NOAM CHOMSKY An attack on classical liberalism (THE CORPORATION)

[Feddyfreak]

I think he is talking about a particular strand: 'Neoliberalism' (1970's) which supports laissez faire economics, not Classical Liberalism. I am a Modern Liberal or Social Liberal.

[lease2coach1]

Yikes. He doesn't seem to know the history of corporation-as-person in this country.

I consider myself a "classical" liberal, btw...

[wpfairbanks]

The title is kind of misleading. He isn't attacking Classical Liberalism as the phrase suggests, he's saying that corporate personhood is an attack on Classical Liberalism. I've heard him defend Enlightenment principles on various occasions.

[michaelwuzthere]

I wonder if people who say "Chomsky for President!" realise how ironic of a concept that is.

[sk8tafrnk]

@michaelwuzthere It's because people are idiots and don't study recent history. They think they need a leader, or a person to save them.

The civil rights movement didn't start with Martin Luther King Jr. people, get with it.

[qwertypoiu4321]

Chomsky is a State-Socialist: "the socialist ideal remains: to convert the means of production into the [...] social property of people"

State-Socialist Stalin: "the [...] social ownership of the means of production has been established in our country,"

Do not let their endless code-terms trick you, these are Criminal Class State-Socialists, without exception.

[MrDarcyIsHere]

@qwertypoiu4321 Wrong. Chomsky is an Anarcho-Syndicalist and believes states should be dissolved.

[cloudbusterman]

Giving corporations rights (not only part-foreign ones) violates the Constitution para 1 re "general welfare and liberty of the people", as they've :

-overthrown rule of just law,

-pro-pagandized Draconian totalitarianism with 3 million in jail

-installed cults (see Friedman Capitalism & Freedom 6.6.6: values teaching ousts state rule, values as treason

-created blackbooks & Social NOTwork/job reservation sites for new slavery

-and so on.

All laws giving corporations rights must be struck down.

[GarrettPetersen]

@cloudbusterman Milton Friedman is anti-corporatism. Get your facts straight.

[DivisionbyZer0]

hollywood films is actively endosed by corporations to further disillusion people from trusting the government, specifically the federal government, and from being involved in its processes.

[DivisionbyZer0]

His characterization seems a little simplistic. Corporatism in America drew fairly heavily upon the tradition of American pragmatism according to which truth is that which succeeds or is useful as a social currency that is capable of influencing concrete affairs. James and others formulation of these views came about largely in opposition or contradistinction to neohegelian idealism and absolutism. Even in the ethical works of the idealists like Royce you find distinctions to be made

[DivisionbyZer0]

regarding the types of communities that might arise and the ones that should be supported, or what chomsky calls here "organic entities". Royce distinguishes between loyalty which is parasitic and insular at the expense of other loyalties and those which are not. Even if the philosophic justification for corporatism is "neohegelian" this is again, simply a matter of expedience. I sincerely doubt that those greasing the gears of corporatism and benefitting the most from it are what chomksy

[DivisionbyZer0]

@DivisionbyZer0 would dismiss as neoheglian obscurantist mystics obsessed with organic unity. quite the contrary, they are opportunistic and self serving parasites. Officers and prominent administrators of modern corporations tend to score well above average on personality metrics for histrionic, narcissistic, and sociopathic traits. Are they using neoheglelians as useful idiots to justify the structures that benefit them? Maybe, but I've never really encountered much supporting this idea.

[a199215]

This is not an attack on classical liberalism. It is a defence.

[Ryukikon]

@a199215

it is, Go back in history. Corporations were not viewed positively in America. They had this idea called limited Corporations. Corporations had a charter and could only exist for a certain time. THey existed to do a certain goal, that goal had to be judged on wheter it aided the community and then every 10 years, it would be judged to see if it was hurting the community. ALso once it reached its goal it was disbanded. They feared Corporations could become too powerful like GOV

[a199215]

@Ryukikon

I think we conceive classical liberalism differently. In The Corporation Milton Friedman also makes negative comments on the current position of corporations. He is a classical liberal, or in the USA, a libertarian. Classical liberalism focuses on individual liberty. Corporations should not have the legal rights as persons because they are not human beings. What he is saying here is perfectly compatible with classical liberalism.

[Ryukikon]

@a199215

i don't think you read what I said carefully. The corporation is an attack on classical liberalism. You wrote it is not an attack it is a defense. I supported the idea that it is(corporation) an attack because in America historically corporations were considered in a negative light. They were very cautious to corporations.

[a199215]

@Ryukikon

I see now. I thought the title of the video implied that Chomsky made an attack on Classical Liberalism. Thats why I said this is a defence.

[Ryukikon]

@a199215

Its cool, We are on the same page now, so we can properly communicate now. The passing of that bill is another blow to the classical liberal base of the American System. To be honest, These blows that have been consecutively happening over the last century plus, has changed America from a Classical Liberal Federation.

[DivisionbyZer0]

@a199215 he attacks it in other places.

[jadv91]

pobrecito estupido

[jadv91]

pobrecito penmdejo

[100CommonCents]

as someone leaning in the general direction of a classical liberal, i agree 100% with what Chomsky has to say. This is one of the main issues classical liberals try to bring awareness of.

[FRSFreeState]

I've viewed Noam Chomsky as a Democratic Socialist or a Socialist Libertarian. So as a liberal myself, Its nice to hear him stand up for Classical Liberalism and Individual Freedom. Rather then the State.

[DRL337PhD]

@FRSFreeState socialist libertarian = anarchist. you won't find a bigger critic of the state than noam chomsky

[FRSFreeState]

@DRL337PhD

Does that even mean when it comes to Social Insurance programs?

[DivisionbyZer0]

@DRL337PhD his criques are rather conservative actually, and i'm saying this as a criticism. he is often quite supportive of state power when he thinks it can keep unmitigated corporate power in check. i think he expresses this rather well when he claims that the individual states of the union are more susceptible to demands made by corporations than the federal government itself. he even goes so far as to suggest that the idea that the gubbamit is ev1L which one commonly sees in mainstream

[DivisionbyZer0]

@DivisionbyZer0 not saying it as a criticism actually, since i think his analysis usually is worth listening to.

[Xenthoid]

@FRSFreeState But when has Noam stood up for the state? I can't find any instance.

And i dont think Libertarian socialist is the same thing as democratic socialist. One favors the state as vehicle for egalitarianism and the other does not.

[FRSFreeState]

@Xenthoid

Economic Policy, Single Payer Health Insurance being an example. Your right Democratic Socialism and Libertarian Socialism aren't in general the same thing.

[Trimbler00]

@FRSFreeState True, this is no the Chomsky I know; I like it

[A86]

@FRSFreeState - Chomsky is a libertarian socialist. Libertarian socialism grew out of both Socialism and Classical Liberalism. It grew out of both the decentralized/communitarian wing of socialism (related to the "utopian socialist" developments) and out of the left-wing of classical liberalism (like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Stuart Mill, William Godwin, etc.

[SoberHedgehog]

@A86 What did Mill share in common with Rousseau?

[A86]

@SoberHedgehog - They were both "classical liberals". Liberalism is not a single ideology but a family of ideologies with common roots and aims. Liberalism has spawned many other ideologies and has common roots and overlap with other families of ideologies. Both libertarian capitalism and libertarian socialism have a root in classical liberalism.

[SoberHedgehog]

@A86 Uh huh but that's just providing an answer to "what do Bush and Chomsky have in common" with "they're both Americans". I was looking for a more substantiated answer (you had already written that they were both "left-wing" classical liberals)

[A86]

@SoberHedgehog - What exactly are you searching for? Do you want me to give an overview of their views? You can find that on Wikipedia.

[SoberHedgehog]

@A86 Indeed I can. What I won't find are similarities. Since you obviously can find so many similarities as to assert that these two share an entire ideology, I was hoping that you can spell them out for me.

[A86]

@SoberHedgehog - If they're both classical liberals they're obvious similar. Otherwise they wouldn't be of the same ideology. A cursory reading about them reveals they both believed in the "social contract" theory (though Mill's was limited to protection from harm) and both believe that humans form governments, property and division of labor in exchange for the utility it brings to the majority of individuals.

[sk8tafrnk]

@FRSFreeState The state is important, but not when there's concentration in power. There needs to be regulations but the government needs to be in the form of the common people.

[FRSFreeState]

@sk8tafrnk

You make a good case for Decentralization of Government, Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances.

[sk8tafrnk]

@FRSFreeState It's not my case. Based on the evidence, I believe it is the right direction to go.