You have no poor conception of Democracia for not voting. I am thankful to Mr Chomsky and I beg him to pardon me for my hard criticism sometimes. Gratefulness, thankfulness. Bitte Teilt Euch wieder und weiter mit bis Erfolgung der Warheit und der Politischen Freiheit und der Gerichtlichen Haftung der Schuldig, please reshare, Veuillez repartager s'il vous plait, por favor tomai consciência e recompartilhai. Gratidão.
Maybe I didn't understand the question in the full context of which this is a snipet, but we still have a representative democracy in which votes elect our representatives. So if we want change it is the citizens responsibility to join with others of like mind to convince more to vote for your candidate supporting your issue. Sure it is messy, perhaps lengthy and frustrating, but it can be effective. However, if Chomsky meant that such organizing was being done, candidates promising change on the issue reneged when elected, then perhaps its true that one's vote isn't important and we don't have a democracy.
We only have a representative democracy on paper. If we want to vote for people against corporate interest there is either voter suppression or assassination. "If voting changed anything, it would be illegal."- Emma Goldman
The establishment, this includes the corporate media, are so heavily influenced by the 1% that any viable candidate for change has so many hurdles placed ahead of them. Take for example Hilary Clinton vs Bernie Sanders, I bet you can easily guess which was the establishment choice.
The question is does organizing work? For example, your Congressional district is probably red, or blue by around 10%. Suppose you organize around a key issue and persuade 10% of the majority to switch sides. You've now frustrated the money donors by negating their influence and changing the seat. The next step is whether the new Representative does deliver on his promises to your bloc. If not she becomes a one term wonder. The 1% sow fear, uncertainty and doubt to make it confusing and difficult to organize enough dedicated workers. However, if the issue is important I believe enough will listen and work together to achieve the 10%+ within any district.
![ตีสิบเดย์ [FULL] | อาจารย์โอเล่ ญาณสัมผัส ผ่าดวงคนดัง ประเทศไทยจะเป็นยังไงหลังจากนี้!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gszT2O76fL4/mqdefault.jpg)
The nature of the system is the problem Noam is spot on ,neoliberalism in its current structure is inherently undemocratic.
We can vote as long as they pick the candidates.
Thankfulness. Gratefulness.
Until economic institutions are run under a democratic model, how can we expect government institutions to be genuinely democratic? #socialism2016
Just remove their control over the economy and then companies will have no incentive to hire politicians.
I can barely hear what he's saying. Upload with higher volume when upload Noam videos! It's like listening to Salad Fingers.
You have no poor conception of Democracia for not voting. I am thankful to Mr Chomsky and I beg him to pardon me for my hard criticism sometimes. Gratefulness, thankfulness. Bitte Teilt Euch wieder und weiter mit bis Erfolgung der Warheit und der Politischen Freiheit und der Gerichtlichen Haftung der Schuldig, please reshare, Veuillez repartager s'il vous plait, por favor tomai consciência e recompartilhai. Gratidão.
Maybe I didn't understand the question in the full context of which this is a snipet, but we still have a representative democracy in which votes elect our representatives. So if we want change it is the citizens responsibility to join with others of like mind to convince more to vote for your candidate supporting your issue. Sure it is messy, perhaps lengthy and frustrating, but it can be effective. However, if Chomsky meant that such organizing was being done, candidates promising change on the issue reneged when elected, then perhaps its true that one's vote isn't important and we don't have a democracy.
We only have a representative democracy on paper. If we want to vote for people against corporate interest there is either voter suppression or assassination. "If voting changed anything, it would be illegal."- Emma Goldman
The establishment, this includes the corporate media, are so heavily influenced by the 1% that any viable candidate for change has so many hurdles placed ahead of them. Take for example Hilary Clinton vs Bernie Sanders, I bet you can easily guess which was the establishment choice.
The question is does organizing work? For example, your Congressional district is probably red, or blue by around 10%. Suppose you organize around a key issue and persuade 10% of the majority to switch sides. You've now frustrated the money donors by negating their influence and changing the seat. The next step is whether the new Representative does deliver on his promises to your bloc. If not she becomes a one term wonder. The 1% sow fear, uncertainty and doubt to make it confusing and difficult to organize enough dedicated workers. However, if the issue is important I believe enough will listen and work together to achieve the 10%+ within any district.
In simple words, your assumption that collectivizing is inherent to democracy and a responsibility of the citizen, is wrong.
@@loveanimals-0197 why?
Good info
1:116 steve chidwick in the audience!!
He vote for epstein.....
What