Strange to see how many people come here to argue without even watching the video first. Stay smart human race.

"all corporations should be organized cooperatively, and work for the common good, in the interest of the people." That's EXACTLY what socialism is about. Spot on my friend. Spot on.

I simply feel at ease knowing that someone as wonderful as Noam can articulate the views of libertarian socialism as well as he can. I just like the fact that I am not the only libertarian socialist, because 99% of people wouldn't have even heard of the term.

I love this theory of social structure, of course it is contradictory to capitalism most notably, not because it changes the power structures of control, because it absolutely REQUIRES citizens to be EDUCATED! Something aristocrats around the world have been against for millennia.

@spiritualeco-syndicalisthe207

3 жыл бұрын

And if we consider that workers 150 years ago had a 14h work day (if not more), and that 8h have been the standard for a long time, rising productivity will lead to shorter work days. If we don't have any capitalists to feed, 4 hours a day, 4 days a week will be enough for most branches. More free time means that people are more likely to use it for education.

@MitchellfcNa32

2 жыл бұрын

@@spiritualeco-syndicalisthe207 socialism won’t cause more productivity tho, less taxation and less inflation will bring out the best in capitalism and you’ve still have shorter days, Ur money worth more and best of all don’t have to take on a countless failed system which always requires capitalism to save its ass

@spiritualeco-syndicalisthe207

2 жыл бұрын

@@MitchellfcNa32 you can't have a free market AND private ownership of the means of production. Money worth more? Wtf no, capitalists ruined it, and the system tends to do that constantly.

@MitchellfcNa32

2 жыл бұрын

@@spiritualeco-syndicalisthe207 why not? Capitalism didn’t destroy money , governments and central banks printing money do

I can't find anyone else who knows as much about this world as Professor Chomsky. Does anyone even come close?

@Jharrycornelius

3 жыл бұрын

No

@kashafifi8785

3 жыл бұрын

What a BS question , What do you mean he knows more than everyone about the world ? Are you talking about politics? An entrepreneur has more value in every society than Naomi Chomskey. He is BS

@milo1815

2 жыл бұрын

@@kashafifi8785 tell me how someone that just moves money around is better than ANY academic

@eorobinson3

2 жыл бұрын

Thomas Sowell fuckhead

@eorobinson3

2 жыл бұрын

@@milo1815 no moron, a financier moves money around, an entrepreneur creates wealth through a product which generates jobs...you clearly have no understanding of business development/economics.

Haha, he looked so happy to have received those flowers :)

This might be the best video of Chomsky discussing LS on youtube. I've watched most of them, and the references he gives here, the discussions of Parecon and those other worker run organizations & movements both current and historical... they don't exist in any other video. Thanks a lot for uploading!

At around 5:10 he mentions someone named Daniel guivaz (sp?). I can't seem to find that person though. Does anyone know what books he's talking about or how to properly spell this guys name?

1:40 - Skip Introduction

im from norway, wish i could be there

@ronellhaney271

10 жыл бұрын

I'm not from Norway. I wish I could be there. This must have been a blast on say a Tuesday or Friday evening in a auditorium.

@darthdj31

4 жыл бұрын

Email him if you want chomsky@mit.edu.

@AndrewHansenDotName where else can i find any information on LS and how it would work, thanks

Thank you for posting this!!!!!!! Great questions!!!!!!!

That was good.. Chomsky is amazing.

Oooh, I love your fella's hair!

@RSFO What do you mean by monetary price system?

@praxseb4317

3 жыл бұрын

money that provides the price of an item, maybe you will see this 9 years later

Great talk, thank you so much for posting!

Good interview a libertarian socialism 101

@daltonnelson94

3 жыл бұрын

There is no such thing as libertarian socialism. Socialism is antithetical to libertarianism.

@djc9210

2 жыл бұрын

@@daltonnelson94 Care to explain?

@daltonnelson94

2 жыл бұрын

@@djc9210 Socialism is inherently authoritarian. There is no such thing as a libertarian socialism. kzread.info/dash/bejne/ma2Xp7ubqsXWY7A.html

@djc9210

2 жыл бұрын

@@daltonnelson94 Read the Wikipedia page on "Libertarianism".

@daltonnelson94

2 жыл бұрын

@@djc9210 lol wikipedia. Use your brain and think critically. Socialism is inherently authoritarian. Watch the video I sent.

Its hard to keep a straight face while looking at this kid!

@milascave2

8 жыл бұрын

+yabadabadu Yet Chomsky, to his credit, did. He must have been in his late sixties when this was made, yet he was able to completley ignore the unconventional dress and hair style of this young man.

@riccardo9383

8 жыл бұрын

+Ethan Davidson He was 83 at the time.

@jane9469

8 жыл бұрын

+Ethan Davidson He isn't phased by superficialities, it's admirable.

@riccardo9383

8 жыл бұрын

Sierra C Just thinking to myself how much time and energy i would have just by not doing or talking pointless stuff with friends, ignoring all those apps, social medias, forums, TV, consumption, all the superficial things in life. That alone, putting aside the moral responsibility for our society, is quite revealing.

@luciennoxisou9502

3 жыл бұрын

says more about you than him....

@adamienw I see no subtitles in that video. But I understand what was said anyway. =)

First off just a great interview all together with Chomsky spot on as usual. But also you can tell that the interviewer is a pretty well educated young man as well and is extremely excited to be talking to Noam. Great job on all sides.

Not nearly enough people listened to this video.

Dude needs a haircut

@dakusan9053

7 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I know right holy shit

This was so worth the hour and 18 minutes. He definitely piqued my interest for further reading on libertarian socialism, Spanish Revolution, etc.

Having an open mind is what brought me here. And libertarian socialism is not a contradiction in terms. You can still have personal liberty under this system.

How would you organize society? I really am curious. What do you define as freedom?

Hello Scott, thanks for the comment, I appreciate having a response, the solution to that I think is as Chomsky says, people share the boring tasks.

good interview, well done guys!

@RSFO The introduction was done before/as Chomsky entered the room. He did know what would be said in advance. In our own video we have subtitled everything spoken in norwegian.

Great video, Thanks! I really enjoyed this!

ive been looking for a long time for a long video of chomsky on LibSoc and now all want is for him to comment on that dude's hair. goddammit

Another problem with any large governmental system, whether it's called government or not, is that it makes justification of the unjustifiable far easier for those who are placed in positions of authority.

"I have started a business" What's it called and what county is it in?

Fav'ed and subbed. Thanks for uploading.

Brilliant video. Completely destroys the myth that USSR, China, etc were communist/socialist and how people do not know or understand what communisms true principles are. He perfectly explains the evils of capitalism as well. Hopefully one day the world will wake up and realize that socialism, NOT capitalism, is the only system to achieve true democracy. Very great and informative video, thanks for uploading.

I work in the airline industry and it is a classic example of the managers having little to no idea of how to run a company. It is a constant race to the bottom, which in turn commoditizes air travel, which in turn leads to more racing to the bottom. Labor probably cannot run an airline, but by hiring a mgmt. team and creating quality circles w/ labor participation, the result would have to be better than the cattle herding mentality we have now. Chomsky needs to addrss the role of fiat money.

19:13 .. what's the name of this nobel prize laureat (study on famines: " You don't get famines in democratic societies - in most famines there's plenty of food around, which only doesn't get to people - striking example: India, which didn't have a famine since independence... " )

Thanks so much for the upload by the way, I live off this stuff.

‎"... We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical." -Murray Rothbard

A good interview. It's not so often he has one with such good questions.

How did he keep a straight face for a whole 78 minutes when the interviewer has that hair?

"You seem to want supreme authority on what law should be." For myself and my family, yes.

I like what you did there with the professor part lol

Very well put.

It was a frenchman name Joseph DeJacque who used the term libertarian in the 19th century to describe anarchism.

Okay, so when there are proposals of socialized health care here, as there already is in Canada, are these not really socialist according to your definition?

"Who takes him seriously" The colleges he speaks at. G.D.H. Cole, a libertarian socialist economist, was tenured at Oxford.

It's amazing how no one seems to make the connection between the articles found in the USSR with the Roman Catholic eye in the triangle on them, and the fact that Freemasons were "also" aiding the Sovet Union.

Since employee-owned companies are owned by employees that also increases the average salaries of all involved since most of the revenue isn't going to pay an owner and/or shareholders and executives who insist on being paid 100-500x more than everyone else. You don't have a split of one or a few people being paid millions a year while everyone else earns only $20,000-$60,000/year.

This is fascinating. I do think that the American Libertarian are not neo-natzi or in favor of an extreme corporate state. I think that we agree on much more than you think. We simply are working through the same ideas, and perhaps will come to the same conclusions. Thank you for sharing this.

He described the process as alienation. He said workers become more and more specialized and work becomes repetitive, eventually leading to complete alienation from the process of production. Marx wrote that "with this division of labour", the worker is "depressed spiritually and physically to the condition of a machine"...

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Great interview! Dude has epic hair x:D

I go to a lot of different churches (though I'm not really religious!) and I really don't see much "fear" or "social pressure" to give to charity. People can simply show up and leave whenever they want without giving anything. But churches seem to be very good at utilizing human capital. There are many church activities that revolve around children, families and charities - volunteering for various events, bake sales, fund drives to help a local family,etc and it creates a climate of "giving"

I can decide for myself how I will respond to any given situation, and so can everyone else, at least down to the familial level.

Didn't Mussolini invent the term proletariat? Anyway, how would placing the means of production in the hands of the working class have anything to do with government controlled health care? Also have you seen the video by FolkPhotographer in which he talks about how his wheelchair is out of service, and that he's being denied medical care by the Canadian system?

@csadens777 This interview took place in Oslo, Norway. For subtitles watch our upload: /watch?v=kVNq8knHGew

Indeed. He coordinates his wealth of knowledge with common sense very well.

He was in Norway! Come back chommy... :)

"Nietzsche is famous for classifications of strength and weakness. He rightly points out that those who need cheap psychological tricks to boost their own sense of power are of the weak kind, whereas the strong know full well that altruistic behaviour is not what it seems. The weak help others in order to feel powerful and to have a sense of control over others. The strong, or the 'noble', do not delude themselves in this way."

I've read that Mises article and they took one Chomsky quote out of context.“There are supposed to be laws of economics. I can’t understand them.” He was discussing Marxian economics specifically, not economics in general, in Understanding Power, chap. 7 p. 228. You can find it through google books.

From 1945 to 1948 federal spending was cut year to year, by 40%, 38%, and 14%. This amounts to a total reduction of 102 percent. As a percentage of GDP, federal spending was reduced from 42 to 9 percent. Just as the economy rebounded strongly...

@MamonMuch it was also very poorly shot/edited, cause the camera should be focused on Noam, not on that interviewer... also, the interviewers physical appearance is somewhat distracting.

Noam Chomsky is so knowledgeable and articulate. He is an intellectual athlete performing feats more amazing than a Michael Jordan 360 dunk.

The economics I favour is Communalism(pioneered by Murray Bookchin) which means the abolition of markets and money, you could say it's the economic side of communitarian anarchism.

"All of which the employees hold meetings and come together to decide how much of the revenue will go to those and how much will go to salaries." It's not their money to be deciding. It is the company owners money, or the shareholders money. Not the cashiers.....

@RSFO I guess it depends of what backs the money (supposing we would use paper money). If it was backed by gold or whatever then it would have intrinsic and measurable value. I like the concept of Free Banking.

You stated that this neolithic socialism involved collective ownership. That being the case, with there being different groups trading with one another, there would presumably be boundaries as to what was "owned" by each group.

you may not have directly quoted him but EVERY idea you have put forth is from him. and i know because i have heard him say it(not in person lol). especially his lectures on libertarian socialism. so you have 2 main sources, chomsky and wikipedia. good for you. so well read. anyhow i don't really want to keep repeating myself, about how much better a true free market would be over your libertarian socialism. i don't feel the need to go that far because...

"And that you don't believe in any system of discussion to resolve what the law should be shows you think you're ideas are unchallengable, even though they're wrong." No, it shows that I believe in sovereignty of the individual, and that I don't ignorantly consider consensus to be a prerequisite to anything.

"they have to split it with anyone they hire" 1) As more people are hired revenue increases as production increases (unless they're past the limit of marginal productivity or unless no one is buying the extra produce). 2) People aren't paid the exact same wages even at worker-owned companies. 3) Companies hire based on consumer demand or on supply. By your logic capitalists wouldn't want to hire anyone either since another worker means more revenue they have to spend paying another salary.

you cannot deny modern corporations are totalitarian oppressive structures. gov'ts are not structured to be oppressive but they become so when corporations grow to be so large and powerful that they can control gov'ts, which is what is happening today. the key idea behind socialism/marxism/communism/libertarian socialism, etc. is to introduce democratic principles into the organization of corporations. that is what they mean when they say workers should control the means of production.

I had a feeling you'd try to use Bolloten. Bolloten was describing anarchist action in areas that were still officially controlled by the Republicans or semi-controlled by the Republic. You should try reading him more in context instead of taking choice selections out of context. Anarchist FAQ quotes him more here: (.) infoshop (.) org / page / AnarchistFAQSectionI8 By 1937 (the period Bolloten is speaking of) some "anarchist" areas were essentially re-taken by the Republic.

Thank you KZread.

This isn't a question and answer session. I'm not here to do your homework. The historical example you cites as best exemplifying your own views were the anarchists in and around Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War, which involved the use of a great deal of force to collectivize firms and farms.

@FireIceTalon you'd probably be interested in George Orwell, he was a democratic socialist that opposed both capitalism and Leninism (USSR). In fact he went over in Spain to fight in the Spanish Civil War against the fascists and the communists (USSR backed communists). Albert Einstein's "Why Socialism" is also a good read.

You said there would be no imposition of anything if you had your way, and then said that religions would either be publicized or abolished.

Yes, Marx wrote about alienation. Nowhere did Marx say that an end to alienation means the end of workers performing individual tasks or that workers will now be able to perform any job that exists.

"Improved productivity depends on capital goods" It depends on several factors including technology, investment, a good labor ratio that isn't negative when it comes to the Marginal Productivity and outside factors like the macro or micro-economics of the market. "If such people cannot hire labor to work with those goods without thereby losing title" Do tell how they lose title and how hiring other people diminishes savings. Any smart company won't hire more people than necessary.

"The morality of pity is not selfless but rather embodies a weak and reactive will to power [...]. For the feeling of pity always involves a degree of contempt for the person pitied; and this pleasurable experience of superiority enabled the 'altruistic' individual to believe itself more powerful than before." -nietzsche

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected. 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

thats an awesome video

Why don't you point me to the specific article you would like me to read. Go ahead, give me the article name, author, and what journal it's in...

Another thing. This isn't a matter of starting from a point at which all things are equal.

By the way, you never showed me that article. What you sent was a list of articles. I'll make it easy for you. Give me the author, title, and name of the economic journal it is presented in and I will take a look.... The fact is that your favored mode of production-worker-owned cooperatives-can lawfully exist in a free market system. But, you are oblivious to the fact that if these were mandatory, most would-be producers would have zero incentive to save. Down goes the economy!

A) The Corporation Nation is the United States of America, U.S. Incorporated. The United States is comprised of over 185,000 incorporated state, county, city, town, municipality, district, councils, school district, pension fund, enterprise operation, lottery, alcohol monopoly, and many other private and for-profit corporations, which have mistakenly been called our “representative government”.

Improved productivity depends on capital goods, which in turn depend on delayed consumption (savings). People who choose to delay consumption extensively can come to own a stock of capital goods beyond what they can physically use themselves. If such people cannot hire labor to work with those goods without thereby losing title, they will consume their capital and stop saving. Again, worker co-ops are fine. Factory takeovers and income producing property coups are not.

I also come from a country which actually is consistently voted by the OECD higher than America in living standards and we have a mixture of capitalist and socialist policy. The constitution of America was written in such a way that it would remain fluid so it could be updated as was necessary as times changed...the brilliance of the US forefathers is evident here. Finally, America came to modern prosperity after WWII when much of Europe was completely annihilated and needed to be rebuilt.

I realize that. I don't have to agree with everything he says. I used him as a secondary source as I'm too lazy to get proper sources and we are commenting on a Chomsky video. Sure people can talk about the various problems, but I just don't see a way such people could actually solve the problems. Do you have a best example of an anarchist society that is largely innovative as well as secure, politically and militarily?

Thank you for the laughs

Could someone tell me how the police, military and the judicial system would function under libertarian socialism?

@owelofminerva

9 жыл бұрын

They wouldn't. A libertarian socialist society would be categorized by the absence of class relations. Class relations are what give rise to the police and military and thus such things would not exist in a libertarian socialist society.

@EmpressLeana

9 жыл бұрын

redandblackrevolutionary That's utopian thinking. There's no possible system which can completely suppress crime, besides there are many other functions for the police and the judiciary other than the management of crime.

@owelofminerva

9 жыл бұрын

***** I never objected to that fact that there is no system that will completely suppress crime or the the judicial systems function is only to mange crime. I don't even think that is a function of it. I simply explain how things would work in a Libsoc society.

@EmpressLeana

9 жыл бұрын

redandblackrevolutionary So if crime cannot be suppressed, why would you completely want to get rid of the police or courts?

@owelofminerva

9 жыл бұрын

***** I don't see how crime can not completely be eliminated = need for police and courts.

Yes, I've heard that the term "liberal" is totally different in Europe. Are you actually from Europe? When people call themselves "liberals"in Europe do they REALLY mean conservative? Is there any overlap between European Liberals and nationalists like the BNP?

That can never happen in an adversarial representative system. If all points of view are represented in the legislature then there is constant expression of disagreement and debate until resolution, as there should be, The major dictatorial force in modern representative systems is those who offer their money to get people elected. They wield undue influence, making it less representative. The other is that the legislature is not a random selection of people who applied, but are "elected".

Sorry, that was Mises actually (though Hayek felt similarly). "Mises and Rothbard however err when they say that economic history can only illustrate economic theory. In particular, empirical evidence is often necessary to determine whether a theoretical factor is quantitatively significant...Austrians reject econometrics on principle because economic theory is true a priori, so statistics or historical study cannot "test" theory." --Bryan Caplan In other words "I'm right cuz I'm right".

define it however you want... you know what it is

If people band together to defeat a common threat, they are perfectly free to disband when the threat is defeated.

I said "basically", I know it's somewhere in the middle.

I'm also suggesting that, morally, giving charity because it's expected of you or because you have some fear or desire for special treatment in heavan is not as morally pure as someone who donates purely out of concern for their fellow man, woman, child, animal. It's 'conditional' charity.

It's not socialism, it's a balance between both. Just becuase an economy is not purely capitalist does not automatically make it socialist. In any event our standard of living is higher than Americas, so we have to be doing something right.

"According to you, all the value of a business is contributed by the "workers"" The value is created by the sale of goods and services to consumers at a given price. The workers are the ones who create all or almost all of the goods and services in most companies. Unless the company is manned mostly by the person it's owned by. The owner doesn't create anything that generates a profit unless they're producing a product or service that is sold on the market or generates a return.

the main ideological difference between Chomsky and Friedman is that Chomsky believes in organization democracy while Friedman believes in corporative dictatorship... now, maybe this would be better economically in the short term, but in the long term people would be more motivated if they felt participating, and contributing in their workplace. motivated people produce more...