Professor Noam Chomsky: 'America Is Not a Democracy'

Source:The Film Archives- MIT Professor Noam Chomsky.

"Noam Chomsky, professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, talked about his book, On Anarchism, in which he examines the political ideology of anarchism, from its history and early proponents to the author’s thoughts on its current usage and practicality. Noam Chomsky spoke at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts." 

From CSPAN

"In practice Chomsky has tended to emphasize the philosophical tendency of anarchism to criticize all forms of illegitimate authority. He has been reticent about theorizing an anarchist society in detail, although he has outlined its likely value systems and institutional framework in broad terms. According to Chomsky, the variety of anarchism which he favors is:

    ... a kind of voluntary socialism, that is, as libertarian socialist or anarcho-syndicalist or communist anarchist, in the tradition of, say, Bakunin and Kropotkin and others. They had in mind a highly organized form of society, but a society that was organized on the basis of organic units, organic communities. And generally, they meant by that the workplace and the neighborhood, and from those two basic units there could derive through federal arrangements a highly integrated kind of social organization which might be national or even international in scope. And these decisions could be made over a substantial range, but by delegates who are always part of the organic community from which they come, to which they return, and in which, in fact, they live.

On the question of the government of political and economic institutions, Chomsky has consistently emphasized the importance of grassroots democratic forms. Accordingly, current Anglo-American institutions of representative democracy "would be criticized by an anarchist of this school on two grounds. First of all because there is a monopoly of power centralized in the state, and secondly – and critically – because the representative democracy is limited to the political sphere and in no serious way encroaches on the economic sphere."

Chomsky believes anarchism is a direct descendant of liberalism, further developing the ideals of personal liberty and minimal government of the Enlightenment.[20] He views libertarian socialism thus as the logical conclusion of liberalism, extending its democratic ideals into the economy, making anarchism an inherently socialist philosophy." 

From The Film Archives

"On Anarchism provides the reasoning behind Noam Chomsky's fearless lifelong questioning of the legitimacy of entrenched power. In these essays, Chomsky redeems one of the most maligned ideologies, anarchism, and places it at the foundation of his political thinking. Chomsky's anarchism is distinctly optimistic and egalitarian. Moreover, it is a living, evolving tradition that is situated in a historical lineage; Chomsky's anarchism emphasizes the power of collective, rather than individualist, action. The collection includes a revealing new introduction by journalist Nathan Schneider, who documented the Occupy movement for Harper's and The Nation, and who places Chomsky's ideas in the contemporary political moment. On Anarchism will be essential listening for a new generation of activists who are at the forefront of a resurgence of interest in anarchism - and for anyone who struggles with what can be done to create a more just world." 

Source:Amazon- Noam Chomsky's book

From Amazon

"Noam Chomsky: America is not a Democracy"

Source:CSPAN- MIT Professor Noam Chomsky.

Source:Moriquenta 

"Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, romanized: dēmokratiā, from dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule'[1]) is a form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation ("direct democracy"), or to choose governing officials to do so ("representative democracy"). Who is considered part of "the people" and how authority is shared among or delegated by the people has changed over time and at different rates in different countries, but over time more and more of a democratic country's inhabitants have generally been included. Cornerstones of democracy include freedom of assembly, association, property rights, freedom of religion and speech, inclusiveness and equality, citizenship, consent of the governed, voting rights, freedom from unwarranted governmental deprivation of the right to life and liberty, and minority rights.

The notion of democracy has evolved over time considerably. The original form of democracy was a direct democracy. The most common form of democracy today is a representative democracy, where the people elect government officials to govern on their behalf such as in a parliamentary or presidential democracy" 

From Wikipedia 

"Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is sceptical of authority and rejects all involuntary, coercive forms of hierarchy.[1] Anarchism calls for the abolition of the state, which it holds to be unnecessary, undesirable, and harmful. As a historically left-wing movement, placed on the farthest left of the political spectrum, it is usually described alongside communalism and libertarian Marxism as the libertarian wing (libertarian socialism) of the socialist movement, and has a strong historical association with anti-capitalism and socialism." 

From Wikipedia 

The Right likes to say that America is not a democracy, but a republic. The Far-Left (or left-wing, if you prefer) likes to say that America is not a democracy either, but for different reasons. America isn't their version of democracy, which is a majoritarian, social democracy, with a large, centralized, national state, where the chief executive would be elected by either the Congress, or House of Representatives in Congress, or directly elected by the people without an Electoral College. 

The Right is right (so to speak) that America is not a majoritarian, social democracy. We don't do everything by majority rule or vote. Our constitutional and individual rights can't be thrown out simply because you have one more vote in the House and one more in the Senate and a President that signs the bills that throws at least one of our individual rights out. Everything that Congress and the President does has to be constitutional, whether it's popular or not. 

But if you go by the Wikipedia definition of democracy (check above) America meets most of the components that you see in most democracies. The people elect their legislators and executives. We have a free press and guaranteed right to free speech. We have property rights that can't be taken away by a majority vote in Congress and a presidential signature. Actually, none of our constitutional rights can be taken away by Congress and the President. We have freedom of religion. America is a pluralistic country where everyone regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or gender, has the same constitutional rights as everyone else. 

I think of America is a liberal democratic, constitutional republic, based on the values of liberal democracy and classical liberalism (meaning the real liberalism) but we're not the social democracy that leftists want and perhaps we'll never be. 

November Revolution Men: Professor Noam Chomsky: 'Neoliberalism vs Democracy'

Source:November Revolution Men- Professor Noam Chomsky talking about what he and other leftists call neoliberalism.

"Chomsky and other intellectuals on neo-liberalism and corporativism."

Source:November Revolution Men

The Frenchman who spoke in this video who was talking about liberalism, said (and I'm paraphrasing) that the Adam Smith's and other Liberals from his era, would be rolling in their graves about what's and who is supposed to pass as liberalism and Liberals today. So let's talk about what's supposed to pass as liberalism and the people who are supposed to be as Liberals today and then I'll get into who Liberals really are and liberalism actually is. 

To put it simply, everyone and everything on the left, from the center-left, to left-wing, to far-left, even the far-left in Europe and the rest of the developed world outside of America, is supposed to pass as liberalism and people who support those political factions, are supposed to be the Liberals today. At least according to the so-called mainstream media in America, as well as American pop culture, not to the mention the closeted Socialists in America who still call themselves Liberals, because being outed as a leftist, scares the hell out of them. 

It's not just the so-called Progressives (whether they're actually progressive or not) who get called Liberals today or self-describe that way(even if they're actually not that progressive) but Democratic Socialists and Communists as well, people who either want social democracy in America or think communism is the way to go and that it's not just capitalism that needs to be replaced, but democracy and even individual rights, checks and balances, etc.  

To put it more simply and lightly, if you are an antiestablishment, hipster, revolutionary, who sort of talks like you just woke up and found out that it's no longer 1971 and it's now 2012, but you still have the same politics, lifestyle, culture, language, etc, and you are still trying to take down the man (meaning the establishment) and replace it with some type of socialist system, the mainstream media would call you a Liberal today. Even if you don't and that you weren't even called a Liberal 40 years ago, but a leftist instead.  

The fact is this is what liberalism really is: 

"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse various views depending on their understanding of these principles. However, they generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion.[11] Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.[12][13]

Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, gaining popularity among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy, rule of law and equality under the law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other trade barriers, instead promoting free trade and marketization.[14] Philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition based on the social contract, arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property, and governments must not violate these rights.[15] While the British liberal tradition has emphasized expanding democracy, French liberalism has emphasized rejecting authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building." 

From Wikipedia 

The reason why we have terms like Classical Liberal and Modern Liberal, I think a lot of that has to do with the Cold War. Before communism became a force in the Western World, it if anything was considered cool (or swell) to be a Socialist and perhaps even Communist, especially during the Great Depression in the 1930s, because Socialists and Communists then were seen as people who would look after working people and defend their rights to exist and have a quality life. 

The Cold War changed Americans views of socialism and communism, to the point thanks to U.S. Government and private right-wing propaganda, Socialists and Communists were then during the Cold War, seen as Un-American and people who wanted to take down the American form of government and way of life and replace it with some type of socialist state and system.  

Socialists have always been around in America, it's just that Cold War sort of forced them to go underground politically and call themselves Liberals or Progressives, but still have their socialist philosophy, ideas, and antiestablishment, hipster language. They went underground politically in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, etc, a certain extent today of leftists (who are called Socialists in the real world) who are terrified of people finding out they are Socialists. You would think socialism is some disease for them that they don't want touching them. Even though they're proud to publicly express their socialist beliefs, values, and rhetoric.

But for me, political philosophies and values don't change, people do. Liberalism is about individuals and defending their individual rights. Not always looking to expand the government, so the government can do the most possible for the people and people would have to do the least for themselves. 

To go back to my original point about liberalism, the first Liberals would be rolling in their graves if they could see how so-called Modern Liberals have tried to hijack their great philosophy and tried to turn it in the opposite of what it's always been, which is about the individual, not the state.

Professor Noam Chomsky: Leftist Disillusionment With Barack Obama

Source:Boston University- MIT Professor Noam Chomsky, talking about President Barack Obama, in 2010.

"Noam Chomsky on the consequences of liberal disillusionment with the Obama administration and a deliberately uninformed American populace.

From the question and answer session of a lecture given at Boston University on December 8, 2009, the entirety of which can be seen here:Boston University." 

Source:Boston University

Life is generally not that simple and tends to be very complicated and generally not black or white, right or wrong, wet or dry, etc. But sometimes things in life is very simple. The reason why the left-wing (or Far-Left) in and outside of the Democratic Party is disappointed with President Barack Obama, is because he's not the Socialist that they thought they were getting. 

The Far-Right in America hates Barack Obama because they think he's a Socialist and they probably hate his complexion, or that's he's even have African, as opposed to being a full-blooded African-American. And the fact that President Obama represents the new America, the changing America, an America that's no longer dominated by Anglo-Saxon, Protestant men, but an America where women of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, racial and ethnic minorities, have a real stake in America and a real role in running the country. 

I think for the Far-Left in America (Socialists, democratic and otherwise) Barack Obama represents the problem with celebrity politics. When you mix in pop culture and hipsterism, with political and governmental affairs. When you vote for someone because you think he's cool, as opposed to what they actually believe and what they would do, if they were ever in office. 

American leftists in 2007-08 were probably thinking that Barack Obama is young, he's cool, he's got all of these cool, celebrity friends, he's African-American, he's a political rockstar, he must be like them ideologically and must be a left-winger as well. When if they just bothered to look at his political campaign and platform in 2007-08, they would know that he wasn't a hardcore leftist when he was in the U.S. Senate and didn't run that way as a presidential candidate either.

Professor Noam Chomsky: '"Free Markets?" (1997)'

Source:Santarchy- MIT Professor Noam Chomsky talking about the free market in 1997.

"This talk by Noam Chomsky was filmed at Northeastern University, Boston on Dec. 5, 1997"

Source:Santarchy

"The free market is an economic system based on supply and demand with little or no government control. It is a summary description of all voluntary exchanges that take place in a given economic environment. Free markets are characterized by a spontaneous and decentralized order of arrangements through which individuals make economic decisions. Based on its political and legal rules, a country's free market economy may range between very large or entirely illegal." 

From Investopedia 

"In economics, a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are self-regulated by buyers and sellers negotiating in an open market without market coercions. In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority other than those interventions which are made to prohibit market coercions. Examples of such prohibited market coercions include: economic privilege, monopolies, and artificial scarcities.[1] Proponents of the concept of free market contrast it with a regulated market in which a government intervenes in the exchange of property for any reason other than reducing market coercions.

Scholars contrast the concept of a free market with the concept of a coordinated market in fields of study such as political economy, new institutional economics, economic sociology and political science. All of these fields emphasize the importance in currently existing market systems of rule-making institutions external to the simple forces of supply and demand which create space for those forces to operate to control productive output and distribution. Although free markets are commonly associated with capitalism in contemporary usage and popular culture, free markets have also been components in some forms of market socialism.[2]

Criticism of the theoretical concept may regard realities of the difficulty of regulating systems to prevent significant market dominance, inequality of bargaining power, or information asymmetry, in order to allow markets to function more freely.

Historically, free market has also been used synonymously with other economic policies. For instance proponents of laissez-faire capitalism, may refer to it as free market capitalism because they claim it to achieve the most economic freedom." 

From Wikipedia 

"Laissez-faire is an economic theory from the 18th century that opposed any government intervention in business affairs. The driving principle behind laissez-faire, a French term that translates to "leave alone" (literally, "let you do"), is that the less the government is involved in the economy, the better off business will be, and by extension, society as a whole. Laissez-faire economics is a key part of free-market capitalism."

From Investopedia  

If your definition of a free market is: "The free market is an economic system based on supply and demand with little or no government control. It is a summary description of all voluntary exchanges that take place in a given economic environment." then you also believe in Fantasyland, perhaps Santa Clause as well, because that type of economy doesn't exist anywhere in the world. And even people who claim to believe in the free market, put at least some restrictions on whether people should be allowed to organized in labor unions and would seriously restrict labor unions, if they couldn't outlaw them. 

What the developed world has, including America, but Canada, Europe, Japan, Korea, have are private markets. A private market is where most, if not all commerce and for-profit industries, are in private hands and privately owned, but that is regulated by government and pays taxes to the government. 

You are not going to find a successful, purely communist state in the world today. Even countries that still have communist government's, that have seen rapid economic growth, the last 30 years or so, like the People's Republic China, how have private economies, private property, private ownership of the businesses. But China is obviously not a free market either.