Unfortunately, as always, he makes no attempt at honest argument, just typical whiny propaganda.
Am I hearing this right, or did he say that Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith were anti-capitalist?
There is a book that claims Jefferson did not believe that the dead should rule the living. Their debts would die with them along with their property rights. The book also claims that Jefferson believed in a generational revolution. Each generation should have new rules.
Libertarianism socialism is not necessarily a contradiction in terms, since anyone could theoretically voluntarily opt for socialist forms of organization in a free society. Noam Chomsky, however, clearly is confused and does not constitute a libertarian of any sort in practise. He has claimed to be an anarcho-syndicalist, yet even that is questionable since he has openly defended a whole plethora of state interventions in the economy and "public goods". He seems like a Marxist to me in that his strategy is to use the state to crush "the capitalists" and then he expects it to wither away magically afterwards.
Well in fairness, left-anarchists were the first group to use the word "libertarian" in a political context. So I don't agree that the phrase "libertarian socialism" is oxymoronic.
Chomsky is full of ***. He is one of those who believe Jefferson can be considered anti-capitalist because he went on the side of the agrarian farmers over central banking institutions which were endorsed by aristocratic capitalists such as Hamilton. Remember people like Chomsky automatically assume a poor vs wealthy clash automatically means that the wealthy are the capitalists (Hamiltonians) and the poor (agrarian farmers) are not.
Also I can't comment on the meaning of Libertarianism outside of the U.S. because I am fairly ignorant on what it means outside of here. Does anyone know what the word means outside the U.S. because he is right that the U.S. adopts different meanings for ideological nametags.
Inquisitor:It isn't, but that wasn't the reason I posted the video really. It just struck me as odd that this guy has no concept of libertarianism, other than perhaps its "vulgar" variants, yet here he is giving this long-winded answer on it. He is either ignorant or dishonest. Maybe both.
He's not talking about vulgar libertarians. He doesn't make the distinction. He is opposed to any company not being owned by the laborers. Thats what he is calling tyranny, ownership of the means of production.
Government tyranny is better than "private" tyranny? Ha, and this guy claims to be anti-war?
The man wants to coercive any person who would enter a voluntary relationship not in line with his personal concept of individual dignity. (A concept that seems completely opposed to mutual dependence)
David Boaz said it best, "The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that
libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but
socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community."
The key to the libertarian form of socialism is that it is voluntary. Once socialism becomes compulsory, it is no longer libertarian.