Noam Chomsky: I would vote for Jeremy Corbyn (EXTENDED INTERVIEW) - BBC Newsnight

Noam Chomsky is not just one of the world's most famous academics, he is also one of the world's most famous supporters of the political left. Evan Davis talked to him about Donald Trump, populism in Europe and Julian Assange.
Newsnight is the BBC's flagship news and current affairs TV programme - with analysis, debate, exclusives, and robust interviews.
Website: www.bbc.co.uk/newsnight
KZbin: / bbcnewsnight
Twitter: / bbcnewsnight
Facebook: / bbcnewsnight
Snapchat: / bbcnewsnight

[@uberd0gAlpha]

How you boiled this 23min video down to a "I would vote for Corbyn" title is beyond me

[@sirskullington9213]

I can imagine that isn't a tough ask.

[@florinmoldovanu]

the C from BBC stands for "Corporation". Let's not forget that corporations have owners and the last thing the "owners" want is to loose what they own.

[@ThepigandThemonkey]

Ironically the bbc is a public owned media outlet, so it's owners are the British people.

[@Alex-he5pj]

@@ThepigandThemonkey hardly its paid for by a tv license you have no choice but to buy if you own a tv. Its not a system that one can reasonably opt out of without having to opt out of television whole sale. Amongst other issues

[@ThepigandThemonkey]

@@Alex-he5pj doesn't change the fact its publicly owned, so isn't controlled by advertisers or corporate influencers.

[@settamit]

"I've just given you the answer". Polite response to an interviewer that is not paying attention

[@Slarti]

except if you are going into politics you are by that very move stating that you are open to answering questions - this is where Corbyn falls over in my opinion.

[@settamit]

jagara1: What did Corbyn fail to answer? Do you have proof and data to back this allegation?

[@tezzah2222]

+Amit Sett failed to answer whether he's in favour of Trident, which he obviously isnt, just say no

[@settamit]

Terry Hardy: His party manifesto states support for Trident. He doesn't need to answer that question. The manifesto is publicly available

[@rodgygormin]

if he doesn't want to play politics he doesn't get to be the glorious leader. he will lose based on name recognition alone without the media or the internet. does he think he will win because he represents peace? what is he, a muslim?

[@artieboy24]

"The Democrats gave up on the working class 40 years ago." That is a powerful statement. Thank you Noam.

[@texasRoofDoctor]

This is one of the few things he is honest about.

[@GoldLBS]

@@texasRoofDoctor what is he lying about.

[@texasRoofDoctor]

@@GoldLBS He criticizes the Democratic party in one sentence than bounces back and supports Socialism in the next. Sometimes he criticizes Democrats for NAFTA and gave Obama a pass for trying to impose TPP ( NAFTA on meth). He is a very clever speaker and makes it sound like he is for the people but is really spinning a Socialist message or heavily vilifying Republicans for the exact same policies that Obama got a pass for. Most illegals ever deported under a US President- Obama. Go back and listen to Christopher Hitchens on Bush, Clinton's, etc. Beware of Chris Hedges as well because he plays the same game as Chomsky. I am a history guy and compare all commentary vs actual events. It is tough to get any facts now except alternative media due to spin. Example: MSM is bagging on Trump today for being soft on Iran. They were dying for him to fall into Iran's game so they could call him a maniac and warmonger. Iran has gotten up on it's hind legs because Obama appeased them. When you are the strongest Empire you HAVE to be harder on rogue nations vs giving them $1.8 billion like Obama. Clearly Trump is far from perfect. Everyone hates him because he is removing all the abusive arrangements that other countries have used to exploit us for years- China, NATO, NAFTA, etc. There are no easy solutions only better or worse choices. Everyone before Trump has kicked the can down the road 4 or 8 years. Chomsky carefully picks his facts to spin a message. You do not have to agree with me on US policy but, go back and look at the events that transpired after weak Presidents elected. Are the people of Syria, Iran, Libya better or worse off than before ? Yugoslavia until Clinton was forced to act. Typically the US is a bully but, the most benevolent bully. Empire is a tough game. There is a reason that people preferred the Pax Romana to constant warfare and violence. Imagine what Russia would do in Europe if the US walked away from the game. Ditto China in Asia.

[@Hankyman583]

@@texasRoofDoctor do you think Chomsky is a democrat? Or that the democrats are socialists? Cos neither of those things are true. Not even Bernie Sanders is a socialist

[@texasRoofDoctor]

@@Hankyman583 if you are asking me to speculate about his motivations I would lean towards him being a closet Marxist due to his early influences by Spanish Civil war emigres. True that Bernie is not a true socialist (personally he is a capitalist) but socialism is a slippery slope. I have zero interest in anything remotely Socialist here: single payer healthcare, gun control, 70% taxation, etc. When you try to control equality of outcome all you guarantee is universal misery for all. A central government in place of free market providers of anything is always a terrible failure. The US is not Northern Europe. People who do not read enough try to point to the very wealthy and formerly homogeneous countries in Scandinavia and say: "muh, Socialism works". They need to read more. Mass immigration will destroy all of them within 10 years. Expensive social programs need productive workers to pay high taxes. When you are importing millions of new welfare recipients collapse is imminent. The US would be a terrible candidate for Socialism because we already have a large welfare class and illegal immigrant population- neither of which contribute to taxes in most cases- not all. We already have $22 trillion in debt with another $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. The Fed is already printing money a near zero rates and no one is buying our treasury bonds anymore. So, any more social spending will only compound the mathematically inevitable Balck Swan. If we gut the military then China and Russia start acting the fool. No great solutions to wind down an Empire.

[@koalasquare2145]

I'm not the type of person that idolises people. But Noam Chomsky is probably the only person who I can truly say I look up to. He is by far the most impressive person alive.

[@dreaminginnoother]

I have watched countless Noam videos over the years. One of the most consistently wise voices around. Can we make him live forever?

[@lalu9056]

I love him! He answers my e-mails. I wish he could live forever

[@sebastiaankruis3006]

lalu Where do you send those emails to?

[@lalu9056]

sebastiaan kruis to his MIT e-mail. Just google Noam Chosmky e-mail and it will pop up

[@robertpirsig5011]

He's incredible!

[@chrisvoiceactingvoiceover1431]

dreaminginnoother Wise, but not always right....

[@JR-wp1qz]

Chomsky has always been a CONSISTENT VOICE, for decades. The vast majority of the time his analyses have been on point. How could anyone not respect him for that.

[@ofGiorge]

It's sad how, over the years, he warned the people of different dangers that sometimes sounded like prophecies; prophecies that eventually became true, and they still dismiss him and his ideas, just sad.

[@AymanB]

"If the society is based on control by private wealth, it will reflect the values that it, in fact, does reflect now - greed and the desire to maximize personal gain at the expense of others. A small society based on that principle is ugly, but it can survive. A global society based on that principle is headed for massive destruction." --Noam Chomsky, in 1988

[@Pebble_Collector]

He calls people bigots for saying there are core problems in the religious texts of the Quran and Hadiths. He's a danger to free speach and an all-around twat.

[@hoogmonster]

LrsLzk he is actually a radical upholder of free speech. On religion he is clear that he is atheist, but he is also clear that if religion provides a positive orientation to people's lives in the world then absolute rejection of religious belief is counterproductive. He has also made it clear he does not support religious fundamentalism. But why the exclusive focus on Islam in your comment?

[@AymanB]

Because he felt targeted when Chomsky called islamophobes bigots. And he had to justify his position, hence the ad hominem attack. It's typical of people who can't rise to Chomsky's level of argument.

[@brickbuddystudios]

this dude asked "class doesn't really matter, right?" in like 4 different ways

[@robertburnett5561]

You pay 2019 prices with 1989 wages. Not complicated.

[@__aoc]

Chomsky stated that wages have stagnated in real terms (taking inflation into account), meaning that wages have increased at the same rate as inflation.

[@thepolticalone961]

@@__aoc that's wrong. If wages have stayed stagnant taking inflation into account then wages have not gone up enough to keep up with inflation

[@neilwilliams2883]

a gradual reversion back to slavery

[@__aoc]

@@thepolticalone961 Listen to what Chomsky said look into inflation in real terms and see what the situation is in the US. What you'll find is that wages have roughly increased proportionately with inflation, meaning that in *real terms* they have stagnated

[@__aoc]

@@roberta949 I agree with the general sentiment of your comment. Despite the relevance of your information to the topic of employment remuneration, it does not discredit the fact that wages have increased at the same rate as inflation (stagnating in real terms) in the period Chomsky details during the interview.

[@MrSeventyAce]

Chomsky is going to be remembered as one of the most important thinkers of the 21st century. Such a fascinating insight in so many fields.

[@jamesnewman6437]

Chomsky's most important intellectual output happened in the 20th century, though...

[@MontyCantsin5]

'...did nothing but sit an ivory tower for 70 years...' You must be joking. Are you at all aware of the political activism that Chomsky has been involved with during his lifetime?

[@marcusbarker8057]

i advise you to look at his criticism of the soviet union/ leninism, i think your a bit misguided on his views. he recognises the authoritarian nature of the application of marxism in the 20th century, he beleives in the decentralisation of the state, combined with democratic ownership/control of institutions. he seems to me to understand the issues of 20th century communism - i.e. it concentrates too much power in too few hands, leading to dictatorship effectively. Furthermore, he has founded a scientific feild in modern linguistics, his universal grammer theory pioneered human understanding of language aquisition. In addition he slanders specific policy decisions of western democracies such as the invasion of iraq, and the strong ties between the government and private interests., to say he slanders 'western democracies' is too vague, its not exactly 'slandering western democracy' when your supposed 'slandering' is a claim that we arnt living in a democracy, given the single digit congressional approval ratings, and the comparative studies of a corralation between campaign funding and election results. to conclude i do disagree with some of his analysis, but i think your misguided on him, you give the impression you are in an emotionally driven left vs right wing analysis, instead you should counter specific views he holds to increase your perception of credibility

[@andcouncil1]

@SpaghettiandSauce every 6 to 7 years, capitalism kills more people than Communism did during the whole of the 20th century.

[@UnderscoreZeroLP]

@SpaghettiandSauce There are other ways to contribute to society than just "creating jobs" and "changing policies". It would be awfully ignorant to deny that.

[@craigholman1161]

Chomsky did well with this contentious interviewer. He is so far ahead intellectually.

[@kathybramley5609]

Craig Holman I think the problem is sometimes they have to follow a house editorial, both the styles favoured and the selected topics he agreed beforehand with his team and editors and perhaps Chomsky/any interviewees. Anxiously fussy editorial and self editing and the attempt to sound free thinking, intelligent, fair and searching sometimes has the opposite effect.

[@garymorgan3314]

You mean that you agree with him. That's all. You might want to ask yourself why TV news is nowhere near as skewed as the British press - plenty right types think BBCs leftist, really - and one reason is that, just as the USSR existing kept the West honest(ash), the BBC keeps the telly coverage here from rightist demagogy. It is one reason why Sky News is nowhere near as barking as Fox, nor could it be.

[@kathybramley5609]

We don't want to trade for Berlusconi's dominion nor a braying and evangelical Fox news economy certainly. But there seems to be room for some kind of figure like that and usefully connected to murky waters, up to a certain point. Was Maxwell murdered? Guardian article from 2003. I don't want murder or unclear death at sea, or the circumstances leading up to it. Spy type intelligence shouldn't be that kind of game. Similarly what I really wanted to say was that intelligence as a kind of personal quality isn't a race or any kind of competition, that's a gross distortion of science and ethics. It's super annoying when potential friends in the progressive movement buy into that supremacist eugenist snobbery. The bad guys don't care who uses that stick and whoever uses it, does the same job in some ways.

[@FartChamp69]

I like when interviewers challenge Chomsky. That's called actual journalism

[@angelsaltamontes7336]

Craig Holman..."He [Chomsky] is so far ahead intellectually": over the last century, leftists have worked a scam as reliable as a fixed roulette, impugning the intellect of opponents. "News" media have been LITERALLY more than cooperative; they have embroidered the "lefties are smart, their opponents are stupid" "narrative" (how i DETEST that word!) into EVERYTHING; thus Chomsky gets a pass. Take his appearance here part by part---whole lot of assuming going on, the assuming ULTIMATELY to be done by a subordinated society & you know who they'll be subordinated to. -----To return though to my original statement and complaint, and to prove it, speaking from the west side of the Pond (though i was born in Germany): Demmies good, smart, virtuous, Repubs reprobates. Even before candidates, or positions, appear. Of personalities, and just at the Presidential level: may i name for you some of the Smartest candidates of my lifetime? Well, i will anyway: President Hillary Clinton; Presidents John Kerry and Mike Dukakis; President and Saint Adlai Stevenson. May i offer (and not be the first to do so) a hypothesis about why they only entered the White House as visitors? Because the VAST, STUPID, DEPLORABLE PEOPLE were JUST SMART ENOUGH (which MADE them deplorable) to say---amid whatever "technicalities"---WAAAAAIT A MINUTE... -----Those the Elite frowns upon are AS A MATTER OF COURSE called stupid---as if to rub it in, Deplorables not sufficiently dazzled when told elite-anointees are "intellectual". Thus, "stupid" Ronald and Donald. So "stupid" that things under their watch went relatively well on their watches, and they got a whole lotta love from the pedestrians. But the "intellectuals" criticized them?! Oh, my smelling salts! My pearls! The vapours!* The "intellectuals" ALWAYS "criticize"; it's HOW they get on the Furrowed-Brow shows: but notice how their "criticism" of lefties is always softball, always like a kitty brushing one's leg: you know what Chomsky, and all the others, are doing when they do a show (i chose my phrase deliberately)? Interviews? You BETCHA---JOB interviews. -----Party plays SUCH an important part in American and Brit politics. Churchill, Reagan, Trump and others CAME to conservatism FROM its opponents. Few know it (few know ANYTHING, thanks in great measure to the Lying Left-Run Media), but WHAT PARTY ARE YOU WITH? was a question pressed not only on Donald Trump, but on Dwight Eisenhower---and the word was discreetly sent to both, in the early 2000s and the late 1940s/early 1950s, respectively, that if they'd wear a (D) A Way Would Be Made for them. They chose to wear (R)'s, and were then instantly and permanently said to be, well, intellectually challenged. -----Wait! Isn't that---i dunno, "brainist"? Why, if a conservative was to call a lefty "not so bright" they'd be Tweeted and Twatted to oblivion (which has no electoral votes); the outrage from Hollyweird would melt, well, melt SOMETHING and the conservative would be blamed for the meltation. "Liberals" (who are NOT liberal) are SOOOOO "smart"; others are STOOOOOPID! That's the TRUUUUUTH, and the media lead EVERYONE there & CONDEMN who won't drink. -----Let's go alt-hist (i said alt-HIST, Snowflake---calm down!) for a minute: say Donald Trump had announced in the early 2010s (or in the 1980s) he was a Democrat. Let me insert, just to grease things up, the common "not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties"; REALLY grind the gears. Now: i assert, A Way would have been Made. For sake of brevity, i stipulate that Democrat Trump got nominated. (Yeah, him on the convention podium arms-raised with Barry is a stretch, but i'm stipulating.) Campaign 2016 ensues, Trump (D) versus Whichever (R). Jeb Bush? Carly Fiorina? It WOULDN'T HAVE MATTERED, in the sense that the artillery and the softballs would have been lobbed as always. Lemme go REALLY rogue**, & STIPULATE the (R)'s nominated Carly. In this scenario, REPUBLICANS have nominated the First Woman Ever. But she'd be called stupid, after & among a lotta other things. Ex-CEO of a big biz? Corporate greedster. Racist, somehow, have to be. Meantime, over on the left---Donald Trump (D): savvy financier, skilled in the ways of the ways; why, he's met Putin! Trump, a Renaissance man for whom a Nobel is already being, well, greased! Donald Trump, the smartest man EVER to seek the White House (after Jimmuh Cahtuh of course)! -----You don't believe me? You've been drinking. -----I STILL say (i began floating this at the fancy cocktail parties i go to on the metropolitan Deplorable circuit in 2015) Trump can INSURE his (re-)election with a SIMPLE TRIP (or CLICK, even?) TO THE BUREAU OF ELECTIONS: With a tick, his reputation will tock: he will IN FACT be a Democrat---would the Usual Suspects roll over? They'd HAVE to---they've nowhere else to go; having snit on the Deplorables for a hundred years (Woodrow Wilson was SOOOOO much smarter than TOXIC-MASCULINE Teddy Roosevelt in 1912!) the Deplorables would SURELY be ready to pour buckets of---well, buckets---on them even if they came to extol Republican Nominee Carly Fiorina in a 2020 meth dream. I am NOT wrong, and wish Trump would do just the above, if only for the fun. -----Is that a LITMUS TEST? Is that a DOGWHISTLE? "Fun": that is SO RACIST! I can hear the libtards now, writhing as Stupid Donald Trump brings off the---well--FUNDAMENTAL TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICA. -----Don't be so grumpy, Noam. It's not like you'd be out of a job! * No, not liquid inhalable electronic nicotine, Snowflake. It was something girls had, or used, or something. Call your great-grandmother in Gstadd & ask her. ** Tip o' the hat to Sarah Palin.

[@assreductionist8575]

Here we are in 2019, and Chomsky was right on Assange.

[@karbonkel9803]

@Duke Media UK you only think he is a creepy dude because they manufactured your consent.

[@stephen_mcateer]

Davis's interruptions are annoying. Let the man speak.

[@wunxue]

Totally agree. This man was not trying to let Chomsky speak; he was trying to ask him to listen to him and respond yes yes.

[@magnuscroify]

Actually I found it refreshing to find an interviewer who for once pushes back at Chomsky (as much as I like and respect him) and doesn't just let him lecture. Chomsky will give you a 20 minute answer if you're not careful (see his soliloquies on Democracy Now, e.g.)

[@stephen_mcateer]

@@magnuscroify Fair point Kris. I just find the whole ethos of aggressive / interrupting BBC interviewing a little tiring now, having listened to John Humphrys on their 'Today' progamme for years.

[@MrDeyzel]

@@magnuscroify 100% agree

[@SirAmicVarze]

Noam hit the nail on the head on literally everything here.

[@billyb4790]

all he ever does is make grievances. The few solutions he has are "socialism is good", which proves he's a crock of crap.

[@xfoolsgoldx]

Noam Chomsky is Legend.

[@_Wakaz_]

What a phenomenal man. The fact he supported Corbyn, a man who cares about the common people, is wonderful for me.

[@DousedInPiss]

You realise corbyn is worth more than the current PM right?... Despite never having a job outside politics....

[@juanzulu1318]

Lol Corbyn is an Antisemite. Not a very caring trait.

[@rantsinpatwa]

"Many progressives ppl have looked at wiki leaks and said this organization is on the wrong side of history " - there is literally not one progressive organization saying that about Assange.

[@stevebrindle1724]

The mainstream press including the BBC sold out Mr Assange and they are trying to cover up their crime

[@shahedmohithwahid3846]

Chomsky he's the man. Sane voice in a world of insane voices. I wish u a long life Mr Chomsky!!!

[@garymorgan3314]

Bit servile aren't we? He's a journalist, linguistics not politics is his genius. As a political thinker he's negligible.

[@mck1972]

@@garymorgan3314, And it is EXTREMELY generous to even call Chomsky a, ' Journalist '...

[@mck1972]

MassDefibrillator , Chomsky is NOT a Legitimate Historian either-He’s just a Critic: Legitimate Historians have great knowledge of the Past, but ALSO realize that they have the great luxury of Hindsight-Hindsight which those IN the past did NOT have at the time! And so Legitimate Historians recognize that they are NOT entitled to judge the Past, using the Standards of the Present. As opposed to a Critic-Like Chomsky-Who merely EXPLOITS 20/20 Hindsight, in areas that he has NEVER worked in himself! This is the forensic equivalent of Chomsky watching video of Last Season’s NFL Games, pointing out the losing team’s mistakes, and then using that knowledge to judge the performance of the players & coaches on the field! Which makes Chomsky no more than a very intelligent-sounding Monday-Morning-Armchair-Quarterback, and renders his criticisms of others essentially Worthless-Even If Factual!

[@lukethomeret-duran5273]

It isn't that he's a sane voice. He is sane and insanely well researched but he is most importantly not bought out by the establishment and corporations so he doesn't hide facts that go against the interest of power

[@lukethomeret-duran5273]

@Ricardo DeMatteo haahaha you are fucking loco crazy. He has always criticized the establishment and corporations. Saying climate change is a thing is not a globalist agenda. Believing the generations of propaganda that even goes as far as to try and push it in schools, all by Oil companies that are trying to protect their profits is fucking crazy. I can't tell if you are another brain-dead I should ignore or if u have a point I misunderstood. But you sound like you havent read a book since you were 5 so I'm guessing I am right

[@jonhil33]

Whatever you think of him - anyone who can remain so sharp at that age deserves respect and needs to be listened to.

[@corny165]

"We're gonna help you economically even when we kick you in the face"....what a lovely way to put it.

[@adilismit2822]

And they only kept the latter part of the promise

[@rjung_ch]

Two years later and all he says is still very true and on point. The world could be a much better place for sure.

[@bobbyj8044]

Really? So U think Corbin the socialist who wants to tax people for owning a grass lawn is the solution the world needs?

[@rjung_ch]

@@bobbyj8044 if you want to reduce it to this single point, sure. If you can afford a lawn, then sure, you're well off. What's your point? Guess you prefer to hate and not think it through? Any other question?

[@fredatlas4396]

@@bobbyj8044 can't you tory trolls at least come up with some facts instead of just making ridiculous comments, In his Labour manifesto he said anyone who gets payed £80000 per annum or less won't pay any more income tax. If you look at the statistics from ONS for example you will see that meant the majority of people wouldn't have payed anymore income tax.

[@fredatlas4396]

@willl 88 surely he never said he was going to tax people for having a lawn, stop making stupid comments and try giving some facts. Did you even read the 2019 Labour manifesto

[@psttech4290]

@@fredatlas4396 what a load of crap. married couples below lose their £250 a year, pensioners get hit on income tax, both things you would deny but guess what? corbyn got caught out and had to admit it would hit some people under that 80k figure

[@PLANTBASEDNEWS]

Noam's wisdom makes Evan the interviewer look ignorant

[@DMalenfant1]

Yup just like the GOP is the most dangerous group of all time right.........

[@QueenJneeuQ]

Well since considering the severity and seriousness of climate change, they very could well be.

[@DMalenfant1]

Do you even know what climate change is?

[@QueenJneeuQ]

Yes, due to the industrial revolution and onwards, the amount of CO2 that is released into the atmosphere is far greater than usual on the planet. Due to the amount of toxins released into the atmosphere, the ozone layer gets weaker, which is a blanket around the planet that protects us from ultra violet rays. Due to the weakening of the ozone layer by the colossal amount of fossil fuels that are burnt on the planet, the sun in turn increases the temperature of the planet. A few degrees in increase of the earth's temperature, and the earths temperature has been increasing, this has massive effects on the earths ecosystem, certain species will not be able to thrive if the temperature changes to much, it can also the weather to become more unpredictable on planet, droughts will become more prominent, rivers lakes drying up, the icecaps melting which increases the sea levels. Considering how many conservatives hate the idea of taking in refugees, the conservatives should be on board in combating climate change since certain regions of the world will have an influx of refugees if certain areas of the planet become uninhabitable. This is why Chompsky is right when he says they are one of the most dangerous groups, for example terrorist groups are awful of course they are, but these groups usually come and go, and effect a tiny percentage of the worlds population, climate change effects the entire world population, climate change isn't about saving the planet, it's about saving the human race, and the more we continue to turn a blind eye to it, the more catastrophic it will be in the long term. Also I'm not sure why people like you enjoy denying climate change? is it just to trigger liberals? To me it's just selfish, by spreading mis information you're helping in causing damage to the human race in the long term, it is scientifically proven that man made climate change is real, there is no denying it because it's fact, it's like saying gravity is wrong, it's just factually incorrect. And it's not a difference of opinion, you are just wrong, there's no doubt about it.

[@DMalenfant1]

... The climate has always changed, and always will. Conservatives and independents are not against cleaner fuel. They are against hypocrites that claim to care about our ecosystem while helping pollute it even more. You are a fear monger, even by the climate alarmists charts, the past 100 years has temperatures changed to the climate by .1 of a degree. Not to mention you have been caught in blatant lies and choose to not address 20 years where there was no change at all, and that you tried to hide the miniature ice age we came out of shortly after the dark ages. Then to top that, during the Obama administration, the climate scientists that claim "global warming" (which by the way is no longer used, hmmm gee is it because it was shown to be total bullshit and therefore use something that is less measurable and vague such as climate change?) refused to hand over the internal data they came up with. Why? What do they have to hide from the public if everything is honest and is able to backup their claims? Because it is not. Plus scientific models can be manipulated to show the outcome you wish. What you do not realise is the government has funded virtually 0 (yes 0) resources into natural climate change. Natural climate change being if there was no human being here on earth, what would the climate do. Potential natural causes of warming have been largely IGNORED in government-funded research such as the sun that can have effects on our climate, tilts to the earth's axis, ocean cycles, water vapour, volcanos, oh and the biggest producer of co2 is the ocean. Yes that is right, the fucking oceans on our planet produce the most co2. Not to mention, water vapour (clouds in the sky) is a bigger greenhouse gas than co2. And co2 levels have been found to FOLLOW temperature, does not lead it. As for the ozone, it is funny you should bring that up, because nobody ever talks about that anymore since the 80s and early 90s. Oh wait, from looking at the NASA charts, the ozone has been repaired for the most part because we have taken steps to stop aerosol being released into our atmosphere, except for countries such as China, that has no regulations. And isn't it funny how we are trying to force Western countries to fall for this scam except for China which NASA shows they are so polluted that they are basically manufacturing the weather from their country to the rest of the world? "is it just to trigger liberals?" - um science is about finding the answer through observing, questioning and proving. How dare I not just go along with what you just said and say the same rhetoric you yell in your echo chamber. Science is NOT about voting how many are for or against what is observed, nor is it about following the information in dogmatic ways that no one is allowed to question it and must blindly follow. If your research is solid, then answering the question should be no problem. Without this, you would never have even a computer to use or anything technological for that matter. You can't really prove anything in science. We come up with theories of how things might work. Not all areas of science is created equal, and there is still much about science that is limited. "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." - Albert Einstein As for terrorist groups, no chomsky is wrong. Another attack today happened and keeps happening. ISIS has said over a year ago that they will attack no matter what, that is they are to fill the prophecy. Oh and I believe even your hero Chomsky said Barack Obama helped create ISIS. You are so uninformed, you do not realise like the rest of the extreme left idiots that we are already in WW3, you just do not realise it yet. Even back in 2007 George Carlin could see Islam destroying Europe, he could see them breeding white women through rape, and that they are breeding much more than whites because they don't care and have nothing to lose. Islam is not just a religion, it is also a system of law that they are trying to force onto western civilisation, and when they become the majority, will force you to convert or kill you just like they do with everyone else in the middle east. You obviously do not watch the lovely unedited videos of what these fucking animals do in 3rd world shit holes to unbelievers. Hell, a recent poll was conducted that only 40% of Muslims condemn Sharia law while 45% condone it and 15% are extremist radicals that will enforce it. And just to add icing to the cake of how senile Chomsky has become, why don't you look up Baba Vanga and what she predicted what would happen to Europe (and humanity) from the Muslim invasion. Then compare it to Nastrodamas of the 3rd world war and the anti-christ. Then go and look into old versions of the Bible, you may be lucky to come across one that has a picture of the 4 horsemen, and one of them looks Muslim from the clothing he wears and the sword he wields. Then look up the end times in the Quran and their version of the anti-christ, you will find that they all link up for what is happening right now.

[@greenpeace4246]

Corbyn got endorsements from Bernie Sanders and Noam Chomsky! 🙂

[@ShalawFatah]

and you :)

[@notnotness4765]

Well both sanders and chomski are known antisemites!

[@JB-yl1lo]

not notness What a load of shit. Find one antisemitic text or speech from Noam.. Propaganda from the clueless Right.

[@notnotness4765]

Sorry guys this one went over your heads. Obviously Shapiro is the anti semite.

[@JB-yl1lo]

not notness What was going over anybody’s head about what you said? Why does someone have to be antisemetic? Just silly sound bites that the right use to try and discredit the left. BORINGGGGGG

[@Osckarre]

I'm glad we have such an abundance of media covering the things this man says. His words will echo long after he's gone, like Socrates, Plato or Aristotle among many other great thinkers. Only now we have video and voice as well as written forms of media to record his philosophies.

[@NoLimitHEAAA]

Why is it always so hard to get BBC interviewers to see things that are totally obvious to most people - unless they only watch the BBC of course.

[@JoseDeChamp]

Noam Chomsky is one of my heroes. So glad he is in support of Jeremy Corbyn. JC for PM

[@davidjatt3251]

why did he save you?

[@JoseDeChamp]

Noam Chomsky is an inspiration. One of the greatest minds of our century. He does not save me, he gives me hope. And that is the next best thing to freedom. Peace.

[@captainbube1217]

so what is nice about jeremy corbyn?

[@tonyjohnmcmullen]

@@captainbube1217 his jam.

[@garymorgan3314]

No a hope. Decent man as he is, Corbyn the serial rebel will not be PM any time soon. He's no leader.

[@richardmasters8560]

Jeremy Corbyn is either invisible or everything is his fault. Does this mean he has super powers?

[@oldwoman7047]

Richard Masters y

[@bigdaz7272]

He is Kryptonite to the Establishment.

[@jezzyby47]

YES - he does have super powers, but as yet has been unable to use them. When he becomes PM though, i think he will be allowed to use them then. Think about it. We are in the end times, the bible says that Jesus Christ will return. JC 1 died at age 33. JC 2 was elected as leader of the Labour party at age 66 (2x33) or the second coming. Although EVERY political party could create their own money, they let banks do it, and then the banks charge YOU the taxpayer interest on that loan. JC 2 has said that he will create a commercial bank to give zero percent interest rates for infrastructure projects. Again, something that ALL parties could do, but they instead prefer to let the Rothschilds (banksters) have their cut of the cake. JC 2 is the ONLY politician to ever say this. Why do you think the media (also owned by the banksters) hates him so much. The last person who stuck it to the banksters was JC 1 back in the day when he overturned the money lenders tables in his fathers temple. I may of course be talking BS, but if YOU don't vote for him you may never find out.

[@kimwarburton8490]

@@jezzyby47 apart from the religious stuff, agreed :)

[@jezzyby47]

But all the religious stuff makes sense Kim, and we ARE in the end times, and in the bible it says that he will return. Maybe he has to take it back from them, or that is how it is going to be played out. The last time he was here he was just a man, like we are, not a superhuman like a Neo character. Just a man who was more in touch with things than any of us are. The Queen once said that she was only there as Queen whilst the son returned, she is waiting for his return. That throne is his, not hers, and she knows that. I may be wrong though, I usually am, but apart from Trump, have you ever seen the media go for someone like they are doing for Corbyn, EVER, cos i haven't, and the elite own the media.

[@Seriouspatt]

I love this man. Hope he stays with us and enlightens us for longer...

[@trevorbarre5616]

The words of a man who fully deserves complete respect. Now, think of Boris Johnson. Sick bucket needed pronto.

[@cking509]

Evan Davies is terrible in this. Every time Chomsky gives an answer, Davies is so eager to cut him off and blurt out another smug, half-baked question he memorised the night before. He's not actually engaging with anything Chomsky is saying. Who on Earth thought it would be a good idea to have him sit down with one of the greatest intellectuals ever? It's like Chomsky is talking to a child.

[@EggBastion]

"It's like Chomsky is talking to a child." - As a stand in for the audience* I'd say Evan's doing a perfectly alright job. *Most of whom could at best be described as 'children.'

[@UnderscoreZeroLP]

Well I know if I spoke to him it probably would be like talking to a child! He is very intelligent and very wise. There is a lot of respect to be given there.

[@Hecatonicosachoron]

I'm not so sure, I actually think Evan Davis is pretty good as an interviewer here.

[@davy_K]

He's OK as an interviewer but is limited in his approach (or maybe his brief?) to ask a set of questions without taking the responses into consideration and ask followup questions. More time is needed for real interviews.

[@jezzyby47]

In Evan's defense, he will have someone in the control room shouting down his earpiece to tell him what to say and to shut Chomsky off. This is the BEEB after all (the governments propaganda machine).

[@Arrbyy]

Evan tries to frame some of the discussion, but Chomsky just rolls right over him. Lol!

[@subversivelysurreal3645]

Arrbyy : #Chomsky is an ENORMOUS mind!! This Proves: If you Use it, you Really will Not: Lose it ❣️❣️❣️

[@ReVoltAgefilms]

Exactly

[@dnickaroo3574]

The BBC speaks of "liberal, Western Govt" like Macron, but he comes from Neoliberalist Economics and represents its Centrist organisations. Evan is critical of Wikileaks and Julian Assange -- Chomsky: "People should be informed about what is happening". (That question summed up what the BBC has become).

[@stevebrindle1724]

Chomsky is a great intellect, Ewan is an autocue reading neoliberal establishment puppet, fuck the BBC and the rest of the MSM!

[@s1050]

steve brindle Great comment. I can’t watch the BBC

[@karlosmontoya459]

The interviewer thinks because he has a 401K that he owns part of a company. :-)

[@ianwarburton5433]

He does.

[@KoolKinchishKat]

Ian Warburton nah that doesn’t give him control over the company, just means he gets some crumbs off their table

[@GiveMeAnOKUsername]

@@KoolKinchishKat Why is he entitled to crumbs off their table?

[@KoolKinchishKat]

@@GiveMeAnOKUsername the fuck are you talking about?

[@GiveMeAnOKUsername]

@@KoolKinchishKat Shares are part of a company. If you own shares then you own part of the company, regardless of whether you’re entitled to attend shareholder meetings.

[@wunxue]

Jeremy is the reason why I would support labour

[@wunxue]

@@Azureecosse Communism is for everybody. Why do you hate that idea? Where do the problems in human society come form? Why have the humans been struggling all the time from history to today?

[@wunxue]

@@Azureecosse simple question: where do you copy these so-called "facts"?

[@wunxue]

@@Azureecosse how did you challenge me? You are flattering yourself.

[@atrius4665]

@@Azureecosse That may merely be a flaw with the implementation of a system, rather than with the actual ideology. In the case of China, the bulk of the deaths caused by the PRC were to do with poor agrarian policies, coupled with internal corruption. For a similar analogue, the world generally wouldn't consider Democracy, as a whole, to be a bad system simply because of the issues it's had in Syria. It may well be that those places where "Marxist" governments took hold were susceptible to human rights abuses, regardless of the governing system. For example, Russia was hardly a champion of virtue under the Czars, nor now under Vladimir Putin.

[@jeefpeef5983]

@@Azureecosse Nisong didnt do a good job here, but he has good ideas. Socialism doesnt mean communism. There is a big big difference. I'd be glad to debate but there needs to be an understanding that Corbyn is not for classical communism. Much like Bernie Sanders, Corbyn seems to be in favour of Social Democracy (if thats what its called, Im not an expert but I do understand the difference between that and communism)

[@plainjane2305]

That interviewer was a bit of a twit. But Chomsky gave an excellent interview in spite of it.

[@dworkeen]

Evan Davis a twit? You, presumably are not from the UK, you misunderstand the British style of allowing interviewees the time to have their say, to have the time to develop their arguments unlike the majority of US media who, after 20 seconds sometimes less, feel the need to interrupt their guests.

[@Camcolito]

@@dworkeen He's still a twit, just not as bad as US media. This is not an achievement.

[@dnickaroo3574]

The BBC are warmongers with the rest of Corporate Media. Their staff are vetted by MI6.

[@ryanshippen]

Twit. Bit of. Agreed.

[@brooks.anderson6742]

Borat would have done a better job.

[@antoniofernandes9663]

I believe Chomsky is optimistic. He has one of the most insightful and longest experience in politics worldwide. This is not an 100 meter race - it's a marathon. Stand your ground.

[@mck1972]

Chomsky may have a lot of experience in just Commenting on Politics- But he has absolutely ZERO experience actually serving in any kind of Political/Public Service Position, himself, and all his criticisms of other have the great luxury of 20/20 Hindsight! So let's be clear on this important distinction.

[@user-ti2rg2mq6z]

@Antonio Fernandes And I believe you're a crazy person.

[@Bribbuk]

Hopefully one day we will have competent interviewers who can do more than posture at "pressing hard" on an issue

[@ryanshippen]

Watching old videos of Chomsky from 40 years ago till now

[@MyDefendor]

Comment section = "My ignorance is as good as your knowledge".

[@donfox1036]

MyDefendor Q, no when that ignorance could lead to very bad consequences. I recognize your sarcasm, but it is a poor weapon against the corporate power running the U.S. Speaking clearly and having knowledge is much less likely to be misinterpreted, especially in view of the ‘clear and present dangers.’

[@tiny_toilet]

@@donfox1036 Ignorance has been leading the way for millennia. I see no reason that should change now.

[@lucrativelyrics2004]

>(partial) ignorance is bliss >(complete) knowledge is misery

[@caireoriwa3249]

Seeing that almost everyone in the comment section is spewing Marxist propaganda, you're right.

[@robertkraljii5048]

He's right on the money, as sharp as ever.

[@jessicafalstein]

one of his best. thank you.

[@Longtack55]

The interviewer is unqualified for this interview.

[@e11esounds]

He's so annoying, with his smiling and inability to flow on from what Chomsky says. Ugh.

David Renwick most journalists are unqualified to talk to him bc their job isn’t to report the news. mainstream news media is owned by, and therefore beholden to, billionaires and corporations.

[@mck1972]

" The interviewer is unqualified for this interview. " -And so is the interviewee!

[@lizardflower581]

man, chomsky is far from senile. read him

[@scod9746]

Noam is brilliant, turn his microphone up!!!

[@longstrobe2547]

The more I take time to listen and really understand this man the more I realise how ignorant and stupid I am, he makes me think about things from a completely different angle and actually look at the whole picture rather than being biased.

[@BarrelDive]

Glad its extended. I couldn't get enough of the original

[@newscoulomb3705]

"Wikileaks is on the wrong side of history." - Said no real progressive, ever.

[@sumlatinkid]

News Coulomb

[@IIIIIIIIIIIIIIPKIIIIIIIIIIIIII]

@Worm Driver this is the most intelligent comment / reply in all of this comment section. All the people who are gratified and made famous today are idiots.... All the best people are pushed aside!

[@milpoolvanhouten1260]

Chomsky was brilliant as usual. The interviewer was a usual pathetic representative of the main stream.

[@kathybramley5609]

Milpool Vanhouten Pathetic is a bit harsh.

[@garymorgan3314]

He's prone to overdramatize, like his clever but certainly not brilliant idol. In linguistics, he is brilliant. As a political thinker, negligible. It's what the fans don't know or cannot allow themselves to see. I mean, I think he's good, salutary etc., but he's hardly brilliant here.

[@milpoolvanhouten1260]

Noam is always nonplussed by the point of view of a reporter. True, Noam wont touch JFK, 9/11 or the Federal reserve with a 10 foot pole. But everything else he is always spot on.

[@garymorgan3314]

You overrate Chomsky, hardly a political thinker of real n one; you also overstate the badness of "the main stream" (sic.). Evidently nuance and you are not acquainted. At least Chomsky is given a chance to speak and the interview isn't implacably hostile. That's something your rather broad brush approach finds it easy to ignore.

[@ocek2744]

@@garymorgan3314 Damn, your inaccuracy is so strong that the downvote was a pleasure. Take care.

[@TheWesternunionman]

This journalist is a tossed whileProfessor Chomsky remains patient

[@alexprop69]

it took 3 years, we have stormtroopers

[@barbarar283]

Noam Chomsky speaks the truth. Tells it exactly like it is!!

[@gradyhopkins1418]

Tells it exactly as he sees it. Not that I disagree with him.

[@byjimibyjimi]

First he's still goin strong. Second his voice is still awesome

[@m.a.c1379]

For me the highlight of Chomsky's discourse is his delivery. He conveys patience and compassion, even when other lesser people would become impatient with the interviewer.

[@williamstephennthaka1763]

I always enjoy and learn a lot from his analysis of different matters. A great man he is. I wish I could sit in his PhD class

[@The-ir1vj]

the class divide has always been the truth.

[@stephenmoss4872]

Not a big fan of Evan Davis .....

[@cockoffgewgle4993]

I find him weirdly likable.

[@samhenri7350]

Cockoff, you probably didn't notice it but he nods a lot when he talks. I read somewhere that humans are supposedly primed to like people who nod because it subconsciously communicates "agreeableness" so maybe that partly explains why you 'find him weirdly likeable'.

[@MrBorg-jt9gf]

He does a good job of getting the guest's POV on the deeper systemic issues at play over the recent decades

[@maccyd53]

You couldn't be more misrepresentative if you tried (or maybe you are trying). The Beeb has been violently biased against the Left and particularly Corbyn from the minute he actually won the contest for Labour Leader. From Emily Matliss to Laura Kuenssberg the sneer on their faces when they even mention his name is shocking until you realise that the days of impartiality at the BBC are long gone. Welcome to now, my friend.

[@radarradario5135]

I like his ears, I’m big on ears

[@susanleslie1713]

I absolutely LOVE Noam Chomsky!

[@GlassesAndCoffeeMugs]

Every single answer he gave here is informed from a deep understanding of POWER, how it works, where it comes from, what its effects are. The interviewer is focused on micro issues and Chomsky is explaining the root of those problems from a macro perspective. It seems the interviewer really did not want to have a conversation about the systems that lead to these issues, he just wants to focus on tiny things while ignoring the systemic causes.

[@buddha9502]

It will be a sad day when this man passes away. I hope he lives at least another 20 years

[@LawrenceBall]

Evan Davis's insincere smug questions are extraordinarily transparent, but then he is reading from so called research and a script

[@jafafa]

The sad thing is he's still better than any and every newscaster or interviewer we have in the USA.

[@kathybramley5609]

USA! UK! UK! 😟

[@MrSeventyAce]

This isn't an adversarial interview; he's playing devil's advocate so that Chomsky can elaborate on his position.

[@Manbagdeluxe]

You can be sure that he disagrees with a lot of what Chomsky is saying though. He's one of these business-minded types who thinks privatization is the answer. He's a bit like Paxman, but more of a knob in real life than Paxman is. He also crossed picket lines several times while working for the BBC. He's basically a corporate prat.

[@garymorgan3314]

You should be pleased: Chomsky gets a platform on mainstream is actually quite good of the BBC. Then people like you play the man! Who is patently playing devil's advocate and is hardly the worst interviewer even. you are being hypercritical because, I guess, you like to attitudinise. Many do in the virtual world. It's not a great look, lose the faux indignation.

[@jeffjeffries3469]

Say what you will, the guy is on point again.

[@robertmaguire6747]

Chris Hedges is Chomsky's successor.

[@vicsnix43]

With you on that one.

[@Wilson_Mccartney]

No one is Chomsky’s successor. When he is physically no longer with us, his words and life will still be true and meaningful-even long after he’s gone.

[@paulconnelly4050]

Hedges is fantastic, but he's no Chomsky.

[@barquerojuancarlos7253]

@@paulconnelly4050... which Chris Hedges has openly and honestly admitted

[@harrylime22]

I can listen to Noam all day. He should run the world. Vote labour ! For the NHS schools houses police fire brigade education Tax the corps.

[@garymorgan3314]

You first sentence demonstrates you have completely misunderstood his politics.

[@garymorgan3314]

What about Brexit, Jay?

[@swampy1234]

Tbh I'm voting fit Corbyn. Seems the most honest, genuine, empathetic and intelligent one of the lot. I quite like him. I don't know if he's hired a new PR agent or what, but suddenly I find myself buying everything he's selling!

[@enicholasb]

No one is right all the time - Chomsky included.

[@morayoung3183]

Use the anger positively for the good of humanity.

[@myfurniturebox8154]

what I said all along, Bernie would have smashed Trump to pieces. people are fed up with bullshit and Corbyn is going to win on June 8th

[@wacka2]

buhahahahahahahahahahahahahah

[@myfurniturebox8154]

Hahahaha back at you. Check out the latest polls

[@myfurniturebox8154]

James Bramble is he still laughing?

[@nedlongdon555]

+My Furniture Box He saw that Corbyn is suddenly 5 points behind and decided he'd better prepare some humble pie for himself to eat on 9th June!

[@bettyboo3010]

the interviewer has his set of questions, but he is not responding to what he is hearing. otherwise his questions would be different

[@safanamakhdoomable]

I will always love and deeply respect Professor Noam Chomsky.

[@Booler75]

Does anyone know the names of the studies (or the institutions that conducted them) that Chomsky talks about at 11:10 ?

[@LoveAndPeaceOccurs]

Bravo! Thank You Mr. Chomsky, for taking the time and making the effort to educate us on these important, some even urgent, issues. Your intellect and wisdom and brilliant speaking abilities, while considerable and impressive, are not what I Love most about you. I Love The fact that you have, taken the time required, to study and uncover and connect the dots and reflect upon and form, with such precision, such clear and unbiased statements regarding the most significant issues that face us All. I Love that you can easily see and differentiate ... when asked the question about wiki leaks ... you said, (excuse me, if I don't get it exact) that you would not have advised that the (mentioned example from the reported) should have been leaked but that you support the action of people being able to reveal what is important for us to know (and yes most people do not have your level of distinguishing what's important from what is not (or even from just garbage) ... which makes me love that you never seem to come across as arrogant ... which is simply amazing to me. I Love how you spoke boldly about how wrong it is that we are punishing some for leaking. Your showing up and speaking the truth, as you do is important, BUT we need someone like you, no we need You, to do more than just speak ... we need you in a drivers seat ... in a position of great influence and power ... We need you Mr. Chomsky to lead us like we've never been led before ... You can do it ... Will You? Love & Peace to All

[@hsharif2]

Hero

[@expandingelectrons347]

chomsky is my second favorite person in the world, i would love to see a debate between ralph nader and noam chomsky

[@elainepayne7047]

My hero for over 20 years. Brave, outspoken with a razor sharp mind clear and true. God Bless you NC.

[@metalten5165]

this man talks so much sense, he should be requied reading

[@flaigus]

Could listen to Noam all day. Very clever and articulate man with exceptional understanding about the world. It's just a shame he never went into politics himself

[@paulloeffler6480]

So funny to have a centrist ask obvious questions. You could have guessed Chomsky's answers if you knew anything about him... It's quite amazing to hear how he can somewhat predict future events based on his tremendous knowledge.

[@Debunker246]

thanks for this..

[@K4g4m1]

Interviewing seems to be a lost art these days.

[@BYaakov]

If people want to understand politics they'd do well to read some of Chomsky's works. Nothing but the facts.

[@garymorgan3314]

I think you mean "ideology" since he's articulating his general view, not relating facts.

[@WillJL20]

gary morgan no politics without ideology unfortunately

[@mck1972]

(SIGH) IF people really want to understand Politics, then they should actually get involved in the Political Process themselves! NOT listen to a career Linguistics Professor, who has spent his life merely bitching & moaning from the sidelines, without EVER serving in ANY type of Public Service Position, himself, and whose criticisms of others all have the great luxury of 20/20 Hindsight! SMH

[@dfez6884]

@@mck1972 he would rather keep his integrity than sell out for the political process. 90% of all elections are won from the candidate with the most raised money, which means big corporations and industries buying your vote. This is why he was saying in the video that Bernie is something special as he broke the mold. In response he is getting attacked by CNN and MSNBC, the democratic leaning channel that even fired ed schultz for supporting him, not even mentioning the mass scare tactic of calling him a socialist and too left from both sides. His work is more useful on the sidelines as you clicked on this video here while probably having no idea who Mike Gravel is.

[@mck1972]

@@dfez6884 , I never said that Chomsky had to run for office. There are any number of unelected Positions, in areas that Chomsky pontificates about, that he could have sought: I.e.: U.S. State Dept., Federal Reserve, Etc. , to show he can do a better job than those he criticizes! Instead of spending his whole life merely presuming to judge the past Policies of others, in areas that he has NEVER worked in himself! That is NOT, ‘ insightful ‘! NOR does it entail ANY, ‘ integrity ‘! It is merely Worthless Exploitation of 20/20 Hindsight-UNLESS Chomsky has the guts to accept responsibility for taking ownership of new Policies going Forward, HIMSELF! So please stop making, ‘ Sour Grapes ‘, excuses for Chomsky unwillingness to accept such responsibility! SMH

[@josephsmith6777]

I live in Massachusetts this guy is a regular guy i had coffe w him very smart intelligent and generally a cool dude we talked baseball politics religion

[@paulconnelly4050]

You lucky guy. Must have been amazing.

[@ngageracingltd1905]

a great truth teller is able to reach everyone...this guy should be teaching our future governments

[@thetwo9869]

New viewers, be wary of the comment section. Strawmen are everywhere!

[@garymorgan3314]

Oh well, that's you covered...or are you the Cretan Liar?

[@DMalenfant1]

So are dogmatic followers. pffft.

[@garymorgan3314]

So are cliche mongers, it seems.

[@DMalenfant1]

I wasn't talking to you.

[@garymorgan3314]

Put that mirror away!

[@No-py3ih]

this is noam Chomsky ur all talking about...show this man some respect

[@YTCoDSkillz314]

dan twigg he’s an idiot.

[@benstevinson764]

Noam Chomsky is one of the Greatest intellectual Thinkers in World History!!!

[@gor265]

Utterly brilliant. Incredibly well-read, researched and studied, astute and inescapable synopsises of the history, dynamics and drivers at work in world politics today. Chomsky is an incredible intellect.

[@destinymusic4804]

Always dropping dat knowledge!!

[@doreenang3974]

I wish the interviewer would interrupt chomsky less.

[@tacopacopotato6619]

he's like a better yoda

[@leonardodavinci331]

This BBC reporter should try to listen more and talk less - maybe he could learn something

[@danielledocherty2058]

The guy interviewing has left me feeling that was a waste of an interview. You have one of the most clever thinking man to have walk this planet being taunted by the worst interviewer I seen

[@SohamSinha]

"The fundamental divide is the class divide." - Feels like hearing a true Marxist. I'm glad! :)

[@themagictheatre2965]

He's not a Marxist. He's an anarchist. We tend to not be fan of Marxists as they have a nasty habit of trying to kill us and destroy our movements.

[@wallaceidaho-sapphire1579]

Get in the helicopter

[@PsilentMusicUK]

@@themagictheatre2965 I think anarchism and Marxism cross over a fair bit, especially in terms of economic analysis of Capitalism. It's the Leninists/Stalinists that anarchists should be weary of, not Marxists in general. Having said that, I think a more nuanced view of the economy is required in the current age.

[@themagictheatre2965]

​@@PsilentMusicUK The split between the authoritarian left and anarchism started at the First International, during Marx's lifetime, well before the time of MLism and stalinism. The problems go back to that, it very much has to do with a fundamental disagreement between marxism and anarchism about the role and nature of the state. Also, anarchism's critique of capitalism is different from marxism's. For us capitalism is just a particularly egregious example of an unjustifiable hierarchy, the same reason we opposed all the systems, ideologies and institutions that we oppose.

[@conors4430]

Soham Sinha True, people are pissed off because they are working more, getting paid less, have less job security and have to fight for every inch of life, they just misdirect the anger at the powerless and groups they are unfamiliar with and scared of

[@Moonshinebaby1000]

I’m listening to this in 2023. How right he was

[@crunchsixfoe]

Chomsky is truly one of the great minds of our time, a visionary really. Wish we could have him in a position of high power.

[@joeblack8915]

But I bet if he had opposite views to yours it wouldn't matter how clever he was would it!

[@mck1972]

Crunch Foe, Chomsky has had his entire life to seek any kind of actual Public Service Position, where he could have put his, ' great mind ', to real use. Yet instead, he chose to use it to merely criticize everyone else from the sidelines...smh

[@OracleNeedsAHandle]

@@mck1972 He's spent his whole life as an educator and researcher, highlighting the injustices of the United States while exploring the foundations of modern political thought. The immense importance of his work in English alone shows a life of pursuing higher understanding. His work is already powerful enough without public office.

[@mck1972]

@@OracleNeedsAHandle , (SIGH) In reality, Chomsky is just a Linguistics Professor, who has spent his career criticizing the Past in fields that he has never worked in himself-Which is everything outside Linguistics-And all with the luxury of Hindsight-Hindsight which those IN the Past did NOT have at the time! There is Zero proof that anything that Chomsky has ever said, done, or written, has ever had a Direct, Measurable, Verifiable, Impact on any issue facing this country-Ever! (Outside Linguistics) So Chomsky is nobody to judge others who actually do the jobs that Chomsky lacks the cojones to do himself! SMH

[@OracleNeedsAHandle]

@@mck1972 (This is a long reply, but everything you said was so inaccurate that it took three paragraphs to explain) What do you mean he hasn't worked in other fields? He has published works within the realms of political history, political science, and political philosophy -- within all of which he has debated and discussed among just as equally adept minds. Being a linguist foremost doesn't make you incapable of reason, of critique, in other fields. His works offer highly researched and defensible perspectives of American political action. Chomsky's views did not require hindsight. From the outset of the war in Vietnam, he spoke out against it, against the US's imperialist support of France in the region and against growing militaristic presence within the borders of the country itself. When war officially broke out, this view did not change but was only amplified. He recognizes what capitalist countries are motivated by and they never break convention in this respect: to continue the proliferation of capital. Those in power during this time understood this fully, and Chomsky, with his understanding of history, using publicly available records by the way, could ascertain it by a greater understanding of the world stage and world capital. Finally, the role of a dissident is not to be the change but to motivate it. People with views aligned with Chomsky are many of the modern progressive movement -- figures like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, figures growing grassroots action against capitalist systems. His voice to that community is absolutely verifiable and measurable impact. In short, everything you said is inaccurate.

[@GingerJoberton]

Corbyn is basically nice. I want to vote for nice.

[@blazemordly9746]

Whew, this time at around the 14:47 mark, Noam almost put himself to sleep. Hang in there uncle Noam!

[@ninirema4532]

super interesting interview dear prof. very good luck🗻🌍

[@jerrycornelius2261]

Go Chomsky! Whenever I hear you speak it reminds me why I named my smartest cat after you. Chomsky was an immigrant like us all and lived a long, wise and cheerfully reconciled life, knowing the world and still loving it. I was persuaded not to call our big white rabbit 'Harvey' being remiinded that he has to be your natural successor. Live forever, both of you!! Corbyn reminds me of the guys who originally brought in the UK's world-admired and much replicated NHS, which I and my folks were HAPPY to live with. The socialists brought in the infrastructure which carried the UK through many crises. Labour laid the foundations, stated their humanist principles in good faith and set the tone for the next thirty-five years. Thatcher and Reagan channeled that rhetoric to take us away from steady enrichment for all through slow, steady growth' The pair persuaded us instead to blow a series of stock market bubbles that burst routinely, leaving the poor poorer and the rich obscenely richer.The Tories, hiding behind hypocritical One Nation rhetoric, modified or destroyed those foundations (which hopefully are still working in Scandinavia) and used them to enrich themselves as in the USA. Soltions ? Here, what if the socialists come out from under the beds and give it a try, if only to let a chastened real conservative party come in later. Experience modifies socialist democracy. That is a fundamental. It is our long experience In socialist democracies all over the world that, conserving the best and getting rid of the worst. What do we lose ? All over the world the right are throwing out the left. We can do the same if we don't like what we get from them! I want to listen to popular intellectuals like Chomsky and Harvey provide me with the logic. They are the smartest most humane guys on the Tube. Guess there's nowhere else to go but Bernie again! Or Jeremy Corbyn ? J.C. Hmm. Popular set of initials. Great that NC is still in measured command of his faculties!

[@jerrycornelius2261]

@Reuben Thomasson Attlee was more of a conventional gent than Corbyn but he fronted a dynamite team who knew their stuff and exactly where they wanted to go. Bevin and Bevan for a start. They began the process of deconstructing the British Empire. And constructing the welfare state, and of course the NHS, the jewel in the new British crown...

[@refoliation]

Lol at the interviewer doing the ‘workers have stock securities in their pensions so aren’t we all capitalists’ thing

[@MutualAidWorks]

“When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the People's Stick.” ― Mikhail Bakunin

[@AJR-vn2um]

I hadn't heard that. I shall look into this thank you

[@pessivspenaldo]

@18:10 I love how he corrected the pronunciation of Emmanuel Macron

[@MarkLawsonY3K]

Noam has an afterlife. You have an afterlife. That information you pass on, that courage, that french word for indescribable attributes, his verve, his study, his calmness, his anger with the untruths in the state. All these things Noam has given me and I will carry them on as *if* he lives forever. Be Like Noam. Lawson di Ransom Canyon PS. I can't be Noam. I can't write or speak like him, we can just try. As we read Bukunin, as we read Aristotle, men will read Chomsky 1000 years from now and know it's not about a person, rather a WE. Now go change the world :--) m.