@Madfoot713 the Koch brothers of Koch Industries as well as numerous other corporations heavily funded the Tea Party candidates for Congressional office. "You're full of shit." You mad? Believe whatever you want...
@Madfoot713 they certainly are real people and they certainly do have real grievances...
read what he actually had to say instead of just copy and pasting a snippet from Google. he detailed how the Tea Party candidates are heavily funded by corporate interests and how the people who support them are misguided by deeply-instilled corporate propaganda.
@Madfoot713 and all of that is true of occupy - they're funded by george soros and the unions, got a whole bunch of free press from MSNBC and CNN, and are misled by anti-capitalist propaganda - so WHO CARES? It's an ad hominem. Both sides have good points. We can have a REAL debate in this, or we can just watch people like you fight the same old team red/team blue battles.
@Madfoot713 inflammatory rhetoric. "a whole bunch of free press,"=demonization.Tea Party was supported and called patriotic by corporate media. Noam bases his statements on verifiable facts- you instead just take my words and swap "capitalist" into it. do you support Ron Paul? he is opposed to environmental regulations, industry/banking regulations, minimum wage, social programs, the Civil Rights Act of 64, evolution, public healthcare, public education, federal safety standards
@Madfoot713 I'll grant you that glenn beck tried to make the tea party his own little movement, but people like ed schultz and keith olbermann did the same thing. you can't look at one part of the media, you have to look at the broad picture
@Madfoot713 FOX News portrayed the OWS movement as “anti-American” – Sean Hannity said that they “hate freedom.” Sean Hannity called the Tea Party “quintessentially American.” So rage against a duly-elected government is patriotic, whereas rage against multi-national shareholder-accountable corporations is "anti-American."
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk So is the Tea Party. I'm not talking about Sean Hannity, I'm talking about news media as a whole - Rachel Maddow compared Occupy to the Civil Rights movement, but that's not how most people covered it. Do you understan?
@Madfoot713 "so it the Tea Party" what? that isn't a sentence. Sean Hannity is only one of the 100s of corporate talking heads that supported the corporate-funded Tea Party movement and candidates and demonized the grassroots OWS movement. there is a good reason that there ARE Tea Party Congressmen and there ARE NOT Occupy Congressmen- the reason being that the Tea Party has massive corporate funding and campaigns. do you "understan?"
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk I don't think there's even 100 people in the media, let alone tea party shills. As for there being a good reason that there are no Occupy congresscritters, you're right - it's because the Tea Party is two years old and Occupy is only a few months. But Elizabeth Warren is looking more and more likely to be the first Occupy Democrat, and who knows who else will get elected in 2012.
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1. I don't think there's that many TALKING HEADS. Maybe 100, but not HUNDREDS like you said.
2. Of course I do, although I will admit many of them will just be posers. For example, lots of Tea Party congresscritters got elected, but very few were honest, like Rand Paul and Justin Amash. The only way there won't be occupy politicians is if the occupiers don't vote, which would be stupid, since they're the ones asking for MOAR GOVERNMENT.
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 3. I can't believe you don't see that the Tea Party = astroturf smear is EXACTLY THE SAME as when they trash Occupy as being hippies and anarchists. The MEDIA HATES BOTH GROUPS. YOU'RE the one who's brainwashed by the corporate media, not me. Remember Erin Burnett's AWFUL & DISRESPECTFUL Occupy coverage? Imagine if she had a show during the Tea Party. Would she praise them as patriots, or would she say "Look at these racists in funny hats". I think it's the latter.
it isn't "smear," it is just stating a verifiable fact - that the Tea Party movement is a corporate-funded, faux-grassroots movement, i.e. astroturf. the media does not "HATE" the Tea Party - it heavily supported it and portrayed them as patriots.
i am "brainwashed" for stating a verifiable fact?
there are /far/ more than than 200 people in the media...
Rand Paul received corporate funding just like the rest...
you're wrong, occupy has big money behind it too, george soros and warren buffet were paying people to protest... but it doesn't mean SHIT. george soros and david koch are bogeymen, if you want to look at the real bastards, it's the 1%ers who aren't talked about on the evening news. no one forced occupy or tea party to happen, they're both 100% grassroots, even though there's big money supporting them, it doesn't matter.
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk The Federal Reserve is responsible for the transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich and upper class. Centuries ago people were enslaved to the nobles who owned the land, today they are enslaved to the bankers who own the money. Money as Debt : watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU
The FED is not the only problem we are facing today, but it definitely is a severe one.
@rasetoi do you really believe that the Fed is the sole institution responsible for the transfer of wealth from poor to rich? long before the Fed existed there was an extremely wealthy and an extremely poor in the US. Right-wing propaganda created by massive corporations (enermy, arms, etc.) such as Koch Industries keeps you focused on the Fed and banks as opposed to the entire state-corporate system. financial institutions only account for about half of the wealth and power
@rasetoi yes and he was a wealthy, slave-owning elite of american society. instead of focusing on the entire state-corporate system, you've been tricked into focusing entirely on one institution. you seem to think that before 1913 the US was a magical, harmonious place with no injustice or problems.
@rasetoi the state-corporate system was created in 1945 after World War II, not in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created. "Too bad you don't see it !" i am not "defending" the Fed, I am just pointing out how close-minded it is to focus on that and not the entire system. it makes about as much sense as devoting all your effort to protesting just the IRS...
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk I don't see what you are referring to in 1945... Corporations existed long before 1945 and so did corruption.
I already said that I don't focus only on the FED. Are you referring to my support of Ron Paul? Ron Paul's message is not limited to the FED issue. He is opposed for example to corporate personhood and limited liability and I happen to agree with him. He is for the end of corporations, not corporate tyranny as Chomsky accused him of : watch?v=s-xFexgH76g
@rasetoi i didn't say that corporations didn't exist: i said that 1945 is when the state-corporate system was set-up, after the US won WWII and became the most powerful superpower in the world. Ron Paul has a radical right-wing ideology in which he wants unaccountable, private tyrannies to control the entire system; he's anti-Civil Rights Act, anti-minimum wage, anti-immigrants, anti-evolution, anti-environmental regulation, anti-industry/banking regulations. he's a corporate candidate
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk If what you say is true, then how do you explain the fact that, unlike Obama or Romney, his campaign is completely funded by his supporters, not by big banks and big corporations? How do you explain the unfairness of the corporate media towards him?
You need to listen more to what he says, instead of what others say about him.
@rasetoi what you said is entirely false. if you looked at the actual facts instead of making them up, you would see that more than 50% of his funding is from large corporations (Google Inc, Microsoft Corp, General Electric, Raetheon Co, AT&T Inc, Lockheed Martin, Wachovia Corp, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Boeing Co, etc.) many of these are arms corporations. he is a corporate candidate who receives airtime on mainstream corporate media. he is anti-government, pro-corporate tyranny...
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk Those are just the employers of his donaters. He gets very little from those companies compared to Romney and Obama, his campaign is citizen-funded and that's why the Democrats want to repeal Citizens United! So do the Republicans, but they won't talk about it...
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk Now that you ask , yes I do. Not that I deny that there are multiple forms and mechanisms of transfer of wealth, but most of those I can think of do rely on the Federal Reserve System and the conditions it creates. And transfer of wealth (from poor people around the world, not only in the US) is not even the worst crime of the Federal Reserve. There is also the destruction of the Environment due to the imperative of growth (which is a consequence of the monetary system) !
@KristianHicks Indeed. I think what he said is spot on except that part. It's as if he doesn't now that the Federal Reserve is a private institution and not a governmental one.
@Sim80FP corporations wants to keep you mad at "the goverment" and the Fed and not mad at the corporations themselves. forget about the Fed. it is only one small aspect
@KristianHicks its only one piece of a much larger system. why focus on just one institution? mostly because corporations create propaganda that gets people only angry at banks and the Fed instead of energy/arms/etc corporations
Because it's the core piece which oils the entire system. WIthout the fiat monopoly system the centralisation of power experienced today is impossible, the mass wars are impossible and the corporatist bailouts are impossible.
I don't agree with his basic premise here. It's extraordinarily difficult to effect change in the government. Voting is practically worthless. But if I don't like a corporation, I can just not do business with them. They have no power over me. Corporations can't lock me up or send me to war, if I don't give them my money.
@Madfoot713 A corporation can move into your neighborhood and destroy the local businesses that were actually giving back to the growth of your community. Then the corporation will go overseas and still not care about your local economy.
@vioguy Only with the approval of consumers. If WalFuck decides it's going to move into Smallville, it can only succeed if the Smallvillians actually want them there.
They lobbied the courts to make them people (legal persons). They don't ask permission, they have the government and the media backing them. Yes, they have to, no, they don't.
@vioguy "They lobbied the courts to make them people (legal persons)."
Misrepresentation. Are you referring to Citizens United?
"They don't ask permission, they have the government and the media backing them. Yes, they have to, no, they don't."
They can't force their way in without someone else selling them property, except through eminent domain. Which is why us right-libertarians are against government. And once they're there, no one's forcing you to buy a product.
@Madfoot713 The entity of a corporation is treated as if it was a person, same laws and same unalienable rights than humans. Humans sometimes file suit against corporations or some sort of scandal ensues...well, no one that works for the corporation is responsible because they only represent the entity of the corporation. Also, they can create subsidiary companies where oversight is hard and it becomes easy to say "I didn't know what they were doing over there."
@Madfoot713 "no one is forcing you to buy a product"- this is false. the entire corporate-state system is designed to force people to pay for products. the internet was developed on tax dollars, as well the majority of high technology and tele-communications. we are in forced to buy products when the tax payers are forced to spend money on military as well as the invention of technologies that get privatized
A focus on Federal Reserve System bankers is not useless. Bankers are the primary enemy. Wall Street/Fortune500 despots are secondary enemies. This is because bankers are the ultimate Genghis Khan mass murdering rapists.
Capitalism is when the means of production are owned and operated for profit.
Think about it if we stopped lobbyists and campaign donations, and made it so all candidates got equall air time that would be a better democracy while keeping corporations right?
Does Chomsky believe that we could have capitalism and corporations without it turning into corporatism? Or does he think that capitalism will always turn into corporatism
Does Chomsky believe that we could have capitalism and corporations without it turning into corporatism? Or does he think that capitalism will always turn into corporatism, similar to how Hayek wrote in his book "the Road to Serfdom" that socialism will always lead to fascism becasue, when you have socialism the comanies who can get in good with the government will survive and that relationship will grow into fascism.
@tonybonez chomsky believes that workers should own the factories and businesses. Before the worker's owned the business, factory, etc. and had a say in everything the company did. Today corporations have no connection to the city that they are located and will get up and leave to go somewhere more profitable and leave everyone to drown. This takes all power from workers and creates a private tyranny. This is the problem in the US is that there is no responsibilty that coporations have...
@tonybonez to workers and only do whats best for themselves. This situation also reduces the need for managers who only gie the evil eye and keep workers in line to control production and employee actions. This creates an unhappy environment that only threatens workers. If workers had more power at the expense of coporations in the US than majority of employment problems would be gone. These are the facts that have conveniently been wiped out of the public mind which causes other scapegoats
@tonybonez Chomsky's a libertarian socialist, not just a socialist. look up his speech called "Government in the Future" (also available as a pamphlet) where he lays out what he thinks would be the ideal way of governance.
@tonybonez Look up capitalism in the dictionary. It says that it is a system in which private individuals and corporations control the means of production and own everything (our water, our oil, our diamonds, our forests, our led, our coal, our natural gas...etc.) Your idea of corporatism is the same as the dictionary meaning of capitalism.
Now, Chomsky, do I turn to thee, and mark my greeting well; for what I speak my body shall make good upon this earth, or my divine soul answer it in heaven. Thou art a traitor and a miscreant, too good to be so and too bad to live, since the more fair and crystal is the sky, the uglier seem the clouds that in it fly. Once more, the more to aggravate the note, with a foul traitor's name stuff I thy throat; and wish, ere I move, what my tongue speaks my right drawn sword may prove.
I love this clip. Chomsky perfectly explains the roots of all these NWO, zeitgeist, truther, tea-party movements. It's sad that people are wasting so much energy on things that aren't a threat. Our concerns are the same, but their solutions, and conclusions are just outlandish.
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk You're kinda a biased source. Why should I accept from you that Occupy Wall Street is a moderate, grassroots movement, and the Tea Party is a radical, astroturf sham? There are people on the right who say the same thing but in reverse, and I reject that because they have a vested interest in discrediting the opposition movements. I reject what you say for the same reason; it's ad hominem.
@Madfoot713 don't take my word for it: do some research for yourself. the Tea Party movement was supported by corporate media (called "patriots" by FOX News) and was funded by corporate interests, i.e. Koch Industries, etc. to promote anger toward corporate regulations as well as social programs which benefit society. the Occupy movement is a grassroots movement that opposes corporate tyranny and was demonized in corporate media (called "anti-American" by FOX News). figure it out
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk Yes I'm familiar with the Koch bros. I don't understand why rich people donating their money to support a movement invalidates the people in that movement. Soros is involved in Occupy too, and he's entitled to; I think he believes in the Occupy message. I don't think he's a phony. It doesn't really matter though. Even if Koch and Soros were acting selfishly, it doesn't make the Tea Party or Occupy any less legitimate or spontaneous.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I agree with Chomsky about the antipolitics of the paranoid Right, but I wonder what the solution to this would be. Chomsky thinks "libertarian socialism" or community based, decentralized socialism is the key. I disagree. Socialism is just as tyrannical to the individual as corporations, only more so. What is needed is a just society based on equal opportunity for individual happiness. The devil is in the details, but there it is.
I seriously consider you look more into socialism and forms of anarchism. I think you'll be surprised with how much you'll agree with. I can guarantee that from your second to last comment a lone. :)
can you please explain how decolonization and decentralization into multiple regions are 'just as tyrannical to the individual as corporations'? A world where individuals can choose the types of institutions, communities and associations most suitable to their needs allows people to choose their own oppression. The devil is not in the details, the devil is in your head.
I believe that a society actually doesn't have to be really socialist or capitalist. If it were based on free associations among people, then some associations may run things like a corporate hierarchy with "bosses" or like a socialist community in which everyone pitches in. But yes, the devil is in the details because a lot of right thinking people would agree that a "free society" is what we need, but how do we achieve it realistically? Is the Chomsky solution the "only" way?
there are many ways "to achieve it realistically" all by which could fill a book...
I'm more of a pluralist, a decentralist-populist-classical anarchist, if you will, no man has the right to decide how to run the world as no group of people have the right to decide which set of ideas the world should be ran by... therefore, anarchism without adjectives is the only sensible social order
The different anarcho-schools of thought disagree on serious issues. We also have to consider that left and right anarchists collectively are a very small percentage of humanity. To talk preference, one could argue that WE would be initiating force if we forced OUR preference onto others, bending them to our will, not allowing them THEIR preference. Isnt this the system in which we live today? Why replace a system based on imposed ideology with a new system based on imposed ideology?
I agree with you (to an extent) both the mutualist and voluntaryist society can exist. The world is big enough to share (as if we haven't learned anything from the mistakes of our masters)
I don't consider myself an anarchist. I certainly lean Americanized libertarian. I know that anarchists and Chomskyites then would consider me as a poster boy for privatized tyranny. However, I don't think that because while I believe in privatization in many areas, I also believe that human rights come first. As well, I strongly oppose private-state complexes, private military, privatization of police and privatization of prisons. I am also against corporatism and believe in free association.
I'll give you an example. A couple of years ago, a friend of mine and his friends, all in the construction business paid for an election campaign of my friends ex-girlfriend. She has nice fake boobs and a pretty face, she knows nothing about policy. She almost won. If she had, my friend and his buddies would have had direct influence and expected to get construction contracts out of it. It takes much smaller groups of much less power to control politics locally.
You kidding? on the contrary, the interstate commerce act allowed the elites to successfully block their smaller competition and successfully setup a monopolistic network of railways/railroads through the U.S., - this was the beginning of the Anglo-american empire, lol. How does your example of NOT winning your local election demonstrate local power?
You totally, completely, and utterly misunderstood what I was saying regarding the interstate commerce act:) My example demonstrates that if she had won, my friends would have had a significant amount of control over who got lucrative contracts. That kind of control is easier to gain with a much smaller group at a local level. I was being nice, but if you want to argue about it, we can :)
Again, how does your example of NOT winning your local election prove how it's easier to gain "significant amount of control" at a local level, lol, I think you're argument is ridiculous, if this emotionally rattles you, toughen up
In local politics, it's very easy for a small group of people to take over the agenda. This is a plain and simple fact, if you can't see that, or if you think it's a good thing, then good for you. Look at local school boards wanting to ban evolution and promote intelligent design, that's a good thing?
First of all, if you're incapable of comprehending the facts -- that's your problem, not mine. Secondly, the United States was founded in the interest of the rich, I've shown you, Madison stated "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." Madison held land owners to be a "more capable set of men." It was Aristotle who presented the opposite conclusion, that "measures therefore should be taken which give all people lasting prosperity."
I do understand the facts, and you're not interested in dialogue, typical of freshman who think they've discovered the 'truth' :) good luck with that.
Thanks for sharing your immigration biography. People who resort to name-calling (especially during a debate) are obviously incapable of casting an intellectual argument to counter strike their differences. If "you're a freshman" and "you're not all familiar" are really the central power points of your argument, well then lol I think YOUR comments are doing all the "revealing".. Learn to present yourself.
Ok, so I went to your page, and read your description of yourself. My only critique, is that if you want to convert people to your point of view, cut out the name calling, and recognize someone who holds similar views to your own. A little less time making assumptions, a little less time worrying about who is right, and a little more time worrying about what is right. Again, good luck :)
Actually, you're the one responsible for name calling. You should reread our conversation. "Nationalist" and "statist" are ideological inclinations, how could this be considered name calling? If you feel you've been intellectually insulted, you were INDIRECTLY insulted through intellectual discussion. You, on the other hand, directly insulted me... to call someone a "Freshman" is to directly insult them. Take your own advice.
hahaha, ok, you're not interested in bringing people to your point of view, you're interested in taking your $5 dollar education and trying insulting people with it. Yes, that was an insult :) Cool, dude, we've nothing more to talk about, I don't think. Laters :)
Btw, if you really would have read my description you'd know that I am not trying to "convert people to my point of view". Nationalist populism has replaced communism as the threat to unite the people against the establishment (while communism, has BECOME the establishment), this new shift can unite the center, center-right and center-left, it's much more diverse than communism. You didn't read all of the description, just like how you didn't read all of Madison, lol
It's amazing how many people do not get this. To anyone who moans at the government, immigrants or mentions NWO theories I have always said it's the corporations who deserve your wrath. I normally get shot down for this, or people say "Well if government's legislated corporations they wouldn't have so much power." Highly unlikely politicians are going to legislate at the people who mainly fund their parties.
A look at the powers delegated to Congress by the constitution reveals that the constitutional system was originally designed as a state-capitalist class dictatorship. The constitution included the necessary powers for the advancement of the interests of capital, central banking, uniform bankruptcy laws, transportation subsidies, a large free trade area and so on. This type of framework could only lead to the plutocratic entanglements that Jefferson & Smith constantly warned about
I don't know if it was designed that way, but it has certainly been interpreted that way. The interstate commerce clause has been used as a justification for just about everything, whether or not it was intended as such, I don't know.
Obviously not, or you'd realize that the constitutional system was setup "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority". If you weren't ignorant, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Is that condescending enough for you?
You don't have to read the Federal Papers to learn what they teach in Freshman college courses. Please show me how Madison envisioned multinational corporations paying off politicians to have monopolistic dynasties. Your freshman course left out one important fact. Madison was adamant that the only way this system would work is if the 'better men' used their position benevolently. He later lamented that this hadn't happened.
As for your "freshman course" insults, yeah let's pretend political science teaches the roots of American imperialism, ha - Your slave owning, indian killing, nationalist-federalist flag waving plutocratic founding fathers are not exactly guardians of liberty... but I'll play along.
By the way, federal and state bureaucracies call the shots, not the local school boards, not the parents. If anyone needs a history lesson, it's you.
My family came as poor immigrants from Denmark, and moved to Mexico, where they hacked out an existence in the Chihuahuan desert. You're insulting the wrong American :) You're obviously not at all familiar with how local politics work, and your comments reveal you've never participated. Good day to you, and good luck with your crusade! :)
I never said it wasn't possible for people to gain local power. You're so slippery, lol. Subtract "significant" from "amount of control", and "easy" from "to gain control" - replace "significant" with "molecular" and "easy" with "difficult" and maybe I'll consider your argument. This is why I don't argue with statists and nationalists. You're incredibly naive.
Again with the insults for the wrong American... Hahaha, you make all kinds of assumptions and put forth arguments for the strawman in your head :) Take care dood!
It's very typical for people to jump in, object, get butchered, become emotionally rattled, start calling people names, and then turn around and bounce before the discussion chews them up. I'm not surprised. Enjoy the charade.
Find and upload them yourself... That is activism and activism of every single individual is what Noam Chomsky strongly advocates :) I wish you only the best.
to say that the state is accountable but corporations aren't is to ignore the fact that the state is in the back-pocket of corporations. i like chomsky in general but he has a very skitzofrenic idea about the state.
yeah, but he is ignoring the fact that corporations by their very nature are in part state entities. they are big bussinesses that have the state to protect them from competition.
@fede2 the state is potentially accountable to the general population, under the right circumstances. there have been times when 1 person 1 vote has outweighed the effects of capital on the political process. the citigroup memo about plutonomy specifically references 1 person 1 vote as a primary threat
@RGMorgan the reason the 1 person 1 vote formula was able to outweigh the efects of capital on the political process was precisely because capital was not protected by the government.
@fede2 there are some who are not in the back pocket of corporations but it is still, at least theoretically, a democratic system where the people choose (ignoring of course the elections where the victor does not have the popular vote eg Bush in 2000) who they would least object to running the country. Schizophrenic though? I'm not so sure. in his books- particularly 'understanding power' he describes how it is not how it should be.
@DollSteakFrenchie i haven't read his books but i do like what i know about him.
at this point i'm not sure why i used the word "schizophrenic" but what i was trying to say is that he misses the fact that corporations unlike any other private business have privileges granted by the government which is why they are entirely out of reach.
Most of the people that comment on youtube about politics and world events are from the "Antipolitics" camp Noam talks about here. I only hope this gets heard by more people.
Congressmen*
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 week ago
corporate interests*
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 week ago
corporation interests including Koch Industries created the Tea Party, they didn't just donate to it
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 week ago
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk How did they "create" the Tea Party. You're full of shit. you can't stand that people honestly disagree with you.
Madfoot713 1 week ago
@Madfoot713 the Koch brothers of Koch Industries as well as numerous other corporations heavily funded the Tea Party candidates for Congressional office. "You're full of shit." You mad? Believe whatever you want...
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 week ago
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk good thing those lovely democrats don't accept corporate funding-owait
Madfoot713 1 week ago
@Madfoot713 okay?
"The two parties are two factions of the business party." Noam Chomsky
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 week ago
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk "We shouldn't ridicule Tea Party protesters. They're real people with real grievances." Noam Chomsky
Madfoot713 1 week ago
@Madfoot713 they certainly are real people and they certainly do have real grievances...
read what he actually had to say instead of just copy and pasting a snippet from Google. he detailed how the Tea Party candidates are heavily funded by corporate interests and how the people who support them are misguided by deeply-instilled corporate propaganda.
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 week ago
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk do you literally suck his dick?
Madfoot713 1 week ago
@Madfoot713 and all of that is true of occupy - they're funded by george soros and the unions, got a whole bunch of free press from MSNBC and CNN, and are misled by anti-capitalist propaganda - so WHO CARES? It's an ad hominem. Both sides have good points. We can have a REAL debate in this, or we can just watch people like you fight the same old team red/team blue battles.
Madfoot713 1 week ago
@Madfoot713 although judging from your yt channel, you will never change your mind, since you're a True Believer...
Madfoot713 1 week ago
@Madfoot713 inflammatory rhetoric. "a whole bunch of free press,"=demonization.Tea Party was supported and called patriotic by corporate media. Noam bases his statements on verifiable facts- you instead just take my words and swap "capitalist" into it. do you support Ron Paul? he is opposed to environmental regulations, industry/banking regulations, minimum wage, social programs, the Civil Rights Act of 64, evolution, public healthcare, public education, federal safety standards
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 week ago
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk the tea party was treated just as awful by the media, although you didn't notice because you want to be a little victim
they called the occupiers hippies, anarchists, and criminals
they called the tea party racists, anti-government extremists... and astroturf
why? because both movements threatened the establishment. plus, to sell headlines.
Madfoot713 1 week ago
@Madfoot713 I'll grant you that glenn beck tried to make the tea party his own little movement, but people like ed schultz and keith olbermann did the same thing. you can't look at one part of the media, you have to look at the broad picture
Madfoot713 1 week ago
@Madfoot713 FOX News portrayed the OWS movement as “anti-American” – Sean Hannity said that they “hate freedom.” Sean Hannity called the Tea Party “quintessentially American.” So rage against a duly-elected government is patriotic, whereas rage against multi-national shareholder-accountable corporations is "anti-American."
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 week ago
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk So is the Tea Party. I'm not talking about Sean Hannity, I'm talking about news media as a whole - Rachel Maddow compared Occupy to the Civil Rights movement, but that's not how most people covered it. Do you understan?
Madfoot713 1 week ago
@Madfoot713 "so it the Tea Party" what? that isn't a sentence. Sean Hannity is only one of the 100s of corporate talking heads that supported the corporate-funded Tea Party movement and candidates and demonized the grassroots OWS movement. there is a good reason that there ARE Tea Party Congressmen and there ARE NOT Occupy Congressmen- the reason being that the Tea Party has massive corporate funding and campaigns. do you "understan?"
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 week ago
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk I don't think there's even 100 people in the media, let alone tea party shills. As for there being a good reason that there are no Occupy congresscritters, you're right - it's because the Tea Party is two years old and Occupy is only a few months. But Elizabeth Warren is looking more and more likely to be the first Occupy Democrat, and who knows who else will get elected in 2012.
Madfoot713 1 week ago
@Madfoot713 You “don’t think there are even 100 people in the media?” Seriously?
So you think there will by OWS Congressman? Seriously?
Tea Party = astroturf. OWS = grassroots.
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 week ago
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1. I don't think there's that many TALKING HEADS. Maybe 100, but not HUNDREDS like you said.
2. Of course I do, although I will admit many of them will just be posers. For example, lots of Tea Party congresscritters got elected, but very few were honest, like Rand Paul and Justin Amash. The only way there won't be occupy politicians is if the occupiers don't vote, which would be stupid, since they're the ones asking for MOAR GOVERNMENT.
Madfoot713 1 week ago
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 3. I can't believe you don't see that the Tea Party = astroturf smear is EXACTLY THE SAME as when they trash Occupy as being hippies and anarchists. The MEDIA HATES BOTH GROUPS. YOU'RE the one who's brainwashed by the corporate media, not me. Remember Erin Burnett's AWFUL & DISRESPECTFUL Occupy coverage? Imagine if she had a show during the Tea Party. Would she praise them as patriots, or would she say "Look at these racists in funny hats". I think it's the latter.
Madfoot713 1 week ago
@Madfoot713 you mad? calm down.
it isn't "smear," it is just stating a verifiable fact - that the Tea Party movement is a corporate-funded, faux-grassroots movement, i.e. astroturf. the media does not "HATE" the Tea Party - it heavily supported it and portrayed them as patriots.
i am "brainwashed" for stating a verifiable fact?
there are /far/ more than than 200 people in the media...
Rand Paul received corporate funding just like the rest...
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 week ago
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk no just caps for emphasis
you're wrong, occupy has big money behind it too, george soros and warren buffet were paying people to protest... but it doesn't mean SHIT. george soros and david koch are bogeymen, if you want to look at the real bastards, it's the 1%ers who aren't talked about on the evening news. no one forced occupy or tea party to happen, they're both 100% grassroots, even though there's big money supporting them, it doesn't matter.
Madfoot713 1 week ago
i assume "he" is Ron Paul
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 week ago
Comment removed
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 month ago
The federal reserve not a real problem? Seriously Noam?
rasetoi 1 month ago in playlist Autres vidéos de openyourfuckingeyes
@rasetoi don't focus all your energy on the Fed. its only one piece of a much larger system.
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 month ago
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk The Federal Reserve is responsible for the transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich and upper class. Centuries ago people were enslaved to the nobles who owned the land, today they are enslaved to the bankers who own the money. Money as Debt : watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU
The FED is not the only problem we are facing today, but it definitely is a severe one.
rasetoi 1 month ago
@rasetoi do you really believe that the Fed is the sole institution responsible for the transfer of wealth from poor to rich? long before the Fed existed there was an extremely wealthy and an extremely poor in the US. Right-wing propaganda created by massive corporations (enermy, arms, etc.) such as Koch Industries keeps you focused on the Fed and banks as opposed to the entire state-corporate system. financial institutions only account for about half of the wealth and power
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 month ago
Comment removed
rasetoi 1 month ago
Comment removed
rasetoi 1 month ago
@rasetoi yes and he was a wealthy, slave-owning elite of american society. instead of focusing on the entire state-corporate system, you've been tricked into focusing entirely on one institution. you seem to think that before 1913 the US was a magical, harmonious place with no injustice or problems.
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 month ago
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk
The FED is at the core of modern day corporatism. Too bad you don't see it !
And I am not focusing only on the FED, I know there are many other issues facing us. Except the video is about the FED, so...
Why you are defending a privately-owned Bank cartel that creates money out of thin air with interest. That is modern feudalism.
It is well explained here : Money as Debt : watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU
rasetoi 1 month ago
@rasetoi the state-corporate system was created in 1945 after World War II, not in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created. "Too bad you don't see it !" i am not "defending" the Fed, I am just pointing out how close-minded it is to focus on that and not the entire system. it makes about as much sense as devoting all your effort to protesting just the IRS...
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 month ago
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk I don't see what you are referring to in 1945... Corporations existed long before 1945 and so did corruption.
I already said that I don't focus only on the FED. Are you referring to my support of Ron Paul? Ron Paul's message is not limited to the FED issue. He is opposed for example to corporate personhood and limited liability and I happen to agree with him. He is for the end of corporations, not corporate tyranny as Chomsky accused him of : watch?v=s-xFexgH76g
rasetoi 1 month ago
@rasetoi i didn't say that corporations didn't exist: i said that 1945 is when the state-corporate system was set-up, after the US won WWII and became the most powerful superpower in the world. Ron Paul has a radical right-wing ideology in which he wants unaccountable, private tyrannies to control the entire system; he's anti-Civil Rights Act, anti-minimum wage, anti-immigrants, anti-evolution, anti-environmental regulation, anti-industry/banking regulations. he's a corporate candidate
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 month ago
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk If what you say is true, then how do you explain the fact that, unlike Obama or Romney, his campaign is completely funded by his supporters, not by big banks and big corporations? How do you explain the unfairness of the corporate media towards him?
You need to listen more to what he says, instead of what others say about him.
rasetoi 1 month ago
@rasetoi what you said is entirely false. if you looked at the actual facts instead of making them up, you would see that more than 50% of his funding is from large corporations (Google Inc, Microsoft Corp, General Electric, Raetheon Co, AT&T Inc, Lockheed Martin, Wachovia Corp, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Boeing Co, etc.) many of these are arms corporations. he is a corporate candidate who receives airtime on mainstream corporate media. he is anti-government, pro-corporate tyranny...
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 month ago
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk Those are just the employers of his donaters. He gets very little from those companies compared to Romney and Obama, his campaign is citizen-funded and that's why the Democrats want to repeal Citizens United! So do the Republicans, but they won't talk about it...
Madfoot713 1 week ago
@Madfoot713 Ron Paul receives corporate funding from: telecommunication corporations (Google Inc, Microsoft Corp, Hewlett Packard, Cisco Systems, Verizon Communications, AT&T Inc, Apple Inc, etc.); defense contractors (Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Northron Grumman, etc.); arms corporations (Boeing Co, General Electric, Raytheon Co, etc.); and financial institutions (Wachovia Corp, JPMorgan Chase & Co, etc.).
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 week ago
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk Mostly small donors who worked for those companies
Madfoot713 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk Now that you ask , yes I do. Not that I deny that there are multiple forms and mechanisms of transfer of wealth, but most of those I can think of do rely on the Federal Reserve System and the conditions it creates. And transfer of wealth (from poor people around the world, not only in the US) is not even the worst crime of the Federal Reserve. There is also the destruction of the Environment due to the imperative of growth (which is a consequence of the monetary system) !
rasetoi 1 month ago
How can he claim that the Federal Reserve is not a 'threat' to people in any sense? I wonder what year this was recorded in.
KristianHicks 3 months ago
@KristianHicks
Jan. 1996
dihydrohydroxycodein 2 months ago
@KristianHicks Indeed. I think what he said is spot on except that part. It's as if he doesn't now that the Federal Reserve is a private institution and not a governmental one.
Sim80FP 2 months ago
@Sim80FP corporations wants to keep you mad at "the goverment" and the Fed and not mad at the corporations themselves. forget about the Fed. it is only one small aspect
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 month ago
@KristianHicks its only one piece of a much larger system. why focus on just one institution? mostly because corporations create propaganda that gets people only angry at banks and the Fed instead of energy/arms/etc corporations
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 month ago
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk
Because it's the core piece which oils the entire system. WIthout the fiat monopoly system the centralisation of power experienced today is impossible, the mass wars are impossible and the corporatist bailouts are impossible.
KristianHicks 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
join the revolution at livestream. com/globalrevolution
like this and spread the message
Briggsismyname 4 months ago
So you're saying that every single corporation has asked permission for its existence?
vioguy 5 months ago
I don't agree with his basic premise here. It's extraordinarily difficult to effect change in the government. Voting is practically worthless. But if I don't like a corporation, I can just not do business with them. They have no power over me. Corporations can't lock me up or send me to war, if I don't give them my money.
Madfoot713 9 months ago
@Madfoot713 A corporation can move into your neighborhood and destroy the local businesses that were actually giving back to the growth of your community. Then the corporation will go overseas and still not care about your local economy.
vioguy 5 months ago
@vioguy Only with the approval of consumers. If WalFuck decides it's going to move into Smallville, it can only succeed if the Smallvillians actually want them there.
Madfoot713 5 months ago
@Madfoot713 So you're saying that every single corporation has asked permission for its existence?
vioguy 5 months ago
@vioguy Should they have to?
Madfoot713 5 months ago
@Madfoot713
They lobbied the courts to make them people (legal persons). They don't ask permission, they have the government and the media backing them. Yes, they have to, no, they don't.
vioguy 5 months ago
@vioguy "They lobbied the courts to make them people (legal persons)."
Misrepresentation. Are you referring to Citizens United?
"They don't ask permission, they have the government and the media backing them. Yes, they have to, no, they don't."
They can't force their way in without someone else selling them property, except through eminent domain. Which is why us right-libertarians are against government. And once they're there, no one's forcing you to buy a product.
Madfoot713 5 months ago
Comment removed
vioguy 5 months ago
@Madfoot713 The entity of a corporation is treated as if it was a person, same laws and same unalienable rights than humans. Humans sometimes file suit against corporations or some sort of scandal ensues...well, no one that works for the corporation is responsible because they only represent the entity of the corporation. Also, they can create subsidiary companies where oversight is hard and it becomes easy to say "I didn't know what they were doing over there."
vioguy 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vioguy "The entity of a corporation is treated as if it was a person, same laws and same unalienable rights than humans."
Thanks to who? thanks to government.
Madfoot713 5 months ago
@Madfoot713 "no one is forcing you to buy a product"- this is false. the entire corporate-state system is designed to force people to pay for products. the internet was developed on tax dollars, as well the majority of high technology and tele-communications. we are in forced to buy products when the tax payers are forced to spend money on military as well as the invention of technologies that get privatized
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 month ago
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk yes this is true, but capitalism isn't to blame here
Madfoot713 1 month ago
@Madfoot713 its not capitalism- its state-corporate capitalism
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 month ago
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk Ok, I guess, but Chomsky is an anti-capitalist.
Madfoot713 1 month ago
@Madfoot713 the US isn't real capitalism; it is state-corporate capitalism. he's anti-fascism too; what's your point?
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 month ago
Nice! Keep it up. Going to see Chomsky in Colorado 4/22/11, David Barsamian too.
kingmike3000 10 months ago
A focus on Federal Reserve System bankers is not useless. Bankers are the primary enemy. Wall Street/Fortune500 despots are secondary enemies. This is because bankers are the ultimate Genghis Khan mass murdering rapists.
centurion180ad 1 year ago
Does this guy ever get to the point?
korictixor 1 year ago
@korictixor: Yes. You just keep missing it.
chinopisces 11 months ago
@MrAlienlovechild
capitalism is not "the rule of capital".
Capitalism is when the means of production are owned and operated for profit.
Think about it if we stopped lobbyists and campaign donations, and made it so all candidates got equall air time that would be a better democracy while keeping corporations right?
tonybonez 1 year ago
You rock openyourfuckingeyes! March on!
dboff12345 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Does Chomsky believe that we could have capitalism and corporations without it turning into corporatism? Or does he think that capitalism will always turn into corporatism
tonybonez 1 year ago
Does Chomsky believe that we could have capitalism and corporations without it turning into corporatism? Or does he think that capitalism will always turn into corporatism, similar to how Hayek wrote in his book "the Road to Serfdom" that socialism will always lead to fascism becasue, when you have socialism the comanies who can get in good with the government will survive and that relationship will grow into fascism.
tonybonez 1 year ago
@tonybonez
you can email him and he will respond to your question. try it, assuming you put enough thought into it.
openyourfuckingeyes 1 year ago 11
@tonybonez chomsky believes that workers should own the factories and businesses. Before the worker's owned the business, factory, etc. and had a say in everything the company did. Today corporations have no connection to the city that they are located and will get up and leave to go somewhere more profitable and leave everyone to drown. This takes all power from workers and creates a private tyranny. This is the problem in the US is that there is no responsibilty that coporations have...
Braindrain3 1 year ago
@tonybonez to workers and only do whats best for themselves. This situation also reduces the need for managers who only gie the evil eye and keep workers in line to control production and employee actions. This creates an unhappy environment that only threatens workers. If workers had more power at the expense of coporations in the US than majority of employment problems would be gone. These are the facts that have conveniently been wiped out of the public mind which causes other scapegoats
Braindrain3 1 year ago
@tonybonez Capitalism is OK; as long as it isn't allowed to externalize costs.
pvisserandorra 9 months ago
@tonybonez Chomsky's a libertarian socialist, not just a socialist. look up his speech called "Government in the Future" (also available as a pamphlet) where he lays out what he thinks would be the ideal way of governance.
thorkyll 7 months ago
@tonybonez Look up capitalism in the dictionary. It says that it is a system in which private individuals and corporations control the means of production and own everything (our water, our oil, our diamonds, our forests, our led, our coal, our natural gas...etc.) Your idea of corporatism is the same as the dictionary meaning of capitalism.
vioguy 6 months ago
@vioguy
honesty, how can you own a forest or water---those are public goods right?
but I also know that they do take coal and oil from the ground (which is technically not theirs) and then sell it.
so I see your point, but I think that the big issue now is the environment and people are blaming corporations for things like pollution.
tonybonez 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Now, Chomsky, do I turn to thee, and mark my greeting well; for what I speak my body shall make good upon this earth, or my divine soul answer it in heaven. Thou art a traitor and a miscreant, too good to be so and too bad to live, since the more fair and crystal is the sky, the uglier seem the clouds that in it fly. Once more, the more to aggravate the note, with a foul traitor's name stuff I thy throat; and wish, ere I move, what my tongue speaks my right drawn sword may prove.
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
I love this clip. Chomsky perfectly explains the roots of all these NWO, zeitgeist, truther, tea-party movements. It's sad that people are wasting so much energy on things that aren't a threat. Our concerns are the same, but their solutions, and conclusions are just outlandish.
goozbaghali 1 year ago 35
@goozbaghali What's wrong with the tea party movement? Do you hate the occupy movement too?
Madfoot713 1 month ago
@Madfoot713 the Tea Party movement: anti-politics; radical right-wing; corporate-funded. OWS: anti-corporate tyranny; left-wing; grassroots
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 week ago
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk You're kinda a biased source. Why should I accept from you that Occupy Wall Street is a moderate, grassroots movement, and the Tea Party is a radical, astroturf sham? There are people on the right who say the same thing but in reverse, and I reject that because they have a vested interest in discrediting the opposition movements. I reject what you say for the same reason; it's ad hominem.
Madfoot713 1 week ago
@Madfoot713 don't take my word for it: do some research for yourself. the Tea Party movement was supported by corporate media (called "patriots" by FOX News) and was funded by corporate interests, i.e. Koch Industries, etc. to promote anger toward corporate regulations as well as social programs which benefit society. the Occupy movement is a grassroots movement that opposes corporate tyranny and was demonized in corporate media (called "anti-American" by FOX News). figure it out
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 week ago
@DeweyZinnChomskyFisk Yes I'm familiar with the Koch bros. I don't understand why rich people donating their money to support a movement invalidates the people in that movement. Soros is involved in Occupy too, and he's entitled to; I think he believes in the Occupy message. I don't think he's a phony. It doesn't really matter though. Even if Koch and Soros were acting selfishly, it doesn't make the Tea Party or Occupy any less legitimate or spontaneous.
Madfoot713 1 week ago
One of my favourite excerpts. No more relevent today.
kitycalifornia 1 year ago
Comment removed
RjWeapon 2 years ago
hire* politicians
RjWeapon 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I agree with Chomsky about the antipolitics of the paranoid Right, but I wonder what the solution to this would be. Chomsky thinks "libertarian socialism" or community based, decentralized socialism is the key. I disagree. Socialism is just as tyrannical to the individual as corporations, only more so. What is needed is a just society based on equal opportunity for individual happiness. The devil is in the details, but there it is.
forrestcrow 2 years ago
Forrestcrow,
I seriously consider you look more into socialism and forms of anarchism. I think you'll be surprised with how much you'll agree with. I can guarantee that from your second to last comment a lone. :)
TheDynamicPsyche 2 years ago 2
Just curious, which was that second to last comment?
forrestcrow 2 years ago
@forrest
can you please explain how decolonization and decentralization into multiple regions are 'just as tyrannical to the individual as corporations'? A world where individuals can choose the types of institutions, communities and associations most suitable to their needs allows people to choose their own oppression. The devil is not in the details, the devil is in your head.
RjWeapon 2 years ago 2
I believe that a society actually doesn't have to be really socialist or capitalist. If it were based on free associations among people, then some associations may run things like a corporate hierarchy with "bosses" or like a socialist community in which everyone pitches in. But yes, the devil is in the details because a lot of right thinking people would agree that a "free society" is what we need, but how do we achieve it realistically? Is the Chomsky solution the "only" way?
forrestcrow 2 years ago
there are many ways "to achieve it realistically" all by which could fill a book...
I'm more of a pluralist, a decentralist-populist-classical anarchist, if you will, no man has the right to decide how to run the world as no group of people have the right to decide which set of ideas the world should be ran by... therefore, anarchism without adjectives is the only sensible social order
RjWeapon 2 years ago
The different anarcho-schools of thought disagree on serious issues. We also have to consider that left and right anarchists collectively are a very small percentage of humanity. To talk preference, one could argue that WE would be initiating force if we forced OUR preference onto others, bending them to our will, not allowing them THEIR preference. Isnt this the system in which we live today? Why replace a system based on imposed ideology with a new system based on imposed ideology?
RjWeapon 2 years ago
I agree with you (to an extent) both the mutualist and voluntaryist society can exist. The world is big enough to share (as if we haven't learned anything from the mistakes of our masters)
RjWeapon 2 years ago
I don't consider myself an anarchist. I certainly lean Americanized libertarian. I know that anarchists and Chomskyites then would consider me as a poster boy for privatized tyranny. However, I don't think that because while I believe in privatization in many areas, I also believe that human rights come first. As well, I strongly oppose private-state complexes, private military, privatization of police and privatization of prisons. I am also against corporatism and believe in free association.
forrestcrow 2 years ago
@RjWeapon
I'll give you an example. A couple of years ago, a friend of mine and his friends, all in the construction business paid for an election campaign of my friends ex-girlfriend. She has nice fake boobs and a pretty face, she knows nothing about policy. She almost won. If she had, my friend and his buddies would have had direct influence and expected to get construction contracts out of it. It takes much smaller groups of much less power to control politics locally.
vatoencabronado 2 years ago
You kidding? on the contrary, the interstate commerce act allowed the elites to successfully block their smaller competition and successfully setup a monopolistic network of railways/railroads through the U.S., - this was the beginning of the Anglo-american empire, lol. How does your example of NOT winning your local election demonstrate local power?
RjWeapon 2 years ago
You totally, completely, and utterly misunderstood what I was saying regarding the interstate commerce act:) My example demonstrates that if she had won, my friends would have had a significant amount of control over who got lucrative contracts. That kind of control is easier to gain with a much smaller group at a local level. I was being nice, but if you want to argue about it, we can :)
vatoencabronado 2 years ago
Again, how does your example of NOT winning your local election prove how it's easier to gain "significant amount of control" at a local level, lol, I think you're argument is ridiculous, if this emotionally rattles you, toughen up
RjWeapon 2 years ago
@RjWeapon
In local politics, it's very easy for a small group of people to take over the agenda. This is a plain and simple fact, if you can't see that, or if you think it's a good thing, then good for you. Look at local school boards wanting to ban evolution and promote intelligent design, that's a good thing?
vatoencabronado 2 years ago
First of all, if you're incapable of comprehending the facts -- that's your problem, not mine. Secondly, the United States was founded in the interest of the rich, I've shown you, Madison stated "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." Madison held land owners to be a "more capable set of men." It was Aristotle who presented the opposite conclusion, that "measures therefore should be taken which give all people lasting prosperity."
RjWeapon 2 years ago
I do understand the facts, and you're not interested in dialogue, typical of freshman who think they've discovered the 'truth' :) good luck with that.
vatoencabronado 2 years ago
Thanks for sharing your immigration biography. People who resort to name-calling (especially during a debate) are obviously incapable of casting an intellectual argument to counter strike their differences. If "you're a freshman" and "you're not all familiar" are really the central power points of your argument, well then lol I think YOUR comments are doing all the "revealing".. Learn to present yourself.
RjWeapon 2 years ago
Ok, so I went to your page, and read your description of yourself. My only critique, is that if you want to convert people to your point of view, cut out the name calling, and recognize someone who holds similar views to your own. A little less time making assumptions, a little less time worrying about who is right, and a little more time worrying about what is right. Again, good luck :)
vatoencabronado 2 years ago
Actually, you're the one responsible for name calling. You should reread our conversation. "Nationalist" and "statist" are ideological inclinations, how could this be considered name calling? If you feel you've been intellectually insulted, you were INDIRECTLY insulted through intellectual discussion. You, on the other hand, directly insulted me... to call someone a "Freshman" is to directly insult them. Take your own advice.
RjWeapon 2 years ago
hahaha, ok, you're not interested in bringing people to your point of view, you're interested in taking your $5 dollar education and trying insulting people with it. Yes, that was an insult :) Cool, dude, we've nothing more to talk about, I don't think. Laters :)
vatoencabronado 2 years ago
Btw, if you really would have read my description you'd know that I am not trying to "convert people to my point of view". Nationalist populism has replaced communism as the threat to unite the people against the establishment (while communism, has BECOME the establishment), this new shift can unite the center, center-right and center-left, it's much more diverse than communism. You didn't read all of the description, just like how you didn't read all of Madison, lol
RjWeapon 2 years ago
5 dollar education, huh? Stunning insult. What a hypocrite you are, lol
RjWeapon 2 years ago
It's amazing how many people do not get this. To anyone who moans at the government, immigrants or mentions NWO theories I have always said it's the corporations who deserve your wrath. I normally get shot down for this, or people say "Well if government's legislated corporations they wouldn't have so much power." Highly unlikely politicians are going to legislate at the people who mainly fund their parties.
ChunderChunk 2 years ago 3
@chunder
corporations higher politicians to find loopholes in the system, the same way a citizen can hire a lawyer to find loopholes in the law.
RjWeapon 2 years ago
A look at the powers delegated to Congress by the constitution reveals that the constitutional system was originally designed as a state-capitalist class dictatorship. The constitution included the necessary powers for the advancement of the interests of capital, central banking, uniform bankruptcy laws, transportation subsidies, a large free trade area and so on. This type of framework could only lead to the plutocratic entanglements that Jefferson & Smith constantly warned about
RjWeapon 2 years ago
@RjWeapon
I don't know if it was designed that way, but it has certainly been interpreted that way. The interstate commerce clause has been used as a justification for just about everything, whether or not it was intended as such, I don't know.
vatoencabronado 2 years ago
Try reading Adam Smith and Madison.
RjWeapon 2 years ago
@RjWeapon
I done did that already. Any other condescending remarks you'd like to toss out?
vatoencabronado 2 years ago
"I done did that already"
Obviously not, or you'd realize that the constitutional system was setup "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority". If you weren't ignorant, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Is that condescending enough for you?
RjWeapon 2 years ago
@RjWeapon
You don't have to read the Federal Papers to learn what they teach in Freshman college courses. Please show me how Madison envisioned multinational corporations paying off politicians to have monopolistic dynasties. Your freshman course left out one important fact. Madison was adamant that the only way this system would work is if the 'better men' used their position benevolently. He later lamented that this hadn't happened.
vatoencabronado 2 years ago
As for your "freshman course" insults, yeah let's pretend political science teaches the roots of American imperialism, ha - Your slave owning, indian killing, nationalist-federalist flag waving plutocratic founding fathers are not exactly guardians of liberty... but I'll play along.
By the way, federal and state bureaucracies call the shots, not the local school boards, not the parents. If anyone needs a history lesson, it's you.
RjWeapon 2 years ago
My family came as poor immigrants from Denmark, and moved to Mexico, where they hacked out an existence in the Chihuahuan desert. You're insulting the wrong American :) You're obviously not at all familiar with how local politics work, and your comments reveal you've never participated. Good day to you, and good luck with your crusade! :)
vatoencabronado 2 years ago
I never said it wasn't possible for people to gain local power. You're so slippery, lol. Subtract "significant" from "amount of control", and "easy" from "to gain control" - replace "significant" with "molecular" and "easy" with "difficult" and maybe I'll consider your argument. This is why I don't argue with statists and nationalists. You're incredibly naive.
RjWeapon 2 years ago
Again with the insults for the wrong American... Hahaha, you make all kinds of assumptions and put forth arguments for the strawman in your head :) Take care dood!
vatoencabronado 2 years ago
It's very typical for people to jump in, object, get butchered, become emotionally rattled, start calling people names, and then turn around and bounce before the discussion chews them up. I'm not surprised. Enjoy the charade.
RjWeapon 2 years ago
Hes saying corporations are worse than government, but the government isn't rainbows and lollipops. I say fuck both.
sbmillionair 2 years ago
These are great, thanks for uploading them
sophiemichele 2 years ago
"Capitalists always buy any state that is buyable."
EAC
mopsius 2 years ago
Fuckin right. The american public knows something is up, but they seem to fear the government when they should fear the government's owners.
ipwnorcs 2 years ago 12
@ipwnorcs Has the public and Prof. Chomsky figured out that it was government that blew up the federal building at Oklahoma City?
centurion180ad 1 year ago
More videos like this please!
Thanks for uploading.
greenrots 2 years ago 5
Find and upload them yourself... That is activism and activism of every single individual is what Noam Chomsky strongly advocates :) I wish you only the best.
ikislav 2 years ago
thanks for watching!
openyourfuckingeyes 2 years ago
to say that the state is accountable but corporations aren't is to ignore the fact that the state is in the back-pocket of corporations. i like chomsky in general but he has a very skitzofrenic idea about the state.
fede2 2 years ago
hes not saying that it is accountable, but that it is more accountable than corporations are, at least.
openyourfuckingeyes 2 years ago 4
yeah, but he is ignoring the fact that corporations by their very nature are in part state entities. they are big bussinesses that have the state to protect them from competition.
fede2 2 years ago
That's called "sticking to the point".
SomeUsefulVids 2 years ago
what is?
fede2 2 years ago
@openyourfuckingeyes
How so? With corpotrations you hold them accoutable directly by not giving them your money. Representational democracy requires a middle man.
help4343 1 year ago
@fede2 the state is potentially accountable to the general population, under the right circumstances. there have been times when 1 person 1 vote has outweighed the effects of capital on the political process. the citigroup memo about plutonomy specifically references 1 person 1 vote as a primary threat
RGMorgan 1 year ago
@RGMorgan the reason the 1 person 1 vote formula was able to outweigh the efects of capital on the political process was precisely because capital was not protected by the government.
fede2 1 year ago
@fede2 there are some who are not in the back pocket of corporations but it is still, at least theoretically, a democratic system where the people choose (ignoring of course the elections where the victor does not have the popular vote eg Bush in 2000) who they would least object to running the country. Schizophrenic though? I'm not so sure. in his books- particularly 'understanding power' he describes how it is not how it should be.
DollSteakFrenchie 1 year ago
@DollSteakFrenchie i haven't read his books but i do like what i know about him.
at this point i'm not sure why i used the word "schizophrenic" but what i was trying to say is that he misses the fact that corporations unlike any other private business have privileges granted by the government which is why they are entirely out of reach.
fede2 1 year ago
thanks fucky, loved it
Marly61 2 years ago 4
Most of the people that comment on youtube about politics and world events are from the "Antipolitics" camp Noam talks about here. I only hope this gets heard by more people.
bootleg42 2 years ago 4
awesome! listen to more chomsky if you like this. you can torrent/youtube a virtually endless collection of his lectures/interviews.
openyourfuckingeyes 2 years ago
including the lecture that i took this from, which is excellent
openyourfuckingeyes 2 years ago
Best analysis I have heard in years! I am sharing this one.
hollywoodartchick 2 years ago 2