[The Sabbaticus]

Couple of points:

- Chomsky claims that the 'refugee crisis' is really a moral crisis of Western countries. In reality it's a moral crisis of the Arab League (the most rich and powerful of the region, and also the principal instigators of the Syrian civil war).
- Chomsky suggests that three hundred million people in India are lacking fresh water due to the global warming, but in reality the water shortage is due to exhausting the natural aquifers in the ground, in light of water intensive agriculture and overpopulation
- At 14:00 he suggests that South America had freed itself from 'Western imperialism', the IMF was kicked out and no more American military bases can be found there. This isn't factually accurate.
- Chomsky suggests that China is expanding and is gaining access to Siberia, but in reality the pipeline has yet to be built, meeting delay after delay.
- Chomsky also suggests that China is now a leader in the fight against global warming, except of course that it's rapidly destroying its own ecology due to its rapid and irresponsible industralization.

[MB.]

This was very interesting. My only comment is that the audience should cease applauding so that the speakers could deliver longer and more thorough answers.

Chomsky makes a good point that the Bernie Sanders phenomena bodes well for the political future of the American left

With regard to your point about Chomsky's comments on China and global warming leadership, he was explicitly stating that "authoritarian China" is showing more leadership than the United States on that particular issue, which he clearly considered a disturbing state of affairs.

[MistyTiger]

Interesting speech he gave.

Do people still take him seriously?

If China was less ruthless and more caring about the environment, perhaps I would move there (and never leave).

Yeah, I am fine where I am.

[Potemkin]

With regard to your point about Chomsky's comments on China and global warming leadership, he was explicitly stating that "authoritarian China" is showing more leadership than the United States on that particular issue, which he clearly considered a disturbing state of affairs.

An anarchist is 'disturbed' that an authoritarian regime is better able to provide leadership than a liberal-capitalist regime?

[Atlantis]

Good talk here from the old geezer. Pretty much everything I have been saying all along.

It is refreshing to hear Americans with a candid view of their own country. Something that seems be lacking in our resident Americans.

[noemon]

Something that seems be lacking in our resident Americans.

Just want to point out that I disagree with that, we have almost about an equal amount of vocal Americans from both sides of the spectrum. Also we have a lot of vocal Trump supporters who appear American but they are actually not.

[Atlantis]

Have you seen the whole video?

That was quick.

[noemon]

No I did not watch the video yet at all, will watch it in a bit. Just making an observation about our resident Americans based on the pro-Trump, anti-Trump dichotomy.

[Atlantis]

My comment was motivated by the observation that Americans, left or right, seem to react negatively to any mention of US imperialism. But I don't pretend to know every single American in the forum. Chomsky, on the other hand, didn't mince words in this respect. That is what I found refreshing.

[Atlantis]

An anarchist is 'disturbed' that an authoritarian regime is better able to provide leadership than a liberal-capitalist regime?

I doubt that anarchists would want to propose a social order. As for liberals, they do believe in competition, don't they? That ought to include the competition of systems. In other words, the system that produces the best social/environment results will win the competition.

[One Degree]

That ought to include the competition of systems. In other words, the system that produces the best social/environment results will win the competition.

Thank you for posting the justification for local autonomy. The best system will be copied after competing against a huge variety of choices. What could be fairer than that?

[Potemkin]

Thank you for posting the justification for local autonomy. The best system will be copied after competing against a huge variety of choices. What could be fairer than that?

What do you think has been happening for the past 4000 years of human history, One Degree?

[Atlantis]

Thank you for posting the justification for local autonomy. The best system will be copied after competing against a huge variety of choices. What could be fairer than that?

That supposes a level playing field. If the playing field is tilted towards the hegemonic power, the empire wins each time. The 30 odd tiny European countries hardly stand a chance against the US, China, Russia or even the emerging economies.

But you must continue sowing discord. At least we don't have to pretend to be friends any longer. That has been awfully helpful. Trump is pushing all the right buttons.

[Cookie Monster]

That ought to include the competition of systems. In other words, the system that produces the best social/environment results will win the competition.

What do you think has been happening for the past 4000 years of human history, One Degree?

I would disagree with this. Surely, from an alien's viewpoint one could observe and identify a process. But such managerial notion, a value-free, context-free competition of systems, is difficult to demonstrate or realise. The environment and resources of societies vastly differ. Not to mention, that it is difficult to argue what works; what is the time-scale to measure whether one system works better than another? But most importantly, we are social animals, shaped almost just as much by history and culture as we are by the conditions of our environment we live in. Think about how China and France have a strongly unitary and centrally governed state; how the Swiss have a decentralised type of governance, and how the Americans and Germans have systems balancing those two aspects in a federal system. Or think about the vast differences between the criminal justice systems of continental Europe and America; how in continental Europe judges often have an active role in finding the truth, whereas for America such trials would violate equality of arms and undermine a judge's impartiality. Many of the differences are not merely technical, they are full with cultural values and historical context, all of which together generate a reality in which we assess the use of systems. Whereas continental European states are paternalistic with the notion of leading by example and emancipating the masses to its ideal image of society, the Americans imprinted in their system the value that the people are to be protected from the [federal] state, and that value continues even if their state has grown into something vastly different. One cannot ignore these differences is cultural values and historical context just as one cannot ignore differences in environment and resources.

[One Degree]

What do you think has been happening for the past 4000 years of human history, One Degree?

A contest of military power. I often mention local autonomy requires absence of aggression. Systems can not compete for their validity unless they are free from outside military influence. Did the tribal system fail because it was ineffective or because it was overrun militarily? How can you know? How would communism in the USSR have done without outside pressure urging it's collapse?

[Atlantis]

Whereas continental European states are paternalistic with the notion of leading by example and emancipating the masses to its ideal image of society, the Americans imprinted in their system the value that the people are to be protected from the [federal] state, and that value continues even if their state has grown into something vastly different. One cannot ignore these differences is cultural values and historical context just as one cannot ignore differences in environment and resources.

"Paternalistic"

Tell that to any modern European LGTB, and you are going to have a lot of fun.

But leaving aside your language, which all too clearly betrays your bias, I agree in that there is a basic difference in the worldview opposing Civil Law Europe against the Common Law Anglosphere. In Europe, we accept the primacy of the political, while the mercantile Anglos only know the primacy of profit. In view of this, Brexit and Trump make perfect sense. The conclusion is that there has to be opposition between Europe and the Anglosphere.

In the wake of the Trump earthquake, Europe can no longer avoid the fact that the so-called "values of the free world" are nothing but a sham to subjugate the world. Europe will have to find common ground in a more value-free rule of law, China and the rest of the world can live with. The Anglos are not numerous enough to physically occupy the world.

[Cookie Monster]

"Paternalistic"

Tell that to any modern European LGTB, and you are going to have a lot of fun.

But leaving aside your language, which all too clearly betrays your bias,

The word 'paternalistic' also has a meaning outside feminist discourses. It is that meaning that I used here: i.e. that the state asserts its role as parent/guardian over its citizens, often not limiting only to the public sphere of life but also including the private sphere.

I agree in that there is a basic difference in the worldview opposing Civil Law Europe against the Common Law Anglosphere. In Europe, we accept the primacy of the political, while the mercantile Anglos only know the primacy of profit. In view of this, Brexit and Trump make perfect sense. The conclusion is that there has to be opposition between Europe and the Anglosphere.

There is no primacy of politics vs primacy of profit. All current societies are driven by profit and economic expansion.

In the wake of the Trump earthquake, Europe can no longer avoid the fact that the so-called "values of the free world" are nothing but a sham to subjugate the world. Europe will have to find common ground in a more value-free rule of law, China and the rest of the world can live with. The Anglos are not numerous enough to physically occupy the world.

I would agree that there is no value-free society, and that it is rather impossible.

[Potemkin]

A contest of military power. I often mention local autonomy requires absence of aggression. Systems can not compete for their validity unless they are free from outside military influence. Did the tribal system fail because it was ineffective or because it was overrun militarily? How can you know? How would communism in the USSR have done without outside pressure urging it's collapse?

In fact, throughout human history the primary mode of competition has been military competition. When two tribes, or two nations, or two empires fight each other, they are not merely testing whose soldiers are braver or who has the most number of troops - it is a contest involving all aspects of a society, from its productive capacity to its ability to organise large numbers of people to its sheer stubborn determination to prevail. For millennia, civilisations were forged in the furnace of war. The civilisations which ultimately prevailed were not necessarily the most war-like or the most aggressive - Assyria fell, but Persia prospered. In the war of all against all, co-operative behaviour and cultural sophistication often win more often than brutal aggression alone wins.

I would disagree with this. Surely, from an alien's viewpoint one could observe and identify a process. But such managerial notion, a value-free, context-free competition of systems, is difficult to demonstrate or realise. The environment and resources of societies vastly differ. Not to mention, that it is difficult to argue what works; what is the time-scale to measure whether one system works better than another? But most importantly, we are social animals, shaped almost just as much by history and culture as we are by the conditions of our environment we live in. Think about how China and France have a strongly unitary and centrally governed state; how the Swiss have a decentralised type of governance, and how the Americans and Germans have systems balancing those two aspects in a federal system. Or think about the vast differences between the criminal justice systems of continental Europe and America; how in continental Europe judges often have an active role in finding the truth, whereas for America such trials would violate equality of arms and undermine a judge's impartiality. Many of the differences are not merely technical, they are full with cultural values and historical context, all of which together generate a reality in which we assess the use of systems. Whereas continental European states are paternalistic with the notion of leading by example and emancipating the masses to its ideal image of society, the Americans imprinted in their system the value that the people are to be protected from the [federal] state, and that value continues even if their state has grown into something vastly different. One cannot ignore these differences is cultural values and historical context just as one cannot ignore differences in environment and resources.

That's a very good point. I am guilty, of course, of grossly over-simplifying things for the sake of rhetorical effectiveness. Every judgement we make is, of course, made within the context of a particular system of values, and has no meaning outside that system. Nevertheless, it is an objective fact that the Assyrian Empire ultimately failed, and that its failure was irreversible.

[One Degree]

In fact, throughout human history the primary mode of competition has been military competition. When two tribes, or two nations, or two empires fight each other, they are not merely testing whose soldiers are braver or who has the most number of troops - it is a contest involving all aspects of a society, from its productive capacity to its ability to organise large numbers of people to its sheer stubborn determination to prevail. For millennia, civilisations were forged in the furnace of war. The civilisations which ultimately prevailed were not necessarily the most war-like or the most aggressive - Assyria fell, but Persia prospered. In the war of all against all, co-operative behaviour and cultural sophistication often win more often than brutal aggression alone wins.

There is certainly nothing to disagree with here. A hypothetical is all I can offer. We don't know what would have developed without war being the main determinant. We don't know what societies may develop in a world where war is no longer a fear. A unified world based upon our current understanding would be to eliminate unknown possibilities. A unified world of many autonomous areas competing peacefully may offer new and unexpected choices.

[Cookie Monster]

That's a very good point. I am guilty, of course, of grossly over-simplifying things for the sake of rhetorical effectiveness. Every judgement we make is, of course, made within the context of a particular system of values, and has no meaning outside that system. Nevertheless, it is an objective fact that the Assyrian Empire ultimately failed, and that its failure was irreversible.

I did not wish to imply that we cannot make objective statements. That is certainly possible as you demonstrated and we can, how little or misinterpreted it may be, actually learn from history. But to make my point more clear: I would distinguish competition of systems, the idea that societies adopt systems that work best (not just the borrowing of ideas and tools from one another; but rather a whole set of system), is different from competition between systems, which our history books are filled with examples of empire and hegemony and to which you also refer in other segments of your post.

As for the Assyrian Empire's demise, that is indeed an objective fact, but that seems to be the fate of all empires throughout history.

My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.