Please. Please. Does this fuckwit think Chomsky invented the term "libertarian socialist"? What? Ha ha ha ha. Do 1 minute of research man. Please do that. For your own sake. Google Bakunin. Do it now.
@scepticthinktank Amen to that. As a new viewer of ThePunkPatriot, I like some of what I'm seeing so far, but that simplistic dictionary approach was a rather lazy way of finding out what libertarian socialism means.
I kinda like Chomsky, but I seriously agree with you here. Howard Zinn apparently voted for Obama too. And that really disappointing to me. Voting 3rd party is the only way I can vote and feel good about it. Unless a good democrat or republican is actually nominated (which isn't likely)
Anarchism means no rulers, not "no government" voluntary democracy is considered to be among the purest forms of anarchy. & Libertarianism a used to refer to anarcho-socialism exclusively. & Chomsky stated that people should vote Obama without illusions, meaning Obama is the lesser of two evils. He can still complain about him.
In relation to your criticism of his label of 'Libertarian Socialist", the definition of socialism:
A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Where does that say "More government"? To simply boil such an immensely broad topic down to such a ridiculously simplistic view is crazy.
Agree with Noam Chomsky or disagree with him, but don't make up nonsense.
Can you link to a video where Chomsky said what you claim he said. I think you'll find he never said that. Since you're criticizing him for saying something you should let us see what he actually said in context. I think you won't be able to find him saying "you should vote Democract" or "I support Obama" or anything like that, if you can find that, I'll reconsider my position.
It's just unfair to attack someone without actually giving us the context and their exact words.
@davidpersonalpage There are several videos/audio recordings, or I would have never made this video, because I used to respect him. First) DemocracyNow!, second, Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox Radio Show. Third Citizen Radio. All from 2007-2008.
@ThePunkPatriot I'm pretty sure I remember the Democracy Now appearance, but unless I'm crazy I think you've (or I've) misunderstood what he said. Keep up the videos anyway, nice to see passionate people.
The central focus of socialism is, as Noam Chomsky states "Mastery over production by the producers", or in other words worker ownership of capital goods/the means of production and worker control over the production process.
While the libertarian party was formed in 1971 the roots of libertarian socialism go all the way back to the middle of the 19th century. The first person to call themselves a libertarian was Joseph Dejaque who did so in a letter written in 1857. He was also a communist.
@ThePunkPatriot Thanks for your comment. Too bad it's a totally false assumption of me. You yourself acknowledged what a "moral" man Noam is. Morality is ALL! Intellectually lazy people are brainwashed by the elite and the Hollywood cult. A mentally lazy person wouldn't sit and listen to Noam Chomsky. He's such an intellectual/political giant. Noam's language has to be solved like an algebra equation. A lot of unpacking required to understand. Don't be a pill. I think you're kind of adorable. ;)
@blueguitarblue Noam Chomsky is an intellectual giant-- in the field of linguistics. In the field of politics, he's just a cantakerous professor who paid attention to the news growing up.
It is dangerous to take anybody's word as scripture. The right does this with people like Ronald Reagan and Ayn Rand. The radical left does this with folks like Noam Chomsky and Emma Goldman.
The point of this video is to point out that intellectual giant or not, they are just people, and prone to error.
Libertarian socialism can't be refuted by looking "libertarian" and "socialism" in a dictionary. Socialism can be done without a formal state. Libertarian just means liberty, basically. Anarchism is just communism in a sense.
Noam Chomsky knows less about economics than the average 5 year old. When that old communist crank talks about economics I can't help but laugh. And Leftists want to be intellectuals? This isn't an intellectual he's a Cult of Personality (what Leftists consider a good thing). They worship the Cult of Chomsky and leave with more slogans than 50 years of Pepsi commercials. He doesn't know shit from apple butter about politics either. If he wasn't such a hypocrite he'd quit and move to Guam.
Socialism is when the workers own the means of production, anarchism is a lack of a state, the two not only work together but actually were used historically (anarchist spain).
Seriously, how about doing a basic wikipedia search before making a video.
@AndroidPolitician - BWAHAHAHAHAHA! When "workers own the means of production"? Are you fucking retarded? Probably not but your indoctrination makes it seem like that. You're just another delusional Libtard who belongs to the Cult of Chomsky.
Yeah I guess when George Orwell talked about how great Anarchist spain was he talking about how all those smart CEOs were running the factories instead of the workers (or you know, a "means" of "producing" things).
In case you didn't get what I wrote, I said you're an idiot and there were a bunch of times in history when "workers owned the means of production" without a government controlling them.
@trichenosis- LOL- quoting Shakespeare? Give me a break. My sound and fury represent an entire wold at unrest while you lambs spend your lives in slumber, only awakening when any noise disrupts your privileged slumber. Noam Chomsky's dissent goes beyond your understanding because you and those like you are a bunch of sheltered pussies.
@wwarden12 Stop engaging in hero worship, and realize that Noam Chomsky is just a whiney old dude who has NEVER DONE ANYTHING TO STOP ANYTHING HE COMPLAINS ABOUT.
Oh he writes books? He tells people to either vote for the Democrats or to not vote at all? Wow. What an impressive resume!
What a complete crock of shit. Take your self-righteous, hero-worshiping, impotent angst somewhere else.
Chomsky is not a demi-God. He's a linguistics professor.
@trichenosis-"The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue."
Wow, this is fun making fun of you. I feel almost bad, except people as intolerant as you are the same sort of idiots who take part in genocidal acts, and then go on to sleep as if his dreams can finally be met. Go on inciting hate, ignorance and fear and if it keeps you warm at night, then, please, keep on posting garbage like this. It is your right to dissent, just like it is our right to make an example of you. Dissent only has the effect desired if it reflects the needs of those who need.
Please, go to your private pawn shop, buy a .38 and save us all a human beings lifetime of confusion and ignorance. Start growing a spine, and adopt some real life choices. You obviously have no self worth, or a mind of your own. Your feigned grin only serves to mask your hatred towards a world that has left the biggots and mental midgets at the gate, with their cowardly outlook on life. I like how you chose not to throw your panties in this load in order to avoid losing face.
Nothing in Socialism is explicitly political, but certain parties use political systems to bring about Socialism. The terms in no way contradict eachother.
ahhhh.....socialism does not mean more "government", although you obviously confuse government with the state. The state will always oppose socialism. SOCILAISM=WORKERS CONTROL OF INDUSTRY PERIOD. LIBERTARIANISM=LESS FREEDOM and WAGE SLAVERY. Get a life punk patriot, and for gods sake get a clue. Peace out fool
Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialism is opposed to all coercive forms of social organization, and promotes free association in place of government and opposes the coercive social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor.
10 seconds of worth or research just proved you an idiot.
@Darusdei Some of the biggest idiots/assholes in the world have advanced degrees (e.g. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, David Duke, Malik Shabazz etc.) Being a professor doesn't give you irrefutable authority.
@Darusdei no i do not have enough space in the comment section of you youtube to illustrate all the falllacies of almsot every argument Noam Chomsky has ever made, but I would think that most of his hypocrisies are self-evident to an informed individual. my comment was simply a response to the fact that you said "he's a professor."
@Darusdei the forum for inetllectual discourse is reserved for those who wish to use reason, not for those who simply follow opinion based upon someone's title. i could respond "you don't have credentials either". that would not make your argument any more or less valid. dershowitz, horowitz, pipes - they all have advanced degrees - are their arguments better than chomsky's simply because they hold those credentials?
@Darusdei so now your complaint is that I haven't listed a single exmaple? I'd be glad to do so:
Chomsky refers to Israel as an imperialist entity that cares more about expansion than security. He neglects the return of the Sinai Peninula to Egypt after the '67 War. He dismisses unilateral disengagement of Gush Katif in 2005. And he fails to acknowledge that a tandem of occupation and checkpoints of the West Bank has saved lives on both sides of the conflict.
@Darusdei you're ignorance does not surprise me (it is all too rampant these days). you have become the ultimate hypocrite, criticizing me for not spitting out facts when you have not relayed one yourself.
israel isn't expanding. all the territories it occupies are a result of having previously been attacked in '48, '67, '73, and '82. sorry mate but you clearly know nothing about the history of the region or the root of the conflict. best of luck in your spread of lies and propaganda.
@Darusdei you probably dont know that arabs make up 20% of the israeli knesset or that muslims have the right to vote in israel. youre too busy being a fucking idiot. would israel be in these occupied territories if it hadnt been attacked first by the terrorists that have strongholds there?
ohand by the way, they did do it out of good will - as a result, egypt and israel have been at peace for 30 years.
this is my last comment ive wasted too much time on your stupidity.
It is only fair to hear Chomsky talk about the things Punk Patriot criticizes him for in his own words so here are the titles of those Youtube videos:
"Chomsky: In swing states vote Obama without illusions"
@tonybonez Nope. I diss chomsky, I diss chomsky. I've heard plenty of interviews with Chomsky. He advocates either "voting for the Democrat-- without illusions, because the democrat sucks." or "Try not voting."
He's saying "vote Dem or don't bother." His logic is far more circuitous, but that's the end result.
Dude, dont BS me, either you watched the videos of Chomsky in his own words or you didn't. Just cut and paste the titles I gave into the search bar---it is that easy---to not give him a chance in his own words is just str8 lame.
BTW, nice use of "quotes", which are nothing like what he said!!!
If you wanted to be truthful you should put the videos I provided in the info bar for this video, so people can hear Chomsky in his own words and compare to what u r saying.
@tonybonez Look, the dude has given countless interviews. The once I watched before making this video were the one he gave to Citizen Radio, and the one he gave to DemocracyNow some time later. He contradicts himself often. Quit being a hero worshiper, and think your yourself.
noam chomsky is full of half truths. he twists reality to support his views. he's right about some things, others NO WAY. no matter what america does, he will be against it, NO MATTER WHAT. so you know what FUCK NOAM CHOMSKY!
Wow so you present all these points without even giving any sources whatsoever? I've heard many of Chomsky's speeches and he'd destroy you in a real debate. Your whole point about socialism is not well structured. Chomsky believes in socialism because he cares about the little guy. What have you done exactly as compared to him? Also perhaps you should articulate yourself a bit and maybe not using such stupid language as fuck Chomsky, it would make you sound much less stupid.
@therocket2k Dude, you cannot advocate for strong government services, AND ANARCHY. The only source I need is Noam Chomsky's own mouth, and a grasp on logic.
@ThePunkPatriot Okay do you seriously know anything about anarchism? Anarchism can be installed WITH socialism. That is factory workers running their own factories... but wait that sounds kinda like socialism....but wait socialism and anarchism have very similar ideas. Dunno bro read up on some shit, posting stuff like this without doing any research doesn't really portray you in the best of light. Maybe have a more thorough video with some references, points rebuttals, ideas of your own.
I think you didn't make the distinction between Chomsky's academic side and his practical side (i hope u respond to this cuz the video's kind of old lol).
From what i know he's a libertarian socialist with anarchist beliefs. And what he means is that he favours strong social institutions (healthcare etc) , but that the government is an institution that's wrong because it's unjustifiable. He thinks the political system is fucked, but that lessening its damage by voting for obama is important.
Probably the best Chomsky video I've seen on Youtube. Lol. Also Chomsky has said we need a strong federal government in order to counter corporations. Doesn't sound very anarchistic to me.
There are reasons to criticize libertarian socialism....but he didn't pull the term out of his ass. George Orwell was once a libertarian socialist. Adam Smith considered corporations to be statist entities.
Not to mention that most non-idiotic libertarians are left-leaning anyway, as they were historically.
I’ll admit I’m not a Noam Chomsky advocate nor am I a necessarily a follower of his ideas nor am I claiming to be an expert on this in any stretch of the imagination. And I could be completely in left field with this opinion. I just wanted to bring to light maybe another way of seeing things. Earlier I said this is a comment/question leaving it open for interpretation and I welcome any feedback. Thank you.
A HUGE Noam Chomsky mural was just finished in my neighborhood in Philly. It has a big (A) on the top left and "The most important intellectual" on the bottom. I actually respect a few of his ideals but for the most part I just feel like he's another intellectual who thinks they have the solutions for everything in the world and wing crazy lefties worship him like a GOD. Mostly those are suburban kids who moved to Philly for college and bought into anarchist politics like every other kid here.
You say Noam Chomsky complains a lot,yet every comment you leave and this video itself is a complaint. But it's okay dude, "call it critiquing if that makes you feel better".
(Paraphrasing)
"But when it comes to the most basic things a person can do in order to change what's going on in the world, he doesn't have any viable solutions."
The 'viable solution' he offers is the encouragement of free thinking. Maybe you haven't noticed that the majority of people don't do it.
@swetbucket Noam Chomsky tells us to try *not voting* as if that were a viable option to change thing-- OR vote Democrat while holding your nose. I actually DO stuff.
Oh, he's a "radical intellectual." That's kind of like vegan veal.
@ThePunkPatriot And after all that "stuff" you say you've done, who's had more of an effect on politics,you or Noam Chomsky? Regardless of what your answer is,your demonstrating what he suggests: freethinking.
That's not like saying "vegan veal" at all, don't ignore the actual definition of the words to get your point across.
@ThePunkPatriot He doesn't suggest free thinking too? The point I'm making is that he's encouraging free thinking on a large scale to a country who doesn't demonstrate it.
Nice assumption about hero worship,considering I don't have any hero's and all. Just because I'm challenging your dim-wit doesn't mean I'm worshiping Chomsky.
Your ignorance makes you unreasonable. I can't win against circular logic.
Look, I don't have a problem with anybody encouraging "free thinking." Chomsky isn't the only one who does that. Moreover, you don't need to even know who Chomsky is in order to do it. So it's a moot point.
What Chomsky does do, which I have a problem with, is tell people NOT to free think, but to either avoid voting, or vote Democrat while holding their nose.
Your point about the contradictory nature of anarchy, socialism, and libertarianism makes sense on the surface of ignorance, but if you would look at what the terms mean I think you would find that it's actually not so stupid. He didn't make anything up either. Libertarian socialism AND anarcho-syndicalism are both pre-Chomsky.
I was also kind of bugged about his comments on voting for Obama, though, and other things during the election, but I don't think a "Fuck Noam Chomsky!" is in order!
@HenryNavarre I certainly think a "fuck noam chomsky" is in order.
Another problem the left has is HERO WORSHIP.
Noam Chomsky is just a person. He's smart, but he's not infallible. We should critique our "leaders" when we disagree with them, and people should feel free to do so as well.
I understand the ideas behind "libertarian socialism" and "anarchism", but they are so full of holes the are useless as philosophies.
@ThePunkPatriot Yeah, hero worship is fucking dangerous.Trust me, I have been plenty critical of Chomsky and understand he possesses the ability to be fallible. Obama is probably a better example of hero worship for many people, at least in my opinion.
I'm pretty sure Chomsky saw Obama as a lesser of two evils and it simply wouldn't have been worth it to let McCain win. Honestly, there's no way Nader or Paul could have ever won that election. His advice was simply realistic.
I think Obama worshipers are more easily swayed than Chomsky worshipers.
The whole point of voting isn't placing bets on who will win, it's saying "I want this person's advocated policies to be law." If you wanted Paul or Nader, you should have voted for them. It's not like your vote determined the outcome of the national outcome. We have an electoral college!
@ThePunkPatriot Aghh, whatever. I don't agree with you. You haven't convinced me to "Fuck Noam Chomsky" hehe. His social and foreign policy critiques far overshadow his voting advice, which I see as pretty inconsequential. Besides, the type of reform he's ideally looking for will probably never come to the US- a good deal of muckraking would help the situation though.
@HenryNavarre That's ironic. Most people who worship chomsky would jump at the chance to fuck him.
I understand that he complains a lot (call it critiquing if that makes you feel better), and that he complains about all the right things, but when it comes to solutions, he's got little practical advice.
To say "Fuck Noam Chomsky" is just to declare that he is not a God and he's not a leader, he's just a Linguistics Professor at MIT who has published a few books on politics.
Also disagree that Chomsky "panders" to anybody. He takes shit from everybody on all sides of the political spectrum (especially conspiracy theorists) because he thinks for himself. Anyway, I know I'm ranting, but I guess I'm just trying to say that it seems like you went into this one without thinking too deeply into it, and I think you are overreacting a bit. People would benefit greatly from reading Chomsky's work and I seriously doubt that anybody would come out of it as Obama voters. Peace.
And just to make it clear, I have voted for Nader every time, so I am not of the "lesser of two evils" persuasion. But I personally think that there are other avenues of action that go beyond just calling congressmen and rallying behind candidates, and there are realities to politics that need to be understood, such as corporate ownership of all the major media and how it locks out third party candidates. This needs to be changed if third parties are going to have a chance. (continued)
My point is, there is still room for debate about voting third party or not, and I don't think it is helpful to engage in what seems to me to be borderline character assassination. Chomsky does a lot more than just "complain;" he brings an enormous body of information together and provides clear and comprehensive analysis that is virtually unparalleled and extremely valuable. Isn't that good enough? Do we need Chomsky to provide us with answers to everything?
And in regards to Chomsky's comments on voting for the lesser of 2 evils, I have listened to some of the statements in question, and I disagree that he was telling people to not vote, or to vote Obama, but was saying people have to decide for themselves whether to vote third party or vote Obama in swing states. And he certainly doesn't suggest not voting as some kind of strategy of change. Chomsky makes it clear that he is not here to tell us how to make decisions. (continued...)
Punk Patriot, I stumbled on your videos recently, and I like your stuff. However, I strongly disagree with this particular video, both in regards to your assessment of Chomsky, and your take on what anarchism is. Chomsky didn't invent the term "libertarian socialism," the term was being used by anarchists as far back as the 1850s. Actually this brand of anarchism arose basically as a strain the radical socialism of this time, and as a counter to authoritarian doctrines of many socialists.
i also think that protests in a system as undemocratic as ours has become are largely group masturbatory sessions... the government has no need to respond to public opinion since it represents the corporate powers & rather than the peoples needs...
yeah, i was also surprised at n.c.'s smug support of voting for Democratic candidates, and opposition to supporting more representative independent/3rd party candidates. also surprised by his definition of anarchy... but, chomsky does have a lot of useful historical and political information to offer...
Your assertions are diseplled with minimal fact checking. I believe your are referening his interview with "Real News." Chomsky says one should vote for Obama without illusions, knowing that slogans of "Hope" and "Change" will quickly evaporate upon his taking of office into stalwart Democratic stances on issues. Nowhere does he contradict his current position, either before or after the election. I hope your inflammatory "f**k Noam chomsky" title is not an attempt to garner more subs.
Dude, you suck. You've obviously read nothing about anarchism. You idiotically critique libertarian-socialism by giving your definitions of the individual words and then saying they contradict each other.
Because you're an ignoramus, you don't know that "libertarian" can and in Europe historically does mean something other than what Ayn Rand was talking about.
You are such a tool.
BTW Obama is a fraud and little better than the war criminal Bush.
@Rk, in economics he even admits he doesnt know anything about economics. hes been quoted as saying that he doesnt understand the laws in economics, which is quite obvious once you look at the socialist economic policies he advocates.
He fails at politics because he has supported dictators such as Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol pot, Castro, and Hugo Chavez even though he says hes an anarchist(hes really a marxist).
His views on foreign policy are fairly good though
He defends their positions ONLY insofar as they are favorable to the alternative. He completely rejects the politics of every single one of those people, and has said so many times
Here's another quote of his: "Your role as a leader [politician] should be to eliminate yourself"
As far as economics goes, he's one of the very rare intellectuals to mine and consider all of the FACTS, rather than just facts WITHIN AN ECONOMIC CONTEXT.
I think you need to both look up the word endorse, and then meditate on the fact that two things sharing one single property do not make endorsing one the same as endorsing the other.
Language is relative to the user. I could have used "wholeheartedly," but what fun would that have been?
Secondly, the reason I didn't bother using formal argumentation against Noam Chomsky is because I didn't, and still don't, feel an actual critique would be a proper use of my time.
His recommendation that people practice "intellectual self-defence" is well taken. But how many could dream the person warning you is one of the most perilous against whom you'll need to defend yourself? That he is the fire marshal who wires your house to burn down, the lifeguard who drowns you, the doctor with the disarming bedside manner who administers a fatal injection?
..He conducts his de facto defence of the Empire he appears to oppose through applying the very propaganda methods against which he has warned, including use of the derogatory phrase "conspiracy theorist," which in one context he has characterized as "something people say when they don't want you to think about what's really going on."
"A study of Chomsky's stands on particularly dreadful actions such as JFK's assassination, 9/11, and with regard to the roles of the CIA and FBI, shows Chomsky to be a de facto defender of the status quo's most egregious outrages and their covert agency engines...
@ThePunkPatriot what about direct action or civil disobedience like withholding your taxes? with enough people this would scare the shit out of politians.
I certainly wouldn't discourage action like withholding taxes, so long as you are a private citizen.
But not voting is a stupid, illogical, and ineffective course of action, and it burns me that Noam Chomsky floats it as if it were an actual plan of action, while discouraging people from voting third party-- something that's actually constructive.
Noam would have you vote for the assholes he supposedly hates or stay home. Dumb.
third party if it were Nader then yes hes actually proved his integrity but in this country parliament has been proven to be rotten and the next revelation to come will be lobbyists giving the MPs and Lords bungs for amending and changing legislation just as it is were you are.
None of the three party's here actually serve the public interest save a few good politicians who usually end up getting banned or put out to grass for speaking to truthfully.
If you vote, you're sending the message that you buy into our phony "democratic process".
In the US, power is in the hands of the rich, not in the hands of the voter.
Going to an election booth in the US is like going to a restaurant that has only two items on the menu--two almost identical items, with an almost identical nutritional profile.
As Chomsky himself says, The Republicans and Democrats are really just two factions of the Business Party.
punkpatriot, your argument against voting democrat in swing states, as Chomsky recommends, is ridiculous.
Why do you assume that he is a liar or a defender of the establishment because of this? Did you know that the only two political candidates he has ever given money to are Ralph Nader and Bernie Sanders? Both independent candidates
If you lived in a swing state in 2008 and voted 3rd party, and then McCain won, you'd be an idiot. Obama's a hack and a liar, but McCain would cause more misery.
Also. you are assuming that the meanings of "Libertarian", "Socialist" and "anarchist" in Europe are synonymous with popular American analysis of American factions. e.g. People of essentially the same ideology tend to be called "anarchists" in English speaking countries, "communists" in French speaking countries and "libertarians" in Spanish speaking countries, as well as Italy. In the Spanish Civil War, "anarchists" fought on the AntiFascist "ProGovernment' side with the leftist "Republicans."
Sure. Fuck Noam Chomsky! However, Your primary argument is flawed because you don't define what you mean by "government" and proceed to use the term with different implied meanings:
Libertarian=less government if: government=body which limits individual freedom
Anarchist=no government if: government=ruling class separate from the people
Socialism=more goverment if: govenment=pooling of resources for the common welfare
Do you like Squarepusher because of his bass playing or is that just a coincidence?
Anyway, I remember Chomsky talking about how Obama's platform of hope and change was empty and meaningless before the election. I also remember him saying to vote your conscience (throwaway) and also the usual about lesser of two evils which most people subscribe to. I don't consider those facts to be mutually exclusive so I don't consider them to make a hypocrite either. And this is all pre-election.
Libertarian socialism thus engages such democratic ruling structures to emancipate people from non-democratic ruling structures- hence libertarian. The right wing notion of libertarianism is blind- the kid growing up in the ghetto with no education is not free,only by engaging social resource can he ever be so.
These are the simple distinctions you have missed.
The reason for endorsing a vote for Obama in swing states is because otherwise McCain might win the swing states. Simple. An endorsement from Chomsky etal isnt going to get Nader in the White House, but voting Nader in swing states could lose that state for Obama. Simple.
Anarcho-syndicalism does not abolish ruling structures, it makes them 100% proposed by and answerable to the people. It's not "no government". If you had read anything of his on the topic...
well im also a citizen of the us even though sometimes i wish i wasnt bc of bush makin us look lk jerks and obama makin us look weak. I dont consider fire departments and ambulances to be very socialist. I mean u nd those kind of things to protect people. Real socialism in this country is universal health care expanding unemployment benefits increasing foodstamps welfare etc. The more ppl rely on govt, the greater control it has.
thank u though classwar, ur pretty much on the gold. (since moneyd be worthless) anyway were on the fall bc of big unions spec intererest groups binderberger socialists etc. South american countries may be on the rise temporalily due to not bailin everone out but if historys an indicator which it is if a superpower lk the us goes down so does much of the rest of the world. Maybe not china if anybody.
cont: conservative=less govt control of your life thus smaller govt. Socialism= more govt control in your life and bigger govt, more bureacracy. No not all republicans are conservatives and vice versa. Just take a look at the recent 23rd district race in northern ny. Oh guess what i live there so dnt say idk what went down.
socialism is not awesome besides punk ur not as socialist as obama pelosi reid or any of those hacks. U do have some conservative in u. Youll deny it but ur pursuit of a less fucked up govt is conservative
dnt push me per capita is what lk $5000 or less average there. Im workin on a cell here so my research capibility is lmtd. Why dnt u go live under guys lk hugo chavez and c how u lk it. U idiot! im listening to mark levin cu. Why dnt u read liberty and tyrrany? C what u think after actually reading it. Besides even college hist prof couldnt go back that far wo doing some research
man u liberal hacksll never get it south america is 3rd world 4 a reason. Do u rly want to live lk that? I didnt think so. obamas worse than bush. Were #2 now thx to him if we keep goin this rte well be 3rd world just lk south america.
Please enlighten us on why South America is "3rd world." I'm assuming you can deliver a detailed, economic, social analysis going back to the Conquest 500 years ago to today.
BudSoda02: Dupe! The USA is now officially a Banana Republic, but without any bananas.
South American nations' standards of living are on the rise, at least where there are no longer any CIA perpetuated corporate sponsored oligarchies still goin'.
How are things goin' in good ol' Detroit these days?
News for ya (I'd bet): When it comes to 'standard of living', USA isn't even in the top ten.
I think if you actually pay attention to the definition Chomsky gives of anarchism you could answer a lot of your own questions. I don't think there's anything wrong with insisting that there be a limited government and that that government's role be on the side of working people. That's social libertarianism in a nutshell. You can't quantify it in a right-versus-left terminology or with words and their familiar definitions. It's a fundamental rethinking of the role of government.
Please. Please. Does this fuckwit think Chomsky invented the term "libertarian socialist"? What? Ha ha ha ha. Do 1 minute of research man. Please do that. For your own sake. Google Bakunin. Do it now.
Yeah, fuck Chomsky. The guy is confused.
scepticthinktank 4 days ago in playlist More videos from ThePunkPatriot
@scepticthinktank Amen to that. As a new viewer of ThePunkPatriot, I like some of what I'm seeing so far, but that simplistic dictionary approach was a rather lazy way of finding out what libertarian socialism means.
TheNeocatZone 4 days ago
pathetic...
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 6 days ago
chomsky is a jerk
brahmbhattbhavna 2 weeks ago
Who does he complain about then endorse? And if this really is the case can you give me some examples?
derickburton 1 month ago
I kinda like Chomsky, but I seriously agree with you here. Howard Zinn apparently voted for Obama too. And that really disappointing to me. Voting 3rd party is the only way I can vote and feel good about it. Unless a good democrat or republican is actually nominated (which isn't likely)
RickyMcGinnis 2 months ago
What I find interesting is that even the act itself of criticizing Chomsky is instantly considered wrong, regardless of the subject matter.
LaymanScholar 3 months ago
agreed this guy is a tool. really moron read up on what socialism means before you talk.
Orgyfan6 3 months ago
I stopped watching your video when you said "Socialist libertarian? wtf is that supposed to mena?
malonemalo 5 months ago
chomsky is revisionist scum
ryler05 5 months ago
Anarchism means no rulers, not "no government" voluntary democracy is considered to be among the purest forms of anarchy. & Libertarianism a used to refer to anarcho-socialism exclusively. & Chomsky stated that people should vote Obama without illusions, meaning Obama is the lesser of two evils. He can still complain about him.
yellowkrux 6 months ago
In relation to your criticism of his label of 'Libertarian Socialist", the definition of socialism:
A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Where does that say "More government"? To simply boil such an immensely broad topic down to such a ridiculously simplistic view is crazy.
Agree with Noam Chomsky or disagree with him, but don't make up nonsense.
BoastfulToast 7 months ago 4
"All anarchists are socialists, but not all socialists are anarchists."
-Joseph Labadie
KommisarKowl 7 months ago 5
Can you link to a video where Chomsky said what you claim he said. I think you'll find he never said that. Since you're criticizing him for saying something you should let us see what he actually said in context. I think you won't be able to find him saying "you should vote Democract" or "I support Obama" or anything like that, if you can find that, I'll reconsider my position.
It's just unfair to attack someone without actually giving us the context and their exact words.
davidpersonalpage 8 months ago
@davidpersonalpage There are several videos/audio recordings, or I would have never made this video, because I used to respect him. First) DemocracyNow!, second, Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox Radio Show. Third Citizen Radio. All from 2007-2008.
ThePunkPatriot 8 months ago
@ThePunkPatriot I'm pretty sure I remember the Democracy Now appearance, but unless I'm crazy I think you've (or I've) misunderstood what he said. Keep up the videos anyway, nice to see passionate people.
davidpersonalpage 8 months ago
The central focus of socialism is, as Noam Chomsky states "Mastery over production by the producers", or in other words worker ownership of capital goods/the means of production and worker control over the production process.
While the libertarian party was formed in 1971 the roots of libertarian socialism go all the way back to the middle of the 19th century. The first person to call themselves a libertarian was Joseph Dejaque who did so in a letter written in 1857. He was also a communist.
frusciante123456789 8 months ago
Noam is one of my heroes! Bite me little punk.
blueguitarblue 8 months ago
@blueguitarblue hero worship is for the intellectually lazy
ThePunkPatriot 8 months ago
@ThePunkPatriot Thanks for your comment. Too bad it's a totally false assumption of me. You yourself acknowledged what a "moral" man Noam is. Morality is ALL! Intellectually lazy people are brainwashed by the elite and the Hollywood cult. A mentally lazy person wouldn't sit and listen to Noam Chomsky. He's such an intellectual/political giant. Noam's language has to be solved like an algebra equation. A lot of unpacking required to understand. Don't be a pill. I think you're kind of adorable. ;)
blueguitarblue 8 months ago
@blueguitarblue Noam Chomsky is an intellectual giant-- in the field of linguistics. In the field of politics, he's just a cantakerous professor who paid attention to the news growing up.
It is dangerous to take anybody's word as scripture. The right does this with people like Ronald Reagan and Ayn Rand. The radical left does this with folks like Noam Chomsky and Emma Goldman.
The point of this video is to point out that intellectual giant or not, they are just people, and prone to error.
ThePunkPatriot 8 months ago
Oh come on now Punk Patriot...
Libertarian socialism can't be refuted by looking "libertarian" and "socialism" in a dictionary. Socialism can be done without a formal state. Libertarian just means liberty, basically. Anarchism is just communism in a sense.
LiberalJerseyman 10 months ago
Comment removed
m0ssadic 10 months ago
Yes, you can get a fuck Noam Chomsky. This is bril.
aquapurity 11 months ago
Noam Chomsky knows less about economics than the average 5 year old. When that old communist crank talks about economics I can't help but laugh. And Leftists want to be intellectuals? This isn't an intellectual he's a Cult of Personality (what Leftists consider a good thing). They worship the Cult of Chomsky and leave with more slogans than 50 years of Pepsi commercials. He doesn't know shit from apple butter about politics either. If he wasn't such a hypocrite he'd quit and move to Guam.
thomaserossi 11 months ago
Killer video and I could not have said it better!
Patriot4Liberty1776 11 months ago
@ThePunkPatriot
Socialism is when the workers own the means of production, anarchism is a lack of a state, the two not only work together but actually were used historically (anarchist spain).
Seriously, how about doing a basic wikipedia search before making a video.
AndroidPolitician 11 months ago
@AndroidPolitician - BWAHAHAHAHAHA! When "workers own the means of production"? Are you fucking retarded? Probably not but your indoctrination makes it seem like that. You're just another delusional Libtard who belongs to the Cult of Chomsky.
thomaserossi 11 months ago
@thomaserossi
Yeah I guess when George Orwell talked about how great Anarchist spain was he talking about how all those smart CEOs were running the factories instead of the workers (or you know, a "means" of "producing" things).
AndroidPolitician 11 months ago
@thomaserossi
In case you didn't get what I wrote, I said you're an idiot and there were a bunch of times in history when "workers owned the means of production" without a government controlling them.
AndroidPolitician 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are one retarded goofy motherfucker.
Gabagool1 11 months ago
@trichenosis- LOL- quoting Shakespeare? Give me a break. My sound and fury represent an entire wold at unrest while you lambs spend your lives in slumber, only awakening when any noise disrupts your privileged slumber. Noam Chomsky's dissent goes beyond your understanding because you and those like you are a bunch of sheltered pussies.
wwarden12 11 months ago
@wwarden12 Oh you bloody martyr! Yes, your YouTube comments are the voice of the proletariat. Go soak your head.
trichenosis 11 months ago
@wwarden12 Stop engaging in hero worship, and realize that Noam Chomsky is just a whiney old dude who has NEVER DONE ANYTHING TO STOP ANYTHING HE COMPLAINS ABOUT.
Oh he writes books? He tells people to either vote for the Democrats or to not vote at all? Wow. What an impressive resume!
What a complete crock of shit. Take your self-righteous, hero-worshiping, impotent angst somewhere else.
Chomsky is not a demi-God. He's a linguistics professor.
trichenosis 11 months ago
@trichenosis-"The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue."
wwarden12 11 months ago
Your America never existed, and your views were DOA
wwarden12 11 months ago
Wow, this is fun making fun of you. I feel almost bad, except people as intolerant as you are the same sort of idiots who take part in genocidal acts, and then go on to sleep as if his dreams can finally be met. Go on inciting hate, ignorance and fear and if it keeps you warm at night, then, please, keep on posting garbage like this. It is your right to dissent, just like it is our right to make an example of you. Dissent only has the effect desired if it reflects the needs of those who need.
wwarden12 11 months ago
Have you suffered a traumatic head injury?
wwarden12 11 months ago
Your mother should have used her freedom of choice and passed you over.
wwarden12 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are a coward and an idiot.
wwarden12 11 months ago
Please, go to your private pawn shop, buy a .38 and save us all a human beings lifetime of confusion and ignorance. Start growing a spine, and adopt some real life choices. You obviously have no self worth, or a mind of your own. Your feigned grin only serves to mask your hatred towards a world that has left the biggots and mental midgets at the gate, with their cowardly outlook on life. I like how you chose not to throw your panties in this load in order to avoid losing face.
wwarden12 11 months ago
@wwarden12 Since you cannot argue with the substance of the video, you resort to ad hominem attacks.
You are, to quote shakespeare, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"
trichenosis 11 months ago
Goddam, your so fucking stupid
Alarik5 1 year ago
Libertarian = Political
Socialism = Economic
Nothing in Socialism is explicitly political, but certain parties use political systems to bring about Socialism. The terms in no way contradict eachother.
BaboonJihad 1 year ago
ahhhh.....socialism does not mean more "government", although you obviously confuse government with the state. The state will always oppose socialism. SOCILAISM=WORKERS CONTROL OF INDUSTRY PERIOD. LIBERTARIANISM=LESS FREEDOM and WAGE SLAVERY. Get a life punk patriot, and for gods sake get a clue. Peace out fool
Alarik5 1 year ago
Actually you can be a libetarian and a socialist at the same time. Socialism: workplace democracy.......
RATMagainstbush8 1 year ago
Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialism is opposed to all coercive forms of social organization, and promotes free association in place of government and opposes the coercive social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor.
10 seconds of worth or research just proved you an idiot.
av949 1 year ago
God...
A word of advice: drop politics alltogether and go do some more laundry in front of your camera.
You clown.
mauroprovatos 1 year ago
@mauroprovatos i liked the laundry bit... shows he's in touch with the common man
drvn8 1 year ago
@mauroprovatos I'm not a clown, I'm a pundit. Oh wait...
ThePunkPatriot 1 year ago
@MasoudBroadcasting No respect for myself? HAHAHA! Okay. Whatever.
Ooh! Chomsky wrote a lot of books!
And?
As soon as I give a shit about receiving your accolades, I'll let you know.
ThePunkPatriot 1 year ago
Comment removed
BTeamFilm 1 year ago
This is so amusing. Is this the new trend? idiots bashing the professors?
I think you need abit better credentials for that than punk...
Darusdei 1 year ago
@Darusdei he's not a professor of political science, he's a professor of linguistics.
ThePunkPatriot 1 year ago
@ThePunkPatriot But didn't you just quote mine him and argue that he doesn't even know about linguistics?
Darusdei 1 year ago
@Darusdei No. That point is rhetorical. Stop hero-worshiping and think for yourself.
ThePunkPatriot 1 year ago
@Darusdei Noam Chomsky is a truther 9/11 conspiracy theorist who makes money in the capitalist system and complains about it.
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails Noam Chomsky isa a "truther"? well that's a new one :D
"he makes money in the capitalist system and complains about it" could you make ABIT more sense?
Darusdei 1 year ago
@Darusdei Some of the biggest idiots/assholes in the world have advanced degrees (e.g. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, David Duke, Malik Shabazz etc.) Being a professor doesn't give you irrefutable authority.
bmxtrix113 1 year ago
@bmxtrix113 is that supposed to be an argument against noam chomsky... lol
Darusdei 1 year ago
@Darusdei no i do not have enough space in the comment section of you youtube to illustrate all the falllacies of almsot every argument Noam Chomsky has ever made, but I would think that most of his hypocrisies are self-evident to an informed individual. my comment was simply a response to the fact that you said "he's a professor."
bmxtrix113 1 year ago
@bmxtrix113 Ofcourse, i'll take your word for it.
you certainly hold enough credentials to even make such a statement...
Darusdei 1 year ago
@Darusdei the forum for inetllectual discourse is reserved for those who wish to use reason, not for those who simply follow opinion based upon someone's title. i could respond "you don't have credentials either". that would not make your argument any more or less valid. dershowitz, horowitz, pipes - they all have advanced degrees - are their arguments better than chomsky's simply because they hold those credentials?
bmxtrix113 1 year ago
@bmxtrix113 They at least have arguments opposed to your "chomsky's arguments are full of fallacies" failing to provide even a single example...
kind of responce what usually comes from americans because they simply don't like what they're hearing...
Darusdei 1 year ago
@Darusdei so now your complaint is that I haven't listed a single exmaple? I'd be glad to do so:
Chomsky refers to Israel as an imperialist entity that cares more about expansion than security. He neglects the return of the Sinai Peninula to Egypt after the '67 War. He dismisses unilateral disengagement of Gush Katif in 2005. And he fails to acknowledge that a tandem of occupation and checkpoints of the West Bank has saved lives on both sides of the conflict.
You fucking idiot.
bmxtrix113 1 year ago
@bmxtrix113 Well how other way do you see their plans to continue expansion?
it almost sounds as ridiculous as "we went to afghanistan to make the world safer place" neglects return of the sinai peninsula?
checkpoints has saved lives?
mate you're just proving that you don't know what the hell you're even talking about :D
Darusdei 1 year ago
@Darusdei you're ignorance does not surprise me (it is all too rampant these days). you have become the ultimate hypocrite, criticizing me for not spitting out facts when you have not relayed one yourself.
israel isn't expanding. all the territories it occupies are a result of having previously been attacked in '48, '67, '73, and '82. sorry mate but you clearly know nothing about the history of the region or the root of the conflict. best of luck in your spread of lies and propaganda.
bmxtrix113 1 year ago
@bmxtrix113 how does chomsky neglect israel giving back sinai peninsula?
(they didn't exactly do it out of good will)
exactly israel occupies land that's not theirs and keeps building setlements...
Darusdei 1 year ago
Comment removed
bmxtrix113 1 year ago
@Darusdei you probably dont know that arabs make up 20% of the israeli knesset or that muslims have the right to vote in israel. youre too busy being a fucking idiot. would israel be in these occupied territories if it hadnt been attacked first by the terrorists that have strongholds there?
ohand by the way, they did do it out of good will - as a result, egypt and israel have been at peace for 30 years.
this is my last comment ive wasted too much time on your stupidity.
bmxtrix113 1 year ago
@bmxtrix113 You just proved my point, you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about...
for example the peninsula was given back because severe international pressure to do so... good will :D
Darusdei 1 year ago
It is only fair to hear Chomsky talk about the things Punk Patriot criticizes him for in his own words so here are the titles of those Youtube videos:
"Chomsky: In swing states vote Obama without illusions"
"Noam Chomsky - Libertarian Socialism Contradicting terms"
Oh---and from the bottom of my heart punkpatriot---KISS MY ASS!!
You diss Chomsky you diss yourself!!
tonybonez 1 year ago
@tonybonez Nope. I diss chomsky, I diss chomsky. I've heard plenty of interviews with Chomsky. He advocates either "voting for the Democrat-- without illusions, because the democrat sucks." or "Try not voting."
He's saying "vote Dem or don't bother." His logic is far more circuitous, but that's the end result.
ThePunkPatriot 1 year ago
@ThePunkPatriot
Dude, dont BS me, either you watched the videos of Chomsky in his own words or you didn't. Just cut and paste the titles I gave into the search bar---it is that easy---to not give him a chance in his own words is just str8 lame.
BTW, nice use of "quotes", which are nothing like what he said!!!
If you wanted to be truthful you should put the videos I provided in the info bar for this video, so people can hear Chomsky in his own words and compare to what u r saying.
tonybonez 1 year ago
@tonybonez Look, the dude has given countless interviews. The once I watched before making this video were the one he gave to Citizen Radio, and the one he gave to DemocracyNow some time later. He contradicts himself often. Quit being a hero worshiper, and think your yourself.
ThePunkPatriot 1 year ago
@ThePunkPatriot
send me the links and maybe I will change my mind about Chomsky!!! (I doubt it, but I will listen to them)
Chomsky is the man!!
tonybonez 1 year ago
@tonybonez Yes, Chomsky IS the man, and the Man is keeping you down.
They're from two years ago. I don't even know if they're still up. The DN! one probably is, where is contradicts what he says in the previous CR one.
ThePunkPatriot 1 year ago
You were out of tune when you were descending on your scale exercise.
SSOzzy 1 year ago
@SSOzzy It's hard to talk into the camera and play bass at the same time.
ThePunkPatriot 1 year ago
noam chomsky is full of half truths. he twists reality to support his views. he's right about some things, others NO WAY. no matter what america does, he will be against it, NO MATTER WHAT. so you know what FUCK NOAM CHOMSKY!
Bloodyalbo7 1 year ago
Good God, you're a fucking moron. So many strawmen one doesn't know where to begin. So
I won't.
alwaysright10000 1 year ago
When/where can I see/hear Noam saying it would be a good idea to vote for obama?
JessAtlas 1 year ago
FUCK NOAM CHOMSKY !
Nasiruddin84 1 year ago
Wow so you present all these points without even giving any sources whatsoever? I've heard many of Chomsky's speeches and he'd destroy you in a real debate. Your whole point about socialism is not well structured. Chomsky believes in socialism because he cares about the little guy. What have you done exactly as compared to him? Also perhaps you should articulate yourself a bit and maybe not using such stupid language as fuck Chomsky, it would make you sound much less stupid.
therocket2k 1 year ago
@therocket2k Dude, you cannot advocate for strong government services, AND ANARCHY. The only source I need is Noam Chomsky's own mouth, and a grasp on logic.
ThePunkPatriot 1 year ago
@ThePunkPatriot Okay do you seriously know anything about anarchism? Anarchism can be installed WITH socialism. That is factory workers running their own factories... but wait that sounds kinda like socialism....but wait socialism and anarchism have very similar ideas. Dunno bro read up on some shit, posting stuff like this without doing any research doesn't really portray you in the best of light. Maybe have a more thorough video with some references, points rebuttals, ideas of your own.
therocket2k 1 year ago 2
lol
Nades129 1 year ago
I think you didn't make the distinction between Chomsky's academic side and his practical side (i hope u respond to this cuz the video's kind of old lol).
From what i know he's a libertarian socialist with anarchist beliefs. And what he means is that he favours strong social institutions (healthcare etc) , but that the government is an institution that's wrong because it's unjustifiable. He thinks the political system is fucked, but that lessening its damage by voting for obama is important.
jackara 1 year ago
Probably the best Chomsky video I've seen on Youtube. Lol. Also Chomsky has said we need a strong federal government in order to counter corporations. Doesn't sound very anarchistic to me.
Thorbie 1 year ago 2
@Thorbie He says whatever the disenfranchised left wants to hear.
ThePunkPatriot 1 year ago
@ThePunkPatriot
Durr.
There are reasons to criticize libertarian socialism....but he didn't pull the term out of his ass. George Orwell was once a libertarian socialist. Adam Smith considered corporations to be statist entities.
Not to mention that most non-idiotic libertarians are left-leaning anyway, as they were historically.
SUpersaiyajinjerkbag 1 year ago
@Thorbie Where did he say this? I'd like to hear/see that.
JessAtlas 1 year ago
I’ll admit I’m not a Noam Chomsky advocate nor am I a necessarily a follower of his ideas nor am I claiming to be an expert on this in any stretch of the imagination. And I could be completely in left field with this opinion. I just wanted to bring to light maybe another way of seeing things. Earlier I said this is a comment/question leaving it open for interpretation and I welcome any feedback. Thank you.
EllieDrazen 1 year ago
A HUGE Noam Chomsky mural was just finished in my neighborhood in Philly. It has a big (A) on the top left and "The most important intellectual" on the bottom. I actually respect a few of his ideals but for the most part I just feel like he's another intellectual who thinks they have the solutions for everything in the world and wing crazy lefties worship him like a GOD. Mostly those are suburban kids who moved to Philly for college and bought into anarchist politics like every other kid here.
migsluck1 1 year ago
Pseudo-intellectual crap.
jollyjarvis 1 year ago
@jollyjarvis Those who can't argue ideas attack them with insults.
ThePunkPatriot 1 year ago
@ThePunkPatriot Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
jollyjarvis 1 year ago
@jollyjarvis Good advice! Later!
ThePunkPatriot 1 year ago
@ThePunkPatriot Isn't your attack on FUCK Chomsky I don't kinda an insult?
therocket2k 1 year ago
Comment removed
jollyjarvis 1 year ago
Comment removed
jollyjarvis 1 year ago
You say Noam Chomsky complains a lot,yet every comment you leave and this video itself is a complaint. But it's okay dude, "call it critiquing if that makes you feel better".
(Paraphrasing)
"But when it comes to the most basic things a person can do in order to change what's going on in the world, he doesn't have any viable solutions."
The 'viable solution' he offers is the encouragement of free thinking. Maybe you haven't noticed that the majority of people don't do it.
swetbucket 1 year ago
@swetbucket Noam Chomsky tells us to try *not voting* as if that were a viable option to change thing-- OR vote Democrat while holding your nose. I actually DO stuff.
Oh, he's a "radical intellectual." That's kind of like vegan veal.
ThePunkPatriot 1 year ago
@ThePunkPatriot And after all that "stuff" you say you've done, who's had more of an effect on politics,you or Noam Chomsky? Regardless of what your answer is,your demonstrating what he suggests: freethinking.
That's not like saying "vegan veal" at all, don't ignore the actual definition of the words to get your point across.
swetbucket 1 year ago
@swetbucket I"m sorry, but I have never, ever, ever needed permission from Noam Chomsky to think for myself. To assert as such is totally absurd.
ThePunkPatriot 1 year ago
@ThePunkPatriot Good thing I didn't assert that you needed permission from Noam Chomsky before free thinking.
"The 'viable solution' he offers is the ENCOURAGEMENT of free thinking. "
"Regardless of what your answer is,you're demonstrating what he SUGGESTS"
swetbucket 1 year ago
@swetbucket Uhm, no, he SUGGESTS that I not vote out of protest, which is stupid and counter-productive.
You sir, are suffering from hero worship.
ThePunkPatriot 1 year ago
@ThePunkPatriot He doesn't suggest free thinking too? The point I'm making is that he's encouraging free thinking on a large scale to a country who doesn't demonstrate it.
Nice assumption about hero worship,considering I don't have any hero's and all. Just because I'm challenging your dim-wit doesn't mean I'm worshiping Chomsky.
Your ignorance makes you unreasonable. I can't win against circular logic.
swetbucket 1 year ago
@swetbucket You're not even listening.
Look, I don't have a problem with anybody encouraging "free thinking." Chomsky isn't the only one who does that. Moreover, you don't need to even know who Chomsky is in order to do it. So it's a moot point.
What Chomsky does do, which I have a problem with, is tell people NOT to free think, but to either avoid voting, or vote Democrat while holding their nose.
THAT is hypocrisy.
ThePunkPatriot 1 year ago
@swetbucket Since you're totally unwilling to recognize that, It's likely because you are holding Chomsky on some sort of pedestal.
Calling me a dim-wit rather than addressing my argument only further proves this.
ThePunkPatriot 1 year ago
".....Still respect universal grammar"
That's unfortunate.
Vnntbls 1 year ago
Your point about the contradictory nature of anarchy, socialism, and libertarianism makes sense on the surface of ignorance, but if you would look at what the terms mean I think you would find that it's actually not so stupid. He didn't make anything up either. Libertarian socialism AND anarcho-syndicalism are both pre-Chomsky.
I was also kind of bugged about his comments on voting for Obama, though, and other things during the election, but I don't think a "Fuck Noam Chomsky!" is in order!
HenryNavarre 1 year ago
@HenryNavarre I certainly think a "fuck noam chomsky" is in order.
Another problem the left has is HERO WORSHIP.
Noam Chomsky is just a person. He's smart, but he's not infallible. We should critique our "leaders" when we disagree with them, and people should feel free to do so as well.
I understand the ideas behind "libertarian socialism" and "anarchism", but they are so full of holes the are useless as philosophies.
ThePunkPatriot 1 year ago
@ThePunkPatriot Yeah, hero worship is fucking dangerous.Trust me, I have been plenty critical of Chomsky and understand he possesses the ability to be fallible. Obama is probably a better example of hero worship for many people, at least in my opinion.
I'm pretty sure Chomsky saw Obama as a lesser of two evils and it simply wouldn't have been worth it to let McCain win. Honestly, there's no way Nader or Paul could have ever won that election. His advice was simply realistic.
HenryNavarre 1 year ago
@HenryNavarre Realistic huh?
I think Obama worshipers are more easily swayed than Chomsky worshipers.
The whole point of voting isn't placing bets on who will win, it's saying "I want this person's advocated policies to be law." If you wanted Paul or Nader, you should have voted for them. It's not like your vote determined the outcome of the national outcome. We have an electoral college!
ThePunkPatriot 1 year ago
@ThePunkPatriot Aghh, whatever. I don't agree with you. You haven't convinced me to "Fuck Noam Chomsky" hehe. His social and foreign policy critiques far overshadow his voting advice, which I see as pretty inconsequential. Besides, the type of reform he's ideally looking for will probably never come to the US- a good deal of muckraking would help the situation though.
HenryNavarre 1 year ago
@HenryNavarre That's ironic. Most people who worship chomsky would jump at the chance to fuck him.
I understand that he complains a lot (call it critiquing if that makes you feel better), and that he complains about all the right things, but when it comes to solutions, he's got little practical advice.
To say "Fuck Noam Chomsky" is just to declare that he is not a God and he's not a leader, he's just a Linguistics Professor at MIT who has published a few books on politics.
ThePunkPatriot 1 year ago
Also disagree that Chomsky "panders" to anybody. He takes shit from everybody on all sides of the political spectrum (especially conspiracy theorists) because he thinks for himself. Anyway, I know I'm ranting, but I guess I'm just trying to say that it seems like you went into this one without thinking too deeply into it, and I think you are overreacting a bit. People would benefit greatly from reading Chomsky's work and I seriously doubt that anybody would come out of it as Obama voters. Peace.
iandmiller 1 year ago
And just to make it clear, I have voted for Nader every time, so I am not of the "lesser of two evils" persuasion. But I personally think that there are other avenues of action that go beyond just calling congressmen and rallying behind candidates, and there are realities to politics that need to be understood, such as corporate ownership of all the major media and how it locks out third party candidates. This needs to be changed if third parties are going to have a chance. (continued)
iandmiller 1 year ago
My point is, there is still room for debate about voting third party or not, and I don't think it is helpful to engage in what seems to me to be borderline character assassination. Chomsky does a lot more than just "complain;" he brings an enormous body of information together and provides clear and comprehensive analysis that is virtually unparalleled and extremely valuable. Isn't that good enough? Do we need Chomsky to provide us with answers to everything?
iandmiller 1 year ago
And in regards to Chomsky's comments on voting for the lesser of 2 evils, I have listened to some of the statements in question, and I disagree that he was telling people to not vote, or to vote Obama, but was saying people have to decide for themselves whether to vote third party or vote Obama in swing states. And he certainly doesn't suggest not voting as some kind of strategy of change. Chomsky makes it clear that he is not here to tell us how to make decisions. (continued...)
iandmiller 1 year ago
Punk Patriot, I stumbled on your videos recently, and I like your stuff. However, I strongly disagree with this particular video, both in regards to your assessment of Chomsky, and your take on what anarchism is. Chomsky didn't invent the term "libertarian socialism," the term was being used by anarchists as far back as the 1850s. Actually this brand of anarchism arose basically as a strain the radical socialism of this time, and as a counter to authoritarian doctrines of many socialists.
iandmiller 1 year ago
i also think that protests in a system as undemocratic as ours has become are largely group masturbatory sessions... the government has no need to respond to public opinion since it represents the corporate powers & rather than the peoples needs...
yviva 1 year ago
impressive multitasking!
yeah, i was also surprised at n.c.'s smug support of voting for Democratic candidates, and opposition to supporting more representative independent/3rd party candidates. also surprised by his definition of anarchy... but, chomsky does have a lot of useful historical and political information to offer...
yviva 1 year ago
Your assertions are diseplled with minimal fact checking. I believe your are referening his interview with "Real News." Chomsky says one should vote for Obama without illusions, knowing that slogans of "Hope" and "Change" will quickly evaporate upon his taking of office into stalwart Democratic stances on issues. Nowhere does he contradict his current position, either before or after the election. I hope your inflammatory "f**k Noam chomsky" title is not an attempt to garner more subs.
hannonja 1 year ago 8
@hannonja Actually it was Citizen Radio and Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox
ThePunkPatriot 1 year ago
Dude, you suck. You've obviously read nothing about anarchism. You idiotically critique libertarian-socialism by giving your definitions of the individual words and then saying they contradict each other.
Because you're an ignoramus, you don't know that "libertarian" can and in Europe historically does mean something other than what Ayn Rand was talking about.
You are such a tool.
BTW Obama is a fraud and little better than the war criminal Bush.
profd65 1 year ago
Note to views. Noam Chomsky says Obama is the lesser of the two evils.
Rkmomenah 1 year ago 2
@Rkmomenah Even that I'd dispute.
TiradeFaction 1 year ago
This is a much better video than your one on anarchism. Noam Chomsky does fail at economics and politics.
return135 1 year ago
@return135 really what in politics or economics does he fail at?
Rkmomenah 1 year ago
@Rk, in economics he even admits he doesnt know anything about economics. hes been quoted as saying that he doesnt understand the laws in economics, which is quite obvious once you look at the socialist economic policies he advocates.
He fails at politics because he has supported dictators such as Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol pot, Castro, and Hugo Chavez even though he says hes an anarchist(hes really a marxist).
His views on foreign policy are fairly good though
return135 1 year ago
He has NEVER supported those people
He defends their positions ONLY insofar as they are favorable to the alternative. He completely rejects the politics of every single one of those people, and has said so many times
Here's another quote of his: "Your role as a leader [politician] should be to eliminate yourself"
As far as economics goes, he's one of the very rare intellectuals to mine and consider all of the FACTS, rather than just facts WITHIN AN ECONOMIC CONTEXT.
His intellect is devastating
aewester 1 year ago
your way off. he has endorsed those people i mentioned and has also endorsed the killer che guevera. Go look it up!
if he rejects politics, then why does he support using the state intervention and control in the economy?
Two good reviews done of chomsky: watch?v=r5UuXtNcd2w
mises(dot)org / article. aspx ?Id =1132
return135 1 year ago
I think you need to both look up the word endorse, and then meditate on the fact that two things sharing one single property do not make endorsing one the same as endorsing the other.
aewester 1 year ago
holy shit. fucking kill yourself.
OpakeArawra2 1 year ago
FUCK NOAM CHOMSKY!
Full-heartedly agree.
KathyGurl14 1 year ago
The idiom is "wholeheartedly". New to the US?
Brilliant critique of Chomsky; The capital letters are an excellent substitute for actual reasoning or facts.
profd65 1 year ago
Language is relative to the user. I could have used "wholeheartedly," but what fun would that have been?
Secondly, the reason I didn't bother using formal argumentation against Noam Chomsky is because I didn't, and still don't, feel an actual critique would be a proper use of my time.
Thanks for playing.
KathyGurl14 1 year ago
If Noam Chomsky did not exist, the diaboligarchy would have to invent him. To the New World Order he is worth 50 armoured division.
".....Barrie Zwicker, Towers of Deception
steve050 1 year ago
His recommendation that people practice "intellectual self-defence" is well taken. But how many could dream the person warning you is one of the most perilous against whom you'll need to defend yourself? That he is the fire marshal who wires your house to burn down, the lifeguard who drowns you, the doctor with the disarming bedside manner who administers a fatal injection?
steve050 1 year ago
..He conducts his de facto defence of the Empire he appears to oppose through applying the very propaganda methods against which he has warned, including use of the derogatory phrase "conspiracy theorist," which in one context he has characterized as "something people say when they don't want you to think about what's really going on."
steve050 1 year ago
"A study of Chomsky's stands on particularly dreadful actions such as JFK's assassination, 9/11, and with regard to the roles of the CIA and FBI, shows Chomsky to be a de facto defender of the status quo's most egregious outrages and their covert agency engines...
steve050 1 year ago
What is the matter?
Noam made you think too much and now you need to vent?
I'll tell you what was empty and meaningless; your video just now.
I bet your the kinda type that picks at people's spelling to prove your superiority.
Just another cook screaming of a hill, clearly illustrated by your screaming off a hill.
Keep up your life-style choice, just don't expect to be taking seriously when nitpicking without serious argument.
Besides "hello, he like so just didnt say that I mean ohh my gosh!!"
demammoet 1 year ago
These sorts of posts amuse me.
Look, Noam Chomsky complains about all the right stuff, but that's all he does-- complain.
His solutions? Vote Democrat, or don't vote! What a joke!
Not voting is the absolute LEAST EFFECTIVE thing a person could possibly do to make themselves heard in the political arena.
And just for the record, I'm terrible at spelling.
ThePunkPatriot 1 year ago
@ThePunkPatriot what about direct action or civil disobedience like withholding your taxes? with enough people this would scare the shit out of politians.
look up billy bragg and RBS
womblefree 1 year ago
I certainly wouldn't discourage action like withholding taxes, so long as you are a private citizen.
But not voting is a stupid, illogical, and ineffective course of action, and it burns me that Noam Chomsky floats it as if it were an actual plan of action, while discouraging people from voting third party-- something that's actually constructive.
Noam would have you vote for the assholes he supposedly hates or stay home. Dumb.
ThePunkPatriot 1 year ago
third party if it were Nader then yes hes actually proved his integrity but in this country parliament has been proven to be rotten and the next revelation to come will be lobbyists giving the MPs and Lords bungs for amending and changing legislation just as it is were you are.
None of the three party's here actually serve the public interest save a few good politicians who usually end up getting banned or put out to grass for speaking to truthfully.
Face it the party system is bad for you, be
womblefree 1 year ago
Not voting is brilliant, chump.
If you vote, you're sending the message that you buy into our phony "democratic process".
In the US, power is in the hands of the rich, not in the hands of the voter.
Going to an election booth in the US is like going to a restaurant that has only two items on the menu--two almost identical items, with an almost identical nutritional profile.
As Chomsky himself says, The Republicans and Democrats are really just two factions of the Business Party.
profd65 1 year ago
punkpatriot, your argument against voting democrat in swing states, as Chomsky recommends, is ridiculous.
Why do you assume that he is a liar or a defender of the establishment because of this? Did you know that the only two political candidates he has ever given money to are Ralph Nader and Bernie Sanders? Both independent candidates
If you lived in a swing state in 2008 and voted 3rd party, and then McCain won, you'd be an idiot. Obama's a hack and a liar, but McCain would cause more misery.
aewester 1 year ago
@aewester great answer.
Rkmomenah 1 year ago
Also. you are assuming that the meanings of "Libertarian", "Socialist" and "anarchist" in Europe are synonymous with popular American analysis of American factions. e.g. People of essentially the same ideology tend to be called "anarchists" in English speaking countries, "communists" in French speaking countries and "libertarians" in Spanish speaking countries, as well as Italy. In the Spanish Civil War, "anarchists" fought on the AntiFascist "ProGovernment' side with the leftist "Republicans."
francisnblake 1 year ago
Sure. Fuck Noam Chomsky! However, Your primary argument is flawed because you don't define what you mean by "government" and proceed to use the term with different implied meanings:
Libertarian=less government if: government=body which limits individual freedom
Anarchist=no government if: government=ruling class separate from the people
Socialism=more goverment if: govenment=pooling of resources for the common welfare
francisnblake 1 year ago
Perfect....and hilarious. "Dogbreath?" Perfect.
francisshaughnessy 2 years ago
Do you like Squarepusher because of his bass playing or is that just a coincidence?
Anyway, I remember Chomsky talking about how Obama's platform of hope and change was empty and meaningless before the election. I also remember him saying to vote your conscience (throwaway) and also the usual about lesser of two evils which most people subscribe to. I don't consider those facts to be mutually exclusive so I don't consider them to make a hypocrite either. And this is all pre-election.
twistfinger 2 years ago
Oh I said it and it felt good also. The man is useless, and a phony.
batflies 2 years ago
.. you would know this.
Libertarian socialism thus engages such democratic ruling structures to emancipate people from non-democratic ruling structures- hence libertarian. The right wing notion of libertarianism is blind- the kid growing up in the ghetto with no education is not free,only by engaging social resource can he ever be so.
These are the simple distinctions you have missed.
mjd1982 2 years ago
really, really badly thought out.
The reason for endorsing a vote for Obama in swing states is because otherwise McCain might win the swing states. Simple. An endorsement from Chomsky etal isnt going to get Nader in the White House, but voting Nader in swing states could lose that state for Obama. Simple.
Anarcho-syndicalism does not abolish ruling structures, it makes them 100% proposed by and answerable to the people. It's not "no government". If you had read anything of his on the topic...
mjd1982 2 years ago
well im also a citizen of the us even though sometimes i wish i wasnt bc of bush makin us look lk jerks and obama makin us look weak. I dont consider fire departments and ambulances to be very socialist. I mean u nd those kind of things to protect people. Real socialism in this country is universal health care expanding unemployment benefits increasing foodstamps welfare etc. The more ppl rely on govt, the greater control it has.
BudSoda02 2 years ago
thank u though classwar, ur pretty much on the gold. (since moneyd be worthless) anyway were on the fall bc of big unions spec intererest groups binderberger socialists etc. South american countries may be on the rise temporalily due to not bailin everone out but if historys an indicator which it is if a superpower lk the us goes down so does much of the rest of the world. Maybe not china if anybody.
BudSoda02 2 years ago
cont: conservative=less govt control of your life thus smaller govt. Socialism= more govt control in your life and bigger govt, more bureacracy. No not all republicans are conservatives and vice versa. Just take a look at the recent 23rd district race in northern ny. Oh guess what i live there so dnt say idk what went down.
BudSoda02 2 years ago
socialism is not awesome besides punk ur not as socialist as obama pelosi reid or any of those hacks. U do have some conservative in u. Youll deny it but ur pursuit of a less fucked up govt is conservative
BudSoda02 2 years ago
Remember after 9-11 how fire fighters and EMTs were all heroes?
They are. They're also employees of socialist institutions.
My pursuit of a less fucked gov't is not conservative or liberal, progressive or libertarian.
It is without regard to ideology. That's the whole idea of this show. Before I'm anything else politically, I'm a Citizen of the USA first.
ThePunkPatriot 2 years ago
No, don't fuck socialism. Socialism is awesome.
This is obviously the first video of mine you've seen. Check out my videos on health care.
ThePunkPatriot 2 years ago
Wow this guy reminds me of the 16 year old girl who just talks hoping someone cares.
RainFall2112 2 years ago
dnt push me per capita is what lk $5000 or less average there. Im workin on a cell here so my research capibility is lmtd. Why dnt u go live under guys lk hugo chavez and c how u lk it. U idiot! im listening to mark levin cu. Why dnt u read liberty and tyrrany? C what u think after actually reading it. Besides even college hist prof couldnt go back that far wo doing some research
BudSoda02 2 years ago
man u liberal hacksll never get it south america is 3rd world 4 a reason. Do u rly want to live lk that? I didnt think so. obamas worse than bush. Were #2 now thx to him if we keep goin this rte well be 3rd world just lk south america.
BudSoda02 2 years ago
Please enlighten us on why South America is "3rd world." I'm assuming you can deliver a detailed, economic, social analysis going back to the Conquest 500 years ago to today.
AndrewMann552 2 years ago
BudSoda02: Dupe! The USA is now officially a Banana Republic, but without any bananas.
South American nations' standards of living are on the rise, at least where there are no longer any CIA perpetuated corporate sponsored oligarchies still goin'.
How are things goin' in good ol' Detroit these days?
News for ya (I'd bet): When it comes to 'standard of living', USA isn't even in the top ten.
Do you really enjoy living like that?
rhysfawr4 2 years ago
I think if you actually pay attention to the definition Chomsky gives of anarchism you could answer a lot of your own questions. I don't think there's anything wrong with insisting that there be a limited government and that that government's role be on the side of working people. That's social libertarianism in a nutshell. You can't quantify it in a right-versus-left terminology or with words and their familiar definitions. It's a fundamental rethinking of the role of government.
scoggles 2 years ago
Truth is one slippery bitch, PP. So what are your criteria for what you consider knowledge?
I'm guessing Noam's standards are higher....
rhysfawr4 2 years ago
Heh, good luck arguing semantics with Noam Chomsky! I'd give great odds on anyone who wants to place a bet on the outcome of that exchange.
I believe the precise quote was,
"Vote for Obama, but do so without any illusions..."
Noam Chomsky