FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Noam Chomsky: The system we have is radically anti-capitalist

Noam Chomsky: The system we have is radically anti-capitalist

(17:04) American political journalist Chris Hedges interviews Noam Chomsky about the state of politics and society today.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SS.ATM (1173 days ago)

this is so true.

everybody on boreme should watch this.

ReplyVote up (190)down (162)
Original comment

this is so true.

everybody on boreme should watch this.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1171 days ago)

and certain people should watch it more than once

ReplyVote up (222)down (186)
Original comment

and certain people should watch it more than once

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SS.ATM (1170 days ago)

Are you referring to someone in particular?

ReplyVote up (209)down (161)
Original comment

Are you referring to someone in particular?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1170 days ago)

Absolutely.

Some people really need a reaity check much more than others.

ReplyVote up (209)down (174)
Original comment

Absolutely.

Some people really need a reaity check much more than others.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SS.ATM (1170 days ago)

but some people might think that it's us who actually need the reality check and that they're in the right. There's just no way our reality check will do anything to change their minds and us trying to do otherwise would be pointless and a waiste of time, don't you think?

ReplyVote up (133)down (151)
Original comment

but some people might think that it's us who actually need the reality check and that they're in the right. There's just no way our reality check will do anything to change their minds and us trying to do otherwise would be pointless and a waiste of time, don't you think?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1170 days ago)

That sort of person is obviously entitled to a point of view - no matter how misguided they are.

I'd suggest more enlightened people appreciate there is no objective "reality" and are open to the possibility that the one they have been working with could benefit from a different perspective.

Sadly not everyone is enlightened. Some are so hide-bound they have to peddle their elitist and perverted ideology at every opportunity, desperately trying to "educate" others into sharing the nonsense they use to justify their self-centred behaviours.

However, given the clarity and evident truth of Chomsky's world view, I can't imagine anyone trying to argue with it. Surely no sensible person could disagree.

ReplyVote up (169)down (181)
Original comment

That sort of person is obviously entitled to a point of view - no matter how misguided they are.

I'd suggest more enlightened people appreciate there is no objective "reality" and are open to the possibility that the one they have been working with could benefit from a different perspective.

Sadly not everyone is enlightened. Some are so hide-bound they have to peddle their elitist and perverted ideology at every opportunity, desperately trying to "educate" others into sharing the nonsense they use to justify their self-centred behaviours.

However, given the clarity and evident truth of Chomsky's world view, I can't imagine anyone trying to argue with it. Surely no sensible person could disagree.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SS.ATM (1170 days ago)
Latest comment:

I partly agree, but i also feel the need to point out the fact that some people might see themselves as the enlightened ones who do appreciate that there is no objective "reality", but, at the same time, see in chomsky's view just an oppinion that is worth as much as any other human beings oppinion, and will also assume that the other person's oppinion is misguided, which will spark the educative flame that determines said people into providing their "more quallified" oppinion so that the misguided proletariat can bennefit from the knowledge offered by hard working, non lazy, smart, educated, honest, successful members of civilised society... instead of mucking about in their own lazy, uneducated, ignorant, genetically inferior filth of a perspective. Such a person might use his or hers flawed (or correct) logic to argue that the people who's oppinion's differ from their own are actually the ones who are trying "to peddle their elitist and perverted ideology at every opportunity, desperately trying to "educate" others into sharing the nonsense they use to justify their self-centred behaviours."

Some people might even argue that the clarity of chomsky's world view is not clear at all and that no evidence has been brough forth in this video to support our MIT professor's oppinion, and might even argue that no sensible person will ever agree to it.

Therefore sir, my position on this matter is that the attempt to attract such people into -what is intended to be- a honest debate that will bring enlightenment and a better understanding on the topic in question to all participants, will backfire in such a way that will determine some members of the debate to lose their composure and to no longer consider that -what were intended to be- honest debates do more than waste one's time, since one of the parties involved is -either intentionally or unintentionally - Incapable to undersant the perspectives of others and starts resorting to subtle insults in order to determine -in a flawed logic type of way- "intelectual dominance" over the argument in question. (which was probabbly being discussed because the original debate subject was already hijacked several times before.)

I argue then, my dear sir, is it not more lucrative and efficient for us to try and detter such obfuscators from trying to stop us from reaching our goal, which is a better understanding on the world around us and how it came to be in the condition that it is today? Are we not faster at achieving this goal if we are to remove the missinformation provided by provnely dishonest and morally corrupt individuals?

I argue, my dear sir, that we must not hold respect for such people and that entertaining them is counterproductive to society as a whole. I hope you do agree.

ReplyVote up (177)down (176)
Original comment
Latest comment:

I partly agree, but i also feel the need to point out the fact that some people might see themselves as the enlightened ones who do appreciate that there is no objective "reality", but, at the same time, see in chomsky's view just an oppinion that is worth as much as any other human beings oppinion, and will also assume that the other person's oppinion is misguided, which will spark the educative flame that determines said people into providing their "more quallified" oppinion so that the misguided proletariat can bennefit from the knowledge offered by hard working, non lazy, smart, educated, honest, successful members of civilised society... instead of mucking about in their own lazy, uneducated, ignorant, genetically inferior filth of a perspective. Such a person might use his or hers flawed (or correct) logic to argue that the people who's oppinion's differ from their own are actually the ones who are trying "to peddle their elitist and perverted ideology at every opportunity, desperately trying to "educate" others into sharing the nonsense they use to justify their self-centred behaviours."

Some people might even argue that the clarity of chomsky's world view is not clear at all and that no evidence has been brough forth in this video to support our MIT professor's oppinion, and might even argue that no sensible person will ever agree to it.

Therefore sir, my position on this matter is that the attempt to attract such people into -what is intended to be- a honest debate that will bring enlightenment and a better understanding on the topic in question to all participants, will backfire in such a way that will determine some members of the debate to lose their composure and to no longer consider that -what were intended to be- honest debates do more than waste one's time, since one of the parties involved is -either intentionally or unintentionally - Incapable to undersant the perspectives of others and starts resorting to subtle insults in order to determine -in a flawed logic type of way- "intelectual dominance" over the argument in question. (which was probabbly being discussed because the original debate subject was already hijacked several times before.)

I argue then, my dear sir, is it not more lucrative and efficient for us to try and detter such obfuscators from trying to stop us from reaching our goal, which is a better understanding on the world around us and how it came to be in the condition that it is today? Are we not faster at achieving this goal if we are to remove the missinformation provided by provnely dishonest and morally corrupt individuals?

I argue, my dear sir, that we must not hold respect for such people and that entertaining them is counterproductive to society as a whole. I hope you do agree.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: George Carlin (1172 days ago)

"It's a big club and you ain't in it" G.C.

LINK

ReplyVote up (230)down (210)
Original comment

"It's a big club and you ain't in it" G.C.

LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
The Real News - Climate change is creating an infrastructure crisis
The Real News - Climate change is creating an infrastructure crisis
Yanis Varoufakis - Basic Income is a necessity
Yanis Varoufakis - Basic Income is a necessity
Richard Wolff - When the capitalist economy fails, blame foreigners
Richard Wolff - When the capitalist economy fails, blame foreigners
Richard Wolff - Contradictions in capitalism
Richard Wolff - Contradictions in capitalism
Michael Hudson on the Orwellian turn in today's economics
Michael Hudson on the Orwellian turn in today's economics