Noam Chomsky ETHERS 'Classical Liberalism' & Capitalism

Support The Show On Patreon!:
/ seculartalk
Subscribe to Krystal Kyle & Friends On Substack!:
krystalkyleand...
Follow Kyle on Twitter:
/ kylekulinski
#KyleKulinski #SecularTalk #NoamChomsky

[@iroh4432]

Actually a really great book on this is 'On Anarchy'. Noam fleshed out these exact sentiments but in greater detail. Essential reading imo

[@mnessenche]

It also makes a nice present for your comrade 😊👍

[@theunholinesswithin70]

I talk about economics and society in both of my audio books. kzbin.info/www/bejne/h4HRepmHhL2df9U

[@jonathanhijlkema8247]

@@mnessenche if you want to understand reality, you need to look around, have different perspectives and look from different angles. Chomsky is a very intelligent and critical counter mainstream thinker, and because of that a valuable source of information to counterbalance all the usual propoganda from the western media.

[@algernonsidney8746]

Chomsky is not an anarchist, there is even a video of him saying that abolishing the state is not an option. He has specifically stated that he wants the state to expand to crush capitalism completely( and in that sense he has far more in common with Marx and Engels than he does Bakunin and Kropotkin). Once that is done he wants power to be devolved to local communities but these will not be anarchist communities since the economy will be run by central planning council who will have a legal monopoly on violence and will therefore be states.

[@chaseanderson215]

@@algernonsidney8746 source?

[@georgemalone3318]

The problem with capitalism is that it can so easily morph into fascism. You know, when corporations and the government get together to run our lives. Why does that sound so familiar?

[@DB-sd3cw]

Imagine believing that when most, if not all dictatorships were/are left-wing.

[@Xpistos510]

Anything can turn into fascism, tbh.

[@Xpistos510]

@@DB-sd3cw That assumes that authoritarianism is inherently left wing. That's simply not true.

[@gwills9337]

@@DB-sd3cw imagine trying to make that point in '21 lmao

[@robm6645]

Corporations and the state always work together, fascism is a way the ruling class or segments of the ruling class secure their position by violently seizing control of the state.

[@HiThere-yr9eg]

This is my offering of engagement to the algorithm

[@Airith4]

Hello algorithm person!

[@Baxpacker]

All hail the algorithm

[@ryanwilliams3857]

Good on ya

[@islabee94]

Bump

[@wardragon670]

Kyle has been frozen in time 972k subs for a while now!

[@brandbusters183]

Even Yung Chomsky is Old Chomsky.

[@Tygrus758]

Principles breed consistency.

[@DrSpooglemon]

Chomsky was 47 the day that he was born.

[@tcorourke2007]

Go check out his debate with William F. Buckley. He was 41 and in his prime... just as smart, but 5 times faster. Vicious!

[@christiansrensen5958]

It's like Betty White. She was in a show about getting old and retiring which was made before I was born. I'm 35 now 😳

[@tonyclifton2230]

@@tcorourke2007 he was the kryptonite for buckleys flowery language that didn't say anything. Not surprising it was the only time they talked. Buckley was one and done with that conversation.

[@custos3249]

As someone who just got fired after being attacked nearly every day for 6 months due to a team of enablers for $12/hr, nah. I don't disagree at all with the length Chom goes to.

[@SWe3TdRe4Mz702]

I don’t trust your $12 a hour opinion.

[@custos3249]

@@SWe3TdRe4Mz702 Don't worry. Smarter people already do. You just sit still and have another ice cream.

[@EdertheJust]

Attacked?

[@custos3249]

@@EdertheJust Client with serious behavioral and attention issues maintained by a series of enablers among his staff. He was almost entirely incapable of coping if he wasn't constantly being entertained and would lash out at me for incredibly minor frustrations. The first time I took him out in my car, about my second week of training with my supervisor, he sat in the back seal by mistake after we picked up some of his med. Things went well in the pharmacy, so no big deal, right? We gotta sit up front though if we want to go to petsmart, ok? Yeah, lead to a 20-ish minute escalation with him trying to tear my car and me up just as I put my car in reverse. He seemed ok after a little tension but nothing super serious between back seat to front. Nearly broke my glasses among other things while I and my supervisor tried to get him to chill and contain him so he wouldn't damage other peoples' property in the parking lot. Almost kicked my door open into the car next to us but my supervisor managed to put her hand out in time. About half an hour later when we left petsmart, he nearly killed us while we were driving when he lashed out AGAIN! He pulled out a small chunk of my scalp that time when he jerked my head to the side. I thought I saw just some hair when it happened, but I saw how exactly how much when I left for home. Anyway, I'd dealt with violent clients before, so I was somewhat prepared and managed to pull over fast enough. Lucky it happened when I could turn off almost immediately and he didn't go for the wheel. It was another 20ish minutes of him attacking me while my supervisor kept him from jumping out of my car while we were in a trailer park by closing it every time he'd go to jump out. So that was fun. His behaviors leveled off after we put a medication BACK to where it was before, since mom thought his dose was a little high a few weeks before I started. Sigh, moms...... Yeah, his somehow preferred, enabling, 18-20yo, atteactive, female staff majoring in things like early education and speech pathology, who saw him for a day to maybe 3 a week, just couldn't understand why we had such a hard time finding people to work with him. Yeah, the only 3 people we haired since my start quit their first week. My training supervisor and only one other coworker who I basically ended up replacing (other bullshit story among more, but she now works exclusively with traumatized dogs) were actually qualfied to work with him and partly trained me for what to look out for as to his manipulations. I'd regularly get shit thrown at me because I'd keep to his diet and not throw ice cream at him each of the 20 times he'd ask in a 6 hour shift.

[@dudeman5303]

@@SWe3TdRe4Mz702 I can't believe there are so many people on the working class who are totally fine with being walked on and dying just to help rich people keep power. It's insane

[@teenkitsune]

This is why I need to get to know Noam Chomsky's work better.

[@jimigutierrez6807]

Is Fascism Capitalism In Decay? kzbin.info/www/bejne/eZereH-Zh99ghpo

[@michaelsmith8665]

Check out Chomsky's "Radical Priorities" published 40 years ago by Black Rose Books. The last part of the book is very good on anarchism and worker issues. He's also got a pamphlet essay called "Notes on Anarchism," which is great.

[@javiergonzalez7214]

You should totally read On anarchism, or Hegemony or Survival, aside from his classic Manufacturing consent.

[@skepticsanalysis528]

Watch requiem for the American dream.

[@TheCommonS3Nse]

How The World Works is a great book. It’s basically 4 smaller books combined into one. Gives a great summation of his work and it’s very consumable. Some of his books can be a little heavy.

[@munstrumridcully]

I stopped identifying as a Classical Liberal exactly because the anarcho-capitalists and Ayn Rand Objectivists have highjacked the term. I now self identify as a left libertarian/social libertarian.

[@jeffarnold3800]

Dave Rubin has some high level ideas for you. As an aside I would enjoy seeing Rubin square off with Noam

[@Xpistos510]

Same. To tell you the truth I don't really even like using labels anymore.

[@robinsss]

ancaps never called themselves classical liberals they called themselves libertarians which is also wrong

[@runrafarunthebestintheworld]

I don't classify as anything anymore. I don't use Liberal because it's not left but it's sure used commonly by Democratic blue voters.

[@munstrumridcully]

@@robinsss I've had conversations with many people who identified as classical liberals who espoused clear ancap ideology.. Same with Objectivists. It seems to be an optics thing-- some ancaps find that label pejorative.

[@bgoodfella7413]

"I assume everyone agrees slavery as an institution was bad" Nah not to Trump supporters today. They say slavery was great for business.

[@dwiii1635]

Larry Elder argued slave owners should get reparations. Smh.

[@lakersfansince1991]

@@dwiii1635 he is a lawyer, he was making the legal argument that slave owners had their property taken from the government and even cited a real life example of the UK paying the slave owners for reparations. He didn’t “argue slave owners should get reparations”.

[@wolfstar675]

@@dwiii1635 What do you expect? That guy is basically Stephen from Django Unchained.

[@wolfstar675]

@@lakersfansince1991 Slave owners shouldn't get fucking shit.

[@lakersfansince1991]

@@wolfstar675 I agree. But Elder was citing a real life example of the Uk giving slave masters compensation for taking their legal “property”. Don’t be disingenuous and say Elder thinks slave masters deserve compensation.

[@bisurker]

Ah, back when Chomsky didn't speak at 0.75x KZbin speed.

[@Noobsaucer]

To me he's already excruciatingly slow here 😀

[@Gooner184]

That's ageing for you

[@anchorpoint5871]

"The basic idea which runs right through modern history and modern liberalism is that the public has got to be marginalized. The general public are viewed as no more than ignorant and meddlesome outsiders, a bewildered herd." Chomsky

[@javier8015]

Well using chomsky argument about slavery didn't the public go to war to defend slavery often when they themselves were not slave owners and slavery impoverished them?

[@credman]

They kind of are a stupid, bewildered herd. Look no further than antivaxxers.

[@tobysmith2081]

So Kyle is okay with saying capitalism is immoral, therefore should be voted out but when Chomsky says conservatism is worse than liberalism therefore people have a moral right to vote for Biden, Kyle throws a hissy fit

[@LL-cz5ql]

@@tobysmith2081 moral right=/= moral duty

[@michaelsmith8665]

@@tobysmith2081 Capitalism can't be "voted out." Chomsky didn't argue for a "moral right" for PEOPLE to vote for Biden. He said LEFTISTS had a moral OBLIGATION to vote for him, especially in swing states.

[@sanjuronord]

Pro-Slavery: What are you going to treat better a car that you own or rent? Anti-Slavery: What's a car?

[@Bonanzaking]

Well back then the car would’ve been ones horse. The blacksmith was your tire guy, if vets were a thing thats your mechanic.

[@riffsthatkill2180]

@@Bonanzaking and the saddle is your cheap Amazon seat cover

[@peterkrug4124]

Anti-slavery: "Slaves are human beings and deserve to be treated as such." Pro-slaver: "No, they're not."

[@michaelsmith8665]

@@peterkrug4124 Pro-capitalist: "Workers voluntarily work for whatever I feel like giving them." Anti-capitalist: "No, they don't."

[@Heyoka86]

"Human beings are born to inquire and create, and to do so under their own initiative. Any work that a person does under outside pressure is inhuman. If a person creates something beautiful under outside orders, we may admire what he does but we will despise what he is." - classic Chomsky

[@munstrumridcully]

Did Chomsky come up with that? I thought he was quoting or paraphrasing the Humboldt Ideal?

[@Heyoka86]

@@munstrumridcully I think it's paraphrased, but I heard him say it in many speeches and interviews.

[@munstrumridcully]

@@Heyoka86 ah, I see, thanks for the clarification :)

[@antonioterry5080]

@@Heyoka86 So could this be applied to certain musicians?

[@ceterumcenseo12]

What about chattel or wage slaves who know that, short of a utopian social transformation, any child they produce will also be a chattel or wage slave and face the 'intolerable' indignity of lifelong subordination to some variety of master? What does Chomsky have to say about them? Shouldn't we despise 'what they are'? Out of thin air, they bring into existence new people who will be stripped of what he considers their the most elementary humanity. They will, in other words, be thrown into disgusting, humiliating lives. And most won't be treated gently like the luckiest house slaves. Most will in fact face endless grinding material hardships and grueling toil in addition to the basic humiliation of their lowly position. But Chomsky would never so much as consider condemning the breathtaking vileness of the breeding masses. which, from any perspective not blinded by ideology, at least equals and probably surpasses the vileness of the worst kinds of elite predation.

[@Viewable11]

"Capitalism carries war within it, just like clouds carry rain." - Jean Jaures. "The logical endpoint of capitalism is feudalism." - Eleanor Janega. Once capitalist companies have finished accumulating capital of all forms (money, resources) and merged into one Megacorp, they will also have accumulated all political power, which defines fascism.

[@mr.dalerobinson]

They don’t even have to become a single megaCorp, they just have to share ‘interests’ with other oligarchs. Just like it is now.

[@TheBigDMan69]

Cough cough, Blackrock and Vanguard

[@blackjackjester]

What exactly is the difference between one mega Corp that owns everything, and socialism, where the government owns everything.

[@jimigutierrez6807]

Is Fascism Capitalism In Decay? kzbin.info/www/bejne/eZereH-Zh99ghpo

[@nugsin4]

@@blackjackjester hypothetically you would be able to vote on what happens to the profits via elected representation

[@davidnotasadlt1951]

These are clips that need to be shown in colleges today

[@Boogalyhu]

Classic Chomsky argument, he’s used it several times. Kyle introducing me to this genius literally changed my life and mindset.

[@insightfulhistorian1861]

What I find infuriating is that, as Noam said, if people are nice to those they systematically oppress, millions of people are too ignorant to see it. This is why movies had to show brutal, sick slaveholders in the South, because otherwise the average audience would be too stupid to get the message that slavery was wrong. This is *proven* by the lost cause: show slaveholders as kind, decent, "honorable" people and the idiots lap it up. The exact same thing applies to capitalism. This is why critical thinking is so crucial.

[@jacktorborg9862]

@@smokedbeefandcheese4144 Lol, boring yes, lame no. If you can suffer through the IMMENSE detail, 10-part chapters, theses and report style of Chomsky's book "manufacturing consent", it will blow your mind. The degree to which he exposed the media at a time when everyone trusted them, the way he broke down all of their points and the major stories of his era, and the amount he has been proven right is astounding. AND you can see the reverbs of the things he discusses in that book today. Chomsky is truly a Modern legend and we really don't deserve him. But he is absolutely, positively a dry speaker/writer as well. He's no Bernie in that regard, and he's no Richard Wolff.

[@Boogalyhu]

@@smokedbeefandcheese4144 Wolf is good but doesn’t nearly have Chomsky’s ability to analyze complex institutions. Or his intellectual versatility. There is a reason Chomsky is the 8th most cited intellectual in history.

[@jacktorborg9862]

@@smokedbeefandcheese4144 oh yeah, in that sense of the word lame, agreed lol. He makes amazing points really blandly

[@michaelsmith8665]

@@jacktorborg9862 Chomsky is "proudly boring," as he calls himself, because he strives to appeal to our common sense, not our emotions. Bernie isn't in the same league with Chomsky (he's a weak social democrat), and frankly neither is Wolff. Wolff has nowhere near Chomsky's command of history, politics, and ideological manipulation, though on the central economic points he's outstanding. Thank God for them both!

[@jeanpepin6497]

That sounds like slavery with extra steps. -Rick and morty

[@GamerKru1996]

I'm watching this video high af and it's so weird seeing Noam Chomsky so young.

[@eyyy2271]

@Bswag Swag I think 70s

[@scroopynooperz9051]

Old age has certainly blunted him

[@thevaultofwisdom1242]

There’s videos of him in the 60s and 70s when his hair had color. He’s not young at all in this clip.

[@_monolithic_]

The clearheadedness in Chomsky's responses makes me want to think harder about, well, everything.

[@banzobeans]

Yeah. He can have that effect on you. Don't get too hard on yourself! ;)

[@mohamadtarhini911]

Damn, I feel like I have missed out not checking Chomsky’s content.

[@mabusestestament]

He's so old, he's from the time people didn't use the word 'content' but called it 'work'.

[@davedd7803]

kzbin.infovideos You're welcome.

[@moffig1]

Same

[@mohamadtarhini911]

@@mabusestestament haha, looking forward to seeing some of it

[@mohamadtarhini911]

@@davedd7803 thanks!

[@Xpistos510]

I definitely understand being a capitalist-skeptic, or even anti-capitalist, but Leftists should have respect and appreciation for old school classical liberalism. It served as the philosophical basis for modern liberalism and social democracy. You can reject Libertarian economics but recognized that the old liberal movement was revolutionary in promoting gender, sexual, and racial equality. It promoted religious and philosophical tolerance. It promoted representative democracy or republicanism. It promoted secularism, tolerant athiesm, scientific inquiry, intellectualism, and anti-monarchism. Many of the classical liberals were *also* Jacobins and proto-socialists who spread secular liberal thought via the Illuminati (the historical one). Classical liberalism laid the groundwork for modern liberal and socialist thought to develop as a response to its shortcomings. Today, those who self-describe as "classical liberals" are either modern liberals who detest the New Left, or Libertarians trying to use the past to expand the perception of their legitimacy. It can also just be movement conservatives who want centrist appeal.

[@blackflagsnroses6013]

Classical liberalism was the root from which libertarian socialism stemmed from. Few like Chomsky know that history. Modern liberalism is capitalist garbage, but good with social issues. Originally libertarian socialism was communist and free market radicals. Classical liberalism was what gave birth to socialism. Capitalism was what socialists called the system of feudal private landlords, and monopoly oligarchies.

[@Xpistos510]

@@blackflagsnroses6013 I agree. However, you don't think that some modern liberals or social democrats are benevolent and can form a healthy mixed market-socialist hybrid? As in, one that actually WORKS and doesn't devolve into Neoliberalism? Or will all social democratic and liberal models get corrupted by the elite inevitably?

[@blackflagsnroses6013]

@@Xpistos510 socialism is the end of political government, for industrial administration, and autonomy of people. The reason I don’t support welfare capitalism, or social democracy is simple, it is state corporatism in it’s sincerest sense. Mussolini said it himself: “"Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (1926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics. There is scarcely anything to object to in it and there is much to applaud." Now sure modern liberalism is better than unfettered capitalism, but it is only a band aid based on the state and the scraps of the capitalists, and not on the people, the working class, the social revolution.

[@fellinuxvi3541]

@@blackflagsnroses6013 Yeah but surely the problem with fascists wasn't economics, right? I mean, Social Democracies are not perfect by any stretch, but they are some of the most succesful and humane societies of history. You can't really compare that to fascism. Racism is wrong on principle, but there's no denying that liberalism (including keynesianism) is different from fascism. You can't live in a Nordic country and argue it's the same as living under a fascist dictatorship.

[@Xpistos510]

@@blackflagsnroses6013 This is an interesting point you make. It sort of implies that fascism is essentially a form of authoritarian centrism. To Fellinux's comment though, isn't it still the case that "economic fascism" in the form of modern liberalism is still, overall good? No one should deny that it is without shortcomings, but I do think that one can embrace that economic model with benevolent intentions and still oppose POLITICAL fascism and the military dictatorial aspects. I am curious about whether true libertarian socialism will work, and I think it's possible, but I'm struggling to imagine how it actually looks in practice. This isn't to say that we shouldn't strive for it, but I do think that we should at least revive social democracy in the modern world, and ensure that every worker has their basic rights and needs met, so that we can continue the slow transition towards democratic, libertarian socialism. The only problem I fear we will run into, is how exactly we can peacefully transition. How can we socialize all private industry without the force of an authoritarian state, or without unnecessary bloodshed? Even if crowds are justifiably angry, it doesn't take much for it to turn into a mob which abandons reason and nuanced thought. What do you think?

[@dice581]

You do know you are free to make your own company as a worker owned coop right?And slaves did not have to option to leave for another plantation or had any sort of structure that protects them,even the bare minum of protections.That logic si flawed.

[@blackflagsnroses6013]

No actually you can’t. Capitalism wasn’t defined as a free market economy. Socialists coined the term “capitalism” to call the system of capital monopolies, and land owner monopolies, industrial feudalism. Hence why many of the original libertarian socialists were free market radicals. They saw that free markets leads to socialism, as influenced by the classical liberals. “The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of his Wealth of Nations,-namely, that labor is the true measure of price. But Adam Smith, after stating this principle most clearly and concisely, immediately abandoned all further consideration of it to devote himself to showing what actually does measure price, and how, therefore, wealth is at present distributed. Since his day nearly all the political economists have followed his example by confining their function to the description of society as it is, in its industrial and commercial phases. Socialism, on the contrary, extends its function to the description of society as it should be, and the discovery of the means of making it what it should be. Half a century or more after Smith enunciated the principle above stated, Socialism picked it up where he had dropped it, and in following it to its logical conclusions, made it the basis of a new economic philosophy.” - Free Market Anarchist, Benjamin Tucker

[@25taylorkw]

Exactly worker co-ops usually a fair amount of the time don't become a long-lasting successful business on average comparing to a traditional business on average because people in worker co-ops may not be smart enough to know how financing of a company works in order for the company to operate properly ( specifically they can vote for a certain action that can be detrimental towards their business financially while also possibly mismanage the money in which could possibly lead the co-op business to not having a good amount of money to invest in the production to make the products ), Also I find it how there is a inaccurate comparison between any form of capitalism ( especially a social democratic form of capitalism ) and slavery, in a system like slavery a slave can't really quit because even if they try then they might get beated down badly ( if not possibly killed ), then in a system like capitalism ( even though some forms of capitalism are being rigged by corporate interests ) a person has the choice to quit a job in a certain business to work somewhere else freely without facing the vicious consequences that slaves did, not to mention if a person doesn't like working under a boss they can either own their own business or become an independent contractor.

[@dice581]

@@blackflagsnroses6013There is no law stopping you from doing so.But if you mean they can't because they need a ceo and such,then yes,but you can give them all shares in the company and give them all a seat on the board and see what happens lol.You talk like your average mcdonalds employee has any ideea what management does.

[@dice581]

​@@25taylorkw If they mean workers should be given a percentage of the shares in the company,then i'm for it.Obviously it needs more details but if you do your job and for some time at the same company,i don't see why you can't get a small portion of the shares.That's reasonable but saying that a random ass worker has the knowledge to have any say in management,is beyond dumb.

[@blackflagsnroses6013]

@@dice581 it’s not the law, it’s the monopolies and the capitalist hegemony. Classical liberalism and free markets haven’t to do with capitalism which doesn’t keep to the Lockean Proviso

[@MylesRoachMusic]

It’s socialism or barbarism people. We got to organize the working class to destroy capitalism.

[@bisiriyutajudeen5728]

Yup what a good idea. I guess no one has ever tried to destroy capitalism and it worked perfectly well for the underclass. The problem with all these socialist talk is that it needs capitalism to function otherwise it dies. All human work based on incentives and constraints irrespective of whatever system you put them in, if you destroy those two things, you’ll destroy your society.

[@underweightHater]

the left will see slavery to the company, while the right will see slavery to the government as the biggest threat. people find it hard to worry about both for some reason.

[@ANONYMOUS__USER__]

@@DoctorHouse999 Even democratically elected government's are all corrupt and even if they aren't corrupt the government is usually incompetent and inefficient at managing the economy, most of the time government intervention has done more harm to society than good, doesn't mean all government intervention is bad but most is, both the powers of government and the influence of corporations must be limited, but the left loves to increase the power of the government while the right and to some extent even the left love protecting the power of the corporations, fuck the government and the the corporations.

[@smrtfasizmu6161]

There is no such thing as slavery to the government. Slavery is not getting paid to do a job that you are forced to do and that somebody is getting rich out of it.

[@ANONYMOUS__USER__]

@@smrtfasizmu6161 Subjugation is the more appropriate word.

[@smrtfasizmu6161]

@@tomasmccauley569 You are an imb*cile. People are getting paid for the work they do. This alone is enough to disprove any ridiculous assertion that workers are slaves.

[@smrtfasizmu6161]

@@tomasmccauley569 I am not sure how you were allowed to finish middle school while not knowing the difference between a worker and a slave. If you lived in a serious country, a European country, you would have never been able to enter highschool

[@Zeit_waise]

"I don’t know how many of you heard the question …" Well, you didn’t put the effort in to do subtitles either. 🙄

[@tylerhackner9731]

Noam is one of my biggest inspirations

[@alexbaro]

Apparently your hard to inspire. LOL

[@alexbaro]

@Critique Everything Shocks NO. What do you suggest? I want to be witty like you.

[@zachwenger1128]

@Grant Kirtz hilarious lmao

[@anarchosteve4816]

Love Noam chomsky. Iv listened to every lecture on here i can find and i learn so much every time. At the end when he takes questions he never fails to nail it.

[@munstrumridcully]

I've been watching some of his lectures on how the US government, as a form of corporate protectionism and to "fight communism" basically raped South and Central America for like a century or more. Sickening.

[@avsynergy9623]

Young Noam Chomsky, "relatively" speaking... Forgetting that Noam Chomsky is 347 years old.

[@ngallardo1994]

You can correspond with Chomsky via his faculty email and he’ll actually respond in a few days. His answers are short, usually like 1-10 words but he’ll answer your questions.

[@chalgress12]

gen z really shaking it up. gonna be here for the ride, friends. signed, 1985 baby.

[@ds8249]

Been following Kyles coverage of this guy for years. Right now I’m in a class with a cognitive processing psychologist that is personal friends with Chomsky lol unrelated, but blew my mind

[@michelleespino9814]

Totally related 👍

[@ds8249]

@@michelleespino9814 yo, I try to offer a sacrifice to the algorithmic gods as often as I can.

[@arthurzhao8476]

I don't like how Kyle always makes a carve out for small businesses in these videos (probably because he himself is a small business owner). If wage slavery is, by principle, unjust then how can you justify wage slavery just because it occurs in a small business?

[@FazeParticles]

Small businesses can’t afford higher wages but I think that’s their fault for being shitty business owners.

[@aznanimegob]

Corporations are the equivalent of city-states whereas small businesses are that small village down yonder, different dynamics that affect their respective politics.

[@coolsupercoolmario]

National minimum wage explains why he doesn't necessarily have a problem with them. He talks about how raising the minimum wage in certain states will hurt small businesses but it's ok because if they aren't giving a living wage then they should be punished. He also is sympathetic to small businesses because it's an appeal to different viewers who have this idea that leftist ideas are radical, but also there's the fact that small businesses run/treat workers differently than what a larger business would/can.

[@fellinuxvi3541]

Because Kyle in general doesn't really agree with Chomsky. Here he argues that the argument is strong but doesn't entirely agree with his conclusions. One has to wonder if all wage labor is wage slavery, and decide if that's wrong on principle.

[@smileyface702]

"I'm a touch more Conservative Conservative Chomsky" he said it in the video

[@Humphking]

I swear Chomsky came out of the womb an old man lol

[@PalaeoJoe]

And the Radicalization of Kyle Kulinski continues. I like where this is going

[@ujmm]

He has been in favor of social democracy for many years, but I Dont think he going further to the left.

[@maxr8029]

This is exactly what I was thinking!

[@raphaelvonrupp9055]

That’s why progressives and libertarians must unite, there’s more common ground than divides them.

[@cartervanmeter]

While I disagree with Chomsky on this, using the word "tyranny" to describe the modern business structure has really allowed me to view our economy in a different light.

[@alexshih3747]

Yeah, I don't completely agree about the connection to slavery, but viewing business owners as autocrats is a fucking revelation.

[@lakersfansince1991]

I opened up a small car tinting business in a small warehouse garage. I employed 3 people and help then pay their bills. I found out today I’m no better than a slave master.

[@cartervanmeter]

@@lakersfansince1991 Yeah I think the slave master comparison wwnt way too far. Sometimes I work for my father in-law renovating houses. The pay isn't great, but I'm learning valuable skills and getting some family bonding out of it. That's not exploitative, that's mutually beneficial. But applying the strict hierarchy lens to larger corporations with genuinely exploitative business practices is an interesting tool.

[@cartervanmeter]

@@alexshih3747 Yeah I think the slave master comparison wwnt way too far. Sometimes I work for my father in-law renovating houses. The pay isn't great, but I'm learning valuable skills and getting some family bonding out of it. That's not exploitative, that's mutually beneficial. But applying the strict hierarchy lens to larger corporations with genuinely exploitative business practices is an interesting tool.

[@alexshih3747]

@@cartervanmeter I think the central issue is inequality of bargaining power. In an ideal world where everyone had equal bargaining power, markets would always lead to the best outcomes. But in the real world that assumption breaks down massively.

[@manuelmanuel9248]

Right wing “libertarians” like Ron Paul argue that you are free not to become an employee if you so wish but slaves were not given the choice not to be slaves. The problem with that argument is that the choice not to become an employee is more often than not to starve. That is not a true free choice.

[@michaelsmith8665]

Chomsky concedes that "wage slavery" is not as complete as chattel slavery, but agrees with you that "free" choice under pressure of need is far from real freedom. First capitalism destroys the commons, so collective survival is no longer possible, then it celebrates our "individual freedom" to prostitute ourselves to our corporate masters. Cynical.

[@rickuslastname6305]

*Resource* *Based* *Economy*

[@runrafarunthebestintheworld]

*Based on What?* 😅

[@Hy-jg8ow]

@@runrafarunthebestintheworld Computerized feedback-systems.

[@rickuslastname6305]

@@runrafarunthebestintheworld Resources. A economy built around the resources of the planet.

[@endlesssolitaire731]

So basically the same thing we have, but with exchange hardened by nesessity to find a customer with some goods you want.

[@raygaub9861]

The frustrating thing about Chomsky is that he knows what's wrong with the system and works his whole like to inform us all about it. Then every election cycle he reinforces that same system by using fear of Republicans to vote for Democrats who are also just a bunch of capitalists. He has chosen to accept the corrupt duopoly rather than try even once a different experiment, such as being part of a concerted public effort of the left to vote outside of the duopoly in order to build up new parties or outside leverage.

[@justinboyd8383]

This is amazing because I just watched this yesterday on Chomsky’s Philosophy

[@desmondbrown5508]

I'm surprised that this is the best argument you've heard. Not that it's bad, but this right here has ALWAYS been the crux of the marxist critique of capital. That all previous systems had the SAME justifications for existence... and yet we had to leave them because people outgrew them. People's needs weren't being met and the previous systems' leaders subjugated people more and more over time in an attempt to keep the system alive, further pushing people away. And people realized that the system was unjust and left it over time. This is the phase capitalism is going through right now.

[@RocketshipmusicXX]

Yeah, I get the feeling Kyle doesn't read much anymore; it's all podcasts and stuff.

[@arthurzhao8476]

Pleased to see this comment. I was confused that people in the comments were acting like this was such a fascinating video when this seems like a such basic idea in Leftism.

[@RocketshipmusicXX]

@@arthurzhao8476 I guess there's younger people still learning about politics, but, at the same time, I'm concerned that people don't read anymore. Are we doomed?

[@fellinuxvi3541]

The difference is, capitalism is better served by not subjugating people more. I'm not arguing this is what's happening now, but I'm saying this isn't really last ditch attempt of capitalism to save itself. A century ago things were in worsr shape and capitalism's collapse was also predicted, yet here we are. I frankly don't trust leftist's historical predictions anymore.

[@stevencrowder3101]

Kyle was doing great until 8:58

[@parkermudsen1063]

For some reason I was hearing the instrumental to Nas’s Ether playing in my head while watching this clip of Noam.

[@bruceleeroy8302]

Noam, Bernie and Morgan Freeman were born old. I am convinced.

[@jfuite]

Ahhhh, nothing more satisfyingly ironic than listening to Kyle and Chomsky on the abuses of tyrannical capitalism via KZbin . . . . meanwhile some of my favorite channels have been cancelled.

[@Isaac-vq9gw]

Damn, I wish I could have heard the question

[@billyboy1093]

The audio mix on KZbin is the absolute worst, if you're hearing impaired you're screwed, the CC sucks as well!!

[@leighfoulkes7297]

I disagree with the whole "democracy in the work place" because it simply gives in towards monopolies, corporations or state run capitalism (allowing them to exist). To me, the answer is easy and that is keeping everything small and local. Take away the whole "too big to fail" idea.

[@GlassesAndCoffeeMugs]

Proper democracy in the workplace means workers controlling the means of production, which is socialism, and therefore not capitalism or state-run capitalism. I'm not sure why you think giving workers more decision-making authority in their work lives leads to monopolies.

[@EntitledMillennials]

What a trip seeing Noam so young. Guy looks like he's on 2% battery life though. Noams been in this a long time. Time to continue the struggle. Our little leftist channel has talked about Noam many times in the past, after Kyle, swing by and check us out!

[@DB-sd3cw]

Modern leftism isn't leftism, it's an authoritarian cult composed of entitled young morons who've spent their entire lives in the most peaceful and easiest era in human history who, much like a soiled rich kid upset that his parents bought him a new toyota instead of a BMW, don't understand how good they have it.

[@teenkitsune]

What's your channel?

[@EntitledMillennials]

@@DB-sd3cw booooo, what a bad take, get new material!

[@chilldragon4752]

@@DB-sd3cw ???

[@anthonyminyard2715]

@@DB-sd3cw Deez Balls says what?

[@amiscii]

I’m not too familiar with which exact system Chomsky prefers that we adopt, but I’d propose that we at least really attempt an actually well-regulated capitalism or a healthy combo of socialism & capitalism before we attempt systems like complete socialism or even communism. I’ve seen many people prefer complete socialism, which I’ve defined as a system in which every single industry (like healthcare, education, agriculture, food distribution, banking, insurance, policing, fire prevention, child-care, real estate, telecommunications, public transportation, civil engineering/infrastructure/construction, metal mining/production, chemical production, energy production, etc.) is run solely by the government. And yes, in this system, everyone would be covered or serviced by each industry, thus getting all of their needs met, which definitely is a goal that needs to be accomplished. However, I believe that, if a single entity, even the government of a democratically elected republic, is in control of literally every single industry of society, then there would become such time and cost inefficiencies that it would end in a majority of impoverished people. Without free-market competition, there isn’t much incentive to continually find ways to better reorganize/restructure the process of collecting resources, the process of transforming those resources into products/services, or the process of delivering those products/services to customers. Therefore, the government would not continually find new ways to cut business costs that would end up lowering prices for the members of society. And not only would the price remain high, but so would the time it would take for customers to get serviced. Customers would have to always go through a long, arduous process, instead of one that continually gets faster, more efficient, and more convenient. For example, at the government-run DMV or unemployment agencies, it is well-known that everyone has to go through an unchanging, long process, in which they have to visit a poorly-designed website several times, talk to several poorly-informed employees on the phone, fill out many forms that are difficult to obtain, wait in several lines, visit a physical office numerous times, and navigate this poorly-organized process without much helpful guidance. Also, there isn’t much incentive to train employees to be more productive or suspend incompetent/inefficient employees, resulting in a lack of incentive for employees to be productive or efficient. This also leads to longer wait times for customers, which might really matter in many cases. I believe that, instead of implementing this system, we push for an actually well-regulated capitalism where laws are put into place, continually updated, and vigorously enforced in order to prevent monopolies, corporate collusion, unfair working conditions, unfair labor practices, paid parental leave, and many other needed reforms mandated by the government. Or, we could always try several different ways in which we can achieve a combination of both capitalism and socialism: ● Some industries can be government-run (like how education, policing, fire prevention, public transportation are currently), while at the same time, other industries can be privatized (like how real estate, telecommunications, metal mining/production, and chemical production are currently) ● The government can subsidize an industry (like how agriculture is currently), meaning they will partially pay private companies and individuals in an industry for some of the expenses ● The government can hire private companies through a contract in order for work to get done in that industry (like how civil engineering/infrastructure/construction are currently) ● The government can give certain citizens (like those receiving a lower than a certain income) benefits or vouchers that can be redeemed for free goods/services in a particular industry (like how food distribution is currently) ● The government can give grant funding to non-governmental, non-profit organizations to provide certain goods/services to those in need of them (like how food distribution, civil engineering/infrastructure/construction, healthcare, education, child-care are currently) ● The government can give citizens direct cash, like a universal basic income policy, so that their basic needs can be covered. Through this method, the government essentially subsidizes individuals for costs. However, instead of limiting the subsidies to a particular industry, the government allows citizens to have the freedom to make the choice on which goods/services are being subsidized. Citizens can then spend their earned income on goods/services from all other industries that they, themselves, deem non-essential. I think some specific combination of these policies/systems that is determined to work well by experts would be worth attempting several times before attempting complete socialism. Thank you for reading this far into my way-too-long description, and please let me know what you think about my ideas. I love to continually learn from others!

[@bastianconrad2550]

Thanks, that you mentioned richard wolff!

[@scroopynooperz9051]

Kyle needs to get the Wolff of Main Street on Breaking Points - Richard Wolff is the real deal

[@fabiangonzalez-cortes8894]

Wolff is shallow, Destiny embarrassed him in a debate and Wolff is supposed to be a PhD in Econ but couldn’t articulate his position.

[@edwardcohen1184]

9:28 Qualified agreement, as long as workers are also shareholders.

[@adamcornell1186]

WHAT! Kyle kulinski is evolving........................ Kyle kulinski became Comrade kulinski. Ladies and gentlemen, we got 'em.

[@zena11111]

Progressive commentators might consider joining together to fight their boss, KZbin, instead relying on viewer donations to maintain their income and lifestyle. An income that happens to be at a level much higher than their audience. Paying for YT premium (as I do) already guarantees the creator a payment for our views. I think Patreon is a great tool for additional income but if you’re not providing any added content or benefits over there; why should people tip when you don’t even bother to engage with your audience over here?! You don’t read or acknowledge reading any of the comments and feedback. I’d love to hear another opinion if you’re reading this and disagree. No need to include “he doesn’t have to...” in any response. I get that and that’s not my point. Join the fight of the working class. You have almost 1 million followers and could really influence Ytube to make changes. How about include a link to a petition against YT rather than your tip jar....

[@MarcoG353]

Best counter to capitalism is social democracy. That is only time we have checks and balances

[@ujmm]

Yes. number 1 on the democracy index: Norway(sosial democracy). Number one on the human freedom index: Switzerland(sosial democracy) Sosial democracies rank the highest on almost every positive metric you can think of.

[@garrisonthomas8584]

In America, you can normally leave your employer at anytime. If it's a dictatorship or authoritarian-like, you can get up and leave and work for someone else. Couldn't do that under slavery

[@thesomalistrawhat]

Its often a false choice though. The average American who lives paycheck to paycheck, who has a 30 yr mortgage, and has no emergency fund in excess of 400-2.5k technically has the choice to leave their job, but if its not an upgrade they will stay. And because your healthcare is often offered as a package by your employer, then even your health is a form of capital given to you by your labor conditional to your continued participation within wage slavery. To add insult to injury, the number of Americans who are self employed has been slashed by over 85% throughout the 20th-21st century, so unless you are one of the rare people with enough start up capital to hedge against the consolidation of small businesses for platforms of convenience, whelp... TL;DR Learn to code and become a bricklayer for the surveillance state.

[@jesse_cole]

I've never ethered anything. Is that good?

[@thesomalistrawhat]

I think it means puts to sleep quick

[@edwardcohen1184]

9:39 That’s actually HARDER. It’s easier to run a workplace democracy when the company is SMALL. As it gets bigger, the worker-shareholders will vote in a boss as their representative,simply because it’s inefficient to ask for a vote on things for such a large scale.

[@Nanofuture87]

The vital difference being that joining a corporate hierarchy is voluntary and doesn't violate any natural rights whereas the institution of slavery was involuntary and violated natural rights. Hierarchy is not unjust simply for being a hierarchy. Would you say that the conductor is an authoritarian because he leads the orchestra and therefore conductors must be outlawed? Conversely, forcing someone to use their justly acquired property against their will is a violation of their natural rights. Who are you to tell someone else how they must run their business?

[@france_d_robin]

So you don't think we should of had housing reform after the 2008 crash? Who are we to tell them what to do?

[@TheKrossRoads]

I would argue that, at least in today's world, joining a corporate hierarchy isn't voluntary in a lot of situations. A lot of jobs are like that, and if you forgo those jobs, there is a VERY real possibility you will eventually be left destitute and homeless; perhaps even dead on the streets. When a choice is "Do X or die" is that really a choice? I would say no.

[@Nanofuture87]

@@france_d_robin We shouldn't have been providing government incentives for housing or artificially low interest rates for banks to go crazy with in the first place. We definitely shouldn't be bailing out companies that get in trouble.

[@Nanofuture87]

@@DoctorHouse999 No one can possibly have an equal start. Human beings all have equal rights, but we fundamental aren't equal in circumstance. Are we going to start cutting off the legs of tall people or surgically modifying short people?

[@robinsss]

BINGO!!! the 2 are not comparable

[@Clunkerjohn]

Algorithm help Kyle dispense the wisdom passed on by Chomsky to more ready minds

[@ThaTruFily]

Throwback!!!!

[@betterlifeexe4378]

We should pay people to learn technical jobs, and then if several of them sign on to form a business, they can get a small grant to get started. Then in the classes, you can actually train them for what they want to do, and they can find people who they want to work with to get it done. This could be done on addition to attempting to diversify cooperate ownership and also increase representation of workers on the board by any means that is effective and most agreeable to all parties.

[@betterlifeexe4378]

just think, if the boards of car manufacturers where more diversified, you probably would have had more electric cars on the street.

[@blackflagsnroses6013]

This wasn’t against classical liberalism but against capitalism. Do your research Kyle. Classical liberalism is distinguished from capitalism. In fact classical liberalism gave birth to socialism. Chomsky even said libertarian socialism is the principles of classical liberalism for the industrial age. He even says in the video modern capitalists appropriate the philosophy and science of classical liberals.

[@riffsthatkill2180]

All true. These terms get redefined by the douchebags who trailblaze in their name. Chomsky said he'd rather not even refer to socialism as a contemporary name for it's original ideas because of how the Soviet Union tainted it. Sort of the same story for CL.

[@jonahbinkledick4509]

This is what makes noam a scholar, the media likes to appeal to the fear and insecurities people have around their personal identity, but chomsky points out the mechanisms that harm us all.

[@justice5150]

Such a legend!

[@dravenlee4473]

I think capitalism is a good base as long as it's highly regulated. I don't like the idea of the government setting fixed prices for everything. If I wrote a song for instance, I don't like the idea of the government saying all songs should be 99c. Even if you only did essential items like food, that would stifle the choice that we have now. I prefer a mixed economy or just regulating capitalism where companies can't get too big and can't make obscene profits without being taxed appropriately. Money is always going to be a motivator whether we like it or not.

[@CrimsonMagick]

That's not capitalism. Capitalism did not invent markets, you have them in feudaliam and slavery as well. Capitalism is taking the value produced by your labor, and privately pocketing as much as possible.

[@PittsburghSonido]

Ethers?

[@mathieuleader8601]

@Critique Everything thank you I thought ether was a classical form of anesthetic

[@PittsburghSonido]

@@mathieuleader8601 Bro thats what I thought he meant, like he knocked out capitalism

[@PittsburghSonido]

@Critique Everything Typical NY Kyle

[@runrafarunthebestintheworld]

Based?

[@andreasbyczkowski3435]

There is an additional layer of complexity to this(…and everything) sometimes called the macro-picture. In “earlier primitive” societies the division of labor worked on an honorary system that was respected by the cohesively-spirited community. “If you do the fishin’, I’ll worky on the dam etc”. Our contemporary macro-society (regrettably)has consistently gutted this natural social-nat’l cohesion and replaced it with deified personal narcissism, focussed selfishness and sociopathic indulgences. Therefore, we find it highly challenging to return to healthy societal habits because the macro-picture has been “seriously compromised”. However, there’s lots of useful thought threads in historic, progressive and other thinkers anyway that do deserve careful, critical and fair consideration. One can hopefully one day do better than “couch theorize”, if one also works to improve macro-elements, consistently sets a personal example and lol/phew!>”owns a magic wand!!!”.

[@macodepage2171]

This is so beyond dumb, I don't remember $laves having the "choice" to resign and go work at a better plantation, or not work at all. Neither are there any "dictatorship" where citizens can just say "I quit" can run a parallel government (small business) By this logic even a family of strict parents starting with grandparents, to parents, to children would be a dictatorship.

[@NightDoge]

That line of thinking is somewhat popular. However, i dont think it will ever get popular with the greater population. Altho, who knows? Maybe one day the foundation of the family institution will be replaced with liberty of choice. Altho how that will manifest itself i can’t imagine. Nevertheless, its interesting how values are quickly changing and what their chaning to.

[@darkmantlestudios]

... It's called authoritarian parenting for a reason

[@macodepage2171]

@@darkmantlestudios I was turning the structure argument he used to compare "better slave owners" with "better bosses" on its head by his definition the mere existence of any institution with hierarchy is as he said "a dictatorship".

[@macodepage2171]

@@NightDoge that line of thinking **IS** popular that's why these hierarchy are so prevalent in so many institutions. Also the family example was used to highlight the absurdity of Chomsky's line of thinking, and thereby Kyle's too because of his agreement. The entire point was that not all hierarchyS and not all hierarchical structure are same, and he *missed* a huge component of "choice" in comparison of slavery to jobs.

[@blackflagsnroses6013]

The abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass declared "Now I am my own master" when he took a paying job. Later in life, he concluded to the contrary "experience demonstrates that there may be a slavery of wages only a little less galling and crushing in its effects than chattel slavery, and that this slavery of wages must go down with the other". - “Three Addresses on the Relations Subsisting Between the White and Colored People of the United States”

[@lorenzovaletti4951]

Yes, but remember that we as a species naturally came to this widespread agreement of a ruled society, which to different degrees enslaves us, because the alternative was to die alone eaten by a predator. Not saying what we have can't be improved, but let's not forget how much road we've made this far.

[@SpinosaurusTheProudSocialist]

We ended slavery, now it's time to end wage slavery. A.K.A capitalism.

[@bisiriyutajudeen5728]

Let me know how that works for you.

[@xxnoobslayeriv]

Noam Chomsky has been old since the 80s. It's so mind-melting.

[@MLPGamer44]

Even tho Chomsky isn’t as left as I am, and would probably just call me an authoritarian, I still vibe so hard with his sort of anarchist view/examination of power relations and dynamics. The fact he can point to them and explain them well is so nice.

[@shady1137]

He isnt an anarchist for one, two - anarchism is the furthest left you can get. Its complete power towards the people.

[@MLPGamer44]

@@shady1137 ok anarkitty

[@fellinuxvi3541]

You a leninist?

[@tylerjames7449]

I remember watching some sci-fantasy show called "dynotopia", or something, when I was a kid.. and the economy is based on 1 hour for 1 hour.. if you want an hour of work from me, I'm going to get an hour of work from you. Time spent is worth the same no matter what you're working on.

[@winstonchurchill3059]

Political and economic systems are driven by scarcity. As long as scarcity exists, people will compete. Dominate. Rule. “Yeah but we want to deal with the problem of inequality TODAY!” As long as participants in this conversation are not seriously thinking about the problem of scarcity, we can’t move beyond capitalism.

[@sammartina8574]

Interesting. The slave owner used to argue that capitalism would be worse than slavery. Because you'd treat rented property worse than owned property.

[@raulcantu9142]

You were vital in taking me from a liberal to a soc dem reading Chomsky turned me into a syndicalist

[@moety2]

I need to go back and rewatch Chomsky’s lectures and interviews. I almost forgot how good and on point his arguments were and they obviously still hold up to the test of time. The key point with Chomsky was principal. I remember Howard Zinn making the point that people had the principles of US together, but when they started making money for themselves and becoming comfortable it became about ME. That’s the real danger of capitalism, it promotes and encourages selfishness and we are left dealing with all the destructive byproducts of it.

[@frevazz3364]

I've read comments of people making excuses for slavery by saying things like: 1) they had a better life than they would have in Africa (essentially what Kyle want over) 2) that it was fellow Africans who were selling other Africans into slavery, implying it was their own fault 3) that this is how society and economics were back in the day, so they were doing what was expected of the time and thus innocent bystanders; which either, in no way at all justifies the act of "owning" or slaving a human being.

[@EYTPS]

I think it's just a lot of people identify themselves as classical liberal but have raped what the term has meant

[@Moonlight_Soyuz]

Just listening to the question (difficult to hear as it was), I basically jumped straight to the core of Chomsky's argument before he began to speak. I was considering if you pointed out good things that happened under communism to someone right-wing as evidence that the system is good, they'd never accept that argument and immediately jump to pointing out bad things (real or imaginary) that they feel outweigh this or questioning whether the good things are in fact so good at all. And while I am not on their side on this issue, I would agree that this alone is a weak argument that fails to address many of the core issues that people actually disagree about when it comes to economic systems. But to defend capitalism, this line of argument is their go-to move. Chomsky is obviously more coherent and thoughtful and detailed than I was - his slavery example is better because almost nobody would side in favor of it - but I'm kinda proud that I came up with such a similar response on my own, considering only a decade ago I was a brainwashed religious conservative teenager parroting my parents' political opinions that I didn't even begin to understand but accepted at face value. This moment just felt strangely like a little milestone for me. But maybe that's because I'm stoned af. I need to finish the video.

[@maxs713]

WOW! "You can't be a nice guy in certain situations because the institution is not nice" loved that

[@maxs713]

Like there were very "decent" guys in position in the nazi regime for instance and like he said in the slavery regime, etc...

[@notabene7381]

"Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to Socialism or regression into Barbarism." ― Rosa Luxemburg, 1916

[@Muaahaa]

Well, I don't think any society has evolved beyond barbarism. But some were able to export the bulk of it overseas.

[@endlesssolitaire731]

What is the difference between socialism and barbarism? After people like Mao and Pol Pot the difference is hard to understand.

[@notabene7381]

@@endlesssolitaire731 Your ignorant comment reveals that you have never read anything by Rosa Luxemburg. She openly rejected the "USSR" as an example of socialism due to its abolishment of democracy, and therefore was a persona non grata there.

[@endlesssolitaire731]

@@notabene7381 I didn't mention USSR. My examples were different, and even more relevant as Chomsky openly defended Pol Pot's regime.

[@notabene7381]

@@endlesssolitaire731 Playing dumb today? I mentioned the "USSR". She could not, since she was murdered in 1919. Based on what I wrote, would she consider as socialism the regimes you claimed to be socialist?

[@jonathanhijlkema8247]

Its likely true that slaves would be better treated than a lot of wage workers. People right now are born into debt and a world that's someone's property. People dont have a place of they don't give their labor to someone else.

[@edwardcohen1184]

8:09 No one is preventing workers from buying a stake in the business and voting as “worker-shareholders.” American workers seem to prefer being paid in health insurance and wages, instead of wages and shares.

[@joeymac4302]

What an interesting take. It seems you are critiquing Chomsky's interpretation with a salient point (your notation that they are effectively choosing healthcare over shares), while ignoring the concept that this is a form of "wage slavery", whereby the established power hierarchy remains intact, and effectively insulated from the interference of those pesky workers. Nothing stops them from purchasing stake in the business, excepting the entire capital and profit driven healthcare system which constrains their spending power by being so damn expensive. Kudos to you for getting so close to the right answer on your own.

[@Riverfox2012]

Wage Labor. It's called Indentured Servitude with the freedom to walk away with nothing. To get away from the authoritarian, dictatorial hierarchy of the laborer, we all need to be our own contractor. We can enter into a contract for our time and labor and if the person who Hires us falls short, we can sue them into non-existence. The way to keep that from happening, the employer has to abide by labor regulations. All this could've been set up from the get-go, but our country was founded by the Rich, aka The Overseer, The Employer. Initially, they even decided that only Land Owners would be allowed to vote. Which is why ensuring the Right to Vote wasn't part of the constitution. They eventually allowed everyone to vote, but not as a Right. Our right to vote can be stripped away--if we're not a member of the elite.

[@patbranigan6501]

The way slave owners describe how good they are to slaves and how the slaves are better off with them makes me think of how abusive parents and pet owners talk about heir children and their pets.

[@52darcey]

I’m struggling to visualize in what way the workplace could be made more democratic. I’m all for workers owning the business as with a coop, but even then isn’t some sort of management structure best for efficient decision making and operations? Yes workers should have more pay and rights but democracy??? How would that work in practice? Reminds me of Platos analogy of how you wouldn’t want a ship controlled via the democratic will of its passengers ….

[@alexshih3747]

Simple. The workers could simply elect a leader or multiple leaders to administrate. The leader(s) could be removed and replaced by a simple majority vote or something like that.

[@Travie_Law]

He says that in America libertarianism has been perverted to mean the opposite of what it’s originally intended. He calls libertarianism in America worshippers of corporate tyranny.

[@silaszebedee9331]

I'm interviewing with Amazon later this week. 250-300k per year. Software Engineer. Hey, they contacted me and begged me to interview. Wish me luck ;)

[@anthonypeasley7604]

My big criticisms with these speaking events.. How hard is it to hook a mic up to this cameras audio along with the speakers? I couldn't hear anything that guy said and can only do the guesswork upon Noam chomsky's reply (I might put my earbuds in and see if I better luck)

[@SolutionsWithin]

Closed caption always helps and takes a millisecond to turn on as apposed to writing a whole complain paragraph.

[@brandbusters183]

Speaking of Old Clips be nice if you would throw some Michael Brooks Clips.

[@fabiangonzalez-cortes8894]

RIP to Brooks, but the dude was a vapid leftist. Just a less attractive Hasan.

[@legomasterthe3rd240]

People with power will ALWAYS fight to keep that power and to grow more. It's a pipe dream to think we can do better, because there will always be those rising to the top. We can work to mitigate those issues, and should, but utopia is impossible.

[@jasondavis3774]

Ya, I'm staunchly on the side that Employer/Employee System must be abolished, for all workers should have sovereignty of labor, and not have their labor value extracted automatically without say in the workplace, including small businesses. Employment is leasing labor in theory, but owning labor in practice.

[@ProfDCoy]

Saying that there's nothing wrong with the capitalist business structure when the boss is nice is like saying there was nothing wrong with Westerosi feudalism because Ned Strak was a nice guy. Firstly, Ned is introduced to the audience when he enacts capital punishment - something that nearly all modern nations agree is morally wrong. Secondly, when he attempts to do The Right Thing within the system, he is outmanoeuvred and killed by those who want to retain their power within that same system that he is threatening. There were limits to how good a "good" feudal lord could be, and there are limits to how good a "good" boss can be.

[@mattw9764]

Chomsky does not overstate it one iota. Making an exception for small business is the same as arguing some slave owners are nice. The only exception around small business is where the business already effectively operates in an unoppresdive way (including no oppressive dominance or hierarchy and decisions taken democratically). Many small businesses already operate close to that way or can with only very minor change.

[@ConvictedFelon2024]

In all but the most extreme scenarios, there really is no comparison between capitalism and slavery. In the former, you are literally considered someone's _property_ and you have no choice whatseover in who dictates everything you are allowed to do. In principle (but not always in practice), that person has authority over you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If they tell you to do something, you have to do it --- even if they reneged on a promise they made to you, or if you are busy doing something important (like breastfeeding your child). The power structure is as extreme as it gets. Here you are, born into an institution where one person (or a handful) has absolute control over your every move, and even if you're sold to someone else, nothing changes (that is, unless that person has bought your freedom, which almost never happens). Under capitalism, your work is only "rented" temporarily and you are compensated for your labor. You have also entered into this situation _voluntarily_ by means of a contract, and are free to leave at any time. The car analogy doesn't really work here, because while the car being rented is not really technically the renter's _property,_ one does not typically rent the same car over and over again. But that's exactly what happens in businesses where retention rates are moderately high. If the car analogy was true, businesses would not spend exorbinant amounts of time and money training their employees, which they expect will pay for itself long-term. I must say, however, that government has _some_ role to play in this, to ensure worker safety (OSHA), to protect against exploitation and discrimination (e.g. child labor laws), and covering up areas where the free market does not perform well (minimum wage laws are a good example in this country). Ayn Rand-style hardcore libertarianism is nothing more than a pipedream, but so is the Communist utopia Marx was envisioning. If it wasn't, it would've happened already. Rather, the best solution is somewhere in between socialism and capitalism, and I am prepared to argue that the socially democratic Scandinavian model does it best.

[@Bisquick]

Absolute demon John C Calhoun actually used this argument to its logical conclusion stating _on the senate floor_ "freedom _is_ slavery" because "freedom" is merely a euphemism by the American bourgeoisie federalist/antifederalists for property. Speaking of Adam Smith, _"Kelp was never augmented by human industry. The landlord, however, whose estate is bounded by a kelp shore of this kind, demands a rent for it."_ - ch.11, Wealth of Nations

[@andrewharris9302]

I loved working on the farm. My boss payed bonuses for us growing the best chicken. I worked harder because he payed good and reward hard work.I wish he hadn’t of retired I really miss working on that farm. We were the top growers in a 12 county area among 679 farms

[@edwardcohen1184]

7:42 Totalitarians don’t allow their slaves to leave. Capitalist bosses DO allow their workers to. ENORMOUS difference. Think of it as The difference between RAPE and CONSENSUAL kink and BDSM.

[@fraserbailey6347]

I have always taken the view that if he'd been called 'Norm' and not "Noam' we would never have heard of him.

[@sadpee7710]

a short history on wages much of this dates back to the french revolution where a lot of nobles, fearing the threat of democratization, decided to come up with a way to preserve their place in society. the idea they came up with was called conservatism, however it wasn't the same conservatism we think of today. the main premiss of which was that in response to a shifting world, they could move the societal hierarchies and preserve them inside the market. thus secure their place at the perch of society. the way in which they did this was by contesting the definition of value. see when value was created by labour, AKA when you take a set of ingredients and with your skill or knowledge you turn that into something more valuable, a united workforce would own all the power. so what they did was argue that value came from the buyer, value was equal to how much someone was willing to pay for it. because with this the people with the most money get to decide what is and isn't valued and thus dictate how society is organized. capitalism is defined by wages. for a period of time each day you sign your knowledge, your actions and your labour over to someone else. you have no influence over what you produce, or how your work place is run. it's incredibly anti democratic as the public has no say in what they produce, how they produce it or how our society is organized. all decision making lies in the hands of capital and we have been systematically separated from capital for thousands of years. it's like this that nobles managed to preserve the structure of feudalism in a modern word. another function of the wage is to trickle wealth upward. your labour produces value but that value is owned by someone else. you create 100 dollars of value and are paid 7.25 dollars, the surplus of which is stolen. in this sense you don't work to make yourself wealthy, you work so someone else can be wealthy.