Noam Chomsky on Anarchism Part 1 of 7

...Continue in 2 days

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Noam
• Chomsky
• on
• Anarchism
• Part
• of

[BIZZAROpRODUCTIONs]

I knew Noam Chomsky was really Woody Allen!!

[ladydawn1973Eternity]

I wonder what you mean.. In what aspect...

[Elwood1992]

@ladydawn1973Eternity He says that because there is a picture of Woody Allen @ 0:56

[ladydawn1973Eternity]

@Elwood1992 hehe yeah! But by taking the video off in order to edit it I will lose the sequence of the serie ..

[ladydawn1973Eternity]

@ladydawn1973Eternity ahh sure..sure : sorry :)..now i see 2 men talks about Anarchism.. really i can't take video off without destrying the order of the topic he speaks on..

[pretieststar]

He is such a great philosopher. I do approve his believes. To all those who still believe in the odd capitalist establishment, you are a minority in your country.

[TheWheels71]

At least he is advocating something different, that doesnt reduce human beings to little more than factory fodder, who are born to produce and consume to keep Multi Nationals afloat!

[thirdshift47]

@qwerty

LOL

What does class conflict have to do with the desire to avoid the inevitable market failure & losses in efficiency from capital/labor dissatisfaction?

Your straw arguments involving the LTV are classic.

Indeed,as you've suggested earlier,marginal utility privileges neither labor NOR CAPITAL expenditures in determing consumer value.

This means that the question of who controls demand & scarcity now becomes an issue of who simply owns the supply.

Hence,the 'non-aggression principle'.

[qwertypoiu4321]

The false premise of their logic is collapsing their dependent deductions from that false premise. Logic is rational inference. Once again, for the *literal* handful of fallacious LTV proponents that actually aesthetically reject the foundation of their own 'philosophy', they are kicking out the foundation of which their whole fallacious theory is dependent. If you want to talk about non-LTV dependent theories of ET and CC, what are they? They are not from Marx, Rodbertus, Sismondi, etc.

[agapeiron]

@qwertypoiu4321 What do you mean by logic? Your comment says nothing unless you qualify what you mean by logic. I assume it will be more rhetoric and overuse of words (you're going into conspicuous overkill on the "fallacy" denouncing crusade). Clarify what you mean by this "collapsing logic." How does logic collapse? Do you mean in an historical sense? I never took you for a Hegelian...

[qwertypoiu4321]

@agapeiron What is collapsing about 'theories' of exploitation that reject the unicorn LTV is their logic, for the *literal* handful of fallacious LTV proponents that actually aesthetically reject the foundation of their own 'philosophy'. As if you can kick out the foundation of a fallacious theory you propose and think that all of the dependent views settled on that fallacy will not crumble.

[agapeiron]

@qwertypoiu4321 Please, I wish you free market "anarchists" (nice try) would stop referring to "an-syn" and "ancom." It's as if you people are just naturally inclined to turn ideas into corny abbreviated labels to be easily marketed. 

[agapeiron]

@qwertypoiu4321 Actually, you have invented your own magical market reality, a "la la land" that you hide in to rationalize your love of property.

What is "collapsing" about theories of exploitation that reject the labor theory of value? What about theories of class conflict that reject the labor theory of value? Do you deny such things exists?

[qwertypoiu4321]

@agapeiron I am sure the morality of voluntarism and the economics of reality seems like a broken-record, one-note song to you, as you assume a 'plug ears lalalala' posture against reality. BTW, CC is wholly based off of ET and ET is wholly based off of the unicorn LTV. You can not kick out the foundation of a fallacy and as everything collapses think everything is just fine.

[agapeiron]

@qwertypoiu4321 By the way, the concepts of exploitation and class struggle are not dependent on the Marxian labor theory of value.

I like how you try to frame it, though. As if exploitation and class society are just a series of matryoshka dolls-- dolls inside dolls!-- and the biggest matryoshka doll is Marx's labor theory of value, which you can just knock over like a bowling pin with a little free market wizardry.

[agapeiron]

@qwertypoiu4321 To see you sputtering on about non-coercion and criminal activity here is like listening to a broken record. Don't you realize your nutty ideology of markets and cash is not going to be taken seriously by anarchists?

If a Catholic priest walked into a room full of scientists, he would get nowhere screaming about the purity of the soul.

You're not going to reach anyone by howling out right wing free market buzzwords. Go back to the Cato Institute.

[qwertypoiu4321]

If someone grows up with parents that talk about medical science every night at dinner for 20 years and that person ends up supplying human demand better where people are willing to give that person more money, and that person ends up making more income than someone who grows up with parents that talk about sports every night at dinner for 20 years that is not a hierarchy, CC is a fallacy.