Kennedy Institute of Politics: Professor Brandon Terry- Interviewing Professor Noam Chomsky: The Future of Leftist Politics in America'

Source:Kennedy School of Politics- Professor Brandon Terry, interviewing Professor Noam Chomsky at Harvard

Source:The New Democrat

"A discussion with:

Noam Chomsky

Institute Professor of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Political Theorist and Activist

Brandon Terry (moderator)

Assistant Professor of African and African American Studies and Social Studies, Harvard University."

From the Kennedy School of Politics

 As someone who is not a psychic or a leftist, I would say the future of The Left ( as it's called ) and I would argue Far-Left ( at least in an American sense ) will be about identity politics, the welfare state, big government in general, and I guess self-honesty. ( For lack of a better term ) Where you'll have millions of young Americans especially who are proud to be Leftists ( let's call them Socialists ) who no longer feel the need to hide who they are politically and even hide their own political labels.

This event was in late 2015 about 3 1/2 years ago but just go up three years later to November, 2018 and we now have a class of Democrats or at least prominent Democratic freshman in the House who are not just proud to be Leftists, but proud to be Socialists. Who just a few years ago would've felt the need to run in the Green Party to run for reelection and to have any shot at winning the nomination for the office they're seeking, who today can run as Democrats and not just run as Democrats, but run as Socialists and Democratic Socialists.

The Democratic Party today thanks to Bernie Sanders in 2015-16 now has a significant Socialist faction in it. Whether that's 20% or 30%, the Democratic Party today now has a significant, hard core Socialist base who believe that government can solve any problem that has ever been known to man, if it just has the money to do so. Which is very different from where the Democratic Party was just 10 years when they were basically just a Center-Left progressive party with a Far-Left fringe in it. 10 years later the Socialists in the party now look more mainstream with Democrats who just 10 years ago would be viewed as solid Progressive Democrats ( like Barack Obama ) , now are viewed as centrists or even Conservative Democrats. ( At least by the Socialists in the party )

What I just laid out looks very mainstream at least when you're talking about the left-wing ( to say the least ) about the Democratic Party today. People who believe in social democracy or democratic socialism, who want a large centralized national government and welfare state there to meet the economic needs of all the people.

If the left-wing of the Democratic Party was just Henry Wallace or George McGovern wing of the Democratic Party and if that's all the left-wing of the Democratic Party represented today and represented people of all races and ethnicities, male and female and they weren't about racial or identity politics, but a pluralist political faction that was about social democracy or democratic socialism, they wouldn't look that radical today especially with young Americans, especially with the more militant faction of this movement that wants to make race, ethnicity, and gender issues about everything not just in politics and government, but in American life in general.

But the left-wing ( or Far-Left ) in and outside of the Democratic Party today are not all pluralists and don't care for liberal democracy. It's not just social democracy that they want, but believe that men aren't necessary, ( at least Caucasian men ) that women aren't just superior to men, but should be running everything, and generally view Caucasians especially men as ignorant and bigots, unless they come from the West Coast or Northeast and were educated there.

And that's the growing faction in the Democratic Party that you have to worry about if you're a mainstream Democrat who is part of the Democratic leadership, because as the Far-Left grows in the party, the less Far-Left they'll look and more mainstream that they'll look in the party. But they'll still look very radical outside of the party and mainstream Democrats will have to figure out how to get elected and reelected with this faction on their back that they'll need to win elections, but still be able to appeal to mainstream Democrats and Independents.

Chomsky's Philosophy: Professor Noam Chomsky- Free Speech on Campus

Source:Chomsky's Philosophy-  Professor Noam Chomsky: talking about free speech on campus.

Source:The New Democrat

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views that you don't like. Goebbeles was in favor of freedom of speech for views that he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom of speech that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views that you don't like."

Source:Quote Master: 

From Chomsky's Philosophy

Professor Noam Chomsky, will never get mistaken for a Ronald Reagan, William Buckley, or Barry Goldwater Conservative, except for perhaps in one area: when it came to free speech, Professor Noam Chomsky is to the right of Reagan on free speech and believe that free speech is for everyone. Not just Hippies who oppose war, but for right-wing Nationalists who hate minorities. These hard-core Leftists on the Far-Left ( whether you want to call them Socialists or Communists ) might view Chomsky as a Conservative, simply because he believes in free speech. But disagreeing with these Leftists on anything, is like saying no to Joe Stalin: you put your life or career in jeopardy when you do that. You're either with these hard corse Leftists on everything, or they see you as part of the opposition.

Something else that these Far-Leftists should think about: if they're successful in censoring speech that they don't like, the right-wing at some point could come in and start outlawing music and other entertainment that they don't like, or political demonstrations that they disagree with. Which is what they tried to do in the 1960s with Vietnam War protests and pro-civil rights demonstrations. It's that old Martin Luther King line about every action having a reaction to it: when you take action against someone on the other side especially an action that they despise like trying to cut off their free speech rights, they'll do the same thing against you when they're in power.

If you're going to live in a free society like a liberal democracy, there are certain actions and views from others that you have to put up with. You don't have to accept them or agree with them and you're more than welcome to oppose them and demonstrate against them. You just can't use your freedom to deny someone else's their freedom, simply because you disagree with their personal choices and views. If you don't accept the concept of a free society and oppose liberal democracy, try living in a communist or nationalistic state where the government is there literally to hold onto power and they do that by severely limiting what their people can do so they can hold onto power.

Chomsky's Philosophy: Professor Noam Chomsky- The Nanny State

Source: Chomsky's Philosophy- Uncle Sam's Big Government.

Source:The New Democrat

Noam Chomsky's definition of a nanny state, is what almost every else including people who favor the nanny state on both wings of the American political spectrum call corporate welfare. Where government at taxpayers expense subsidizes wealthy successful corporations and individuals. That is not a nanny state, but corporate welfare. A nanny state is big government that tires to do to much for the people themselves. Make decisions for individuals that they ( meaning big government ) believe should be left to big government and not individuals. Like how much and what people should and can eat, or what and how much they can drink to use as examples. Big government telling people who they can sleep with and marry, when romantic couples can start living together, would be other examples of a nanny state.

Source: Campaign For Liberty- Big Government, standing on individual freedom 

There are two ideological forms of the nanny state both in America and in the rest of the world. One coming from the Far-Left which seems to get more publicity than anything else when it comes to big government as it relates to personal issues, is very secular to the point that Far-Leftists would even outlaw religion if they could and have in most communist countries. Far-Leftists both democratic in a socialist sense and authoritarian in a communist sense, who believe they're the only smart moral people and have all the answers to the point that even questioning them is somehow immoral and should be punished by government force. The Communist Republic of Korea ( which is what North Korea really is ) is a perfect example of that.

Source: Joe Blow Report- Good example of the nanny state 

The other form of the nanny state in America and in other places in the world, tends to have Far-Right fundamentalist, theocratic religious tones, as well as nationalist, tribalist, fascist tones. That they ( the supporters of this fascism ) are the real Americans or whatever nationality you want to use, that they're the only real Patriots ( not from New England, necessarily ) and everyone who disagrees with then are immoral and hate their country. We saw this with Senator Joe McCarthy and his McCarthyism movement in the 1950s and backers of the so-called Un-American Activities movement in the late 1940s and early 1950s. And their religious and moral values are so superior to everyone and everything else, that their values and religion should be the law of the land. And that anyone who violates these values should be in prison or even worst. You see this in the Islamic Republic of Iran, to use as an example.

Corporate welfare and the nanny state, even though they're both related to big government and backed by big government, are two different things. One is about subsidizing wealthy individuals and corporations at the expense of everyone else. The other is about telling people what they can't and can't do and trying to use big government to manage people's lives for them. Because they believe that personal freedom is dangerous and just the freedom to make mistakes and commit immoral acts, as they would see it. Corporate welfare and the nanny state, both come from big government, but aren't the same things.
Source:Chomsky's Philosophy

Chomsky's Philosophy: Noam Chomsky- 'Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?'

Source:Chomsky's Philosophy- MIT Professor Noam Chomsky talking about free speech in America.

Source:The New Democrat

“Noam Chomsky – Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?” 

From Chomsky's Philosophy 

Noam Chomsky is a self-described Socialist and Libertarian-Socialist, no one’s moderate or right-winger, making the perfect argument for why even Neo-Nazis and others on the Far-Right in America, deserve free speech rights simply for being American citizens. Even if they’re the worst Americans citizens that we have in America.

Professor Chomsky arguing both for practical as well as principal reasons why even Neo-Nazis have free rights in America.

The practical reason being that Neo-Nazis could claim that their First Amendment rights are being trampled on an violated if some government authority passed some censorship law banning free speech in their jurisdiction or if the Federal Government attempted to do that and than enforced that law on Neo-Nazis and other Far-Right hate groups. These hate groups could no only claim that, but they would be right.

The right to free speech in America, just doesn’t protect free speech, but it protects speech. Including speech that offends the oversensitive so-called politically correct (really Far-Left) in America. Or speech that offends the Christian-Right in America. Certain forms of entertainment that offends the Christian-Right’s moral and religious values.

The First Amendment-

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right or the right of the people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The Supreme Court has made only three exceptions to this.

Inciting violence like yelling fire and calling for a panic in a large crowded public place.

Falsely libeling people and libeling people with no real base or evidence to back up what you’re accusing the person of.

And harassment. You can name call people and call them bad names, but once the person moves away from you and makes it clear they don’t want to even hear from you, let alone talk to you, but you insist and follow the person around simply to harass them, you could face legal consequences for that if the person presses charges against you, as well as civil charges.

Simply using language that is offensive and even hatful, as well as false against people you hate short of calling for violence against that individual or people, is protected by the First Amendment in the United States.

We’re all equal citizens in America all having the same constitutional rights and deserve to have those rights equally enforced and protected. From the best of us who work everyday to make America a better country for everyone and who volunteer for people who are disadvantaged and even donate their time and money to people who aren’t doing well. To hateful assholes who look down on people simply because they have a different complexion and are of a different racial and ethnic background as the people who hate them.

As Noam Chomsky said the way to deal with Neo-Nazis and other hate groups, is to win the argument. Shouldn’t be that difficult to do for anyone with even average intelligence. Most Americans or at least a large majority of us, don’t hate people or feel superior to other people, simply because they have a different race or ethnicity.

If Neo-Nazis want to claim that Africans are animals and not humans and therefor not deserving of the same rights as Europeans, well we all know that Africans are human beings.

If the Neo-Nazis want to deny the Jewish Holocaust and genocide in Europe, show people the footage and literature that proves how false those claims are. Simply just show Americans who are young and perhaps don’t know any better how stupid these hate groups are simply by showing people what these groups have claimed and people will know how stupid they are.

Professor Noam Chomsky: 'Anarchism, Capitalism, Socialism, Free Markets (2013)'

Source:Remember This- Professor Noam Chomsky, speaking about anarchism, capitalism, socialism, and free markets, in 2013.

"In practice Chomsky has tended to emphasize the philosophical tendency of anarchism to criticize all forms of illegitimate authority. More Chomsky:Amazon... 

From Remember This

If Noam Chomsky is talking about an economic system where the workers own the company that they work meaning the central government, meaning state ownership of the means of production of society, meaning, or economic Marxism, then I think he’s dead wrong. There isn’t a large developed country in the world with a Marxist economic system. 

But if Professor Chomsky talking about an economic system where the workers each own a percentage of the company that they work at, like with private stock options, not just for executives, but the entire workforce, then I believe Dr. Chomsky is on to something.

In a system like that no CEO would make a hundred or thousand times more than the workforce. Each CEO would be paid based on the job they are doing good, or bad and wouldn’t set their salary. The Board of Directors made up of the stockholders and the workforce would determine this. 

And no one person or a small group of people would own an entire corporation. But the CEO like the entire management and workforce would own a piece of the company based on what they contribute to it. So they would all get a base salary, plus their stock options. When the company is doing well, so are they, when the company is doing poorly, so are they. Which would give plenty of incentive for the entire management and workforce to work as hard and be as productive as they possibly can. Because there’s plenty of financial incentive for them to do that. 

I could see an economic system developing like this in America if there enough people who want it bad enough and will work hard and well enough to make it happen. The Green Bay Packers of the NFL have a similar system to this. Where essentially all the Green Bay residents own at least a piece of the club. Not the city government, but the individuals each own a private share of the club.

They don’t have one person whose the owner of the club or the general partner of a small group running the club, but a CEO who has to report to the Board of Directors and the stockholders in the club. And they have been not only one of the most successful NFL franchises since they’ve been in existence, but in pro sports in general. 

What I would like to see in America is that we move away from cowboy capitalism, where there’s basically no taxes and regulations for company’s and wealthy people and a lot of corporate welfare. But instead where company’s are able to stay in business by the quality of services they provide.

A system of individualism that I would call American capitalism, where people can make as much money as their skills and production will allow. Pay taxes based on how much they make with the wealthy paying the most and going down. But where taxes aren’t so high that there’s not enough incentive for people to work hard, be productive and earn a good living. And where the economy is not over regulated or under regulated, or where regulations aren’t enforced like the last ten years. But where the economy is well-regulated to protect company’s and individuals from abusing each other.

I could like to see an economic systems where we have a public education system producing enough good workers for the highly skilled jobs. And a safety net that catches people who fall through the cracks, but helps them get up on their own feet to be self-sufficient. 

If companies on their own, or new startup company’s want to move to a system where the entire management and workforce owns a piece of the action (so to speak) great. Thats their call, but that shouldn’t be forced on them. Let the market decide how these companies are run. Instead of state planners and have government there to help people back up who fall and prevent and punish company’s and individuals who abuse others. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Phil Donahue & Vladimir Pozner: Noam Chomsky (1994)

Source:Mike Gardner with Professor Noam Chomsky's appearance on Donahue & Pozner from 1994.

Source:FreeState MD

“Noam Chomsky Vs Phil Donahue FULL Debate”

From Mike Gardner

They are discussing the Yugoslavian civil war from the early and mid 1990s probably in 1993-94. In the early days of the Clinton Administration right before America and Europe got involved in the Yugoslavian civil war in September, 1995. And they were debating exactly if anything could be done about the situation in Yugoslavia.

BBC: Brian Magee Interviews Noam Chomsky- 'The Ideas of Noam Chomsky'

Source:BBC News- Professor Noam Chomsky, being interviewed by BBC News, in 1977.

Source:FreeState MD

"An old interview mostly on Chomsky's linguistics work, philosophy, and some remarks on political views near the end.

Note: the video is taken from Youtube, where it was broken into five segments, when I re-merged the segments the audio got a little strange, so that before the next segment's audio starts the audio from the last segment jumps in for a fraction of a second. Its tolerable though."

From  Supremo Ichigo

I was in a debate about a year ago with someone who self-describes their politics as libertarian. And we were talking about Professor Noam Chomsky and this person was describing Noam Chomsky’s politics as socialist. And I told this person that Professor Chomsky is a Libertarian Socialist. Which might sound like an oxymoron, because how can someone be both a Libertarian and a Socialist. Libertarians are always looking to shrink the size of government and Socialists are always looking to grow the size of government.

Source:BBC- interviewing Professor Noam Chomsky

Libertarians tend to think that government is way too big and Socialists especially in America tend to think that government is way too small. This person said that: “you can’t be both, it’s sort of one or the other”. And what I trying to get across to them and not believing I was successful, is that you can be both as long as you aren’t socialist or libertarian on both economic and social issues. That you have to believe in a high deal of individual freedom at least as it relates to personal or economic freedom.

So what is a Libertarian Socialist: It’s someone whose liberal libertarian on social-issues. Meaning they do not want government interfering with our personal lives including as it relates to prohibition. And in America are even in favor of gun rights, against the War on Drugs, censorship even as it relates to hate speech. Doesn’t really sound like someone who would be a Progressive today, but what they do have in common with Socialists  (again, Libertarian Socialists ) is they both have a big role for government in the economy.

People who are liberal-libertarian on social-issues, but socialist on economic policy. And believe in things like the welfare state, high taxes for social spending and so-forth. Big regulations on private enterprise, big believers in the right to organize and so-forth. Libertarian socialism is a form of socialism at least in its liberal not paternalistic form. That government shouldn’t try to run our lives, but be there to provide us the services that can’t be trusted to the private sector.

Libertarian socialism is the only form of socialism or that I respect as a Liberal. Because even though they believe in a big state as it relates to the economy, they do not believe that government should be trying to run our lives for us and are not pure statists at least. And even believe in a high deal of economic freedom as long as it’s highly taxed and regulated. So no one get’s left behind in society. This is not my philosophy, but it’s a lot better from what we are hearing from so-called Progressives today who seem to be believe in a big role for government in the economy, but also in our personal lives. As far as what personal choices we are allowed to make.

LWF: Noam Chomsky- The Purpose of Education

Source:LWF- Professor Noam Chomsky. 

“Noam Chomsky discusses the purpose of education, impact of technology, whether education should be perceived as a cost or an investment and the value of standardised assessment.

Presented at the Learning Without Frontiers Conference – Jan 25th 2012- London (LWF 12)”

Source:LWF

Source:LWF- MIT Professor Noam Chomsky.

The purpose of education is for people to learn what they need to know in order to be successful in life. Not teach them what to think, but how to think and how to learn so they can make the best out of all available important information out there.

What any successful democracy needs to be successful are people being able to learn and think for themselves, especially in a liberal democracy where information is more critical (I would argue) because we have more freedom to make our own decisions. Instead of living in a social democracy where more is expected from the central government to do for us.

The opposite of an educated, free society is a developing country, where there are simply not enough quality schools and educators to go around. And as a result you don’t have the educated workforce and consumer class needed to make your county a good investment. And as a result investors stay out of your country. Or an authoritarian state where the central government decides for everyone who lives there what people should know and what they should think. And for anyone who goes against that they are subjected to government sanctions.

A developed free society is an educated society. A society where people choose to live and stay, because it has the freedom and economic opportunity that people want and need to live well. And that starts first with parenting and then quality education. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Akshay Pahilajani: Professor Noam Chomsky- On Liberalism (1977)

Source:Akshay Pahilajani- MIT Professor Noam Chomsky talking about liberalism in 1977.

“Noam Chomsky on Liberalism. Excerpt from a BBC interview in 1977”

Source:Akshay Pahilajani

I like what Professor Chomsky said early on in this video, because that’s exactly what I could base this entire piece around. This one point where he says that liberalism when it was first developed was anti-establishment (And I would add anti-centralization of power)

What Professor Chomsky is essentially talking about what’s called classical liberalism. I don’t call it classical liberalism myself, as a Liberal, but that’s what the so-called mainstream media, as well as closeted Socialists or Leftists, who don’t like those terms. So they call what used to be just known as liberalism, neoliberalism or classical liberalism.

But what has always been known as liberalism, before leftists (democratic and otherwise tried to hijack the philosophy) has been a political philosophy that’s built around advancing individual, human rights and defending liberty for all, not some, but for everybody. Not about advancing the state and the role of the state, especially the national state, believing that the more power and money that the national government has, the better off everyone will be. Which is what Socialists (democratic and otherwise) believe, not real Liberals. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Noam Chomsky: 'Public Education & The Common Good'

Source: Professor Noam Chomsky.

I was watching BookTV on C-Span 2 today. (because I'm a current affairs as well as history and political junky, whose interested in things besides celebrity culture and technology. If that offends you, too bad.) And I was watching a presentation from Tom Allen who served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1997-2009. He and Chuck Hagel who served in the Senate from that same period actually came to Congress the same year and left the same year. Without ever serving in the same chamber. (Just a little food for thought) And Representative Allen has a new book about the broken U.S. Congress about why he believes Congress is not working and so-forth.

And I'm not going to focus on Congress in this post. I only mention that because in his presentation, Tom Allen was talking about the need to balance individualism and freedom with community and responsibility. 

Professor Noam Chomsky in this presentation talks about the need for community. Basically arguing that someone paying taxes to fund public education, might not see a direct benefit from that. But those taxes probably funded their education and so-forth that we pay taxes that funds what we need directly by also what we've used in the past. 

Take education, or what we'll be consuming in the future, like Social Security or Medicare and perhaps Unemployment Insurance. And all of that is true. But my argument is that without individual freedom and individualism, we wouldn't have the resources to fund those programs. Or not enough money to fund those programs.

Liberal democracy at its best recognizes the need for individual freedom, individualism, individual responsibility, and community as well. That we won't do very well if we are lacking in just one of those areas. That freedom becomes too expensive if we constantly have to subsidize the bad decisions of others. Or when we can't profit from the good decisions that we make, that we should subsidize success, but that there also has to be consequences that we have to deal with when we mess up. But also an opportunity to work our ways out of those failures.

So that's exactly what individual freedom and responsibility and community are about. That we are all part of the same society that empowers us to be successful. But then with what we do with those opportunities is up to us and when we do well, we are rewarded. But when we don't do well we have to deal with the consequences of those decisions. But then there's an opportunity for us to survive and get ourselves on our feet.

So liberal democracy at its best and I believe at its core, is a national system not necessarily Federal, but a system and philosophy where we all have the freedom to live our own lives. As long as we are not hurting innocent people with what we are doing. And that we are rewarded when we do well, but also have to deal with the consequences of our good and bad decisions. But when we do mess up, there's a community that helps us get ourselves up on our two feet. Which is individual freedom and responsibility to go along with community.

PBS: A World of Ideas- Bill Moyers Interviewing Noam Chomsky (1988)

Source:PBS- Bill Moyers & professor Noam Chomsky in 1988.

“Taken from Bill Moyers program “A World of Ideas” aired on PBS back in 1988.

I do not own the rights to this content.” 

From Pink Of 

Last week I was in a debate on YouTube (of all places) about libertarianism. We were commenting on a video about Professor Noam Chomksy and I commented on it, saying he was a Libertarian Socialist.

I understand that people not familiar with the term, like the person I was talking to on YouTube, that Libertarian Socialist might sound like an Oxymoron, sort of like jumbo shrimp, or Conservative Communist. (If there is such a thing) Libertarians are always arguing in favor decreasing the size of the state. And that the current state that we already have is way too big and unconstitutional. Socialists (at least in America) are always arguing in favor of increasing the size of government (especially at the national level) even when they argue in favor of cutting national defense and law enforcement.

When this person saw my comment on YouTube, this person said that basically that Noam Chomsky couldn’t be a Libertarian because he’s a Socialist and people like Ron Paul etc are real Libertarians. I’m guessing this person describes his politics as libertarian, but doesn’t seem to fully understand his own political ideology.

I told the person that I talking to that Professor Chomksy isn’t a Classical Libertarian, but a Libertarian Socialist. Big believer in social freedom and that we should be free to live our own lives. But that the state has to be big enough, with a welfare state to meet the needs of the country. Which is what Libertarian Socialism is. So a Libertarian Socialist would be against things like the War on Drugs and America expanding its power in the world, trying to police the world, big believer in civil liberties, against what’s called the Military Industrial Complex and what’s called the Prison Industrial Complex.

Libertarian Socialists would be against things like private prisons and for things like legalizing narcotics, especially marijuana, that pornography and gambling should both be legal, even prostitution. That the state shouldn’t try to police people from themselves, but regulate how we interact with each other.

Libertarian socialism is a different form of socialism (to state the obvious) in the sense that even though they both tend to agree on economic policy, but tend to disagree on some key personal choice social issues.

Libertarian Socialists don’t believe that hate speech should be illegal, or that people should be subjected to civil action based on hate speech. Again, as long as people aren’t threatening to hurt or harm each other.

Today’s so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) do believe hate speech should be regulated. The Westboro Church case of 2011, is a pretty good example of that. So-called Progressives tend to believe that gambling should be illegal as well and perhaps even prostitution and certain forms of pornography. There are leftists that are Statists (communist-lite, perhaps) not just on economic policy, but social issues as well. Libertarian Socialists are individualists on social issues. There’s diversity in the so-called progressive movement.

There’s diversity in the Socialists movement to the point, that now there are Leftists like Noam Chomsky that describe their politics as Libertarian Socialist. Socialist on economic and foreign policy, as well as national security. But liberal-libertarian on social issues.

There’s a blog called the Progressive Libertarian. I’m friends with people on Facebook and outside of Facebook that call their politics libertarian socialist. And you have Socialists who are collectivist on economic policy but some key social issues as well. So when they get labeled nanny statists by the right-wing and Liberals like myself.

You can see why I would describe Professor Chomsky’s politics as a combination of Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders, or perhaps just Bernie Sanders. Someone whose a Socialist-Liberal, or Libertarian-Socialist. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

TVO: Allan Gregg Interviewing Noam Chomsky- 'The Conscience of America'

Source:TVO- Professor Noam Chomsky, talking to Canadian talk show host Allan Gregg, about American foreign policy.

"Noam Chomsky - Conscience of America."

Originally from Allen Gregg 

What I like and respect about Noam Chomsky, is what I like and respect about Ron Paul, or William F. Buckley, or Bernie Sanders, Ayn Rand: not their political philosophy, necessarily, but their commitment to it and their honesty. 

You don't have to agree with someone to view them as a good, honest, and decent person. Perhaps the main problem with American politics and probably why we have 3-5 American voters who aren't a member of either the two political parties, is that politicians and political activists, as well as commentators that view the other side and even people in their own party as the enemy and not as just political opponents, as well immoral people. 

I disagree with Professor Noam Chomsky on most economic and foreign policy issues, but I respect his intelligence and ability to communicate exactly what he believes and why he believes it.  

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

C-SPAN: BookTV- Noam Chomsky on Socialism in 2003

Source:CSPAN- MIT Professor Noam Chomsky, talking about socialism in 2003.

"Noam Chomsky responds to a caller's request for his thoughts on socialism, during a 2003 interview by Brian Lamb, for C-SPAN's "In Depth" program. He describes how socialism was equated with the Leninist model of the Soviet Union by both the USA and its allies on the one hand, and the USSR and its allies on the other." 

From CSPAN 

"Noam Chomsky, professor of Linguistics at MIT University in Cambridge, MA, talked about his life and career as a political activist and critic of U.S. foreign policy. Among the topics he addressed were efforts to combat terrorism, war with Iraq, and Bush administration economic and foreign policy. He also responded to questions from viewers on the telephone and submitted by fax and electronic mail." 

Source:CSPAN- MIT Professor Noam Chomsky, talking about socialism in 2003.

From CSPAN 

I partially disagree with Professor Noam Chomky here. What he would call socialism, is where the people have a stake in their economic and personal lives and ability to make their own decisions and not be dominated by their employers or government. That's basically what social democracy is and is the dominant political and governmental philosophy in the developed world, outside of America. 

But there's also an authoritarian aspect of socialism where you essentially put the state (meaning the national government and party in power) in charge of everything in society, especially the people. And at best in a Communist state like this the people sacrifice their personal and economic freedom to the government, in exchange for their well-being. And at worst which is how communism is generally practiced, the people are essentially slaves to their own government.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

C-SPAN: Professor Noam Chomsky- On Welfare

Source:CSPAN- Professor Noam Chomsky, talking about Welfare in America.

"Public programs that provide funds for rich people are not called 'welfare', but in fact that's what MOST of the public funds are." 

From Professor Noam Chomsky 

“The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all the people. 

There are few genuine conservatives within the U.S. political system, and it is a sign of the intellectual corruption of the age that the honorable term ‘conservatism’ can be appropriated to disguise the advocacy of a powerful, lawless, aggressive and violent state, a welfare state for the rich dedicated to a lunatic form of Keynesian economic intervention that enhances state and private power while mortgaging the country’s future.” 

Source:AZ Quotes- Professor Noam Chomsky I believe talking about Welfare in America in 1996.

From AZ Quotes

What is Welfare at least to me and how I define it and what would it look like if I had the power to reform it? Perhaps a scary thought for some. Pretty simple: Welfare is something that comes from what is a safety net, something that people can turn to when they’ve fallen through the cracks of the economy and can’t support themselves. 

Welfare is essentially public assistance for people who can’t support themselves at the time and need temporary income to support themselves while at the same time getting help. So they can get on their feet and support themselves and become productive income tax paying citizens.

I believe we need a new definition for "Corporate Welfare" because Corporate Welfare goes to people and company’s that are doing great. And don’t give anything in return for the Welfare that they are getting through taxpayers, that also fund public Welfare for the people who actually need the Welfare. Perhaps they should just be called corporate subsidies instead which is actually a real term to describe Corporate Welfare, because that’s what it is: giving money to people and business’s for doing their jobs essentially. Producing good and services for people to buy and use.

Welfare Insurance is for people who are not working and don’t have the skills that they need to get a full-time job as well as a good job to support themselves and their families. And because Welfare Insurance was reformed in 1996, people on that program now have to either be looking for work and they get help with that, or going to school to get the skills that they need to get a good job and become self-sufficient, as well as seeking work. And they get help with both of those. Food Assistance is essentially grocery insurance that people who don’t make enough money to be able to feed themselves adequately.

Unemployment Insurance is pretty self-explanatory. Money for people who are out-of-work and need temporary assistance while they are looking for another job. 

Medicaid is health insurance for low-income people who can’t afford health insurance on their own, or their employers health insurance. 

Public Housing is for people who can’t afford a home on their own and they get vouchers to help pay for a small apartment. And there are many other public programs. All these programs meet my definition of Welfare.

Public assistance which is really what this is about, are designed to help people with that actually need the help. 

Corporate Welfare to me is not Welfare, because it’s public assistance for company’s and individuals who are doing very well, which is a good thing. I’m clearly not a Socialist, but since they are doing so well, they clearly don’t need public assistance. 

And if we want to be a real capitalist economy, then let the haves support themselves and let’s help the have-nots become self-sufficient. And Welfare designed in a certain way that doesn’t make people dependent on public assistance can do that. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Reason Party: Professor Noam Chomsky- On Libertarian Socialism

Source:The Reason Party- Professor Noam Chomsky, talking about I guess his favorite philosophy: libertarian socialism. Perhaps next he'll talk about conservative communism. LOL

"Noam Chomsky on Libertarian Socialism." 

From The Reason Party

As author Noam Chomsky has said, a Libertarian Socialist sounds like contradiction in terms at least in America. Because socialism is about collectivism and equality, making sure that no one has too much more than anyone else. And that government should be used to essentially take care of society so people don’t have to do too much on their own. 

Whereas libertarianism is about individual liberty, similar to liberalism. That the people should have the freedom to live their own lives and have maximize freedom both socially and economically. And that people should be able to make as much money as they can legally without paying high taxes.

Whereas Socialists believe that no one should make a lot more money than anyone and that they use high taxes to keep that from happening and give that tax revenue to the less-fortunate. And to finance a massive welfare state. (At least by American standards) 

A Libertarian Socialist would be a contradiction, if socialism was just about economic policy, but it's not. Socialism is not just an economic policy, but a developed political ideology that also has other political views. Like on social policy, law enforcement, and foreign policy.

Socialists and I’m not talking about Communists, because communism is a separate political ideology from socialism, tend to be liberal to libertarian on social issues. Just look at Sweden for example, a social democracy that has a lot of social freedom. And they tend to be dovish on law enforcement and foreign policy as well as isolationist on foreign policy like Libertarians. 

Classical Socialism or Marxism, tend to get mixed in with democratic socialism. Tends to get mixed up with liberalism. But liberalism is a different political ideology from both classical and democratic socialism. See, socialism is a diverse and multi-demential political ideology. It's more than an economic policy.

I’m not a Socialist in any form, classical, or democratic. Not even a Libertarian Socialist. I’m a liberal and been described as a Classical Liberal, but one thing that I respect about socialism is its diversity. 

There’s Marxist-Socialism, where the state owns the means of production in society. Meaning the economy. And then there’s democratic socialism with a private sector, but that’s highly taxed and regulated (again, by American standards) to finance a massive welfare state. (Again, by American standards) It’s not just an economic policy, but a developed political ideology. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.