Why not mention Hegel's influence on early Marx? Marx used to be a Young Hegelian and Hegel's concept of alienation had been the main influence on Marx' own philosophy.
@@Banana_Split_Cream_Buns Chomsky. I believe I remember him saying that he attempted to read Hegel's Philosophy of History in his Sophomore Year of University, but that he was extremely anti-semitic.
@@teekinwhile …versus Marx’s own stated antisemitism? Hegel was a Hermeticist, subscribing to Kabbalistic epistemology, per Glenn Magee’s thorough text of 2001. Chomsky, the deployed gatekeeper to the Left, won’t divulge said influences of Hegel’s on Marx, however, because it’d be giving too much away.
@@giterdun77 Nice what-aboutism... I guess? Chomsky is not some big proponent of Marx. You seem to be somewhat misinformed. He praises Marx for his analysis of Capital, while he HEAVILY condemns Marx for his conception of a communist revolution and the vanguard party. That said, I agree that it is silly of him to not read Hegel because of this, but I do think it is somewhat justified, as I believe he is Jewish. Also, to be clear, I have not read Hegel, but I do plan on starting Phenomenology of Spirit after finishing CoPR. I would just like to point out that you seem to be coming at me with much enthusiasm, but I can not see where my comment at all provoked a response like this; for I was not making ANY value judgments, just stating what Chomsky has said.
I like Chomsky, but he is not describing Marx fairly when he says Marx believed people are only molded by their environment. With Marx, it is not simply a matter of idealism versus materialism, nature versus nurture, i.e., whether ideas shape us, or our material circumstances do. Marx said it is a synthesis of both rather than one or the other. It is called Dialectical Materialism. With the further theory of Historical Materialism he proposed that material and economic circumstances drive history, but by no means are the only factors. Necessity is the Mother of Invention. Our needs are a driver of our ideas and this has had a large bearing upon history. Modes Of Production in relation to Historical Materialism is another aspect of human actively where he draws from examples in history. Slavery, Feudalism, and Capitalism. We progressed from one to the next. When a Mode of Production and the social system that accompanies it no longer suits the conditions of the civilization, people were forced to develop new systems. It is not Historical Determinism to suggest that this may happen to Capitalism too, especially considering it blunders from crisis to crisis, can be so destructive and does not meet the needs of so many people. So what comes after capitalism? Is it 'the end of history'? They proposed Communism as not only a way to address the inequalities of wealth under capitalism, but also to end the concentration of wealth and power that is typical and practically inherent to Capitalism. If productive enterprise is owned collectively by a society, then the wealth and power that if affords is wielded by society, rather than being monopolized by private individuals who can then use that wealth and power to shape society in their own often narrow interests.
I've always felt that communism sounds like exactly what humanity would do best under, but it has never worked out that way in the real world, not yet at least. After the length the western world has gone to in order to eliminate it, i also don't think it will come back for awhile.
That's a complete misunderstanding of dialectical materialism, Marx explicitly wrote against what you're inferring about his work. Hegel's original dialectics were based on idealism, and Marx's variation was based on materialism, Marx stated quite clearly that his dialectical method is the direct opposite of Hegel's. The idea of 'synthesis' in regards to dialectics actually refers to the process of which the dialectical method works. If we're deriving the dialectical method from Engels and Marx exclusively, we are presented with a thesis, antithesis, which then results in a synthesis. This transformation is described by the three laws of dialectics that Engels writes about in the Dialectics of Nature: the unity of opposites, quality into quantity and vice versa, and the negation of the negation.
Christian Miller After capitalism, syndicalism seems to be the next stage as a mode of production. I think communism will be achieved quite some time after syndicalism is established. An anarcho-syndicalist society is where the people who work or live in a place collectively own that syndicate, e.g. factory, office, neighbourhood, etc. and decisions are made democratically. There is no coercion and no authority exists that can force an individual because the social network is not built from the top-down but bottom-up. Society is highly organised (not chaotic like some claim) with workers' councils elected where delegates from the syndicates meet. The councils can federate into regional, national or even international councils.
The theory of alienation from Marx”s Paris manuscript can still be seen in his later The Capital, but is then called commodity fetischism. The latter term describes workers tendency to see the economic circumstances as laws of nature. In the earlier Paris manuscript the term alienation is the end product that starts with objectification in the production process, and then becomes externalisation, and finally, that workers becomes alienated to their products at work. This was all taken from the early Hegel, and gives a somewhat negative view on workers ability to fight back. It seems to be impossible to resist since workers are alienated already at their machines. The early Lukacs and Marcuse from the Frankfurt School had that view on the working class movement. Lukacs realized he had exaggerated and that objectification was not the same as alienation. The Frankfurt School instead continued on that road and Marcuse claimed that only some few intellectuals could resist the alienation, which led Lukacs to later call them Grand Hotel Abyss.
I made a tune on the alienation concepts, where peoples ability to resist is underlined. Which means there is also, in philosophical terms, a subject involved. Guess that actually was Marx view too, since he was a lifelong part of the labor movement: Anyway: Mist… and a bridge m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-VEP_6OYCkQw.html
The "Sources" links are broken, but the first clip with him in front of the chalkboard is from the documentary "Noam Chomsky in Greece: Philosophies of Democracy (1994)" at ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--kL0UNWcWFc.html (the part about Marx starts at 5:33), and the second clip is from a Q&A called "Reason Against Power" in Brussels (March 17 2011) at vimeo.com/22088144 (the part from this video starts at 1:50:18)
The opening pages of The Communist Manifesto predict globalisation (albeit quixotically). Chomsky touches on this here, yet I've never seen him really articulate it overtly. Does he disregard the point, or have I missed it completely?
KnowingWhatThe ButtonDoes he said his earlier works. I think it was the Critique of Hegels concept of right is where he detail the concept of alienation over one's product of labor. Not sure why.
Another comment states that "The "Sources" links are broken, but the first clip with him in front of the chalkboard is from the documentary "Noam Chomsky in Greece: Philosophies of Democracy (1994)"" -hypnosifl
Modelling of the humans by society does not mean necessarily something bad and reflects the rather true idea that humans are growing within the society and they create themselves in the mirror of other people. The only thing is that up until now power groups have not created such society in which humans could develop their abilities freely. I think later writings of Marx and Engels stressed this point however their big mistake was that they did not form operational rules (using game theory wording) how to do it right and what follows was that the power structures in Russia and other so called socialist countries could freely use the narrative as they wish. Generally I see this problem in XIX century philosophical works that the ideas are actually good but what is lacking is how to do it. And now it is a time to be more clever in XXI century and to concentrate on "how to" , we know mistakes of the past so we should concentrate on operational factors more than on discussing ideas. For example it should be clear that the model of state and society proposed now as Western democracy is a deceipt and there is a need that within the rules of creating new state should be for example free election of highest and regional court judges by the people themselves, the same with chief and regional police, the same with army general staff and so on. Only this rule will allow countries to develop bilateral and friendly relations with other countries and will silence guns of powerful military and industrial groups. Otherwise we will waste time in discussing ideas and all postmodernists will say that there is no true so let's leave the state as it is. By the way I have studied Wittgenstein and could see that postmodernism which was erected on his works used it to manipulate the truth to make big mess in political and sociological thinking. Wittgenstein's idea of relative truth does not mean that the truth does not exist, only that we have different opinions about it because we see it from different angles. For example is Bucha "massacre" in Ukraine untrue? It is true , there are people killled , there are graves there but what happened there is yet unknown and we see different narratives from different angles. The truth is like this, it is like blood and grave , and nobody can object it.
Μην παρακολουθείς τις μπούρδες του Τσόμσκυ! Ο άνθρωπος είναι πανάσχετος σε κάθε τι ουσιαστικό. Γλωσσολόγος είναι, δεν είναι τίποτε παραπάνω ή λιγότερο. Πρόκειται περί ατόμου που όχι μόνο έχει κάνει εκατομμύρια από τις βλακείες που υποστηρίζει και προωθεί στην αγορά μέσω βιβλίων που συγγράφει, αλλά έχει γίνει διαχρονικά και παράδειγμα προς αποφυγή σε βιβλία σαν εκείνο του Sowell "Intellecruals and Society" και του Paul Hollander "Pillgrims:..." λόγω των απίστευτων ιστορικών του λαθών. Η πλάκα είναι ότι μετά από κάθε μπαρούφα που έχει υποστηρίξει βρίσκονται νέοι ακόλουθοι να εκθειάσουν την βλακεία του!
@@C_R_O_M________ μπορείς αν σου ήταν εύκολο να πεις(ώστε να ψάξω περισσότερο) τα πιο κρίσιμα σημεία που ο Τσόμσκι σφάλλει στην ανάλυση του; Ιστορικά και ερμηνευτικά
The idea that people are only products of the environment and that it leads to leninism and that Chomsky allegedly found that in Marx's late writings is pure fantasy. Nothing what Chomsky ever said about marxism was really about marxism or Marx, it was Chomsky's "debate" with leninism or "leninism".
Wrong. As he presented in this video Marx had a philosophical evolution that was intellectually untenable. When Chomsky says it is “a scholarly debate” he is making reference, I believe, to the idea that later Marx was just people writing in his name to promote an agenda of social control. Chomsky rightly sets up this as the intellectual foundation for Leninism, which is not Marxism or socialism. I do believe that Marx was being persuaded to approach society for a scientific perspective. A effort was make to fit the complexity of the social dynamic into easily definable structures. The utopian socialist saw this error well before it was fully articulated and rightly expressed it was a departure from classical socialism.
The reason why the people have to learn more about basics, "political spectrum" and "economic scale". See it *vertically* not only one dimensionally. Many anarho-capitalists are what they are, only because of lack of knowledge. Taught to dislike Socialism, Marxism, etc. Not having on mind vertical "scale" and fact that "leftist ideology" *is not equal to* "socialist ideology". Missing the basics! Had to edit so ancap below can google it easier
Chase S He has been used in most so called Socialist states as second Lord. Marxism was even primary subject in schools. His "pro big government" early mistakes did cost a lot many people, indirectly! He realized mistakes to late, dictators already could and did use partially whatever philosophy they found best suitable for their interests, forgetting that everything started for the people by the people
Chase S Agreed. He is one of those who are mixing the terms a lot. Doesn't know to separate i.e. Socialism from the rest.. nor define it properly. Sorry, I missed the first of his deleted comments, so I (partially) respond to "specific question", as you said
The experiment has been carried out to failure so many times. It's like you guys want to argue for the flat earth, and I can rightfully call you idiots and walk away from such claptrap.
So what.Socialism and communism and leftism in general always degenerate into a bastardization of representative government that favors an elite class and is called totalitarianism.
A lot of sighing going on there. Grab a coffee and learn something: Communism works only for ants and termites, and possibly the Germans. It will never work for normal human beings. We are too independent and egotistical.
When it does two outcomes are possible: 1. the bourgeois class continues to exploit the working class as well as the environment to the point where it is irreversible 2. the proletarian class liberates themselves of their chains and instigates the permanent revolution
Elliot Agreed. But I worry that revolution may end up being too violent or too authoritarian. The authoritarian nature of it can be justified by the dismantling of the bourgeoisie control over the world though.
You'll inevitably get f****d when you don't know your "value". Or in some cases you live in a Shithole country and can't escape it. Then you will have to produce things like asmartphones which will sell for hundreds of dollars. While you produce 100 of that very phone, you will only able to buy one after you work for X months. Alienating and Depressing indeed.
Chomsky made some interesting observations about Marx in this videoclip. Please correct me, if I'm wrong. But here's my takeaway. (Admittedly, I have not yet read Marx’s philosophical manuscripts, but I have read Capital, Vol. 1.) Chomsky's major critique of Marx is that young Marx was more libertarian and less authoritarian. But later Marx, argued Chomsky, grew to view human nature more as a blank slate, which can be molded. Chomsky sees this as a more authoritarian Marx, where the proletarian leadership can "do the molding". Yet, given the fact that this is, basically, John Locke's idea of the tabula rasa, an idea, which is still relevant today, Marx doesn't seem to have erred, necessarily. This is especially true, given the fact that "proponents of the tabula rasa theory also favour the 'nurture' side of the nature versus nurture debate when it comes to aspects of one's personality; social and emotional behaviour; knowledge; and sapience." One can see Marx promoting a social nurture process, which can cultivate cooperative agency among the proletariat. Che Guevara seemed to model this type of idealist, volunteerist cooperative agency during his time leading Cuba's economy. But Chomsky says that tabula rasa idea takes us to Marxist-Leninism. Consider a two-axis political spectrum graph, or political compass, with a left-right economic scale and a top-bottom social scale (with authoritarian at the top and libertarian at the bottom). Zero is at the center. Cf. politicalcompass.org Chomsky is definitely in the lower left quadrant: a leftist libertarian type. According to Chomsky, it seems, Marx is still in the lower left quadrant, just closer to the borderline, where libertarianism ends and authoritarianism begins. Where do we place Marx on the political compass? There is no debate that we can accurately position Marx on the left side (toward extreme cooperation, rather than the right side of the economic scale, toward extreme competition, or free market fundamentalism and cartelization). But what about the social scale? Lower half (libertarian)? Upper half (authoritarian)? So, Marx must be in the lower left (leftist libertarian) or the upper left (leftist authoritarian). What do you guys think? It's time for me to read more...
I believe in the IWA meetings marx would usually vote against the anarchists, also I think marx even coined the concept of the dotp, so I would say Marx is more authoritarian than libertarian
@@stuarthartman4502 dotp means the dictatorship of the working class over the previous ruling class, means democracy for the working class (democracy for the majority). The current democracy, Liberal Democracy, is democracy for the ruling class (democracy for minority) and a dictatorship of the ruling class over working class.
Also, when Marx was writing, there was no universal male suffrage in the UK and not much anywhere else. Marx expected the state to wither away soon after the working class took power so in that respect wasn’t far from the anarchists. However he did feel that some form of state power would be necessary for a time, to prevent the bourgeoisie from crushing the revolution, as happened with the Paris Commune. The drawback of that idea is pretty clear now, but on the other hand anarchists have never made a successful revolution so....🤷♂️
Jacque Fresco talked that no one can be considered a criminal, because they were totally shaped by their culture. Dangerous thinking, excuses any behaviour. Of course, it could be that Fresco hoped that people are so malleable that they can all become model citizens. He also talked that there is no place for individual expression in the near future, because of computers and AI.
Jacque is a behaviorist. However there are other factors that shape human behavior that he neglected to account for. Genetics, the prenatal chemical environment, epigenetics, environmental toxins etc.
Chomsky never discussed the philosophy of Marx namely Dialectical and Historical materialism, a philosophy that is yet to be refuted by physical sciences, anthropology, archeology and sociology. Marx ultimate goal is to end man, the conscious being, from being alienated from himself, others and nature. Chomsky is not being objective here and in the process his views are not scientific. The ruling class has no issue with Chomsky since he does not have nor follows any philosophy that undermines its hegemony and exploitation of the working class. He wants us to be happy but never asks the question why we are unhappy. His indulgence in himself blinds him from being objective. Sad for an intellectual with big following.
>the ruling class has no issue with Chomsky since… He’s literally an anarcho-syndicalist. Also, there are tons of Marxist academics and philosophers. Chomsky is so famous because of his massively impactful work in several fields and his insanely productive output. Clearly you don’t actually know anything about Chomsky if you’re saying he told us to not question anything, he wrote basically the most famous book about capitalistic propaganda. You could honestly argue that Chomsky is too critical of America (and too forgiving of some other countries) rather than not critical enough. You know nothing about him.
@@scopeworth7781 :) never said he does not want us to question everything. To the contrary he wants to but he never provides solutions outside being responsible when voting and conducting ones self through life. My main point is that he dismisses Marx yet never discussed any of his ideas. I defy you to find a record of such discussion. Btw Noam Chomsky is the one who opened my eyes to leftist thought. But I did move on once I realized there is a limit to his political views and the fact Anarchism is a dead end.
Love Chomsky, but his characterization of Marx's approach to agency is poor. Here is Marx summing up concisely at the opening of the 18th Brumaire. As one quickly sees, it is a far cry from 'human nature is *just* a historical product' *Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language.* Thus Luther put on the mask of the Apostle Paul, the Revolution of 1789-1814 draped itself alternately in the guise of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the Revolution of 1848 knew nothing better to do than to parody, now 1789, now the revolutionary tradition of 1793-95. In like manner, the beginner who has learned a new language always translates it back into his mother tongue, but he assimilates the spirit of the new language and expresses himself freely in it only when he moves in it without recalling the old and when he forgets his native tongue. www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm
Where does it contradict what chomsky wrote? Marx literally say's' Das sein macht das Bewusstsein. ' If you translate the meaning of that Marx says 'The [material] circumstances make the mind.' and that is also why you see so many hegel heads turned around. Because hegel believed that 'the mind makes the material world'. So Marx put Hegel on his head so to speak.
That passage contradicts your statement. From start to finish. That's what "circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past" means. The things they did reflected the past.
Oh no. Back to the whole business about people being forced to work against their will and how everybody shouldn't have to work. I'll try to convince bees not to collect nectar anymore, see how that works out.
i think its interesting how he associates Marx's early ideas with his place in history then in the next sentence criticizes him for thinking that people are products of their place in history
He doesnt mention Althusser either who was very critical of Gramsci in particular. Althusser and his idea of interpellation is what Chomsky seems to have in mind regarding the view that human nature moulds its subjects according to their idea of it, which comes to them via the system and its very need to create subjects which are a product of this circular process.
What Chomsky is criticizing is the idea that ALL of human nature is a historical creation. Chomsky thinks humans have a nature of empathy and cooperation and looking after everyone. And this nature is to a degree either expressed or repressed based on historical circumstances.
A worker will think I produced like 100 of a freaking smartphone in a day, but I can only buy one when I work for like 6 months or so. You'll get alienated and will start to think that you're being exploited, which is the case.
Did they invent the smart phone? Did they gather the raw materials? Process them? Make the components? Did they make the company? Gather the money to do any of it to begin with? The marketing, the accounting. The reason why people get paid shit for their labor is because their labor is worth shit without the company.
@@makokx7063 Ironic thing about the smart phone is that all of its components were invented and created in the state sector with public funding. Also without labor nothing can be created.
@@epicphailure88 Yes, labor is essential but its value is dependent on the things that give it value. A person screwing the motherboard into a smartphone added 0.0001% of that phone's value and they risked no money like the investors do. Why should they get any more than that? If you want a big paycheck build the whole thing yourself or use your own resources to invest in someone else which is a gamble.
@@makokx7063 Who said anything about a big paycheck? People need to break out of this mindset that being "wealthy" or trying to achieve that status is human nature.
Plato believes that, the human being in lower hierarchy r just a passive clay in the hands of moulders it was a rather convienent idea for the radical intellectual. He believes that one from transindental world of ideas should be guiding this worldly creatures.
When he finally moved to Britain he said something that I really I like, "I'm the poorest person who writes so much about money ". When I was young I had outer body thought that future of humanity will be system of socialism. With age I'm more conflicted about social economic system of future. Capitalism has lots of flaws. And as Marx said it will ultimately self destruct. Even that postulate is in question now. Marx really wasn't a revolutionary, his writing wasn't about overthrowing monarchy or capitalism, instead he was very insightful about economic systems and evolutionary death of capitalism due to self implosion.
Carl Marx is not a revolutionary. His writing was used like a bible by communists and socialists. His books and articles are useful but shouldn't be treated like foundation of modern society. If he is right, then socialism should wait until capitalism is so advanced that people will find it more productive to abandon capitalism. The core of Marxism is whether the means of production should be managed by a centralized system or by distributed systems. Maybe the truth lies somewhere in between.
For all the qualifications this isn't a very accurate depiction of Marx. In the late Marx you certainly find a concept of human nature, which he called man's species being. Marx thought certain fundamental aspects of humanity, the metabolic interaction with nature to name the most essential.
He specifically said that Marx "couldn't have believed" that people are merely clay molded by their environment. He said that Marxism believes that and is notably different from what he conjectures Marx to have believed.
@@mikey-hm7dt I'm not aware of any synthesis between marxism and postmodernism. The latter, if I understand it correctly, has basically rejected Marx's universalist critique of capital, favoring an affirmation of difference and multiplicity. Derrida, for example, clearly rejects Marx's universalism in Specters of Marx.
@steiner333 I think you are absolutely correct in that it doesn't really make sense to put them together, I feel like they are fundamentally incompatible ideas, but people do it nonetheless and it is at the very least interesting to talk about and what Chomsky is probably referencing here
So wrong about the humanism debate in Marx. For one, the early Marx wasn’t forgotten, it wasn’t published until the mid 20th century. Second the later Marx doesn’t even make philosophical claims about human nature anymore because he has begun to formulate his critique scientifically. He says that the study of the development of use-values (concrete human activity) is the object of the study of history. The debate about the epistemological break between young and old Marx isn’t continued because everyone already knows where they stand, or that early Marx is read no longer as a humanist, but as a Spinozist. There is plenty of foreshadowing of theoretical anti-humanism in the 1844 manuscripts. Chomsky is just being a liberal fool here, who betrays his unfamiliarity with Marx and the debates within Marxism. Capital is not a book of philosophy, but a engendering manual to dismantle the capitalist machine. The 1844 manuscripts talks about essence, existence, species-being, alienation as metaphysical concepts. Capital talks about use-value, exchange-value, labor-power, the rate of exploitation, which are scientific concepts. The logic of capitalism is immanent in the contradiction in the commodity form between use-value and exchange-value. It isn’t that humans become moldable universal material, they are already that in 1844. Rather the only thing that is systematic is the commodity and the conditions of commodity production, the most important of which is living human labor, which is the universal use-value for capital when it is sold as a commodity and takes the form of labor-power.
"Species being" is quiddity, is it not? Human nature/essence, etc.? Seems you got kind of tripped up on what "everyone already knows"- gotcha crap and some unfortunate name calling; from there on, interesting.
Marx theory of alienation does not come to him through Humboldt, but via Hegel's philosophy and Feuerbach's criticism to idealism. Marx does not say there is a human nature make at once by material forces but that human properties are emergent from real historical factors, and they are changing ( as well it is read in the Thesis on Feuerbach, number 3 specifically. Now, Chomsky interpretation of Gramsci though is totally ungrounded and false: on the contrary, Gramsci insists on the subjective -active side of human praxis as the element of making history ( listen Diego Fusaro videos on A. G. ). His final comment on Marx is common observation of critics.
> Marx does not say there is a human nature make at once by material forces but that human properties are emergent from real historical factors, and they are changing ( as well it is read in the Thesis on Feuerbach, number 3 specifically. This is contradictory though, and the point that Chomsky is highlighting. if human properties are emergent from historical factors, then alienation is merely a temporary point of change, not the result of a species character that early Marx describes. Or put another way, how can one be alienated by historical factors when one is formed by historical factors. Alienation is only possible when you are made to feel disconnected from your nature. > His final comment on Marx is common observation of critics. Nope, not just critics, it was also an observation made by the Bolsheviks.
@@MassDefibrillator Marx writings of 1844 are not all Marx's ideas on the topic of alienation !! those Manuscripts ideas were modified in 1845 substantially in German Ideology and more deeply transformed in d Kapital. I agree: alienation is a transitory phase of human history, it is not eternal.
Seriously, how come he mentions a relatively irrelevant influence such as Humboldt but not Hegel?! Hegel's concept of alienation was the main influence on Marx. He used to be a Young Hegelian. Is Chomsky this ignorant?! Marx was NOT influenced by Romanticism but German Idealism.
1:31 humans are formed by the environment, as is everything else. If we did not believe that humans are maluable, that they can change dependant on their environmennt, than whats the point of education. Yes we do make reservations for the idea of free will, but apart from that, i dont know what there is to contest reguarding this idea. If someone would like to explain why they hold a different or the oposite belief, id love to read it. Have a nice day
The problem with this kind of thought is it takes an average idiot just simple experience to observe different. We have years of proof which system is better. Just look at the cheese selection at my local Walmart. Incredible! Show me one INCREDIBLE outcome from a change in system. You can not. And I mean as simple as cheese.
No, no it’s not. There’s a reason why Marx hated Anarchism and Anarchists. Marx and Anarchists clearly are anti-capitalists, but that’s where it ends. Marxists don’t get to the root of the problem: hierarchy and authority. Marx viewed governmentalism as a good thing, Anarchists do not.
@@johnrossini3594 Marx ar that time supported a workers state, he embraced statelessness later on Besides, being in favor of a stateless society doesn’t make you an anarchist considering to Marx the government would still exist and be replaced with, as Engels put it, “the administration of things”. To be truly anarchistic, you gotta eliminate all hierarchies, and Marx had no intention of doing that.
I thought you are smarter than this. You do not have a clue about karl marx. You do not talk das capital and you chose liberalism over karl marx, remember it is very simple whether you're in support of surplus value or not, liberalism is capitalism.
Chomsky is just flat out wrong. Marx is correct that material relations shape are reality. If you do not believe that we can directly influence our material reality in a way thats better for humans then I don't know what to say, Chomsky claims to be a socialist, what socialist believes this?
I've wondered many tines what Karl Marx would have thought at how history unfolded, and his role in it, a century and a half after his death. Now, as then, Marxism offers a powerful critique of capitalism in particular. But the flaws of Marxism cannot be explained away as simply as to say all of the "failed" Marxist states (such as the Soviet Union) were simply perversions of the ideology. The ideology itself is at fault, too. And yet we must still retain the powerful truths and critiques that Marxism offers, and package them in a new and more sustainable form. Chomsky seems true to that vision.
That view of human nature is self-defeating. If everyone is just clay, it means whoever would potentially be the molder is also just clay. Who molded that molder?
Why is this "self-defeating"? It means human nature is dynamic, which is like pretty comical to contend with if one is reading this sitting in a chair looking at a bunch of pixels as part of doing this for an arbitrarily enormous amount of time. Specifically though, Marx's conception of "dialectical materialism" is like a feedback loop between the material and the ideological that reinforce each other over time with the material base organization taking precedent (hopefully obvious lol). I think it can be summed up with Sartre's assertion of the inherent nature of existentialism which also well describes what this all means succinctly: existence precedes essence. The late David Graeber comes to mind: _"The ultimate hidden truth of the world is that it is something we make and could just as easily make differently."_
So let me get this straight.. Marx & Engels wrote about the environmental catastrophe in the 19th century- which Chomsky thinks is unbelievable & so important, & Chomsky thinks Marx's analysis of economic & social systems are extremely important & revealing. And then Chomsky criticizes: But Marx didn't say human nature is just a historical product. That's a very simple minded way of reading. & Marx didn't say people are just 'malleable'? as Chomsky asserts. Chomsky is making no sense here- or deliberately misinterpreting Marx's work. I'm starting to learn that Anarchists have a history of generally fucking movements up. Look up Bakunin.
I agree, Marx didn't talk much about human nature, and when he did, he referred to what he called 'species being'. And Marx never claimed people were infinitely malleable, that's just Chomsky's spin. But don't judge all anarchists by what Chomsky says, since he's not even an anarchist himself. Bakunin was right about Marx's authoritarian strategy for revolution, which included dick pro (dictatorship of the proletariet). Bakunin was prophetic.
@@anarchimedes7 "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible." "Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly." "Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan." "Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture." "If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class." -- Communist Manifesto Centralization of power into a State to implement dick pro where the working class becomes the ruling class, and 'industrial armies', etc. seems pretty authoritarian to me.
@@anarchimedes7 "Except you're taking that out of context" LMAO!! Classic cop out. A state is a state. What other kind of state is there? Yes, the withering away of the state via the state. What utter nonsense. It actually sounds Orwellian. Bakunin was right.
I am always amused by folks who pine away for the "early Marx", let's talk about alienated labor as opposed to class struggle and the need for a new dawn.
Engels actually toiled manually at his fathers factory to help Marx family survive during their time in London. Marx also worked as a journalist for several papers, both in Europe and USA.
Marx explains how capitalisme works, how money works, how profit works etc. ....he is not some kind of a philosophical goofball with "ideas" about "society"
Especially when it came to his theories of historical inevitability. There is nothing that is inevitable. He didn't know where the revolutions would happen or how they would manifest, but he thought that he did.
Like most lefties, Marx was a financial idiot, in his case because he never had a job and relied on ass kissing lackies and/or his parents for everything. Had he managed a factory, maybe he would have written a book on how to retire in Spain or something useful.
Marx didn't develop too many solutions actually. His magnum opus, Kapital, barely talks about his ideas at all. Contrary to popular belief, he wasn't really utopian at all. He was concerned with a critique of the present, not (if you'll forgive my tongue) bullshitting about the future. But from what he did write about his ideal, I would sort of agree. At least a part of it. Abolishing private property? All well and good. Eventual abolition of the state? Cool-cool. Dictatorship of the proletariat? *No thank you*. Even if it isn't authoritarian, it would still be something that we need to abolish. So it depends on what you mean.
@@animore8626 Indeed, just cuz I remember this phrase randomly, he was dismissive of "those that write recipes for the cookshops of the future" as this sets arbitrary and likely self-defeating limits on the whole mode of production. I will say the dictatorship of the proletariat thing is important to understand in context as capitalism is inherently a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or capital class, so the point is to pass a threshold of class domination to rid the social class distinctions of society through these means. I used to get off on appearing "reasonable" by opposing things like this, but I think if we look around today and really consider our uh "daesin" here we can see why this isn't so inherently unreasonable and may in fact be a necessity to save the very planet we live on, else ensure the "common ruin of the contending classes." scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
listen to what he actually says he criticises marx, talks about the dogmatic idea that people are simply "clay" to be moulded, and radical intellectuals think they can be the moulders granted he also defends him from the stupid and lazy association people have with marx and their personal conception of the big communist baddie strawman
@@weewee2169 He is incorrect in ascribing to Marx the notion that human beings lack any essential nature or that they are mere “clay” to be molded. He’s simply wrong! Marx never expressed such silly notions. Marx believed that there is a basic human nature that remains constant but that it can be - and is - changed and affected by culture. Surely this is correct. All people share a basic common nature but that nature is not fixed and uniform across all cultures nor is it exactly the same in all people within a given culture. People are not billiard balls. They’ll do vary from one another in important respects. Yet they also have a certain core in common. For instance, in capitalism, human greed is encouraged and cooperation and sharing is discouraged. In preindustrial societies, where property is held in common, the inverse is true.
@@stevenyourke7901 "Surely this is correct" well you seem to be convinced, im afraid im on chomskys side, sorry "preindustrial societies, where property is held in common, the inverse is true." yeah im sorry you seem to be proving chomskys point for me, i reckon you take a lot of this as gospel
@@weewee2169 Have you ever studied Marx on human nature? Somehow I don’t think so. If you’re genuinely interested in what he has to say about it, read Marx and Hunan Nature by Geras. Don’t just take Chomsky’s word as gospel truth about Marx. Too many people worship Chomsky. He’s not a Marx scholar and I’d bet he’s never read Geras’ book. .
I like Chomsky, and he has had access to much more education and information than Marx, but Marx is far greater than Chomsky will ever be. That is the real truth. All Chomsky has put out are these little books, documentaries or videos or scientific theories on language that are soon going to be completely obsolete because of all the new science done in neurology/neuroscience. Chomsky also fails as an activist, because he has nothing to believe in, no agenda, no Chomskyism ... he is just a marvelously intelligent teacher and talker, which is fine, but the world so needed him to be more than that.
In the end part about molding, he seems to describe power hungry SJW Academics, & their desire to shut down viewpoint diversity, to a tee. See Heterodox Academy for more information, and others (just ask me, for anyone reading this).
Your comment sounds like right wing dogma. I went to school, I witnessed this "power hungry SJW Academics, and their desire.." crowd. They are not a serious threat to anyone. Most are genuinely good people trying to make a difference, however awkwardly. Only cowardly people seem to be afraid of this SJW crowd. The real academic elite are well to the right of those kids. On the one hand SJWs are seen as these soy-boy, latte-drinking, softie liberal pussies, and on the other hand they're these elite, power hungry bully fascists. Please pick one. On the contrary, the real "molding" and shutting down viewpoint diversity comes from: the White House, corporate media, conservative judges/bureaucrats/legislation, cops' feelings, etc., which are reactionary tendencies. I can give countless examples.
@@avigindratt7608 I think I know what you mean Abu, but I cannot agree with some of your assumptions Avi. Did you look up videos of Jonathan Haidt & "Viewpoint Diversity" or The Heterodox Academy & its purpose or Academic support? You will find the arguments, information & evidence there, that Viewpoint Diversity is not respected. There is also Brett Weinstein, Jordan B Peterson, Jianice Fiamenco, so many others. Dave Rubin (despite his minor flaws which SJW pick on) has had many others in them. Also Benjamin Boyce. They also point out the bullying & domination by Academic SJWs, inc of students, who often go along with it rather than be a target ( like ). Are you telling me these people are "Corporate Bullies", etc? They're not are they, very, very, very far from it. They just respect Viewpoint Diversity, the evidence is that SJW Academics do not. Most of them are Classical Liberals.
@@avigindratt7608 So the idea that there are "two options: us or them" is false, isn't it? And Corporations can't shut down Viewpoint Diversity in Academia as far as I know, and even if so, I don't believe it justifies this. Two wrongs don't make a right. Also, on them being "nice". I engage with people across the Poltical Spectrum, inc friends. It isn't all of them perhaps, but the ones I know don't seem to have any awareness of how dangerous they are, or what makes them both "nice" but genuinely untrustworthy to others , and I think it goes with the common SJW ideologies & common justifications. I would argue I am not very dangerous or untrustworthy because: (0) I believe that "Love of Myself & Others (Inc enemies) in my Poltical Interactions to be the main work of Politics. The benefits of this isn't well understood or practiced. Policy & Practical Solutions is 2nd, Poltical Theories a distant 3rd. (1) I have developed a habit of "check my hypocrisy" whenever I have a position. (2) I aspire to engage sincerely & respectfully with others across the Poltical Spectrum. (3) I don't measure what is good or bad; Progress or Regression by getting my "emotional holes/"needs"/addictions" met or not by my peers, or by their negative reactions. I.e. Positive or Negative social reactions. If I do, by my fear or compulsions, I recognise it as my own error, not a good thing. (4) I always consider the effects of my position on everyone involved, inc my adversaries that I don't like, not just my favourite people. I attempt to "love my adversaries" in practice, but not a facade genuine care. More like in understanding of the benefits. (5) I believe it is probably impossible for Means & Ends to be different, because the actual emotions driving them will be the same. Thus, I understand at least intellectually that I can do evil things "for the sake of a good cause" and that it isn't justified.
@@avigindratt7608 Of that last list, that is the total reverse of how the average person engages in Politics or Poltical Interactions, by their choice. With SJW, it is often worse, and their common ideology & attitudes about the subject of Power & Grevience/Victimhood ideology justify it. They tend to use Victimhood claims to gain power & dominance over others, without even recognizing it - rather than practice Equality without excuses, and let progress happen that way. That's not even including the Ideologies of SJW and the disdain for Viewpoint Diversity. I can try to give further explanations of anything I said. But only on the condition that we both feel that each of us desire a truth-seeking & respectful discussion (faith that truth is always good, & to risk change slowly), not an argument driven by opposite feelings.
@@avigindratt7608 Does that make sense? Sorry if that was a bit long, but it states more clearly what I meant in my original comment. If I respond, I'll try to be concise in question & answer 😉
Mikhail Bakunin’s critiques of Karl Marx are almost all proven true by time, and Lenin proved Bakunin was right about his critiques of Marxism by squashing Ukraine. I’ll just leave this comment here for you good people. #AnarchoSocialism
I am an anarchist and Marxist. Bakunin's criticism of Marx were not 'proven true' but ridiculous strawmen driven by intense anti-semitism. It boggles my mind that so many 'anarchists' would read Bakunin's propaganda and not even glance at Marx's actual works, instead trusting that Bakunin was honest (He was not). Marx did not advocate 'state-socialism'. Marx explicitly declared the state the enemy of the people, the political self as a false-universal self, and declared that liberation of the individual necessitated the 'shattering of the state'. Marx advocated a stateless society. www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm If you're going to spread this ridiculous propaganda, at the very least have the integrity to know the school of thought you're poisoning.
@@brendanfletcher5216 Lmao what arey you even talking about, Bakunin's predictions about the future Marxist dictatorships were all proven to be true. Also Marx was also an anti-Semite, so I don't know why you mention Bakunin's anti-Semitism, maybe you don't have any actual arguments to debunk his very accurate predictions. Marx called for the dictatorship of the proletariat, he wanted it to not be authoritarian, but it doesn't matter what he wanted, he ignored the material nature of the state, thought he could use it to bring Communism, Bakunin warned him, Marx didn't listen we got the USSR, Mao and countless other failed State Capitalist dictatorships. Marx is responsible for ruining Socialism, if he had actually listened to Bakunin maybe the Russian revolution would have followed Anarchism and not betrayed the proletariat. It boggles my mind how people still refuse to acknowledge that Bakunin was right and Marx was wrong and instead choose to spread Marxist propaganda.
the experience of actually reading marx was the first step in realising how useless chomsky is, both as an intellectual and a political figure. everything he says here is deeply entry-level, anti-communist junk
One of.those topics where Naom Chomsky's age brought him to realisation that he was wrong about Karl Marx and later admitted ' the idea works and it can be applied...' Carl Marx is the combination of Jesus, Mohammad, budha, and moses together squeezed for a better solution without relgion...
The idea of Mohammad was to wage war in order to capture slaves, live lazy and rape infidels. The idea of Jesus was to end all work because the world is coming to an end. The idea of Moses is basically Stalinism.
where did his age make him change his opinion? chomskys criticism of marx to me seems entirely consistent ' the idea works and it can be applied...' what idea? and when did he say that? this screams misquote and simplification, chomsky obviously shares marxs interest in deconstructing illegitimate power regimes you simultaneously spell his name wrong and do exactly that chomsky, the example of history, and marx i think himself would denounce as a huge mistake, in equating marx with some kind of perfect god person? dont you think thats an obvious mistake? have you even read enough of his stuff to know why you think this? shouldnt we just take the good from him and leave the bad - of which there is plenty?
@@hans-joachimbierwirth4727 you're demonizing islam, I think your criticism of islam stems from a hatred of Muslims, I was raised a muslim and my understanding was mohammed waged wars to spread islam to have control of the land, he did not wanted to own slaves but he did misled millions and thousand into war to further his own propaganda.
Marxism is not a system to work. It is a set of theories about capitalist economic system. You think Marxism=socialism. It is possibly true that socialism will never work. But it doesn't make sense to say "Marxism will never work" (Unless you refute Marx's core arguments about capitalism. Which I don't think is possible).
Karl Groucho = one of "herstory's" monsters with the sharpest wits Karlism = the study of monsters Grouchoism = the study of wits Karlgrouchoism = ruled by funny monsters
@@crosstraffic187 perhaps if I wacked myself on the head and took bath salts, that would make sense. But then I'd probably have to the requisite Che poster on my dorm wall at the college mum and dad paid for.
"Libertarian", originally, was used by anarchists to describe themselves. Joseph Déjacque was the first person to describe himself as a libertarian. He was an anarchist communist.
@Mark Branham ah definitions definitions, unless we all have a similar description of everything we are all going in circles and never get anywhere. Whatever is the definition for let me do my own thing and I’ll let you do your own thing that’s what I’m for. If I’m telling you what to do or you telling me what to do that’s what I’m not for.
@@kenx6235Labor creates goods, services, wealth, and infrastructure, and labor is entitled to all it creates. Capitalism is based on the expropriation of the fruits of working class labor in a system in which a bought and paid for political class have a monopoly on the means of coercion and retribution
