Noam Chomsky speaking in New Zealand, 1998 Part 6/6

[lGnossos]

LOL at 1:45 he almost said "a fucking clue"

[UltimateHater1]

Thanks for uploading a Chomsky talk so close to home. Ironic about the off hand comments back on about 2/6 about the U.S doing what ever they need to for control of oil.

[vicnameless]

But change won't come from politicians, it will come from "us" and how much pressure we put on them to change.

[vicnameless]

About the comment "love for the rich" Ron Paul has no love for the rich, just look where his support come froms. The Ruling Class and the Media are afraid of his message and for reasons of self-preservation ignore him.

[vicnameless]

Ron Paul, if elected would have a democratically controlled congress, which would oppose him, keep that in mind. But he would be able to "rollback" Bush's policies and on balance I believe that would be a good thing.

[calvinjones]

Ron paul (RP) and chomsky are both libertarians. Chomsky is a socialis libertarian. The difference is that RP apparently dosent think that distributive wealth issues will arise from free trade, and that these disparities will focus power in the hands of the wealthy.

[calvinjones]

This seems naive. Free markets although in many ways better than state capitalism that we have now are not perfect. These imperfections in transaction cost, access to credit and other real life econoic realities need to be either counteracted by a state or subsumed into an anarchist society without state.

[macaskill87]

But what if Ron Paul was in the Presidency and the Senate and Congress were Democratic? Then he wouldnt be able to get through his domestic policy but would be able to implement his anti-war policy.

[vicnameless]

You are exactly right, sir. That is realistic thinking and was part of my decision to vote for Ron Paul.

[Xenu]

I would guess the opposite. Democrats' record has been to destroy social programs and siphon off that money into corporate welfare. They may not be as fanatical as the Republicans on this point but Clinton certainly did more than almost anybody on this point. They are also largely pro-war. But then again big business doesn't support the 'free-market' except in Orwellian terms so only a few of his reactionary economic policies would pass & nothing else, even with the Dems in power.

[vicnameless]

Chomsky and Ron Paul 2008!

[Chomskyan]

What's with the Ron Paul obsession in the US??.... when you examine the basis of his positions it's just free market doctrines that's never worked and totally immoral. When you look at the general public's positions on issues they more closely resemble Kucinich.

[IndieinExile]

No idea.....I've also noticed the 9/11 "truth" movement is particularly obsessed with him. Most of his social and economic positions are repulsive.

[bobomber]

Just curious, what positions that he takes do you find repulsive?

[KentAllard]

image projection, the ron paul campaign happens to be doing a particularly good job differentiating their product from the rest on the market

[KentAllard]

none of you respond to my joke comparing it to a marketing campaign :(

[vicnameless]

I like Ron Paul because he will reduce state power, true the American people will have to step up and get more involved, I think it would be a rough road for a while, but those hard lessons will have to be learned. I hate to say it, but it is tough love.

[Chomskyan]

Hey Vic, I am as anti-statist as anyone, but Ron Paul's alternative to the state vastly differs from Chomsky's (and mine). Under the current condition, concentration of private power would just take over everything if the state is reduced or eliminated, something Ron Paul would be strongly in favor of. Corporate structures are tyranical, and I am not willing to trade one (the state) for a worse one (private tyranny.)

[bobomber]

I'm not so genius as you, Mr. Chomskyan, but I think you hit the nail on the head.

[Chomskyan]

In my opinion, until a wide array of institutions that are truely public controlled are built up, the state needs shaped (by the public) to become an instrument to undermine and dismantle private power, at the same time keeping it's own tyrannical tendencies in check (also by the public.) That takes more than voting, I think.

[KentAllard]

what does any of that even mean? they're just meaningless feel good phrases, might as well be telling us to think outside the box

[Chomskyan]

It means you can't blindly oppose the state just because the state is a tyranny, there's a bigger tyranny behind it. It doesn't mean upholding the state forever either, but using it while limiting it. Maybe I wasn't articulate enough, but I don't think I was spouting some rhetoric or feel good phases. It's my response to someone supporting Ron Paul because he wants to limit the state, but not seeing what the effect will be.

Sorry that you took it as rhetoric.

[KentAllard]

I was talking about what vicnameless said: "true the American people will have to step up and get more involved, I think it would be a rough road for a while, but those hard lessons will have to be learned. I hate to say it, but it is tough love." and twirling, twirling towards the future!

[KentAllard]

tough for the poor, love for the rich

[Chomskyan]

okay my bad. haha

[jtr3030]

Their political/economic views are almost on the opposite ends of the spectrum.

[Xenu]

Uh... what?? What's next? Martin Luther King & J. Edgar Hoover 1968? Chomsky and Paul are basically on opposite scales of the political spectrum. The Austrian school of economics is petit-bourgeois superstition. I mean, Marx refuted this stuff before it was even born in the pamphlet "Value, Price & Profit." These Ron Paul people should give it a read.

[KentAllard]

and Bakunin refuted Marx before the Soviet Union was even born

[Xenu]

He didn't. What Marx & Bakunin did was build up strawmen and butcher ideas the other did not even have. Marx's concept of the state went through serious development around 1848-51 (The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon)& by The Civil War in France his position was basically the same as Bakunin's. Marx's prediction of what would happen if socialism was attempted in a peasant society without accompanying revolutions is far more accurate than Bakunin's, which could be made to fit anywhere at any time

[Xenu]

The thing is no Marxist reads Bakunin and no social anarchists really read Marx (besides the early 'Manifesto'). While Marx/Engels were certainly more advanced Bakunin was there a little earlier in a few things, but Bakunin would be the first to tell you he lagged far beyond in theoretical power & accuracy. Read Lenin's "The State and Revolution" to see how similar M.& E.'s positions came to resemble B.s

[tarnopol]

Must agree with everyone else: Ron Paul is definitely a wingnut with whom I agree only insofar as he seemingly respects the constitution, unlike virtually everyone else in the field. But that's where it ends: Kucinich is clearly the better choice for any progressive.

[jwbxx1]

If i had to vote for a republican I would probably go with ronnie. Because his foreign policy views are sane.

But when it comes to economics I disagree with him. I believe in the free market, but I also believe the free market requires government intervention at times and the poor need some sort of economic safety net.