More Chomsky On Democracy

[paul52321]

It is besides the point of whether or not democracy is a value worth striving for without an adequate framework that can deal with the problems associated with overpopulation, climate change, extraction and distribution of resources, and crime. That is the question we should be considering. And if democracy cannot solve such problems then we move on and try to find something that will.

[jmagayle]

noam chomsky also has an unfortunate view of large corporations which is based on the notion that economic position necessitates a certain level of political power so the higher in the chain you are in the economic chain you have more power than the rest who are below you.But there are examples in history which does not coincide with this principle. The situation which caused the french revolution where the rich and poor alike had little or no political power only the monarch and clergy

[jmagayle]

his anarchism is acceptable but it is his socialist values which are questionable.I mean in of itself anarcho-socialism is not a problem that is if people enter a voluntary situation where they there is consensus to give up on private ownership but to argue that no individual can own anything on their own goes against anarchist values specifically liberty and voluntarism.I would suggest anarcho-capitalism to any one interested in anarchy

[TheLockon00]

@MrBloograss *crickets chirping*

[centurion180ad]

Once the insane inbreeds of the mass murdering Debt Syndicate corner the economics of the entire planet, they will then have the power to put every man woman and child to death with impunity, and that is EXACTLY what they intend to do.

[hoiiooiiooiiooiiooii]

lmao, I love the banjo guy

[VIRTLANTIS]

thank you chomsky...

[huxley2221]

I don't like phonies, whether they are "counter-culture" hippies on welfare or millionaire faux anarchists. Chomsky's vision requires the abolition of property rights, which has been tried and failed many times. His intellectual stature gives strength to the arm of every bomb-throwing anarchis, so he is no better than a jihad-preaching mullah as far as I can see. Perhaps it would help if, unlike Chomsky,. you spent some time on a commune. That cures communard notions forever. .Good luck.

[DeePhlat]

@huxley2221 Fail. Noam lived in a kibbutz in the 50s.

[huxley2221]

@DeePhlat Ummm, actually he visited one for a few weeks, and praised the "anarchist principles" on which they were supposedly based.. My point is that he chose not to adopt the lifestyle which he wants for everyone else, which is pure hypocrisy. The kibbutz movement is now defunct, as is every other anarchist enterprise ever attempted. They are not experiments, they are now demonstrations of .a known principle, which is that anarchism does not work.

[GodOfTheInternets]

@huxley2221

" abolition of property rights, which has been tried and failed many times"

When and where did it fail?

And blaming Chomsky for terrorism is ridiculous.

[huxley2221]

@GodOfTheInternets Are u joking? Abolition of property rights is central to all forms of extreme socialism, and was tried, and failed, in the USSR, China, Cuba, etc and also the Kibbutz movement, and countless failed anarchist communes. The outcome of such experiments is no longer in any doubt; the 100% failure rate says it all. And Chomsky supports violent anarchist revolution, as demonstrated by his open admiration of the murderous Spanish Anarchists.

[GodOfTheInternets]

@huxley2221

I'm not arguing it's not central to socialism, I'm asking when has it been tried. Property rights mean exclusive right to ownership, which the USSR, China, etc. did not abolish, or tried to. They transfered property rights to the state. And yes, the abolition of property rights in Aragon in 1936 proved successful. Does Chomsky support them because they are murderous? And I don't care about Chomsky. Also, calm down, relax, think about your heart, mellow down, chill, etc.

[huxley2221]

@GodOfTheInternets Tx 4 ur reply. Chomsky supports violence in a "good" cause because the end justifies the means, so he is no different from Bakunin in that. And worker control of the workplace means that a commune is a property-owning corporation, with the Kibbutz being a classic case. The Spanish Anarchists used force to gain exclusive control for a year or so. Success? No. Anarchism fails every time it's tried, which is why you and Chomsky choose not to live on an Anarchist commune..

[GodOfTheInternets]

@huxley2221

Everyone supports violence to a certain degree, except pacifists. Workers control does not mean that the commune is the property owning corporation. A commune is not a corporation. The means of production are owned in common, not by a commune, but by society at large. Instead of property rights there are use-rights. No corporations exist in a social anarchist society.

How has anarchism failed every time it's been tried?

[GodOfTheInternets]

@huxley2221

The reason anarchist are not going to live in an anarchist commune has several reasons, mainly because it's impossible. Firstly, if I establish a commune this commune will be subject to the laws and coercion of the state. Secondly, if I establish a commune or cooperative this will be subject to the capitalist market economy, e.g. the perpetuation of commodity production, the wages system, etc.

An anarchist commune is impossible, just like socialism in one country.

[huxley2221]

@GodOfTheInternets A commune in a capitalist society is much freer than in an Anarchist society, in which prohibitions on trade,accumulation of assets,etc require absolute control by the Anarchist Government: the name Anarchism is a lie, because it requires laws and government to function. U r saying Anarchism fails 100% unless the entire world takes it up, when it will work perfectly. Can U C Y no reasonable person should accept that? It fails every test, in principle, and practice.

[huxley2221]

@GodOfTheInternets The supposed moral perfection of Anarchism is also a lie: Paying reasonable wages is not morally equivalent to slavery, and it is deeply immoral of Chomsky to pretend it is. The alternative of "compulsory voluntarism" seen in Kibbutzes etc is much worse. Differential wages for higher skills, etc are also not immoral, they are fair. So the basic moral premises are bogus.. Chomsky maintains a pose of moral superiority, long after his views on Anarchism have been demolished.

[GodOfTheInternets]

@huxley2221

Ok, now write those arguments without the strawmans and falsehoods.

[GodOfTheInternets]

@huxley2221

strawmen that is.

[huxley2221]

@GodOfTheInternets ouch, u got me... not. U say the Anarchist hypothesis is untestable, except on a world-wide scale, which U are forced to because it fails at every other scale, as the long list of failed anarchist experiments clearly shows. So you ignore the data and make excuses rather than admit the truth. And the central idea of Anarchism is the same as communism: abolish private property and live in a commune, which has been rejected by every country which has been given the choice.

[huxley2221]

@huxley2221 Chomsky's pseudo-moral posturing about Anarchsm is what most sickens people, even those who agree with much of his non-anarchist work. It's a pity he didn't put his principles into practice because the best cure for Anarchism is to live like an Anarchist for an extended period. Most people grow out of anarchism by their early 20's: it's like the Wiggles, or the novel Steppenwolf in that it appeals almost exclusively to a particular age-bracket.

[huxley2221]

@huxley2221 Chomsky's pseudo-moral posturing about Anarchsm is what most sickens people, even those who agree with much of his non-anarchist work. It's a pity he didn't put his principles into practice because the best cure for Anarchism is to live like an Anarchist for an extended period. Most people grow out of anarchism by their early 20's: it's like the Wiggles, or the novel Steppenwolf in that it appeals almost exclusively to a particular age-bracket.

[huxley2221]

Chomsky is a utopian socialist, with no practical plan for instituting or sustaining his rose-coloured society, which will have laws, but no police, prosperity without money, and universal consensus without politics. He is not an enlightenment thinker, but one who preaches faith, since there is no evidence that the society he wants can function, or compete with other modes of life. He is like a mullah who wants a non-violent jihad to bring about a faith-based society.

[chinopisces]

@huxley2221: How can an atheist speak of faith? I find falseness in your statement.

[huxley2221]

@chinopisces Chomsky fell in love with this nonsense when he was ten years old and hasn't grown out of it, mainly because he leads a sheltered life His views are shared by a tiny percentage of western adolescents, and no one else. If anarchism prevailed, large cities would be unsustainable, because they cannot exist without banks, money, insurance, a legal system, police and a host of other things which cannot exist under anarchism. His faith is such that none of that matters to him.

[chinopisces]

@huxley2221: There have been many examples of anarchism being a successful solution, even in modern society. There is no evidence of your claim (that cities will fail) whatsoever.

As he has stated previously, he does not possess faith in any sense. Nor does he subject himself to any kind of dogmatic ideology.

His views are not seen in mainstream media. However, look at the overall responses here on YouTube. The numbers are not wrong. Most people agree with Chomsky, despite what you say.

[huxley2221]

@chinopisces The best examples of near-anarchist principles in action are the kibbutzes, which were funded by capitalist sources and run by unpaid labour - zealous slaves, if you will. They have now abandoned the principles on which they were founded. As one kibbutzer commented "I've worked for 28 years, and I have nothing." That's Chomsky's ideal, for others, but he won't embrace that lifestyle himself. If the idea was any good, it would have spread, not died. So where are your examples?

[chinopisces]

@huxley2221: That is far from the best example. And that is not an example of Chomsky's ideals at all. This is because he has none.

I'm not going into detail, but here are examples of anarchist communities that exist today: Zapatista, Christiania, Stapleton Colony, Whiteway Colony, and arguably Hungary.

There are many others that did not survive, but not for the reasons you might suspect. Rather, it was the cruel insistence of tyrannical powers that are simply more brutal and irrational.

[huxley2221]

@chinopisces Kibbutzes are Chomsky's example. Christiania is a hippy theme park which survives on social welfare payments and tourism, and Hungary is a parliamentary democracy, so neither of those are anarchist either. Remember: no money, no banks, no police, no property, no capitalism, no "wage slaves"..Those are the ingredients of anarchism. Chomsky is short on detail because he has no idea how it would work, not because he is open minded.

[chinopisces]

@huxley2221: What's wrong with hippies? You some kind of elitist? Who the hell do you think you are, anyway?

Chomsky has done far more for our world than you ever have. Your arguments are categorically invalid, and your dash of rhetoric compels me to end this debate.

[TheeUnidentified]

"The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology." - Michael Parenti

[qrqrqrqr1]

I don't understand how Chomsky automatically associates democracy with freedom. It's like he sees things from a purely collective perspective and ignores the rights of individuals. This "anarchist" uses the value of democracy to justify taxation for christ's sake. Tell me, what difference does it make if you're robbed by one person or a million? Democracy is only freedom if it's used in a voluntary context where the right of secession is upheld. Bakunin agreed with that.

[vriend1]

@qrqrqrqr1 Your words seem logical if one was to be born on the moon, meaning; all alone with only the dust and gray rocks to accompony him. To be born on this world brings a responsibity. To prospure on this world demands a certain coorperation with your fellow inhabitants of this beautiful planet. Hence Democracy was born. No we must decide in what way do we want Democracy to evolve: feudial and selfish or social and save.

you decide but remember:

IT IS OUR WORLD.

[TinyArts]

My next CV will include right next after my university studies the following: 2 years constant watching of Noam Chomsky clips on youtube.

[WastedTourist]

@TinyArts lol. It's quite an education. He's so accurate and honest.

[khoroshoorange]

@TinyArts

im already on it.

[vriend1]

by the way...vote Ron Paul he understands this.

[vriend1]

Beautifull explanantion.

[DarthDrizzt]

profit , profit, profit...that is all anyone in modern consumer capitalism is taught, maximize your gains by selling cheaply made goods produced by sweatshop labor, import that to your own country's poor, who's wages you control, so you can lie to them and say they are getting the best value for what little money they have left since they basically spend it all right back on you. Way to go corporate power mongers you guys are untouchable and no one even knows

[nocturnezero]

I actually disagree with his assertion that Democracy is a universal value that requires no defense. I've met many an (albeit ignorant) Anarcho-Capitalist who proclaim that democracy is just tyranny of the majority or that democracy is 51 percent controlling the 49 percent. These arguments are easy to take apart, but I do think Democracy as a value requires some explanation and justification.

[johnowensjr1234]

democracy isn't perfect buts its a hell of a lot more egalitarian and civilized than how our society is run today

[nocturnezero]

@johnowensjr1234 Certainly, I find democracy without flaw, it's just that it's not a value like freedom. It's an institution meant to promote certain values - equality, fairness, justice - but it's not a value in and of itself, and it does require defense against attacks unto its validity.

[johnowensjr1234]

in societal terms, i think it can equate with the generalized idea of freedom on the basis of the collective vs individual freedom.....in the collective sense i think it is a value which is inherent but can be suppressed like chomsky says

[larry149]

now there's a man who should run for office

[tuntitommosille]

While Chomsky is right in a lot of ways, he systematically ignores the obvious shortcomings of his ideal society. Let's say everyone is roughly equal and their own master so to speak. Will they live happily everafter? No! Firstly, people are quick to take for granted what they have and desire what they don't have. There will inevitably be competition over something. Secondly, the society would collapse because very few people would be productive without being "slaves".

[ilkkavu]

not true. people would be productive because otherwise they would die of hunger.

there can be competitition over many things without people being unequal.

[nocturnezero]

@tuntitommosille What would someone desire that they cannot attain through hard work and determination? We're not like children, fighting over toys. There are no resources that the economy can't allocate from the means of production to the means of consumption, so long as the planning system is efficient and fair.

Why would you not be productive without being a slave? You get to expand your personality, enjoy yourself, produce something for society and be creative all the while.

[Sundrumify]

We need leaders, who walk the talk. We do not want to be followers, though, nevertheless, we cannot hit our heads against the walls of control, deception, and arrogance. Revolution, history tells us, is not a way, either!

I salute, from the depth of my heart, the outstanding wisdom, and living heart, of Professor Chomsky. He is a most resonating voice, in these challenging times!

Lisa from Munich

[DKPS22]

"Revolution, history tells us, is not a way, either!"

Lisa, If not revolution, what do you think would be a good approach? Because we do need a solution. Thank you... David

[DKPS22]

Actually, after thinking a bit more about it, I agree with your point that we need "Leaders". In my opinion, Obama is a good example. But existence of good leaders depends on intelligent voting. So in reality, it is actually up to "The People". Hopefully voters will be able to see through the media's smoke and mirrors.

[jpcortijo]

The existence of good leaders depends on the choice in a given election.

Obama is a marketing trick and the USA is effectively a one party state. It is now as it was founded, an expanionist empire.

The institutional structure of the country is incapable of offering a wider choice than that given each time. That, alas, can only be changed by patient activism and dissent. I try to maintain my own system of values similiar to those that Chomsky mentions. He is right that it's our only hope.

[Sundrumify]

Shared Values are quoted these days. Heard that from Chancellor Merkel, yesterday, from President Obama, the other day, the European Commission, The World Economic Forum, the U.N., the WHO, Corporate Leaders after 9/11, after the financial crisis????

..............

[troutndeer]

Chomsky really knows how to rhettorically seduce his followers.How does he suppose though, the efficent allocation of resources through mob rule? How indeed can a polity adequatly combine, shape, mould and calculate demand and supply of TRILLIONS of resources (including thousands of stands of trees, your ;labour, my labour ect) in such a way that is benificial to human prosperity? Where, without the institution of private property, has there ever been a good quality of life for the average man?

[adeadlysniper]

"Where, without the institution of private property, has there ever been a good quality of life for the average man?"

I'm no expert, but aren't there plenty of examples? I'll cite an easy/overused one: healthcare. Isn't public healthcare a lot more efficient than private healthcare? You could say the same thing about education, justice, etc.

I'm interested in what your response is to this.

[troutndeer]

I meant "where" in the geographical sense eg: a country.

When it comes to health, the capital for state services mostly come from the tax payer who earns his money on the market. Government run health usually runs at a loss . It is thus a zero sum game and is a cost to the productivity of the economy. Also, the best public health care systems exist in those countries who, on the other hand, embrace market forces.

[SUpersaiyajinjerkbag]

education and especially mass transit

[JimmyeDallas]

Catalonia, Spain 1936-1939

[troutndeer]

"Where, without the institution of private property, has there ever been a good quality of life for the average man?"

"Catalonia Spain"

Haha classic :)

[mjd1982]

who said anything abot "mob rule?"

[statesRcountries]

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. - Thomas Jefferson

[mjd1982]

@statesRcountries

and the alternative is what? 49% of the people taking away the rights of the rest?

[statesRcountries]

A democracy is antithetical to a republic.

While a democracy is 50.01% imposing their will upon the remaining 49.99%, a republic operates under the "rule of law" to protect the rights of 100% of the people.

What's happened is that the federal government has transformed our "Federal Constitutional republic" of sovereign Member states (which are countries) into a "Presidential Legislative Democracy" - notice the gold band around the new federal flag (which is the flag of the Executive Branch)?

[mjd1982]

And who creates the laws in a republic if it is not greater than 50% of the people? And how would such a situation be anything other than mob rule?

[BaboonJihad]

What you say would make sense if 100% of the residents voted for their officials. Since they don't, it is actually 1 person making decisions for everyone.

[dazzagazza6969]

I think Noam Chomsky is talking about liberal democracy, which is not majority rules.

A republic does not protect 100% of its people. When the republic was created slavery existed, women did not have the right to vote.

[nocturnezero]

@troutndeer Spain after the Revolution.

[nocturnezero]

@troutndeer Let's assume a system of economic planning by means of participatory democracy i.e. everyone makes decisions in proportion to the degree they are affected by them. Each person could propose their consumption request, or even input into a computer - after the first quarter compiling their quarterly requests, they wouldn't have to throw together everything they wish to consume anymore, only the change from the last quarter.

[nocturnezero]

@troutndeer Assume they input it into a computer and the computer compiles that information into a central database of consumption requests. A board could review these requests (this could also be computerized, but that might lead to some inefficiency) and calculate the general demand for each good then calculate the prices of each good, incorporating externalities. This information would be public and accessible by all workplaces.

[nocturnezero]

@troutndeer Knowing the regional - neighborhood, city, ward, state, national, etc - price of goods by the demand in that region, workplaces would produce in accordance with that demand. If there's a demand for, say, lumber in a barren region, the various workplace councils can include that when they submit requests for what to consume so that their workplace may function to benefit those in the region who request goods from that workplace involving lumber.

[nocturnezero]

@troutndeer The process of Participatory Planning (horizontal planning, decentral planning, whatever you wish to call it) involves a series of iterations between the individual consumer and the various collectives and communities that he is a part of, along with his workplace and other workplaces, other communities, other states. Production, consumption, and allocation all take place seeking the best interest of the entire community, rather than in competition with every other economic agent.

[Mechelle68]

I just love Chomsky. He's one of the most open-minded, most informative and brilliant people in our country.

He could also pass as the twin for my great, great grandmother, (seriously!) but....that's beside the point.

[DarkestOne7]

Long live Chomsky

death to corporatism

[gunnarsom]

old, failed ideas.

[indgiu]

stop saying rent ourselves. We don't rent ourselves, we rent our work. There's a pretty big difference between the two.

[hollywoodartchick]

If that were true in a pure sense, there would not be workplace requirements on appearance. They would not control when you take breaks. There would not be "personality tests" as work would be seen as generic and the individual would not be the item for "rent." I wish your statement were true in the real world, but they DO rent US, and for the time we are there. They don't just want units moved; they expect us to submit in ways we would not if the only issue was getting a job done.

[indgiu]

So, you think your employer is renting you? Ok, that means there's someone that owns you. According to the dictionary 'to rent' means to take possession of someone else's property by paying a certain fee. So, who is your master?

Most things you mention affect the quality of your work, which is what your employer is really renting: your work.

Of course, I agree with your implicit point that employers do not always care about their employees' dignity and rights.

[hollywoodartchick]

I hope that you never slide so far down the economic scale that you no longer have the luxury of arguing definitions and splitting hairs about labor issues. The financial system owns us all, but you don't feel the pull of your chains till you fall down the ladder far enough to feel them digging in as they milk you for the last value they can squeeze out. I used to believe people owned their own lives, too, before I lost everything and became a slave to owners who actually prefer you die.

[indgiu]

Look, I don't mean to be insensitive to the situation of people at the bottom of the economic scale. My situation is not as good either. I acknowledge these people are often times taken advantage of.

But my point is simply that you can not equate a modern labor relation to the situation of a slave in XVIIIth century America or some places that unfortunately even today practice slavery.

I really think this is not just semantics, and that we need to recognize these are not the same.

[hollywoodartchick]

I am not sure that it matters what century we compare today with. The rhetoric that insists, "C'mon, you don't have it that bad" is part of what prevents citizens from taking action. We have been hypnotized to believe that we have a lot more personal control/responsibility for our situations than we do. What the poor need to do is organize, not cheerlead the rich.

BTW, I do feel for you in your situation. Poverty hurts. Bad. And it hurts worse when you are blamed for your own misfortune

[Pommit]

And yes they do own you. They pay for you on a daily basis. It is similar to chattel slavery. Read about wage slavery.

[elguanteloko]

well, when we work 9 hours a day, sometimes more, so we can feed a Government that is slow and many times against the people.... I would think that saying 'rent ourselves' is a pretty good way of putting it.

when we spent 90% of our time serving the imposed system, I say that we are renting ourselves, not only our work.

[Pommit]

Of course we rent ourselves. We are the tools that needed to do the work. We sell use of our minds and bodies in order to do the work. It doesn't actually make any sense to claim that we rent the work.

[accidentsinspace]

Chomsky is a liar and a traitor. He is a left wing gatekeeper. He is a NWO tool,

[punisa]

Long live Chomsky. An everlasting inspiration for a better more humane world.

Glad to see so many people discussing and getting involved, hope this trend keeps on rising : ) great salute to all you comrades out there

[sk8bow]

the filthy rich has conditioned us to look at change as impossible.

we are too divided- conservative vs liberal.

as stupid as it sounds, you cannot escape these two labels unless we are indifferent.

[thesparitan]

that was a very smart statement

kudos

[FA8T]

Lose the bit at the beginning; its annoying.

[xPhilippo]

You can read about Game theory from Mr.John Nash, its work totally focuses in community 'earnings' more than personal gains.

Mr.Chomsky is one of the most honest persons alive. 5*

[djboony]

are you kidding? game theory paints people as lonely robots constantly trying to maximise their own advantage

[xPhilippo]

What kind of game theory do you know?

Try to read about cooperative and non-cooperative games, maybe you can understand what I mean.

[thesparitan]

not all game theory

[thesparitan]

i love this, so many intelligent people commenting

good news

[xPhilippo]

Thank you but I'm not intelligent.

heheh Regards!

[Nederlandac]

I love Chomsky so much.

[moomin468]

@Nederlandac Chomsky for President? :D

[catch89]

Bravo. Chomsky will live forever.

[metalorg]

Who's the banjo guy?

[Chomskyan]

I am not sure, it was from an outtake of the movie Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media.

[lordennis01]

looks like Harry Kreisler from "conversation with history"

[alternativeinfo]

Fantastic clip! These ideas should be easy for everyone to embrace, but the public is so indoctrinated by greed that I'm afraid we will not be able to avoid the consequences he speaks of.

It's funny (sad) that we in 2009 still have not dealt with the environment problems, when Chomsky 20 years ago said it had been an obvious problem for decades! In another 20 years we will think the same...

[drgoodvibesxxx]

OMG Noam Chomsky just have me a mental orgasm

[CaptainBluebear08]

Noam puts it all into focus.

As always.

thanks, maëstro.

[terpis]

3:10 That's the stuff right there.

"If the society is based on control by private wealth, it will reflect the values that it in fact does reflect...the only real desire [becomes] greed...a global society based on that principle is headed for massive destruction."

yes indeedy.

[7jerryv7]

Good point.

Also, @@1:30

If we adopted this definition of democracy it would require a revolution. We are indoctrinated in the belief that the rich can dispose of their wealth anyway they see fit and that those in power, who are generally backed by wealth, make the most important decisions. Its unfortunate but only a revolution against the current economic order would bring what Chomsky is saying into fruition.

Then again, that pretty much says we either revolt or the human race dies.

[jrpigg]

Yeah ... more good stuff. While Parenti's good, I think Chomsky presents a better case for democracy, from an anarchist perspective anyways.

Thanks.

[zayadnay]

viva le chomski lol

[Acrolyte78]

Long live Chomsky.

[ZamatoElite]

Good vid.

[flyhead2]

People who loathe and deride Chomsky, simply fobbing him off as a, ahem, 'communist', really don't have an inkling about what he is talking about. I'm not entirely sure that I share his proposed solutions, but his analysis is spot on.

[Summer033]

well said.

[Biltospill]

@flyhead2 This was filmed in 1988, his prediction 'likely hood of nuclear conflict' is spot on? This topic a dead horse in 88. Hardly profound, and just a few years later Russia crumbled. He calls for MORE democracy? that common logic, yet fails to predict corporate globalization and the lobbying of congress. He simply rehashes history in a logical way but IS NOT a visionary. To talk about what doesn't work and to promote ideas which are the opposite makes him a Historian. Spot on? lol

[YellingInMyEar]

This is great - Thank you!

[herraotic]

Where did you this source video in widescreen?

Thanks.

[Chomskyan]

The source video was 4:3 but I cropped it to fit the widescreen.

[Slug99]

What I think is very interesting is that Moyer doesn't pull the old one and just ask "Isn't that socialism?".

[timshieldrod]

b/c Moyers isn't as stupid as others haha

[marcus3379]

Do you know where I can find the entire interview?

[Chomskyan]

I've posted on my channel, thought at a lower quality. search my videos you'll find it.

[marcus3379]

Thanks.