Interesting to read as this is quite an old talk. It is truly fascinating to go back in time and explore the ideas and conversations that took place long ago. This old talk holds a certain charm and value that can provide us with unique insights and perspectives. As we read through it, we can imagine the context in which it was originally given and the people who were part of it. It may also spark our curiosity and make us wonder how things have changed or remained the same over the years. Whether it's a historical speech, a philosophical debate, or a literary work, an old talk can offer us a wealth of knowledge and entertainment. So, take the time to delve into this interesting piece and discover the hidden gems within.

Based on a talk by Noam Chomsky regarding the four systems of governance - Classical Liberalism, State Socialism, State Capitalism, and Libertarian Socialism. There are significant observations made by Proudhon, Bakunin, Joseph Schumpeter, and Humboldt. Proudhon's ideas offer unique perspectives on the nature of governance and society. Bakunin's thoughts contribute to the understanding of different forms of social organization. Joseph Schumpeter's insights provide valuable analysis on economic and political systems. Humboldt's views add depth to the discussion.

Moreover, I find Albert Chandler's observation truly brilliant. He points out that to maintain an economy in a continuous state of growth, there is only one category of luxury goods that must be continuously purchased without limit - military goods. This observation highlights the complex relationship between the economy and military spending. It also makes one think about the implications of such a phenomenon for society as a whole.

The four systems of governance each have their own characteristics and implications. Understanding these systems and the observations made by various thinkers can help us gain a deeper understanding of the social and political world we live in.

Takakansi had expected some kind of lecture on political theory, but instead, this was a political speech - both good and bad. It was rather superficial and high-level. I really don't understand the target audience or the purpose of the text. Chomsky clearly expects readers to have prior knowledge of politics, but he doesn't say anything very new or interesting. The most exciting thing was to see Chomsky's apology for revolutionary violence (p. 41). For some reason, I had assumed he was a pacifist.

Perhaps if the text had delved deeper into the theories and provided more concrete examples, it would have been more engaging. As it stands, it feels like a missed opportunity to truly explore the complex and fascinating world of political thought. It would also have been beneficial to have a more in-depth discussion about the role of violence in political change and whether it is ever justifiable.

Overall, while the text had some interesting points, it failed to fully deliver on its potential. It left me with more questions than answers and a sense that there was much more to be said on the topic.

I read this several years ago.

It had a profound and far-reaching impact on my perspective regarding corporatism and capitalism, as well as the social responsibility we bear towards the democratic rule of both.

Of course, considering the current political climate in North America, this seems almost like a pipe dream.

However, I truly hope that it is not too late.

Noam Chomsky's closing remarks are just as crucial today as they were when he delivered his speech in 1970.

We currently possess the technical and material resources to fulfill man's basic animal needs.

Nevertheless, we have not yet developed the cultural and moral resources or the democratic forms of social organization that would enable the humane and rational utilization of our material wealth and power.

Conceivably, the classical liberal ideals, as expressed and developed in their libertarian socialist form, are attainable.

But if this is to be the case, it can only be achieved through a popular revolutionary movement, deeply rooted in the wide strata of the population, and dedicated to the elimination of repressive and authoritarian institutions, both state and private.

To create such a movement is the challenge that lies before us and one that we must confront and overcome if there is to be any hope of escaping contemporary barbarism.

Some kind of crap. It's about nothing and not about anything. The guy (the author) is really annoying me in a strange way :D

It seems that this so-called article lacks any real substance or meaningful content. It's just a random collection of words that don't seem to form a coherent thought or message. The author's use of such language and the expression of annoyance towards an unknown "guy" make it even more confusing.

Perhaps the author was in a bad mood or just felt like writing something without much thought. However, it doesn't make for a very interesting or engaging read. It would be nice if the author could clarify what they really meant or provide some context to make this article more understandable and worthwhile.

Chomsky is a highly regarded linguist and intellectual, but in this particular situation, it seems that he may be in over his head.

Perhaps the complexity of the issue at hand is超出了他的能力范围. He has made many significant contributions to the field of linguistics, but this new challenge might be proving to be too much for him.

It could be that the problem requires a different set of skills or knowledge that he does not possess.

Alternatively, he may be facing difficulties in applying his existing theories and ideas to this specific context.

Whatever the reason, it is clear that Chomsky is struggling to come to terms with this situation, and it remains to be seen whether he will be able to find a way out of this predicament.

Convoluted, rambling, paranoid mess of ideas. This text suffers from several significant flaws.

First, it employs declarative, emotive writing and appeals to authority rather than using sound reasoning to convey its points. It lacks a fundamental intellectual basis for making its assertions. Instead of starting from objectively true premises such as evolution, networks, information, or physics, it invokes jargon and politico-speak verbiage to drive home non-points.

Second, it exhibits the ivory tower academics' paranoia about private enterprise pulling the puppet strings of the world. There is no appreciation for the reality of entrepreneurial energy as the force that has lifted the world out of the cave or for the realities of human nature, including the importance of incentives, the pursuit of status, imperfect information processing, and its unequal distribution.

Third, there are no considerations of the mechanisms by which an alternative vision of society can materialize. If the author had considered this, they would likely have encountered the game theoretic limitations of the blurry and inconsistent vision of society they promote.

Fourth, there is intellectual dishonesty. The text only promotes the author's position without any recognition of the obvious arguments against liberal socialism or the obvious arguments for capitalism.

Finally, there is stylistic laziness. There is no thought given to structuring the piece for easy consumption by the reader or listener, nor are words chosen to make it more digestible. To paraphrase Coleridge, it is the worst words in the worst order.

Noam Chomsky is a renowned linguist and political philosopher who has made significant contributions to our understanding of power and society.

He clearly states that in the United States and around the world, power is concentrated in the hands of a few. This includes the corporate elite, the political establishment, and the military-industrial complex. These powerful groups use their influence to shape policies and decisions that benefit their own interests at the expense of the majority.

Chomsky also clarifies his belief in Libertarian Socialism. This is a political ideology that emphasizes individual freedom and social equality. According to Chomsky, Libertarian Socialism is the only way to achieve a just and democratic society. It requires the elimination of hierarchical power structures and the establishment of a system based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid.

In conclusion, Chomsky's work provides valuable insights into the nature of power and society. His ideas have inspired many people around the world to question the status quo and work towards a more just and democratic future.

Free Palestine

Palestine has long been a land of struggle and hope. The Palestinian people have endured occupation, displacement, and injustice for far too long.

They have a right to live in peace and dignity in their own homeland. The call for a free Palestine is not just a political slogan; it is a cry from the hearts of millions who yearn for freedom, equality, and justice.

We must stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people and support their legitimate struggle for independence. This means advocating for an end to the occupation, promoting dialogue and negotiation, and working towards a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

Let us not forget the Palestinian people and their cause. Free Palestine is not only a moral imperative but also a necessary step towards a more peaceful and just world.

A name that I frequently encounter in numerous works related to society, philosophy, and politics. The book in question is a relatively short read, consisting of only 80 pages. What's more, it was available for free on Kindle, which led me to think that it could offer a small taste of the author's writing style and ideas. After reading it, I was impressed by the author's ability to write clearly and engagingly, as well as his use of references to other works. I have decided that I will explore more of his work whenever I come across it for free. I believe that this author has something valuable to offer, and I look forward to delving deeper into his ideas and perspectives in the future.

Ah, my favorite ultra-liberal MIT professor.

On one hand, I truly admire his remarkable academic work in the field of linguistics. His contributions in this area have been significant and have earned him well-deserved respect.

However, when he ventures into the political realm, I find him lacking. It is a pity that he does not apply the same scientific rigor towards his governmental analysis. Instead, he seems to pick and choose examples that support his point, while dismissing counter points without proper substantiation.

Moreover, his syllogisms, once begun, are often conjoined with weak emotional links such as “I feel” and “I think.” This lack of objective reasoning undermines the credibility of his arguments.

Another aspect that is dumbfounding is his lack of citation of The Wealth of Nations, especially since he quotes many of his peers from the same period.

He views corporations as bodies of consolidated power from which voters have been disenfranchised. This view seems strange for several reasons. Most importantly, anyone can buy shares and vote on the election of a corporation's board of directors with far greater regularity than in most governments.

Companies also compete with each other in the marketplace, rising and falling from positions of eminence as a direct result of how well they satisfy their customers. This is in contrast to the perpetuity of government, regardless of its efficaciousness.

While this article is a quick read and may be interesting due to its author, the reader would be much better served by spending their time reading other, more reliable sources.

OK so this isn't a book; it's a talk. It's also freely available on the internet, so don't pay for it.

This is Chomsky's argument for libertarian socialism (a.k.a. anarchism) over state socialism and state capitalism.

According to Chomsky, one of the main assertions of classical liberalism is that humans thrive with MINIMAL intervention from the state. This idea briefly confused me, because it's contradictory to our modern sense of "liberalism." I also had to clarify for myself that "socialism" doesn't always mean "state socialism."

Anyway, this is a pretty good summation of the libertarian socialist position: “The libertarian socialist goes on to insist that the state power must be eliminated in favor of the democratic organization of the industrial society with direct popular control over all institutions by those who participate in as well as those who are directly affected by the workings of these institutions. So one might imagine a system of workers' councils, consumer councils, commune assemblies, regional federations, and so on, with the kind of representation that is direct and revocable.”

Chomsky's talk spurred me to figure out the difference between libertarian communism, with its workers' councils, and anarcho-syndicalism. And to look up the Paris Commune, and what a "soulful corporation" is, among other things.

The question I'm left with is whether a libertarian society can also be a socialist society and vice versa--not just in theory but in practice. For me, no one has satisfactorily answered this question.

In this expanded version, each paragraph is clearly separated with a line break and

tags for better readability. The overall content remains the same, but the formatting makes it more organized and easier to follow.