Noam Chomsky - Anarchism II

Source: • Video

[@uoy1997]

oh shit, i'm an anarchist now.

[@potrag8803]

uoy1997 why oh shit, seems better than most political orientations when u listen to this guy 😋

[@petekdemircioglu]

In time youll be “dangerous anarchist”

[@nazscreamous]

lol

[@thenightbladefeeds]

Always were

[@clairebodger1813]

welcome!

[@karenskinner9044]

I love Noam Chomsky's brain!!! Brilliant man!

[@aaron3157]

For those who are thinking about anarchism, you have to remember the first part of challenging authority is recognizing it. Anarchism has been anti-capitalist and anti-state since its inception with Proudhon, since they're both forms of institutional authority, as well as patriarchy, racism, and a bunch of other sociopolitical power structures where one group acts as the oppressors and the other as the subjugated.

[@franciscofuentes8916]

Also capitalist big corporations are just as powerful and authoritarian as states. Oftentimes it's corporations or associations and lobby groups what drives state actions.

[@anthonychristie7781]

"Marxists"... What say you to this treatment of vanguard-ism, Communist-Party-state monopoly of coercive power, etc. Legitimate? Meets the burden of proof in some manner (as in Chomsky's granddaughter example)? Hakim? You out there.? Genuinely interested! (But please spare us the usual condescension and insults e.g. Lenin's "infantile" slur, "go read a book" , "don't waste my precious time with your naïvité.

[@addisonalbert9078]

@@anthonychristie7781 Anarchists do not believe in Leninism or Vanguardism. Anarchists, as did Marx and Classical Marxists, believe in the organization of the revolution by the people. Lenin disagreed. In Feudal Russia, it was pretty clear that without some pushing and coercion, the working class would not reach class consciousness for quite some time. So Lenin and the Bolsheviks set up their coup in a way that a small group of "intellectuals" lead the people to revolution. The classical Marxists at the time, Pannekoek and Luxemburg, for example, and Anarchists to this day, such as Kropotkin and Chomsky, disagreed with this, and thought that class conflict should be resolved by the people when they came to class consciousness themselves. No Anarchist supports vanguardism, and historically, neither have the overwhelming majority of Marxists.

[@BlueisNotaWarmColour]

If there are not free markets (capitalism), it is not anarchy. Period.

[@wandererstraining]

@@BlueisNotaWarmColour A significant number of anarchists (if not most), me included, are anti-capitalists. Why? Because we see the appropriation of the means of production as something that in and of itself that creates unjust hierarchies. If all means of production belong to private interests, everyone else depends on the good will of the owner class/capitalist class to make their living. It takes away people's agency, and reduces them to working for the capitalist class. And in most cases, people cannot depend on the good will of the capitalist class, as they will act out of self-interest and exploit the working class. Capitalism is antithesistic to anarchism. Free markets are not necessarily a bad thing, as long as a few people cannot hoard what everyone else needs to live. I'm pretty sure that social inequality is not what you desire, but I wanted to point out the difference between capitalism and free markets. Anarchism and free markets are compatible, up to a degree. Anarchism and capitalism are not, and that's why most anarchists say that anarcho-capitalists are actually not anarchists.

[@conors4430]

All authority must be justified and scrutinised and re-justified

[@armanbath]

genealogy of authority?

[@simonzai7386]

Absolute legend.I am 53 I understood Anarchism when I was 14 years old.They said we were young & naïve.Ha,I still believe! Song lyric maybe?

[@thetragedian4199]

you sound like you'd love pat the bunny's music

[@codedlAnguage]

Spread the Love. 🙄👉✍️💌👉🎶👉🤔👉✍️💌👉🎶👉🤔👉✍️💌👉🎶👉✋👉💫💫💫👉🖕

[@You_Dont_Like_My_Music]

Just say no.. to state violence.

[@paifu.]

5:25 Based Chomsky Anarcho-Communist over Anarcho-Collectivist

[@thelonewanderer4084]

He defended the state two minutes later though… so not really an anarchist

[@tcrcreff]

🩵I love you🩵🩵I love you🩵

[@collettjo]

Because he's comparing different forms of oppression and people have more representation from the state than say a corporation. The state can have value and its loss would cause major issues, like starvation. ​@@thelonewanderer4084

[@tcrcreff]

🩵I love you🩵🩵I love you🩵

[@cpellegrini70]

It's actually more simple than this. Anarchy literally means No rulers. No ruling class. If there's the threat of violence and coercion then it is not anarchy. It is voluntary cooperation between people with mutual interests. Following the non aggression principle. If how churches operate Is a good example of anarchy. People voluntarily cooperating for mutual interests without a gun to their head. This is the same way roads could be. The same way we can organize for self defense and so on. Nobody gets special privileges to violently dominate anyone else.

[@gh5972]

We must continue without Chomsky!

[@petekdemircioglu]

My thoughts exactly

[@smolboyi]

He tends toward the latter? How could you think less effort deserves equal pay?

[@waindayoungthain2147]

🙏🏼 all my Sacrifice. How’s the Legendary in comparison?

[@tcrcreff]

🩵I love you🩵😊🎉

[@callumfrench163]

The Chomskyin thread. The silk that can rope a political philosophy into a usable parliamentary tool.

[@tcrcreff]

🩵I love you🩵🎉😊

[@jakescorpion1]

Personally, I would say an anarchist is one who doesn't need or want a supervisor of any kind. Who has authority of me? As he said they must justify it. End of story

[@shotz8143]

Who ends up deciding whether an authority is legitimate or not? Who has the authority to judge authority? At the end of the day, he who has the bigger stick, rules.

[@SleepyMagii]

Depends, if we are talking constitutional America, you always have soverignty over yourself unless you give it by consent... If we talking current, they will indeed use force of violence to accomplish petty moves 🙄 But, we gotta actively resist the later, as ot is our very right and duty to do so qnd if we let them overstep [like they have been and feel entitled to do] Then it's ALL gone All over reaches are usurpations of power Against us

[@solidaritytime3650]

The algorithm didn't put part 1 in the recommended thingys . Orwell poe who knows

[@tcrcreff]

🩵I love you🩵😊

[@petekdemircioglu]

👏👏👏👏👏

[@peteraleksandrovich5923]

This is where the argument always falters: "that has to be worked out" is the answer to too many extremely thorny questions...

[@thenightbladefeeds]

Well no one seems to want to even attempt "working it out" because people are so steeped in fear. Humanity will have to shift in this kind of direction or it will likely go extinct. I think just about everyone (other than those at the tip-top) can agree that the "status quo" needs to fundamentally change, but any suggestion or attempt is met with near instant apathy and apprehension. The question I think then becomes, at what point do we become so apathetic or "broken in" that we cannot lift ourselves out of the grave we've dug for the species? The only way out is to just try. If we can't "work it out" this way, then we try something else. History has proven the adaptability of the species, but people are so reticent to fundamental change that they either forget or ignore this.

[@shotz8143]

I find it curious that a man as intelligent as Noam Chomsky is a statist whilst claiming to be an anarchist. It is of note that he is an anarchist by his own definition rather than adhering to more established definitions. You can theoretically identify as anything you want, if you have the ability to define it as you see fit. I think the gender revolutionaries provide us with an example of this method being employed in contemporary society. It occurs to me that Chomsky’s definition of anarchy is not even a definition as such, but rather he outlines a belief common to anarchists. I believe that calling the state less oppressive than a corporation displays ignorance and naïveté, which I find difficult to reconcile with Chomsky’s intellect and level of education. I have to wonder whether Chomsky has placed the question of the state in the “too-hard-basket” due to lack of viable alternatives or whether he is involved in some kind of controlled opposition function. Anarchists are known for their criticism of the state and other authorities, but have never really agreed on a roadmap leading to an anarchist society. Noam Chomsky is no different in that respect despite his considerable intellect. He repeatedly says that illegitimate structures of authority ought to be dismantled, but never offers any thoughts on how and by whom. I would argue that the application of anarchist ideology in society is secondary to the need for it. In other words, not having a solution for how society should be run in detail, does not mean that the state should be maintained as a viable solution for organising society. Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil

[@thelonewanderer4084]

I agree. Anarchism is opposed to all forms of hierarchies. And the state and capitalism are intertwined if not the same. Also, the fate of anarchists in Catalonia and Ukraine should show us that we must be firmly anti-statist if there’s to be any hope for the movement. State socialists sabotaged and betrayed anarchists everytime, and destroyed the revolution. We can’t let it happen again

[@thelonewanderer4084]

Also, syndicalism and a combination of other efforts (such as bringing about a social Revolution) would probably be the way to move towards an anarchist society. It also would lay the groundwork for the next system. The means would quite literally be the ends (Organizing communities and workforces along directly democratic lines)

[@bethenawaltz4190]

gender is an identification is exactly the entire point; sex as biology doesn't dictate what our social roles should necessarily be and that's the point of asserting that gender is a social reality and a choice; there are as many genders as there are human beings, or there doesn't exist gender second, chomsky's not a statist. i think usually is that representative democracy is the next best thing, better than that is democracy plainly, and then from there other ideas which i'll link here i think you're just misunderstanding him, and gender too for that matter watch?v=qjVq0Ha43Y0 in that link, all types of the questions you raise, i think are cogently answered and presented

[@rossellmanuel584]

FOR INSTANCE, HOW CAN A LAWYER OR DOCTOR RUN HIS PFFICE BY LETTING HIS SECRETARY AND PARALEGAL OR NURSE RUN THE OFFICE?

[@comanchedase]

It's about personal responsibility, therefore the nurse js a nurse by choice of not becoming a doctor (not studying enough to become one and recognising it) therefore if she's a nurse or a receptionist it would be due to her own choices, not the imposition of life's limitations that forced her into a lesser form of education which then limited her options, which would then limit further generations, which is how society runs itself nowadays or always has.

[@MsDboyy]

Ⓐ🏴 ✊☯️

[@natanaellizama6559]

What is the principle of justification? What KIND of justification are we talking about? This is an important part when discussing anarchism. Some would say that reason justifies, but: a) what is the very justification of reason?, b) reason is not an absolute, it is relational and dependent upon its premises/axioms, c) are all irrational things unjustified? This presents an issue with freedom. Say, I smoke. I cannot rationally defend my smoking as rational, but that would imply that it's unjustified, and as such, if reason is authoritative, I cannot be allowed to smoke. Is that the case? Beyond this rationalist view, what other kind of justification is there? Some will place the justification on the individual, the individual being the source of legitimization, but that leads to an individualist form of anarchy, and a relativistic one.

[@grenvillephillips6998]

The bullying of Lyndsay Shepherd seems to suggest that faculties can become tyrannical.

[@redanwrong]

Wow, the PC tyranny is REAL!

[@emmashalliker6862]

In Latin America US trained, funded and back rebels cut of woman's babies head and forced her to carry it. That's tyranny.

[@AntonioGarmsci-cy5vt]

Capitalism is the crisis!!!

[@Mirgeee]

What does he mean by the tyranny within organizations?

[@irishdc9523]

Miroslav Kovar Yes. When most people imagine "Tyranny", the first thing that comes to mind is a governmental dictatorship like Hitler or Stalin. Anarchism takes that a step further and brings it into the workplace, as an example. If you think of capitalism, or at least a corporation, from a political point of view, it's eerily similar to a feudal society with rigid hierarchies and prone to corruption and nepotism.

[@terrymckenna3382]

The hierarchical structure...big bosses etc and the gulf between the cleaners etc

[@MrPersonen]

@Matt Guitar that just isn't true. the alternative to working within such a system, for the vast majority of people, is to starve. that's not exactly what I would call freedom of choice

[@mcdallywacker8977]

@Matt Guitar (1) Not everybody can offer their own service. Not because they don’t want to work hard enough, but because they’re not in a position to do so. How do you expect people who need to pay rent and live paycheck to paycheck to invest in risks? Not only that, but without people who work for others, the proletariat, capitalism would collapse as nobody would be able to fill in those jobs previously held by people who are now “offering their own service”. So the logical conclusion of your proposition would lead to an implosion of the capitalist system. (2) If one truly can’t compete, then the idea that capitalism consists of “free” and “voluntary” transactions is a falsehood. You are essentially arguing that it is ethical for one who is unable or unwilling to partake in the capitalist mode of production to die. This is not a system that maximizes freedom nor the well being of humanity. It is thus the responsibility of society to to enable an economic system that maximizes freedom and welfare, the opposite of what capitalism does. Also, private charities are not more effective than “state enforced wealth redistribution systems”. There’s mountains of evidence to refute that claim. Also, Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman are the last people I would go to if my objective was to maximize personal liberty and freedom. They seek to rationalize the preservation of the capitalist system despite it’s exploitative and hence, anti-egalitarian nature. The differences between state hierarchy and capitalist hierarchy mean little to personal freedom and liberty.

[@helengarrett6378]

Here is tyrany within the workplace: I worked for 5 years for a non profit. Yes a do good organization that did lots of good. But they did it by underpaying their employees and establishing a work hierarchy which explicitly undervalued the non -professionals who were expected to "respect" the professionsls who did not respect the clerical workers in return. They overworked us and it always took longer than 8 hours to accomplish a day's work. Falling behind was absolutely unacceptable. To keep the job a worker had to complete the day's allotted I worked eleven hours a day, six days a week to stay employed. Management did not pay overtime and conveniently ignored workers staying in the office long after management went home. The last one out locked the door. When I finally burned out after five years of long days six days a week they replaced me with two additional workers but would not hire help for me no matter how many times I asked for help. Being a single mother I needed the job. But I couldn't hold up under the oppressive working conditions and just quit eventually. Tyrany was expecting too much. Tyrany was not allowing me to cmplete any task without constant "supervision" and justifying my time and statistics which were always more than adequate. There were only good evaluations and even petty raises to keep me placated but never any help until they had to replace me. They took advantage of my vulnerability because I needed to support my two children on a very small salary and I allowed it because the job was near my ailing parents and and I could get to my kids quickly in an emergency. This was the most unequal place I ever worked. Absolutely no autonomy. The salary of the clerical workers was horrible and each one of us continued to work under awful conditions until one by one we broke. It was actually tyrany with a smile and a pat on the head but no respect or autonomy over our work.

[@michasosnowski5918]

You can boycott a company and dont buy their stuff. You can boycott a party and dont vote for them. Company can get you addicted to their product, propagandize you with false advertisement. Usually there is an option to choose other company for a product you need. Company cant force you to use their product if you dont want to. Government can get you addicted to social security, or some other programs it offers. It can propagandize you with false promises, and hide the costs of it. It can print money and create inflation you will pay, wanting it or not. You cant choose not to use government product, you need to pay for it. You will be forced by the law to pay or be imprisoned. Theoretically you can escape from a company or choose different one. Theoretically you can emigrate to another country. Company can be chosen by majority of other people in the area, so that you cant escape what it is doing. Government can go to war with another country, or try to extradite you from another country(not paying taxes). I am not sure if companies are worse than governments. They are so intermingled with each other at this point.

[@shotz8143]

I find it curious that a man as intelligent as Noam Chomsky is a statist whilst claiming to be an anarchist. It is of note that he is an anarchist by his own definition rather than adhering to more established definitions. You can theoretically identify as anything you want, if you have the ability to define it as you see fit. I think the gender revolutionaries provide us with an example of this method being employed in contemporary society. It occurs to me that Chomsky’s definition of anarchy is not even a definition as such, but rather he outlines a belief common to anarchists. I believe that calling the state less oppressive than a corporation displays ignorance and naïveté, which I find difficult to reconcile with Chomsky’s intellect and level of education. I have to wonder whether Chomsky has placed the question of the state in the “too-hard-basket” due to lack of viable alternatives or whether he is involved in some kind of controlled opposition function. Anarchists are known for their criticism of the state and other authorities, but have never really agreed on a roadmap leading to an anarchist society. Noam Chomsky is no different in that respect despite his considerable intellect. He repeatedly says that illegitimate structures of authority ought to be dismantled, but never offers any thoughts on how and by whom. I would argue that the application of anarchist ideology in society is secondary to the need for it. In other words, not having a solution for how society should be run in detail, does not mean that the state should be maintained as a viable solution for organising society. Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

[@michasosnowski5918]

@@shotz8143 I am not sure if Chomsky is statist. Can you show me how you arrive at that conclusion? Stefan Molyneux, who used to be an anarchist(now he is more of a conservative, even arriving at fascism and nationalism in some regards), used to say that we need to raise children in a peacefull manner in order to have anarchic society. In other words, people need to want and be able to function without the state. In todays word of widely spread childhood abuse and trauma, people project their unfulfilled needs of the child to have good parents onto the state, that would save them financially and emotionally. If people are not traumatized in their childhood, they would not vote for their enslavement to fullfill some old childhood desire to be saved by current politician or the government as a whole. And they would not tolerate states use of force to achieve that. They would want to trade, live peacefully and respect nature. But we are far from it now, so people vote more and more state.

[@brokenrecord3523]

Live in an 80% Trump district for a while and you will quickly realize that not everyone is up to self governance. They (conservatives) want to be led, want to be told what to do and want tomorrow to pretty much be like yesterday.

[@stephenduke412]

When they make a movie about George Floyd Yall think JUSSIE SMOLLETT Should audition for the role 🤔

[@BlueisNotaWarmColour]

People keep saying anarchy is antithetical to capitalism but repeating yourself does not make things true. Without capitalism, you do not have anarchy.

[@utilitymonster8267]

In what definition of capitalism? Free markets and anarchism would go together pretty good whereas it is a contract between two or more people. And so would a (decentralized) planned economy; if members of a community (or voluntary commune, or ‘union of egoists’) would all agree on planning their economy, then that would also be completely anarchist. However, private property over the means of production, that ‘capital’ and so that definition of ‘capital-ism’ is completely anti-anarchist. Anarchism is the abolishment of state and capital.

[@BlueisNotaWarmColour]

@@utilitymonster8267 define a "means of production" and maybe we'll get somewhere

[@benasmick9036]

I think Anarchy is antithetical to parts of Capitalism (i.e; private property in the capitalist sense) but not to all parts of it. I think the Capitalism that you would have under 'true-Anarchy' wouldn't be 'true-Capitalism' depending on how much you went to delve into semantics. You would have some aspect of Capitalism in the same way that Scandinavian countries have some form of Socialism. However to call these countries Socialist would be incorrect, in the same way I think calling Capitalism under Anarchy 'Capitalism' would be incorrect.

[@BlueisNotaWarmColour]

@@benasmick9036 sorry for the late response but I think private property is absolutely necessary for anarchism. If you don't own yourself, do rights exist? Of course, in reality, we do own ourselves which is why rights exist, regardless of whether or not other humans acknowledge said rights. Markets emerge when rights are protected. Period. Capitalism isn't a "system" so much as a byproduct of the preservation of human rights. When theft is illegal, people trade instead, and that cooperation on a mass scale is what elevates us materially. Understanding why is what elevates us spiritually.

[@mayhemamigos4766]

Capitalism is defined by the relationship between the employer and the employee. A wealthy individual will put in an initial investment which covers the initial cost of the business, this includes wages, rent, equipment, and materials. The employees will then use the equipment and materials to produce and sell products, The efforts made by the employees generate the entirety of the value of the business. The value generated by the employees covers the cost of the initial investment, and if the business was successful there will be extra left over, known as profits. These profits will be claimed entirely by the employer, as they are the one who made the initial investment. Socialists, and umbrella term which anarchist fall under, suggest that This process is is authoritarian and exploitative, as the employer has complete control over the institution which the employee laborers under. They also suggest that the profits from the business belong to the employees as they were generated through the employees labor. Socialists call for businesses to be owned by the employees, run democratically, with profits being distributed amongst the employees, as opposed to being hoarded by one individual at the top.

[@Jomo326]

What about the Pareto principle? If anarchy is such a natural and common sense idea why has it never been successfully implemented? Dr. Chomsky is a well read and intelligent man but he should leave the ivory towers of academia and his leafy Boston suburb from time to time.

[@mrmachinery1]

Well there are all kinds of oppressive regimes that have been brought down in a fairly anarchic fashion, many parts of systemic racism being just a few. I concede that anarchy has never been fully implemented within a society but I'm not sure any system of thought ever has, or should be.

[@pippoespera8902]

Every intent to implement it was destroyed by propaganda and military power. Spanish Civil War anyone? You are not thinking about the disciplinary power of the dominant-class propaganda, and the military destruction of every intent to be more independent. Every time workers have organized to fight for a different, more social, system they were severely punished throughout the 20th century. The dictatorships are a good example of that, they've killed thousands of workers right after a people's fight for independence. The moment the dominant-class is no longer able to discipline workers through violence and propaganda, they will have no more power. I'm optimistic, we are going there, slow paced.

[@hotcakesism]

Interesting how you leave this same comment in multiple threads then when people respond with thoughtful answers you never return. Must be shitposting.

[@emmashalliker6862]

He's a lobster boy and if daddy Peterson doesn't have an answer he doesn't know what to say.

[@tcrcreff]

🩵I love you🩵❤😊

[@rossellmanuel584]

I AM A SOCIAL DEMOCRAT/PROGRESSIVE, BUT THIS ANARCHISM CRAP IS NOT REALISTIC

[@jadenwaz9585]

“Everybody says my way is great but improbable. All greatness is improbable. What’s probable is tedious and petty.” -Lao Tzu

[@shotz8143]

Realistic is such a relative term. While anarchist ideology doesn’t have many answers to the many, complex questions that arise when you attempt to eliminate centralised authority from a society, it at least acknowledges the fact that the concept of government is inherently illegitimate and causes more harm than good. This is sufficiently illustrated simply by adding up all the murders committed in the world by individuals throughout contemporary history and comparing this to the number of all the deaths caused directly by various world governments throughout the same time period. Add to that the extortion of moneys collected by means of taxation as well as the overreach of the government into peoples private lives by way of innumerable laws and it becomes difficult to maintain that the state is “the lesser of two evils”. You can’t even argue that not all governments are created equal, because they certainly are. We are simply indoctrinated into believing that there are fundamental differences between capitalist democracies, socialist democracies, monarchies, fascist regimes etc whist never really being able to define what they are. After all, even countries like North Korea consider themselves to be a constitutional republic as did the former USSR. These days people actually believe that National Socialism (Nazis) is a right wing ideology. Utter insanity all around really. I say, abolish the state first and then figure out how we organise society. See what happens. Can’t be any worse than all our past failed attempts (democracy included).