anarchism's simple suspicion of power - or really second thought about logic, which is why it is the same issue as fallibilism and nondualism. Separative language like right, left, centrism and even political compass I consider counterproductive. Criticism is all that matters, as Karl Popper said.
@gamerunknown I think all ideas, even fascism, have their valid points, but ultimately the scientific method (wherein inquiry regards itself as fallible and purposely tests itself, Charles Peirce) should be the ultimate judge on ideas. Bad ideas would be send into quarantine (nothing gets disproven 100%). We should seek an active evolutionary society, where political "monism" would simply be a special science (Peirce again!) under scientific monism or whatever you call it.
@RSFO I think I even have a better word than monism. Simply identify the word science with evolutionary epistemology as the unifying philosophy of science. "Politics" would then belong to special sciences between mentalistic and physical sciences.
I also think we should get rid of the monetary price system all together. It should be based on resources, maybe with energy as the measurement of economic and political equality (which I think is the same thing).
Hmm, do you mean a society that is developing or Social Darwinism? I'm guessing the former! I don't really disagree with any of the points, other than the fact that "libertarianism" may be highly repressive because it's been co-opted by the 'right' for their specific ideology. To me at least, having business as the highest authority is actually regressing from having central government with accountability. I wrote a bit on Scientisticsoviet's page about Popper, you could critique?
@gamerunknown Developing is orchestrating evolution, like being the captain on the ship. Darwinism is an incomplete theory of evolution. Science itself is just another metaphor for evolution which means change. But I think Darwin moves in his grave, when anyone mentions "Social Darwinism". And if evolution was an evolutionary(?) god, I think it would view such an idea with contempt. Cooperation is a trait developed by evolution because it often wins over competition. =P
Well, Darwin was eventually prompted due to the popularity of Spencer's arguments to include the term "survival of the fittest" in the fifth printing of the Origin of Species. It's funny how the central dogma of organisations such as the Templeton Institute owe more to that or Rand than Christ. Blessed are the rich, for Jesus preached prosperity theology! I haven't read Bakunin, but intend to... I was introduced to evolutionary stable strategies by Dawkins.
Nope, though I do think logical positivism was an improvement over syllogism and falsifiability a further improvement on that. I don't see any real problem with materialism: I think that individual approaches can extend beyond what one has material evidence for, but to convince another without coercion one must do so on the basis of evidence (and the logical extrapolation from that evidence). Unless I'm totally missing the point? I need to do more thinking and less drinking!
Oh elaborating on my materialist fundamentalist position, I don't even necessarily recognise the hard problem of consciousness. I hold provisionally (like Dennett) that we're cognitive zombies in spite of Chalmers' cognisant critiques of that position... Merely under the illusion of free will. I also found Sheldrake's wife website linked where it says that "Others have found that... pains,both physical and emotional [have disappeared due to chanting]" - no double blind presumably?
@gamerunknown Well, hard to argue over youtube, but you are one of the few "materialists" that I find worth arguing with. But the problem with materialism is that it is inherently dualist and Cartesian, even when they reject it, because it presupposes a complete separation between matter and mind. That's dualism. To presuppose dualism as sort of "a priori" until disproven, I don't find any bit wise. And I think dualism in effect is inconsistent with conistent evolutionism.
@jscottupton i think he has value for paleoconservatives also (i'm assuming that is what you align with). he has done a very good job of outlining the toxicity of neoconservative, neoliberal globalist thought. He hardly even aligns with libsoc, he did an interview with reddit the other year where he basically chuckles at the thought that there is even an american anarchist movement in existence today. his analysis is useful to the far left, and far right in many cases.
@otacon451 Is it Noam Chomsky that "hardly even aligns with libsoc"? Try to read "Anarchism and Power" at his website. Noam Chomsky has been a consistent supporter of anarchism aka libertarian socialism since he was 10 years old.
@jscottupton your so fall of shit its unreal you must be a government agent or somethink.libertariam socialism is the future it is demonised by the press and stupid people like u to keep the rich and powerful in there positsion.
First off,let me say THANK's for providing the YouTube community with this VERY,VERY, IMPORTANT SPEECH, and I would like to ask you, who will replace Noam after he's gone ? Michael Albert ?
@k9a2g6 it doesnt matter. 1) if chomsky cant and couldnt do it nobody can and 2) 828 views and i'm sure we account for at least 3 views each? so yeah the proles have no control, the mass have no idea, integrity, ability, hope, solidarity, voice or conscience. the people of libya begged for us not to let the powerful intervene, the usa's u.k's anf frogs nd germans and we, the masses just said???? and then tsk tsk. roll on the end of days
@k9a2g6 i´ve just ask me that qustion a few days ago, and the key to this i think would be, Where does he found all that imformation? cause what he have done for me at least is inform me, and the reality make his job and show us the path
@ytalo60s I read somewhere or heard that Noam reads at least 6 major newspapers a day and he gathers all his info from various sources, including government released official papers. Then he pieces this info together to form a whole picture. He must have a photographic or genius memory to be able to compile all that and then be able to recall it during discussions. Its a fantastic use of brain power.
@SuperDickweed perhaps but he still has an amazing instantaneous recall when you watch him in interviews or discussions. He can't rely on any one but his own memory for having the facts to hand like that.
nice way to sneak in 1337 as the length of the video
dafuzziscomin 2 weeks ago
Carol has since passed away
TheWhiteWire 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheWhiteWire 4 weeks ago
Love you Noam, thank you for everything you have done! RIP Carol you are just as amazing!
89cz3ko 1 month ago
RIP Carol Chomsky
heptadecagon 3 months ago
I think the fact that he's kind of boring an inoffensive is one of the most attractive qualities. If he were more combative the media could just smear him, but even when he encounters extreme hostility he remains placid.
gamerunknown 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
At the end of the day Noam Chomsky's "libertarian socialism" is just another form of communism. It requires the destruction of individual property rights...which can only be accomplished by big, oppressive government.
jscottupton 4 months ago
@jscottupton The USA is a big oppressive government owned by the corporations and the banks. It is a bully in the world and helbent to destroy the planet with its form of cancer capitalism. Socialism isn't a dirty word like the US propaganda dishes out. Individual rights aren't destroyed in a socially just world, they are however, balanced with responsibility. People who can no longer empathise with those less fortunate have lost their humanity.
stainedglassfx 4 months ago 23
@stainedglassfx Chomsky would disagree to the utmost.
HammerOvThor 2 months ago
@jscottupton
Should property have more rights than people?
gamerunknown 4 months ago
@gamerunknown If I say "right to life" or "right to liberty"...does "life" or "liberty" have more rights than people ?" You are playing word games. ALL rights are rights possessed by individuals (society has no rights...the "poor" have no rights...government has no rights...only individuals. The slavery issue should have been a no brainer...slave owners didn't own the slaves because it was stolen property.
jscottupton 4 months ago
@jscottupton
I wasn't trying to be facile. I was referring to the distinction Chomsky makes about rights of property (corporations) versus those of illegal immigrants. Or if one wants to extend that further, rights over all non-human life thanks to a ruling in favour of Monsato. I think libertarian socialism is different from Communism in the devolution of power to the people. Without some form of police, people could still own slaves. Some slaves were sold (sweatshops, prostitution, wages).
gamerunknown 4 months ago
@gamerunknown Libertarian socialism is sometimes called libertarian communism. The problem is that people confuse communism with Leninism.
RSFO 2 months ago
@RSFO
Well Marx was vociferously in opposition to Socialism; the majority of the Communist Manifesto was spent decrying it. The rest of his work dealt with Capitalism. I suppose the distinction between State Comm. and Stateless Comm. is horizontally opposed and between Stateless Capitalism (or Anarchocapitalism/Austrian school/"Libertarian") and SL Comm. vertically opposed. However, Amartya Sen argued for a mixture of institutions, but under worker control I think. Room for centrism?
gamerunknown 2 months ago
@gamerunknown I have actually only read an excerpt of the Communist Manifesto, and I don't associate socialism or communism with that. It is hard for me to understand what you are actually saying. I actually think it is useless to talk about what ideology is oposed to what. And I don't tell people that I am left or right or centrist. I sympathize with classical anarchism, and I sympathize with non-dualism, fallibilism and the scientific method. So really, I support criticism.
RSFO 2 months ago
Even from the excerpt I read from the Communist Manifesto (CM), state communism seemed like an oxymoron, since communism by its definition was stateless. The Russian anarchist Mihail Bakunin ridiculed the CM, where he pointed out what to him seemed like a contradiction, that they wanted an authoritarian regime to create anarchism, i.e. the communist end-goal was essentially anarchism.
RSFO 2 months ago
@RSFO
Well I was talking about the spectrum on the political map, where top right would be fascism (hierarchy in government and work), bottom right anarcho-capitalism (self-governance but feudal work model), top left state communism and bottom left autonomy. I'd argue for preservation of certain aspects of central government: ensuring roughly standardised training for doctors and police. Independent businesses, but under worker control. Agree on science and monism.
gamerunknown 2 months ago
@gamerunknown I know about the political compass, but I've come to the conclusion that it is counterproductive, because it doesn't really explain anything in my opinion. I think classical anarchism's simple suspicion of power - or really second thought about logic, which is why it is the same issue as fallibilism and nondualism. Separative language like right, left, centrism and even political compass I consider counterproductive. Criticism is all that matters, as Karl Popper said.
RSFO 2 months ago
@gamerunknown I think all ideas, even fascism, have their valid points, but ultimately the scientific method (wherein inquiry regards itself as fallible and purposely tests itself, Charles Peirce) should be the ultimate judge on ideas. Bad ideas would be send into quarantine (nothing gets disproven 100%). We should seek an active evolutionary society, where political "monism" would simply be a special science (Peirce again!) under scientific monism or whatever you call it.
RSFO 2 months ago
@RSFO I think I even have a better word than monism. Simply identify the word science with evolutionary epistemology as the unifying philosophy of science. "Politics" would then belong to special sciences between mentalistic and physical sciences.
I also think we should get rid of the monetary price system all together. It should be based on resources, maybe with energy as the measurement of economic and political equality (which I think is the same thing).
RSFO 2 months ago
@RSFO
Hmm, do you mean a society that is developing or Social Darwinism? I'm guessing the former! I don't really disagree with any of the points, other than the fact that "libertarianism" may be highly repressive because it's been co-opted by the 'right' for their specific ideology. To me at least, having business as the highest authority is actually regressing from having central government with accountability. I wrote a bit on Scientisticsoviet's page about Popper, you could critique?
gamerunknown 2 months ago
@gamerunknown Developing is orchestrating evolution, like being the captain on the ship. Darwinism is an incomplete theory of evolution. Science itself is just another metaphor for evolution which means change. But I think Darwin moves in his grave, when anyone mentions "Social Darwinism". And if evolution was an evolutionary(?) god, I think it would view such an idea with contempt. Cooperation is a trait developed by evolution because it often wins over competition. =P
RSFO 2 months ago
@RSFO
Well, Darwin was eventually prompted due to the popularity of Spencer's arguments to include the term "survival of the fittest" in the fifth printing of the Origin of Species. It's funny how the central dogma of organisations such as the Templeton Institute owe more to that or Rand than Christ. Blessed are the rich, for Jesus preached prosperity theology! I haven't read Bakunin, but intend to... I was introduced to evolutionary stable strategies by Dawkins.
gamerunknown 2 months ago
@gamerunknown I think Richard Dawkins is materialist fundamentalist, positivist and neo-Darwinist. I
can't stand him in fact (but perhaps we can learn from him anyway). Not that all
positivists are plain wrong, but I think his neo-Darwinism is quite wrong. I found his
"debates" with Rupert Sheldrake quite interesting. You can find it on Sheldrake's website.
Much of establishes science is yet very positivistic. Have you ever read Alfred Russel
Wallace btw?
RSFO 2 months ago
@RSFO
Nope, though I do think logical positivism was an improvement over syllogism and falsifiability a further improvement on that. I don't see any real problem with materialism: I think that individual approaches can extend beyond what one has material evidence for, but to convince another without coercion one must do so on the basis of evidence (and the logical extrapolation from that evidence). Unless I'm totally missing the point? I need to do more thinking and less drinking!
gamerunknown 2 months ago
@RSFO
Oh elaborating on my materialist fundamentalist position, I don't even necessarily recognise the hard problem of consciousness. I hold provisionally (like Dennett) that we're cognitive zombies in spite of Chalmers' cognisant critiques of that position... Merely under the illusion of free will. I also found Sheldrake's wife website linked where it says that "Others have found that... pains,both physical and emotional [have disappeared due to chanting]" - no double blind presumably?
gamerunknown 2 months ago
@gamerunknown Well, hard to argue over youtube, but you are one of the few "materialists" that I find worth arguing with. But the problem with materialism is that it is inherently dualist and Cartesian, even when they reject it, because it presupposes a complete separation between matter and mind. That's dualism. To presuppose dualism as sort of "a priori" until disproven, I don't find any bit wise. And I think dualism in effect is inconsistent with conistent evolutionism.
RSFO 2 months ago
@jscottupton i think he has value for paleoconservatives also (i'm assuming that is what you align with). he has done a very good job of outlining the toxicity of neoconservative, neoliberal globalist thought. He hardly even aligns with libsoc, he did an interview with reddit the other year where he basically chuckles at the thought that there is even an american anarchist movement in existence today. his analysis is useful to the far left, and far right in many cases.
otacon451 3 months ago
@otacon451 Is it Noam Chomsky that "hardly even aligns with libsoc"? Try to read "Anarchism and Power" at his website. Noam Chomsky has been a consistent supporter of anarchism aka libertarian socialism since he was 10 years old.
RSFO 2 months ago
@jscottupton who said property rights wouldn't exist? would you not want your lambo in your garage...?
sniped101 3 months ago
@jscottupton: What an idiotic comment.
chinopisces 2 months ago
@jscottupton your so fall of shit its unreal you must be a government agent or somethink.libertariam socialism is the future it is demonised by the press and stupid people like u to keep the rich and powerful in there positsion.
musspuss 2 months ago
what a lovely presentation
xotni 5 months ago
No ! Noam tells the truth, a revolutionary idea !
k9a2g6 5 months ago
long live CHOMSKY
gobuddyboy 5 months ago
its okay just watched radiohead live on jools holland, bodysnatchers. made me feel a whole lot better.
P2ak47 7 months ago
its okay just watched radiohead live on jules holland, bodysnatchers. made me feel a whole lot better.
P2ak47 7 months ago
First off,let me say THANK's for providing the YouTube community with this VERY,VERY, IMPORTANT SPEECH, and I would like to ask you, who will replace Noam after he's gone ? Michael Albert ?
k9a2g6 10 months ago 5
@k9a2g6 it doesnt matter. 1) if chomsky cant and couldnt do it nobody can and 2) 828 views and i'm sure we account for at least 3 views each? so yeah the proles have no control, the mass have no idea, integrity, ability, hope, solidarity, voice or conscience. the people of libya begged for us not to let the powerful intervene, the usa's u.k's anf frogs nd germans and we, the masses just said???? and then tsk tsk. roll on the end of days
P2ak47 7 months ago
@k9a2g6 i´ve just ask me that qustion a few days ago, and the key to this i think would be, Where does he found all that imformation? cause what he have done for me at least is inform me, and the reality make his job and show us the path
ytalo60s 6 months ago
@ytalo60s I read somewhere or heard that Noam reads at least 6 major newspapers a day and he gathers all his info from various sources, including government released official papers. Then he pieces this info together to form a whole picture. He must have a photographic or genius memory to be able to compile all that and then be able to recall it during discussions. Its a fantastic use of brain power.
stainedglassfx 6 months ago 16
@stainedglassfx that would be his grad students and activist researchers
SuperDickweed 5 months ago
@SuperDickweed perhaps but he still has an amazing instantaneous recall when you watch him in interviews or discussions. He can't rely on any one but his own memory for having the facts to hand like that.
stainedglassfx 5 months ago
@stainedglassfx i really would like to know his reading list and see his library.
Ka0Z86 4 months ago