Chomsky: Anarchism means choosing your oppression

[spazzhashberry]

i don't see why a society of fee villages and minimalist living would even require a government.

[ShadeToSun]

Anarchy is a pipe dream. It always fails.

[16thHop]

I disagree with Chomsky on his point about Toyota vs. Honda vs. subway. You CAN build a subway assuming you

a) have the money

b) have the land

c) meet safety restrictions (just like you can spray paint all the windows of your car black, you can't build an unsafe subway that might cause the ground to collapse)

The point is, it's possible and most American subways ARE Public/ Private joint ventures.

Spot on with environmental problems though.

[dick391]

@16thHop Are you serious dude? First off, you misquoted me. I said you can have freedom or equality, but not both. There is a clear trade-off between the two. The more equality you desire, the more you must infringe on the freedom of others.

Second, equal "say" is not equality. But if you honestly think that people living in ancient aboriginal tribes had a more "equal say" and "let them do mostly what they want", then I got a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in buying.

[16thHop]

@dick391 My misunderstanding. I thought that you meant "equality" as in equality under the law and civil rights. But, Chomsky's argument against your first paragraph is that the "right to property" isn't a right at all. A right is infinite, just like speech, land is not. By buying land, you theoretically infringe on other's freedom.

I personally find this view archaic and unrealistic, as it doesn't seem to apply to a post-industrial economy. This is the weakness of contemporary Marxism.

[dick391]

@16thHop No right is infinite. And there is no way for one person to have freedom without it "infringing" on another's "freedom" (as you used the word). It should be obvious that 100% freedom is impossible. If a group of protesters break into townhall meeting and yell and shut down discussion, they are using their freedom of speech to infringe on others speech. Land may be fixed, wealth obviously is not. No economist worth his salt believes wealth is zero-sum. But you're right wealth is finite.

[dick391]

@dick391 Anarchists fall for the fallacy that without government they will be "freer". Sure they are free from government laws. But will they be freer from coercion? After all, coercion is where one person's rights begin and another person's rights end. If I steal another man's property, I have increased my freedom at the expense of that other man's freedom. Anarchists sell you the phony believe that everyone can increase their freedom by getting rid of government. The answer obviously is no.

[jasperb12345]

@dick391 Inherit hypocrisy; higher force makes you free-er. Try again.

[dick391]

@jasperb12345 Force exists by government and in the absense of it. That's just human nature. The question is how to most fairly allocate it. Anarchy is no more or less hypocritical than statism. Try again.

[jasperb12345]

@dick391 Nice counter sir. Force in my opinion exists from lack of intrinsic moral education, that allows us to believe that human nature is meant to be controlled by "betters". That is the world of government and power structure. No one is better, no one is worse, but that is the deception of the devil in my opinion. Those who wish to be the best need to pull everyone up to them, not control. Government imho is control, not freedom.

[djdnauk1977]

@dick391 thats not true, government is forced onto everyone in a region by the will of the majority (might = right bullsh*t) whereas anarchism is about free association regardless of where you live & the right to disassociate etc... both anarcho-capitalist & anarcho-communist extremes & all between value maximum liberty, which statist is intrinsically opposed to, which is why states always lead to wars & eventually financial collapse etc...

[dick391]

@djdnauk1977 No that's not the definition of anarchy at all. Anarchy is simply the absense of state coercion. It says absolutely nothing about coercion perpetuated by groups other than goverment. Funny, you defined anarchy to be the result you wanted (free association). When you put it that way, how can I disagree with you?

I also want free association. But its an open question (at best) whether anarchy would be a "freer" system. Anarchy typically precedes totalitarian rule.

[djdnauk1977]

@dick391 i agree it says nothing about coercion, other than it clearly implies using it against peaceful people is negative as thats ruling them.

i can define anarchy officially as no rulers, i wasnt reinventing the definition, just explaining my view of the implications of "no rulers"

anarchy precedes totalitarian rule? anarcho-communist societies have failed a lot i agree but there are good examples of free market anarchist societies working great for far longer than any state.

[dick391]

Another way of putting it: You can have freedom or equality, but you cannot both. The only way to achieve equality is for one group to be given the power to take from another. That is not freedom in meaningful sense of the world (unless you subscribe to the Orwellian kool-aid).

A problem that too many left-wingers (and many conservatives) have is accepting that inequality is a necessary cost of freedom. If you are not free to fail, then neither are you free to succeed.

[16thHop]

@dick391 "you can't have freedom or equality" WTF. How do you explain primitive/ ancient aboriginal tribes that both give everyone equal say and also let them do mostly what they want. No one is talking about TOTAL freedom, that's chaos. You aren't free to murder some one. Chomsky dealt with this by the stop light example.

[pastafarianprophet]

For more on this see: negative vs. positive freedom

[BobGeorgeAU]

Of course public transport could be available in the marketplace. The fact that the government does it currently does not mean it wouldn't get done if the government didn't do it. Why wouldn't a private business want to run a subway system if enough people wanted it? If Chomsky was the only person that wanted it then he'd be right that it wouldn't be available to him. But the same problem obviously exists in a democratic system. I couldn't have what I want if at least 50% didn't want it too.

[Leftovervictim1991]

Chomsky is right about war and civil liberties, but he doesnt know anything about economics. Free makets and voluntary transactions are needed for prosperity and liberty. Federal Regulations create monopolies, corporate welfare and undermines free markets. How can a professed anarchist be for federal regulations on businesses?

[CopingMethod]

@Leftovervictim1991 Unfortunately those "voluntary transactions" can only be carried out by those with the means to do so. There are no laws stopping any of us from buying as many shares in Microsoft as we want. However, very few of us have the money to realise that transaction. To call such markets, that only rich people can participate in, "free", seems like an Orwellian misnomer, to me at least.

[KrugmanTheKing]

@CopingMethod

In one of his books, Plato ironically sustained that the rulers which appeared to be powerful because of the authority they had over their people were in fact very weak since they couldn't even do what they wanted... In short, his critic was that power is only just and legitimate if it is used in the best interests and for the benefits of those who are ruled.

That would be a truly liberal position: someone who really understand freedom who'd tell you so.

[KrugmanTheKing]

@CopingMethod

An other guy who put it very nicely was Rawls when he said that a just system would be designed such as to maximize the well-being of the least well-off individual within it.

Yet, this is alien to most people who yell for freedom in the US... they can't see that calling for collective means, for actions toward one another, is what would preserve freedom. All they see is a perfect market that doesn't exist.

[dick391]

@CopingMethod No, your definition of freedom is more of a misnomer if anything. In fact, you abuse the word to mean essentially nothing. The only way to realize "freedom" as you describe it would be to infringe on the freedoms of other (by taking away their property, free speech and choice).

A more meaningful definition of freedom would be one where individuals are free to pursue their objectives, provided they do not prevent others from doing the same (you cannot kill, forcibly take, etc.)

[neil73]

Ah, one of those videos with the toilet noise in the background

[breakingthe4thwall]

I like some of chomsky's work, but he's wrong about this.

[FrogmortonHotchkiss]

This is good but unfortunately he is somewhat drowned out by what sounds like an audience of aliens chattering in Binary. Fix the sound please?

[MillionthUsername]

"Private ownership of land infringes on personal liberty."

That's a commie for ya. Damn jackass thinks it's his right to confiscate your property and loot you. But if every jackass has this right to loot homesteaders, then Chomsky's world is nothing but perpetual war. Anyone who settles on land and makes it productive is somehow an aggressor. If this is true, then how can a group settle land without violating the "right" of some other group to that same land.

Communism is pure evil.

[Chinomareno]

@MillionthUsername

He's not a communist... Many schools of anarchism hold it unethical to privately own land, their argument isn't "I want your stuff". Even though I think anarchism is naive you should educate yourself before jumping to conclusions.

[MillionthUsername]

@Chinomareno Of course he's a communist. If you claim that no one may own any land anywhere without the permission of your mob, guess what, you're a communist. How many of Chomsky's lectures do I have to listen to before I "jump to conclusions," pal? He constantly talks about "wage slavery." He thinks actual economic freedom is "fascism," owning land is a crime (although it's ok for him to own a million-dollar vacation home). Just because he calls himself "anarchist" doesn't mean squat.

[mojorhythm]

@MillionthUsername Communist societies don't have money. They pool resources into a collective then distribute them by community vote or fiat. Chomsky has mentioned thousands of times that he is not against money. He just thinks that everyone should have equal wages, with maybe extra money for people who do the shitty jobs that cannot be shared equally by all the members of the community.

[MillionthUsername]

@mojorhythm Communists believe that only communist mobs can own capital. You are trying to say that in order to get the label "communist" it has to be a moneyless group? Yeah, right. And then the Zeitgeisters say that they aren't communists even though they advocate the same kind of collectivism, are anti-private property as well as anti-money. No one wants the label so they just continually try to obfuscate their communist beliefs.

How do you force "equal wages" btw?

[mojorhythm]

@MillionthUsername "You are trying to say that in order to get the label "communist" it has to be a moneyless group?"

Exactly. You are catching on. You seem to be confusing communism with socialism. Socialism is where the productive resources are owned by those who use them. Communism is a type of socialism without money. It's not that difficult to understand.

[MillionthUsername]

@mojorhythm Yeah, it's not difficult to understand when people make up their own definitions.

[mojorhythm]

"How do you force "equal wages" btw?"

Only a tyrant would "force" equal wages. Chomsky said it would be an ideal vision of a future society. It is something that the community would need to agree on and reach a consensus over themselves.

It's like me asking "how do you 'force' the concept of private property on others?" You'd rightly dismiss me as being nonsensical.

[MillionthUsername]

@mojorhythm Chomsky continually advocates that the state use force against individuals. Is he a tyrant?

He has millions. Does he share it with his co-workers in order to equalize their salaries with his?

[mojorhythm]

@MillionthUsername "He has millions. Does he share it with his co-workers in order to equalize their salaries with his?" Being a hypocrite doesn't make you wrong. For example, Al Gore used to be a massive polluter. It doesn't mean he was wrong about climate change.

"Chomsky continually advocates that the state use force against individuals."

If you arbitrarily define taxation as the initiation of force, then by your reasoning he is, yes.

[MillionthUsername]

@mojorhythm "If you arbitrarily define taxation as the initiation of force"

And the anti-human, anti-intellectual nutbag "philosophy" reveals itself.

Thanks for playing.

[MillionthUsername]

@Chinomareno Actually, he IS a capitalist, but he makes his living as a communist posing as an anarchist who is funded by the Pentagon. Just to be clear. : )

[rtnslnd]

@wtfjaftw the issue is who owns capital, and under what conditions and relations are people interacting with said business? if the major motivation is profit, then the owners of capital in a market will be compelled to drive down labor costs to increase profits, and this means lobbying the state to lower labor standards or ease regulation of them. if the major motivation is employment and human needs, there is no such compelling drive to increase profits. this is the cooperative model

[brush200400]

LOL roads would be privatized so if I am using someone's property to get to work it is not an infringement of my liberty

[rtnslnd]

@brush200400 no, with the premise roads are privatized, you would be infringing on his/her liberty by extension if you did not have a permit or contract which allows your access to his/her private property. this is why privatization of roads is ludicrous and would ultimately be an impediment to economic development. the privatization of roads is the most ludicrous thing Ive heard since the privatization of water. about as totalitarian as it can get.

[mojorhythm]

Note to uploader:

Chomsky IS AN ANARCHIST!

He is talking about "anarcho-"capitalism, i.e. the philosophy that considers the ultimate ideal of freedom to be the ability to choose between wage slavery and starvation.

[MillionthUsername]

@mojorhythm "Wage slavery" means "I prefer to work for a productive person because I am too scared, lazy, or incompetent to provide a marketable good or service myself."

[mojorhythm]

@MillionthUsername Let me guess, everyone else is just "parasites" are they?

Ayn Rand was one of the most wicked and despicable charlatans of the 20th century. No thinking person takes her or her wacky philosophy even remotely seriously.

[MillionthUsername]

@mojorhythm I didn't mention Rand. I didn't say everyone was a parasite. People who loot other people are parasites.

[mojorhythm]

@MillionthUsername Like that disabled widow across town who relies on Medicare and Social Security payments to not starve to death or get sick and die? Is she a filthy parasite in your mind?

[MillionthUsername]

@mojorhythm Considering the fact that she was looted her whole working life, no. Does that mean it's ok to loot working people? Do human beings have any rights? Or are we all just means to an end for anyone who has the power to impose their will through violence?

[kakkuaa]

Can this interview be seen in its entirety somewhere perhaps? Anybody know where to find it?

[centurion180ad]

According to Doctor Adam Smith the major problems with government intervention into a Free Market, is bribes & graft when a small coterie of well heeled interests unlawfully utilize government to restrict a market to their particular benefit at the expense of everyone else.

Government intervention not specifically codified in the Constitution must be to the general welfare, meaning of benefit to all and not more restrictive or of a cost to any particular class.

[37Dionysos]

NC is saying that lack of a public option is a choice outlawed "for us" by "free markets" of corporations who have everythjing to lose from it, no matter how beneficial it might be to most people. No shred of evidence suggests that this fake "free market" is going to keep prices down on its own...just the opposite. So where, Chomsky says, do you want to lose some rights? The right to exploit sickness for profit, or the right to cheap good health care?

[alistairproductions]

lol an anarchist that is for the public sector

[Juangalt]

The car as the sole reasonable choice isn't a purely market decision. It is the government that builds the infrastructure and subsidizes oil to make cars the choice. It is the government and not Capitalism that is to blame here.

[kjorg27]

You can't "choose" public institutions and goods like transportation in the marketplace, at least one endowed with property rights, because choosing to usurp assets from your neighbor to construct and fund them, organize bureaucracies to manage them, is known as a forceful act of theft in such an environment. Here, the "sensible" ability to make "public decisions" is guarded against by a respect for individual liberty; entrepreneurs guided by prices seek to alleviate others' wants voluntarily.

[Bishop38f8]

What is this guy babbling about? By public transport, he mean, for example, buses right? What makes him think that in free market society people would ultimately have only one choice, own car? He doesn't get it does he? If people would want buses, that would be a demand and an oportunity for profit, therefore someone would buy a bus and start business. The only difference is that now everyone is paying for them, even thou they don't want or need them.

[thurstjo1963]

His argument is flawed. I'm amazed that such an intelligent guy has such a profound misunderstanding of free markets. His example is extremely poor. 'I can't choose to have a car or a subway'!?! The cost of a subway is beyond his means where a car might be within his means. If enough people want to have a subway they can collectively pay for it like people in various towns in the US paid to build highways during the 1st 100 years in the US between them. And they did it efficiently!!!

[razerfish]

He's an elitist that thinks guys like him to be making choices for people. He rejects the idea of liberty and freedom for all.

[ghost1946]

It is interesting to me to see how many people think they've read more and know more than Noam Chomsky about capitalism, anarchy, libertarianism and such terms. Like fledgling actors who can't see the value of Shakespeare, when they look into him, they quiet down and realize how brilliant The Bard was. Until these outspoken, passionate rookies look beyond their distant magazine article sources and read a book about anarchy, or capitalism (keeping a dictionary handy,) we suffer their ignorance

[LiberalCast]

Public transportation is not a "public good", as it is excludable and rivalrous. Markets can provide public transportation much more efficiently and less expensively than government, if it is an actual free system. The problem is when governments grant monopolies to private firms, they end up being just as wasteful and expensive as government.

[owenhunt]

@LiberalCast I understand your argument but I think he meant an inflection of public transportation without rivalry, one which just exists in a consummate form: public cars, public scooters (especially), buses, trains; - unsure about taxis. The term "public transport" has a lot of semantic baggage, so maybe he didn't explain well enough, but I doubt he had the time to either.

[alistairproductions]

How does Chomsky call himself an anarchist and then talk about he wants public transport, services etc. That simply does not add up! That is not the position of a anarchist

[qonf]

@alistairproductions Obviously you don't understand what he means by anarchism. I assume he is speaking about public transportation, services, assumed to come from some authority which is justified in some way. I assume he thinks such a thing possible, and it might be for all i know.

watch?v=pW7nnLNANtQ

[KidInsight]

@alistairproductions He doesn't refer to himself as anarchist so to speak. He prefers Anarcho-syndicalism. A mild but significant difference.

[punxsutawneybarney]

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"

[luccaskunk]

@punxsutawneybarney I find myself torn about such a statement. On one hand, Al Qaeda, as I understand it, is an organization which should be denied the right to exist. However, I also find my cynical nature going "Yup, you've got due process and the requirement for proving something beyond a shadow of a doubt to lock someone up for more than 72 hours but going to war and trying to kill people, even innocents (by accident (supposedly)) with wanton carnage? That only takes a shadow of a suspicion"

[spilledinsanity]

Meh, this shouldn't have been posted on youtube. Nobody here has the brain capacity to understand chomsky, hence the relentless criticism.

[foxfactcheck]

Right to name your poison

[nightpotato]

Chomsky needs to lern2private-solutions-to-publ­ic-goods-problems. and lern2-privatization-of-externa­lities.

[enotdetcelfer]

whenever I listen to chomsky for too long, my braincells look at my hand, notice that I'm not pointing a gun at my head, and threaten to start killing themselves to preserve the dignity of logic and intelligence.

[trevor920]

if u agree with this guy u are not an intellectual

[enotdetcelfer]

lol, lack of a public option is a market inefficiency? this guy's misuse of phrases to justify his position is gross. Anarchism makes the argument that public/state goods are immoral because they are involuntary and thus theft. Chomsky is effectively saying that his lack of a right to some of everyone's money is a violation of His rights. What infringement on freedom does he thinks he has, the freedom to have me pay for a bus I don't use?

[mr1001nights]

either that or live in a class ruled selfish, hierarchical, alienated, isolated, environmentally destructive world of anti-solidarity capitalist mind control where you have to work for a boss and get exploited under threat of starvation

[enotdetcelfer]

sooooo... the answer to systemic institutional theft is official mandatory institutional theft...?

patient: doc, I got shot in the leg. what can you do?

doc: well i bet if we shoot the other leg, the first leg won't feel like he's being discriminated against.

patient: aaah... have you studied how systemic issues are fixed or are you just making shit up?

[astreocclu]

@mr1001nights Capitolism does not equal expoitation, and no one is forcing you to work, you can start a business, but the only way you eat is by supplying what people demand. sure capitalism isnt perfect but nothing else comes even close.

[Keinlicht]

@astreocclu "but the only way you eat is by supplying what people demand" This is precisely the problem. The corporate form of our "state capitalist" societies forces you to rent your work or face death. Think about it: If your choice is to rent yourself or starve, you're some kind of slave. And if that renting is to a Totalitarian system, what does that make you then?

"nothing else comes even close" Only in a world where Democracy, Cooperation and solidarity mean nothing at all.

[kaaosaf]

@astreocclu so a tiny percentage of the population owns more wealth than 90% of the people put together, there's millions working on farms and in factories for less than a $1 a day and huge parts of the world are in deep poverty, some even under starvation conditions and that's not exploitation? You can't stop work in real life and YOU try starting a business and working your way up to where Branson and all these other bastards are with the resources you have at hand.

[astreocclu]

@kaaosaf Absolute poverty is the lowest its ever been. It sucks that people have to work for such low wages, however everyone starts somewhere, and many multi nationals pay several times what local factories pay, with better work enviorment. Many parts of the world that are in absolute poverty are places that are riddled with disease, war, and isolationist policies. Africa is poor, asia use to be poor but through trade ar not You dont need to be a multi billionaire to have a successful business.

[rtnslnd]

@astreocclu absolute poverty is at its lowest due to free trade in combination with labor activism, not just free trade. the general trend towards industrialization lessens poverty, and the general trend toward industrialization in the third world is due to outsourcing jobs from labor-expensive western societies towards cheap labor in the third world. so the trend towards increased wealth in the third world comes at the expense of decreased wealth for the working class in western societies

[debsaid]

@mr1001nights Threat of starvation? In what world do you live in? In a free country you are free to work for yourself.

[rtnslnd]

@debsaid assuming your business works, and is not out-competed or bought by larger more resourceful companies. notice that you did not refute the argument, merely evaded it with a non-sequitor. The vast majority of the population does not have the freedom to work for themselves as they do not have the capital required to start their own business or work for themselves, so they are forced (under threat of starvation, coercion, or ridicule) to rent themselves to the owners of capital to survive

[highervis]

No not really. He's pointing out that private power can usurp from people just as much as government if not more so and his opinion is more so. What is a property right really, someone just decided some land was there's. There's no scientific bases for it, there's nothing in the soil of the land that proves ownership. That's as much force as socialism, maybe more. Anarchism done right would be like the best medium to maximum freedom.

[enotdetcelfer]

The scientific basis or evidence for right is the same as the evidence for crime. If you commit a crime, you are causally connected to the consequences of the crime. You "own" the damage you cause. Similarly, a valid property right is a causal connection with material created without the initiation of force.

The argument against current "property" and "capitalism" for which people feel injustice should not be that private property is wrong but rather that it is not rightly private property.

[arthurdonachy]

@enotdetcelfer speak plainly

[User081009]

@enotdetcelfer

Your view about anarchism is so shallow! It would be nice to have a sufficient degree of knowledge about the thing you are talking about, before expressing your opinion.

[enotdetcelfer]

@User081009 If you had made any factual claims in your comment, I would have something to defend.

[eleventhsun]

@enotdetcelfer Wow you should replace him at MIT than smart guy! I mean, he's only the most cited author of all time and one of the most respected academics alive. You must be something else to correct him on language of all things.

[johnnondrowsyd]

so we can't own our own land, and then the tyrannical government throws us out on our ass. beautiful, i can't wait to live there. no ownership of anything but our own fucking toothbrushes, great, that's a real free life. as market inefficiencies go, he's only speculating that because there are public monopolies on public transit, private business would never develop it. that's just stupid, of course it would. everything he's saying here is leaving so much out it's pointless to take seriously.

[Crustanarchy]

Private business doesn't development monopoly? What? Since when does the government help Bill Gates control the PC/software market?

[yehcnimoigres]

@Crustanarchy Since he was given intellectual property rights? Isn't that basically a government granted monopoly?

[Eldel15]

Chomsky is a collectivist and is against private ownership.

[mrtyles]

could you clean up the audio on this video?

[suckfist]

Sounds like it's underwater--I imagine air bubbles coming our of Noam's mouth.

[soulmanice]

@suckfist It's because of a bad attempt at noise reduction.

[tokotokotoko3]

Is the full interview somewhere? Sounds very interesting.

[chron1978]

Yes the full interview can be found if you search for username coolshuriken123. its a six-part interview

[tokotokotoko3]

Awesome, thanks a lot! :)

[wdednam]

(2/2)That being said, I would like to make clear that Nature's authority cannot be respected by infringing on the rights of ALL people to a dignified and prosperous NON-consumerist/ NON-economic-growth-model existence, they would just resort to destroying Nature to subsist, much like desperate Africans in the DRC are doing by killing endangered wildlife for bushmeat.

[ctvwr]

If you accept a deep ecology view, humans are part of nature, so any ideas about humans destroying nature become incoherent. Did cyano-bacteria "destroy" nature by bringing about atmospheric changes?

[wdednam]

I don't "accept" a deep ecology view, I know it to be the most accurate and developed description of reality, the one science supports. We are a part of nature whether we like it or not (or whether we were "created" or not - but that's a separate issue). Cyano-bacteria weren't aware that they were "destroying" nature, and it wouldn't be easy to "destroy" it anyway, yet we can diminish it until the planet is no longer habitable to us. The difference is, we are aware that we're doing it.

[ctvwr]

The deep ecology view is a philosophical perspective. I'm not saying it is wrong, it certainly appears right. I'm just saying that it precludes the notion of nature being "destroyed". If humans are part of nature(and it is a linguistic absurdity that allows us to think otherwise), then any action we perform is also a part of nature. A hot, radioactive, lifeless planet is just as natural as a wet, green, lush one.

[wdednam]

(1/2) If we consider the universe to be nature, then a hot radioactive lifeless planet is more natural than a wet green lush one. But when I refer to nature, I think about the biosphere of our planet. Our actions are a part of nature, sure, but the inherit uncertainty in the laws of nature (physics) precludes any deterministic outcomes for those actions. We can 'choose' our own behaviour to a large extent, more than any other animal on this planet.

[wdednam]

(2/2) If we are knowingly putting at risk the long term viability of our only life support system, we can certainly adapt our behaviour to change the outcome. Nothing in the laws of physics would prevent us from doing so. Determining our own destiny (to the extent that we can - e.g., it would be very difficult to stop a barrage of giant meteors from pulverizing the Earth) and behaving in accordance with the laws of nature are not mutually exclusive.

[ctvwr]

Ok, I agree with that view. But that is not the deep ecology view. Deep ecology conflicts deeply with your instrumentalist view of nature(the only practical view).

[wdednam]

Then I guess I don't hold the deep ecology view after all :)

[wdednam]

(1/2)An island of clarity and enlightenment in a sea of abstract obfuscations, thank you Noam Chomsky. There is one "authority/oppressor" we desperately need to choose: Nature. Without it, our lives are impossible and would never even have existed to begin with. We need to learn to respect its ABSOLUTE authority as it pertains to all aspects of our lives and learn to thrive (and, yes, progress) in harmony with its laws. No there is NO other way, whether we like it or not.

[tiecuando]

A market is where you buy stuff, and the 'services' of other people. Nothing more, nothing less.

[econdemocracy]

The end was cut off...Chomsky was saying that (if it's well managed) the financial corporation's cost-benefit analysis would consider possible risks to themselves. How likely would this or that outcome be? And how bad would the costs be, etc. But only costs to themselves. Their planning, analysis and ultimate choices don't price in possible costs to others. That part was cut off. In fact it's worse: corporations contatntly *work* to externalize costs (that they would otherwise bear) to _others_

[thelaughingman]

markets provide goods for the public. Not goods that are decided by the community. like in the analogy used in the video a subway verse a car. the current crisis was caused by the inability of the market to take into account everyone that is affected by its decision. Could the market change to counter this? Maybe in theory, however any meaningful change would allow people who are affected by decision a proportional say in the matter. And that isn't what a market does.

[dirkcjelli]

Markets don't -provide- anything.

How many cars does Wallstreet manufacture?

-Labor- provides goods. Markets decide who gets those goods. Our present system of markets does a poor job of allocation from the perspective of the common man, as markets are influenced disproportionately by wealthy and powerful actors.

All this socializing risk and privatizing profits... nasty stuff.

[thelaughingman]

did you actually read what i wrote and what i was responding to. i was making the distinction what market do not make public goods because it involves private persons not public decisions. you just reiterated what i just said.

[laskji]

Capital plays a crucial role in productivity.. it provides the sustenance for the workers that allow for the lengthening of the structure of production to more roundabout and therefore more productive methods of production. Capital is derived from savings. A man catching fish with a net is far more efficient than a man catching fish with his bare hands... however, saving allows accumulation of capital which sustains him and frees him to produce technology without starving.

[dirkcjelli]

... and who should control capital?

Your comment doesn't address that one whit.

Your likely reply is "whoever produces it."

Anarchists agree, but then disagree w/ regards to who is actually responsible for increases in productive capacity in society.

[laskji]

I guess I'm not convinced that the capital production process would or could happen on more than a very primitive level if the producer is denied ownership. I also don't really see one woman's invention of an efficient tool (capital) as another's loss - even if she owns it. It is a net gain (i.e.: non-zero sum). Although both individual ownership and collective ownership require violence in their defense... I see individual ownership as more conducive to freedom and a high living standard.

[laskji]

In theory, the worker is responsible insofar as his labor contributes, the capitalists insofar as his capital contributes (provided of course that it was justly acquired through homesteading/saving/voluntary exchange and not through the violent means i.e.: state-privilege). And of course none of this is of any use if no one values it. Of course this is the difference between non-zero sum games and zero sum games. I fear socialists do not understand the non-zero sum game.

[Sepero1]

You should know better than to post truthful statements on one of Mr1001MarxistSubscribers videos.

These guys are tools.

[sshapewa]

anarchism is a donkey's anus.we need a republican constitution where everyone's rights no matter whether one is rich or not have to be protected.anarchism is where everyone can do whatever the fuck they want even if it means hurting others in the process same goes with democracy!!We need laws and strict constituition.anarchism is fucked.

[PlasticJesus341]

is that why anarchy was so successful in spain in the 1930's?

[monglerrichard]

I don't know if I trust Chomsky. He thinks it is impossible that 9/11 could have been done by anyone other than arabs

[Irtidad]

"He thinks it is impossible that 9/11 could have been done by anyone other than arabs"

Firstly, you are deceptively painting him as a racist. Second, this is simply false. He's never said that it's "impossible" for anybody else to have done it, simply "unlikely" that it was the US Government or any organization other than the 19 hijackers who happened to be mostly Saudi Arabs.

But I don't see why his position on 9/11 should undermine his position on markets, a totally unrelated subject.

[monglerrichard]

How did I deceptively paint him as a racist? You are cunningly assuming me to be deceptively painting him as a racist.

[Irtidad]

Your words stand on their own, I will let others judge.

[1tonykirk]

@Irtidad Chomsky flaps his gums and the sheeple listen to his disinfo unprotected.

He is a psyop specialist and belongs behind bars. Watch:

Hoax of the Bosnian Serb Death Camp - 1/3 on Jared Israels Channel

Also Read: "My Farewell to Israel" by Jack Bernstein, the Mossad killed him for it.

[yeahwotevaman]

Here's an article you might find interesting:

libcom(dot)org/library/co-ops-­conflicts-straw-men

It's part of a debate about the feasability of workers co-ops within the existing market economy as an alternative to capitalism.

[vktrsx]

I probably should have quoted your whole comment. What I take issue with is the notion that the "free market" is a panacea, or at least innocently benign, and that it's the state alone that mucks everything up -- as though propertarianism & market-fundamentalism weren't caustic as fuck.

[vktrsx]

"The current crisis was caused by the state."

Delete Mises . org from your bookmarks and back slowly away from your computer...

[zyodei]

The current crisis is, indeed, rooted in the state's actions - and then exacerbated and amplified by the financial markets.

But without the underlying government policies trying to push everyone into houses and providing cheap money to do so, there would have been no kindling to the fire.

"Free markets" are indeed a panacea. But the concept has been perverted by the right wing and ideas like "corporate personhood."

Freedom is anti-state and anti-corporate. Decisions made locally.