Did it take anyone else, like 30 seconds, to realize that Noam Chomsky isn't going to move? Lmao
@TheXitone
7 жыл бұрын
stoned again ...
@JAZZHOBO
7 жыл бұрын
HEY, MOUSE! Good to see you here. (I go HumptyTrumptyTribe, WAPTEK.") and YES, Being 76 Years of age, denoting oldness, we live in "Free Maryjuana for Senior Citizens City." I am tokkin a GIRL SCOUT COOKIE right now. AHHHHH TROTSKY yes. My Personal Favorite! VIVIA Las Pueblas & Plaboes de Mundo, Hecho en Mexico.
@kefsound
6 жыл бұрын
Learn to write.
@ydiddyG
6 жыл бұрын
it took 3 viewings for me
@stevenglansburg856
6 жыл бұрын
It took me 8 months
@mitchellbrecht2240
6 жыл бұрын
This guy is so good at conveying anarchist thought
@nolives
5 жыл бұрын
Mitchell Brecht I used to be a panarchist till I took 3 arrows to the knee ;)
@some_goomba
5 жыл бұрын
Demiurge Shadow Noice. :-)
@robot8675
3 жыл бұрын
So good he literally telepathically connected with the microphone
@sheilamacdougal4874
2 жыл бұрын
Yeah sure. The "interviewer": "Yes, yes, yes, yes". He's the kind of person who inspired the term "yes man". But these are the only kinds of "interviews" Chomsky has given in the last 40 years. And these people think of themselves as free-thinking anarchists!
@schaughtful
6 жыл бұрын
"Disciplined" just means acclimated to your collar
@TheGrandMasterFunk
7 жыл бұрын
i had my speakers cranked cause it's so quiet and that beeping scared the SHIT outta me! I though a dump truck was going to crash into my bedroom or something jeebus
@hotstixx
7 жыл бұрын
There are the greats and there are Giants,Chomsky is a Giant.I marvel at him over and over and he never disappoints.
@sheilamacdougal4874
3 жыл бұрын
You're a true sycophant and cult-member. It's ironic that you probably also think of yourself as an anarchist free-thinker.
@fatballs148
2 жыл бұрын
Beta Noam Chomsky vs Chad Michael Parenti
@cp9105
2 жыл бұрын
@@sheilamacdougal4874 I dont see how the person's comment makes them a cult member
@sheilamacdougal4874
2 жыл бұрын
@@cp9105 If you don't see how worship of an individual, in this case one who happens to be deeply flawed, makes them a cult member, then you might be a member of the cult yourself.
@Iridesca
2 жыл бұрын
@@sheilamacdougal4874 can you elaborate on what you mean when you say that Chomsky is deeply flawed?
@johnludtke4416
5 жыл бұрын
To me, I believe the propaganda plays the biggest role. And the education system plays a part in that. Propaganda and education go hand in hand. The violence is a part of that propaganda
@sheilamacdougal4874
2 жыл бұрын
Propaganda is this video. The "interviewer": "Yes, yes, yes, yes". He's the kind of person who inspired the term "yes man". But these are the only kinds of "interviews" Chomsky has given in the last 40 years. And these people think of themselves as free-thinking anarchists!
@adampoitras4071
2 жыл бұрын
@@sheilamacdougal4874 he did not give yes man interviews only lol
@sheilamacdougal4874
2 жыл бұрын
@@adampoitras4071 Adding "lol" to your own comment, aside from showing bad taste, is not going to fool anyone when you don't provide a single link or bit of evidence for your claim. I can think of one interview he gave in the past decade, with Brianne Joy Gray, where she actually argued back at him (which he probably didn't expect). In the past 40 years he has refused interviews with any critic or anyone he suspects will not be sycophantic. Feel free to PROVE me wrong. It should be simple enough if what I say is false; there are hundreds of interviews with him online.
@hoon_sol
Жыл бұрын
@@sheilamacdougal4874: What a bunch of absolute horseshit. Turn on your brain and try again.
@sheilamacdougal4874
Жыл бұрын
@@hoon_sol Personal insults won't deflect from the obvious fact that you haven't found a single counterexample to what I said.
@gregilyniak6994
7 жыл бұрын
Finally. Chomsky mentions something about Nestor Makhno. I have been looking everywhere. Too bad it's such a small segment.
@charlytaylor1748
Жыл бұрын
Makhno, interesting character. Could be used to support anarchist principles or to argue they can never work
@Vmvmvmvmvn
2 жыл бұрын
Anarchist ideas did have a great impact in the world but the Soviet Union crushed any vestige of them.
@PostAutonomy
Жыл бұрын
Anarchism is like liquid not a brick. Might not hit you in the face, but it will soak into every crevice if given the chance
@iceydaywalker9198
7 жыл бұрын
great vid, thanks for posting +Chomsky's Philosophy.
@sheilamacdougal4874
2 жыл бұрын
Yeah, really great. The "interviewer": "Yes, yes, yes, yes". He's the kind of person who inspired the term "yes man". But these are the only kinds of "interviews" Chomsky has given in the last 40 years. And these people think of themselves as free-thinking anarchists!
@tigerstyle4505
5 жыл бұрын
I've asked myself this same question for as long as I can remember. I was an anarchist before I ever knew there was a name for it and that may be why the propaganda, brainwashing and training never really got to me but it just seems like the natural state of the species. Especially in any post hunter-gatherer conditions. But the indoctrination runs deep. It's hard for most people to see past it. But I'm not special lol So it's definitely not impossible.
@danrl9710
3 жыл бұрын
Why do you say “especially in any post hunter-gatherer conditions”? I’ve always thought our anarchic nature was most prevalent and obvious pre-agricultural revolution. Do you mean simply by necessity and the fact that’s there’s so much to resist and pushback on in modern, hierarchical societies with such concentrated power?
@sheilamacdougal4874
2 жыл бұрын
Actually this clip is brainwashing. The "interviewer": "Yes, yes, yes, yes". He's the kind of person who inspired the term "yes man". But these are the only kinds of "interviews" Chomsky has given in the last 40 years. And these people think of themselves as free-thinking anarchists!
@plusixty8992
2 жыл бұрын
@@sheilamacdougal4874 An interview doesn't need pushback, its not a debate.
@sheilamacdougal4874
2 жыл бұрын
@@plusixty8992 So Chomsky can mouth off about indoctrination and propaganda, but one is not allowed to criticise what he says because it's an interview? What a foolish comment.
@plusixty8992
2 жыл бұрын
@@sheilamacdougal4874 what the hell are you delusional, i didnt say YOU couldnt criticize him, im saying that an interview is not a DEBATE, and the interviewer is not obligated to push on anything if he does not want, in an interview you are just supposed to LISTEN and let them speak on their ideas, if you want push, then DEBATES, if chomsky doesnt debate then you need to research your own objections, do you need a talking peace to further your ideas or something? This guy literally did a book with him. i could only assume that he agrees wholeheartedly.
@guzvier
Жыл бұрын
I suspect Noam was brought up in a period when terms were better defined. I think when I went through school, part of the goal was to keep me from knowing absolutes. Hence, the confusion in terminology today.
@mirsad96
6 жыл бұрын
Answer to the title = Because its political opposition has been more disciplined in its organization during times of turmoil.
@lesleykramer7207
3 жыл бұрын
Profoundly simple, yet true
@Johnelienyc187
3 жыл бұрын
Not to mention, has all the money!😆
@ryancouture1436
3 жыл бұрын
If you mean willing to and capable of violence, then i agree. The discipline I see is to the system of oppression that gathers wealth and power among a conditioned elite. The discipline of the early labor movement in the US was incomparable, yet shattered through a repression of the type never experienced by those who control capitalism. The type of discipline that is necessary to psuh towards anarchism is wholly opposite to the discipline required to maintain capatalistic hegemony, and therefor cannot be seen as the same thing.
@HectorVillaFernandez-AmunJazz
3 жыл бұрын
Also, propaganda in education and neo-language: -Is not a coincidence that the rights earned by anarchists are now framed in school books as "earned by workers", erasing anarchists importance in common rights that we enjoy today. Anarchists are only mentioned as terrorists, literally in the same way as how aristocratic propaganda did back in early S.XX. -Anarchy equated to mean "chaos". If you used the word anarchy as chaos 1 century ago, most scholars and writers would have laughed at your face, or bashed you writing harder than a chef cooking octopus, because they knew perfectly well the greek meaning of the word (absence of unified government or main ruler, even interregnums or minority governments were called "anarchy periods" sometimes) And common people did not use the word, they normally used anarchism or anarchist. This neo-language makes anarchy seem as something destructive, primitive and undesirable.
@MigorRortis
Жыл бұрын
Well they split the profits 50/50
@vickynaz8371
7 жыл бұрын
Knowledge is power !
@uttaradit2
3 жыл бұрын
Power is controlling knowledge !!
@zeggsy0554
3 жыл бұрын
True
@cv4809
3 жыл бұрын
"Power is power" - Cersei Lanister
@user-so8kx7uj2x
4 жыл бұрын
Here in Greece and maybe worldwide, most of people think that anarchism is violence
@potenviking
3 жыл бұрын
because it is. Its violence against the current system. Not physical violence but existential violence. The moment you start question the elites and their legitimacy, the moment you get close to making any change, the moment you get close to becoming your own authority - then it gets transformed into physical violence by the state to all which oppose them. As long as you are harmless and don't have a way to crush their authority and you obey, then its just a utopian. So they are not attacking you.
@pacotaco1246
3 жыл бұрын
Talk to more people about what it really is! Public opinion changes one mind at a time.
@andybullock6848
Жыл бұрын
Unfortunately there was a small number of anarchists who did use violence, against powerful and wealthy individuals, reflecting a deluded belief in 'propaganda by the deed'.
@holstonmatt
Жыл бұрын
@@andybullock6848 well it about time we stand against the powerful and wealthy it like malcolm x and many others had said we have to fight against the system by any means necessary
@hoon_sol
Жыл бұрын
@@potenviking: Force used in self-defense is not violence. Violence implies aggression. Using force against the current violent system is not itself violence, just self-defense.
@nihilityjoey
7 жыл бұрын
I wonder if Chomsky has heard of the Venus project. If he has, I would love to hear his thoughts on such an idea.
@mhikl4484
7 жыл бұрын
+Chomsky's Philosophy I'm not into chopped up bits of lectures and discussions, but have bookmarked (?) your site (actually quite a while ago) to check out more regularly. There is so much confusion with reposting on YT it gets confusing trying to keep up at times. Namaste an care, mhikl
@nihilityjoey
7 жыл бұрын
Chomsky's Philosophy Thank you for the link.
@EclecticSceptic
6 жыл бұрын
I can't speak for Chomsky, but as an anarchist who once was a big fan of the Venus Project I can make a couple remarks. The Venus Project is pretty much a form of anarchist communism. It's a very inspiring vision of a peaceful, rational, humane, future, particularly because of its focus on the concrete aspects of life and on giving a positive vision rather than just criticising what exists. My main criticisms are that it is too focused on technology, trying to be 'non-ideological' and 'non-political'. Unless something has changed in the mean time, the Venus Project doesn't really address political issues well, whereas anarchists would advocate strongly for a direct, participatory, democratic polity which makes the state obsolete. Computers won't be magically run themselves, and even worse would be letting a technocratic class of engineers and scientists to decide for everybody else - we need to have free and rational decision making structures and be explicit about that. The second major criticism is the method to make the Venus Project a reality. Anarchist communism as a movement has focused intensely on how to get from 'here' to 'there'. That is a huge question which cannot be ignored. My understanding of the Venus Project's methods are likely quite out of date, but I doubt the approach has changed fundamentally, an approach largely characterised by vagueness and, frankly, naivety. I think the Venus Project could be a lot stronger if it learned from the existing anarchist communist movement and compensated for those two major flaws, and it could strengthen the existing anarchist communist movement by providing a striking and concrete vision of a future humanity can and deserves to achieve.
@nolives
5 жыл бұрын
nihilityjoey here's his views on zeitgeist/Venus project. kzitem.info/news/bejne/yn2Vtp6AqKtnfo4
@gumdeo
3 жыл бұрын
Q. Why Haven't Anarchist Ideas Had a Greater Impact? A. Lenin.
@Tomm3HB34r
6 жыл бұрын
You da-man, Chomsky! =]
@corujas_da_noite
2 ай бұрын
Hi! Is there a way to contact your channel’s representative for questions regarding using some of the material? (Always credited of course :) )
@dingdong6259
3 жыл бұрын
empire strikes back since 1791
@Johnconno
Жыл бұрын
I've often asked myself that question, especially when I remember that Hayek was a free-market Anarchist.
@seankelly378
4 жыл бұрын
Wow , he's really good at staying still
@Jackzay90
2 жыл бұрын
is there any footage of Chomsky yelling?
@rmleighton1
3 жыл бұрын
Tommy Douglas was the Greatest Canadian Healthcare CCF. I believe it is what connects our vast country together.
@lance5691
5 жыл бұрын
Anarchy in laymen's terms: The belief that unjust hierarchys should not exist. This almost always involves abolishing the state. The "state" (in the anarchist sense): The monopoly on the use of violence (aka, who can both make rules, and use unbeatable force in order to enforce said rules) "Violence": The use of force to limit other's available options (beating someone so they can no longer get up, covering someone's mouth so they cannot speak, and locking someone in prison so they can't see nature could all be considered violence among SOME spheres of anarchist thought)
@theblackrose3130
5 жыл бұрын
Id add to violence that it is not just the use of physical force but the threat of physical force.
@HConstantine
7 жыл бұрын
Someone should ask Chomsky about the Black Bloc.
@subpointproductions
7 жыл бұрын
been thinking this since jan 20... hes been awfully quiet on that front
@96lucasb
7 жыл бұрын
He is not for the black bloc.
@ultru3525
7 жыл бұрын
It is a complicated issue. While violent, a black bloc is also a form of self-defence, so in a way criticising it is like criticising a counterpunch or retaliatory nuclear strike (something I don't know Chomsky's opinion of either). The tactic was developed in Germany as a reaction to the increasing use of force by law enforcement against protesters, and ever since there's been a strong correlation between anti-protest measures and black bloc intensity. Considering the events at the Dakota Access pipeline protest, and the unprecedented level of "felony riot" charges at Trump's inauguration, a re-emergence of black blocs at demonstrations is to be expected. It really just comes down to that line by JFK: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
@HConstantine
7 жыл бұрын
You're right that what the police are doing is very disturbing. if leaders in Washington and North Dakota are sent to prison for years, then why continue to be peaceful?
@mitzavor8468
7 жыл бұрын
HConstantine Antifa are not anarchists. They claim to be anarchists but when you actually question them on their beliefs they are Marxists (and not the variant supported by Rosa Luxembourg but the totalitarian kind of the bolsheviks).
@guillll
Жыл бұрын
Why is the volume always much too quiet on all Chomsky videos? Is it some kind of sabotage made by the NSA ?
@peteraleksandrovich5923
Жыл бұрын
How can it be that the louder the volume, the harder it is to tell WTF Chomsky is saying???
@darnfrick3354
Жыл бұрын
What an animated guy
@schaughtful
6 жыл бұрын
Consolidated power nearly always trumps dispersed power.
@Sagittarius-81
6 жыл бұрын
I kind of didn't like all the umms and ahhs of the interviewer, though i suppose i can appreciate why he was doing it. Often Chomsky has a kind of ambivalence to interviewers; whether they ask good questions or not he assumes there's something he knows they don't. For most interviewers this is apparently true. So, while i don't think the interviewer necessarily asked great questions, it was kind of evident that he had a sense of where Chomsky was going to go with his answers, and it behooved Chomsky to be a little more courteous (or at least understand how potentially the interviewer was trying to be so). An interesting video, but not the best in terms of journalism.
@sheilamacdougal4874
2 жыл бұрын
"Not the best in terms of journalism" is putting it mildly. The "interviewer": "Yes, yes, yes, yes". He's the kind of person who inspired the term "yes man". But these are the only kinds of "interviews" Chomsky has given in the last 40 years. And these people think of themselves as free-thinking anarchists!
@KatBuckleyXOX
7 жыл бұрын
XOX
@Shiro46AV
7 жыл бұрын
Reading Chomsky's book on Anarchism right now. Already one of my favorite books ever, but I'm a bit biased lol. Been listening to a lot of that Anarcho-Punk, Anarcho-pacifist band Crass too.
@Shiro46AV
7 жыл бұрын
***** Thanks for the heads up, I will.
@Shiro46AV
7 жыл бұрын
RTWPimpmachine Anarcho-pacifism is a thing, you can read up on it, but I know you won't. Besides, we're not Marxist, he is not our god. You can asslick master all you want, your daddy Trump, Bush, Farack Obomba won't save you. Veganism is great for the planet, animals and humanity. You can deny the truth of the cosmos we all live in all you want, suffering is a real tangible truth. People pretend suffering doesn't matter until it's happening to them. Don't be such a spineless coward who stands for nothing.
@Shiro46AV
7 жыл бұрын
RTWPimpmachine Me shut up, you are the one who is "wasting time" on here with "liberals" lol. Go to nutritionfacts.org, you are a clueless moron, weak minded coward.
@Shiro46AV
7 жыл бұрын
RTWPimpmachine You have nothing of substance to say, or refute and I'm just 15 now... Okay illogical cretin, go pray and wait in silence for your god Trump.
@Shiro46AV
7 жыл бұрын
***** well said, too bad these philistines can't read. I guess it's true what the studies show that the more right wing you are the lower the average iq goes.
@adamcunningham432
3 жыл бұрын
WILSOOOOOOON!!!
@RoyArrowood
5 жыл бұрын
Debt is suppressing free thought and anarchy lol. Little does Dave Ramsey know he's ushering in the era of anarchy!
@e.bfreeman3889
11 ай бұрын
Canada as a country has a history of being pro- worker and has good labour laws. Benefits in things like health care, education, insurance pkgs... We have the right to strike and protection in things like gender opps and during the pandemic the govt was looking at things like the 'her-cession'. Most telling is the NDP party that has more power in some provinces than others. That party is historically pro-union. Singh tends to be too corporate, but back in the day of Ed Broadbent, you felt his displeasure when workers weren't protected. This party certainly has been a good foil against the LIBs and Conservative Parties, though Singh needs to remember their roots better.
@IIBizzy
7 жыл бұрын
Yeah, that's Bologna in a nutshell.
@historydistortion6964
10 ай бұрын
Emma Goldman belief that, men and women , their true self who they can be - anarchism
@razvan_anton
Жыл бұрын
Chomsky fought fascism all his life until the Medical tyranny when he became the fascist he always was warning us about .
@angelustt
11 ай бұрын
What are you talking about?
@qMartink
7 ай бұрын
what?
@nogodsnomanagers
5 ай бұрын
They're trying to insinuate that vaccinating yourself against disease is fascist. Because they're an idiot.
@Somebodyherefornow
2 ай бұрын
oh about covid XD
@miketheman4341
3 жыл бұрын
If only they could agree on what they mean by Anarchism! If you have 5 Anarchists you have 5 different definitions of Anarchism!
@georgeyesthal6560
3 жыл бұрын
I'm hard of hearing and Chomsky's a low talker. Hope he's not asking me to wear a puffy pirate shirt.
@thereisnospectrum
7 жыл бұрын
From my understanding, Communism relates to Anarchism with views on power structures and social solidarity. Anarchism can be used for almost any political argument, whereas communism is a more defined model. So is it correct to say communism includes anarchism but not necessarily the other way around (like rectangle vs square)?
@ultru3525
7 жыл бұрын
Communism isn't that well-defined either, just look at the disputes between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in revolutionary Russia.You could even argue that the difference between Luxemburgism and Stalinism is bigger than the difference between anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism.
@Slavkod
7 жыл бұрын
Anarcho-capitalism, isnt part of anarchism, expet in its name
@thereisnospectrum
7 жыл бұрын
So obviously there are different definitions in people's minds. Seems like "Bolsheviks", "anarcho-capitalists", "Maoists" etc are just confounding these terms for their own power ambition. Communism i am taking Marx's def, a decentralized form of socialism which i think lines up in the umbrella of anarchism. Is that fair to say?
@vaultramp
7 жыл бұрын
Real communism is anarchism, "communists" under Marx split from anarchists like Bakunin by insisting on the need for a "dictatorship of the proletariat" as a stage that would lead to a stateless society (a.k.a communism), we all know how that turned out in Russia (where even they always acknowledged they haven't achieved communism yet..) - you can never use coercion to overcome coercion...
@ultru3525
7 жыл бұрын
+Dmitry Atlasman When talking about the "dictatorship of the proletariat," Marx actually referred to the Paris Commune as a real-world example, which was essentially anarchist. But yeah, Lenin basically set up a system that could either lead to communism or to totalitarianism, and then Stalin got to choose.
@applejacks6237
7 жыл бұрын
What is the difference between anarcho-Syndicalist and anarcho-communist ?
APPLE JACKS I just view syndicalism as a means of geeting to anarcho-communism or even mutalism.
@applejacks6237
7 жыл бұрын
+James Ponce Revolutionary Catalonia and the Paris commune were both defeated by Fascism. Their destruction was not due to internal affairs. Anyways what ideology do you align with and why? I'm just curious
@disciple3654
7 жыл бұрын
Some anarchist don't even like the idea of syndicalism because of the ineffective nature of unions and their bureaucracy. They feel it strays to far from traditional anarchism.
@commiebastard351
7 жыл бұрын
Syndicalism is an organizational tactic/strategy while communism is a goal.
@nobodyanon7893
2 жыл бұрын
❤️🇵🇹❤️
@agnosticii
3 жыл бұрын
interviewer, please whisper more.
@nexusanx
Жыл бұрын
you think he read all these books?
@joeriverlinden5827
6 жыл бұрын
seastorm on the Chomskyship? what a horrible backgroundnoise. Chomsky great speech.
@sheilamacdougal4874
3 жыл бұрын
1.25 Laughable attempt to attribute progressive taxation to anarchist ideas.
@_ANGST
6 жыл бұрын
Dude sounds like he gets off from listening such things
@markgratch9042
2 жыл бұрын
Noam Chomsky has been a linguistics professor since 1955 and prior to that he was a college student. He has never run a business or held a job outside of the academic bubble in which he lives. He has absolutely no experience with anything involving geopolitics or societal organization. Given these facts it is understandable why he has a fundamental misunderstanding of economics, world affairs, human nature and the principles upon which this great nation was founded. If you reads his books the first thing they all start with is "redefining common sense". Common sense is things like look both ways before you cross the street. This is when his total misunderstanding of human nature comes into clear focus. He mistakes collective wisdom as the prevailing common sense when they are two totally different concepts. Collective wisdom is amassed by peoples real world experiences over their lifetime and not Noam Chomsky nor anyone else can redefine it or change it. The major concept of Chomsky's idea of economic and societal organization (straight from Karl Marx almost word for word) is that "The workers should own the means of production" This gets blown right out of the water by the fact that he has become a multi-millionaire from book sales and lives a very luxurious life in this country he openly hates. Do the workers who edit, print, bind and distribute Noam Chomsky's books own the means of production? Of course not, Noam Chomsky does and also all the profits that go with it. That fact alone should tell you all you need to know. I could go on for volumes about the ridiculousness and naivety of his economic and societal theories but the bottom line is that he is a fraud of the first order and all the nonsense that he preaches should be taken with a grain of salt.
@emmashalliker6862
2 жыл бұрын
Well thank God you're here, what a take down of one of the most well respected, most cited professors of the 21st century. You did it in a single KZitem comment, wow, we must bow before your granduer and excellency. Either you're a genius of stella magnitude or you're a complete idoit who don't know what he is talking about. Judging by the clear logical fallacies in your comment, I think we can safely go with the later.
@sorinsviolin4114
Жыл бұрын
Chomsky is an extremely erudite and intelligent political imbecile. Morally reprehensible as a Jew who hates the Jewish state, as a Bolshevik anarchist who hates communism, as a beneficiary of the capitalist democratic system that made him millions of dollars from selling anti-capitalist books. The man is a walking contradiction. No intelligent and logical person can take him seriously.
@Wtahc
Жыл бұрын
amen!
@yozonssales935
7 жыл бұрын
Government mandates are like anarchism?
@koopag8
7 жыл бұрын
Yozons Sales did you listen to what he said? He said support for these mandates showed feelings of solidarity and mutual aid in much of the population, which are the foundations of Anarchism.
@AntonioGarmsci-cy5vt
4 жыл бұрын
Capitalism is the crisis!!! Resource Based Economy, within Anarchist principles is the solution!
@ChicagoTurtle1
4 жыл бұрын
Wait. How could Marx become interested and write about the Soviets and later have that suppressed by the Soviets when Marx deceased in 1883?
@ambruskiss4492
5 жыл бұрын
so you say anarchism has always become the victim of violence and oppression... it almost seems like an anarchist system is kind of prone to violence if all the other players believe in military might, and can mobilise superior forces through taxation and centralised power. maybe that explains the question in the title..?
@HectorVillaFernandez-AmunJazz
3 жыл бұрын
What you say is kind of related: anarchism, save rare exceptions like "direct action", tends to be more pacifist than other ideologies. But it should be like this, since using an army for anything beyond self-defense is imposing upon others ideology or economic systems: in the moment you do that, you stop being anarchist by definition. Also, was more heavily oppresed, because it goes against both hard power and centralization, making it harder to bastardize and assimilate by the status quo. Think how both liberal capitalism, socialism and communism were transformed into neo-liberalism and social-democracy, to work for the oligarchs instead of against them. They did not achieve to do that with anarchism (and believe me, they tried in a lot of different ways), so they have been trying to erase it since then by use of violence and propaganda.
@ambruskiss4492
3 жыл бұрын
@@HectorVillaFernandez-AmunJazz Haha that comment is from two years ago... I'm an anarchist now ;) Though, I don't consider Chomsky an anarchist, given the way he cheers on every leftist policy and every left-wing populist regime he sees around the world.. His whole thinking is defined in these democratic-collectivistic ideas, which are fundamentally opposed to anarchism in my view. By the way, the problem I mentioned in my original comment is still a difficult one. I agree with David Friedman who thinks that organised self-defence will probably be the last function of the state to disappear, if ever. His arguments are very good.
@jmartin6158
3 жыл бұрын
Zapata wasn’t a anarchist
@RussiaGoodFantastic
7 жыл бұрын
It has an impact: in Somalia
@bing4126
4 жыл бұрын
I don't get it.
@israelaroca421
3 жыл бұрын
anarchism is not the same as military anarchy . please google the last one
@lebenstraum666
5 жыл бұрын
The miniscule impact of anarchism is due to the complexity of societies of today, and well as the instinctive realization of most people that they need leaders to tell them what to do, rather than being capable of thinking the issues out themselves. When anarchist democracy is instituted as e.g. in 1936 Spain or 1917 Russia, the democrats soon become divided, leading to Communist rule in the latter and anarchist impotence and viciousness in the former, where the anarchists had to keep asking the conservative left (not the Communists) what they had to do to rule their portion of Spain. Berkman & Goldman end up pandering to the Zionists even though they reveal the corruption of the Bolsheviks. That humans are fundamentally NOT the same is the fact that anarchists refuse to see i.e. differential human personality counts, as Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf and Plato told us long ago. Hence Chomsky's babble serves only the confuse and befuddle the masses since whenever anarchists organize effectively, they will cease to be anarchist - and will be called bureaucrats, bolsheviks, fascists or whatever by Chomsky & Co.
@jmb4969
2 жыл бұрын
For a linguist, Chomsky not only fails to define his terms, he doesn't even understand the implications. Anarchy and libertarianism are, by definition, devoid of discipline, a necessity that Chomsky certainly values simply because organization is required to achieve anything, even the overthrow of that thing. He fails to recognize that all anarchists and libertarians, who claim to desire 'freedom' and 'rights' in the name of 'free will', eventually succumb to the same ignorant will to power that their opponents and oppressors previously had. The only way to achieve any semblance of social equity, human rights, civil rights, etc., is through progressive, anti-fascist, open, transparent, democracy. The true problem is not 'freedom' to do whatever the hell you want to do; true freedom comes from the equitable control of the means and fruits of production for socialist and capitalist purposes alike. But then, people are too stupid to understand this, and concentrated power and wealth persist through the effective manipulation of secrecy and lies.
@miketheman4341
3 жыл бұрын
Why on earth would anyone pay attention to a linguistics professor regarding these concepts? Do you take medical advice from an attorney?
@oceania2385
3 жыл бұрын
Why do students want their college debt eliminated ? Because the product they received was worthless
@oceania2385
3 жыл бұрын
@Mark Branham I agree, In a STEM field it would be worth every penny
@oceania2385
3 жыл бұрын
@Mark Branham That's a very thoughtful response and I appreciate it. Here's an interview with Noam from a few years back. kzitem.info/news/bejne/sKCHp2SbaYeKrX4 From what I can tell deconstructing objective truths and replacing them with standpoint epistemologies is why overeducated, deeply in debt kids are throwing rocks at cops. The policeman never read Foucault, Marcuse,Gramsci, Frantz Fanon, or Mark bray. They are most likely wondering why they're being sprayed with a super soaker filled with coyote urine, or hit with a condom filled with feces. They don't realize that they are part of the dominant hegemony and must be disrupted and dismantled. It just seems like mean practical joke at this point. I'm sure that your liberal arts professors were far more entertaining than your physics professor. I just wish they would share some responsibility for the riots of 2020.
@oceania2385
2 жыл бұрын
@@nataliebolles It's interesting to hear that students in the STEM fields end up socially crippled without a humanities education. Here's an interview with Chomsky about the potential negative aspects of a post modernist education kzitem.info/news/bejne/sKCHp2SbaYeKrX4
@38vocan
Жыл бұрын
The reason why anarchist ideas haven't had a greater impact is because there are no arnarchist ideas. Anarchism is not an idea, it is a feeling. There is no anarchist thought because anarchism isn't rational, and there is no anarchist society because there is no vision of what anarchism means concretly and much less how you build an anarchist community because no two anarchists will agree about pretty much anything. For anarchists anarchism is just "the better system where I would have a better life somehow because I will be free" but outside this vague feeling there are no useful ideas.
@kaicullen4760
8 ай бұрын
Mutual aid? Democratic confederation? propaganda of the deed? direct democracy? direct action? need I go on?
@38vocan
8 ай бұрын
@@kaicullen4760 Direct democracy is not anarchism, it can be applied to a non anarchic society. Same for direct action, mutual aid and democratic confederations. You can have these institutions and a state, as you usually do in practice. And by propaganda of the deed I think you mean terrorism, which wasn't invented nor used exclusively by anarchists.
@markflounlacker2940
5 жыл бұрын
Chomsky seems to chock full of confirmation bias. His hypothesis is completely un falsifiable. With him all roads lead to Rome. Everything is the "perfect example of...". The more I listen to him, the more I notice he offers far less predictive value than he does lessons in drawing maps to the past. Take his example of the couple working 50 hours a week to support themselves. This is "the perfect example" of his hypothesis that debt is a means of discipline or control. But compared to what? No debt and starvation or poverty? Spending 80 hours a week hunting and gathering? Having no debt and not being able to attain an education? Something tells me if college financing weren't an option, to Chomsky, this may yet be another "perfect example of...". The biggest hurdle folks of his ilk need to jump is the fact that, while it's true, the rich are getting richer, so, in fact, are the poor. World extreme poverty is decreasing. State capitalism and greed are funding energy projects in Africa that are bound to improve the lives of billions of people. People vote with their checkbooks and their preferences. That's democracy. People prefer debt over something else. Chomsky's first challenge is to convince people that all the choices they have in life aren't really choices because they represent the determination of market forces and corporate influence. But this begs the question. Compared to what? How might Chomsky develop such choices? How would investment be determined? How would we gauge preferences and value? My biggest complaint with Chomsky is that he offers half opinions. I much more descriptive than prescriptive. But without the prescriptive ( the compared to what side of the argument), his descriptive is not much of any use. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe someone can point me to where Chomsky has explained this side. But I've never seen it.
@aaronblain6377
Жыл бұрын
"People vote with their checkbooks. That's democracy." That's literally oligarchy, not democracy.
@Wtahc
Жыл бұрын
@@aaronblain6377 i literally dont care lol
@chrisduran1026
7 жыл бұрын
Probably because anarchists have no actual political praxis, especially adequate enough to deal with imperialism
@Zayden.
7 жыл бұрын
Chris Duran they are idealists
@The5peed
7 жыл бұрын
Communists using this word should knock their heads in.
@fuzzydunlop7928
6 жыл бұрын
Anarchism works best when paired with another set of ideals. (Anarcho-Syndicalism, Anarcho-Communism, Social-Ecology), it's almost designed to be attached to a defining school of thought so I think that judging it by itself isn't exactly a useful or accurate endeavor. The first proponents of Anarchism as a defined thing considered themselves Socialists as well.
@EclecticSceptic
6 жыл бұрын
Try platformism and especifismo. Also libertarian municipalism. Regardless, to say that anarchists have no political praxis is just sectarian doggerel with no basis in history or even in ideology.
@internetomatic
6 жыл бұрын
lmao sure, tankie. sure.
@Jide-bq9yf
3 жыл бұрын
Give me a break . What do we do with the psychopaths and sociopaths , they are a significantly dangerous minority just in case we haven’t noticed .it’s a far fetched political position founded on the unsubstantiated potential for human perfectibility .
@bohanxu6125
3 жыл бұрын
umm... what about how typical anarchies want to get rid of police force and stuff, and those ideas simply don't work. I am a fairly left-leaning person, but I'm also critical of people on my side. Isn't what most anarchies want, simply detached from reality?
@sheilamacdougal4874
2 жыл бұрын
Yes, and it's mainly lefter-than- thou posturing and virtue-boasting. Notice as well the structure of the "interview". The "interviewer": "Yes, yes, yes, yes". He's the kind of person who inspired the term "yes man". But these are the only kinds of "interviews" Chomsky has given in the last 40 years. And these people think of themselves as free-thinking anarchists!
@meltedusb7533
Жыл бұрын
we want to get rid of the police and replace them with alternatives such as social workers, and if needed something akin to a volunteer fire department but for things like murder or violent situations run by local members of the community. at least thats my own anarcho-communist beliefs
@tyrantonion6660
3 жыл бұрын
Guy needs to learn to talk to an audience.
@johncole2744
2 жыл бұрын
Because they're bad 🤤
@karlbrothers2153
3 жыл бұрын
Marxism > anarchism
@Eisenkieffer
3 жыл бұрын
Because they never addressed living in reality rather than academia, maybe?
@michaelsmith8665
3 жыл бұрын
Anarchists live in academia? wtf?
@Wtahc
Жыл бұрын
@@michaelsmith8665 yes? retard?
@sheilamacdougal4874
3 жыл бұрын
5.37 A major reason why anarchism isn't flourishing among students today is because "they are disciplined by debt". LOL! Are there actually people who believe this shit? If anything you'd think debt would be a reason to hate "the system". Such rubbish from this guy on virtually all topics.
@emmashalliker6862
2 жыл бұрын
I think you've miss understood.
@sheilamacdougal4874
2 жыл бұрын
@@emmashalliker6862 Of course you think that. First, you're illiterate, which means who haven't read any books in your life. Second, you have absolute zero to say by way of explanation of what I allegedly misunderstood, or "miss understood". Third, you are obviously a member of the Chomsky cult, who worships whatever your guru says, even when it is sheer nonsense (which is usually the case). So of course you simply assume that I must have "miss understood".
@kamerondonaldson5976
3 жыл бұрын
trotsky was not a totalitarian. he was a contrarian.
@kamerondonaldson5976
3 жыл бұрын
@Fu-uck Riott perpetual revolution requires one to rebel not only against the rebellion but also against the establishment
@fatballs148
2 жыл бұрын
Trotzsky always flip floped around about most of the important political descions and sided so often with the wrong group, like with the menschewiki and after he violated party principles by forming a opposition and than got Millions (1.3 Mio was the data I've read) for telling horror bed time stories to western countries
@sheilamacdougal4874
2 жыл бұрын
The "interviewer": "Yes, yes, yes, yes". He's the kind of person who inspired the term "yes man". But these are the only kinds of "interviews" Chomsky has given in the last 40 years. And these people think of themselves as free-thinking anarchists!
@BuGGyBoBerl
2 жыл бұрын
no chomsky has given interviews to many other people who dont just say "yes,yes,yes". this is an absurd statement. however interviewers in general often tend to look for agreement.
@sheilamacdougal4874
2 жыл бұрын
@@BuGGyBoBerl Yeah, my statement is "absurd", yet you couldn't link or name a single counterexample. And please don't be ridiculous; only fawning interviewers "tend to look for agreement". You end up inadvertently confirming what I say by agreeing that Chomsky gives only fawning interviews.
@BuGGyBoBerl
2 жыл бұрын
@@sheilamacdougal4874 take it slow and dont make up stuff. just because i didnt instantly listed you a bunch of counterexamples in response to a 4 line youtube random claim im not unable to give one. also my second point was a general point how interviewers often respond to whoever they interview. they look for agreement most of the time. you can see that for basically anyone. thats just a general note. especially in USA where one side actually chose to interview someone who seemingly agrees with them just to have a authority to back them up. how about we keep it calm and easy. so regarding your counterexamples: few things to get out of the way first: i think you mean actual interviews and not speeches where people in the audience talk (which was often times opposing chomsky, same goes for discussions etc. foucault). also you have to show me where chomsky deliberately chose these kind of interviewers. i mean he got even interviewed by ali g... next point. you are the one making the initial statement. burdon of proof is up to you and not me. you basically just claim something and expect others to do your fact checking and research. okay now we cleared that: -interview with andrew marr -interview february 1st 1990, very neutral interview. -bbc interview 2003 -interview on language and lnowledge 1977. by far not just "yesyesyes" -interview on Dissent 1988 finding these interview took me less time than typing this comment (and not because i typed it slowly, which i obviously didnt, judging by typos and poor grammar) now i gave you examples despite it being your job to do so.
@sheilamacdougal4874
2 жыл бұрын
@@BuGGyBoBerl Commenters often write "Lol" when nothing is funny. But I had a few real chuckles at your inadvertently amusing comment. 1. You write: "You are the one making the initial statement. burdon [sic] of proof is up to you and not me". And you add: "Now I gave you examples despite it being your job to do so". Suppose I claim: "Ghosts do not exist". Do you think it's my "job" or "burden of proof" to "give examples"? Examples of what??? Things that are not ghosts? Do you not see how absurd that is? In general, one cannot "prove" a claim of universal non-existence by example. One can only challenge a would-be objector to provide a counterexample, and then attempt to rebut the counterexample. Just as an aside, fyi, one cannot prove ANY universal statement by example, for the obvious reason that since a universal statement makes a claim about EVERYTHING (whether positive or negative), no finite number of examples can prove it. You can prove an existential statement ("There are dogs") by example: ("Fido here is a dog, therefore there are dogs".) Or you can REFUTE a universal statement - "Everything is x", "Nothing is x" - by COUNTERexample. 2. Your alleged counterexamples are hilarious. The BBC interview is as fawning as they get. There are a couple of perfunctory questions framed as possible objections, just to set up Chomsky to rant his usual stream of bs, without objection. He even claims that the U.S. interfered with the revival of democracy in Laos, a ludicrous claim that the interviewer just lets pass. (The U.S. indeed supported the royalists in the civil war to prevent a communist takeover, and after the Pathet Lao communists did take over, they committed genocide against the Hmong, as is well-documented by human rights observers, along with murdering or jailing political dissidents, and so on. So much for the U.S. interfering with a revival of democracy!). The Andrew Marr interview has a bit of superficial sparring on the question of whether the media allow dissent, but the interviewer is obviously entirely sympathetic to Chomsky's general political viewpoint, and allows the usual absurd political claims to pass without comment. The Dissent interview - are you joking? It's a totally fawning interview. Those are your counterexamples? I can give better one's myself. (I didn't look at the video on language, because I'm only talking about interviews with regard to politics). In 2005 Chomsky gave an interview to Emma Brockes of the left-wing Guardian. He took exception to her negative portrayal of him, and went haywire, demanding that the editors retract the piece, which they did. It was somewhat reminiscent of when linguist Gregory Sampson wrote an entry on Chomsky for an encyclopedia, and added at the end that Chomsky had made a couple of interventions - in the Faurisson affair and on Cambodia - that were widely regarded as ill-considered. Chomsky the "libertarian" again went haywire, writing to the editors and bullying them to retract the piece. Interestingly your (failed) attempt to find counterexamples all date from the 80s or early 90s. You'd have an even harder time finding anything in the past 25 years.
@BuGGyBoBerl
2 жыл бұрын
@@sheilamacdougal4874 major nonsense and cheap rhetoric tricks. its questionable if i even should answer to such major nonsense. if you just want to "win" a conversation tell me and dont play these games. 1. YES the burdon of proof is yours. your example of "there is no ghost" is completely irrelevant as it basically isnt a statement claiming something to begin with and rather tackling an actual statement. you are clearly claiming this kind of interviews are the only ones he gave in the last 40 years. this is a statement you need to proof first. this isnt just denying a imaginary ghost someone else have to made up first. you are making a statement. also if you go like "well if you claim there is no ghost" is a stronger statement than just assuming there is none (same thing with gods existance) you have the same thing. you said its the only kind of interview. i disagree. its not up to me to disprove your statement first. so yes indeed, you prove your statement first before i have to find counterexamples to a random claim. also dont try to escape your job by saying one cannot proof an universal statement. first of all thats not correct in every case, and second you need to give at least some form of evidence and dont hide behind the difficulty to prove something. also i didnt ask you to prove it by examples nor did i claim you can prove it that way. thats a completely strawman argument. and for your understanding: "you have to show me where..." means giving some sort of evidence here. i mean do you even realize what that means? you can claim anything and others need to find counterexamples and as soon as they fail to do, for whatever reason your statement is true? insanity. needless to say that you want them to do some work without you doing anything besides claiming. its quite astonishing that you come at me with this cheeky response that its "funny" when you dont understand basic logic and the concept of burdon of proof. 2. do you understand how interviews work? interviews arent an academic discussion. if you want proper objection then you have to go to such discussion. my examples showed that first of all, interviews disagreed, and second that some were neutral and not just a "yes yes you are right" style which you claim it to be all the time. you chose to cherrypick on the BBC one i listed which shows a rather neutral case and not the stronger disagreeing one to now shift your argument to a "he doesnt disagree enough" while (despite i delivered you disagreeing examples) that wasnt your claim to begin with. chomsky is tackled for his stance on laos all the time. so now you not just chose only one of my examples and shift your original claim, you also think a lack of knowledge in one particular situation of the interviewer proves anything? absurd. desperately trying to get super specific to distract. my examples showed either a neutral point of view or opposing examples. i didnt put too much time in finding them so yeah, one can definitely better ones. nonetheless they are sufficient showing that there 1. are neutral ones not just "yesyesyes" sayers and 2. opposing views mentioned. you admitted bill marr disagreed, but also claim that he agrees on other things. yeah sry that the interviewer dont disagree on everything. others showed that there is disagreement and again others showed there is a neutral standpoint. i dont get into examples of where chomsky allegedly was wrong or attacked some interviewer, as thats even more offtopic and you already distracted enough here. you asked me for counterexamples about a statement of the last 40 years. i gave you a few despite not having the burdon of prove. now you attack me because they are from the 80s or 90s. what a absolutely cheap shot. you completely lack ANY form of reasoning or evidence that your claim is correct. you delivered absolutely 0 evidence in all of your comments and just tried to do some cheap shots and distracting on my examples. me being friendly enough to you to give your counterexamples despite not being in the burdon of proof while you actually are and didnt deliver ANYTHING just shows how cheap you try to get away with your nonsense here. if you fail to deliver an actual argument for your initial statement then this discussion ends here as you lack the ability or will to actually have a proper one. play your rhetoric games with someone else. your tactic is clear here. no argument yourself despite having the original claim, make the other give counterexamples and then try to find some weaknesses to focus on. very primitive and cheap. ps: you can also just pick any actual discussion or things like the interview with daniel ellsberg etc. if you think people dont oppose him properly.
@isnow8278
7 жыл бұрын
Just a question... Anarchists want there to be no government. Republicans want to see increasingly limited government. isn't anarchism the ultimate form of republicanism?
@greentvify
7 жыл бұрын
Not really, since republicanism advocates for a capitalist mode of production, which anarchists reject for its inherent hierarchical structure.
@chomskysphilosophy
7 жыл бұрын
No. Anarchists oppose hierarchy and domination in the economy as well. Republicans do not. In fact they do the opposite: they do what they can to make the corporations and the billionaires even more wealthy and powerful. And then there's foreign policy, military and many other things where anarchists and republicans radically differ.
@isnow8278
7 жыл бұрын
Marc S It wouldn't be hierarchical if the markets had no restrictions though. capitalism is an economic theory where the means of production are held by private individuals. going further the essence of republicanism is based on power being derived from popular sovereignty... where the state and government is ruled by the concent of the people. I can only grant the hierarchical observation as being a result of corruption if Republicans do it
@coreycox2345
7 жыл бұрын
I like Chomsky's ideas on anarchism. There are some necessary things like schools, street transportation, public transit, water and sewer systems, police and fire protection, floodplain management, parks and libraries that should be a role of government. Most of these are for the public safety, but great urban parks, museums, libraries and public education are a powerful civilizing force that create opportunity for all social classes. I will have to read up on how Chomsky thinks about these things.
@disciple3654
7 жыл бұрын
Republicans are absolutely for big government, it's just that when they don't hold the white house all their power is located in the states. But now they they are in the white house they advocate sending the feds to democratically held inner cities. For republicans it's a question of power not ideology. As with all political parties I should add.
@ropersix
7 жыл бұрын
Anarchist ideas have had a HUGE impact on the countries of Africa. South Sudan is the most prominent example right now, but Somalia is probably the longest-running example of people existing without much of a government. But there's a long history on the continent of Africa, of tearing down all forms of government, setting people free to set up their own militias, mining operations, ivory trade, etc.
@milankaplan2166
6 жыл бұрын
Agreed - anarchism is just good for virtue signalling - look this is wrong and this is wrong etc. - but when people need to improve anything, they need to organize themselves and if they don't, criminal gangs will. It is incredible how childlish CHomsky is from this point of view. He does not walk his talk having been safe all his life in his institution. Anarchists are the ultimate children.
@animekitty4218
5 жыл бұрын
You know anarchists aren't against organising right? We are very much for people organising themselves...
@siaviken6112
2 жыл бұрын
anarcho capitalism
@postmodernityarmageddon
6 жыл бұрын
Nothing Chomsky says about the Soviet has any historical root
@papaspeleo
Жыл бұрын
He is a loon…
@jacobgiolas7314
3 жыл бұрын
Because anarchists don't have ideas
@bentobarreirinhas5702
6 жыл бұрын
Simple, because they are wrong.
@sneadh1
3 жыл бұрын
No, because most people are lazy, and prefer to be led.
@bentobarreirinhas5702
3 жыл бұрын
@@sneadh1 Lazy people prefer to be led, then if people were not lazy they would all be leaders - what a great insight you have. I don't know where you live but I don't know so many lazy people in this world.
@benjaminr8961
5 жыл бұрын
Anarchism is a stupid objective.
@sneadh1
3 жыл бұрын
Communists claim to have the same ultimate objective.
@benjaminr8961
3 жыл бұрын
@@sneadh1 There are actually several different kinds of communism. One being anarcho communism. They are all moronic.
@bing4126
3 жыл бұрын
because children grow up eventually, most anyways.
@GREGORYABUTLER
2 жыл бұрын
because anarchist ideas are wrong?
@timcuencaaarum2690
7 жыл бұрын
Becouse marxism-leninism is superior
@Neptunion118
6 жыл бұрын
why? because anarchism is conventionally drenched in an ideology that is associated with chaos, dysfunction, radicalism, destruction etc., the actual ideas can be incredibly profound but it's the ideology that inhibits people from learning it. and truly i don't think that the majority of people can accept a world without a governing authority, without the sense of stability, security, and safety a state engenders, and the state itself, symbolically, acts as a protective father figure, and the operations of the state are considered more competent and of higher value than the individual
@miguelpereira9859
3 жыл бұрын
"Anarchism" is a garbage name for an ideology, let's be honest here
Пікірлер: 417