I'm a cleaner and I listen to stuff like this while up to my elbows in unpleasant things... You ever wonder if it's useful for working class plebs like me to know the approximate meaning of words like "communism" and "neo-conservatism". Given how all this stuff is so heavily propogandised and redefined, seemingly right under our noses, does it not simply play into the hands of the masters when I fill my head with these lofty ideas but find my feet rooted to the spot.
Thank you, Noam Chomsky. Sharp, articulate, critical. Reminding us to cross-check our favourite ideologies against the facts. Free markets, my arse. I salute Chomsky's courage, his intellect and his humanity.
If you like Chomsky, you might like Thom Hartmann. I really enjoy videos where actual political ideas and philosophical/ethical quandries are discussed instead of argumentative infotainment mired in labels and identity politicking. Also, there's an amazing episode of Firing Line with Noam Chomsky vs. William (Bill) Buckley (founder of Conservative Review). Debating at its finest :-)
"cost and risk should be socialized but profit should be privatized" 2007 recession anyone? These statements were made in the 90s, its almost as if he could see in to the future.
he didn't even have to look to the future, those in power have always done this, it's pretty much how power is concentrated in the first place through most of history.
Socialization of costs and privatization of profits...another clear example of this was Amazon recently got a new headquarters in New York, which cost 6 billion dollars that the taxpayers of New York will pay for. Amazon doesn't pay for their own headquarters, they got tax subsidies and the working people of New York now essentially paid the 6 billion for the headquarters when their taxes could have gone to public goods and services that benefit themselves and everyone else, like the abhorrent subway system, roads, etc. But no. The (enormous) profits Amazon will make there will not be going into the hands of the people who ended up paying for their headquarters. Not a penny. If Jeff Bezos paid for the headquarters himself, he would still be the richest man in the world, but of course that cost went to the people of New York instead. Socialization of the costs, privatization of the profits, indeed.
Thank you Argufest for all your labor in promoting this kind of videos/lectures. I hope anyone benefiting from this work will give credit where credit is due, 'shallow' is a very kind name to call those who doesn't. Keep it up!
He truly is the face of sheer honesty and intellectual openness. So admirable to be able to be so critical of a system in which otherwise many including himself are subsumed.
+emir yi Noam is just as vulnerable towards 'subjective criteria' as the rest of us. Placing him on some type of pedestal of "sheer honesty and intellectual openness" does not help him, nor us in my view. I say that because he seems to represent a hero archetype among a, generally, dormant humanity.
Nicholas Roberts Subjectivity does not belie "sheer honesty and intellectual openness". In fact, you can cultivate your subjectivity in this direction. Noam Chomsky definitely has.
Nicholas Roberts I never rejected my being a subject in the matter. So, thank you for your input but you have not really made a point over and above what has already been said.
Argusfest - I support youi in what you are doing - having this available is great....there are some ethics in posting and you seem to follow them fine...
Thank you for the upload argufest. I have duly subscribed to you channel. Looking forward to catching up with your other content. I shall try to promote you where I can. Thanks again....
His talk included references to countless brutal genocides all around the globe purported by the elites. That's why he had not been pleased with the laughter heard. Jus a sign of their lack of information.
So hard to gauge his political impact..so strange how such a large portion of America has purposefully ignored him when they knew he had the brains and insight to offer real dissent...maybe it's the nerdy soft voice and the incheck ego,maybe its the lazy antiintellecual attitude so prevalent in greater society or the way he stuck to colleges and academic world but this guy has covered alot of ground..He really took his criticism for a long tested ride and held his ground,stuck to his guns and never gave up or gave in....Big brain,casts a big shadow...
I can not possibly feel real people concerned, could actually put advertisements when they dont have to for content such as this. Removing you from this talk, although only momentarily in context to the length of the full content. I want to personally thank argusfest for not participating with this behavior. Thank you from someone who completely tries to avoid advertisements
We live through very challenging times when changes are so complex, excessive and fast that minds like Noam Chomsky are required to fathom it and put them in simplest perspective for all to understand. His references are awesome, current and apt. Hats off to you sir, for such a great lecture.
I would say 'inb4 "theChomskyVideos" strips out your prelude to the video, and uploads it to his channel with adsense enabled', but he has already taken this video of yours (without accediting the source.)
Yea, I know. I guess it just goes with the territory. There are a lot of assholes out there. I thought about putting a watermark on the video directing people to my channel but I prefer to have the video remain unadulterated. I'm going to stick to my principles regardless.
@ Provider OR Contributors: Do you have the Subtitle for this great video (in .srt)? Maybe you could re-upload this video in a higher resolution, that way a subtitle will/might be added "automatically".
I will be the new chomsky. I mean, I'll try at least. Karl Marx was the Plato of the 19th century. Noam Chomsky is the Plato of the 20th century. I will be the Plato of the 21st century.
679$ Billion in liquid cash profits to preferred industries contrasted with the highest poverty rates in the industrialized world and the highest infant death rates in the industrialized world. This is the "free market" at work. How anybody can get behind this philosophy, and it is a philosophy, is beyond me.
Let's keep in mind that a lot of people have been involved in creating this content, including several different videographers and people you got the tapes from, to say nothing of the speakers. While you have done all of the uploading, it's been a co-creative process that no one has claimed possession of or put any conditions on. I'm glad you decided to not go with a watermark. It would be best if people didn't have ads. Still, I see people at "theChomskyVideos" and other channels that pick these videos up as political allies (not assholes) who are making their own contributions to furthering this information.
I am fascinated by Noam Chomsky intelligence and objectivity on all the issues that he deals, we have to take advantage that with all this years Noam still active and valid in all issues that he confront and he bring to us
Another great talk by Chomsky. However, while blaming governments and the elites, he fails to point out that democracy and the free market are also not compatible for the same reasons as for why the elites rig the game. Free Markets are fine if you are winning no matter who you are.
Please remember that Chomsky has had the past half-century to seek ANY type of Public Service/Elected Office, and show us all he can do a better job, himself! But instead, he chose to merely criticize everyone ELSE from the sidelines, and with the great luxury of 20/20 Hindsight!
Free (for the 1%) Markets (for jobs, democracy, privacy...99% ), neo-liberalism has meant a slow inevitable slide towards third world poverty for middle class etc. of the west,
Hi Argufest I would like to re-post this on my FB page in relation to the Phillip Miroski video. I will give your channel due credit. With much respect. Thomas Stubbs
Hmmm, not quite sure that that's accurate. Would you feel the same way if a large multi-national company stole an freelance illustrators artwork for use in their advertising without either paying or crediting the artist who created it?
This, on the other hand, is a public lecture. Sharing the video is in it's nature and the person who published here on RU-vid doesn't own rights to the talk. They are merely sharing a resource. Also, I'm largely positive that this would fall under educational terms in US copyright law and would thusly be permitted for fair use.
Did you mean "intellectual property isn't theft"? I will distribute this with due credit to Argusfest. The credit should also go to Yale and Noam Chomsky for making this open to the public
I think I'm for government subsidies for research and development because there are many cases where capitalism cannot or will not invest their money for new technologies but I also believe the corporations that benefit from the subsidies should also pay higher taxes so it benefits all of us.
+Kim Siever Did you read what I wrote? I merely asked that people give credit to the original uploader and that they not use the video for commercial purposes (to collect advertising revenue).
Not sure you understand the internet. Where did you source it from? If RU-vid allows anyone to make money off any video you should say good luck to them. RU-vid is making money off it regardless.
When I watched the guy giving the intro I couldn't help but think that having Chomsky as a professor wouldn't have come with the trappings of a pompous professor asking questions he already knew the answers to.
Edgar; I don't ever recall Chomsky saying. I suspect that all modern govs are far too corrupted by the intrigues and schemes of powerful interests, co-opted politics and subversive economic systems, brutal wars of conquest and territorial ambition, etc, to serve as a 'good' modern example. But perhaps something on a very local basis, small communal societies, or from historical anthropology re: pre-industrial eras, such as the equitable, popular-consensus mock-socialist gov of the Iroquois Confederation or the self-governing Cherokee Nation. Or early-phase isolated, 'simple' pioneer societies. The localized scale, intimate and pragmatic accountability of neo-primitive tribal and hunter-gatherer societies may be among the better models of 'good' government ~ which breaks down as the complexities of more sophistication, technology improvements, larger range of associations, availability of resources and 'outside' interests intrude on how people act, economies of trade/barter work, distribution of labor, resources are shared/distributed and managed affecting group dynamics.
I want to elaborate on why I watched this video so far. I have read basic economics, I have listened to many videos from Friedman, and I have read "The Road to Serfdom." I believe I have got the gist of neoliberalism. I am looking for someone with a system that is better than neoliberalism. I want a different point of view. In this video, I only got vague insinuations and snide remarks, not a system of thought. If this is the best of non-Chicago School economic thought, then pretty much Chicago/Austrian School wins by default.
+Christian Libertarian naom isnt an economist. he's a political commentator. in the context of politics, neoliberalism should be chided. from an objective standpoint, the policies followed over the last 40 some odd years have created worse outcomes than we could have imagined, especially in the realm of political power, where money translates immediately to influence. if you're looking for a different school of economics, there are many out there, but dont listen to a linguistics perfessor if you want to learn about economic philosophies that counters the chicago school and free market ideologies.
Norway does well because of its oil wealth. Basically, it pulls money out of the ground. Norway handles that wealth better than any country in the world, but it is not a model that the US or most other countries can follow.
His argument against minimizing the state is a contradiction. He says that minimizing the state gives power to corporations, and in the same time, he says, that big corporations need government protection in some cases. Which one can give more protection to a corporation, a big government with lots of $$$ or a minizied one? I think, the first! Anyway, the main issue is not with whether the government is small or not, but with government corruption, which is also a big argument beside minizing state!
He isn’t arguing against minimization the state. He’s contrasting Neoliberalism in theory (minimization of the state, deregulation, privatization, liberalizing finance, etc.) with Neoliberalism in practice (dependency on state invention when markets fail, tariffs when free market functions lead to outcomes we don’t like, free markets so long as American private interests are met, etc.). While it’s true that Chomsky is a self-described Anarchist, here’s not really making any policy prescriptions here. Rather, he is highlighting the glaring contradictions built into Neoliberalism.
Princess ~ More like, castigated, villainized, mocked, denigrated and scorned by the volatile Rep-Dem rightwing nattering masses as a genuine leftist, and as "Chumpsky" despised as an outmoded classic 'liberal' for elaborately pointing out in exquisite detail the systemic hypocrisies, contradictions and inconsistencies of the west's un-free trade and controlled 'open' market model of predatory authoritarian casino-disasterism capitalism.
I have watched half of this video. He has yet to make a point, only snide remarks. He seems to be vaguely opposed to the free enterprise system, but offers no alternative. In fact, he just seems to be anti-American, and nothing else. This is not being principled, it is simply being insulting. Maybe there is some nugget of wisdom in the second half of the video. I don't know. He is just not interesting enough to listen to anymore.
+Christian Libertarian You seem to be looking for an easily digestible talking point. His point emerges throughout the talk, also wouldn't kill you to read a bit of his works.
I've watched a lot of Chomsky's videos, but have never been interested enough in anything he says to read any of his stuff. I am not looking for talking points. I am looking for underlying theory on which to base evaluation of future events. All Chomsky has ever said boils down to "big business bad." OK, but what then? What is the alternative? What other system of thought should I use to evaluate the future? He doesn't have anything. All I hear is whining, no building.
Aren't you annoyed by hypocrisy and duplicity ? Tax-payers subsidize R&D in electronics, aircraft and metallurgy(masked as military spending by the government, (SDI) for example), and at the same time are admonished not to rely on the nanny state. Are only the rich entitled to the privilege of taking over, once the R&D has been completed with public funds, and profits start coming in? Why should the big companies(Boeing, Cray, General Electric) be protected from market forces, when the average entrepreneur has no such privilege, and has to ruthlessly be exposed to them ? Shouldn't they fund their own research and not rely on public subsidy ?Then the tax-payers money could be spent on education, healthcare, housing for the homeless, parks etc. On this specific subject, the alternative that could be pursued by government, is dismantling what Chomsky calls 'the welfare state for the rich', and commit itself to social spending.
Your interpretation that the government should quit spending on big companies is fine, and gives one a structure on which to hang his metaphorical hat. But that is not what I get out of what Chomsky says. If he would say, "The government should stop spending on this." I would be all aboard. But he doesn't say that in the video, up to the point I stopped watching.
I strongly recommend his book World Orders: Old and New, where he substantiates all his claims and accusations, in a far more coherent manner. He has a long chapter, where he explains how the principles of free trade and classical economics, have been consistently violated in history by the developed countries(imperial preference, tariffs, state-intervention), while demanding that Third World countries conform to them, through the IMF and the World Bank. Unfortunately he is not a gifted lecturer though he compensates by being a moral titan
