Noam Chomsky on Neoliberalism

[@DjWellDressedMan]

Growing up in the USA, Chomsky explained the USA Empire in factual terms and saved my life.

[@klytouch7515]

You should be thankful for Mr Chomsky for your enlightenment... hmmm.

[@SirLangsalot]

Chomsky is so dry but amazing. He is like a living, reali life Yoda.

[@emilyworm]

luv u chomsky

[@hoogmonster]

Modern day corporatised university admin: "All academic staff shall comply with the Clean Desktop Policy" Chomsky: "You can prize this desk and shovel these books off of my cold still body."

[@johnrossini3594]

neoliberalism is another word for global free trade

[@martins8761]

and I should know because I read every single book you see behind me

[@MutualAidWorks]

Check out Red and Black TV here on youtube- weekly, independent anarchist commentary from Britain.

[@johnnykay7411]

I love this man.

[@blakej6416]

Chomsky loves to decree people as "serious" or not.

[@lifestraight]

Neoliberal principles are strong states and direct intervention on the economy? I thought neoliberal was the opposite? That is deregulation, laissez faire economics, private ownership, regressive taxation.

[@Yuki_Grotto]

Correct. Chomsky has cruelly misinterpreted neoliberal principles. His age is showing!

[@johnrossini3594]

lifestraight you are correct

[@Gidaume]

aren't you describing neoconservatism? wherein corporations hold the power. by "strong states" he means that the state has a lot of power. either way, they both dispossess the people.

[@clarkbowler157]

The idea of a "free market" is a smokescreen for what essentially is corporate control. Smaller government just means more corporate influence within a controlled economy.

[@godc123]

Who was the historian he referred to?

[@paretofacit277]

Paul Bairoch. Interesting reading, try out: "Economics and world history : myths and paradoxes"

[@nyb_ok]

Pareto Facit could you recommend similar books ?

[@chrsitiethebarber]

Anyone have the link to the full interview?

[@madondasmangele5397]

my assignment topic : " The notion of development is quite contested in academic circles”, i have to provide background of development , conceptualisation, dimensions and focus overtime.. anyone can help me i need something different

[@shamus2198]

Cool

[@munderlarkst]

Is it me, or does it not quite make sense when Chomsky says (starting 34 seconds into video): "Europe grew and developed... by radically violating what are now called 'neoliberal principles'... How? By forced imposition of market principles... Protectionism and state interventionism created the rich and developed societies... 'forced liberalization' pretty much created the third world." Seems to me that even if it's an initial "forced imposition" (by the state) of market policies that allowed neoliberal principles to begin to guide a country's development, it's not a 'violation' of neoliberal principles that are causing Europe's growth and development -- it is, rather, still the neoliberal principles themselves developing the countries/continent. Chomsky's pointing out the irony of how the principles of neoliberalism took hold, though true and an interesting point, seem like a bit of a red herring (the irony only pointing out one violation of neoliberalism -- namely, that is was a forced imposition instead of being established by market principles -- when 'neoliberlism' is a much broader term, and so on). (Of note, I say all of this as a HUGE fan of Chomsky, etc.)

[@RmiW1]

I think the way Chomsky said that part was a bit confusing. When he says "how," it seems like he's about to explain how Europe's development was in violation of neoliberal principles, but what he actually explains is why India, China, and the Third World became devastated economically (which was by the forced imposition of market principles). It's a bit more confusing too, because after saying that Europe grew and developed by violating neoliberal principles, the principles he lists aren't actually neoliberal principles but rather the ones that Europe followed in its initial development which violated neoliberal principles (they had "strong states, direct intervention in the economy," which go against neoliberal ideas of minimal government intervention, and increased corporate power so that the market can function 'rationally' based on private interests). So it does all make sense, he just puts the sentence together in an odd way. In regards to your second comment, you're right that it's not a violation of neoliberal principles that are now causing Europe's continued growth and development (because now neoliberalism plays a key role in the continued development of rich countries), but that's not what Chomsky is saying. Chomsky is saying that a violation of neoliberal principles is what led to Europe's initial huge economic development, and so it's absurd that neoliberal principles be prescribed to developing countries, as this goes against what historically allowed Europe to develop so rapidly. So, Chomsky isn't pointing out the irony of how neoliberal principles took hold, what he's pointing out is the irony that developing countries are now being prescribed neoliberal policies (policies that are being forcefully imposed upon them by the West-driven IMF and World Bank, and which they say/have said will help these countries develop) which directly go against the history of how the West developed. Hope that clears it up a little

[@SJ-to3dt]

+RmiW1 perhaps he was trying to be all Yoda about it .. LOL

[@SoulRippster]

To me it isn’t confusing at all, European countries were strongly protectionist, they didn’t allow free market penetration by stronger economies (opposite of neoliberalism). In fact the US, the current neoliberal poster-boy, is a perfect example of this, their revolution itself was against market penetration from GB and to deny their increasing control over its economy. American victory and consequent protection of its economy from stronger ones, gave them the space to grow. On the other hand, once these countries grew enough to exploit and wholesale flood weaker countries’ markets, they would talk warmly of neoliberal principles which were forced onto China, India, Africa… places that were completely vulnerable to the depredations of empire.

[@simonjones6729]

SoulRippster no, he's talking bullshit, ancient China was not a free market society, it simply had large zones of influence due to trade but the government forced heavily expensive projects such as the Great Wall over hundreds of years, China was also absolutist and fell behind because of restrictive policies

[@johnnykay7411]

I appreciate your thoughts and viewpoint. To my mind, 'the principles of neoliberalism' have always been rooted in fascism, and still are. It's why people like the Clintons and their personal toolbox, the DNC, are so very good at it until they get caught.

[@jamesm9534]

You have to remember that Noam Chomsky is on the ultra left.

[@magnuscritikaleak5045]

Marco yes not much facts spurred by ancapistan and Kekistan.

[@Leftistattheparty]

That is merely a matter of perspective. In the extreme right wing united states, yes but if you are coming from a European perspective then he is more moderate left considering that they see more of the actual far left, anarcho-primitivists and what not.

[@thomaswest4033]

He's more far left than most European countries.

[@MrGrass97]

Mystery West Noam Chomsky is regarded as an extremist in the US. He’d be regarded as a legitimate voice on the left in Europe, that’s the difference

[@MrGross-nm6dl]

He isn’t extreme or a leftist he’s reasonable from he’s teachings he often says people have been manipulated in all languages all countries for a very very long time

[@sonnypruitt6639]

I disagree!

[@fkujakedmyname]

well that just shows how stupid you are

[@homero3928]

Just make a video/essay showing your point then! :)