@SuperSpeedLemon Well ok, but your point is moot. You, like many other people who take your position, envisage an immediate change. Essentially going to sleep today with our current governing systems and then waking up tomorrow without any governing systems in place. Of course that would be disastrous. However anarchism isn't suggesting no system in place at all, is it? It simply suggests there should be a government without a centralised base of authority over people..... continued.
@SuperSpeedLemon Are you saying I should believe you because you are _vaguely repeating_ CNN so called experts? Man, I really hope you are joking around. There were already working anarchist/collaborative/almost classless societies and associations in history. Anarchism is not a theory, is a practice. That's why Chomsky says here he is not an intellectual of anarchism. If I were you, I'd be reading about propaganda and its effects in society. Cheers.
@SuperSpeedLemon what are you actually basing that on? humanity has for most of its existence functioned in a pseudo form of anarchism, or anarchism proper, governments are only around 6000 years old.
@SuperSpeedLemon Well,if you're selfish,heartless and a greedy puppet who doesn't care that %90 of the world is,was and allways will suffer,and don't care about the world you're going to leave behind to your own granchilren,then yeah,capitalism is better.
@neobogard if anarchism were put into practice today it would be chaos on an appocolyptic level, people need to be able to be completely civillized and be able to work without real rules or people to enforce them which i dont think most people could handle
@SuperSpeedLemon Obviously 'authority' is intrinsic to the notion of governance, so all you are left with is various groups of people trying to ascertain a level of cooperation with each other that is mutually beneficial. This change of perception could be applied with a Fabian approach with small incremental changes with each new bill or act eventually diluting the powers of government over a significant period of time that would aid the sociopolitical amalgamation into a fairer society.
@neobogard Thats just ridiculous, do you really have that view on all the entrepreneurs who's given us all this wealth? Its the technical innovations which has made us all rich, and the more free the market is, the more innovations we get. Is that so bad? If we would have global capitalism, our resources would be put to much better use, taking us ALL to a higher standard of living, so why slow this process down?
@Samsgarden I always believed Anarchism was a type of socialism, that's where the adage "All Anarchists are Socialists, but not all Socialists are Anarchists," comes from. So I don't really understand when you say that Social Anarchism is an oxymoron. Second, would you elaborate on the rest of your second statement? "....deny the use of force,.."
First, as the previous poster said, it isn't an oxymoron, but my delinquent grammar.
It is however a paradox. I promise, as long as we argue here, It will become self-evident that socialism is not an voluntary process, it's an act of force. I have no problem with the anarchist part of the equation though, -small government is good, most progressives today are anathema to this, so I guess they fall under the latter part of your idiom.
@Samsgarden If you don't mind, I am interested in your explanation. Could you explain why anarchist communism or anarchist socialism is not a voluntary process?
Socialism shuns 'slave labour' & private ownership of production. Purists denounce fiat currency, police and particularly, the utilisation of the over-arching state. The success of small co-ops is supposed to lead to a nationalistic communism, free from distinctions etc. Problem is, nobody admits what might happen to those who persist on operating privately, who don't submit to the proletariat, who insist on retaining wealth, or how the ideology prevails under anarchism.
@Samsgarden Are you suggesting that in an environment where there are co-ops and the country is predominantly anarchist some workers will still want to work for a wage in a privately owned company? Of course there will be some, at least initially, that will try to continue running a private company but it will prove fruitless for them because not only will the company be likely less effective than a co-op but it will also have a hard time finding workers who don't want to join co-ops
I believe in private wealth and I think personal gain is the most effective way to get something done. Socialism is anti-economy, in fact it isn't an economic theory, it's a philosophy based on egalitarianism. On one hand, it denounces authoritarianism but on the other, it thinks everyone will gladly submit to its ideas, or as your post suggests, citizens will be forced to, through lack of a better alternative. Worker owned production is anathema to experimentalism.
@Samsgarden There is nothing anti-economy in worker control of their workplace and public control instead of a completely centralized government. I don't see how you can even say that it isn't an economic theory. It's assumed that people would "submit" (although that isn't really what it is) because if they could help decide what happens in their workplace rather than have someone decide for them most people would do that.
And there is a reason we don't have capitalism today. As wealth becomes more concentrated the wealthy will try to expand their wealth even further because it is the logical thing to do. The easiest way to do that is to buy into the government or create a more centralized government if one doesn't exist. Throughout the history of the US this has happened, although the US never had a free market to begin with. There are some Chomsky videos about the problems in a free market on YT.
@Samsgarden And in regards to the people retaining wealth, I do not think that is a big problem because in the case of the uber rich they could only inhabit 1 house and drive 1 car at a time anyway. There is not need to forcefully take their only house because it is large, a compromise can be reached. The enormous social pressure that will come from something like that can be lifted in exchange for a swap of houses between that person and perhaps a large family or something like that
There is a difference between moral anarchy and the ideas of political antiauthoritarianism. In the first sense all of the world is in anarchy. Individuals create their own weltanschauung of fears and desires and then act accordingly without realizing the artificiality of their weltanschauung.
Maybe I'm not quite understanding this right, but it seems like Anarchism isn't exactly a political philosophy, but more like a philosophy of the ideal society.
It sounds good, but idk if it really solves anything.
Why do people feel the need to post when all it does is highlight the fact that they could not be bothered to even garner a basic understanding of the topic.
The meaning of anarchy has been construed beyond any practical use. There's no problem with governance, as long as no one is forced into it. Voluntarism all the way!
Anarchist ; a person who does not want to be ruled.
to tell an anarchist you ask do you want to be free but beware of fake anarchists (lunatics)
the now more pressing issue is that i have just been down to the back waters for the first time in a year and have seen for myself that the sea level has risen a meter in a year
@mellkiades Yes the most vulnerable would suffer who would protect people with down syndrome and other life debaliitating conditions if there was no law.
@CanadianLute Ahh but I assume anarchism works upon a survival of the fittest. This is wrong as apes which people come from look after elderly apees until they die and do it fits human behaviour to look after vulnerable.
@Colton8646 I definitely agree with that. I'm no anarchist, I just don't believe anyone has a right to tell you how to live your life. I don't think that assuming that anarchists work upon an idea created by elitists is really fair though.
@Colton8646 I believe you are thinking more along the lines of Anarchy meaning absence of order, instead of absence of government, which is it's true meaning.
I may be prepared to admit that I am probabkly rather dim in such matters, but whilst a barter system may initially work in a small commune, I can't see the emloyees of Shell, or ICI or General Motors being too pleased if they were asked whether they would like their salaries paid in boots or bread or cabages!! Money, for all its failings, gives us a choice as to how we decide to spend the results of our labours. If money didn't exist, we would have to invent it very quickly|!!
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Even non-religious people know this.
The homosexual agenda is not good for anyone, including those who consider themselves "gay".
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Chomsky is obviously very intelligent and learned man but am very wary of him after he came out and advised people to vote for the fraud obama. Thinkers like him should stay out of politics, its obviously useless to vote for one or the other warmonger and chomsky knows this only too well. One wonders what inducements chomsky received form the aforementioned fraud.
Under all dogmatic systems of thought war and rape and pillage will always be justifiable, the end justifies the means, the hallowed expert will orate poetically. eg the cold war which destroyed the usa's so called constitution by allowing covert clandestine organisations, essentially states within states, to proliferate and make the constitution de facto null and void. So the answer has to be an end to dogma and the tyranny of state funded 'experts'. Words mean nothing, only principles count.
In fact all dogmatic systems of thought, with their ivy league armchair 'experts' who wouldnt know a days work if it hit them upside the head, are at their root aggressive. If humans are to ever grow and progress past war rape and pillage we must live by principle, and the non aggression principle seems to this humble observer to be just about the best one out there.
In my opinion anarchism is the practical application of the non aggression principle. Scary that chomsky and all the other so called anarchist thinkers never mention this. They always try and turn anarchism into an dogmatic system of doctrine and rules, especially the weirdo communist anarchists (oxymoron???). Lets forget about names and titles and categories of thought, lets just always bring it back to the non aggression principle, and government is always aggression.
The goal is Liberty no matter what the cost because a good life is impossible without being free - Liberty is impossible without Anarchy because you would be ruled (rule of law)
Choose between Anarchism which is not being ruled or statism which is - This is the choice of to have Liberty or not - People have chosen not to have Liberty or they would all be Anarchist
@lightofjah81 anarchism doesn't disregard all authority just forced authority. In fact the principles of voluntary authority are totally compatible with anarchism, the best example i can give you is the zapatista movement in Mexico .
(3)them part of our society. Which ideology is closest for including all humans in our society? International Socialism and then maybe Communism, but anarchism will not solve for a Peacful World because of evolution of wanting a bigger society for a higher chance of survival. All responsibility will then (throughout socialist states and if then in a communist time) have to slowly and slowly be divided through these stages for more Collective Intelligence, Democracy.
(2)Social animals will always try to get a bigger "clan", because we are a part of evolution, and It is is about survival for ones "species", it even goes through the process of changing our Biology to keep our chance of reproduction and survival rate up such as skin colour differences, bigger brains, hands, noses, eyes, hair, etc.. So I think the question is, if we want all humans to have a nice life, we need to make them part of our "clan" by accepting them as not being a threat and making...
Spurts of Anarchism have always been good for the change in systems, but an anarcho-system of governing goes against the social structure of man where the responsibility of citizens is distributed to a hirachial chain of representatives to let most of the population live care"free". Even though the idea of anarchy is total freedom,it goes completely against the goal of social animals, which is to get a bigger clan and get a higher chance of survival for ones "clan" or what we call Nationalities
Are you some kind of fucking retard ?? Its a ruled country because we've got rulers and we've got rules so to make it a free country we must have no rulers or rules - if a country is ruled it will always be a ruled country - if you are not capable of understanding that and have to try and find somekind of stupid term to try and destroy what would be to anyone else just obvious logic and common sense you are seriously fucked up in the head
anarchy means no rulers not no government. there would be governing bodies consisting of delegates directly responsible to those the represent and subject to immediate recall.
people fear there would be chaos because there would be no police. during the general strike in seatlle in 1919 army veterans acted as a police force and in fact during that strike, arrests dropped to 1/2 their #. (as a side note, most crimes nowadays are economiclly driven)
@37butterflyprincess The Jesuits created the Fed. And it was the Jesuits that murdered JFK because he would not submit to the Vatican over the U.S. Constitution. And they were able to use his death as a martyrdom in order to provide a sympathy for all incoming Catholic politicians who in fact were submissive to the Roman Whore and would do anything to further her world domination. Read books National Sunday Law and Secret History of the Jesuits.
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 even the arebs belive in a jewish idea of god
Do you want to be free or do you want to be ruled ?? do you have the intelligence to understand that a law is a rule and that you cannot be free and ruled ?you and your budd'y are not Anarchist which means your statist and therefore believe that a man has the right to rule the life of another man which is rule of law - this makes you and your buddy's low-life wretched scum of the earth and i wouldnt piss on the lot of you when you are burning !
A LAW IS A RULE - TO BE LAWED IS TO BE RULED - RULE OF LAW - YOU CANNOT BE FREE AND RULED !! - IF YOU THINK THAT A MAN HAS THE RIGHT TO RULE THE LIFE OF ANOTHER MAN YOU ARE UTTER UTTER UTTER SCUM OF THE EARTH !! WHERE IS YOUR WILL FOR LIBERTY ?? THERE IS NO LIBERTY UNDER THE RULE OF OTHERS - COMPLETE INSANITY TO ARGUE AGAINST BEING FREE
@moryuf "Pure communism is the ideal and most advanced form of anarchy."
I disagree entirely, but what's curious to me is that so many Chomsky supporters strenuously deny that he is a communist. They repeatedly tell me he's not a communist and doesn't agree with communism, that he criticizes it and opposes it.
For Chomsky, "anarchism" seems to mean being a social parasite government contractor. I guess working for the Pentagon pays better than other career paths available to the genuinely anti-establishment radical.
As for "capitalism," now Noam's got that covered too. He charges $12k for a speaking engagement. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, you poor huddled masses oppressed by the powers that be. Learn from Noam and get aboard the gov't subsidy gravy train.
@MillionthUsername Yeah, the Pentagon likes to hire Socialist contractors and anti-establishment radicals. By the way, what are you smoking?
And, so he gets $12k (assuming he does) per engagement. That's chicken feed on the speaking tour; check out what Clinton or Bush get, even in China! Oh, but there's the status of an ex-President, right? OK, how about Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, or other assorted Republican retards or moral bankrupts? Try SIX FIGURES. $12k??? Dirt cheap.
@DammitGumby Chomsky has made millions off the Pentagon. He doesn't deny it. Oh yeah, he's "anti-establishment" with a military industrial complex subsidy and a million dollar vacation home and $12k a pop to hear "socialist" drivel.
Tell me, if he's a "socialist," then why does he live like a capitalist? I thought capitalism was evil? Why did raise his speaking fees? Doesn't he care about the "exploitation" of the workers at those institutions? I thought profit was exploitation? No?
@MillionthUsername You're right. He calls the united states a major terrorist state, says all authority should be forced to justify itself or be abolished, has been arrested many times in his life for protesting against the government, and is as far as I can tell the most effective and valuable activist ever to live outside of Gandi, but some of his work in linguistics many years ago was done at a university that was funded by the Pentagon, (tax money), so he's obviously not anti-establishment.
@JessAtlas Chomsky is nothing like Gandhi. He wasn't even able to freely choose to work for some other department that wasn't funded by the Pentagon. He chose to take their money even while calling himself an "anarchist" (supposedly against big gov't waste) and a "socialist" (supposedly against the imperialist MIC).
He may be "anti-establishment" in rhetoric, but certainly not in lifestyle, where he is simply a rich capitalist famous for trashing rich capitalists. : )
If Chomsky is a "capitalist" for actually having the nerve to make a living in the quasimarket society in which he was born then people like Milton Friedman,Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul(long-standing House member of the 'big government')must all be socialists par excellence for relying on the public infrastructure of their quasimarket society.
@thirdshift47 "If Chomsky is a "capitalist" for actually having the nerve to make a living"
I didn't say he was a capitalist for making a living. Socialists can make a living. He chooses not to make a living as the voluntary socialist he claims to be, but as a federally subsidized fascist and also as a professional exploiter of the labor of others (according to his own standards).
I'm accusing him of hypocrisy, not of making a living.
He chooses not to make a living as a "voluntary socialist"--as he and his wife once did in an Isreali Kibbutzim--because he understands the power that his voice has an advocate of social justice by being committed to it in his own country as opposed to simply voicing his views from some idyllic intentional community abroad.
Secondly,he's a capitalist in one instance,but "federally subsidized" in another?lol
Third,most are guilty of being neither pure capitalists or socialists.
The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.
@comusnine It is a question of attitude and practice. It is also a question of mindset. "Propaganda" (leaflets, papers, articles) is useless unless you have a movement of people that are already in the right mindset. We haven't had that in any serious sense. There's a tendency towards middle-class cynicism that isolates itself from the working class. Arguments need to be made and activity must become serious, and enjoyable! Not alienating propaganda of tired slogans in anarcho-punk fonts.
>>Anarchism is the belief that you cannot be free and ruled
Which is a moot point when one of your colleagues decides he doesn't like you and therefore uses violence to subjugate you, or when said colleague decides that he doesn't like your type and wants your belongings, so he convinces other colleagues that you did something which deserves punishment.
>>a statist is a person that wants to be ruled
A statist accepts that unlimited freedom means that there are no rights.
@godkingofthepunks that sounds stupid... there must be a government and there must be law. even ppl without a government will make laws by which to abide by. a code of conduct, so to say. look at criminal organizations for an example. you cannot just do what u want, ever. and ppl establish leaders themselves, whether they want to or not. ppl must be governed or there will be mob rule and kangaroo courts...
@freelikealonewolf You're confused in thinking that the presence of an authoratitve entity is necessary in any society. A government is defined as a state that consists of people set aside specifically to govern the people. Anarchist philosophy rejects the notion that we need a state and it advocates governance of the people. While you're correct in saying there would still be laws in an anarchist society, since the people govern themselves, the presence of a state is absolutely not needed.
@LightofJah81 that is why it is still a philosophy and not a reality. the presence of an authority figure is necessary in a society. have u heard of any nation in history that has not had one? btw, the salem witch trials are an example of mob rule and kangaroo courts.
@freelikealonewolf The only reason it isn't a reality is because people have been subjugated and ruled by governments since time immemorial, causing them to doubt the possibility of a state-free country. Actually, yes, I have heard of a country that experienced true anarchism and thrived until it was destroyed by fascists after the spanish revolution. Catalonia, Aragon and other parts of Spain began to govern themselves without the need or presence of a government, it lasted a few years and
@freelikealonewolf consisted of about 8 million people it totality. George Orwell, who I'm sure you know to be one of the most prominent anarchist thinkers of the 20th century, wrote Homage to Catalonia describing the success of these anarchist, autonomic states and how well they were able to collectively rule themselves. Anarchism doesn't entail a complete absence of authority, it simply advocates the abolishment of formal elites set aside to rule the masses. The salem witch trials in that
Respond to this video... sense is a very poor example of anti-statist governance because it doesn't correlate with any anarchist values whatsoever. You'd be much better of using Somalia as a better example, even though it isn't an anarchist nation by any measure at all (which seems to be a popular misconception). In politics there must be a balance between idealism and realism and by rejecting any political theory you're only practicing intolerance.
I think I'm on you side, but I think you look at it alittle too black and white. What is the end goal? Is the end goal unlimited freedom no matter what the consequenses, or is the end goal a good life for as many as possible, no matter the means?
I choose the latter. And I think we need both rights and rules to get there. The problem is not resources, we have the resouces. The problem is the ALLOCATION of resouces, which is desided by moeny today.
@Sarmaisterz Well, any system that has the two factors money and no taxation (because of no state) would of course include the ownership (which would be private) over industry. Thus, its capitalism.
In other words. I come to a hospital in an anarcho "socialist" society, and I dont have money to pay for what I need. I am turned down. That is the very opposite of what socialism is all about.
@ryan84160 Well, any system that has the two factors money and no taxation (because of no state) would of course include the ownership (which would be private) over industry. Thus, its capitalism.
In other words. I come to a hospital in an anarcho "socialist" society, and I dont have money to pay for what I need. I am turned down. That is the very opposite of what socialism is all about.
@gulbirk You are just asserting that it "would of course include the ownership" without anything to back up such a statement.
Property being something that is protected by law, I could easily envision a stateless society in which there is no property as there is no law protecting property rights and to state who owns what.
@ryan84160 property only exists on paper. Even if you remove that paper you still have property, because you still have people using the area. And a society that has no state/no taxes, no forced sharing, and money is capitalism. You cant get away from that.
In such a society, I would die if I dont have money to get surgery. I will be un-educated if I cant pay for school. All of these things are supposed to be solved by socialism. Anarchia socialism dont exist .Deal with it
@gulbirk Sorry, I must have have misread your comment.For the most part I agree with what you said. I think I thought you were arguing for capitalism.
I think property would exist in so much as you will "own", for lack of a better word, what you can defend other people from taking.However property rights and certainly intellectual property would not exist.
I think Chomsky is too optimistic when it comes to human nature.
@gulbirk I think he is fond of the idea of the "noble savage". He believes that most primitive stateless cultures were based on creativity and cooperation. I think he is right to a certain extent, but I also think he ignores the fact that war,greed,racism and genocide are also part of these societies and human nature and need to be controlled by some form of state.
@ryan84160 He can argue against the state if he wants too. But it seems to me, like any system with both money and no state (ergo no taxation and no free institutions like schools and hospitals) doesnt seem to solve the problems people had with capitalism.
@gulbirk In this society due to the nature of the system he does believe in government social programs.
In an anarchist society there would be federative organisational structure that would provide those things plus the society is already based on solidarity not greed and a Darwinian rat-race like the one we have.
@godkingofthepunks what if i believe that freedom is a sacrifice for laws? i recognize that, although laws limit my freedom, their benefits far outweigh a sacrifice of freedom. i agree that you can't be free and ruled, but i am not a proponent of anarchism.
EXAMPLE: a law prohibiting me from murdering somebody exists. my freedom is now limited (as are the people around me), but it is a sacrifice to keep society safe. so, although i recognize my freedom is limited by the law, i still support it.
@godkingofthepunks what you just described as anarchism is a pile of bullshit. Anarchism according to Chomsky is not anti-government. On the contrary, it's a very simple concept: do not let a government establish itself in the long term, with all the negative consequences this will bring forward. DESTROY any entity/institution that tries to perdure. RECONSTRUCT it into something else. THAT is anarchy.
@comusnine "And how would this be effected? It would require a catalyst."
Like most things in life, you don't always have all the answers but you have to act on what you do have, or those missing answers will never become apparent. Talking about an idea and promoting it in people's minds as 'conceivable' is a start - it leads to more people thinking about that idea.
@ilgattofatto government is an unnecessary evil, why should i pay to live in world i was born in.why should i slave all my life away so ONE percent of the world can be happy.
Something tells me that we wouldn't be able to keep up this level and quality of technological development in an anarchist society. Am I wrong? How would our current level of industry and research work with anarchism? It's a serious question, no need for condescension or anything like that.
@scientrophic That is a good point you are making. The answer to that, I think, is that scientific process would "stall", especially scientific progress that leads to huge economical gains, or that is sponsored by big governments (military equipment, electronic gadgets). And it may disappear altogether. But personally, I don't that that is bad in itself. There is not use for scientific progress if it cannot be used by most people.
For the 1000th' time anarchism doesn't mean "lawless" society------it means society without rule-----rule from public or private tyranny---it is a society which may take a "leap of faith"-----Jesus was FOR radical change-----maybe this is the "leap of faith" he was talking about
“I really don’t know what you do about the ‘taxes is theft’ crowd, except possibly enter a gambling pool regarding just how long after their no-tax utopia comes true that their generally white, generally entitled, generally soft and pudgy asses are turned into thin strips of Objectivist Jerky by the sort of pitiless sociopath who is actually prepped and ready to live in the world that logically follows these people’s fondest desires.” (John Scalzi)
@arthwr Tx for the link: Chomsky names Kropotkin (who advocated abolishing money) and Bakunin (who practiced and advocated terrorism) with approval. He claims that kibbutzes, and the Spanish Anarchists are examples of how anarchist principles can work in practice. The man is a transparent fraud on these issues. If the anarchist way of life is so great, why doesn't he live it? His suggestion that Anarchism based on Enlightenment principles is illiterate, or a self-serving lie.
@petersham121 I think if you were to ask Chomsky himself if he advocated terrorism or immediately abolishing money, he would condemn both of those things. The tactic you employ here is dishonest. He takes ideas from those figures, but that does not mean he categorically supports all of their views; e.g. Bakunin, like most Europeans in his time, was an open anti-semite as well. If you read or watch Chomsky's interviews closely, he is practical about the changes he suggests.
I guess that the Penacook federation can be seen as an early example of an anarchist society. It was a federated, decentralised, and democratic society without private property where everyone had an equal say. At least acording to "The Tribes and States" by William James Sidis, wich is an interesting read "//sidis.net /TSContents.htm". And this could be seen as an inspiration for a better society wich seem so urgently needed.
Dr. Chomsky recently told Iranian TV that at the time the USA attacked Afghanistan they had no evidence that al Qaeda did 9/11. See my video "Chomsky on Faith-based Wars and 9/11"
"Democratic control of ONE's productive life is at the core of human liberation."
WHAT?! How is that logical? That defies reason. If one cannot decide, completely, for his or herself what to do with his or her own body and mind, that is completely backwards to liberty. Just because something is voted on from the "bottom up", doesn't remove the FACT that it is enforced by violence.
Democracy is archaic and violent no matter how you spin it.
've been getting into Chomsky and Anarchism over the last week or so. I'm relatively young and am getting more and more interested in political manners and so on so i've been looking this stuff up. I've mainly seen the older Chomsky vids so far where he's talking about foreign policy but this interview is breath taking. Why won't he talk about Anarchism now? The ideas and reasoning he presents here are amazing and honestly give me goosebumps at times because they feel very practical in my mind.
@unknown1771 Also what kinds of books or text would people recommend to me to be able to learn more about the ideas of Anarchism, what would change what wouldn't change etc. compared to Capitalism and so on.
to represent democracy is pure bullshit, it´s a delusion, nowadays people accept this explaining that there´s no other system working better than this, the concept of liberty isn´t applied in a clear context, therefore there are mistakes about how to understand freedom, mass media made people docile, now it´s hard to realise being authentic.
@donroche I had hoped you had a source I wasn't aware of, or had missed, but I realize now that assuming you had any grounds at all for your statement was a long shot. I've "randomly searched", looked back through some scholarly work, and I can't find any specific reference to the anarchists murdering clergy. The closest I've found is a statement about the near-universal anti-clerical sentiment at the time and that anarchists seized the finances of a few churches. Why don't you do some research.
@donroche I would love to know what sources you're drawing from here. The only widespread killing I've read of in this context is the killing of anarchists in the communists' "counter-revolution".
Like marx has said: In every epoch the ruling ideas are are the ideas of the ruling class. His biggest mistake was that he thought that a state could bring socialism to the people, they have to discover itself. But maybe that was his intention, with the dictatorship of the proletarish people.
Capitalism is less voluntary than socialism. It is wage slavery. Power rules, and having the strongest bully be democratically elected is optimal. There is no freer society than a bottom up democracy in industry and politics with strong civil liberties and constitutional protection of minorities.
@whydeemos Anarchy respects every individual for what she/he is and doesn't impose or indoctrinates them.
Being free, people with same philosophies will join together, just like it happens in our social lives (or even in the internet). This complex of communities, with all its troubles, its injustices, but also its altruistic, collaborative (and whatever else humans are capable of) characteristics, will form a true anarchistic society.
Anarchism is all about giving power to the individual.
i am interested in learning about anarchism capitalism and commounism.....do you have in mind any books(easily read:my english are not that advanced)?thanks....
Chomsky may provide brilliant insights on Latin America and the Middle Eastern conflict, but I cannot take him seriously when it comes to something like Anarchy. It cannot work nor will it ever. If you wanna see an Anarchistic society, take a look at Somalia.
on the contrary, it can work....look at the spanish revolution. for almost three years, people worked together through a highly organized and egalitarian society. the point of anarchism (or any system) is to EXPERIMENT. the only thing we can do is to keep organizing and experiment like socrates said to do. there is no RESULT its just constant evolutionary experimentation. america is devolving if you ask me....
on the contrary, it can work....look at the spanish revolution. for almost three years, people worked together through a highly organized and egalitarian society. the point of anarchism (or any system) is to EXPERIMENT. the only thing we can do is to keep organizing and experiment like socrates said to do. there is no RESULT its just constant evolutionary experimentation. america is devolving if you ask me....
@johnowensjr1234 The Spanish Anarchists only had significance while there was no strong government.. They were violently anti-Republican, as well as anti-Monarchist, and if the Republic had prevailed,then the Anarchists would have been wiped out by them, instead of Franco.. So they failed miserably in every respect. The Kibbutz movement is also a bad example of anarchism because they are based on nationaliism, and heavily subsidised. They are now in decline, and many have been privatised.
@petersham121 Just because the state (either Franco or Republican, doesn't matter) had the resources and the motive to wipe them out does not make them failures. All that proves is that states are coercive institutions. During those three years, people worked together successfully without the need of a state. Regular workers used democratic principles to form solidified worker's councils and ended up controlling 70% of Spain's economy.
@johnowensjr1234: Anarchists are incapable of forming lasting alliances, even with each other, so any other form of political organization has a huge advantage.. They are dedicated to violent overthrow of all governments, so there is no recourse except to use force against them Anarchists support all forms of terrorism:as it is necessary to destroy society before Anarchism can exist. Like Christians, they welcome signs that the world is ending, because that signals the Kingdom of Heaven.
@petersham121 1) Political movements are evolutionary and experimental. Values and theories blend and expand. Anarchism covers a vast range of ideas from left to right. It's impossible to say "Anarchists are incapable of..." because its a broad array of evolving movements and theories that fail and succeed. There is no ONE group. 2) Some movements use violence and some advocate non-violent resistance (mass strikes, non-cooperation) 3) Terrorism is used by everyone (Al Queda, IRA, USA etc)
@johnowensjr1234: Anarchists are incapable of forming lasting alliances, even with each other, so any other form of political organization has a huge advantage.. They are dedicated to violent overthrow of all governments, so there is no recourse except to use force against them Anarchists support all forms of terrorism:as it is necessary to destroy society before Anarchism can exist. Like Christians, they welcome signs that the world is ending, as a prelude to the Kingdom of Heaven.
@johnowensjr1234 LOLOL at "an anarchist society blossomed". IT was financed by bank robberies and forced collectivization, and accompanied by the murder of anyone who disagreed with them.. It lasted three years only because the socialist Republicans were too busy fighting the Monarchists to crush them, but it was only a matter of time. They were failures in everything except murder and destruction. Blossomed? Blossoms of blood maybe, which is all Anarchism is guaranteed to produce.
@SuperSpeedLemon Well ok, but your point is moot. You, like many other people who take your position, envisage an immediate change. Essentially going to sleep today with our current governing systems and then waking up tomorrow without any governing systems in place. Of course that would be disastrous. However anarchism isn't suggesting no system in place at all, is it? It simply suggests there should be a government without a centralised base of authority over people..... continued.
Norm1011616 1 week ago
Anarchism is a utopian idea. it works in theory like communism and socialism but would not work in practice
SuperSpeedLemon 1 month ago
@SuperSpeedLemon How much time did you spend developing that set of ideas by yourself? May you please share your sources and data?
code933k 4 weeks ago
@code933k it was in a more recent explanation of Anarchy I saw it on CNN
SuperSpeedLemon 4 weeks ago
@SuperSpeedLemon Are you saying I should believe you because you are _vaguely repeating_ CNN so called experts? Man, I really hope you are joking around. There were already working anarchist/collaborative/almost classless societies and associations in history. Anarchism is not a theory, is a practice. That's why Chomsky says here he is not an intellectual of anarchism. If I were you, I'd be reading about propaganda and its effects in society. Cheers.
code933k 3 weeks ago
@SuperSpeedLemon what are you actually basing that on? humanity has for most of its existence functioned in a pseudo form of anarchism, or anarchism proper, governments are only around 6000 years old.
gunkwretch 3 weeks ago
@SuperSpeedLemon And capitalism works in practice?.
neobogard 3 weeks ago
@neobogard better then anarchism...
SuperSpeedLemon 3 weeks ago
@SuperSpeedLemon Well,if you're selfish,heartless and a greedy puppet who doesn't care that %90 of the world is,was and allways will suffer,and don't care about the world you're going to leave behind to your own granchilren,then yeah,capitalism is better.
neobogard 3 weeks ago 5
@neobogard if anarchism were put into practice today it would be chaos on an appocolyptic level, people need to be able to be completely civillized and be able to work without real rules or people to enforce them which i dont think most people could handle
SuperSpeedLemon 2 weeks ago
@SuperSpeedLemon Obviously 'authority' is intrinsic to the notion of governance, so all you are left with is various groups of people trying to ascertain a level of cooperation with each other that is mutually beneficial. This change of perception could be applied with a Fabian approach with small incremental changes with each new bill or act eventually diluting the powers of government over a significant period of time that would aid the sociopolitical amalgamation into a fairer society.
Norm1011616 1 week ago 3
@neobogard Thats just ridiculous, do you really have that view on all the entrepreneurs who's given us all this wealth? Its the technical innovations which has made us all rich, and the more free the market is, the more innovations we get. Is that so bad? If we would have global capitalism, our resources would be put to much better use, taking us ALL to a higher standard of living, so why slow this process down?
rwoz 3 days ago
Chomsky believes in fairy tales.
JayGatsbyOdysseus 1 month ago
@JayGatsbyOdysseus Fairy tales he can support with facts...
Lukege15 1 month ago
Comment removed
Samsgarden 1 month ago
@Samsgarden Thumbs down for not knowing what an oxymoron is.
Glovinspecialsauce 1 month ago
@Glovinspecialsauce
Darn. Incorrect use of grammar. I mean, it's contradictory or paradoxical.
Samsgarden 1 month ago
@Samsgarden I always believed Anarchism was a type of socialism, that's where the adage "All Anarchists are Socialists, but not all Socialists are Anarchists," comes from. So I don't really understand when you say that Social Anarchism is an oxymoron. Second, would you elaborate on the rest of your second statement? "....deny the use of force,.."
Ace14ad50da 1 month ago
@Ace14ad50da
First, as the previous poster said, it isn't an oxymoron, but my delinquent grammar.
It is however a paradox. I promise, as long as we argue here, It will become self-evident that socialism is not an voluntary process, it's an act of force. I have no problem with the anarchist part of the equation though, -small government is good, most progressives today are anathema to this, so I guess they fall under the latter part of your idiom.
Samsgarden 1 month ago
@Samsgarden If you don't mind, I am interested in your explanation. Could you explain why anarchist communism or anarchist socialism is not a voluntary process?
CluckRus 1 month ago
@CluckRus
Socialism shuns 'slave labour' & private ownership of production. Purists denounce fiat currency, police and particularly, the utilisation of the over-arching state. The success of small co-ops is supposed to lead to a nationalistic communism, free from distinctions etc. Problem is, nobody admits what might happen to those who persist on operating privately, who don't submit to the proletariat, who insist on retaining wealth, or how the ideology prevails under anarchism.
Samsgarden 1 month ago
@Samsgarden Are you suggesting that in an environment where there are co-ops and the country is predominantly anarchist some workers will still want to work for a wage in a privately owned company? Of course there will be some, at least initially, that will try to continue running a private company but it will prove fruitless for them because not only will the company be likely less effective than a co-op but it will also have a hard time finding workers who don't want to join co-ops
CluckRus 1 month ago
@CluckRus
I believe in private wealth and I think personal gain is the most effective way to get something done. Socialism is anti-economy, in fact it isn't an economic theory, it's a philosophy based on egalitarianism. On one hand, it denounces authoritarianism but on the other, it thinks everyone will gladly submit to its ideas, or as your post suggests, citizens will be forced to, through lack of a better alternative. Worker owned production is anathema to experimentalism.
Samsgarden 1 month ago
@CluckRus
Keep in mind that we don't have capitalism today.
Samsgarden 1 month ago
@Samsgarden There is nothing anti-economy in worker control of their workplace and public control instead of a completely centralized government. I don't see how you can even say that it isn't an economic theory. It's assumed that people would "submit" (although that isn't really what it is) because if they could help decide what happens in their workplace rather than have someone decide for them most people would do that.
CluckRus 1 month ago
And there is a reason we don't have capitalism today. As wealth becomes more concentrated the wealthy will try to expand their wealth even further because it is the logical thing to do. The easiest way to do that is to buy into the government or create a more centralized government if one doesn't exist. Throughout the history of the US this has happened, although the US never had a free market to begin with. There are some Chomsky videos about the problems in a free market on YT.
CluckRus 1 month ago
@Samsgarden And in regards to the people retaining wealth, I do not think that is a big problem because in the case of the uber rich they could only inhabit 1 house and drive 1 car at a time anyway. There is not need to forcefully take their only house because it is large, a compromise can be reached. The enormous social pressure that will come from something like that can be lifted in exchange for a swap of houses between that person and perhaps a large family or something like that
CluckRus 1 month ago
There is a difference between moral anarchy and the ideas of political antiauthoritarianism. In the first sense all of the world is in anarchy. Individuals create their own weltanschauung of fears and desires and then act accordingly without realizing the artificiality of their weltanschauung.
perdondaris 1 month ago
Maybe I'm not quite understanding this right, but it seems like Anarchism isn't exactly a political philosophy, but more like a philosophy of the ideal society.
It sounds good, but idk if it really solves anything.
heatbucspies55 2 months ago
@heatbucspies55 Is that not what every single political ideology is? It's everyone's favorite version of their favorite world.
adventuroushipster 2 months ago
Comment removed
heatbucspies55 2 months ago
Why do people feel the need to post when all it does is highlight the fact that they could not be bothered to even garner a basic understanding of the topic.
dancetotheriddim 2 months ago
The meaning of anarchy has been construed beyond any practical use. There's no problem with governance, as long as no one is forced into it. Voluntarism all the way!
Banddroid 2 months ago
Anarchy by its nature, is always shortlived. Most of what's called "anarchism" isn't.
chickenwretch 2 months ago
This is my father interviewing. I am so proud to see him discussing such a difficult topic with such an intellectual colossus.
mrjamiejay2 2 months ago 2
Anarchy ; society without rule.
Anarchist ; a person who does not want to be ruled.
to tell an anarchist you ask do you want to be free but beware of fake anarchists (lunatics)
the now more pressing issue is that i have just been down to the back waters for the first time in a year and have seen for myself that the sea level has risen a meter in a year
godkingofthepunks 3 months ago
Anarchism is a stupid idea, the worst people would be free to do what they wanted and the most vulnerable would suffer.
Colton8646 3 months ago
@Colton8646 I'd be ready to pay YT for a feature where if you pay enough, you can delete posts that show supreme imbecility like yours.
mellkiades 3 months ago
@mellkiades Yes the most vulnerable would suffer who would protect people with down syndrome and other life debaliitating conditions if there was no law.
Colton8646 3 months ago
@Colton8646 Law currently protects the rich and the people who make law.
CanadianLute 2 months ago
@CanadianLute Ahh but I assume anarchism works upon a survival of the fittest. This is wrong as apes which people come from look after elderly apees until they die and do it fits human behaviour to look after vulnerable.
Colton8646 2 months ago
@Colton8646 I definitely agree with that. I'm no anarchist, I just don't believe anyone has a right to tell you how to live your life. I don't think that assuming that anarchists work upon an idea created by elitists is really fair though.
CanadianLute 2 months ago
@Colton8646 I believe you are thinking more along the lines of Anarchy meaning absence of order, instead of absence of government, which is it's true meaning.
Ace14ad50da 1 month ago
I may be prepared to admit that I am probabkly rather dim in such matters, but whilst a barter system may initially work in a small commune, I can't see the emloyees of Shell, or ICI or General Motors being too pleased if they were asked whether they would like their salaries paid in boots or bread or cabages!! Money, for all its failings, gives us a choice as to how we decide to spend the results of our labours. If money didn't exist, we would have to invent it very quickly|!!
ha6ni6el6 3 months ago
So I can voluntarily agree to a rule and maintain autonomy but if I agree to a form of rule it violates my autonomy?
benjeicher 3 months ago
Anarchism means without rulers, not without rules.
KapStuf 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Even non-religious people know this.
The homosexual agenda is not good for anyone, including those who consider themselves "gay".
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
Chomsky gonna #occupy100
ktxed 4 months ago
Chomsky is obviously very intelligent and learned man but am very wary of him after he came out and advised people to vote for the fraud obama. Thinkers like him should stay out of politics, its obviously useless to vote for one or the other warmonger and chomsky knows this only too well. One wonders what inducements chomsky received form the aforementioned fraud.
sidvidkid 5 months ago
@sidvidkid
Chomsky never told people to vote for obama.
DesmondE 5 months ago
Under all dogmatic systems of thought war and rape and pillage will always be justifiable, the end justifies the means, the hallowed expert will orate poetically. eg the cold war which destroyed the usa's so called constitution by allowing covert clandestine organisations, essentially states within states, to proliferate and make the constitution de facto null and void. So the answer has to be an end to dogma and the tyranny of state funded 'experts'. Words mean nothing, only principles count.
sidvidkid 5 months ago
In fact all dogmatic systems of thought, with their ivy league armchair 'experts' who wouldnt know a days work if it hit them upside the head, are at their root aggressive. If humans are to ever grow and progress past war rape and pillage we must live by principle, and the non aggression principle seems to this humble observer to be just about the best one out there.
sidvidkid 5 months ago
In my opinion anarchism is the practical application of the non aggression principle. Scary that chomsky and all the other so called anarchist thinkers never mention this. They always try and turn anarchism into an dogmatic system of doctrine and rules, especially the weirdo communist anarchists (oxymoron???). Lets forget about names and titles and categories of thought, lets just always bring it back to the non aggression principle, and government is always aggression.
sidvidkid 5 months ago
The goal is Liberty no matter what the cost because a good life is impossible without being free - Liberty is impossible without Anarchy because you would be ruled (rule of law)
Choose between Anarchism which is not being ruled or statism which is - This is the choice of to have Liberty or not - People have chosen not to have Liberty or they would all be Anarchist
godkingofthepunks 5 months ago
@lightofjah81 anarchism doesn't disregard all authority just forced authority. In fact the principles of voluntary authority are totally compatible with anarchism, the best example i can give you is the zapatista movement in Mexico .
iddyish 5 months ago
A society W/out "Rules" isn't free ....It's Somalia...If thats what you think Chomsky is talking about your al lWRONG...
TheJerzeyd3vil 6 months ago
(3)them part of our society. Which ideology is closest for including all humans in our society? International Socialism and then maybe Communism, but anarchism will not solve for a Peacful World because of evolution of wanting a bigger society for a higher chance of survival. All responsibility will then (throughout socialist states and if then in a communist time) have to slowly and slowly be divided through these stages for more Collective Intelligence, Democracy.
noprofitmaximierung 6 months ago
(2)Social animals will always try to get a bigger "clan", because we are a part of evolution, and It is is about survival for ones "species", it even goes through the process of changing our Biology to keep our chance of reproduction and survival rate up such as skin colour differences, bigger brains, hands, noses, eyes, hair, etc.. So I think the question is, if we want all humans to have a nice life, we need to make them part of our "clan" by accepting them as not being a threat and making...
noprofitmaximierung 6 months ago
Spurts of Anarchism have always been good for the change in systems, but an anarcho-system of governing goes against the social structure of man where the responsibility of citizens is distributed to a hirachial chain of representatives to let most of the population live care"free". Even though the idea of anarchy is total freedom,it goes completely against the goal of social animals, which is to get a bigger clan and get a higher chance of survival for ones "clan" or what we call Nationalities
noprofitmaximierung 6 months ago
Are you some kind of fucking retard ?? Its a ruled country because we've got rulers and we've got rules so to make it a free country we must have no rulers or rules - if a country is ruled it will always be a ruled country - if you are not capable of understanding that and have to try and find somekind of stupid term to try and destroy what would be to anyone else just obvious logic and common sense you are seriously fucked up in the head
godkingofthepunks 6 months ago
Chomsky and rich anti-capitalist are hypocrite because capitalism made them riches! The poor and/or middle class anti-capitalist is envy or lazy!
Oh forgot,Michael Moore is fat and Jesus votes Conservative/Libertarian
Shenlong86 6 months ago
@Shenlong86 you're an idiot....
aiiiunluckykid 6 months ago
anarchy means no rulers not no government. there would be governing bodies consisting of delegates directly responsible to those the represent and subject to immediate recall.
people fear there would be chaos because there would be no police. during the general strike in seatlle in 1919 army veterans acted as a police force and in fact during that strike, arrests dropped to 1/2 their #. (as a side note, most crimes nowadays are economiclly driven)
37butterflyprincess 6 months ago
@37butterflyprincess The Jesuits created the Fed. And it was the Jesuits that murdered JFK because he would not submit to the Vatican over the U.S. Constitution. And they were able to use his death as a martyrdom in order to provide a sympathy for all incoming Catholic politicians who in fact were submissive to the Roman Whore and would do anything to further her world domination. Read books National Sunday Law and Secret History of the Jesuits.
bornbythesea 6 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 even the arebs belive in a jewish idea of god
ehudnold9 7 months ago 2
Do you want to be free or do you want to be ruled ?? do you have the intelligence to understand that a law is a rule and that you cannot be free and ruled ?you and your budd'y are not Anarchist which means your statist and therefore believe that a man has the right to rule the life of another man which is rule of law - this makes you and your buddy's low-life wretched scum of the earth and i wouldnt piss on the lot of you when you are burning !
godkingofthepunks 8 months ago
A LAW IS A RULE - TO BE LAWED IS TO BE RULED - RULE OF LAW - YOU CANNOT BE FREE AND RULED !! - IF YOU THINK THAT A MAN HAS THE RIGHT TO RULE THE LIFE OF ANOTHER MAN YOU ARE UTTER UTTER UTTER SCUM OF THE EARTH !! WHERE IS YOUR WILL FOR LIBERTY ?? THERE IS NO LIBERTY UNDER THE RULE OF OTHERS - COMPLETE INSANITY TO ARGUE AGAINST BEING FREE
godkingofthepunks 8 months ago
@godkingofthepunks alot of people think they can rule and that couses violences and theirs a diferences between freedom and libertarianism
emilio124567 8 months ago
IT IS RIGHT TO BE FREE YOU FUCKING LUNATICS
godkingofthepunks 8 months ago
@moryuf but pure communism is a belief which in actuality cannot be actualized. the idea is noble, however.
freelikealonewolf 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@moryuf "Pure communism is the ideal and most advanced form of anarchy."
I disagree entirely, but what's curious to me is that so many Chomsky supporters strenuously deny that he is a communist. They repeatedly tell me he's not a communist and doesn't agree with communism, that he criticizes it and opposes it.
MillionthUsername 8 months ago
For Chomsky, "anarchism" seems to mean being a social parasite government contractor. I guess working for the Pentagon pays better than other career paths available to the genuinely anti-establishment radical.
As for "capitalism," now Noam's got that covered too. He charges $12k for a speaking engagement. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, you poor huddled masses oppressed by the powers that be. Learn from Noam and get aboard the gov't subsidy gravy train.
MillionthUsername 8 months ago
@MillionthUsername Yeah, the Pentagon likes to hire Socialist contractors and anti-establishment radicals. By the way, what are you smoking?
And, so he gets $12k (assuming he does) per engagement. That's chicken feed on the speaking tour; check out what Clinton or Bush get, even in China! Oh, but there's the status of an ex-President, right? OK, how about Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, or other assorted Republican retards or moral bankrupts? Try SIX FIGURES. $12k??? Dirt cheap.
DammitGumby 8 months ago
@DammitGumby Chomsky has made millions off the Pentagon. He doesn't deny it. Oh yeah, he's "anti-establishment" with a military industrial complex subsidy and a million dollar vacation home and $12k a pop to hear "socialist" drivel.
Tell me, if he's a "socialist," then why does he live like a capitalist? I thought capitalism was evil? Why did raise his speaking fees? Doesn't he care about the "exploitation" of the workers at those institutions? I thought profit was exploitation? No?
MillionthUsername 8 months ago
@MillionthUsername You're right. He calls the united states a major terrorist state, says all authority should be forced to justify itself or be abolished, has been arrested many times in his life for protesting against the government, and is as far as I can tell the most effective and valuable activist ever to live outside of Gandi, but some of his work in linguistics many years ago was done at a university that was funded by the Pentagon, (tax money), so he's obviously not anti-establishment.
JessAtlas 8 months ago
@JessAtlas Chomsky is nothing like Gandhi. He wasn't even able to freely choose to work for some other department that wasn't funded by the Pentagon. He chose to take their money even while calling himself an "anarchist" (supposedly against big gov't waste) and a "socialist" (supposedly against the imperialist MIC).
He may be "anti-establishment" in rhetoric, but certainly not in lifestyle, where he is simply a rich capitalist famous for trashing rich capitalists. : )
MillionthUsername 8 months ago
Comment removed
thirdshift47 7 months ago
Comment removed
thirdshift47 7 months ago
@MillionthUsername
If Chomsky is a "capitalist" for actually having the nerve to make a living in the quasimarket society in which he was born then people like Milton Friedman,Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul(long-standing House member of the 'big government')must all be socialists par excellence for relying on the public infrastructure of their quasimarket society.
PS
Chomsky also "trashed" Communist heroes. :)
thirdshift47 7 months ago
@thirdshift47 "If Chomsky is a "capitalist" for actually having the nerve to make a living"
I didn't say he was a capitalist for making a living. Socialists can make a living. He chooses not to make a living as the voluntary socialist he claims to be, but as a federally subsidized fascist and also as a professional exploiter of the labor of others (according to his own standards).
I'm accusing him of hypocrisy, not of making a living.
MillionthUsername 7 months ago
@MillionthUser
He chooses not to make a living as a "voluntary socialist"--as he and his wife once did in an Isreali Kibbutzim--because he understands the power that his voice has an advocate of social justice by being committed to it in his own country as opposed to simply voicing his views from some idyllic intentional community abroad.
Secondly,he's a capitalist in one instance,but "federally subsidized" in another?lol
Third,most are guilty of being neither pure capitalists or socialists.
thirdshift47 7 months ago
The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.
themaniusedtob 8 months ago
these interviews are very informing. I hope someone remasters these tapes.
hoppidi6 9 months ago
@comusnine It is a question of attitude and practice. It is also a question of mindset. "Propaganda" (leaflets, papers, articles) is useless unless you have a movement of people that are already in the right mindset. We haven't had that in any serious sense. There's a tendency towards middle-class cynicism that isolates itself from the working class. Arguments need to be made and activity must become serious, and enjoyable! Not alienating propaganda of tired slogans in anarcho-punk fonts.
agapeiron 9 months ago
Anarchism is the belief that you cannot be free and ruled - propaganda and indoctrination are the methods used to convince society that you
can be free and ruled.
A law is a rule - lawed is ruled
Anarchy ; society without law - society without being ruled
If you are not an Anarchist you are a statist - a statist is a person that wants to be ruled and a person that will argue that you can be
free and ruled
godkingofthepunks 10 months ago 31
This has been flagged as spam show
@godkingofthepunks
>>Anarchism is the belief that you cannot be free and ruled
Which is a moot point when one of your colleagues decides he doesn't like you and therefore uses violence to subjugate you, or when said colleague decides that he doesn't like your type and wants your belongings, so he convinces other colleagues that you did something which deserves punishment.
>>a statist is a person that wants to be ruled
A statist accepts that unlimited freedom means that there are no rights.
kDest 8 months ago
@godkingofthepunks that sounds stupid... there must be a government and there must be law. even ppl without a government will make laws by which to abide by. a code of conduct, so to say. look at criminal organizations for an example. you cannot just do what u want, ever. and ppl establish leaders themselves, whether they want to or not. ppl must be governed or there will be mob rule and kangaroo courts...
freelikealonewolf 8 months ago
@freelikealonewolf You're confused in thinking that the presence of an authoratitve entity is necessary in any society. A government is defined as a state that consists of people set aside specifically to govern the people. Anarchist philosophy rejects the notion that we need a state and it advocates governance of the people. While you're correct in saying there would still be laws in an anarchist society, since the people govern themselves, the presence of a state is absolutely not needed.
LightofJah81 8 months ago
@LightofJah81 that is why it is still a philosophy and not a reality. the presence of an authority figure is necessary in a society. have u heard of any nation in history that has not had one? btw, the salem witch trials are an example of mob rule and kangaroo courts.
freelikealonewolf 5 months ago
@freelikealonewolf The only reason it isn't a reality is because people have been subjugated and ruled by governments since time immemorial, causing them to doubt the possibility of a state-free country. Actually, yes, I have heard of a country that experienced true anarchism and thrived until it was destroyed by fascists after the spanish revolution. Catalonia, Aragon and other parts of Spain began to govern themselves without the need or presence of a government, it lasted a few years and
LightofJah81 5 months ago
@freelikealonewolf consisted of about 8 million people it totality. George Orwell, who I'm sure you know to be one of the most prominent anarchist thinkers of the 20th century, wrote Homage to Catalonia describing the success of these anarchist, autonomic states and how well they were able to collectively rule themselves. Anarchism doesn't entail a complete absence of authority, it simply advocates the abolishment of formal elites set aside to rule the masses. The salem witch trials in that
LightofJah81 5 months ago
Respond to this video... sense is a very poor example of anti-statist governance because it doesn't correlate with any anarchist values whatsoever. You'd be much better of using Somalia as a better example, even though it isn't an anarchist nation by any measure at all (which seems to be a popular misconception). In politics there must be a balance between idealism and realism and by rejecting any political theory you're only practicing intolerance.
LightofJah81 5 months ago
@godkingofthepunks freedom and libertarian is very different
emilio124567 8 months ago
@godkingofthepunks
I think I'm on you side, but I think you look at it alittle too black and white. What is the end goal? Is the end goal unlimited freedom no matter what the consequenses, or is the end goal a good life for as many as possible, no matter the means?
I choose the latter. And I think we need both rights and rules to get there. The problem is not resources, we have the resouces. The problem is the ALLOCATION of resouces, which is desided by moeny today.
TheSaltyAdmiral 5 months ago
@godkingofthepunks By that reason you cant have socialist anarchy. Anarchy would by definition need to be capitalistic.
gulbirk 4 months ago
@gulbirk no it wouldnt
Sarmaisterz 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sarmaisterz Well, any system that has the two factors money and no taxation (because of no state) would of course include the ownership (which would be private) over industry. Thus, its capitalism.
In other words. I come to a hospital in an anarcho "socialist" society, and I dont have money to pay for what I need. I am turned down. That is the very opposite of what socialism is all about.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@gulbirk pretty much.. and nothing is bad by capitalism.
sniped101 4 months ago
@gulbirk How do you figure ?
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160 Well, any system that has the two factors money and no taxation (because of no state) would of course include the ownership (which would be private) over industry. Thus, its capitalism.
In other words. I come to a hospital in an anarcho "socialist" society, and I dont have money to pay for what I need. I am turned down. That is the very opposite of what socialism is all about.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@gulbirk You are just asserting that it "would of course include the ownership" without anything to back up such a statement.
Property being something that is protected by law, I could easily envision a stateless society in which there is no property as there is no law protecting property rights and to state who owns what.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160 property only exists on paper. Even if you remove that paper you still have property, because you still have people using the area. And a society that has no state/no taxes, no forced sharing, and money is capitalism. You cant get away from that.
In such a society, I would die if I dont have money to get surgery. I will be un-educated if I cant pay for school. All of these things are supposed to be solved by socialism. Anarchia socialism dont exist .Deal with it
gulbirk 3 months ago
@gulbirk Sorry, I must have have misread your comment.For the most part I agree with what you said. I think I thought you were arguing for capitalism.
I think property would exist in so much as you will "own", for lack of a better word, what you can defend other people from taking.However property rights and certainly intellectual property would not exist.
I think Chomsky is too optimistic when it comes to human nature.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160 Oh, Im certainly not defending any kind of anarchism, :)
I just dont get chomskys idea of how state-less socialism works.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@gulbirk I think he is fond of the idea of the "noble savage". He believes that most primitive stateless cultures were based on creativity and cooperation. I think he is right to a certain extent, but I also think he ignores the fact that war,greed,racism and genocide are also part of these societies and human nature and need to be controlled by some form of state.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160 He can argue against the state if he wants too. But it seems to me, like any system with both money and no state (ergo no taxation and no free institutions like schools and hospitals) doesnt seem to solve the problems people had with capitalism.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@gulbirk In this society due to the nature of the system he does believe in government social programs.
In an anarchist society there would be federative organisational structure that would provide those things plus the society is already based on solidarity not greed and a Darwinian rat-race like the one we have.
anarchosolar 3 months ago
@godkingofthepunks what if i believe that freedom is a sacrifice for laws? i recognize that, although laws limit my freedom, their benefits far outweigh a sacrifice of freedom. i agree that you can't be free and ruled, but i am not a proponent of anarchism.
EXAMPLE: a law prohibiting me from murdering somebody exists. my freedom is now limited (as are the people around me), but it is a sacrifice to keep society safe. so, although i recognize my freedom is limited by the law, i still support it.
AviRishiMovies 3 months ago
@godkingofthepunks what you just described as anarchism is a pile of bullshit. Anarchism according to Chomsky is not anti-government. On the contrary, it's a very simple concept: do not let a government establish itself in the long term, with all the negative consequences this will bring forward. DESTROY any entity/institution that tries to perdure. RECONSTRUCT it into something else. THAT is anarchy.
mellkiades 3 months ago
@comusnine
looooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
ahmed337799 10 months ago
@comusnine "And how would this be effected? It would require a catalyst."
Like most things in life, you don't always have all the answers but you have to act on what you do have, or those missing answers will never become apparent. Talking about an idea and promoting it in people's minds as 'conceivable' is a start - it leads to more people thinking about that idea.
whydeemos 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
for those who think that organization is not posible without authority, equal desorganization is better than unequal organization, just a thought
ilgattofatto 11 months ago
@ilgattofatto that is niilism, not anarchism
MrMentllet 9 months ago
for those who think that organization is not posible without authority, equal desorganization is better than unequal organization, just a thought
ilgattofatto 11 months ago
@ilgattofatto government is an unnecessary evil, why should i pay to live in world i was born in.why should i slave all my life away so ONE percent of the world can be happy.
sk8pn 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Society needs organization, but it does not need hierarchy.
Rad1ka1 1 year ago
Society needs organization, but it does not need hierarchy,
Rad1ka1 1 year ago
anarchism is a hard lifestyle to live but can be done in a sophisticated way
BEARARMZ 1 year ago
Something tells me that we wouldn't be able to keep up this level and quality of technological development in an anarchist society. Am I wrong? How would our current level of industry and research work with anarchism? It's a serious question, no need for condescension or anything like that.
scientrophic 1 year ago
@scientrophic That is a good point you are making. The answer to that, I think, is that scientific process would "stall", especially scientific progress that leads to huge economical gains, or that is sponsored by big governments (military equipment, electronic gadgets). And it may disappear altogether. But personally, I don't that that is bad in itself. There is not use for scientific progress if it cannot be used by most people.
ale5725 11 months ago
For the 1000th' time anarchism doesn't mean "lawless" society------it means society without rule-----rule from public or private tyranny---it is a society which may take a "leap of faith"-----Jesus was FOR radical change-----maybe this is the "leap of faith" he was talking about
metalreign81 1 year ago
“I really don’t know what you do about the ‘taxes is theft’ crowd, except possibly enter a gambling pool regarding just how long after their no-tax utopia comes true that their generally white, generally entitled, generally soft and pudgy asses are turned into thin strips of Objectivist Jerky by the sort of pitiless sociopath who is actually prepped and ready to live in the world that logically follows these people’s fondest desires.” (John Scalzi)
Cjomsky is a childish fantasist.
huxley2221 1 year ago
Comment removed
astronomypouya 1 year ago
Comment removed
astronomypouya 1 year ago
Comment removed
astronomypouya 1 year ago
Here's the transcription: look for "The Relevance of Anarcho-syndicalism
Noam Chomsky interviewed by Peter Jay" in google (blocked links by you tube)
arthwr 1 year ago
@arthwr Tx for the link: Chomsky names Kropotkin (who advocated abolishing money) and Bakunin (who practiced and advocated terrorism) with approval. He claims that kibbutzes, and the Spanish Anarchists are examples of how anarchist principles can work in practice. The man is a transparent fraud on these issues. If the anarchist way of life is so great, why doesn't he live it? His suggestion that Anarchism based on Enlightenment principles is illiterate, or a self-serving lie.
petersham121 1 year ago
@petersham121 I think if you were to ask Chomsky himself if he advocated terrorism or immediately abolishing money, he would condemn both of those things. The tactic you employ here is dishonest. He takes ideas from those figures, but that does not mean he categorically supports all of their views; e.g. Bakunin, like most Europeans in his time, was an open anti-semite as well. If you read or watch Chomsky's interviews closely, he is practical about the changes he suggests.
scientrophic 11 months ago
I guess that the Penacook federation can be seen as an early example of an anarchist society. It was a federated, decentralised, and democratic society without private property where everyone had an equal say. At least acording to "The Tribes and States" by William James Sidis, wich is an interesting read "//sidis.net /TSContents.htm". And this could be seen as an inspiration for a better society wich seem so urgently needed.
infiniteinfiniteinfi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr. Chomsky recently told Iranian TV that at the time the USA attacked Afghanistan they had no evidence that al Qaeda did 9/11. See my video "Chomsky on Faith-based Wars and 9/11"
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
Human behaviour is the issue and everyone will not come to a consensus on how a society should operate.
KEVI3000 1 year ago
"Democratic control of ONE's productive life is at the core of human liberation."
WHAT?! How is that logical? That defies reason. If one cannot decide, completely, for his or herself what to do with his or her own body and mind, that is completely backwards to liberty. Just because something is voted on from the "bottom up", doesn't remove the FACT that it is enforced by violence.
Democracy is archaic and violent no matter how you spin it.
datalorez 1 year ago
How do you people know its not the Department of Educations thats dumbing people down?
HipsterCapitalism 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
've been getting into Chomsky and Anarchism over the last week or so. I'm relatively young and am getting more and more interested in political manners and so on so i've been looking this stuff up. I've mainly seen the older Chomsky vids so far where he's talking about foreign policy but this interview is breath taking. Why won't he talk about Anarchism now? The ideas and reasoning he presents here are amazing and honestly give me goosebumps at times because they feel very practical in my mind.
unknown1771 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@unknown1771 Also what kinds of books or text would people recommend to me to be able to learn more about the ideas of Anarchism, what would change what wouldn't change etc. compared to Capitalism and so on.
unknown1771 1 year ago
Anarchy: "You will all just get along, because I said so".
tothemax01 1 year ago
social attitudes need to change as well, people need to learn to get along and agree to disagree as well... not kill one another for power.
HerrSpieldose 1 year ago
to represent democracy is pure bullshit, it´s a delusion, nowadays people accept this explaining that there´s no other system working better than this, the concept of liberty isn´t applied in a clear context, therefore there are mistakes about how to understand freedom, mass media made people docile, now it´s hard to realise being authentic.
gabo4ever6891 1 year ago
@donroche I had hoped you had a source I wasn't aware of, or had missed, but I realize now that assuming you had any grounds at all for your statement was a long shot. I've "randomly searched", looked back through some scholarly work, and I can't find any specific reference to the anarchists murdering clergy. The closest I've found is a statement about the near-universal anti-clerical sentiment at the time and that anarchists seized the finances of a few churches. Why don't you do some research.
firechiefmusic 1 year ago
@donroche Ok, but I was looking for a source, not who the victims were. I'd like to read it myself. What text are you pulling this information from?
firechiefmusic 1 year ago
@donroche I would love to know what sources you're drawing from here. The only widespread killing I've read of in this context is the killing of anarchists in the communists' "counter-revolution".
firechiefmusic 1 year ago
Like marx has said: In every epoch the ruling ideas are are the ideas of the ruling class. His biggest mistake was that he thought that a state could bring socialism to the people, they have to discover itself. But maybe that was his intention, with the dictatorship of the proletarish people.
neocivis 1 year ago
Capitalism is less voluntary than socialism. It is wage slavery. Power rules, and having the strongest bully be democratically elected is optimal. There is no freer society than a bottom up democracy in industry and politics with strong civil liberties and constitutional protection of minorities.
darkmiles22 1 year ago 3
@darkmiles22 Excellent analysis!!!
salahudeenabduladl 1 year ago
Chomsky is a MASSIVE supporter of the State. He is a Socialist!
Everything should be Voluntary, the EXACT opposite of Communism/Fascism.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
VIVAN BAKUNIN Y KROPOTKIN!
alkantre 1 year ago
@Photosareawesome thnx
danny7cris 1 year ago
@whydeemos Anarchy respects every individual for what she/he is and doesn't impose or indoctrinates them.
Being free, people with same philosophies will join together, just like it happens in our social lives (or even in the internet). This complex of communities, with all its troubles, its injustices, but also its altruistic, collaborative (and whatever else humans are capable of) characteristics, will form a true anarchistic society.
Anarchism is all about giving power to the individual.
guest21278 1 year ago
i am interested in learning about anarchism capitalism and commounism.....do you have in mind any books(easily read:my english are not that advanced)?thanks....
danny7cris 1 year ago
This is being censored right now. Over-response to a few cop cars being set merrily alight at G20? Hm?
kskshghg 1 year ago
most of my friends cant spell Anarchism
seveneverything 1 year ago
Chomsky may provide brilliant insights on Latin America and the Middle Eastern conflict, but I cannot take him seriously when it comes to something like Anarchy. It cannot work nor will it ever. If you wanna see an Anarchistic society, take a look at Somalia.
RealMadrid1019 1 year ago
on the contrary, it can work....look at the spanish revolution. for almost three years, people worked together through a highly organized and egalitarian society. the point of anarchism (or any system) is to EXPERIMENT. the only thing we can do is to keep organizing and experiment like socrates said to do. there is no RESULT its just constant evolutionary experimentation. america is devolving if you ask me....
johnowensjr1234 1 year ago
on the contrary, it can work....look at the spanish revolution. for almost three years, people worked together through a highly organized and egalitarian society. the point of anarchism (or any system) is to EXPERIMENT. the only thing we can do is to keep organizing and experiment like socrates said to do. there is no RESULT its just constant evolutionary experimentation. america is devolving if you ask me....
johnowensjr1234 1 year ago 11
@johnowensjr1234 The Spanish Anarchists only had significance while there was no strong government.. They were violently anti-Republican, as well as anti-Monarchist, and if the Republic had prevailed,then the Anarchists would have been wiped out by them, instead of Franco.. So they failed miserably in every respect. The Kibbutz movement is also a bad example of anarchism because they are based on nationaliism, and heavily subsidised. They are now in decline, and many have been privatised.
petersham121 1 year ago
@petersham121 Just because the state (either Franco or Republican, doesn't matter) had the resources and the motive to wipe them out does not make them failures. All that proves is that states are coercive institutions. During those three years, people worked together successfully without the need of a state. Regular workers used democratic principles to form solidified worker's councils and ended up controlling 70% of Spain's economy.
johnowensjr1234 1 year ago
@johnowensjr1234: Anarchists are incapable of forming lasting alliances, even with each other, so any other form of political organization has a huge advantage.. They are dedicated to violent overthrow of all governments, so there is no recourse except to use force against them Anarchists support all forms of terrorism:as it is necessary to destroy society before Anarchism can exist. Like Christians, they welcome signs that the world is ending, because that signals the Kingdom of Heaven.
petersham121 1 year ago
@petersham121 1) Political movements are evolutionary and experimental. Values and theories blend and expand. Anarchism covers a vast range of ideas from left to right. It's impossible to say "Anarchists are incapable of..." because its a broad array of evolving movements and theories that fail and succeed. There is no ONE group. 2) Some movements use violence and some advocate non-violent resistance (mass strikes, non-cooperation) 3) Terrorism is used by everyone (Al Queda, IRA, USA etc)
johnowensjr1234 1 year ago
@johnowensjr1234: Anarchists are incapable of forming lasting alliances, even with each other, so any other form of political organization has a huge advantage.. They are dedicated to violent overthrow of all governments, so there is no recourse except to use force against them Anarchists support all forms of terrorism:as it is necessary to destroy society before Anarchism can exist. Like Christians, they welcome signs that the world is ending, as a prelude to the Kingdom of Heaven.
petersham121 1 year ago
@petersham121 it sounds to me like you bought into the propagated myth that anarchism is just chaos and disorder.
johnowensjr1234 1 year ago
@petersham121 And of course an anarchist society blossomed during a state absence....otherwise it wouldn't be called an anarchist society.
johnowensjr1234 1 year ago
@johnowensjr1234 LOLOL at "an anarchist society blossomed". IT was financed by bank robberies and forced collectivization, and accompanied by the murder of anyone who disagreed with them.. It lasted three years only because the socialist Republicans were too busy fighting the Monarchists to crush them, but it was only a matter of time. They were failures in everything except murder and destruction. Blossomed? Blossoms of blood maybe, which is all Anarchism is guaranteed to produce.
petersham121 1 year ago