Babak G our society values people on what they produce or consume. so people invest their lives gaining meaning aka wealth. this Al translates to transforming the real world through clear-cutting, mining, building damns to validate a human psychological need, the destruction of the most resilient life system into dead consumer products.
fishlips54 It's been 4 months since you made that comment, and I'm still waiting for an infrastructure bill. Trump also still has nothing but neocons and Goldman Sachs bankers in his cabinet.
It’s not human nature, it’s human behaviour. We are products of our environment. In other words, to change behaviour we must change the environment. Capitalism in this case. Not true capitalism but capitalism in so far as we know it.
2:10 public needs are down for decades 2:45 don't bother boycotting, it's irrelevant to the powerful, wealthy people 3:03 instead, change the structure of power 3:50 the ultimate question: who is in control of democracy? 4:05 workers insecurity 4:20 compare to past insecurities 4:55 society is made to feel helpless 5:30 your not helpless, history repeats itself: 1920's, 1950's and today
@@ephemera... What happened in 2008 was more criminal than cyclical. For many segments, there has also been a steady decline in real income. Our fiat currency is a house of cards.
@@Sagittarius-81 but at the same time, Chomsky´s wisdom tends to be timeless. I've watched about a dozens of videos of hims speaking. 10, 20, 30 years old, doesn´t, they were all mostly relatable in today's context. His answers, or perhaps the problems themselves are universal, everlasting. We haven´t changed that much.
Modern Socrates - and circa 8 bln prisoners inside Plato’s 2.0 Cave. 😐Consumerism is definitely the ultimate social disaster invented by the self-proclaimed Homo ‘sapiens’. (‘Sapiens’!!!)
For words spoken so long ago, this is still so accurate. We have gotten completely sucked into a tornado of greed and debt, and we can't recognize the difference between want and need anymore.
My favorite was a cubic foot of stainless steel, with a heater in it, called the Coney Island Hog Dog Maker. That's all it did, cooked weiners Cooney Island style, but it also had a compartment, that steamed the buns. It was sold as a home kitchen electric device. Every home needs one.
For a long time I think I've misunderstood anti-consumerism. I did not want to live a spartan life. I wanted modern conveniences and dismissed anti-consumerism. Only as I got older did I reflect upon the fact that so much of the stuff I buy is of such poor quality. It breaks within short time and I have to buy new stuff. I've been into computers and electronics for many years and notice that while there are real improvements, there is a lot which is just pointless gimmick. We get new smart phones all through the year, although we the improvements are rather minor. Instead companies hype all sort of stuff giving an emotional drive for us to buy stuff. It is illustrative that a pretty useless App like WhatsApp or Instagram is worth more than a rocket building company of the stock exchange.
Toasters & Heaters that melt their own plastics, mobile phones that last for a max of 18 months, laptops getting malfunctions just after 6 months of their purchase..... 🙄 😣😔
@@anirudhkumar4507 may we hope someone invents batteries that last a long time (lifespan/charge cycles) that also are implemented by quality-oriented companies
this is really not true about electronics and computers and really speaks to how electrical engineering is one of the most unseen and unappreciated professions despite being one of the most impactful on your life
I heard things like this 50 years ago. There was a lot of talk about planned obsolescence....and it just continued. Welcome Nike with its sweat shops and steep markups. What we need is an economy that is commanded by the actual needs of the people, that is democratic.
It isn't profitable to make durable things and offer decent customer service. Better to sell something that needs replaced. Better to make it difficult to make returns or complaints.
@@BeaverChainsaw I don’t think it matters too much whether the public’s money is spent on a few high tech commodities or many of low value, as long as it’s relatively the same percentage of GDP. That’s what really matters; what percentage of public wealth is being directed towards obsolete economic activity, leading it to be accumulated by private wealth? Actually, a reverse argument could be made that the process of misdirecting public wealth is at least serving the economy as a function of developing more advanced computer technology, even if very inefficiently. Then it can be seen as a way for private interest to bypass government and the entire process of tax dollar allocation and get straight to deciding for themselves exactly what the advancements in technology are that public money funds.
The window of time it takes Nike to put out a new pair of sneakers has shrunk from 6 weeks to almost every other day. It's gotten to a point where they're running out of different color combinations to release new shoes in and have resorted to minuscule variations, mystic blue is "new" compared to royal blue.
The term 'consumerism' itself imo seems to lay blame on 'the people who consume', when the real problem lies with the industry that makes us helplessly greedy.
The industry leaders do know all too well how the human mind secretly works, I’m afraid… Bernays’ manipulation theories based on Freud’s study of the unconscious… Nope for the most doomed species ever
You can only manipulate me if I let you. If I'm aware of what you are doing and I don't fall for it..... you are powerless. Being greedy is a choice. Only weak people are "helplessly" greedy. So it's not just industry, it's the consumer as well.
@@flovv4580 They want us/me/you to believe that frame. Industry has a lot more power to manipulate than the consumer has to deny that power, it's never a level playing field. that's exactly the treacherous frame upheld by BigMoney.
I do like the epicurean philosophy to enjoy the hell out of what you enjoy just strive to make that happiness come from something easily obtained. My fellow humans needs less desire for consumption. My economy needs exponentially more desire for consumerism. It'll come to a front at some point. The fall of capitalism? Can we adapt?
Yeah exactly. Capitalism has no significant tendency to reduce desire overall (just specific desires, such as the desire for public programmes as Chomsky discusses here), and for the most part has the chronic and probably intrinsic tendency to manufacture desires. Since an essential part of well-being is limiting desire, I don't see how capitalism is particularly compatible with human flourishing even just on this basis. If we do accept that the purpose of a social system should be to facilitate human flourishing and contentment. We need an economic system which doesn't militate against our deep human need to limit our desires. Not in an ascetic way, but to get most of our enjoyment from the simple, ordinary, things, without constantly scrabbling for newer, bigger, wackier, shinier, more, more, more. You'll never see a billboard which says 'learn to dwell calmly in the present, happiness is readily at hand, look first toward your inner resources for peace, then to loved ones'.
Sadly it seems that we move more and more towards quantity over quality (and to some extent cheap over less cheap). Advertisement and aggressive marketing even ruin the minds of those capable of critical thinking.
Good point that attacking consumerism, while it may be a useful *tactic* for getting people to think about their situation, it will not do anything to alter the underlying structures. Similarly, "living sustainably," while legitimate from an ethical standpoint, will do next to nothing to solve the climate crisis. The only EFFECTIVE way to solve the climate crisis is through collective political activism that challenges corporate power.
The only part of that I take issue with that is that the rules of economics and the market are irrelevant or nonexistent. When those rules are disregarded without giving the Devil his due, that is when countries of excess become lands of privation and destitution.
A certain person who sent this to me in suggestion I watch it is a big consumer of BEER. HI TRACY in the last 2 years lets see my major purchases were a new hot water tank a furnace replaced a roof also an air conditioner a refrigerator lets see tons of paint and equipment to do so .Then there is your every day necessities. Oh have another beer and look for recognition in the mirror. Just had to get that out there.
Who decides? But the consumers decide. Consumerism has come to the point, where the consumer prefers the possibility to purchase rather than to have power.
Norm says at one point that current conditions, "...could lead to facism, or it could lead to something else." I am uncertain when this speech was given, but with the election of Trump we do indeed have a type of fascism in the USA. Hopefully the checks and balances built into the government will not allow Trump to go further than he has for he is indeed a fascist by nature. ( Fascism is the elevation of the state and military over the individual.) The Congress and the Supreme Court are suppossed to provide checks and balances against Presidential over reach. They are not at present doing their job.
James Dunn I think we’ve seen some of that. Especially in the early days of the Trump Administration bumping his head up against some fairly solid institutions eg. High Court, Congress and some parts of the media. Which is not to say that every thing is hunky dory. It was just interesting to observe from the relative distance of Australia Particularly in the early months of Trump’s presidency.
I like that he's not promoting a left wing or socialist agenda....he's just logical and incredible knowledgeable and makes such clear statements...brilliant to listen to
@@yxngraspy3291 You are an idiot. If that's what you get from him, you are listening selectively and not understanding a lot. Since it's obviously over your head, I'd go find another hobby.
His agenda is socialist. It's just that mainstream perception (and what i assume is your perception) of what 'socialist' means is distorted by the two biggest propaganda machines of modern history: the Soviet Union's and the USA's. Democratic control over means of production (real democracy) is socialism.
Kaeben He’s an anarcho-syndicalist. You can convince yourself with whatever neutral thinking and “passive politics” you want, but so long the critical (and self-critical) left has been the voice of reason.
He is an an-syndicalist, that’s almost the further left you can go. Which is good. You have been brainwashed with false perceptions of what socialism and anarchy are.
He was talking about the economy being "in a rotten state" and economists speculating why? In 1998? The 90s were a booming period for the US. I wonder what those same people are saying now with a 2% growth rate.
He meant the average person's thoughts about the economy. He's talked many times about how while it's shit for the middle and lower classes the elite are celebrating their profits. Again...it was only "booming" for a small section of elite wealth in the 90's. Everyone else were losing real wage levels and life was getting harder under neo liberal economic policies.
You must be a child. There was no "boom" under Reagan. Same as it's always been. The elite got rich and everyone else got fucked. Especially the middle class. Reagan was one of the great destroyers of the middle class. Along with Bush, and Clinton, and Obama. The only place in which Reagan's bullshit trickle down nonsense was a success was in the minds of moronic free market fantasists.
Consumerism wouldn't shift it would have to be shafted-and-shunted and that won't have en masse in both the so-called developed urbanised post-industrialised western world/western world/first-world and in the so-called under-developed/developing ruralised industrialising/industrialised eastern world/eastern world/third-world
There are two young fish swimming along who happen to meet an older fish. The older fish nods at them and says: ‘Morning boys, how’s the water?’ The two young fish swim on for a bit and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and asks: ‘What the hell is water?’
Like he points out, if an individual does not participate in consumerism, nothing changes. The system needs to change. Does the system change when people that do not agree with the "modernist" cultures simply move? What happens when those that are aware move to let's say some African countries or Kyrgyzstan. Isnt 95% of the world capitalist at this point?
@@johnmitchell2741 not even close: he understands how to profit off consumerism while pretending to be above it all so he can impress the easily impressed. Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." - Thomas Sowell
Who decides what people want other than people themselves? Chomsky's view is essentially people don't really want what he thinks that they shouldn't want.
I've read a marketing textbook, it's about how to manipulate people using psychology to get them to do what you want. It openly talks about using classical conditioning, operant conditioning, understanding different personality types and life motivations, etc.
strawman argument. "war doesnt make people happy" oh who am i to decide what people want? nonsense. we can clearly argue and give our opinion and back it up with reason and arguments. you arent surpressing people by that. marketing, systemic pressure, social pressure etc makes people buy things they dont really need. if you really need 25 pieces of clothing in half a year okay, but i argue most definitely dont and rather do it for named reasons. i mean you can extend your argument basically towards every systemic and general criticism? oh people dont want dictatorship? who are you to judge that.
I love this guy but, watching this... I wonder, who made his tie, his shirt, his watch, his glasses. I hate consumerism but, I want to know how to change.
+RyanBurke Even then, there must been craftspeople behind the original production, who need compensation so that they can pay their rent etc. You seem to have missed the point of drew barbee's statement.
He specifically talked about essentials, a watch, a fridge, a shirt and maybe even a tie fall into that category but a huge assortment of lollies and a new pair of Nike shoes and a new smart phone every 2 years is not essential.
@@SnobbishbumpkinApparently, you mean that text cannot be critically examined but only superficially presented in a "debate" (a spectacle for sales people). Chomsky did not avoid Friedman (a dabbler) in life, make up matters not in the text, nor wave his arms. No dabbler will address the content of Chomsky's text. th-cam.com/video/gcKVv0OJbpQ/w-d-xo.html
@@aguilayserpiente''i dont think the ability to succeed in a system of competition isnt much of a value''. Being competent isnt a value to chomsky i dont see the point in why would jordan lose against a man who thinks compentency isnt a value . Being a good person isnt good enough is one of the cores of jbp lectures .
@@Snobbishbumpkin What you wrote is incoherent. What text from Chomsky is the basis for your assertion? Not even Adam Smith makes the contentions that you offer. To the contrary, Adam Smith explains that political and economic power of the dominant class is/are the result of combination of the owners within the business class, i.e. the state is a tool of capital for concentration of wealth in the hands of the class of owners: What are the common wages of labour, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties (workers and capitalists), whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as *little* as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labour. It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can *combine* much more easily; and the *law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, a merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a *month*, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate. We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is *as ignorant* of the world as of the subject. Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Cause of the Wealth of Nations, (1776) Book I, Ch. 8, §12-13 All laws are made for the benefit of the business class, including token settlements like $1200 to silence workers: The order of proprietors may, perhaps, gain more by the prosperity of the society than that of labourers: but there is no order that suffers so cruelly from its decline. But though the interest of the labourer is strictly connected with that of the society, he is *incapable either of comprehending that interest or of understanding its connection with his own*. His . . . *education and habits* are commonly such as to render him *unfit* to judge even though he was fully informed. In the public deliberations, therefore, his voice is little heard and *less* regarded, except upon some particular occasions, when his clamour is animated, set on and *supported by his employers, not for his, but their own particular purposes.* His employers constitute the third order, that of those who live by profit. It is the stock that is employed for the sake of profit which puts into motion the greater part of the useful labour of every society. The plans and projects of the employers of stock *regulate* and direct all the most important operations of labour, and profit is the end proposed by all those plans and projects. But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin. The interest of this third order, therefore, has not the same connection with the general interest of the society as that of the other two. Merchants and master manufacturers are, in this order, the two classes of people who commonly employ the largest capitals, and who by their wealth draw to themselves the greatest share of the *public* consideration. . . As their thoughts, however, are commonly exercised rather about the interest of their own particular branch of business, than about that of the society, their judgment, even when given with the greatest candour. . . The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even *opposite* to, that of the public. To *widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers.* To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. Id. Ch. 11, ¶¶261-262.
Would rather have the absurdity of choice than tyranny of Central command economy. Have you thought about that? People actually want (not need) the new useless thing in fashion. Free to choose always wins over the intellectuals deeming what is good for us.
nonsense. its exactly that "either or" nonsense years of marketing and propaganda shove in our heads. its no either or question. i also nonsense to shut down valid criticism and basic logical thoughts because some people feel a need for something. you dont need a tyranny of central command economy to not buy 25 pieces of clothing half a year. you can clearly see the propaganda here. also i dont think peopler seriously want that stuff. they feel the need to for many reasons. we cant ignore these factors.
False dichotomy. We don't need the avalanche of useless stuff that is relentlessly marketed at us. And the alternative to that is not a command economy, but a democratically organized one, which is the opposite of a command economy.
What an absurd theory. No shit, everybody is going to want a fridge, and socks. Those ARE BASIC NEEDS! People don't only want basic stuff, and will always also want random crap that will put a smile on their face. It's called being human, and not being some freaking robot that just lives on essential items.
So random crap puts a smile on your face and that's normal and good? I wonder how people survived ten thousands of years before industrial revolutions. I guess, they weren't human.
Can't believe this was 25 years ago. Wow and we still have the same problem and it's gotten worse.
March 19, 1998
Babak G our society values people on what they produce or consume. so people invest their lives gaining meaning aka wealth. this Al translates to transforming the real world through clear-cutting, mining, building damns to validate a human psychological need, the destruction of the most resilient life system into dead consumer products.
And Trump gets guff from MSM because he wants to spend on infrastructure. See, MSM just wants to hose the average American.
fishlips54 It's been 4 months since you made that comment, and I'm still waiting for an infrastructure bill. Trump also still has nothing but neocons and Goldman Sachs bankers in his cabinet.
Let me understand this correctly you were expecting consumerism to DECREASE in the future?
Chomsky throwing shade on The Gap is something I didn't know I needed, but I'm glad I heard it
“Idk, I think they sell jeans or something.” - Noam Chomsky
It saddens me this is 25 years ago......A great mind and great man....getting older....breaks my heart...
March 19, 1998
(I know it's irrelevant to your point, but a factual correction never hurts)
Noam makes me puke his socialist Soylent green slime.
25 years ago now.
Trillion dollars a year of marketing, meanwhile people can’t afford groceries. There is something very evil inside of man.
Indeed😊
It’s not human nature, it’s human behaviour. We are products of our environment.
In other words, to change behaviour we must change the environment. Capitalism in this case. Not true capitalism but capitalism in so far as we know it.
2:10 public needs are down for decades
2:45 don't bother boycotting, it's irrelevant to the powerful, wealthy people
3:03 instead, change the structure of power
3:50 the ultimate question: who is in control of democracy?
4:05 workers insecurity
4:20 compare to past insecurities
4:55 society is made to feel helpless
5:30 your not helpless, history repeats itself: 1920's, 1950's and today
80s too. Seems like every 30 years
Capitalism with it’s cycles of boom and bust.
@@ephemera... What happened in 2008 was more criminal than cyclical. For many segments, there has also been a steady decline in real income. Our fiat currency is a house of cards.
@@coreycox2345 lol 2008 is chump change to what will happen in 2020 in a world wide scale, not just american being robbed blind.
@@elijahmendez4107I worry that you are correct.
I like this channel; but I wish you'd note, for each clip, the date and location where the remarks are being made.
Agreed. Chomsky's career is long; hard to put it all into context.
The footage looks like it's from the early 90s.
@@Sagittarius-81 but at the same time, Chomsky´s wisdom tends to be timeless. I've watched about a dozens of videos of hims speaking. 10, 20, 30 years old, doesn´t, they were all mostly relatable in today's context. His answers, or perhaps the problems themselves are universal, everlasting. We haven´t changed that much.
The source video looks like it says the clip is from 1998. And btw i agree
@@Sagittarius-81
And it also continues
I really like Noam hey. I might disagree with him on some minutia.. but.. seriously.. what a fucking legend.
True!! You can have your disagreements but this man is a fucking legend! I'd say the greatest mind of our time!!
Modern Socrates - and circa 8 bln prisoners inside Plato’s 2.0 Cave. 😐Consumerism is definitely the ultimate social disaster invented by the self-proclaimed Homo ‘sapiens’. (‘Sapiens’!!!)
I was going to say nothing has changed...this video is still relevant gold.
For words spoken so long ago, this is still so accurate. We have gotten completely sucked into a tornado of greed and debt, and we can't recognize the difference between want and need anymore.
That is why they are doing this, to get us to buy crap just to keep up the GDP up, no matter what the cost to us all.
My favorite was a cubic foot of stainless steel, with a heater in it, called the Coney Island Hog Dog Maker. That's all it did, cooked weiners Cooney Island style, but it also had a compartment, that steamed the buns. It was sold as a home kitchen electric device. Every home needs one.
I feel like I do need one now. It’s working.
"private industry isn't going to make profit out of those".
Exactly. This is why the world is falling apart.
For a long time I think I've misunderstood anti-consumerism. I did not want to live a spartan life. I wanted modern conveniences and dismissed anti-consumerism. Only as I got older did I reflect upon the fact that so much of the stuff I buy is of such poor quality. It breaks within short time and I have to buy new stuff. I've been into computers and electronics for many years and notice that while there are real improvements, there is a lot which is just pointless gimmick. We get new smart phones all through the year, although we the improvements are rather minor. Instead companies hype all sort of stuff giving an emotional drive for us to buy stuff. It is illustrative that a pretty useless App like WhatsApp or Instagram is worth more than a rocket building company of the stock exchange.
Toasters & Heaters that melt their own plastics, mobile phones that last for a max of 18 months, laptops getting malfunctions just after 6 months of their purchase..... 🙄 😣😔
@@anirudhkumar4507 may we hope someone invents batteries that last a long time (lifespan/charge cycles) that also are implemented by quality-oriented companies
this is really not true about electronics and computers and really speaks to how electrical engineering is one of the most unseen and unappreciated professions despite being one of the most impactful on your life
@@declansnyder2281 as soon as the corporate part of business (or non technical managers for that matter) takes the lead, it most likely goes to shit.
@@RubenKemp Thats all of the time and how well a company does depends on how competent everyone is, business people and engineering alike
I heard things like this 50 years ago. There was a lot of talk about planned obsolescence....and it just continued. Welcome Nike with its sweat shops and steep markups. What we need is an economy that is commanded by the actual needs of the people, that is democratic.
and now with cell phones and computers, planned obsolence is way scarier since they cost a lot
It isn't profitable to make durable things and offer decent customer service. Better to sell something that needs replaced. Better to make it difficult to make returns or complaints.
@@BeaverChainsaw I don’t think it matters too much whether the public’s money is spent on a few high tech commodities or many of low value, as long as it’s relatively the same percentage of GDP. That’s what really matters; what percentage of public wealth is being directed towards obsolete economic activity, leading it to be accumulated by private wealth? Actually, a reverse argument could be made that the process of misdirecting public wealth is at least serving the economy as a function of developing more advanced computer technology, even if very inefficiently. Then it can be seen as a way for private interest to bypass government and the entire process of tax dollar allocation and get straight to deciding for themselves exactly what the advancements in technology are that public money funds.
The window of time it takes Nike to put out a new pair of sneakers has shrunk from 6 weeks to almost every other day. It's gotten to a point where they're running out of different color combinations to release new shoes in and have resorted to minuscule variations, mystic blue is "new" compared to royal blue.
ty for the u/l and the source.
Thank You
87k views in 4 years. Tell you a lot about people in general.
@Jeff Whitman i enjoy cat videos :3
@Jeff Whitman :3 meow
@Jeff Whitman fuck them ice caps
The term 'consumerism' itself imo seems to lay blame on 'the people who consume', when the real problem lies with the industry that makes us helplessly greedy.
The industry leaders do know all too well how the human mind secretly works, I’m afraid… Bernays’ manipulation theories based on Freud’s study of the unconscious… Nope for the most doomed species ever
You can only manipulate me if I let you. If I'm aware of what you are doing and I don't fall for it..... you are powerless. Being greedy is a choice. Only weak people are "helplessly" greedy.
So it's not just industry, it's the consumer as well.
@@flovv4580 They want us/me/you to believe that frame. Industry has a lot more power to manipulate than the consumer has to deny that power, it's never a level playing field. that's exactly the treacherous frame upheld by BigMoney.
Ohhh I haven't seen this lecture. Thanks for the link to the source.
Hope you received my message containing a suggestion :)
Hi. Thanks for your suggestions. They all got caught in the spam filter, so I didn’t notice them until now. I'll check them out.
Long live Chomsky.
this has to be over 20 years old wow
Just how cute is Chomsky not knowing what GAP is🤣
His voice has changed so much
Fucking 28 Years Ago !!!!!
When i Was (-5) Years Old
fucking crazy to hear him talking about infrastructure going down lol; look at us now, pop!
Loose liquidity---credit card economy is driving economy insane😀😀😀
wont do much. the underlying problem remains and people find ways to keep going
some said,:''nowdays west is not satisfying the needs but producing'' ...big enviromental and sociological problem
The Chomsky the human GOAT
I do like the epicurean philosophy to enjoy the hell out of what you enjoy just strive to make that happiness come from something easily obtained. My fellow humans needs less desire for consumption. My economy needs exponentially more desire for consumerism. It'll come to a front at some point. The fall of capitalism? Can we adapt?
Yeah exactly. Capitalism has no significant tendency to reduce desire overall (just specific desires, such as the desire for public programmes as Chomsky discusses here), and for the most part has the chronic and probably intrinsic tendency to manufacture desires. Since an essential part of well-being is limiting desire, I don't see how capitalism is particularly compatible with human flourishing even just on this basis. If we do accept that the purpose of a social system should be to facilitate human flourishing and contentment.
We need an economic system which doesn't militate against our deep human need to limit our desires. Not in an ascetic way, but to get most of our enjoyment from the simple, ordinary, things, without constantly scrabbling for newer, bigger, wackier, shinier, more, more, more.
You'll never see a billboard which says 'learn to dwell calmly in the present, happiness is readily at hand, look first toward your inner resources for peace, then to loved ones'.
Sadly it seems that we move more and more towards quantity over quality (and to some extent cheap over less cheap). Advertisement and aggressive marketing even ruin the minds of those capable of critical thinking.
He was around when his parents got a fridge
It can be beneficial from environmental point of view.
Good point that attacking consumerism, while it may be a useful *tactic* for getting people to think about their situation, it will not do anything to alter the underlying structures.
Similarly, "living sustainably," while legitimate from an ethical standpoint, will do next to nothing to solve the climate crisis. The only EFFECTIVE way to solve the climate crisis is through collective political activism that challenges corporate power.
People are consumed with designers that are just materials
The only part of that I take issue with that is that the rules of economics and the market are irrelevant or nonexistent.
When those rules are disregarded without giving the Devil his due, that is when countries of excess become lands of privation and destitution.
Why is it almost every video of Chomsky you can barely hear him speak ☹️
A certain person who sent this to me in suggestion I watch it is a big consumer of BEER. HI TRACY in the last 2 years lets see my major purchases were a new hot water tank a furnace replaced a roof also an air conditioner a refrigerator lets see tons of paint and equipment to do so .Then there is your every day necessities. Oh have another beer and look for recognition in the mirror. Just had to get that out there.
Who decides? But the consumers decide. Consumerism has come to the point, where the consumer prefers the possibility to purchase rather than to have power.
Sam Walton: Only one person can fire the CEO of a corporation. That is the customer!
He was wrong. The stockholders can fire the CEO and do it all the time.
Apple addiction
an apple product a day keeps the revolution away
Norm says at one point that current conditions, "...could lead to facism, or it could lead to something else." I am uncertain when this speech was given, but with the election of Trump we do indeed have a type of fascism in the USA. Hopefully the checks and balances built into the government will not allow Trump to go further than he has for he is indeed a fascist by nature. ( Fascism is the elevation of the state and military over the individual.) The Congress and the Supreme Court are suppossed to provide checks and balances against Presidential over reach. They are not at present doing their job.
James Dunn I think we’ve seen some of that. Especially in the early days of the Trump Administration bumping his head up against some fairly solid institutions eg. High Court, Congress and some parts of the media.
Which is not to say that every thing is hunky dory.
It was just interesting to observe from the relative distance of Australia Particularly in the early months of Trump’s presidency.
And his presidency has caused real suffering for marginalised and vulnerable people.
And yes fascism is on the rise globally.
Erih Maria Remark
I like that he's not promoting a left wing or socialist agenda....he's just logical and incredible knowledgeable and makes such clear statements...brilliant to listen to
this is the left wing socialist agenda lol
@@yxngraspy3291 You are an idiot. If that's what you get from him, you are listening selectively and not understanding a lot. Since it's obviously over your head, I'd go find another hobby.
His agenda is socialist. It's just that mainstream perception (and what i assume is your perception) of what 'socialist' means is distorted by the two biggest propaganda machines of modern history: the Soviet Union's and the USA's. Democratic control over means of production (real democracy) is socialism.
Kaeben He’s an anarcho-syndicalist. You can convince yourself with whatever neutral thinking and “passive politics” you want, but so long the critical (and self-critical) left has been the voice of reason.
He is an an-syndicalist, that’s almost the further left you can go. Which is good. You have been brainwashed with false perceptions of what socialism and anarchy are.
Cognitive decline gets worse year on year.
More consumerism.
Oh gee let's spend more on public shit.
He was talking about the economy being "in a rotten state" and economists speculating why? In 1998? The 90s were a booming period for the US. I wonder what those same people are saying now with a 2% growth rate.
He meant the average person's thoughts about the economy. He's talked many times about how while it's shit for the middle and lower classes the elite are celebrating their profits. Again...it was only "booming" for a small section of elite wealth in the 90's. Everyone else were losing real wage levels and life was getting harder under neo liberal economic policies.
It was still nothing compared to the 80s boom under Reagan.
You must be a child. There was no "boom" under Reagan. Same as it's always been. The elite got rich and everyone else got fucked. Especially the middle class. Reagan was one of the great destroyers of the middle class. Along with Bush, and Clinton, and Obama.
The only place in which Reagan's bullshit trickle down nonsense was a success was in the minds of moronic free market fantasists.
+doublestrokeroll Not a child, but a third-worlder interested in American cultural and political trends. Hmm I see. Thanks for the insight.
Fair enough. I apologize for my snarky comment.
Like he says Americans are far less scared than people in other countries. Why is that if the system is so terrible?
Consumerism wouldn't shift it would have to be shafted-and-shunted and that won't have en masse in both the so-called developed urbanised post-industrialised western world/western world/first-world and in the so-called under-developed/developing ruralised industrialising/industrialised eastern world/eastern world/third-world
*That won't happen en masse
Voice of prophets: bible marx and chomsky - 3 most quoted sources in the world........in the world.
There are two young fish swimming along who happen to meet an older fish. The older fish nods at them and says:
‘Morning boys, how’s the water?’
The two young fish swim on for a bit and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and asks:
‘What the hell is water?’
You cannot oppose consumerism and still live in modernist cultures. Welcome to non Semitic parts of Eastern Sufi semi modernity
Like he points out, if an individual does not participate in consumerism, nothing changes. The system needs to change. Does the system change when people that do not agree with the "modernist" cultures simply move? What happens when those that are aware move to let's say some African countries or Kyrgyzstan. Isnt 95% of the world capitalist at this point?
We need more subtitles on Noam Chomsky vids
I hate money and people. I hate it all. Hands off angry social extroverted people.
Can the Vietnam War visit other planets, and argue that people shouldn't pay for healthcare?
*people spend their money stupidly*
Chomsky: 'damn power structures, I mean look at slavery...'
xD finally someone else who gets it
More like, "people are manipulated into spending their money stupidly."
@@borbalbuddyyou seem insufferable
@@borbalbuddy hey, not my fault you got a gambling problem bro
Hates consumerism but consumes all the same things consumers do. With the exception of hairbrushes, and soap.
Well, he is a millionaire five times over, so he's quite familiar with consumerism.
maybe that's why he's a millionaire because he doesn't consume I guess that's what you were saying
@@johnmitchell2741 not even close: he understands how to profit off consumerism while pretending to be above it all so he can impress the easily impressed.
Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it."
- Thomas Sowell
@@muggsyaxton8085 There are many ways of making money without consumerism.
@@borbalbuddy what an unnecessary comment.
Who decides what people want other than people themselves?
Chomsky's view is essentially people don't really want what he thinks that they shouldn't want.
I've read a marketing textbook, it's about how to manipulate people using psychology to get them to do what you want. It openly talks about using classical conditioning, operant conditioning, understanding different personality types and life motivations, etc.
strawman argument. "war doesnt make people happy" oh who am i to decide what people want?
nonsense. we can clearly argue and give our opinion and back it up with reason and arguments. you arent surpressing people by that.
marketing, systemic pressure, social pressure etc makes people buy things they dont really need. if you really need 25 pieces of clothing in half a year okay, but i argue most definitely dont and rather do it for named reasons.
i mean you can extend your argument basically towards every systemic and general criticism? oh people dont want dictatorship? who are you to judge that.
We think we’re so clever and classless and free as we give our personal information with each click on these “free” platforms.
Fool
I love this guy but, watching this... I wonder, who made his tie, his shirt, his watch, his glasses. I hate consumerism but, I want to know how to change.
Second hand stores. Borrow and lend with friends.
+RyanBurke Even then, there must been craftspeople behind the original production, who need compensation so that they can pay their rent etc. You seem to have missed the point of drew barbee's statement.
Vinay Seth What's your hypothesis here?
Having clothes isn't consumerism
He specifically talked about essentials, a watch, a fridge, a shirt and maybe even a tie fall into that category but a huge assortment of lollies and a new pair of Nike shoes and a new smart phone every 2 years is not essential.
cant hear shit
It's so bad....
Chomsky should debate Jordan Peterson on capitalism
Peterson will debate Chomsky's writings after his death, make up stuff as he went along, and wave his arms. th-cam.com/video/V2hhrUHSD6o/w-d-xo.html
@@aguilayserpiente you mean like what chomsky did to friedman ? Shoot down his points after his death .
@@SnobbishbumpkinApparently, you mean that text cannot be critically examined but only superficially presented in a "debate" (a spectacle for sales people). Chomsky did not avoid Friedman (a dabbler) in life, make up matters not in the text, nor wave his arms. No dabbler will address the content of Chomsky's text.
th-cam.com/video/gcKVv0OJbpQ/w-d-xo.html
@@aguilayserpiente''i dont think the ability to succeed in a system of competition isnt much of a value''. Being competent isnt a value to chomsky i dont see the point in why would jordan lose against a man who thinks compentency isnt a value . Being a good person isnt good enough is one of the cores of jbp lectures .
@@Snobbishbumpkin What you wrote is incoherent. What text from Chomsky is the basis for your assertion? Not even Adam Smith makes the contentions that you offer. To the contrary, Adam Smith explains that political and economic power of the dominant class is/are the result of combination of the owners within the business class, i.e. the state is a tool of capital for concentration of wealth in the hands of the class of owners:
What are the common wages of labour, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties (workers and capitalists), whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as *little* as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labour. It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can *combine* much more easily; and the *law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, a merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a *month*, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate.
We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is *as ignorant* of the world as of the subject.
Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Cause of the Wealth of Nations, (1776) Book I, Ch. 8, §12-13
All laws are made for the benefit of the business class, including token settlements like $1200 to silence workers:
The order of proprietors may, perhaps, gain more by the prosperity of the society than that of labourers: but there is no order that suffers so cruelly from its decline. But though the interest of the labourer is strictly connected with that of the society, he is *incapable either of comprehending that interest or of understanding its connection with his own*. His . . . *education and habits* are commonly such as to render him *unfit* to judge even though he was fully informed. In the public deliberations, therefore, his voice is little heard and *less* regarded, except upon some particular occasions, when his clamour is animated, set on and *supported by his employers, not for his, but their own particular purposes.*
His employers constitute the third order, that of those who live by profit. It is the stock that is employed for the sake of profit which puts into motion the greater part of the useful labour of every society. The plans and projects of the employers of stock *regulate* and direct all the most important operations of labour, and profit is the end proposed by all those plans and projects. But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin. The interest of this third order, therefore, has not the same connection with the general interest of the society as that of the other two.
Merchants and master manufacturers are, in this order, the two classes of people who commonly employ the largest capitals, and who by their wealth draw to themselves the greatest share of the *public* consideration. . . As their thoughts, however, are commonly exercised rather about the interest of their own particular branch of business, than about that of the society, their judgment, even when given with the greatest candour. . . The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even *opposite* to, that of the public. To *widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers.* To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens.
Id. Ch. 11, ¶¶261-262.
Ya right, communism is better ? No, thank you.
Old.
This channel has content from the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s (like this video), as well as more recent material.
Chomsky is , and has always been interesting. Thank you for posting.
BenE. Taylor Why is that an issue? Still relevant
Still *hideously* relevant :D
Would rather have the absurdity of choice than tyranny of Central command economy. Have you thought about that? People actually want (not need) the new useless thing in fashion. Free to choose always wins over the intellectuals deeming what is good for us.
nonsense. its exactly that "either or" nonsense years of marketing and propaganda shove in our heads.
its no either or question.
i also nonsense to shut down valid criticism and basic logical thoughts because some people feel a need for something. you dont need a tyranny of central command economy to not buy 25 pieces of clothing half a year. you can clearly see the propaganda here.
also i dont think peopler seriously want that stuff. they feel the need to for many reasons. we cant ignore these factors.
False dichotomy. We don't need the avalanche of useless stuff that is relentlessly marketed at us. And the alternative to that is not a command economy, but a democratically organized one, which is the opposite of a command economy.
What an absurd theory. No shit, everybody is going to want a fridge, and socks. Those ARE BASIC NEEDS! People don't only want basic stuff, and will always also want random crap that will put a smile on their face. It's called being human, and not being some freaking robot that just lives on essential items.
So random crap puts a smile on your face and that's normal and good? I wonder how people survived ten thousands of years before industrial revolutions. I guess, they weren't human.
So......not to change the subject but, but, but what about all the Harlan Crow/Ginni Thomas love children that were aborted?
Asking for a friend.