Does it get better than Chomsky? Can anyone with his opinions back them up as effectively as he does with citations from the very powers he speaks against? If you have an interest in politics, this is an absolute must-read. It offers a concise explanation of classic liberalism and libertarian socialism, along with a section on counterarguments that is truly fascinating. There is also a shorter definition of state socialism and state capitalism, as well as an exploration of their shortcomings.

If you have previously read Marx and agreed with him in principle, but feel that his ideas don't quite align with the way capitalism has evolved, or if you think his ideas are a bit dated yet still hold some truth, then you will find this book extremely interesting. Even if you disagree with its contents, this book remains highly engaging. It provides a much better description of politics than what you would typically get from the average Chomsky follower. You know, those burnt-out community college students sporting a Che T-shirt, offering half-baked explanations of theories they only half understand. But enough about me. In conclusion, this is a must-read for anyone with an interest in politics.

On 28 March 2013, an important event took place. However, the details of this event were not initially clear. As time passed, more information began to surface. People were eager to know what exactly had happened. The situation seemed to be evolving rapidly, and everyone was watching with great interest. The media was also closely covering the story, providing updates as they became available. It was a day that would go down in history, and people would remember it for a long time. The significance of the event was yet to be fully understood, but it was already causing a stir. As the hours ticked by, more questions were raised than answered. But one thing was certain, something major had occurred on 28 March 2013.

I am certain that if this book had a more contemporary touch, I might have been convinced to assign it a slightly higher rating. However, there is an abundance of timeless analysis within its pages that still earns it a few stars.

One thing is for sure: whether it was written today or 50 years ago, when you delve into Chomsky literature, you always know what to expect. This book essentially consists of an explanation and critique of the four fundamental styles of modern society from which all typical forms of social governance are derived.

Each analysis explores the way in which government, industry, and the general public interact with one another within these systems. What is contained in the book is a delicious appetizer, but being such a short volume, one can't truly be satisfied with it.

Anyone familiar with Chomsky will be aware that he can and has expounded on these matters at much greater length. However, I imagine that a person picking up this book as their first encounter with Chomsky would likely be somewhat disappointed. It's not that this isn't worth reading; rather, there is much more captivating Chomsky material out there that I would recommend above and beyond it.

Audiobooks have become increasingly popular in recent years. They offer a convenient and accessible way for people to enjoy literature and other forms of written content.

One of the main advantages of audiobooks is that they allow you to multitask. You can listen to an audiobook while driving, exercising, or doing household chores, making it a great way to make the most of your time.

Another benefit is that audiobooks can enhance the listening experience. Professional narrators bring the story to life with their voices, adding emotion and character to the text.

In addition, audiobooks are available in a wide variety of genres, from fiction and non-fiction to self-help and children's books. This means that there is something for everyone, regardless of age or interests.

Whether you are a book lover or simply looking for a new way to consume content, audiobooks are definitely worth checking out. So why not give them a try and see how they can enhance your reading experience?

I truly wish that Dave Rubin would take the time to listen to what I have to say.

It is rather concerning that he continues to identify himself as a classical liberal.

Classical liberalism has a specific set of principles and values that may not necessarily align with his views and actions.

Perhaps if he were to listen carefully, he might gain a better understanding of the true essence of classical liberalism and realize that his self-identification may not be entirely accurate.

It is important for individuals to be honest and self-aware when it comes to their ideological affiliations.

By listening and reflecting, Dave Rubin could potentially make a more informed decision about how he defines himself and his beliefs.

This could lead to a more meaningful and productive dialogue about the ideas and principles that shape our society.

Hopefully, he will have the openness and willingness to listen and consider different perspectives.

A must-read for everyone interested in making democracy work
This short piece is not only excellent in its writing but also carries the reader along effortlessly. It provides a comprehensive historical foundation for understanding our current system of government and economics, and then elaborates on how it functions today. For many, it will be a real 'lifting of the veil' regarding how the government truly operates. It serves as a fact-filled reminder of reality, as are all of Chomsky's works. What we naively consider as democracy and freedom in the US is, unfortunately, neither. This is not a crazy left-wing rant but a horrifying, deep truth.
The concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands has increased exponentially since WWII. Corporations now have unspeakable power through limitless campaign contributions guaranteed by the US Supreme Court. Originally published in 1970, the factors and processes that Professor Chomsky so skillfully (and with a dry sense of humor) described not only remain relevant but are even more deeply and invisibly entrenched. My only disappointment was that Chomsky did not offer explicit ideas on how to reverse the current problems that, aside from perpetuating inequalities and hardships among the lower 99 percent of us, are also pushing us towards the climate change cliff because the existing system has no incentive to do otherwise. However, he has other books that may address these issues. Onward.

I find myself constantly coming back to Chomsky, yet he continuously manages to make me despise him. I wholeheartedly agree with everything he has to say regarding foreign policy. However, whenever he strays into any other topic, he simply sounds like a buffoon. Here he is attempting to discuss what the future of governance will look like, and for a whopping 80 pages, he essentially states, yup, socialism.

So, that's the entire book in a nutshell. While I completely concur with him, this is just an idiotically written piece. Why does he feel the need to churn out so many of these books that are merely interviews where he repeats the same things over and over again? What compels him to do this? It's truly baffling.

Perhaps he believes that by inundating the market with his ideas, he will have a greater impact. Or maybe he simply enjoys the attention and the platform that these books provide. Whatever the reason, it's clear that his writing style leaves a lot to be desired.

I can't help but wonder if there's a better way for him to convey his message. Maybe he could focus on writing more in-depth and well-structured books that explore his ideas in a more comprehensive and engaging manner. That way, he might be able to reach a wider audience and have a more lasting impact.

Until then, I'll continue to be frustrated by his work, even as I grudgingly承认 the validity of some of his views.

Here, Noam Chomsky offers a rather one-sided assessment of the modern bourgeois era of society.

On one hand, he correctly points out some of the issues plaguing this era. However, his presentation of a future vision seems rather simplistic and unsubstantiated.

He discusses four political perspectives on the role of government: classical liberalism, libertarian socialism, state capitalism, and state socialism. Right from the start, it's clear he has a preference for libertarian socialism, which he views as an outgrowth of classical liberalism. But his treatment of state capitalism and state socialism is rather haphazard, lumping them together without much in-depth analysis.

The section on classical liberalism is highly idealistic. It fails to connect the ideals of liberalism in the 18th century with the material conditions that gave birth to it and which it in turn helped shape. In particular, while he emphasizes liberalism's focus on individual liberty and freedoms, he conveniently ignores the central importance that most major liberal philosophers and theorists placed on the right to private property. The way the bourgeoisie used this right to betray the working masses during the French Revolution is also left out.

The section on libertarian socialism is equally lacking. It essentially claims that all these ideas were good but couldn't be implemented properly in the past, and now they can because "people now want to be free". There is no real explanation as to how this will be achieved. This stands in sharp contrast to Marxist historical materialism, which provides a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of how capitalism led to the growth of the proletariat and the productive forces necessary to meet everyone's needs.

The final section is a disappointment. Chomsky lumps state capitalism and state socialism together, simply dismissing them as authoritarian and contrary to human nature. Most of this section is devoted to geopolitical discussions about American and Soviet imperialism, which, while perhaps accurate for the time, lack the depth and sophistication needed to truly understand these complex phenomena. His continued use of terms like "state capitalism" and "corporate capitalism" also serves to obscure the true nature of capitalism.

Overall, while Chomsky may have some valid points to make, his analysis is ultimately flawed and unconvincing. It's best to approach his work with a critical eye and not take everything he says at face value.

I start to restore my faith in humanity when I read Chomsky's work.

His ideas and perspectives offer a glimmer of hope in a world that often seems chaotic and disheartening.

Chomsky is someone who truly believes that we, as a species, have the potential to do better than what we are currently achieving.

His writings challenge us to question the status quo and to strive for a more just and equitable society.

When I encounter such thoughts and the belief that positive change is possible, it gives me a newfound sense of optimism.

It makes me believe that there are still individuals out there who are committed to making a difference and who are willing to put in the effort to bring about a better world.

Chomsky's work serves as a reminder that we should not lose faith in humanity, but rather continue to work towards a future that is filled with hope and possibility.

Government in the Future is indeed the transcription of a speech delivered by Noam Chomsky. In this speech, he contrasts four ideal forms of government. Classical liberalism posits that the domain of government should be severely restricted. Libertarian socialism, on the other hand, advocates for a democratic construction of government, largely organized along workers' councils with different tiers, where the upper tier is directly accountable to the lower one. State capitalism allows for extremely limited public political power while permitting private economic power to amass freely, even when its excess might undermine its own power or cause harm to people's lives. State socialism involves revolutionaries who support complete egalitarianism seizing political power and using it freely to bring about the destruction of inequality.

Chomsky notes that both state capitalism and state socialism assume the existence of a ruling class that dictates to others, either directly or tacitly, what to do or determines the course of their lives against their will. He believes that, considering classical liberals historically aimed to limit state power without anticipating the power that would accumulate privately, the direct descendant of classical liberalism is libertarian socialism, the position he favors. However, while it is hard not to be sympathetic to this view, given the abundance of diverse proposals for an ideal government, other candidates seem equally plausible. At a minimum, there do appear to be certain conditions for government such that without them, it would be impossible to consider it just. But this is not the topic of this book.

Classic Liberalism is a political ideology that emphasizes individual freedom, limited government, and the free market. It holds that individuals should be free to pursue their own interests and goals without excessive interference from the state. Libertarian Socialism, also known as Anarchism, takes this idea further and advocates for the complete abolition of the state. Anarchists believe that the state is a tool of oppression and that true freedom can only be achieved through a stateless society. State Capitalism/Socialism, on the other hand, combines elements of both capitalism and socialism. It typically involves a large role for the state in the economy, such as through state ownership of key industries or the provision of social welfare programs.

This concise breakdown provides a great introduction for anyone interested in Anarchist thought on government. It offers a quick overview of these three different political ideologies and their views on the role of the state. Whether you're a slow reader like me or just looking for a brief introduction, this article is a great resource. I was able to finish it during a three-hour flight, and it left me with a better understanding of these important concepts.

Idk man, this short book is truly bracing. It makes you feel uncomfortable, yet it is absolutely addictive.

It has the power to validate our skepticism towards politics. At the same time, it pushes us to see how different forms of governance, in this case, libertarian socialism or anarchism, could bring about positive changes and shake things up for the better.

Chomsky, through this book, forces us to confront the possibility that “freedom” might not be just about patriotic slogans. Instead, it could be more about actively shaping the world around you.

This book is definitely worth a read. It challenges our preconceived notions and makes us think deeply about the nature of politics and freedom. It offers a fresh perspective that can open our eyes to new possibilities and inspire us to take action. So, if you're looking for a thought-provoking read that will make you question the status quo, this book is for you.