Bakunin quote: "Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice; socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality."

What makes Bakunin truly great is that unlike other leaders for the fight for a fairer distribution of wealth , a human work week, and more leisure or quality time off for a decent intellectual life and recreation, healthcare, workers compensation, decent pensions and so on , Bakunin was right there on the barricades and frontlines fighting with common workers like us . He was wounded on more than several occasions . Bakunin spent time in a damp underground prison and got scurvy and lost all his teeth, finger and toenails, etc

"Meet the new boss, just the same as the old boss."

Chomsky provides the most sobering analyses of deeply upsetting human realities. Just a wonderful educator. He engages without at all riling, allowing you the presence of mind to think critically about how to overturn the tyrannies before us.

It is soooo annoying when people add music to Chomsky videos or anyone similar. I don't need background music to tell me how to feel, just let him speak for himself.

Leave it to the Professor to open your mind to understanding the development of modern political structures in the 20th century. Paying homage to Bakunin was interesting and insightful as well. Thank you as always Professor Noam Chomsky.

As ever, on point. It's maddening that most Americans don't see/hear this kind of thinking. The internet must be neutral. Democracy has little or no hope if the 'gatekeepers' get to control what we hear and see. This would all go underground.

"Same old wine different bottles" Chomsky

Bakunin's predictions seem accurate to me. Moreover, his and Chomsky's polar characterization of the most attractive and/or powerful political trends in the last century seem to me to fit well with Arnold J. Toynbee's model in "A Study of History" (12 vols., 1921-1961). Toynbee said that the birth and growth of a civilization are brought about by a "creative minority" within it. But almost inevitably this creative minority's descendants or successors become a mere "dominant minority" of rulers who are largely out for their own gain (read, wealth and/or power). This marks the point when the civilization begins to decline, and the majority of its members become its "disaffected internal proletariat." As decline reaches the point of breakdown, accompanied by oppression and exploitation internally, and wars externally, the eventual next major step is the attempted consolidation of all the states within the civilization, and sometimes some states expropriated from other civilizations, into an empire, the civilization's "universal state"--which eventually collapses. In the case of "Western Christian"--or what I prefer to call "European" Civilization (Toynbee considers "European" and "Russian" to be distinct but closely related Civilizations, both doubly descended from "Hellenic" [ancient Greek] and "Syriac" [ancient Persia and Israel-Judea, mainly] Civilizations)--he sees Napoleon's and Hitler's conquests as failed attempts to create a universal state. And he muses on the question whether "Western Christian"/European Civilization has broken down; I think the same question can be asked about Russian Civilization. I believe both have broken down. And one of his markers of breakdown, which I see in Chomsky's polar political trends and in many other guises, is the retreat of many members of the civilization into fantasies of "futurism" and "archaism." On this model I see the communist, and even socialist/liberal trends (sofar as they embrace environmental determinism and amoral social engineering) as a variety of political futurism; and fascism (the hoped-for return to an imagined better past that must be forced on people to save them) as political archaism. (These correspond respectively to Huxley's "Brave New World" and Orwell's "1984.") Both lose sight of reality, especially the potential of persons who are not only "free" externally but autonomous and creative, to find solutions if given the opportunity. But of course to allow the "internal proletariat" the freedom to so develop requires a socially fluid society that tolerates diversity, creativity, and upward mobility. But the once-creative-now-merely-dominant minority, to protect its growing stake in the status quo--rooted in a deep psychosocia and, ultimately, spiritual insecurity of its own, must control the restive majority more and more.

I need to read more Bakunin

I find the Greek subtitles very useful. Ευχαριστώ πολύ !

Thank you Noam Chomsky. One of very few people I admire. I learn new things every time this man speaks. Thanks Chomsky

The articulate corner of youtube.

Bakunin's Prediction may have been right regarding the East vs West divide of the twentieth century, but just as the Western misinterpretation of the words "democracy" and "freedom" shouldn't invalidate our striving for those things in our political life, the Eastern misinterpretation of the words "communism" and "socialism" doesn't rob them of their radical promise. People having lived through the Cold War too often default to a kind of knowing despair regarding political ideals, and that's been fertile ground for the neoliberal freeze into managerialism we're all facing. The current danger is not failed utopias but their complete absence in our imagination.

"If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself" I can't seem to find it but Bakunin also spoke on the role of the intellectual class as, at best, spectators of proletarian liberation as opposed to leaders. Bakunin, like Marx and Engels, Proudhon and many others, was an ass with some pretty shit views on a few things (Bakunin was an anti-semite, Marx and Engels were petty af and dishonest in much of his critique of competing ideas as well as being a bit bigoted towards darker skinned people and credited with shit he didn't come up with, Proudhon was an unapologetic sexist who eventually became a reactionary, none of them had all the answers, etc,), but he was right about a lot too. I wish kids coming to these ideas would stop swallowing these tendencies whole and instead pick the good and useful from the bad and build something new. It's not the 19th or 20th century anymore yet so many cling dogmatically and semi-religiously to these ideologies and their symbols while defending them against every criticism, no matter how valid, and at the exclusion of everything else. It's sad. There's a lot to learn from a great deal of long-dead European dudes but they aren't the only ones who ever thought of something useful. Sometimes they were just wrong. They couldn't imagine the world we live in today and most failed to predict fascism or the shift of capitalism into new forms. We have to do better. Or go extinct. Ain't no third option. ✊👊✌♥A///E

Thank you for your excellent lectures. You teached us a lot. You are one of the real beacons in this crazy world.

Happy Birthday Noam: thank you for consistently reminding me to live a dignified and independent life.

thx and thx again for the source

This is an absolutely brilliant analysis.

Funny. When he said some people will choose to get ahead by associating themselves with people that already had a lot of capital, I immediately thought of Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro , Candace Owens and Jimmy Dore. All of those except Ben Shapiro also changed sides when it was more profitable.

This is a little jewel of enlightenment.

The psychological underpinning of Bakunin’s prediction is simply put- “We” are the “Masters”, “They” are the “Slaves”. We must never underestimate the challenge of attaining the psychological achievement of the position “We” are the “Collective”. “We” work to achieve the capacity to manage those aspects of the personality/unconscious that draw us to view “Us” as the “Masters” and “Them” as the “Slaves”, or to view “Us” as the “Slaves” and “Them” as the “Masters”. Or even worse, in the structure “We are The Clan and They are Our Elders”. This is the core of Modern Jungian Analytic Psychology and Modern Psychoanalysis Fundamentals embedded in our Human Nature, as fundamental as Chomsky’s linguistics.

Bakounine un molosse du dix-neuvième siècle, révolutionnaire, qui n"a jamais versé une goutte de sang, voyageur juqsue dans le Jura Suisse, belle analyse du professeur Noam Chomsky,, brillant analyste auquel nous espérons encore des livres , et que ses livres soient propagé dans toute les écoles du monde, pas seulement dans les universités mais en partage commun pour tous, merci pour le partage à lire aussi Propopkine aussi révolutionnaire anarchiste dans le bon sens du terme .

how brilliant,it blows my mind

Maybe because I've been formally trained in philosophy and start thinking of Marx from that angle, I always think of Marx as a blessing and a curse. A blessing because Marxism has provided a foundation for some of the most powerful critiques of modern thought, economics, society, and so forth. A curse because it has some deeply flawed aspects, like a materialistic reductionism and flawed conception of history that helped enable some of modern times worst social and political policies. It is also a philosophy that caused an awful lot of very intelligent people to check their critical thinking skills and good judgment at the door of the local politburo. So the great challenge is striving toward a Marxist - influenced view that retains its benefits but recognizes its defects. Easy to say, difficult to do. I think Chomsky deserves credit for attempting this.

Sadly when the general population isn’t dumb enough they use the media to direct us on which “smart guy “ to choose. Must hurt to know as much as you do Chomsky.

Three things. I never fully agree with Chomsky, he is always my incalculable superior in his subject matter, and he is always worth listening to.

Bakunin was right.

He described Christopher Hitchens to a T

Herzen, a colleague and companion of Bakunin, wrote excellent and incisive works on this

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts.... AB-S💀-LU-TE-LY ! ! ! ☝💀

“Caution in handling generally accepted opinions that claim to explain whole trends of history is especially important for the historian of modern times, because the last century has produced an abundance of ideologies that pretend to be keys to history but are actually nothing but desperate efforts to escape responsibility.” ― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism “Responsibility is a unique concept... You may share it with others, but your portion is not diminished. You may delegate it, but it is still with you... If responsibility is rightfully yours, no evasion, or ignorance or passing the blame can shift the burden to someone else. Unless you can point your finger at the man who is responsible when something goes wrong, then you have never had anyone really responsible.” ― Admiral H.G. Rickover

"Two sides of the same coin bidding over the CEO job of slavery incorporated" AJ from Waking Life

Although Bakunin was perhaps one of the first, there were many others that anticipated these developments, like Max Weber.

I've often wondered how the bright eyed girls of the little Oktobrists, Pioneers and Komsoml so easily and without apparent consciencious pain became the frequently overbearing and allegedly very devout old grannies berating young people in the backs of churches for some minor infraction of the canons. Thank you Mr Chomsky, now I understand it perfectly. It's a character flaw that uses extreme beliefs to exercise itself. The beliefs themselves are simply an instrument with which to beat others up intellectually, psychologically, politically and, not infrequently, physically, which extremism of both ends actively encourages its adherants to do.

Lovely to follow his complexity- using my arms and legs and fingers,etc!

Spot on. People are getting the shit beaten out of them with the sticks they are forced make with no benefits and little reward...

Must read more Bakunin.

wow..mindblowing stuff!

Thank you, great excerpt of a very precious and interesting alternative comprehension of our society.

I ADORE READING

"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick.'" Mikhail Bakunin

Chomsky hits the nail bang on the head. Spot on.👍

Arnold Toynbee makes a similar observation in his "A Study of History". Naturally, this is the little man behind the curtain that we all are encouraged to ignore.

Awesome

Can you imagine the BBC allowing a TV broadcast that shows Chomsky elucidate views as outlined in this video? Perhaps throwing in several or even multiple examples of the individuals who align with power by transitioning in one or other direction between Stalinist / Leninist or State / Capitalism? In less than 5 minutes this excerpt provides more important history and background context to help you understand and better interpret the world than a lifetime reading the corporate media. This man is dangerous.

EXCELLANCE~

The original video (linked in the description) is no longer available.

Smart sociopaths will rise to the top of any system.

Nobody wants to be powerless, but only psychopaths and sociopaths are willing to do whatever it takes to get power.

Epic.

so so so so fucking great, i just love that man

Chomsky words are relevant always.

What about those of us who believe in the eclectic approach? You don't have to be dogmatic and iconoclastic. I would argue the leadership comes more from passive apathy. Good education and worldliness can make a real difference. It removes the non-issues and shows the common man is not an instigator. Yet, who is going to step up to be the leaders?

Though it would be nice to actually have a choice between the smart guys. I mean that would be a distinct improvement on what we've got now.

I wish you could put the date that these older lectures are from to sense better context. Thank you!

Hi. Do you know where to find the entire speech?

its nice to see Chomsky accepting that taking power in order to protect the working class could result in tyranny.

Genius!

Pro social Prof Chom. Chaws 'em up, spits 'em out!

"He who sits under the leafiest tree will enjoy the coolest shade."

Fanatic Stalinists become fanatic capitalists! Either way, the common people are left voiceless. Can the people find their voices and speak for themselves.

Nice.

How true..how scary..how modern..

3:30 perfectly describes Christopher Hitchens

Talk Chomsky to me!

Quite accurate description of democracy as it ocurs today to end with. There are - of course mintor exceptions but still very accurate.

The fact that this clip is from a show on the Greek national tv channel , blows my mind.

After listening this , i think it is very essential to be objective while doing research ,second in social life we can't find something certain like in biology , natural sciences , chemistry ......We can't say something certain about human mind and if we can't say something about human mind then how can we say certain about social life and social institutions.....

I thought it was just me. Glad to see I'm not alone who see that USSR and US are essentially the same thing.

I named my son Mikhail Bakunin. No one wants to fight him at school.

John Candy's character in 'Volunteers.'

This is old, look how young Chomsky is!

Perhaps this influenced Orwell too. This reminds me of Animal Farm.

I love Professor Chomsky.

When was this filmed, does anyone know?

It was really a rather pedestrian prediction from Bakunin. Anybody familiar with ancient Greek history knows that struggles between oligarchs and democrats were common, and then in Rome it was the Populares vs. the Optimates.

I've been talking about US turning into USSR for about a decade. Obviously I can't explain why, I am no philosopher, just gut feeling and my waning memories of life in USSR. Be careful, folks

Can you post the URL for the original documentary? The link in the description is broken.

(@1:00) bakunin predicted exactly what happened in china, both paths: -the 1st path = mao's (red bureaucracy & worst ever tyranny) -the 2nd path = deng xiaoping's (servants of state-capital & "beat the people with the people's stick")

I wouldn't mind seeing a run-in between Norm Chomsky and Tomi Lahren.

Isn't this just intellectualising the idea that people act in their own interests whatever the political system is?

man im telling you honestly. The greek national channel ERT, has the most insightful clips and interviews ever played on teli. makes me wonder how it played down throughout the years. Obviously, very few were watching these shows.

“Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.” ― George Orwell, 1984

I love auld Chompers

One reason why a communist can switch to capitalist (or vice versa), or a Nazi can reinvent himself as a Communist or Socialist is character structure. People's basic makeup does not change. They merely go with a flow, change to ideologies that seem to be going somewhere. This is the case with people who are fanatics for deeply personal reasons. They can switch from Christian or Jewish fundamentalism to Islamism because they have no firm center.

Chomsky overstates his case sometimes. Secular humanism, whether of Right or left orientation, is not my cup of tea. But I found this video brilliantly insightful. His final comment echoes my own complete disillusionment with procedural democracy. It is mostly a thin disguise for rule by monied oligarchic interests If this were a good thing, even for the privileged few, we would not find the following: (James 5:1-2) 'Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted, and your garments have become moth-eaten.'

Who does prof. Chomsky mention at 4:50? I can't hear it clearly.

Chomsky is describing the neoconservatives and neoliberals. People like John Bolton and Hillary Clinton.

Bakunin was not the first to 'predict' an ostensibly 'socialist' tyranny -- that idea grew out of the Jacobins' terror (the Jacobins were the most extreme party of that first French Revolution) in the late 18th Century; such that even their main leader, Robespierre, fell victim to the 'revolutionary' guillotine. What Chomsky neglects is that there was a successful anarchist / anarcho-syndicalist revolution -- it was in Spain in the early 1930's -- BUT IT COULD NOT DEFEND ITSELF. The Bolsheviks proved that any would-be successful workers' revolution must create a highly-disciplined and centralised-chain-of-command Red Army to defeat the inevitable attempts by external capitalist military forces to overthrow any initially-successful workers' revolution. (The Spanish anarchist soldiers, in their noble fight against the Catholic fascist Franco, would hold meetings to discuss whether to obey just about every military order! There is often no time for that in war. See George Orwell's "Homage To Catalonia".) Lenin's (and all the Bolsheviks') big mistake was to metaphysically (non-dialectically) carry successful military organisation (including military intelligence & espionage) over into economic organisation. In hindsight, a dialectical unity of opposites is needed after the revolution: full industrial democracy in every workplace, but with a highly-centralised-chain-of-command full-time workers' defence force to defend such a republic (of full industrial democracy). The young Soviet Republic was invaded by the 14 leading industrialised (capitalist and so-called "democratic" and "Christian") empires and nations of that time, led by Britain and France; far more invaders than the Spanish Republic of the 1930's had to face. The young Soviet workers' republic lost 14/15ths of its territory then, far more than it lost to the Nazi-led invaders of World War II, and yet the isolated young Soviet workers republic repulsed all those invading military forces thanks to its home-grown highly-organised and centralised Red Army. But what British Imperialism could not defeat militarily, it defeated with infiltration: I make a case in my book, "The Essential Lenin -- how to make and defend the revolution" (available on Smashwords and most digital download sites), albeit a necessarily side-issue, as I concentrate on reminding the world what original Bolshevism was, but Bolshevism's gross distortion under Stalin is linked to the hypothesis that Stalin was in fact a tsarist, and then British agent. (Khrushchev officially convicted Stalin's last Thought Police oberf'u'hrer Beria of being a British agent in c. 1955.) No "revolutionary" leader up to that time had done anywhere near the damage that Stalin did to the very ideas of socialism and communism, than by intentionally setting up the world's first fascist state (book burnings, mass rallies, Thought Police, even the bloody goose-step, they all started in Stalin's "USSR", well also in the Roman Catholic Inquisiton centuries before), all in the name of "communism" and "socialism". And to do that he had to exterminate well-over 90% of the original Bolshevik leadership (which is what he gradually and ever-more-quickly did). Chomsky is a bourgeois academic -- living a comfortable life in the heartland of the mass-murdering US Empire in its bought-and-paid-for Academia. At best he is the 'conscience' of the system, but never any threat to it; whereas Lenin and the Bolsheviks (including Alexandra Kollontai and Rosa Luxemburg) rejected the safe family bourgeois life (Kollontai even left hers) and worked full-time and whole-heartedly for the revolution.

Leon Trotsky also wrote of this in a similar vein.

Does anyone know where the full interview is?

Jordan Peterson would not like to hear this. Dr. Peterson's viewpoint is that capitalism and socialism are diametrically opposed. He wouldn't like to hear how they're both connected so strongly.

I think Chomsky's ideological flaw is that he assumes people desire to have an autonomous voice within a free-associating collective. Perhaps we who consider his arguments valid place a larger value on an anarchist society. The general public would rather be led than lead. They likely feel unqualified to command their own destiny. This will always render anarchism to the fringes.

Any dates on when this was filmed?

Not control of production, but control of profit! Big difference my Chomsky. Ownership is the core of AVERY revolution.

Chomsky's caricature of Lenin is sloppy. Painting Lenin as an elitist who had nothing but contempt for the masses is plain wrong. It comes from a false dichotomy in Chomsky's thinking. Either the masses are always in position to take power and not in the need of direction or the masses are never in position to take power and always in need of direction (presumably from an intellectual elite). This is not how the world works. The masses are both capable and unprepared to take power. It is not elitist to acknowledge this. The whole point of Lenin's Vanguard was to make the capable prepared. It was a pre-revolutionary movement meant to organize and educate workers, not a proposed form of political organization.

Where can I find whole lecture?

What's with the Metropolis film bits interspersed through the discussion?

3:50 Transcript says "... in the early years like people like Salone and others...” I’m thinking Italian Secondino Tranquilli, known by the pseudonym Ignazio Silone?