Chomsky's right that it's silly to waste too much time debating the meaning of the term "socialism"; all political terminology is fuzzy at the edges. But let's accept (which I in fact do) the standard Marxist definition of socialism as 'collective ownership over the means of production'. What does ownership mean? Well, a necessary if not sufficient condition for an agent A to stand in a relation of ownership to X is that A is capable of exercising some meaningful degree of control over X. Collective *ownership* , therefore, requires collective *control* ; the term referring to a collectivity of people exercising control over something in the English language is "democracy". Conclusion: socialism is democratic or it is not socialism at all.
since when is 3 minutes too much time? and he's talking about it because it's often misunderstood. It's a mantra for the right wingers that socialism is not democratic and that russia was socialist. Did you not watch the video?
@@hgkwbsx7 I did not say it is a waste of time dispelling myths and misunderstandings about socialism. I said it is a waste of time debating at great length the "meaning" of political terms. Their meaning is more or less whatever they are used to mean. Consider a sophisticated Social Democrat like Tony Crossland who argued that "socialism" doesn't "mean" collective ownership - instead it means a cluster of value commitments, in accordance with which post-war Britain could be regarded as fully socialist. Those of us further to the left should not argue against that sort of redefinition of what *we* intend to mean when we use the term 'socialism' - except to note that we are simply using the same word with perhaps some overlapping connotations to refer to different ideas. An argument only arises when someone uses a term in a completely ahistorical and novel way in conflict with all common usage - as when Tony Blair called himself a 'socialist' or Richard Nixon called himself a 'pacifist'. Words have their breaking points, even though they are elastic up to a point.
@@lebowe6131 This poll is widely shared and it is useful for undermining the utopian notion liberals tend to have that capitalism is so manifestly superior to any other economic system that most people who experience it would obviously prefer it to any other system. It is, however, irrelevant to anything I've said. The poll shows that most people who experienced the soviet economic model prefer it to the corrupt and oligarchic neoliberalism rammed down their throats in the shock-doctrine era of liberalisation, with disastrous economic consequences for the average citizen of the former Soviet bloc. That perhaps shows that the Soviet model had less economic inequality and did a reasonable job of protecting average living standards by comparison to laissez-faire capitalism. It doesn't show much more than that. It does not imply that the soviet system was an economic system characterised by genuine collective control, which is what my argument was about.
Oh the number of times I've made this point in arguments and Chomsky still makes it so much better and more succinctly. I'm just going to link people to this from now on.
Really his argument is incredibly weak, he’s an intelligent person just saying stupid things, there’s not a shred of Socialism in the Soviet Union anybody that has a preschool level understanding of the Soviet Union no so that’s absolute BS, The government had complete collective control over the economy and the workplace, his argument is basically it’s not real Socialism without actually saying that.
"Reality tells us that *state capitalism* would be a step forward. If in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism, that would be a victory." -- Vladimir Lenin, _Minutes of the Sessions of the All-Russia C.E.C._ (1920) "If we confess that the enterprises taken over by the State are *state-capitalist* enterprises, if we say this openly, how can we conduct a campaign for a greater output? In factories which are not purely socialistic, the workers will not increase the productivity of their labor." -- Nikolai Bukharin, at a 1926 government conference, quoted in _Bolshevism or Communism_ (1934)
+Miranda N The quote from Lenin regarding state capitalism is in regards to stepping forward from the conditions of russia at the time. Lenin stated that state-capitalism that is regulated by the workers' state, rather than the bourgeois state, was acceptable for a temporary stage of economic development, as russia was intentionally held back from idustrialisation by the Tsarist regime, resulting in russia continuing to be a country populated largely by feudalistic peasantry. (I'm not a leninist, it's just that it needs some context). It was very hard for Russia to generate and maintain socialism when it had become so isolated, with so much of the world being hostile to what it represented.
+Jpseudo Yeah and don't you see how retarded that is? "We're a proletarian democracy managed by state bureaucracy with state capitalism", I mean, only an idiot would think this makes sense.
Personally i don't think he believed in any of it just wanted to get to power and used this "transition period" as a way to justify increased powers to himself.
Listen to yourself. The New Economic Policy was necessary in the transition from the underdeveloped semi-feudal capitalism that was embodied in the Russian economy at the time. Under Stalin, socialism was achieved in the Soviet Union. As for the Bukharin quote, this is very clearly misleading, seeing as in 1928 he was a major leader of the rightist opposition group and was dismissed from the central committee the following year. He was expelled from the party altogether in 1937. Clearly we shouldn't look to Bukharin as a representation of the Soviet economic policy because he was *opposed to Lenin and Stalin from the very beginning.*
You don't think it was the fact that a temporary capitalist mode of production was necessary to develop in a way that was necessarily preliminary to the building of socialism? It certainly was, just as the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary for the sustaining of socialism as class antagonisms are reconciled. Chomsky can romanticize anarchist utopianism all he wants, this is easy for him seeing as he *knows* that his ideology will clearly never be implemented, and he can criticize those who dare to implement socialism, because Chomsky has the luxury of requiring no empirical justification for his ideological theses.
"And so, from the standpoint of Marxism, the Russian experiments in planned economy are not to be rated as socialistic. The Russian practice is not directed according to communist principles, but follows the laws of capitalist accumulation. We have here, even though in modified form, a surplus-value production under the ideological camouflage of "socialist construction". The wage relation is identical with that of capitalist production, forming also in Russia the basis for the existence of a growing bureaucracy with mounting privileges; a bureaucracy which, by the side of the private capitalist elements which are still present, is strictly to be apprised as a new class appropriating to itself surplus labor and surplus value. From the Russian experience no positive conclusions can be drawn which have a relation to communist production and distribution. It still offers only examples of the way in which communism cannot be developed." Paul Mattick : What is Communism? 1934
Paúl Salas Gutiérrez Seems silly arguing Lenin destroyed socialism when he himself understood what was going on and that it was the only way to oppose counter-revolution. I can hardly believe Noam is not aware of the intervention by a dozen countries after the revolution. Lots of points are not quite substantiated. > Says 'socialism can be built in the most economically developed countries' > Blames Lenin for building a temporary state capitalism (Russia at that point was still far from capitalism, most of capital came from abroad thus penetrating the economy. Lenin saved the country, plenty of evidence there, but Chomsky still lays yet more stress on 'AUTHORITARIAN'. Sir, it couldn't be otherwise. I mean, that's a ridiculous claim that the country would just slip into 'proper socialism' - it'd be gone within, if not days, than weeks.
@M G It is a matter of semantics I think. And im fine with calling both: "worker control of production through the state", and "a economic system of independent democratic worker owned companies" socialism. I just dont believe the former has ever succeded. And i see the USSR and China as poor attempts that ended up in state-capitalism. Maybe the former is possible, but I find it hard to concieve how to enact one without falling into the USSR/China pattern.
@@fietspompje259 first of all the "authoritarianism" goes along with the neoliberal "totalitarianism". It is well calculated tool of psychological warfare against the workers and the anti colonialist movements, which were extremely successful using the word "freedom" as in freedom from oppression. Now the neoliberal have put this phrase into everything, free market, free this free that, when it is only freedom for the oppressor. The totalitarianism of the capital is kept silent. The "authoritarianism" of the soviet union resulted from the necessity to answer the constant attacks by the national and international imperialists and their stooges. A democracy is not able to handle this properly because of its time consuming debates and prep. On the other hand the centralized organization itself is critizised by the capitalist oligarchs because it is based on people's property. The ownership of property is the most essential key to this claim of "authoritarianism", even tho it is coded with other wordings. If you pay attention to Ludwig von Mise, the father of neoliberalism, he specifically stresses that private property is the only imperative and it can be coded with anything like "peace", "freedom", etc. The decentralized economical government of capitalism is but a mere illusion of a small number of oligarchs and monopolists of different branches that pay the politicians to follow their command or at least have enough pressure points to keep them in check. Which is why the democracy is nothing but an illusion and the sugarcoat to keep people believe in the construction of a "free" capitalist world. The dictatorship works with existential dependency. The centralized governing of the people's property is the actual underlying claim. Or did you ever hear the accusation of authoritarianism of a monarchy? Like the Saudis? By neoliberals? At all? Because it is not about human rights. Ever. Only about property rights.
@@fietspompje259 the state capitalism is the result of the western cold war measures containment policy and rollback! It was to artificially keep the socialist world trade small and enlarge the capitalist world trade as much as possible. 1960 the capitalist trade amassed 87% of world trade. Within this construction a socialist economic system that is not state capitalism is impossible, because the capitalists dictated the prices and conditions.
Really you think smelly noam does not spread bs hahahhahaha.....www.axios.com/russians-nostalgic-soviet-union-poll-9abd2579-5ab6-4e80-9916-7ffd5b920213.html
This is what every right wing commentator dreads: people explaining what socialism really is about. Liberty, democracy & autonomy, not tyranny, oppression & totalitarianism!
Chomsky leaves out an important fact (& also mis-characterizes the Bolshevic Revolution & the Revolutionaries) :: The Bolshevic Revolution was not a counter-revolution. It didn't become counter-revolutionary until Lenin showed up _after_ 1917 ; _after_ the Bolshevics made the changes that Chomsky says Lenin eliminated. Lenin could not have eliminated those advancements if they were not already in place. Lenin took over the Bolshevic movement as the Autocratic Theocracy took over the Iranian Revolution from the students. Chomsky was so wrapped up in his analysis of Lenin's BS, that he forgot the order of events. Those Soviet Workers' Counsels ; constituent assembly ; factory councils and Soviets and popular movements would have had to be in place _before_ Lenin imposed himself into the gaines made by the true Bolshevic Revolutionaries.
read marx!! he will actually give you the tools to take down the capitalist state, and not just the tools to sit back critique as the capitalist state actively pillage the earth!
@PLA pours do you have any actual counter arguments you'd like to make? or alternatively would you like to explain your own position, is it anarcho-capitalist?
@@Liam-yw8uv I don't get it, why? How is denying the socialist element of a state-capitalist nation in conflict with being an anarchist? I mean, he opposes capitalism, authoritarism, and the state, and he favors real socialism where the means of production are in the hands of the workers. Isn't that what being an anarchist is mostly about? He didn't mentioned it, but he's of course talking about libertarian socialism, no state, direct democracy, etc.
@@millerstation92 assuming you live in a liberal democracy, the political principles you live under were developed by philosophers (john locke, montesquieu, etc). Most major economic policy is developed by academics as well (keynesianism, chicago school). Fascism and marxism both effected the entire world and were developed by philosophers. Philosophers have inspired the theories behind many anti colonial movements and independence movements of all kinds. Philosophers like Thomas Aquinas and St Augustus had a huge effect on Christianity. I could go on and on. I would look into philosophy more before you put it down as useless.
+Chomsky's Philosophy It would be super if you could link to the full lectures/talks where you get your clips from in the description in the future, where possible. Kudos on the link that is already in the deception by the way, that is really cool. And again thank you for the very excellent channel, it truly is a wonderful collection of clips, which when taken as whole, does justice to the title of the of the channel; Chomsky's Philosophy. I've seen and followed a few Chomsky channels and yours stands tall among them. Thank you for taking the time.
+Asmodeus555 Thanks :-) I'll see what I can do. But the thing is, I don't know the sources for all the videos. But, yes, I'll try to remember the links.
[Note in reply as clarification to someone below:] Originally, in the 19th century, 'communism' was more or less synonymous with 'socialism' (one of the very minor differences being that in Marx's works 'communism' can also have the narrower sense of a classless, stateless social condition following in the wake of a somewhat less egalitarian social condition called 'socialism'). In the 20th century, after the Bolsheviks renamed themselves the 'Communist Party' in the years following the October [counter-]Revolution, unfortunately the term 'communist' came more and more to be used synonymously with Bolshevism and Leninism, which is sad and ironic because Leninism (or Bolshevism) and the Soviet Union (which crushed the 'soviets', the workers' councils, soon after the Bolshevik takeover) were in fact a betrayal of communism in its original sense (socialism), as Chomsky points out in this video. Though, as a matter of fact, in spite of the Soviet Union, the word 'communist' also continued to be used in the older sense by anti-Bolshevik socialists, such as, for example, the 'left communists'...
USSR economy was the mess The reason why later leaders had to bring different reforms Ussr output was very low, imports from capitalist countries saved USSR! Why don't people understand the importance of capital in economics or why ppl don't under simple economics?!
That's not possible actually. How can workers take decisions? Why u guys don't think practically?! USSR is simply socialism in practice. Noam talking about socialism in theory. Also, let's talk about capital accumulation, how is it possible with workers equal ownership.
I love Chomsky and consider myself a leftist on most issues. We leftists can mostly all agree that fascist or totalitarian states were not socialism or communism, because the workers didnt have control of means of production. However, it seems that these failed states are a result of 'trying' to implement such systems. Seriously, how are the workers going to take control of means of production? Through revolution and power right? Well once this power is amassed it then becomes the tyrant. The only solution I see is to incentivise co-ops, for people to slowly realise they want that and that its fulfilling. Force will not work.
The German labor front starting Volkswagen is the closest thing to workers owning the means of production. But that was still state owned. Unions could start and run their own companies in capitalism but they don’t. They couldn’t, they aren’t lean which you need to be when starting a company.
It wasn't state owned just heavily state influenced. In peacetime owners of volkswagen could have sold the company to other german citizens if they chose.
I think most systems of rule over the people, executed by a minority of the people, has more often than not claimed to be in the best interest of the masses while merely securing wealth and power to the few. Doesn't really matter what "-ism" is being claimed to be the system of the ruling power in the end it's what's happening on the ground not what is perceived n the mind.
@@paultokjian7915 How is this feasible though? At this point the world would look like a dystopian nightmare if we were to remove regulations and state intervention.
@@ThePeanutButterCup13 no it wouldn't actually because that's not what anarchism is. It's a total reformation of the hierarchical system. It's never ever the lack of presence of any system. And no it doesn't mean that there are no laws. Its who is putting those laws and who's benefitting from them. The only ism ruling in this case is Humanism and people making decisions horizontally in the ultimate democratic way.
@@paultokjian7915 Well then what would anarchist reform look like? And I mentioned removing regulations and state control because that's typically what libertarians want.
Paul Tokjian No hierarchies is an impossibility, for hierarchies have been around longer than humans, innate in nature itself. Competence and power dictates resources, when discussing a system, it can become corrupted, rinse and repeat.
"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, 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 productive forces as rapidly as possible."
I would say anarchism in general is true socialism. We as anarchists all share a common goal, the emancipation of the human race, we should discuss what is really the most productive or most real socialism when the human race is free from tyranny. For now, I would highly recommend anarchist unity above all else. Mother anarchy loves her sons.
If 10% of the households owning the companies we work at is capitalism (the stock market), What would it be called if 100% of the households own 100% of the companies we work at? And if that is called socialism, then where on the scale does it change? If not 10%, how about 11%? 15%? 35%…?
You're basically asking for when does one define democracy to exist versus despotism. Of course the two are real but it will always be a subjective interpretation where the two are divided.
The key problem is whether there can be socialism without central planning. Lenin and Mao and many others thought it was not feasible. Central planning and coordination led to a managerial form of economy.
Socialism can be adapted within capitalism by using cooperatives exclusively and avoiding privately owned enterprises that rely on paid labor. That could work for a while as a transition step to the next system, but socialism is still within market economics (the problem). Central resource distribution will be necessary in a Resource based economy in order to attain new levels of living standards for all humans. I would think AI will eventually do that job, to manage the worlds resources to provide high standard of living back to the whole world.
The only thing I would challenge is the idea that the west used the example of the USSR to defame socialism, when to my understanding the west used the socialism as a way to defame the USSR. In other words, I understand the Cold War as a primarily political conflict, with the ideological propaganda warfare between the capitalists and communists being secondary as a way to cement the political differences. Either way, I agree the general conclusion that the USSR was not socialist is certainly true.
That's the genius of it, it's a circular argument. They use socialism to defame the Soviet Union and they use the Soviet Union to defame socialism. In reality it's all nonsense, there's no thread of truth here just pure manipulation.
USSR was "how Socialism is practically" Socialism is theoretical, practically it won't work. Am confident about this! U can't talk about freedom and Socialism together also can't implement socialism without force which becomes authoritarian or totalitarian force. Also Socialism kinda rejects capital. If u know economics then u won't follow an idea like Socialism
Much so, some of them were earning more than university professors and as everyone else had access not only to free education and healthcare, but access to the best cultural achievements at the time.
What's the difference between socialism and communism? No difference. They both mean Equality, as opposed to the West's worship of rampant Capitalism. You're right as usual. Mr. Chomsky!
I deeply agree with the statement that USSR didn't have socialism. I'm still wonder how it's been possible to convince so many people that they are living in socialism. And they truly believed that. I guess equality played a major role here. Indeed, a lot of people in USSR where equal. Equally poor and miserable. So one of socialism goals had been achieved. BUT, what I see now, that socialism has lost it's meaning. Now it's all about human desires and somebody who's going to fulfil them, being that government or something else. Workers control of means of production? Nobody says that anymore. It's all been degenerated to equality in the worst case of that.
When Noam Chomsky and others talk about socialism, they mean socialism in theory. The USSR is socialism in practice. Because socialism ignores all the laws of economics, when socialism is put into practice it never works out the way the way it was intended. This is because socialism changes all the financial incentives so that what was envisioned is completely different to what happens in practise. All that has to be done is to go and read some economics textbooks to find out how some of these policies change financial incentives so that the outcome of these policies becomes different than what is intended by them. Some common socialist practices included price controls, printing money, nationalization of business. All of these policies come with unintended consequences that are different than what the proponents of these policies intended and this is why socialism fails in virtually every country it has been tried. To the extent that it is successful it is usually when it is tied to a market economy, and even then it causes a drag on the economy where the economy could be functioning even better if these policies were dropped. A good example of this is the Scandinavian countries. They have a heavily deregulated economy, where there are actually less controls on the economy than are had in the USA and Canada, but they have a heavy welfare and taxation state. The reason they deregulated their economy was because they didn't want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, and in order to collect taxes they need businesses and individuals to be financially successful and a heavily regulated environment is not conducive to that so they heavily deregulated their economy. But the heavy taxation still causes a drag on their economy which if it were taken away they would have even better economic growth and upward mobility for its citizens.
Kaza ddum Noam Chomsky is a linguist not an economist. All the prominent economists disagree with him. I took microeconomics, macroeconomics, money and banking, environmental economics, and intermediate macroeconomics so I understand something about the subject.
If workers control means of production? Is that possible in real world? Also if everyone gets equal share then how capital accumulation is possible? Also the one not working and the one working his ass off,both getting equal wages? That's bs U work hard, u earn more, u got more skills u achieve more. Plz let people free stop controlling them through Socialism. In name of liberty u guys support the exact opposite!
All these isms are not governing systems! Our problem is we keep trying to equate these economic systems with collective governing systems. Even what we call American democracy, which is based upon what we call capitalism, has absolutely nothing to do with real democracy, which is collective decision making, which has nothing to do with any of these isms!
The problem with defining "socialism" as "workers controlling the means of production without tyranny" is the same as the problem with defining an "arachnid" as a six-legged bug with a cephalothorax and an abdomen: there is no such thing in nature. Lenin was as close to socialism as it gets, and he is what you will wind up with if you push for socialism.
The good slibster doesn't argument by example, thesis and proof, but by the feeling in his stomach: Stalin Bad!, because my millionaire friends from the CIA told so.
Socialism is a form of collectivism, where the majority can vote to violate the rights of the minority. It is inherently violent towards individual sovereignty and private property rights, including self-ownership. 😐
@@AgoristsRising So by your definition, American is not socialist because the minority can violate the rights of the majority. Where there is no collectivism and the majority cannot vote to turn it around?
@@the1onlynoob the opposite of collectivism is individualism, a philosophically moral and practical approach to life where every person is recognized to have inherent and inalienable rights. No one has a right to violate other people's rights, and no amount of votes could suppress a person's rights without due process. Free people exercise their right to think, and act however they please, as long as they do not initiate violence against another or rob another person of their property. 🍎 The US has a mixed economy. It is not a socialist nation per se, but like most countries in the world, it is being held hostage by the massively unjust socialist debt-based monetary system of central banks, including the Federal Reserve and the IMF. 😐
@@AgoristsRising So if a single individual doesn't want to wear a mask during covid, no amount of votes or collective peer pressure should compel him to do so? If we legislate against your rights, like a mask mandate, or an anti-abortion mandate, or a gun control legislation, then it is socialism? Since we are violating your individualist rights? How is big money socialism, when the central banks like the FED and IMF are not collectively owned but instead serve private interests? More to the point, why is it ok for the state not to violate your rights, but perfectly fine for private concentrations of wealth to set up a system to place individuals perpetually in debt or render healthcare unaffordable? Is it ok to have a king to rule over numerous people if the king is not technically a part of the government?
The Soviet Union wasn't Socialist not because they "abandoned" it, but because Socialism is just a mirage to con people into empowering a new ruling elite. There is no Socialism, there never will be. All economies are and have always been necessarily capitalist, from Ancient Mesopotamia to North Korea, only that the Marxist con allows an entire country to be privatized to a single monstrous capitalist corporation called the Communist Party.
The Soviet Union was state socialist: The government owned and controlled the means of production and the distribution thereof. That describes the USSR perfectly, and therefore the USSR was indeed state socialist.
The USSR was a socialist state. It was a mix of government owned and worker owned means of production. The government owned the means of production and distributed it to the people, and they also had collective farms. There was no private property, as soon as the Bolsheviks took control, the first thing they did was start distributing the land to all the citizens. And there was a degree of workplace democracy. I'm not a soviet union defender, I'm not even a Marxist or socialist in the slightest. But a lot of Marxists try to claim that the USSR wasn't socialist because it would be a blow to Marxism if they admitted it. It's weird, some Marxists are proud of the soviet union and constantly praise it, while others won't even admit it was socialist.
Whenever socialism doesn't work, which is virtually in all the cases, they say, "Well that wasn't real socialism." This is because they are talking about socialism in theory and the USSR and all the other countries that have ever tried it are socialism in practice. To achieve income equality, lots of atrocities have to go down. This is because people inherently have different gifts propensities, and talents and all these are valued differently by consumers. So income inequality is the result. In order to give equality of income you have to start shooting smarter people who have a propensity to earn a good income in the head, which is what they did in Cambodia. But even then there are always people who are better at some things than others leading to more income inequality. You keep have to shoot the smarter people to the point where you end up committing mass genocide. This is what Pol Pot did in Cambodia. The socialism that socialists talk about is a utopian fantasyland where everyone is paid he same, everyone is taken care of by the government for life. There are fairies and unicorns and rainbows everywhere. When this type of childlike thinking is put into practice, it results In a military boot cracking down on your skull and a bayonet being shoved into your back. This is socialism in practice. When people get lined up against the wall and shot you know you have achieved true socialism.
Aryan Shah well it doesn't matter whether I am a liberal or a conservative, this is true regardless of which political party you vote for. As an Indian you can clearly see that the socialist policies of no free trade has decimated India's economy to the point that India was left behind the rest of the world as the technologies that created economic growth in the West India was unable to import and have their economy raised up. This was true until 1994 when this policy was lifted and since then millions of people are being lifted out of poverty in India now every day, simply by lifting this ban. This policy of protectionism is well-intentioned as it's meant to stop people from losing jobs to foreign result but the actual outcome of this policy is that foreign technologies and goods produced cheaper elsewhere can't be imported into the country and so make the standard of living go down not up. This is one example of where a socialist policy's intentions are the opposite of its actual results but this is true of virtually every socialist policy. The results are almost always opposite of the intentions. This is why socialism in theory and socialism in practice are completely opposite.
anarcho-syndicalist and libertarian socialist - what do you expect from him 🤣 It doesn't matter what it's called - socialism, communism, bolshevism...it all leads to the same horrors. I recommend reading the book Gulag archipelago, that is, if you have the stomach for it.
Statist socialists have disagreements with libertarian socialists, & so when the statists got power they eliminated the power of all their opponents, which of course would include the libertarian socialists.
Socialism is not only about economy, that's what most of you, including Chomsky keep forgetting. At it's core socialism is about priority of the entire collective over an individual or a group of individuals and their rights. A state is the embodiment of the collective. If the state is a representative of the people, then state-owned enterprises are people's enterprises. Communists are against the state, that is true, but socialists are not. Communists want the society to 'evolve' past the stage where you need the state; socialists say that a communist society is impossible, so we should rely on the state and not wish to destroy it in 'the final stage'.
Okay, but "The state" is only an embodiment of the collective if it is functioning as a true democracy. Otherwise it's just somebody who is in charge of everyone else.
@@gamer-jw3ui then who made the machine? who financed the production of the machine? who had the idea to build that machine? workers can only run machines, not manufacture,finance,have ideas for making machines.
@@robbykurnia9671your comment is pretty funny i think because adam smith in the very beginning of Wealth Of Nations tells how the workers happen to make new machinery in order to reduce their own work and gives examples
@@KERATOID what did you say? Do you want humans to be static? do nothing and just eat potatoes? Even people in what you call the feudal era were able to make things that could help humans
I think, that the revolution was good and socialist under Lenin. He was a real socialist and democrat. But Noam Chomsky didn't tell lies in this video. It is the truth. But "the Bolsheviks" are not the Bolsheviks. Lenin had a real democratic and socialist intention with the revolution. But Stalin has destroyed socialism in a very quick way and effective way. Now we must pay the bill. Bourgeois democracy is our dictatorship and we are all involved, don't matter what you are, socialist or capitalist, all we are involved in this system of fascist ideology.
I mean if you were to argue it’s not real Socialism, that’s what most people say I think it’s kind of dumb and it’s just them trying to scare you around the fact that the Soviet Union was horrible, but Chomsky is claiming there’s not a shred of Socialism in the Soviet Union that there’s absolutely no Socialism which anybody with a kindergarten level understanding of the Soviet union knows that’s BS, like seriously no I’m not saying Noam Chomsky is an intelligent guy, but this is absolutely nonsense,I mean it’s called Union of Soviet socialist republic for crying out loud,I know I know I’m gonna here but North Korea is called The The Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea, well that’s different. I mean he is basically arguing it’s not real Socialism without actually saying it, Russia was the most anti-socialist place you could possibly imagine, The government having complete collective control over the entire economy most anti-socialist country ever, like come on.
The workers have the control and socialism can't exist without democracy. That is why it wasn't socialism. Marx advocated for a classless and stateless society. Soviet Russia had a huge state and a ruling class.
@@sky-magnet that is actually not true you literally can’t have a democracy, have Socialism, Socialism does lead to authoritarianism, no I’m not a Marxist advocate for is anarchism well guess, anarchism is not achievable it’s an impossible concept,and Marx even admitted that you need the state for certain things, and againIt all depends on what your definition of Socialism is but saying that there is no Socialism in the Soviet Union is straight up just wrong I’m sorry that’s just factually incorrect and that’s just nonsense, and Chomsky is it historian and from what I’ve seen he knows his history pretty well, so it’s either he’s just lying or he’s just trying to argue it’s not real Socialism which is I think that’s why he’s doing.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 No, it’s the core of socialism. No democracy. No socialism. It has to be freely chosen by the people. It’s literally a “dictatorship of the proletariat” I.e. a democracy.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 How is a worker owned democratically run enterprise more authoritarian than a private enterprise where an employer DICTATORSHIP? Your entire claim is irrational.
@@matthewkopp2391 OK I apologize my comment was terribly auto corrected. Both sound like an absolutely terrible idea, and I didn’t say anything about a worker owned democracy, I was saying that Socialism is inevitably going to lead to authoritarianism one way or another, a “ worker owned democracy is not achievable, in history has shown us why. And yes it’s inevitably going to lead to authoritarianism because when you give people that much power you’re inevitably going to end up with authoritarianism.
What he does there is killing everything which could make him a socialist. The worker had the control over production by the rule of the workers elected Soviets. The communist party is (as Lenin said) the avantguard of the proletariat because without any leader there is no revolution. He makes the capitalists mock about the left. Through people like him the bourgeoisie hasn't to do something against the left because they already fight each other. By not accepting Lenin as the first leader of a socialist democracy (not looking at what came after him), he denies the progress the great socialist October revolution has achieved.
The greatest irony of using the word socialist & communist Hitler brilliantly used these words We r ignorant to the reality of action in America we love words & propaganda
I like and respect Noam Chomsky because of his intelligence and attention to the details, but in this case he said very superficial things about the Soviet Union. That's quite a normal trend in the western countries, but USSR history is much more difficult to understand.
@@matthewwright9143 it was a rebellion against the bolshevik government right after a civil war and it was put down by a bolshevik government which was surrounded by enemies and trying to create socialism for the first time in hostile terrain. Any new government that wants to survive outside pressure needs to be able to put down rebellions and maintain order. Why do you think the anarchists in Spain built labor camps during the Spanish civil war?
Seems silly arguing Lenin destroyed socialism when he himself understood what was going on and that it was the only way to oppose counter-revolution. I can hardly believe Noam is not aware of the intervention by a dozen countries after the revolution. Lots of points are not quite substantiated. > Says 'socialism can be built in the most economically developed countries' > Blames Lenin for building a temporary state capitalism (Russia at that point was still far from capitalism, most of capital came from abroad thus penetrating the economy. Lenin saved the country, plenty of evidence there, but Chomsky still lays yet more stress on 'AUTHORITARIAN'. Sir, it couldn't be otherwise. I mean, that's a ridiculous claim that the country would just slip into 'proper socialism' - it'd be gone within, if not days, than weeks.
Democracy and Socialism have only one similarity that is equality Equality in real democracy is given by liberty Socialism gives equality with a force. Socialism doesn't like authoritarian, but fact is u can't implement it without it. And why Russia left socialism? Because they suffered, and it's intelligent if u don't follow that impractical idea again! Socialism is aganist economics! U understand Economics u will never follow Socialism! Later Socialist thinkers after knowing their idea is big failure started bringing up terms like democratic Socialism and market socialism. Some oxymoron terms
Marx discussed a post industrial capitalist society as well which the Soviet Union was not. He also discussed it being a global revolution and not possible isolated in a single country, especially a pre industrial agrarian one, especially one where the bureacracy perpetuates class divisions and the primary class of concern to Marx, the proletariate ie. the working class, are not empowered but disempowered by it. The Soviet Union was simply not anything resembling what Marx discussed a proletarian state dictatorship should be like and even Lenin knew this as his original plan for the Soviet state was to have it actually function democratically with multiple parties vying for control or influence and working democratically but in the interests of curbing the threat of counter revolution and attacks by the capitalist nations he suspended that plan and followed a dictatorial single party rule where even the workers were not allowed to self manage. In any way you slice it Lenin is not Marx and the Leninists who defend Lenin do so only by arguing that it was pragmatic and necessary, not that it was Marx. In fact Lenin was open and unabashed about deviating from traditional marxism and in his day that was controversial with other Marxists and even within the Bolshevik party there were strong divisions. Incidentally the Anarchist wing of socialism was always critical of Marx basically predicting that any state run revolution would inevitably devolve into exactly what happened int he Soviet Union and every other state run revolution.
What I think is extremely sad nowadays is that most people confuse Marxism for welfarism and big Gov. While I totally disagree with Marx on all his premises, his materialism and other crackpot theories I wish at least there were more authentic Marxists around rather than leftists crying for big massive Gov .
Well any leftist crying for big government on the basis that it should help people for that reason alone are not Marxists and they're not even socialists or particularly leftist. They're just social democrats which means they're reformist capitalists, though many would likely be opportunistic socialists who see the curbing of some human suffering as worth while if they don't think a revolution is likely or even desirable. I certainly think meals on wheels is nice, even if I don't like capitalism. In this sense we're characterizing the left with the language of capitalist propaganda which has gone so far as to basically defame a pro capitalist welfare state as being evil anti-capitalism. I agree with you though in criticizing Marx who was wrong about many things but its just sad we can't accurately criticize him and instead mostly we're just criticizing marxism through the grammar of our propaganda, which is to say its one elaborate 80 year old strawman built into our collective consciousness. It should be attacked on its true merits, not the ones invented amid an ideological war.
IDK if you know about Yuri Bezmenov but he was a high ranking ex KGB whistleblower who revealed the Soviet plan against US through promoting of various " leftist " groups and other forms of degeneracy in order to change the perception of reality and that was chilling because that means the US and others also made propaganda so who knows how much various governments literally fucked up our collective unconscious. Personally I am ancap mostly because of my obsession with justice and I really don't see any incompatibility with the idea or worker owned means of production : it's just another bussiness model. Obviously I disagree with Marx that wage labour is slavery or exploitative ( though I like his pre capitalist analysis of history ) and that " star trek gay space communism " will ever be a thing . PAX TECUM
*leftist " groups and other forms of degeneracy* That's a rather strong way to describe dissident movements. *Personally I am ancap mostly because of my obsession with justice* Well I'm one of those people who says Ancaps can't be ancap because the an part is incompatible with the cap part by definition.
Seriously how can people not be able to differentiate Leninism and Stalinism Lenin was a Marxist, while Stalin (who for the records, was a nobody in the first part of the revolution) was just a dictator who claimed to be communist He was put in power by bureaucrats who were in the Communist Party and didn't want to give power to the people
I reject the notion that the Soviets were socialists in name only. The White and Red Terrors, and indeed the Soviet system itself, was the outcome of socialist revolution when taken to its logical conclusion.
How? Socialism, while still controversial in its definition, mostly means that the workers are in charge. As far as I know, none of the Soviets leaders were workers. Lenin and Trotsky were populists; Stalin was the thug who broke your thimbs; the rest were politicians and military figures. On paper, leninism is the most pure form of Marxism. But historically, Lenin or Stalin weren't socialist.
Totalitarian(ism) is not an ideology. I think only an Anarchist would make that stupid claim. Its a practice & maybe attitude. Chomsky was making a credible case up to that point. Made plenty of credible points after that.
+Atr 91 Your use of Ideology is inconsistent with his use of Ideology. You can't really defend his misstep in that way. Chomsky's misstep matters because what is implemented can be evaluated as a product of an Ideology - to the extent that what happens is in line with the ideology, eg Workers Control=Communism vs USSR, or Slave Labor (Gulags in USSR, Pol Pot). Just be careful of unfalsifiable theories. Anarchists not giving a flying fuck what the Ideology is used to justify a particular Totalitarianism - is partially reflective of the Anarchist Ideologies. I appreciate that Ancraps have no historical claim to the title of Anarchist or Libertarian - but what Chomsky did is similar to Ancraps calling Mussolini, Stalin & Angela Merkel & Alexis Tsipras all "STATISTS!". As bizarre as both claims are, they *only* make sense in the light that the both are opposed to government of any sort. In Chomsky's case, an Anarchist. EDIT: Further - calling vastly dissimilar groups all the same thing & thinking they have the same Ideology, is indicative of "ingroup" vs "outgroup" thinking. Chomsky is fringe in at least this respect.
John Smith he wasn’t claiming that it was some sort of legitimate established ideology. It was a play on words in response to the person in the audience.
He doesn't even have an argument. Saying that it's also a blow to democracy is just a deflection. Besides, it can certainly be taken as a blow to democracy.
Tigers! His point just flew completely over your head apparently. He is saying that they claimed to be socialist, which they obviously weren’t. They also claimed to be democrats, which they also obviously weren’t. This clip is in response to someone claiming that the collapse of the USSR is a “blow to socialism”, so in response he brings up that they also called themselves a democracy, so saying the collapse is a blow to democracy makes about as much sense. This point was within the larger context of propaganda systems of the west and the USSR. Watch the video again.
Tigers! Yes, if we agree that the core of socialism is workers control over production, then the USSR was not socialist, because workers did not control production.
Socialism is based on the opposition to solely individualistic outlook and a more collective group interest and orientated organization, Marxist definition of Socialism is workers owning means of production but this isn't necessary for Socialism to being done, it is possibly one way to do Socialism.
Socialism means the happiness of the individuals in respect to the group, everything else are simple policies that can or can not achieve the goal of the interests of individuals in respect to group collectives, defining Socialism as workers owning means of production is not accurate.
it should be called democratic productionism and not Socialism which the goal of said policy is attempting to achieve, the empowerment of the people and their well being, if a policy causes harm to individuals or the group then it is not socialist.
The main problem with understanding socialism is that you have to break free of the propaganda system which has already filled you with misinformation and start reading books which is discouraged in neoliberal capitalism which wants listeners and not thinkers and readers.
Oh this is so wrong! I grew up in a former socialist Eastern European country and it was very socialist! 1. Private property was mostly abolished. 2. Profit was criminalized. Buy something for a dollar and resell it for more and you go to jail. The reason being that you’re exploiting the work of the first seller and inflating prices. 3. Workers were paid better wages than engineers, doctors or academic staff. 4. Everything was state owned. Absolutely everything. 5. Centrally planned economy with no free market. The state decided what you could buy. 6. Resource allocation decided by the state. We had food rations and they were meager! 7. Cooperation instead of competition: zero innovation. 8. Equality: we were all equally poor. Need i go on?
@@re1010 It's so easy for someone who lived in the free world to idealize and fantasize about this system. In practice it has brought nothing but misery to all its people. I listened, but unlike him, i lived through it. There's a big difference between theory and practice!
2. Has nothing to do with workplace democracy and the government should have no reason to do this in a true socialist society 3. Paid by who? The doctors and engineers should be pricing their own work. 4. So this country wasn't actually socialist then? Socialism is about the workers (NOT the state) collectively owning and controlling their workplaces democratically-so if the tyrannical forces of the bourgeoisie were simply replaced with the tyrannical forces of the state then you're just talking about an undemocratic state capitalist system from a government that called themselves socialist, likely for propagandistic reasons (which is a common tactic of totalitarian governments.) 5. Again, the government controlling the economy like this is both incompatible and opposed to the core principles of socialism. I'm not going to bother responding to the rest because they all stem from the same misunderstanding of what socialism is.
@@TheSwitchFrog It's so funny getting preached on socialism when i grew up looking at the portraits of Lenin and Marx hanging above the blackboard in my classroom. My compulsory school reading included the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital which both had bible status. I think i have a pretty good understanding of the doctrine in theory and a lot of real life experience of living through it! I'm guessing you are a text book socialist that reads the pamphlets and think you understand its content. The Devil is in the details mate! 2. Wrong! Profit is criminalized in socialism! Profit is seen as a capitalist exploiting construct. Profit is surplus value and you claiming it means that you're exploiting the actual worker who made the product. It also inflates prices meaning that things become more expensive for everyone. 3. Paid by the state of course! everyone was employed by the state. Private enterprise did not exist. You don't get to set your rates! That again is a very capitalist construct. God forbid you get greedy and try to charge more than you should! Society dictates what certain jobs should be paid based on how valuable or hard they are considered. So every job/field had a payscale! 4, 5. You seem to romanticize the idea of collective ownership. How can something collectively owned by a a large group organize and structure itself? How can a large group of shareholders organize and steer a business towards prosperity? Who is ultimately responsible? In practice, organizing such a society mandates the presence of a large central authority to oversee and organize. This is therefore the state that is tasked with representing the people and setting goals and quotas for each business/industry. The slogan becomes 'we are the government'. Give me a break with the whole ' that was not real socialism rhetoric'! it was the implementation of socialism with all its features. We tried it in over 100 countries and the results were consistently bad! I could go on and on with stories and facts about this 'wonderful' system, but i think it's pointless if you just want to see its proclaimed perks without facing reality. I can however suggest visiting any eastern european country to witness the socialist legacy with your own eyes.
@@alexandrunechifor You are annexing things to the basic definition of socialism and then condemning the entire concept based on those contradictory additions. I don't care what you've read or lived through because none of that has any relevancy to the system that I support and advocate for. I am very much opposed to the ideas of the state taking control over the means of production, deciding people's wages, the criminalization of profit, and think that the idea of society not being able to organize collective workplaces without the help of the government is ridiculous, none the less I am a socialist. I'd certainly like you to point me to where Marx wrote that the government should abolish democracy and control every aspect of our lives-because at most that'd just be contradicting himself.
