Noam Chomsky on Syria, China, Capitalism, and Ferguson 

If a white person tries to tell me to prove racism exists, I'm just deleting you period. You've been warned.

Also I'm not letting anybody derail my point either.

***** I don't mind competing ideas. I won't allow racism for racism sake. And you are wrong about that statement that everyone wants to live with their own kind and that's what determines racism, it's not, it doesnt. I Don't care if a group of whites want to live in a community with no black people. Heck, I'm all for bringing back Black Wall street! Racism is tied into a power structure though. Telling me where I can live, where I can and not work, where I can learn, etc. Only white people posses that power. Wanting one thing. To go so far as to make it IMPOSSIBLE for another race to live comfortably in the way they wish too, that's racism.

***** There are differences between races, it may be the ugly truth but it makes sense that if certain society lived in huts as fishermen and farmers, and other as more economy/industry driven society that values education and more complex forms of systems, that after XX generations you will have differences between avg individuals between those races. Yep talking about IQs. It's well researched and comes with tables and charts. So "we are all humans, we have one consciousness", yes, but put consciousness to different use and you get varied results over time. Oh and if I got it right by the names here, none of us are at the top of the IQ chain. It is held firmly by (East) Asians. Congrats to em! ; )

***** Huzzah to the greeks, the gate keepers of Europe! Yep talking about Persia

+Karsten Lane (“moxy”) Give it time and you'll realize he is full of shit.

+L2084 Well, we've already established you are. Good job.

+Karsten “moxy” Lane - Sounds like your parents were uninformed conservatives. Otherwise they would have taught you to spot the liars in the atheist elite media and the Democratic Party along with how Chomsky is tragically misinformed in important ways. Not too late though. Continuing education goes on every day on talk radio and a wee bit on Fox News, wherein one can unlearn the garbage shoved into children in the deceit factories called public schools. You can also visit MRC.org for an eye-opening glimpse at how easy it is to catch the liars at ABC News, NBC and CBS applying their craft. It will be more difficult for you than for the typical escapee from the lies of liberalism because you believe you have already seen the other side. Trust me though, you have not.

Straw-man. Chomsky criticizes the liberal-media as well. Have you ever even taken the time to read _Manufacturing_ _Consent_? I'm assuming from your statements that you're a free-market libertarian. So centre-right. But the problem with this alignment is that its advocates fail to see that the market is already essentially deregulated. Deregulation doesn't serve to foster "competition" and "diversity" in the market. It in fact does quite the opposite. It allows cooperation/collusion between big corporate monoliths and only fosters competition either among the impoverished, or between the affluent and the impoverished. A good example of this is the price-fixing scandal between Procter & Gamble and Unilever in the UK I believe. But the wealthy all prosper the same.

I stand corrected. It wasn't just the UK. It was 8 countries.

Yes it is, thank you Michael!

GRITtv You're welcome.

Thanks for watching! We like to have a little fun while asking the big questions!

If that is the case, why doesn't he mention the fact that so many of those 'whites' that owned Blacks as slaves were in fact Jewish? Because that wouldn't fit the agenda, and Chomsky is a Jew, so why would he tell the world the truth. No, much easier to claim Whites were the racists, when in fact his fellow tribesmen still practice their racism to this day in the "Jewish" State of Israel.

Is Chomsky not white? aren't many Jews considered white? or consider themselves white? Actually Mid-Eastern people are considered Caucasian!! So perhaps you're are discriminating too!! Chomsky is in a mission to demystify Israel!! Every day he speaks of the atrocities and mistakes by radical Zionists and Israeli government and right wing leaders!!! Every day! Doesn't that show he tries to express himself above tribal loyalties? In here, he's referring to ALL slave owners, but tying to the write supremacy that has reigned the world for at least 2,000 years. Have a good one!

StJohn .ChapterEight This is factually incorrect, not that you are likely to be bothered by being wrong.

StJohn .ChapterEight First of all, even though you didn't admit to it, Chomsky is on of the staunchest critics of Israel!! He condemns Zionism! as many Jews either criticize or are vehemently against it!! 2nd, your statements are such sweeping misconstrued notions that I ask you to share it somewhere else, not under my post. Your language steams of anti-semitism!! Most Jews were still laboring as serfs in Russia and all Eastern Europeans countries for most of the African Slave Era. If you like percentages you'll see that most Jews didn't own and, didn't have citizenship and couldn't buy properties in Europe for all of the Middle Ages and Modern Era!! That's why the few that had any means focused on urban luxury trade, portable wealth, so they could pick up and leave which was most of their A.D. era experience. 3rd, indeed there were some Dutch Jewish pirates and traders who founded some of the 1st synagogues in the Americas but they worked above, for and with non-Jewish counterparts that vastly outnumbered them!! Everyone who could trade and make fortune in the 16-1800s was trying to do it, like anyone else would, unfortunately, but that's how the world moves. I guess you don't consider Spanish and Portuguese white, another problem there, they're Caucasian!! The American definition of white is very exclusive!! and I can promise you that the descendants of Spanish and Portuguese in those countries view themselves as white and hold the cards of wealth and social privilege just as well as the whites do in the US and UK. The percentages you mentioned are a symbol of how always a few manage to hold some of the largest fortunes and main trade and corporation deals in relation to vastly a poorer uneducated labor force, which prevailed in all history!! To take percentages out of context it's to misuse them, that's why Maher and Harris and others manage to manipulate our perceptions so easily, because percentages have to be taken with all sorts of information to diminish their bias. The essence of statistics is bias! -- It was an era where few had access to wealth and means of producing more wealth!! There were even a few blacks who owned slaves in Louisiana for example, because the first slaves to come were hired as indentured slaves, who worked themselves out of their contracts and managed to live freely, but was a tiny number of them, soon the English changed the rules as many slaves lost precious lands such as lands right above Wall Street, but whites were the vast majority of slave owners, they're controlled the means of production, they were the only ones to vote and run for office which is social political power anywhere, who can hold office in the legislative, judicial or executive branches. Certainly not blacks, there're exceptions for everything, but that's why they're called exceptions! In any case, the best person to read to understand Chomsky's points, is Chomsky, after reading what he means, then you can try to argue.

StJohn .ChapterEight It's always difficult to respond to extreme anti-Semites with measured answers, but, at least to begin with, I think it's worth the effort. First of all, Chomsky is a unapologetic, fierce critic of Israel. His book The Fateful Triangle is indispensable for people interested in truths about Zionist violence that is unreported in the mainstream US press. American slavery was not some sort of Jewish conspiracy, as you appear to believe. There were Jews involved, yes, and Christians, and Muslims, all enriching themselves at Africa's expense. Chomsky isn't covering anything up. You may feel free to have the last word if you like. I'll not respond to anything else you say, you piece of shit. You of course give the game away with your choice of screen name; but, honestly, why not simply have done with it and call yourself StJohn .ChapterEight Vs.44. It would be far more honest.

I thought it was this one: Worse than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal of Jim Crow Justice

Zak Merou 18:02 Chomsky references "Douglass Blackmon" who wrote the book Slavery by Another Name. Or he could have read both of the books & conflated the two.

ProjectDystopia Zak Merou Chomsky was referring to Blackmon's book. Thanks for commenting Project!

***** Read the book referenced before you make that comment.

***** If ignorance is bliss, then you must be a happy person. gotsda, keep smiling......

Please leave.

+Zachary Mikuska We like to look at the likes! Definitely subscribe for more interviews by Laura!

The Laura Flanders Show Done & Done

Maria Fernanda Araujo ● It's nice to know at least one "Father" of The Church was speaking against Slavery instead of Sanctioning Human Bondage as was done in that Period. But ... Father Antonio Vieira wasn't The Pope AND w / his "Progressive" views, I'll bet he never became one ... ?

Nicholas Frechen "Birds of a Feather". Because of the information available today, there are more and more people questioning what they see on the news.

Notecrusher ● Thank you for the link ; unfortunately, I got the message :: "This page could not be found". It must not have met YOU-TUBE's "Community Standards" or somebody's.

Walk to Canada.

+BobClemintime Nothing more than his hollow words

I am not sure what you point is supposed to be?

Thanks for the thoughtful response, though I was already aware of US support for those regimes. But what does that have to do with the viability of using the UN to solve the Syria situation?

+BobClemintime *But what does that have to do with the viability of using the UN to solve the Syria situation?* The point is that what is the issue with letting Assad remain in power when so many other men, too often worse, were permitted or protected, if it stops the killing? The point that eludes all critics of Chomsky is that he's advocating a progressive solution that involves abandoning all the traditional policy positions that lead to suffering and instead focus on eliminating suffering. Today you permit Assad to survive because he will anyway, or if you want to get rid of him you need to destroy or let Syria be destroyed making the goal of protecting the Syrian people impossible. Tomorrow you focus on persuading and cooperating with Russia to avoid future situations like this rather than encircling them as NATO has attempted to do since the end of the cold war thus giving Putin and his cohorts every reason to be an opponent of the west - because even before there was a stand off we put Russia in the position of either being subservient or fighting to be independent as all nations will. You act as if we don't have a choice. We do, it just involves actually taking the high ground instead of just proclaiming we do in our propaganda. By high ground i don't mean the one where we force our opponent to surrender militarily I mean the moral one, the one that is anathema to all our traditional policy solutions. The point is so far off the reservation I'm not surprised it eluded you.

+BollocksUtwat Assad has continued to be in power as far as I am aware, and we are left with one of most severe human crises in recent times. How exactly does leaving a person in power stop killing, when that person is actively fighting rebels who say that they will never stop fighting the government so long as Assad is in power? There is even a legitimate case to be made that removing Assad from power in the beginning could have resulted in a much safer situation for the people of Syria and the world. I think Chomsky is a very valuable asset to the US and I often think he makes good points. In this case, I think it is very easy to criticize the outcomes of a policy on an issue that is extremely complicated without suggesting a better alternative. It it easy to same something general like the UN should handle it, but much more difficult to suggest a specific response that would solve the situation. Just because I am critical of a weak response by Chomsky, doesn't mean that I am critical of everything he does. In what way would supporting a violent crackdown on peaceful protesters (along with Russia) lead to a more peaceful and more moral world? NATO is a separate issue from the Syrian Civil War. I also never said there were not different choices the US could have made, just that Chomsky's "solution" was very weak.

3506Dodge :: Yeah ! There is an "international community". Just like there's an "intelligence community". The pollution of language has spread all over the place ; even "Progressive" / "Alternative Media" ( Democracy NOW ! ). Community has an Ancient meaning of Humans living together ; building together ; protecting each other ; rising off-spring --- Together ! --- It takes a Community to raise a Child. They've turned that word, community, into some Public Relations BS. You know what community means, otherwise you wouldn't be asking. If there was an international community :: Kissinger would have been before the World Court. Israel would have been stopped, long ago, with massive sanctions from the international "community". I won't insult your intelligence by commenting on the pollution of the intelligence "community" ( CIA / FBI / Mossad.

That was a really stupid statement, I agree. Chomsky is brilliant, but he simply doesn't understand the mind of a religious fundamentalist.

Have you actually seen the reasons and arguments for why he said that?

Steve Jobs and Apple executives only captured a minuscule part of the value that they created. Consumer surplus is great!

Jim Oliver The reason economists believe that government pays for basic research is because it is very difficult for the producers of basic research to capture even a small portion of the benefit and so it would be under-produced. So we taxpayers invest in basic research so we get cool stuff. Companies like Apple capture only a small part of their admittedly small part in production. And BTW what makes Chomsky so sure that basic research is hard compared to putting out a finished product.

Don't criticized Chomsky ! Disprove him !

Criminalizing Black Life ::: The Southern States succeeded in making the lives of Black People as miserable as possible after the Civil-War. Jim-Crow Laws :: keeping Blacks Segregated. Criminalizing them for the slightest "offense" for breaking the most trivial Laws as an excuse to get them into the prison system for free-labor. This time, the Plantation owners wouldn't have to worry about housing/food/clothing ... better than the Slavery --- Pre Civil-War.

⚽️ He references the NYT & sometimes the WSJ, because they are Newspapers of National recognition. He sites the NYT to point out its _Manufacturing Consent !_ Front-men for the United States' Foreign-Policy ... & Domestic. For the WSJ, he has more respect as he suggests that we all read it if we want to know what the Business-Class is up to ... the journalists for that paper don't mis-lead the Financiers about what is happening on Wall-Street & in International Financial Markets. ⚽️ This isn't my opinion. This is what Chomsky has stated. ( I paraphrased. )

***** He isn't a communist you fucking idiot.

American freedom allows you to leave. There are millions dying to get in here. I guess you believe that all those people are stupid and ignorant. If you need some help, I will pay for your plane ticket. Please act fast so that another person can come to America and they will have boundless gratitude for it. Let's go Brandon!

@@jessesnyder5426 Happy are those with eyes to see, ears to hear, the truth behind the smoke and mirror. Times, never seen before, are upon us. Shalom

How many books have you written? Which college are you a professor at? Name the last three books you read and studied by Noam?

Your own definition proves him right and you wrong lol! If a large part of the GNP is controlled by the state and not private interests then the system is NOT capitalist by definition.

Oners82 bullshit. Capitalism isn't about proportions of GDP produced by the state, its about the ability of an individual to privately own the means of production of a society and extract the surplus value of said means of production's laborers. This is the system in place in the USA today. Just because government departments did the research, or production was subsidized, doesn't mean the state PRODUCED the goods, ie the profit went to private individuals, not the state. You're simply wrong

+callum branley Asserting that somebody is wrong doesn't make it the case, so it might be wiser just to let your argument speak for itself. So anyway, to address your argument (without making the presumptuous assertion that you are wrong): What you say is true that capitalism is not about proportions of GDP produced by the state, but that wasn't my point. What I said was that it wasn't capitalism *according to the definition that he provided*, so my point was that his own definition refuted what he was saying, even though I agree that the definition he used is somewhat misleading. "Just because government departments did the research, or production was subsidized, doesn't mean the state PRODUCED the goods, ie the profit went to private individuals, not the state." Ever heard of nationalised industry? ALL of the profit goes to the state in a nationalised industry and yes, the capitalist countries of the world have plenty of nationalised industries. "You're simply wrong" Okay, please tell me how the profits of nationalised industries in capitalist countries do not go to the state and somehow magically appear in the pockets of private owners. Good luck... ;)

Whinging about an assertion made after an argument is pointless. The assertion itself is just a summary of position His own definition, as you say, refutes his argument only in the case of nationalized industries, which are fairly uncommon in the US. This list (not sure how comprehensive it is) shows that there are very few industries, especially outside of public transport and utilities, which are nationalized. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nationalizations_by_country#United_States However, his definition still holds up his argument for *the case that Chomsky was speaking about*, the IT revolution and other innovations. The development and research, as Chomsky says, was done through the state, but he is incorrect in saying that this doesn't make it capitalist, as the profit went to private individuals who owned the MOP, which is definitively capitalist. Finally, for a country to be capitalist, as I said, there simply has to be the ability to privately own the means of production. This makes America capitalist.

+callum branley "Whinging about an assertion made after an argument is pointless." There was no argument, I merely rebutted his assertion and if you want to act like a troll and call that "whining", try applying that criticism to yourself. "His own definition, as you say, refutes his argument only in the case of nationalized industries, which are fairly uncommon in the US." He did not specify the US, he referred to capitalism in general. And even ignoring that obvious point, the very fact that nationalisation occurs in the US even if rarely instantly refutes your erroneous assertion that profit always goes to private owners and never to the state. "This list (not sure how comprehensive it is) shows that there are very few industries, especially outside of public transport and utilities, which are nationalized." The only thing that that list demonstrates is that your claim that states never make profit was completely false, because they DO in fact make profit on the market. But of course after your bold claim that I was "simply wrong", you now realise that you fucked up but instead of simply admitting that you made a mistake you instead choose to continue to argue a lost position. Quite sad really... "Finally, for a country to be capitalist, as I said, there simply has to be the ability to privately own the means of production. This makes America capitalist." Nope. There are plenty of economic systems that allow private ownership that are not capitalist, so perhaps you should stop embarrassing yourself here with your ignorance.

Thank you, Stephen Cotton. It doesn't seem to matter --- skilled or unskilled --- the results will be the same for both.

Mick G ● A number of people agree w / you. But I like his delivery. It's as cold-blooded as the policy-makers' policies.

To imagine one is entitled to keep others as your slaves is the most fundamental form of racism.

THX1138A100 What? You don't make any sense. How is enslaving a member of your own race racism?

omgnotaflake There are no such things as races in humans. The idea that some one who looked different from your ethnic group was of a inferior race was a pre scientific myth now known as ethnocentric belief. Today this false belief in the idea of human races is the primary source of racism.

'Cause it really shouldn't have to be explained. Iraq is predominantly Shi'ite. Iran is also predominantly Shi'ite as opposed to Sunni. The war in Iraq has done nothing but destabilize much of the region. Since Saddam was an enemy of Iran and even invaded Iran during the 1980's, it's only sensible that Iran would benefit from his execution. Due to its Shi'ite affiliations, Tehran was able to establish amicable relations with the new regime in Baghdad and has a new ally. With waning influence from the States in Baghdad, it seems as though the American plan to build a strong partnership with Iraq has failed, and the destabilization has handed over an ally to Iran (an enemy of the United States) on a silver platter. Simply put, the United States lost an "enemy" (I use this term loosely as Saddam was an ally of the United States in the past) AND they lost the allegiance of the new regime in Iraq. Iran however lost an enemy (not used loosely here as Saddam was legitimately an enemy of Iran) BUT GAINED an ally in the new regime in Iraq. The math looks pretty simple.

johanne poirier he presumes we have brains of our own?

Tristan Hurley brains? why does this sound like a veiled insult? my comment focused on moderator not mr chomsky. i thought the point of an interview was to be informative and probing otherwise what is the point of an interview? As a member of the audience if i know it all, why would i bother to listen to an interview? i listen to learn. maybe i was way over my head when i tuned into this interview and you are absolutely correct about my brain power. a moderator should think the audience has no brain to reach as many as possible. why not?

johanne poirier​​​​ I'm not justifying what Tristan said. But your OP came off as a veiled insult of Chomsky. You used the word "spewing" to describe the manner in which Chomsky shared his ideas. In case you didn't know, "spewing" has negative connotations and the implication that the speaker is speaking nothing but non-sense and absurdities. Clearly he isn't as I have explained the validity of his assertions in my 1st reply.

Jeff T you are completely correct. i should not have used spew but outpouring or ebullience or unreservedness. i misrepresented myself because i have nothing but respect and admiration for mr. chomsky, the needed third voice. he is a genius really. a great voice and i guess i just wanted to hear more... justifications, or supporting explanations, but i don't want to say more i will just get into trouble... sorry did not mean to sound disrespectful of Chomsky. peace and love

Chomsky has had the past half-century to offer solutions about ANYTHING, by seeking a Policy-Making/Public Service position, and show he can do a better job than those he criticizes, himself! Yet instead, he chose to merely criticize everyone ELSE from the sidelines, and with the great luxury of 20/20 Hindsight! Which makes Chomsky nothing more than a very intelligent-sounding Monday-Morning-Quarterback, and renders his criticisms of others essentially worthless! smh

@@BigJokeMortgageBank ● "... never really DID anything" ? Do you have any idea how many books he's written ? If he's quilty of using too much paper, it's for all of his books. If he sits in chairs a lot, it's because people are always wanting to interview him for his analysis of the latest United States' Foreign-Policy Crime. He's a Feminist. I'm sure he helps his wife w / the dishes. If he clogs the toilet, he takes care of it himself.

What kind of retarded question is that?

Oners82 So why did you ask that question if you knew it sounded "retarded"?

Hanno the Phoenician I wanted to know why you asked such a bizarre question. You might as well ask how a historian knows what happened in WW1 if they weren't there. Truly bizarre....

Oners82 So why did you ask that question if you knew it sounded "bizarre"?

Hanno the Phoenician I just told you why.