Can anyone give a response to this video? As I watched it, it seemed like he was being disengious, but I can’t verify or disprove everything he says. Most of you are better aquainted with libertarianism than I am, so I was hoping someone could provide a rebuttal to Chomsky.
If you don’t know why he’s wrong, why do you assume him to be wrong?
Perhaps a better approach would be “He seems to disagree with some points that I can’t seem to refute, and I’d like you to offer your input as to the veracity of his statements.”
I don’t have time right now, but if no one else replies, I will tackle this.
I’ve seen this video before and let’s just say that it doesn’t live up to expectations.
Chomsky’s arguments for what he says Smith and Jefferson believe is absolutely dubious at best. I think anyone who reads the wealth of nations would agree that Smith believed that markets would lead towards generally equal wages, but to say that this was the thrust of his argument is idiocy. Smith did believe that there would be sizeable wealth inequality and he argued for markets also on the grounds that they would make everyone richer
Smith and the American libertarians argue for practically the same things. The conditions of perfect liberty that he’s talking about are what the libertarians advocate
Corporate “tyrannies” are certainly accountable in a libertarian society. Even if the people are helpless and the coporations are unbelievably monopolistic, the rule of law regulates these entities. In the real world, however, there would be a thousand things regulating these tyrannies, usually revolving around competition and consumer sovereignty. Furthermore he does and idiotic conflation to what the libertarians want to what exists today whilst at the same time saying that the libertarian society doesn’t exist.
Developed nations never developed under conditions of pure laissez-faire, for that has very, very rarely existed if it ever really has, however most of them developed under conditions of fairly free markets. I feel like the one real exception to this might be germany. With this being said all developed nations everywhere only began to develope after they were liberalized. There has also However I can guarantee you that Chomsky can’t give you a single reason why non-free markets are more efficient and lead to developement whilst free markets don’t, except for possibly the old protectionist arguments which have some validity
The most idiotic thing taht he says is that the conditions of laissez-faire are what Africa are experiencing now. This is such an amazingly idiotic statement that I can’t believe that he wasn’t laughed out of the room as soon as he said it
http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking
Notice how practically every sub-saharan country is in the 100 least free countries, and most of the developed world is within the top 50
Chomsky is a fool
Do you think an economic system based on voluntary exchange is tyrannical? The corporate system which he mentions would probably look different under laissez-faire. I’ve been meaning to make a post about this, but you probably wouldn’t have a situation where shareholders are completely insulated from the actions of the corporation. You would probably still have limited liability, but it would be much different.
I will partially agree with one of his points. It may be the case that the wealthy in an anarcho-capitalist system may seek to establish a state in order to create barriers to entry, but that will just put us in the same situation we are now.
The guy is a mental midget. He’s not refuting anything. Through equivocation he criticizes the current corporatist/fascist collusion of business and government as “libertarianism”. He even manages to contradict himself within the 5mins by stating that we’ve never really seen a true laissez faire (libertarian, capitalist) society. The “tyranny” of private capital that he so denounces stems only from the privileges (powers) given to it by the government (“public”) that he claims must regulate (contain) it.
The other logical inconsistencies of left anarchists – such as his quip about the hierarchy/tyranny of “command” in a corporation, or his aspirations for “true” equality – have been beaten to death here already.
I think he knows that libertarianism isn’t that bad, but he’s too ideologically attached to the idea of an ‘equal’ or ‘fair’ society. He’s employing a common marxist method in which truth and integrity are beneath any actions which bring about the final stage of mankind. He understands corporatism and how it leads to corporate tyranny, and yet attempts to besmirch free-markets for the effects of corporatism. He’s obviously not so stupid as to think that unregulated and regulated capitalist systems will both lead to some kind of private tyranny, since he understands largely that restricted competition and limited liability are blessings from the state. Laissez-faire is simply an obstacle to his vision and truth be damned if it impedes the march to a shining socialist future. My 2c anyways…
His argument about how it has never existed and can’t exist because rich people want to buy power is irritatingly retarded. Firstly, no african country knows laissezfaire capitalism. Secondly, couldn’t one say the exact same thing about ‘libertarian socialism’, whatever that is? Because it’s so good for everyone, like laissezfaire, that the rich just won’t allow it so there’s no point in trying. Right? Liberty is an idea and an infectious one at that. If I told someone in 1267 that some day, kings would be a thing of the past, he would say “why thats absurd! Kings have always been around and they always will be, because they want the power.” And he would be wrong today.
This argument from history or whatever it is is purely nonsensical. Nowhere is it written that the future is constrained by the experience of the past. That’s why I think that Chomsky is just a very clever, good little socialist spreading his message. He can be very intelligent when he wants to be and then nonsensical when he must be.
On a somewhat unrelated note: I enjoy watching him shred this slimy hack
Libertarian socialist is a contradiction in terms. He sort of skimmed over this contradiction by making the case that libertarianism in todays society means the opposite to what it realy means. If he realy wanted to explain the confusion over the apparent contradiction he should have just given his definition for socialism and libertarianism. Instead he never mentions socialism and why it is compatible with libertarianism. I have listened to a lot of chomsky’s lectures and he has a lot of good points but he can tend to waffle and as he is a linguist he speaks very intelligently. I do agree with him however that people have different definitions for political terminology. But I would say there is more confusion over what socialism is compared to libertarianism. When someone starts to use socialism with anarchism or libertarianism then my first thought is, they must have a different definition of socialism than myself. They also probably struggle to realize that any sort of collective involuntary system is contrary to one of anarchism and libertarianism’s core tenets.
I know I’m being besides the point, but there are still quite a few monarchs knocking around today. The Kings of Saudi Arabia and Jordan actually rule as well as reign, and those monarchs who restrict themselves to reigning - such as the British - are not the utterly impotent and symbolic human mascots of the state most people seem to think they are. They only own half the goddam planet.
I actually think monarchs in medieval times tended to be substantially less powerful than the British monarchy today. They were certainly much, much poorer.
You guys are great. This is the reason I’ve been browsing these forums for over a year.
Perhaps I should have been more clear. When I said “disengious” (I meant "disingenuous") I meant that I found it odd that the same man who refers to himself as a “liberal” could spend so much time complaining about the perversion of labels like “conservative” and “libertarian”. Chomsky always struck me as a pretty smart guy on certain topics(foreign policy in particular), which is why I came here to hear what others have to say.
"Libertarian socialist is a contradiction in terms. He sort of skimmed over this contradiction by making the case that libertarianism in todays society means the opposite to what it realy means. If he realy wanted to explain the confusion over the apparent contradiction he should have just given his definition for socialism and libertarianism. Instead he never mentions socialism and why it is compatible with libertarianism. "
Actually he’s entirely right in what he says there. Traditionally the word “libertarian” was synonymous to left wing anarchists who were egalitarian, socialistic, and non-hierarchical. It wasn’t until fairly modern times that classical liberals began to use the term which carried over to anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist ideology. Therefore in order to maintain their autonomy, and as a way of identification, classical libertarians employ the term “libertarian-socialist”. So in the sense that Chomsky is using the term it is not a contradction in terms, it is redundant. I also feel like that the term still has its classical meaning outside of north America, but I’m not sure
my favorite part was his claim that free market capitalism exist in third world countries.
@ Neodoxy’s earlier post
“Chomsky is a fool”
You just said in a recent post that Chomsky is a very intelligent man.
Intelligent men are sometimes the easiest to fool.
Uri Geller had lots of success convincing scientists he had supernatural powers. Magicians, not so much.
“You just said in a recent post that Chomsky is a very intelligent man.”
He’s a little bit of both, although my views have changed a little bit since making the above post. Chomsky is smart and he does a very good job of putting forward the Libertarian Socialist view of the world.
The problem is that this view is mostly wrong.
I think that to throw out context, I think that Marx was among the ranks of the smartest and most thoroughly read people to ever walk the earth… But he was still fing wrong, really, really fing wrong
I concur with Neodoxy’s assessments of both Chomsky and Marx. As I see it, the errors in their thinking lie mainly with their premises.
Anarchist was first used to name one’s own ideas by the Enrages, anarcho-communists of the French Revolution, and later by Proudhon in the meaning of “against any form of subordination, against hierarchy”, and has been since then used and is used that way among anarchists.
Libertarian was first used by Joseph Dejacque, to mark his anarcho-communist ideas and emphasize that anarcho-communism is the ideology based on the centrality of freedom and not capitalism that his contemporary “liberals” advocated, that was based on the centrality of property; and has been since then used and is used that way among anarchists.
The word socialism was firstly used to name one’s own ideas by Robert Owen, who advocated workers’ self-management, and the word has been since then used and is used that way among socialists.
The three words can be somewhat seen as synonims in their original meanins in which they are in fact used outside the USA.
As Chomksy said- in the USA the words get their opposite meaning, and that “system of intellectual distortion” needs to be decoded.
stsoc,
You are fighting a losing battle. Do you think the words queer and gay are ever going to mean anything but homosexual ever again? Maybe they will, but it’s not going to happen through people like you complaining about words not continuing their previously held meaning. Meanwhile, we libertarians are going to continue to use the words “anarchy” and “libertarian” the way we feel like it, and as our numbers grow, other people will use it the way we do.
Gay and queer is used by homosexuals and that’s it. Anarchism, libertarianism, and socialism is used in it’s original meaning by the proponents of those ideologies that those terms in their original meanings signify. The meanings have been corrupted by propaganda, and we are not going to say “well, ok, this kind of identity theft is ok, we’ll just take some other names”, those are our names and we are going to give in to propaganda trying to confuse people.
I don’t see what’s wrong with free-market capitalism, stateless capitalism, laissezfaireism, propertarianism or voluntaryism that you have to also hijack anarachism and libertarianism for yourself, you are not against hierarchies and you do not see liberty (but consent) as the central value, and therefore it’s just plain lying to people and trying to lure them by calling yourselves something you are not.
“anarchism and libertarianism for yourself, you are not against hierarchies and you do not see liberty (but consent) as the central value, and therefore it’s just plain lying to people and trying to lure them by calling yourselves something you are not.”
This statement makes no sense.
Libertarianism (as you define the term) is in absolutely no way about liberty but rather the death of hierarchy
Libertarians (as we define them) promote what they see as the greatest degree of liberty possible which is exactly what is done voluntarily within the realm of property. Inevitably you believe EXACTLY the same thing except that your definition of property is different.
“Libertarian” has been used to describe a free market oriented individual who promotes voluntary interaction devoid of most state action for coming up on a century now. While I can understand that you might be a little upset that the term was hijacked from what it originally meant but I think that it’s about time to except it
Anarchism, while traditionally about the death of all hierarchy had its central factor in its anti-statism. If, for instance, Fascism was associated heavily upon conception with Nazism then Fascism would still have a meaning outside of Nazism. This is to say that classical anarchism means all of the things you imply, but not all anarchisms necessarily mean this at all, simply anti-statism.
No one is being tricked by these words. No one, because they don’t have the conception of these ideas as you have them then they are not tricked into thinking (oh, these people support socialist anarchism at espoused by Kropotkin and Goldman, I might give that a try!) rather they learn what “righ libertarians” mean when using both terms. For this reason it is not misleading, and only misleading if you originally had the leftist conception of the term in your mind.
Do you have terms besides anarchism and libertarianism that you would rather we use?
I stopped reading there.