Noam Chomsky on Socialism

[@nomad9338]

I learnt more reading Chomsky than I ever did at school or university.

[@animesoapninja]

So you didn’t learn much from either

[@bhratkumar935]

@@animesoapninja 😆

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

Really, Noam is can speak well. Socialism is a bowling ball philosophy. It abides by no laws. Rolls over all. I prefer billiards. Smaller moves like the equilibrium that is possible under competitive capitalism and a balanced rule of law. That means humans must crawl out of the “Banana Cream Pie” and taste reality. Noam only likes one kind of pie.

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

So you did not learn anything at university?

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

​ That's what I see in Noam. I am very good at reading people and their words. Noam is very easy to read. He thinks he is very smart with language that means nothing. It is all internal nonsense. Noam's base-line soul and his books are based on envy, anger and using violence to obtain his contentment. That is very easy to see. He covers it up with overly complex meaningless linguistics. None of his words are tested in reality. Call him on that fact and he will fall back into a corner. He is just a poet. Dreamers love poets.

[@mtnwriter4011]

So true!! And this is the very reason Chomsky has never been seen on commercial (corporate owned) media networks (news talk shows). Since the early 1960s you can count on one hand the number of times he's been invited. Because he asks the "wrong" questions, gives the "wrong" answers nobody wants to hear. He's too "dangerous," in other words. He knows too much. He was on William F. Buckley's "Firing Line" once, and he embarrassed Buckley so much that he was never invited back (You can see it here on KZbin).

[@d.garcia3154]

"And so, from the standpoint of Marxism, the Russian experiments in planned economy are not to be rated as socialistic. The Russian practice is not directed according to communist principles, but follows the laws of capitalist accumulation. We have here, even though in modified form, a surplus-value production under the ideological camouflage of "socialist construction". The wage relation is identical with that of capitalist production, forming also in Russia the basis for the existence of a growing bureaucracy with mounting privileges; a bureaucracy which, by the side of the private capitalist elements which are still present, is strictly to be apprised as a new class appropriating to itself surplus labor and surplus value. From the Russian experience no positive conclusions can be drawn which have a relation to communist production and distribution. It still offers only examples of the way in which communism cannot be developed." Paul Mattick : What is Communism? 1934

[@CrazyFanaticMan]

I love this guy have learned so much from him

[@CrazyFanaticMan]

Iunno people like chavez, stalin, mao zhedong, kim jong il they never really instituted communism. Especially the last three, they just run totalitarian dictatorships and call it communism or socialism, but it aint really. Russia and Chine nowadays are economic superpowers, thats cuz they always been capitalists states but for some reason called themselves otherwise I don't understand why.

[@CrazyFanaticMan]

Places like the Nordic countries and where I live - Canada - have implemented socialist ideas beautifully but at least from a canadian point of view we are still majority capitalists so we still function through that duality

[@CrazyFanaticMan]

Lmfaoo oh man that would be horrible, Ive only gotten two in my whole life and the longest Ive had to wait for both were just a month

[@TehIdiotOne]

I'm Norwegian, and i can most assuredly say we're not socialist, we're a social democratic, or more understandable for people - Welfare capitalist. Sadly, actual socialists are fairly fringe with about 3% of votes in the parliament.

[@anthonynichols3857]

If the workers were intended to own the means of production, why haven't they developed an idea, researched its viability, invested their money and time, organized an egalitarian structure of the business, and taken the product to market? There is nothing holding them back in the U.S. economy...other than the many aspects of human nature and the desire to determine decide our own happiness outside of a collective mob. Capitalism is an unobstructed agreement between individuals. Nobody is coerced to participate in a transaction. What Mr. Chomsky doesn't say is more telling than what he does profess. The term "socialism" has become ambiguous because its elite believers fail to tell the intentions of the ideology as professed by its social/political organizer and two of its biggest proponents--Marx and Lenin. Marx said that Socialism is the phase between Liberalism and Communism...and Lenin stated that the goal of Socialism is Communism. I Imagine that Marx's assessment is especially accurate since he is the ultimate authority.

[@Gabbargaamada]

Prof. Chomsky, you are my hero!

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

Really, Noam can speak well. Socialism is a bowling ball philosophy. It abides by no laws. Rolls over all. I prefer billiards. Smaller moves like the equilibrium that is possible under competitive capitalism and a balanced rule of law. That means humans must crawl out of the “Banana Cream Pie” and taste reality. Noam only likes one kind of pie.

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

I kindly reply to you. At the end of this statement I supply methods that may approach a from of the Marx dream. The problem is that Marx was the seed for all these groups that used Socialism or Workers party in their names. They all descended into the most vial forms of suffering hell and mass death ever know in recent history. Marx invented the word” Capitalism” to replace the term” Free Market System. Marx states this in his writings: “Capitalism is the best system for eliminating, poverty, starvation and the creation of wealth for the working class.” The Marx’s dream: His philosophy of history was called "historical materialism" in which his goal was to bring about the end of history, by means of an eventual perfect, classless, utopian society in which people’s needs would be generated by this new system and leading to a life filled with free time, pursuits of leisure activities. Yes, a grand utopia. Sounds good to me a great sales pitch! The problem is humans need positive motivation and competent system to generate even small percentage of "real materialism" required for this utopia. The “Free market system” is indisputably the best method for improving the human condition. Imperfect as it seems. Many of the problems of free market fluctuations are created by the injection of forced utopian laws and socialist control and the creep of leftist wealth redistribution. You may wonder why I injected Mussolini into my video. Mussolini was originally a socialist politician and a journalist at the Avanti! newspaper. In 1912, he became a member of the National Directorate of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI), but was expelled from the PSI for advocating military intervention in World War I. The 1917 Russian revolution was the first large application on Karl Marx’s methods. Most of the men who would become known to the world as the Bolsheviks had little to show for their lives. They had been in and out of prison, constantly under police surveillance, rarely employed. Vladimir Lenin spent most of the decade preceding the revolution drifting between Krakow, Zurich, and London. Joseph Stalin spent those years in the Caucasus, running protection rackets and robbing banks. Leon Trotsky had escaped from Siberian exile. Yes, many Bolsheviks had an exceedingly difficult life and held deep contempt for the ruling class. Bolsheviks purged the ruling class via murder and violence. The seeds of the Marxist revolution started under the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party formed in 1998 The first Bolsheviks started the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic on this wave to the he glory of communism 1917-1924 Historians put the death toll around 10 million people. World history is not a pretty place. If it were not for the ultimate entry of the Americans into Worlds War I and II the compounding death from Totalitarian Socialists and Fascists regimes would have allowed the decline into hell on this planet into at unimaginable realms of death and suffering. Socialism has proven to be a disaster on a large scale and even modern western socialism light is failing. It is all based on the redistribution of non-existent wealth. I will end with Marx’s dream of an existence free of need for material possessions. free of poverty, envy, and the pursuit of a life of leisure and contentment. Humanity needs the real-life experiences and freedom, to grow, learn, fail, and ultimately succeed in the journeys towards a engrained form human responsibility and large-scale contentment. A good rule of law, a fair free market system and people that learn from their mistakes. Granted this path can seem less appetizing than the instantaneous grab of property, wealth, and power through swift violence. Freedom requires consistent effort and a balanced system that recognizes quickly when any form of power is tilting out of balance. I think it requires a degree of enlightened spirituality tempered with the realities of the human condition and existence. The freedom for people to pursue, fail and learn from the act of doing for yourself and for people you care for. I selfishly put some effort into this. My mind likes this unexplained existence of life and the probability of positive capability of the monkey that got smart is high if we live it.

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

California Wildfires California Wildfires 1 second ago Here is a plan I think the socialist movement would agree upon. Comments please. All American Citizens are educated by the democratic state from a young age. This teaches young minds all the kind and fair qualities of modern style socialist central government. The Central State Government Mandates the following are human rights apply as law from birth for all: Free Lifetime Health Care. Free Lifetime Education. Free Quality Housing. Guaranteed Quality Life-Time Income. Strict laws on all businesses. Strict laws that favor the employee rights. 80% - 95% Tax rates on the wealthy. Minimum workers holidays of 60 days per-year. The elimination of all petroleum related products. Use only 100% renewable energy. Sustainable (regenerative) agriculture. The elimination of all carbon-based products. Only two electric cars per household. Government mandated worker ownership of all businesses Treaties to for the elimination of all Nuclear Weapons. Treaties to for the elimination of arms production. Government initiatives to end worlds poverty. Financial Reparations for African and Native Americans. The elimination of all pollution. The elimination of all private gun ownership. No restrictions on abortion laws. Use of guns and armory only authorized buy approved central government authorities. Strict rules and penalties for authoritarian conservative organizations or make them illegal. Only state authorized, and funded media outlets allowed: PBS, CNN Racism is inherent in all white conservatives. Financial penalties must be leveled on them. Only white people registered and that vote as democrats shall not be fined as a racist. What the socialist democratic party believes is for the good off all will be implemented by law. The implementation of a one world order that follows these rules.

[@plusixty8992]

@@TheConstitutionFirst no one watching your shitty videos why copypasta. dingbat

[@justinjameson8767]

Politics is a circus and economics is a casino

[@andrexadoh]

Best phrase ever.... gonna use it

[@MD-lf3gt]

@@andrexadohyeah, will do very good at parties. But says nothing.

[@radbug]

Holy fuck me. Another Human being who actually understands socialism. I am floored. Thank god for Noam Chomsky. My new hero.

[@TheWayoftheSith]

Yeah hes still a cultural marxist, being against the US culture/nationalism is not going to win anything from me. Yeah he pisses on the US govt, and thats great and all because its corrupt as hell.. but he attempts to destroy that which makes us great. The culture & that which comes from it, our race so that we can get massive immigration and imbalanced "free trade", ie he is globalist.

[@garrettclayton4741]

You dont understand the meaning of the words you are using.

[@radbug]

Globalism is a good thing. OWG is inevitable.

[@kittyvalium6517]

FINALLY SOMEONE WHO SAYS "ITS NOT REAL SOCIALISM" WHAT A RELIEF

[@peaceseeker9000]

Many of us have said it but are not listened to. Even Chomsky is not listened to by the masses sadly.

[@michaelcarroll955]

The USSR: so named because it was not soviets, not socialist, and not a republic.

[@AnmlPeeweeIsHere]

Michael Carroll They were only socialist in name.

[@WDLC1911]

Michael Carroll, they were Soviets. Communism is Socialism by dictatorship.

[@landonpowell6296]

+WDLC1911 This is what someone says before reading any communist theory whatsoever.

[@magisterludiv]

Azez Nassar, You must be a trolling fake. USSR was a dictatorship of Oligarchs who did not practice either Communism or Socialism. The notion that a crappy, murderous dictator like Stalin can be defined by loose terms that do not match the reality of his administration of the conglomeration of former democracies, or formerly and actually socialistic countries, and other forms of government under the umbrella of USSR "Communism" is just another pointer to the fallacies of armchair historians and pseudo politicos.

[@landonpowell6296]

+magisterludiv Proof that democracies don't work: Democratic People's Republic of Korea Democratic Republic of the Congo People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Lao People’s Democratic Republic

[@jhjhjhjhjhjhify]

Socialism is actually a lot broader and older than people realise. I always say that very few people who identify as Socialists would call themselves Marxists, and are actually very critical of his view of history and the people that he inspired (Chomsky is one of them). For what it's worth I don't like the term and agree with Chomsky that it's meaningless. I'd go as far to say that it can actually be a devastating title for relatively moderate political candidates (Bernie Sanders is an example).

[@newagain9964]

Right. But ppl need an narrative that can be taught, disseminated, rallied around. Hence the important of Marx’s critique. We can and should attempt to do better.

[@julianmarsh1378]

Labels will be our undoing. They are seized upon and immediately distorted. I imagine that if we could get people to sit down, refuse to champion any particular ideology, and just work out a Top 10 list of what they'd like to see develop in America or any other country, we would end up with at least a workable model of the direction we should be going.

[@michaelsmith8665]

Chomsky is a national treasure. . . . .His intellectual and moral stature is huge, growing, and well-deserved . . . . Staggering productivity, awesome analytical power, unprecedented command of facts. Thank you very much, professor!

[@Szakats19]

Rot. While slagging off the west, grossly soft-pedals on the left's role in history and malign influence..

[@MarkLightGroup]

Noam is clearly brilliant, once again. The part of all this with which I struggle is that it seems that the government or whatever leadership figure is appropriate (and it seems like it *would* take major leadership force) in order to pull off and sustain Noam's idea of "true socialism" would need to be and remain supremely benevolent in every way. I'm unconvinced this is possible in the real world. Our current government sure as hell ain't gonna ever give up enough of its power to qualify. But, if you COULD reform lobby laws and add term limits to congress, seems like you'd accomplish much the same end goal....or at least dis-incentivize much of the government corruption and corporate greed which Noam's socialism would eradicate.

[@VelhaGuardaTricolor]

Hi there! A few things: 1.Under an unequal society a non corrupt government simply can not exist. It is like lighting a candle underwater. Any government that manages not to be corrupted will be removed one way or another. 2.Under an unequal society the Corporations can not be less greedy otherwise they will be undercut by the competition. So there is no such a thing as a less greedy corporation, as there is no such a thing as a less cold block of ice. If it gets less cold it will cease to be ice. 3.Last but not least, your understandable lack of faith would be identical to the faith one can have when 15 oranges are thrown into the air and one person is suppose to catch them before touching the ground. Hard to believe it will happen right? But we need to think why throw the oranges up in the air in the first place? Just place them in a basket and they will never touch the ground. The same here. Why debate over what would be required to prevent all the ills of society (to catch 15 falling oranges) when we can solve the problem on its roots? Make it social inequality a crime. Bang! You take out the incentive to be a criminal by corporations as well as governments or any body else in society for that matter. It is sooooo simple!

[@credman]

The New Deal, Western Europe, Australia, etc, prove that big govt works. Americans are so afraid of govt they vote against giving it the power it needs to function, then are surprised they get the weak, ineffective, corporate-captured govt they voted for.

[@JK12518]

@@VelhaGuardaTricolor Problem is this is inherent in human in nature so you actually need a system that rewards the behavior so the we may all progress.

[@VelhaGuardaTricolor]

@@JK12518 We have been conditioned to believe human nature is violent, greedy, selfish and all that. When in fact human nature, shockingly enough is very humane. The brainwashing that took place for the last 100 years trying to convince us that humans can't be trusted is the foundation to justify control by the elite. When in fact solidarity is the corner stone of our nature. Few things makes us feel better than helping others. In countries where blood banks don't pay for you blood, get more blood than the ones that pay for it. But yes, if we have a system that foments this innate human nature, we can create a world in which every single humans can thrive

[@moveslikemacca]

thank you sir 🌹

[@Sidtube10]

Pretty much true, except elsewhere Chomsky says: "Worker ownership within a state capitalist semi-market system is better than private ownership" - that bias towards a state capitalist system tells you why States are so easily able to fool the masses with that word!

[@aboutthisproduct7674]

Now this is interesting. I am a northern European Democratic socialists living in Houston, Texas.

[@BruceHarms]

We should celebrate chomsky day...

[@erc9468]

Should we celebrate his defense of the Khmer Rouge, and his denial of the Cambodian genocide?

[@BruceHarms]

When Noam Chomsky and his colleague Edward Herman made their comments on the Khmer atrocities in 1977 they did not deny them as such but expressed scepticism about reports being made about them by certain journalists and authors who were writing from accounts given by escapees from the Khmers Rouges in Democratic Kampuchea at the time. As it was a closed country at the time there was no way other than to rely upon those refugee accounts, unless one relied upon Khmer Rouge propaganda of a glorious and prospering society, which a number of Western academics, the children of privilege, did. A Cambodian American scholar, Sophal Ear whose family escaped the Khmer Rouge, has called the pro-Khmer Rouge academics, the "Standard Total Academic View on Cambodia". In 1976 George Hildebrand and Gareth Porter published a book titled Cambodia: Starvation and Revolution which was a hagiographic account of bucolic Khmer life and agrarian reform under the Khmer Rouge, and which bore absolutely no relation to reality and relied principally on Khmer Rouge propaganda as its sources. Chomsky and Herman praised Hildebrand and Porter's book as being "a carefully documented study of the destructive American impact on Cambodia and the success of the Cambodian revolutionaries in overcoming it, giving a very favorable picture of their programs and policies, based on a wide range of sources." Let's celebrate Chomsky Day!

[@erc9468]

@@BruceHarms Why do Lefties always make excuses for autocratic genocidal Leftist regimes? Its like they don't want to undermine their co-religionists. If he just got the history wrong as it was unfolding, he could get a pass. But this is clearly ideological with him. Khmer Rouge genocide denial should be treated no differently than Holocaust denial or Holodomor denial.

[@BruceHarms]

Lefty is character played by Robert di Niro.... lol Why do "righties" alwaya troll videos like this and have fake profiles? Ever read Manufacturing Consent?

[@erc9468]

@@BruceHarms Calling out ideologically motivated genocide denial is not trolling. It was no different in the 30s with Walter Duranty.

[@VeganSemihCyprus33]

Resource based economy for a better future.

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

California Wildfires California Wildfires 1 second ago Here is a plan I think the socialist movement would agree upon. Comments please. All American Citizens are educated by the democratic state from a young age. This teaches young minds all the kind and fair qualities of modern style socialist central government. The Central State Government Mandates the following are human rights apply as law from birth for all: Free Lifetime Health Care. Free Lifetime Education. Free Quality Housing. Guaranteed Quality Life-Time Income. Strict laws on all businesses. Strict laws that favor the employee rights. 80% - 95% Tax rates on the wealthy. Minimum workers holidays of 60 days per-year. The elimination of all petroleum related products. Use only 100% renewable energy. Sustainable (regenerative) agriculture. The elimination of all carbon-based products. Only two electric cars per household. Government mandated worker ownership of all businesses Treaties to for the elimination of all Nuclear Weapons. Treaties to for the elimination of arms production. Government initiatives to end worlds poverty. Financial Reparations for African and Native Americans. The elimination of all pollution. The elimination of all private gun ownership. No restrictions on abortion laws. Use of guns and armory only authorized buy approved central government authorities. Strict rules and penalties for authoritarian conservative organizations or make them illegal. Only state authorized, and funded media outlets allowed: PBS, CNN Racism is inherent in all white conservatives. Financial penalties must be leveled on them. Only white people registered and that vote as democrats shall not be fined as a racist. What the socialist democratic party believes is for the good off all will be implemented by law. The implementation of a one world order that follows these rules.

[@jggrimm]

when I was 22 I owned my pick up truck (freedom of movement), my tools (freedom to create), my mind (freedom to think) and my mouth (freedom of speech). Marx and Lenin were appealing to the Slavs of Czarist Russia because the owned nothing. 77 years after the Bolsheviks seized power, find a Soviet citizen who owns a truck, their tools, their mind and their mouth. Good luck with that.

[@CBT5777]

What does that or Russia got to do with real Socialism? With Socialism you can have all that and the means of production and distribution.

[@saccharyne9262]

I don't know how he could say the collapse of the soviet union was a win for socialism. A lot of people that were alive during the USSR in Russia have nostalgia for the USSR. The 90's were terrible for these people and they suffered immensely after its collapse.

[@max_mittler]

in my understanding, he was trying to say that the USSR collapse was a small win for socialism because the USSR never represented "real" socialism in the first place, but it still tricked the world into believing that it was socialist for decades. With that propaganda machine disabled, there is then room for "real" socialism to enter discourse without being instantly overshadowed by the USSR

[@jamesanthony5681]

Because the Soviet Union was a tyrannical dictatorship, controlled by the few, rather than a true socialist state where control resides with the many, i.e., the workers in the society.

[@veryliberalprogressiveathe6117]

People who say Chomsky knows nothing about Economics needs to get their head out of the toilet

[@bradleyruest6863]

LeBron is the definition of greatness. #cavsforever name me one successful socialist state.

[@Jez4prez1]

This video is more along the lines of Political Science, not Economics. If he was talking about USSR bond markets or currencies and the effects this had on the USSR versus the US etc then I would agree that he is talking 'Economics'. Or if he was talking about the specific finances of the USSR national income and going over the figures etc then I would agree he was talking 'Political Economy'. But he isn't. He is more just referring to definitions and politics etc.

[@michaelgirgis9019]

Bradley Ruest The very use of the term “socialist state” is oxymoronic.

[@andrealecrim2427]

@@bradleyruest6863 we never had one

[@FreekinEkin2]

@@bradleyruest6863 Chile was highly successful. Despite the bourgeoisie throwing a tantrum and attempting to crash the economy, Allende actually saw the prosperity of all three classes (lower, middle and upper) increase. This was such a threat to the interests of the corporations running the US government that the CIA covertly funded a military coup, so that the country could be taken over by a capitalist dictator. The military killed Allende and his party. Now, this seems to me to be a clear instance of US capitalism failing to provide the most basic level of political restraint. It is so riddled with anxiety that it is willing to kill innocent people rather than be exposed as the failure that it is. Moreover, Chile's economy crashed to third world levels immediately under its new capitalist policies, produced with the help of beloved American neoliberal Milton Friedman. Any detailed examination of history would completely expose the falsity of capitalism's "success." The reason that socialism appears to have totally failed is because America has made sure to destroy it every time it tried to genuinely help people, whether through military force or through the machinations of powerful transnational institutions (IMF, WTO, UN). Perhaps rather than parroting the overly rehearsed and false narratives of American capitalism, you should try to see the less innocent underbelly of capitalism, if not to reject it, then at least to properly understand it.

[@cortes2j]

Why are intellectuals looked down on...?

[@williamrobinson6059]

I wouldn't say that people "looked down" upon them. I just don't think they are respected very much by the general population. I believe that is due to the small quantity of them, which is due to the shaming of budding teen-aged intellectuals by teenagers.

[@radbug]

Jealosy

[@radbug]

Dare to Question you think Noam Chomsky is an idiot ?

[@Wtahc]

Radbug yes.

[@radbug]

Dare to Question /smh

[@edwardmaxwell3951]

Humanity doesn't deserve scholars like Noam Chomsky.

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

California Wildfires California Wildfires 1 second ago Here is a plan I think the socialist movement would agree upon. Comments please. All American Citizens are educated by the democratic state from a young age. This teaches young minds all the kind and fair qualities of modern style socialist central government. The Central State Government Mandates the following are human rights apply as law from birth for all: Free Lifetime Health Care. Free Lifetime Education. Free Quality Housing. Guaranteed Quality Life-Time Income. Strict laws on all businesses. Strict laws that favor the employee rights. 80% - 95% Tax rates on the wealthy. Minimum workers holidays of 60 days per-year. The elimination of all petroleum related products. Use only 100% renewable energy. Sustainable (regenerative) agriculture. The elimination of all carbon-based products. Only two electric cars per household. Government mandated worker ownership of all businesses Treaties to for the elimination of all Nuclear Weapons. Treaties to for the elimination of arms production. Government initiatives to end worlds poverty. Financial Reparations for African and Native Americans. The elimination of all pollution. The elimination of all private gun ownership. No restrictions on abortion laws. Use of guns and armory only authorized buy approved central government authorities. Strict rules and penalties for authoritarian conservative organizations or make them illegal. Only state authorized, and funded media outlets allowed: PBS, CNN Racism is inherent in all white conservatives. Financial penalties must be leveled on them. Only white people registered and that vote as democrats shall not be fined as a racist. What the socialist democratic party believes is for the good off all will be implemented by law. The implementation of a one world order that follows these rules.

[@doesnotexist305]

I would love prime Chomsky to debate today's Ben Shapiro.

[@sonofnyx9437]

DoesNotExist305 Would be entertaining, but it’d be an insult to Chomsky to even consider debating a backwards, insolent conservative like Shapiro.

[@bloui1033]

lol. Shapiro would easily decimate this pseudo-intellectual to a mere stuttering triggered snowflake!

[@MrB1923]

Chomsky wouldn't waste his time. Shapiro, who is merely a corporate tool, chooses low hanging fruit to make it easy to look impressive. He went up against Sam Harris on religion and looked like an irrational and uneducated Neanderthal. He couldn't tie Chomskys intellectual shoes.

[@MrB1923]

@@bloui1033 We see you have no argument.

[@bloui1033]

@@MrB1923 that's not an argument either. examples of low hanging fruit?

[@keithrobert5117]

We can all, perhaps, agree on the labour theory of value (at least in a basic sense). Where we start to get into deep (very deep) waters is with the market, however you define that. It is the market that we have to try to explain. And which really Professor Chomsky cannot (much as I admire him).

[@yoloteam1835]

I like this man.

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

I kindly reply to you. At the end of this statement I supply methods that may approach a from of the Marx dream. The problem is that Marx was the seed for all these groups that used Socialism or Workers party in their names. They all descended into the most vial forms of suffering hell and mass death ever know in recent history. Marx invented the word” Capitalism” to replace the term” Free Market System. Marx states this in his writings: “Capitalism is the best system for eliminating, poverty, starvation and the creation of wealth for the working class.” The Marx’s dream: His philosophy of history was called "historical materialism" in which his goal was to bring about the end of history, by means of an eventual perfect, classless, utopian society in which people’s needs would be generated by this new system and leading to a life filled with free time, pursuits of leisure activities. Yes, a grand utopia. Sounds good to me a great sales pitch! The problem is humans need positive motivation and competent system to generate even small percentage of "real materialism" required for this utopia. The “Free market system” is indisputably the best method for improving the human condition. Imperfect as it seems. Many of the problems of free market fluctuations are created by the injection of forced utopian laws and socialist control and the creep of leftist wealth redistribution. You may wonder why I injected Mussolini into my video. Mussolini was originally a socialist politician and a journalist at the Avanti! newspaper. In 1912, he became a member of the National Directorate of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI), but was expelled from the PSI for advocating military intervention in World War I. The 1917 Russian revolution was the first large application on Karl Marx’s methods. Most of the men who would become known to the world as the Bolsheviks had little to show for their lives. They had been in and out of prison, constantly under police surveillance, rarely employed. Vladimir Lenin spent most of the decade preceding the revolution drifting between Krakow, Zurich, and London. Joseph Stalin spent those years in the Caucasus, running protection rackets and robbing banks. Leon Trotsky had escaped from Siberian exile. Yes, many Bolsheviks had an exceedingly difficult life and held deep contempt for the ruling class. Bolsheviks purged the ruling class via murder and violence. The seeds of the Marxist revolution started under the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party formed in 1998 The first Bolsheviks started the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic on this wave to the he glory of communism 1917-1924 Historians put the death toll around 10 million people. World history is not a pretty place. If it were not for the ultimate entry of the Americans into Worlds War I and II the compounding death from Totalitarian Socialists and Fascists regimes would have allowed the decline into hell on this planet into at unimaginable realms of death and suffering. Socialism has proven to be a disaster on a large scale and even modern western socialism light is failing. It is all based on the redistribution of non-existent wealth. I will end with Marx’s dream of an existence free of need for material possessions. free of poverty, envy, and the pursuit of a life of leisure and contentment. Humanity needs the real-life experiences and freedom, to grow, learn, fail, and ultimately succeed in the journeys towards a engrained form human responsibility and large-scale contentment. A good rule of law, a fair free market system and people that learn from their mistakes. Granted this path can seem less appetizing than the instantaneous grab of property, wealth, and power through swift violence. Freedom requires consistent effort and a balanced system that recognizes quickly when any form of power is tilting out of balance. I think it requires a degree of enlightened spirituality tempered with the realities of the human condition and existence. The freedom for people to pursue, fail and learn from the act of doing for yourself and for people you care for. I selfishly put some effort into this. My mind likes this unexplained existence of life and the probability of positive capability of the monkey that got smart is high if we live it.

[@Nonplused]

So how do the workers end up owning the factories? Should they be paid partially in shares? Can many of them not use a portion of their earning to purchase shares now? Isn't that what 401k's sort of about? Are employee stock options and grants a form of this type of socialism? And what happens when the factory goes broke and shuts down?

[@WaryofExtremes]

And what if they don't want to own part of that business, because it's not a good business and their coworkers don't do a good job? What if they'd rather get extra pay? There are plenty of businesses I've worked at whose stock I wouldn't have enjoyed being forced to buy. 'They should own the business as a coop!' (shrugs shoulders) That's allowed. Go ahead. Start or join one. Some do great. Some don't. Why should everyone be forced to own part of the company they work at? What happens if they want to move or switch jobs? Do they have to find someone to trade first? Are they stuck, employment and home wise, until they can find a trade? Under capitalism, there are many choices as far as employment, investment, and trying to run your own business. Some people are really stuck on the 'I want force to make sure everyone is in a coop.' Some people don't have ideas, don't want a vote in how it's run, would rather have more cash than be forced to invest in where they work, etc etc.

[@Nonplused]

@@WaryofExtremes Those are also good points. I don't particularly want my whole fortune tied up in most of the companies I've worked for. Once I worked for a company that was going into Chapter 11. They needed to continue to function under bankruptcy, so I still got paid, but the shareholders got zero. I suppose in Chomsky's world companies would be eternal and always make the right products in the right amount and never over-finance and never go broke. Also what if you want to change jobs for a raise? Career change? I suppose these are also not allowed.

[@jaloout3227]

Full interview?

[@bigfoot8103]

TIKHistory is my preferred educator on the matter.

[@uwayn9829]

TIKhistory is dumb right propaganda that presents itself as unbiased history. I highly advise you to stop watching it. At first it seems like it is true but a deeper look on any subject he talks about and you instantly see it’s straight bullshit.

[@Szakats19]

Has been listened to, way too much, for far too long.

[@paifu.]

1:25 Very big victory

[@MrB1923]

We love you Sir.

[@shabnamhaque2003]

Please someone suggest the book of Prof. Chomsky that I should begin with.

[@Spock_Rogers]

There's one called "How the World Works" which is very good.

[@AdrienLegendre]

Noam Chomsky's notion that workers should be in charge of production is not correct. The production of products and services balances many competing self-interests: workers, investors, suppliers, and consumers. Moreover workers commonly reject this notion, favoring a labor union for many good reasons. Labor unions, unlike worker co-ops, are legal monopolies, workers do not have to raise capital or manage a business, and labor laws guarantee workers are paid; no law guarantees a co-opbusiness will be profitable.

[@drazen1972cro]

you are so incorrect in your assertions it hurts

[@MD-lf3gt]

@@drazen1972crocan be, but give arguments, not just statements.

[@patrickwayodi]

Please share a link to the full video.

[@Cleopatra-ys4sr]

*Smart guy

[@Pseudify]

One problem Noam. Your Utopianism denies human nature. People aren’t as smart, unselfish, self-motivated, kind, etc as you think they are.

[@MD-lf3gt]

So true. Especially when it concerns getting power.

[@busterbiloxi3833]

Note to Chomsky: Whether Romanov or Bolshevik or Putinist, Moscow is always wrong.

[@dnajri2655]

Wow, that doesnt sound ignorant at all.

[@anthonygibbs9245]

one of my most favorite people

[@bsteele5287]

There are sound reasons why most other intellectuals in many of his fields of study do not agree with his conclusions. Any good economist could thoroughly eviscerate him. Heavy on the theoretical, he is almost devoid of a true understanding of human nature or the result of his economic and social models if implemented. Myself, and most of my colleagues, agree that he is a better linguist than any of the other subjects he chooses to lecture on. He is eloquent, articulate, and to people not well versed in what he speaks, very convincing. Unfortunately for these individuals, many fail to catch his inaccuracies and contradictions, naivete and chronic pessimism. This man has spent his life in academia and is utterly detached from reality. He would have been better served if at some point in his life to have actually worked in some of the environments of what he speaks.

[@drazen1972cro]

You know, all the people talking about socialism without actually lived in socialism are heavy on theoretical, don't you think? Probably including you and your comments.

[@bsteele5287]

I was raised in an eastern European country with a socialist economy. I lived there until I was 32 years old. I then immigrated to Canada. I agree with you that most people speak on this subject without personal experience as is their right, however, I am not one of them.

[@PegasusTenma1]

I really like how articulate professor Chomsky is and I love listening to him even though I’m a right winger, I just have two problems with what he just said. First of all, North wasn’t fighting under the banner of ending wage labor or any labor in fact a lot of the north still owned slaves for longer than the south did whether it be wage labor or free labor, as stated by Abraham himself the north was fighting solely to preserve the union and prevent the south from seceding. Second thing, while I understand that traditional socialism means that workers ought to be in control of the institutes they work in and the communities they live in, you still haven’t described what way such a utopia can be achieved with everything going just right (which in itself is very hard to achieve) not to mention that the traditional socialism can actually never truly work unless the entire world is socialist as opposed to semi-capitalist/state-capitalist. Socialism tends to ignore one of the most important factors that makes the economic systems like capitalism work and that’s human nature, this is why socialism tends be a beautiful theory but there’s absolutely no way to put into practice.

[@erc9468]

Calling the USSR a capitalist country in any way, shape, or form is stupid. Chomsky attributes everything he doesn't like to Capitalism, and everything he does like to Socialism. How do you get to this imaginary Socialist utopia? You can't. But you do lose millions of people to death and suffering while you try.

[@centerfield6339]

Yes I tend to agree - Chomsky is obvious incredibly well versed in the history here, but I'd love to hear him elaborate on how would people owning the means of production would look in practice.

[@TheMahayanist]

There's no such thing as human nature.

[@TheMahayanist]

@@erc9468 It's entirely state capitalist. If you don't know how capitalism is defined that's your problem.

[@TheMahayanist]

@@erc9468 And socialism isn't a utopia. It's a very simple concept, no autocrats, no rulers, no bureaucracy. Society decides as a whole how production is decided.

[@ellencantarow8973]

He is unparalleled. We will not see his like again.

[@musictomyears8]

The key problem is whether there can be socialism without central planning. Lenin and Mao and many others thought it was not feasible. Central planning and coordination led to a managerial form of economy.

[@TheMahayanist]

Central planning is fine, but according to socialist principles not state capitalist ones

[@blakej6416]

Aren't corporations essentially ownership by the masses? Who would run things if the business was owned by the workers? What happens when a worker retires? I'm not sure what the take away is from being told that people 150+ years ago were calling for ownership by the workers, did they somehow have an insight that we don't today? I don't see how you can compare working for a wage to slavery, most people have entered into these agreements of their own free will.

[@drazen1972cro]

How can corporations be owned by the masses? The very definitions of ownership is having something as your OWN. Otherwise, there wouldn't be individuals like Bezos and Ekon "Weirdface" Musk and similar byproducts of digestive system of mammals. As for the question who would run things, that would be a director with the cooperation of a worker council, that consists of people that actually work in the business and know ins and outs of day to day operations. When a worker retires, he or she gets state pension and enjoys the rest of their life relatively care free. As for comparing wage work to slavery, you can't take it as literally as you just did. Yes, you enter the agreement of your own will. However, can you choose anything else? Is anything else of "your own free will"? Like, work location, type of work, people you work with, what the work plan is? But most importantly, do you have to physically be on the location every day for at least 8 hours, many times 10, 12, 14 hours a day or not? Do you have a choice to just quit if you think you're being exploited? Technically yes, but what happens when bills start coming? When landlords knocks on the door? You don't have any choice whatsoever, especially in a dystopian feudal system like US has in effect. You work on what massa says you will work on, where you will work and when you will work. The only difference from slavery of old is that it is temporary and it usually ends by 6 PM. You're free for a bit less than half of day, but come morning, you're slave again. You're trading your most valuable commodity, time, for a pittance of $7,25 an hour, while massa is living it up in the big house or on the boat, baby. Meanwhile, you have to work more and more to a later and later age, just to be able to keep up, while the mere idea of a retirement melts away slowly but steadily. To the capitalist, that's not important. What is important is to squeeze you like a lemon, and then throw the husk away into the garbage. To the owner of the corporation, you're not even a person, you're "asset", "human resource", "capacity" or similar term that basically says you're just a number in the table. And you have zero power to change that, because massa will give you what massa wants, and you will accept what you must. And it is the same for every worker and everyone who is not capital owner. That's what he meant by "slavery".

[@johnmaisonneuve9057]

This is viewpoint, although held by many, is pure capitalist propaganda. Worker management is necessary if we want real democracy; otherwise concentration of wealth, now Fortune 200 corporations, end of the century stood at 300; early 70’s it was the Fortune 500. Concentration of wealth means corporate control - corporate super corporations - economic concentration of major facets of life, political system - gross unfreedom, concentration is so immense today.

[@PetadeAztlan]

▶ Noam Chomsky on Socialism: kzbin.info/www/bejne/kHO7hnWPjqp7ns0 ~Pub Sept 25, 2014 via Chomsky's Philosophy ++++ ▶ Connect @Peta_de_Aztlan ++++

[@kawishabbasi9459]

In the very start of his career, was Nom Chomsky being against Soviet Union and its “revolution” , was, rather, being more dishonest, more careerist than being wrong??

[@Amadeus_2061]

Can someone explain to me what exactly is meant by the workers control production? Are the workers assembling to build their own companies and controlling production, or does someone else build the company and have to share control with the employees? Please help me understand the process of this. Thanks.

[@Amadeus_2061]

I've been researching, but so far haven't found anything concrete. None of the socialist intellectuals are explaining HOW this ought to be accomplished. I'm still searching, so if you know any sources, do post.

[@readerjo]

It means your individual ability to pursue work and enterprise is owned by a collective, rather than you being able to enjoy both your labour and its fruits as your own possession.

[@musashishinnen]

Don't believe the person who said socialists support slavery. Actually in a socialist society you would only work if you want to do so and want to contribute to society, which I believe many people would want. The contradiction between collectivism and individualism isn't really a contradiction. One can have freedom as an individual and still serve the collective. The other thing is the socialists don't believe you can really enjoy labour or its fruits as long as you aren't paid the actual value of your labour. Chomsky refers many times to wage slavery, which I would describe as the choice between starving and working for a very meagre wage, which barely keeps these people alive. Now thanks to social democratic policy people don't have to do this as much in the western world. However the neoliberal revolution is quickly trying to change this.

[@Amadeus_2061]

I agree that most people would want to contribute to society, and I don't have a problem with that, in limitation. It's the collective ownership of production that worries me. How will that be achieved? What if someone doesn't want to be part of a collective? As for receiving wages that value one's labor... Who determines that value? The consumer, naturally. If a product/service is priced too high in order to cover production costs, no one will buy it. Who will be out of pocket then, and who will continue to pay "valuable" wages? I'm self employed and I can set all the prices I want, but if no one buys what I create then I don't make money. How will socialism determined what I as a self-employed worker will get paid? Btw, I lived in a communist country. I've seen first hand effects of communism. It is slavery. When limited, as in Canada, it's fine. But once it crosses into mandating who can own and make what, it becomes slavery. It will only work if it is highly regulated and limited, and mixed with capitalism.

[@musashishinnen]

Collective ownership of production might be difficult to achieve although I would recommend you read some things about the Spanish Civil War. Very briefly it was a war between republican Spain and Nationalist Spain. However during the civil war anarchists took over in parts of Spain and established a system in which the people had control over the means of production, not the state. So you had democratically run businesses. These anarchist collectives were however crushed by Republican and Nationalist forces. The republican army was actually supplied by the Soviet Union who was very much against the idea that people could organize themselves (for rather obvious reasons). On your point of determining the value of someone's labour, I would say it would be democratically decided within such a collective. Of course you are right that if you set the price too high people won't buy your product. However the idea that this would mean that people are therefore paid a fair wage by large corporations is of course a complete fabrication. When the minimum wage is increased it does not necessarily lead to the unemployment rate going up, because consumption also increases. I am actually sorry you had to live in a communist country, but it wasn't communism or if you really want to call it communism that's fine but it's not what socialists advocate. Real socialism means workers control production, not the state as happened in these so called communist countries. I agree however with you assessment that it was slavery, but in capitalist society wage slavery exists and this also needs to be stopped. And Canada doesn't have a limited form of communism, it has a form of social democracy, which basically means that capitalism is reformed a bit to support the poor.

[@hyzercreek]

Chumpsky tries to re-define socialism as something other than what Karl Marx defined it as, when he used the term 100 times in the Communist Manifesto, and every time he used it, it was to describe communism. But Chumpass want to make it something good.

[@Hell_Is_Other_People]

No, in Marx’s philosophy of history, socialism is what precedes communism, and capitalism is the necessary precursor to socialism. Communism is ‘the end of history’ for Marx insofar as he was a Hegelian, though he of course replaced idealism with materialism. Socialism is what places to means of production in the hands of the proletariat (workers) and is necessary to dissolve the differences between the classes. In its pure unadulterated form, communism is an a-political philosophy, which is why it could never work or be realized in actuality. It seeks to eliminate politics rather than being a form or theory of politics.

[@martinko4086]

NOAM CHOMSKY have NOT a solution .

[@JackMari]

Working people can have control of production. That's capitalism. Otherwise, it's government-controlled.

[@matthewgasparin7000]

No, you’re completely ignoring the idea of worker-cooperatives. Capitalism means that the investor or factory owner controls the means of production, not the workers.

[@izzyauna8814]

This guy should move to Cuber

[@GaidexVillerX13]

shared.

[@Szakats19]

The U.S. like it's English founders, was based on private property ownership. There were similar voices of dissent in England.After the French revolution, people soon realised the consequences of klepto-Bolshevism. If you fail to clearly state, what this type of usurpation causes, you might just as well, be promoting it!

[@SPAD58]

I thought consumers controlled production.

[@bernges7228]

@@caterpillar1936 Well certainly not entirely. Chomsky is like the biggest opponent of Skinner's behaviourism to ever exist

[@bernges7228]

@@caterpillar1936 You underestimate Chomsky if you think he hasn't read every major publication since Smith. The man is a living encyclopedia. The rational consumer is not modernist by any means, it's an 18th century idea that we somehow still teach undergraduates although it's total horseshit empirically. Iirc he is sort of Schumpeterian on how we create wealth and advance as a society but I don't see a reason to assume we are particularly efficient about it and the only reason why there might be benefits to all sides is due to advances in science and technology which, granted, are typically driven by a profit incentive (at least in the work Acemoglu and Robinson present, I certainly know scientists and engineers that do their work simply for philanthropic reasons)

[@jamesanthony5681]

They set the demand.

[@ytrew9717]

I'm socialist but not Marxist. I support Chomsky view but not his Marxist interpretation of the world, and his version of socialism. Marx failed everywhere because he (like Chomsky) deny the mediocrity of our human nature, it thus end up with even worst than capitalism, and discredited the socialist view. The new left is rising (but we are so few yet), based on science it acknowledge our mediocre nature (cf. selfish genes), which changes pretty much everything.

[@uwayn9829]

Chomsky isn’t a naive optimist. Unlike Hobbes or naive communists, he says that human nature depends on the environment. Capitalism is corrupting this nature. Communism will free it and people wont have to suffer. You’re acting like marx was in charge of those failed « communist » experiments(ussr, china). In my opinion, true communism is anarcho-communism. Marx never said that the transitional phase should be a central planning tyranny lol. Every communist should be anti centralized power. Thats why there was never a true communist country ever.

[@張洪鈞]

He is wrong about all his thought. All socialism is atheism, socialism is wrong, because LORD created universe, LORD is righteous and justice, and people in world should obey Ten Commandments.

[@kyonjannis]

Any sensing brain recognises that the same is valid for Fascism. One of the few who had the clarity to put that straight recently is Jonah Goldberg. But for some reason, etymologic and philologic cleansing is something we only apply to the side we prefer.

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

What we see in intellectuals like Noam. It is easy to read Noam as a creature. Noam is lays it all out with not his grand puzzle. We seen all the missing pieces. Noam and Marx act superior, smart material that means nothing. It is all internal constructed nonsense of made up linguistics. Nothing applies to the real world or has been applied in reality. That is are main problem with intellectuals! It is great to have creative fun wild thinking . However, if you can not get it to work in the real world after 175 years. Better stop thinking and start testing on a small scale then improve on working applications. Your super big untested big ideas just end up killing people. Like this video points out. kzbin.info/www/bejne/i5_OfnRmoZx0nJo Noam's base-line soul and his books are based on big envy, anger and using big violence to obtain his contentment. Just like Marx. That is very easy to see. He covers it up with overly complex meaningless linguistics. None of his words are tested in reality. Call him on that fact and he will fall back into a corner. He is just a poet. Dreamers love mad poets. I am an engineer. I am not great just one of millions in the world. If you want to make a bridge. Most of the time you base your idea on pasted bridges that worked. You refine the design based on geological tests. Wind tests, material testing, Finite Element Analysis testing. Live load testing, in-process construction testing ect. ect. Most engineers do not consider them self's intellectuals. nor do they like to be called intellectuals or it is all theory. An engineer is happy when he see's the mile long bridge across a bay transporting millions of cars for many many years in safety. The Workers that build the bridge get the satisfaction of knowing they built that dang thing. These underlying applied realities to make something work do not exist in in the minds of Noam, Marxists or most intellectuals

[@thetinychapel]

Socialism is as American as Jack London.

[@lukaradojevic7195]

You know,only in a free market you can have worker coops if you want to do business that way.capitalism and free markets allow you to arange your business the way you think that is most efficient,and if you are right you will be succsefull,if not,you will eat a loss.so free markets are real democratic system based on meritocracy,and every other system that uses monopol of violence to enforce its ideology is tyranical,whater that is fascism,socialism,communism,monarchy. People vote best with their money,so if they want something to be done,you can start an enterprise(private or work coop) and provide your service and product,and if you bring value to society,they will reward you(monetary or otherwise)

[@dcissignedon]

Noam Chomsky - what a fool!

[@jameshiler7830]

Noam Chomsky decides what words are instead of history. What a jerk.

[@MaSa-bp5qe]

If you want to own your own destiny, do it! No one is stopping you. Go ahead.

[@skrwdUNi]

Sounds about white

[@MaSa-bp5qe]

@@skrwdUNi Not white, sorry to burst your bubble. Just not lazy and don’t have a victim mentality.

[@Tha_Pencil]

Damg so basically real socialism never occured in human history

[@jigglypig]

Nah Chomsky is off the mark here. There is no single "real socialism". The USSR, China and dozens of other countries have achieved a form of industrial socialism unique to their cultures and history. And many many more smaller populations have achieved religious or spiritual forms of it.

[@marcgoodman4561]

''Working people have to be in control of production'' ... Production of anything doesn't happen unless it is controlled... An unneccessary notion.

[@sydneycandelario2697]

As in control of the state. It would likely be a very democratic process. Votes would dictate how production is handled. Only difference is that there isnt individual profit that leads to greed and conflicts of interest.

[@chrisaa746]

Nuts capitalism is the workers owning the means of production - Sherman Anti-trust act does need to be used in the states and on the banks, Google and a lot more in the USA but capitalism is the source of our wealth not socialism

[@bernges7228]

You mean Keynesian Economics I'm sure? Cause 90% of the population haven't seen a penny of that wealth since they overthrew that in the late 70s

[@revolutionarybroom5222]

Chris AA no it isn’t dumbass. That’s socialism. You just exposed yourself in not knowing what capitalism is, and you’re a capitalist but you support the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 which is a function of capitalism’s failures. You’re obviously an idiot. And capitalism is not the source of wealth. True wealth is a product of the natural world coupled with human labor. All capitalism does is take the wealth that’s already there and concentrated in hands of a rich minority.

[@ArbiterElegantiaee]

Good idea in the orthodox sense, but in fact the workers' governing of production wouldn't be effective. One needs to take rough and risky decisions to reach success and "voting" isn't quite good for this purpose.

[@Leinja]

Arbiter Elegantiae In Spain during the civil war, the productivity actually rose in the parts that were under anarchist control. And socialism doesn't necessary mean that EVERYTHING is voted upon, they could have democratically elected representatives or management who would have some autonomy in decision-making.

[@aomine6817]

Arbiter Elegantiae, bullshit, I see your view is that life is a game where only goal is to make as much money as possible, working 8 hours and don't get a living wage is a slavery and claim that voting is bad proves that capitalism is undemocratic and supports dictatorship.

[@no.thx.]

How do you define success? Because we're more productive than at any other point in recorded history, and have an ever increasing gap of inequality. We have more food and more housing than we can even consume right now and still have more and more homeless people starving. So, working hard alone isn't the answer.

[@bernges7228]

Horseshit, 99% of all startups go bankrupt because of them making risky decisions. The individual will make rash, irrational and counterproductive choices where the conglomerate can exchange knowledge and approach less biased outcomes

[@notmwangi]

*chuckles in the thousands of successful worker's cooperations active today worldwide*

[@benevolentdictator2315]

My understanding of human nature and certainly human history, is that Noam discounted the value of capitalism as it holds the individual accountable to society. The task given to each of us is to serve society by solving other people's problems so that their needs and wants are satisfied by the most efficient means and for that society rewards the individual accordingly, all by free will. The members of society lend their power to a government to in order to preserve the liberty and rights of the individual(especially property rights) by holding society accountable to the individual. These 2 reciprocating constructs have done more than any others in human history to deliver people out of "poverty" by empowering them with these 2 constructs. The wage disparities of the Earths population continues to converge, not diverge, as the socialists want u to believe. AI will bring about the economic singularity for which all will have equal empowerment and it will be up to each of us to serve society in order to serve our selves in reaching our goals.

[@HeathWatts]

Are you claiming that the wealth of the least wealthy 3.5 billion people on earth is going to converge with the wealth of the 26 people who have as much wealth as those 3.5 billion people? Moreover, are you suggesting that the same will happen for the 160 million U.S. citizens who have less wealth than just Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Warren Buffet? The wages of American workers have remained static for 40 years, whereas the wealth of the 1% has skyrocketed. Maybe you are living on a parallel earth where socialism is called capitalism, but on this planet, neoliberal capitalism will ensure that 99% of people will make enough money to work in the sweatshops of the 1%, and little more. The only way that wealth will converge on this earth under the current system is if capitalism drives the wages of the 99% to the lowest possible level, while continuing to concentrate the majority of wealth into the hands of the idle and shiftless rich.

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

What we see in intellectuals like Noam. It is easy to read Noam as a creature. Noam is lays it all out with not his grand puzzle. We seen all the missing pieces. Noam and Marx act superior, smart material that means nothing. It is all internal constructed nonsense of made up linguistics. Nothing applies to the real world or has been applied in reality. That is are main problem with intellectuals! It is great to have creative fun wild thinking . However, if you can not get it to work in the real world after 175 years. Better stop thinking and start testing on a small scale then improve on working applications. Your super big untested big ideas just end up killing people. Like this video points out. kzbin.info/www/bejne/i5_OfnRmoZx0nJo Noam's base-line soul and his books are based on big envy, anger and using big violence to obtain his contentment. Just like Marx. That is very easy to see. He covers it up with overly complex meaningless linguistics. None of his words are tested in reality. Call him on that fact and he will fall back into a corner. He is just a poet. Dreamers love mad poets. I am an engineer. I am not great just one of millions in the world. If you want to make a bridge. Most of the time you base your idea on pasted bridges that worked. You refine the design based on geological tests. Wind tests, material testing, Finite Element Analysis testing. Live load testing, in-process construction testing ect. ect. Most engineers do not consider them self's intellectuals. nor do they like to be called intellectuals or it is all theory. An engineer is happy when he see's the mile long bridge across a bay transporting millions of cars for many many years in safety. The Workers that build the bridge get the satisfaction of knowing they built that dang thing. These underlying applied realities to make something work do not exist in in the minds of Noam, Marxists or most intellectuals.

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

California Wildfires California Wildfires 1 second ago Here is a plan I think the socialist movement would agree upon. Comments please. All American Citizens are educated by the democratic state from a young age. This teaches young minds all the kind and fair qualities of modern style socialist central government. The Central State Government Mandates the following are human rights apply as law from birth for all: Free Lifetime Health Care. Free Lifetime Education. Free Quality Housing. Guaranteed Quality Life-Time Income. Strict laws on all businesses. Strict laws that favor the employee rights. 80% - 95% Tax rates on the wealthy. Minimum workers holidays of 60 days per-year. The elimination of all petroleum related products. Use only 100% renewable energy. Sustainable (regenerative) agriculture. The elimination of all carbon-based products. Only two electric cars per household. Government mandated worker ownership of all businesses Treaties to for the elimination of all Nuclear Weapons. Treaties to for the elimination of arms production. Government initiatives to end worlds poverty. Financial Reparations for African and Native Americans. The elimination of all pollution. The elimination of all private gun ownership. No restrictions on abortion laws. Use of guns and armory only authorized buy approved central government authorities. Strict rules and penalties for authoritarian conservative organizations or make them illegal. Only state authorized, and funded media outlets allowed: PBS, CNN Racism is inherent in all white conservatives. Financial penalties must be leveled on them. Only white people registered and that vote as democrats shall not be fined as a racist. What the socialist democratic party believes is for the good off all will be implemented by law. The implementation of a one world order that follows these rules.

[@BuGGyBoBerl]

people are losing their responsibility towards society recently though. also there are many ideas that promote individual accountability to society. regarding most efficient way i would heavily doubt that, but thats another discussion. same with rewarding accordingly. just look at the jobs that are of most use to a society. one can even make a rule that the more useful it is, the less it gets paid, with very few exceptions. maybe like a physician. the poverty argument is mostly happening in china. so its a bit hard to draw conclusions for that. wage disparities is similar. the power is more and more concentrated. its not about socialists making us believe that...

[@tusharpandey858]

@@TheConstitutionFirst Financial Reparations to all nations on which America has waged war, remove sanctions, remove patents and copyrights, justice to war criminals and so on......

[@JakeTheMuss10454]

So capitalism will do incredible things in capitalist countries long established, not in countries where industrialization and modernization has never occurred, but yet are capitalist by default because of imperial colonialism and corporeal policies that undermined entire continents for hundreds of years and for hundreds of years to come. I ask what will the plan of development be? Because we of the third world remain the third world and like average Americans who travel to our countries say its in fact 4th world.

[@Jez4prez1]

No. In the 1970's China implemented 'open market reforms' which propelled 30 years of rapid Chinese growth. Capitalistic policies if implemented in emerging markets can / does lead to rapid development. The world has never been more developed / wealthier than it is now, and global poverty has never been lower. The pace of people moving out of poverty has actually been astonishing.

[@justtowatch111]

LAMLM24/7/365 It just goes to show how capitalist western civilization has worked so well that ,you, a person from the 3rd world as you say, has access to the internet and can afford the time and money required to get on here and tell everyone how badly off you are!. 100 years ago in the 3rd world you probably wouldn't be able to get enough food to eat and wouldn't have a roof over your head and you would be dead by now at your age so maybe you need to rethink things sunshine.

[@bernges7228]

@@justtowatch111 100 years ago that would be the same condition in every Western country too for more than 90% of the population my dude

[@Szakats19]

Soft Liberal 'Left, soft pedalling on Socialism .

[@martinko4086]

Chomsky said " working people have to be in CONTROL of production " hmm ... .many of WORKERS are NOT in control of theirs own lives . alcoholism , gambling , bad relationships , criminal record , bad working habits , etc .. ... hmmm .. I say many owners of productions are also working people and they need to be in control of their own company in first place . *** Workers do theirs part of job , get paid and go home . *** Owners need to know what to produce , how much to produce , analyze the market etc etc .. YOU CANNOT just SWITCH workers for owners , DO NOT ask janitor how much to produce for market since he do not know nothing about it . USE LOGIC MS Chomsky .

[@lespaul5734]

Nice troll lmao

[@martinko4086]

@@lespaul5734... this is all you got ??

[@lespaul5734]

@@martinko4086 wdym? My comment wasn't argument, it was an observation.

[@martinko4086]

@@lespaul5734 you have a very POOR observation .

[@lespaul5734]

@@martinko4086 Is that all you got?

[@johnrossini3594]

socialism was never monolithic it always meant different things to different people

[@uwayn9829]

He’s talking about traditional orthodox meaning of the term. Which is pretty simple: collective ownership of the means of production.

[@samfrazier5599]

The word, “socialism” has been greatly abused by both the left and the right. Below is the definition. Note that it says collective or government ownership or administration. Given that, one can hardly claim the Soviets were not engaging in a socialist economy. Merriam-Webster Definition of socialism 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

[@justinhartnell6779]

Googly googly.

[@CrowdPleeza]

What is Maduro doing wrong in Venezuela?

[@erc9468]

Um, everything?

[@OrgonVpH7]

What the US is doing in Venezuela?

[@aarothewanderer5549]

Venezuela is a capitalist state

[@StephenSchleis]

Propping up state capitalism and not creating WSDE (workers self directed enterprises)

[@scotthullinger9955]

Put it this way: What is Maduro doing right in Venezuela? Not much, if not zero.

[@ojaichuck]

So workers should control the means of production. That must mean they own it. How did they buy it?

[@volin4921]

by working there

[@bernges7228]

There is no private property in Socialism so there is no owner they could buy it from. But my guess is you want to know how they got possession of it. The typical means is by expropriation, either voluntary or by force. There is a reason why most Socialist thinkers anticipate a revolution

[@elguacamolesf4414]

They don’t

[@Zerc92]

The fatal conceit of socialists... "Everyone got it wrong but me"

[@hornetobiker]

Anybody listening to this?

[@dragunov815]

Golly.

[@zoso73]

Can you imagine what life would be like if your fellow employees ran the show and government? Any questions?

[@jamesanthony5681]

Sure. How about the following quote from an American conservative that refutes what you're suggesting? "I Would Rather Be Governed By the First 2,000 People in the Telephone Directory than by the Harvard University Faculty." -William F. Buckley Buckley was no dummy.

[@zoso73]

​@James Anthony His statement was to say how truly idiotic the Harvard faculty is over average Americans. What Chomsky espouses is that a company's management be run by the workers. That is asinine.

[@jamesanthony5681]

@@zoso73 No, he could have substituted Princeton, Dartmouth, or any of the other Ivy League schools (except Yale) in that quote. Buckley is essentially saying that the people generally get it right.

[@zoso73]

@James Anthony I disagree totally. He is saying that elitist academics are smart but idiotic and corrupt. Of course they cant govern. But that doesn't mean you have the first 2,000 people in the phone book govern over the best qualified people.

[@hansfrankfurter2903]

This all boils down to semantics. What does he mean by "working ppl need to be in control of production and their own lives" ? Does that mean a lack of government? Co-ops competing within a capitalist economy? What exactly? Its wide open for interpretation.

[@alexandermcgilvray4042]

Can someone explain to me why socialists seem to always hate coorporations and the stock market? It seems to me the exact ideal he's discussing. Quite literally workers get to own a portion of the corporation they work for (and other companies), and get to vote on decisions the company makes (democratization of economics).

[@matthewkopp2391]

No it is not. Small share holders do not vote in corporations and many employees do not own stocks. Chomsky is Talking about worker cooperatives where workers do own the business and vote. There are also several laws in Germany which is a combination of market share holders and worker votes called co-determination laws Mitbestimmung, Aktiengesetz etc. the laws favor the shareholder by one tie breaker vote. But this system has meant that German companies do not offshore, do not lay off workers as often during a recession etc. There are many solutions. The question would be why would a “so-called” socialist president Obama not implement something like a workers coop or co-determination policy for the auto industry at the start of the recession. Instead he gave a bailout to the corporation. Answer is. Because both Obama and McCain both had corporate Wall Street interests in mind, and Obama is not a socialist like the right wing spins it. He was the opposite of a socialist.

[@maambomumba6123]

Few people are more wrong about economics than Chomsky.

[@last1out]

Just because you are well read and articulate, does not mean you are not brainwashed.

[@apachexprime4768]

Go ahead and prove him wrong, just cus u reas a Facebook article doesn’t mean u know anything 🤣🤣

[@JK12518]

@@apachexprime4768 I can't I went to public school. Guess I should have gone to private school.

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

As much as I like Chomsky on many things, his is completely INSANE here about this ownership nonsense. What about RISK? What about salespeople and negotiation? Totally ridiculous views that hamstring the left.

[@bernges7228]

Well, what about them? Risk is mostly a factor if decisions are made undemocratically, i.e. managerial moral hazard. That kind of risk just vanishes if everybody in the company is informed and gets to make decisions. Investment risk is still there but the conglomerate of workers will approach rational choice much more accurately than just the manager caste so risk overall is heavily reduced. Salespeople and Marketing in general are used to misinform consumers and are clear cut signs of market failure in Classic Economic Theory. You can see how well your free market economy is failing by the amount that sector has grown lately. And lastly negotiation. If you look at the standard model of negotiation which is Nash Bargaining you will see two parameters indicating negotiation power that are the main influencing factors in negotiation as one might suspect. Power automatically goes out the window if every worker is also a part owner which was the whole idea behind getting rid of private property in the first place. So negotiation will become much more fair to the individual. Although we wouldn't use money anymore anyway so negotiation might work very differently then

[@CuteEplet]

What about risk? Risk today is for the most part handled by the public. USA is like the best example of socailize risks and costs, privatize profits. Big business today rely on massive state funded reaserch, subsidies, tariffs on foreign goods etc. all payed for by taxpayers money. 2008 The big banks crashed the economy, by "free market" laws they should have gone out of business, but instead they got the state to bail them out with taxpayers money.

[@PegasusTenma1]

Saltedalmond Yes, they got the state to bail them out. Welcome to state-capitalism and not actual capitalism

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

@@bernges7228 Whoa - what?l! Salespeople and marketing in general are signs of market failure? Get rid of private property and then negotiate? What are you even talking about? LOL

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

@@CuteEplet That's not universally true at all, although I agree with you on the bailouts.

[@MexicanBandit]

The ‘not true socialism’ argument is such nonsense. If the moment a socialist State turns authoritarian it stops being socialist, then you’re building success into the definition. The USSR was a socialist State.

[@jamesanthony5681]

No!

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

Cool! Socialism is a like apple pie. Noam is super clear and detailed. I did not know words could get so screwed up. Lets have some new talking points to get humanity on board. Lets call Socialism "Banana Cream Pie". Everyone likes pie! I like Noam's look! Bill Gates image. So cool! Noam is super skilled. He should start Apple Pie Computers and make trillions so me and my drinking pals can get some of Noam's magic money. So easy just change then name.

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

Really, Noam is can speak well. Socialism is a bowling ball philosophy. It abides by no laws. Rolls over all. I prefer billiards. Smaller moves like the equilibrium that is possible under competitive capitalism and a balanced rule of law. That means humans must crawl out of the “Banana Cream Pie” and taste reality. Noam only likes one kind of pie.

[@ssssyther]

Where did he say socialism is like apple pie? With timestamp please

[@atheistanarchist]

all socialists do is call any criticism propaganda and say "that wasn't real socialism"

[@Jm-uh7wg]

maybe they have a point? I think all socialists want is for more people to live better lives. Thats the premise anyway, clearly does'nt always work - then again nor does capitalism always work.

[@plusixty8992]

Orwell wrote 1984 to criticize stalinism, literally writing the book on totalitarianism, and he was a staunch socialist, saying his writings are all in pursuit and favor of Socialism. Soviets killed the marxists. Read Lenin and stalin. To say they werent derived from socialism would be a lie, but to say that that is what socialism IS, is not true. Read marx, or Anarchist writings. Marx said that Revolution was necessary yes, but in later writings discussed how America could be the place where, essentially, incremental change could be applied, and gave into the notion that revolutionary action through violence may not be necessary (you have to remember hes lliterally seeing people work 12 hour days 7 days a week and children and shit, its like being mad that someone wanted revolutionary action against slavery). I think any socialist (dont consider myself one) would abhor the actions the USSR, China, Korea etc etc hav taken to get a "socialist" state. I mean honestly how democratic was USSR? China? thats a core tenant of socialism. As well as the workers owning the means to production, not bureaucratic elites, like in ussr, china, etc etc. I think of it like Mercantile, Vs Lassie Fair etc etc, its a form of it in a way, but its not the best nor the only way socialism could potentially be applied. Gotta sway me on a few issues though if i were to ever call myself one.

[@jamesanthony5681]

That's because it's NOT real socialism. The word 'socialism' if you think about it for a second or two, is counter to anything that happened in the former USSR.

[@larry3867]

Yes you can define socialism without using means of production​@@Jm-uh7wg

[@nobodyanon7893]

❤️🇵🇹❤️

[@MD-lf3gt]

Theoretically he’s right but what about practice? Communism once started with these ideals, but look what happened. Lust for power, greed, selfishness, hatred prevailed.

[@alanross2876]

Workers can be in control of their own production by starting their own business.

[@lacanian1500]

then who will work in those businesses? we can't just have everyone start a business because there will be no employees.

[@alanross2876]

@@lacanian1500 sub contract. What is your vocation?

[@lacanian1500]

@@alanross2876 i think you're missing the point. like, if a guy starts a factory are you expecting his workers to start their own factories? just making more businesses does not bring democracy at work.

[@alanross2876]

@@lacanian1500 my point is if you don’t like being an employee quit bitching about your job, make your demands or start a business. No one is forcing you to work for a company you don’t want to.

[@plusixty8992]

@@alanross2876 Your point is you have no argument so you just shifted to something else. Not everyone can start a business to get out from low wages (you need capital, duh?) If i need to make $25/hr and say to my boss, i need this or im out, hes gonna send me home, now i have no money, now what? start a business? oh no capital.. go to school? for what? how in debt am i going to be? will i need to move to get a job in the field? theres literally a million other ways to go about this but saying "make your demands or start a businnes" makes oyu sound like a troglodyte which im 100% sure you are just from the other statements as well.

[@cato451]

Noam forgets the primary tenant of socialism is centralized planning which is why it always fails.

[@jamesanthony5681]

No it is not.

[@mannyechaluce3814]

Get rid of the rich, you will only be left with the poor :D

[@metatron4890]

The left doesn't understand fully what human capital is.

[@Leinja]

Sheeps.

[@bernges7228]

There is no money in Socialism in theory so poor and rich are words that might only have meaning in local abundancy

[@PegasusTenma1]

Bernges Thats communism not socialism

[@GuxTheArtist]

How is it that word does not seem to disappear from his mind anyway? Chomsky speaks about USSR, but it's always more about USA. A veil he does not dare to remove from his analysis. He knows USA is an unfullfilled democracy, ruled by a minority, a plutocracy and oligarchy in fact, at the center of which there's the intelligence/military complex which operates in the shadow with an agenda of its, for the benefit of few, in homeland and abroad. But he does not allow himself speaking this truth, cowardly. So? His knowledgeable speaking revolvs around ways of disguising the paradoxes of his thinking, so to make it appear "honest" anyway. Well, the problem with Chomsky is in fact that he is intellectually not entirely honest. Knowing that it's kind of a punishment in itself -but it must be likely better, in his judgement, than being effectively targeted and hunted down by CIA-NSA operatives, his sudden, premature death, at the hand of some estranged "lone wolf", a "cuban agent unhappy with his moderatism" or "an islamic fanatic from Kazakhistan" or anyone to the effect, being somewhat justified or found inevitable by the subsequen mainstream media coverage. That's the difference between USA and Europe: while we think, you praise a freedom whose boundaries you do not dare to question, a freedom which you scarsely train yourself how to employ, intellectually and politically -because real freedom of thought would be a threat to the system of beliefs you live in. American freedom is of a religious kind, something you're asked to have faith in, while if you don't, you'll find out how it is mercilessly protected by the money and guns of the few

[@PJHamann1]

He keeps throwing around the word "democracy" like it's a good thing.

[@mohammedj2941]

Could you elaborate?

[@TheConstitutionFirst]

Here is a plan I think the socialist movement would agree upon. Comments please. All American Citizens are educated by the democratic state from a young age. This teaches young minds all the kind and fair qualities of modern style socialist central government. The Central State Government Mandates the following are human rights apply as law from birth for all: Free Lifetime Health Care. Free Lifetime Education. Free Quality Housing. Guaranteed Quality Life-Time Income. Strict laws on all businesses. Strict laws that favor the employee rights. 80% - 95% Tax rates on the wealthy. Minimum workers holidays of 60 days per-year. The elimination of all petroleum related products. Use only 100% renewable energy. Sustainable (regenerative) agriculture. The elimination of all carbon-based products. Only two electric cars per household. Government mandated worker ownership of all businesses Treaties to for the elimination of all Nuclear Weapons. Treaties to for the elimination of arms production. Government initiatives to end worlds poverty. Financial Reparations for African and Native Americans. The elimination of all pollution. The elimination of all private gun ownership. No restrictions on abortion laws. Use of guns and armory only authorized buy approved central government authorities. Strict rules and penalties for authoritarian conservative organizations or make them illegal. Only state authorized, and funded media outlets allowed: PBS, CNN Racism is inherent in all white conservatives. Financial penalties must be leveled on them. Only white people registered and that vote as democrats shall not be fined as a racist. What the socialist democratic party believes is for the good off all will be implemented by law. The implementation of a one world order that follows these rules.

[@tnguyen318]

Socialism is not the control of the means of production, as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim to establish them. It has been misinterpreted.

[@bernges7228]

Actually that is precisely Socialism. As defined by Marx and still the textbook definition today

[@ozzlefozzle]

Wrong

[@billymonroe9574]

Please point to a socialist area that is prospering….I’ll wait

[@bluewater454]

So, is Chomsky a socialist or not? He certainly talks like one.

[@juanguevara7026]

He sympathizes with libertarian socialism.

[@magisterludiv]

Bluewater454 Political systems, economic systems are metamorphic over time. That is to say that the definition is constantly changing as new laws, new politics, new presidents come to power. So your view that someone can "be" constantly a "socialist" is not possible. The definition of socialism changes over time, so that type of absolutism is nonsensical. You'd have to ask Professor Chomsky to describe his current political identity to answer your question, though I agree with Juan Guevara that he sympathizes with libertarian socialism. The biggest problem with U.S. citizenry when it comes to politics is a lack of education in economic systems, political systems, and rational, critical thinking technique. That is why one is constantly dealing with postings by people whose thought processes are formed by misleading religious modes of thought that are always absolutist, and not allowing for a view of the world as an ongoing process, rather than as a snapshot of the moment a thought is blurted out. As an example, most U.S. citizens are likely to call their country a democracy. In actual fact, it has some democratic tendencies that have shifted over the years and which now is a falsehood. The United States is now more correctly defined as a Capitalistic Oligarchy with an elitist control of elections (via billionaire dominance of electoral financing). So the representatives who make our laws are controlled by 300 or so billionaires, the banking and oil industries, the military industrial complex, and some other large multinational corporations and their respective investors. Citizens have voted for other candidates than have been placed in office in several elections by use of supreme court tampering and the electoral college voting against the majority. In other words, we do not have democracy in the United States.

[@drtoboggan7469]

Ok noam. Forget about russia what about Cuban socialism. Vietnamese socialism. Venezuelan socialism. Chinese socialism. Or any of the other actual labeled socialist failed countries. But you just wanna talk about how russia somehow in your mind wasn't socialist. Really russia. But 20 million college kids will call u brilliant for that comment so I guess u be laughing last.

Josh Johnson My dear friend, If your purpose here is to disprove socialism by using examples such as Cuba or Vietnam, you cannot be more mistaken. It seems as if you were forgetting about neocolonialism and the way the US forced many attempts of socialism to become dictatorships so as to be strong enough to protect themselves from the economic blockades, military interventions, and potential corruption of political and military powers that would lead to their end(those governments that didn't do so were eradicated and their leaders killed or encarcelated, such as what happened with the legitimate and democratic government of Chile due to US intervention). The purpose was to eliminate all socialist governments that were doing good, so as to create historical "proof" for the defeat of evil socialism by heavenly capitalism. In exchange for the legitimate and democratic governments that they had overthrown, the US favoured the imposition of dictatorships, such as Pinochet's in Chile or Franco's in Spain, in order to keep the population shut and put into force the laws and measures that would favour their interests(taking Chile as an example again, the US experimented with their liberal economic policies, making it into one of the countries with the highest inequality rates in America).

[@QuantumLeap83]

Crash Bandicoot Capitalism wouldn't fail if people would maintain a generational honesty, integrity and work ethic. As long as there is a minimum of entitled free-loaders and a majority of industrious, hard working people that take responsibility for their own mistakes and failures capitalism has no equal. Now we live in a nation full of bitter, disillusioned and entitled young adults that don't want to go out and build or create. They shrink I'm fear and flee to their safe space at the first sign of their opinion being challenged or of potential failure. And you say that it is capitalism "failing".

[@andrewgodly5739]

If you actually listened to what he said you would know that socialism is a word with many meanings. It's traditional meaning relates most to what you would probably know as "pure democracy or direct democracy", which means the people (as in every citizen) have collective control over society, where they vote on policy. Using traditional terminology for socialism there is no way that the USSR, Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam, China, etc, is socialist. They were/are either dictatorships or republics with a very powerful state. In fact, you could consider all of those countries Capitalist, as there is still a market and merchants, as well as the government becomimg a corporation that produces and distributes in that market

[@Dinobot2]

What about Chilean capitalism under Pinochet, or Russian capitalism today, or Cuban capitalism under Batista, or Spanish capitalism under Franco? Or hell, what about any of the capitalist hellholes in developing African and South American countries right now that are getting destroyed by free market neo-liberal policies?

[@storksforever2000]

Daniel Bonner What in the hell are you talking about? Are you making the claim that vast increases in wealth disparity over the past few decades and the now extreme consolidation of wealth for very few people is a result of lazy millennials and their safe spaces? Stop drinking the Fox News Koolaid. I know it's fun to blame millennials for everything but grow up.

[@gilliqbal13]

You'll never get it right

[@mikefontaine9539]

First ask yourself is this man a Jew? Witch he is.