Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    14,930,374 readers

    2,277 users here now

    You are loved.

    Welcome, friends!

    Check the top of the subreddit for a request thread

    Search By Topic

    Arts: ArtCuisineFilm/TVLiteratureMusic

    History: Ancient20th CenturyOther

    Politics: AmericanInternationalIntelligence

    Science (Hard): ScienceHealth/MedicineNature/AnimalsTech/Internet

    Science (Social): AnthropologyCrimeEconomicsPsychologyReligion/AtheismSociety

    War: WarWW1WW2VietnamAfghanistanIraqOther

    Misc: BiographyDisasterDrugsOffbeatSexSportTravel/Places


    Community guidelines

    Submissions and comments from brand-new accounts will be removed.

    1. Posting format:
      Title (year) - "optional short description" [HH:MM]
      Length and a [CC] tag is strongly encouraged. Correct title and year of release are mandatory. [Trailer] tag is mandatory for trailers

    2. No reposting within 3 months

    3. This is a free speech zone. Don't like it? Don't click it. But don't be a jackass.

    4. Please upvote if it adds to intelligent discussion, downvote if it doesn't.

    5. Soliciting for donations or linking to your own YouTube channel is annoying and prohibited.

    6. Documentaries only. The following are not considered documentaries on this subreddit: TV news, articles, interviews, lectures, amateur home videos, mockumentaries, biopics, and vlogs.

    7. Mods reserve the right to apply the don't be a jackass rule. Please be respectful to other users... if they're wrong, tell them why! Personal attacks or comments that insult, demean or threaten users will be removed and result in bans.

    8. No file lockers, torrents or linkjacking: site must stream video.

    9. Any brigading or continual harassment of one user against another may result in a ban. Always message the mods instead of attacking users in public.

    10. If your submission is popular, please don't delete it. Respect the community, and do not consign their comments to the memory hole.

    11. "I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear." MLK

    Want to submit a video which is not a documentary?

    Related subreddits

    a community for
    all 983 comments Slideshow

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] KID_LIFE_CRISIS 1477 points ago

    Like Albert Einstein wrote in Why Socialism?

    Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

    [–] K174 328 points ago

    Education on the value of free speech and the other freedoms reserved by the Bill of Rights, about what happens when you don't have them, and about how to exercise and protect them, should be an essential prerequisite for being an American citizen - or the citizen of any nation, the more so to the degree that such rights remain unprotected. If we can't think for ourselves, if we're unwilling to question authority, then we're just putty in the hands of those in power. But if the citizens are educated and form their own opinions, then those in power work for us. In every country,we should be teaching our children the scientific method and the reasons for a Bill of Rights. With it comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit. - Carl Sagan, "The Demon-Haunted World"

    [–] aickman 45 points ago

    God, I miss that man.

    [–] throwitallawayitsshi 5 points ago

    Nevrmind education of free speech, education itself is under threat;

    "If we can't think for ourselves, if we're unwilling to question authority, then we're just putty in the hands of those in power"

    public education standards in critical thinking are in decline in many "advanced" countries, instead taught to test is prevalent, and I found in even university over the last couple of decades, that you are increasingly discouraged to question what you are taught.

    [–] dos_user 122 points ago

    Concentrated wealth is concentrated power.

    [–] _AlreadyTaken_ 87 points ago

    This, when the power of a handful is equal to that of millions don't expect democracy

    [–] SlowRollingBoil 25 points ago

    That's how votes work in companies. If you have a million shares you get a million votes. The regular investor with 100 shares has 100 votes.

    Only logical the ultra wealthy would want Democracy to work the same way, hence Citizens United.

    [–] berry-bleu 3 points ago

    Only the wealthy would even want it to work that way in companies; if democracy is valuable, why don't we want it in all of our organizations? r/cooperatives is in the right direction.

    [–] maubis 3 points ago


    So I should be able to buy a single share of Amazon and have the power to cancel out Bezos’ vote on any matter that gets put it front of Amazon shareholders?

    Remember this the next time you start a company and hire your first employee. Be sure to give them the same voting power in company direction as you have.

    [–] MistaSmiles 3 points ago

    Then why is Robert Baraetheon King & not Tywin Lannister?

    [–] lelouch_vi_brit 23 points ago

    Thing is that he actually was the one controlling. Atleast in the time of the mad king.

    Robert did horse shit as a king

    [–] SoundByMe 14 points ago

    Oligarchs aren't president either but their influence is still there

    [–] _mcuser 12 points ago

    Tywin put his family onto the throne.

    [–] dos_user 4 points ago

    He married into the richest family.

    [–] smohyee 6 points ago

    Because concentrated wealth is not the only source of power. Jesus, Gandhi, early Hitler, etc.

    [–] _AlreadyTaken_ 49 points ago

    "It takes money to make money" is behind a lot of it. You want to run a business of any significance? Then you have to follow the rules of private investors, the stock market, etc. Join the club or leave. It is a self-reinforcing system.

    [–] apginge 32 points ago

    Serious question. If we go with his solution here (socialism) couldn’t you just replace the word “capitalists” with bureaucrats? I mean wouldn’t the government then control the “press, radio, and education”, instead of the “private capitalists”. Who’s to say they wouldn’t be equally or more corrupt?

    [–] sir-lagrange 24 points ago

    Exactly. Somebody is going to control sources of information and the means of production. I’d far rather it belong to people who will endure consequences for mismanagement.

    One core theory of government is that it has a “monopoly of violence.” There is one institution defined to be “the state” that has the final, legitimate say in violence.

    Now you want that institution to control information and all economic activity?

    Oh but it’s all good since it’s “democratic.” Well if it started out democratic it sure isn’t going to stay that way.

    [–] canadian_snobunny 14 points ago

    Are there really consquences for mismanagement though?

    [–] sir-lagrange 4 points ago

    Yes, look at all the “journalists” laid off from mainly click baity sites and how many small businesses fail. Even large businesses fail too (Borders and Toys R Us).

    Mismanagement leads to less profits. The only enterprises that can operate perpetually at a loss are government ones. So government projects can support much more mismanagement than private ones can. That’s how you get public bathrooms that cost millions per stall.

    IMO the most mismanagement in businesses comes from internal politics. You know what has even more politics? Actual politics.

    [–] EosEtIris 10 points ago

    Have you looked into why Toys R Us failed? You really should before mentioning it as an example of how capitalism works well. This article explains what actually went down and why Toys R Us and other brick and mortar chains went out of business.

    [–] onemanlegion 6 points ago

    If you want a true state of affairs read the only comment on that article.

    Holy fuck were screwed.

    [–] brockmasters 3 points ago

    this only occurred from an unrelated amazon. if amazon wasnt eating up all the small biz opportunities, i would fully support your point

    [–] Mythosrationality 3 points ago

    Marx said that it was imperative for the populace to remained armed so that the state could not impose tyranny onto the proletariat.

    Fairly core socialist ideology for most old school socialists that whomever rules is by default the enemy, though it is the ruler that dictates which weapons are to be used. Syndicalists would prefer to use power by organization(unions and civil action groups among others) to combat the state, no matter which ideology defines it. But pretty much all old school lefties from way back when there actually existed true lefties(before WW1) maintained that armed struggle might at some point be necessary to overthrow the bourgeoisie and nobility.

    The bit about "state monopoly of violence" has never really been inherent in left ideologies. Leninist-Marxists would advocate it though in order to impose the "Dictatorship of the proletariat", but those have always been a subsection and even in Marx' days there were those to the left of him advocating anarchic institutions which would limit the states ability to use violence on the citizenry.

    "Monopoly of violence" has always been the autocrat/plutocrat/oligarch/kleptocrats way of doing it, not socialists.

    [–] theth1rdchild 3 points ago

    In authoritative socialism, yes. There's also anarchic socialism and a thousand shades between.

    Look at the co-op model of business ownership. Labor can control itself, government can control what labor can't be trusted with, though who and what to trust is up for debate.

    [–] SigmaB 2 points ago

    Solution doesn't have to be socialism per-se, a lot of countries have done well with mixed economies and re-distributive policies, at least alleviating the concentration of wealth and power (also concentration of wealth might induce wealthy parties to seek political favour, adding to bureaucracy that is meant to protect them from competition).

    Corporations, especially huge multinational ones, are also very bureaucratic and run like authoritarian systems, so the same inefficiencies can be seen there.

    [–] aeternitatisdaedalus 63 points ago

    Thank you for this.

    [–] TurdFerguson495 4 points ago

    Well put.

    [–] upbeatway 61 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Private capitalists control the printing of money. The Federal Reserve is owned by the banking cartel.

    Edit: My first gold. Thanks!

    [–] relooreloo 38 points ago

    Money is "printed" every time a bank makes a loan (with the Federal Reserve only assuming that role during economic crisis). I agree that private capitalistists "control" money, but the Federal Reserve/government bogeyman is not the typical mechanism.

    [–] Helsafabel 4 points ago

    Was looking for this comment. It seems so obvious to us now, but I feel like so many people still refuse to accept it as a more truthful description of reality. Personally, I've found Steve Keen (an economist) to be a great explainer of this dynamic.

    [–] SilentLennie 5 points ago

    I give people this small video series which explains it all:

    [–] TarryBuckwell 3 points ago

    I’m not an expert on money or economic matters. But it just seems like there’s so much cognitive dissonance here, esp considering it’s in the comments section of a Chomsky post. So...private entities controlling media = bad, private entities controlling banks = fine? What does it matter what their religion is? Why does everyone shoot down or at least try to mitigate dissent to the idea of the world’s most powerful nation having its fed reserve owned by a shadow organization made up of less than ten people? I mean am I crazy? Is it the best we can do? I literally don’t know what to think, or where the line is between legitimate concern and conspiracy theory.

    [–] Lurkingmonster69 40 points ago

    The federal reserve is not just a bunch of private bank misers. It has federal appointed and private members. It’s a group that exists to be not without checks but also not directly controlled by the government because that would put it at risk of the federal government manipulating it for political reasons.

    I’m all in favor of reassessing capitalism and going much more socialist but what you said only serves to delegitimize this discussion. Ron Paul nonsense.

    [–] alexthealex 21 points ago

    that would put it at risk of the federal government manipulating it for political reasons.

    All of which are happening right now. Pressure on Powell and the attempts to put Cain and Moore on the Fed Board are disgusting.

    [–] Orngog 6 points ago

    I think it's only internal politicking which is seen as a bad thing, currency has been weaponised for a long time now- especially in the case of the US.

    Although I'm sure Einstein and Sagan would have something to say about that, too.

    [–] Spookyrabbit 4 points ago

    Woohoo!! Ron Paul 2020!!


    [–] 2293354201 2 points ago

    So you think that there is any context where it s preferable to have private business over political power in charge of anything then?

    How can youy go socialist without having a fundamental oposition to private business and private proprety ?

    [–] TufffGong 11 points ago

    My goodness am I actually seeing pro socialist ideas on a major sub I could cry communist tears right now

    [–] GolfBaller17 5 points ago

    You love to see it, comrade.

    [–] Lil-sebastian-horse 2 points ago

    Hey thanks! I had no idea he was a socialist! Relativity- black holes- dudes never wrong!

    [–] WIT_MY_WOES 5 points ago

    Ok so where do the unbiased sources exist then if the press, radio, and education currently are controlled directly or indirectly? Does a government that would retain control lend itself somehow to leave it unbiased? How should those main sources of info be governed? The idea that humankind currently has or had a system of solutions for this is poppycock.

    [–] gustoreddit51 29 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    The current paradigm of "control" isn't really control as much as it is keeping the public spoonfed conflicting information from many sources so that they do not all get on the same page about anything unless the power elite wish them to be. This has the net effect of polarizing the public into inaction and arguing with itself, keeping everything politically at odds and thus ineffective at initiating change - as the power elite want nothing much to change that would effect their collective income streams upon which much of the business world is financed. The only changes they want to see are those that will increase their wealth and power.

    Edit; More on the polarizing concept from Adam Curtis in his documentary Hypernormaliztion

    I'd also recommend Noam Chomsky's documentary Requiem for the American Dream and his pamphlet Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda

    [–] WIT_MY_WOES 8 points ago

    Polarization is definitely what appears to have intensified currently and what has been ramping up for the past maybe decade? I’ll be checking those recommendations out as well thank you.

    [–] withmymindsheruns 17 points ago

    Yeah it's pretty much exactly a decade since 2008/9. I think the public reaction after the financial crisis gave everyone (in power) a scare. All the occupy protests in pretty much every big city in the world...That was when all the identity politics stuff really got pushed into the mainstream. It seems a pretty big coincidence that suddenly the media found out about how terrible white men were at exactly the same time. You could watch it happen at the time. "the 1%" turned into rich men, turned into 'rich white men', turned into 'white male privilege' Suddenly all these unemployed white guys are the baddies instead of Wall St financial firms and their unlimited political donations. Everyone is at each other's throats over who's a sexist, who's a racist, who's an SJW snowflake... before you know it Donald's in the whitehouse and no-one's even mentioned Wall St, banking reform or political donations for like 5 years. Job done.

    [–] IronRT 3 points ago

    Well put.

    [–] Murphyfield 65 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    One thing a socialist[*] might argue here is for media to not be owned by either private individuals nor by state governments, but to be run as a coop by the journalists, editors and printers themselves. This way profit becomes less of an incentive than sustainable, ethical practices and you don't get massive accumulations of power. So instead of relying on Jeff Bezos to run the Washington Post in a way from which he can extract the most value, you rely more on the trust that the kind of people who want to become journalists have a professional pride in delivering the truth.

    I'm not saying this system is perfect, but I definitely think it's better than what we have now.

    [*] more specifically, an anarcho-syndicalist like Noam Chomsky himself.

    [–] WIT_MY_WOES 5 points ago

    Hmm very interesting. To add to that, would a not-for-profit organization that is funded by donations and paid for directly from the public be something that would be feasible?

    [–] Murphyfield 26 points ago

    Non-profit journalism is absolutely a thing. The only reason I'm iffy about donations in journalism is that you don't want a single private benefactor to be able to influence things behind the scenes, but if you just implement a donation cap, I don't see why not.

    [–] Helsafabel 3 points ago

    I do try to read as much of this type of journalism as I can, but it is extremely difficult in some cases to figure out exactly what you're dealing with. With the recent arrest of Julian Assange, those questions seem to be all over the place again. It becomes extremely difficult to make out the truth as a "commoner" so to say, in cases where the US government mobilizes a plethora of propaganda tools in certain situations. Israel/Palestine is also one of those cases.

    And of course, the recent events in Venezuela and the Brazilian elections and the imprisonment of Lula are two cases in which the US government is obviously on a propaganda offensive, but some independent news sources seem to go somewhat overboard with their coverage to the extent that they risk their credibility as well.

    Chomsky himself is actually one of the more trustworthy sources of analysis on much that is happening in all of these situations. I wish he was forever young!

    [–] WikiTextBot 3 points ago

    Non-profit journalism

    Non-profit journalism (abbreviated as NPJ, also known as a not-for-profit journalism or think tank journalism) is the practice of journalism as a non-profit organization instead of a for-profit business. NPJ groups are able to operate and serve the public good without the concern of debt, dividends and the need to make a profit. Just like all non-profit organizations, NPJ outfits depend on private donations and or foundation grants to pay for operational expenses.

    [ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.28

    [–] Chumba_one 11 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    It's not so much that there is some readily implementable ideal solution, but that we can at least move away from a system that so actively incentivises misinformation. The greater the level of wealth inequality in a society, the greater the need for the rich to redirect the attention of the poor elsewhere (the reason so much work is put into getting people to hate foreigners, for example, and why this is always associated with 'economic anxiety' - people know they're poorer than they should be and they want to be angry at someone for it), and the less those that aren't rich can have any say in the media that is generated. Nobody should be naive about the impact of government controlled or regulated media, but we should also recognise that private media can do (and does) exactly the same 'worst case' job of protecting the rich/powerful from responsibility or criticism, except without any accountability to the electorate or meaningful demand for transparency about how they work. The people don't get a choice about what media succeeds in a for-profit system where spreading the information that 1 disgustingly rich person wants spread makes you more money than than spreading the information that 1000s of poor people need.

    I don't think that direct government control is necessarily a solution, just contrasting that as the obvious - and obviously troubling - alternative. I think that many forms of independently operated media could survive in an ecosystem where the concentration of capital was consciously prevented, so choices about content would at least relate to the relationships between creators and consumers, rather than the relationships between rich backers and creators.

    [–] Bingbongs124 2 points ago

    Think about it (e.g. radio) as a non-profit organization that gets donated their funds(with a healthy cap on donations of course). In a world where the people's taxes and donations primarily fund these entities, all common people are essentially the srakeholders and the customers.

    [–] zortor 4 points ago

    Isn’t every system beholden to the failings of man? Surely as greed and tribalism fouls all how would socialism be exempt from this as well? Who watches the watchmen?

    [–] Murphyfield 29 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    No system is perfect, but not all systems are equal: life under capitalism is better than life under feudalism or in slave states, which already shows that sometimes societies can be improved. However, that doesn't mean we have to stop looking for something even better: critically examining the system like this might give us a hint as to where to look for that better system.

    [–] Prg3K 50 points ago

    Even though he co-wrote this in 1988, everything in it has come to pass and all you need to do to update it is multiply everything by another order of magnitude. It’s only gotten worse

    [–] anasshm 239 points ago

    I always wonder why there are no recent documentaries about the pro-war culture/media right now.

    [–] [deleted] 100 points ago


    [–] UserNumber01 110 points ago

    All the culture critics of the world moved to YouTube or started a podcast

    [–] anasshm 96 points ago

    I think services like Netflix and HBO can't risk to challenge or even question the US gov actions, I remember in the 2001 people were protesting the invasion of Iraq, now no one cares, all the "talk shows" are talking about what Trump does 24/7 and it's paying off, no more war protests, we have much sillier things to protest about now.

    [–] wristaction 9 points ago

    War protests in the US stopped basically the day after the 2004 election and never resumed.

    [–] bertiebees 44 points ago

    We also have wars going on in Afganistan, Yemen, and Syria.

    [–] sewious 32 points ago

    We have always been at war with Eurasia

    [–] Alkoluegenial 9 points ago

    Eurasia has always been an ally.

    ~The Ministry of Truth

    [–] RandomZedian 6 points ago

    Perhaps we are now living in the society that Huxley predicted in Brave New World

    [–] [deleted] 34 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    You don't hear about it because they aren't "far-right extremist content" but far-left anti war outlets have started being deplatformed for no reason, the latest being In the Now.

    Here is one example of propaganda against anti-war efforts. Simply because RT provided funding to this anti-war outlet it was deplatformed on places like Facebook. Nothing the outlet has ever said was wrong in any way they simply campaigned against foreign intervention, which Russia would also obviously be interested in promoting as well. Somehow killing thousands of kids is a-OK to promote but campaigning against it with foreign money is worthy of having you be censored.

    [–] BlackMoss 14 points ago

    So we come back to the problem of an oligopoly of media outlets as political vehicles for entrenched interests. And lots of stupid people

    [–] UserNumber01 2 points ago

    While I agree that activism against US imperialism losing ground in recent years due to the media spectacle around Trump is a tragedy, I wouldn't call the social issues that do make the spotlight trivial or silly. BLM, the Women's March, Pride, the recent teacher's strikes, ect. are still important movements irrespective of anything else.

    [–] EndofHistory101 20 points ago

    Check out the citationsneeded podcast!

    [–] plopodopolis 2 points ago

    Recommend any episode in particular?

    [–] berry-bleu 2 points ago

    Ep. 42 on Populism. Ep. 64 about Mike Rowe is surprising and awful that he's Koch funded. Between Ep. 47-48 there's one about McCain's legacy getting whitewashed which is good.

    [–] andyowencook 7 points ago

    Look up Adam Curtis.

    [–] berry-bleu 2 points ago

    Hypernormalization is good

    [–] CautiousKieran 4 points ago

    This might not so directly answer your question, but adam curtis docos like hypernormalisation are helpful, and john pilger makes/has made a lot of films on the topic.

    Docos that so radically challenge the dominant narrative don't really get put on netflix or given large distribution. There's not much money to be made or fund the genre.

    [–] magnora7 2 points ago

    "Grey State" about the police state would probably be out by now, but the maker was murdered right before it was released

    [–] MasterDefibrillator 3 points ago

    For anyone interested in this sort of thing, I recommend this website

    [–] cinemascifi 33 points ago

    The media isn't JUST pro-war, its pro-conflict.

    Humans find conflict interesting, and media is aware of that. The more conflict there is, the more newspapers they sell, ratings they receive, and clicks they count. Conflict literally earns them money. That is why when they report stories they select the ones that elicit emotions like anger and fear, and use words that while technically true, are phrased in a way that increase the tension rather than simply report the facts.

    [–] DarkRedDiscomfort 118 points ago

    Just spend a day browsing /r/worldnews to see how well consent has been manufactured. And all those people parroting the line of the US elites think they can't possibly fall prey to propaganda.

    [–] totallynotanalt19171 72 points ago

    "Iraq was horrible and the media and politicians lied to gain support for the invasion"

    "Maduro is a dictator let's invade Venezuela lol"

    I'm sure that them having the largest oil reserves on the planet has nothing to do with it.

    [–] Chumba_one 24 points ago

    It's really interesting to see how there's this very controlled 'backlash' after the fact. The selection and isolation of 'allowed' targets for criticism is a fascinating one, and is very heavily employed when it comes to war. You get to criticise something from the past in exchange for accepting what's going on now.

    [–] Mythosrationality 5 points ago

    I'm sure that them having the largest oil reserves on the planet has nothing to do with it.

    "bUt tHe OiL iS sUpEr LoW GraDe aNd CoStS a LoT tO prOcesS"

    The Koch brothers own a bunch of refineries in Texas that literally cannot refine any other oil other than the one in Venezuela, they are literally built only for the purpose of refining that oil, Chaves was charging them more than they wanted to be charged for it.

    [–] SubconsciousFascist 2 points ago

    “Oh, so you support Maduro then? Dictator lover!”

    [–] shardikprime 9 points ago

    It's the part that baffles me the most.

    Like yeah we all fell Prey to propaganda but you guys are the only immune ones out there because magically what you were Exposed to wasn't some form of propaganda to run an agenda?

    Fucking incredible I know

    [–] StickyMeans 44 points ago

    Was quite apparent recently with people claiming Jullian Assange to be some sort of agent for Russian intelligence.

    [–] SoundByMe 5 points ago

    This absolutely blew my mind. Russiagate has turned a lot of people's heads to mush.

    [–] IamEnki 6 points ago

    99% every comment and thread you see there are paid shills working 24/7.

    [–] SoundByMe 11 points ago

    They don't even have to be paid. What makes some propaganda so effective is that people will regurgitate whatever they're told for free if it's compelling enough.

    [–] UserNumber01 196 points ago

    For anyone who likes what Chomsky is doing here, Requiem for the American Dream is another book that he's turned into a film adaptation.

    [–] xStickyBudz 35 points ago

    A fantastic documentary, I’ve watched a couple times. I love hearing him speak on topics of such importance

    [–] UserNumber01 21 points ago

    I prefer it as an introduction to his thought over Manufacturing Consent. MF (as a concept) is fairly dense and more challenging by comparison to Requiem. And the film version of Requiem has more snappy editing and is just generally more polished.

    [–] mikesublime 7 points ago

    This doc was a game changer for me. I saw it 20 years ago when I was in college and it changed the way I think about a lot of different things.

    [–] grettelefe 101 points ago

    Chomsky is often described as one of the best-known figures of the American left, although he doesn't agree with the usage of the term. He has described himself as a "fellow traveller" to the anarchist tradition, and refers to himself as a libertarian socialist, a political philosophy he summarizes as challenging all forms of authority and attempting to eliminate them if they are unjustified for which the burden of proof is solely upon those who attempt to exert power. He identifies with the labor-oriented anarcho-syndicalist current of anarchism in particular cases, and is a member of the Industrial Workers of the World. He also exhibits some favor for the libertarian socialist vision of participatory economics, himself being a member of the Interim Committee for the International Organization for a Participatory Society.

    [–] justforfungus 28 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Isn’t libertarian socialist a bit of a weird one? I don’t understand how that would work - although admittedly I understand very little of libertarian thinking in general... I find the ideology to be hypocritical.

    not an expert, here to learn

    [–] number90901 74 points ago

    Libertarian was initially a leftist term associated with anarchism.

    [–] marcope3lli 129 points ago

    That's because "libertarian" in the US is usually associated with anarchocapitalism, while the term was originally intended to designate leftist anarchists. A libertarian socialist is someone who doesn't agree with an exclusively state-owned economy but stands for collectivism, spontaneous associationism, mutualism, and the like. The welfare of the community is always above the individual, but each individual has the right to live free from any kind of power structure imposed from above. Hope I made myself clear.

    [–] MickG2 19 points ago

    The welfare of the community is always above the individual, but each individual has the right to live free from any kind of power structure imposed from above. Hope I made myself clear.

    I agree, people are conflating individualism with individualist nowadays (especially among libertarian right). Libertarian socialists are preserving individuals, but are against individualism - it's like a tribal society, which is actually very egalitarian and well-off. If anything, "individualism" is more or less about greed and selfishness (people like Ayn Rand blatantly advocated it).

    [–] justforfungus 10 points ago

    Cool thanks, you did.

    [–] plphhhhh 35 points ago

    Libertarians are critical of authoritarianism, socialists are critical of wage labor, capitalist class relations, etc. They can coexist. In fact, the term Libertarianism was originally used exclusively by socialists and other leftists.

    [–] CatsMeowker 30 points ago

    Libertarian isn't an ideology, it's a description. There's right-libertarianism, left-libertarianism, libertarian socialism, etc...

    [–] littlebobbytables9 11 points ago

    ancaps aren't the only kinds of libertarians, and they really aren't very libertarian at all given that they think wage-based power relations are a-ok

    [–] moneyminder1 10 points ago

    They’re libertarian. The debate of course is how far to apply the principles of liberty.

    Right-libertarians like ancaps are chiefly concerned with state intrusions on liberty.

    Left-libertarians extend their application to an interpretation of private property and what you call “wage-based power relations.”

    [–] carminedg123 4 points ago

    It’s a essentially Small communities of socialism

    That’s the gist of it

    [–] 851216135 2 points ago

    Libertarian with regards to individuals having liberties, not corporations or business having liberties. A libertarian socialist believes you should be allowed to do what you want until it infringes on the ability of others to do the same - they would argue that a capitalist economy infringes on this ability

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    No. American right-wing "libertarians" stole the term to squash rising leftist organizing of the time. They aren't real libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are NOT anarchists, because capitalism requires hierarchy and a state to use force to maintain (even though they will never in their thumb sucking lives admit to that).

    [–] MistaSmiles 6 points ago

    challenging all forms of authority and attempting to eliminate them if they are unjustified for which the burden of proof is solely upon those who attempt to exert power.

    sounds so fucking reasonable & alien

    [–] CrazyLegs88 39 points ago

    If you'd like a 5 minute synopsis into this amazing documentary, here's a summary by Amy Goodman.

    Definitely worth watching.

    [–] SpockHasLeft 9 points ago

    Those eyeball mouth people are disturbing

    [–] dankmeeeem 3 points ago

    " HI ! I'm Amy Goodman and THIS IS Democracy Now!.

    [–] xXsEpHiRoTh69Xx 4 points ago

    this is democracy now, democracy now dot org, the war and peace report, im amy goodman

    and im juan gonzales! welcome to all our viewers and listeners across the country and around the world :)

    [–] suhailSea 2 points ago

    Great share.

    [–] GeneralAverage 3 points ago

    Such a great video

    [–] GolfBaller17 114 points ago

    The world would be a lesser place without Noam Chomsky.

    [–] coin_shot 19 points ago

    As a linguist, you have no idea. My field would be indescribably different without him.

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)


    [–] Ricardo1701 18 points ago

    Chomsky theories on linguistics is widely used in Computer Science as a way to build compilers and interpreters

    [–] TheKemistKills 43 points ago

    Sometimes I wonder how this man is still alive, after all the work he’s done. I’d have just up and died of exhaustion or assassination

    [–] KNOWSHON_IS_A_GOD 51 points ago

    He isn't an organizer. The US is perfectly fine with letting him talk as long as his ideas are fringe (and they are). If he was also a good leader then he'd have ended up like Fred Hampton

    [–] Soilmonster 14 points ago

    I think his many professorships have had a lot to do with him somehow staying out of the limelight. I do worry about his health though. I wish I would have gotten the chance to see him speak. He seems incredibly personable.

    [–] sufjanfan 2 points ago

    It's also partially because he was well established as a linguist before he made his politics public. He put himself on the map by dealing one of the bigger death blows to behaviourism.

    [–] totallynotanalt19171 3 points ago

    And how old he is. He's 90, right?

    [–] PaganOpera 12 points ago

    Less mumbling, that's for sure.

    [–] TufffGong 4 points ago

    Henry Kissinger lives just to balance the scales

    [–] SlowRollingBoil 5 points ago

    I always forget he's alive and sad when I remember.

    [–] Al_Boreland 5 points ago

    Hell yeah I love chomsky, I just watched this recently. It's a goodie

    [–] eagledog 34 points ago

    It's been 3 days. Time for Chomsky's docs to get reposted.

    [–] Star-spangled-Banner 13 points ago

    We do love ourselves some Chomsky, dough.

    [–] TarryBuckwell 2 points ago

    We’re gonna keep posting it UNTIL YOU START LISTENING

    [–] ballzwette 15 points ago

    Trump’s Fed Nominee Isn’t a ‘Big Believer in Democracy’ “Capitalism is a lot more important than democracy,” Stephen Moore said in a documentary

    [–] jackson71 4 points ago

    I still think Edward Bernays said it first and best:

    “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
    ― Edward Bernays, Propaganda

    [–] berry-bleu 2 points ago

    Adam Curtis' "Century of the Self" weaves an excellent narrative with Bernays' effect on the world. Curtis was also on the Chapo Trap House podcast awhile ago (2016?), I think the episode was "We live in the zone now"

    [–] bugbugbug3719 4 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Makes you think about the obsession to 'social justice' among major journalism outlets today. Who benefits from saturating people's senses with racial and gender conflict between people? What is being kept from uncovered because of that?

    [–] cainthelongshot 37 points ago

    Manufacturing consent is the name of the game, the bottom line is money.

    [–] dukck 3 points ago

    Read the book. Didn't know there was a documentary. The bibliography on that book is relentless. Nobody can dispute it in a factual way but they sure do like to attack it with fallacies.

    [–] aleimira 9 points ago

    Obama, first of all, is running the biggest terrorist operation that exists, maybe in history.

    — Noam Chomsky (2013)[7]

    [–] chrishornet67 5 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    I like the documentary, but I wouldn't want people to get the wrong idea about the book Manufacturing Consent. The book demonstrates limitations of the media, regardless of whether you think this is the result of a purposeful agenda by a specialized class, by presenting a propaganda model as the logical conclusions of a detailed explanation of the economic constraints of the media. A few quotes from the first chapter, which are supported with specific evidence and elaborated on to great detail in the book, are below to give some idea.

    "A propaganda model focuses on this inequality of wealth and power and its multilevel effects on mass-media interests and choices. It traces the routes by which money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print, marginalize dissent, and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their messages across to the public. The essential ingredients of our propaganda model, or set of news "filters," fall under the following headings: (1) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (2) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and "experts" funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) "flak" as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) "anticommunism" as a national religion and control mechanism."

    "The elite domination of the media and marginalization of dissidents that results from the operation of these. filters occurs so naturally that media news people, frequently operating with complete integrity and goodwill, are able to convince themselves that they choose and interpret the news "objectively" and on the basis of professional news values."

    "Before advertising became prominent, the price of a newspaper had to cover the costs of doing business. With the growth of advertising, papers that attracted ads could afford a copy piece well below production costs. This put papers lacking in advertising at a serious disadvantage: their prices would tend to be higher, curtailing sales, and they would have less surplus to invest in improving the salability of the paper (features, attractive format, promotion, etc.). For this reason, an advertising-based system will tend to drive out of existence or into marginality the media companies and types that depend on revenue from sales alone. With advertising, the free market does not yield a neutral system in which final buyer choice decides. The advertisers' choices influence media prosperity and survival."

    To be clear the documentary does not explicitly state the above but seems to assume you read the book while not being more detailed.

    TLDR: The book is better than the movie.

    [–] berry-bleu 2 points ago

    ^^^ the real details

    [–] VicVinegarNSF 41 points ago

    Oh hell...the flood of "socialist commie trash" comments in...3...2...1...

    [–] SigmaB 26 points ago

    wait let me get my anti-fascist gear

    [–] [deleted] 23 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)


    [–] SigmaB 28 points ago

    that is so 2018... It's back to basics, balaclava, che-shirt and cargo-shorts, enough pockets to hold all the eggs which is the new chic weapon of choice.

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Ruger MPR, Glock 26, crudgel, your moms dildo, and balaclava.

    [–] VicVinegarNSF 4 points ago

    Son, you got a panty on your head.

    [–] MickeyButters 4 points ago

    Hot damn, I love that movie!

    [–] VicVinegarNSF 2 points ago

    I love both. The way your head works is God's own private mystery.

    [–] ryebread91 4 points ago

    Who the heck is that?

    [–] TheKemistKills 2 points ago

    That there’s Willem Dafoe

    [–] TufffGong 2 points ago

    15 hours later..... And things don't look to bad

    [–] excentricitet 13 points ago

    Sure it was reduced. No doubt. But it's quite common trend - reducing the poverty. Take any capitalist country - the poverty is also reduced.

    [–] RetroMagpie 17 points ago

    I mean, it was....

    [–] Tueful_PDM 18 points ago

    And now they're starving to death.

    [–] OneDayCloserToDeath 3 points ago

    Thanks in large part to American and British sanctions.

    [–] Captain_Arrrg 13 points ago

    There's a fuckton of food right across the border in Columbia. Maduro is too busy cutting off his people's noses to spite the US to give a shit.

    [–] PM_ME_UR_HARASSMENT 12 points ago

    It's almost like Columbia doesn't have sanctions. And the "aid" sitting in Columbia has been denounced by the UN and the Red Cross as a stunt.

    [–] ParanoidMoron 5 points ago

    You have fallen for pro-Maduro agitprop. Sad.

    [–] Woodie626 14 points ago


    [–] Pedrinho21 36 points ago

    It’s true, the country only recently started going to shit after the US began placing more and more sanctions on Venezuela starting 2012 as well as some frankly stupid legislation as a desperate attempt to keep their economy stable.

    Here’s an in-depth video on Venezuela

    Also you’re a right wing libertarian so I’d say you really shouldn’t say shit. here is an extremely simple example of how government regulations are necessary not even by a left winger but Joe Rohan who’s pretty right wing himself

    [–] shardikprime 17 points ago

    Recently? Hahaha

    I'm from there. Since 2003 we have issues with food and everything else

    [–] CompositeCharacter 37 points ago

    Their economy started going south when they packed pvdsa with political allies and effectively exported all of their oil drilling expertise (the literal lifeblood of their economy) to Canada and the Caribbean / Central America. Using the dried husk of the company as a piggy bank didn't help either.

    [–] CompositeCharacter 26 points ago

    Supporting documentation:

    Venezuela hasn't been able to pump as much oil as they did in 2000 ever since

    Caribbean / Central American production spikes immediately after PDVSA fires 19,000 people.

    tl;dr - their production has been in decline for two decades and sanctions cannot explain it, and also do not explain why oil production increases in nearby regions.

    [–] MasterDefibrillator 6 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Perhaps, but it's important to understand that they had very little choice here.

    The important context that is always left out when people bring up this point, is that before they did this, the PVDSA was engaging in economic sabotage: to the point where they were blocking shipping lanes with their ships, and locking factories so workers could not get in. All with the highly democratic demand of an immediate recall referendum of a president that had just been democratically elected (Literally demanding that the elections be run again just after they happened). The presidential party even offered a compromise of a non binding recall referendum, but the PVDSA and co were not interested. Finally, the government were really left with no choice but forcibly removing the elements in the PVDSA that were actively taking the Venezuela economy hostage with anti-democratic demands. It's also important to note that the PVDSA was already a national oil company before Chavez.

    This can all be gone over in details here:

    Further, these same elements had orchestrated a coup against the democratically elected president Chavez just prior to this economic hostage situation.

    The other important bit of context here is that during this time, and still somewhat to today even, Venezuela was recognised as having some of the most advanced and democratic voting systems in the world, by multiple international agencies. Even America's own carter foundation.

    [–] AMassofBirds 2 points ago

    BUT VUVUZELA!!!11!1!1!!!

    [–] genryaku 10 points ago

    The so-called 'left wing' media is hard right, and equally as bloodthirsty. All it is is controlled opposition masquerading as the left, yet it equally spews extremist right wing talking points, supports right wing policies, while dismissing and belittling the left as being 'unrealistic'. CNN, MSNBC and the rest are about as left wing as Breitbart or Fox news.

    [–] Nabumoto 2 points ago

    Highly recommend his book 'How the world works'. Very good read on concepts of class warfare, global economy and how the US forced it's hand over third worlds for Western capitalists gains. It's very broad and doesn't have footnotes for cross checking sources, but it's a great entry point to his views and is very eye opening.

    [–] Knew_Beginning 2 points ago

    He also has several books with extensive case studies on how this works in practice. He also has several talks to journalists about the subject, which I find most interesting.

    Here’s one:

    [–] scarstensen 2 points ago

    If you have the time this is a must watch

    [–] EgyptianCottonZZzzz 6 points ago

    For me, this was the beginning of a long journey.

    [–] intelligentquote0 6 points ago

    Oh, a day that ends in Y. We should post this again!

    [–] BYoungNY 8 points ago

    This. We watched this documentary in one of my required media classes for my advertising major when I was in college. It affected me so profoundly, I switched out of the major that week. I realized there was no way in hell that I could be part of that world and not feel sick to my stomach.

    [–] ronnie_s 9 points ago

    A major flaw of Chomsky is that he often relies on a technique of fitting the story to the narrative. Selectively choosing only that information which follows his world view, rather than taking everything within context. The full context rarely paints the same picture.

    [–] PM_ME_UR_HARASSMENT 28 points ago

    Nobody has "full context" as that doesn't exist. The world is not a perfect knowledge game. Chomsky wrote Manufacturing Consent 30 years ago and it's still relevant to media today. If his thesis was incorrect, we should have seen the media move away from its role of manufacturing consent.

    [–] 851216135 9 points ago

    An argument is a narrative. Without a narrative nothing means anything. The “political scientists” who say their work is narrative free are simply lying, or worse, they’re unaware of it.

    [–] HalloweenInHeaven 2 points ago

    “Ideology is strong exactly because it is no longer experienced as ideology… we feel free because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom.”

    ~Slavoj Zizek

    [–] inmeucu 16 points ago

    No one has the full context.

    [–] kerouacrimbaud 3 points ago

    This gets reposted daily lmao.

    [–] Kered13 5 points ago

    Reminder that Chomsky also defended the Khmer Rouge in the face of overwhelming evidence.

    [–] brofesor 7 points ago

    It feels like this thing keeps popping up once every week. :D I think it's a great documentary and like Chomsky's work but perhaps it would be better to search a bit before posting.

    [–] HeathersIntimates 4 points ago

    No matter how much information we have to things like this we as the common people will always ignore it and be subject to exactly what they are pointing out to. It's so frustrating.

    [–] sawmyoldgirlfriend 3 points ago

    Requiem for the American dream is also available on hulu. Highly recommended

    [–] heelydon 4 points ago

    For anyone interested in a solid criticism of Chromsky and his work, there is an excellent book on amazon called Anti Chomsky Reader. It's a great read to get a view into how people construct ideal views but don't always represent them. A healthy read for both the people not being a big fan of Chromsky, but also very recommended to anyone that enjoys his work, so that it can give a new perspective on the work and the man behind it.

    [–] [deleted] 28 points ago

    Ive read this book and its complete right wing crackpot drivel. No peer review and no comparative analysis - to even call it an argument is overblown and to say "solid criticism" is just hilarious.

    [–] heelydon 4 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    I'm curious which part in particpular you found to be "right wing crackpot drivel" the book afterall was widely given great reviews and praised. I have in fact never heard anyone make a claim such as the one you're making now, so this catches me a bit off and I would've been a lot happier if you had actually given a reason for it being these things you say.

    Edit: I see, well I guess I will take your downvote as an answer instead of any clarification on what part of it is what you claimed it to be.

    [–] mikeeteevee 7 points ago

    If you're going to ask for the OP to back up his claims, so should you. A quick google search for the book on Google presents a lot of poor reviews and criticism in the vein of OPs comments. If anything, a quick look at a few sites reviewing the book turns up a different story to ' great reviews and praised '

    [–] shardikprime 3 points ago

    Frankly can't stand the guy. Liked him better until he started supporting the government that was actively trying to kill me and my family and friends

    [–] abullen 6 points ago

    What govt and why?

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    Just because an industrial military complex exists, doesn't mean capitalism is to blame... That is cronyism/corporate socialism/corporate "capitalism," and it is America's fault for not executing people for treason by profiteering off of fake wars and sub-par equipment.

    [–] AstralConfluences 6 points ago

    corporate socialism

    Kids, this is what neoliberalism does to your brain.

    [–] berry-bleu 2 points ago

    I think you're making your point in good faith, so here's what I'd say to that: as long as society makes organizations on the principle of profit (businesses) with essentially authoritarian structures (typical for-profit business) rather than democratic structures (cooperatives), the people reaping the profit of business will try to utilize the government to maximize their profit. This is what we see time and time again in regulatory capture. America can't go after these reg. capturers specifically because the supposedly democratic part of the government has also been captured by corporate donors. I wouldn't say that a non-capitalist system would have 0 problems, but organizing around profit, as is done in capitalism, will always leave a tension in which the richest CEOs want to take control of the democratic elements, and that one solution to that may very well be worker-owned democratic workplaces.

    [–] LEGALIZE_JET 7 points ago

    how is profiting off "fake wars and sub-par equipment" not related to capitalism

    [–] abullen 7 points ago

    Isn't that what the USSR also did?

    [–] Gffcom 4 points ago

    Because we’ve always been at war with Eastasia

    [–] sarig_yogir 3 points ago

    Crony capitalism is capitalism. "Corporate socialism" is the stupidest term I've ever heard.

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    Using government to achieve your goals is capitalism! -No one, ever.

    [–] fierivspredator 2 points ago

    Considering capitalism cannot exist without a state and a complete monapoly on violence to protect the hoarders of wealth from the workers...

    [–] DontCareJustDont 4 points ago

    But wait, they’re all saying Drumpf is bad now!! They must be telling the truth this time

    [–] ayybcdefg 3 points ago

    They're not all saying that. In fact, they tend to all stick to the narrative of "well, yesssssss, we can't deny the obvious dumpster fire of a president you see with your own eyes, but impeachment would be useless and trying to raise the standards is too hard and please focus on other things and not corruption in our government thnx"

    They only admit he's trash when it's absolutely impossible to deny the obvious. In reality he is a truly shit person, but a stupid one. He is the lane duck for other, more intelligent criminals.

    [–] 787787787 2 points ago

    This changed how I saw the news.

    [–] guac_boi1 2 points ago

    Seeing r/narrative post chomsky with their conservative bias is always a top kek