4 ms·

Noam Chomsky – Manufacturing consent (1992) [video]

38 points by bedros 9y ago

ttoinou 9y ago
Here's an interesting excerpt from a Chris Marker documentary I found when I was doing research about Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent at the time I was still buying into his B.S. : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN1XWKULjfQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN1XWKULjfQ
- ue_ 9y ago
  >at the time I was still buying into his B.S. Why do you think it's BS, out of interest? I'm not too familiar with the man himself, though I am familiar with main social anarchist and Communist thought. >Here's an interesting excerpt from a Chris Marker documentary Chomsky does not support the Soviet Union, and to my knowledge never has. He also has no sympathy for Marxism-Leninism. He's more of a syndicalist/social anarchist, so the video doesn't really fit in so well. Unless he used a propaganda video himself, which would surprise me.
  - ttoinou 9y ago
    Chris Marker is a french cinematographer. His works is unregular but this documentary (Letter from Siberia) is great. (Also, he is the author of the photo movie La Jetée, here in english https://vimeo.com/46620661 https://vimeo.com/46620661, which inspired the movie 12 Monkeys !). He has communist leaning from what I remember but it doesn't feel like he's using cinema to convince you about his political beliefs, and he doesn't defends USSR, although he is culturally very interested in this country. This excerpt is about media manipulation if you didn't understand it, it shows how it feels to change the voice over and keep the same images. Why do you think it's BS, out of interest? Sorry I wasn't talking about this documentary, it's not that bad, what he says in it is pretty obvious.
Jack4E4B 9y ago
"If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." Noam Chomsky. A smart man, worth listening too, even if you disagree.
- evanlivingston 9y ago
  "Well what’s called libertarian in the United States, which is a special U. S. phenomenon, it doesn’t really exist anywhere else — a little bit in England — permits a very high level of authority and domination but in the hands of private power: so private power should be unleashed to do whatever it likes. The assumption is that by some kind of magic, concentrated private power will lead to a more free and just society. …that kind of libertarianism, in my view, in the current world, is just a call for some of the worst kinds of tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. Anarchism is quite different from that. It calls for an elimination to tyranny, all kinds of tyranny. Including the kind of tyranny that’s internal to private power concentrations. So why should we prefer it? Well I think because freedom is better than subordination. It’s better to be free than to be a slave. Its’ better to be able to make your own decisions than to have someone else make decisions and force you to observe them. I mean, I don’t think you really need an argument for that. It seems like … transparent." Noam Chomsky
  - ttoinou 9y ago
    There's so much wrong about NC and mainstream perception of classic liberalism I don't even know where to begin. There are some interesting topics of dispute between NC / Proudhon-like anarchists and libertarians, but I don't see how this kind of quote achieves anything in this regard. Libertarians don't advocate "concentrated" powers or "tyranny" but acknowledge that hierarchy and subordination can develop in a voluntarily way and think about the best meta-rules with which each society groups can co-exist. Yes, large entities can occur - proof is with nation states and big companies. But I don't see how Chomsky fans can replace them with anything better, do you ? Theirs solutions generally involve the state taking a monopole about some product / service or over regulations, leading to an even growing state and big co (all of which are "tyranny", "concentrated powers", "domination", "authority" they supposedly despise)
    - evanlivingston 9y ago
      But libertarian thought paves the way for concentrated power and even relies upon it. Wealth, which libertarians believe can gotten from self-determination alone, does not accrue without legally enforced property relations (state monopolized justice/violence). Self-determination without other anarchist values of mutual aid and solidarity creates classist society. I don't want to live in a classist society. I don't have an interest in a political critique which remains imminent to capitalist values and society. I'd also add that libertarian thought in practice leads to abhorrent entities such as the Cato institute and the Atlas Network.
icomefromreddit 9y ago
“ The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum. „ Noam Chomsky, The Common Good
- mjklin 9y ago
  This has been a feature of American society as long as there has been an America. It was noted by Alexis de Tocqueville in 1835. There were strict bounds on what people could discuss, though within those bounds they could say what they liked. As opposed to, for example, English society, which traditionally was more accepting of the eccentric (upperclass) oddball.
thatcat 9y ago
Given the implications of the current precarious state of net neutrality and the gawker case on independant news outlets, Compsky's analysis of traditional news model as propaghanda is more relevant than ever.

38 points by bedros 9y ago

Here's an interesting excerpt from a Chris Marker documentary I found when I was doing research about Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent at the time I was still buying into his B.S. : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN1XWKULjfQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN1XWKULjfQ

ue_ 9y ago
>at the time I was still buying into his B.S. Why do you think it's BS, out of interest? I'm not too familiar with the man himself, though I am familiar with main social anarchist and Communist thought. >Here's an interesting excerpt from a Chris Marker documentary Chomsky does not support the Soviet Union, and to my knowledge never has. He also has no sympathy for Marxism-Leninism. He's more of a syndicalist/social anarchist, so the video doesn't really fit in so well. Unless he used a propaganda video himself, which would surprise me.
- ttoinou 9y ago
  Chris Marker is a french cinematographer. His works is unregular but this documentary (Letter from Siberia) is great. (Also, he is the author of the photo movie La Jetée, here in english https://vimeo.com/46620661 https://vimeo.com/46620661, which inspired the movie 12 Monkeys !). He has communist leaning from what I remember but it doesn't feel like he's using cinema to convince you about his political beliefs, and he doesn't defends USSR, although he is culturally very interested in this country. This excerpt is about media manipulation if you didn't understand it, it shows how it feels to change the voice over and keep the same images. Why do you think it's BS, out of interest? Sorry I wasn't talking about this documentary, it's not that bad, what he says in it is pretty obvious.

Jack4E4B 9y ago

"If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." Noam Chomsky. A smart man, worth listening too, even if you disagree.

evanlivingston 9y ago
"Well what’s called libertarian in the United States, which is a special U. S. phenomenon, it doesn’t really exist anywhere else — a little bit in England — permits a very high level of authority and domination but in the hands of private power: so private power should be unleashed to do whatever it likes. The assumption is that by some kind of magic, concentrated private power will lead to a more free and just society. …that kind of libertarianism, in my view, in the current world, is just a call for some of the worst kinds of tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. Anarchism is quite different from that. It calls for an elimination to tyranny, all kinds of tyranny. Including the kind of tyranny that’s internal to private power concentrations. So why should we prefer it? Well I think because freedom is better than subordination. It’s better to be free than to be a slave. Its’ better to be able to make your own decisions than to have someone else make decisions and force you to observe them. I mean, I don’t think you really need an argument for that. It seems like … transparent." Noam Chomsky
- ttoinou 9y ago
  There's so much wrong about NC and mainstream perception of classic liberalism I don't even know where to begin. There are some interesting topics of dispute between NC / Proudhon-like anarchists and libertarians, but I don't see how this kind of quote achieves anything in this regard. Libertarians don't advocate "concentrated" powers or "tyranny" but acknowledge that hierarchy and subordination can develop in a voluntarily way and think about the best meta-rules with which each society groups can co-exist. Yes, large entities can occur - proof is with nation states and big companies. But I don't see how Chomsky fans can replace them with anything better, do you ? Theirs solutions generally involve the state taking a monopole about some product / service or over regulations, leading to an even growing state and big co (all of which are "tyranny", "concentrated powers", "domination", "authority" they supposedly despise)
  - evanlivingston 9y ago
    But libertarian thought paves the way for concentrated power and even relies upon it. Wealth, which libertarians believe can gotten from self-determination alone, does not accrue without legally enforced property relations (state monopolized justice/violence). Self-determination without other anarchist values of mutual aid and solidarity creates classist society. I don't want to live in a classist society. I don't have an interest in a political critique which remains imminent to capitalist values and society. I'd also add that libertarian thought in practice leads to abhorrent entities such as the Cato institute and the Atlas Network.

icomefromreddit 9y ago

“ The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum. „ Noam Chomsky, The Common Good

mjklin 9y ago
This has been a feature of American society as long as there has been an America. It was noted by Alexis de Tocqueville in 1835. There were strict bounds on what people could discuss, though within those bounds they could say what they liked. As opposed to, for example, English society, which traditionally was more accepting of the eccentric (upperclass) oddball.

thatcat 9y ago

Given the implications of the current precarious state of net neutrality and the gawker case on independant news outlets, Compsky's analysis of traditional news model as propaghanda is more relevant than ever.