The questioner: "It's easier to be lead by authority" Clearly demonstrating that power in the US has propagandized the population so effectively that the citizens literally hate and fear the "liberty and freedom" they (erroneously) think characterizes their lives.

@carlpen850

7 жыл бұрын

@ cougar 1861... I think it goes back a lot further than than the beginning of our government or even further back than the onset of "Mosaic Law"... I think it has been ingrained in humans predating history to believe in a "higher authority" that rules over us... one that we not only have to obey but fear as well ... it's so much easier to be told what to do than to think for ourselves what to do. "Liberty and freedom"... it's just a concept... the only time we are truly free is when we're dead and then it's to late to appreciate it.

@cougar1861

7 жыл бұрын

@ Carl Pen I may steal your last sentence! I'll concede that "liberty and freedom" are now, certainly, essentially nothing more than lip service to the ghost of the Enlightenment. I was explaining how the "dangerous" ideas of the Enlightenment have been, and continue to be, driven back to the philosophical stone age. To wit .... My comment hardly precluded religion as an essential institution used by the state to keep the populace under control. The US is "a Christian nation," after all. But religion is not the only fiercely anti-freedom/liberty institution currently with inordinate power. Include capitalism and militarism and you have a formidable trifecta of suppression and repression revealing a nation exhibiting a hypocrisy of cosmic proportions. The US is clearly#1, by a WIDE margin, in a single area: the massive difference between what it SAYS it is, in constant PR, as opposed to what it truly is, in fact. That alone wouldn't necessarily be the horror it is but the US constantly justifies its global, perpetual, mass murder and destruction BASED on this meticulously cultivated, entirely false, myth.

@MadDeuceJuice

6 жыл бұрын

I don't think the questioner is from U.S.

@ladi7133

6 жыл бұрын

In addition, he says he's campaigning and protesting etc. These are activities that oppose the current system he lives in, so yes it will be hard and tiring. The system prefers he just sits down and takes orders, that is why its the supposedly easier option. For example, if he operates in an alternate system, say a creative work environment that is (truly) without hierarchy, sitting and waiting for orders will be the dumbest thing to do.

@tacobandit

6 жыл бұрын

Wouldn't true freedom offer the choice to be a sheep if you so wish to be?

I use "democracy without bureaucracy" to quickly convey my ideals. It usually helps establish a baseline for discussion (about anarchy).

@MikBak1814

2 жыл бұрын

Doesn't that also lead you down libertarian lines, aka. Republicans in cloaks?

@ninjabiatch101

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah definitely sounds like Right Wing libertarianism. If the majority in a region voted to burn down a whole forest to make room for cattle grazing, it wouldn't make it a good idea.

@vision821k4

Жыл бұрын

@Jeff Whitman LOL wrote all that and not ONE like. Listen buddy, I appreciate the enthusiasm, but I'm not reading all that, however, you can have a like just because of the dedication!

@mayhemamigos4766

Жыл бұрын

@@MikBak1814 libertarianism originated from the union of anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists against the bolsheviks and capitalists. Anarchism is libertarian socialism.

@MikBak1814

Жыл бұрын

@@mayhemamigos4766 Why do you feel the need to describe the origins of libertarianism in response to my post?

5:05 "power prefers darkness. If it's exposed to the light, it erodes." The man knows the art of quoting.

@fiveoclock8888

5 жыл бұрын

Wow that's John 3:20. Never new that.

@mck1972

4 жыл бұрын

@@fiveoclock8888 , I hope John was not as much of a paranoid conspiracy theorist as Chomsky...smh

@anarchism

4 жыл бұрын

@@mck1972 you're the paranoid theorist, actually

@mck1972

4 жыл бұрын

@@anarchism , Am I? Do you see me spouting, ‘ tin-foil-hat ‘, terms like, ‘ Imperialism ‘, and, ‘ Propaganda ', like Chomsky does??? kzread.info/dash/bejne/aYSYrJuNcce6lKQ.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/faOCsbNwfLC4aMY.html

@mck1972

4 жыл бұрын

@@ShiningTrapezoid Don't Shoot the Messenger...smh

Damn Chomsky shut him down with the "that's an argument for slavery" rebuttal.

@svenbrede6151

4 жыл бұрын

It's a problem though: choice leads to doubt leads to unhappiness with said choices. It's a problem among university students these days.

@KitchenJames

4 жыл бұрын

@@svenbrede6151 i think the university student problem is not that there is too much freedom but that there is a sort of illusion of freedom. i.e. there are multiple paths to the generally same way of living under capitalism. However much we learn and however much freedom w/in the job market we aspire to, we will still end up working for capital or becoming its representative. The food, clothing and electronics we buy will still be produced by exploited workers, and we have very little power to actually ameliorate that situation. Ostensibly we can vote for a politician who will change things but (at least in the U.S.) both parties are beholden to capitalist and imperial exploitation. So being an educated citizen is potentially not worth much. The surfeit of choice is probably actually just an illusion of choice, and that illusion is in fact what overwhelms and depresses us.

@mattja52

4 жыл бұрын

@@KitchenJames The irony in your words cause me to laugh, I was told as you probably were, get a good education for a better life. Education is good debt! Right, 1.5 Trillion dollars student loans, a better life? Did you mention the illusion of freedom? The Banks will implode this system, no need for a nuclear war! Find shelter, it could be nasty!

@Wamsuo58u

4 жыл бұрын

@Kevin MacDurden that's simply ridiculous considering the way people live naturally could be considered freedom. Freedom is the right to eat, drink, and live happily in harmony with earth.

@bohanxu6125

3 жыл бұрын

there is nothing wrong with "that's an argument for slavery" because the argument wasn't meant to be sufficient to begin with. The question about the effort activism need, the uncertainty your solution has, the effort of being good at decision making, are all valid factors. There is nothing wrong with them being "argument for slavery", becuase they are...but they are not meant to be a sufficient argument. It was just a question.

I had never thought about anarchism in this light. Chomsky is fascinating, insightful and thought provoking as always.

@fluentpiffle

2 жыл бұрын

The only genuine 'leader' is wisdom born of a respect for truth.. It is the severe lack of naturalised 'elder wisdom' that leads to the kind of politicised world we suffer today. When the Europeans invaded the Americas they saw themselves as having the 'right' to obliterate everything from a position of 'superiority', where in fact they couldn't have been more wrong; replacing a self-sustaining series of inter-connected micro systems based on elder-wisdom philosophy with a savage greed for self-interest, leading ultimately to self-destructive behaviour.. It all really boils down to control. External, ever increasing and changing forms of control by exterior and self-interested 'forces', or personal responsibility through self-control, which negates the need for the external, but does still require a form of on-going and naturally evolving wisdom tradition.. Neither are without problems, but the wisdom option can see where those problems arise and has the ability to deal successfully with them. It also has the added bonus of never blindly sinking into a self-destructive state, and thus will remain sustainable..

When the camera angle changed at 1:17, for a second I thought that person behind Chomsky was tied up with their hands above their head. I was like "wtf?"...lol

@WombieFerguson

6 жыл бұрын

Haha it definitely felt like The Eric Andre Show for a second there

@charlytaylor1748

6 жыл бұрын

That's what happens to those who defy anarchosyndicalism

@stevenglansburg856

6 жыл бұрын

Dan Finnegan I too am a bdsm anarchist.

@quicksilver6025

6 жыл бұрын

lol

@grb1969

6 жыл бұрын

Strange fruit hanging from the tree of wage-slavery.

Anarcho syndicalism took roots in Barcelona, Valencia, Murcia and parts of Castellon .. thousands of farmers, students, intellectuals and industrial workers united .. abolishing the monarchy, the monetary system and the federal christian republic of Spain : also fighting fascist and communist juntas which existed in Spain ..Only for about 20 months..

@skylarpatterson1408

4 жыл бұрын

Anarchists and communists fought together against fascism. Communists even go as far to say that they have an ally in anarchists

@deer4927

4 жыл бұрын

@@skylarpatterson1408 The communists and anarchists in Spain, while fighting together alongside all Republicans, definitely had an animosity. I am afraid to speak on who primarily to blame for this animosity, since I am an anarchist myself, but as I see it the communists looked down on the Anarchists as undisciplined and less useful than communists generally, and some communists were even more against anarchism- again, how I see it, please take it with a grain of salt. There were also conflicts between anarchists and communists in the literal, combat sense, but I do not want to talk about those for fear of contorting it through my bias. Needless to say it was complicated and while they were nominally allies, communists and anarchists also were not comrades as an anarchist with an anarchist or a communist with a communist would be.

@skylarpatterson1408

4 жыл бұрын

@@deer4927 I am an anarchist myself but I still consider the free market as more free than socialism, so I myself dont consider communists an ally

@jbdbibbaerman8071

4 жыл бұрын

@@skylarpatterson1408 Aren't there individualist anarchists that seem socialist but still keep a free market, though? Are the two ideas actually opposed?

@skylarpatterson1408

4 жыл бұрын

@@jbdbibbaerman8071 market socialism is a thing you know?

Its nice to listen to him as a younger duder because you get the sense how studying and knowing your shit so effortlessly shuts down people who just want to make a short quippy consumable point

This guy is a walking library...

@mck1972

5 жыл бұрын

Chomsky's ability to retain & recite data is certainly impressive. BUT-That by itself does NOT prove that Chomsky truly understands the topic in question. Just like merely reciting Pro Football Stats, by itself, does NOT prove that someone truly understands what it means to play/coach for an NFL team. Something to think about...

@mck1972

5 жыл бұрын

@@@singingsatellite6845 , That is a good question- Genuine understanding of a particular topic-to the degree that a person is qualified to judge others in that topic-requires sufficient Real World Experience: Which is defined as a documented history of Training, Practice, Achievement, and Responsibility, in a given field, and that is held to the same accepted standards as others in that same field. In our society, a person is required to have sufficient Real World Experience in a given field-BEFORE they have the Credibility to judge others in that same field. This is the Standard that everyone in our society is held to: I.e.: Law, Science, Medicine, Finance, Sports, Engineering, Etc. Yet Chomsky himself has ZERO Real World Experience in any field outside Linguistics. Therefore, Chomsky has ZERO Credibility to judge anyone else in any field outside Linguistics, regardless of how many facts & figures he can recite about it.

@Tenhys

4 жыл бұрын

@@mck1972 _"In our society, a person is required to have sufficient Real World Experience in a given field-BEFORE they have the Credibility to judge others in that same field."_ So how does that logic stands to the concept of Democracy ? Because, following your logic, the people has no credibility to choose their President, having no experience into being President themselves ; as for the Presidents and the candidates themselves, as they can only be judged by their peers (that is other Presidents - by your logic), it essentialy means that only the predecessor can judge the successor and the People doesn't mean crap. But then it begs the question, who judged the first President when he took office ? Let's extend that logic to the market system and society at large : can a aeronotical engineer's judge the piloting skills of a jet figthter pilot, when it doesn't have any experience in flying such a vehicle to begin with ? And can a jet pilot fighter judge the engineering work of the A.E. on the plane he's piloting, having no experience into drafting jet schematics, let alone building one ? What about doctors ? If you get a treatment that worsen your condition instead of improving it, does the patient should sue the doctor ? By your logic the patient could only do so if hhe has medical experience himself/herself. What about plumbers doing the pipe works in your home and things are either leaking or flat out not working, you'd complain ? Are you a plumber yourself ? And when it's an electrician, an informatician, an accountant, a soldier, a chemist or whatever, doing a task representative of his/her expertise and providing outcomes that aren't the expected results (some time even the diametral opposite to it), do you simply shut up about it ? When only peers can judge peers and dismiss every other line of thoughts not part of their circles, what you get is essentialy the very essence of elitism : appeal to authority, circular reasoning and the illusion of asymetric insight.

@mck1972

4 жыл бұрын

@@Tenhys , That is not an accurate characterization of my point: Any Public Service Position, whether the Presidency, or anything else, entails the responsibility for making decisions, and accepting responsibility, in real time. For example, when then President Truman determined whether or not to use the Atomic Bomb on Japan in 1945, he had just recently taken over the office following the unexpected death of FDR. Yet Truman was not simply thrust into such a position of great authority; he was previously an Officer in the Military, a Senator from Missouri, and Vice President, which all entailed levels of responsibility. And now Truman had to accept the responsibility for making this terrible decision, to use this terrible weapon. Was this the right decision? That is for history to judge. But Truman had to make the call in that moment-WITHOUT the great luxury of 20/20 Hindsight. As opposed to a Linguistics Professor, who has NEVER accepted ANY such responsibility, and whose criticisms of others ALL have the great luxury of 20/20 Hindsight! In order for a Pilot to have the credibility to judge the quality of work of an Aeronautical Engineer, or vice versa, then the one must have requisite training and experience in the specific field they are criticizing. I.e.: The A.E. would (likely) not have the credibility to judge the flying skills of the Pilot, and nor would (likely) the Pilot have the credibility to judge the design skills of the A.E. As opposed to a Linguistics Professor, who has NEVER worked in ANY other field! And IF someone seeks service from a, ‘ doctor, electrician, informatician, accountant, soldier, chemist or whatever ‘, yet the issue gets worse, instead of better, then there must be an inquiry, by those with proper training and experience in the particular field, in order to properly determine the cause, and who or what is to blame. As opposed to a Linguistics Professor, who has NEVER worked in ANY other field! So it is not about, ‘ Elitism ' . It is about having the necessary training, experience, and responsibility in a specific field, in order to be competent to judge others in that same field. As opposed to a Linguistics Professor, who has NEVER worked in ANY other field! So hopefully this is clear to you now.

@KTMGUNNER

4 жыл бұрын

You're saying that in order to speak about or understand how to heal a gun shot wound you don't simply need knowledge of anatomy and surgical procedure, but that you yourself need to have been shot. Is that correct? Following your logic to it's conclusion suggests that the only value of knowledge is in its function and subsequent application for a specific need, and not in the acquisition and deliverance of it to others and the person who can use it for their benefit? What does real world experience do exactly ? It can only be understood through subjectivity and assimilated through faculty of reason to become information and knowledge. Both are important but to deny intellect based on an inability to share an experience is just absurdity.

Anarchy is not chaos...that is the core distinction that people are unaware of. \\][//

@Lrripper

5 жыл бұрын

Associating anarchy to chaos is newspeak

@rexnemovi6061

5 жыл бұрын

Willy Whitten Whenever you realize that people are unaware of what they would need to be aware of in order for the better system you're proposing to work, you identified the reason why it won't work.

@yeziu3475

5 жыл бұрын

Tell that to Noam Chomsky you re defined anarchy. Hell that’s like constitutionalism without doing any revolution how sounding but worthless.

@motorcycleman115

5 жыл бұрын

The funny thing is in a literary sense anarchy is totally a synonym for chaos. For example: “With all the rioting and crimes, the streets were in a state of anarchy”. I will agree however that it’s meaning does not match with chaos in a political setting.

@katiemiaana

5 жыл бұрын

The prophet Peterson says otherwise

Here's a transcription of a key part of his replies to the questions around how an anarchist society work, and how to communicate anarchist ideas. There are several comment threads below that present interpretations that are quite different than what he actually said here. He doesn't describe a final, utopian, end-state, and admits that he doesn't know what that would look like, but recognizes the on-going human tendency to question, challenge and dismantle illegitimate 'structures of authority, domination and hierarchy.' Some may disagree that this describes their own understanding of anarchism, but it seems to represent Chomsky's sense of the term. "It's not a specific set of doctrines but a tendency in human thought and action which tries to detect and discover structures of authority, domination and hierarchy and challenge them - ask them to demonstrate their legitimacy, recognizing that they are not self-justifying. They have a burden of justification. That’s true all across the spectrum of human life, from patriarchal families to imperial systems, and everything in between. Wherever you find a structure of domination, hierarchy, someone giving orders, someone taking them, you have to ask if that’s legitimate. You cannot assume and you shouldn’t assume that it’s legitimate because it’s been like that. That’s not a justification. You have to ask, “is it legitimate?“ When you do, you generally find that it can’t be justified. There are cases where you could make up a justification, but try it. It’s pretty hard. Most of the time the justification is around the way power is distributed, but that’s not a justification. Anarchism is the effort to discover such systems, and when they can’t justify themselves, to dismantle them and to move towards greater freedom, justice, opportunity, individual creativity, cooperative activity, and so on. It’s just a tendency in history and I don’t think it’s hard to communicate to people. I think they take it for granted if it’s brought to their attention. You see it. Take for example: one of the major achievements of the last 50 years in many societies - in the United States and in many others - has been the expansion of women’s rights. It’s changed enormously. How did it happen? Well, as soon as the structures of oppression were identified, they kind of disappeared. Not instantly of course. There’s still plenty of resistance. It’s a general truth that power prefers darkness. If it’s exposed to the light it erodes. This happens all through history. Where does this lead? What will the final goal be? I don’t think anyone is smart enough to say that, to see what that will be. This is a constant, ongoing effort to expand the realm of justice, freedom, independence, breakdown of authority and so on, and I don’t see that it should have any limits."

@jessikabat6200

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you!

In my country Anarchism and Anarchists were a very real thing in the late XIX and early XX century. One of the classics in Brazillian literature is "Anachists, Thanks to God". When I was a teen, a high school friend's granpa was a retired politician, had been persecuted by the dictators and had an anarchist family. Of course every metalhead teen waned to talk to the guy. In one of his talks he said something that I have never forgotten: "we are not anarchists because we do not want a government, just for not having a government's sake or because we want to go around sacking department stores. We are anarchists because we do not want a government, because we do not need a government, because we already know how to behave in a society".

I love how Chomsky just quietly and politely destroys every point the guys try to make lol especially how he thoroughly explains this worldwide misconception about socialism and the Soviet Union

“The world’s two propaganda systems insist that the Soviet Union was socialist. The West insists on it in order to undermine Socialism, the East insisted on it to try to gain what they could from the moral appeal of Socialism. And when the world’s two propaganda systems...agree on something, it tends to be kind of persuasive. But I think it’s just flat wrong on both cases and kind of opportunistic on both sides.” This has so clearly answered every uncertainty I’ve had about Russian Socialism in theory vs. reality. Gracias.

@whatabouttheearth

11 ай бұрын

Even Vladimir Lenin said it was a phase of state capitalism that they thought they had to go through to transition to the first phase of socialism. The USSR was state capitalism

Jordan Peterson hears this... *Screeches in Lobster*

@jjseandxcefree

4 жыл бұрын

jordan is in a drug induced coma. enough said about jp lol

@markf5220

3 жыл бұрын

@@jjseandxcefree He is awake now, and giving his fans 12 more rules

@thatgoodstuff1986

3 жыл бұрын

Whats with Jordan and lobsters?

Cracking audio...hats off

Anarchism is the tendency in human thought and action that dismantles structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination that are neither justified nor legitimate. Such structures of power are not justified merely by existing, the burden of proof being placed upon them. The move towards greater freedom, justice, opportunity, individual creativity, and cooperative activity.

Personal anecdote, but applies, if it helps anyone: I hit public school and within the first few days I'm sure, noted that indeed my home life was reflected in a sad way I was afraid of. The adults all mirrored what my folks did. Said one thing, did another. So, believing at age six I had it whooped put me on a specific journey of mostly isolation, when not literal, intellectually. It has allowed me an objectivity that carried through to my watershed moment, even though I was no less properly propagandized in to a paradigm of deceit. I realized who I was while doing community service(the irony). It has never strayed, I like community service more than anything I've ever done, as a substrate of my my life's story. So to speak, I am ineloquent =( But here is the point, a description of Anarchist from one more prole's perspective: We are all born Anarchists but that is at a time no label is needed, AKA "human being". The forces of indoctrination indoctrinate and the human being becomes a "human being." If you catch my drift. Shedding the mindset of a good little consumer and dropping all need for personal, material gain, leading to visceral, sincere and legitimate drives to improve and fight, makes one an... A) Anarchist B) An Anarchist C) Anarchism!

I don't think what he says about the faculties in universities holds true any more. That choice of choosing what to teach has been eroding since at least the 1970s.

@totlyepic

4 жыл бұрын

In large part due to accredidation systems, which serve a very important role but only because universities have transitioned into existing to train people for the workforce en masse instead of being a place for a passion for academia, at least in undergrad. Once you get to grad school, it's basically as he describes. Professors can teach basically whatever they want and however they want.

They really couldn't get a camera stand so ole girl didn't have to hold it up the entire time lol

@Fuar11

3 жыл бұрын

her poor arms

Chomsky is a gentleman, one would say there is no stupid answer but stupid question, but he still makes the day

I like that Chomsky was already social distancing. Good for him.

I will so miss him when he's gone. Wonderful discussion.

That guy behind Chomsky looks like he’s about to hit him with a samurai sword

To put it simply a Anarchist society would look like it says, a Society one which revolves around co-operation not corporation. The very nature of a human beings identity its self-belief, is entirely operated by anarchy. We are at constant struggle, at war within ourselves. Anarchy is the act, the progression of overcoming the destitute of subservience to illogical sadistic ascension, which is governed by the addiction to power. Any open minded individual who understands her/his position in the universe is an anarchist, simply because we know our actions and responsibility is our own and nobody else's. The world changes regardless of action, all we seek to achieve is a world in which change happens, for the betterment of all whom take part in its journey. Yes war will never change as long as we are human, but the way in which we do battle is always within our sphere of control. Even if as a individual you sell your choice to puppets, you can never sell your responsibility nor the grief and depression that follows. As a human being your duty is to your self, and through individuality the world around you.

@EwingAmaterasu

5 жыл бұрын

This is the best description I have ever read. Well done.

@diegosilveira5515

5 жыл бұрын

Truly the best explanation about it.

@oingoboingo1720

4 жыл бұрын

why co-operation? What if people don't want to?

@g.h7657

4 жыл бұрын

Awesome comment..

@christopherking2128

3 жыл бұрын

I’m an Anarchist , thanks

"Freedom itself is a remarkable value."

@rstromer1

3 жыл бұрын

Yes!

If you're *conditioned* to function at the behest of an authority, then yes, choosing to only be a subordinate and to never fight for your human rights, might *emotionally* feel easier. I think that that perspective maybe speaks to the paradox of a fairly privileged person involved in activism. I'll use myself as an example. I get really frustrated about even following the corruption of authority but I also benefit from it, so I have to be careful not to let my privilege excuse my desire to drop out of the fight. I do have a personal stake in how our hierarchies work, but most of my own outrage comes from basic human empathy. Yes, fighting powerful entities is hard and may not work sometimes or even most of the time. But dropping out and giving up is equally depressing, and leads to a worse result - illegitimate hierarchy persisting. Sidenote about empathy, if I see that prevalent hierarchies act without compassion to the extent of actively being harmful for no legitimate reason, why should I expect I too may become subject to the same treatment? Empathy and compassion have solid practical applications. I think they are crucial for creating an optimally just and sustainable society. Capitalist fear-monger about compassion but it can threaten their profits and power, not because they've demonstrated that compassion really is the greatest human flaw that we must always avoid.

I love this, especially the latter part (starting very roughly around the 19:00 minute mark) where Chomsky makes a strong distinction between “Marxist Orthodoxy” (Marxism) and Marx the person. Reminds me of how many Gnostics, Mystics etc. distinguish strongly between Christ and “Christianity” (the organized religion, belief system etc.)! Ha!

Brilliant man

Brilliant brilliant brilliant...

The person who looks like they are strung up behind Chomsky (boom operator perhaps) is a little distracting.

Gandhi Like Non -Violent Massive Resistance is The Only Answer to Government Insanity!

@zombiegone2073

5 жыл бұрын

I don't necessarily agree. Nonviolent protests are like the declaration of independence, it's great when the government listens, or is forced to listen through non violence, but when a government refuses to listen protests are reduced to words without action.

Interesting that both of the people posing the questions (more so the second guy) fundamentally misunderstand anarchism.

@solarflare1206

3 жыл бұрын

Absolutely. The misinformation about anarchy put forth by the ruling class is by design. The misinformation campaign is doing well at keeping the oppressed masses complacent.

@fredoctober292

3 жыл бұрын

It's amazing we get anywhere, when no one speaks the same language anymore.

Someone get that camera person in the back a tripod

Around 2:15 (which - as I write this, is about the point I’ve gotten so far), Chomsky already defines (in answer to the questioner) Anarchism: “. . . Basically, it seems to me, when you think of anarchism, as not a specific set of doctrines, but just kind of a tendency in human thought and action . . . which tries to detect structures of authority, domination and hierarchy - and there are plenty of them - and to challenge them: Ask them to demonstrate their legitimacy.” This is what I love about anarchy: rather than an attempt to pursue the positive with various rules and structures, it seeks to “purify” or remove the negative (or at least identify and be cognizant of it). It thus intends simply to stay more aware and awake, to go beyond superficiality and delusion. From a purely psychological angle, that is why I enjoy Jeddu Krishnamurti. He dispensed with all belief systems - both “divine” and secular - and simply asks the listener to observe their own internal reactions to the external world.

@oingoboingo1720

4 жыл бұрын

what makes him better than others who say the same things? Is there any reason to spend time on Jeddu's teachings rather than someone else's?

@LawrenceCarroll1234

4 жыл бұрын

jim lastname, as I said I like the way Jeddu dispenses with belief systems. If there are others who do the same, maybe I'd like them as well. I guess we all have our own individual preferences. I'm not sure what in particular in regard to Jeddu besides that would be his "charm" to me, but if others don't like it as I do, that is certainly their prerogative. It isn't that I always like reading or listening to Jeddu (or Chomsky etc.). But they do tend to be my favorites when it comes to social commentary. Chomsky is, of course, almost strictly into the political world, while Jeddu was into the psychological and "spiritual" world (and its relationship to the social/political situations that individuals find themselves in). So there is a perceived wide gulf between them, though I find their "anarchism" in both cases very refreshing. Have a good day!

@islandboy9381

4 жыл бұрын

So basically nihilism of objective meanings (in this case political) mixed in with thinking for yourself what works?

@LawrenceCarroll1234

4 жыл бұрын

@@islandboy9381 . that sounds about right, but as good old Krishnamurti always said, "Don't let another tell you the truth" (or words to that effect). He was so against anyone having an intermediary between themselves and "truth" -- yet at the same time obviously wasn't categorical about it or he would not have been an "advisor" or "teacher" himself! Alan Watts humorously described those who liked Krishnamurti as the "non-followers of Krishnamurti." :-D

Anarchist thought was mostly developed in the 19th century, but there is William Godwin who is often considered the founder before such folks as Kropotkin. The 19th century anarchist thinkers were writing before the rise of the international corporation. Anarchism often takes aim at the state as being the great oppressor. Now we hope to get the state to at least regulate effectively corporations. Anarchism quickly slides into libertarianism, which is an "I get all I can and to hell with you" philosophy, under a lot of fast fatuous talk about freedom.

@timmybohannon93

4 жыл бұрын

Jesus was the original anarchistt. Ye blind leaders of the blind a house divded against itself cannot stand the wise man built his house upon the rock of truth this man speaks truth but most people will not hear the truth especially the blind leaders

Are the three guys teaching at universities?? I'm shocked about their lack of history knowledge! Like for instance that the french revolution promised anarchy to the people. Are you kidding?? Go back to school, please.

@sudarshanmagaji6607

4 жыл бұрын

He didn't say that the French revolution promised anarchy. All he said was that the revolution brought in anarchy for a brief period.

@edwardmurdoch5070

4 жыл бұрын

@@sudarshanmagaji6607 Yes, but he said it right after Chomsky explained that was not anarchy.

"Power prefers darkness. If it is exposed to light, it erodes. " Love this.

Wow. At the six minute mark I didn’t know that shit!!!! And I’m neck deep in Lincoln history at the moment.

That was beautiful

We can't lose him... When we do, we need more people like him to step up.

focus on the carafe!

@davidwood493

3 жыл бұрын

As soon as I have a bong

Crass : "You must learn to live with your own conscience, your own morality, your own decision, your own self. You alone can do it. There is no authority but yourself." 1983 ( Album >> Yes Sir, I Will " ).

Anarchism is also the tendency in people to self organize without needing to be pressed to do so.

My years being homeless were better than my working years. So nice to have freedom everyday.

@psivil.disobedience

4 жыл бұрын

Because worker’s rights are scoffed at currently. We need to organize the workers across the globe & overthrow this oppressive oligarchy. Corporate propaganda has divided us along lines of color, religion, gender & income level, we need to erase those lines.

Chomsky looks like emperor palpatine here lol

2:17 "... think of #Anarchism as a tendency in human thought and action which tries to detect and discover structures of authority, domination and hierarchy and challenge them..."

chomsky is great

@jeffreybaumann3617

5 жыл бұрын

I don't think greatness is spewing things you read about, being highly educated, being a professor at an expensive university and then criticizing education as "indoctrination." If Lincoln said that, I'd be all-in... but he didn't... it's like Noam's platform and it's 110% hypocritical imho.

I love Chomsky, but I cringed at about 15:00 when he talked about college faculty meetings as close to the kind of anarchist freedom he espouses. He seems to be unaware of his privileged position (rightly earned) as a world-famous academic, as well as white entitlement (not earned). I have been teaching in Japanese colleges for 36 years ... and am currently (March, 2019) a 3 time judge for Tokyo University's All Japan English Speech Contest. Despite writing a bit over 150,000 words for the 51 semi finalists ... the following two paragraphs, which I have written as part of my longer biography for the contest brochure, describe the arch of my career in Japanese academia, with explanations in parentheses for this reading audience: 'After several years of being subjected to institutionally sanctioned power / academic harassment, systematic marginalization with a blatant disregard for Japanese labor law, and finally further isolated by being forbidden by Japanese colleagues and administration to engage in community outreach work and volunteer activities … he resigned in protest from a tenured position as an Associate Professor in English Communication at Jissen Women’s College. Since that time, he has been scrambling for odd jobs - competing with 20 year olds teaching English conversation classes, or temp staff outsourcing companies, serving as a part-time ALT (Assistant Language Teacher) at a school for at-risk Japanese students ... victims of bullying, working poor, and/or academically challenged, and trying to continue a long history of non-denominational, community outreach and volunteer activities in the spirit of the above mentioned ideals of a liberal arts education. (empowering the marginalized, and holding authority accountable)' Chomsky is great ... one smart dude with a sharp moral compass ... similar to Naomi Klein, Antony Loewenstein, and William Blum (among many). But he sometimes forgets how much luck and fate plays into his privileged position. p.s. Without informing me, the 'All-Japan' contest committee omitted that first paragraph from my biography ... thus giving a bit of extra-meaning to 'All Japan'. I don't even have the right to identify myself. ps. ... Just wanted to point out that the discussion from about 12:50 and 16:00 seemed to be comparing apples with oranges because Chomsky and the others seem to arguing from different definitions of 'anarchy', Chomsky's being closer to a communal level of social organization rather than centralized concentrations of power. The questioners used 'anarchy' as mostly a euphemism for a breakdown of logic and order, destruction of institutions, but without Chomsky's added inclusion of small, collaborative communities. Although Chomsky is a strong critic of the Israeli state, I think the relatively independently run Israeli kibbutzes are close to the kind of anarchy Chomsky is talking about. Chomsky seems to be talking over their heads with his flood of details. There still seems to be a misunderstood problem of dealing with what might be inevitable concentrations of power in populations of scale. Quantity does have a quality of its own ... and that quality may well be self-destruction. After all, we are social primates ... not herding primates.

@ItsCronk

5 жыл бұрын

Steve Martin Chomsky has lived with the Israelis you describe. He points outs the flaws and positives of the movement on a video here on KZread.

@stevemartin4249

5 жыл бұрын

@@ItsCronk 1 - Please take a more critical reading of my text. 2 - I have not denied Chomsky as lived on Kibbutzes in Israel, nor have I talked about Israelis in general. 3 - I make a salient distinction between kibbutzes and the state ... between small communities and large institutions. 4 - I question Chomsky's recognition of the relationship between one's accumulated social capital and the size between small communities and large scale populations ... particularly because of his entitlement within the small community of a University committee meeting. 5 - I specifically point out the above by speaking specifically about my experience as an ethnic minority in Japanese academic institutions.

@ItsCronk

5 жыл бұрын

@@stevemartin4249 I didn´t mention anything about you denying he lived with them. I simply posted a comment saying that because I doubt you knew he had.

@stevemartin4249

5 жыл бұрын

​@@ItsCronk Hi ItsCronk ... yeah, I listened to the whole video. Three times now. And I clearly remember his references to living in kibbutzes. I don't know what gives you the idea that I am ignoring anything he said. As I said in my original comment, I thought his reference to academic meetings as close to a communal ideal is way off the mark. If he were less famous and/or an ethnic minority, he probably would have quite a different attitude about academic assemblies. Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of Chomsky ... much more so than the 'things are looking rosy' Steven Pinker. But I think that in being an intellectual celebrity, he has a blind spot regarding those who have similar insight, but no platform to share that insight ... and that affects how he assesses some situations, such as academic assemblies. I was a tenured Associate Professor, and forced to attend meetings lasting hours in which I had no voice ... and at least in Japan, there is no law or institutional rule preventing such dehumanization. This might be correlated with the drastically falling demographics here, as well as the high rate of suicide. My department had only 8 tenured members, only one of whom committed suicide, partially because of the school's group dynamics ... and she was a Japanese. As the only tenured foreigner, had I not resigned in protest, I would have been a suicide statistic by now. Again, I like Chomsky, but when he starts talking about colleges as being close to ideal societies at about 14:16, he has no idea about what many, if not most college faculty have to go through. He is too insulated by his fame.

Every existing anarchy in history had a hierarchy.

@whatabouttheearth

11 ай бұрын

Voluntarily selected decentralized leadership is not unconsentually gained hierarchy and all hierarchies of civilization were the result of the theft of the communal surplus around the 1st agricultural revolution. Tribal societies, old school native Americans, African Bushmen, Australian aboriginals etc, practice primitive communism, with a generally agreed upon hierarchy, they are not what we call "civilization", "civilization" was based on the theft of the surplus labor of the tribe and those who organized that theft gained more power eventually furthering hierarchies in society by taking slaves in war. We are largely talking about CLASSES if hierarchies.

@Larrypint

11 ай бұрын

@@whatabouttheearth communal policy is still strong and functional in lot of European states and if you idealize "communal tribalism" than you should be a fan of national federalism and direct democracy like in Swiss.

The Soviet Regime WAS better than the monarchy. Even now, a majority of russians, in fact a majority in many ex-communist countries, say that they want the soviet union back. To be clear: I don't wanna apologise or justify any of the oppression and atrocities commited with that statement, but we do need to see things in the right perspective and aknowledge relative improvements in peoples lifes

@joemk9963

5 жыл бұрын

It's very shocking to see such an evidently brilliant person as Chomsky really get lenninism and and the Russian revolution so completely wrong

Irish Bunny -> Noam Chomsky my Hero turned 90 on 12/07/2018

@banessuperbrutalmetalfunti2561

5 жыл бұрын

Not to sound weird, but he looks pretty good for his age.

This is why you will never hear Chomsky on main stream media!

Anarchy: An- from the Greek prefix meaning "no" or "without"; Archy- from the Greek root word "Archon" meaning "rulers" (the plural form of "ruler", and NOT the word "rules". The Greek word Archon is usually translated as "demon" in English religious texts, such as the Bible, or Jin in Arabic texts such as the Koran. So Anarchy can be translated to mean "no demon rulers" or "without demon rulers", however it generally means "Self-rule" or "Self-Governance"; a society without Rulers or no Rulers having any Governmental Authority. Which, generally specking, is an incomprehensible concept for those raised and programmed into a slave based society or a slavery mentality. They are 'uncomfortable' without someone 'telling' them what to do, what to think., or how to act and DO NOT want to be held responsible for personal acts or decisions. They "feel" Self-Governance would lead to CHAOS (which is NOT the same as ANARCHY) and a chaotic society without some 'central authority' controlling everyone and everything ... which, ironically, is the very "cause" of the CHAOS we see today. The 'central authority' creating chaos to create and increase "fear" as means of controlling the masses. "Problem, Reaction, Solution" leadership. Create the Problem, define "how" the masses should React, then offer "the Solution" which "always" requires the masses to reduce their rights and freedom and increase the power the "central authority" is given by the masses. Repeat as often as desired!

Monarchies tend to be replaced by dictatorships (Russian, French) because of the absence of systems to share the power that had been previously absolute. Power vacuums are filled by power. Even Cromwell was rejected after the execution of the British Charles I because he appeared to be a dictator. Nicholas II had the option of sharing power, as did Louis XVI, but they both declined.

@whatabouttheearth

11 ай бұрын

All of those were variations of capitalism, even Lenin stated that the USSR was state capitalism that made profit from the extraction of surplus value, just as the precursor of feudalism (just like slavery) except under feudalism the surplus was extracted for use value if the lord's and not exchange value for increase of profit. It is all an extension of the initial theft of the tribal surplus around the 1st agricultural revolution.

Freedom of Choice is what you've got, Freedom from choice is what you want.

Sometimes I wish Chomsky would just speak English. You're seeing Chomsky speaking "intellectual" in this video. One of the main characteristics of Chomsky's Anarchism is workers co-ops or workers controlling the means of production and supply. You'll hear Chomsky mention "Mondragon" in this upload. This is a Spanish worker's co-op umbrella corporation and it's a fantastic success story. Chomsky's Anarchism extends beyond the workers co-ops to how we govern ourselves and if you observed closely enough he ducked that one by saying human life was "too complicated" for him to go on further. Anarchism is probably at the root of Marxist thinking and Marx himself was probably exposed to this in Germany. Communism in its most idealized form is a type of Anarchism. Lenin adopted Marxist thinking and we all know how his plans went. Workers Co-ops are becoming popular again especially with the worsening employment and financial situation in the world today. Personally I think workers co-ops are really a good idea but you'd better be ready to study and work extremely hard to get one working properly.

@Aburaishi

5 жыл бұрын

Also, in all fairness to Lenin, he accomplished his main goal - the education of the peasantry. Literacy rates went up from around 40% to >90% in an extraordinarily short time. Anyone who wants a dictatorship knows that intellectuals are a bane upon a centralized power structure - hence, Stalin later persecuting intellectuals when centralizing his own power. Lenin implemented Marxism in a way that underestimated/babied Russian peasants, and this backfired, but he at least accomplished a lot of positive changes, and there's a genuine lesson to be learned from his effort, I think.

@MrPlooky

5 жыл бұрын

@@Aburaishi Lenin also executed people

Any society must have a form of government, and any form of government must, by necessity, have some form of hierarchy. The question of how best to organize this is secondary to the question of how one knows a man in a position of responsibility for others is sane or not, and how to ensure this is the case. Our crisis as a people is not political, it is the crisis of the human condition itself. Until we figure out who we are, why we are here, and how to rid a person of their aberrations we will continue to fail no matter how we organize ourselves.

15:25 this genius just had the privilege of having chomsky explain to him what anarchism is and he insists on the propagandized version of the concept in which it's associated with, disorder and lawlessness. incredibly embarrasing for an academic. geez

Freedom is a terribly demanding thing.

And Americans came back to wage slavery but now it is little bit deferent . Many don't even realizing that .

Man, in my view, is neither Good nor Bad, but an organic amalgamam of both. Civilization is a struggle amidst both powerful forces. This struggle stays with him/her as long as the Will is active, that is, as long as he/her lives.

I hope the guy in the center has learned how to ask a question since this was filmed. He wandered so much I forgot the question by the time he stopped talking.

fire the sound guy!

the anarcho-mcarthyist has logged on

funny how they put him there 5meters away like inerrogating an alien ,muhaha from 4:44 to 5:17 a basic essence [not only in the context of anrchism]

I would like to see a clear and well defined alternative, or set of alternatives, to wage labour. Chomsky's mention of 'workers getting paid for what they produce' seems like it would be extremely complicated and cumbersome to enforce in a world of supply chains and production lines. But if somebody can provide other examples, I'm genuinely curious to read. I'm also not totally sold on the idea that wage labour is involves selling your dignity and freedom. You have the freedom to leave, which is massive. Should there be more freedoms? Absolutely. But a stable salary provides a freedom of sorts. I don't think the system is inherently broken, but I think much greater emphasis should be put into contract negotiations regarding conditions, hours, bonuses, opportunities for promotion, training, wage rise etc. The rest of the talk was outstanding. True power likes to be hidden. The analysis of Leninism closely agrees with that of a seemingly conservative author I'm currently reading, which is surprising but lends authority to the interpretation.

Im not so sure about universities. In my university pretty much everyone adheres to the same rules imposed by the system in a whole. And so throughout the country. They COULD go by their own micro rules but no one does.

Is there a full video of this meeting?

This guy's too smart for most of the world to comprehend. He's on a level of intelligence that Michaelangelo was to art. It transcends understanding.

Andrew Yang shares many of the same principles about wage labor

@thatdudeoverthere2188

4 жыл бұрын

And none of the ideals of anti-authoritanism.

Can anyone point me at the texts that Chomsky is referring to at 20:26 about the potential of the Russian peasantry?

Garden gnome chomsky strikes again.

does anyone have this entire conversation? please

Is there a link to the entire conversation?

Who is the heir to this amazing man?

Freedom is not appropriate notion; interdependence is.

Have y’all ever read the arc of a scythe trilogy?

One justification for dominance heirarchies off the top of my head-knowledge/experience. Parents should be able to give their children orders such as, don’t touch the stove, or don’t run out into the street without looking for cars. Some might argue the child has to learn these things for himself but how many kids are we willing to let get run over? The fact is, the adult parent has the life experience to make that judgment call for the inexperienced child. I think this can generally be applied to many hierarchies. My problem with hierarchies begins when they are not consensual. That is, lawmakers passing laws the public wouldn’t agree with, designating certain actions crimes without public consent, etc. I’m being really vague so sorry about that...

@paulludwigewaldvonkleist4039

3 жыл бұрын

parents teaching their kids not to hurt themselves is not a unjust hierarchy but if parents beat their kids the situation changes because of coercive force. "My problem with hierarchies begins when they are not consensual." thats exactly what anarchist believes, unjust hierarchies begins when they are not consensual and are forced, anarchist tries to remove that unjust hierarchies

thanks Noam :)

The real question is how many books do I have to read to be considered an anarchist?

14:07 That is by far the strongest argument against socialism I have ever heard. In fact it's the only one that has any merit.

@TheBardbarians

5 жыл бұрын

@W B Russia? Whatchu talking about bish? LAWL I was making a joke bashing on colleges!

What a guy.

I think what a lot of us want to know, and which is not answered here, is: does Chomsky have a system in mind that does not also require a police monopoly on violence? Universities work fine. But they also have their own security, and depend on outside police to carry out the rule of law. When a school shooting happens, it is the state that responds and stops them. I'm skeptical that people will just decide to be good in an anarchy, and would like some dialogue grappling with the very real problem of one free agent violently asserting their will over another. Without a state to moderate (flawed as it is, it still does much good), how would we deal with something like a school shooter? I tend to believe that anarchy does have an able-ist component in its assumptions: the people who would have the most difficulty without recourse to the law are those who are somehow physically impaired.

Honest question. Don't you own your labor? And then sell your labor for a wage? Because not everyone has the ability/skill to use there labor to produce a good to then sell.

Fight the real enemy

People image anarchy or anarchism truly

4:20 people almost always underappreciate the simple anarchy and disorder which gives life purpose.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Lenin think that the Russian proletariat could skip industrialization in its path to revolution while Marx believe industrialization was necessary beforehand? Does Chomsky here have it backwards or was I taught wrong?

Unfortunately, the suggested freedom of the academic faculty is increasingly eroded by the spread of the market to higher education.

I could imagine myself in an anarchist society but I just wouldnt trust the ppl around me so no thanks. But Im glad I listened to this . I understand what he means by wage labour is selling yourself. However, he fails to mention that those ideal university mini anarchies still need to rely on farmers, grocery clerks , ppl who can sew etc .

@halguy5745

3 жыл бұрын

what makes you trust people around you in capitalism? there still would be farmers, grocery clerks and a tailors in anarchism

what does legitimate power actually mean?

And . . . who is that woman doing pull-ups behind Noam?

MY MAN! Chomsky, dad tell me. TELL YOUR BOYS WE NEED TO HEAR THE WORDS! Jk aside Chomsky may be gone someday... so this is something we are happy to learn about while we can.

Theres so many different things i watch on youtube today from getting high to hip hop to this.

Courts of Antiquity logically favored the richer in a dispute because they felt the richer party had nothing to gain from the lesser.

What exactly counts as justification for a hierarchy? Yes, you cannot assume that it _is_ justified, but you also can't assume that it _isn't_ - to reach an anarchist conclusion for that would be circular reasoning. Which means that you can't start doing something about it until you present a concrete reason for why it shouldn't exist. And that's no easy question - for any reasoning you come up with for a "should", someone else can simply deny your premises, and you're back to square one.

Good'!!!'

Sign me in.

political anarchy = self-government = democracy

@MichaelRussell3000

4 жыл бұрын

anarchy = no law