From the European Mecantile Capitalism of genocidal killings of AMERICANS ,African ENSLAVEMENT and horrors of colonisation and domination to GLOBAL FINANCIAL MAFIA backed by latest KILLING MACHINES, WORLD CAPITALISM is the MARKET SYSTEM OF ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY, distortions and WAGE SLAVERY OF THE WORKING CLASS IN THE INTEREST OF THE CRIMINAL RULING CLASS.
you gentiles are Pathetic Always take some jew and make him god or Messiah just like the jesus and kerl marx and know this noam chomsky did you ever wondering why is this all your biggst gods and messiah and your intellectuals from right and left are jewish and you wonder how we the jews call are self the chosen people dont diss this
comment in 100 yreas from know your kids will things that holly histroy just like your Fathers Though't demn even the arebs belive in a jewish idea of god
Chomsky could NOT be more wrong in this interview. He said that democrats are to the right of most Americans, especially on healthcare. The reality of course is exactly the opposite where the democrats (wanting single payer) are far to the left of most Americans on healthcare. Was Chomsky purposely lying or was just he clueless?
"the system is a disaster because it's privatized"... lol what a joke. The US healthcare system is NOWHERE NEAR a free market. It's a highly bloated, regulated, and artificially protected market. The bureaucracy associated with the healthcare system is the result of enormous government regulation and protection of the current healthcare monopoly. Its not free markets causing inefficiency, its artificially created monopoly.
@SeaSickElf89 it's still private even though its monopolized and helped by the government. Insurance is required by the state, its illegal not to have insurance on your car, doesn't mean that the insurance companies are somehow publicly owned.
What does privatization have anything to do with free markets? All the things you say are to some degree true, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the major insurance companies are privately owned and operated.
@SeaSickElf89 you need to go one step further and recognize WHY there there is gov protection for this monopoly. The private companies accrued enough money over time to buy politicians to change the rules and create the monopoly protections via legislation. Ultimately it IS privatization that led to this result. ALL private entities will try to do this no matter what the business...healthcare, energy, agriculture, etc.
@TheDuttzz And you need to get another step further and realize that eliminating the power of the government to give these monopoly protections solves the problem in a real way, not just in a contingent way.
@BennyQuixote nope...would just eliminate the one speed-bump to total societal control by corporate entities. The power vacuum you ask for WILL be filled. And will our corporate overlords be more benevolent than the gov?
@TheDuttzz The difference between the government and corporations is that you can choose to buy a product from a private entity or not. Corporations are not "overlords" like the government is, since financial exchanges with them are voluntary.
If you don't like what a corporation sells, don't buy the product. It's as simple as that.
@BennyQuixote so you think that our interactions with corporations and their influence is strictly voluntary? That we can "opt-out" by simply not buying their product? Your ignorance has gone from comical to borderline dangerous. You seem interested in how the world works, but you know nothing.
@TheDuttzz No, our interactions with corporations is not strictly voluntary. You misunderstand (or I didn't make clear) the conditions under which an individual can "opt-out" of their influence. Assuming all economic exchanges are bilaterally voluntary and informed (no force or fraud), the influence a corporation has over a consumer is voluntary. Corporations influence through the coercive apparatus of the state. Without a state (police, courts), they get money only if consumers give it to them.
@BennyQuixote You don't seem to understand what you propose - that the act of 'opting out' is more democratically effective than voting for any government, no matter the layout. To come to this conclusion after taking a serious look at the structure, history, and results of growth in corporate power, wealth, and influence would require a fundamental misconception of democracy.
I urge you, look at how corporations are structured, what dictates their decisions. These are important issues.
I am a democratic socialist. But some radcal American leftists need to stop acting like they're contributing so much to the democratic process by either not voting, or by voting for Nader. I'd prefer Nader to be president, however, Chomsky is quite right in pointing out that democracy is largely what is achieved in between elections. So don't think you're making the world a better place by voting for Nader or abstaining from the election altogether.
@kirkhammettfan13 I'm struggling with that and similar questions, myself. My plan is to not vote for the first time coming up, though that could change. What Chomsky says is true, but it just makes me sick to think that I have legitimized the system, and that some tyrant can then claim that they were freely elected. At a time when the majority of Americans do not ratify the state, that is not insignificant. Is it? I really would like a discussion about it, because I'm not totally committed.
@cogitheum Well yes to an extent we do legitimize the candidates by voting for them. We must realize though that politicians really have no convictions; the ones that are serious about winning at least. I'd love to see Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney, or Ralph Nader be the next president but we have to be realistic. Our energy is better spent trying to organize voting blocks that demand change of policy in the Middle East, a public health care system, and more of our tax $ for education.
Oh gosh, sry for that quadruple posting, I clicked delete on all but the last one, and youtube showed them deleted ^^;
And my comment was in reference to the recent Patriot act extensions, the random gun control legislation (guns in national parks, I have no opinion here, it's just usually done by republicans), and his recent defense of 'don't ask; don't tell'.
Surprisingly, Noam was a bit wrong when he said Obama would dissolve into a generic democrat. Citing Obama's policy on war, on guns in national parks, on the patriot act, and on big business, Obama dissolved into a generic Republican in these respects. Does anyone know if he's made comments on this capricious trend yet?
I can attack your message, because it's extremely flawed. To say "communism doesn't work" is a meaningless statement. Why? Because we've never seen true communism in action. Now before you go spouting off your list of "Communist" countries such as Cuba, the DPRK, China, and the former USSR, know this - those were state capitalist entities. They had nothing to do with Marxism...not even close.
@RLove99 They were supposed to be communist and they claimed to be communist. Russia was taken over by the communists in their revolution in the 1910s. North Korea is communist and look at them. Communism doesn't work because you can't force equality. It all just leads to tyranny. I cannot believe there are people like you who think that after the rest of the world learning and turning against communism that it will work in the USA. You make me sick. You have no clue!
What they were "supposed to be" and what they actually were are two very different things. Think about it, under regimes such as Cuba, PRC, DPRK, and the former USSR...all private enterprise was outlawed. This left all ways, means, and decisions of production in the hands of the government. In essence, the state was one single megaconglomerate with no competition. Voting was only left to upper echelon party members. This was not communism at all, not even close to Marxism.
@RLove99 But that is what they called themselves and were known as. North Korea and Cuba still calls themselves communist. Communism is the government ownership of all of the nation's business, industry and property. There is no other communism. This crap didn't work in those countries what makes you think it will work here?? It won't. This is America!! If you don't like freedom then either learn to put up with it or leave!
Obama is a Statist. If you voted for Obama, you voted for a Statist. If you voted for Obama to "smash the state", then you're just as bad as the politicians.
@randyguitarman13 Maybe, but I think he's trying to wake some folks up. The real problem is people in the U.S. are too used to the system that they are just supporting it without hope of changing it.... The Matrix, unfortunately.
Sure. Federal State voting is a coercive act. The goal is to abolish the Federal State, and Chomsky gets confused and contradictory positions on this also. If Chomsky can not understand the goal he will not be able to wake anyone up.
And you are a Libertarian, a person who's political ideology is based on no evidenced system, excepting anarchy which is always a demonstrable failure. Libertarianism only works in a world where you can look at a corporate entity and say, that corporation has the good of mankind and the good of the Earth in mind. That is not this world.
@tonybonez ok, I'll take the bait... do some research of your own, in terms of where does noam chomsky get his info, I'd suggest you read one of the numerous books that he's published on both linguistics as well as world politics. A warning though; they don't have many pictures or pop-up features in them.
A good rule to live by is to try and listen to balanced news (.e.g AP, NPR) outlets and not take anything Fox News says literally.
Certainly not Rachel maddow or Kieth Olberman---I watch fox news, fair and balanced becasue they usually have 1 republican and 1 democrat to debate an issue, as opposed to MSNBC who all hail the dear leader--Obama (Barry Soetoro)
Am I wrong about America rejecting Obamacare, show me 1 poll that says so!!!!!!!!
I am sorry, I can admit that msnbc has a liberal bias, and that Fox News has a conservative bias... but if you honestly believe that Fox News is 'fair and balanced' I honestly cannot respect your point of view in any way. It's a shame.
LOOK I dont care who went to who's wedding, and frankly to ramble on about who went to who's wedding is completely missing the point!!!!!!!!!
FOX NEWS is relatively fair and balanced becasue they usually have 1 republican and 1 democrat to debate any issue. That seems fair to me. How is that not fair---you tell me...
So just to be clear---you have in effect agreed that America rejects Obamacare (I can give you links to polls from Pew, Zogby, Roiters, and Rasmussen if you need)
@tonybonez The problem with your argument is that fox news doesn't have 1 dem and 1 repub to debate any issue, they do occasionally, but certainly not all the time. And more often that not, when there is a little 5 min debate between a dem and a repub, the anchor often steps in and helps defend the republican, search youtube and you'll find plenty of examples of this.
Do you think 'Fox and Friends' is fair and balanced?
@tonybonez also one last thing. 'Fair and balanced' Fox News 'hard news' anchor Megyn Kelly admitted a couple of days ago that she was invited and went to Rush Limbaugh's wedding... enough said.
@tonybonez There is a huge percentage that wanted it... probably about 50% which is enough for concern. The other 50% don't want it because they can already afford it and don't want any of their money to help the less fortunate folks. So basically they value their money more than other people's lives...
Except foreign lives which badly needed saving from Saddam because hes a bad man. Americans seemed quite happy to pay for that. Mind boggling. I think the American govt could convince its people that shit was sugar, literally.
@educate1self It's because these wealthy americans are tryina make themselves look like they're helping others while stealing the resources. People need to wake up and realize this. This is nothing new about America, this country has always tried to hide behind the shield of justice while stealing... it happened since the beginning of this country "White Man's Burden".... now it's "Global Force For Good"... anyone who really believes this stuff is a victim of mind control.
Isn't it time for the term "second" world to be recycled and applied to the USA, giving this country's hybrid socioeconomic indicators when compared to the rest of the developed world.
the lesser of two evils.... Now the chosen one is in office he appoints Eric Holder who in turn comes out against the Arizona law without taking time to read it. After all Holder is the Attorney General and the AZ bill is a whopping 10 pages long that mirrors the federal law.
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.
lol hes talking about all you idiots drank the obama-aid... also he is talking about the idiots that voted for bush. all of you are idiots lol...... 2 party system is a joke and its just a way to control america. because . if there were 3 parties they coulndt control america. but with 2 it gives the illusion that you have a choice.
Only way to get real change (and I agree that there are differences between the corporate parties) is to vote independent . People voted for Obama because they want change, Cameron (the U.K. "change" candidate) is winning here because we want change. The people want real change, they just don't know how to get it.
@warriorprince1010 "Chomsky is one of the many useless idiots who hate capitalism..". You are not even bright enough to repeat the right wing talking points. You are supposed to call him a useful idiot
@oldjoe5 I find him useless, it is a play on words. Useful to dictators, useless to people who want wealth for all and freedom. You lefties get everything wrong.
@oldjoe5 I will accept the personal insult as an acceptance of defeat. Trash society and replace it with greedy governments and massive public sectors is no answer.
Manifest treason! He has spoken like a traitor, and shall answer as traitors do. Therefore lay hold of him; bear him to the rock Tarpeian, and from thence into destruction cast him. He shall be thrown down the Tarpeian rock with rigorous hands: he hath resisted law, and therefore law shall scorn him further trial than the severity of the public power which he so sets at nought. AEdiles, seize him!
@JiffyNo0b: The fuck! Thou protector of this damned strumpet, talk'st thou to me of "The fucks"? Thou art a traitor: Off with his head! Now, by Saint Paul I swear, I will not dine until I see the same. Look that it be done: The rest, that love me, rise and follow me.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Dr. Noam Chomsky, PhD in Anthropology and specialized in Linguistics - not politics or economics. He should stick to swinging the alphabet instead of continuing to make a fool of himself.
@sjnsingh1 He gets a lot of respect that he doesn't deserve because he's an ivory tower intellectual. He is not a patriot, and is a typical America-loathing leftist Jew. He has shown support for Muslim terrorists, and is not right about everything.
@oldstock1607: He supports Muslims who have a right to determine their own futures, but not terrorists. If anything, the US has more terrorists in power than any Islamic state. The rest of your rhetoric is completely fabricated.
@pollywogA1 Hahaha listen man, there's more to credibility than certificates and trophies. This man has written like 1000s of essays on politics... Do you seriously think you need a PhD in something to speak about it? I mean this man probably has some knowledge of almost ever historical event that is considered significant and you want to see a piece of trophy. Absolutely incredible.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Chomsky, the "anarchist," thinks we have "freedom" now because of the New Deal? Wow. I didn't know I was free, and I didn't know that it was Roosevelt who set me free. Amazing what you can learn on the internet!
And at 6:00, this nut says that the health care system is messed up because it's "privatized"! I guess the nut doesn't understand that it's controlled by the gov't? He should read the laws and the papers once in a while.
I think Canada does have one of the best health care systems in the world. It is govt funded but not govt run, unlike the British system which is govt run and govt funded.
actually there is. first of all there are more than one types of anarchist. second, a public health care system requires that there be a "public", ie. a state, as opposed to "private", ie. owned by a person or group of people. in an anarchist system the police, firemen, road constructors, etc. are all privatized because there's no state to make it "public" or "nationalized".
how would health care be different from what the US has now?
@loturos: 'how would health care be different from what the US has now? '
Ok, so my wife had a cyst rupture. This has happened before and we knew the doc's were just going to give her morphine, till the pain went away. Instead of just going to the store an buying the morphine ourselves at what would be extreemly cheap price, we were forced to check into the E.R. and pay over 6,000 because of government intervention.
@brewerscrew, I understand that completely. What I don't get is why Chomsky seems to advocate a state health care system, while he supposedly supports anarchism. The two contradict each other. Maybe he thinks that people should get what they vote for even if it means increasing government, I don't know.
The idea isn't to get rid of all forms of order and public benefits, but to dismantle the centralized power of the federal government and enormous corporations. Health care could be handled much more efficiently if managed regionally. You don't need the centralized power of a federal government to achieve that. There's nothing contradictory about this. The economic system he proposes is Parecon, specifically, if you're interested.
Um, he's an "anarchist" and he's recommending the expansion of the state? He thinks it's ok for Nancy Pelosi to control my medical decisions?
I don't want her tyranny and I don't want his or yours. I don't want my health care "managed regionally". I'm quite capable of making my own arrangements with others as long as we are not repressed by Pelosi, Chomsky, or anyone else.
I honestly cannot tell the difference between statists and collectivist "anarchist." Is it just a change of rulers?
Noam Chomsky is fundamentally a pragmatist - he's talking about real choices within the current system. He doesn't speak of "smashing the state" or other teenage fantasies, he's talking about what working people who have bills and obligations can do to make people's lives better.
The current healthcare system is a holocaust, and every case of a publically run system runs better, regardless of it's superficial public/private orientation. People need medicine, not ideological perfection.
@bjmensz People need alot of stuff, that's part of what motivates people to work, if the government provided for all needs, what is the incentive to work?
a government obviously cannot "provide for all needs" without magic or star trek technology, how about we remain on this planet and focus on a system of governance that can provide for basic health services, meet basic standards of policing and infrastructure, and is able to represent the public interest in domestic and foreign affairs. that would be a nice start, before we start worrying about people not working because they won't die of cancer.
@bjmensz it has to do with what you wrote in the last sentence 'People NEED medicine, not ideological perfection.' I disagree, I say people need Freedom above all else. If the idea is to vote for taking other peoples goods and services (money) against their will, to pay for other peoples healthcare, then at least let it be a state by state vote. At least that way I'm still free to move to a state that respects my independence.
That's nice and all, but in the real world people need medicine, food, infrastructure, education etc. more than you need an iPhone, or whatever.
it's kind of hard to exercise freedom when you're disabled by chronic illness, and frankly if you'd value this "freedom" (and you haven't really explained what that even means) over other people's lives, i'd say that's pretty awful.
I've always thought freedom was what you could do in the absence of other people. Liberty is you excisizing a limit on freedom in a way that doesn't stop another person from excersizing their liberty. ie your freedom ends where mine begins.
An institution with the monopoly to initiate force becomes tyrannical when it abuses it's granted powers, by using it's power to coerce property from it's citizens. They have become the enemy that we built them to protect us from.
@bjmensz Obama system is no better than before. The extra costs will create unsustainable government spending and thus high unemployment. Under Bush more people had jobs and also college education has gone UP under obama not down. I admire loyalty but not when it goes against what is really happening.
@bjmensz smashing the state isn't a teenage fantasy, it has happened many times and will again. it's a long term goal though, don't lose sight of the long term with your pointless 'pragmatism', Chomsky has given in because he is too old - Obama isn't exactly turning out great, just like anarchists predicted. What's needed is building peoples' power from below, not participating in political illusions.
@bakunin888 Actually, Chomsky is one of the few voices aside from Stirner who is long and Bakunin who are voices of rationality in the anarchist school of thought. First off, history has not been kind to grandiose illusions of no state, what happens is and what will continue to occur, survival of the fittest the strong preying on the weak. This goes beyond mere analytics, and is an aspect of our evolution as a species as Chomsky understands this as did Stirner.
@MillionthUsername why are you guys thumbs downing this comment. its true, no anarchist would vote obama. big govt is big power, obama is big govt. anarchy is anti power sources so this comment makes a lot of sense. Why isnt it getting respect?
because it isn't deserving of respect. he's just parroting a bunch of shallow stuff that doesn't actually have anything to do with reality.
it doesn't make for great sloganeering, but voting democrat instead of republican in a swing state can save human lives. chomsky has no illusions about what the vote does and is.
anarchism that doesn't have a deep respect for improving the human condition first and foremost isn't worth a damn thing.
@bjmensz i dont think that's necessarily true. there are many instances where making an ideological statement rather than conforming to "vote for this guy or that guy" has made a difference.
the lesser of two evils is still evil and shouldn't be supported.
I don't think there's too much to be applauded in for just "pragmatism". Or compromise I guess. The idea that "obama may send LESS troops into unjust wars"
You may disagree I just don't find it to be too appealing. I'd say go 3rd party..
There are many brands of Anarchists, just like any other ideolog. This particular flavor of anarchist is called anarcho-socialist. The idea is to somehow have no rulers, but still live in a collective that dictates rules, with no institution to back up those rules. I personally believe it's more lenonistic then anarchist.
Anarcho-Socialism doesn't exclude governance, the purpose of an Anarcho-Socialist programme is to give people direct control over their governance and dissolve any centralized power structure (i.e. gov't, corporations).
Lenin was inherently anti Anarcho-socialist, he advocated a centralized state and passed State capitalist reforms.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It is stunning to hear Chomsky say things that are simply 100% not true. The VAST majority of the public want a national health care system? Listen to the screaming, fear mongering, paranoid right wing about the evils of socialized medicine. This country is divided between left and right about 50/50. To say anything otherwise is just not true. How can he say that and not realized how wrong he is?
"Listen to the screaming, fear mongering, paranoid right wing about the evils of socialized medicine."
He may be exaggerating about the vast majority wanting nationalized healthcare, but citing the screaming people who get the most media attention is not a good way to show that he's wrong about what a majority want. The republican party has been whittled down to the core of it's loudest, most opinionated members, and the media loves controversy, so those are the people who get the attention.
depends on definition of vast. and of the polling procedure.Multiple polls showed about 72-78% in favor of h/care reform & about 60-65% in favor of "public option" or single payer system in late 2008 before and after the election.The PR campaigns have an effect, Obama hasn't handled this well. Some are scared by the "death panels" & Medicaid "cuts". lots of doubt about Baucus bill--gov mandated buy-in of private insurance--no price caps they DO want natl hc, not what is in Congress now
Well, yeah I agree that the majority of the people do want some kind of public involvement. I don't personally consider the public option nationalized health care, though. When I hear "nationalized health care" I think single payer system, and I have a feeling the majority of Americans do not want that, although I may be wrong.
I wonder if Chomsky will sing the same tune about Obama in 2012? Obama has pretty much proven to be a republican, repeatedly insuring the wealthy maintain their place on top of society despite vomiting crumbs for party faithful. Seriously, can he back the same strategy?
By that definition everyone is a republican, democrats arent going to change the fact that the wealthy maintain their place at the top. Although i dont have a problem with that. Nobody has to be enslaved by the wealthy. Just get a job as a teacher or social worker, benefit society, live the simple life. You can have a fantastic, happy life in this society easily. Thats why i dont get all the complaining from the far left.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Chomsky's views can be summed up in one sentence: he believes that the public should get whatever they want, regardless of who they have to trample over. The right to own property, the right to the product of one's labor, these are things which can be violated by the public and be legitimate. This is called mob rule, it is another form of tyranny.
although i'm fully aware that my comment equals to meaningless shit, i still want to tell you that you are either a very lowly weak person bought by corporations, maybe just dumb enough to believe corporate propaganda or even worse trash, namely the kind of person that would benefit from the politics that support the wealthy people alone. Simply you are either ignorant or evil and that is just sad for you, cause you will never find the peace good people find.
If i'm either ignorant or evil, then i'm definetly evil. But im also logical. Im just not going to bitch about corporations when they provide me with all my food, my video games, my computer, these websites, ect. Plus i just dont value opionions that are whiney. People that complain about corporations and the wealthy are just bitching and moaning for literally no reason. Life isnt fair, society will never be perfect. Its good enough the way it is. Law, order, freedom. Good enough.
There is no logic in that. Nobody says that we shouldn't have corporations. A corporation is not evil in itself, but the system (aiming for profit no matter what) and the people in it make it a dangerous thing, that should be CONTROLLED and regulated! people that are the minds behind those huge interests should be held accountable and production has to become sustainable!! And nobodies rights are being trampled on, as you were concerned about it. Special Interest tramples on our basic rights!
You obviously have an immature grasp on both socialism and humanism. Socialism provides a sustainable economy for industrialized nations. Free trade brings economic booms and horrible recessions/depressions. Free trade is similar to fascism. Why? The rich have the ability to buy out leading positions in lobbying firms which gives the corporate elites legislative power. This takes power away from the individual. That, my good sir, is fascism. Go out and read a book. Don't just assume...
In this society, or in any society in which the government forcibly extracts even one cent of a citizen's income, you are not a free trader, but a laborer for the state- ergo, a slave.
Do you use roads for travel? Red lights? If your house is on fire, do you expect someone to help? If a crime is committed against you, do you expect someone to do something about it?
Taxes pay for all of these things.
Welcome to the modern world. Stop spouting your unrealistic bullshit.
Free trade would never exist without governments to ensure it. Destruction of the state would result in absolute rule by monopolistic corporations.
So not only are you unrealistic, you're a fascist.
No one shold be forced to pay for any such thing- they would do so willingly, they way people pais for doctors 100 years ago. To force someone to pay would be tantamount to forcing someone to form a country- besides, who would be doing the forcing- how would we know they were trustworthy and just? Complete separation of economics and government has never been tried, but history can speak of many failures of gov involvment in economy.
"No one shold be forced to pay for any such thing- they would do so willingly"
When the cops show up, do you want them to do their job, or do you want them to work out how they are going to bill you?
All citizens take advantages of government services, whether they pay for them or not. Therefore, not paying your taxes is the equivalent of stealing from society.
not sure what "any such thing" is that you refer to.If u don't have insur most hospitals and doctors charge you 2-3 times normal price. R they "forcing" u to get Hlth insurance? They know &1k-2k per month is better than pay only if U need it. Most dont have $5k cash on hand if they break an arm. My AMS ins. jacked up $200/mo every 6 mos. I quit @ $1600/mo for 2 persons.Wife was hospitalized 4 emerg surgry, they paid approx 35%-I paid the rest AND 1400/mo. I guess 1400 is just for the disc card
Besides, the gov does exist to keep trade free- to protect individual rights and property so that a group of 10 individuals can't take property away from one.
If it is illegal to rob a rich person if you are poor, how is it any different if you simply use the government to do that very thing?
"Besides, the gov does exist to keep trade free- to protect individual rights and property so that a group of 10 individuals can't take property away from one."
Yes, we need the government to protect certain inalienable rights from mob rule (and rule by the elite). And the government has to be funded by taxes. How do you expect the constitution to protect you against your neighbor if you take away the government's funding?
well, i've read five pages of comments and there are some good discussions. i would say this, if one is really perturbed about the two party system, there should be great opposition to corporate funding of a candidate. every election it takes more money to win. isn't this capitalism usurping democracy? i think so. the only way to solve this is to limit donations to the individual. say a $100 maximum or so. a vote is equal regardless of one's income. why not a donation?
This interview peeved me at the time, and I still get uncomfortable hearing him say ...
"I would suggest voting against McCain which means voting for Obama-- without illusions
BECAUSE all the elevated rhetoric about change, and hope, and so on, will dissolve into standard centrist democratic policies as soon as-- if he--takes office. "
well if you're expecting wide sweeping "change", it's as Chomsky said, it's subtle and sometimes hard to see. there's great division in this country, i'll take what i can, to edge away from conservatism. if it means universal health care, the end of a ban on planned parenthood discussing every option, the end of a ban on stem cell research, the end of squashing dissent, the end of squashing science for corporate interest, the end of iraq, torture, and gitmo... on and on. change is there,
I wasn't expecting anything other than a new person in the White House. My issue with Chomsky's suggestion is that in the end, you are still choosing the lessor of two evils, and therefore serving 'evil'. Standard centrist democratic politics are not working out for me- how about you?
"The intellectual tradition is one of servility to power, and if I didn't betray it I'd be ashamed of myself."
cynthia mckinney? yeah, i lean harder left than current dems, i'm practical in the sense that i'll take what i can get. another conservative was out of the question. as for ralph in 2000 i don't agree that gore and bush are two peas... i think we learned that the hard way. hell, even ralphs own party couped their prez, what wuz up with that? where i live, a lot of dems are conservative. that's were you learn political practicality. people don't vote for someone, they vote against someone.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What in the world is this so-called Brilliant Intellectual talking about?
"Good to choose the lesser of 2 evils"?
Voting for either party is voting in support of the corporate, banking, and governmental institution that is oppressing the entire population of this Earth.
This person may hold more degrees than anyone else, but he has next to zero street sense. His points are non-sense. He constantly contradicts his own words in this video and others.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I will never choose the lesser of two evils, because I can easily let others do it. McCain...Obama...I care not. In the end everyone dies, all governments fall, and all planets and stars fade away and die.
This nicely captures the arid fatalism of those who, implicity, cannot tolerate the splendid and not so splendid aspects of modern western democracy. Or life in general. It reeks of privelege, of a fear of getting ones' hands dirty in the sometimes ugly, unpredictable fray, ignoring the blood and toil and imperfection necessary to all social and economic progress. It is, in short, the brittle spawn of post modern narcissism.
i like nader more than obama, but we had to be realistic about the situation. nader supporters, please try to understand that it is in naders best interest to support the main cause in the next elections. nader would look much stronger. he has to learn how to play the stupid game called politics.
they're commenting on a nationalized health care now!!! the masses need support and the masses need to organize and take what we need. no more arguing with pure capitalists about this subject. end of discussion.
Chomsky using the excuse for an Obama vote as being the only anti-establishment( republican) vote is apathetic. He agknowledges that the social movements in South America are true democratic struggles and therefore are much more valuable in their region than the Obama election in the U.S., but he very rarely speaks of the anti-establishment movement that has been initiated and continue to grow here in the U.S.(Revolutionary Socialist parties and all leftist third party alternatives.)
This has been flagged as spam show
From the European Mecantile Capitalism of genocidal killings of AMERICANS ,African ENSLAVEMENT and horrors of colonisation and domination to GLOBAL FINANCIAL MAFIA backed by latest KILLING MACHINES, WORLD CAPITALISM is the MARKET SYSTEM OF ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY, distortions and WAGE SLAVERY OF THE WORKING CLASS IN THE INTEREST OF THE CRIMINAL RULING CLASS.
arzoyan 3 months ago
People who dont understand that there would be monopolies without governments too, are idiots.
gulbirk 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you gentiles are Pathetic Always take some jew and make him god or Messiah just like the jesus and kerl marx and know this noam chomsky did you ever wondering why is this all your biggst gods and messiah and your intellectuals from right and left are jewish and you wonder how we the jews call are self the chosen people dont diss this
comment in 100 yreas from know your kids will things that holly histroy just like your Fathers Though't demn even the arebs belive in a jewish idea of god
ehudnold9 6 months ago
Chomsky rules
Asalamalika 7 months ago 2
Chomsky could NOT be more wrong in this interview. He said that democrats are to the right of most Americans, especially on healthcare. The reality of course is exactly the opposite where the democrats (wanting single payer) are far to the left of most Americans on healthcare. Was Chomsky purposely lying or was just he clueless?
MrFreeLibertarian 10 months ago
"the system is a disaster because it's privatized"... lol what a joke. The US healthcare system is NOWHERE NEAR a free market. It's a highly bloated, regulated, and artificially protected market. The bureaucracy associated with the healthcare system is the result of enormous government regulation and protection of the current healthcare monopoly. Its not free markets causing inefficiency, its artificially created monopoly.
SeaSickElf89 10 months ago 3
@SeaSickElf89 well said.
adulby 9 months ago
@SeaSickElf89 Did he say it is a free market? I am pretty sure he rejected the notion that such a thing exists several times in the past.
DerEchteSenf 8 months ago
@SeaSickElf89 it's still private even though its monopolized and helped by the government. Insurance is required by the state, its illegal not to have insurance on your car, doesn't mean that the insurance companies are somehow publicly owned.
djamorpheus 7 months ago
What does privatization have anything to do with free markets? All the things you say are to some degree true, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the major insurance companies are privately owned and operated.
JimmyeDallas 6 months ago
@SeaSickElf89 you need to go one step further and recognize WHY there there is gov protection for this monopoly. The private companies accrued enough money over time to buy politicians to change the rules and create the monopoly protections via legislation. Ultimately it IS privatization that led to this result. ALL private entities will try to do this no matter what the business...healthcare, energy, agriculture, etc.
TheDuttzz 5 months ago 3
@TheDuttzz And you need to get another step further and realize that eliminating the power of the government to give these monopoly protections solves the problem in a real way, not just in a contingent way.
BennyQuixote 5 months ago
@BennyQuixote nope...would just eliminate the one speed-bump to total societal control by corporate entities. The power vacuum you ask for WILL be filled. And will our corporate overlords be more benevolent than the gov?
TheDuttzz 5 months ago
@TheDuttzz The difference between the government and corporations is that you can choose to buy a product from a private entity or not. Corporations are not "overlords" like the government is, since financial exchanges with them are voluntary.
If you don't like what a corporation sells, don't buy the product. It's as simple as that.
BennyQuixote 4 months ago
@BennyQuixote so you think that our interactions with corporations and their influence is strictly voluntary? That we can "opt-out" by simply not buying their product? Your ignorance has gone from comical to borderline dangerous. You seem interested in how the world works, but you know nothing.
TheDuttzz 4 months ago
@TheDuttzz No, our interactions with corporations is not strictly voluntary. You misunderstand (or I didn't make clear) the conditions under which an individual can "opt-out" of their influence. Assuming all economic exchanges are bilaterally voluntary and informed (no force or fraud), the influence a corporation has over a consumer is voluntary. Corporations influence through the coercive apparatus of the state. Without a state (police, courts), they get money only if consumers give it to them.
BennyQuixote 2 months ago
@BennyQuixote You don't seem to understand what you propose - that the act of 'opting out' is more democratically effective than voting for any government, no matter the layout. To come to this conclusion after taking a serious look at the structure, history, and results of growth in corporate power, wealth, and influence would require a fundamental misconception of democracy.
I urge you, look at how corporations are structured, what dictates their decisions. These are important issues.
Keinlicht 3 months ago
I am a democratic socialist. But some radcal American leftists need to stop acting like they're contributing so much to the democratic process by either not voting, or by voting for Nader. I'd prefer Nader to be president, however, Chomsky is quite right in pointing out that democracy is largely what is achieved in between elections. So don't think you're making the world a better place by voting for Nader or abstaining from the election altogether.
kirkhammettfan13 11 months ago
@kirkhammettfan13 I'm struggling with that and similar questions, myself. My plan is to not vote for the first time coming up, though that could change. What Chomsky says is true, but it just makes me sick to think that I have legitimized the system, and that some tyrant can then claim that they were freely elected. At a time when the majority of Americans do not ratify the state, that is not insignificant. Is it? I really would like a discussion about it, because I'm not totally committed.
cogitheum 8 months ago
@cogitheum Well yes to an extent we do legitimize the candidates by voting for them. We must realize though that politicians really have no convictions; the ones that are serious about winning at least. I'd love to see Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney, or Ralph Nader be the next president but we have to be realistic. Our energy is better spent trying to organize voting blocks that demand change of policy in the Middle East, a public health care system, and more of our tax $ for education.
kirkhammettfan13 8 months ago
@bjoh249 there ARE different kinds of communism. None of them include North Korea or Cuba.
Does it really matter what they call themselves?
zsomborization 1 year ago
@bjoh249 isn't that socialism?
TheJabberwock 1 year ago
Oh gosh, sry for that quadruple posting, I clicked delete on all but the last one, and youtube showed them deleted ^^;
And my comment was in reference to the recent Patriot act extensions, the random gun control legislation (guns in national parks, I have no opinion here, it's just usually done by republicans), and his recent defense of 'don't ask; don't tell'.
Again, really sorry for quadruple posting ^^;;;;
Cathode0 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Surprisingly, Noam was a bit wrong when he said Obama would dissolve into a generic democrat. Citing Obama's policy on war, on guns in national parks, on the patriot act, and on big business, Obama dissolved into a generic Republican in these respects. Does anyone know if he's made comments on this capricious trend yet?
Cathode0 1 year ago
Comment removed
Cathode0 1 year ago
Comment removed
Cathode0 1 year ago
Comment removed
Cathode0 1 year ago
I wish chomsky would stick to Foreing policy... he is GARBAGE when it comes to economy.. Socialism doesn't work..
xMaXiMuSx 1 year ago
@xMaXiMuSx .. and what makes you think he is GARBAGE?
ihatehers 1 year ago
@ihatehers
cause communisam,socialism doesnt work.. It's been proven.. ZzzZ
xMaXiMuSx 1 year ago
@xMaXiMuSx .. i guess spelling class doesn't work either... its been proven...
ihatehers 1 year ago
@ihatehers
yeah well you can't attack the message....
xMaXiMuSx 1 year ago
@xMaXiMuSx
I can attack your message, because it's extremely flawed. To say "communism doesn't work" is a meaningless statement. Why? Because we've never seen true communism in action. Now before you go spouting off your list of "Communist" countries such as Cuba, the DPRK, China, and the former USSR, know this - those were state capitalist entities. They had nothing to do with Marxism...not even close.
RLove99 1 year ago
@RLove99 They were supposed to be communist and they claimed to be communist. Russia was taken over by the communists in their revolution in the 1910s. North Korea is communist and look at them. Communism doesn't work because you can't force equality. It all just leads to tyranny. I cannot believe there are people like you who think that after the rest of the world learning and turning against communism that it will work in the USA. You make me sick. You have no clue!
bjoh249 1 year ago
@bjoh249
What they were "supposed to be" and what they actually were are two very different things. Think about it, under regimes such as Cuba, PRC, DPRK, and the former USSR...all private enterprise was outlawed. This left all ways, means, and decisions of production in the hands of the government. In essence, the state was one single megaconglomerate with no competition. Voting was only left to upper echelon party members. This was not communism at all, not even close to Marxism.
RLove99 1 year ago
@RLove99 But that is what they called themselves and were known as. North Korea and Cuba still calls themselves communist. Communism is the government ownership of all of the nation's business, industry and property. There is no other communism. This crap didn't work in those countries what makes you think it will work here?? It won't. This is America!! If you don't like freedom then either learn to put up with it or leave!
bjoh249 1 year ago
@bjoh249 North korea calls itself Democratic People's Republic of Korea. fucking idiot, go back to school...
Darusdei 1 year ago
Obama is a Statist. If you voted for Obama, you voted for a Statist. If you voted for Obama to "smash the state", then you're just as bad as the politicians.
leavesofliberty 1 year ago
Chomsky is a tool.
randyguitarman13 1 year ago
@randyguitarman13 Maybe, but I think he's trying to wake some folks up. The real problem is people in the U.S. are too used to the system that they are just supporting it without hope of changing it.... The Matrix, unfortunately.
lifthz 1 year ago
@lifthz
Sure. Federal State voting is a coercive act. The goal is to abolish the Federal State, and Chomsky gets confused and contradictory positions on this also. If Chomsky can not understand the goal he will not be able to wake anyone up.
randyguitarman13 1 year ago
@randyguitarman13
And you are a Libertarian, a person who's political ideology is based on no evidenced system, excepting anarchy which is always a demonstrable failure. Libertarianism only works in a world where you can look at a corporate entity and say, that corporation has the good of mankind and the good of the Earth in mind. That is not this world.
frymastermeat 1 year ago
Thanks, interesting perspective.
music1M 1 year ago
More Chomsky interviews!
imover18gotityube 1 year ago
hot
whato1986 1 year ago
Who is this dumbass and where does he get his info???
All the town hall meetings against healthcare show how "a huge percent of the public wants notional healthcare"
This guy is an idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!
tonybonez 1 year ago
@tonybonez ok, I'll take the bait... do some research of your own, in terms of where does noam chomsky get his info, I'd suggest you read one of the numerous books that he's published on both linguistics as well as world politics. A warning though; they don't have many pictures or pop-up features in them.
A good rule to live by is to try and listen to balanced news (.e.g AP, NPR) outlets and not take anything Fox News says literally.
whato1986 1 year ago
@whato1986
getting back to the topic---America rejects Obamacare and I got that from crazy right wing pool takers like Zogby, Pew, and Gallup.
I must be a right wing nut if I point out that Noam is completely wrong on this one.
I do find it telling that if I even question the savior Noam chomsky I am immediately someone who does not listen to balanced news (.e.g AP, NPR)
tonybonez 1 year ago
@tonybonez could you please tell me which news outlets you consider to be balanced?
whato1986 1 year ago
@whato1986
Certainly not Rachel maddow or Kieth Olberman---I watch fox news, fair and balanced becasue they usually have 1 republican and 1 democrat to debate an issue, as opposed to MSNBC who all hail the dear leader--Obama (Barry Soetoro)
Am I wrong about America rejecting Obamacare, show me 1 poll that says so!!!!!!!!
tonybonez 1 year ago
I am sorry, I can admit that msnbc has a liberal bias, and that Fox News has a conservative bias... but if you honestly believe that Fox News is 'fair and balanced' I honestly cannot respect your point of view in any way. It's a shame.
whato1986 1 year ago
@whato1986
LOOK I dont care who went to who's wedding, and frankly to ramble on about who went to who's wedding is completely missing the point!!!!!!!!!
FOX NEWS is relatively fair and balanced becasue they usually have 1 republican and 1 democrat to debate any issue. That seems fair to me. How is that not fair---you tell me...
So just to be clear---you have in effect agreed that America rejects Obamacare (I can give you links to polls from Pew, Zogby, Roiters, and Rasmussen if you need)
tonybonez 1 year ago
@tonybonez The problem with your argument is that fox news doesn't have 1 dem and 1 repub to debate any issue, they do occasionally, but certainly not all the time. And more often that not, when there is a little 5 min debate between a dem and a repub, the anchor often steps in and helps defend the republican, search youtube and you'll find plenty of examples of this.
Do you think 'Fox and Friends' is fair and balanced?
whato1986 1 year ago
@whato1986
I mainly watch O'reilly, Hannity, and Glen Beck fox and Friends is kind of Lame!!
WHY??
tonybonez 1 year ago
@tonybonez also one last thing. 'Fair and balanced' Fox News 'hard news' anchor Megyn Kelly admitted a couple of days ago that she was invited and went to Rush Limbaugh's wedding... enough said.
whato1986 1 year ago
@tonybonez There is a huge percentage that wanted it... probably about 50% which is enough for concern. The other 50% don't want it because they can already afford it and don't want any of their money to help the less fortunate folks. So basically they value their money more than other people's lives...
lifthz 1 year ago
@lifthz
Except foreign lives which badly needed saving from Saddam because hes a bad man. Americans seemed quite happy to pay for that. Mind boggling. I think the American govt could convince its people that shit was sugar, literally.
educate1self 1 year ago
@educate1self It's because these wealthy americans are tryina make themselves look like they're helping others while stealing the resources. People need to wake up and realize this. This is nothing new about America, this country has always tried to hide behind the shield of justice while stealing... it happened since the beginning of this country "White Man's Burden".... now it's "Global Force For Good"... anyone who really believes this stuff is a victim of mind control.
lifthz 1 year ago
@bjmensz
Well said. Greetings from Belgium.
20nothing 1 year ago
If I had to pick between the Democrats and the Republicans, I'd pick the Democrats, the lesser of the two evils. But I'd prefer to pick neither.
If I had to pick between the USA and the USSR, I'd pick the USA, the lesser ot the two evils. But I'd prefer to pick neither.
MikhailSilverwood 1 year ago
Isn't it time for the term "second" world to be recycled and applied to the USA, giving this country's hybrid socioeconomic indicators when compared to the rest of the developed world.
kephas10yf 1 year ago
the lesser of two evils.... Now the chosen one is in office he appoints Eric Holder who in turn comes out against the Arizona law without taking time to read it. After all Holder is the Attorney General and the AZ bill is a whopping 10 pages long that mirrors the federal law.
Chrisfre 1 year 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
lol hes talking about all you idiots drank the obama-aid... also he is talking about the idiots that voted for bush. all of you are idiots lol...... 2 party system is a joke and its just a way to control america. because . if there were 3 parties they coulndt control america. but with 2 it gives the illusion that you have a choice.
RealTalkTol 1 year ago
Only way to get real change (and I agree that there are differences between the corporate parties) is to vote independent . People voted for Obama because they want change, Cameron (the U.K. "change" candidate) is winning here because we want change. The people want real change, they just don't know how to get it.
e105b5 1 year ago
Chomsky is one of the many useless idiots who hate capitalism and defend corrupt politicians around the world.
warriorprince1010 1 year ago
@warriorprince1010 "Chomsky is one of the many useless idiots who hate capitalism..". You are not even bright enough to repeat the right wing talking points. You are supposed to call him a useful idiot
oldjoe5 1 year ago
@oldjoe5 I find him useless, it is a play on words. Useful to dictators, useless to people who want wealth for all and freedom. You lefties get everything wrong.
warriorprince1010 1 year ago
@warriorprince1010 . A play on words or just a mistake by someone who clearly is many levels below Chomsky in intellect and knowledge?
oldjoe5 1 year ago
@oldjoe5 A play on words clearly above the head of socialists who have never offered anything to society or intellectual thought.
warriorprince1010 1 year ago
@warriorprince1010 .
Embarrassed that someone called you on your ignorance and too small a human being to admit it?
Don't worry, most rightwingers are just like you.
oldjoe5 1 year ago
@oldjoe5 I am a centralist and thus find your ramblings tiresome. Noam is always wrong. Capitalism is the base of developing society.
warriorprince1010 1 year ago
@warriorprince1010 . Anyone who calls himself warriorprince is not to be taken seriously
oldjoe5 1 year ago
@oldjoe5 I will accept the personal insult as an acceptance of defeat. Trash society and replace it with greedy governments and massive public sectors is no answer.
warriorprince1010 1 year ago
@warriorprince1010 . No personal insult is offered. A clear eyed observation. Anyone who calls himself warriorprince is one damaged fool
oldjoe5 1 year ago
did he call him Noam "Chonsky"?
tonybonez 1 year ago
How can people fight back the frauds.?
jakiner 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Manifest treason! He has spoken like a traitor, and shall answer as traitors do. Therefore lay hold of him; bear him to the rock Tarpeian, and from thence into destruction cast him. He shall be thrown down the Tarpeian rock with rigorous hands: he hath resisted law, and therefore law shall scorn him further trial than the severity of the public power which he so sets at nought. AEdiles, seize him!
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
The fuck?
JiffyNo0b 1 year ago
@JiffyNo0b: The fuck! Thou protector of this damned strumpet, talk'st thou to me of "The fucks"? Thou art a traitor: Off with his head! Now, by Saint Paul I swear, I will not dine until I see the same. Look that it be done: The rest, that love me, rise and follow me.
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
Oh, I get it now.
JiffyNo0b 1 year ago
@JiffyNo0b: Would I be a curious person I would ask what you claim to have gotten now.
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evidence the CIA killed JFK to start Vietnam
Invasion of Vietnam 1955, Nixon & Ike.
CIA Bay of Pigs 4-61.
JFK peace deal with the Russians.
JFK wanted to focus on: going to the moon,
2nd invasion of Cuba from New Orleans -- shut down by RFK arresting 500 CIA agents:
Am Univ speech I will break CIA into a 1000 pieces.
10-11-61, NSAM #263 JFK orders US out of Vietnam.
CIA & Bush then assassinated JFK
2nd invasion of Vietnam 11- 23-63 ordered by LBJ. Youtube: paul8kangas
paul8kangas 2 years ago
How could an anarchist even suggest "vote obama"!
alistairproductions 2 years ago
what, an anarchist wouldn't.....
alistairproductions 2 years ago
And he was so right.
shurednichso 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dr. Noam Chomsky, PhD in Anthropology and specialized in Linguistics - not politics or economics. He should stick to swinging the alphabet instead of continuing to make a fool of himself.
pollywogA1 2 years ago
Chomsky has the most intelligent political insights of any USAn. I think you should stop making a fool of yourself.
sjnsingh1 2 years ago 20
@sjnsingh1 Chomsky is one of those trendy 1960's lefties who supported dictatorship over freedom.
warriorprince1010 1 year ago
@sjnsingh1 He gets a lot of respect that he doesn't deserve because he's an ivory tower intellectual. He is not a patriot, and is a typical America-loathing leftist Jew. He has shown support for Muslim terrorists, and is not right about everything.
oldstock1607 1 year ago
@oldstock1607: He supports Muslims who have a right to determine their own futures, but not terrorists. If anything, the US has more terrorists in power than any Islamic state. The rest of your rhetoric is completely fabricated.
chinopisces 11 months ago 2
@pollywogA1 Hahaha listen man, there's more to credibility than certificates and trophies. This man has written like 1000s of essays on politics... Do you seriously think you need a PhD in something to speak about it? I mean this man probably has some knowledge of almost ever historical event that is considered significant and you want to see a piece of trophy. Absolutely incredible.
alistairproductions 2 years ago 2
@alistairproductions a piece of paper or trophy*
alistairproductions 2 years ago
Obama genocida
xiuka666 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Chomsky, the "anarchist," thinks we have "freedom" now because of the New Deal? Wow. I didn't know I was free, and I didn't know that it was Roosevelt who set me free. Amazing what you can learn on the internet!
And at 6:00, this nut says that the health care system is messed up because it's "privatized"! I guess the nut doesn't understand that it's controlled by the gov't? He should read the laws and the papers once in a while.
What a joke!
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
I think Canada does have one of the best health care systems in the world. It is govt funded but not govt run, unlike the British system which is govt run and govt funded.
Nickalispicalis 2 years ago
chomsky is supposedy an anarchist, yet he wants a public healthcare system? is there anyway to reconcile this?
loturos 2 years ago
Anarchist = socialist libertarian. There's nothing to reconcile.
dzan242 2 years ago
actually there is. first of all there are more than one types of anarchist. second, a public health care system requires that there be a "public", ie. a state, as opposed to "private", ie. owned by a person or group of people. in an anarchist system the police, firemen, road constructors, etc. are all privatized because there's no state to make it "public" or "nationalized".
how would health care be different from what the US has now?
loturos 2 years ago
@loturos: 'how would health care be different from what the US has now? '
Ok, so my wife had a cyst rupture. This has happened before and we knew the doc's were just going to give her morphine, till the pain went away. Instead of just going to the store an buying the morphine ourselves at what would be extreemly cheap price, we were forced to check into the E.R. and pay over 6,000 because of government intervention.
6000 - 3 = 5997 or a markup of
%300,000.00. There's your diffence =).
brewerscrew 2 years ago
@brewerscrew, I understand that completely. What I don't get is why Chomsky seems to advocate a state health care system, while he supposedly supports anarchism. The two contradict each other. Maybe he thinks that people should get what they vote for even if it means increasing government, I don't know.
loturos 2 years ago
@loturos You have to understand his take on anarchism to understand how it works with health care.
Rkmomenah 1 year ago
Nothing to reconcile? Oh, ok. "Smash the state...and while you're at it implement forced government health care."
Hypocrite.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
The idea isn't to get rid of all forms of order and public benefits, but to dismantle the centralized power of the federal government and enormous corporations. Health care could be handled much more efficiently if managed regionally. You don't need the centralized power of a federal government to achieve that. There's nothing contradictory about this. The economic system he proposes is Parecon, specifically, if you're interested.
dzan242 2 years ago
Um, he's an "anarchist" and he's recommending the expansion of the state? He thinks it's ok for Nancy Pelosi to control my medical decisions?
I don't want her tyranny and I don't want his or yours. I don't want my health care "managed regionally". I'm quite capable of making my own arrangements with others as long as we are not repressed by Pelosi, Chomsky, or anyone else.
I honestly cannot tell the difference between statists and collectivist "anarchist." Is it just a change of rulers?
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Noam Chomsky is fundamentally a pragmatist - he's talking about real choices within the current system. He doesn't speak of "smashing the state" or other teenage fantasies, he's talking about what working people who have bills and obligations can do to make people's lives better.
The current healthcare system is a holocaust, and every case of a publically run system runs better, regardless of it's superficial public/private orientation. People need medicine, not ideological perfection.
bjmensz 2 years ago 28
@bjmensz People need alot of stuff, that's part of what motivates people to work, if the government provided for all needs, what is the incentive to work?
brewerscrew 2 years ago
what does that have to do with anything i wrote.
a government obviously cannot "provide for all needs" without magic or star trek technology, how about we remain on this planet and focus on a system of governance that can provide for basic health services, meet basic standards of policing and infrastructure, and is able to represent the public interest in domestic and foreign affairs. that would be a nice start, before we start worrying about people not working because they won't die of cancer.
bjmensz 2 years ago
@bjmensz it has to do with what you wrote in the last sentence 'People NEED medicine, not ideological perfection.' I disagree, I say people need Freedom above all else. If the idea is to vote for taking other peoples goods and services (money) against their will, to pay for other peoples healthcare, then at least let it be a state by state vote. At least that way I'm still free to move to a state that respects my independence.
brewerscrew 2 years ago
That's nice and all, but in the real world people need medicine, food, infrastructure, education etc. more than you need an iPhone, or whatever.
it's kind of hard to exercise freedom when you're disabled by chronic illness, and frankly if you'd value this "freedom" (and you haven't really explained what that even means) over other people's lives, i'd say that's pretty awful.
bjmensz 2 years ago
I've always thought freedom was what you could do in the absence of other people. Liberty is you excisizing a limit on freedom in a way that doesn't stop another person from excersizing their liberty. ie your freedom ends where mine begins.
An institution with the monopoly to initiate force becomes tyrannical when it abuses it's granted powers, by using it's power to coerce property from it's citizens. They have become the enemy that we built them to protect us from.
brewerscrew 2 years ago
@bjmensz Noam is indeed a teenage fantasists hence his popularity, like Penn [Sean].
warriorprince1010 1 year ago
@bjmensz Obama system is no better than before. The extra costs will create unsustainable government spending and thus high unemployment. Under Bush more people had jobs and also college education has gone UP under obama not down. I admire loyalty but not when it goes against what is really happening.
warriorprince1010 1 year ago
@warriorprince1010 you are reading from a script.
bjmensz 1 year ago
@bjmensz smashing the state isn't a teenage fantasy, it has happened many times and will again. it's a long term goal though, don't lose sight of the long term with your pointless 'pragmatism', Chomsky has given in because he is too old - Obama isn't exactly turning out great, just like anarchists predicted. What's needed is building peoples' power from below, not participating in political illusions.
bakunin888 1 year ago 5
@bakunin888 Actually, Chomsky is one of the few voices aside from Stirner who is long and Bakunin who are voices of rationality in the anarchist school of thought. First off, history has not been kind to grandiose illusions of no state, what happens is and what will continue to occur, survival of the fittest the strong preying on the weak. This goes beyond mere analytics, and is an aspect of our evolution as a species as Chomsky understands this as did Stirner.
viletree 1 year ago
@MillionthUsername why are you guys thumbs downing this comment. its true, no anarchist would vote obama. big govt is big power, obama is big govt. anarchy is anti power sources so this comment makes a lot of sense. Why isnt it getting respect?
alistairproductions 2 years ago
because it isn't deserving of respect. he's just parroting a bunch of shallow stuff that doesn't actually have anything to do with reality.
it doesn't make for great sloganeering, but voting democrat instead of republican in a swing state can save human lives. chomsky has no illusions about what the vote does and is.
anarchism that doesn't have a deep respect for improving the human condition first and foremost isn't worth a damn thing.
bjmensz 2 years ago
@bjmensz i dont think that's necessarily true. there are many instances where making an ideological statement rather than conforming to "vote for this guy or that guy" has made a difference.
the lesser of two evils is still evil and shouldn't be supported.
I don't think there's too much to be applauded in for just "pragmatism". Or compromise I guess. The idea that "obama may send LESS troops into unjust wars"
You may disagree I just don't find it to be too appealing. I'd say go 3rd party..
alistairproductions 2 years ago
Check out Anarcho-Capitalist if you really believe that, simply isn't true.
brewerscrew 2 years ago
There are many brands of Anarchists, just like any other ideolog. This particular flavor of anarchist is called anarcho-socialist. The idea is to somehow have no rulers, but still live in a collective that dictates rules, with no institution to back up those rules. I personally believe it's more lenonistic then anarchist.
brewerscrew 2 years ago
@brewerscrew
Anarcho-Socialism doesn't exclude governance, the purpose of an Anarcho-Socialist programme is to give people direct control over their governance and dissolve any centralized power structure (i.e. gov't, corporations).
Lenin was inherently anti Anarcho-socialist, he advocated a centralized state and passed State capitalist reforms.
TheDynamicPsyche 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It is stunning to hear Chomsky say things that are simply 100% not true. The VAST majority of the public want a national health care system? Listen to the screaming, fear mongering, paranoid right wing about the evils of socialized medicine. This country is divided between left and right about 50/50. To say anything otherwise is just not true. How can he say that and not realized how wrong he is?
falltwoep 2 years ago
"Listen to the screaming, fear mongering, paranoid right wing about the evils of socialized medicine."
He may be exaggerating about the vast majority wanting nationalized healthcare, but citing the screaming people who get the most media attention is not a good way to show that he's wrong about what a majority want. The republican party has been whittled down to the core of it's loudest, most opinionated members, and the media loves controversy, so those are the people who get the attention.
caelestis356 2 years ago 2
depends on definition of vast. and of the polling procedure.Multiple polls showed about 72-78% in favor of h/care reform & about 60-65% in favor of "public option" or single payer system in late 2008 before and after the election.The PR campaigns have an effect, Obama hasn't handled this well. Some are scared by the "death panels" & Medicaid "cuts". lots of doubt about Baucus bill--gov mandated buy-in of private insurance--no price caps they DO want natl hc, not what is in Congress now
RAlexan722 2 years ago
Well, yeah I agree that the majority of the people do want some kind of public involvement. I don't personally consider the public option nationalized health care, though. When I hear "nationalized health care" I think single payer system, and I have a feeling the majority of Americans do not want that, although I may be wrong.
caelestis356 2 years ago
Individuals
falltwoep 2 years ago
I wonder if Chomsky will sing the same tune about Obama in 2012? Obama has pretty much proven to be a republican, repeatedly insuring the wealthy maintain their place on top of society despite vomiting crumbs for party faithful. Seriously, can he back the same strategy?
lemurdue 2 years ago
By that definition everyone is a republican, democrats arent going to change the fact that the wealthy maintain their place at the top. Although i dont have a problem with that. Nobody has to be enslaved by the wealthy. Just get a job as a teacher or social worker, benefit society, live the simple life. You can have a fantastic, happy life in this society easily. Thats why i dont get all the complaining from the far left.
falltwoep 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Chomsky's views can be summed up in one sentence: he believes that the public should get whatever they want, regardless of who they have to trample over. The right to own property, the right to the product of one's labor, these are things which can be violated by the public and be legitimate. This is called mob rule, it is another form of tyranny.
falltwoep 2 years ago
although i'm fully aware that my comment equals to meaningless shit, i still want to tell you that you are either a very lowly weak person bought by corporations, maybe just dumb enough to believe corporate propaganda or even worse trash, namely the kind of person that would benefit from the politics that support the wealthy people alone. Simply you are either ignorant or evil and that is just sad for you, cause you will never find the peace good people find.
Educate yourself and get involved!
graogramano 2 years ago
If i'm either ignorant or evil, then i'm definetly evil. But im also logical. Im just not going to bitch about corporations when they provide me with all my food, my video games, my computer, these websites, ect. Plus i just dont value opionions that are whiney. People that complain about corporations and the wealthy are just bitching and moaning for literally no reason. Life isnt fair, society will never be perfect. Its good enough the way it is. Law, order, freedom. Good enough.
falltwoep 2 years ago
There is no logic in that. Nobody says that we shouldn't have corporations. A corporation is not evil in itself, but the system (aiming for profit no matter what) and the people in it make it a dangerous thing, that should be CONTROLLED and regulated! people that are the minds behind those huge interests should be held accountable and production has to become sustainable!! And nobodies rights are being trampled on, as you were concerned about it. Special Interest tramples on our basic rights!
graogramano 2 years ago
I agree they should be regulated, and that special interests have too much influence. Im just saying they arent evil.
falltwoep 2 years ago
You obviously have an immature grasp on both socialism and humanism. Socialism provides a sustainable economy for industrialized nations. Free trade brings economic booms and horrible recessions/depressions. Free trade is similar to fascism. Why? The rich have the ability to buy out leading positions in lobbying firms which gives the corporate elites legislative power. This takes power away from the individual. That, my good sir, is fascism. Go out and read a book. Don't just assume...
tumadros 2 years ago 2
Sorry but the US standard of living is far lower than that of "Socialist" Europe.
mikemmlj 2 years ago 4
Sure...if you consider high income tax and cameras on ever corner "higher standards".
Mirani2 2 years ago
of course some people are 'above' the public
'I tried to walk on the sidewalk but it belonged...TO THE PUBLIC'
MassiveJungle 2 years ago
You think you have the right to the product of your labor in this society? Really?
caelestis356 2 years ago
In this society, or in any society in which the government forcibly extracts even one cent of a citizen's income, you are not a free trader, but a laborer for the state- ergo, a slave.
Mirani2 2 years ago
Do you use roads for travel? Red lights? If your house is on fire, do you expect someone to help? If a crime is committed against you, do you expect someone to do something about it?
Taxes pay for all of these things.
Welcome to the modern world. Stop spouting your unrealistic bullshit.
Free trade would never exist without governments to ensure it. Destruction of the state would result in absolute rule by monopolistic corporations.
So not only are you unrealistic, you're a fascist.
caelestis356 2 years ago
No one shold be forced to pay for any such thing- they would do so willingly, they way people pais for doctors 100 years ago. To force someone to pay would be tantamount to forcing someone to form a country- besides, who would be doing the forcing- how would we know they were trustworthy and just? Complete separation of economics and government has never been tried, but history can speak of many failures of gov involvment in economy.
Mirani2 2 years ago
"No one shold be forced to pay for any such thing- they would do so willingly"
When the cops show up, do you want them to do their job, or do you want them to work out how they are going to bill you?
All citizens take advantages of government services, whether they pay for them or not. Therefore, not paying your taxes is the equivalent of stealing from society.
caelestis356 2 years ago
not sure what "any such thing" is that you refer to.If u don't have insur most hospitals and doctors charge you 2-3 times normal price. R they "forcing" u to get Hlth insurance? They know &1k-2k per month is better than pay only if U need it. Most dont have $5k cash on hand if they break an arm. My AMS ins. jacked up $200/mo every 6 mos. I quit @ $1600/mo for 2 persons.Wife was hospitalized 4 emerg surgry, they paid approx 35%-I paid the rest AND 1400/mo. I guess 1400 is just for the disc card
RAlexan722 2 years ago
Besides, the gov does exist to keep trade free- to protect individual rights and property so that a group of 10 individuals can't take property away from one.
If it is illegal to rob a rich person if you are poor, how is it any different if you simply use the government to do that very thing?
Mirani2 2 years ago
"Besides, the gov does exist to keep trade free- to protect individual rights and property so that a group of 10 individuals can't take property away from one."
Yes, we need the government to protect certain inalienable rights from mob rule (and rule by the elite). And the government has to be funded by taxes. How do you expect the constitution to protect you against your neighbor if you take away the government's funding?
caelestis356 2 years ago
Thanks for being honest falltwoep...."Pluck but his name from his heart" is how Shakespeare puts it.
mikemmlj 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Enough bullshit comments. Chomsky is an irrelevant anti capitalist fucktard.
falltwoep 2 years ago
Arguably the most intelligent man in the world!!
virtualdiabolik 2 years ago 3
well, i've read five pages of comments and there are some good discussions. i would say this, if one is really perturbed about the two party system, there should be great opposition to corporate funding of a candidate. every election it takes more money to win. isn't this capitalism usurping democracy? i think so. the only way to solve this is to limit donations to the individual. say a $100 maximum or so. a vote is equal regardless of one's income. why not a donation?
tomitstube 2 years ago 2
It's very sad that Chomsky is heard by so few....the biggest tragedy of our times!
pokhrel17 2 years ago 7
This interview peeved me at the time, and I still get uncomfortable hearing him say ...
"I would suggest voting against McCain which means voting for Obama-- without illusions
BECAUSE all the elevated rhetoric about change, and hope, and so on, will dissolve into standard centrist democratic policies as soon as-- if he--takes office. "
And so it has... /sighs
Terranova0 2 years ago 7
well if you're expecting wide sweeping "change", it's as Chomsky said, it's subtle and sometimes hard to see. there's great division in this country, i'll take what i can, to edge away from conservatism. if it means universal health care, the end of a ban on planned parenthood discussing every option, the end of a ban on stem cell research, the end of squashing dissent, the end of squashing science for corporate interest, the end of iraq, torture, and gitmo... on and on. change is there,
tomitstube 2 years ago 2
I wasn't expecting anything other than a new person in the White House. My issue with Chomsky's suggestion is that in the end, you are still choosing the lessor of two evils, and therefore serving 'evil'. Standard centrist democratic politics are not working out for me- how about you?
"The intellectual tradition is one of servility to power, and if I didn't betray it I'd be ashamed of myself."
-Chomsky
Oh the Shame!
I supported McKinney, BTW.
Terranova0 2 years ago
cynthia mckinney? yeah, i lean harder left than current dems, i'm practical in the sense that i'll take what i can get. another conservative was out of the question. as for ralph in 2000 i don't agree that gore and bush are two peas... i think we learned that the hard way. hell, even ralphs own party couped their prez, what wuz up with that? where i live, a lot of dems are conservative. that's were you learn political practicality. people don't vote for someone, they vote against someone.
tomitstube 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice work. keep it up. mean time come for social media marketing for esteembpo**com
kwoodward80 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The more I listen to him speak, the dumber I feel.
Why do people put credence in this guys babel?
mrchubner 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What in the world is this so-called Brilliant Intellectual talking about?
"Good to choose the lesser of 2 evils"?
Voting for either party is voting in support of the corporate, banking, and governmental institution that is oppressing the entire population of this Earth.
This person may hold more degrees than anyone else, but he has next to zero street sense. His points are non-sense. He constantly contradicts his own words in this video and others.
mrchubner 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To find out why we are in a critical state.
Subscribe and open your eyes.
ACriticalState
ACriticalState 2 years ago
white man said ''coloured people are not allowed here''
a black man turned around and stood up.
then he said: ''listen sir...when I was born I was BLACK.
when I grew up I was BLACK.
when I'm sick I'm BLACK.
when I go in the sun I'm BLACK.
when I'm cold I'm BLACK.
when I die I'll be BLACK.
Caty25cat 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I will never choose the lesser of two evils, because I can easily let others do it. McCain...Obama...I care not. In the end everyone dies, all governments fall, and all planets and stars fade away and die.
It is vain to believe such things really matter.
littleredbirdy 2 years ago
This nicely captures the arid fatalism of those who, implicity, cannot tolerate the splendid and not so splendid aspects of modern western democracy. Or life in general. It reeks of privelege, of a fear of getting ones' hands dirty in the sometimes ugly, unpredictable fray, ignoring the blood and toil and imperfection necessary to all social and economic progress. It is, in short, the brittle spawn of post modern narcissism.
molloyx 2 years ago 7
Go Chomsky
Viva America Latina unida
no al neoliberalismo ya fracasado y en vias de extinguirse!!!
diablillo299 2 years ago
Jeez Chomsky's getting old..
589216001 2 years ago
Maybe... but his writings and thoughts are younger than ever
sirbata 2 years ago 5
4:04 bingo
FatherMcKenize 2 years ago
4:32 Quote mining is fun!
DoctorMeh 2 years ago
i like nader more than obama, but we had to be realistic about the situation. nader supporters, please try to understand that it is in naders best interest to support the main cause in the next elections. nader would look much stronger. he has to learn how to play the stupid game called politics.
sk8bow 2 years ago
they're commenting on a nationalized health care now!!! the masses need support and the masses need to organize and take what we need. no more arguing with pure capitalists about this subject. end of discussion.
sk8bow 2 years ago
Chomsky using the excuse for an Obama vote as being the only anti-establishment( republican) vote is apathetic. He agknowledges that the social movements in South America are true democratic struggles and therefore are much more valuable in their region than the Obama election in the U.S., but he very rarely speaks of the anti-establishment movement that has been initiated and continue to grow here in the U.S.(Revolutionary Socialist parties and all leftist third party alternatives.)