• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Noam Chomsky on Richard Wolff's "Economic Update"

A

Antiwar

Green Party progressive
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Messages
27,138
Reaction score
4,772
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Centrists, rightists, get your social democratic "indoctrination."

The first 15 minutes ("15 minutes?! I can't listen for 15 minutes! I have alerts! I have new threads!") is Richard on 'How progressive are Biden's economic cabinet picks?'

Second 15 minutes: Excellent interview with Noam!

All spectrum variants will learn something. Maybe you'll get evidence for the "Evil commie plot!"

Podcast on Stitcher:

Economic Update with Richard D. Wolff - Noam Chomsky on Prospects and Tasks as 2021 Begins on Stitcher

This week, Professor Wolff gives updates on President-elect Biden's economic advisor "team", how Argentina's women's movement leads the defeat of the government and Roman Catholic Church oppositions to win legalized abortion and now targets other basic social changes, and how the deepening...
www.stitcher.com
 
Joe Biden is not progressive and I'm certain that Bernie, AOC and others will remind him of this on a weekly basis. . At most he is a centrist on economics.

I love Chomsky but I can't stand to hear him speak for more than 5 minutes because of his monotone speech pattern. He is easier to read than to listen to.
 

It's nice to find my own take agreeing with Chomsky ( who I greatly admire and who has played a big part in opening my eyes to many things ) on how the current anger in many societies is off the back of 40 years of neoliberalism/corporate domination.

That the focus from the Trump era has gone from tackling the 1% domination of society to a race riot is testimony to who are most in control of the means of perception management.

Chomsky is right that activism of the grass roots leftist community in the states will have to put pressure on Biden if things are to improve. The DNC are right wingers by most European standards. My fear is that they will not be able to do this crucial job because of the legacy of Trump and the determination of his base to reject the future government.

Sometimes societies breakdown a little in order to move forward and to invoke change. That's where the USA is now imho
 
Noam is grandfatherly! Listen to Chris Hedges "despair" presentations for more oomph.
 
Noam Chomsky is not a Social Democrat though.
 
joluoto said:
Noam Chomsky is not a Social Democrat though.
Click to expand...
Hey joluoto.
I think he'd say he is a progressive social democrat (lower case) on a pragmatic level. Ideologically he is/was a left-libertarian anarcho-syndicalist(?). He has said that government tends toward corruption, but we already have governments.

I say we need governments as a counterbalance to big business; to actually represent the People more than representing big business, as is the current situation We need good governance for protecting the commonwealth (especially the climate), which governance currently does not. Same for our community health: The pandemic could have been prevented.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic could have been prevented | Virology Blog

The 3,250,000 cases of COVID-19 and 233,000 deaths caused by SARS-CoV-2 (numbers as of this writing) could have largely been prevented. The viral outbreak c ...
www.virology.ws
 
Exactly! His words & ideas can literally fly off the pages! But his spoken monotone is absolutely terrible. Really terrible!

You'll never really appreciate Chomsky, until you read him!
 
Antiwar said:
Noam is grandfatherly! Listen to Chris Hedges "despair" presentations for more oomph.
Click to expand...

Sad to say, he traditionally considered himself an Anarchist!
 
Chomsky said:
Exactly! His words & ideas can literally fly off the pages! But his spoken monotone is absolutely terrible. Really terrible!

You'll never really appreciate Chomsky, until you read him!
Click to expand...
I've watched his interviews on CSPAN and PBS and listened to him on NPR and it is difficult to stay focused for more than about 10 minutes.
 
Lisa said:
I've watched his interviews on CSPAN and PBS and listened to him on NPR and it is difficult to stay focused for more than about 10 minutes.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more! Buy his books . . .

But dayem, when we lose him we lose what I believe is the premier old-school Liberal intellectual of all time. There's not many of them left, of the sort that lived through the War & can draw on all that history & change experientially. Yeah, we've got Bernie, and there's some similarity in cloth. But Bernie can't come close to Chomsky's intellectualism. The day Chomsky leaves us, I will be immensely saddened.
 
The bolded is a salient point! I couldn't agree more!
 
I knew about Chomsky since college but I didnt knew much about his views until I found his book Manufacturing Consent in the library about 35 years ago. I then read all of his books in the space of about a year.

I like Bernie but he is not an intellectual in the same way as Chomsky. Bernie is more of a 21st century FDR.

I am very close to Noam on the Political Compass grid.
 
Wow, how about that? I started with Manufacturing Consent, though it was far more recently - just when I joined DP. In fact, when signing-up I went with the nick "Chomsky', because I was in the middle of the book, liked it, and had to come-up with a name quick. Unlike you however, I haven't worked my way through his catalog.

No one opens my mind, like Chomsky. Some of his stuff strikes me as over-the-top, and I don't always agree with him. But, he always makes me think! As you can see by my avatar!

Where I think he really does well, is in his contemporaneous essays on current events. That's why I will be greatly saddened, when we lose him.

Another guy from the other side of the aisle I like, is Charles Krauthammer. His writing's O.K., but unlike Chomsky he is enjoyable to hear speak. He's conservative, and I don't always agree with him, but I always find his commentary interesting, stimulating, and well reasoned. He's really very good. He also has the interesting life story of going from a sixties radical to a later day Conservative! Unfortunately, we lost him recently.

But yes, we've been blessed with some great intellectuals in our lifetime, from both sides of the political spectrum. I used to like William F. Buckley Jr., too. I may often fly Liberal in my public politics, but I very much value principled Conservatives - as I live my personal life pretty conservatively.
 
He is way to the left of Social Democracy, always has been. Him being a Anarcho- Syndicalist nowadays sounds about right. At one point he was as Marxist you could be though, as in the real deal, not just what people call Marxist nowadays for stupid reasons.
 
oneworld2 said:
It's nice to find my own take agreeing with Chomsky ( who I greatly admire and who has played a big part in opening my eyes to many things ) on how the current anger in many societies is off the back of 40 years of neoliberalism/corporate domination.
Click to expand...

I like that comment. A problem is that society becomes blind to it as a problem because it's 'the new normal' - most Americans have never experienced anything other than the 40 years of plutocracy. And that's how Bernie, with his basic common sense policies good for the American people similar to FDR, is viewed as 'radical', while the radical plutocrats are 'normal'.
 
Chomsky said:
Sad to say, he traditionally considered himself an Anarchist!
Click to expand...

Nothing sad about it. That's like cheering on Helen Keller and then abandoning her because she ended up showing that she was a socialist ( true strory ). Maybe you just don't know too much about Anarchism
 


I absolutely agree with what is classed as " normal ", and if Bernie was living in Europe he would be probably classed as a centrist at most.

Language matters and it is interesting to see how it is used in the perception management by the " radical plutocrats" than have controlled our societies to greater or lesser degrees since forever.

People are feeling now, more than ever, the hits of decades on neoliberalism, so the story has to be changed from one of class struggle( the 1% v the 99% ) to race hate and what it is to be American. We can see it with Trump and, we have to be honest imo , people on the Left, all of whom have been taken in by this useful diversion.
 
oneworld2 said:
Language matters and it is interesting to see how it is used in the perception management by the " radical plutocrats" than have controlled our societies to greater or lesser degrees since forever.
Click to expand...

They've been powerful forever, but it's gone up and down a large amount. Look at charts at things like distribution of incomes, and it's very different from FDR to Carter, than it is from Reagan to now. If he had the same policies as pre-Reagan, the average American would make $42,000 more - not only is that money going to the rich, but our $20+ trillion dollars debt has largely gone to the rich also.


I think there's an interesting factor involved which involves 'basic needs'. While one measure is percent of wealth distribution, I think a more important one is people's 'basic needs' being met.

In other words, in the Great Depression, hunger and starvation were quite real, and that really radicalizes and motivates people. As our wealth increases, the cost of keeping people fed doesn't really go up, so you can keep them fed and all the extra money, which gets larger and larger, goes to the rich but causes less of a rebellion.

This is that paradox which shows the poor getting a terribly low percent of income, yet the right-wing's arguments about even poor people tending to have cell phones, refrigerators, and big screens isn't entirely wrong. That's the nature of a society with great wealth. But while their basic needs keep them from radicalizing, the wealth hoarded at the top gives the rich total power over the economy and protecting their wealth.

There's another factor as well, the way people value money they have much more than money they don't get. So tell them they're getting $42,000 less than the should and their eyes glaze over, ya, whatever. But tell them you're going to take $100 away from them and they are furious.

This same psychology not only enables the plutocrats, but is why the government likes tax withholding so much. If people had to write a check for the whole amount on April15 they'd lose their minds, but if the money was never in their pockets, they aren't nearly as angry. It's also why the rich feel so entitled to every dollar they do get, with little idea of fairness or morality.
 
Last edited:
oneworld2 said:
Nothing sad about it. That's like cheering on Helen Keller and then abandoning her because she ended up showing that she was a socialist ( true strory ). Maybe you just don't know too much about Anarchism
Click to expand...

Yes it's sad, if you're not an Anarchist. Or, a Socialist. Just because I read the RL Chomsky, and enjoy & value his writings, doesn't mean I want Anarchy or to become an Anarchist. I'm fine with a mixed-economy capitalist democratic representative republic, if only we could bolster a few select social programs. I have no need or desire to burn it all down.
 

Yep, the New Deal set off a trend that must have irked the rich so much it's untrue. I usually refer to the neoliberal period as stemming from the Reagan period onwards so we are definitely on the same page here.

People seem to have forgotten that most Americans lived decent lives with a car and a holiday or two a year on the wage of the father alone. Now , if they can do that at all, it takes both parents to work full time in most cases.




Absolutely, Craig234.

If they learned one thing about revolution in the latter part of the 19th century-early 20th century it was that you have to at least meet the basic needs and give out some freedoms to stave off any assualts from the 99%. The points you make are true and they show how the 1% control the public perception so as to retain the power and control they have worked hard to attain.

That's why I think the change from focus on the rich with the Occupy Movements to the traditional use of racism has taken place.
 


If you know Chomsky you will know what Anarchism is and why his sympathies lie with it. He considers it an " historical truism " that people have been seeking to rid themselves from repressive/abusive hierarchies throughout history. That is the true value of studying anarchism imo and obviously his too. The desire is to question authority everywhere and if it is shown to be illegitimate/repressive in a negative way than it needs to be dismantled and something better put in place built on cooperation, not coersion. That's not the same as " burning it all down ".

Social democrats , like everyone else imho, would profit from reading Chomsky but I think your comments show a lack of appreciation for what anarchism is and what it's adherents set out to achieve. I don't think we are in a position to embrace it but that doesn't mean it has no value or application to current societal conditions, I think it absolutely does and obviously so does Chomsky
 
oneworld2 said:
People seem to have forgotten that most Americans lived decent lives with a car and a holiday or two a year on the wage of the father alone. Now , if they can do that at all, it takes both parents to work full time in most cases.
Click to expand...

I've long viewed this as having part to do with, when there were one-income families, adding a second income made you relatively wealthy; the largest thing most people buy is their home, and the price of that is based on how much money people have.

But when most homes become two income, the bidding for homes simply increased the price, and people needed the two incomes just to get the same home as everyone else; then, one income homes lived poor than most people. So it was a sort of 'sucker trap' to get families producing more for the nation's wealthy with two people producing, but not getting much more for it.

When you add in that as productivity increased, and the size of the economy more than doubled, all of that new wealth went to the top 1% while wages were stagnant - it's clear how wealth has skyrocketed for the 0.01%. And then you add in the borrowed tax cuts and it's insane.


And I think that change is a mistake. But I think most people can't really deal with the issue rationally. To most people, Jeff Bezos having $20 million, or $2 billion, or $200 billion, is the same thing - he's just 'rich'. They can't really appreciate how the difference policies affect them. And so they don't care much about issues like 'inequality' and plutocracy.
 

I essentially agree with you here, and must admit 'burn it all down' was not a great choice of words on my part. I was referring to our governing institutions, and yes anarchists want to rid ourselves of them. So, I wasn't speaking literally, but figuratively.

As for Chomsky's anarchism, his brand is almost like unionism on steroids - of sorts. There's a great deal of value there, and much to strive for. But Americans are not ready to relinquish central authority & institutions, nor do I believe they should. But where Chomsky comes in, is in his ability to expand our minds to different frames of reference, while putting ideals before us.
 


No worries and good we agree on what his view is based on. I know he liked anarcho syndicalism, which, is the " unionism on steroids " you are likely referring to. It involves the union actually preparing their members to run the workplace and work with other sector of the industy so as to pass the baton on once the owners were replaced an worker control attained. Revolutionary unionism to all intents and purposes as opposed to an overriding focus on rights protection/collective bargaining in the current trade unionism. It lived for a bit early in the Spanish civil war and then was rounded on by all sides, for obvious reasons.

There's a great pamphlet on what becomes of trade unionism and trade unionists in the social democratic system written nearly a century ago by Antonie Pannekoek entitled " Trade Unionism". Worth a look despite its age imo

I agree that our societies are just not ready for this and it is also no accident that this is the case. But, I think it is the way we should be headed if it is not about to happen as we speak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…