Noam Chomsky - Anarchism I

[@IAmTheStig32]

It's truly sad that the word "anarchy" scares people and the word "state" does not.

[@cp9105]

That's not really suprising given how the world has been for a past couple thousand years.

[@josuebarboza9809]

Indoctrination does wonders.

[@cegtown]

At the same time is hypocritical form Norm to support social anarchy but not economic anarchy which is Capitalism.

[@josuebarboza9809]

So could anyone say about living without monarchy not too long ago .

[@josuebarboza9809]

If your feet is abuse from evil human beings then I don't see why you would support the existence of the Powerful State. No one would ever abuse government power, right?

[@SusanHiggins]

"As far as I understand it, anarchists are just people who take this seriously."

[@milosstevanovic2596]

+TheKidAztech Anarcho pacifists dont

[@dierks67]

Milos Stevanovic Seriousness isn't violence.

[@ynemey1243]

And that sounds like the only useful thing anarchists can contribute.

[@thewolf14]

You sound...biased.

[@Stafford674]

Depends what 'this' is;

[@powerpigs8531]

Anarchism is mutual aid, cooperation and the truest indicator of human intelligence. Anarchism is total freedom but it isn't about chaos, destruction or mayhem because total freedom means a big responsiblity to yourself and everyone or anything around. It's a society of intelligent people that understand this concept cooperating together in the absence of government hence why it's the truest indicator of human intelligence. I agree with Noam Chomsky, anarchists are just people people who take this seriously.

[@brettpid6416]

cool, how did we get rid of the stupid people?

[@nextworld9176]

Since fully half of society is below average intelligence and perhaps 10 pct are disabled and 3 pct are criminal, how do you exclude these people so you have "anarchism...a society of intelligent people cooperating in the absence of gov't"?

[@theluckycharms81592]

NextWorld Teach their kids and wait for them to die out. Repeat every generation until everyone believes what you want them to.

[@Alex-lu3pn]

It's not that anarchism is about mayhem. It's that an unfortunate probable consequence of anarchism, implemented on the world as it is, would be mayhem.

[@itsluger6278]

Alex Ding Well a system could always be created from the bottom-up, instead of top-down. As for parents, parents are an authority and should therefore justify their authority, be it with respectful and well treatment of their children and the like. What Anarchism is, at least in my view and i think Noam’s as well, doesn’t mean dismantle every single piece of authority for the sake of it, I think its dismantling illegitimate authority and replacing it with one that is legitimate. Now that leads into your own opinion on what that authority system should be, for me I lean more towards an Anarcho-Syndicalist system which is actually a highly organized system based around worker unions, those unions being legitimate authority for what their purpose is. If a parent refuses to send their children to school then the question that should be asked is if there authority is legitimate and fair, you see what I’m saying?

[@kaddisonturner9679]

"political rhetoric is not a model of clarity." LOL. so true.

[@imavileone7360]

Well according to the white races it is so

[@isj032]

It is a tool of persuasion.

[@DubyaW111]

Definitely not. Lol.. Total opposite of clarity.. 🙌🙌🙏🕉️💖

[@fabricioguido8202]

"as far as I understand it anarchists are just people who take this seriously" Beautiful close for that speech, really.

[@HockenVids]

Perfect way to end it. Truly one of the greatest thinkers in our time.

[@Cacowninja]

That speech was a load of garbage because he knows nothing about anarchism and just mumbles statist crap.

[@ebenezersureshworkaccount8947]

@@Cacowninja loaded words are being used you lost the argument.

[@Cacowninja]

@@ebenezersureshworkaccount8947 I will admit what I said was just an assertion. For a real argument I'd need citations, facts, truth, etc. But seriously Chomsky doesn't support voluntary transactions and he supports a state.

[@MikBak1814]

@@Cacowninja How so?

[@robertstar8517]

A very intelligent and wise man. More people should try to awaken like him.

[@Stafford674]

Correction: A wily charlatan. He doesn't even have the integrity to give a coherent account of his own political creed.

[@Stafford674]

That makes even less sense than Chomsky

[@ebenezersureshworkaccount8947]

@@Stafford674 baseless insults are just another way of saying “I’m an offended man-baby” keep your talk

[@Abdul-Y]

@@Stafford674 how so, do you mind elaborating? BTW i agree with your position on anarchism, but it's unfair to ridicule Dr. Chomsky based only on his view on anarchism, for example his political analyses are rarely inaccurate.

[@Stafford674]

Chomskky is a formidable debater, but he gets very hand-wavey about the specifics of anarchism. The idea of a society with rules, but no ruler sounds great but there is a problem of legitimacy. Take a hypothetical example: You live in an anarchist society into which a rule is introduced. Let us say that this rule requires every person to wear a badge with his or her name on it. A decides that this is a bad rule, and decides to disobey. Does this Ruler-less anarchist society have the right to punish A? Where does that right come from. Western Democracies say that the person elected by the majority in a free election have that right. Medieval societies say that God anointed a King, and his right cam from God. Dictators derive their power from the barrel of a gun. So where does anarchist society derive its legitimacy? Chomsky doesn't deal with this. And he has had more time on this planet than most. I personally dislike the man, because he uses his formidable intelligence to undermine a society which, though not perfect, has delivered prosperity, freedom and security to its citizens. I don't believe he is interested in making his own society better; he seeks to destroy it for a half-thought through ideology based alternative.

[@busherinolol1693]

Damn, never thought I'd become an anarchist through a 7min video

[@thegethconsensus393]

With all due respect, I strongly recommend that you do more reading/research before declaring your alignment to any ideology especially one as controversial as anarchism.

[@busherinolol1693]

@@thegethconsensus393 Yea I know it was kind of jokingly put

[@Jtoob-z5n]

Silly mon

[@ghostpiratelechuck2259]

Haha 30 seconds of sober analysis will make anyone an anarchist.

[@aydenr5467]

@@thegethconsensus393 generally something that is controversial is thought as such because it threatens the structures of power. This seems like a good thing, generally.

[@snitox]

I clapped at the middle of the night when he said that they believe they have to rent themselves out to survive

[@Stafford674]

I think a more interesting question is 'why shouldn't people rent themselves out, if that is what they want to do?'

[@lol22332]

@@Stafford674 well that us the idea with volunteers instead of renting

[@soensocomrade600]

@@Stafford674 how is that an interesting question when no one suggests that it isn't okay for them to rent themselves, and when no one actually wants to do that.........😑

[@Stafford674]

I don't accept your premise. You may believe that it isn't ok for people to rent themselves. Anarchists may believe that. It does not mean that no-one does. Question not answered again.

[@soensocomrade600]

@@Stafford674 You misread. It's okay for someone to rent themselves. It's not okay to rent someone. No one prefers to rent themselves, though.

[@Brightandheavy]

"There's no general definition of what legitimate authority is. It's the task of those who exercise authority to demonstrate their legitimacy; the ones who have the burden of proof. And if they can't meet that burden, by explaining why what they do is legitimate, then they have no right to exercise the authority, and whatever institution within which authority is being exercised is illegitimate unless it can show otherwise. It's the responsibility of those within the institutions to be prepared to meet the challenge of proving why their use of authority is legitimate, and it's the responsibility, and right of the people, to make the challenge when authority is being exercised upon them." - Noam Chomsky

[@Humanity101-zp4sq]

Legitimate authority seeks to meet ALL legitimate need. To protect the weak and rein in the strong. To minimise harm and maximise joy and utility. Simple.

[@GuinnevereB]

Most people equate anarchy with licentiousness, and a selfish running roughshod over others, with no one empowered to stop aggressive behavior, but that is not what Mr. Chomsky is saying. There are rules in any society, but the issue is: by whose authority? Is a rule a rule because society in general concurs and respects the limits even while recognizing its members' autonomy? Or is a rule being imposed unequally by some kind of power elite who hold themselves above the law by which they control others? Anarchy then is not "mob rule," but simply consensus among equals. The trouble starts when someone, or a gang of someones, begins to believe that "might makes right" and starts to impose its rule forcibly on the unwilling.

[@evanmcginn4408]

+GuinnevereB Yes, correct! I actually have a copy of the media's first time using the word anarchy as a slag, it was in the late 19th century! By the New York Times! It was funny to see how people in the "write your response section" were confused of the misuse of the word! It was something like " anarchy breaks loose when whore slaps customer back"! It would be like if you saw " Liberty breaks loose in Syria" by some authoritarian newspaper😂!

[@mcwolfus2]

+GuinnevereB that mean in that case that 5 % of the population or more depending on the situation make the rules. Power cut in New York, the consensus among equals decided to loot. lol

[@guinnberger2681]

+mcwolfus2 Your example is not anarchy, but antisocial thuggery. The two are not synonymous except to power elite... who are mainly thugs that have put themselves in control of society by force, at first, and thereafter by social pressure with the threat of force behind it.

[@mcwolfus2]

Guinn Berger The personalities behind big banks and politics can/often are a certain type for sure, but the world has to be kind of run by some group of people. You have to hope that you have elected a person that will look after the interests of the vast majority in the country, (including the sick and needy), and in a potentially hostile world. Look at it this way, the West is filling up with millions more people living longer and longer. Something must be going right!

[@CandaEH]

Then how the fuck is anarchy any different than democracy? Or, if we're being literal, referendum democracy?

[@silverfangmoonhunter]

"When you're in a position of authority, you internalize the values that it is right and just." The government claiming it is righteous, the businessmen extolling the "virtues" of capitalism, the priests posturing on how they were given authority from God... the list goes on....

[@edmondherrera6288]

@F. Format true. authoritarian socialists are just as guilty as these guys

[@zachhecita]

@KStar You forgot China and North Korea.

[@Cloud-rp4ev]

Capitalism "is the free and voluntary exchange of goods and services between the interested parties". If there is a "party", who has no real interest in the exchange (other than to "force" or "dictate" some arbitrary; rates of exchange; compliance; taxes or; fees) and can use force of arms to “control” the transaction, then it's NOT a “free and voluntary exchange” AND IT'S NOT CAPITALISM ... it's STATE SOCIALISM. Basically, if the "state" (a disinterested third party) is involved in ... ANY WAY ... by controlling the value of money, setting interest rates, creating licensing, demanding permits, regulations regarding business, etc ... it's SOCIALISM. Isn't it funny how socialist want everyone to 'believe' that the negative effects of socialism are the fault of 'capitalism' so people erroneously demand MORE GOVERNMENT, which is what socialist-marxist want so they can increase “their personal power and wealth” (through perks, bribery, money laundering, etc) under the guise of government (forced) taxation, … at “YOUR expense of course”!

[@johnchristopherdelegero1728]

Communism: Stateless, boarderless, moneyless Classless. A group of anarchist working together to achieve bigger goals. Not yet existed.

[@SuperMikeFender]

Shut up dickhead

[@mononoke721]

"Anarchists are just people who take the questioning of the legitimacy of authority seriously" (paraphrasing). So is the whole image of anarchy as 'bomb-throwing mayhem' a deliberate misrepresentation by those in authority who don't want their lack of legitimacy to be questioned? If so, it's a very effective form of propoganda given that 'anarchy' is essentially a synonym for 'chaos' in common parlance today, when the actual political ideals lying behind anarchy seem anything but chaotic.

[@Chief_Bill]

It is definitely misunderstood, although, from my experience, quite a few anarchists (they call themselves that) do like to cause some mayhem and act sort of like hooligans I like to believe that serious anarchists are not like this, and that, even some of the people who cause mayhem have anarchist values but prefer some violence, rather than being total hooligans, but some are definitely responsible for the bad image anarchism has Although as you mentioned, the media and other factors play a huge role as well Violence in anarchy is a complex subject for some

[@뻔뻔하게노라]

"owners and people they rent" is such a good way to describe employers and employees

[@heatherwhitehead3743]

Noam says even in families! Exactly why I rebelled against my father...

[@eoharafisher]

Although not named as such, this is a very good explanation of Patriarchy. Which many people do not believe exists, because women can now vote and get jobs in a "free" market. It's so much deeper than that.

[@EllyCatfox]

Love me some Chomsky!!! >^_^< ♥Thanks whoever is running this channel for your contributions to the world!!! Great clip!!!

[@Garbageman28]

This is the happiest and most animated I've ever seen Chomsky. Obviously hadn't had to answer any dumb emails that day.

[@primarchicarus7099]

No Gods, no masters.

[@Stafford674]

Does that mean no political authority? If so, how do you deal with people who won't obey the rules? Or does the KKK get to do their thing undisturbed?

[@t4ky0n]

@Gerardo Ojeda no they aint

[@ebenezersureshworkaccount8947]

@@Stafford674 how about we systematically prevent that?

[@OnSiteTrav]

@@Stafford674 a society without rulers would find a natural balance.

[@BoliceOccifer]

Neither the stroke of a pen nor the blast of a gun will save you from the judgement of God.

[@user-up1op3kz9q]

I cannot believe how well he put things just going off the cuff, I really need to get more into his work, Chomsky seems like he’s done some invaluable stuff over his lifetime

[@ToddWright2]

There is a _tiny_ amount of Chomsky material on the 'Net. I recommend his books--but then, I'm old and prefer to read.

[@grimesresurrection9357]

I certainly don't agree with everything he said specifically his later days. But this man is very intelligent, rational and caring for the people. He spent nearly his whole mature life fighting for the people rights and combating government atrocities!

[@TheTaoofEternalWar]

He is the founder of victimhood culture. America is Evil, Wage Labor is Slavery, the state should take care of all of us. He is a hypocrite a rabble rouser and a clown. The elite use his nonsense to control the "oppressed" by setting them on the middle class and people who actually do real work for a living. Anarcho Tyranny. It's a phrase you won't hear from the mainstream media. It's the system we live in.

[@Goofy8907]

​@@grimesresurrection9357no he didn't, he spent his life preserving the status quo when it truly mattered

[@JESUS-CHRIST-THEKING]

🩵I love you🩵🩵I love you🩵🩵I love you🩵🩵I love you🩵🩵I love you🩵

[@obakshah7540]

This is one of my favourite Chomsky interviews because of how frisky he is while going into a range of controversial topics, like Anarchism, post ww2 mob connections, CIA drug trafficking, marijuana etc. He starts the interview with this mischievous grin on him, that makes me laugh, while he asks the people of the media what they want to ask him. But I can't find the complete interview, it seem to have been taken down by the user. Anybody know where I can find the whole version? Would appreciate it.

[@arnoldvone]

Any luck?

[@obakshah7540]

@@arnoldvone Sadly no. Nowhere to be found :(

[@portlandpipesmoker8497]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/qXuqopuvbJx_kM0

[@harrisonwintergreen1147]

Chomsky's pseudo intellectual blather takes on a whole new meaning when we understand he's a millionaire connected to Jeffrey Epstein

[@TheTaoofEternalWar]

He's frisky because he has a cork shoved up his arse. For real, I used to know the guy.

[@valeriadelrio-rodriguez4953]

one of my fav philosophers ❤

[@Stafford674]

Professor of linguistics, political activits. Philosopher..not so much. Philosophers go for the difficult questions. He dodges them.

[@jamesr6257]

As much as I love chomsky, he is not a philosopher

[@michaelsmith8665]

@@Stafford674 Right. Tough questions like, "Does this pen have pen-ness?"

[@mikeman4223]

@@Stafford674 What's an example of a difficult question?

[@Stafford674]

@@mikeman4223 Anarchism doesn't mean no rules; it means no ruler. so who makes these rules, and from where do they get the right to do so? If anarchism involves requiring authority to justify its legitimacy, by what criteria is that issue to be judged? Who sets those criteria? Who decides whether this authority has justified itself?

[@Verde-s9a1]

Anarchy isn't petty chaos, just like Socialism isn't about "government control."

[@afgor1088]

anarchism in practice is. anarchists can come up with whatever "theories" and "plans" they like but what matters is the real world. anarchist "organizing" IS and has always been random, disconnected, ineffective acts of violence and disruption and whenever anarchists gain power they are either forced to adopt marxist methods of organizing out of necessity or they descend into insanity

[@marsyasthesatyr]

@@afgor1088 tell me you've never read an anarchist book in your life without telling me you've never read an anarchist book in your life

[@afgor1088]

@@marsyasthesatyr mutual aid, conquest of bread, Introduction anarchist communism, fields farms and factories some good ideas in them but in the end a lot of utopian nonsense about people just magically deciding to be nice with no process in between here and there

[@sei4177]

@@afgor1088 What would you say about Makhnovtchina, Anarchist Catalonia, or the Paris Commune?

[@afgor1088]

@@sei4177 the Paris commune was not anarchist, I'm not going to waste time on someone so dishonest they'll say it is

[@sivaforutube]

One of the greatest videos that changed my political philsophy

[@TheTaoofEternalWar]

Cool, learn some Esperanto and you can be one of George Soros's yes men. I hear it pays good.

[@leewilkinson8609]

Reminds me of the essay, " The Social Contract" by Jacques Rousseau. We give others power over us only when we believe, or have been taught to believe , that it is in our benefit to do so. When we discover otherwise is when the rebellion begins..

[@mrmtn37]

Anarchy is the point at which a free man accepts the challenge of Illegitimate Authority and seeks to eliminate it via any means necessary. I have also in turn supported Legitimate Authority that chooses logic and justification based on humanity. Trouble is the balls required to challenge an establishment in which the majority have no clue they are being enslaved by a Tyrannical Authoritarian Establishment, such as we have today. oi oi oi

[@Stafford674]

Tell me more. When is authority 'legitimate' and what happens when some regard authority as legitimate, but others do not. How would this problem be resolved in an anarchist society?

[@Stafford674]

The difficulty is how one is to decide what is 'legitimate authority'. From where does an authority derive its legitimacy? I have yet to encounter an anarchist who can provide a satisfactory answer to that question. And until you can answer that question it is impossible to challenge any authority as illegitimate. Any thoughts?

[@mrmtn37]

@@Stafford674 Could be that your genralization amd narrow unstudied view of Anarchism has not and will not be served to you? An Authority on what exactly? Anarchism has no rigidity beyond Natural Law and Non-Aggression so a blanket test could be developed. In a voluntary cooperative system you are free to create your own collective that legitimizes authority based on indoctfination and manipulation in order to manufacture authority. If that seems less difficult for you to understand and experiement with and you can somehow find souls willing to voluntarily participate and everyone practices Principles of Non-Aggression. If you are unable to accept any legitimization then perhaps that is your own way of legitimizing authority?

[@Stafford674]

I'm not asking for my view to be served to me, nor do I claim to have a wide-ranging expertise on anarchism. I put a question. One that I have put on many occasions but never with an answer. I challenge you. Widen my views on anarchism. By what criteria can authority be found to be legitimate? I don't put the question to be disputatious. I genuinely would like to know the answer.

[@mrmtn37]

@@Stafford674 Comprehension is a large part of reading. Try it and answer here, in reality? Want to know things? Research. Open your mind? How do you decide where to have your car repaired? How do decide to hire a Handyman? If you are unable or unwilling to examine how YOU legitimize authority, then remain in your paradigm. THE OBJECT IS TO RID OURSELVES OF TYRANNICAL AUTHORITARIAN CONTROL. In a nutshell Authority is legitimized by that supposed authority. The responsibility of legitimizing authority is to the claimant not the requestor. Hence if you had an un-manipulated critical thought your question has no legitimacy. So, legitimize your authority to dispell any response to your obviously illegitimate example that no anarchist can give you a proper explanation? Allow me to de-legit8miaze your entire manipulated existence in the process of answering your question? You have not researched the political philosophy of Anarchism, then no response would or could be sufficient as your ignorance of the topic negates your analysis of any response. You have no reference to Natural Law or the Principles of Non Aggression. You ask a question that is not logically the duty of the person or group that demands of another who claims they are an authority of anything. Authorities exist legitimately everywhere. Watch makers, to Astronauts. Illegitimate Authority is your Government which in practice serves to control the mind, and by definition is aggression. Those who participate prove themselves illegitimate to decide anything by majority, by not acting against said government that consistently commits crimes in the name of the participants for nearly 250 years. Should the next 250 change all of that by simply participating every 4 years with a simple vote? A vote for another human that could not possess any greater authority over another then the authority they possess over themselves? I say guilty of illegitimate authority you are. Guilty of crimes against humanity you are for blindly following, financially supporting, defending in public, a worst of all guilty defending aggression of the state against my sisters and brothers by falsely demonizing personal responsibility, accountability, and the principles of Non-Aggression. How dare you demonize humanity in favor of thieving murderous pedophiles. How do you live with your guilt? Now I request of you, legitimize your authority to act in support of such a distasteful aggressive regime of thieving murderous pedophiles known as government?

[@LightWeaver]

Watching this in 2020 I cant help but notice how much coughing is going on in the background. Nobody coughs in public anymore. Also, hell yeah anarchism. Everyone is an anarchist deep down.

[@biriani]

HELPING EACH OTHER IS SEXY

[@thepolishastronaut7940]

Whenever I encounter a tankie this is my go to argument now. Thank you.

[@idealsceneprod]

Anarchism means, literally, "no king" hence, no ruling class, no authority. Just free and voluntary association.

[@imavileone7360]

Good luck with that

[@markBalentine123567]

@@imavileone7360 its means taken on personal responsibility are you scared of freedom that much?

[@TheCelticsAREboss]

@@markBalentine123567 absolute freedom is a terrible idea. laws make sense

[@Chief_Bill]

​​@@TheCelticsAREbossbsolute freedom is not a terrible idea granted society is advanced enough and individuals are all educated and moral This of course doesn't exist today, but yeah Absolute freedom also doesn't mean that you can piss on the ice cream machine at Wendy's without any (even small) consequence Absolute freedom in anarchy is not the same as chaos

[@sebastianoviedo253]

@@TheCelticsAREbosslet’s view society as a community swimming pool. We can all agree and sign no peeing in the pool, no murdering, which we can punish individuals for doing so. But what happens when the state is the one “peeing in the pool”, murdering people, stealing millions through civil forfeiture laws and taxes. How do we punish the state for breaking their laws?

[@ulalaFrugilega]

so i am an anarchist after all. Thought I just had this problem with assumed authority ... ;O)

[@cp9105]

That's a pretty healthy problem to have I think, keep it up

[@ulalaFrugilega]

cp9105 :O) depends on where you are, I guess.

[@ABPHistory]

nice which type i'm a anarcho-communist

[@callummackay8613]

A black flag anarchist, if forced to choose a sub system it would be Syndicalism

[@michaelwright8896]

@@ABPHistory Saying you're an anarcho-communist is an oxymoron that's like saying you are as much a basketball as not a basketball.

[@sammosaurusrex]

This is a really good clip

[@vexelreglage]

This was brilliant ❤️❤️❤️

[@JESUS-CHRIST-THEKING]

🩵I love you🩵😮

[@jaykoval5957]

The concept of wages as a form of slavery was still around in the 1960s. In the 1961 “The Misfits,” Clark Gable talks about possibly giving in and beginning to work for wages.

[@thesensiblesocialist]

Anarchism is the easiest political position to turn somone to because it feels natural. The challenge is in convincing them that it's not what they've been told it is.

[@Stafford674]

No. The challenge is answering the following questions. Who decides that society 'in general concurs' in making a rule. . Are there any limits to the rules society can make. Who decides whether a rule has been broken, and who decides what the consequences are? From where do the people who make these decisions derive their authority? Is it legitimate for a society to 'in general concur' in a rule that allows slavery, rape or genocide? What is the position of dissenters? Can society 'in general concur' that they should be forced to follow rules and punished if they do not? Anarchists, including Chomsky do not address the obvious but important questions, preferring to criticise others. This is why I do not share the general adulation of Chomsky.

[@thesensiblesocialist]

@@Stafford674 No one person does any of these things alone. It's called democracy. And those who do not share the views of the majority benefit from not living in a system where they are subjected to them through heirarchical influence. It's called libertarianism, the TRUE form.

[@thesensiblesocialist]

@@Stafford674 What makes you assume that their are some people who just arbitrarily have authority over others? That authority needs to be justified by providing a utilitarian reason for it. I don't see one amidst mentally functioning adults.

[@Stafford674]

I'm truly grateful for your reply as I really want to get to the root of the Anarchist philosophy. I don't assume that some people just have authority over others. But so far as I can see Anarchists insist that they do not seek a society without rules, but that the rules should be made with the general concurrence of the people. But this is the point at which the problem of legitimacy arrives. Itis a contradiction to say 'no-one has authority over others' and at the same time to say 'we will still have rules'. The very act of making a rule is an exercise of political power. The enforcement of a rule even more so. How is it decided that a society has concurred with a particular rule? That is a political decision and the person or person who makes it is exercising authority or power. From where does that power or authority derive its legitimacy? Who decides if a rule has been broken? What happens to rule breakers? Should they suffer some consequences for breaking the rules, and if so who decides what that should be and from where does that power derive its legitimacy? These are difficult questions to answer, but anarchists don't really try. If you could provide an answer I would be grateful.

[@thesensiblesocialist]

@@Stafford674 As Noam explains in the video (or as Rudolph Rocker explained) anarchism is best defined as a philosophy which evaluates the legitimacy of forms of authority and hierarchy. If it is found to have a justifiable function by society at large, it is retained. If it doesn't, it gets scrapped. Noam likes to make the example of saying that he has a legitimate level of authority over his granddaughter because, if he wasn't to exercise any when he's with her, she would cause harm to herself because she's a child. That's a legitimate form of authority because, within a purely humanistic utilitarian perspective (which most anarchists have), it prevents the most amount of harm to children. Noam has also talked about the kibbutz as being a model for an ideal society. If you know anything about kibbutz, they did and do have policing. That is something that is widely agreed by the kibbutz members to have a legitimate function within their society (even though it is barely needed due to the incredibly low level of crime that occurs on kibbutz). If someone is commiting a crime on someone else, an appropriate amount of authority should be exercised. The best way of trying to understand anarchism is just by looking at everything in society through a utilitarian lense. If you look at law and government through a utilitarian lense, you'll find that humans are most liable to cooperate in society if they have the least amount of repressive force used on them as possible. This is why libertarian policies on the left and right are seen as populist (though obviously I would make the case for right-libertarianism being just as oppressive as anything). Seriously, of you want to understand anarchism, just Wikipedia it and start reading. Maybe read about its history or the philosophical movements associated with it to get a better feel for it. There's a lot better sources to consult than me to learn about anarchism. Hell, look up this book On Anarchism that was written by Noam. It should be on pdf somewhere.

[@julianbullmagic]

this channel is great, thanks for sharing this

[@myroc1]

I think when most people ask Chomsky questions they really want this answer and don't know how to ask the right questions.

[@Ismail0z]

If the government is open and transparent, then everything is okay. The best way to achieve an open government is by transitioning from a representative democracy to a direct democracy and fostering a well-educated society. To create a well-educated society, we need free universities, independent media (without monopolies), and effective social sciences at schools meaning; method of subjectivity within objectivity not mere subjectivity).

[@anarchytelevision8445]

F your democracy

[@suppaduppa]

You think openness and transparency are what is needed? What difference does it make when the government is open about their tyranny or abuse? The government is a body that is solely there to oppress and extort the people. That is its function.

[@hafiz7008]

The korra creators can learn alot from noam chomsky

[@SB-ok3xc]

Anarchism is true socialism and democracy. ✊🏾🌈🕊️

[@anarchytelevision8445]

Either you're very ignorant or you are very dishonest

[@redwoodmadrone8574]

5:17 "Rent themselves in order to survive"

[@ReubenAStern]

I doubt we will share this world with Chommers for much longer. I would really like to meet him.

[@squwooshk]

I would consider myself a Libertarian Socialist, but not a full on Anarchist. To be more specific, I would call myself a De Leonist. I believe in a very decentralized state that gets it's power from the bottom up. Works should all chose representatives to speak for them at a local council, which chose reps for a "state council" and then they can chose reps for a national council. I believe that having groups that handle distribution issues and international affairs, as well as any potential laws is a useful tool.

[@squwooshk]

@@artandarchitecture6399 I explained it in my comment? Decentralized Socialism. Social ownership of the means of production through a combination of workers co-operatives, non profit decentralized organizations, and a directly democratic state.

[@squwooshk]

@lawlesslee1405 Comparing laws prohibiting things like murder and exploitation to slavery is certainly a unique opinion

[@squwooshk]

@lawlesslee1405 Right, that definitely is how the world works. Especially, exploitation, that's why capitalism just doesn't exist, because everyone just knows exploitation is bad.

[@JESUS-CHRIST-THEKING]

🩵I love you🩵

[@f.demascio1857]

I love it when the persistent cougher sits by the microphone.

[@abside30glu]

Noam Chomsky - Anarchism IAUG 22, 2016

[@anarchytelevision8445]

Noam Chomsky is a socialist

[@SleepyMagii]

Also, shout out from Lowell, ma mill city 😅 Love ya Noam 💙🙏🏼

[@michaelrose93]

0:41 _"Any form of authority and domination has a burden of proof to bear; it has to demonstrate that is legitimate... If it shows that it's legitimate, OK; if not, it ought to be dismantled. That's anarchism."_ < Not so, anarchism advocates actual abolition of government, it's not an examination of government to see if it's "legitimate."

[@RyanWattersRyanWatters]

Not really. Anarchism is generally associated with the abolition of the State, not “the government,” the former of which is necessarily self-justifying practice and therefore should be rejected according to Chomsky’s framing.

[@michaelrose93]

@@RyanWattersRyanWatters I'll stick with the Oxford dictionary: "the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government."

[@RyanWattersRyanWatters]

@@michaelrose93 If you look to dictionaries for in-depth analysis of complex topics, I’m not sure what to tell you. I’ll stick to reading anarchist theory. That said, your definition aligns with my own, seeing as it includes “hierarchical,” which is the self-justifying authoritarian qualifier in the definition (i.e. like a State). An anarchist society does not preclude elements of governance and organization. This is why Chomsky’s point is accurate. It includes the reference to “ought to be dismantled,” which necessarily makes any power construct-irrespective of what you want to call it-no longer self-justifying and thereby self-perpetuating and hierarchical. Hope that helps, comrade. 😊

[@anarchytelevision8445]

It's time for everyone to awaken from the Slumber in The Matrix and embrace true freedom of true Anarchy worldwide

[@melk100]

If anarchism is the point of view that authority must legitimise its authority, I am an anarchist too. Is this his definition, or is there some mainstream definition of anarchism I am not aware of?

[@liamwalters9981]

I think most anarchists would include within that contention that the state and capitalism do not meet their burden of proof, and thus ought to be dismantled.

[@CandaEH]

Ok but what about the people doing the dismantling? Where is there authority for doing so?

[@liamwalters9981]

CandaEH using force to dismantle authority isn't authoritarianism. Also, right is a spook anyway.

[@CandaEH]

Classical Classic Yes it is. Its imposing your will on others. You can't just decide to end a system without claiming authority to do so. Especially since you would be dismantling this system to the chagrin of others.

[@liamwalters9981]

Good thing morality is a spook then.

[@naayou99]

You want to be in a position of authority, prove you're a force of goodness. It is a shame many misunderstood anarchism. Even people of knowledge like Steven Pinker takes a negative view of it---a view close to that of layman's view of chaos, etc.

[@tomlahr9372]

Ester, how free is a worker within any corporation (other than you are free to quit and walk out)? Eg, you arrive when "it" says, you do the limited tasks they define, you take a break at a controlled time, you are allowed a certain type of dress, of appearance, ....

[@s0lid_sno0ks]

Prime example of the child-like mentality of left-anarchists. No conception of how human beings naturally organize. Wants to be his own CEO without actually putting in any of the effort. If I voluntarily take a job and agree to do what my boss tells me, and I am free to quit at any time, there is nothing about that arrangement that is incongruous with anarchy. It is only incogruous with peter pans who want everyone to sit around and do watercolor all day while wondering why everyone is starving to death.

[@thewolf14]

Adam, you are in for a rude awakening. It makes me smile.

[@soensocomrade600]

@@s0lid_sno0ks Never in my life have I worked a job where I willingly agreed to do the work. Like most people, I do it because if I stopped obeying orders they'd stop filling up my trough and I'd die. There is no consent if you're punished for saying no. Capitalist society can only sustain a very small number of owners. It will always be the case the majority must rent themselves to the few owners, having no choice but to obey orders or die.

[@doublesushi5990]

@@thewolf14 facts.

[@JESUS-CHRIST-THEKING]

❤😊❤😊😊❤😊❤

[@EricSmith9000]

Yes. The governed ascribe authority to a governance structure through voluntary consent. It's the responsibility of the power structure to make the case, AND it is the right of the person to determine whether it is an acceptable case.

[@Cloud-rp4ev]

Anarchy: “An”- from the Greek prefix meaning "no" or "without"; “Archy”- from the Greek root word "Archon" meaning "ruler" (the singular form of "rulers", and NOT the word "rules"). The Greek word Archon is usually translated as "demon" in English religious texts, such as the Bible, or Jin (genie) in Arabic religious texts such as the Koran. So Anarchy can be translated to mean "no demon rulers" or "without demon rulers", however it generally means "Self-rule" or "Self-Governance"; being “personally responsible” for one's own acts and decisions; a society without Rulers or no Rulers having Governmental Authority. Which, generally specking, is an incomprehensible concept for those raised, indoctrinated, and programmed into a slave based society or a slave mentality. They are 'uncomfortable' without someone 'telling' them what to do, what to think, or how to act and DO NOT want to be held responsible for personal acts or decisions. They "feel" Self-Governance would lead to CHAOS (which is NOT the same as ANARCHY) and a chaotic society without some 'central authority' controlling everyone and everything ... which, ironically, … is the very "cause" of the CHAOS we see today. The 'central authority' creating chaos to create and increase "fear" as means of controlling the masses. "Problem, Reaction, Solution" leadership. Create the Problem, define "how" the masses should React, then offer "the Solution" which "always" requires the masses to reduce their rights and freedom and increase the power the "central authority" (the STATE) is given by the masses. Repeat as often as desired! Archon is a Greek word that means "ruler", frequently used as the title of a specific public office. It is the masculine present participle of the verb stem αρχ-, meaning "to be first, to rule". Derived from the same root as words such as monarch and hierarchy. More at Wikipedia

[@ChicagoTurtle1]

But... 1. Those who have power can prevent the weaker from learning how to prove alternatives which may have legitimacy. 2. Power holders can also prevent opportunities and resources to be made available to the weaker and thus create a group of exploited and marginalized in this system. 3. Power holders may also persuade criteria of legitimacy which favors their interests and disfavors competition. 4. What is being persuaded as legitimate cannot assume unanimous agreement, but always face unwillingness.

[@connorduke4619]

i have worked for several of both American and European corporations. American ones tend to be quite totalitarian (mainly do what you're told) European ones tend to be more democratic (your personal views count quite a lot).

[@SleepyMagii]

"Its up to those who exercise authority to Prove [not jist say] it's legitamacy, and the responsibility of the people to meet the challange" Damn, that in itself is Gold 😮 I feel we are skipping a whole ass half, and have been for a long time Theure aren't proving legit, and we aren't forcing the issue [we are complying with usurpations]

[@bigchief70]

I'm curious how Chomsky reconciles his admiration for Anarchy with his advocation of a large state apparatus to regulate the economy. (Income Taxes, Inheritance Tax, Payroll Taxes, Property Taxes...etc.)

[@isak5804]

I think he reconciles this with a term called solidarity. Taxes should be there to take care of the wretched and the poor, not to be used for big bailouts of financial institutions who made risky investments in a "capitalist" society for example. He also reconciles this with his consern for corporate tyranny who would be dominant if not for regulation and taxes. I have a question for you (just curios), if all taxes were abolished, what do you think would happen to, the police, firefighters, people who need government welfare to survive and the military?

[@reneelucero2923]

Well I think he's just being realistic. He believes there should be taxes because the biggest authority in our times come from corporations, and the rich. They have too much power, and what is one way to take away that power? Take some of their money. It's not ideal but a complete change in the system would take a long time.

[@anobody3803]

casually transitions from slaves reflecting their subordination to the similar example of workers doing the same. If that doesn't tell you 99% of us are slaves then your whipped real good.

[@anobody3803]

regular slavery being traded for wage slavery, which is worse? even slaves had a guaranteed living which workers do not have.

[@gpdimitropoulos]

most slaves' societies were accepted by the slaves as legitimate and even necessary!

[@amrahmed7856]

Of course they did. How else could few slave owners keep control of countless amount of slaves? They needed to indoctrinate them, by telling them they are racially inferior and thus their social position as slaves.

[@Stafford674]

Argue; don't just talk in bumper stickers

[@WilleCarm]

”Hierarchy is dominion of thoughts, dominion of mind!” as ego daddy said

[@Stafford674]

And your evidence for this assertion is..

[@RandomRothbardian]

I’d like to mention that right anarchists are often closer to left anarchists, than we are to the minarchists of our own side. We don’t need to argue Econ, we can simply live in different communities. But what we would need to do to achieve this is we would have to abolish the state. Though you may not consider Ancaps like myself anarchist, we both want to abolish the state. Anarchist unity was tried before, Chomsky and Rothbard weren’t what divided us; rather our own infighting that wouldn’t matter nearly as much as we claim should we succeed.

[@np4653]

Whole my life I have this same oppinion but until latley I didn't realise that this is the (true) anarchist viewpoint (not some violent antifa loonies).

[@Carehuea]

np 1993 Antifa loonies...? Lol You still don’t get it...

[@samyrandome425]

Violence and weather it's use is legitimate and/or necessary is a whole other subject

[@bantix9902]

Damn he just drops that miller from Massachusetts in there like it's nothing

[@bentleykennedy-stone673]

Am I the only person who wasn't won over by these 7 minutes of anarchist theory? Here's my biggest concern, and I'd love to hear an answer from anyone who has one: Any authority with an obligation to justify itself doesn't need to do so through discourse - it already has the *authority* to justify itself. Do anarchists really expect the authority to realize it's unjustified and, presumably, to dissolve itself, just because someone made a really good *argument?* Despite what some might think, justification, like justice, are *not* the limitations that a society puts on its authority - they are the *products* of authority. Their conditions are defined by the institutions with the power to influence the category. Three hundred years ago (and well into the future), Europeans generally agreed that their authority over the rest of the world was justified. When the rest of the world challenged that, European authority simply refuted those challenges for reasons it considered justified. Political and ethical discourse in Europe remained subject to the principles of justice the authority had already established. Furthermore, that authority did everything it could (through Christian conversion and other mythologies) to extends its control to the discourse of the colonized peoples. With this in mind, how could we expect even a modern authority to relinquish its power over discourse in a system where discourse is the primary means of resisting that authority? It would be like expecting Belgium to hand all of its guns and cannons over to the Congolese with a polite request to use the weapons only when Belgium "crosses the line." PS: Not here to fight with anyone, I'd genuinely like to know what the anarchist solution would be. Or maybe there is another model of anarchism that avoids this issue?

[@masonduke5647]

The authority won't dismantle itself, it has to be dismantled. And it's good that seven minutes of speech didn't win you over to a radical viewpoint; they shouldn't. But they should spark your interest in further research.

[@bentleykennedy-stone673]

@@masonduke5647 This certainly has sparked my interest. I have a few more questions if that's alright. The version of anarchy discussed by Chomsky includes an authority which is expected to maintain certain ethical standards. If an unjust authority is dismantled by (what we'll call) "the people," what prevents another unjust authority from rising in its place? Are the people expected to collectively establish a new, more just authority? How can we expect that such a thing would be plausible or even possible? Any authority worthy of the term is one which is capable of defending itself against threats both external and internal. If the authority cannot do this, it will be quickly be destroyed and replaced by one that can. History shows us that governance, like evolution, operates according to the survival-of-the-fittest. Is the most just authority also the most fit to compete with those that are less just? How can an authority which is vulnerable to destruction by its own people possibly compete with those that are not? To my mind, this is the fundamental challenge facing anarchism. As nice as anarchism would be, this challenge is not one that I expect will be answered anytime soon. (The other concern involves how our notions of justice are constructed *by* the very authority which we would be evaluating, which seems to diminish the possibility of "the people" ever working collectively for "true justice.") If you have any thoughts I'd love to hear them.

[@masonduke5647]

@@bentleykennedy-stone673 not sure I'm the best person to answer your questions, but here's my take. I think you've definitely hit on some of the larger issues with the ideology, and I share a lot of your concerns. The tendency for an even worse order to take advantage of a power vacuum is one of the reasons I'll never advocate for nor participate in violent revolution. Nonetheless, I think that anarchist principles like government accountability, transparency,democratic decisionmaking and labor organization are worth striving for even if the end goal of a fully anarchist society is unclear in its operation or impractical in its implementation.

[@bentleykennedy-stone673]

@@masonduke5647 I agree with everything you've said. The sad truth may be that these values are unattainable. As it stands, I don't think they can happen without a radical transformation of global culture. It's nice to dream, though.

[@masonduke5647]

@@bentleykennedy-stone673 nice to dream, but better still to act; organize, vote, speak, whatever we can do to implement positive localized change, however slight. Cheers

[@ajanigreen6101]

We are not capable of anarchy- after any other form of governing that is. The people are simply not intelligent enough to understand the moral weight of true freedom, the damage of propaganda and guilty until proven innocent has tainted the minds of the unaware. I believe our founding fathers understood this, and this concept unfortunately left them no choice than to lead with law. Wrote this about a minute into the video. It's comforting that this is an avenue that is at least easily seen.

[@squatch545]

Humans have lived in anarchy for hundreds of thousands of years.

[@marlyqq847]

seems to me like noam swerved the lady's second question of "what is legitimate authority?". i mean yeah its on the authority to provide an answer, but its also on the accuser to have a standard to which to judge that answer. for instance, taking his "grabbing the child" example, he provided an argument to show the legitimacy of his actions, but what if someone else simply disagrees with not just reasoning but his core premise of grabbing the child? at that point the parties are at a standstill. what then?

[@lilysandoz]

Anyone who would disagree with grabbing the child away from harm would be mentally ill, unreasonable and thus have no basis for an argument; and least of all any authority as a basis of their premise, no?

[@marlyqq847]

Lily Sandoz _"Anyone who would disagree... have no basis for an argument"_ Incorrect. They have an argument, you just don't agree with it. Hence the problem of constituting what "legitimate authority" actually is.

[@lilysandoz]

marly qq Anybody with a modicum of compassion and 'common sense' would agree with me. I'ts your privilege to disagree. He defined what legitimate authority is already. I stand by my post. Peace!

[@marlyqq847]

Lily Sandoz _"He defined what legitimate authority is already."_ He did not.

[@lilysandoz]

Well, go back and play it again. Obviously something shook your current paradigm, that's good. Do more research. I did that and became an anarcha-feminist. have a wonderful day. Peace!

[@M.-.D]

I was surprised with Chomsky stance on health mandates. Without robust, transparent evidence and no ongoing burden of justification.

[@FernandoFaria]

You rent yourself.

[@markjharvey]

Anarchism will forever be seen as molotov throwing mayhem. It's baked into the name. Anarchism needs a rebrand.

[@anarchytelevision8445]

The word Anarchy means no rulers there are no Masters

[@foreverunited19]

Basically all I got from this video is that he believes all authority has a burden of legitimacy and should be questioned. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he doesn't really propose a feasible framework for a stateless society here. Does he have a better alternative to the political systems of the United States, for example? I haven't read/watched much of Chomsky, and am not trying to antagonize, but it seems like questioning authority, and generally questioning everything, has more to do with common sense than with some profound sociopolitical theory.

[@giaourtlou]

+foreverunited19 You're totally right. Chomsky, in this video, totally evades the tough question of how the economy would function under his vision of Anarchy. From what he says (here and elsewhere) it's obvious that he is a socialist anarchist, namely he is against authority AND against private property. This contrasts him to anarcho-capitalists (like Rothbard) who are against state authority, but are in favor of private property rights. (They don't think corporations are enslaving their employees, they view employment as voluntary trade of labor for money, which ... yeah... is indeed what it feels like to me. I don't have to go to work, like slaves did... I want to. Anyway.) Now, in my opinion, socialist anarchists (a.k.a. "utopic socialists") are... well... utopian. They avoid describing how the economy would work without businesses and capital and employment etc. On the other hand, anaracho-capitalists, like Rothbard and David Friedman, have taken the challenge and have proposed economic and legal theories that describe how such a society (without states, but with private property) could function, and actually result in prosperity. That's where I stand. Anarchism vs statism is one axis of political theory. The other axis is whether there are individual property rights, or everything is shared communally.

[@MrBlancify]

+Dr. Castor Chomsky, and others, have proposed alternatives to Capitalism in their books and talks.

[@giaourtlou]

Erik Le Blanc Forgive me if I am too harsh to Chomsky... Of his books I've read the "necessary illusions", and I've skimmed through a couple more. They are quite similar to each other. I've also read various articles and interviews, which also tend to be very similar. He is extremely knowledgable of historic events, and he can lecture for hours about what happened in Nicaragua or what the NY Times published 20 years ago. I've never heard him elaborate on the alternative theory, like David Friedman or Rothbard or Nozick or (to a lesser extent) even Ayn Rand did. He unfailingly conflates cronyism with capitalism, like most socialists do, in order to defend that we shouldn't like capitalism, while actually meaning cronyism (a rather trivial thing to defend... I've heard nobody deliberately defend cronyism.)

[@1.2.3.4..5]

Dr. Castor are you an unironic ancap?

[@Zineas]

@@giaourtlou there are tons of socialist anarchist economics. Parecon of michael albert would be one or anarcho syndicalism is another which also realized by catalonians

[@rickjames1009]

Absolutely the most rational philosophy

[@mcwolfus2]

Chomsky also assumes that the population is well educated, and actually interested in what is happening in the rest of the world. They aren't.

[@Sweethands4]

+mcwolfus2 Yay pessimism and indifference.

[@mcwolfus2]

Sweethands4 Yep, some truth in that, but not sure why.

[@Realist-sh3dg]

Chomsky rarely if ever assumes anything if you actually listen to what he says.

[@ThisOldHat]

Not true, he assumes people have an interest in their own well-being and are CAPABLE of being aware of what exactly those interests are and how they relate to authority.

[@mcwolfus2]

Ernie Hacker He has spent too much time in academia, and not enough in the real world. He doesn't quite understand how hostile and irrational an awful lot of people are. I should listen a bit more carefully, but his voice grates on me.

[@sleepyeyeguy]

So it's the task of those professing the authority to demonstrate their legitimacy... but to whom? Who will have the authority to determine the legitimacy of the authority professed? I guess each individual is the only one which can grant legitimacy to authority?

[@sleepyeyeguy]

Travis Miller Unfortunately, by putting the decision of legitimacy into the hands of the people you inevitably encounter the tyranny of the majority. I guess anarchy would have to also be libertarian. (thought: Wouldn't the inefficiencies of pure anarchy necessitate government hierarchy?... maybe not, just a question, most likely arising from my ignorance and indoctrination)

[@sleepyeyeguy]

Travis Miller So in the end, the moral compass of an anarchist society is liberty and self determination (i.e. libertarianism)? That is the judge of "legitimacy"?

[@DualFrodo]

But he doesn't say what would determine an institution's legitimacy

[@JChambs13]

+Chris Tully Which is the problem with the brand of Anarchism that Chomsky talks about. To be sure, I think a lot of people can get behind his criticism of big business and the notion that authority has to be legitimately exercised but what he is advocating is a system whereby legitimacy has to be constantly re-established by any person/ institution which claims the right to rule or to administer laws. In principle this should be valid and the norm, but try implementing it on any significant scale and it will probably fall apart. A challenge could be issued every day or every hour by people who want to supplant the system and the ones in power would have to rise to the occasion to answer it as Chomsky puts it or risk overthrow due to accusations of "illegitimacy". It's the political equivalent of a kid asking, "why?" to their parent over and over again. It only takes so many times asking that question that the parent simply starts to ignore the kid or put tape over it's mouth/ threaten punishment. Which is what our system has too much of right now. There's a middle ground to strive for but Anarchism doesn't tailor to it.

[@adamwatson7669]

+JChambs Chomsky specifically addressed your claim about having to constantly re-verify legitimacy in the video. So in essence your criticism is a bit of a strawman.

[@DualFrodo]

Adam Watson I think he made a very good point

[@adamwatson7669]

Chris Tully Ok, but it was a strawman if Chomsky already addressed it in the video.

[@DualFrodo]

Adam Watson It wouldn't pay to dismiss his argument out of hand though, there are always follow up points

[@kris8165]

Remember people,the Anarchy could be good, with an Enlightened people,who don't want something bad,to the fellow Human Being But HIS Anarchy, that leads to the Communism,is something worth FIGHTING against! Greetings from Croatia 😎

[@wovfm]

Net worth, 5 million. The curtains don't match the drapes Rosa Luxemboug. Save me the bullshit smarty pants.

[@michaelsmith8665]

Work week: 100 hours a week for 70 years. $5 million is not enough. The man deserves a substantial raise!

[@SebastianSkadisson]

Hollywood made sure people think of Mad Max or V is for Vendetta when they hear Anarchy. That's not Anarchy, that's lawlessness and those Hollywood examples in large parts are even the worst faces of evil: misanthropy.

[@andrewlogan8862]

Mr Chomsky accepts the control and authority of the Federal Reserve.

[@imavileone7360]

And the Rothschild's control society

[@SEAL341]

@@imavileone7360 imbecile

[@imavileone7360]

@@SEAL341 well I thought since we are throwing out meth head ramblings, might as well participate. Right?

[@anarchytelevision8445]

Noam Chomsky is a socialist

[@4yz222]

Brilliant

[@Mortison77577]

It's silly to say that corporations are "totalitarian".

[@chomskysphilosophy]

Ester Samuels kzbin.info/www/bejne/a6DFpaONp6t-oLc

[@Mortison77577]

Chomsky's Philosophy Yeah, I'd say that everything that Chomsky says in that video is a huge exaggeration. Corporations are a good example of LIMITED power. They are in danger of going out of business if they don't sell enough stuff, they're vulnerable to lawsuits, people in positions of authority at corporations can be forced out, they can be threatened with strikes, they can be threatened with anti-trust actions, labor laws protect the workers to some extent, they have very limited power over their workers outside of the workplace, they have to pay taxes. I was able to get what I wanted when I was working for a large corporation by threatening to quit. I don't think there's nothing to what Chomsky is saying, but it's just a huge exaggeration.

[@laurencefriedman3958]

Ester Samuels No, corporations are indeed totalitarian. Most of the examples you give are to do with outside forces. Within the corporation, the CEO is god and can do what he/she wants. If there is a strike, he/she is not forced to do anything, and has a variety of tactics he/she can use to handle that situation. You threatened to quit, and a decision was made to give you what you wanted (not forced). If you try that a few more times, I guarantee you will be booted out.

[@Mortison77577]

Laurence Friedman No, not necessarily, the CEO can be forced out and reigned in by forces within the corporation. Whether or not workers can get what they want by threatening to quit depends on how scarce the workers are.

[@Mortison77577]

+Illya Van Hoof Sometimes the government sides with corporations, sometimes against them.

[@shawn2789]

Noam we miss you. RIP

[@atashikokoni]

Why? He hasn't gone anywhere yet.

[@jacklandismusic]

The guy’s still alive. He’s 93.

[@squatch545]

@@jacklandismusic He's now 95. He's not quite dead yet, he's just pining for the fjords!

[@lydiasteinebendiksen4269]

It's a roundabout way of saying it comes down to consent. I am the judge, jury, and persecutioner of the legitemacy of any authority over me, and if I don't accept a justification I am the executioner (in this case dismantling the system, ideally without killing people It's just an expression)

[@batmanb8194]

This video should be title Chomsky completely doesn't understand the question. He would have been able to get it if he would have let her finish more than 1.5 sentences. She was asking what gives the people who judge the authority the authority to judge.

[@94Maximos]

Is it not the case that the establishment of an anarchic system necessitates a form of authority?

[@mikearchibald744]

The only thing I'd argue is maybe the extent to which slaves and women and serfs DID 'accept' this as 'legitimate' or whether they simply had no choice but to accept it. Its one thing to call acceptance "if you do anything about it you'll get your head cut off or worse". Thats not exactly 'acceptance'. They were 'stable' because of force, and that force is largely still around, they just don't cut your head off if you oppose it, they simply call you a lunatic and marginalize you. And technically anarchism simply means 'no leader'. Which is SUPPOSED to be what 'democracy' means as well.

[@monserratecortez8332]

Omg, who here has watched trollhunters and didn't understand that reference till now?????!?!?!

[@eclipsewrecker]

A demonstration must include a practical exhibition. That is not always possible.

[@eptwothousand]

“Any authority must demonstrate that it is legitimate. Otherwise, it just be dismantled.” “Who defines ‘legitimate’?” “The authority in question.” 🤔

[@HumanTheSecond]

naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa come on man

[@HWingo]

🤪 Did you even watch the video? Chomsky says that it's the people being affected who decide the legitimacy of those exercising authority over them. It's the responsibility of those exercising authority to prove their legitimacy to the people's satisfaction, NOT to define what's legitimate.

[@eptwothousand]

@HWingo Interviewer: “Ok, so, what’s considered legitimate authority?“ Gnome Chomsky: “That’s the task of those who have the authority to demonstrate that.“ 1:12

[@HWingo]

@@eptwothousand Chomsky, over and over again (paraphrasing): "The people decide whether those exercising authority over them are doing so legitimately." Note: I'm not a Chomsky fan, I just think it's pretty clear what he's saying here (repeatedly), and that you're cherry-picking in order to comment in bad faith.

[@HWingo]

I think you're misinterpreting Chomsky, actually. He's saying that it's the task of those with authority to demonstrate their legitimacy, not that they get to define whether their authority is legitimate.

[@ww-sf7bw]

This guy is changing my whole view of the world and everything. Help! :D

[@JESUS-CHRIST-THEKING]

🩵I love you🩵

[@bantix9902]

He is not against a state per se, he's against unjustified authority

[@kingj282]

The comparison between women under the patriarchy, slaves under slavery, and workers under capitalism is poignant.

[@mobiletaskforceepsilon1172]

I wouldn't say women are currently slaves in the West.

[@jacob-lk7on]

So when someone subordinated challenges authority, the subordinator will tend to justify their actions. Who then has the authority to play the role of arbiter? Someone else whose authority is generally accepted by everyone else, an elected judge or expert on the issue at hand?

[@JacobBedard]

I can answer his unanswered question about what makes something legitimate: if the participants do so willingly. It's different concerning children, but with adults this is really the only sane standard.

[@MrOhWhatTheHeck]

An authority must, by definition, under certain circumstances force people to do things they would not have done otherwise. If an 'authority' is fully consensual and never allowed to override the will of those who are supposedly submitted to it, it isn't an an authority at all. If coercion is isn't involved, if there is no penalty for disobeying the so-called authority, what exactly does Chomsky mean when he talks of "legitimate authority"?

[@squatch545]

@@MrOhWhatTheHeck Good point. Chomsky doesn't fully understand anarchy, mostly because....he's not actually an anarchist.

[@JESUS-CHRIST-THEKING]

🩵I love you🩵

[@mobinkhanlar5993]

Let me put it in this way, what practical method of governance better matches with anarchism than True Democracy?

[@Stafford674]

You leave a big question unanswered. What do you mean by 'True Democracy'. To me it means free speech, regular elections, rule of law. To others it means dictatorship of the proletariat guided by the Communist Party who are the only ones who know what the people 'really want'. You need to define your terms.

[@mobinkhanlar5993]

@@Stafford674 "free speech, regular election, and rule of law" are fundemental elements of democracy but are not enough to have true democracy by no means... In a true democratic society, education comes first... Not formal education, rather liberating education. Actually formal education usually manipulates us to think in the boxes nominal democrats expect us to be in! In a true democratic society, the common people are aware of the things that are going on, have a say in them, and nore importantly are able to comprehend what is going on!!! In you opinion, are Americans really aware of what is going on? Are they able to think critically? Or are they constantly manipulated by the people in power? There is a world of difference between feeling being in charge and really being in charge!!! Are American citizens really in charge? If not it is not democracy... What is free speech good for when common people are not informed enough to use this freedom? You can give a bird the key to its cage. Is it free? The problem gets hairier when these ignorant people are manipulated to advance politicians' causes!!! If this element is not checked, this seemingly democratic society is in fact a new version of dictatorship... In classical dictatorship, common people were forced to do as commanded, now they are manipulated to do as commanded... To me, illusion of freedom is worse than real chains!!! Real chains at least motivates some people to break them, but illusions can easily blind even free spirits!

[@mobinkhanlar5993]

@@Stafford674 I think by anarchism Chomsky tries to picture a society where people can freely think and act, and move towards perfection. In such a society, rulers won't and can't interfere with natural process of human development... Although, I believe in Chomsky's ideas in principle, but I find fault with its practicality... Especially in bigger, more crowded, and cosmopolitan societies... That's why I suggested till now there hasn't been a better solution to answer these needs than true democracy. Btw, for a society to become ready for true democracy, high level of edycation is a must!!! Otherwise, that society moves toward destruction!!! In Eutopias, anarchism may work, but in less advanced countries, good dictators are needed to enact democracy, without which democracy turns into dictatorship and ironically with which democracy is already dictatorship!!! I believe democracy has to be defined in context. Also, we should look for ideal democracy not true democracy!!! True democracy is practical in a perfect world which doesn't exist... Ideal democracy is adjusted to the needs of the target society... Who can adjust it? Ironically dictators!!! Now do you have good or bad dictators in your country?

[@Stafford674]

You don't need a dictator to enact democracy. In UK democracy evolved out of monarchy in a struggle between King and Parliament. There was no dictator that wrote the US Constitution. Education and inteligence won't solve problems. Some of the stupidest people n the world have PhD.s. Look at Chomsky. One of the cleverrest men of his generation , brilliant debater and critic - his own political philosophy is naive to the point of being infantile.

[@mobinkhanlar5993]

@@Stafford674 told you not formal education! Did the UK undergo a revolution or this process happened slwly and peacefully?

[@renegadephilosopher5996]

And if someone questions your legitimate authority, you guys are at an impasse. Neither are backing down. Who decides who is right? How is that resolved?

[@thephoenix_lab]

Genius

[@gn2650]

I have a few questions : He compares private corporations with fascist states and other forms of totalitarianism. Maybe a don't understand what a corporation is, Is he refering to any private business? Does he make any difference between "wage slavery" and a "decent job"? And what alternative does he propose to "wage slavery" in the context of a free society without the use of coercion to distribute wealth (Comunist state)?

[@Soviet_Saguaro]

A corporation is totalitarianism with CEOs being at the top. Instead of that we propose the workers collectively owning the business and running it democratically

[@gn2650]

@@Soviet_Saguaro If I am not wrong, what you propose are cooperatives, those can exist in a free market economy, they are not forbidden and can work well too, no need to enforce a socialist state, the worker should be able to choose what company does he/she want to become part of, some may just prefer to join a jerarquical company (corporation) because if they get paid more for instance.

[@gn2650]

@@Soviet_Saguaroalso, totalitarianism is often not based on merit, while private companies are more often than not meritocratic, if not they would not make profits and would quickly be beaten by the competitors.

[@Soviet_Saguaro]

@@gn2650 no CEO would voluntarily give up the decision making rights and the surplus labor value. It has to be taken. And while it theoretically can exist in a free market it never actually does

[@gn2650]

@@Soviet_Saguaro but I does exist, it really does. Also, I am not sure I am understanding right the surplus part, are you sure you are not confusing CEO with capitalist partner, they are not the same. The business owner is the one that really owns the surplus or benefits or however you want to call it, a CEO is just a high rank employee at the end of the day

[@rjinterpret]

Anarchism: an "anti arch" or against the arch (projection) of mindless acceptance.

[@alphaomega1089]

There is no legitimate authority. They have a purpose. A security guard is hired to secure a property. We can be challenged by the authority of the owner. That's if we accept private ownership.

[@nattanunsangkasaba8991]

I miss Noam Chomsky! How are you doing sir?

[@p.a.andrews7772]

Most people using anarchism or FASCIST and extremely violent ! The church that wanted Nazis to take over has used anarchism a lot .

[@jeremyjames8678]

"Anarchism therefore stands for direct action, the open defiance of, and resistance to, all laws and restrictions, economic, social and moral. But defiance and resistance are illegal. Therein lies the salvation of man. Communism aims at a society where classes have been abolished as a result of common ownership of the means of production and distribution. It teaches that only in a classless, solidaric commonwealth can man enjoy liberty, peace and well-being." Emma Goldman " Emma Goldman

[@Stafford674]

'defiance of all laws and restrictions'!! Does that mean it is OK to be a racist?

[@jeremyjames8678]

@@Stafford674 Racism is a restriction

[@JESUS-CHRIST-THEKING]

🩵I love you🩵❤

[@Stafford674]

He does not answer the questions about anarchism that really interest me. By what criteria can authority be found to be legitimate? Who sets those criteria? Who decides whether an authority has justified its legitimacy? How would these principles work in practice in an anarchist society? If anyone knows of a good source for answers to these questions, please let me know.

[@theAfafafafafafafaf]

Majority decides, probably. If majority agrees, it's legitimate. The difference with state and anarchy here is that the anarchy community is voluntary, but you can't resign from the state and create your own rules on your land, with people who agree with you.

[@hansproebsting7391]

I have spent time in an anarchist community that has existed for at least 400 years, and comprises about 600 members. There is no permanent hierarchy of any sort. Legitimate authority occurs when needed by way of situational leadership. A typical example is a trading expedition to a different, distant community, undertaken by boat. A hierarchical structure is established for the crewing of the boat, from captain down to bilge-pumper. This is considered legitimate because all agree to perform the function they are most experienced at and/or best suited to, and is based on centuries of practice to determine what works best. When the captain orders "tack ship" in order to avoid hitting a reef, everybody tacks ship. There is no debate or questioning of authority. At the end of the expedition, everybody goes back to their normal routine.

[@Stafford674]

Thank you very much for your answer. I have been trying to get information on this point for some time, so do you mind if I ask you more questions. How did this community deal with dissent? I'd give an example if i knew more about the community. But suppose someone said "The way in which this community conducts itself is morally wrong. It must change by doing X". And some of the community agree and half do not. Would it be put to a vote. And if so, is the vote binding. If it is does that not create a hierarchy of the majority over the minority. My point is that not everyone can agree on everything all the time. Disputes and dissent arise inevitably. I really want to know how anarchists handle this problem, and if you could help i would be very grateful

[@nahone3145]

@@Stafford674 good question, anyone educated enough to answer this ? I'd like to know too

[@hansproebsting7391]

@@Stafford674 I had to think hard about that one. The community I was in was a village cluster in Papua. There are many such clusters along the Papuan coast from Kerema to Misima. When life is good, dissent is extremely rare. There are no volumes of laws as we have in western society. There are just three basic principles that everyone lives by: Respect your elders. Care for each other. Look after the environment. People are mostly free to do what they want within those principles. Trade does not occur within a community, but does occur between communities, so a fourth principle is added: The value of trade goods is determined by the amount of work needed to produce them. So, an axe head that takes a person one day to make is exchanged for a day's harvest of sago, for example. There is a notion of compensation. If one individual wrongs another, then the families of the two meet together to determine who is at fault, and what the compensation should be. Then life goes on. If someone believes something needs to change in the whole community, they first need to gather some supporters. Then the community will permit them to try what they are proposing, to see if it benefits the community. If yes, it is adopted. If not, it is abandoned. There really is no concept of majority rule. Consensus prevails. The advice of the elders is respected, although they are in no way rulers of the community. It is conceivable that a dispute might divide a community, and a group might leave to start afresh, but there is no record of that ever happening. Communities do occasionally divide but only if it becomes too large for the available resources, in which case, a number of families will move to a new area. This is also rare, as birth rates are low due to a staple diet of yams that have contraceptive properties. The communities are far enough away from the capital (westernised) to maintain their traditional lifestyle, but people can go there if they wish. Mostly they don't, but I do know individuals who have gone to the capital to attend university, and some are now doctors, teachers, and commercial pilots. Such people use their skills to help their communities, not to accumulate personal wealth.