
Noam Chomsky – Manufacturing consent (1992) [video] - bedros
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnrBQEAM3rE
======
Jack4E4B
"If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of
speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of
free speech." Noam Chomsky. A smart man, worth listening too, even if you
disagree.

~~~
evanlivingston
"Well what’s called libertarian in the United States, which is a special U. S.
phenomenon, it doesn’t really exist anywhere else — a little bit in England —
permits a very high level of authority and domination but in the hands of
private power: so private power should be unleashed to do whatever it likes.
The assumption is that by some kind of magic, concentrated private power will
lead to a more free and just society.

…that kind of libertarianism, in my view, in the current world, is just a call
for some of the worst kinds of tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny.
Anarchism is quite different from that. It calls for an elimination to
tyranny, all kinds of tyranny. Including the kind of tyranny that’s internal
to private power concentrations. So why should we prefer it? Well I think
because freedom is better than subordination. It’s better to be free than to
be a slave. Its’ better to be able to make your own decisions than to have
someone else make decisions and force you to observe them. I mean, I don’t
think you really need an argument for that. It seems like … transparent."

Noam Chomsky

~~~
ttoinou
There's so much wrong about NC and mainstream perception of classic liberalism
I don't even know where to begin.

There are some interesting topics of dispute between NC / Proudhon-like
anarchists and libertarians, but I don't see how this kind of quote achieves
anything in this regard. Libertarians don't advocate "concentrated" powers or
"tyranny" but acknowledge that hierarchy and subordination can develop in a
voluntarily way and think about the best meta-rules with which each society
groups can co-exist. Yes, large entities can occur - proof is with nation
states and big companies.

But I don't see how Chomsky fans can replace them with anything better, do you
? Theirs solutions generally involve the state taking a monopole about some
product / service or over regulations, leading to an even growing state and
big co (all of which are "tyranny", "concentrated powers", "domination",
"authority" they supposedly despise)

~~~
evanlivingston
But libertarian thought paves the way for concentrated power and even relies
upon it. Wealth, which libertarians believe can gotten from self-determination
alone, does not accrue without legally enforced property relations (state
monopolized justice/violence).

Self-determination without other anarchist values of mutual aid and solidarity
creates classist society. I don't want to live in a classist society. I don't
have an interest in a political critique which remains imminent to capitalist
values and society.

I'd also add that libertarian thought in practice leads to abhorrent entities
such as the Cato institute and the Atlas Network.

~~~
ttoinou
Could you care to explain how we could reduce "concentrated powers" ? It's not
enough to simply claim that libertarian or neoliberal are not anti-business
and hence facilitate concentrated powers, you have to explain to me a better
solution, how you would approach this issue.

    
    
       values of mutual aid and solidarity 
    

Isn't that what exchange, association and charity are about ? Theses are core
libertarian values.

~~~
evanlivingston
In my listening to and reading of libertarians the non-aggression principle is
of higher importance than aid and solidarity. The NAP is then extended to
property belonging to the individual such that property becomes prioritized
over other individuals: "That person is starving, but this is my property and
they have no right to it". When solidarity is taken as a core value it doesn't
provide an avenue for allowing one to starve while another has more wealth
than they need to provide for themselves.

My lack of providing an alternative doesn't negate my point that
libertarianism depends on state monopolization of certain rights, such as
violence towards others for the sake of property relations.

I think a reduction in concentration of power requires a cultural shift where
people cease to fetishize the accumulation of power a la money.

~~~
ttoinou
The NAP tries to draw a line between what people can do to each other in
society and hence what groups of people are able to do to each other ; it
doesn't tell you to not help the poor "because it's my property", it tells you
you have no right to steal from someone else under the pretense that you will
use the stolen resources to feed someone dying (Also, maybe the "duty to
rescue" is a fair legal way of dealing with small scale incidents like
theses), you have to convince that person to give you the resource to help the
other person. By doing so, she/he might discover others situations, have
compassion, get interested in those matters, get engaged just like you do
etc... Seems more fair to me for everyone.

And you can be libertarian and have the value to help other individuals,
theses values are not mutually exclusive.

Note : not all libertarian think with the NAP. I personally think it might be
a great intellectual construct and could be good to introduce libertarianism
to people ; but I'm not sure about how it could fit into our actual society
and laws. There's 200 years of very interesting classic liberalism philosophy
before Rand and Rothbard :)

    
    
       When solidarity is taken as a core value 
    

What do you mean by that ? Try to create some laws or use case, or give me a
link to people you read that talk about that ;)

    
    
       My lack of providing an alternative doesn't negate my point that libertarianism depends on state monopolization of certain rights, such as violence towards others for the sake of property relations.
    

Oh because the solution friends of Chomsky don't involve violence ? For
example running the whole economy through the visible hand of the friendly
politicians, as a mean to control society and be 100 % sure that no one dies
of hunger in the street.

~~~
ue_
>Oh because the solution friends of Chomsky don't involve violence ?

It probably does, just as capitalism was borne into this world with violence,
"soaked in blood" as Marx put it. The point however is that it does not rely
on violence to support property relations, beacuse anarchists generally view
such violence for the purpose of property as inhumane. I can't speak for
Chomsky personally.

>Seems more fair to me for everyone.

Arguably, it seems that property is "fair" only for the very few, and
especially not those who must rely on charity. What fairness is found in the
case of a man who cannot secure the bread to eat, for his wages are
surrendered to the capitalist, middleman and State for rent or tax? It's
always amusing to me this idea that in an anarcho-capitalist society, the
proponents always figure themselves to be capitalists, never the poor, the
dregs of society, the propertyless who live in hideous conditions.

>it tells you you have no right to steal from someone else under the pretense
that you will use the stolen resources to feed someone dying

Perhaps we have a different view of what is just, then. I would even agree
with you if we were talking about personal property. But we are not, we are
talking about private property, and I think that such an attitude is abhorrent
in the face of such conditions.

------
icomefromreddit
“ The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the
spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that
spectrum. „

Noam Chomsky, The Common Good

~~~
mjklin
This has been a feature of American society as long as there has been an
America. It was noted by Alexis de Tocqueville in 1835. There were strict
bounds on what people could discuss, though within those bounds they could say
what they liked. As opposed to, for example, English society, which
traditionally was more accepting of the eccentric (upperclass) oddball.

------
ttoinou
Here's an interesting excerpt from a Chris Marker documentary I found when I
was doing research about Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent at the time I was
still buying into his B.S. :
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN1XWKULjfQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN1XWKULjfQ)

~~~
ue_
>at the time I was still buying into his B.S.

Why do you think it's BS, out of interest? I'm not too familiar with the man
himself, though I am familiar with main social anarchist and Communist
thought.

>Here's an interesting excerpt from a Chris Marker documentary

Chomsky does not support the Soviet Union, and to my knowledge never has. He
also has no sympathy for Marxism-Leninism. He's more of a syndicalist/social
anarchist, so the video doesn't really fit in so well. Unless he used a
propaganda video himself, which would surprise me.

~~~
ttoinou
Chris Marker is a french cinematographer. His works is unregular but this
documentary (Letter from Siberia) is great. (Also, he is the author of the
photo movie La Jetée, here in english
[https://vimeo.com/46620661](https://vimeo.com/46620661), which inspired the
movie 12 Monkeys !). He has communist leaning from what I remember but it
doesn't feel like he's using cinema to convince you about his political
beliefs, and he doesn't defends USSR, although he is culturally very
interested in this country.

This excerpt is about media manipulation if you didn't understand it, it shows
how it feels to change the voice over and keep the same images.

    
    
      Why do you think it's BS, out of interest? 
    

Sorry I wasn't talking about this documentary, it's not that bad, what he says
in it is pretty obvious.

------
thatcat
Given the implications of the current precarious state of net neutrality and
the gawker case on independant news outlets, Compsky's analysis of traditional
news model as propaghanda is more relevant than ever.

