Why America and Israel Are the Greatest Threats to Peace--Noam Chomsky

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I think Chomsky is becoming a bit senile.

That article was horribly unconvincing, even as a piece of propaganda.




posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





Since when did anarchists support government?


There always needs to be some form of administration. And this administration, even in a libertarian socialist society, would loosely be termed "government".

In any case, he doesn't advocate this system here alone - but WORLDWIDE.




If anyone knows the meaning of terms it would be a linguist...


for christs sake, stop posting videos of this guys speeches. Speak for yourself. Literally.

Have you even read Hegel? F.A Hayek? Milton Friedman? Leo Strauss? You guys talk as if this is the only rational mode of government.

And the sheer thought of the concept of property equaling 'theft' is astoundingly offensive to logic.

Hegel made it as clear as day using lucid ratiocination. Property is an extension of self.

This barren belief that associates capitalism with slavery is idiotic. The root is human greed. Capitalism can coexist with compassion. Likewise, eliminating 'nation states' by associating nationality or ethnicity with the root of all problems is another example of counter-intuitive nonsense passed off as logic. Look at the nation states in Europe. Do the people WANT a one unified zone? Did the Croatians, Bosnians, Serbs, Slovenes work well together in a united Yugoslavia? DISTINCTION IS NATURAL; Ethnicity and belonging to a different path is a HUMAN NECESSITY.

I hate with a passion this desire to homogenize human beings, to make all of us subscribe to the same culture, share the same property, and eventually in the end look the same too!!

Spare me that anemic vision.

Human heterogeneity is a beautiful thing.
edit on 22-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
There always needs to be some form of administration. And this administration, even in a libertarian socialist society, would loosely be termed "government".

In any case, he doesn't advocate this system here alone - but WORLDWIDE.


No it isn't, Libertarian socialism does not have a government, it is anarchism. The term is used instead of anarchism by some because of negative connotations associated with it. Yes he advocates it world wide because socialism really will only work if it is world-wide.

I think you are confused because you don't understand what socialism is. Socialism is simply the workers ownership of the means of production. Socialism itself is ultimately libertarian, it requires no state system.

Anarchists were socialists who apposed the political path to socialism, such as Marxism, and supported direct action to change from capitalism to socialism. That is why the term 'libertarian socialism' is used to mean anarchism. Anarchism was always traditionally socialist.

"Anarchism is the no-government system of socialism.", Peter Kropotkin, anarcho-communist.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism", Mikhail Bakunin, collective anarchist.


Anarchists agree that workers should take power from the capitalists and break up their state. This is why most anarchists (who traditionally view anarchism as a type of socialism) have always supported the formation of the kinds of democratic bodies mentioned above...


www.thrall.orconhosting.net.nz...


Libertarian Socialism is a term essentially synonymous with the word "Anarchism". Anarchy, strictly meaning "without rulers", leads one to wonder what sort of system would exist in place of one without state or capitalist masters... the answer being a radically democratic society while preserving the maximal amount of individual liberty and freedom possible.

Libertarian Socialism recognizes that the concept of "property" (specifically, the means of production, factories, land used for profit, rented space) is theft and that in a truly libertarian society, the individual would be free of exploitation caused by the concentration of all means of wealth-making into the hands of an elite minority of capitalists.


Libertarian Socialism



And the sheer thought of the concept of property equaling 'theft' is astoundingly offensive to logic.


Capitalism is considered theft because the worker has to produce more than they are paid for so the private owner, capitalist, can make profit. That is theft of the workers labour.

Property in this context is not your personal possessions but property used to exploit labour.

I posted the vid simply because I naively thought it would help you understand the concept, and it's Chomsky the topic of this thread.

edit on 9/22/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





The term is used instead of anarchism by some because of negative connotations associated with it. Yes he advocates it world wide because socialism really will only work if it is world-wide.


No, you misunderstood what I meant. I mean there are people - the intelligentsia, or elite - who forcibly maintain society as a 'anarchist'.

In any case, the idea is patently absurd. I read Chomsky for #'s n giggles.

I really cannot for the life of me understand what would compel someone to think a lawless society would be best for human beings.

All other things abide by their own law. Man is the only creature able to transgress law, hence, the human requirement to impose law. And yet you think a land without law would be best.

Until - oh wait - another group emerges that seeks to impose its own will.

The amount of neuterization of that society would be so hefty that instead of the freedom you sought, you would get the most thorough mind control known to mankind.




I think you are confused because you don't understand what socialism is. Socialism is simply the workers ownership of the means of production. Socialism itself is ultimately libertarian, it requires no state system.


I know what socialism is. You however don't know the difference between theory and practice. In practice, a socialist 'regime' or elite forms who manipulates the system to benefit their cohorts. There is never 'perfect' equality in socialism; it's just a different mechanism used to ameliorate human greed.




Capitalism is considered theft because the worker has to produce more than they are paid for so the private owner, capitalist, can make profit. That is theft of the workers labour.


That is such a ridiculous reductionism. Anyone of ability is allowed to embark on his own enterprises in life.

To change life in the way socialism demands - and it means a completely radical facelift, away from the traditional thinking of social distinction, i.e. distinction between peoples and traditions, differences between families, and differences between individuals. Anarchy is the evisceration of difference, because it requires the elimination of property. Property is the extension of self; if one cannot extend oneself outward into object fact, than one is essentially overwhelmed or usurped in his individual identity by a mass collective identity that forces on every individual radical ideas like 'shared property' a natural corollary of which is shared children, etc.

It is law which brings freedom to the world we live in. Yes, it's a great and interesting paradox. But it's true. Particularity, differences, rich and poor, strong and weak, unique and average, all add something interesting to the greater human fabric.

Just think for a second: libertarian socialism requires COMPLETE RADICAL societal reform to work. It in every way opposes natural law. It's just unworkable because human being WANT to be free to express themselves; they want to Croats, or Turks, or Bosnian, or Greeks, or Jews, or Portuguese, or Arab, or Chinese etc, and to think you can change them, is laughable. Just look at Yugoslavia and the Soviet union for examples. 4 countries formed from the former, and 15 from the latter. Why? Because different peoples just cant be stuffed together and asked to 'get along'.

What this world needs more is liberal democratic nations.
edit on 23-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)





 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join