Long way of saying "If you do what you love, you'll never work a day in your life". It's that simple. When the means of production are no longer in the hands of the Bourgeois, when the people are not being choked by the bondage of capitalism, they will certainly want to work; for they will no longer be working to live, but rather living to work. Their work will be their own, and only their own.

Great interview! Thank you for uploading.

I feel bad for people who just do work for the money. I took a job that pays significantly less because it was what I wanted to do. I could have worked for exxon mobil making 75k more a year but I would have not felt good about myself. So I took a job paying less because it is what I would have really wanted to do. I also know people that like the hard manual labor and society need every type of person if people did what they loved then money isn't a motivator.

Only a person who has been in an academic bubble for way too long would answer the question, "Why would people still work?" with (to paraphrase) "Because people love their work." Sure, there are works of passion that people love doing so much that they do them on their free time; but there are also crappy jobs that virtually no one wants to do for merely their own sake. Someone has to clean shit up, both literally and figuratively. Somebody has to perform maintenance on a filthy sewage pump; somebody has to clean up dirty motor oil spilled by some slob behind the counter at Auto-Zone. Even if you find somebody who occasionally is happy to help do these sort of jobs, they aren't likely to want to do them on an as-needed basis. Then you need to overlook the obvious advantages of specialization (division of labor) that make modern life possible. He mentions division of labor at one point, but the division of labor that is actually objectionably here is that which is compulsory on the individual (especially via-a-vi central planning), and no one is in favor of that. He uses that as an excuse to discount division of labor completely, which is a serious mistake. Also, regarding Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand"-- He couldn't have been critiquing what is being called "neoliberalism" because that economic system did not exist. Markets at that time were instead being controlled by central planners in order to artificially limit trade and eliminate competition... there were excessive regulations on just about all market activity. He is critiquing mercantilism and central planning. I cannot find anywhere in Wealth of Nations where Smith said that domestic manufacturers deciding to produce abroad and importing from abroad would seriously harm a given society. Also, I don't see any "sentimental argument" based on simple preference, the home bias is based on hard economic factors. Regarding negative environmental externalities in production, companies do not always operate in a vacuum where they can't be taken to task for damaging people. As long as property rights and the rule of law are protected, it becomes prohibitively expensive to pollute. The challenge is spreading rule of law and protection of property rights where they are currently sparse.

Page 768 which Chomsky refers to was in regards to the values of an educated society. This was not Smith suddenly arguing against himself like an idiot. That what he wrote initially was wrong, and division of labor was suddenly not valuable, instead it was recognizing that anything, taken too far presents risks. In this case, risks of over specialization without the means (education) for one to seek a different, more valuable form of labor. Keep in mind the primary economy back then was agrarian. The founders of the U.S. understood the modern needs and were inspired by Adam Smith and Thomas Payne understood Smith far better than Chomsky who is retroactively trying to fit his worldview to what Smith had to say. The paradigm around 1776 was that checks and balances were needed. People would declare why one position on it's own independent of any others may have created risks, but they would not nonsensically create a piece of work to argue against themselves.

What about shitty jobs? Somebody's got to do them.. Where's my burger and side of fries Noam? Still waiting. Flip em' Burgers Noam. See if you do it because you love it.

I've read The Wealth of Nations. Smith barely brought up the invisible hand in the book. It's astounding how like one page of the book repeatedly summarizes the book. But it's about so much more. I won't summarize it for you because this is the internet and you should Wikipedia it.

Different people are driven by different things at different times. I think the key is to eliminate government interference in the free market. The key is to create a system in which there are fundamental laws which everyone must abide by, a constitution of liberty so to speak, and then everyone must follow such laws. In such a system, everyone has equal opportunity but not equal condition.

Mother of God, it's like Chomsky can read my mind. This guy is right on the pulse.

I guess "being motivated," wasn't the best terminology. What I meant to say was being motivated intrinsically, which would result in more progress, rather than working for monetary means, which the overjustification effect generally shows creates workers who are less interested in the job as to the reward. However I could argue that people do find other ways of getting money rather than working for it. Although a CEO does work, he mostly profits out of other people's work.

The most important thing about economics and the most complicated is human behaviour and incentive. So of course economists are going to bring up the issue of incentive because they also study and use studies about human behaviour, what does a linguist know on the matter? He didn't cite a single study or give any logic to contrary besides "people will do what they love" whilst ignoring the majority of jobs people don't like but are necessary to satisfy the wants and needs of society. Chomsky is a linguist, he falls into the same intellectual trap as Thomas Sowell writes about in his book "intellectuals and society". You can see Chomsky's knowledge of economics when he agrees with what the FED has been doing since 2008. The US is claiming to listen to Keynes yet do not follow his warnings, do not follow the Austrian economists warnings either and people like Chomsky praise them as good economic ideas when not even Keynes would advocate deficit spending without first saving a surplus he was very specific about it. Intellectuals always try to act like they know something outside of their field of expertise, it's some strange holier then thou attitude that is impervious to logic and evidence. Should have stuck with linguistics mate.

Good for you. Glad you found satisfaction in that. Different people have different opinions on the matter and will find satisfaction in different ways. One way is not better than another just because there is less money involved.

And where do you find these mysterious people? They're talked about often, but you rarely see them.

What name is he saying at 9:27? Thanks!

Please explain

the baker and the butcher have a variety of tasks which keep their minds active. The factory worker is doing the same movement over and over all day every day. Perhaps that was the distinction Adam Smith was pointing too.

What we find however is that people will continue to reproduce, irregardless of economic standing, and in fact poorer people reproduce significantly more than wealthy.

I would argue that for the vast majority of people it does :-) Are you implying that people find other ways of getting by/getting money or are you arguing that people are motivated to work for other reasons?

8:00 Adam smith said we need to prevent division of labor or else workers will become stupid animals?

The problem with thinking that liking what you do can be just as much of a motivator as money is that not every one works at a university. There are jobs such as working at fast food joints and being a custodian at a school that people in fact find degrading.

being motivated to get money doesn't necessarily equate to being motivated to work.

While in some circumstances people will be productive without coercion or incentive, this is in a marginal number of circumstances. Professors and writers for example. The vast amount of productive work needed for survival is boring and uncreative, alongside whatever leisure/pro bono work. Furthermore taxing the wealthy has to do with restricting investment and capital flow and reducing real return on risky investment; no serious person suggests it would make someone indolent.

While the idea of a society where everyone can just find their passion is incredibly seductive thos isn't even a possibility until technology advances further...as a result of the kind of determination, sacrifice, hard work, and drive created by capitalism. Perhaps one day we will be in this position but this is asinine as the world stands today. In a time of our society driven by entitlement this would bomb.

Great video. Mentioned Smiths critique of division of labour is somewhat valid, but in the real world mindless, materializing and humiliating work is being quickly replaced by technology, so people can do more dignified work. Noam agrees with classical liberals and agrees that giving the corporations rights of persons was against classical liberalism in general, that's great. I won't agree with him on work. Work is burden for most people. Most of the work required by society is quite boring and hard, no ideology can make people enjoy it. Maybe some drugs. This is big fallacy of libertarian socialism. Another one is lack of efficient resource allocation, because no working system of need and desire signalisation is present. Democracy cannot substitute it because it loses the information about order of needs and desires of individual in process. A can prefer p>q>r>s, B can prefer r>q>p>s. When asked to choose between q and s both will agree, but their preferences may be significantly different and may change over time. Lack of some kind of fair, distributed system kills the innovation drive. Classical liberals did great work on noticing that price system phenomenon does it's job and it is not designed by anyone, just like language.

Universities in US are social institutions? where does the funding come from?

Monetary reward is a necessary condition. It is not a sufficient condition. I would want to be compensated for my work by whoever it is that benefits from me. But ofcourse, the conditions under which I agree to work are also imp. So if I am asked to work in Afghanistan and offered a shitload of money, I wouldn't do it. There are other factors but money is a necessary condition. People work harder when offered compensation for their labour in the form of money & this money gives them choices.

It follows therefore that Smith DID NOT use the words once. He clearly meant that it be interpreted to be used in conjunction with the other points he makes in the book. Furthermore, you miss the point in re why merchants prefer the domestic market vis-a-vis a foreign one. They do so because the want to have their capital NEAR them. Look closely at the DETAILS of 6th par of Chp II, Book IV: "...In the home-trade his capital is never so long out of his sight... character & situation..."

Really? And who is gonna take out the trash, all the really tough jobs? Yep, didn't think of that one. Ramble on!!!

I don't know about you but if my work is a ditch digger or cleaning septic tanks. I'm not going to be driven to work.

judging by some comments it seems you can't be shown the matrix after all , you have to see it for yourself !!

Biologically people are motivated by the desire to reproduce. The ability to reproduce is affected greatly by power, status, and therefore money.

last time I checked no one is going to enjoy fixing my plumbing. Not everyone can be a scientist or a carpenter

I'm sorry, but this seems to just be to an over-simplistic view. Yes, he loves his job so yes he'd do it for free. I want to be a director so yeah, I'd probably do that for free too. But let's look at other jobs. Take this carpenter I worked with while working at my dad's. He told me that if it wasn't for him having a granddaughter then he'd be living in Japan or something. And my father (he's a small business owner) and my uncle are very good to their employees. They cover their insurance and everything even before it became a requirement from the government. And all the carpenters have formed some sort of comradery too. And despite all of this he didn't want to work. Now let's look at pretty much anyone else who undergoes blue collar manual labor. I'm pretty sure they'd only do if they got something for it. I highly doubt when all those immigrants arrived in America at the start of the 20th century (with poor working conditions aside) that they would have contributed to the Ford card or the transcontinental railroad. No, they did it because they knew that they had to if they wanted to create a better life for themselves. They sucked it up and they did it and now their descendants presumably live good lives. I'm sorry, Dr. Chomsky but you are simply wrong in that regard. And before any of you say "in a libertarian socialist society there wouldn't be any shit jobs" you should know that if there weren't then nothing would get done. Think of all the little things. Clothing, machines, buildings, etc. Hard work went into all those things. Would you do that if you knew that you'd get nothing for it? Probably not. Someone has to do it. I just wish we lived in a world where people did those things as a starting job before moving towards higher paid jobs. But alas it won't because of the growing price for higher education and industrialization in America. Regardless, libertarian socialism is just impractical. A nice thought, but impractical. Neoliberalism sucks but until someone comes up with something better I'm sticking to it.

You completely ignore the fact that even with the abundance we have, resources ARE scarce. You can't just have extremely expensive high tech solutions doing everything. If you think otherwise, start a high tech garbage cleaning business and see for yourself. And yes, Chomsky is deluded if he thinks there is no disutility in work.

It's a fallacious argument that society needs money to function. People are capable of managing their own affairs without having an employer or money. And the amount of necessary work, like ditch digging, wouldn't be so much if we had a rational, efficient economy. Why not build a ditch digging machine instead so fewer people work? I agree that murderers should be arrested but is that really what the police actually do? Seems like they mostly arrest non-violent criminals rather then murderers.

You miss the point of what he is saying then. He says if people can choose what they want to do then they will be driven to do it and will work harder at it. You will never be a ditch digger or septic cleaner and that is fine. But lets say you are forced to work in one of the jobs our of shear finance reason your heart isn't in it. But if you do that work because you want to then you will work longer and harder. If people actually were able to do what they love then money won't mean much.

No, they are Bad People once they know what they are doing & keep doing it. 15:00 ..

Chomsky is dead wrong in what he says about Adam Smith's invisible hand quotation. I learned this when I did as he suggested in the video and looked up "adam smith invisible hand".

Noam Chomsky talks on the outside of his mouth. In the last part of this talk he states that there have been financial crisis over and over again since Reagan and Thatcher were in power. Before Reagan and Thatcher were in office, what was the financial situation in Europe and the USA. We were in a more serious financial crisis. So what does he attribute that to?

I have been away from this world for so long. I miss it so much. I have been listening to rap music for a month straight with my "girlfriend" frying my brain away...=( depression comes when u are away from the thing that makes u happy.

So this man doesn't like urban sewage and waste management? Without incentive I'd find it difficult to het anyone to clean and build public sewers if not for incentive. You then may say, "well they will enjoy it because they don't want the consequences of not having sewage. In that case you have just created an incentive, a value. This is what capitalism is all about; the voluntary exchange of values; whether they be currency backed by tangible assets, goods or services. You cannot get anything done without incentive, heres another example: the artist. Many artists do not do art for the amount of money the receive, but they do still receive incentives. All of them have a deeper, inner dirve to accomplish something; to spread a message, to impress friends, generally put: to achieve personal fulfillment. This is their incnetive, an incentive they work hard and long for. Incentive or value does not just mean money, or even property. Value is anything that is valued, which is subjective between people.

Well, here you go. Let's say money doesn't mean much. Would you do your current job still? I know I would'nt. There is no job that gives you only satisfaction all the time. Sometimes you put up with it just because of the money. Money encourages people to work, not on what they would like, but on what society needs most. And society needs clean ditches, cadavers burried and murderers arrested.

you really think a collectivist economy would be most efficient. Without the idea of ownership nothing would get done.

I don’t know, man - it seems that anarcocapitalist libertarians have much more solid arguments that can even poke holes into the ones Chomsky presents here. I’m thinking of Rothbard, Mises or Hoppe - from whose arguments one could easily pick a counter argument or objection to some of the things is this video.

Another utopian dream.

Stick to linguistics Chomks....stick to linguistics.

Apparently this needs to be explained. If you increase the taxes on the rich you reduce their ability to invest in the economy in a healthy way (as opposed to government imposition). The rich create the most jobs, just like the middle class consumes the most. This is what the "if the rich get taxed more they will work less" argument is based on, and it has nothing to do with motivation, it's arithmetics. To the guy in the comments asking for good economics books from chomsky, if you want to learn computer science read from computer scientist, not a philosopher. I've heard this man say many interesting things. This was not one of them.

Your using an extreme, no one wants to collect garbage or clean sewers, furthermore why do people still do this? With where technology is today we shouldn't need people to do this, however if we didn't live in a system of monetary control people wouldn't do these things, they would pursue passions that genuinely fulfill them, science, arts, etc things that actually benefit humanity, instead of working jobs at such places as walmart where they do the same menial tasks day in day out

I love Chomsky; but I can't stand the way he talks.

"It's not how it's presented (Division of Labour).." What???!!!!! Smith devotes an ENTIRE CHAPTER on: (a) the merits of division of labour, (b) how division of labour happens in a manufacturing concern, and (c) the effects of division of labour upon society's standard of living ["opulence"]. There exists NO PARAGRAHP or PASSAGE in Weath of Nations where Smith says Division of Labour must be BLOCKED or PREVENTED. You have clearly MISREAD ADAM SMITH!! LEARN TO READ OR SHUT UP! UNBELIEVABLE!

You really are a kook Mr Chomsky, aren't you? I have reread my copy of Wealth of Nations (The Harvard Classics, 1909 Edition) and, in your diatribe about the "invisible hand", you have ABSOLUTELY MISUNDERSTOOD Adam Smith. In Book IV, Chapter II, Par 9, Smith uses "invisible hand" in a SECOND TRAIN OF THOUGHT (there are THREE in this paragraph) WITH A MODIFIER "as in MANY OTHER CASES". Thus, he might as well have used in in other chapters or sections of Wealth of Nations.