Forum Post: The Chomsky Sessions
Posted 11 years ago on March 24, 2013, 12:21 p.m. EST by struggleforfreedom80
(6584)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
With Michael Albert and Noam Chomsky.
He is at his best when he talks about anarcho-syndicalism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY Anarchism, Libertarian Socialism & Anarcho-Syndicalism (Noam Chomsky)
Agreed!
looks good ... thx
On topic, good day to all
http://billmoyers.com/segment/richard-wolff-on-capitalisms-destructive-power/
Worthwhile
Very interesting conversations. These videos deserve more attention.
NYC OWS site -
http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com/1_9_VIDEOS.html
video #8 with Chomsky on corporate personhood
Not only are corporations not people, they're tyrannies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYxGkFxb7f4
This guy seems to get it pretty well too, I do like Chomsky but he hardly speaks in a way that reaches out to the avg. joe.
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-07-17/jeff-faux-servant-economy
I don't agree with that. When it comes to politics, at least, he speaks very clearly. The problem is that he has been marginalized by the MSM and others.
How do you see his message being affected by MSM? The concept of the servant economy seems very apt. to me.
If he was not marginalized, his message would have reached more people. The reason he's marginalized is to a large extent because MSM and the privileged aren't interested in having someone spread the word of anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism, for example.
opps I see you're talking about Chomsky, well each can judge for themselves I have watched several of his talks, in spite of any effort by msm to prevent that, and I find his manner of speaking and thought process to be a bit long winded for the average person, nothing wrong with that we need serious thinkers, but we also need people that can convey the message in bite sized pieces. What did you think of the interview with Jeff Faux?
Rather maybe that a large majority of people are not interested or disagree instead, and therefore chomsky is marginalized based on that? One can not just state the media or priveleged are to blame. If there was real interest, it would get some airtime.
Here you'll get the answer to why the big news corporations act the way they do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8fzQ6ZnNu0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AnB8MuQ6DU
I could only watch the first one but watch part six also. The second video seems to have a bad link. I have problems with his assumptions that reporting is for the elites and that journalists are so controlled that they can not report "all" the news. I do not buy that. Do corporations or governments try to control news and reporting? Sometimes, but generally is never successful in the long term. The word gets out. And that was well before the Internet existed.
But you did not address the alternative conclusion at all. What if a large majority of people are not interested or just do not agree with that view? Should the MSM just ram it down their throats? Hardly as they would just turn it off.
Your conclusion that Chomsky's theories and views are not presented because of the assumed control of the media is flawed and does not consider the alternative as I posed.
The second video is “Manufacturing Consent”. Very easy to find on the net. It explains a lot of the things regarding this issue. Watch it.
The news corporations are in fact controlling things to a very large extent. There are of course alternative media, reporting things that MSM isn’t, but MSM has such overwhelming power and influence in the “news market” if you will, so it’s their message that has been accepted for the most part.
And you also have all the other things NC mentioned in the clips about corporations selling privileged audiences to other businesses and so on.
I believe in freedom, including in the press, but huge tyrannical corporations controlling most of the media and news reporting has very little to with that.
Again, you are assuming that journalists are controlled and I do not see that just because a corporation owns newspapers and media outlets. NC mentions a lot of things, but that does not make it necessarily so. He seems fixated on this "privileged thing", but what of everyone else. I just do not agree with his position, especially based on what he says. I have seen plenty of his videos, and just do not agree with most of his theories and postulates. His marginalization is a result of his flawed theories. The large majority does not believe him either, and do not want what he is selling. So blaming others for his shortcomings is rather poor excuse. If people do not want what one is selling, then one must adapt and alter the product so to be palatable. He seems unwilling to do that.
Journalists are controlled to a certain extent, obviously (the higher ups in the news corporation – the employers – set certain restrictions, decide who to hire and so on), but that’s not what I was mainly talking about above. The point is that these corporations control an overwhelming part of the “news market”. Therefore they will be able to reach a lot of people.
Please watch MC; it addresses these things pretty thoroughly.
You keep talking about NC’s opinions and theories as “flawed”, but you don’t present much as to why you think so.
I think most people would agree with left libertarian ideas if they were properly introduced to them. Corporate propaganda has a lot of blame for the anti-left attitudes we see today.
Gillian will want to see International Relations Video. This is good stuff. 10 minutes in there is a discussion about "Internationals" which are I take it international relations and networks between Unions or like minded people. Seems like productive thought to me... the ideas are not new perhaps ... but the ideas and the networking of workers had never really been tried or disproven.
Obviously if the US is a model... we have had corruption in worker benefits that resulted in people getting big retirements that normal people don't get ... and huge Annual Retirement packages that are just too rich compared to normal Main Street people.
SO there is a problem with unions, but it can be solved. There can be ceilings on benefits for instance.
"A People's History" is my favorite!!!! NOT!!!!!!!
He wants groupthink and socialism, at the expense of freedom.
Socialism is freedom.
When the focus is on "the greater good" instead of the "actual good", all is lost.
Socialism doesnt treat people like individuals.
Libertarian Socialism is about collective as well as individual freedom.
Only in a classless society can humans be really free.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/part-ii-workers-self-management-workplace-democrac/
Only a society where people are treated like people and not machines will people be truly free.
"class" is only an excuse to take away individuality from people.
No, class is a reality. It is a result of the immoral system we have today.
Class is made up human construct just like race. It is meant to arbitrarily group people based on how much "stuff" they have.
The concept of class being view as reality is the result of the immoral system we have today.
Just raise the hammer and sickle flag, struigglingforintelligence. Pray for your hero comrade Stain to rise from the grave and lead you.
Communism has proved to be just as useless and flawed as capitalism.