Noam Chomsky on Libertarian Socialism

The leftists and the Libertarians in our group have to check this out!

These discussions by activist Noam Chomsky are remarkable!

These discussions were also interesting.

http://occupywallst.org/article/noam-chomsky-solidarity/

Noam Chomsky on Libertarian Socialism

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxbeyn2xMQE&feature=player_embedded"]Noam Chomsky on Libertarian Socialism - YouTube[/ame]

 

Syndicalism is the only acceptable form of socialism.

 

Questerr, it is obvious from your statement you have not listened to the video.

Please check it out and tell us what you think! And remember, Noam Chomsky is worshiped by most (95%) people in the Occupy Wall Street Movement and by many others on the far Left.

By the way, Would you conclude he likes libertarians?

http://occupywallst.org/article/noam-chomsky-solidarity/

 

Syndicalism IS Libertarian Socialism. Or at least a form of it.

Educate yourself.

 

There are a number of issues with libertarian socialism on any scale larger than a small cooperative. they like to think that they have the economic calculation issue nailed, but it always comes down to relying on the goodwill of others to work cooperatively and decide everything democratically. I'm fine with small groups determining their own form of government, so long as it's voluntary, but to try to force it on a mass scale requires a state, no matter how much they insist it does not. They also argue that property can't exist, but when talking about "worker-owned" firms, they never explain how one group can own a workplace and maintain exclusive access to it.

 

You are spamming.

Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with the video.

Are you afraid to watch the video?

 

You are correct, BHK.

If you listened carefully to Noam Chomsky, he believes workers in any corporation should be allowed to work like "artists". Each worker works independently and at his own creative pace. They are not "exploited" by the managers above them!

Ha-Ha! ... Try and have a corporation make a profit for their shareholders under these conditions!

Where on earth does the Left get these ideas?

A direct quote by Noam Chomsky: "A Libertarian is an extreme advocate of total tyranny."

Please check this out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

 

Chomsky's work in linguistics is brilliant. His contributions elsewhere, not so much. He makes so many logical fallacies it's silly.

For example, he states in that piece that unsubsidized capitalism cannot exist because the wealthy won't allow it. Really? Yet he is implying, libertarian socialism can exist? I mean please. I could go on but why bother. The more intelligent you are the more you are able to rationalize truly stupid ideas.

Put on your critical thinking cap and watch the video again.

Also, if any of you are Thomas Sowell fans like I am he has a few (as in more than one) works where he DEVASTATES Chomsky. It's delicious. Chomsky brings back memories for me though. Back in the day, I shared an office with a PHD student who was working on computational linguistics and was a huge fan of Chomsky and a huge fan of his politics. I remember arguing politics with him with a smoke in one hand and scotch neat in the other and it was like a reenactment of Buckley vs. Chomsky (with less yelling).

 

I got as far as him saying that Thomas Jefferson was "anti-capitalist" and bailed.

Sorry, Noam Chomsky has done some fine, fine work regarding English Language usage but he does not know Jack (*)(*)(*)(*) about politics or history.

As much as he was a walking contradiction, Thomas Jefferson was the primate capitalist.

 

I think that anyone who can make that business model work should absolutely do so. It can work under certain circumstances. I worked for a project management company that had a flat management model. The person in charge one day could move into a lesser role on a moment's notice, depending on the need. It only worked because everyone was competent, and bought into the company philosophy that the #1 goal was to work yourself out of a job. That's not a system that works for many people.

I also worked for game companies where there was little "exploitation." Small firms can make it work.

Still, I'd ask the question of anyone who promotes the democratic workplace as morally right: why is it that 50%+1 of the workers who vote to remove a poorly performing worker is more moral than one person making the decision?

They don't really think them through, logically. It all sounds very nice, and I'm quite sympathetic where it's voluntary. I don't work for employers because I don't like strict hierarchy myself. However, I see the place for it, and there are many happy workers who do fine with it.

People who say that will never clearly explain how one person can tyrannize another openly unless he has the legal right to use a weapon against the person he is tyrannizing, and the victim has no right to defend himself in return. Only government has that power. Businesses do not.

 

I've read most of Choamsky's books. I already know his ideology.

In case you haven't guessed, I actually agree with him on many issues. Syndicalism is the acceptable form of socialism and he is an advocate of it. I'm not watching the video because I'm on my iphone and it doesn't show up.

 

You are indeed correct, jhffmn.

By the way, I too really like Thomas Sowell. He is one of my favorite authors.

Do you have any articles or youtube videos of where he where he DEVASTATES Chomsky?

I would love to see them!

 

To go back in history to revive idologies of Norman Capsky and his ideas of what is socialism is de-evolution. For those who need to be told what to do and how to think, they have religion for them. The future success of any nation will be creating a new system of society. Not living like in the past. But evolving into the future.

 

Propagandist pervert.Literally perverts what has been written and
understood to be true.it's only true when The Great Chomsky says it is.
There is No perfect Anything.Let alone Liberty or Capitalism.
As Mark Levin wrote in - Ameritopia - that is what Saul Alinsky
guys like Obama and his Dimocrats want their flock of sheeple to
believe.In some Mythical Big Government Utopia where a perfect
world can happen and all will be well.Just turn all the keys over to
Big Government Dimocrats and trust in their judgements,and totally
discount any credibility of the Individual.
One has to wonder why some continue to listen to the conflating
nincompoopery of guys like Chomsky.He's a case in point.Does listening
to him help explain anything.It does not.it just aggravates and causes
more questions.If he's so smart how come he can't just go back
to what he insisted on in years past as proof of his pudding.
Because his pudding is pulled.I don't know what he'e looking for but it
ain't Exceptionalism or any Pioneer Spirit which both had more to do
with building this Great Land than any half-cocked egg-headed vision
better left unread in some corner of a public library.
I think it about time the Rascal Chomsky got a real job.
he's all talked out.

 

I agree. In a perfect world, "syndicalism" would probably work very well.

However, human nature being what is where 20% of the people in any organization usually do 80% of the work, syndicalism” will never succeed in the workplace. You have to have some way of rewarding the workers and removing and replacing the loafers.

To do this fairly, you have to conduct periodic performance appraisals and correctly rate the contributions of each worker; hence you need supervisors.

 

Syndicalist workshops, factories, and businesses exist RIGHT NOW in Europe (particularly Spain, Portugal, and the Low Countries) and Latin America.

You don't have to have a perfect world for syndicalism to work. You just have to have a motivated shop where people want to use it.

It's the only acceptable form of socialism because its the only one that doesn't involve goverment compulsion.

 

I agree...anyone who can make it work, should.

However, having been an employer since 1993, I know that it likely won't. I totally agree that our models have to change; there is no need for a commute to and from any more.

Having said that, most people need direction with clearly defined goals and objectives as well as incentives. I've been in situations of everyone "doing their own thing" and got out before they tanked.

Remember the dot come bubble?


On this one, Noam's an idiot dreamer whose watched one too many star trek episodes.

 

I think one of the problems with the intellectuals in this country, is that they are often incapable of thinking outside the confines of the defined structures that already currently exist or have already been imagined. Capitalism is organic and requires no imagination, and the best and most innovative work, tends to be done by people who come up with new ways of analyzing current models. However, when people imagine alternative models, they tend to turn towards socialism or some other similar ideology, even with the obvious flaws that exist in those ideologies both in the impracticality of implementing them, as well as the ineffectiveness of those models when something similar has been tried. There are many good intellectuals who are critical of both the capitalist and Marxist/socialist/whatever model, but tend not to offer any viable alternative.


I think that often comes down to the reality that offering alternatives, involves putting yourself on the line. When all you do is criticize, you usually come out of it all looking pretty good. There is a lot to criticize about global capitalism, just like there is a lot to criticize about any alternative models that have been attempted. So those intellectuals are able to stay above the fray, and maintain an heir of superiority based on the general accuracy of their criticisms.

However, it would be nice if some of those top minds WOULD dedicate themselves to imagining alternatives. Or imagining viable reformations of the current system. Noam Chomsky instead presents an unworkable model, wherein there is no realistic path from where we are now, to where he wants us to be. In the end, I suppose that serves a similar purpose to constant criticism and deconstructions, without solutions, in that libertarians, libertarian socialists, anarchists, minimalists, etc, etc can never be called on their beliefs. They have solutions, but those solutions are so impractical and impossible to implement, that they will never take place. So they can sit back and relax, and criticize the current system, while claiming all would be fixed if we simply went down the path they want us to go, which leads to a better more ideal end. All the while failing to mention the fact, that the path they advocate is impassable.

 

I can't speak for socialism, but I can say with certainty that the literature on anarcho-capitalism grows day by day and includes a great deal of information on how such a system would be structured, how it can be arrived, step by step, including the dismantling of the monetary central planning system in a way that eases hardship less than what people will feel when it inevitably collapses. The 'obvious flaws' that you claim exist are more likely your own lack of knowledge on the subject, which is understandable given that you have other priorities. I am not aware of any obvious flaws under the principles of liberty, though I am aware of a difficult economic calculation problem under socialism that makes it dangerous on any scale larger than what might constitute a clan.

If the path to get there being advocated is through the current system, then I'd agree, it's impassible. We are headed towards totalitarianism, if we are not already there. Fortunately, totalitarian systems are rarely sustainable for long and the goal is not to change what we have now, but to be there with answers and a clear picture of what to replace that collapsed system with when it does fall.

 

Hmm, he mentions him a great deal in intellectuals and society. There is a 5 chapter series on youtube of the book. That entire piece targets people like Chomsky and he is mentioned several times. The whole book is a rebuttal of people like Chomsky.

Unfortunately, Sowell isn't the kind of person to say "Chomsky is an idiot" but he did write an entire book explaining why people like Chomsky are idiots.

I can't seem to find any great quotes though =/

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VWCFsHXtc8"]Thomas Sowell on Intellectuals and Society: Chapter 1 of 5 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfFpbcKUpIk&feature=relmfu"]Thomas Sowell on Intellectuals and Society: Chapter 2 of 5 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KbL-hSckY8&feature=relmfu"]Thomas Sowell on Intellectuals and Society: Chapter 3 of 5 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA1wups7vO0&feature=relmfu"]Thomas Sowell on Intellectuals and Society: Chapter 4 of 5 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1adx9j0oO7g"]Thomas Sowell on Intellectuals and Society: Chapter 5 of 5 - YouTube[/ame]

 

Many people assume that if someone is brilliant at one thing that they are probably brilliant on most things.

NOT ALWAYS.

 

Polymaths are very rare.

 

I agree.

When I typed 'NOT ALWAYS' - I was being kind.

 

Chomsky has spent his life in pursuit of some Libertarian Utopia.
Maybe it goes back to how he viewed life as a jewish kid on the
block { THE Only Jewish family amidst a lot of Catholics } and
in literal fear when school let out and all those Catholic kids with
the Jesuit education seemed preoccupied with being little bullies
{ Is Chris Matthews or Lawrence O'Donnell,even John Kerry,let alone
a Teddy Kennedy a BULLY }.You bet yer bottom dollar {bottom bully}
they are/were.Therefore the passion to produce if only in one's mind
a place { a Society} of Safety and guaranteed workability.
Using Linguistics {lingo or word play} as a way out.One could easily talk
their way out of confrontation/trouble.I mean the first thing a kid
should learn before using their fists is how to outtalk/outsmart a
bully.What do you think Obama is a master of.He's a Bully.A Saul Alinsky
talker.I doubt he's even been in fisticuffs like most inner city kids.
Obama uses word play to do his fighting.
Like Chomsky ...

Get the Drift