Chomsky admits that republicans are wolves and that democrats are wolves in sheep’s clothing, based on progressive liberal theory he mentions 3/4 of the way thorough the video and yet he in recent years, he has wanted us funneled into the Democratic Party rather trying to generate market power outside of the system via mutual aid. The Covid pandemic taught us that obtaining power for democrats was useless when the government locked us down and threw us to the streets, prevented our wealth and economic power from expanding while expanding that of the business owner class. In a deeply deeply ingrained “market economy” like ours…. Hell even Scandinavian countries are deeply “free market” oriented. In these type of cultures, our only hope for a socialist revolution is via the right wing libertarian movement “the leave me alone and I leave you alone” movement that allows the right wing to build their own communities and businesses and allows the true left to build their own competing ones… Trying to usurp the state and be betrayed by the eugenicists in the elite class was exactly the mistake of the 20th century that we must not repeat again. None of the socialist govt leaders of the 20th centuries who became president and heads of state should be our idols that we look up to in the 21st century of technology and decentralization of power. When people like Noam Chomsky and Richard Wolff provide a 21st century vision that those power hungry tyrants never did! Progressives need market power and need to build progressive business and worker co ops to out compete right wing capitalists. Left libertarians can win via the embrace of economic sovereignty rather than the strong arm of the state that woke corporate liberals want. The European globalists are clamoring for neoliberal control of our liberal govt. the liberal parties of America will sell us out to the highest bidder.
Of course many will not be able to accept Chomsky's criticism of our culture as they have a strong identification to it. Any reasonable analysis of his views however is very difficult to disagree with.
Yes, it's very difficult to disagree with the claim that "people are *forced* into a system where they have to sell themselves to survive", when there are millions of people gathering resources for their survival either working independently or living off the land. How could you disagree with a theory that is debunked by the existence of independent contractors, psychologists, farmers, artists and even people selling food on the streets...
@@virtusstradivarius6782 Your statement presumes that they do this by choice. Many are forced into self-employment by the lack of it or poor wages, working conditions etc. The Rand Corporation study on income inequality indicates that aproxiamately $47 Trillion have been looted from workers pockets since the '70's so there are many reasons for the numbers of independent contractors we see today, and most of them are not positive.
@@toddstevens8506 Wait, so you can be forced into self employment, being forced out of the job you were previously forced into and had no ability to refuse, as you had no other way of survival? lol That sounds a lot like evaluating that working independently would be better and choosing to leave your job for a better alternative. It's almost like you were free and not forced to work for someone else under coercion lol
@@virtusstradivarius6782 More of a commentary on the declining state of employment in terms of compensation/benefits/conditions over the past 40 something years. The numbers back this up as an increasing percentage of revenue is stolen from working people and inequality rises.
@@toddstevens8506 Dude, you make no sense. The argument for wage slavery has nothing to do with poor working conditions or low wages; it's an argument about people losing their freedom by being forced into jobs which they have no ability to refuse. Chomsky himslef said of people being "rented" (aka being a "wage slave" or just having a job lol) "it's an intolerable infringement on people's rights, even if the guy who rents you is nice to you". So, according to him, better working conditions, like higher wages, don't make a difference: Jobs are slavery. The only question is whether people are coerced into jobs, as they wouldn't have any other alternative for survival, or they choose them freely, as they judge them as their best option available. Low wages and income inequality are completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Most of the best people I've ever known or associated with, marginally employed or unemployed, homeless or with nothing much beyond pocket change and the clothes on their backs; persons of the highest integrity, intelligent, truthful, articulate, brave and faithful to a just cause -- at some point, especially when the "system" had become intolerable to a perceptive conscience, would opt to dispense with the common, desperate, drudge-filled misery of trying to be middle class, of shutting up, grinding the wheel, of "just making do". On or off the public dole, disrespected or barely tolerated, we often defined ourselves, still young, as "early retirees". We stopped pretending to ourselves, and pretended ignorance to those outside our awareness. The system in place demands the opposite; it thrives in hypocrisy, ridicule, false pride. Having had enough of the nonsense, we happily "died" for the mindless machine of it all, lived our own lives, to good ends if often worse. Those were some of the happiest, most productive times of my human life.
I told my friends the best time in my life was when I was homeless, the best people I know was homeless I despise being a debt slave so found a way to make money with a job and never been more free, I love my life now
@@Shmooper_Dooper Being homeless is something no one should experience. It is scary, humiliating and unnecessary in a civil society. I was also speaking more of living in poverty, as a kind of spiritual choice. It is not easy, but is rewarding. In a welfare state, as we say, one can sometimes do this. In America, one is punished. The only option is to go mad, or pretend to be mad in order to try and get a little help or funds to survive on. We have made everything a lie, and worship wealth instead of being compassionate. So we have loafers, liars, lice and crooks like the current president. Keller Gordon's Brown Study is a novella in progress, a long overdue story. No one pays for a good idea anymore There are 2 titles, at Barnes and Noble online: Blue Magoo and Others, a short story collection; also, Alumination, a novella about these sorts of things. If they are still there, I don't know. They are e-books. Free or 99 cents or something. Like I said, no one reads anymore. Author name, me, is Steven Burgess. If you know a publisher ... drop a line here. :o)
Because he promotes an ideology that doesn’t work for our species. Most people just want to make money and carry on with their lives. Call it safe slavery or whatever.
Because, as you can see in the comments section, there are plenty of mediocre minds that care more about immediate gratification and superfluous notions. They call what Chomsky says "boring" because they are not playing a videogame of senseless violence and morbid humor.
@@TheBullgang Shit most people in your community or country maybe. I doubt any meaningful portion of the 8 billion are happy with current system of governance and economics.
Where do we go from here? What actions would be efficient in bringing longlasting power to the people? I’m sending this question out to anyone who would like to give their answers. So incredibly grateful for Noam Chomsky’s contribution to the world.
We are helping empower sustainable brands and the next generation of entrepreneurs to tackle this head on. A % of our profits go into community projects to buy people out of wage slavery. We teach them to be self resilient and sustainable. We will also be helping them plant food forest, timber, fibre and everything else they need to thrive so they don't need to consent to WAGE SLAVERY. They have everything they need so they have a choice!
Noam, you’re standing squarely now on the shoulders of your predecessors in the totem of historic heroic intellectual giants. History will not forget you. And those of us dancing around this totem , this may pole, you Noam, have elevated our ribbons. And we are better informed by virtue of you. What better service to humanity, planet, indeed to all Being could ever be? So grateful you’re still here. God keep you with us for 100 more years.
My grandfather worked so hard the only way he could commit was by drinking every weekend for 40 years with 6 children and wife at home. He did quit, and as he did he continued to work and go to church. That was 99% of his life it would seem but I'm glad he overcame so much. He's still fighting today in Bethlehem
That's funny! I Immediately thought of Bethlehem in the West Bank because you wrote, "He's still fighting in Bethlehem." I thought you met he was still fighting for Palestinian rights. It makes perfect sense here since Chomsky is very anti-Zionist to say least.
When I turned 18 in 1972 I got a job at a GM Forge plant in Detroit. At 18 years old I made 3 times what a Corvette cost in one year. That was the old middle class. Doesn't exist now. Now one must submit.
Well, according to Chomsky, at 18 you were "enslaved" by GM, so, if you agree with him on wage slavery, I don't know why you are talking about this time in history as if it was positive only because wages were higher. Chomsky himslef said of people being "rented" (aka being a "wage slave" or just having a job lol) "it's an intolerable infringement on people's rights, even if the guy who rents you is nice to you". So, according to him, the fact that people had better working conditions, at least in so far as wages, doesn't make a difference: Jobs are slavery.
@@virtusstradivarius6782 ... Yes, you're correct, but, please note, it isn't Chomsky who said these things alone as much as he's quoting, citing and referring to dozens (it seems) of other renowned figures in the distant past and more recently. One of Chomsky's greatest attributes is not only his superb memory but how much he reads (as his close friends have long observed)
@@barquerojuancarlos7253 Ok, he didn't come up with the theory, what's your point? He still adheres to it, the only question is whether he is right or wrong.
@@jrshield7793 well, with me , the political lectures do seem to take precedence over the linguistics lectures I mean the man gets damn technical with those.
That reference to Stuart Mill in the 14th minute really give great context and etymological insight to many linguistic choices of Clifford Douglas and even to the title of his first book "Economic Democracy". Just what I needed.
This video could be thought of as a new Declaration of Independence if it weren't for the sad fact that most Americans are not capable of giving a damn.
I really enjoyed the Chomsky lecture. This man is unbelievable. He is up on everything and his ability to distill and disseminate detailed information is unmatched. He's even extremely humorous.
@@andrescm1022 if all you do is criticizing then you won't progress cause the problem is yet to be solved lol... I'm sure there are people listening to him that eventually propose solutions and so on but still, they're the ones who progress.
He puts that on us, which I think is right. It encourages us to get together with others and use our everyday common sense and creativity to solve the problems he illuminates. It’s a grassroots approach. Seems better than some intellectual telling you how you ought to act, which is an opportunity for further manipulation. He often talks about how when he gives a talk in developing countries people will come up to him and enthusiastically tell him what they’re doing to confront power while in the US people approach him and ask him what to do, as though they’re powerless despite having superior means than their poorer counterparts. It’s a testament to the systems of power and domination he’s describing in the video.
Noam chumsky provides great information on alot of topics but the way he speaks out his explanation or critical thinking is unrecognizable to the average American, words of a wise simple is aways alot better no need for fillers.
Thank you Mr Noam Chomsky. You are true and honest . Thank you for your reflections. Thank you for being here and inspiring us to question what is right and normal. Donie
Looks like he spent his life in academia. But I think, in line with his point, he would have to work a job in order to eat and pay bills. So, even though he philosophizes and lectures about it, I don’t think he claims to have a solution to the problem. Interesting conundrum, even if you see it, what can be done besides waking everyone up at once?
If everyone has access to banks and loans they do not have to work for someone else. Whichever countries have those banks… are the countries to choose to live in. Whichever countries are the least corrupt and provide private property rights are the best countries to live in. Pick your country… but no country will you live without working…The universe is not equitable or equal. But there are other countries ….you can move and try another system.
Because none of these people actually study history or look at real socialist/communist countries around the world and the true horror that comes out of those systems. Instead they believe in this make believe utopia in which nobody works and gets by on unicorn farts.
I believe the ideals of freedom and independence may be suppressed pretty deeply by the lower socioeconomic classes. I also believe that when you say ideals of freedom and independence prevailed for a millennia in this country, that only applies to people with white skin, mainly people with white skin who are also male… And I believe this is the reason that it has been so easy and accepted for everybody else to lose wealth and power in our society… And that’s not just with the lower socioeconomic classes, the upper socioeconomic classes have lost a majority of the respect they once had, and much of the control, so what now?
Chomsky talks about the problems but offers no solution except for generalities based on Marx's ideas, which as we know created horrible systems in Soviet Union, China, North Korea and others. If these ideas didn't work before, why would they work now?
I was ridiculed by friends when I questioned what was meant by common sense some years ago. Alright, I said it's common sense not to put your hand on a fire, but it's the experience of getting burnt that teaches us not to do it. Therefore I have to experience and observe why common sense is used to explain what some people consider a given and you have to ask what is a given? Can one imagine if Picasso followed, or Einstein followed so called common sense?
Plurality of opinion, of false choice, even of perception. These are killing us. Lately, gibbering like fools, we consider the salvation of ...an endless plurality of planets.
His mother was a Jewish immigrant born in Belarus. His father was a Jewish immigrant from the Russian Empire, may well have been the Ukraine. He was born in Philidelphia, Pennsylvania.
There is a simple way to avoid wage slavery: don’t take a job. It’s only being offered, it doesn’t mean you are obligated to take it. If it wasn’t being offered, you would have no choice but to not take it.
@@brandonmiles3025 no worries, yeah even a squirrel spends his whole days gathering nuts, lions spend a large portion of their days hunting. Before capitalism people spent hours on their farm labouring doing backbreaking labour trying to grow their own food. Before agriculture hunter-gatherers spent their whole day hunting and gathering. There’s no way around this. As I’ve illustrated wage slavery even exists in the animal kingdom.
@@brandonmiles3025 I just mean that when an employer advertises for help, it’s optional, you don’t have to apply. Nobody is putting a gun to your head, just as nobody is forcing a squirrel to collect nuts. The squirrel just does it because he recognizes that it’s in his best interest. So an employee chooses to take a job to better his life somehow. If he didn’t feel his life would be better with the job, he wouldn’t apply for it.
@@wallacehowery6414 yes the wealthy have too much power better to give all the power to enlightened communist intellectual central planners (they will be elected by party bureaucracy so it's totally fair) in a de facto single-party system where all the "fascists" (50%+ of the American population) are silenced.
@@dikdynasty234are you one of these "I'll hustle to CEO position" ppl coz good luck with that 👍🏼 also even if you go that route you'll spend the majority of your life being a wage slave to yourself 🌈
If wage slavery as Chomsky here is alluding too, is simply you working a job and being paid by someone (what he calls the master), then we are all "wage slaves" which means it is a meaningless term. I'm curious how would this be resolved in any other economic system? It wouldn't, people have to work to produce. Forget Capitalism, that is true for ANYTHING. So again I ask how would we rectify "wage slavery" in light that work MUST be done?
The basic idea is that the workers own the means of production, which is one of the theoretical ideas underlying communism (but communism is not an economic system). In practice it is not possible to have workers owning and running complex industries, they simply don't know enough about the business to make rational business decisions.
@@tonygumbrell22 The terms you guys use could be applied to great many things. To you a convenience store worker getting $8/hour is a "wage slave" because they aren't getting paid there "full value of there labor", but this also applies to a top developer at a company earning $180k/year. He too is a "wage slave" since he isn't getting the "full value of his labor". So in essence to Socialist the real meaning of "wage slavery" is simply you having a job where you are not the owner. Way to broad for me.
@@dragonore2009 You're going to have to do better than that to figure it out, or you could just spend the next 20 years working in a minimum wage job. That's called learning the hard way. To the capitalist owners of the franchise you are chump change, cheaper than the furnishings of their fast food emporium, speedi-mart, or whatever. Working in those kinds of jobs before long you'll realize it's a case of mind over matter, i.e. they don't mind, and you don't matter.
@@tonygumbrell22 You didn't address the broaden "wage slave" term. Wage slavery in Socialism is any employee in a traditional ran capitalist company that isn't being paid there "full value of there labor" (whatever that means). So a speed-mart worker who gets $9.25/hour is a "wage slave" to you, but so is a Google software developer making $200k/year. They are both "wage slaves" in Socialism, but you and I both know, financially the developer is likely not living a horrible life. The broad use of the term "wage slave" meaning any worker that isn't an owner is way to broad and makes a mockery out of the "slave" in "wage slavery"
Except that he never offered a solution. His economic criticisms are shallow, at best, which is pretty much what you can expect from somebody who never ran as much as a lemonade stand.
No slavery. You have a willing employees's and willing employer's. You are usually paid what you're worth. If you are under paid quit and go someplace else. If no minimum wage existed prices would be lower and you could achieve "real" full employment.
Wage slavery is such a weird concept, like I remember Fry from Futurama saying "you know what stinks about being a slave? They don't pay you, but they don't let you go either", only for Leela to reply "That's what slavery is". Yeah, it's almost like you weren't a slave at all and having a job was a completely different arrengement from that of slavery, and so we use the word "employee" instead of "slave", and "employer" instead of "master", as those are actually different things. At least the last time I checked your boss didn't own you. Like, I get Chomsky’s idea that, having a job is slavery because, although you are being paid and are free to take or leave any particular job, you are not free from having to work, as you need resources to survive. As he says "people felt their rights were taken away by being forced into a system where they had to sell themselves to survive", therefore, becoming a "wage slave". But that's not you being coerced into working by capitalism, that's you being coerced into working by reality; you need to engage in productive activities in order to acquire the resources necessary for your survival. The fact that you choose to gather those resources in the form of money via a job just shows that as the most efficient way of attaining that goal that's currently available. It’s obviously false that you are coerced into having a job, as you can choose to live off the land or work independently; no one is forced to accept a job. This notion is, often mocked, as someone else wrote on a comment on another Chomsky video on the same topic, "that is like saying you have the choice to jump off of a ship in the middle of the ocean". But again, this only proves the stupidity of characterizing jobs as "wage slavery", as Chomsky himslef points out "the idea that a person should be owned is just an intolerable infringement in human rights", so if having a job was really such a dehumanizing condition, wouldn't it be preferable to abandon that system at all cost, no matter the alternative? Wouldn't a real slave rather abandon his master and survive on his own, before being reduced to someone else's property? Furthermore, Chomsky also says that "if you sell what you produce for a price, you are selling what you produce; if you work for a wage, you are selling yourself; you are losing your freedom, your dignity, your independence". Here he even recognizes that, if you work independently, you are not a "slave", but what he fails to recognize is that the existence of this multiplicity in the types of work dismantles the initial argument that you are "forced into a system" where you have to work for someone else, as you have the option to work independently. Of course, the logical conclusion to this is that there is no such thing as a "wage slave", no more than there can be a "free slave", after all, you are a slave who is getting paid and is free to accept or leave any job. Hell, you are even free to not have a job, but you are not free from having to eat if you want to live. In this sense, you would actually be enslaved to work itself, as you have to gather resources by engaging in productive activities, but jobs are just a solution being offered to you to solve the problem of lacking resources, not an imposition, and not in any case slavery.
Virtus, you make a lot of great points in your post. You have a right to quit your job, however it will greatly impact your chances of landing another job. The market is saturated so the majority of jobs are going to be toxic and have unrealistic demands. The proverbial ball is still in the oligarchs hands. Citizens still need to secure capital in order to fulfill their most basic needs. Slavery is an explosive term, usually used to direct the reader to the ever increasing demands of oligarchs. I think of wage slavery as a hodgepodge of terms combined to illicit an emotion. The employee and employer arrangement isn’t slavery, but the working environment for many people has become toxic.
@@Gary2025-e1mI agree with you that wage slavery is often used as a term which aims to cause an emotional reaction in the public regarding poor working conditions and has no real equivalence with slavery. After all, you can’t be a slave who is getting paid or a slave who is free to take or leave his master, because there is no such thing as a "free slave who is getting paid". But Chomsky's point is that jobs are akin to slavery not because of poor working conditions, but because of people being coerced into a job by capitalism, as you are not free from having to work, as you need resources to survive. He says that "people felt their rights were taken away by being forced into a system where they had to sell themselves to survive". This is obviously false, as you can choose to live off the land or work independently; no one is forced to accept a job. So I don’t get your point of “citizens still need to secure capital in order to fulfill their most basic needs”. Of course we need resources to survive, but this is different from needing capital, you can live off the land, being a farmer or something similar to a hunter gatherer; you don’t need capital in the form of money. You can even be a farmer and sell some of what you produce to buy what you can’t produce yourself. Also I don’t get your point of “You have a right to quit your job, however it will greatly impact your chances of landing another job”. Why would it matter that you would be less likely to get another job? Jobs themselves would be the problem, as you would become a slave by being forced into one. Quitting and getting a new job would only be changing masters; the institution of jobs would be the real problem, if you really think you have no choice but to be employed by someone else. Finally I don’t get your point that “the market is saturated so the majority of jobs are going to be toxic and have unrealistic demands. The proverbial ball is still in the oligarchs hands”. As I said, according to Chomsky, wage slavery has nothing to do with working conditions, but with the human dignity that would be infringed (according to him) by being coerced into a job. He himslef said of people being "rented" (aka being a "wage slave" or just having a job lol) "it's an intolerable infringement on people's rights, even if the guy who rents you is nice to you". So it wouldn’t make a difference if instead of “jobs being toxic and having unrealistic demands”, people were treated nicely; you would still be a slave.
i’m too old & too tired to respond to your loooooooong comment but my shorts anwer would be you forgot that 0,1% of world population own most 💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰 and that couldn’t happen without slave wages/wage slaves
@@mario7frankielee Dude, there is no point to your comment, you simply say 1) a small portion of people own a large portion of the capital 2) therefore people working for them are slaves. There is no logical connection between those two claims to make anything that even resembles an argument. The fact that a small portion of people own a large portion of the capital does not constitute proof of the idea that anyone working for someone else is a slave. The main argument for wage slavery, according to Chomsky, is that people who are employed by others are slaves because they are "being forced into a system where they had to sell themselves to survive". This argument is not based on the amount of capital owned by a small part of the population, but is based on the idea of a system which supposedly coerces people into jobs which they have no ability to refuse. My point is, mostly, that there is no such thing as wage slavery, because people are free to gather resources for their survival in any fashion they choose. People can work being employed by others, but they can also work independently, or live off the land; no one is forced into accepting a job and anyone can leave their job at any time. Even Chomsky recognizes this when he says that "if you sell what you produce for a price, you are selling what you produce; if you work for a wage, you are selling yourself; you are losing your freedom, your dignity, your independence". Here he recognizes that, if you work independently, you are not a "slave", but what he fails to recognize is that the existence of this multiplicity in the types of work dismantles the initial argument that you are "forced into a system" where you have to work for someone else, as you have the option to work independently. Therefore, as you are free to choose your means of gathering resources, there is no such thing as "wage slavery", as no one is forced into anything. But I will agree with you on one thing, you didn't respond to my comment, as you just made an incongruent argument with no logical cohesion which had nothing to do with what I said. So, if you are gonna respond to this, please adress the point I'm making, as I would really like to read a different perspective to the one I'm presenting.
@@virtusstradivarius6782 but how you think it’s possible for 0,1% have so much? all the workers are free???? the structures are such that you don’t have to use whipping in china they have this 6/6/9 system means 6 days from 6-9 jobs it’s cynical to say to this guys „oh it’s you choice“ noone would work like that if they didn’t have too! they burn themselves alive out of desperation or the 1000000 of field workers in india killing themself by the thousands so i think your concept is a theoretical one maybe wage slavery is a wrong term but that’s completely irrelevant concerning the working situation the vast majority of people are in!
So beautiful! But so removed from reality! Observing the world from the high tower of a respected professor, raised in a tower by professor parents and rabbi ancestors, gives one a distorted perspective of true social reality. Beautiful thoughts but, simply put, people just aren't so good.
@@Ozrictentacles87 Probably not a good idea to completely trust anyones judgement. Rather get a deep understanding of his ideas, then make your own judgement.
It depends on who you are talking about. There are a lot of nasty people, but there are also a lot of good and smart people, don't treat them as if they were the same, you'd be making the virtuous pay along the sinners.
@@5Gazto good point. I totally have this problem of just assuming people have the best of intentions. Often more that not, this may not be the case so its good to be aware.
@@5Gazto What I'm trying to say here is that a brilliant intellectual like Chomsky is inevitably at risk of having an idyllic perception of the common working man. I suspect Chomsky's encounter with the working class is through his gardener, his maid, and academic papers. Some older academic papers greatly romanticize the common man as being the good peasant man who works the land and is also an artist making beautiful artifacts and great folk music. The oppressed factory worker is this wonderful person who works hard to support his family, and so on. This is all true, of course, but it's only part of the story. Of course the common man doesn't necessarily do physical work but could be pinned to an office chair for a low pay. In any case the common man makes up the great majority of a society, and a fortunate elite intellectual like Chomsky, raised by intellectual parents, is very likely to not have a good understanding of how the common man really is like. I hate saying this, but Donald Trump has a great understanding of the common man. He used his understanding to brainwash people. I believe there are two ways in which a member of the high society can get a good grasp of the common man: either he was born to working class parents and worked his way up, or he deals with the common man as part of his occupation e.g. a politician, or a real estate developer( Trump). For these people there is no filter between them and the working class. That filter, I believe, was always there between Chomsky and the working man. Of course Chomsky describes himself as not only an academic but also a social activist, which he was. He was the social theoretician who was the special guest at some street protests, invited by the organizers. It is fair to assume that while those people were doing rough protesting, professor Chomsky was "with his had in the clouds" dreaming of some abstract and removed notions of social science. Unless the working man is part of your day to day life, for hours on end, he is not a real person to you, but a fairytale character, an abstract notion from a scientific paper. And without a close and realistic understanding of the people who make up the society, your theoretically correct social theories will just not work in real life. Like mathematical models that have perfect rigor, but when applied to real world they are junk. Myself, I regard Chomsky the philosopher of language very highly, and Chomsky the social scientist not so highly. I realize what I wrote here will be read by maybe 4 people, and doesn't fit the format of a youtube comment, but it's an exercise.
I envy Prof Chomsky's self control when he is speaking about exploitation. Most people would get angry and verbally aggressive when they talk about capitalists and Neoliberalism. Prof. Chomsky does not seem to feel any anger. Maybe he should give a course on controling your own emotions, he seems to be a world champion when it comes to selfcontrol.
He does not know what slavery really is. there is no such thing as a slave wage. Using the word slave is disrespectable toward real slaves. This is all nonsense. If you can.'t afford children or a wife don't have any. Im grateful for big companies willing to hire me. Most bad things that happen to you are because of you.
This is exactly why Chomsky quoted Gramsci in the beginning: your statement is self reflecting prooof of “hegemonic common sense” that must be questioned, and exemplary of what Walter Lippmann called “manufacturing consent.” It’s also the reason why most systems of oppression last so long: nobody questions them.
@@MRender32 Yeah. Great men. Strong men. Men graced to be put into positions of power and influence. I'm a damn commoner. I can influence my life. That's all. The "movements" can afford to lose a footsoldier. Unless I believe in a cause enough to bother? Or the gods grace me into a position where I can turn the lives of others on a whim? I'm gonna take my happiness now. Accepting the strife and the pain as just part and parcel of being alive. Death and suffering are my only birthrights. The fact I can find happiness despite it? Is proof that there are good people in this world. Who fought for me to live in peace and it would be an insult not to grab it. If your life is good "enough"? Don't risk it. If the status quo is good enough for you? You are not obligated to overthrow it. Rebellions and revolutions are for people who can't live in the world as it is. They may be justified in doing so, but I urge those who aren't suffering and are just bored with their safe-ass lives not to throw their bodies into the fire, into someone else's fight, just to feel alive. Useful idiots like that? Wannabe revolutionaries? Are abhorrent.
@@Borderose plenty of commoners who worked their asses off for that power and influence - you seem to have forgotten them. Lincoln was born a dirt farmer. Educated himself. Gandhi. MLKjr. Harvey Milk. History is rife with examples of this sort. Sorry to hear you’re so resigned to serving your master.🤷🏻♂️ “I’ll take my happiness now” you say. MLKjr said the death of America would lay in radical materialism. Of a “thing” oriented society over a “people” oriented society. You and your sad beliefs are abhorrent.
The next generation of would-be billionaires need to grow in the wake of a new model. We must, ourselves, strive to create as many worker co-ops and political advocates as possible. Our generation must prime future gen billionaires to take on the most important tasks along with us to save the future of humanity.
@@schmetterling4477 that is not at all how worker co ops function. Its merely an added stakeholder function, excluding dilution scams. Middle and upper management mean nothing if you have zero skin in the game. Its why compensation packages offer stock in total comp calculations. Barring a competitive growth model in the hopes of lead market share supremacy, the only other real hurdle is combatting an exhaustive tax code designed for the investor classes to squeeze the most of profits for individual gain.
@@cesarperez10 That is exactly how worker co-ops work. If the janitor doesn't get to vote, then it's not a co-op. OTOH, if workers merely want to be the passive shareholders of the corporation, then they need to be personally responsible for the losses of the corporation, too. This means added financial risk. It typically takes tens to hundreds of millions of dollars these days to start a corporation. That's easily on the order of $1-10 million per employee in the initial years. I don't know many employees who would put up that kind of money just to get a job in a startup. Would you? Or take for example Microsoft, a mature large corporation. It has a marketcap of $2 trillion and approx. 170,000 employees. The buy-in for a new employee would therefor be on the order of $10 million to become a shareholder-employee. That is obviously out of the question. That marketcap is not unreasonable, by the way. Microsoft generates almost a million dollars in revenue per employee per year. The marketcap is a high, but not all that high multiple of that number. Even if you go with a small business kind of valuation, the employee buy-in would end up having to be on the order of $2-3 million. Microsoft could not possibly find enough workers who can afford that kind of gamble. I don't know why you think that having skin in the game is a good thing? I NEVER participate in such gambling schemes. If you want me to work for you, then you have to pay me 100% of my work by the hour without offloading any of your business risk on me. Why? Because I know that that risk is not worth it.
@@schmetterling4477 Market cap alone is a poor measure for company valuation. There's no need for every bit of the company to be accounted for among every employee, that's silly, especially when that high worker membership is never expected normally. Whether employees of a given field are under single large companies' umbrellas or a network of smaller companies within the same industry makes little difference for the push for more worker co-ops. If anything research proves that already established larger firms, having already proved itself past startup stages, are more likely to survive than businesses starting as co-ops suffering from scrambling for investor funding and early employee founders team mismanagement. Its little different than the aims of a union or majority employee owned companies. Having more have stake simply relays the importance of a more decentralized network of decision makers and juxtaposed interests, but at the expense of total continued growth? - that's not at all the case. For your case then, sure - a union would be a fit solution when attempting to contract work with different companies, while just the same should be said for employees with growing tenure at incorporated organizations. It's the having of skin in the game which garners you better representation, not a personal vote at the happenings of different department levels. Again, that's just silly. If one doesn't find the notion of a system of checks and balances for the US government that interplays between the federal and national level that was idealized to be silly, then worker cooperatives or companies like that should be more of a palpable, tenable convention. I wont say regular businesses should no longer have a place, just that fairer alternatives should be more available. But how can any of this be possible in the future when people are so poorly educated/informed, and dont have the tools or know-how to even begin to fight for their fair share in the marketplace?
@@cesarperez10 I gave you market cap and a 3x small business evaluation. Almost no employee can afford the small business value of their workplace, either. It's a ridiculous thing to expect from an employee to share the risk of their work. Risk is a negative financial value. It deducts rather than adds to ones income. "Its little different than the aims of a union or majority employee owned companies. " But it is. A co-op hands all employees the control that is usually reserved for the C-level. The problem with that is that C-level management is a learned skill. It's not something we are all born with in the crib. You can't do it unless somebody teaches it to you. Now, if you are not asking for co-oops but only for unions, then don't call them co-ops. The function of unions is to keep the workplace safe and adjust worker compensation in proportion to the overall growth of the economy. Unions DO NOT serve as a distributor of economic risk. Quite the contrary. Having more risk does not get you more control. You have obviously never been in a boardroom and you have never seen the actual dynamic between CEOs and their boards. Investors who pay more do not automatically get more control over a corporation and even if they did, what good is that control if the business goes sideways or down because of external factors despite the best efforts of a competent management team? The people who talk about this like it's a game of monopoly have not even played monopoly in my opinion, because that is a game of risk, not a game of skill. So is 90% of corporate management. The problem is that non-C-level employees can't even play the remaining 10% skill part of the corporate game right. So what good are you doing to yourself with a co-op? You gain almost nothing and you give up almost everything. "I wont say regular businesses should no longer have a place, just that fairer alternatives should be more available." Life ain't fair. Boohoo. How about you grow a pair and accept that instead of looking for a magic solution?
We are lucky to have a voice such as Norm Chomsky's. However, Chomsky gets away with a lot intellectually. He's got a brain like a computer, which is to say I believe he lacks imagination (we all do in our own ways) and intuition. Back in the day, he trashed BF Skinner's visionary novel "Walden Two"; which I believe is probably the only solution available to us. He trashes (anarcho-primitivism) again, the only real path available to us. He also discounted the findings of Daniel Everett, the fellow who wrote: "Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes-Life and Language In the Amazonian Jungle." Chomsky isn't the smartest guy (close though) on the block, but he is the loudest. Why didn't he start his own school; if he believes in cooperative businesses.? The answer is simple, it's not that simple.
Thanks again Noam he is so right! In this time we are custommer slaves....personal freedom goin more then ever before. large companies allow staff to become self-employed so large companies therefore do not have to pay social insurances..
Of course Chomsky is employed by the university and thuse being an academic is not subject to wage slavery. For someone who claims to be so intellectual he is so ignorant of human behavior.
academics can also be subject to wage slavery. Not all people lecturing at universities are Professors. A lot of the young academics work from one paycheck to the next and if their contracts are not renewed they will loose their accomodation and everything else.
@ge requiem Just cause the system rewards his work monetarily does not mean he can not criticize that same Power structure . Actually , if anything , you should be grateful that it is an " insider " having these discussions when normally the ones who moan and bitch the most are just expressing their envy at not being in positions of privilege themselves .
Friendly reminder that Noam Chomsky denies the Bosnian Genocide and Supported the Khmer Rouge, and also denies the genocide that regime committed. The guy is for calling out human rights abuses unless it's done by a socialist regime. Inb4 NoT ReAl SoCiALiSM
Yes Waging a war on slavery Slaving a war on wages Waging slavery on wars Slaving wages in wars I’m starting to understand...realigning the antennas on my tin foil hat... Therefore the following follows, Colorless green ideas sleep furiously - de factly.
Noam Chomsky: Devastating Critique of Wage Slavery
th-cam.com/video/03-X94ZlYH8/w-d-xo.html
How does Noam think we can achieve worker owned cooperatives and sovereignty instead of fascism by giving more power to the state??
Chomsky admits that republicans are wolves and that democrats are wolves in sheep’s clothing, based on progressive liberal theory he mentions 3/4 of the way thorough the video and yet he in recent years, he has wanted us funneled into the Democratic Party rather trying to generate market power outside of the system via mutual aid.
The Covid pandemic taught us that obtaining power for democrats was useless when the government locked us down and threw us to the streets, prevented our wealth and economic power from expanding while expanding that of the business owner class. In a deeply deeply ingrained “market economy” like ours…. Hell even Scandinavian countries are deeply “free market” oriented.
In these type of cultures, our only hope for a socialist revolution is via the right wing libertarian movement “the leave me alone and I leave you alone” movement that allows the right wing to build their own communities and businesses and allows the true left to build their own competing ones…
Trying to usurp the state and be betrayed by the eugenicists in the elite class was exactly the mistake of the 20th century that we must not repeat again.
None of the socialist govt leaders of the 20th centuries who became president and heads of state should be our idols that we look up to in the 21st century of technology and decentralization of power.
When people like Noam Chomsky and Richard Wolff provide a 21st century vision that those power hungry tyrants never did!
Progressives need market power and need to build progressive business and worker co ops to out compete right wing capitalists.
Left libertarians can win via the embrace of economic sovereignty rather than the strong arm of the state that woke corporate liberals want. The European globalists are clamoring for neoliberal control of our liberal govt. the liberal parties of America will sell us out to the highest bidder.
👁️OPENER👁️
Of course many will not be able to accept Chomsky's criticism of our culture as they have a strong identification to it. Any reasonable analysis of his views however is very difficult to disagree with.
Yes, it's very difficult to disagree with the claim that "people are *forced* into a system where they have to sell themselves to survive", when there are millions of people gathering resources for their survival either working independently or living off the land.
How could you disagree with a theory that is debunked by the existence of independent contractors, psychologists, farmers, artists and even people selling food on the streets...
@@virtusstradivarius6782 Your statement presumes that they do this by choice. Many are forced into self-employment by the lack of it or poor wages, working conditions etc.
The Rand Corporation study on income inequality indicates that aproxiamately $47 Trillion have been looted from workers pockets since the '70's so there are many reasons for the numbers of independent contractors we see today, and most of them are not positive.
@@toddstevens8506 Wait, so you can be forced into self employment, being forced out of the job you were previously forced into and had no ability to refuse, as you had no other way of survival? lol That sounds a lot like evaluating that working independently would be better and choosing to leave your job for a better alternative. It's almost like you were free and not forced to work for someone else under coercion lol
@@virtusstradivarius6782 More of a commentary on the declining state of employment in terms of compensation/benefits/conditions over the past 40 something years. The numbers back this up as an increasing percentage of revenue is stolen from working people and inequality rises.
@@toddstevens8506 Dude, you make no sense. The argument for wage slavery has nothing to do with poor working conditions or low wages; it's an argument about people losing their freedom by being forced into jobs which they have no ability to refuse. Chomsky himslef said of people being "rented" (aka being a "wage slave" or just having a job lol) "it's an intolerable infringement on people's rights, even if the guy who rents you is nice to you". So, according to him, better working conditions, like higher wages, don't make a difference: Jobs are slavery.
The only question is whether people are coerced into jobs, as they wouldn't have any other alternative for survival, or they choose them freely, as they judge them as their best option available. Low wages and income inequality are completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Most of the best people I've ever known or associated with, marginally employed or unemployed, homeless or with nothing much beyond pocket change and the clothes on their backs; persons of the highest integrity, intelligent, truthful, articulate, brave and faithful to a just cause -- at some point, especially when the "system" had become intolerable to a perceptive conscience, would opt to dispense with the common, desperate, drudge-filled misery of trying to be middle class, of shutting up, grinding the wheel, of "just making do".
On or off the public dole, disrespected or barely tolerated, we often defined ourselves, still young, as "early retirees".
We stopped pretending to ourselves, and pretended ignorance to those outside our awareness.
The system in place demands the opposite; it thrives in hypocrisy, ridicule, false pride.
Having had enough of the nonsense, we happily "died" for the mindless machine of it all, lived our own lives, to good ends if often worse.
Those were some of the happiest, most productive times of my human life.
Look up Diogenes he was the perfect example of what your talking about
I told my friends the best time in my life was when I was homeless, the best people I know was homeless I despise being a debt slave so found a way to make money with a job and never been more free, I love my life now
can I ask what being homeless was like for you?
second question, what in the heck is gordon keller’s brown study? sounds interesting 😄
@@Shmooper_Dooper Being homeless is something no one should experience. It is scary, humiliating and unnecessary in a civil society. I was also speaking more of living in poverty, as a kind of spiritual choice. It is not easy, but is rewarding. In a welfare state, as we say, one can sometimes do this. In America, one is punished. The only option is to go mad, or pretend to be mad in order to try and get a little help or funds to survive on. We have made everything a lie, and worship wealth instead of being compassionate. So we have loafers, liars, lice and crooks like the current president.
Keller Gordon's Brown Study is a novella in progress, a long overdue story. No one pays for a good idea anymore There are 2 titles, at Barnes and Noble online: Blue Magoo and Others, a short story collection; also, Alumination, a novella about these sorts of things. If they are still there, I don't know. They are e-books. Free or 99 cents or something. Like I said, no one reads anymore. Author name, me, is Steven Burgess. If you know a publisher ... drop a line here. :o)
Listening to Uncle Noam is very calming
Its not about money!
Its about dominance and control!
i didnt even know this guy was still alive, why doesnt this have millions of views?
because it's boring lol
Because he promotes an ideology that doesn’t work for our species. Most people just want to make money and carry on with their lives. Call it safe slavery or whatever.
Because, as you can see in the comments section, there are plenty of mediocre minds that care more about immediate gratification and superfluous notions. They call what Chomsky says "boring" because they are not playing a videogame of senseless violence and morbid humor.
@@TheBullgang Shit most people in your community or country maybe. I doubt any meaningful portion of the 8 billion are happy with current system of governance and economics.
Because it was just posted a few months ago, mainly.
Where do we go from here? What actions would be efficient in bringing longlasting power to the people? I’m sending this question out to anyone who would like to give their answers.
So incredibly grateful for Noam Chomsky’s contribution to the world.
We had it and we wasted it away listening to shite like chomsky.
Defending democracy is easy, combatting dictatorships is hard.
@@JP-fn5xt
Well said
We are helping empower sustainable brands and the next generation of entrepreneurs to tackle this head on. A % of our profits go into community projects to buy people out of wage slavery. We teach them to be self resilient and sustainable. We will also be helping them plant food forest, timber, fibre and everything else they need to thrive so they don't need to consent to WAGE SLAVERY. They have everything they need so they have a choice!
Inform yourself and others on work coops. Its the only path unfortunately
Great lecture! a heartfelt thank you for sharing this.
Noam, you’re standing squarely now on the shoulders of your predecessors in the totem of historic heroic intellectual giants. History will not forget you. And those of us dancing around this totem , this may pole, you Noam, have elevated our ribbons. And we are better informed by virtue of you. What better service to humanity, planet, indeed to all Being could ever be? So grateful you’re still here. God keep you with us for 100 more years.
You were right. This is a nice, tight talk about labor struggle.
My grandfather worked so hard the only way he could commit was by drinking every weekend for 40 years with 6 children and wife at home. He did quit, and as he did he continued to work and go to church. That was 99% of his life it would seem but I'm glad he overcame so much. He's still fighting today in Bethlehem
Bethlehem is where Jesus Christ was born. I think his birth place, today, is controlled by Yasser Arafat and Hamas militants.
@@Dimebag_Darrell lol PA Bethlehem
That's funny! I Immediately thought of Bethlehem in the West Bank because you wrote, "He's still fighting in Bethlehem." I thought you met he was still fighting for Palestinian rights. It makes perfect sense here since Chomsky is very anti-Zionist to say least.
It's his fault to keep the job and have six children. Having six children is insane. That is just ignorant.
When I turned 18 in 1972 I got a job at a GM Forge plant in Detroit. At 18 years old I made 3 times what a Corvette cost in one year. That was the old middle class. Doesn't exist now. Now one must submit.
I wish I knew those times
Well, according to Chomsky, at 18 you were "enslaved" by GM, so, if you agree with him on wage slavery, I don't know why you are talking about this time in history as if it was positive only because wages were higher.
Chomsky himslef said of people being "rented" (aka being a "wage slave" or just having a job lol) "it's an intolerable infringement on people's rights, even if the guy who rents you is nice to you". So, according to him, the fact that people had better working conditions, at least in so far as wages, doesn't make a difference: Jobs are slavery.
@@virtusstradivarius6782 ... Yes, you're correct, but, please note, it isn't Chomsky who said these things alone as much as he's quoting, citing and referring to dozens (it seems) of other renowned figures in the distant past and more recently. One of Chomsky's greatest attributes is not only his superb memory but how much he reads (as his close friends have long observed)
@@barquerojuancarlos7253 Ok, he didn't come up with the theory, what's your point? He still adheres to it, the only question is whether he is right or wrong.
@@virtusstradivarius6782 I have never read or heard Chomsky say all work for wages was slavery. Where did you read or see that?
If you're ever suffering from insomnia just listen to Chomsky. It works every time.
I actually fell asleep ...and I started the video for that exact purpose
Excellent. One of the most important lectures/videos by Noam Chomsky.
Yes... and they're ALL important!
That's a lovely contribution by you John James. I'm sure you can do better than that
@@jrshield7793 well, with me , the political lectures do seem to take precedence over the linguistics lectures I mean the man gets damn technical with those.
Not since Jesus did I see so many ready to kill the messenger.
Thank you for this 😁
I love this man
That reference to Stuart Mill in the 14th minute really give great context and etymological insight to many linguistic choices of Clifford Douglas and even to the title of his first book "Economic Democracy". Just what I needed.
This video could be thought of as a new Declaration of Independence if it weren't for the sad fact that most Americans are not capable of giving a damn.
Most people have Stockholm syndrome with Capitalism while working in McDonalds 9 to 5 and cant even afford to live.
True. So true
I really enjoyed the Chomsky lecture. This man is unbelievable. He is up on everything and his ability to distill and disseminate detailed information is unmatched. He's even extremely humorous.
Thank you WonkMonk
3:25
10:25
24:00
Noam is a though fellow! Relentless lovingly!
He looks like Mr burns.when he bought the casino
Just before I delve into this video, does Chomsky provide solution for the criticism he will make ?
That's irrelevant, if one would wait to have a "solution" before criticizing something, then we would be still living in the middle age.
@@andrescm1022 if all you do is criticizing then you won't progress cause the problem is yet to be solved lol... I'm sure there are people listening to him that eventually propose solutions and so on but still, they're the ones who progress.
War
He puts that on us, which I think is right. It encourages us to get together with others and use our everyday common sense and creativity to solve the problems he illuminates. It’s a grassroots approach. Seems better than some intellectual telling you how you ought to act, which is an opportunity for further manipulation. He often talks about how when he gives a talk in developing countries people will come up to him and enthusiastically tell him what they’re doing to confront power while in the US people approach him and ask him what to do, as though they’re powerless despite having superior means than their poorer counterparts. It’s a testament to the systems of power and domination he’s describing in the video.
@@kyleanderson8511 interesting
The ads though... 🙄 Superloud
Gonna give this link to my mum when she tells me to get a job again
How do you make your money?
19:06
Noam, will you speak more directly and at length about Mussolini? Thankyou always.
Noam chumsky provides great information on alot of topics but the way he speaks out his explanation or critical thinking is unrecognizable to the average American, words of a wise simple is aways alot better no need for fillers.
It's weird seeing Papa Smurf without his hat.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Thank you Mr Noam Chomsky. You are true and honest . Thank you for your reflections. Thank you for being here and inspiring us to question what is right and normal. Donie
LOVE
Didn't Manly p hall
Talked about this.?
Good point, but wasn't Noam an employee all his life?
Looks like he spent his life in academia. But I think, in line with his point, he would have to work a job in order to eat and pay bills. So, even though he philosophizes and lectures about it, I don’t think he claims to have a solution to the problem. Interesting conundrum, even if you see it, what can be done besides waking everyone up at once?
@@sarahlee9191
Yes waking everyone up at once
Thanks a lot, wonkmonk.
If everyone has access to banks and loans they do not have to work for someone else. Whichever countries have those banks… are the countries to choose to live in. Whichever countries are the least corrupt and provide private property rights are the best countries to live in. Pick your country… but no country will you live without working…The universe is not equitable or equal. But there are other countries ….you can move and try another system.
Wow killing myself just seems like the safe and logical thing to do !!!
How does Noam think we can achieve worker owned cooperatives and sovereignty instead of fascism by giving more power to the state??
Because none of these people actually study history or look at real socialist/communist countries around the world and the true horror that comes out of those systems. Instead they believe in this make believe utopia in which nobody works and gets by on unicorn farts.
He packs so much information into his lectures. Worth listening to.
I believe the ideals of freedom and independence may be suppressed pretty deeply by the lower socioeconomic classes. I also believe that when you say ideals of freedom and independence prevailed for a millennia in this country, that only applies to people with white skin, mainly people with white skin who are also male…
And I believe this is the reason that it has been so easy and accepted for everybody else to lose wealth and power in our society…
And that’s not just with the lower socioeconomic classes, the upper socioeconomic classes have lost a majority of the respect they once had, and much of the control, so what now?
Chomsky talks about the problems but offers no solution except for generalities based on Marx's ideas, which as we know created horrible systems in Soviet Union, China, North Korea and others. If these ideas didn't work before, why would they work now?
I was ridiculed by friends when I questioned what was meant by common sense some years ago. Alright, I said it's common sense not to put your hand on a fire, but it's the experience of getting burnt that teaches us not to do it. Therefore I have to experience and observe why common sense is used to explain what some people consider a given and you have to ask what is a given? Can one imagine if Picasso followed, or Einstein followed so called common sense?
P S this is brilliant, thank you mr Chomsky for so many years of knowledge.
Chomsky's last words "... the future is YOUR hands"... Damn it, ¡ACT! ... silence is synonymous with complicity
5:00 Surveillance Capitalism
Gandalf is right. It's reflexive in our society to subordinate ourselves to moneyed power.
It’s time y’all got real.
Long live Noam Chomsky! Supporter of Human rights! Freind of all the oppressed people around the world! May Allah bless you!
Chomsky is a Bosnian genocide denier.
Chomsky also supports what we do in Syria
Indeed😅
Plurality of opinion, of false choice, even of perception.
These are killing us.
Lately, gibbering like fools, we consider the salvation of ...an endless plurality of planets.
Wow, my boss is more powerful than Starlin because of a dresscode and scheduled bathroom breaks
He is.
This is a man who's origins are from Ukraine 🇺🇦
His mother was a Jewish immigrant born in Belarus. His father was a Jewish immigrant from the Russian Empire, may well have been the Ukraine. He was born in Philidelphia, Pennsylvania.
In plain words the founders the new word nee we stupid to understand politics.
Capitalism bay bay! Gotta keep it going.
I'd be more likely to be killed just for going outside
Canada
sad chuckles
We are quite worried
Wage slavery as opposed to no-wage slavery.
The 8 people who disliked this must love being slaves..
There is a simple way to avoid wage slavery: don’t take a job. It’s only being offered, it doesn’t mean you are obligated to take it. If it wasn’t being offered, you would have no choice but to not take it.
You need money to survive...
Thanks for nothing
@@brandonmiles3025 no worries, yeah even a squirrel spends his whole days gathering nuts, lions spend a large portion of their days hunting. Before capitalism people spent hours on their farm labouring doing backbreaking labour trying to grow their own food. Before agriculture hunter-gatherers spent their whole day hunting and gathering. There’s no way around this. As I’ve illustrated wage slavery even exists in the animal kingdom.
@@robfromvan 💯✅️...but "don't take a job" is trolling..unless you plan on living off someone else until you can make money on your own..
@@brandonmiles3025 I just mean that when an employer advertises for help, it’s optional, you don’t have to apply. Nobody is putting a gun to your head, just as nobody is forcing a squirrel to collect nuts. The squirrel just does it because he recognizes that it’s in his best interest. So an employee chooses to take a job to better his life somehow. If he didn’t feel his life would be better with the job, he wouldn’t apply for it.
this boi looking like plato
So you’re saying not to be a wage earner, but to be the one providing the wages…
No, he's saying the wealthy have too much power (the laws are stacked in their favor), so income tends to redistribute towards the wealthy.
@@wallacehowery6414 So you’re saying it’s better to be wealthy…?
@@wallacehowery6414 yes the wealthy have too much power better to give all the power to enlightened communist intellectual central planners (they will be elected by party bureaucracy so it's totally fair) in a de facto single-party system where all the "fascists" (50%+ of the American population) are silenced.
@@dikdynasty234are you one of these "I'll hustle to CEO position" ppl coz good luck with that 👍🏼 also even if you go that route you'll spend the majority of your life being a wage slave to yourself 🌈
If wage slavery as Chomsky here is alluding too, is simply you working a job and being paid by someone (what he calls the master), then we are all "wage slaves" which means it is a meaningless term.
I'm curious how would this be resolved in any other economic system? It wouldn't, people have to work to produce. Forget Capitalism, that is true for ANYTHING. So again I ask how would we rectify "wage slavery" in light that work MUST be done?
The basic idea is that the workers own the means of production, which is one of the theoretical ideas underlying communism (but communism is not an economic system). In practice it is not possible to have workers owning and running complex industries, they simply don't know enough about the business to make rational business decisions.
A great many of us are indeed wage slaves, and that is not a meaningless term at all. Did you even listen to him?
@@tonygumbrell22 The terms you guys use could be applied to great many things. To you a convenience store worker getting $8/hour is a "wage slave" because they aren't getting paid there "full value of there labor", but this also applies to a top developer at a company earning $180k/year. He too is a "wage slave" since he isn't getting the "full value of his labor". So in essence to Socialist the real meaning of "wage slavery" is simply you having a job where you are not the owner. Way to broad for me.
@@dragonore2009 You're going to have to do better than that to figure it out, or you could just spend the next 20 years working in a minimum wage job. That's called learning the hard way. To the capitalist owners of the franchise you are chump change, cheaper than the furnishings of their fast food emporium, speedi-mart, or whatever. Working in those kinds of jobs before long you'll realize it's a case of mind over matter, i.e. they don't mind, and you don't matter.
@@tonygumbrell22 You didn't address the broaden "wage slave" term. Wage slavery in Socialism is any employee in a traditional ran capitalist company that isn't being paid there "full value of there labor" (whatever that means). So a speed-mart worker who gets $9.25/hour is a "wage slave" to you, but so is a Google software developer making $200k/year. They are both "wage slaves" in Socialism, but you and I both know, financially the developer is likely not living a horrible life. The broad use of the term "wage slave" meaning any worker that isn't an owner is way to broad and makes a mockery out of the "slave" in "wage slavery"
It's amazing how Chomsky synthesizes all the great ideas into one philosophy. One of my intellectual heroes.
Except that he never offered a solution. His economic criticisms are shallow, at best, which is pretty much what you can expect from somebody who never ran as much as a lemonade stand.
No slavery. You have a willing employees's and willing employer's. You are usually paid what you're worth. If you are under paid quit and go someplace else. If no minimum wage existed prices would be lower and you could achieve "real" full employment.
Lmao
he looks like a socialist santa claus
I like to eat
True, you don’t work you don’t eat.
Wage slavery is such a weird concept, like I remember Fry from Futurama saying "you know what stinks about being a slave? They don't pay you, but they don't let you go either", only for Leela to reply "That's what slavery is".
Yeah, it's almost like you weren't a slave at all and having a job was a completely different arrengement from that of slavery, and so we use the word "employee" instead of "slave", and "employer" instead of "master", as those are actually different things. At least the last time I checked your boss didn't own you.
Like, I get Chomsky’s idea that, having a job is slavery because, although you are being paid and are free to take or leave any particular job, you are not free from having to work, as you need resources to survive. As he says "people felt their rights were taken away by being forced into a system where they had to sell themselves to survive", therefore, becoming a "wage slave".
But that's not you being coerced into working by capitalism, that's you being coerced into working by reality; you need to engage in productive activities in order to acquire the resources necessary for your survival. The fact that you choose to gather those resources in the form of money via a job just shows that as the most efficient way of attaining that goal that's currently available.
It’s obviously false that you are coerced into having a job, as you can choose to live off the land or work independently; no one is forced to accept a job. This notion is, often mocked, as someone else wrote on a comment on another Chomsky video on the same topic, "that is like saying you have the choice to jump off of a ship in the middle of the ocean".
But again, this only proves the stupidity of characterizing jobs as "wage slavery", as Chomsky himslef points out "the idea that a person should be owned is just an intolerable infringement in human rights", so if having a job was really such a dehumanizing condition, wouldn't it be preferable to abandon that system at all cost, no matter the alternative? Wouldn't a real slave rather abandon his master and survive on his own, before being reduced to someone else's property?
Furthermore, Chomsky also says that "if you sell what you produce for a price, you are selling what you produce; if you work for a wage, you are selling yourself; you are losing your freedom, your dignity, your independence". Here he even recognizes that, if you work independently, you are not a "slave", but what he fails to recognize is that the existence of this multiplicity in the types of work dismantles the initial argument that you are "forced into a system" where you have to work for someone else, as you have the option to work independently.
Of course, the logical conclusion to this is that there is no such thing as a "wage slave", no more than there can be a "free slave", after all, you are a slave who is getting paid and is free to accept or leave any job. Hell, you are even free to not have a job, but you are not free from having to eat if you want to live. In this sense, you would actually be enslaved to work itself, as you have to gather resources by engaging in productive activities, but jobs are just a solution being offered to you to solve the problem of lacking resources, not an imposition, and not in any case slavery.
Virtus, you make a lot of great points in your post. You have a right to quit your job, however it will greatly impact your chances of landing another job. The market is saturated so the majority of jobs are going to be toxic and have unrealistic demands. The proverbial ball is still in the oligarchs hands. Citizens still need to secure capital in order to fulfill their most basic needs. Slavery is an explosive term, usually used to direct the reader to the ever increasing demands of oligarchs. I think of wage slavery as a hodgepodge of terms combined to illicit an emotion. The employee and employer arrangement isn’t slavery, but the working environment for many people has become toxic.
@@Gary2025-e1mI agree with you that wage slavery is often used as a term which aims to cause an emotional reaction in the public regarding poor working conditions and has no real equivalence with slavery. After all, you can’t be a slave who is getting paid or a slave who is free to take or leave his master, because there is no such thing as a "free slave who is getting paid".
But Chomsky's point is that jobs are akin to slavery not because of poor working conditions, but because of people being coerced into a job by capitalism, as you are not free from having to work, as you need resources to survive. He says that "people felt their rights were taken away by being forced into a system where they had to sell themselves to survive".
This is obviously false, as you can choose to live off the land or work independently; no one is forced to accept a job. So I don’t get your point of “citizens still need to secure capital in order to fulfill their most basic needs”. Of course we need resources to survive, but this is different from needing capital, you can live off the land, being a farmer or something similar to a hunter gatherer; you don’t need capital in the form of money. You can even be a farmer and sell some of what you produce to buy what you can’t produce yourself.
Also I don’t get your point of “You have a right to quit your job, however it will greatly impact your chances of landing another job”. Why would it matter that you would be less likely to get another job? Jobs themselves would be the problem, as you would become a slave by being forced into one. Quitting and getting a new job would only be changing masters; the institution of jobs would be the real problem, if you really think you have no choice but to be employed by someone else.
Finally I don’t get your point that “the market is saturated so the majority of jobs are going to be toxic and have unrealistic demands. The proverbial ball is still in the oligarchs hands”. As I said, according to Chomsky, wage slavery has nothing to do with working conditions, but with the human dignity that would be infringed (according to him) by being coerced into a job. He himslef said of people being "rented" (aka being a "wage slave" or just having a job lol) "it's an intolerable infringement on people's rights, even if the guy who rents you is nice to you". So it wouldn’t make a difference if instead of “jobs being toxic and having unrealistic demands”, people were treated nicely; you would still be a slave.
i’m too old & too tired to respond to your loooooooong
comment
but my shorts anwer would be
you forgot that 0,1% of world population own most 💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰
and that couldn’t happen without slave wages/wage slaves
@@mario7frankielee Dude, there is no point to your comment, you simply say 1) a small portion of people own a large portion of the capital 2) therefore people working for them are slaves. There is no logical connection between those two claims to make anything that even resembles an argument. The fact that a small portion of people own a large portion of the capital does not constitute proof of the idea that anyone working for someone else is a slave.
The main argument for wage slavery, according to Chomsky, is that people who are employed by others are slaves because they are "being forced into a system where they had to sell themselves to survive". This argument is not based on the amount of capital owned by a small part of the population, but is based on the idea of a system which supposedly coerces people into jobs which they have no ability to refuse.
My point is, mostly, that there is no such thing as wage slavery, because people are free to gather resources for their survival in any fashion they choose. People can work being employed by others, but they can also work independently, or live off the land; no one is forced into accepting a job and anyone can leave their job at any time.
Even Chomsky recognizes this when he says that "if you sell what you produce for a price, you are selling what you produce; if you work for a wage, you are selling yourself; you are losing your freedom, your dignity, your independence". Here he recognizes that, if you work independently, you are not a "slave", but what he fails to recognize is that the existence of this multiplicity in the types of work dismantles the initial argument that you are "forced into a system" where you have to work for someone else, as you have the option to work independently.
Therefore, as you are free to choose your means of gathering resources, there is no such thing as "wage slavery", as no one is forced into anything.
But I will agree with you on one thing, you didn't respond to my comment, as you just made an incongruent argument with no logical cohesion which had nothing to do with what I said. So, if you are gonna respond to this, please adress the point I'm making, as I would really like to read a different perspective to the one I'm presenting.
@@virtusstradivarius6782
but
how you think it’s possible for 0,1% have so much?
all the workers are free????
the structures are such that you don’t have to use whipping
in china they have this 6/6/9
system
means 6 days from 6-9
jobs
it’s cynical to say to this guys „oh it’s you choice“
noone would work like that if they didn’t have too!
they burn themselves alive out of desperation
or the 1000000 of field workers in india
killing themself by the thousands
so i think your concept is a theoretical one
maybe wage slavery is a wrong term but that’s completely irrelevant concerning the working situation the vast majority of people are in!
So beautiful! But so removed from reality!
Observing the world from the high tower of a respected professor, raised in a tower by professor parents and rabbi ancestors, gives one a distorted perspective of true social reality.
Beautiful thoughts but, simply put, people just aren't so good.
@@Ozrictentacles87 Probably not a good idea to completely trust anyones judgement. Rather get a deep understanding of his ideas, then make your own judgement.
It depends on who you are talking about. There are a lot of nasty people, but there are also a lot of good and smart people, don't treat them as if they were the same, you'd be making the virtuous pay along the sinners.
@@5Gazto good point. I totally have this problem of just assuming people have the best of intentions. Often more that not, this may not be the case so its good to be aware.
@@5Gazto What I'm trying to say here is that a brilliant intellectual like Chomsky is inevitably at risk of having an idyllic perception of the common working man. I suspect Chomsky's encounter with the working class is through his gardener, his maid, and academic papers. Some older academic papers greatly romanticize the common man as being the good peasant man who works the land and is also an artist making beautiful artifacts and great folk music. The oppressed factory worker is this wonderful person who works hard to support his family, and so on. This is all true, of course, but it's only part of the story.
Of course the common man doesn't necessarily do physical work but could be pinned to an office chair for a low pay. In any case the common man makes up the great majority of a society, and a fortunate elite intellectual like Chomsky, raised by intellectual parents, is very likely to not have a good understanding of how the common man really is like. I hate saying this, but Donald Trump has a great understanding of the common man. He used his understanding to brainwash people.
I believe there are two ways in which a member of the high society can get a good grasp of the common man: either he was born to working class parents and worked his way up, or he deals with the common man as part of his occupation e.g. a politician, or a real estate developer( Trump). For these people there is no filter between them and the working class. That filter, I believe, was always there between Chomsky and the working man.
Of course Chomsky describes himself as not only an academic but also a social activist, which he was. He was the social theoretician who was the special guest at some street protests, invited by the organizers. It is fair to assume that while those people were doing rough protesting, professor Chomsky was "with his had in the clouds" dreaming of some abstract and removed notions of social science.
Unless the working man is part of your day to day life, for hours on end, he is not a real person to you, but a fairytale character, an abstract notion from a scientific paper. And without a close and realistic understanding of the people who make up the society, your theoretically correct social theories will just not work in real life. Like mathematical models that have perfect rigor, but when applied to real world they are junk.
Myself, I regard Chomsky the philosopher of language very highly, and Chomsky the social scientist not so highly.
I realize what I wrote here will be read by maybe 4 people, and doesn't fit the format of a youtube comment, but it's an exercise.
@@felixzadori The people on top just aren’t so good, we should put power into the masses as a safeguard
Excellent
I envy Prof Chomsky's self control when he is speaking about exploitation. Most people would get angry and verbally aggressive when they talk about capitalists and Neoliberalism. Prof. Chomsky does not seem to feel any anger. Maybe he should give a course on controling your own emotions, he seems to be a world champion when it comes to selfcontrol.
Of course he doesn't fell anger. The system always gave him a good life.
much of this beginning is in the communist manifesto, marx
He does not know what slavery really is. there is no such thing as a slave wage. Using the word slave is disrespectable toward real slaves. This is all nonsense. If you can.'t afford children or a wife don't have any. Im grateful for big companies willing to hire me. Most bad things that happen to you are because of you.
Or? Stop thinking of it as slavery. Just accept it as life and the toil that comes with it.
This is exactly why Chomsky quoted Gramsci in the beginning: your statement is self reflecting prooof of “hegemonic common sense” that must be questioned, and exemplary of what Walter Lippmann called “manufacturing consent.” It’s also the reason why most systems of oppression last so long: nobody questions them.
@@theblackdeath4398 Chase your Utopia then. I'll take my happiness now.
@@Borderose Men of the past chased their utopia to give you the life you have
@@MRender32 Yeah. Great men. Strong men. Men graced to be put into positions of power and influence. I'm a damn commoner. I can influence my life. That's all. The "movements" can afford to lose a footsoldier. Unless I believe in a cause enough to bother? Or the gods grace me into a position where I can turn the lives of others on a whim? I'm gonna take my happiness now. Accepting the strife and the pain as just part and parcel of being alive. Death and suffering are my only birthrights. The fact I can find happiness despite it? Is proof that there are good people in this world. Who fought for me to live in peace and it would be an insult not to grab it.
If your life is good "enough"? Don't risk it. If the status quo is good enough for you? You are not obligated to overthrow it. Rebellions and revolutions are for people who can't live in the world as it is. They may be justified in doing so, but I urge those who aren't suffering and are just bored with their safe-ass lives not to throw their bodies into the fire, into someone else's fight, just to feel alive. Useful idiots like that? Wannabe revolutionaries? Are abhorrent.
@@Borderose plenty of commoners who worked their asses off for that power and influence - you seem to have forgotten them. Lincoln was born a dirt farmer. Educated himself. Gandhi. MLKjr. Harvey Milk. History is rife with examples of this sort. Sorry to hear you’re so resigned to serving your master.🤷🏻♂️ “I’ll take my happiness now” you say. MLKjr said the death of America would lay in radical materialism. Of a “thing” oriented society over a “people” oriented society. You and your sad beliefs are abhorrent.
He is a joke compared to Olavo de Carvalho
The next generation of would-be billionaires need to grow in the wake of a new model. We must, ourselves, strive to create as many worker co-ops and political advocates as possible. Our generation must prime future gen billionaires to take on the most important tasks along with us to save the future of humanity.
Worker co-ops don't work. The janitor has no idea how to run the business, so you can't let him vote on important business decisions.
@@schmetterling4477 that is not at all how worker co ops function. Its merely an added stakeholder function, excluding dilution scams. Middle and upper management mean nothing if you have zero skin in the game. Its why compensation packages offer stock in total comp calculations. Barring a competitive growth model in the hopes of lead market share supremacy, the only other real hurdle is combatting an exhaustive tax code designed for the investor classes to squeeze the most of profits for individual gain.
@@cesarperez10 That is exactly how worker co-ops work. If the janitor doesn't get to vote, then it's not a co-op.
OTOH, if workers merely want to be the passive shareholders of the corporation, then they need to be personally responsible for the losses of the corporation, too. This means added financial risk. It typically takes tens to hundreds of millions of dollars these days to start a corporation. That's easily on the order of $1-10 million per employee in the initial years. I don't know many employees who would put up that kind of money just to get a job in a startup. Would you?
Or take for example Microsoft, a mature large corporation. It has a marketcap of $2 trillion and approx. 170,000 employees. The buy-in for a new employee would therefor be on the order of $10 million to become a shareholder-employee. That is obviously out of the question. That marketcap is not unreasonable, by the way. Microsoft generates almost a million dollars in revenue per employee per year. The marketcap is a high, but not all that high multiple of that number. Even if you go with a small business kind of valuation, the employee buy-in would end up having to be on the order of $2-3 million. Microsoft could not possibly find enough workers who can afford that kind of gamble.
I don't know why you think that having skin in the game is a good thing? I NEVER participate in such gambling schemes. If you want me to work for you, then you have to pay me 100% of my work by the hour without offloading any of your business risk on me. Why? Because I know that that risk is not worth it.
@@schmetterling4477 Market cap alone is a poor measure for company valuation. There's no need for every bit of the company to be accounted for among every employee, that's silly, especially when that high worker membership is never expected normally. Whether employees of a given field are under single large companies' umbrellas or a network of smaller companies within the same industry makes little difference for the push for more worker co-ops. If anything research proves that already established larger firms, having already proved itself past startup stages, are more likely to survive than businesses starting as co-ops suffering from scrambling for investor funding and early employee founders team mismanagement. Its little different than the aims of a union or majority employee owned companies. Having more have stake simply relays the importance of a more decentralized network of decision makers and juxtaposed interests, but at the expense of total continued growth? - that's not at all the case. For your case then, sure - a union would be a fit solution when attempting to contract work with different companies, while just the same should be said for employees with growing tenure at incorporated organizations. It's the having of skin in the game which garners you better representation, not a personal vote at the happenings of different department levels. Again, that's just silly. If one doesn't find the notion of a system of checks and balances for the US government that interplays between the federal and national level that was idealized to be silly, then worker cooperatives or companies like that should be more of a palpable, tenable convention.
I wont say regular businesses should no longer have a place, just that fairer alternatives should be more available. But how can any of this be possible in the future when people are so poorly educated/informed, and dont have the tools or know-how to even begin to fight for their fair share in the marketplace?
@@cesarperez10 I gave you market cap and a 3x small business evaluation. Almost no employee can afford the small business value of their workplace, either. It's a ridiculous thing to expect from an employee to share the risk of their work. Risk is a negative financial value. It deducts rather than adds to ones income.
"Its little different than the aims of a union or majority employee owned companies. "
But it is. A co-op hands all employees the control that is usually reserved for the C-level. The problem with that is that C-level management is a learned skill. It's not something we are all born with in the crib. You can't do it unless somebody teaches it to you.
Now, if you are not asking for co-oops but only for unions, then don't call them co-ops. The function of unions is to keep the workplace safe and adjust worker compensation in proportion to the overall growth of the economy. Unions DO NOT serve as a distributor of economic risk. Quite the contrary.
Having more risk does not get you more control. You have obviously never been in a boardroom and you have never seen the actual dynamic between CEOs and their boards. Investors who pay more do not automatically get more control over a corporation and even if they did, what good is that control if the business goes sideways or down because of external factors despite the best efforts of a competent management team?
The people who talk about this like it's a game of monopoly have not even played monopoly in my opinion, because that is a game of risk, not a game of skill. So is 90% of corporate management. The problem is that non-C-level employees can't even play the remaining 10% skill part of the corporate game right. So what good are you doing to yourself with a co-op? You gain almost nothing and you give up almost everything.
"I wont say regular businesses should no longer have a place, just that fairer alternatives should be more available."
Life ain't fair. Boohoo. How about you grow a pair and accept that instead of looking for a magic solution?
We are lucky to have a voice such as Norm Chomsky's. However, Chomsky gets away with a lot intellectually. He's got a brain like a computer, which is to say I believe he lacks imagination (we all do in our own ways) and intuition. Back in the day, he trashed BF Skinner's visionary novel "Walden Two"; which I believe is probably the only solution available to us. He trashes (anarcho-primitivism) again, the only real path available to us. He also discounted the findings of Daniel Everett, the fellow who wrote: "Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes-Life and Language In the Amazonian Jungle." Chomsky isn't the smartest guy (close though) on the block, but he is the loudest. Why didn't he start his own school; if he believes in cooperative businesses.? The answer is simple, it's not that simple.
My brain soaks this shit right up.
That's probably because your brain has big holes, like a sponge.
Thanks again Noam he is so right! In this time we are custommer slaves....personal freedom goin more then ever before. large companies allow staff to become self-employed so large companies therefore do not have to pay social insurances..
Yep, I worked for one of those large companies that was trying to convice their staff that gig economy is cool.
Of course Chomsky is employed by the university and thuse being an academic is not subject to wage slavery. For someone who claims to be so intellectual he is so ignorant of human behavior.
Where did you hear Noam Chomsky self identity as an 'intellectual"? That is something others (me for one) assign.
@@jrshield7793 Bang on !
shut up Cacasena
academics can also be subject to wage slavery. Not all people lecturing at universities are Professors. A lot of the young academics work from one paycheck to the next and if their contracts are not renewed they will loose their accomodation and everything else.
@ge requiem Just cause the system rewards his work monetarily does not mean he can not criticize that same Power structure .
Actually , if anything , you should be grateful that it is an " insider " having these discussions when normally the ones who moan and bitch the most are just expressing their envy at not being in positions of privilege themselves .
Friendly reminder that Noam Chomsky denies the Bosnian Genocide and Supported the Khmer Rouge, and also denies the genocide that regime committed.
The guy is for calling out human rights abuses unless it's done by a socialist regime. Inb4 NoT ReAl SoCiALiSM
Please post some resources that support your claims
Resistance is futile - Rather build an alternative, fully decentralized world and then watch the twilight of the old idols play out..
The living dead...
Yes
Waging a war on slavery
Slaving a war on wages
Waging slavery on wars
Slaving wages in wars
I’m starting to understand...realigning the antennas on my tin foil hat...
Therefore the following follows, Colorless green ideas sleep furiously - de factly.