Libertarian Socialism Part 1

The first part of an interview with Noam Chomsky in which the basic ideas of Anarchism are discussed.

I apologize for the audio quality but I can't find another copy of this discussion anywhere. It's an old interview by Bryan Magee of the BBC, I believe from the 1970s. If anyone knows where I can get another copy please let me know. Thanks.

I hope this will be a first start in helping users like Menoftheinfinite and Variablast understand what is meant by Anarchism and why their criticisms have fallen so far from the mark.

Update: Thanks to Chomskyan. It turns out this interview was with Peter Jay of the BBC.

Update: Thanks to Chomskyan again for reminding me who interviewed Chomsky here. I'll be posting the entire talk but if you want to skip ahead and read the interview you can find it here:

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19760725.htm

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• anarchism
• libertarian
• socialism
• Noam
• Chomsky
• Bryan
• Magee
• BBC
• Anarchist
• variablast
• menoftheinfinite

[rictorn]

you can't be a libatarian without being a socialist  because freedom withoout equality is no freedoom at all

[ParadoxEarth]

Hey all you silly youtubers! I can wright comments that do nothing to further my intelligence aswell!!! My ego has now ben fed by my wacky antics and my perfect world of "me" has ben kept intact! :D

[heavym3tal]

@rictorn I am sorry, but due to your spelling, I am having trouble understanding your response.

[rictorn]

@heavym3tal hello equality of opertunity is a bit of a pointless phrase as those who use it advocate policies which reduce teh very equality ofr opertunity they advocate, ui advocate teh persute of equality of outcome as its teh only way to increase ecquality of opertunity as well as making society better for evryone, i am asumeing as you have had ages since we chatted you have at least the read the spirit level or some of the data which proves this stuff?

[heavym3tal]

@rictorn I know you made this comment quite a long time ago, but in your definition of equality, do you refer to equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?

[heavym3tal]

@KrugmanTheKing Therefore, no person, in a voluntary application of employment, will agree unless they benefit from their contribution of work as well. Long ago this was accomplished by bartering goods for services, or today, by paying a monetary wage.

I do not understand where the idea of a boss is equivalent to the idea of a ruler of authority. A boss can not legally coerce his/her employees into a type of work, unless he/she is granted that authority by a government entity.

[heavym3tal]

@KrugmanTheKing To address your other point (over labor), you create the fallacy that I hear so much of a person "forced to work." That may be the case in places like N. Korea, China, etc., where the government coerces its citizens into such industries, but in the United States, and other freer countries, the classical argument of Adam Smith applies; "if an exchange between 2 parties is voluntary, it will not happen unless both believe they benefit from it."

[heavym3tal]

@KrugmanTheKing I can see that it is hard for you to understand the concept of true capitalism, since you believe that there has to be a class of elites that rules over the masses. These kinds of ideas only exist in societies that embrace equality of outcome over equality of opportunity (China, USSR, N. Korea, etc.). The problem is that societies that value latter over the former end up with a greater degree of each.

[heavym3tal]

@KrugmanTheKing "...(cont.) America, then exhibits in her social state a most extraordinary phenomenon. Men are there seen on a greater equality in point of fortune and intellect, or, in other words, more equal in their strength, than in any other country of the world, or in any age of which history has preserved the remembrance."

Now that said, I ask you in which society that has moved toward forced social responsibilty (welfare) are people more free or equal?

[heavym3tal]

@KrugmanTheKing Your reference to Tocqueville, I assume is Alexis de Toqueville? Clearly you never read his book "Democracy in America," circa 1835 wrote:

"In America the aristocratic element has always been feeble from its birth; and if at the present day it is not actually destroyed, it is at any rate so completely disabled, that we can scarcely assign to it any degree of influence on the course of affairs...(cont.)