Chomsky refutes "libertarian" "anarcho"- capitalism

check it out

Views: 216752
Runtime: 5:21
Comments: 7809

Tags for this video:

Find more videos in the: "25"
Uploaded by:
See more videos uploaded by


Author Anon Ymous ( ago)
States killed 270 million people last century. I would much rather be
protected by businesses that I choose than thieves running around with guns
and badges.

Author egondeur ( ago)
A libertarian is a spin-off of corporate tyranny. The corporation is a
organization of tyrannical power in private hands. the top of the
organization decides everything. A libertarian considers private power an
okay thing. so GE and Monsanto could decide what everyone eats and

Author Vault Boy® ( ago)
"It means power ought to be given to the hands of private unaccountable
tyranny, even worse than state tyranny because there the public has some
kind of role"

I'd argue it's the exact opposite. The public at large has a bigger role in
the market than in the government. More often than not, the government can
screw up horribly with little accountability or punishment, whereas a
private company or individual can be completely ruined if they over step
their power through lawsuits, defaming, protest and people voting with
their dollar.

Author Levi Carlton ( ago)
Not a good title

Author turbofritz2 ( ago)
Noam chomsky is babbeling and mumbeling alot. But in his essence he is
autoritarian in disguise.

Author easybuttonairsoft ( ago)
"Adam smith and Thomas Jefferson are anti-capitalist"

Author gideondavid30 ( ago)
"private unaccountable tyranny"And the government is accountable? Chomsky
assumes that government is beholden to the masses and not special
interests."worse that state tyranny"So Mao's China and Stalin's Russia
along with Hitler's Germany pale in comparison to a libertarian society?
"extreme advocate of total tyranny"Chomsky is overrated as an intellectual.
He makes some good points here or there ...but this is just pathetic on his
part. Even if I am to agree with his assessment of the libertarian
philosophy, he is assuming that libertarians want an authoritarian state
when the opposite is true."unsubsidized capitalism in the third world"I
believe Chomsky is overlooking other factors here to paint a narrative.
"they will use the levers of power to have state power subsidize them"
EXACTLY CHOMSKY. It is state power that is the problem. If you put a gun in
the room full of other criminals, it is only natural for you to fight for
that gun. Some criminal enterpirse will arise to the top whether you have a
government or not. The difference is ....we don't legitamize that
government and grant it a monopoly.

Author bigballer ( ago)
Where are his arguments? Seriously, I couldn't pick up on a single one.
Saying things will lead to "perfect equality" doesn't mean a thing.
Saying that libertarians are "extreme advocates of total tyranny" doesn't
mean anything. It is not an argument.

Author Berren Drown ( ago)
I always knew Chomsky was right wing.

Author Donkey ( ago)
in free markets you keep corporate tyranny in check by suing for fraud in
the courts, which would bankrupt their companies, and allowing conditions
for small businesses to start if corporations jack up their prices too
high- this is not laissez faire or anarcho capitalism

also during the 1800s corporations violently oppressed unions while the
government turned a blind eye- a basic function of government is to prevent
violence; this is a tell tale sign of corporatism not free markets. in free
markets government is neutral in economics and only enforces contracts and
sues for fraud, and of course prevent violence

the fundamental problem in our government was that it allowed a near legal
bribery system in elections that favored big money special interests from
big unions and big corporations. this allowed them to stamp out their
competition with the help of government

Author Individual Rights Chris ( ago)

Author Brian Camper ( ago)
Chomsky is the next Adam Smith.

Author Jared French ( ago)
The libertarians who believe capitalism is not inherently evil are whom
Chomsky disagrees, but the idea with which he's disagreeing has nothing to
do with the people with whom he disagrees. Anarcho-capitalism is in no way
an authoritarian enforcement on taking wages or using currency. He's
confusing the current state with the libertarian/anarchist, who agrees that
nobody should be forced into anything. There is no argument from any
libertarian that people should have to go to a job and use roads, and pay
taxes. That person does not exists. Libertarianism is nothing more than a
peaceful movement to bring about the possibility for people to make their
own decisions, and anarcho-capitalism is not the enforcement of capitalism.
It is all about choice, and taking the state away from the matters of
currency and economy. People don't have to subscribe to anarco-anything,
hence the anarchy.

Author uXk08 ( ago)
What does Chomsky mean here when he says "traditional values" towards the

Author Bill Orange ( ago)
he doesn't even mention anarcho-capitalism or even a single libertarian.

Author Ancap2112 ( ago)
This violent socialist apparently has no clue what the non-aggression
principle means or what libertarians advocate, pathetic.
And to whoever uploaded this shit, go clickbait somewhere else, he doesn't
even mention anarcho-capitalism and doesn't address a single libertarian.

Author Anonymous Bastard ( ago)
Braindead old liberals.

Author Justin Lee ( ago)
These countries developed in spite of corporate welfare not because of it.
The third world is a different case for the fact many of them have IMF debt
and were former colonies. Not a lot of room for a natural development into
a market economy. And I don't see the third world printing money and taxing
high to get anywhere either. Chomskys other fallacy of course being that
libertarianism leads to corporate tyranny. Everyone including the left
complains about corporate tyranny today. Where are the libertarian policies
that caused this. We have a state created banking cartel called the federal
reserve. We have the progressive (Marxist) income tax. We have tons of
regulations and licensing rules. The state is the necessary and only
partner of the tyrannical corporate state. The military industrial complex
would also not exist under a libertarian society. And the lefts main
channel (NBC) is owned by GE.

Author ian turner ( ago)
Large companies and titans of industry wouldn't be held accountable to the
public in a free market? The public votes with their dollars and makes
these people who they are! Chomsky you snake in the grass.

Author Sardar jaiveer singh sidhu ( ago)
He's stupider than I thought Adam Smith and Mises too were minarchists.

Author AntoniusBlokk (327 years ago)
Anyone know where to find the full version of this speech?

Author Typhoon792 ( ago)
Wow, I can't believe I agree with him, especially since only recently I
considered myself a Libertarian, initially due to the influence actually of
Penn Jillette. Usually I strongly disagree with Chomsky and consider him to
be the one rather perverse in his thinking on many topics,
over-intellectualized to the point of just being anti-reality more than

Author Tam Dickson ( ago)
Everyone's still missing his point!! He's not refuting anything here rather
saying most people who try to talk about anything like
libertarianism/anarcho capitalism/ etc etc don't even know what they mean
when they take a political stand point or try to argue their case for
whatever position they see themselves defending. Because, very few people
actually understand their own viewpoint and what they think they are
standing for actually means.

Author Yuri Alencar ( ago)
Americans being americans, as always. We're also getting our share of
"ancapism" and "libertarians" here in Brazil, sadly proff of our cultural
colonization by the us.

Author H BI ( ago)
doesn't know anything about american libertarianism.

Author Escorpion Venenoso ( ago)
So corporations aren't accountable but the State isn't ??? Who's more
likely to go out of business Noam?? The State or corporation

Author Jack Scully (18 years ago)
Chomsky's syndicalism isn't politically possible either if we take his
argument (the rich and powerful won't let it) to be true.

Author Friendly Comrade ( ago)
AnCap is an oxymoron

Author Martim Costa ( ago)
I still don't understand chomsky's position. Most anarcho-capitalists would
argue that corporations are creations of the state and immoral. They
wouldn't call what exists in america as capitalism rather crony capitalism
/ corporatism.

Author Bananas and Bass ( ago)
So I'll just stick with voluntaryism. Haven't found a better way of
describing things.

Author lourak613 ( ago)
Chomsky: "I actually believe in traditional values" Atheism;
abortion; gay marriage...very traditional.
Well - I guess he means: don't murder or steal - yep - I guess he is
"TRADITIONAL" after all...

Author ‫الإحتباس الحراري‬‎ ( ago)
so much ignorance he confuses capitalism with corporatism lol

Author ‫الإحتباس الحراري‬‎ ( ago)
he never studied maths and he refutes things that you need calculations to

Author Dylan McGonigle ( ago)

Author Spike Spiegel (407 years ago)
The socialist idea of equality is pie in the sky. So lets say the USA goes
full socialist. All the violence necessary to get all wealth evenly
distributed is done, the bodies are buried, and you have your socialist
structure. What about tomorrow? People will have innovative ideas, people
will want to trade, soon things won't be so equal anymore. So do you commit
genocide again? Do you have some enormously expansive and expensive
monitoring system that makes sure all outcomes are equal and all economic
activity is pre-approved?

Author Spike Spiegel (1636 years ago)
Absolutely. Liberty means being restricted in trade and being unable to
keep what you earn.

Author Bob “Bobsiken” Olsemann ( ago)
One problem with the markets in the way smith phrases it, we don't have
perfect liberty. (and then there is the sonnenschein mantel debreu theorem
which further messes up the elysium of Adam Smith.)

Author sithersproductions ( ago)
Chomsky is stupid the government is more dangerous than corporations

Author C B ( ago)
1,700 Aynarcho-Crapitalists

Author Herv3 ( ago)
I'm still waiting him to refute libertarianism.

Author Dubius Seizer (992 years ago)
this guys idea of promoting "libertarian socialism" is telling his
followers to vote for democrats to "keep out the bad ones."

Author David Boh (Herrboh) ( ago)
Fucking demagogue.

Author Mart Arbenflart ( ago)
chomsky is also retarded

Author Dustin Hutchinson ( ago)
The corporate system can't exist in an "ideal" Libertarian system. The idea
is to shrink the State, no State, no corporations. American Libertarianism
is about personal accountability, in business and personal relations.

Author krokeman ( ago)
It's a pain to listen to nonsense of "professor" Chomsky.

Author Sublime Music Channel ( ago)
Wired into one of the centers of power in the United States even as he
markets himself a voice of the people, if the Noamster should ever find
himself on the outside such centers such as MIT and Harvard then maybe I'd
begin to buy that aspect of his act. Not, however, the part where he saw
fit to put American lives at risk by outing CIA operatives overseas back in
the 70s and 80's, Regardless of how one feels about the CIA's mission--then
or now--putting American lives at risk gets your ass shot in my book, not
lionized. Him AND Dick Cheney--two peas in a piece of shit pod.

Author Political Cure ( ago)
Free market > Government

Author Brandon Sanders ( ago)
Libertarianism in the US is nothing more than Social Darwinism.

Author Luis R Vera Suárez ( ago)
So you're a "Libertarian socialist" I am an octopus banana 

Author ProudBourgeoisie ( ago)
All relationships between individuals should be voluntary and consensual.
It doesn't mean they have equal bargaining power, equal skills, equal
talents. "Equality" is a nonsensical idea that can never exist because
people are not equal.

So long as there is not the initiation of physical coercion by either
party, individuals should be free to do whatever they goddamned well
please. Period.

Author Frederick Douglass ( ago)
Noam Chomsky is a statist socialist

Author Charles Krüger ( ago)
Yea he totally "refuted" it #not

Author Joe Schmoe ( ago)
So, as smart as he is he doesn't know what libertarianism is ? I'm shocked.
I really like Noam.

Author jadwiga0700 ( ago)
what an idiot.

Author Uber “Genius” Genie ( ago)
Anarcho-capitalism serves as a straw man for socialist attacks. These types
of libertarians represent less than 1% of libertarians on the street. One
can engage Hyack or Milton Friedman on libertarianism but David Friedman is
not of the same intellectual quality as his dad. And outside the academy I
have never run into a libertarian who is a Anarcho-capitalist. 

Author Uber “Genius” Genie ( ago)
Chomsky is a cunning linguist, full of bluster and rhetorical flourish.
Name-calling seems to lead his methodology. After taking all the advantages
of a limited government for his entire adult life, he never the less can
remains the darling of a fading so-called intellectual elite that defend
socialism, not with data but bombast. Locke and Natural Rights are at the
core of Libertarianism, not a President that was pro states rights and
thought wage labor was a crime and solved that latter problem by owning
over a hundred slaves and not paying them a wage! Socialism makes a method
of slavery whereby "The State" owns all the slaves.

There are serious discussions about how effective governments and markets
are at producing the things we desire in culture. But Chomsky is, and
always has been a propagandist worthy of Pravda! 

Author David Kramer ( ago)
BTW, Noam Chomsky is a multimillionaire. I don't see him sharing any of his
own wealth with the proletariat.

Author David Kramer ( ago)
The definition of "libertarianism" in the United States:

“Libertarianism is a political philosophy. It is concerned solely with the
proper use of force. Its core premise is that it should be illegal to
threaten or initiate violence against a person or his property; force is
justified only in defense or demanding restitution. That is it, in a
nutshell. The rest is mere explanation, elaboration, and qualification—and
answering misconceived objections.”

And here's the reasoning behind that:

"Libertarianism is simply self-ownership. You have the right to control
your body. From this logically follows that you can own physical property
that you have either used first or obtained through contract from a
previous property owner. In practice this means non-aggression and a
contractual society based on voluntary relations."

Sounds real "tyrannical" to me.

Author Jairah Jones ( ago)
I always hear libertarians these days taking about ancap, and free market
is absolute and should not have any regulations ever, I'd rather see them
encourage people to start their own businesses and use some of the profits
to put towards good causes. Part of the reason the American government is
so corrupt is money. Put money in the hands of good people! The left often
think the Government should fix everything, where the right thinks the free
market will fix everything. Both will screw you if good people do not get
involved in these things themselves and let either the Government or the
corporations take their course.

Author Pedro Vaz ( ago)
Anarchism...Jewish style. Bakunin had some nice words concerning the Jews
go read them for yourself.

Author BurningPyramid ( ago)
Chomsky is absolutely right. "Anarcho" capitalism is just fascism and

Author Matthew John Hayden ( ago)
"tyrants do what they feel like... they're global..."

Or just don't buy what they're selling. Bye-bye market power.

Author Nebojsa Galic ( ago)
Funny thing about you AnCaps. You sound an awful lot like the people you
hate most, socialists. When someone points out flaws in capitalists
SYSTEM!!!`` And then you lecture everyone else on how bad their systems are
and when they try to say ``BUT THAT WAS NOT OUR REAL SYSTEM!`` you say that
is no excuse.
So basically you are always right and everyone else is always
wrong......because freedom.
Why the hell do you think government forms in the first place?
To protect massive accumulations of wealth that arise from a small elite of
people owning the means of production.
Your ideas and conclusions are not illogical, they are wrong because they
are based on a grossly oversimplified model of the human being.
You basically believe people always strive towards their own immediate self
interest at the cost of everyone else, utterly disregarding the long-term
consequences, and that this is great as long as there is no violence
Hence all employees will always compete with each other for jobs and all
companies will always compete with each other for market share and

Which is absurd.

People band together based on common interests, and cooperate to achieve
That is what has made us successful as a species. That is the fundamental
trait that has allowed us to become what we have become.

What do we see in real life with employees? They unionize. They perceive
their common interests and they cooperate, seeing how they would be harming
themselves in the long run by competing, and driving down wages.
What do we see in real life with capitalist enterprise? They do the exact
same thing. They know it is in their interest to drive down wages and
production costs and jack up prices.

Sure they compete sometimes. A company that is far superior to all others
will compete because it is sure it will WIN in the end. All empires want to
expand, but they only go to war against small states they know they can
absorb at a manageable cost to their resources, and a long term benefit.
They want to avoid wars with empires of equal size.

Competition is harmful, and the capitalist class knows it. You can beat a
kid up and take his lunch money, but he might ambush you tomorrow with a
couple of his friends.

You can compete with other companies and take away their market share and
have an immediate benefit, but it is suicidal in the long run. Your
competitors will match you. You would have severely harmed the other
members of you social class, and handicapped your ability to make a profit

The capital owning class has its interests, the working class has its. The
former is far more aware of them and far more capable of furthering them,
while the working class is often oblivious of them and each individual
worker competes against his class.

Author MillionthUsername ( ago)
Why does Chomsky exploit workers and starve poor people? Can anyone answer
that? How do we stop him? Chomsky engages in Total Tyranny when he fleeces
institutions for $12,000 or more when he speaks. He says that it's a
"voluntary" arrangement, but we all know what that means. What he's really
saying is that it's okay for him to engage in exploitation and systemic
coercion for the sake of Global Capitalism in order to fund his lavish
spending on personal luxury. That money comes out of the down-turned mouths
of the poor who have no one to defend them against capitalist exploiters
like Chomsky. They never agreed to have the value of their labor stolen by
Chomsky. He doesn't offer them democratic control over this stolen loot and
his other stashes of Private Wealth. No, he profits off of their toil and
sweat. His fancy sweaters and high tech glasses are bought with ill-gotten
capitalist gains and then hidden away in private bank accounts while people
starve daily in the poorest countries.

Author Ben Clark ( ago)
You must have a broad definition of "refute"

Author Jonny 5ive ( ago)
Nice strawman Mr1001nights. Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are very
different! One uses the state, the other doesn't. One is fascism the other
is free markets and voluntaryism. One is minarchist the other is anarchist.
Is it that hard for you to understand?

Author sam little ( ago)
Chomsky's a little contradictory here. On the one hand, he says third world
capitalism is free market capitalism, but that the powerful wouldn't let
that happen here. Well, why not? Wouldn't the wealthy have more power,
according to Chomsky's view, if the system was completely unregulated? Or
is he making some weird argument that the powerful are actually altruistic?
It would probably be more accurate to describe what we in the US call
libertarianism as classical liberalism. But then what does Chomsky think
about that? Is classical liberalism tyranny? Of course, now people call
classical liberalism neoliberalism, to hide the fact that classical liberal
thought is a rich part of the enlightenment tradition that Chomsky claims
to respect.

I say claims because on many occasions Chomsky has said the enlightenment
tradition was about promoting bogus western cultural centrism/imperialism
and not a genuine improvement in the way that socialism/communism and later
movements were (this even puts him at odds with Marx). He has also said the
American war for Independence was basically bullshit, while at the same
time here, claiming to respect Thomas Jefferson. So basically, Chomsky will
claim the enlightenment when it suits him, to make himself look like the
reasonable man and claim that others have perverted and co-opted the
philosophy which he readily tosses aside much of the time. Gotta love the
guy. Having it three ways and asserting everything and nothing all at the
same time.

Oh, and by the way, just remember this guy who hates rich capitalists who
hide their money in tax free offshore accounts does the same thing with his
money to avoid being taxed. But of course, that's the left for you. If you
resist a tax because the coercive government messes with people's lives and
the economy, then you're a crony. But if you resist a tax because the same
corrupt government is involved in a ridiculous and unjust war, well then
that's heroic. What an asshole.

Author Miguel Deton (326 years ago)


‘‘‘The Psychohistorical-Dialectical Equations’’’ --

STATE-Capitalism [PSEUDO-Socialism] vs. ‘Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY’,

I have become aware of a new development in Marxian Theory, using a new
tool of “universal labor” [Marx] -- a heuristic, ‘intuitional’,
contra-Boolean, algebraic dialectical logic -- one that has enabled those
who use it to develop a model of ‘‘‘The Dialectic of Nature’’’: of an
unbroken, self-developing, mounting ‘meta-genealogy’, from pre-nuclear
“particles” all the way up to the human, with a prediction as to what is
coming next; a model of the historical dialectic of natural history as

“Inside” that totality-model, a model of the history of what Marx calls
“the social forces of production”, and of “the social relations of
production”, within “human pre-history” [Marx], culminating in the
capital-relation/wage-labor relation, at the core of capitalist society,
and the self-cleavage of that society into the wages-/salaries-class vs.
capitals-class class-struggle that this “social relation of production”
imposes, until the capital-relation-incented growth of the “social forces
of production” internally destabilizes that capitals-system, producing the
-- present -- ‘descendance-phase’ of capitalist civilization.

Their models also predict/reconstruct the “lawful” emergence of a
‘HUMANOCIDAL’, ‘capitalist-anticapitalist’ [totalitarian STATE-capitalist]
ruling class in descendance-phase capitalism. They predict a terminal,
‘descendance-phase’ ruling class ideology which is simultaneously
‘capitalist anti-capitalist’, ‘human anti-humanist’, and ‘anti-Marxian

The ruling-class’s ‘human anti-humanism’ ideology initially spawned
“Eugenics”, but, after their debacle with their Eugenics
servant-dictatorship, the Hitler regime, they switched to their “Big Money”
perversion of the global grass roots anti-pollution movement, i.e., into
the “People Are Pollution” neo-pseudo-religion of ‘Earthism’, attacking
global working class living standards on pseudo-ecological grounds.

The “lawful” degeneration of capitalist, representative democracy into
totalitarian, ‘humanocidal’ STATE-capitalism [‘Orwell’s Law’], in the
“advanced” capitalist nation-states, is ENABLED by the hyper-concentration
of capital-money in ever fewer hands, which, at length, totally obliterates
the “checks-and-balances” among the political branches of government, as
the ‘descendant-phase’ plutocracy prostitutes all three branches, plus the
news media.

But the desperate, DRIVING MOTIVE behind the plutocracy’s rush to
TOTALITARIAN ‘HUMANOCIDE’ is a deep secret, still not discerned by most
observers and theorists.

Using this model, they have derived detailed features of the probable
higher successor system to capitalism, i.e., of the HIGHER successor social
relation of production to the capital-/wage-labor relation, which they call
the “generalized equity social-relation-of-production”, or
“political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY” -- the ‘citizen externality equity / citizen
birthright equity / citizen stewardship equity HUMAN RIGHTS’-relation,
which is decidedly NOT a form of pure-state-bureaucratic-ruling-class
STATE-capitalism, a la Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Hitlerism, Maoism,
Castroism, Ceaușescuism, Hoxhaism, ILism, UNism, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

The key is to REVIVE CHECKS AND BALANCES on POLITICAL power, as well as to
create NEW CHECKS AND BALANCES against concentrated ECONOMIC power, by
instituting unprecedented ECONOMIC CHECKS AND BALANCES.

The ‘Associations of [popularly elected, mandated, popularly recallable]
Public Directors’ bodies, implementing the ‘Citizens EXTERNALITY Equity’
[‘GRASS ROOTS regulation of deadly local pollution’] Human Right, are an
‘institution-ization’ of the historical experiences of the revolutionary,
territorially/residentially-grounded “community councils” that have
manifested repeatedly in contra-capitalism revolts.

The ‘producers-democracies’ that are the MARKET-COMPETING ‘‘‘socialized
producers’ cooperatives’’’ of the ‘Citizen STEWARDSHIP Equity’ [‘collective
entrepreneurship’] Human Right [the ‘socialized venture capital’ Human
Right] are an ‘institution-ization’ of the historical experiences of the
revolutionary, workplace-grounded “producers’ councils” that have also
formed repeatedly in modern revolts.

Each Citizen Steward elects, and can vote to recall, the management of
their collective enterprise, and each Citizen Steward votes on ALL major
managerial decisions.

Each Citizen-Steward producer, as such, enjoys, by constitutional & Human
Right, two streams of income: (1) compensation for time worked, determined
via the Skills-Markets, not necessarily equal in amount to that earned by
fellow Citizen Stewards, & (2) an EQUAL share in the net operating surplus
of their Citizen-Stewardship enterprise. Stewardship cooperatives pay a
social rent on their means of production -- held in Stewardship, not
ownership -- a social rent that discourages inefficient use of means of
production, and that helps fund the Citizen Birthright Equity individual
Citizen socialized trust funds.

The Citizen Stewardship Equity constitutional amendment does not outlaw
self-employed capital, private joint stock capital, or state-capital. But
capitalist firms must play by the rules of stockholder democracy, & must
compete, for employees, etc., against Stewardship producers’ cooperatives,
wherein the collective self-employers, the producer-owners, decide,
democratically, how they will be treated by their collective self-employer,
i.e., by themselves.

‘‘‘Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.’’’ CHECKS
AND BALANCES are the key bulwark against socio-political degeneration into

The prescription is that the -- concentrated-economic-power-obviated --
POLITICAL checks and balances be “aufheben” retained, as REVIVED by the new
ECONOMIC checks and balances, in a new societal system of SUSTAINED
QUADRUPLE POWER, with sustained, ‘inter-mutually’ checking-and-balancing
conflicts among the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of
[popularly-elected] POLITICAL government, and also vis-a-vis the new,
ECONOMIC-DEMOCRATIC institutions of ‘‘‘Equitism’’’ -- the social
institutions of ‘Citizen Externality Equity’, ‘Citizen Birthright Equity’,
and ‘Citizen Stewardship Equity’, described above.

This will require a VIGILANT social majority, that knows what it wants --
the better life for all of Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY -- and that knows
the horrors of the alternative -- CIA-Police-State, Totalitarian,
‘Humanocidal’ State Capitalism, already rampant in its ‘STEALTH EUGENICS’,
‘STEALTH HUMANOCIDE’ incipient mode.

The social-revolutionary transition to Equitarian Political-ECONOMIC
need not be a violent conflagration -- citizen mass boycotts of the Big,
Government-prostituting Banks and other ‘‘‘Corporatist’’’
Mega-Corporations, populist electoral campaigns for legislatures,
executives, and judges at the Municipal, State, and National levels,
popular initiatives, and constitutional amendments may suffice to change
the social relations of production. However, the degenerate plutocracy can
be expected to resort to illegal violence when they see that their power is

Organizing can begin at the grassroots level, campaigning for the adoption
of municipal-scale, then county-scale, then state/province-scale
implementation of approximations of
the Citizen Externalities Equity, Citizen Birthright Equity, & Citizen
Stewardship Equity Human Rights, before attempting their full
implementation at the national scale.

For more about these historic breakthroughs, see --,The_Dialectic_of_Social_Equity,07SEP2014.jpg



Author calfor1991 ( ago)
Right libertarianism and anarcho capitalism are truly despostic ideals that
only wants "freedom" and "liberty" for the privileged and corporations. 

Author Nebojsa Galic ( ago)
Anarchy=/=Society without government
Anarchy=Society with no HIERARCHY

Or, to elaborate:
You see the Greek word anarchy, would literally translate to English as
``Non-above-ness``Meaning no human beings are to be ``above`` others in any
way. If it was for society with no rulers or no-one being ruled it would be
called something like ``Ancracy`` or ``Anacracy`` Because the Greek word
for the verb ``to rule`` is ``kratein`` The very word which gave us the
word ``Democracy`` which means ``rule of the people``

And does n`t capitalism have quite a bit of hierarchy? How can you have
Anarchy, which means Non-Archy with so much hierARCHY??!?!!How can you have
a Non-Archy with so much Archy in it?

Author Matthew John Hayden ( ago)
What Chomsky quotes at roughly 4:00 would come to pass in a free (ancap)
society anyway. Productivity increases would eventually reduce all prices
to the point where there poorest people in the world would be living like
the American upper middle class.

Upper middle class in 2014 = 100k - 300k per year household income.

The reasons would be complex but ultimately boil down to unimpeded division
of labour, everybody actually enjoying the fruits of increasing
productivity over decade-plus timescales due to the absence of inflation,
and the constant process of invention, innovation, and opportunity
discovery as, day by day, people discover more and better ways to provide
each other with goods and services in ways which are mutually beneficial.

Since the questioner asked about Chomsky's self-identification as a
'libertarian' I feel the good professor missed a trick by explaining that
anyone who prizes liberty above authority is a libertarian. I mean it just
means one who is 'into' liberty.

I refer to myself usually as a voluntarist / voluntaryist / ancap /
austro-libertarian / austro-liberal / palaeo-liberal / liberal. The word
liberal, in American usage, is bent out of shape as well. I am an economist
by knowledge and skill base and tend to think of my approach as
palaeo-austrian to mean I use the Austrian method in the Austrian way to
divine everything I dare to divine about human behaviour and interaction.
It's served me far better than the methods I learned in my Econ BSc.

I've always liked Chomsky's reading of history and of characters from the
past, and I think he gets Jefferson in ways my own tribe (the saucy saucy
ancaps) perhaps doesn't. Jefferson did indeed despair of the division of
labour, but since division of labour saves me having to grow my own food,
and is the reason for all progress ever, I feel I can treat Jefferson, like
anyone I have read, with an open mind, but not obsequious adulation.

Author Bernise Anders ( ago)
free market capitalism is the most oxy-moronic term i've ever heard.
there's nothing free about it, and it's designed to circumvent and destroy

Author Charles Brown ( ago)
here libertarian means something different... Americans define words to
suit themselves

Author Svelt Man ( ago)
it really doesn't matter what you call private property rights and the
absence of a state coersion. call it bongoism if it makes you happy.
'conditions of perfect equality' entails private property and voluntarism
at the very least as adam smith knew. chomsky's reading of adam smith is
evasive and spurious. i encourage anyone who really wants to know about
this to read Adam Smith and see if you think Chomsky is representing him
fairly here. 

Author Philippe James ( ago)
'Anarcho-capitalism' is a serious personality disorder characterised by
constant, pathological lying on the part of the sufferer. People who suffer
from this disorder also tend to manifest a greatly reduced capacity for
logical thought and human empathy. This is a very damaging personality
disorder which has ruined many lives and families. We need to take this
problem seriously, and should stop mistaking this disorder for a 'political
ideology'. People suffering from this disorder need our help. They need
professional psychological therapy and support, and above all they need

Please donate now to the charity Curing Anarcho-Capitalism. They are doing
great work to help mend the shattered lives ruined by this terrible medical
problem. Thank you. 

Author powergirl901 ( ago)
Your Doctor Chomsky, the original economic Tummler...

Author Simon Željko ( ago)
Anarcho-capitalism stands on one false assumption - it assumes that only
states can be the aggressors and only states can abuse their powers and
strong-arm citizens into submission. I don't know what it the basis for
this belief, but I have yet to see an anarcho-capitalist justify it. But
belief in that is greater than any religious belief, greater even than
belief in afterlife of suicide bombers. Chomsky is right, it's
totalitarianism in it's purest. No other ideology is more fundamentally
anti-democratic. Every single libertarian focuses solely on real or
imagined state atrocities, only the power of governments is illegitimate
everything else is perfectly acceptable just because it isn't committed by
the government.

What is incredibly transparent to everybody except anarcho-capitalists (at
least those that actually believe it, not the overwhelming majority of
cynics and sociopaths) is that it's actually based in fundamental rejection
of accountability. Accountability is "violence" for anarcho-capitalists. A
feudalist monarch as a ruler and owner of all land and to some extent even
all the people is perfectly compatible with anarcho-capitalist views. There
were no states back then so it's basically an anarcho-capitalist utopia,
given that they literally don't care about about anything else. Owner has a
right to dispose of his property as he pleases after all. It was only after
the evil revolutionaries stole the land from the owners that the awful
states were founded. These states of course brought accountability, and as
little as that might be or even as feigned, corrupted and imperfect as it
may be, it's universally despised by anarcho-capitalists.

Author Blake Seener ( ago)
Check out "The state is too dangerous to tolerate" by Robert Higgs.
Organized evil individuals who would otherwise have the same amount of
power and designated authority over anyone else during anarchism, wreacks
the ultimate havoc as they wield state power. Would you rather have
voluntary actions with other individuals and the right to that liberty, or
have a state with a monopoly over violence that steals, kills, and robs
people to maintain its power, get involved and force one group or
individual to preside over another. I would much rather live under a
society where individuals were responsible for their own future, and not
have this factually extremely violent entity get involved claiming to have
some legitimate authority under the guise of keeping everyone safe. 

Author Tippersnore ( ago)
Chimpsky Rothabrd/Mises smack-down?

Author AcePL S. ( ago)
Chomsky is full of it. First example: corporations exist BECAUSE of state.
They feed each other. Same monopoly: unless forced by state, wouldn't exist
for long. Look what robber barons tried without state to back them up:
hired mercenaries, who more often than not were beaten back by ordinary
Also: he can have socialism. But WHY I HAVE TO PAY FOR IT? F**k off!! My
property is mine. What he proposes is robbery. Plain and simple. Another
reason ANYTHING ELSE THAN FREE MARKET is immoral, wrong and simply put
Communism is form of socialism. Don't kid yourself otherwise. Also fascism.
And anything else that demands from one person to give to another, in the
Chomsky feeds his bullshit because it's politically in demand and he lives
off it.

Author exbronco1980 ( ago)
people who live in a pure capitalist nation (libertarian according to the
american definition) would have some choice. they could choose what
products to buy, some people could also choose where they work. one
example, let's say you hate mcdonalds- don't ever go to mcdonalds. example
2, you think movie tickets cost too much- don't go to the movies. i know
sometimes it's really hard to avoid products from a company one might not
like, but usually one has some kind of choice. you don't always have to do
what some corporation wants you to do.

Author Rich Beer ( ago)
Assumptions about libertarians in this thread are among the most laughable
I've read. Statetheism is strong here. Regardless decentralization on a
massive scale is just around the corner. Decentalization of the internet
(ala MaidSafe), decentralization of the marketplace (ala Open Bazzar),
decentralization of currencies (ala cryptocoins), decentralization of
government (ala Sea Steading Institute) ... but who will build the roads?
You are absolutely right, scratch everything I said, we as a species could
never get along without a coercive central planning agency. How foolish of

Author Edmond Dantès ( ago)
Okay, so he goes right off the bat, proving that he has no concept of what
"capitalism" actually means and gives his own definition to it, which
differs vastly from the definition anarcho-capatalists give it, making his
"refutation" utterly pointless. You also have to be one hell of a wanker to
attack people and movements on the basis of the vocabulary they use,
instead of the ideas they promote. And Chomsky obviously doesn't see beyond
the semantics/verbiage treshold. In an anarcho-capitalist society, "waged
labor", would just be "services exchanged over a period of time, with a
mutually voluntary contract signed by both parties to make sure it remains
mutually beneficial", implying no more hierarchy than there exists between
me and a car salesman when I buy a car from him. It's called free trade.
This doesn't change magically when you trade services instead of products.
It also doesn't magically turn into slavery because the trade lasts over an
agreed period of time instead of a single occurance. I seriously don't know
why people put this man on a pedestal, when his thinking process stops at
mere semantics and vocabulary. Contracted work in an anarcho-capitalist
society would be voluntary, mutually beneficial interaction, not a form of
hierarchy. If I pay an electrician to fix my electricity, I pay him because
I want his services more than I want my money and he performs the services
because he wants my money more than his time. Mutually beneficial win-win
voluntary interaction right there. Now, if the electrician needs a few days
to do this, and we agree to put this in a contract, does it suddenly imply
that either party "owns" the other now? Hell no. The only factors that make
our society fundamentally non-capitalist are government taxation,
regulation and favoratism. It's not capitalism, free trade or a free market
when government enforces monopolies or subsidizes privileges for one
economic player and steals from the rest to do this. The reason why we have
wage slavery is because government steals half your paycheck and makes
labor incredibly expensive for employers, meaning less jobs, meaning a
higher risk when you quit your job and a real possibility that you won't
find any better if you're dissatisfied with your compensation. Government
is a crucial factor in creating the phenomenon of wage slavery. Chomsky
differentiates between government and other forms of social hierarchy as if
they aren't one and the same, as if our current socio-economic problems and
current lifestyles aren't all just symptoms of having government as an
institution. And from the moment that a person denies that the mess we're
in exists BECAUSE we have taxation, overregulation and government
favoratism in the market, that's the moment I lose interest in the
fantasies he comes up with. I would even love to debate him on this if he
could just get rid of the whole "I was born before you and in MY time,
anarchists were more anarchistic than all these youngsters who use words
differently than I do" attitude.

Author jonas brave ( ago)
I think many of us are talking about MONEY - it has NO intrinsic worth, but
it is an excellent instrument of control (mind control, behavioural
control, attitudes.) We are being played by this game called money. The
slaves need not have chains, if they have a token value substitute they can
attach their mental slavery to.
Money is an instrument of control such that 'your' share can be constantly
hollowed out, devalued and rescinded by the government and industry, and so
arbitrarily - you may think you have a six figure income, but the more you
make the more ways they can effectively cancel it out. As in the former
Soviet Union, there is an attempt to 'make everyone the same' - and poor.
Why? It keeps us playing the game. The difference is in Soviet communism
nobody gave a shit about their job, and WE are motivated to work and
produce value by constantly chasing a false promise of money.
ONLY by constantly taking away what we earn can they keep us running after
it, rarely understanding what a bad deal it is. Then we die - and they
again take 40% away.

Author Jm Mac ( ago)
Libertarianism /capitalism is non-stop shape shifting /derailing
/misdirection to break "Socratic Questions" [++]. Specifically Soc Quests
to make them see how capi /libert uniquely creates and defends the
liberalism /feminism it bemoans. [++ Pop-corn trails of questions that try
to get the target to have epiphanies about the error(s) of their thinking.]

And if it dies, most things western culture hold dear will too...

Author Johny Diala ( ago)
Libertarians have this nutty delusion that there is some sort of "free
contract" between a potentate and his poor workers. This is largely due to
the fact that they are white, upper-middle class males who have never
endured real poverty. I'd suggest these people try going without food for a
week and see how "free" they are to say no to it once it is offered to
them, even if the person offering them the food is forcing them to do
egregious labour. Capitalism is simply a form of structural coercion; it
exploits the dire situation people are in. It's the farthest thing from
"voluntary"; it's like saying if somone put a gun to your head to try and
mug you, you would be "free" to not give him the money.

Author serjthereturn ( ago)
the mafia and organised crime are perfect examples of 'anarcho' capitalism
in action

Embed Video:


Search Video

Top Videos

Top 100 >>>


Analyse website