Questioning the Underlying Structures of Property and Power is "Off the Table" - Vijay Prashad (2/4) 

The sad thing is though that after watching the real News and other progressive news shows and videos and articles etc.. as soon as i leave the house and see people or talk to a relative or some acquaintance I realize that they do not even think about any of this stuff, they are completely enmeshed within the conventional, capitalist culture and to even talk to them about this stuff seems is so far off their radar it is ridiculous i still share on facebook all the time but most ignore my shares.

It's terrible that society should be able to have its needs attended to without constant fear of debt, lack of food and housing or otherwise.

Around @8:00 Paul talks about the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was a country that was perpetually under seige and encircled by capitalist aggression. It was immediately invaded after the October Revolution by 14 Western Countries, the US being one of those. After a bloody civil war that took the lives of nearly 10 million people, it was finally able to seize control of its own destiny in the mid-1920s. After Stalin implemented the 5-year plans, the Soviet Union grew exponentially - unlike anything seen before in World History. It basically quadrupled its industrial output over a span of 10 years, electrified the entire country, graduated millions of industrial engineers, architects, scientists, etc. and defeated the juggernaut that was Nazi Germany - which was covertly and overtly backed by the Western Powers. After Stalin died, or was murdered, a revisionist bureaucracy took power under Khrushchev. But economic blockade, sanctions, trading restrictions, and US "Soft Power" undermined the USSR from within.

Everything in context. It is very possible that Cuba & the USSR would've been less authoritarian, and more successful economically if they had not been victims of aggression from the West. A harmoniously functioning nation can be destroyed from without by economic sanction, or an arms race.

A spiritual parenthesis: And why 7 days? 5 days to work for the Body or Material goods... the sixth day to Work for the Collective Soul the unpaid volunteer work for the community...and the seventh day was work for the Spirit the Celebration of Life ❤️💚💜

Vijay Prashad is from India which wasn't part of the propaganda media of the west. 'If' you really wish to truly understand, try watching "The Further Reaches of Adult Development: Thoughts on the 'Self-Transforming' Mind" by Robert Kegan on RSA.

Greed is not a human instinct tho, its taught.

My very kind regard to both gentlemen; but, Paul Jay, you, you, you are a damn good journalist.

An unequal productive relation naturally translates into an unequal social relation. This is because productive relations are the bedrock of all social relations.

well exact. what u just said reminds me of something from scripture where it says something like the devil is the father of lies and this world is his kingdom. so it's like the whole superstructure of our world is built on the principle of deception, layers upon layers of deception. it's quite diabolical not to get preachy

One issue that seems to be little discussed is that the Soviet socialist experiment was carried out whilst every western imperialist hand was turned against it. Perhaps, at least part of the paranoia and eventual Soviet failure, can be sheeted home to western interference and unending state destabilisation efforts. Maybe a very different outcome could have been achieved if assistance had been provided to ease the transition from serfdom to modern state?

I just want to highlight the difference between spirituality and religion.

When talking about what hasn't worked in the USSR and China, why don't we talk at the same time about what hasn't worked in America. America is in a state of perpetual war, there citizens are being spied upon, and more people are incarcerated per capita than in any other country in the world. America is no great success, and it has the potential to be the greatest failure if it becomes a police state or nukes another country.

glad that chanel exist

Chomsky is a social democrat. I have rarely heard him speak of anarchism in the past 20 years or so.

Why is there no mention of Monetary Reform? What is Money? Who Creates It? And for What Purpose?

This is my effort to participate in the conversation, and I haven't even finished watching the video, but in answer Paul's question at 18:56, "why should everyone be paid the same?" Those things taht allow life to go on at a comfortable level are the menial work and everyone can get paid equally for them (and they should be nationalized) but if people are freed for artistic and creative purposes then the products fo that energy should be private.

keep the hours down to 20-30 hours, and have lots of people share the jobs--let one of the jobs actually be scheduling the jobs-schedule duty for 2 months a year--- of course let the hours be flexible for people allow some degree of incentives if people want to work a little more, while maintaining a living wage for lowest working people-- free education and great public resources made available--- flexible plans to mould around different people's unique circumstances..

Well, for one thing, Chomsky sure isn't anarchist. Anarchism is about MEANS, not about ends. The revolution has no end.

I believe that morality is a spiritual experience which cannot be derived from logic, but it is an intuitive realisation. Marxist were very dismissive of religion to say the least: “Religion is opium of the people”. But ironically Marxism became opium too, and then it failed. This always happens when we think we know everything... I agree with you about the religious institutions, but that is a different problem which all human institutions have.

/watch?v=qjVq0Ha43Y0 Chomsky is an anarchist (or libertarian socialist.....same thing). He just isn't dogmatic, which is why many will confuse him to be a social democrat. It's a completely logical position.

Libertarianism is the superficial product of contrarian reaction to popular socialist rhetoric in the 1940s US as far as I can see. Liberalism is saying "both sides do it" and "why can't we all get along" whenever there is any kind of conflict between capital and labour interests. The idea that capitalism is a solution to poverty grows out of this, along with the confusion of industrialisation with capitalism.

Maybe there could be a rotating public service job where you spend some months being fireman or agriculture (organic green non GMO of course! ), then a few months taking care of parks/cemetaries etc.. then some time helping seniors/orphans/disabled/ill etc... then some months cleaning toilets, (green non-toxic cleaning products of course!), garbage pick up duty for a couple months, boring paper work job also for a few... then 3/4 months off maybe at different times of year.

OOB is being trivially denied, not disproved, but this is not the thread to discuss whether OOB is a fact of nature or not, its more about what aspects of Marxism are relevant today.

Doug Henwood once spotted the chilling similarity between neoliberalism and liberalism. So if we can say liberalism == neoliberalism (and Chomsky is definitely into liberalism) then we can say Chomsky is a neoliberal. Also its noteworthy that Chomsky favorite economist (Paul Krugman) is a textbook neoliberal, this (all by itself) makes Chomsky a neoliberal.

Not every worker is involved in administration and planning of their workplace. There are a few exceptions (I know many farmers have a certain degree of control, but only if state quotas are met). I've been to Cuba and immediately one recognizes the class problem. When I was there, many told me it was a very classist society (quite the opposite of what socialism is all about). I'm no fan of Leninism, as it's a truly un-democratic ideology. I prefer libertarian socialism.

just one thing, if we are talking incentives you can't actually say our society has incentives very well. I forget where it's from but on richard wolff recently he mentioned a statistic showing half of americans purposely cause problems at their work to slow down production. the club of the .001% is pretty small and although it is dangled in people's faces as an incentive i've never heard just because you work harder or faster than coworkers do you actually then just join the owners.

National Socialism was about branding. Grape Nuts don't contain nor are they made from grapes, you know. For instance, they conflated nations with classes. Germany was proletariat, other nations were plutocratic-- Orwellian word salad.

The part of the story that people always forget is how hard the CIA worked towards fighting communist governments in the 3rd world. They paid of leaders in the USSR and China, which brought the systems down.

Paul Jay, thanks for providing the imperial core perspective.

No. Relativism and waffle about "true for me" "true for you" is worse than useless. "Spirituality" just means religion without official dogma, i.e. even more inconsistent. Concern yourself with mind and psychology and be aware of your illusions, not ruled by them. There is as much depth in that as "spirituality" and more, your thoughts then being connected to what is, not just what's imagined.

Contemporary Neoliberalism, as I understand it, means presenting socially liberal policy to a domestic audience whilst pursuing the type of economic "freedom" (lawlessness) espoused by libertarians, laissez-faire, abroad.

"much of this video WAS about the meaning of life if you listen carefully" == How's meaning of life mattes if people are hungry? Are they still happy without anything to eat or place to sleep? . "1973 the start of my"career"-sounds approx." == Unanswered question, "You could start your career as an artist in 1930s(or today) and still be successful?" Yes or no? You could have made you career regardless of economic conditions?

Not quite, Chomsky is a neoliberal but all social democrats slipped into neoliberalism, so he sort of really is a social democrat -_-

Money is a consensual illusion, like religion. It may not be true in some sense, but that doesn't make the pain of the rack any less. Control of finite and limited useful resources is what ultimately matters. Money is primarily a mechanism for enforcing the status quo, "natural" money such as gold, the gold standard or bitcoin even more so (gold does have practical uses nowadays, but only to high-tech manufacturing firms as far as I'm aware)

I meant mind-body dualism, sorry to be unclear. It's an intuition, but do you think it's real? Do you think anything is real? If so, what?

No, he wasn't neoliberal, though he had some neoliberal radical (yes, fundamentalist) marketist and financialist views. He was an isolationist romantic conspiracy theorising libertarian, with a little ignored racism on the side. Unlike his son, he seemed to have principles, ill-founded as they were. I think Prashad is right that he hasn't examined and ignores or dismisses actual root causes. However, he seems to go beyond the typical purity tribalism underlying right politics. Perhaps only seems

Chomsky doesn't tend to devote a lot of attention to advocating tactics, but if you look at the tactics (though I think you mean outcomes or goals) he has actually supported, you'll see you're talking nonsense. But apparently he's not an anarchist because you haven't heard him talk about it recently?

I don't remember this guy being on MTV in the 80's.

Like he's going to understand that.

Being forced to work is not controlling your workplace. What you're calling libertarian socialism is actually just plain old mainstream socialism. And what you're calling authoritarian socialism is simple totalitarianism. The Soviet Union was as socialist as China is republican.

"but it still has some relatively defined tenets of what is or isn't socialist." == Google, "Types of socialism" then tell me which one do you have in mind. (I'm not just asking, I really want you to try it.) Ask the same question to 100 people, you 'll get 100 different answers. Ask Adolf the same question, he'll show you "national socialism"

Cleaning toilets should be left for teenagers and people on probation

Marx made many mistakes, and his theory of capital is pretty much the same as Adam Smith. Where he differed was politically. Marx felt the robber barons and the slavemasters were savages, whereas Smith thought native americans were savages. When Smith wrote, there were few large enterprises. When Marx wrote, they were commonplace. The scale changed. Smith championed the little guy, Marx condemned the big guy.

another great interview... Excellent work RNN !

"The history of socialism and the objectives of socialists is sufficient to give it meaning" == Read all my comment in this video. Socialism wasn't an ideology, it was the human nature in the beginning. Without it, we couldn't have survived. Our ancestors hunted together and shared the catch together. What else is it if not socialism? In your opinion, when the history of socialism began?

Prashad understands liberalism but only a little -_- Europe still has traditional liberal parties; thats why "we" understand what liberalism means... "libertarianism" is a VULGAR form of liberalism, Ron Paul and Paul Krugman are literally into the same ideology O_O The Yankees who call themselves "liberals" are what the left calls "bourgeois", its note worthy that virtually all Republicans are either poor or working class; whereas the "Yankee liberals" are w/o exception AFFLUENT or privileged!!!

"Guzman's Guatemala, Stalin's U.S.S.R, Lenin's U.S.S.R., Correa's Ecuador."" == Who told you that those are the American "socialists" want? And what aspects?

Would be interesting for this discussion to include the growing discussion in Europe about the "BIG" Basic income grant, or unconditional basic income movement. In Switzerland there is a public initiative about introducing this in Switzerland, they have succeeded to collect the necessary signatures, And this will be a public discussion now for the coming three years there.

"National Socialism was about branding" == What's not branding when it comes to naming idelogies? The words "National socialism" didn't come form nowhere. At least in Hitler's mind, he was trying to emulate the ancient Spartan like socialized military state. Tell me, if raising a future generation purposely as a soldiers is not a socialized effort, what is it?

what if you make billions thru your genius, and use the money you've earned to build community dorms in urban areas or slums in 3rd world to house the homeless, enabling them to pursue their own end? wouldn't that be something that a liberal within a capitalist society can do for the poor in a real way beyond rhetoric? i think the problem comes down to the human heart: given free will, those with power do not choose to love. others. in action. irregardless of the prevailing economic system.

First when you make a statement try to be modest sometimes and say I think or I believe. How do you know that there is no connection between morality and spirituality when Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism etc all speak about the right conduct? I criticise Marxism from a spiritual point of view, not religious. There is scientific evidence that we have a soul and that we reincarnate. Not everything therefore is about economy, politics and work - reality is bigger than Marxism conceptualizes it.

You should ask such questions on one of my channel videos.

this mister is a real dandy

Fantastic

Paul pleasssssssse go to CUBA & SEE/LEARN ... just as Stone did ... as you should have about India;comeon ...now all cultures have irrational & uneducated 'thinkers' ^ & 'common people who USE dasystem unions r set up to 'help' workers thru ability & SINiorty -everything/everyone has 'yingyang' - Vijay is too mellow ... CM started a continuation of rights of man' which is all 'bleAK in our VAIN'WORLD'.you and daworld must read/study nonfiction not just get someone to answer trite questions

It's disappointing to see that Jay has the typical Westerners' almost rabid opposition to, and misrepresentation of, communism, which he calls socialism. It's good that Vijay points out ways in which the Soviets were successful, which Jay then counters by objecting to a supposed aesthetic "grayness" of communist societies and supposed economic failings, while strangely denying that Western/US undermining of communist/socialist countries played no role. Good that Vijay knows what he's talking about, but he shouldn't give in on any of Jay's rabid anti-communist points.

Perhaps because he´s American, Jay can only conceive of workers as underling wage earners, as they were under state capitalism in the USSR. All of which is reversed if the workers own and manage the enterprise for their own and society´s benefit

😁😁😁 I work like a dog and help the dog over the stile.👍👍💘💘👏👏✌✌✌

You should read Stefan Molyneux. Really, you would probably like it. And i'm not being ironic !

TRN is the best news... but maybe its time to find new ideas. The zeitgeist movement is super POPULAR (the zeitgeist wouldnt work, its a pipe dream) but maybe something else can fly, maybe a better "techno social" project could fly.

The term can be as nebulous as you like. If you want to call Stalinism socialism, you can. But then the word loses meaning. Is any extreme statism socialism by default? As Chomsky says, the United States was probably more socialist than the Soviet Union, in any meaningful sense.

"What makes those countries a "socialist country" that US don't have?" . I'm assuming US is not a socialist country in your mind.

Two words for these people: STEFAN MOLYNEUX.

Still, Cuba is not socialist. True it's been under attack by Washington for decades, but it's still not a real example of socialism.

Paul Jay keeps spewing one idiotic platitude after another.

Prashad speaks of economics without having the slightest understanding of the subject.

Intrinsic incentive of no crime, more time with family, education, labor in charge of production, if you do what you love it matters not how much you make it matters how good your life is and not having to stress over the very basic neccesaties.

"People should not have to work in order to survive" BS, I'm outa here.

Define Capitalism. It means to have ownership of your means of production. An artist like you is a capitalist: in a free market (not quite what we have but let's pretend) you own your body, your hands, your time, and if you're a painter you own your paintbrush, your paint and your canvas. You're producing a painting, art, whatever. You're a capitalist. A baker is a capitalist. A butcher is a capitalist. Basically anyone who produces something of value to others with his own means is a capitalist

Worse, implicit in the claim that morality comes from gods, etc, is that in their absence they would be utterly immoral, rape, kill, etc. One should be wary of someone who claims that of themselves, as they would be claiming that they are a deranged psychopath.

The part of the story that people always forget is how hard the CIA worked towards fighting communist governments in the 3rd world. They paid of leaders in the USSR and China, which brought the systems down.

It's typically used to mean post-capitalist. What's your point? What kind of definitions do you want? The history of socialism and the objectives of socialists is sufficient to give it meaning, even if the definitions have not yet been formulated. Such things are generally best done after reality is established if they are to a) reflect reality b) not be wilfully distorted and misunderstood.

"you'll find general tenets that link them together." == That's your assumption. Do you ask each time someone talks about "Socialism", which country and which time? Why don't you just read the Wii article and pick one that you have in mind? Is that so difficult? I'll accept, either example of country and the time it took place, or one you pick in the wiki article. Go ahead and impress me.

OK, you're talking some kind of sense now. What's your take on dualism? And this GrcJhfXCHxs ? (skip to 6:15, perhaps, the intro is a bit long winded) These may seem unrelated, but I think what people believe, why they believe it and what is actually true are all profoundly important in development of political ideas. The idea that religious conceptions and politics are independent is popular amongst liberals and moderate conservatives, and I think we agree that it's false.

I think that Karl Marx's socialism failed because he rejected Hegel's ontology of Spirit. Human being has a soul and a more universal approach to religion could help socialism . In Ecuador and other pro-socialist South American countries they realized that religion can be a progressive power and they don't try to suppress it. Another evidence is the great number of religious human rights heroes throughout history. The point is that society cannot prosper without spiritual principles.

In America the term "worker" is considered Socialist. The favored term by capitalist authoritarians is "employee". A worker sounds like somebody who has some margin of power, in that s/she contributes their work voluntarily. An employee is basically an indentured servant, property of the corporation, until the boss tosses you out - after sucking all the work & creative spirit out of you- to survive on your own as an undesirable ex-employee in a society than scorns mere workers. Class warfare?.

That's in part a constructed perception. There are a lot of working ("middle") class liberals in the US. However, the rhetoric of the right has an appeal to certain sections of the uneducated and desperate as it provides comforting and intuitive stories about the causes of their predicament. You seem to be making an argument ad populum.

Nonsense. Chomsky no longer worries about hypothetical and overly abstract ideas. His goal for the past 20 year or whatever has been de-fetishizing liberal ideologies. He doesn't care about discussing future societies because he feels so strongly that people will be creative enough to solve those problems. He has been making contributions to building the movements required.

You have ZERO idea of anything Chomsky ever wrote of spoke about if you say he's a liberal (that's beyond hilarious even saying that). Chomsky is a libertarian socialist who is NOT dogmatic.

Almost everyone wants to be happy and that is the language which can bring different religions and ideologies together. Co-operation is a pre-requisite for happiness, but without equality there cannot be co-operation. So the spiritual approach in governance would be to deal with more general principles and attitudes rather than with specific beliefs or traditions. The matter whether we have a soul is a scientific question as well and should be separated from a belief in an anthropomorphic god.

I suspect not, he just seems to-- well, those words do not mean what he thinks they mean.

Why is Paul Jay talking about socialism like the Soviet Union was socialist?

I believe and know from experience that when we mediate we can get in touch with deeper aspects of ourselves which make us more compassionate. I don’t think this is something that comes externally or from God literally, but that is our real nature or our real will as oppose to the animalistic short-sighed instincts which only care about immediate satisfaction even though they have a role to play in the scheme of things...

Excellent conversation. I could watch hours more of you two!

"Jobs are becoming increasingly obsolete as productivity rises" == What the economy will look like if nobody(except a few very rich men) buys the products because they are un-employed? Here's what I see. Production will decrease dramatically(not many consumers to buy it), followed by production cost per unit rise, results in less affordability, results in even fewer sales, results in possible cease production. Collapse of economy. Any flaw in my prediction?

lol that's so me stupid glasses hahahahahahahahahaha

That'll be the long hours you're forced to work, I guess.

Paul Jay is fantastic. Always the perfect question/interjection.

Examples?

Paul Jay should interview Libertarian Socialists and Anarchists in such a series (like maybe David Graeber or Noam Chomsky). Also I wish we could see more of the anti-authoritarian left on the Real News, because it's almost as if Vijay Prashad is making excuses for Leninism. And LOL at Paul Jay @4:29 calling out the US right-wing "libertarians" who spam the comments section all the time. That was classic.

You take things too black and white. I respect Marx, he was a great humanist and had great insights into the dynamics of society. His theories of the world though comprehensive are also limited in some respects. One limitation is a lack of understanding of religions and spirituality. Morality is the result of our connection with the soul, and there is empirical evidence; many people who had near death out of body experience abandoned their selfish behavior, irrespective of the previous beliefs.

Can't wait for part 3!!

DECENTRALIZE POWER! The State needs to be dismantled, in favor of states rights. Elimination of privatized property. Property should be with the community and/or labor, nor should it be passed on to family.

Reasons why Cuba is not socialist: 1) Not all workers run their own work. The state still owns and runs a huge portion of the economy. The BASE of socialism is workers running their own work democratically. 2) Class differences are very much still a problem in the island, though not as much as pre-1959. 3) It's still a top-down Leninist style run government with a ton of power hungry people ready to take over. The Chinese model is rumored to be in Cuba's future. That's nothing near socialism